Muddy and Fizzy Guitar Recordings

Re the "would be drummer" Miroslav. One guy I worked with (TV tech) lived out in the sticks in a pub and practiced in an old barn out back.

The drummer in our "group" (I am 73, this was Beatle's times) grew up in a terraced house but we practiced several miles away above a Working Men's Club.

Back then I think people were more tolerant of a bit of noise? These days just one barbie party and a bit of music and you would get a visit from the anti-fun police!

So, like the guy in the pub, I think you have to be very fortunate where you grow up to learn drums. TF for the advances in electronics!

Just come to me. Many families were all out at work in the daytime back then. Out of the house from 7am to at least 5pm. A young teenager probably had the street to hiself during those hours and nobody would take any notice of the moaning old biddy at #25!

Our town back then was really bustling. I can think of at least a dozen engineering and electrical companies, add to that there was a boot and shoe factory in every street. All these firms needed "men" of course but there was also an army of ladies wanted for office work (no PCs!) and cleaning.

All gone now save I think a couple of boutique B&S makers.

Dave.
 
Miroslav, people are MUCH less tolerant these days, at least in UK they are. I can give you two scenarios...

People buy a second home in the countryside and maybe the wind was blowing the "wrong" way at early visits but then they realise there is a pig farm a click down the lane! So, do they shut their windows? Maybe stock up on Oust? No, they try to get the farmer shut down.

Then you have a pub in "poor" part of town which has been runnning live music since the days of Glenn Miller. That part of town gets a makeover and the Yuppies move in. NOW they start to complain about the noise!

Just last week Madness were playing at our local rugby club (Google Franklin Gardens Npton) Barely a mile away I could hear every word Suggs was singing in my garden. My wife indoors was simply not aware but my next door neighbour was moning like a drain! "Why do they have to have it SO loud?" She kept saying... I wanted to say, "Cozz it's a fekkin' ROCK show!" But one has to get on 365 does one not!

My daughter was AT the show and said it was not nearly as loud and many she had been to.

Dave.
 
Dave ^^^ I'm not sure it's people being less tolerant, but more of 'feeling entitiled'.

But ... back to the fizzy guitar thing....
Not only position of the mic in relation to the speaker - cone to edge, but distance from the grill - touching, an inch away, a few inches away; AND angle of the mic.

As to sims vs miked amp - I'll use both, but the preference is always miked amp because the inherent 'feedback' (not squeal) of the guitar's body feeling the sound, creating sustain and body to the overall sound. And this does not require ear-bleeding volume, just proximity to the amp.
 
Miroslav, thanks for your rant. Nothing wrong with a rant every now and then. Myself included. I liked what you said in your original post to ecc83: "...so it's really a matter of personal preference, without an absolute answer." Maybe both you and I should have just stopped there. Because that's the bottom line. But I do enjoy discussions. So here goes another one. The animosity....

I can't address everything specifically that you brought up in your post as it would be too long but I knew the minute I typed "I'm lazy" as a bad sarcastic joke that someone might take it and run with it. Although I'm a new member with not many posts, I've been on these boards since mid 2000's, I've seen all the arguments, and I've learned a lot.

So if I understand correctly, for me and other musicians that don't mic our amps at home and use amp modeling software....

1. We are lazy.
2. We don't like the recording process.
3. We punch up presets without putting any effort into it.
4. We are in a hurry to churn out a half baked mix.
5. We are lazy.


The sad thing is that I do live in a house and I can crank my amp to 11 if need be, and have done so, to record. Great neighbors. Never had any problems. But God forbid, I STILL don't want to record my amp because it's like building a pyramid.

Additionally, my live gear is also my recording gear (if I need it to be...ex. "amp"). So I have to move it around if I want to record it. Thus the need for moving gear, pulling cables out of gig cases, etc. etc. The stuff is never stationary in my home studio. I could buy other gear. But I would rather invest that money in great software. Because I'm lazy.

The animosity toward software users for their guitar tones in their own original music recorded at home is bizarre to me. It reminds me a bit of when the transition from analogue tape recording was going to DAW's. But anyway...…..

Please let me close with some questions that, if answered, maybe I will go back to mic'ing my amp.

1. Why would it be important for me to mic my amp and/or learn how to mic my amp at home for home recording purposes of original material?
2. Is my material going to sound inferior to your material because you mic your quality amp and I use quality amp modeling software?
3. What is your reason for mic'ing and/or learning to mic your amp to record at home - other than enjoyment?
4. If I record my piano at home, should I learn to mic it up and get the best sound possible or should I use PianoTeq software?


Thanks in advance.
 
I dont think that Miro or anyone else on this forum has any animosity toward any way to record, with or without amps. Considering that this thread was about getting a mic'ed amp to sound the way the OP wished pointing out that one doesn't need to use an amp seems way off topic and then seeming to imply those of thus who do mic amps are somehow wasting our time is just baiting IMHO. I mentioned using a closet for those who have to watch noise levels and i specifically mentioned practice(read "small") since they can be pushed to create more tone with less volume. I wouldn't put an ac30 in a closet either. However, there are hundreds of pro studios out there putting amplifiers in iso booths, rooms, and even boxes. So it is certainly a choice many opt for.

Here is the point i wish to make: all the folks on this forum that i have read are all for doing whatever it takes to get the sound they want "on tape" , to have fun doing it , and do the best we can. Mics or sims-no one cares here. We just want to help each other achieve whatever goal that is being attempted. This particular goal was avoiding fizziness and mud when recording a mic'ed amp. Maybe we can stick to that.
 
" If I record my piano at home, should I learn to mic it up and get the best sound possible or should I use PianoTeq software?"

Now I KNOW I am going to get into trouble with the keyboardists for this but! Good though Pianoteq is, the "communication" or "feel" does not really compare to the link between a guitar player and his amp even with a real piano.
That might sound as though I am contradicting my previous statements but I would aver not? I think modelling has come a very long way and in many cases it is all people need.

Dave.
 
I liked what you said in your original post to ecc83: "...so it's really a matter of personal preference, without an absolute answer." Maybe both you and I should have just stopped there. Because that's the bottom line.

Preferring the sound of A vs. B is one thing...avoiding A because (by your own words), you are too lazy...and then suggesting that in order to record A, you have to go through all this "difficulty"...makes your "preference" simply about convenience.

The real point being....all that cumbersome difficulty that you detailed is not a common necessity for recording an amp/speaker and getting a good sound...which you were saying it was. Don't imply that recording a real amp is SO difficult, that therefor the best solution is to just give up and resort to software emulations...or worse yet, saying why even bother doing it with mics and speakers, as though software emulation is now the absolute best way to make music.

I don't care how people record....though I prefer to do it with the amps, and the effort of finding the sounds and making it all work, is what makes it fun and rewarding for me.
The way you were looking at it...was like you were talking about going to the beach, but then OMG, you have to get up, get in your car, deal with the traffic, the sand, the people...etc...so the alternative is to just stay home and watch a beach movie instead.


I dont think that Miro or anyone else on this forum has any animosity toward any way to record, with or without amps. Considering that this thread was about getting a mic'ed amp to sound the way the OP wished pointing out that one doesn't need to use an amp seems way off topic and then seeming to imply those of thus who do mic amps are somehow wasting our time is just baiting IMHO.

Right.
It was all the implied "difficulty" and that you might as well just take the easy way out.
The OP here has been working on his amp/mic solution, experimenting, and eventually finding what he likes.
I am sure that if you asked him...he will say it was worth the effort and it was a rewarding process...rather than just giving up and never really learning how it's done.
Now that he's gone through his trial-n-error...the next time it will be much more straightforward...and then after that, it won't even require any real thought, just put up the mic and go.
 
A quality amp simulator cannot be picked out of a listening line-up with an entire mix going on......no matter how good your ears are and your level of experience.

That being said.....what CAN be picked out is the guitarist reacting to the sound they're producing in their playing and how that translates into "feel" .."soul".."inspiration"..etc. THESE are the things that will best serve a recorded musical entity.

Since I began using the Eleven Racks, my amp collection has been reduced to just a very select group and even these are winding up being back-ups or "go-tos" in case the artist simply can't get that sound they thought they were getting when they put it under the microscope of a decent room and they insist that having their guitar tracks 'amplified' through a speaker is the ONLY acceptable medium they can have.

That's their privilege that they pay for. I have a Rivera Rockcrusher Recording for the extra wattage bunch (some now true believers in these exist after tests), Small wattage amps that do particular things very well and that are tuned up and quiet......and three Eleven Racks all loaded with different things....one stays in the console, one is spare and one is in a roll-around rack with a little power amp and speaker that can be mic'd while I take direct and also a DI from the guitar pre-anything just to use with the library if thats a need.

As for it being "difficult" to get a great mic'd sound, and it has been covered ad infinitum, the hard part is having to "do the work" a phrase one of my producer friends so regularly uses...That means understanding why, how, and what for. It's first and foremost PHYSICS. Air and the sound traveling from point A to point B. If that makes it too hard to even give a modest look and see about these realities, then hopefully LUCK will be on your side.

I have learned one thing in my 40 years of hitting the red button, anything left to chance is a dice roll.

So many on this site talk about just wanting to use the gear for writing and being inspired to play and write......how much better would that be if the preparation for going there was something you could add to the inspirational motivation?
 
I have been trying to get "that sound" to tape every since I was 18, when my first band and I tried recording a demo in our rehearsal space. We had all the right gear, expensive Marshalls (6100LM + 1960A), expensive guitars, etc., and everything we recorded sounded like blowing into a party horn. 20 years later, and I am still trying to figure this out. I have been at this since 2017, recording pretty much every day in my apartment, for fun. I like the challenge. It is one of the most challenging things I have had to learn. It seems simple, but it is not. Over the years, I have come a long way, but I am still not 100% where I want to be with my recorded sound. I am one of those people who enjoys the challenge and find the process rewarding. It's my hobby, something I do in my free time that I think is rewarding and a good way of spending my free time meaningfully. And I get to interact with guys like you online and use my Internet for something meaningful and constructive.
 
A quality amp simulator cannot be picked out of a listening line-up with an entire mix going on......no matter how good your ears are and your level of experience.

...............


So many on this site talk about just wanting to use the gear for writing and being inspired to play and write......how much better would that be if the preparation for going there was something you could add to the inspirational motivation?


I agree about good sims and how they can blend into a mix....especially if you are doing music where the guitars are just there to create the backing bed, like in a lot of Pop/Rock, Pop/Country, and some other "general public genres".
When you listen to a Taylor Swift tune or a Lady Gaga tune or a Justin Bieber tune...(I only picked them because they came to mind first, there are many others)...NO ONE has ever commented about the "drums sound" or the "guitar sound"...etc.

That said...if your music generally highlights the guitar, for rhythm and leads, or you're doing stuff that allows real acoustic instruments to really breath in the miz, and/or come forward...then the subtle nuances of a miked instrument in a room tend to be more noticeable.
I can still hear an underlying "digital hash" with many guitar software amps, especially when there is a need for more crunch and overdrive. I think it comes from the fact that the algorithms can only pull from so many samples...kinda then same thing that happens with sampled drums when the sequencing of grooves is done poorly and/or when the sample selection of a kit relies on too few samples and layers.

But to me, it's beyond that. It's not JUST about "will anyone notice in the mix". I mean, if that's how some people approach their recording efforts...it's kinda like dumbing down before even trying to raise any bar for yourself....for-your-self.
It matters to me how *I* hear it, and how I go about doing it, even there is no one else in the room to judge me and my efforts.



Over the years, I have come a long way, but I am still not 100% where I want to be with my recorded sound. I am one of those people who enjoys the challenge and find the process rewarding.

Even the pros have moments of challenge in the studio regardless of their 20-30 years of experience...especially with the tracking, because each sessions is different, even if they only do basically one style of music, because their clients are different for each session.
There can sometimes be 50 things that go into "that sound"...then other times, it's like 2 things and it's just there.
 
YouTube Give us a link to some thing you are having issues with

Pretty much what I have been doing for years. I just recorded an album for a client using only a single SM57, guitar sounds great, however great guitarist with tons of studio experience and great tone. It's all in the tone and technique.


Alan
 
Even the pros have moments of challenge in the studio regardless of their 20-30 years of experience...especially with the tracking, because each sessions is different, even if they only do basically one style of music, because their clients are different for each session.
There can sometimes be 50 things that go into "that sound"...then other times, it's like 2 things and it's just there.

^^^This. We have all heard/read quotes from famous producers about how "that" sound was captured and they almost always mention, but don't emphasize the importance of pre-production and rehearsal. On the rare occasions when an artist can just walk in and perform, it's because the someone has already spent time getting everything set up. I would guess tho that even most "pro" studio tracking sessions include a good amount of down time while the right sound is created/discovered. Not just guitars either.
 
Pretty much what I have been doing for years.

I need to get me one of those dual mic clips...and then of course, a Royer 121. :D

I already have the 57. :p

The dual mic thing works most of the time, if you have two contrasting mics that when blended, give you that "better than the sum of parts" tone.
I've always been kinda stubborn with the dual mic approach, and prefer to go with a single mic, but it's often more work to find the right sweet spot.
 
I need to get me one of those dual mic clips...and then of course, a Royer 121. :D

I already have the 57. :p

The dual mic thing works most of the time, if you have two contrasting mics that when blended, give you that "better than the sum of parts" tone.
I've always been kinda stubborn with the dual mic approach, and prefer to go with a single mic, but it's often more work to find the right sweet spot.

I have tried the dual mic approach but always found it to sound like two layered tones, rather than just one coherent tone. I also hated having so many options and it drove my OCD crazy. I want to get real good with one mic first, which is challenging enough.
 
Another thing I've noticed with my recordings is that the guitars (close-miked) always sound a bit boomy and washed out. Is this most likely the result of imperfect acoustics in the room and reflections washing out the sound to the point that it sounds woofy and unfocused?
 
With two mics for blending...you either have to get their capsules/diaphragms/ribbons perfectly lined up and close to each other...or you need to do the one close, and one far away....but even then, it's all in the blending.
The few times I've done it, one mic is always the dominant sound, and then the second mic I would just blend in lightly, underneath to fill out and/or balance the overall tone. I you put them up 50/50...it probably will sound like two layered mics.

Yes...room acoustics play into it, but whenever a mic is close to a source, the proximity effect kicks in, and the low end kicks up.
With some speakers and mics, you use that to your advantage...with other, you need to try a different mic or pull it back some and reposition it.

Keep in mind, that with close miking...as much as 1/4" position change in any direction can make a big difference...and that's why people often give up too quickly, and opt for some ready-made solution.

That's also why you see taped off squares on grill cloths, and usually a ruler near by...because once you find a sweet spot that works for a given mic, speaker and the sound you are after...you really want to take some notes and write down the exact positions.
For every sessions I keep detailed notes for every track... every piece of gear used, all the knob settings, the mics used, the guitars used, the pickups used, and also the positions of the mics on the speakers with actual distances marked, and very often I will do a basic drawing of the setup if I need to provide better info on what I did...because honestly, I will not remember a week later, and if I sit there and decide I want that sound again...DUH...I have to find it all over.

I have a folder full of notes for every recording I ever did...along with track info (I initially track to tape)...and the lead sheets and lyrics for the song, etc.
I have referred to those session notes many times.
It's pretty anal, I admit...and I know most people working in DAWs just go for it, recording endless bits-n-pieces, without a lot of pre-production thought or planning, and then at some point, they assemble their music and the mix but sifting through all that stuff.
I work in a more linear fashion at least during the tracking stage...then once I dump everything into the DAW, I will work more with a multi-level approach...and there may be a bit of editing, tone tweaking and pre-mixing going on...but still, the more focused and planned tracking stage has already set a certain amount of order to the project.
I don't know how people can work entirely unprepared and as-they-go, often applying mixing and mastering process to individual tracks before they've even finished recording all their other tracks! :confused:
 
I have seen countless guys shove the SM57 right on the grille of a 4x12'" and get great tones, yet whenever I do it with even with a 1x12", I get a lot of proximity effect and boominess. What do you guys make of this?
 
Last edited:
I have seen countless guys shove the SM57 right on the grille of a 4x12'" and get great tones, yet whenever I do it with even with a 1x12", I get a lot of proximity effect and boominess. What do you guys make of this?

Like who? Most of those I have seen do this have done it a million times to the same amps in the same/similar room and they already know what to set the eq on the amp, the eq/filters on the mic pre and compression/eq on the channel for any particular sound they are going for and only need to tweak slightly as needed. It's what you don't see that often times is where the actual sound is gotten. Lots of people hanging 421's over their amps. Lot's of people using Royers. The speed comes from already knowing what the result is going to be from repeatedly doing it.

As has been said, it helps to document, even when you have something down you can forget if you don't do it for a while. I like using pictures. I can snap em with my phone, load them onto the computer with a sound file to go with it. Instant timbre database.
 
After my last post I thought to myself... "I think I'm doing what is known as "hi-jacking a thread"'...….. My apologies to Seventh Son and anyone else. It wasn't my intention. I only felt a need for a discussion or a minor debate after ecc83's post. But then he came back and clarified. My apologies to ecc83. I wasn't "baiting".

By the way ecc83, if you are from the UK, your country got me into music to begin with. At 5 years old, Petula Clarke..."Downtown". I've been stuck on music and British music ever since. lol. I'm showing my age there. But I drift...

Seventh Son, I would never try to discourage anyone from mic'ing amps and I hope I don't come across that way. And I'm a nobody anyway, just an amateur home recordist. In your experience, you just sounded so much like me that I posted my first post about modeling options.

But now I know the difference is you enjoy the process of amp mic'ing and desire to learn it and that is completely understandable. In this thread alone, you can read from some that it's not hard, then the next you read well it can be hard, then the next you read well you might get lucky. Work at it and you'll get there, etc. And for those that have said all of that, all of those processes are fun and rewarding to them too. I sincerely commend that attitude.

But I am just one that started with that attitude, got extremely frustrated after trying and trying, and quit. Only because of my end goal priorities are different and I suffer from being somewhat of a perfectionist. I strive to be at least when it comes to music, recording, and performing.

Like you, I could never get a good sound to my satisfaction, maybe someone else's, but not mine. I tried everything to my capabilities, I read everything, and no, I wasn't lazy and I'm not lazy (again, it was a joke) - at least with home recording. I could never get the guitar/amp to translate what I heard, and wanted to hear, to my DAW and into my song. Others can, I can't, but I found that software could.

Years ago in the MP3 forum, I started hearing some fantastic guitar tones in context with songs (which is my personal end goal - not the process - the songs) that I would find out were from amp modeling software. Since you mentioned trying out Garageband. I use Overloud TH-U having started years ago with TH-2. Some use external pedal boards, they sound incredible too.


This is the process that is rewarding to me and encompasses my enjoyment:

I have an original song almost completely tracked with the exception of final guitar parts. My guitars up to that point are simple guide tracks. Then, when the time comes, calling up the modeling software, scrolling through presets to find a "base" to start with. Begin the editing process of eq'ing, removing the digital "fizz" as desired, compressing, adding and/or deleting modeled pedals as desired, etc. etc. All while hearing it against your complete song over your monitors. Once tweaked to your satisfaction, rendered and done. At this point, it is all but mixed within the song context without need for further tweaking. With me, I never would have gotten anything close to the quality of what I get from modeling - at home.

In conclusion, This is my enjoyment and where my end process is and where my learning curve wants to reside. The song is EVERYTHING to me. Not how I get there recording it, just so it gets there. If it sound's good, it is good. All the cliché's. I only care that musician's and non musician's care about the song.

I've learned a lot here but I'm not a great advice giver. As I stated in my first post. It's just my 2 cents.


I will lay low now and keep the thread on track. Thanks for the discussions. I really wish you luck and look forward to hearing your material if you post it.
 
After my last post I thought to myself... "I think I'm doing what is known as "hi-jacking a thread"'...….. My apologies to Seventh Son and anyone else. It wasn't my intention. I only felt a need for a discussion or a minor debate after ecc83's post. But then he came back and clarified. My apologies to ecc83. I wasn't "baiting".

By the way ecc83, if you are from the UK, your country got me into music to begin with. At 5 years old, Petula Clarke..."Downtown". I've been stuck on music and British music ever since. lol. I'm showing my age there. But I drift...

Seventh Son, I would never try to discourage anyone from mic'ing amps and I hope I don't come across that way. And I'm a nobody anyway, just an amateur home recordist. In your experience, you just sounded so much like me that I posted my first post about modeling options.

But now I know the difference is you enjoy the process of amp mic'ing and desire to learn it and that is completely understandable. In this thread alone, you can read from some that it's not hard, then the next you read well it can be hard, then the next you read well you might get lucky. Work at it and you'll get there, etc. And for those that have said all of that, all of those processes are fun and rewarding to them too. I sincerely commend that attitude.

But I am just one that started with that attitude, got extremely frustrated after trying and trying, and quit. Only because of my end goal priorities are different and I suffer from being somewhat of a perfectionist. I strive to be at least when it comes to music, recording, and performing.

Like you, I could never get a good sound to my satisfaction, maybe someone else's, but not mine. I tried everything to my capabilities, I read everything, and no, I wasn't lazy and I'm not lazy (again, it was a joke) - at least with home recording. I could never get the guitar/amp to translate what I heard, and wanted to hear, to my DAW and into my song. Others can, I can't, but I found that software could.

Years ago in the MP3 forum, I started hearing some fantastic guitar tones in context with songs (which is my personal end goal - not the process - the songs) that I would find out were from amp modeling software. Since you mentioned trying out Garageband. I use Overloud TH-U having started years ago with TH-2. Some use external pedal boards, they sound incredible too.


This is the process that is rewarding to me and encompasses my enjoyment:

I have an original song almost completely tracked with the exception of final guitar parts. My guitars up to that point are simple guide tracks. Then, when the time comes, calling up the modeling software, scrolling through presets to find a "base" to start with. Begin the editing process of eq'ing, removing the digital "fizz" as desired, compressing, adding and/or deleting modeled pedals as desired, etc. etc. All while hearing it against your complete song over your monitors. Once tweaked to your satisfaction, rendered and done. At this point, it is all but mixed within the song context without need for further tweaking. With me, I never would have gotten anything close to the quality of what I get from modeling - at home.

In conclusion, This is my enjoyment and where my end process is and where my learning curve wants to reside. The song is EVERYTHING to me. Not how I get there recording it, just so it gets there. If it sound's good, it is good. All the cliché's. I only care that musician's and non musician's care about the song.

I've learned a lot here but I'm not a great advice giver. As I stated in my first post. It's just my 2 cents.


I will lay low now and keep the thread on track. Thanks for the discussions. I really wish you luck and look forward to hearing your material if you post it.

My story and yours have many parallels. I have been at this very intensely for over 2 years, almost on a daily basis, at least an hour per day. In addition to the practical part, I have read every top online article, watched every top YouTube video, consulted books on audio engineering, and engaged with people on online forums, but to little avail. After over two years of learning and experimenting with every major variable (except for loud volume, which I can't afford often due to my apartment), my raw guitar recordings are about as good today as they were two years ago. I am simply not sure what it is that I am doing wrong, and it seems that no-one can provide me a clear roadmap or list of steps I can follow that will guarantee a decent result, which I define as a guitar sound that is focused, not muddy, not boomy, and not fizzy. I am just after a general classic '80s metal/thrash tone, since I wanted to learn how to do something classic first, before I venture into more modern tones. Maiden's "The Trooper" tone is a good example, but not an absolute requirement; I am just looking to achieve something like it in terms of clarity, focus, and EQ. I like that mid-range focus and not too much bottom end. Those guitars really sit nicely in the mix. Also, Randy Rhodes's tone on "Mr. Crowley" sounds really cool and has the same qualities that I would like to capture, just to give you an idea. It would probably be fair to say that you could name any '80s metal band here and be in the ballpark of what I am after, but I just wanted to provide a few examples to give you an idea.

What's also frustrating is that no-one can tell me what the major issue is. If someone told me with absolute certainty that it is impossible to achieve good recorded tones without the acoustics of a professional studio, or some fancy preamp, or whatnot, I would be happy, because then I would at least know what it is that I am missing. As it stands right now, I still don't know what my main issue is and I keep trying and end up chasing my own tail over and over with little to show for in terms of progress.

It is very frustrating and I am not sure where to get reliable information. I hope that someone on here can help me. I am going to give it a day or two for you guys to respond and see what else might come to your mind. Then, I also plan to post some raw recordings, so you can get a feel for what my results sound like, which might help shed some light on what might be causing the issues.
 
Back
Top