Recording Guitar Reverb

[Greg_L]

At the end of the day, good teamwork between the artist and the recording team will yield great results. On the other hand, should one of the two try to take too much into their own hands, it could very easily smear a big shit stain right across the recording. Take into account what the artist wants, do your best to make that appear on the recording the best way it can sound. That may involve altering the current settings on his effects. That's all I'm saying, Greg

I hear what you're saying, and I don't disagree with the sentiment, but it's not always the way. Hypothetically, let's say there's a guitar passage in a song in which it's dripping with delay and flangers and feedback and all sorts of trippy shit. It's an integral part of the song, it actually sounds like shit, it makes mixing a chore, but that's how the band wants it. Whatcha gonna do? I'd say you just deal with it. Record it, and figure out a way to mix it.

 

[wtfuhz]

The band should specify that they want it to sound like... um, shit; which in the OP's case they did. If the artist and producer just can't agree, maybe it's time to find a new producer with an ear for said genre. Throwing a name out there: Primus puts out some crazy ass shit but they've found producers that know exactly what they're looking for. Quite a few people just wouldn't know how to put all that together, effects and all.

 

[Greg_L]

The band should specify that they want it to sound like... um, shit; which in the OP's case they did. If the artist and producer just can't agree, maybe it's time to find a new producer with an ear for said genre. Throwing a name out there: Primus puts out some crazy ass shit but they've found producers that know exactly what they're looking for. Quite a few people just wouldn't know how to put all that together, effects and all.

Right. Someone like Primus found guys that jive with their creative vision. They didn't accept anyone that wanted to get away from their own vision. I can totally dig that. I can get on board with that. A producer that leaves them alone, and is only there to smooth out the rough edges. Nothing wrong with that. That only proves that producers can be, and many times are, very wrong. You don't have to accept anything. You, the artist, the band, whatever, are the creative force and you should never let anyone steer you otherwise if maintaining your artistic integrity is part of or your entire goal. Or, if you're completely clueless and lost, then maybe you need someone that will hold your hand and guide you along. Or maybe you're totally desperate for that easy-to-digest commercially appealing sound. If that's the case, you're gonna have to give up some control, and to me, that's a bad thing. I understand that it happens, and I think some people prey on that sort of thing, and I think it's shit.

 

[Lt. Bob]

Someitmes I like reverb on my guitar AS I'm playing it and the reaction of that specific reverb to my playing IS the sound I want.
In that case I wouldn't care what the engineer thought ..... I'd have my sound and it would be up to him to capture it.

In the studio we think of reverb as a way to recreate a space ..... but it can also simply be an effect.

If you manage to split his guitar into 'dry' and 'verb .... then just record each to it's own track.
Then you can do anything from making it sound exactly like it was in his ears to replacing the verb with another one.

 

[miroslav]

I agree with this, except you LET HIM DECIDE which way he wants to go because it's his fucking song, sound, and dollar.

I think that's what I said...."provide some options to the artists".

Sure you can. You keep a bunch of takes. People do that shit all the time.

It all depends on the song and the production. Sometimes you can just do 20 different tracks and pick what you want later, and sometimes decisions made on the very first few tracks end up intertwined throughout the whole production, so you have to make decisions at the time of creation and not later on during the mixing.



You seem to think (?) that an artist is only as good as how he sounds when he plays it live or at home in his space.
I disagree.
Maybe from only a performance perspective that might hold up in some cases, but a single performance on a single track doesn't make up a complete production process.
Also, your comments about just "capturing their sound" is as good as they can ever be, implies that studio recording is more about the live performance and nothing else...?
Again, I disagree.

I mean, it sure can be just a documentation of a live performances...if that's the goal of the production....but man, there are many ways a song can go during a production, and that's where the producer and engineer come into the picture and provide those alternate paths for the artists, which can certainly make them sound much better than what even they thought they could sound like.
A lot of it also has to do with what styles you record and like.
A raw punk band is more about "put up the mic" and document it live and raw. Other styles of music use different approaches, and more involved productions. There is no absolute best way that applies to all recordings.

Typical studio recordings are rarely about pure as-it-falls documentation and nothing else added or done.
If documentation is the choice because of an artist's limited experience and understanding about production, than yeah, they will only sound as good as they sounded in their bedroom.
For me, the studio is about the wide open, unlimited production process, as it evolves throughout the sessions....and not about pure "documentation"....though sometimes yes, a track only requires that you put up a mic and hit record.

National Geographic does pure documentation.

 

[Lt. Bob]

But what if the amp's reverb sounds awesome? You gonna dial it out because you have some preconceived notion that adding reverb later is better? Hogwash. Fooey. Bullshit. Go tell Duane Eddy or Dick Dale that they need to play with no reverb. Lol. Hey Ventures, can you back off the reverb a little? Hey Brian Setzer, your vintage sound can be done better if you just record clean and leave your Fender units, Roland Chorus Echos, and Gretsch's at home. We don't need them. Lol.

exactly!

First off this entire thing got started because the OP equated mono reverb to sounding crappy and stereo verb to automatically be better.
That's simply not always the case.
If I use verb as an effect rather than to emulate a space then mono might be better first off.

Secondly I've recorded in lots of commercial studios ...... I've never had an engineer try to tell me to change my sound in any way. They make mic position changes to capture my sound and make note of noises and stuff that we need to get rid of. A panel rattling or finger squeeks and such.
But my core sound is MY sound and no, you're not gonna walk over and change my settings. You can tell me you'd like a bit more presence or less bass or whatever ..... I'll listen to what you've got and then make the changes if appropriate.
There's a lot of assumptions going on in this thread.

Not every producer or engineer is great and not every musician is ignorant of how the studio works.

Also lots of times there is no 'right' or 'wrong' ..... just different choices to make based on taste.

 

[BrentDomann]

I didn't read through all of this yet, but it sounds like a mono source is the problem. Unless you're recording a large acoustic instrument or a drum set, you're pretty much working with a mono source of sound. The room might make things more interesting in stereo, but there's only one soundboard, as it were. Why not stereo mic the guitar amp or double-track if the guitar player can replicate his lines? This gives you the stereo sound you seem to be seeking, but lets the guitar player use whatever effects (even mono ones) that he wants.

 

[Greg_L]

you have to make decisions at the time of creation and not later on during the mixing.

You don't have to make any decisions. The artist/band makes the decisions. You as the engineer record it. You as the mixing guy mixes it. You as the producer can disagree, if they want you to.

You seem to think (?) that an artist is only as good as how he sounds when he plays it live or at home in his space.
I disagree.

With what? You think that moving from your basement to Abbey Road makes someone a better player?

Maybe from only a performance perspective that might hold up in some cases, but a single performance on a single track doesn't make up a complete production process.

It's usually a bunch of single performances on a bunch of single tracks. What's the big deal? Each one is what it is.

Also, your comments about just "capturing their sound" is as good as they can ever be, implies that studio recording is more about the live performance and nothing else...?
Again, I disagree.

But with what exactly? If you're playing an instrument in a studio and it's being recorded, then yeah, it's all about the performance and sound. Unless you're doing MIDI or recording robots, it's all about the actual performance and the sounds being made. That's what you get.

I mean, it sure can be just a documentation of a live performances...if that's the goal of the production....but man, there are many ways a song can go during a production, and that's where the producer and engineer come into the picture and provide those alternate paths for the artists, which can certainly make them sound much better than what even they thought they could sound like.

Or their outside alien vision can fuck it all up, which happens just as often.

A lot of it also has to do with what styles you record and like.
A raw punk band is more about "put up the mic" and document it live and raw. Other styles of music use different approaches, and more involved productions. There is no absolute best way that applies to all recordings.

Totally agree. I never said otherwise. Although punk isn't that simple and Pink Floyd isn't that complex. Either way you're recording live or multitracking and it's no different.

Typical studio recordings are rarely about pure as-it-falls documentation and nothing else added or done.
If documentation is the choice because of an artist's limited experience and understanding about production, than yeah, they will only sound as good as they sounded in their bedroom.
For me, the studio is about the wide open, unlimited production process, as it evolves throughout the sessions....and not about pure "documentation"....though sometimes yes, a track only requires that you put up a mic and hit record.

National Geographic does pure documentation.

I agree with that too, although I don't romanticize it the way you do. To use your own points, I know you know your way around your own studio and your own music. You are the master of your own vision and you know how to get there. I applaud you for that. Your "experience" means exactly jack shit when applied to anyone else's music though.....unless, of course, once again, they ask you for it. In that case, get all up in that shit.

 

[Lt. Bob]

Why not stereo mic the guitar amp ? .

stereo micing an amp does not give you stereo ..... just two different mic sounds.

 

[miroslav]

I'm comfortable in my recording perspectives about producers and engineers input...and I know it's been done that way on countless great recordings.
I'm not saying that there are not cases of "put up the mic and STFU" sessions that also end up sounding great...not at all, it can work.

You bring up Pink Floyd....those guys were all great in the studio, but Alan Parsons made it come together and sound even better AFA the recording production.
Some very talented artists who all know their way around the studio still work with producers and engineers who's input is part of the process.
No one is suggesting that producers/engineers browbeat artists into submission. All along I've said it's about providing inoput and options to the artists that they may not be aware of or understand.

As a guitar player, if I was in the studio cutting an album and the engineer walked over and touched my amp, I would be like "WTF are your doing?"....but if he came up to me and said, "Hey, your tone sounds great here next to the amp, but the low end is too much in the track."...I would say, "OK, so I should turn it down some?".
That engineer has MY best interest in mind. The engineer that takes the position he's just there to press RECORD...doesn't.
If I was just a session guitarist on a recording...then everything I'm told about my tone is acceptable.

When you have five semi-newbs in the studio, and the guitar player wants to have gobs of reverb coming from the amp because it sounds good to him at the amp....mmmmm....I think the producer/engineer needs to step in and offer up some experience, otherwise what else is there...?...let the band members argue about who/what/how...?
That's why producers/engineers are there, to keep things moving in the right direction, sometimes needing to act as the final decision maker when the artists are stuck as a group.

We act as engineers and producers every day here on HR.
When someone comes in and posts up a guitar track, and we all say, "Dial back the distortion about 50%, 'cuz it's not going to work well later in the mix with that much crunch"....and THAT is what good producers/engineers do in the studio.

 

[famous beagle]

Well, I'll throw in my own two cents from a recent experience.

I just recorded in a pro studio for the first time ever. (I mean, we're not talking Abbey Road here, but it had completely pro gear, and they've recorded Polyphonic Spree, Bowling for Soup, etc. He has several gold records and one platinum, that I saw.) I mean, I'd been in pro studios before and recorded a demo with a wedding band, but this is the first time it was for my music.

Anyway, I wrote all the songs we recorded, and since we'd lost two of members one month before our studio date, I was handling all vocal, guitar, and keys duties.

Before we started, all we'd (the engineer/owner and I) had discussed was the schedule. I was actually interested in hearing his input, because I figured if he'd engineered/produced several gold albums and a platinum one, he probably at least knows more than I do when it comes to getting good sounds.

That said, I let him know early on that I welcomed his input with regards to sounds, parts, etc. I let him know that I'd be fine with labeling the album with a co-producer credit (he and the band). (I'd heard really good things about him, so I felt comfortable doing this. I wouldn't have so readily handed over a reign to someone with no recommendation/reputation or proven track record.)

It was a great experience. I learned a lot, and I'm more than happy with the end result. The sounds he got are just phenomenal (IMO), and I can easily say with confidence that his input---both technically and creatively---resulted in a better product.

I don't know if that's typical of the way it goes or not, but I'd be willing to bet that for the most part it is.

 

[Greg_L]

I'm comfortable in my recording perspectives about producers and engineers input...and I know it's been done that way on countless great recordings.
I'm not saying that there are not cases of "put up the mic and STFU" sessions that also end up sounding great...not at all, it can work.

You bring up Pink Floyd....those guys were all great in the studio, but Alan Parsons made it come together and sound even better AFA the recording production.
Some very talented artists who all know their way around the studio still work with producers and engineers who's input is part of the process.
No one is suggesting that producers/engineers browbeat artists into submission. All along I've said it's about providing inoput and options to the artists that they may not be aware of or understand.

You think a band like Pink Floyd couldn't do it themselves and be just as good? Do you really think they weren't capable of coming up with ideas and options? I don't even like Pink Floyd, but I'd bet that with or without a producer, their shit would be the same. How does a producer make them "better"? He doesn't. They're as good as they are. If a band is open to having someone else come in and call the shots or steer them around, then I'm fine with that. I'll never be convinced that it has to be that way though, because I know it doesn't have to be that way.

As a guitar player, if I was in the studio cutting an album and the engineer walked over and touched my amp, I would be like "WTF are your doing?"....but if he came up to me and said, "Hey, your tone sounds great here next to the amp, but the low end is too much in the track."...I would say, "OK, so I should turn it down some?".
That engineer has MY best interest in mind. The engineer that takes the position he's just there to press RECORD...doesn't.
If I was just a session guitarist on a recording...then everything I'm told about my tone is acceptable.

I don't buy that at all. I don't buy that an engineer would know what the mix needs before even mixing anything. I know you agree with me on this because I remember you and I both have beaten down people that have suggested altering a guitar tone to fit a mix that doesn't exist yet. It's one of the few things we've agreed on in here.

When you have five semi-newbs in the studio, and the guitar player wants to have gobs of reverb coming from the amp because it sounds good to him at the amp....mmmmm....I think the producer/engineer needs to step in and offer up some experience, otherwise what else is there...?...let the band members argue about who/what/how...?
That's why producers/engineers are there, to keep things moving in the right direction, sometimes needing to act as the final decision maker when the artists are stuck as a group.

Offering an opinion is not offering experience. What if the band doesn't like or want your "experience"? What if the band isn't arguing about it at all? What if they want, and paid for, you to just STFU and mic stuff? Then it's not your place to tell them what to play or how to play it.....unless....they....ask.....you.

We act as engineers and producers every day here on HR.
When someone comes in and posts up a guitar track, and we all say, "Dial back the distortion about 50%, 'cuz it's not going to work well later in the mix with that much crunch"....and THAT is what good producers/engineers do in the studio.

Those people ask. Just about everything in here is a question. Ask and you shall receive. I got no problem with that. We don't run around here telling everyone what to do and how to do it unless they ask. Well, most of us don't. Some of you do. I do have a problem with that. I think the whole "use less gain" thing is a total myth that gets way overstated and blindly parroted all the time. If I see that moronic slipperman link one more time I swear I will kill someone. Yes, using less gain is sometimes totally the right way to go. Sometimes it isn't, but it gets repeated ad nauseam like it's gospel without anyone even hearing the track in question. That is what good producers/engineers do in the studio? The actual role of engineers and producers have been greatly over-exaggerated and over-glorified.

And as a side point, and I know you know better than this, you're interchanging and combining engineer and producer way too freely. They're not the same. My disagreement is not with the traditional role of an engineer. They are valuable, and necessary. A producer? Not so much.

 

[Greg_L]

Well, I'll throw in my own two cents from a recent experience.

I just recorded in a pro studio for the first time ever. (I mean, we're not talking Abbey Road here, but it had completely pro gear, and they've recorded Polyphonic Spree, Bowling for Soup, etc. He has several gold records and one platinum, that I saw.) I mean, I'd been in pro studios before and recorded a demo with a wedding band, but this is the first time it was for my music.

Anyway, I wrote all the songs we recorded, and since we'd lost two of members one month before our studio date, I was handling all vocal, guitar, and keys duties.

Before we started, all we'd (the engineer/owner and I) had discussed was the schedule. I was actually interested in hearing his input, because I figured if he'd engineered/produced several gold albums and a platinum one, he probably at least knows more than I do when it comes to getting good sounds.

That said, I let him know early on that I welcomed his input with regards to sounds, parts, etc. I let him know that I'd be fine with labeling the album with a co-producer credit (he and the band). (I'd heard really good things about him, so I felt comfortable doing this. I wouldn't have so readily handed over a reign to someone with no recommendation/reputation or proven track record.)

It was a great experience. I learned a lot, and I'm more than happy with the end result. The sounds he got are just phenomenal (IMO), and I can easily say with confidence that his input---both technically and creatively---resulted in a better product.

I don't know if that's typical of the way it goes or not, but I'd be willing to bet that for the most part it is.

That's awesome. You wanted the outside help from an outside guy and got it. Was it forced upon you? Did anyone feel that it was their "duty", their obligation to give input and steer you around?

 

[RAMI]

You think a band like Pink Floyd couldn't do it themselves and be just as good? Do you really think they weren't capable of coming up with ideas and options? I don't even like Pink Floyd, but I'd bet that with or without a producer, their shit would be the same.

Absolutely. There's a guy here on the site that posts very rarely and his name escapes me now. But he once posted a video he took of Pink Floyd live BEFORE "Dark Side of the Moon" came out, and the songs were EXACTLY the same as they are on the album, which tells me that the band already had those songs 99% there before they went in to the studio. They porbably hadn't even met Alan Parsons yet.

Same thing with the Police. There are a few videos of them touring before their first album, playing "Message in a Bottle" and a few other tunes, and they were arranged and played EXACTLY the same way they sound on the versions we all know. It taught me that a good band goes into the studio 99% polished and ready to record.

 

[Greg_L]

Absolutely. There's a guy here on the site that posts very rarely and his name escapes me now. But he once posted a video he took of Pink Floyd live BEFORE "Dark Side of the Moon" came out, and the songs were EXACTLY the same as they are on the album, which tells me that the band already had those songs 99% there before they went in to the studio. They porbably hadn't even met Alan Parsons yet.

Same thing with the Police. There are a few videos of them touring before their first album, playing "Message in a Bottle" and a few other tunes, and they were arranged and played EXACTLY the same way they sound on the versions we all know. It taught me that a good band goes into the studio 99% polished and ready to record.

Right. I really believe that most bands, even the huge ones, use producers because they have to. Maybe they or their label is contractually obligated to use a certain studio or a certain producer. Maybe their management has struck up deals with certain guys. Many times those things are out of the bands' hands. Why do so many bands make several albums each with different producers? Why do some stick with the same guy over and over? None of it fucking matters. A good band is a good band and will make a good record. All a producer will do is fuck up a good thing.

 

[RAMI]

Actually, wait a minute. If I'm not mistaken, "Dark Side of the Moon" was not produced by Alan Parsons. He engineered it, but it was produced by Pink Floyd. I might be wrong, but I'm 99% sure that's the case.

Which means that one of the biggest selling and most revered albums in rock history was produced by the BAND.

 

[miroslav]

You can "what if" all day long...but with guys like Alan Parsons, they were most definitely part of the production process and added to what we heard on the album.
There wouldn't be producers if every artist could just walk in and take complete command of their production from every angle.
Some artists can, but you seem to feel that every artist would do a better job without a producer....which just ins't the case, and as I pointed out, major artists who know their way around a studio still work with producers.
They understand what an outside view can bring to their sessions, and they value that. It doesn't mean they just do what the producer says....but even the best artists don't always see every angle of a production, so the producer provides them with more views.

AFA producer/engineers.... in the HR world we wear a lot of hats, and that's why I said that most HR people's perspective are skewed, since they are always the artist/engineer/producer at every step of the way, which works well when it's your stuff you are are recording and you get to make all the decisions without any discussions.
Outside of the HR world, there are more and more producer/engineers than ever before, so that's why I mention them interchangeably, but there are cases where each role is a different person.
Either way...even pure engineers have/give input....they don't always just press RECORD.

Your distaste for the guys who are just producers is somewhat generic/global, and you are entailed to it, but I'm curious why you have it?
Did you work with a lot of producers in the past that you feel screwed up your music...or was it maybe just a single experience that you now apply to all producers?
I'm just curious why you feel the way you do...so extreme and without any exceptions?

 

[Greg_L]

Which means that one of the biggest selling and most revered albums in rock history was produced by the BAND.

Impossible! How could they do it without an engineer and producer calling the shots? How, I ask, how?

Although it doesn't help my case, that album and band represents everything I don't like about music.

 

[miroslav]

Actually, wait a minute. If I'm not mistaken, "Dark Side of the Moon" was not produced by Alan Parsons. He engineered it, but it was produced by Pink Floyd. I might be wrong, but I'm 99% sure that's the case.

Which means that one of the biggest selling and most revered albums in rock history was produced by the BAND.

It may be the case, though Parsons worked with them more than once if I'm not mistaken, and his involvement was part of their productions and their final sound on the albums. He didn't just put up mics and press RECORD.

Like U2 who worked with Daniel Lanois, and credited him as the "5th member" because his input was THAT valuable.

 

[famous beagle]

Actually, wait a minute. If I'm not mistaken, "Dark Side of the Moon" was not produced by Alan Parsons. He engineered it, but it was produced by Pink Floyd. I might be wrong, but I'm 99% sure that's the case.

Which means that one of the biggest selling and most revered albums in rock history was produced by the BAND.

Yes that's true. I just wrote a book about Pink Floyd, and from very early on, they always produced their own records.