Guitar recording > EQ in Winamp

[TheTick]

Hey guys,

this question may seem a little odd at first, but it makes sense to me to ask it, so please be patient while I try to explain:

I want to record "phat" guitar music. My mixes sound good but not superb.

If I compare professional recordings of heavy guitar music like Nickelback in my WaveLab Frequency Analyzer, I cannot make out any major difference. Both recordings, mine and the Nickelback one are fairly loud, but the Nickelback guitar sounds more up front and better, my guitar somehow dull, and not cutting. (I don't wanna fall into an amp/guitar/cab discussion for I have used "good" equipment ...)

BUT:

If I listen to them in Winamp, one thing strikes me at once:
The Nickelback song has a steady guitar output signal, signified by the EQ's middle columns whereas my song has more like a steady bass signal but the guitar only lift the columns in the middle of the EQ once in a while.

Later I found out that most of the "professional" recordings of heavy music had this feature. All other songs e.g. from friends of mine, who recorded in studios that owned good equipment, but lacked mixing experience, did not have this constant "center" peak (for I am not sure if the visual center in the WinAmp EQ is really in the center sonically speaking).

Any suggestions?

Thankx
TheTick

 

[chessrock]

Sounds like your guitar tracks are a bit bass-heavy, and don't have a lot of midrange compared to Nickelback.

Honestly, I don't know why you'd want to sound like Nickelback in the first place. But if you want to get closer to that sound, somehow, then a good place to start might be to focus on getting more midrange energy / less bass in to your guitar sound.

I know you said you didn't want to get in to a discussion about your guitar rig ... but you do realize that's where you get the guitar sound, don't you? You don't get it from any EQ or mixing technique -- those merely serve to mildly refine / polish your tracks. The sound has gotta' be at least 98% happenin' at the amp, dry tracked with zero EQ.

 

[TheTick]

Hey,

thanks for the quick reply.

You are right, of course. If I want to get an answer to my question, I have to discuss my rig as well.

First: I don't want to sound like Nickelback, I am only interested how they get it done. Many Bands (also Killswitch Engage, Thrice to name only a few) do the same thing, and their sound "looks" the same in Winamp.

To my rig: I used a Marshall JCM 2000 TSL 100 with a Humbucker-Strat. I recorded (or was recorded) with two cabs, one 1960A and another custom build (a not sooo good one). the mics were Behringer B2s, miced close.

Yes, I know, many (or all) of these artists used MESA rectifiers and Heavy Metal guitars, but I know bands that are not as heavy and achieve the mentioned winamp-EQ-phenomenon

I mean, other artists get it done with that equipment, too, so I thought, I made a mistake in mixing/compression/eq that brought up more bass and not so much mids. I tried to compress the midrange more and made it louder in the mix, but it was no use. No mid-to-peak-in-Winamp-EQ-phenomenon.

Any other ideas?

 

[treymonfauntre]

just so you know, the winamp equalizer changes with the compression of the file. a wav file will look like its all bass whereas an mp3 of that same song will look like its all over the place

 

[Chibi Nappa]

The trick to recording good guitars is to learn what a good recorded guitar sounds like. I know that sounds dumb, but let me elaborate. You're used to what a good solo guitar sounds like. That's not the sound you're after for a recording (or playing with a band on stage for that matter). You want a sound that works in a mix. It might sound nasty by itself. That's alright if it records great. When setting your tone all you need to concern yourself with is what does the recorded sound sound like, and how does it work in the mix. Get out your best pair of monitor speakers and listen, listen, listen. Once you have a sound that works (record a measure, listen, adjust, repeat) then hit record and go for it.

Recording guitar is a skill that only time and practice can build. Keep at it.

 

[TheTick]

Thanks !!

Keep the replies rolling !

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

I'm with traymon in that I don't trust the accuracy of the spectrum analyzer display in winamp any farther than I can throw a battleship. They're fun to look at, but the accuracy when dealing with MP3s - which are whacked to begin with - is not somthing I'd take to the studio.

Second, it sounds like maybe the display may be showing you guitar amp noise; if so that's probably a combination of having their amps cranked and then throwing some compression on the miked signal.

G.

 

[TheTick]

@Glen: Do you mean just like setting the amp to 10 and then compressing the signal?

As for the spectrum analysation in Winamp: First, I do not trust it either , Second, I do not use it in a "professional" way and third, I do not know what it really does BUT it is, nevertheless, able to distinguish a "normal" guitar from a real pro recording.

It does that very well, for I can always tell at once which recording has been done in an expensive way (or rather in a professional one) and which not.

Keep it on, you are really helping me !

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

@Glen: Do you mean just like setting the amp to 10 and then compressing the signal?

As for the spectrum analysation in Winamp: First, I do not trust it either , Second, I do not use it in a "professional" way and third, I do not know what it really does BUT it is, nevertheless, able to distinguish a "normal" guitar from a real pro recording.

It does that very well, for I can always tell at once which recording has been done in an expensive way (or rather in a professional one) and which not.

Keep it on, you are really helping me !

Youre right in that the display can show relative difference, I suppose. Not a bad point. It's translating those differences into real life data that can be tricky if you're not sure just how the display is coloring the truth to begin with. Which I guess is why this thread exists.

Tick, it's really only a speculation on my part, I could be entirely wrong on this one (I know, I know, I hear everybody in the audience sarcastically saying, "Now that's a shocker!" ). But your original description sounded to me like maybe that sustained mini-peak in the mids could have been amp noise.

That specualtion led me to think, well, how does one get a lot of amp noise on the recording? Two easy ways came to mind: volume and compression. It follows from there that they would probably doing a bit of both of those; volume because metalites tend to like volume, compression to deliver the crunch.

But it's just a guess on my part.

And no, I'm not necessarily saying turn it all the way up to 11, or even 10. Most amps and/or cabinets do not necessarily give their best sound cranked that high. It's a matter of taste, though, and some of brand. Chiba had a great post earlier about learning what sounds good when stuck to disc and put in a mix versus what sounds good live. Let me expand on that slightly as applied here to say you need to expiriment a bit with recording your amp to see if it sounds best - or at least the most Nickelback - at 3, 7, 11 or anywhere in between.

G.

 

[chessrock]

Tick, believe it or not, most of the guys you're refering to get their sound from any number of ways. Usually it's a matter of working their amps knobs a certain way ... not to mention an often odd combination of pedals that many rely on. Most of their amps are modded in various ways (different tubes, etc.)

It's not necessarily an easy thing, but just remember that the vast majority of the time, their "winamp" sound is right there. In other words, if Nickelback were to walk in to your home studio, set up their rig and have you track it, then chances are very good that it would come out the way you like it on the spectral analyzer in winamp.

The Marshall 2001 head is more than capable of professional results. But I'm telling you, there are a ton of different ways of finessing that amp; 3 different channels, each different from the other. The sound will change dramatically depending on how much gain/drive versus how much volume versus how much master volume. And we haven't even gotten in to the tone controls yet. Most amps are like this, to some extent. More complex (tempermental and frustrating) beasts than we give them credit for.

There aren't any magic buttons or shortcuts. You just have to experiment.

 

[TheTick]

These are really good answer, I did not expect that much, when I started the thread.

@Glen: To define myself a little clearer: The peak is not a single column, but columns 8 - 12, approximately. Is it possible that the "proverbial" Nickelback sound is really a somehow very dense sound, like mixing 3 or way more guitar tracks together, in order to get their noise particals combined, and eventually ending up with a highly up-front midrange sound.
I ask this, because I don't think that the guitars are too loud in those tracks.

@Treymon: You are right, waves and mp3s look very different. I did not notice that at first, and it is a stunning fact. Nevertheless, it does not matter to me because I only look at mp3 files in comparison, because I do not own the Nickelback record.

@chessrock:There is a lot to done, of course. I am in no way through with getting to know my amp and its versatility. I was just wondering if it was more like a recording trick ("set compression this and that way and, et voilà, there you are").

Keep 'em coming !!!

 

[stash98]

i actually did some shows with those guys. I know their tech is a big fan of the PRS and loves to use aural exciters. they also use the mesa dual rec. trying to get your mixes to sound like theirs will be very hard because they mix on an ssl and have all kinds of sick gear.

 

[TheTick]

@ Stash: I use a PRS Custom22, too, just for that bit. Is it really all that gear, that makes the sound? Other bands get it done, too, especially on newer recordings.

What is SSL?

Thank You!!

 

[TheTick]

@Stash: ... And what kind of Aural Exciters are you refering to?

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Is it possible that the "proverbial" Nickelback sound is really a somehow very dense sound, like mixing 3 or way more guitar tracks together, in order to get their noise particals combined, and eventually ending up with a highly up-front midrange sound.
I ask this, because I don't think that the guitars are too loud in those tracks.

I have to claim some ignorance here; my only exposure to Nickelback is on a jukebox at a local bar where I have freinds who host a jam night once a week. Otherwise, I haven't listened to a lot of metal since the days of Ronnie Montrose's "Paper Money" and the like back in the late 70s . I am an old man, ya know . So I can't comment directly with any authority on Nickelback's paticular sound

The mid presence peak I imagined for amp noise would indeed be a multi-band curve and not a single band peak, just like you describe. so that would stil fit the description. But Chess and others are right that it could be any number of possibilities for how they get their sound. I just took what very few clues I had to work with in this thread and threw out one little theory.

And, BTW, SSL is "Solid State Logic"; one of the two brands of high-end mixing consoles (the other being AMS Neve) that are generally considered the Bentleys and Rolls-Royces of mixing.

G.

 

[Kainz]

Hmh.. Let me throw something into a soup.

First you pretty much need to get the sound you are after happening right there in that room where you are recording. If it is not that sound there, it won't never ever be it on a record.

The process of recording distorted guitars isn't exactly an easy one. In order to get it to sound amazing instead of just ok or good you need to do quite alot of work and have even better pair of ears. Lets assume the sound is happening there in front of you in that very room. So now you need just to record it...easy? not!

First you need to find the "sweet" volume to drive the cab. You need to have that cab sound happening there. So crank it up. Eventually you start to notice the difference in sound and this comes alot easier. Then you need to find the best speaker to mic. And believe me, there may be just HUGE differences in those speakers..

Ok you have done it. Then you need to find the sweet spot for that trusty 57 (lets say you use 57). Get someone to move it infront of that speaker while you are listening at the control room. When you are hearing what you want, that is the place. Again this takes some time and experience to know "what is the sound you want and need".

If you really want to have that awesome sound you hear in the top albums, you really need to have the gear too. I would say you need some GOOD preamp for the mic (in a price range 2500-4000$) then you need some similary pricey EQ and one of the very important things is to have good analog tape recorder! Believe me or not, but recording distorted guitars to digital kinda suck (same with drums). I mean it doesn't really suck that bad but it is only "ok" instead of "AWESOME!".

So set that pre as you want. Then use some minor tweaks with that EQ to give "fuller" signal for the tape. This way you can push the tape more and get more of that oh so sweet tape compression happening. You _may_ also need to use some limiter/comp/other magical tricks to tame that palm mute "oomph" JUUUST A BIT so that it won't mess the tape gain..

After that there is the mixing process that is always totally different story..

So getting "that sound" isn't actually anything that I would call easy!

But overall it all starts from the amp/gtr and player. Unless "the sound" isn't happening in the room in very front of your eyes (ears) there is no way it will happen on the record.

 

[chessrock]

I was just wondering if it was more like a recording trick ("set compression this and that way and, et voilà, there you are").

Don't we all wish. The secret with just about any of the Marshall amps by the way, if there is one, is to crank the volume to deafening levels when you track.

The 2001, I believe, has both volume and master volume in addition to gain.

You basically need to crank all three ... then back the gain off until it sounds right. Throw a dynamic mic up on it, and use a mic pre with ample headroom. Ditch the Behringer -- not a good match for distorted guitar.

 

[TheTick]

Well, no trick, just practise, practise, practise ...

Thank you all !!

If anybody still has some ideas, keep it on.

 

[metalhead28]

Don't overlook the practice of recording multiple amps at the same time and mixing and matching those tracks when mixing, also using multiple tracks and a lot less gain than you would for a "live" sound. I often record perhaps two amps together for one take with complimentary sounds happening, as well as a DI track, and then maybe re-amp the DI track or use a plug-in modeler or something on it to add even more to the sound. I have achieved some HUGE guitar sounds with these methods. I used to layer several performances to get this effect, but found that multiple amps or re-amping from one take works way better for me and produces a much clearer and focused sound...Just my 2 cents. Good Luck

 

[metalhead28]

I should have mentioned that "multiple amps" for me does not necessarily mean five $2,500 half stacks. I sometimes use a JCM marchall, and a small combo, or a solid state Marshall mixed with the JCM and the combo. Even a small practice amp can work great and add alot to the sound.