Guitar tone help?

M

Monkey

Cabin boy
Could some folks listen to this and tell me how to get better guitar sound?

"http://www.arches.uga.edu/~nmlong/Nathan Long - Fun Tonight.mp3"

(If the link doesn't work, type it in just like that and it should. If it still doesn't, type in all of it through nmlong (the ~ is above the tab on my keyboard) and hit enter. Then click on "listen to samples" and scroll down to "Fun Tonight.")

I am using a Fender acoustic guitar, both miced with a Shure SM-58 and run out through the pickup, in my Boss ME-30 effects processor, where it got a bit of compression and I think that's it. The two signals were then mixed left and right through my Behringer MXB1002 mixer, and I'm not sure what the EQ settings were at the time.

The pickup has three knobs, one is V for volume, next is T for tone (I've experimented with this), and the other is N, which as far as I can tell, means Nothing because I can't hear any change when I mess with it. (I'd be curious if anyone has a guess on the meaning, by the way.)

This is about the best guitar sound I've been able to get. It isn't terrible, but I wonder if I need to change recording techniques or guitars or pickups or microphones or what. It sounds kind of choppy or something, which is not too bad on this song but... basically I don't know anything about sound but this doesn't sound like good guitar recordings to me.

Any critiques would be welcome.

The song, by the way, is part of a project to retell the story of the prodigal son from the parable Jesus told. This is when he's got the money and he's partying and living it up, and it's kind of a fun song with some good harmony, if I do say so myself. :)
 
Well Monkey, the guitar sounds thin and dry to me, especially considering that it's the only background to the vocal tracks. You might want to pass the track through a spectrum analyzer to see what frequencies seem to need tweaking. I would try cutting a little in the 1.5 - 5 khz range and boosting a little in the 200-800 hz range. Just a little reverb would benefit it as well. What about mic placement and choice?! I have seldom had good results using a dynamic on acoustic guitars close to the resonance hole (I might be wrong but it sounds like you place your mic not more than 12 inches from your guitar). You might want to try picking it up from a couple of feet away with a condenser. Just my humble opinion,

Carlos
 
Thanks for the tips Carlos--I'm going to see if I can get some of my software to tweak the frequencies. What are the ranges you described, roughly speaking? I mean, if I cut the 1.5-5 khz range, is that cutting treble or bass or mids? (I'm fairly clueless as you can tell.) I think my old old version of Cool Edit has some kind of frequency analysis thing, and perhaps I can change them too.

Actually I know (I'm out of town right now) that it has "filters," for which there are presets like "bass boost," etc, but you can set it how you want.

While I'm rambling, anybody want to recommend a brand or type for a decent yet inexpensive condenser mic? Like $150 tops? (I'm a poor college student.)
 
Monkey said:
The pickup has three knobs, one is V for volume, next is T for tone (I've experimented with this), and the other is N, which as far as I can tell, means Nothing because I can't hear any change when I mess with it. (I'd be curious if anyone has a guess on the meaning, by the way.)
Click to expand...

My guess is "N" is for notch, which is the frequency that the tone control affects.

If I was using your setup, I would put the mic in the center dry, and blend in the direct sound with stereo effects 100% wet to taste probably with a roll-off above 10K to keep 'em out of the way of the mic'd sound.

That should work well to fatten things up. ;)
 
Brane, I must apologize for my ignorance, but I'm here to learn, honest.

Can you explain the terms you used? "Wet," "dry," and "Rolloff?" I'm guessing that dry is unaltered, wet is processed somehow, and rolloff is a frequency adjustment?

Also, what's the difference between putting something in "center" and "stereo?" I would guess that both of those mean "don't pan it left or right; put it equally in both channels." Before I was panning the mic one way and the pickup the other.

Thanks for any explanations... :) I'm really looking forward to getting improved sound.
 
Monkey said:
Brane, I must apologize for my ignorance, but I'm here to learn, honest.
Click to expand...

No need to apologize. It's better to ask a stupid question than to make a stupid mistake.;)

Can you explain the terms you used? "Wet," "dry," and "Rolloff?" I'm guessing that dry is unaltered, wet is processed somehow, and rolloff is a frequency adjustment?
Click to expand...


You would be correct!:)

Also, what's the difference between putting something in "center" and "stereo?" I would guess that both of those mean "don't pan it left or right; put it equally in both channels." Before I was panning the mic one way and the pickup the other.
Click to expand...

By putting the dry signal in the center you keep it up front, and clear in the mix. Blending in the stereo effects hard panned L&R gives the sound fatness & depth without screwing with the natural dry sound as long as you keep the blend subtle. Rolling off the highs on the effects with a low-pass or high-shelf EQ helps keep them from fighting with the sparkle of your dry track.
 
Ok, so let me make sure I have this correct.

"By putting the dry signal in the center you keep it up front, and clear in the mix."

This dry signal would mean what I record from my pickup, not messed with, except perhaps for the EQ it gets in the mixer. (or should I not EQ it until its been digitally recorded and then mess with it?) It would not be panned in either direction.

"Blending in the stereo effects hard panned L&R gives the sound fatness & depth without screwing with the natural dry sound as long as you keep the blend subtle."

This could be, for instance, a repeat of the direct signal from the pickup, only this time with effects, like through my effects processor, panned far left. Then a signal from the microphone, also with effects, panned hard right. These would be at a lower level than the unaltered, centered direct sound. Right?

"Rolling off the highs on the effects with a low-pass or high-shelf EQ helps keep them from fighting with the sparkle of your dry track."

Essentially I'm trying to avoid too much noise in the same frequency, so I let the dry track have its highs, then scrape off some highs and fill out the lows using effects on the wet tracks. Right so far?

If I'm on the right track, let me see if I have a good way to try this. My current setup has everything going through a mixer and into the computer as a stero signal. To seperate the signal from the mic and the pickup, I have been panning them opposite ways, so I get a single track but two sounds.

Could I then take that stereo track, split it into two tracks to get direct and mic as seperate things, then copy the direct track and use one with effects panned left and one unaltered and in the center? I'd wind up with three mono tracks, two direct and one miced, the one direct centered and dry, and the other direct and the mic wet and panned.

Yeah? This is the only way I can think of to get three tracks of guitar on the same performance...
 
I'm not sure why you need to get so many tracks from one performance. I've found you can get much better results by doing a doubled track. If you can perform it well enough, you can get a much fuller and interestin sound by doing this and then say, panning one left and one right. All the little discrepancies make a much cooler stereo image than just the same track with some effects. Although that technique definitely has it's place as well. Just try it, I bet you'll dig it.
 
Maybe you should re-read my first post above.:D

Mic: panned center, dry. Well, maybe a bit of comp if needed.

Pickup: stereo FX 100% wet, panned hard L&R, blended subtley with the dry mic.

On my limited-track setup (I can only do 2 in at once, and 8 total at mixdown) I would probably print the dry+FX mixed to 2 track on the way in. You just have to be sure you have the sound you want if you do it that way though.;)
 
Ok, see that's where I got confused. The pickup signal is panned hard left and right? How can I pan it in both directions at once? It's only one track...

That's why I'm going through acrobatics and winding up with multiple guitar tracks from one performance.

Eh?
 
I thought you were using your Boss unit for the stereo effects.:eek:

No worries.You can still do it with plug-ins/software.

Record the mic on one track and the pickup on another. Bus the pickup track to a stereo aux. track. Make sure the send is pre-fader. Lower the fader to 0db on the original pickup track, and add any FX you want on the stereo aux. track 100% wet. Blend to taste.

Does that make sense? :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top