POD HD?

[Julia]

Okay, I've not been on much because I've been learning how to use this unit. Finding a host for the clip was a bear because of certain "issues", but I did. The issues being that I did a comparison with the original recording. I was going for a recorded tone to occupy a certain spot in the mix.

Although i think Youtube would have been fine with a photo, but Youtube compresses the signal even worse than I had to. I did manage to get this clip done at 192 kb/s vs. low grade 128 kb/s.

So this is my Back In Black patches for the HD500. I know what you're thinking. "Heck, just use a modded JTM and dial it." But it's not that simple. See, the tones aren't straight forward. You've got whatever mics they used. Angus' guitar is not stock. Malcolm's guitar is not stock (and I don't have a Gretsch anyway so I did it on my SG Std). Then there are various mic placements. I think I made a mistake on one of the guitar tracks at the end because it sounds like there's an echo but there isn't. Just Malcolm side I mis-timed it just before it goes back into the second verse. Forgive me. I'd been tweaking patches all day, was tired, my ears shot and just wanted it done.

I did not want to use any DAW EQ on the guitar tracks but to use what is available only on the POD HD500. So here it is. Malcolm's part is panned hard left, and Angus' part panned hard right. Bass guitar done with Reason 4 (thank you for a decent sample). Drums were Addictive Drums.

So here's the link: http://jvmforum.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=3978&p=35809#p35809

FWIW even at these settings on the JTM45 model, I can back off on my picking and if I go real light it will be clean.

Next up is the JCM800. I'm doing the Marshall stuff first, then will move on to Fender.

 

[Hamner1]

PT1 was pretty good. PT2 I thought sounded the best, and from memory sounded spot on to me. PT3 definatley had a wierd thing going on with that echo/delay.

What ever patch/settings you used on PT2 I say stick with that for your AC/DC stuff.

 

[Mattfig]

Pt 2 was really good tone....Pt1 was digitally thin sounding and Pt3 was ok...Pt 2 is a winner though...Thanks for making this!

 

[rhequiem]

Wasn't Pt2 the original track?

 

[crankyrayhanky]

^ lol

 

[rhequiem]

From Julia's post on the JVM forums:

The clip is in three sections:

"* Section 1 is the POD HD500 raw with only some EQ on the drums and compression on teh bass guitar. The Malcolm guitar is on the left (panned hard left), and Angus on the right (panned hard right) just like in the real deal. So you can mess with your balance knob to shut off one channel to hear each setting.

* Section 2 is obviously the real deal. I think there are four to at least twenty good indications here. If you can't tell I can't help you. The other 16 would be the engineer, mics, tens of thousands of dollars or more in recording equipment, the engineer's gofers, etc. Could be more. Oh yeah and the mastering engineer and staff.

* Section 3 is my amateurish way of doing a quick and dirty job of trying to get closer with some master bus stuff like a sonic maximizer and a master bus compressor/limiter, and yes I did dither both clips to 16 bit."

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what the other people are commenting on as "section 2", but I listened to the clip, and part 2 was definitely ACDC's studio version of Back In Black

 

[Julia]

The second clip was the original.

Try to get that with a tube amp and without over $100 grand in analog gear, room treatments, double and triple tracking. It ain't happening.

I just checked the clip. I heard the echo thing yesterday, too. I deleted the other clip I had in that thread on that board. What was happening is you were hearing both of them. The first clip I 86ed. The echo is gone. The phasing issues between them are gone.

So here it is:

*clip 1 is the POD HD with nothing added.
*clip 2 is the ORIGINAL
*clip 3 is the POD HD with a Sonic Maximizer plugin.

I can guarantee that at "Beer:30" no one would notice that this was an amp modeler.

 

[rhequiem]

That's exactly what I thought, Julia. There were people saying you "should use clip 2", so I was trying to be delicate and not be all "RTFP n00bz!" hehe

 

[Julia]

That's exactly what I thought, Julia. There were people saying you "should use clip 2", so I was trying to be delicate and not be all "RTFP n00bz!" hehe

Hence the facepalm. I was typing a post when you posted. I mean I must be really getting old if people can't recognize Brian Johnson anymore, as if the mere vocals of Brian Johnson weren't an indication that I was comparing to the original recording.

And those guitars on the original recording were double tracked. Mine was single tracking. Probably should have double tracked with a JCM800 model running low gain.... because that's probably what they did with the tube amps on the original.

Why did I do it this way? Because no one EVER compare a patch where they're going for the original recorded sound to the original recording. Why? Because that simple riff is so easy to flub. I didn't flub it but I didn't play it as well. There was this guy on TGP who thought he was being smart and confessed that it took him 10 takes to play that simple riff without a major flub. It ain't that easy.

 

[Hamner1]

Damnit, not wonder it sounded spot on. :lol: I thought maybe you had a milli vanilli thing going on, you playing and Johnson's vocals mixed in. Well that just goes to show you I should not be allowed to give any input to a sound man or recording engeneer. :lol:

C'mon Rhequiem, it's ok to kick us when were down... I have donned my dunce cap

 

[Mattfig]

:lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[rhequiem]

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Don't laugh, Matt - you were one of the people saying part 2 sounded spot on I was trying to spare your soft squishy parts!

 

[Mattfig]

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Don't laugh, Matt - you were one of the people saying part 2 sounded spot on I was trying to spare your soft squishy parts!

4am is obviously not my best hour for sarcasm...

 

[Hamner1]

Apparently 11PM is not my intelligent time. I need my prune juice and a nap. :lol:

 

[crankyrayhanky]

Well done Julia, a solid effort

One critichsim I would offer is the guitars sounded like they were dying out/lacked some power: nosie gate? not enough gain? playing technique? IDK

 

[Jerome Allen]

The things that stick out in my mind :

1. tracks #1 and #3 lack bite/attack. They sound compressed and smooth compared to the original.
2. during the accented riff b-g#-b-a ect, it sounds like something was either clipping and making the bottom end lose definition or the POD kind of fell apart with the low/muted single notes. I'd like to hear the solo guitar track.

Don't take this as being overly critical. These are just 2 things I would be looking at if I were to start tweaking the tracks. The POD obviously sounded very good. And although it wasn't a perfect recreation of the original tone...who in their right mind wouldn't start headbanging and jamming some air guitar when they heard Part #1 or #3?

 

[eedude]

hee hee the facepalm is great, totally conveys the sentiment...i was just watching the thread implode until rhequiem showed up.

anyway, there is still a noticeable diff between the real and the pod. IMO the the real has more distortion and I agree with Jerome's points. The original track is very aggressive; the POD not so much...bang away ...

 

[Julia]

Well done Julia, a solid effort

One critichsim I would offer is the guitars sounded like they were dying out/lacked some power: nosie gate? not enough gain? playing technique? IDK

I did notice more "aggression" on the original track and just figured it out.

It's pretty simple actually. The guitars on the original recording were double tracked. The trick to pro quality recording of guitar is a double track at lower gain. Higher gain results in mud. I only single tracked. Lesson learned.

A pro studio where ACDC recorded this would have done the following:

* Angus -- split the signal and send it to 1) the JTM45 for the main tone; and 2) to a JCM800 to fill out the gain. Then mixed the two on two separate tracks panned to the same region. You would also have room mics in addition to the two on each speaker cab. Maybe run the JTM45 out the greenbacks and the 800 out the T75s, and maybe triple track it with a 1959 SLP as well. Studios also reamp stuff after the artists leave. But then you don't tell anyone.

* do the same with Malcolm.

* side chain the kick drum with a compressor and a wet/dry mix on that.

Result --- fullness.

Me for a soundclip? I'm not going to spend a month mixing it.

You do know that the list of gear of what players use that you read on Wiki or take photos of live isn't necessarily even resembling what goes on behind closed doors in the studio, right?

I do happen to have a mash track of Brian Johnson singing this song however, and all I need to do is figure out how to synch it properly using elastic audio.

Did you know I got the same exact criticism the time I only single tracked a guitar out the Randall? sounded thin? I hadn't made a clean track for reamping like I should have so I added a keyboard synth in direct synch with the guitar but didn't fatten the synth up enough.

But on the POD HD I can do a dual mono track with two different amps and have different EQ and something a little different in each so it will sound a lot fuller. When you do song patches you do that. When you do amp patches you don't.

I'm borrowing a couple tube amps. I'm going to make a clip against another old favorite. I will have to double track and double play for two separate guitars playing in unison. I will be throwing three different modelers in the mix too. You get to pick which sounds the best. I won't tell you which is which. I'll wait for you to pick the "Valvetronix."

 

[Jerome Allen]

hey Julia, I agree that what often happens in the studio is "magic",,,meaning, it never really happened to begin with. Studio gear is often nothing like live gear. Songs are often constructed by cut-and-paste, ect.

One factor thats not often mentioned when trying to emulate sounds of other people is this : 2 different people can plug into the exact same rig and they will still sound different.

 

[Mattfig]

I kinda thought the whole point of the POD is that it takes all those factors into account Julia...Meaning that the AC/DC type tones should be structured to sound like the recordings and not just a single mic on a single amp...I know that's easier said than done - but that's how Line 6 markets their stuff...All in one solution to your favorite tones...Do they still offer the tone exchange board on Line6? Custom something it was called...Anyway, the idea was that you could type a song name or artist and download that specific tone...Maybe try that to get closer? Either way, it's been a fun thread...

Maybe you should get the original dry tracks and re-amp them so that there's consistency?