Who need an post module EQ to nail his tone?

Synergy/MTS Forum

Help Support Synergy/MTS Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
djdayson said:
In the real world where the studio can cost well over $100 an hour, union talent can be getting paid by the track/hour, and any overtime is budget killing, one has to be fast and good in any studio with whatever gear is available at the time (assuming reasonably decent pro equipment in a pro studio etc).

I totally get that, although back in the day, it was $2k or more a day.

That said, the overwhelming majority of guys posting in this forum record at home. It's been my experience that mic placement, choice of mic and mic preamp, guitar modification and amp modification go much further than a Boss or DOD or plugin EQ.

Now, I may be different than most of the guitarist in this forum, but quite honestly, I don't think I am. We ALL strive for the best tone possible. Some people have more experience with achieving that tone than others.

Quite frankly, I've heard some record tones here in which I think "Wow, why can't this guy hear that what he has happening is freakin' awesome!" and others where I think "Hmm, this Dude's ears haven't popped yet". But the bottom line is that for the most part, we're all on the same journey.

My methods may be different than yours but they're no less effective. And having owned racks of EQ's and tried every EQ plugin known, I prefer to get it right going in. Above all of that is the fact that hearing a GREAT tone while you're recording is also inspiring. Especially when you do as many tracks a week as I'm required to do.

djdayson said:
Your clips sound great, but IMHO no better than others done by knowledgeable engineers with decent gear and recording environments

Thanks for the backhanded compliment.

For what it's worth, this year alone, I've had more than 175 tracks placed. Two national commercials, cues all over cable and network TV and as of about 3 weeks ago, a Main Title on a new show on The Speed Network called "Stuntbusters". I also have a feature film slated to be released next year in movie theaters along with airings on Showtime.

So I guess, despite the fact that my tracks sound "average" for a professional and no better than anyone else's, they have *some* value outside of sonics.
 
Don't be so sensitive Mike, I said "your clips sound great..." didn't I?

I didn't mean it as a backhanded complement, I meant it because they do sound great, but my point was that once the guitar sound is great making it somehow "greater than great" subjectively speaking isn't going to make the project anymore successful, that's all.

Guitar sounds are merely that, one part of a composition/recording, and it's the totality of the composition/recording that will be judged by the listeners (excepting a few gear hounds etc). If the guitar sound is great you're cool, though if it sucks it'll detract from composition/recording, that's all I meant (and yours sounded great).

Be sure to let the forum know when your stuff gets released, love to hear it.

Mike P said:
djdayson said:
Your clips sound great, but IMHO no better than others done by knowledgeable engineers with decent gear and recording environments

Thanks for the backhanded compliment.

So I guess, despite the fact that my tracks sound "average" for a professional and no better than anyone else's, they have *some* value outside of sonics.
 
djdayson said:
Don't be so sensitive Mike, I said "your clips sound great..." didn't I?

I didn't mean it as a backhanded complement, I meant it because they do sound great, but my point was that once the guitar sound is great making it somehow "greater than great" subjectively speaking isn't going to make the project anymore successful, that's all.

No, it's all good but I do disagree that a great guitar sound "won't" make a project more successful. I'll put VHI, Dokken, Ratt and any number of late 70's early 80's bands as proof.

Those were guitar driven records. The bass didn't sound particularly good on any of those records and drums were thin, often times with overbearing amounts of Lexicon reverb. But that didn't stop a generation of fans from buying those albums in gigantic numbers.

And while amps of that time and those sounds are still sought after today, the drums sounds, bass sounds and even more importantly, songwriting and overall sound, aren't as sought after.

As far my recordings, yes, they could be better. I'm limited to an Iso cab for by Ampeg V4BH and rig and my guitars are recorded through a Bogner 1x12 in a very small (24 x 36), heavily treated closet. I would LOVE to be in a treated room with a few room mics set up and to mic up an Ampeg 4x10 or 8x10 cab at a distance of more than 6 inches. But that unfortunately, that's not my reality at this time.

But that said, they're good enough to be viewed as Master Quality (even though I have composer/producer friends that believe that I should be taking time to Master my tracks - another subject altogether) and I've tried to help out others in this forum in similar situations.
 
Mike P said:
For what it's worth, this year alone, I've had more than 175 tracks placed. Two national commercials, cues all over cable and network TV and as of about 3 weeks ago, a Main Title on a new show on The Speed Network called "Stuntbusters". I also have a feature film slated to be released next year in movie theaters along with airings on Showtime.

So I guess, despite the fact that my tracks sound "average" for a professional and no better than anyone else's, they have *some* value outside of sonics.

I'd love to discuss with you and learn some tips for the networking/business side of things with regards to this type of work. I'd love to do this type of work at the local level. I'm about to do a few VO projects for some local clients, but would like to hear some tips on getting into the composition side of things. PM whenever you get a chance.

Oh, and don't let a disgruntled engineer get you down.
 
Regarding room sounds any modern convolution reverb can do a real good job of duplicating spaces as you know. You're getting killer sounds as is though IMO. Nice, an Ampeg V4, another vintage Baxandall EQ amp like the old Orange OR120 (we just built an Orange OR120 MTS Module, very cool).

As a former mastering engineer; mastering was initially intended to take all the mixed tracks of a album/CD project and make them sit cohesively together (level, EQ and dynamics to taste, and sequencing/cross fading etc so that all the tracks sounded good together played back to back, and to massage them for whatever medium was in use at the time (Vinyl, 8-Track and Cassette, CD, and later lower bit-rate MP3/AAC clips prior to affordable broadband).

Now the practice has largely morphed into over-compressing/limiting stuff to crush the life out of it while trying to make it the loudest it can be, which is BS IMHO (causes listener fatigue at minimum besides sounding lifeless and dull, and can clip cheap converters etc), but that's another rant for another time (personal opinion here of course folks).

I'm sure you know all this but for everyone who doesn't mastering is of course optional and your call, though I recommend it if the mastering engineer is good for a couple of reasons...

a) It let's another trained set of ears check you prior to public release.

b) Depending on your rig it allows some really expensive equipment to impart it's sonic magic on your tracks if desired or needed, equipment usually not found in even top-end tracking/mixing rooms let alone most project studios.

Regarding the overuse of FX such as gated reverbs, flanging and phasing, harmonizers etc, they became overused as they came into prominence largely due to industry pressures like this;

a) The gated and inverse-gated reverb presets were included on the first quality digital reverbs from Lexicon and later AMS/TC. Before that we needed to patch a gate into the reverb return etc.

b) Someone has a hit with a gated snare reverb.

c) All the labels want "that new sound" now.

d) Everyone is forced by label execs to use that popular FX for a while until the next fad came about.

Those kind of fads from those eras were kind of driven from the engineering side as new things became available they were immediately overused for a while until the next thing appeared, so don't blame the old engineers LOL!

Now the modern DAW makes all of this easy and transparent to the user. Back when I started we needed to use 2-Track tape machines as our echo and flange generators along with physical Chambers and EMT Plates for reverb, that's all we had excepting some cool but noisy guitar pedals (Wah and Fuzz mostly).

You're getting great sounds with your ISO Cab Mike, I'm going to have to try one.

Mike P said:
djdayson said:
Don't be so sensitive Mike, I said "your clips sound great..." didn't I?

I didn't mean it as a backhanded complement, I meant it because they do sound great, but my point was that once the guitar sound is great making it somehow "greater than great" subjectively speaking isn't going to make the project anymore successful, that's all.

No, it's all good but I do disagree that a great guitar sound "won't" make a project more successful. I'll put VHI, Dokken, Ratt and any number of late 70's early 80's bands as proof.

Those were guitar driven records. The bass didn't sound particularly good on any of those records and drums were thin, often times with overbearing amounts of Lexicon reverb. But that didn't stop a generation of fans from buying those albums in gigantic numbers.

And while amps of that time and those sounds are still sought after today, the drums sounds, bass sounds and even more importantly, songwriting and overall sound, aren't as sought after.

As far my recordings, yes, they could be better. I'm limited to an Iso cab for by Ampeg V4BH and rig and my guitars are recorded through a Bogner 1x12 in a very small (24 x 36), heavily treated closet. I would LOVE to be in a treated room with a few room mics set up and to mic up an Ampeg 4x10 or 8x10 cab at a distance of more than 6 inches. But that unfortunately, that's not my reality at this time.

But that said, they're good enough to be viewed as Master Quality (even though I have composer/producer friends that believe that I should be taking time to Master my tracks - another subject altogether) and I've tried to help out others in this forum in similar situations.
 
djdayson said:
Regarding room sounds any modern convolution reverb can do a real good job of duplicating spaces as you probably know. You're getting killer sounds as is though IMO.

As a former mastering engineer mastering was initially intended to take all the mixed tracks of a album/CD project and make them sit cohesively together (EQ and dynamics to taste, and sequencing/cross fading etc so that all the tracks sounded good together played back to back, and to massage them for whatever medium was in use at the time etc (vinyl, cassette, CD etc).

Now the practice has been modified into over-compressing/limiting stuff to crush the life out of it while trying to make it the loudest it can be, which is BS IMHO (causes listener fatigue at minimum), but that's another rant for another time (personal opinion here of course).

I'm sure you know all this but for everyone who doesn't mastering is of course optional and your call, though I recommend it if the mastering engineer is good for a couple of reasons...

a) It let's another trained set of ears check you prior to public release.

b) Depending on your rig it allows some really expensive equipment to impart it's sonic magic on your tracks if desired or needed, equipment usually not found in even top-end tracking/mixing rooms let alone most project studios.

I have a fully tuned and treated room, Focal Solo 6Be's with the matching sub, Apogee AD/DA X series, Neve Summing Mixer and a Vintech 609ca on the two buss. I can generally compose, mix and deliver brand new tracks in less than 2 hours if necessary (at least with rock tracks - the bigger orchestral and Vegas R&B Funk take much longer). I think the current tracks are loud enough, yet retain the dynamics quite well, but it's always good to learn and hear about methods that work for others.

The guys I've mentioned are all extremely successful composer/producers and it was positive advice based on the fact that people tend to think that the "louder" track is "better", thus attaining more uses in film and TV. I don't disagree with that notion but I'm, for lack of a better word, too lazy to go in Master the tracks using the Oxford Suite (which I do own) and whatnot.

I guess if there comes a time when my placements wane, I'll go in and bump them up a few Db's. But like you, I really hate the "crushed" sound.
 
wesarvin said:
I'd love to discuss with you and learn some tips for the networking/business side of things with regards to this type of work. I'd love to do this type of work at the local level. I'm about to do a few VO projects for some local clients, but would like to hear some tips on getting into the composition side of things. PM whenever you get a chance.

When I have a few minutes later today (I'm waiting for a VO artist to send a file, then deliver the product to the client), I address this in the forum, just for anyone that's interested in this type of work.
 
This is a very informative thread.. keep it up.

I've treated half of what will become my studio space in the basement. This thread and your clips have also made me hate the sounds I am gettin gout of my SM57 and presonus firepod with onboard preamps. To me they just sound better suited for percussion. Maybe what I am hearing is just the flavour of the preamp which is just not to my liking. I'm going to pick up one of the golden era pre's as soon as I get a few gigs under my belt to help off set the costs. Then I will look at another mic. Converters come last and only if I think the Presonus sucks for that too.
 
The Golden Era Pre 73's sound very good for the money, especially with upgraded iron (got three of them).

Kapo_Polenton said:
This is a very informative thread.. keep it up.

I've treated half of what will become my studio space in the basement. This thread and your clips have also made me hate the sounds I am gettin gout of my SM57 and presonus firepod with onboard preamps. To me they just sound better suited for percussion. Maybe what I am hearing is just the flavour of the preamp which is just not to my liking. I'm going to pick up one of the golden era pre's as soon as I get a few gigs under my belt to help off set the costs. Then I will look at another mic. Converters come last and only if I think the Presonus sucks for that too.
 
My thought is if delivering single tracks then it's likely not necessary, though if delivering a CD project that'll be played back to back in it's entirety then consider mastering assuming a good engineer with good equipment etc.

Mike P said:
djdayson said:
Regarding room sounds any modern convolution reverb can do a real good job of duplicating spaces as you probably know. You're getting killer sounds as is though IMO.

As a former mastering engineer mastering was initially intended to take all the mixed tracks of a album/CD project and make them sit cohesively together (EQ and dynamics to taste, and sequencing/cross fading etc so that all the tracks sounded good together played back to back, and to massage them for whatever medium was in use at the time etc (vinyl, cassette, CD etc).

Now the practice has been modified into over-compressing/limiting stuff to crush the life out of it while trying to make it the loudest it can be, which is BS IMHO (causes listener fatigue at minimum), but that's another rant for another time (personal opinion here of course).

I'm sure you know all this but for everyone who doesn't mastering is of course optional and your call, though I recommend it if the mastering engineer is good for a couple of reasons...

a) It let's another trained set of ears check you prior to public release.

b) Depending on your rig it allows some really expensive equipment to impart it's sonic magic on your tracks if desired or needed, equipment usually not found in even top-end tracking/mixing rooms let alone most project studios.

I have a fully tuned and treated room, Focal Solo 6Be's with the matching sub, Apogee AD/DA X series, Neve Summing Mixer and a Vintech 609ca on the two buss. I can generally compose, mix and deliver brand new tracks in less than 2 hours if necessary (at least with rock tracks - the bigger orchestral and Vegas R&B Funk take much longer). I think the current tracks are loud enough, yet retain the dynamics quite well, but it's always good to learn and hear about methods that work for others.

The guys I've mentioned are all extremely successful composer/producers and it was positive advice based on the fact that people tend to think that the "louder" track is "better", thus attaining more uses in film and TV. I don't disagree with that notion but I'm, for lack of a better word, too lazy to go in Master the tracks using the Oxford Suite (which I do own) and whatnot.

I guess if there comes a time when my placements wane, I'll go in and bump them up a few Db's. But like you, I really hate the "crushed" sound.
 
djdayson said:
My thought is if delivering single tracks then it's likely not necessary, though if delivering a CD project that'll be played back to back in it's entirety then consider mastering assuming a good engineer with good equipment etc.

I don't think it's "necessary" either, especially since the tracks are within 2db or so of current commercial releases. But I do understand that a Music Supervisor or Editor may choose a similar track because it's louder. There's a definitely psychology about it.

That and the fact that it's never been an issue with the production companies or the libraries I'm associated with at this time. When I hear my tracks on TV, they sound exactly as they do in my studio, so at this point in time, I'm content with letting them go without any further compression.

But, you never know, that might change in a year or two. I've been wanting a Pendulum OCL-2 and a Dramastic Obsidian in my rack and I'd like to audition an ADesigns Nail as well.

:D
 
Just read first and last pages. I gotta come back to this later and read the bulk!

But I wanna pick up a 10 band EQ for some high passing for live use. Making a slight drop below 80hz for me would be ideal when playing with a bass guitar! The only other thing I'd use it for is probably taming a frequency that's causing some nasty feedback or something.
 
djdayson said:
Now the practice has largely morphed into over-compressing/limiting stuff to crush the life out of it while trying to make it the loudest it can be...

Regarding the overuse of FX such as gated reverbs, flanging and phasing, harmonizers etc, they became overused as they came into prominence largely due to industry pressures...


I recently bought a huge box of stale surplus baked goods just because the label reminded me of this thread. :lol:

DSC03598.jpg
 
iekobrid said:
djdayson said:
Now the practice has largely morphed into over-compressing/limiting stuff to crush the life out of it while trying to make it the loudest it can be...

Regarding the overuse of FX such as gated reverbs, flanging and phasing, harmonizers etc, they became overused as they came into prominence largely due to industry pressures...


I recently bought a huge box of stale surplus baked goods just because the label reminded me of this thread. :lol:

DSC03598.jpg

:lol:
I've heard those donuts have just a bit too much 2k in them...
 
Mattfig said:
:lol:
I've heard those donuts have just a bit too much 2k in them...


Great Matt :D
----
So after reading for quite some time I've finaly found the end of this thread...

I can understand the more puristic way of getting the tone you're looking for with as few as possible things in the signal chain and of course you should have the best sound possible before recording. No sense in trying to fix a bad guitar sound in the mix.... that is just damage containment.

Nevertheless I record with EQ (and that everywhere!). Sometimes even in front of the poweramp and most of the time also in my daw.

BUT especially when EQing in the daw I almost always only use substractive EQ and only cut.... (at least with guitars)
And this is a "mixing philosophy" I try to use when mixing live too.
Get the best sound from the source, which includes tweaking the guitarists or bassists amp settings ("Hey nice amp but I think it's a little bit harsh... can we tweak that?") and tweak the position of the mic (depending on how much time I've got)
I often mix bands that I've never mixed before (when working for the location or the organiser) and sometimes we have only 10-15 minutes changeover including linecheck.... anyway sorry for the digression.

What I wanted to say is:
- Get the best sound possible BEFORE micing
- Then use the right/prefered mic (if you have a choice ;) ) and try to find a/the sweetspot for placement

- Now is the sound perfect when monitored or have you achieved a sounds that differs from what you wanted?
- WHAT is different or what bugs you?
- Can that be achieved with different amps settings, signal chain adjustment blablabla or with EQ? Try both...

You can use EQ either after micing, like in your DAW
or you can use it even somewhere in your rig, like in the fx loop, after the preamp, perhaps even in front of the preamp? Go with what sounds best to your ears....!

- Use as little EQ as possible, less is more
- Cuts: narrower bandwith, boosts: broader bandwith for more musical and pleasing EQ


While reading the last pages here I wanted to comment many posts but that were too many and I can't remember so stop wanting to kill each other virtually and just tell us what works for you but don't say it's the only way to achieve great guitar tone and give the members on here that ask for advice and aren't as experienced as you your opinion AND the possibility to try your technique and others'...

(And that constant grumbling what is EQ and what not and I use it and I don't and I think it's evil but HPF is good but I don't use EQ...really freaked me out :roll: )

- sorry :wink: and good night
 
I think it really was more to do with 2 different peoples philospophy based on experience & maybe more importantly situation. The hostility seems to have died out.

With that said I think everyone agrees with getting the best possible tone from the least amount of stuff in the signal chain. From there it's a toss up.
In DJ's situation usually no time to rerecord guitar, with guitarist who likely doesn't have the different amp to hit the tone you want, so EQ to get what you want. Mike's situation is tweaked everything to his liking, notes for quick setup to get that tone again, him playing the tune, & wallah magic tone no need to alter/fix with EQ.
 
Great advice this...

Katash said:
- Use as little EQ as possible, less is more
- Cuts: narrower bandwith, boosts: broader bandwith for more musical and pleasing EQ
 
Top