Can I borrow some ears again?

[Jim Soloway]

I've been simplifying my recording process a lot and hopefully cleaning up the sound in the process. Any thoughts? TIA.

[sgosnell]

That sounds a lot like Jim Soloway. That is a clean sound, albeit with a few minor pops and scratches.

[Jim Soloway]

That sounds a lot like Jim Soloway. That is a clean sound, albeit with a few minor pops and scratches.

Thanks. When it's that naked there's really nothing there to hide any of the little noises, but I'm working on that now.

[0zoro]

I must admit that my memory for tone, clarity etc is rather limited in time and I cant remember when I last heard one of your recordings. That said, my impression is that clarity and volume are bettered since I last listened. Could the culprit in part be the new booster that has recently been added? Nicely done Jim!

[nevershouldhavesoldit]

Very interesting! I really love the tone (and playing, of course). I'm sitting here trying to identify the guitar among those I know you have - and it's not easy. I agree with sgosnell that it's very "clean", by which I mean that the guitar sounds like a real guitar and there's no extraneous noise or unnatural coloration. I'm assuming it also sounds like whatever guitar you're playing. Balance across the frequency spectrum is excellent. But what impresses me the most is the dynamic range compared to a lot of your prior posted recordings. Your ultralight picking style has been pretty consistent in its limited dynamic range over several recordings, probably because you concentrate on consistency in your playing. But this one seems to have a bit wider range of expressive dynamics, even if it's only a few dB from softest to loudest passage.

As I doubt that you've changed your playing style, I suspect this is in the recording chain. Your subtle dynamic variation is being recorded with more fidelity. Whatever electronics you're using don't seem to be processing / compressing the signal as much. It's as though you've shortened your recording chain to nothing but a DAI with perhaps a clean preamp in front of it. I'm pretty sure it's direct - it doesn't sound like a mic'ed amp to me.

I'm going to guess that you're playing the Gosling. I don't think it's an archtop because the sustain is a bit long and there's not quite enough "wood" to my ear. I'd be surprised if this were your short scale Fender.

[AllanAllen]

Thanks. When it's that naked there's really nothing there to hide any of the little noises, but I'm working on that now.

In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with it sounding like you are playing a guitar. The little noises make it real.

[Jim Soloway]

Very interesting! I really love the tone (and playing, of course). I'm sitting here trying to identify the guitar among those I know you have - and it's not easy. I agree with sgosnell that it's very "clean", by which I mean that the guitar sounds like a real guitar and there's no extraneous noise or unnatural coloration. I'm assuming it also sounds like whatever guitar you're playing. Balance across the frequency spectrum is excellent. But what impresses me the most is the dynamic range compared to a lot of your prior posted recordings. Your ultralight picking style has been pretty consistent in its limited dynamic range over several recordings, probably because you concentrate on consistency in your playing. But this one seems to have a bit wider range of expressive dynamics, even if it's only a few dB from softest to loudest passage.

As I doubt that you've changed your playing style, I suspect this is in the recording chain. Your subtle dynamic variation is being recorded with more fidelity. Whatever electronics you're using don't seem to be processing / compressing the signal as much. It's as though you've shortened your recording chain to nothing but a DAI with perhaps a clean preamp in front of it. I'm pretty sure it's direct - it doesn't sound like a mic'ed amp to me.

I'm going to guess that you're playing the Gosling. I don't think it's an archtop because the sustain is a bit long and there's not quite enough "wood" to my ear. I'd be surprised if this were your short scale Fender.

It is the Gosling. That and the Mustang are the only electric guitars that I own now. And it is direct. I have changed my playing style a bit but the playing style and the signal chain are directly related in a few ways:

First, there is no amp sim or even speaker sim either in the recording or while I'm playing. The sound I'm hearing while I play is only the raw sound from the direct out on the interface. It's so flat that if I want any kind of dynamics it all has to come just from my hands.

Second, the Art preamp coupled with the higher output from the Gosling (compared to the Mustang) allowed me to dramatically lower the gain setting on the interface. That's gotten rid of the constant threat of noise that I was always recording with and allows me to push the guitar a lot more than I could without it. That's actually much closer to how I play live.

And finally, I think that Jack Zucker is right: IR's are counter-productive. Without getting into all of the logic involved, I think that they flatten the dynamics of a recording. I tried adding speaker IR's to this recording using a very highly thought of IR of a Deluxe and I was really taken aback by how much dynamic loss there was. So there's no amp sims and no speaker sims in this, either during the performance or in the mix. Just a bit of EQ, compression and reverb added for the mix. Everything else is just me and the guitar.

Next I'll try this same method with the Mustang. I have a hunch it too will sound markedly better.

[supersoul]

Like others have said, I think it sounds great. I'm definitely a fan of direct without much funny business.

I like the reverb level too. It adds a bit of ambience, but I didn't notice it until I purposely listened for it.

[omphalopsychos]

Sounds good. Very crisp. If it were me I might add a bit of preamp saturation, sidechain compression to bring down the transients, and a bit of EQ to selectively raise the mids.

I've been into tape emulation lately. I have an analog outboard tape emulator that does wonders. Not the pitch shifted wow/flutter stuff, I mean the slightly saturated and compressed effect to soften transients. I think this recording would benefit from it. I.e. It sounds like you want to keep a lot of the high frequency detail (I like that), but I don't think you need the amplitude peaks at those times. Maybe you like them. This is all very subjective.

[omphalopsychos]

Jim, curious if you are playing direct, what kind of processing do you use for a stereo effect?

My recording style is quite the opposite. I use a stereo ribbon in the room and position it not too close to the guitar and not too close to the amp. This is a very different sound from what a lot of players do, but I like it. It would not be ideal for tracking a guitar to put into a larger mix, but I love the sound I get for solo acoustic/electric guitar.

[nevershouldhavesoldit]

Jim, curious if you are playing direct, what kind of processing do you use for a stereo effect? My recording style is quite the opposite. I use a stereo ribbon in the room and position it not too close to the guitar and not too close to the amp. This is a very different sound from what a lot of players do, but I like it. It would not be ideal for tracking a guitar to put into a larger mix, but I love the sound I get for solo acoustic/electric guitar.

I'm looking forward to Jim's answer too. For solo guitar, I use close mic'ing with crossed cardioids directly in front of the speaker. The pair is offset from the axis of the voice coil just enough to give one a direct shot at the center and the other a direct shot at the outer half of the cone. The angle between the two mics is set so that the axis of the one aimed at the cone is perpendicular to it and the one aimed at the center of the speaker is as close to perpendicular to a tangent across the theoretical "point of impact" of the dust cover as is practical. The slight differences in phase and frequency spectrum seem to lend some space to the image, and I use no processing.

[Jim Soloway]

Jim, curious if you are playing direct, what kind of processing do you use for a stereo effect?

My recording style is quite the opposite. I use a stereo ribbon in the room and position it not too close to the guitar and not too close to the amp. This is a very different sound from what a lot of players do, but I like it. It would not be ideal for tracking a guitar to put into a larger mix, but I love the sound I get for solo acoustic/electric guitar.

It's a bit of a trick that I first learned from an interview with David Linley and then adapted to my purpose. It's evolved over the years depending on the platform.

I'm using Reaper which supports folders but you can adapt this to work in various environments. Working within a folder, all of my plugins except reverb are opened in the folder rather than the individual tracks so the plugins are all applied to every track in the folder. I have a single main mono track that is straight up the middle. After that I have three empty tracks. Of those empty tracks, one is panned hard left and one is panned hard right. The third empty track has the reverb plugins. I assign the send on the main mono track to both the hard right and left empty tracks. Next I assign the send on left and right empty tracks to reverb track. So the reverb only effects the to outer tracks while the center track remains dry.

[Jim Soloway]

I'm going to guess that you're playing the Gosling. I don't think it's an archtop because the sustain is a bit long and there's not quite enough "wood" to my ear. I'd be surprised if this were your short scale Fender.

Here's a quick and dirty take that I just did with the Mustang and the Art Pre. The exact same setup as with the Gosling. No changes, no edits, no playing with settings, just hit record, play and post. I think this has good potential.

[Bop Head]

It's a bit of a trick that I first learned from an interview with David Linley and then adapted to my purpose. It's evolved over the years depending on the platform.

I'm using Reaper which supports folders but you can adapt this to work in various environments. Working within a folder, all of my plugins except reverb are opened in the folder rather than the individual tracks so the plugins are all applied to every track in the folder. I have a single main mono track that is straight up the middle. After that I have three empty tracks. Of those empty tracks, one is panned hard left and one is panned hard right. The third empty track has the reverb plugins. I assign the send on the main mono track to both the hard right and left empty tracks. Next I assign the send on left and right empty tracks to reverb track. So the reverb only effects the to outer tracks while the center track remains dry.

What is the use of this trick? Do you send the mono track in different portions to the hard left and right tracks? Otherwise I see absolutely no difference in this routing from sending the mono signal via post-fade aux send to a stereo FX bus. (FYI: I studied audio engineering in the 90ies.)

[Jim Soloway]

What is the use of this trick? Do you send the mono track in different portions to the hard left and right tracks? Otherwise I see absolutely no difference in this routing from sending the mono signal via post-fade aux send to a stereo FX bus. (FYI: I studied audio engineering in the 90ies.)

Probably it's greatest use is that I know how to do it and it works to give the track a bit of extra size. I don't doubt that there are other (and probably more efficient) ways to do it but I've never studied audio engineering in my life so I just pick up what I can here and there and if it works I live with it.

[Bop Head]

Probably it's greatest use is that I know how to do it and it works to give the track a bit of extra size. I don't doubt that there are other (and probably more efficient) ways to do it but I've never studied audio engineering in my life so I just pick up what I can here and there and if it works I live with it.

I did not want to insult you and you did not answer my question: Are you sending the same amount of signal to those hard left and right channels? If you do so the signal remains mono. If you send different amounts to the left and right it gets panned which has an effect if the reverb has a true stereo input.

[Jim Soloway]

I did not want to insult you and you did not answer my question: Are you sending the same amount of signal to those hard left and right channels? If you do so the signal remains mono. If you send different amounts to the left and right it gets panned which has an effect if the reverb has a true stereo input.

I didn't take it as an insult. I'm just being honest about my extremely limited engineering skills and knowledge. I'm pretty sure that I'm not getting true stereo. I'm just getting reverb to the outer edge of sound image while it's dry up the middle and that creates some feeling of size but what's going to either side is exactly the same.

[nevershouldhavesoldit]

Are you sending the same amount of signal to those hard left and right channels? If you do so the signal remains mono. If you send different amounts to the left and right it gets panned which has an effect if the reverb has a true stereo input.

Another post processing trick that works well is to shift one of the lateral tracks a few milliseconds. It takes a trial and error approach because different program material responds differently, and some doesn’t respond well or at all. I start with 2 msec and go up until it sounds right or the delay becomes audible. If you hear even the slightest repeat, you’ve gone too far. But when it works well, the image blooms a bit in a very natural way.

[nevershouldhavesoldit]

Here's a quick and dirty take that I just did with the Mustang and the Art Pre. The exact same setup as with the Gosling. No changes, no edits, no playing with settings, just hit record, play and post. I think this has good potential.

Fascinating! You can hear a definite difference in tone. The lower tension from the shorter scale gives it a slight relative midrange bump because there’s a bit less bottom and a little less sparkle at the top. It reminds me of the sonic difference between an L4 and a 175 played acoustically. I also think the Gosling’s intonation is more precise and consistent, especially on those beautiful close intervals.

Some (me among them) might say the Mustang’s tone is a little jazzier. Set your EQ right and you might even get a hint of thunk from it. And if you toss in a neck humbucker, it might sound a bit Bickert-ish too.

[supersoul]

Here's a quick and dirty take that I just did with the Mustang and the Art Pre. The exact same setup as with the Gosling. No changes, no edits, no playing with settings, just hit record, play and post. I think this has good potential.

I prefer the sound of this to the first one. The Mustang sounds mellower, darker, more open, more "acoustic" and I think I could listen to it longer. It's a more inviting sound.

[mr. beaumont]

I liked the first one, then I heard the second one. That's absolutely LOVELY. Tons of clarity yet still on the darker side, balanced between voices...that's a damn fine tone.

[sgosnell]

I agree that the Mustang sounds better. I don't know if it's the strings, the pickup, scale length, or what, but it's a slightly warmer sound. The pops, which may have been caused by slightly loose connections or something else, are gone. Not that they were terrible at all, just not quite production quality. Not unexpected from a quick recording. The Mustang recording was excellent.

[nevershouldhavesoldit]

I agree that the Mustang sounds better. I don't know if it's the strings, the pickup, scale length, or what, but it's a slightly warmer sound.

It's the short scale. String tension is lower at the same pitch than it would be with a longer scale. So the vibrating string has more energy for lower order harmonics and can vibrate over a wider path. The tighter the string, the more energy is dissipated in overcoming that tension to move it back and forth. The width of the vibrating envelope is inversely proportional to the frequency being generated (roughly - it's not linear) . And the string only has the energy imparted to it by picking / plucking to make it move. Resonances can support that movement and prolong sustain, but acoustic resonance simply reduces energy loss over time. Feedback is the result of adding energy from the amplifier to the vibrating string.

The increased tension of a longer string also favors higher order harmonics, making a longer scale guitar generally a bit brighter than a shorter one of otherwise identical build. A very light style like Jim's will produce a crisper tone from tenser strings and a warmer tone from less tense ones.

[Jim Soloway]

Interesting response to the Mustang. The scale length definitely makes it warmer but mostly it's just a LOT easier for me to play. The scale length on the Gosling is not only 1.5" longer, it also has what we called "finger-style" spacing. The nut width is 1 13/16 and that extra width runs all the way from nut to bridge. After playing the Mustang for a while, going back to the Gosling feels like playing the deck of an aircraft carrier. A few year ago I considered that Gosling to be the most comfortable guitar I'd ever played but reality is that my hands are getting old and reaches that were really easy for me a few years ago are real work now. I think that's the real cause of the noises in the Gosling recording. What your hearing is mostly my hands moving and brushing the strings and with all the stretching, I'm just not as precise. Being easier to play, I think also makes the Mustang more expressive for me. Less thought has to go into the mechanics of playing leaving more for the emotions of playing.

And now maybe I can try some of the production ideas that some of you have suggested. That's the main reason I post these here. There are a lot of holes in my knowledge about production and every once in a while, you'll all suggest something that I can actually understand and that will make the process work better.

[markesquire]

I like both recordings, but actually prefer the Gosling, maybe with a bit of EQ to emphasize mids. It's really hard to beat a Tele - every time I depart from a traditional spec I end up returning.