-
I thought some of you might find this interesting. It's a single 38 second recording that I've rendered through five stages of post production.
It's my second try at this today. The lesson from the first try was don't try to mix with headphones. They lie worse than my dog.
Guitar recorded direct with no added EQ or effects.
Last edited by Jim Soloway; 11-03-2024 at 07:08 PM.
-
11-03-2024 02:52 PM
-
-
Processed with Parametric EQ
-
Processed with Parametric EQ and Reverb
-
Processed with Parametric Eq, Reverb and Speaker Ir's
-
Processed with Parametric Eq, Reverb and Scuffham S-Gear amp sim
-
I haven't heard it yet, but is you're processing sequence: Amp sim - Para EQ - Reverb ? It should be by default, but adding an EQ stage before the amp sim can give you some extra options.
-
Jim,
i favor the last version using the amp sim. It sounds the most natural, detailed and focussed. I am listening with my favorite IEM and a Helm DAC that catches a lot of audio detail.
in July I posted a recording of a piece (using an Ibanez AF105sm) where the recording was direct to the interface and adding reverb with an IR plugin (presonus DAW Studio One using their iR). In the recording process l tried both Ampllitube and Ampire amp sims but just could not find a sound I liked. The Scuffham amp sim sounds really good. Did you use a preset to get that sound? Thanks!
-
I have the EQ before the amp. I find the Amp sim much easier to control that way. The reverb is at the tail end of the chain and only applied to the two far sides of the spread.
Originally Posted by princeplanet
-
I'm split between the one with the S-Gear plugin and the one using the speaker sims only but I would/will probably use the one with S-Gear plugin. It seems to more present. It's a preset that I put together myself using their Wayfarer amp model. I've been using Scuffham S-Gear for a few years now and this one just sort of evolved over a lot of recordings. It's definitely the happiest I've been with it. Originally Posted by Donnd
-
Good suggestions regarding the signal chain. I will look for a demo of that amp sim plugin.
Are you recording in mono and then copy/pasting the second track for stereo panning?
-
I used to do that but recording in mono but with Reaper I don't have to cut and paste. I can use the track routing functions to sent the original track to empty tracks that are panned left and right and then route those tracks to an additional empty track with the reverb effects. It also provide a folder function so that all of those tracks are in a single folder and any effects (like the EQ and speaker IR's or the the amp sim) and loaded to the folder and are automatically shared with the other tracks. Like most of Reaper, it's not really very intuitive but once you know the rules, it's really easy to use and very convenient. Originally Posted by Donnd
-
I'm hearing some digital overs on the one with S-Gear added. You might want to check S-Gear's input and output busses (gain-staging can be tricky with S-Gear).
Other than that? The differences are pretty subtle, but I think the EQ is an improvement over the un-effected sound. My tastes in reverb lean toward bigger/brighter/wetter than what you have there. I think the track would sound better with that (plus some stereo delay), but that's just my taste.Last edited by John A.; 11-04-2024 at 06:12 PM.
-
Allow me to be the contrarian. I thought the direct, original recording sounded much better than any of the processed ones. It lost richness and low end in the processing and sounded more "far away" as different layers were added, less and less natural to me. For what it's worth, I'm listening to this through my iPad speakers, so it might be different through good speakers or a set of good headphones.
-
For the last year and a bit I've been sharing a very small office room with my wife. That means that almost all of my playing at home (including while recording) is done through headphones. I have two pairs of studio quality headphones but I've had to learn the hard way not to trust what I'm hearing when I'm wearing them. I also have a pair of small, very high quality Genelec monitors. Those are supposedly much more accurate than the headphones and when I'm being diligent, I take a little extra time when my wife is not in the room to check what ever I'm working on through the Genelecs. The difference is remarkable. Originally Posted by Cunamara
Listening through my Sennheiser headphones, I really like that original recording with no tweaks. I won't say it's my favorite but it does have a lot of warmth and richness. When I listen to it on the Genelecs though, it sounds soft and spongy, like it needs some EQ. That's especially true at low volume. It has none of the sparkle that I hear through the Sennheisers. That was why I took down the original recordings that I first posted. I had done all of that work through the headphones and I really liked them. When I checked them after on the monitors, they sounded terrible. They were dark, woofy and boomy. So I started over with the tone control on the guitar turned up quite a bit. The ideal I think would be to have something that comes somewhere in between: that has the natural fullness that you're hearing through your little iPad speakers but without the digital coldness and distance that can come from too much processing.
-
I remember that artist talked about this in an interview; he would listen to the mix on the speakers in his car rather than in the studio to judge the final product. I think his reasoning was that very few home listeners have studio quality reference speakers.
Also, isn't there an RIAA EQ curve that's pretty typically applied to studio production recordings? Or has that gone the way of the dodo?
-
I suspect the culprit there is room acoustics rather than program material or monitor problems, Jim. Headphones are subject to many influences, but ambient acoustics and speaker placement are not among them. Unless you’ve done as much as possible to treat your room and equalize your system for reflections, resonances, and other gross nonlinearities in frequency response, you will hear major differences between any ‘phones and any speakers with almost any program material. Even under the best of circumstances, there will be clearly audible differences. Originally Posted by Jim Soloway
Engineers used to use many kinds of monitors and real world systems to arrive at a master that was “right” for their target market. When most popular music was heard by most of the recording buying public through car radios etc, many 45s were mixed and mastered using car radios etc to assess the final product for its marketability. When portable players came along (cassette tape and then CD), headphones became a prime source for millions. Post processing was used to optimize sound quality (or lack of it in many cases) so it would sound “better” through cheap headphones and then ear buds.
The final products often sounded terrible through good audio systems.
Reply With Quote
How does your Atchtop play compared to SB?
Today, 07:34 PM in Guitar, Amps & Gizmos