hi, ive got some stuff ready for the rec, today ive been messing with a different way for my to record. Ive been using a blackstar amp's emulated output, the sound i think sounds very good, and its easy to get the sound into my computer and levels are so easy to get right very quickly.
while im at this im trying to make it sound better and make the guitar fit into the mix more, after messing with EQ, low cut, high cut, and compressor plug ins i just sounds like i make it worse, but i think if i learn it this will become very usefull, heres the sound cloud of my take and a screenshot of what i did to all the things i mentioned above. and by the way i accidently had the low cut bypassed on this recording i think, i noticed it when i was about to take a screen shot then turned it on, but was turned on after the recording
Suggestions? https://soundcloud.com/rockmusic-915/eq-skatepunk

This post has been edited by dcz702: Jul 10 2013, 07:39 AM

Nice and warm tone Dave. I like such a juicy middle I think that messing with EQ and compressor give us all some issues. Very often have the same feeling as Yours. Feel like I'm making things worse. That's way currenty I try to fit the guitar into the mix using only volume and tone control from the amp. Then I leabe it for one day. Nex day morning I have enough distance to make some eq decissions. For me the worst thing is the top end. Very often I will cut too much while listening to guitar track as a solo...and i miss this "air treble" while listening to the whole mix.


As for the compressor I hate when it brings down the treble while the bottom end gives a "shott" to the compressor. That's why I prefer to use multiband comp to compress only the range to 160 Hz were the most of "boom" while palm muting is. This way I don't loose the attack and it gives better effect than multiband compress added to all mix.

thanks darius some things on editing and mixing is starting to make scence. im been at it all night, and as i type im listening to the take i did just now,gabe ironmaiden style lesson i recd maybe 5 times.
im listening to just the begging riff looped over and over, i have eq, low cut, compressor all bypassed with just the hight cut turned on.
i find that if i adjust the high's to get the harsh kind of pierceing sound down, then move on to the low cut, i then get a tone that better matches the mix, and then move on to the compressor and eq and balance it all.
would this process be the correct way to do all this cause it sounds good to my ears, i just need to be mindful of knowing when it's good cause i keep on wanting to turn parameters think its almost perfect, that seems to be when i make it worse and get all crazy at turning changing stuff i just done.

This post has been edited by dcz702: Jul 10 2013, 11:52 AM

I can only tell You when I feel it's good to me:

All You di is correct Now leave it for a day, listen to some other professional recordings. Play Your mix again tomorrow. If it still sounds good to You then it's ok. If not...You'll be able to find freqencies to fix easier when Your ears are "fresh" next day

In a professional environment, plug-in's are considered as only problem solvers rather than shaping. The (main) reason big budget studios have so much outboard is creating the best sound for recording, not after. Plug-in companys market these as it they make everything sound better the moment its inserted but thats pure wrong.

Seriously, the best mixes are %90 made of good recording tone, pan and level balance. Its actually ok if they sound a little separate since they glue on the mastering process.

I listened to the mix and seems its mudded with too much bas/low-mid which is usually caused by not enough room treatement or too much compression (either on individual tracks or master channel). Don't try replicating the albums sound exactly on the mix process, remember they are mastered and for the last 10 years too much loudness process is happening on the mastering stage of production.

I usually advice replicating good live sound, go to as many concerts as possible even classical music and try obtaining a reference naturally.

Of course You're right but as You mentioned...Recording good amp is also and issue of room, mics, preamps etc...they all create the tone and the budget has much to do with it. The choice of plug-ins has it's own reasons and those are usually the limited possibilities of creating descent room treatements and all the other backline.

I'm on Your side as for the mastering. Comparing modern productions and trying to get close to their sound I feel like I'm destroying all the dynamics in my projects.

Good point, as budget concerns though there isn't much of a solution very affordable for room treatemet (headphones to me isn't a replacement and bad for ear helth when used extendedly).

I guess if mic'ing a cab. in the room then it should be considered recording aesthetics meaning getting best as possible (mic. placement etc...) and leaving it there. If one focuses a problem in sound of recording, with eq like tools all he'll do is create a new problem. The better approach is to keep progressing the mix so as other instruments added although the problem stays (but noticed less), the listener can still enjoy the music.

Same goes for vsti, no point tweaking the hell out of a sound. Best is to try finding best of whats already avalible (I don't mean presets though, I hate them ).

Eq is best used for simple operations, cut high/low and balancing one instrument to the other (with very few bands). When learing audio engineering or observing professionals I noticed plug-in compressors were used very rare. It ends-up with an organic/breathing mix and if it will be a commercial product we smashed it at the mastering stage

This post has been edited by Mertay: Jul 10 2013, 04:02 PM

This is exactly what I think based on my recording experiences. If the sound that you are recording isn't killer, you won't be able to make it amazing with EQs and Compression. You can give the final touch, or make audible something that is not good. But the only way to get a killer guitar sound is to generate it from your amp, and the mic position is also very important.

The adjustments that I do during the mix depends on many things like the amp that I used, the guitar and the sound that I'm looking for. But I usually add a low cut, make narrow cuts of frequencies that I don't like (most of the times around 1.5 and 3 KHZ), increase harmonics also around 3 KHZ and if it's a emulated amp, I add a high cut filter for the higher frequencies.

Darius suggestions about giving it one day to recheck with your ear fresh is the way to go!

If you are recording/mixing more than one instrument/vocal then what is important is thow well they sit together and that is not the same as making each instrument/vocal sound its best in isolation of each other.

As for how you use a comp and/or eq... I've written several forum threads here on GMC about this albeit you might have to dig to find them.
I have to disagree with with the use a multiband comp when you mix - broadband is more than sufficient particularly if you side chain. If you use an MBC/splitband you run a very real risk of introducing phase issues and unbalancing individual instruments/vocals. The 'cure' is worse than the 'illness'. Rather like Mertay says MBCs tend to be more marketing hype pushed by vst manufacturers.

Mastering engineers more often than not have to do what we are told by the producer. The volume wars are not the fault of mastering engineers and many of us are opposed to it. I'd also say that more often than not in my experience that the mix nowadays is smashed BEFORE it's sent to the mastering engineer. This is partly as more and more mix engineers have started to do their own 'mastering' and believe that it is all about slapping a comp and limiter on the 2 bus to get volume. VST manufacturers also have a role to play here as some of them publish marketing rubbish that pushes this nonsense. It is not what mastering is.

Just to add following on from Mertay's comment that very few of us professional engineers use vsts for character/colour. Very true and it's also worth noting that we tend to use the hardware rather than software emulations. I come across a lot of people who, for instance, say they have and use an API 2500 compressor but mean they have and use a vst. We own and use the real hardware unit and we've compared it with the vst and the two are not the same. If they were the same then us pros would all have bought a vst rather than spend 10 X more on the hardware.

I usually mic a cab, but this recoding was done using a emulated output of a blackstar amp. No live sound headphone out right into my audio interface. Sounded ok till I messed with it. Ill do a comparison with no eq and a second with just a little editing.

This guy has a lot of good tutorials and I learn a lot from him.

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL26855E6BFEA3AA9A

Thanks fireball. Ill check this out. I didn't mention the amp I was using is a 1 watt ht1 it has no eq on the amp that's why I was trying to mess with eq in the daw.

Tonymiro - I'll try to precise what I mean cause my multiband compression at the mix level is determined by one, particular situation.


I don't use it almost at all and at with other instrument than electric guitar ONLY IF there is a combination of palm muting and open strings. Palm muted notes in the regular tuning can cause up to more than 5dB volume boost in the range of 80 to 180 Hz (let's say...circle about) When we have a parts, where fulll section + guitars play very dense phrases and creates tons of low end together.

Why I do that? Bass drum and bass are solved by the sidechain, but when I use regular compression with guitars...it will hide the attack/ treble, cutting it with same amount of dB's as exess of the low end affect the compressor. This way guitars dissappear in the mix.

I always do some "simulation of the master" before sending to the professional mastering studio. I do it to check how some things will act after some traditional mastering treatments like...lowering the lewel of snare compression, hiddin a bit of reverbs midrange etc...

After a few of those tests I found that if I leave the guitars low exess (palm muting) it affects the mastering in a bad way.

I'm not a kind of person who likes to overcompress everything. I also respect the art of mastering and leave a lot of headroom for the guy, who have perfect gear and room conditions to objectively adjust some freq ranges, that are not worth trusting at my place.

Compression boosts some noises (if there are some on the single tracks) and then the mastering pull them out even more...so I prefer to leave some things uncompressed.

My mixes don't look flat and are done with a levels like - 10 even to -13 dB with visible, wide dynamics so as I said before - multiband is a great tool for this particular situation.

Of course this is my subjective opinion and it occur some heavy guitars mixing. I don't use multiband for bass, bass drum or guitar track (if the guitars play pretty equal parts with no palm muting or with palm mutin through all the track)

Hi Darius,
yes there are some, albeit very few, occassions when a splitband is a good tool for a job whilst mixing. Nonetheless those are very specific instances and what I'm objecting to is the overuse of them for every and all occassions where a broadband comp could do a much better job and cause fewer issues. Splitbands tend to get marketted as a' band aid' that people can use anytime, anywhere: they're not and when they are treated as such they almost always do more harm than good.

I also think that it's worth remembering that many people struggle with understanding how to use compressors and which are appropriate for particular situations. Splitbands are much more complicated than the majority of broadband compressors. So I think most people would benefit more by learning how to broadband comp first.

For what it's worth and just based on your description of your particular mix issue it sounds like there are other ways of approaching it.

You mean like a dynamic EQ? Because simply cutting very narrow range of boosted freq affect the moments when they do not jump out of the mix. If You have any cool tips I'm curious of them Of course I agree about overusing multibands...

Yes dynamic eq is one if you automate it. Also automated fader riding, trying different VCA comps and attack and release times, post mix spectral editing and so on are othe possibilities. What works thugh really depends on the mix.

To be clear my use of multiband is simialr to dynamic eq. I'm turing off the compression on all other frequencies and setting high ratio for cutting only the "clips". I always try to not affect the signal while nothing bad happens.

Good thing You pointed here - Yes I do use volume fader automation - I do it a lot on vocals ...instead of compressors. I also draw the volume when I have something like one cymbals much to loud on the "hit moment". One more example...I draw the snare comp input volume if I want it to be flat on organic on the verse and opposite - lot of attack on the chorus. Or
I just draw the volume of parallel snare comp track.

Unfortunetely drawing the volume on the boomy guit freq doesn't give me wanted effect. Id does same thing as I get on the regular comp - it hides all guitar volume while I prefer the mid range and treble to stay on the normal level.

This post has been edited by Darius Wave: Jul 11 2013, 12:48 PM

Good to hear that . It's surprising how many don't turn off the bands they aren't using.
Anyway it might be a goodi idea Darius for you to have a chat with your mastering engineer and see if they have some suggestions, particularly if they've heard a 'before' and 'after' examples.

http://www.meldaproduction.com/plugins/pro...p?id=MDynamicEq

Wonderful eq, no croosovers

Interesting stuff. I bookmarked it. Thanks for sharing.