You Guys/Gals Are in for Another Treat

As someone who has fought many battles against the low end monster, I initially felt triggered by the “this is a myth that needs to die”, but I’m just gonna let it ride. Ya’ll can have fun with that. Just keep note of the fallen warrior‘s bones on your way into the low-end monster’s cave.
 
RevDrucifer said:
As someone who has fought many battles against the low end monster, I initially felt triggered by the “this is a myth that needs to die”, but I’m just gonna let it ride. Ya’ll can have fun with that. Just keep note of the fallen warrior‘s bones on your way into the low-end monster’s cave.
Click to expand...
The guitar's low end is no less valid than that of the bass, kick, or keys. The notion that it is not is the myth that needs to die. The guitar is no different in that its low end must be balanced. Balanced and eliminated are two entirely different things. Low shelves and peaking filters are your friends. IMO, the "cut everything below xxx Hz with a HPF" mantra is the hallmark of a lazy/ignorant engineer and the pathway to anemic guitar tone. HPFs have their place; but all too often they are used as a blunt instrument, and as standard procedure rather than a carefully considered option. I've known FOH guys who put a 250 Hz HPF on the guitar before soundcheck even begins....before they've even heard the guitar.

The sub end of a guitar is relatively minimal for many great tones, but still essential. When properly balanced, it in no way interferes with the bass or kick. It is swamped by them. Taking a reasonable HPF in and out won't even be noticeable when everything is going. But when the guitar is exposed, that low energy can make all the difference. And that non-zero amount of low energy, for me, is what chug is all about.
 
Last edited:
Chugging is a complex business indeed.

What I'm hoping for in this release is that Leon's recommended after-amp MBC to tame "chug boom" on some hi-gain tones can be set within the amp block instead (with less CPU impact given only one band is tweaked). 15.01 improved tightness for hi-gain sounds but the MBC trick still helps with some tones albeit CPU-expensive.
 
sprint said:
Chugging is a complex business indeed.

What I'm hoping for in this release is that Leon's recommended after-amp MBC to tame "chug boom" on some hi-gain tones can be set within the amp block instead (with less CPU impact given only one band is tweaked). 15.01 improved tightness for hi-gain sounds but the MBC trick still helps with some tones albeit CPU-expensive.
Click to expand...
"Tame" is a good term.
 
giphy.gif
 
steadystate said:
The guitar's low end is no less valid than that of the bass, kick, or keys. The notion that it is not is the myth that needs to die. The guitar is no different in that its low end must be balanced. Balanced and eliminated are two entirely different things. Low shelves and peaking filters are your friends. IMO, the "cut everything below xxx Hz with a HPF" mantra is the hallmark of a lazy/ignorant engineer and the pathway to anemic guitar tone. HPFs have their place; but all too often they are used as a blunt instrument, and as standard procedure rather than a carefully considered option. I've known FOH guys who put a 250 Hz HPF on the guitar before soundcheck even begins....before they've even heard the guitar.

The sub end of a guitar is relatively minimal for many great tones, but still essential. When properly balanced, it in no way interferes with the bass or kick. It is swamped by them. Taking a reasonable HPF in and out won't even be noticeable when everything is going. But when the guitar is exposed, that low energy can make all the difference. And that non-zero amount of low energy, for me, is what chug is all about.
Click to expand...

I certainly don’t disagree with that when explained. My initial thought was “Nah, keep all that low end in there, it’s fine!”, but I agree, it’s completely a balancing act between the kick/toms/bass/guitar’s low end.

This coincides with the other thread going on right now where someone asked which albums they should try to reference to get a good live tone and turned into a discussion about how many guitarists don’t realize how to set their amps in the studio or live to actually be heard. I know I’m not the only one who has dealt with a guitarist who makes a smiley face EQ and then cranks the distortion up, thinking it’s the heaviest tone in the world and then doesn’t understand why it got swallowed by the bass and drums when the band started playing together.
 
We got plenty of lows and gain on tap, but maybe the chug it's a dynamic/feel behaviour that simple eq cannot achieve. Maybe all amps benefit, even clean one pushed, maybe the "in the room" sound it's there... ;)
 
Smilzo said:
We got plenty of lows and gain on tap, but maybe the chug it's a dynamic/feel behaviour that simple eq cannot achieve. Maybe all amps benefit, even clean one pushed, maybe the "in the room" sound it's there... ;)
Click to expand...
I tweak the Speaker section in the Amp block rather than the EQ's for the "feel" side of things, seems to have worked so far but I'm very intrigued to see what comes next :D

On the subject of frequency placement and so on, I had this great book at one point though now I cant find it (I suspect foul play thievery) but it was great for focusing interpretation of sound placement for mixing and engineering:

Amazon product ASIN 0815369492
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom