Authenticity of modeling recorded tones

Sidivan

Sidivan

Fractal Fanatic
I was watching a Biography on Jimi Hendrix when I started thinking about his tone. I began to think about how his tone had this vintage, scratchiness to it, but in the video of woodstock he's got a full stack behind him. I wonder how different his live tone must have been from the recorded tone we all know. How much of the "Vintage" tone of classic artists is really the crappy recording equipment used in that era?

In the wiki, it talks about thinking about how a good recording of a guitar sounds and not how a live guitar sounds. This leads me to start thinking about an FRFR system for live use. If part of the recorded tone was the recording technique and equipment, why would we attempt to capture that sound for live use?

From the manual: "Rather the Axe-Fx was designed to simply provide the effect as originally intended and with the utmost quality."

Using that same logic, trying to copy a recorded tone from some artist and use that tone for a live use is backwards. The goal of studio recording is to be as transparent as possible. You try to capture the feel/sound of the artist without coloring it with your equipment.

I'm not ranting or anything, just something that was banging around in my head. What do you guys think?
 
Well, I guess that depends on what you need from your tone.

For instance, if your in a cover band, people in the audience are probably going to better identify with the recorded tone, so that's what you'd most likely concern yourself with.

However, if it's an original, you could go either way with that, especially if you originally recoded it with the Axe-FX in the first place.

In the end, all that really matters is if it sounds good, right?
 
So normally we're trying to capture a recorded tone, or a live tone, and you're suggesting we might think about capturing the recorded live tone? :mrgreen:


Interesting.
I'm thinking things like the farfield IRs go a long way towards that goal, but don't add the grain of the oldschool recording tools yet. Maybe use a second custom cab IR on top of it?
 
It does seem a little odd. Well Ive always thought so.

The aim when recording a guitar originally was to get the sound on tape (old school term I know) to sound as close to the "real amp" tone as possible. Thats why an engineer will swop mics, alter position etc to get the tone. It isnt possible to get that exact due to limitations of equipment (both mics and recording gear), so we ended up with what we know as a recorded tone.

This seems to have changed to where now an they will still swop mics and position BUT the aim is now to get a sound they want to hear in the mix - ie the best recorded tone rather that truly trying to capture the live sound.

Now with the axe, were trying to get this same recorded tone. Seems to me that to be really accurate we should be trying to get the live sound. That would be the first time ever a recording could be done how it was intended originally i.e. for the recorded sound to be the same as the live one.

The only thing that has changed is that the punter (and by default most engineers) is so used to listening to whats been recorded rather than what "should" have been recorded (if it had been possible) that this is what we now try to get.

Im not sure thats right really - but that doesnt change what were doing.
 
What really keeps looping in my head is how different some of the live tones must've been for bands like The Who, Jimi Hendrix, Cream, etc...

I wonder if some of the "digital modeling isn't accurate" mindset comes from comparing the recorded tone on an album to models meant to replicate an amplifier rather than comparing that model to the actual amp itself.

The only thing that has changed is that the punter (and by default most engineers) is so used to listening to whats been recorded rather than what "should" have been recorded (if it had been possible) that this is what we now try to get.
Click to expand...

That's precisely what I'm talking about here. It seems like the default is trying to replicate something you've heard on an album rather than trying to do it better. I guess I've never really thought about this before... feels like I've discovered something new that everybody else knew already! :lol:
 
Guitar-Tiz said:
For instance, if your in a cover band, people in the audience are probably going to better identify with the recorded tone, so that's what you'd most likely concern yourself with.
Click to expand...

Normally, the audience can't tell good tone form a hole in the ground. Axe is certainly flexible enough to get so close to the original that the audience won't give a crap about the minute differences.
 
plexi59 said:
Guitar-Tiz said:
For instance, if your in a cover band, people in the audience are probably going to better identify with the recorded tone, so that's what you'd most likely concern yourself with.
Click to expand...

Normally, the audience can't tell good tone form a hole in the ground. Axe is certainly flexible enough to get so close to the original that the audience won't give a crap about the minute differences.
Click to expand...

I used to believe that, and at one time it was quite possibly true, but it seems the average listeners these days are more likely to tell you how much it didn't sound like the original, and that you suck when you play a cover, or quite possibly the inverse if it was close enough that even the original band couldn't tell the difference.

The days of the drunken crowd that could give a shit about your tone are dwindling, and the days if the discerning ears are coming in full force. Especially in the younger (well, OK less older) 80's & 90's generation that tends to at the places I've played covers. I think this next generation (post 00) might be even more picky that the ones before them too.

I actually attribute it to better gear in general. Live tones have begun to sound more like the albums, as the equipment used to capture the sound amps has improved exponentially, with live gear following suit. Not to mention that better gear (in comparison to several years ago) is available at more affordable prices, making it easier to get an accurate tone (or at least the tone wanted) to the listener, live, or recorded.

That's just my experience though.

If this doesn't make sense, I'm sorry, it's late, and I'm trying to get my Wifes POS Vista Laptop to work, and I'm getting really POed!!! I'm actually waiting for it to reboot for the 10th time now.
 
I'm a lifetime music lover, with extremely varied tastes in music, and have listened to recordings all my life (and, of course, live performances).

Most of the time, when I hear a recording, I imagine that whatever the recorded instruments sound like, they must have sounded far better live in the studio, or wherever the recording took place. I prefer recordings that are spontaneous sounding, live & organic, without excessive post-production. I'd rather hear honest warts than a sanitized, EQ'd & compressed for radio version.

So I never really "got" the supposed goal of reproducing an "as-recorded" sound, when in my view, the "live in the room" tone should be the ultimate achievement. (I'm also not one who thinks the Axe can't produce great "in the room" tones - I think it comes down to how you dial it, and what you choose to output that sound through.)

In most cases, there are always song-appropriate tones to be created that blow away the recordings - why limit your goal to how precisely how the recordings sound, other than to capture the general character of covers for an audience? Seems to me you can respect the recorded version as a point of reference, if that's your goal, but still make the live sound overall much better to hear.
 
I want the FRFR speaker to sound like the real cabinet does, in the same setting. If you're standing 10 feet away from your FRFR, it should sound like you're 10 feet away from your real cabinet.

I guess for recording it would be nice to mix a far field IR with a close miked IR of the same speaker, since that is what you might do miking a guitar cabinet in the studio.

For that matter, if you have a good room, I suppose you could just put a mic on a FRFR in the studio and record it from a distance and mix that with the direct signal from the AxeFX.

Another thing to keep in mind, the live guitar tones you might hear, or at least the ones you would hear in a good live soundboard recording of a particular artist, have the tone shaped to sit right in the mix of the band. That's not necessarily going to work with your band live. I spent a lot of time initially listening very carefully to Jerry Garcia's recorded tone on a bunch of soundboard Dead recordings. It was very clear that there was no bottom at all in his tone, it cut perfectly, but to match it, I had to roll off everything below 280hz or so. I had it knocked, did a gig with my band that way direct, and the result was my guitar was way too thin in the mix and sounded like crap. Next time out, I put all those frequencies back into the signal and it sounded 100 times better.
 
Sidivan said:
I was watching a Biography on Jimi Hendrix when I started thinking about his tone. I began to think about how his tone had this vintage, scratchiness to it, but in the video of woodstock he's got a full stack behind him. I wonder how different his live tone must have been from the recorded tone we all know.
Click to expand...
I heard him perform live in 1970, three months before his death, at the second Atlanta Pop Festival. Here's a clip from that night: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7yPRYL_Oq0 . The sound on the recording is brighter and thinner than his live sound that night.

How much of the "Vintage" tone of classic artists is really the crappy recording equipment used in that era?
Click to expand...
The recording equipment used in that era was anything but "crappy," as witnessed by the high quality of many recordings made then and by the fact that a number of the pieces of gear used during that period command premium prices on the studio market.

In the wiki, it talks about thinking about how a good recording of a guitar sounds and not how a live guitar sounds.
Click to expand...
I strenuously disagree with that advice.

If part of the recorded tone was the recording technique and equipment, why would we attempt to capture that sound for live use?
Click to expand...
I never have: http://www.setbb.com/axefx/viewtopic.ph ... xefx#26573.
 
Guitar-Tiz said:
I used to believe that, and at one time it was quite possibly true, but it seems the average listeners these days are more likely to tell you how much it didn't sound like the original, and that you suck when you play a cover, or quite possibly the inverse if it was close enough that even the original band couldn't tell the difference.
Click to expand...
So how many audience members would you estimate you have performed for live in the past year? My experience is exactly the opposite of yours: the members of the audiences for which I play are not interested in hearing a CD (or mp3) player, they want to hear live music, made by human beings, and they are very appreciative of the contributions that the live musicians in the room are making to the sound and the songs.

The days of the drunken crowd that could give a shit about your tone are dwindling,
Click to expand...
What an incredibly presumptuous statement. A perfectly sober crowd is paying attention to a completely different set of attributes than are "between-gigs" musicians who are so kind as to make themselves available to critique live bands who don't know them. Over the years, I've spoken directly with literally hundreds of audience members, and I almost never hear comparisons of my sound or playing to "the record," even though I do get many compliments for both.

and the days if the discerning ears are coming in full force.
Click to expand...
Right. Which is why recorded audio quality has gone completely in the toilet, with mp3s becoming the medium of choice for recorded music, and most songs compressed even further so as to remove any resemblance of dynamic range.

Nope, we're going in the opposite direction: over-processed crap played back through earbuds has become the standard for "good sound." It comes as no surprise that this kind of "good sound" is not particularly challenging to reproduce in a live setting. "Better equipment?" :lol:
 
I agree with Jay on this.

Today's engineers have great equipment at their disposal and then throw everything in the toilet during the mastering process. I actually saw someone use the term "Death Magnetic" (in reference to the latest Metallica record) as a verb to describe the overly load, highly compressed modern mastering process.

[example: Man, they really death magnetized that recording.] :lol:

With the ubiquity of 128k mp3's - I doubt few of today's college kids would know what a high-quality recording (or live tone) sounds like.
 
Guitar-Tiz said:
Dude, you have to argue with everything don't you?
Click to expand...
No. I take issue with completely unsupported blanket pronouncements of the sort that you made.

I guess you missed that whole "in my experience" thing I said at the bottom.
Click to expand...
Nope. That's why I asked you to estimate the total number of audience members you've played for in the past year. I was interested in seeing exactly what kind of experience you've got....
 
As Jay Mitchell pointed out - the recording gear from that era is actually of extremely high quality. People who are well familiar with that gear - Neve, API, Helios, Trident, SSL etc. - know that it all has a sonic signature. It helps shape the tone you're going for. Microphones do as well.

To me the discussion of whether or not to emulate a recorded tone vs. a live tone is interesting because I'm faced with it everyday on tour with Zappa Plays Zappa. I believe my Father's guitar tones are among the most unique and complicated sounds ever created. He had special electronics built into his guitars and often employed the use of many studio gadgets in a live situation. He was known to split his guitar signal to facilitate the use of direct sounds being mixed back in with amp tones and he created even more thamaturgy in the studio with re-amping recorded tones after the fact. So much experimentation!

The great thing about the Axe Effects box is that it is flexible enough and powerful enough to accurately recreate virtually any guitar sound that has ever been recorded including some of my Father's most complex tones. I feel as though I've been able to capture enough of the essence of the tones that I've been going for to provide two important things for myself while playing.

1. Inspiration through the playability of the sound.
2. Inspiration from what the sound is able to evoke on a sensory level.

I think the audience will be engaged anytime a player is feeling inspired. Great tone adds a lot to the equation.

In general, if you know the gear used and the recording techniques involved in capturing the sound you're trying to emulate, you will have a much easier time getting an accurate result.

Having said that, I find that there a certainly a few small things that can't be done as accurately as I would like. A simple example would be nasty 60's fuzz - like the classic "Satisfaction" tone. There isn't a distortion in the Axe that sounds that BAD - in a good way. I'm sure there will be one one day though!

Anyway, music is subjective. Guitar tones are very subjective. As guitar players we all have favorite tones and we would love to have access to all of them in one place. Keep in mind that even if we all had exact replicas of all of our favorite players gear we wouldn't sound exactly like them. We all have a sound that is derived from our own technique and the tactile connection of fingers and strings.

That's what makes it interesting.

DZ
 
Gee, if I only knew I needed to post my resume' before Jay took my opinions seriously...

:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:
 
I agree (mostly) with Guitar-Tiz.

In my experience- and I would estimate that I've played in front of about 30'000 people so far this year. The audience is psychotic about every nuance of every song being identical to the recorded (album) version, or identical to the recorded (live) version that they consider "the" correct version of the song.

Granted I play in a U2 tribute where large majorities of the audience are psychotically in love with U2 and either think that what I am doing is the most noble calling on earth, or complete blasphemy- usually either opinion is a function of how drunk they are, or how well the band nails it on any given night....which is why I say, "in my experience."

Also- while we're on the topic of using nouns as verbs: Jay, go viewtopic.php?f=18&t=7292 yourself.

-Phil
 
I guess I didn't realize how transparent the old recording gear was. I have absolutely 0 experience with such gear. That was triggered this train of thought.

As far as the audience goes, I'm with Jay on this one. If you're in a tribute band, you're playing to an audience that worships the band you're emulating. You better nail it. In a cover band, you can do just about anything and as long as it sounds "good", which is subjective, the audience will buy into it. I filled in for a band back home a couple weeks ago and didn't learn a single solo. I just played everything in the right style and in the right spot. People were coming up to me afterwards saying that I "Totally rocked" and "Was way better than the normal guy".

Dweezil, thanks for the insight. I share the sentiment of capturing an inspiring sound and rolling with that. After all, we're musicians. It's about weilding sound in such a way that it touches people on an emotional level.
 
*layman comment (possibly ignorant) - For sure, I can't understand why bands go for these sterile digital recordings these days. Don't like the sound of today's rock records - give me a good '70s or '80s sound any day.
 
Sidivan said:
In a cover band, you can do just about anything and as long as it sounds "good", which is subjective, the audience will buy into it. I filled in for a band back home a couple weeks ago and didn't learn a single solo. I just played everything in the right style and in the right spot. People were coming up to me afterwards saying that I "Totally rocked" and "Was way better than the normal guy".
Click to expand...

This has certainly been my experience playing rock covers for the last ten years or so. I haven't used channel switching for most of that time- just guitar knobs/knob-in a box for cleaner, a boost for dirtier, and a phase 90 for "something different". Plenty of compliments, particularly from soundguys who see bands every night and who have no reason to bother to say anything.

I can appreciate that a tribute band would be a different thing entirely...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom