Guitar Brightness – Raw Tone vs Album Tone

[barhrecords]

This is EXACTLY the question I've been asking myself but didn't want to post for fear of rolling eyes.
I did begin to think that maybe the guitars aren't so bright as you might think but everything surrounding it is actually less bright leaving your ears to perceive the guitars as being bright because they're perceiving a greater difference in presence . For example I've been listening to cymbals and have found that they are reasonably low in mixes, snares don't have as much attack as what you might dial in when listening to them on their own.

Here are two techniques I learned to analyze other people mixes.

If you have access to a DAW, import a stereo mix that you like.

First technique: Use a low pass filter with a steep roll off. Start with the roll off frequency high and slowly change the roll off frequency from high to low. Listen to when instruments "disappear" and at what frequencies. Basically rolling off the highs and seeing where instruments "live" in the mix.

Second technique: Start with the volume at a reasonable listening level like 83dB SPL, slowly lower the volume and note when instruments disappear in the mix. At the lowest volume note what instruments you can still hear. This gives you an idea of how the fletcher munson curve of your hearing vs. the mix are interacting.

Make your mixes behave the same as your favorite mixes by other engineers.

 

[Brownmatthall]

Here are two techniques I learned to analyze other people mixes.

If you have access to a DAW, import a stereo mix that you like.

First technique: Use a low pass filter with a steep roll off. Start with the roll off frequency high and slowly change the roll off frequency from high to low. Listen to when instruments "disappear" and at what frequencies. Basically rolling off the highs and seeing where instruments "live" in the mix.

Second technique: Start with the volume at a reasonable listening level like 83dB SPL, slowly lower the volume and note when instruments disappear in the mix. At the lowest volume note what instruments you can still hear. This gives you an idea of how the fletcher munson curve of your hearing vs. the mix are interacting.

Make your mixes behave the same as your favorite mixes by other engineers.

that fletcher-munson tip is gold, thank you

 

[asdfasd]

Thanks for the advice guys. Just to clarify a few things: yes I'm using fresh guitar strings and am using a high pass filter after double tracking and panning the tracks hard left/ right. I have no problem getting 'fizz' into the guitar sound - it's just that super bright yet clear distorted tone that is on albums that I'm not getting easily. I've reamped my raw tracks through the Axe Fx countless times experimenting with different tones.

It's also not about me not wanting to learn or expecting to sound amazing immediately - quite the opposite. I've been reading about and practising mixing for the past 2 years, but unfortunately I can't just walk up to Fredrik Nordstrom and ask him "so, how did you get that guitar sound on the Dimmu Borgir album?" (What I'd give to watch that guy work for a week...)

Without spending time in a top studio it's hard to learn how great engineers do many things and what is common practice. As I said earlier, I trust that the amps in the Axe Fx are faithful representations of the real thing - I'm just wondering whether the common practice is to have a darker sounding raw tones which are subsequently heavily brightened with EQ during the mixing phase, or whether the whole mix is dark(ish) sounding until the mastering phase, or whether I'm missing something altogether.

I appreciate the advice.

 

[Will Schut]

Maybe try a different IR, and if you mean by brightness what I think you mean, go to the Speaker page of the Amp block and dial the Xformer Match a little lower, default is 1.000, try a value between let's say 0.750 to 0.900. Or go to the Preamp page of the Amp block and dial in some more Harmonics. Default here is 0.000 I believe, but try a value between 0.250 and 0.400. This should brighten the sound up. And off course there's Always the Brightness control on the Basic page of the Amp Block. Last suggestion, go to the Power Amp page of the Amp block and lower the Negative Feedback just a bit. But remember, Fletcher Munson is the big enemy here!

 

[rodzimguitar68]

I've been amazed at this also. I think, overall, I have to apply highs and cut lows to the guitar tracks I've recorded, in order to make them sound like you'd expect a guitar to sound, in a full mix. I think it's a mistake to try to make your guitar sound like it's been post-eq'd to sit well in a mix. I think you'd end up with a sound that is really thin, and not a pleasure to play or track with. I could be wrong, but one of the things that made me okay with the fact that I often add highs and cut lows on my guitar tracks, was watching the tutorial for a mixing session of Clark Kent's band. That dude has speaker IR packs for sale on the Fractal site, and used a real Mesa head and amp on his band's songs, yet in the mixes, he used EQ on basically EVERY track and instrument, to get the parts to have their own sonic space. Since that process could lead you to boost/cut in different areas of your guitar tracks, depending on the song and all the other stuff that is going on in a particular song, I think it best to tune your rig to sound as favorable to your ears as you can, so that you enjoy playing and so that you feel confident when you are tracking, then make EQ adjustments in the mixdown.

Of course, garbage in/garbage out, but I tend to struggle with that paradigm when it comes to my musicianship and playing, rather than Axe Fx tone generation.

 

[asdfasd]

Maybe try a different IR, and if you mean by brightness what I think you mean, go to the Speaker page of the Amp block and dial the Xformer Match a little lower, default is 1.000, try a value between let's say 0.750 to 0.900. Or go to the Preamp page of the Amp block and dial in some more Harmonics. Default here is 0.000 I believe, but try a value between 0.250 and 0.400. This should brighten the sound up. And off course there's Always the Brightness control on the Basic page of the Amp Block. Last suggestion, go to the Power Amp page of the Amp block and lower the Negative Feedback just a bit. But remember, Fletcher Munson is the big enemy here!

Just to clarify: I only play through my studio monitors, and always have the volume at the same level for playing, recording and listening to music. Am I right in saying that this largely eliminates the Fletcher Munson issue?

Also, I'm becoming more and more convinced that most elements of a mix have the highs boosted at some point. I was recording vocals with my SM7B and even those sounded quite dark until given a high frequency boost. It does get a tad confusing though - some engineers will tell you that if you're using a lot of EQ you haven't captured the sound properly, and then other engineers like Chris Lord Alge will boost the living crap out of frequencies all over the place and end up sounding amazing.

 

[Pwrmac7600]

The bottom line is IMO the Axe produces the same result that mic'ing your amp in the studio would produce. BUT, you still need to know how to mix what you have captured after that.
There are no recorded guitar tones in the major label world that have been recorded and not touched after that. Even if only subtly the guitars always get some kind of treatment, sometimes it can be a lot to fit the song, other times it could be only a little.
Then you have the mastering phase, which pretty much effects the mix overall, so that does translate to more eq work done on the guitar then was previously done in the mixing stage.
Either way, just as you would have to EQ, Compress, Gate, etc.... a real amp mic'd up in the studio, you have to do the same with the axe.

I mean if Cliff could work out an algorithm that could make the axe sound globally perfect in every mix it was recorded into at the push of a button, he would be a millionaire! Cliff may be good, but no one is THAT good! lol
Which is why every time I hear the words "Mix Ready" applied to things like IR's and presets, I have to laugh. What mix are they ready for?
The metal mix, The reggae mix, The pop mix, The blues mix? There is no end all, be all solution

 

[Pwrmac7600]

Just to clarify: I only play through my studio monitors, and always have the volume at the same level for playing, recording and listening to music. Am I right in saying that this largely eliminates the Fletcher Munson issue?

Not really, Fletcher Munson has more of an effect at varying volume levels, such as if you were to mix all of your stuff at extremely loud levels, you might notice when turned down to a more nominal level things start to get buried in the mix. and visa versa, that low end that sounds perfect at low volumes, might be overwhelming at loud volumes. so occasional listening at different volume levels can let you know how it will sound no matter how it is being played.
Which is why when you listen to some of the great older albums of the 60's and 70's, before the real loudness wars started, you will notice then when turned up loud the recordings really seem to open up. Those albums left room for dynamics, and the results were a much more organic recording, something that sounded truer to how the band actually sounded in a live environment. There was much more "tone" to those older recordings, as opposed to todays recordings where everything can tend to sound squished and flat in comparison.

Also, I'm becoming more and more convinced that most elements of a mix have the highs boosted at some point. I was recording vocals with my SM7B and even those sounded quite dark until given a high frequency boost. It does get a tad confusing though - some engineers will tell you that if you're using a lot of EQ you haven't captured the sound properly, and then other engineers like Chris Lord Alge will boost the living crap out of frequencies all over the place and end up sounding amazing.

I think as a general rule of thumb, cuts are better than boosts, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't ever boost. I think alot of producers take the approach that they know roughly what the mastering phase will do to the mix, so they mix with that in mind. much the same way producers will mix ensuring that they leave enough head room for the mastering phase, or not overdo compression because they know even more will be added during mastering. Remember these guys don't mix and throw a bunch of mastering plugins on their master buss, They leave the mastering to the experts.

 

[Shenks]

Which is why when you listen to some of the great older albums of the 60's and 70's, before the real loudness wars started, you will notice then when turned up loud the recordings really seem to open up. Those albums left room for dynamics, and the results were a much more organic recording, something that sounded truer to how the band actually sounded in a live environment. There was much more "tone" to those older recordings, as opposed to todays recordings where everything can tend to sound squished and flat in comparison.

Absolutely agree, if you look at some waveforms of the older recordings and compare against new, you will see a big difference. Doing a simple RMS and Peak normalization sweep/analysis puts it all into context.

 

[Rinkleton]

As far as the cuts vs boosts goes, to me it seems like doing minor boosting to get it to sit in the mix is fine, but if you are doing boosts to try and shape the tone you will probably be boosting harsh frequencies that were cut for a reason.

 

[stm113]

some engineers will tell you that if you're using a lot of EQ you haven't captured the sound properly, and then other engineers like Chris Lord Alge will boost the living crap out of frequencies all over the place and end up sounding amazing.

I struggle with that too... For the longest time after getting my AF2 I felt like I shouldn't have to tweak in the mix to get my guitars to sit right, this is something that I know better than.

I do struggle with getting that sizzle i love, not fizz but that lovely top end bite.What I have found to help me is: Low cut up to about 100hz (or so) a mild boost just after the low cut, a gentle cut in the low mids (no where near being a scooped sound though) and maybe a slight boost in the upper mids-treble (1-3k) but only if needed. For the top end I use the Drawmer S73 plugin from Softube which I got free with my Focusrite 18i8. It does for my top end what not EQ can, I'm guessing it's about the harmonic content it adds as opposed to just boosting frequencies. I also struggle with how bright the elements in my mix should be before getting the gloss, sheen, etc that mastering adds.

It's been said many, many times and I've found it to be true for me generally cuts tend to sound more natural than boosting, and rule of thumb is to keep your cuts narrow and your boosts wide. Lastly a little can go a long way...and back to the quote I have found if I'm doing more than 3-4 dB of either then I do need to reevaluate my source, unless I am shooting for something specific. I'm no expert by any stretch but I hope this is helpful.,

 

[jesussaddle]

A very common thing to do in the mix is aggressive low-cut on the guitar. This makes the guitar sound brighter as well.

Yes, and IMHO as HarrySound is I think indicating, the overall mix has various pockets, where some instruments are reduced in certain EQ ranges. So there is also a relative effect of the mix itself, so that if the mixing engineer pockets a guitar in a certain range of EQ, and pockets other instruments in their own presumed-best ranges (so the mix won't sound muddy) the net effect is that each instrument will sound more clear. In other words if that instrument has significant highs in the first place, it will also sound brighter simply because it is clearer by having a pocket in the mix. But the simplest explanation is still that when one removes the bottom end of the guitar so as not to compete with other sounds (like bass guitar and kick, and mid rangy rhythms and vocals and such), one hears more of its brightness. The brightness was always there, but was obscured behind the rest of its EQ spectrum curve.

I also agree with stm113: Its far better to cut than to boost, and keep your boosts wide and your cuts narrow when possible. Just my two cents.

 

[barhrecords]

It does get a tad confusing though - some engineers will tell you that if you're using a lot of EQ you haven't captured the sound properly, and then other engineers like Chris Lord Alge will boost the living crap out of frequencies all over the place and end up sounding amazing.

Individual decisions made per track don't universally translate.

Someone like CLA is mixing a song. Decisions all go to accomplish the sound he wants for the song.

In a different context, the same tracks using the same plugins set exactly the same won't produce the same results.

I try to figure out the "why" not the "what". Then I can make my own decisions that make sense for my projects.

E.g. why did CLA boost 3K on that track? vs. I am going to boost 3K on my guitar tracks so I can sound like CLA.

 

[hochha]

Remember everyone has different ears, younger or older ears, ears exposed to high levels of corrosive noise or ears comfortable in relative silence. I could swear that on some days my presets sound the way I want and other days where I know something isn't right, has some one been messing with my gear? Also room acoustics can wreck havoc along with temp and humidity, good studios need to treat HVAC as a high priority, the heat my electronic equipment generates is considerable.

 

[The Last Romantic]

My vote is that we sticky this thread, there's some excellent information for newcomers in here.