Playing the Part of a Sound Engineer

Phostenix

Phostenix

Power User
So, if I approach the Axe more as a raw close mic'd audio source, it seems that I need to think like a sound engineer as I create patches for recording or FRFR applications (including FOH). Since, I've never been a sound engineer, I'm looking for tips & pointers.

It seems pretty common to record amps with both an SM57 & an R121. Is it typical to close mic both of those mics or are there also common recording techniques using one close and one far field mic? Do recording studios ever want the sound of the room or is it more preferable to do that "post" with reverbs?

What other processing typically goes into the chain after the mics in a recording studio environment - PEQ? Compressor/Limiter/Compander? What else?
 
No sound engineer advice?

Is anyone still using the Room parameter with V10?

Are most people running IRs with no modeled mic or are you still adding the mic?

How about the Proximity control?
 
57and121 are typically close. U87 or 47 would additionally be added a few meters away, depending on the room.

As for processing, these days hardly anything guitar goes onto a record without compression and EQ.
 
Depends on the sound I'm going for. For cleans and breakup I go both ways, both with and without mics on the IRs. If I want something to sound like a really cranked up pissed off amp, I'll always use mics and adjust proximity, I find this vital to get that thump associated with a really loud amp :)
 
Phostenix said:
No sound engineer advice?

Is anyone still using the Room parameter with V10?

Are most people running IRs with no modeled mic or are you still adding the mic?

How about the Proximity control?
Click to expand...

I use the room parameter in the cab block, mainly when I'm using headphones. For headphone use it's a must IMO. It's also useful when playing at low volumes with monitors, etc. I wouldn't use it (or just very little) for playing live or recording.

As far as adding mics, it just depends on the IR I'm using. With the new "mix" cabs, I use no mic. For the older stock IRs, I often do. Which mic I choose depends on the IR. For example, some IRs are just naturally thin so I might pick the 67 cond or U87 cond mic to beef it up.

Proximity depends on the IR and/or mic used. For a thin sounding IR, I might have it dialed at 3.5-5. For an IR that already contains a lot of low end, I'll keep it lower. High amounts of proximity can make the low end difficult to deal with on some IRs IME. High proximity also equals a stiffer feel. You really have to take time to play with proximity values. A little turn of the dial makes a big difference. If you change the mic used, you have to dial proximity in all over again.

Overall, I really prefer using IRs, such as the new mix cabs, that don't require me to worry about mic selection and proximity.
 
year2525 said:
57and121 are typically close. U87 or 47 would additionally be added a few meters away, depending on the room.

As for processing, these days hardly anything guitar goes onto a record without compression and EQ.
Click to expand...

The above is definitely a great starting point/baseline.

However, other mics from a Senn 441 to 421 also can work well up close.

I like a 57 or (Senn) 441 close, an (AKG) 414 or (if I have the choice a Neu U47) about 6-9 ft away. Fatheads, and several other large condensers (Rode NTK tube condenser for example) will also do the trick. For grunge, I've used old 1960's casette recorder mics - whatever works.

I rarely record with compression. I'd rather record at a lower level - but I'm not doing pop music - I'm doing weirdo experimental music.

I also rarely eq coming in these days.

I find that with digital, you really can add EQ and comp after the fact (if you record low enough to avoid digital clipping) and the effect is pretty much the same as adding it going in (not so with analog!), so why lock yourself in? So I add EQ and (sometimes) compression later, and if I decide I don't like the room mic sound, I will add verb later.

Oh: for open-backed cabs old-timey trick: the 'snare trick' - a 57 in front of the cone (I am always pointing at the edge of the cone/center dome junction, not at the center of the dome itself - seems to work better), and ANOTHER 57 behind the cab pointing at the rear, at some of the exposed paper cone, with phase reversed. This can give a wicked, perversely fat and slightly 'blurry' tone. How the hell you'd simulate this without custom IRs is beyond me...

Oddly enough, on my Axe, using live and in the studio, I am not doing ANY of this. For ALL of my current patches I am using two (different) 4X12 cabs (never owned a 4X12 in my life!) and U87 as the mic. Like I say... whatever works!
 
Last edited:
Phostenix, as we all know there are two ways to record with the AXE-FX II:

1. Turn off cab simulation, use the axe as an amp head and mic a real cabinet. Now based on the room acoustics, mic spacing including distant mics to capture the space and air of the environment, we can create the sense of amp in the room.

2. Run the axe direct using cab simulations. Cab IRs will give us the accuracy of tonal characteristics of a mic'd cab, but do not do not include the sense of space and acoustics of the mic'd amp. Here we rely on other tools such as the cabs room control and/or a combination of reverb.

Recordings can fall short with a tone without the 3d room acoustic environment missing. The guitar mix ends up sounding like a misplaced guitar jam track. The early refection spacial information is important for the natural open acoustic properties. It's not just about adding reverb to your guitar tone. Sometimes, just adding reverb ends up sounding like a direct tone with reverb.

You may want to try running two reverbs in series. One set up for a short reverb time and concentrating on creating the early reflection information. The second one in line (last one before output), used to create the bloom of the room. The second one you will want to add a pre-delay in it's settings. Remember that sound travels 1.1ms/ft, so 110ms predelay would simulate the time to hit the back wall that is 110 ft away.

Of course, the pre-delay is not exactly one for one of a real environment since the early reflections arriving at your ear are a combination of early and later information. So you can tailor this last reverb's early refection control along with its initial predelay.

I'm not saying you will not have enough control by doing this all with one reverb, it will just offer more avenues for settings and mix control if both reverbs are dedicated: one for early info, the other for the reverb tail.
 
Last edited:
Cliff has done such a damn great job at creating the amps and cabs. I'm still sitting here with my jaw on the floor for the accuracy- this is really a breakthrough in technology.

I'd like to see Cliff focus on more tools - room ambience - room IRs - spacial tools that can help us bring more of the 3rd dimension to the AXE-FX II.

And of course, more amps and cabs! :)
 
funny_polymath said:
Oh: for open-backed cabs old-timey trick: the 'snare trick' - a 57 in front of the cone (I am always pointing at the edge of the cone/center dome junction, not at the center of the dome itself - seems to work better), and ANOTHER 57 behind the cab pointing at the rear, at some of the exposed paper cone, with phase reversed. This can give a wicked, perversely fat and slightly 'blurry' tone. How the hell you'd simulate this without custom IRs is beyond me...
Click to expand...

It would be cool if the cab block had multiple "layers" if you will with a mixer at the end of it. Then we could load various IR's (3 for example) into a single cab block with different mic's/techniques and balance the mix ourselves. you can accomplish this now by utilizing 2 cab blocks but to be able to mix your own close mic 57, far field 87 and whatever mic IR for open back rear cab would be awesome.
 
Thanks to everyone who responded. I'm trying to use the Producer Mix IRs as much as I can now to take advantage of the expertise of the people who made them, but I'll try some of the room & reverb suggestions.

Thanks!
 
Phostenix said:
Thanks to everyone who responded. I'm trying to use the Producer Mix IRs as much as I can now to take advantage of the expertise of the people who made them, but I'll try some of the room & reverb suggestions.

Thanks!
Click to expand...

My take on this would be to think of EVERYTHING in context. The drums/gtrs/bass/whatever may sound good soloed out, but it really matters how they work in context with each other. With that said, your tones are going to be entirely dependent on what the other instruments in the mix are doing. If there is lots of room sound on the drums, try to match the guitar to that room sound.
 
I've been reading some sound engineer stuff on the internets and I see a lot of people saying that they place an SM57 close to the grill and a Royer 121 some distance back and mix those 2 mics to get the EQ they want. When I can't find a producer mix IR that I love for a certain patch, I've been trying a stereo cab with one of the original factory IRs with an SM57 and the proximity set to 1.5 to 2.0 and the another IR with the R121 and the proximity between 3.0 and 4.0. That's been giving me some good results.
 
Phostenix said:
I've been reading some sound engineer stuff on the internets and I see a lot of people saying that they place an SM57 close to the grill and a Royer 121 some distance back and mix those 2 mics to get the EQ they want. When I can't find a producer mix IR that I love for a certain patch, I've been trying a stereo cab with one of the original factory IRs with an SM57 and the proximity set to 1.5 to 2.0 and the another IR with the R121 and the proximity between 3.0 and 4.0. That's been giving me some good results.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying that you shouldn't use your ears but if you would like to replicate that SM57 R121 thing you should have a higher proximity setting for the Sm57 than the R121 and play with the delay time setting within the cab block. Higher delay time setting for the R121, although you could end up with some phase issues if too much difference between the two mics.
The proximity parameter replicates the effect of increased bass response when the mic is closer to the source, not the opposite.
 
When I record my cabs I place the 57 between the dust cap and the cone and my Royer 121 right in front of the dust cap. The 57 gives me the brightness and the Royer 121 the mids and lower end and I usually blend he 57 and the 121 until I get the sound I'm going for.
To take care of the phase issues I record a DI guitar playing a staccato chord, then I reamp it with whatever head I'm using and record it. Then I look at the waveform to make sure they line up.
If they don't, then I move the mic that's delayed until the waveforms lines up.
The Royer mic is louder than the 57 with the mic preamp I use( Chandler Limited TG2) so I mix the Royer mix behind the 57.
There's other ways you can place the mics and it all depends what sound you're going for.
When I use IR's I get a similar results by using an IR of each mic the have the same distance and usually blend the IR behind the 57 setting one cab block in stereo if I want to blend additional IR's.
if I want it get a room sound I add an 87ai mic about 3 to 5 feet away form the cab right at the center of the cab and just blended.
I usually record all the mics on their own separate channels so when I'm mixing I can still have some options. I do the same with IR's
This is the way I prefer when I record real amps which gives me the sound I'm looking for, but there are other ways if doing it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom