So the axe sounds just like an amp... now what?

[tolchocks]

I'm high gain player and I use and love dynamics in my playing. I love how my bended notes bloom with harmonic overtones. Dynamics say a lot about a player.

Dude, thats musical dynamics.. I also love dynamics, the way you can express with varying the amount of gain a chord will have, etc. Or even going from a whisper to a shout. You can create all of that with lil headroom. People tend to think that old recordings (very natural) are also very dynamic in the wave itself. Thats not true, they have a lot more headroom for the full mix, but each track has actually very lil headroom. They didnt compress as much because the style is not that tight and also the tape and ribbon mics made a lot of work for them.

 

[jlynnb1]

yeah, I didnt make it perfectly clear.. I was carried away by the belief that axe is mainly used by metalheads/modern pop/rock producers.

yeah, couldn't be more wrong about that. not anymore, anyway....

 

[Rex]

So you agree with me that fizz is different from hi frecs?

Nope. Fizz is a component of the high freqs.

I believe that you can make those frecs less fizzy... I will post an example. And its not by cutting, otherwise Id use an EQ.

Looking forward to that post. Honestly. Fizz is a spectrum of frequencies at various intensities; it's not a quality of any single frequency.

What makes a good room a good room is the nice tone of the early reflections. And also, Im not talking about resonances, Im talking about UGLY resonances.

But you were talking about resonances. You said, "resonances that appear when playing certain notes and are different from that notes armonics... remove them ALL..." The most awesome room in the world has resonances that show no respect for the harmonics of the note of the moment. The same is true of the resonances in a guitar, in an amp, and in a cab.

Compressing is...for avoiding the unnatural peaks that make the sound move in the virtual space of a mix...

Those are natural peaks, not unnatural ones.

If you record in a good room with good mic placement, then yo dont have to mix... Its there. But thats not the spirit of this post, we want a modern sounding, in your face sound.

That's a major shift from your original post. Your stated goals were "NO FIZZ, NO RESONANCES, NO DYNAMICS"...before you even started mixing. All in an effort to make make the Axe sound like an isolated stem. It's no fun when the premise keeps changing.

 

[chris]

the way you can express with varying the amount of gain a chord will have

you can also do that with your fingers themselves. no gain adjustment or automation needed. that's playing the instrument vs. constructing an instrument.

 

[tolchocks]

yeah, couldn't be more wrong about that. not anymore, anyway....

Yeah i got it

 

[chris]

Compressing is...for avoiding the unnatural peaks that make the sound move in the virtual space of a mix...

Those are natural peaks, not unnatural ones.

i think this sums up the main differences in approach here.

i'm not trying to call anyone names here... but to a producer, a constructor, a guitar suddenly being too loud is unnatural - from a construction standpoint, the guitar wasn't "supposed" to be that loud there - it was probably supposed to be at a consistent level.

but to a musician and more importantly an instrumentalist, a guitar suddenly being "too loud" can be emotion, intention, a mistake - regardless of how you define it, it is an organic moment.

i think the real discussion topic here is Organic vs. Constructed music production: How do you remove the real amp qualities of the Axe-Fx for "modern" recording.

 

[tolchocks]

Nope. Fizz is a component of the high freqs.



Looking forward to that post. Honestly. Fizz is a spectrum of frequencies at various intensities; it's not a quality of any single frequency.



But you were talking about resonances. You said, "resonances that appear when playing certain notes and are different from that notes armonics... remove them ALL..." The most awesome room in the world has resonances that show no respect for the harmonics of the note of the moment. The same is true of the resonances in a guitar, in an amp, and in a cab.



Those are natural peaks, not unnatural ones.



That's a major shift from your original post. Your stated goals were "NO FIZZ, NO RESONANCES, NO DYNAMICS"...before you even started mixing. All in an effort to make make the Axe sound like an isolated stem. It's no fun when the premise keeps changing.

Fizz is the quality of a group of hi freqs... INdividual frecuencies always sound the same, its a pure tone....
Removing odd resonances = making them soft so they dont show.... if you have them there (sometimes even louder than the root!) it will not create a very pleasant sound (sound itself, if you like the music in it, its perfectly fine). A pure tone with his armonics is "beautiful", talking about sound itself.
Those are not natural peaks... If you are in a room you dont hear the amp moving. Because you are in a room and it smooths all. You could do that with reverb in a mix, but wont work for dry sounds.
As I said, i regret not saying clearly that this is for modern sounds.

 

[chris]

Those are not natural peaks... If you are in a room you dont hear the amp moving.

can you describe "amp moving" some more?

and why does modern recording try to eliminate the room? i never quite understood. i recognize it, but don't know why that was eliminated?

 

[tolchocks]

can you describe "amp moving" some more?

and why does modern recording try to eliminate the room? i never quite understood. i recognize it, but don't know why that was eliminated?

Listen to an amateur vocal recording... It will sound like the singer goes back and forth in the virtual space of the mix. Thats not because the singers bad, thats because the mixing is bad. Peaks produce that sensation. It has nothing to do with volume, it has to do with peaks. Perhaps you cannot feel this and only feel it like an amateur recording because one of the main habilities in mixing is to know the exact position of a source in the virtual space. It takes time to develop. Regular people will feel it as "bad sound".
Now.. hear a pro vocal recording (a natural one... say a belcanto artist). The dynamics are CRAZY going from mezza voce to full belt. BUt the sound stays in the same place... You feel like the singer is singing loud. Not like hes coming at you. This is difficult to do in a dry recording...It has to do with peaks (at different frecuencies, limiting wont work and can make it worse, apart from sounding like shit).
The room makes a sound sound distant. If you want in your face sound you can only use lil early reflections to create some space (and not sound like you have the amp in your ear). Also you could use some hall to give some height and a plate to create a reference in the "back" of the virtual room.

 

[chris]

i understand all that. i just didn't know what you meant by "moving." i'm still guessing, but i think you mean "moving away from the microphone" or "moving farther from the listener."

i understand what compression does and how a constant perceived volume can still create "soft" vs "loud" performances for dynamics, like the singer example. to me, that is using a single facet of dynamics though - intensity. volume, which in a virtual space may be perceived as "moving farther from the listener," can also be used to create dynamics though and for those used to that in a live situation may not perceive it as "moving." it's not moving. it's just less loud.

i guess the main difference is "what do you 'see' when you close your eyes and listen to a recording?"

i think many people here will see a band on stage and try to imagine that space that includes the room sound.

perhaps people new to listening to music have never experienced a live music setting and when they close their eyes, they just imaging all the instruments and singers standing feet away from their head/ears.

for many, the feel and sound of a live room with music being performed is completely ingrained and therefore "modern" mixes seem "sterile," "fake," and "lifeless" to borrow a few terms.

 

[tolchocks]

i understand all that. i just didn't know what you meant by "moving." i'm still guessing, but i think you mean "moving away from the microphone" or "moving farther from the listener."

i understand what compression does and how a constant perceived volume can still create "soft" vs "loud" performances for dynamics, like the singer example. to me, that is using a single facet of dynamics though - intensity. volume, which in a virtual space may be perceived as "moving farther from the listener," can also be used to create dynamics though and for those used to that in a live situation may not perceive it as "moving." it's not moving. it's just less loud.

i guess the main difference is "what do you 'see' when you close your eyes and listen to a recording?"

i think many people here will see a band on stage and try to imagine that space that includes the room sound.

perhaps people new to listening to music have never experienced a live music setting and when they close their eyes, they just imaging all the instruments and singers standing feet away from their head/ears.

for many, the feel and sound of a live room with music being performed is completely ingrained and therefore "modern" mixes seem "sterile," "fake," and "lifeless" to borrow a few terms.

I love natural sounding records when the style needs it. Im a huge belcanto lover and a spinto tenor. But also love rock/metal and if you want powerful music, treat the sound to make it larger than life.
You gotta understand that mixing is an art (creative process), but also a science. There are things that are kinda objective. Psicoacustics... All comes from that. We all perceive the same way. A peaky sound is a moving sound. Compressing to maintain musical dynamics is an art by itself. But, as I said... You can get a lot of "volume" changes (from a "static" source) with lil real headroom... Btw when I said that in the first post I said, distorted electric guitar. In this particular case its volume, not peaks. WHy? Because its imposible to vary the volume of a distorted guitar. Its already limited so any real change in volume will come from a particular resonance and it will create the moving effect and mix unbalance). That is different than creating another track and make the "guitar wall" sound bigger. THe ear knows that... Just like the ear knows a hall means "height". You can feel the ceiling when hearing a hall.

 

[chris]

We all perceive the same way.

but we all interpret differently.

 

[Rex]

...its imposible to vary the volume of a distorted guitar. Its already limited so any real change in volume will come from a particular resonance and it will create the moving effect and mix unbalance).

It's very possible to vary the volume of a distorted guitar. Dial up the amp of your choice: say, a nice thick FAS Modern. Slam out some notes. Now lightly pick out those same notes. The volume you perceive will be noticeably lower, as will the volume indicator on an SPL meter.

 

[tolchocks]

It's very possible to vary the volume of a distorted guitar. Dial up the amp of your choice: say, a nice thick FAS Modern. Slam out some notes. Now lightly pick out those same notes. The volume you perceive will be noticeably lower, as will the volume indicator on an SPL meter.

Yeah, if you are able to clean it of course... If not, the volume will vary very litle depending on the notes you play. In that context there wont be a problem. Palm muting begin to be a problem. If you dont control it, the low frecs can make that sound unmixable. Lets take the black album as an example. Not much bass (more room for guitars), a very ritmic and full of palmmuting album. The difference in low frec content between chords and palmmutes is just enough so you can notice them clearly but not like a "real amp".
In fact, in modern mixing (to keep things dry and in place) you probably need to record certain sounds in a different track. You "cannot" use the sound you use for palmmuting to do some high notes. A dramatic variation of frec content will detach that sound from the place it had when doing palmmutes.
Btw I said it wrong since its also because of the frec response or peaks, it just happens to be very associated with perceived volume in this particular case.

 

[Sebastian]

I don't have to add much to the points discussed, just two thoughts:

That's the first time I've ever heard a guitarist say he wants no dynamics. Except for some extreme high-gain layers who use so much gain that they just can't get dynamics.

Listen to Robben Ford. Or SRV. or Jimmy Page. or John Mayer. Or EVH. Or most players. You'll hear dynamics.

There might be a little confusion because, as it appears to me, the term "dynamic(s)" is used in two different ways:
1) sound engineering: dynamics denominate the difference of a signal's minimum and maximum volume.
2) playing an electronically amplified/altered instrument, e.g., e-guitar through tube amp: the qualifier "dynamic" describes the ability of a certain part in the signal chain (pickups, drive pedal, amp) to react to differences in playing and convey them. This can coincide with volume differences, but not exclusively. For example, a good, slightly overdriven amp might sound very different because of pick/finger playing, selected pickup, etc. and will expose altering tonal textures due to changing levels of overdrive, while the volume stays roughly the same. I think most guitar players refer to this meaning when they talk about dynamics. Of course they refer to meaning 1) when they talk about bassists and drummers...

Speaking of the resonance thing, I understood the OP as if he spoke about overbearing resonances when palm muting or certain notes that stand out in an undesired way (opposite would be the dreaded dead notes). Several posts later I'm not so sure however.

 

[jlynnb1]

Dude, thats musical dynamics.. I also love dynamics, the way you can express with varying the amount of gain a chord will have, etc. Or even going from a whisper to a shout. You can create all of that with lil headroom. People tend to think that old recordings (very natural) are also very dynamic in the wave itself. Thats not true, they have a lot more headroom for the full mix, but each track has actually very lil headroom. They didnt compress as much because the style is not that tight and also the tape and ribbon mics made a lot of work for them.

a lot of that also has to do with the levels they had to record at to get good levels at the desk and to tape...in the old days they had to record a much hitters signal than we do these days, especially with something like the Axe. I remember with tape trying to get as close to too hot as possible, where with the Axe it's at like -12db in a DAW.

 

[deathsilver]

This is for a MODERN SOUND. If you love the natural sound of a band in a room, this isnt for you.

What do we do with our "just like an amp with a mic" recorded tracks? I was hoping we could share some mixing techniques for creating the tones we hear on records. Isolated guitar tracks (of records) sound great by themselves, way better than just a miked amp (for listening on a FRFR system, headphones) so... what does make them so great? I think it all comes from the following:

NO FIZZ:
Every high gain amp has fizz... that white noise that sounds exactly the same no matter what note are you playing, and has that grainy sound. Apart from being a problem by itself it creates another issue: It wont sound the same in different speakers. You could dial a "tamed fizz" sound in your monitors and then listen on headphones = hell. Tame it on headphones and its dull in monitors. My technique for this has always been related to phase. By creating comb filtering in that area you create a frecuency response thats not like noise (every frecuency sounding constantly at the same level). It creates holes and makes that area like a knife, not like sand. A known techinque is to mic with two mics and move them till theres a change in the quality of that area, but its hard to do and the results are not that great IMO.
The one that I use is to pass the same signal through two different IRs. Invert the phase in one of them. Start auditioning IRS till the top is clear. OK, now in the "second IR" put a hipass so the only sounding frecuencies are those of the fizz.voila. Great cut, no fizz, no comb filtering in the body, dry sound.
Third techinque is with early reflections. Its complex and it has problems like the tone will never be as dry as you could want for some applications... If you want I can explain it.

NO RESONANCES:
We do not want resonances that appear when playing certain notes and are different from that notes armonics... remove them ALL... its an easy step if you know how to listen and EQ.

NO DYNAMICs:

In a distorted guitar sound we do not want extreme volume changes... Compress with a multiband. The expression comes from the picking, not from the volume, at least in one track... In the mix obviously you can add more guitarrs in some parts.


After all that.... you can start to mix
The sound with those properties is a solid one, a sound that can be shaped with a pultec like EQ and will always sound good. Every part of the spectrum is something you can be proud of, so if the mix needs it, grab a pultec and boost or cut.


So... share your techniques! Im sure theres a lot of guitar producers in here...What do you do if green day knocks your door to mix their next album?

Did you ever try the Axe2? All of you say is actually wrong.

 

[Orvillain]

I feel like I have an aneurysm after reading this thread.

 

[unFILTERed]

Anybody who writes and knows sooooo much about mixing...must have mixed alot. So why dont you guys post some stuff
which you mixed/produced? I dont mean only the OP.

And if you didnt mix and produce anything and believe you know this much cos you read alot, listened alot of music...its all bla bla bla. iMHO

 

[Rex]

...I understood the OP as if he spoke about...Several posts later I'm not so sure however.

That's one of the main issues I have here. The OP's position and premise seem to shift, and in some of his writing, the words don't fit in the sentences he's built around them. I think I'll bow out and let this discussion run its course.