Recording Guitars. Big yet controlled low end.?!?.

[Tone Monster]

I love trying to get a huge recorded high gain rhythm sound. Sometimes I get it right but probably a bit of luck. Usually I have trouble with the low end either being too thin or too bloated. What’s your fool proof method for big, controlled low end? High pass? Multi band compression? Both? Neither? I can get there but hate the fight lol. Need easy.

 

[Bardagh]

It really depends. You kind of have to be able to take a holistic approach to the mix, thinking about the whole thing and not just the guitars. It’s hard and probably only comes with experience.

In metal and hard rock it’s really a question of how much low end and low mids come from the guitars and how much come from the bass, where’s the crossover and how to manage the weak spots it creates.

 

[RaceU4her]

Too many variables to really answer, it could be all or none of those depending on the song and the desired effect.

 

[glpg80]

Usually it’s done at mastering level where levels are adjusted and mixed professionally for the whole band as mentioned before. It gives that hard hit attitude where it counts and adjustments are made throughout the song to bring out different pieces here and there. The important part is the guitar not sitting in the mix on top of the bass guitar and dialing in an overly healthy amount of mids. I find it’s easier to dial them out at the board if that is what it takes than to try to add them back in which sounds awful. This is what I’ve seen for getting good punchy recordings. It really is more art than science. It’s why mastering gets paid the big bucks.

 

[VESmedic]

if they are my tones that I tracked, I generally know exactly what I need to do to get the tones I want. I high pass almost always around 65-70hz, not higher. People all seem to wanna cut the low end on guitars up to like 100-120 hz for some reason. I’m not sure exactly why, the low end on heavy distorted guitars that low in the low end isn’t the problem: it’s everywhere above that up to 250hz or so in my experience.

The filter is critical though, for me it’s almost always an SSL style filter, usually the E channel, which is an 18db octave slope. This takes care of the super sub lows that you don’t want, but then maintains the 70-80hz range where important resonant frequencies are on guitars. From there it’s usually a nice little low shelf around 240-250hz, abound 1-2db is often all you need, depending on the tone. This one is REALLY powerful, and alittle goes a long way. Again, ssl style low shelf. You’ll be surprised what 1db of attenuation will do here, it’s often more than enough for me.


From there I listen to the low mids. 330hz there about is often a problem frequency, and I’ll slice alittle of that out with a much more narrow Q, usually something like a pro q 3 or the SSL again. Not always, but definitely with certain amps ( rectos come to mind). This isn’t low end, but then a nice 1-1.5 db wide Q(1.0 or so) cut at 500hz thereabout takes care of the bloat and haze of the midrange and opens up the tone more for me.

Depending on the track or music etc, then of course alittle multiband is your friend. Pro mb is fantastic of course, so is the waves c4. I’ll generally just listen, and watch the graph and see what’s poppin up out of control and do some very slight multiband in that general area. Forget the Andy sneap settings crap. That’s All garbage. It worked for Andy on a very specific song or a very specific track or Whatever. Again, alittle goes a long way here. If it was tracked right you should only need a slight tickle in that certain range to keep it under control. You don’t wanna neuter it.

For me if I can’t solve it with some or all of the above, something is way wrong before it even got in the box.



Edit: also… I completely disagree this is something done in mastering. These problems are solved in a mix, getting it right at the track level, not on the mixbuss. Sure, multiband has its place on the mixbuss, but if you are having problems on a specific instrument, fix it on that instrument instead of ruining your entire mix with multiband that didn’t need it.

 

[Tone Monster]

if they are my tones that I tracked, I generally know exactly what I need to do to get the tones I want. I high pass almost always around 65-70hz, not higher. People all seem to wanna cut the low end on guitars up to like 100-120 hz for some reason. I’m not sure exactly why, the low end on heavy distorted guitars that low in the low end isn’t the problem: it’s everywhere above that up to 250hz or so in my experience.

The filter is critical though, for me it’s almost always an SSL style filter, usually the E channel, which is an 18db octave slope. This takes care of the super sub lows that you don’t want, but then maintains the 70-80hz range where important resonant frequencies are on guitars. From there it’s usually a nice little low shelf around 240-250hz, abound 1-2db is often all you need, depending on the tone. This one is REALLY powerful, and alittle goes a long way. Again, ssl style low shelf. You’ll be surprised what 1db of attenuation will do here, it’s often more than enough for me.


From there I listen to the low mids. 330hz there about is often a problem frequency, and I’ll slice alittle of that out with a much more narrow Q, usually something like a pro q 3 or the SSL again. Not always, but definitely with certain amps ( rectos come to mind). This isn’t low end, but then a nice 1-1.5 db wide Q(1.0 or so) cut at 500hz thereabout takes care of the bloat and haze of the midrange and opens up the tone more for me.

Depending on the track or music etc, then of course alittle multiband is your friend. Pro mb is fantastic of course, so is the waves c4. I’ll generally just listen, and watch the graph and see what’s poppin up out of control and do some very slight multiband in that general area. Forget the Andy sneap settings crap. That’s All garbage. It worked for Andy on a very specific song or a very specific track or Whatever. Again, alittle goes a long way here. If it was tracked right you should only need a slight tickle in that certain range to keep it under control. You don’t wanna neuter it.

For me if I can’t solve it with some or all of the above, something is way wrong before it even got in the box.



Edit: also… I completely disagree this is something done in mastering. These problems are solved in a mix, getting it right at the track level, not on the mixbuss. Sure, multiband has its place on the mixbuss, but if you are having problems on a specific instrument, fix it on that instrument instead of ruining your entire mix with multiband that didn’t need it.

Cool thanks. Do you think the tuning of the guitars affects any other frequencies you discussed? I tend to play in E standard, sometimes a half step down

 

[DanTravis62]

For me if I can’t solve it with some or all of the above, something is way wrong before it even got in the box.



Edit: also… I completely disagree this is something done in mastering. These problems are solved in a mix, getting it right at the track level, not on the mixbuss. Sure, multiband has its place on the mixbuss, but if you are having problems on a specific instrument, fix it on that instrument instead of ruining your entire mix with multiband that didn’t need it.

I generally follow a relatively similar process to you - esp as regards not cutting out low end (this isnt fucking country tones were talking about recording here) and around 330hz being a consistent "problem" frequency on rectos. i just use alternative software. I especially have enjoyed your high shelf method with the high end (im using the scheps omni) - and gotten some great results.

And dude 100%, that this is all vitally important stuff to get right at the tracking level, not on a stereo mix buss or a buck to be passed to the mastering engineer. Especially people just starting out seem to think of audio engineering as these huge, broad, sweeping moves and tactics that function like magic bandaids - in reality, getting things to sound good is a series of precise, surgical, tactical strikes, that add up to a lot in the end.

Recording heavy guitar sounds is really, really difficult to learn to do consistently and well. Far more difficult than recording fuzz tones, roomy classic rock sounds, etc. I wouldnt be disheartened if it's a bit hit and miss OP - that just means youre making progress. And all of my shit is in e standard or perhaps half step/drop d - when you're recording heavy stuff the tactics remain relatively the same no matter the tuning.

 

[VESmedic]

Cool thanks. Do you think the tuning of the guitars affects any other frequencies you discussed? I tend to play in E standard, sometimes a half step down

Oh for sure there are less problems I think “in general” with standard or close to standard tunings. I mean after all, it’s physics, so you won’t have as much problem in the low end the higher you are up in frequency, but that doesn’t mean you still can’t have problems, they may be just slightly different or in a different area. For instance alot of my tracks often have a real high resonant spike on palm mutes in the 140-160 range. That just seems to be the center frequency on palm mutes for many of my preferred tones and playing etc. and it sounds great, but that doesn’t mean it’s always great or isn’t too much at times. So a tiny tickle of the multiband works great in this case. But I don’t wanna neuter it, and it’s extremely easy to go overboard with this. Having a great room
And great monitoring is crucial to making decisions like this. If you can’t hear it, you can’t fix it, simple as that. Im rambling, but I think in “general” it’s far easier to control low end on guitars in standard tuning for sure, but the principles like Dan said, still remain.

 

[VESmedic]

I generally follow a relatively similar process to you - esp as regards not cutting out low end (this isnt fucking country tones were talking about recording here) and around 330hz being a consistent "problem" frequency on rectos. i just use alternative software. I especially have enjoyed your high shelf method with the high end (im using the scheps omni) - and gotten some great results.

And dude 100%, that this is all vitally important stuff to get right at the tracking level, not on a stereo mix buss or a buck to be passed to the mastering engineer. Especially people just starting out seem to think of audio engineering as these huge, broad, sweeping moves and tactics that function like magic bandaids - in reality, getting things to sound good is a series of precise, surgical, tactical strikes, that add up to a lot in the end.

Recording heavy guitar sounds is really, really difficult to learn to do consistently and well. Far more difficult than recording fuzz tones, roomy classic rock sounds, etc. I wouldnt be disheartened if it's a bit hit and miss OP - that just means youre making progress. And all of my shit is in e standard or perhaps half step/drop d - when you're recording heavy stuff the tactics remain relatively the same no matter the tuning.

100 percent. People think mastering just completely alters everything. It shouldn’t. Like, at all. The moves true mastering engineers make are so incredibly minuscule and so precise, you may not even notice it. I’ll be honest I’ve heard some friends two buss mixes before they were mastered. Im talking mastering by god himself, Ted Jensen. And the original mix often times, I can barely hear the changes. They are subtle often. Maybe some slight stereo imaging changes, some EXTREMELY barely audible low mid cut or brightening etc. the magic is most definitely NOT in the master, it is 100 percent in the mix period. Any mixer or mastering engineer will tell you that.


Listen to the in flames clayman remaster. Not the garbage CLA mixed tracks, im talking about the remaster of the other songs. Compare the original with the remaster. It’s extremely subtle unless you are you listening on a fantastic monitoring system. Some EXTREMELY soft changes in the midrange, the guitar and the high end of it, some overrall tightening of the mix as well. The tightening of the mix part, is extremelyyyyy subtle, but it’s there, and i think it actually sounds better than the original to me personally. Because of that tightness. So what’s my point here? The point is, that was A GREAT FUCKING MIX to BEGIN with. Killer playing, killer writing. That album is literally the definition of an album that mixed itself. 85 percent of it was done before the nordstorm even pulled up the faders. It’s the mix.

 

[RaceU4her]

It really depends. You kind of have to be able to take a holistic approach to the mix, thinking about the whole thing and not just the guitars. It’s hard and probably only comes with experience.

i agree, i really stopped kind of following all the "rules" and just kind of let things go where they go now. i used to have templates with eq's and multibands and everything else and it just kinda got me stuck in a rut after a while, theres just too many variables with everything especially if you use different gear and different styles of music like i like to do.

 

[skoora]

I really shoot for recording a sound I think is as close to there as I can. Nothing like mixing and you pull up faders and everything falls mostly into place before you’ve touched an EQ. The more you record and mix the easier it will be to identify what you have in tracking will need as little EQ as possible. But I’m also from the school of wanting a bass to do it’s job and be heard so I’m not a fan of overly, bass heavy guitar tones, even with metal. Just enough to have their own meat when by themselves in a breakdown or intro. But don’t discount with most DAW’s you can easily automate an EQ change so that fat intro or breakdown leans out when the band kicks in.

 

[RaceU4her]

I find guitars the easy part, drums and bass drive me way more nuts than guitars.

 

[VESmedic]

I find guitars the easy part, drums and bass drive me way more nuts than guitars.

YEPPPPPPP…. Wanna pull your hair out? Mix bass in anything less than a good room with a good monitoring system.

 

[Kapo_Polenton]

That's why I am taking the earphone and reference mix approach. Not perfect but who has thousands to throw into a room? To mix music nobody cares about

 

[VESmedic]

That's why I am taking the earphone and reference mix approach. Not perfect but who has thousands to throw into a room? To mix music nobody cares about

I mean, I do, because I enjoy it regardless. Just don’t expect headphones to solve the problem of “canceling out the room” so to speak… it won’t. It’s just a different set of equally hard to fix problems. You can probably definitely make some good decisions on them for sure, especially when it comes to editing, and tracking.

 

[RaceU4her]

That's why I am taking the earphone and reference mix approach. Not perfect but who has thousands to throw into a room? To mix music nobody cares about

im not saying mix in a tiled tiny bathroom, but i think the room thing is a little overblown. this guy breaks it down better than i can

 

[Greazygeo]

I generally just roll off the bass from 70-80hz and down. Put a dip in the 200-400 range. My tracks have nothing from about 6k and up, so I don’t worry about that.
After that if there are any weird annoying spikes, take care of those. Usually somewhere in the 3-5k range is something annoying.
I try to use as little eq and compression as I can. Make the adjustments at the amp and mic placement best I can first.

I just do stuff at home for me for fun. If anyone listens to stuff, its most likely on a cellphone speaker or cheap earbuds anyway.

 

[cardinal]

I have no experience with this but I think I've read that some like to high pass around 60 Hz and have a bump around 120 Hz.

 

[VESmedic]

im not saying mix in a tiled tiny bathroom, but i think the room thing is a little overblown. this guy breaks it down better than i can

Ehh…. One guy vs thousands of other engineers isn’t going to change my opinion on the importance of the room. I’m betting this guys room was still much better than most on a forum. I would also bet he vastly under estimated his skill set and how good he actually is. I’m not really a fan of anything he’s mixed but none the less, if it worked for him great. But I disagree with his connection completely. Correlation is not causation. And that’s kind of the path he alludes you down in the beginning… “how did my terrible room make me mix better”… I mean, that’s not exactly what happened I don’t think. So many factors at play here, but I understand what his underlying point is, which is basically don’t get fixated on one problem and let your attention get stuck on just that. He also talked about the importance of knowing your monitors which is definitely a big deal too. I’m one of those people that thinks your monitors, after you get used to them for awhile, are probably something you are more than likely to stay with brand wise when it comes to buying new/upgrading your monitor setup. You get used to their sound. I couldn’t ever see myself getting away from genelec: I love the sound they produce, and I’m used to them. Getting away from them/ everytime I hear a different brand of monitors even in a great room, it becomes distracting because it’s so dissimilar to what I’m used to hearing.

 

[ericb]

Great thread! Keep it coming! Also when you're giving info/advice can you say whether you're recording 1) Mic'ing a cabinet 2) With 1 or 2 mics 3) Playing direct with IR's 4) Using an OX or Boss TAE or something like that,etc,etc? 5) How many tracks are you layering,etc etc?


Eric