Metal guitar recording methods used by majority are far from optimal?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Kraku
  • Start date Start date
Kraku said:
There is some conceptual weirdness going on with what you're saying, but I'm not sure what exactly. I'm not sure you're using correctly the concepts of the amount of bits and the dynamic range of the song to describe what you try to describe, which makes it hard for me to understand what you actually mean.
Click to expand...

Here is the claim: Guitars are reproduced exactly as they are recorded, all the way to the final output that the listener hears.

Here is a single, simple counter, but more than enough to prove that claim false: The vast majority of a modern song can be perfectly represented by 8 bits, usually 5. You CANNOT represent the dynamic range of even a Djent guitar with 8 bits, forget representing an edge of breakup guitar with 5 bits
 
pipelineaudio said:
Here is the claim: Guitars are reproduced exactly as they are recorded, all the way to the final output that the listener hears.

Here is a single, simple counter, but more than enough to prove that claim false: The vast majority of a modern song can be perfectly represented by 8 bits, usually 5. You CANNOT represent the dynamic range of even a Djent guitar with 8 bits, forget representing an edge of breakup guitar with 5 bits
Click to expand...

What you say is not true. Even with my lousy 15 dollar boxy sounding tiny speakers that are attached to my computer, I can already hear the noise in the 8 bit audio. With 5 bits there's a horrible amount of scratchy noise in the audio. Here's an audio example:

https://filebin.net/q6hl16snhe8twr2i

The first 7 seconds is the original 16 bit audio. Next 7 seconds is the 8 bit audio and you can clearly hear the high frequency sizzle. The last 7 seconds is the 5 bit audio and it sounds so crunchy that no-one would ever even think of releasing any songs using that low bit depth for their audio.
 
What in the world has this thread devolved into.

I’m still curious about hearing an example of the OP’s new approach for capturing the sound of a cab. Anybody tried it yet? Care to post clips if you have?
 
TheGreatGreen said:
What in the world has this thread devolved into.

I’m still curious about hearing an example of the OP’s new approach for capturing the sound of a cab. Anybody tried it yet? Care to post clips if you have?
Click to expand...
Apparently you have not understood what the actual topic of this thread is about. I already wrote an answer to this earlier in the thread. You would be aware of it if you had read my answers:

K

Post in thread 'Metal guitar recording methods used by majority are far from optimal?'

@skoora said in a different thread: "Don’t get ahead of yourself now. Still waiting for your speaker shoot out."

Let's move this to the right thread which is here, instead of you trolling around the forum.

Based on what you're suggesting, I can see you lack the capacity to understand the topic of this conversation. If you had understood it, you would not have made that comment. But since you did, I feel obligated to answer you so you might become a productive...
  • Kraku
 
Kraku said:
Apparently you have not understood what the actual topic of this thread is about. I already wrote an answer to this earlier in the thread. You would be aware of it if you had read my answers:

K

Post in thread 'Metal guitar recording methods used by majority are far from optimal?'

@skoora said in a different thread: "Don’t get ahead of yourself now. Still waiting for your speaker shoot out."

Let's move this to the right thread which is here, instead of you trolling around the forum.

Based on what you're suggesting, I can see you lack the capacity to understand the topic of this conversation. If you had understood it, you would not have made that comment. But since you did, I feel obligated to answer you so you might become a productive...
  • Kraku
Click to expand...

No, I understood good and well what you were asking about, which is why I clearly outlined how what you were asking for was nonsensical, mostly due to your misconception of the underlying foundational principles of how speakers and speaker cabinets work, which you would’ve known if you had read and understood my posts.

To summarize, it is impossible to record “the true sound“ of a speaker because there is no singular “true sound“ of a speaker or speaker cab. Instead, the sound of a speaker only exists in the context of a specific listener’s perspective, whether that "listener" is a single microphone, multiple microphones, or a pair of human ears. I also went into particular detail about how guitar cabs and FRFR cabs are fundamentally different and why one cannot replicate the other.

I’d be happy for you to further clarify exactly how I misunderstood what you were asking for though.

The reason I keep asking for clips is because I know what you are asking for can’t be done, and so if you actually tried to do it, you might learn that and deepen your understanding of what you’re talking about here.

I realize I might be sound like a dick but I am genuinely trying to help here.
 
Last edited:
TheGreatGreen said:
No, I understood good and well what you were asking about, which is why I clearly outlined how what you were asking for was nonsensical, mostly due to your misconception of the underlying foundational principles of how speakers and speaker cabinets work, which you would’ve known if you had read and understood my posts.

To summarize, it is impossible to record “the true sound“ of a speaker because there is no singular “true sound“ of a speaker or speaker cab. Instead, the sound of a speaker only exists in the context of a specific listener’s perspective, whether that "listener" is a single microphone, multiple microphones, or a pair of human ears. I also went into particular detail about how guitar cabs and FRFR cabs are fundamentally different and why one cannot replicate the other.

I’d be happy for you to further clarify exactly how I misunderstood what you were asking for though.

The reason I keep asking for clips is because I know what you are asking for can’t be done, and so if you actually tried to do it, you might learn that and deepen your understanding of what you’re talking about here.

I realize I might be sound like a dick but I am genuinely trying to help here.
Click to expand...
OK, I don't want to copy paste two full posts earlier from this thread, so I'll just put links here, which contain the information I'd like to write here again:

The below post covers the following points:
- It is possible to capture a sound source (a person speaking) accurately and then reproduce it through a studio monitor so that it's pretty much indistinguishable from its original source.
- The listeners perspective was fairly same for the speaking person and the studio monitor that played back a version of that speaking persons voice.
- The head of the speaking person radiates audio all over the place 360 degrees, probably similar way as does the studio monitor, but still the test was scientifically valid enough for Genelec to use it.
- The above points indicates that it should probably be possible in theory to do the same for a guitar cabinet. If not as-is, then probably by containing the radiating audio from the other sides of the cabinet than its front side.
- Use 1x12 cabinet to remove any unwanted phase boost/attenuation issues that would raise from having several speaker elements producing the same sound and their frequencies mixing together in different phases.

K

Post in thread 'Metal guitar recording methods used by majority are far from optimal?'

TheGreatGreen said:
I wrote up a pretty big effort post in this thread the other day about this but decided not to post it because it seemed like the discussion had died down, but I can see it hasn't, so I'll try to rewrite some of it.

Look, it's great you're wondering about stuff. And you should always look for ways to improve things, whatever they are, guitar or otherwise. However, in this case, we've been trying to tell you something that you have been unwilling to hear, so I'll say it as clearly as I can...


In the digital modeling industry alone, the concept of developing some method for "making a...
Click to expand...
  • Kraku
  • Like


You mentioned earlier that the sound coming out of the cabinet often doesn't sound at all like the sound you hear through the mics while sitting in the control room. The below link explains my point of view to this: it's like trying to paint a picture with beautiful colors, while having a strongly color tinted sunglasses on. Sure it's possible but it's really convoluted and cumbersome process as you don't see what you'll get. You'll be guessing all the time. So why use those sunglasses in the first place? The only reason you're sitting in a different room is to be able to monitor the guitar cabinet. What if you could actually hear the sound properly without having to listen to its sound through mics? That would make the whole process much more simple, quick, easy and straighforward, and you wouldn't need a separate room for it.

K

Post in thread 'Metal guitar recording methods used by majority are far from optimal?'

tjnx said:
if you're dialing in the amp then getting to the mixing desk and becoming shocked because its different you're doing it wrong. you monitor through what the mic hears. thats the point you're missing, the in the room sound you personally may hear is not the goal for the record. the chain is another instrument.

who's to say people don't have slight differences in eardrum thickness or wax build up and can't ever 'accurately' hear the reproduction regardless of possibility. everything in the chain, not just mics, applies an eq curve and you're just trying to achieve a pleasant average...
Click to expand...
  • Kraku
 
Kraku said:
OK, so if the audio is that loud, then apparently the quantization noise becomes quite inaudible.

Now that I understand what you meant, how does this relate to the topic of this thread?
Click to expand...
It has to do with the claims I posted it in response to. Mostly about the size of the container you need to fill with that sound. WYSIWYG recording is great, but the output won't be
 
pipelineaudio said:
It has to do with the claims I posted it in response to. Mostly about the size of the container you need to fill with that sound. WYSIWYG recording is great, but the output won't be
Click to expand...
I still don't understand what you're getting at. Could you elaborate what you mean about "container you need to fill with that sound"?
 
Kraku said:
I still don't understand what you're getting at. Could you elaborate what you mean about "container you need to fill with that sound"?
Click to expand...
IF you wanted a wysiwyg guitar recording, it won’t fit in the dynamic range left by mixing to -8 LUFS. It will have to be compressed and no longer WYSIWYG
 
pipelineaudio said:
IF you wanted a wysiwyg guitar recording, it won’t fit in the dynamic range left by mixing to -8 LUFS. It will have to be compressed and no longer WYSIWYG
Click to expand...
Ah! You mean if I want to hear the final compressed full mix of the song while recording the guitar parts?
That's not necessary. I'll leave the mixing and mastering for later stage :)
 
No.

I’m not sure why I’m not communicating this clear enough. Maybe someone else can reword it or maybe I’m just not saying it right

What I’m saying is that you CANNOT faithfully reproduce the dynamic range of a guitar part at -8 LUFS
 
pipelineaudio said:
No.

I’m not sure why I’m not communicating this clear enough. Maybe someone else can reword it or maybe I’m just not saying it right

What I’m saying is that you CANNOT faithfully reproduce the dynamic range of a guitar part at -8 LUFS
Click to expand...
OK, let's back up a bit so I might understand what you're after here:

LUFS = Loudness Units (relative to) Full Scale of what the audio file/streaming format is capable of reproducing. I.e. when you have a finished song (after mastering), you can analyze how loud the song sounds like to the listener, relative to the maximum loudness you could store into that digital format.

Where exactly did you get that 8 LUFS for guitar recording situation?

Please describe the signal chain which makes that 8 LUFS number relevant here.
 
I don't know how to make this any more clear. You were talking about a WYSIWYG guitar recording. You can't fit the dynamic range of an electric guitar in -8 LUFS unless the guitar isn't plugged in. No matter how perfectly you capture the guitar, you would need to drastically reduce the dynamic range in order to get the song to current mastering levels. That's all any of this ever meant.
 
pipelineaudio said:
I don't know how to make this any more clear. You were talking about a WYSIWYG guitar recording. You can't fit the dynamic range of an electric guitar in -8 LUFS unless the guitar isn't plugged in. No matter how perfectly you capture the guitar, you would need to drastically reduce the dynamic range in order to get the song to current mastering levels. That's all any of this ever meant.
Click to expand...
But we're not talking about mixed and mastered songs here with WYSIWYG guitar recording. Just the sound design part of it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top