OPINION: VSTs Sound Like Absolute Dog Shit

[VESmedic]

@VESmedic I don't think @tallcoolone understands that winning an argument with semantics, doesn't help any of us passersby understand recording guitars better.

I agree. I’m not trying to be a pain in the ass, I’m just trying to explain the best that I can, why how the instrument is panned, or doubled and panned, or whatever, gives the perception to us sonically that it does. I mean, there’s a REASON why guitars panned left and right and double tracked sound huge, that’s literally WHY they record them that way, sometimes even more tracks than that( lots more)! Your perception of a double or quad tracked guitar tone and how it sounds because of the intricacies and differences in timing and playing at the minute level, compared to a single tracked guitar tone right up the middle mono is never at all going to be the same. Even the exact same tone up the middle, vs double tracking that same tone and panning it, is going to be worlds, and I mean worlds different. I never judge my tones or an IR until I’ve double tracked it and panned it hard left and right. I get an idea maybe just by listening to one track, but your perception of that tone drastically changes when it’s double tracked and panned wide left and right in the the stereo spectrum. I’m sure everyone here that records knows exactly what I’m talking about or trying to explain. Quite honestly a mono distorted guitar tone, at my level and ability, doesn’t tell me much at all. After all, for the music I record and play, nearly 100 percent of the time that is how I’m going to be hearing the guitars in my mixes: wide and double or quad tracked. Guys with great ears and experience can hear a mono track and know exactly how it’s going to sit and sound when panned wide, but I sure as hell can’t.

The whole point to summarize, is your brain plays tricks on you, and those tricks are what makes music and arrangements interesting to us. Whether you want it wide and huge, or mono up the middle like slash, is up to you. But to say a tone is anemic when “isolated” and it’s a mono track up the middle, and indirectly comparing it to a wall of guitars by AIC or Metallica or whatever, ain’t exactly an apples to apples comparison.

 

[DanTravis62]

I agree. I’m not trying to be a pain in the ass, I’m just trying to explain the best that I can, why how the instrument is panned, or doubled and panned, or whatever, gives the perception to us sonically that it does. I mean, there’s a REASON why guitars panned left and right and double tracked sound huge, that’s literally WHY they record them that way, sometimes even more tracks than that( lots more)! Your perception of a double or quad tracked guitar tone and how it sounds because of the intricacies and differences in timing and playing at the minute level, compared to a single tracked guitar tone right up the middle mono is never at all going to be the same. Even the exact same tone up the middle, vs double tracking that same tone and panning it, is going to be worlds, and I mean worlds different. I never judge my tones or an IR until I’ve double tracked it and panned it hard left and right. I get an idea maybe just by listening to one track, but your perception of that tone drastically changes when it’s double tracked and panned wide left and right in the the stereo spectrum. I’m sure everyone here that records knows exactly what I’m talking about or trying to explain. Quite honestly a mono distorted guitar tone, at my level and ability, doesn’t tell me much at all. After all, for the music I record and play, nearly 100 percent of the time that is how I’m going to be hearing the guitars in my mixes: wide and double or quad tracked. Guys with great ears and experience can hear a mono track and know exactly how it’s going to sit and sound when panned wide, but I sure as hell can’t.

The whole point to summarize, is your brain plays tricks on you, and those tricks are what makes music and arrangements interesting to us. Whether you want it wide and huge, or mono up the middle like slash, is up to you. But to say a tone is anemic when “isolated” and it’s a mono track up the middle, and indirectly comparing it to a wall of guitars by AIC or Metallica or whatever, ain’t exactly an apples to apples comparison.

I actually 100% agree - in my own stuff, I quad track each hard panned side ?

I personally think a single "isolated" track is not a good representation, or at least a truthful representation, of how a human brain interacts with a stereo "guitar sound" in a mix.

 

[Monkey Man]

Thinner, bright, and very little low end guitars definitely make mixing easier.

This.

But metal guitars definitely do not have to be dialed in that way.

They don't have to be, but IMHO it'd still help much of the time.

 

[veji]

I dont know about you but back in the day. i had a rockman and a fostex 4 track and a cheap crate amp. The sound and recording werent good. Setting everything up to record was also a pain. These new amp sims are amazing and sounds better and cheaper than any practice amp for home use. Very simple to setup. Interesting the tube amps these days dont sound as good as they did but the cheaper stuff digital amp sims and practice amps are miles ahead of what was available back then.

 

[Monkey Man]

True dat.

 

[tallcoolone]

@VESmedic I don't think @tallcoolone understands that winning an argument with semantics, doesn't help any of us passersby understand recording guitars better.

My point was that in a mix a lead guitar should occupy a certain frequency. Obviously @VESmedic has different tastes in guitar tones then I. Apologies on the semantics--here are a couple clips of a band I'm in. I hear from all directions that the Marshall Super Leads--and older Marshalls in general--are too bright. Same with the studio series. This is plugged straight into the upper treble channel, treble and presence way up, bass way down, a WAZA TAE high mid EQ boost in the loop and a JRockett gain at zero, level and tone at 10. Rip your face off alone, fits great in the mix and I'm set pretty low.

 

[squealie]

Guitar sounds killer in that IMO.

Slap your singer, and rock.

 

[VESmedic]

Yep guitars sound killer, no doubt! I just think you and I are having two different conversations here that’s all, no biggie.

 

[DanTravis62]

My point was that in a mix a lead guitar should occupy a certain frequency. Obviously @VESmedic has different tastes in guitar tones then I. Apologies on the semantics--here are a couple clips of a band I'm in. I hear from all directions that the Marshall Super Leads--and older Marshalls in general--are too bright. Same with the studio series. This is plugged straight into the upper treble channel, treble and presence way up, bass way down, a WAZA TAE high mid EQ boost in the loop and a JRockett gain at zero, level and tone at 10. Rip your face off alone, fits great in the mix and I'm set pretty low.

Yeah your shit sounds good dude, there is no doubt. Here's some of my stuff, for context;

Listen to An Earthen Master by Daniel Travis on #SoundCloud
https://soundcloud.app.goo.gl/g4Rup

I think you guys are talking about completely different things.

What sounds good mono in a live mix or solo track, is completely different from what works stacked left to right in a modern mix, they're just way different dude

 

[DanTravis62]

For a lead guitar you want the "sparkly" high mid and high frequencies

And that's a very different thing from rhythm guitars in a mix @tallcoolone

 

[tallcoolone]

For a lead guitar you want the "sparkly" high mid and high frequencies

And that's a very different thing from rhythm guitars in a mix @tallcoolone

I am playing rhythm guitar?

This was my controversial statement:

I find this is true with Marshalls more than other amps. They cut so great b/c they leave room for the rest of the band. But alone they sound a bit anemic, esp when you compare them with something like a Friedman which has so much more low end.

All of a sudden what I base my tone on is some sort of “myth”. BS…show me.

 

[tallcoolone]

Listen to An Earthen Master by Daniel Travis on #SoundCloud
https://soundcloud.app.goo.gl/g4Rup

Liked the first :40…lemme wait till she goes to bed haha

 

[DanTravis62]

I am playing rhythm guitar?

This was my controversial statement:

I find this is true with Marshalls more than other amps. They cut so great b/c they leave room for the rest of the band. But alone they sound a bit anemic, esp when you compare them with something like a Friedman which has so much more low end.

All of a sudden what I base my tone on is some sort of “myth”. BS…show me.

What you sounded like you were saying was that a mono guitar track was a good representation of a stereo guitar mix, which simply isn't true.

 

[DanTravis62]

You posted a solo mono lead guitar track

Which isn't representative of a stereo guitar until you get into the chuggy stuff

 

[VESmedic]

Also, I’d take a plexi over the round, friendly, soft sounding Friedman amps any day of the week. But yes once again, you and I Are having different conversations here. Marshall’s sound great in a mix for a number of reasons, no matter how much low end they have, that really isn’t the factor with them. There are plenty of reference tones of Marshall’s with big bass sounding just as gnarly in a mix as a Marshall with less low end.


Also @tallcoolone , you made that comment, and then posted the isolated guitar track from welcome to the jungle, insinuating it sounds thin and anemic on its own ( your words). My posts were to show you it’s not about the lack of low end why it sounds thin or anemic, but more about how it’s placed in the stereo spectrum of the mix, and also not being double tracked, that was my whole point here, that’s all.

 

[DanTravis62]

Also, I’d take a plexi over the round, friendly, soft sounding Friedman amps any day of the week. But yes once again, you and I Are having different conversations here. Marshall’s sound great in a mix for a number of reasons, no matter how much low end they have, that really isn’t the factor with them. There are plenty of reference tones of Marshall’s with big bass sounding just as gnarly in a mix as a Marshall with less low end.


Also @tallcoolone , you made that comment, and then posted the isolated guitar track from welcome to the jungle, insinuating it sounds thin and anemic on its own ( your words). My posts were to show you it’s not about the lack of low end why it sounds thin or anemic, but more about how it’s placed in the stereo spectrum of the mix, and also not being double tracked, that was my whole point here, that’s all.

100%. You and I aren't in agreement about much with guitar sounds, but we're in agreement about this.

 

[braintheory]

I am playing rhythm guitar?

This was my controversial statement:

I find this is true with Marshalls more than other amps. They cut so great b/c they leave room for the rest of the band. But alone they sound a bit anemic, esp when you compare them with something like a Friedman which has so much more low end.

All of a sudden what I base my tone on is some sort of “myth”. BS…show me.

This may be somewhat true for some Marshall’s, but I can assure you that my ‘67 Plexi and all the other Marshall’s I’ve tried from ‘67 or before are the exact opposite of anemic (some of most organic, warmest sounding amps I’ve heard) and will fill up the room much more than Friedman’s, much bigger, ballsier sounding and yes still cut through great. I think the cut is from their midrange voicing and extra tonal complexity. Marshall’s seem to often have a rep for sounding bright, thin or fatiguing, but my ‘67 and earlier ones are warm, dark, thick, rich but still have cut. In fact, it’s such a pleasant/non-fatiguing/grating amp that I often don’t realize just how loud I’m playing until comparing to another amp. I’m betting the Friedman’s probably were going for those kinda Marshall’s in their sound, but ended up with neutered version of it sadly

 

[tallcoolone]

Also, I’d take a plexi over the round, friendly, soft sounding Friedman amps any day of the week. But yes once again, you and I Are having different conversations here. Marshall’s sound great in a mix for a number of reasons, no matter how much low end they have, that really isn’t the factor with them. There are plenty of reference tones of Marshall’s with big bass sounding just as gnarly in a mix as a Marshall with less low end.


Also @tallcoolone , you made that comment, and then posted the isolated guitar track from welcome to the jungle, insinuating it sounds thin and anemic on its own ( your words). My posts were to show you it’s not about the lack of low end why it sounds thin or anemic, but more about how it’s placed in the stereo spectrum of the mix, and also not being double tracked, that was my whole point here, that’s all.

Yeah as you said apples and oranges. All about what ur looking for

 

[tallcoolone]

This may be somewhat true for some Marshall’s, but I can assure you that my ‘67 Plexi and all the other Marshall’s I’ve tried from ‘67 or before are the exact opposite of anemic (some of most organic, warmest sounding amps I’ve heard) and will fill up the room much more than Friedman’s, much bigger, ballsier sounding and yes still cut through great. I think the cut is from their midrange voicing and extra tonal complexity. Marshall’s seem to often have a rep for sounding bright, thin or fatiguing, but my ‘67 and earlier ones are warm, dark, thick, rich but still have cut. In fact, it’s such a pleasant/non-fatiguing/grating amp that I often don’t realize just how loud I’m playing until comparing to another amp. I’m betting the Friedman’s probably were going for those kinda Marshall’s in their sound, but ended up with neutered version of it sadly

Oh I hunt out bright Marshalls lol. Never had a real 60s Marshall but several clones of em whatever that means. After playing a bunch of those, along with owning several 2203/4s and several mid/late 70s JMPs it seems to me Marshalls have a little bit of unique in every one.

 

[tallcoolone]

This may be somewhat true for some Marshall’s, but I can assure you that my ‘67 Plexi and all the other Marshall’s I’ve tried from ‘67 or before are the exact opposite of anemic (some of most organic, warmest sounding amps I’ve heard) and will fill up the room much more than Friedman’s, much bigger, ballsier sounding and yes still cut through great. I think the cut is from their midrange voicing and extra tonal complexity. Marshall’s seem to often have a rep for sounding bright, thin or fatiguing, but my ‘67 and earlier ones are warm, dark, thick, rich but still have cut. In fact, it’s such a pleasant/non-fatiguing/grating amp that I often don’t realize just how loud I’m playing until comparing to another amp. I’m betting the Friedman’s probably were going for those kinda Marshall’s in their sound, but ended up with neutered version of it sadly

You got some nice amps man