Comparison of how post production changes tone

[dogears]

Here is my recent BM clip with just verb.

http://www.scottlernermusic.com/2007/AlthraxBM57.mp3

Here is a remixed version. I kept original track, but added some 117ms delay. Then I added another track of the raw solo, but delayed it 12ms. I mixed the original 4db hotter than the phased bounced track. A little wetter overall as well. No EQ at all.

http://www.scottlernermusic.com/2007/AlthraxBM57c.mp3

Pretty cool how the delay track adds a bunch of phasing to the tone to fatten things and smooth.

edit: I replaced the remix with a newer and hopefully better remix

[greiswig]

My connection is acting iffy right now, so I can't listen to the clips...but I will.

I just wanted to say that I'm glad you brought this up: I've done enough production and engineering work that I know better than to try to emulate a tone I hear on thusandsuch a song by soandso. Nevertheless it gets hard not to sometimes.

It is amazing how much a little tiny bit of short tail reverb or delay will thicken a guitar track tone. It is astonishing how much changing the position or angle of a microphone relative to the speaker cabinet, or using more than one mic, or using a good ribbon instead of an SM-57 will change the recorded tone. I've even mic'd the back of an open back cabinet and switched the phase for a very interesting effect.

Engineering and post production becomes as much a part of the electric guitar instrument as the amp does when you're playing through it.

But it's also cool that on this forum, we seem to have a lot of people willing to post clips that rely on a pretty good, commonly-available standard: an SM-57 close micing the front of the speaker. It would help me make more sense of these clips to know more consistently about the distance, how off-center the mic is when recorded, what the speaker is, what preamp was used, and so forth. And to my ear, MP3's are just about useless for listening to details of the highs.

Anyway, thanks all for sharing clips!

[odourboy]

Does fatten the sound nicely! So was this test inspired by Tag's marathon thread on the TPG? I'm still convincenced that the 'thing' he's looking for is a temporal effect that the TC 2290 brings to the table. Have you tried modulating your delay? I don't have that capability with my el cheapo arsenal of effects but I'm quite curious ifyou can get the sort of subtle chorusy/phasey effect I believe Tag had latched on to.

[hairyandy]

Try this:

Take off the 117ms delay on the original. Then on the duplicate, move the track back about 25-30ms (don't use a plugin, actually move the track itself) and drench the duplicate track in reverb. Then pull that track way back---maybe half as much as the original--and it'll add a really nice ghosty kind of ambience to it.

Andy

[Bob-I]

I kinda like the first track myself. The processed track almost sounds too fat, takes up too much sonic space.

Great playing as always Scott.

[Pete]

Very nice. So you're saying the second file is a track with 117ms and a duplicate track with 12ms? Also, the "bounced track" is "phased"??

[dogears]

Thanks!

1st track is 117ms delay and verb
2nd track is just 100% wet 12ms delay to throw the phase off when blended in with 1st track

Very nice. So you're saying the second file is a track with 117ms and a duplicate track with 12ms? Also, the "bounced track" is "phased"??