Mixing guitars

Bod · June 2022

Any tips on making guitars recorded via a modeller/plugin sound less direct? There's something about all my mixes that makes the guitars sound very one-dimensional and too upfront, and obviously like a home recording.

I kinda know the theory with positioning guitars in a mix, ie use of reverb/delay and panning, and using LPF, HPF and EQ to give the impression of depth, but I don't think I've ever successfully got the sound that makes them sound like professional recordings.

What techniques do you guys and gals (I think there's one somewhere on here) use to add realism?

duotone · June 2022

Would love to know too, as I have similar issues!

One thing I saw on YouTube a week ago, but haven’t got around to trying yet is to record with the tone you want & commit to it. Then go from there. Too often I have a dry guitar recording performance I am happy with (in time, correct clear notes played etc.) & then I spend way too much time messing around Helix Native auditioning different amps to try & elevate the performance. They recommended saving the part (I think the example was drums tbh) to a WAV file so it can be EQ’d etc. but the fundamental tone is what it is.

I hope that makes sense?

Also I take it you have seen this Dan Huff video?

https://youtu.be/pWThQ0DuJr0

steamabacus · June 2022

Bod said:

I kinda know the theory with positioning guitars in a mix, ie use of reverb/delay and panning, and using LPF, HPF and EQ to give the impression of depth, but I don't think I've ever successfully got the sound that makes them sound like professional recordings.

Mixing is the combination of a million little things that combine to create an overall effect so it's not easy to describe a succict 'how to' list. Very much neglected is the skill of critical listening - it takes time and practice to develope the 'ears' to correctly judge what's going on. I was going to recommend an online course from Queen's University Belfast - Critical Listening for Studio Production - but unfortunately it doesn't appear to be running currently. Maybe there is something similar elsewhere? Training your ability to analytically listen, rather than just hear, is the first step to being able to mix well.

Having said all that though, there is one thing I notice conspicuous by it's absence in your list quoted above. For me, the building blocks of mixing have always been level, eq, panning, reverb and ... compression! It really is a fundamental tool at the mixing stage to get everything to sit together nicely.

There is also the question of what exactly constitutes a 'professional' sounding mix to your ears? Speaking personally, I find a lot of the current 'hyper-produced' aesthetic horrible to listen to and have no desire to try and reproduce it. For me, late 70s analogue production was the pinnicle of recorded guitar sound.

andy_k · June 2022

Doubling, and panning help.
Having a good basic tone, and being in tune, is all that is needed to sound professional, but trying to make the guitar sound big will always need more than one track, but I'd say 3 tops.
A lot of modern metal uses stuff like quad tracked stereo guitars, but they are also very clinical in what they do with the eq, and often a lot of the frequency is cut to allow the drums and bass to sit correctly, the guitar just fills a very specific set of mid frequency, leaving room for vocals, solos are treated as something different.
It is the tiny differences in a double tracked guitar that help to make it fit the mix, because these tracks can be panned LR, and a third can be helpful in the centre for the gaps when there are no vocals, there is a fine line between a double tracked guitar and 2 different parts though, it can become a mess if there is too much variance, stereo delays and reverb do not have the same effect.

spark240 · June 2022

Are you talking about overdriven sounds or clean tones generally ?

Stuckfast · June 2022

steamabacus said:

Having said all that though, there is one thing I notice conspicuous by it's absence in your list quoted above. For me, the building blocks of mixing have always been level, eq, panning, reverb and ... compression! It really is a fundamental tool at the mixing stage to get everything to sit together nicely.

There is also the question of what exactly constitutes a 'professional' sounding mix to your ears? Speaking personally, I find a lot of the current 'hyper-produced' aesthetic horrible to listen to and have no desire to try and reproduce it. For me, late 70s analogue production was the pinnicle of recorded guitar sound.

I'd agree with the second paragraph, but not so much the first. In fact I'd wager that if you looked into how those late 70s productions were put together, you might be surprised at how little compression was used. The great players of their time had superb control of dynamics at source and didn't need compression to make them sound good.

steamabacus · June 2022

Stuckfast said:

steamabacus said:

Having said all that though, there is one thing I notice conspicuous by it's absence in your list quoted above. For me, the building blocks of mixing have always been level, eq, panning, reverb and ... compression! It really is a fundamental tool at the mixing stage to get everything to sit together nicely.

There is also the question of what exactly constitutes a 'professional' sounding mix to your ears? Speaking personally, I find a lot of the current 'hyper-produced' aesthetic horrible to listen to and have no desire to try and reproduce it. For me, late 70s analogue production was the pinnicle of recorded guitar sound.

I'd agree with the second paragraph, but not so much the first. In fact I'd wager that if you looked into how those late 70s productions were put together, you might be surprised at how little compression was used. The great players of their time had superb control of dynamics at source and didn't need compression to make them sound good.

I see where you're coming from but maybe if I explain myself a bit more you'll see my point.

In that first paragraph I'm actually referring to every track in the mix (although that means it applies to guitars as much as anything else). Compression (or maybe more acurately dynamic range) of each track being one of the building blocks in how a mix sits together. That's not to say that every track should be slathered in compression, rather that a decision needs to be made on how dynamic that signal is and whether it is correct in the context of the overall mix.

It may be the case that it's fine and no addition compression needs to be added - just as the tone may be fine and no additional eq is needed or the level is correct and doesn't need to be raised or lowered. But a decision needs to be made and, more often than not, a small, considered tweak in any of those building blocks (level, eq, compression, panning, reverb) can be beneficial. And, as in most things, a little goes a long way especially in the complex interactive system of a multi-channel mix.

So, with those 70s guitar tones recorded by a great engineer, maybe very little (or no) compression was added to the track at mixdown. But there is inherent compression (or control of dynamic range) in the whole of the signal path from,as you've pointed out, the player themselves through the amplifier, speaker, microphone, mic-preamp, etc right through to the tape saturation as the signal is 'printed' to tape.

A great engineer/player combination can make a judgement on that at the point of recording to try and get the right sound on tape from the off. By the late 70s they were getting pretty good at that with electric guitar sounds.

In the world of modern DAW recording with DI'd guitars, plug-ins, etc. I'd still argue that the amount of dynamic range required is a decision to be made.

Also it's much easier (and quieter) to use a compressor/limiter to reduce that range than it is to get into expanders, etc to try and increase the dynamic range - just as it's better to have a low noise-floor recorded signal than to use a noise gate (which is kind of an 'extreme' expander, like a limiter is compared to a compressor) to remove it after recording.)

Does that explain where I'm coming from?

Stuckfast · June 2022

I see what you mean, but that does feel to me like it's overthinking it a bit! Hopefully it needn't be that complicated, at least where the sounds are well chosen and well recorded in the first place.

andy_k · June 2022

I think we could give better advice in this case, if we knew what the OP was aiming for, as an example of a 'pro' recording.
There will be some specific things applicable here if he , or she, is trying to recreate 70's or 80's sounds via a digital modeller.
Compression, EQ etc, are all just tools in the toolbox to get to the final result, and there are no 'rules' as such, what might be appropriate for acoustic guitars, ie compression, might not be needed for a guitar recorded with distortion ( distortion IS compression in terms of level )
All the classic recordings of the 70s and 80s will have been done through chains of analogue equipment, and we are lucky today to have digital tools that can emulate that sound in a DAW, and one important aspect of the mix hasn't been discussed here - automation.
I think this is one pf the most important pieces of the puzzle, when trying to get a good mix, and is one of the parts that actually requires some artistic input rather than just expecting a piece of equipment, or technique, to achieve a sound.
It is best described as a form of dynamic compression applied across the entire mix, as a final performance of the track, and originally required actual hands on faders as the mix was mixed down to a final 1 or 2 track master, this was later evolved into automation which could be recorded and reproduced with flying faders on an SSL mixing desk.
Coincidentally, or maybe not, this was the pinnacle of modern recording, and again, we can now recreate this easily in a DAW.
I like to set up a mix with the desired sounds and initial levels, often by reducing my mix down to stem tracks which are simply audio files with all the track effects baked in, and then I spend a considerable amount of time using automation to help the elements have some dynamic movement during the playback.
When I think I have the mix finished ( it is never finished ) I bounce this out as a final Master version of the song, which can then be ' Mastered' as a separate process.
I find I get more 'professional' sounding mixes if I use this process, as opposed to setting the faders and sitting back.

PolarityMan · June 2022

I think it would be worth hearing an example. This could be anything from not using an IR at all or a bad choice of VST to some of the mixing discussion pointed out by others. TBH thought especially with distorted guitars if the tone doesn't sound good before it's mixed then you should probably fix it at source.

For guitars the main issue is that everything else wants to occupy their frequency space, you get the top of the bass competing with the fundamentals then the vocals competing with the upper mids and the cymbals competing with the highs so making sure everything locks together right is the challenge (plus if your using synths they basically stomp on the entire guitar frequency range).

Having said that though the issues I would expect with poor EQ decisions don't sound like what you describe, typically the symptom of those kind of things would be overly harsh guitars or wooly blanket over the speakers thing rather than not sounding realistic.

Compression-wise for distorted guitars you shouldn't need much if any as they are already pretty compressed. Cleans are obviously a bit more dynamic so if you're getting a lot of transients but no body that could be a sign that compression would help but I typically try to make sure when I'm playing I'm articulating the notes how I want to avoid this as much as possible. Often treating the DI can give better results than compressing the amp'ed sound.

PolarityMan · June 2022

duotone said:

Would love to know too, as I have similar issues!

One thing I saw on YouTube a week ago, but haven’t got around to trying yet is to record with the tone you want & commit to it. Then go from there. Too often I have a dry guitar recording performance I am happy with (in time, correct clear notes played etc.) & then I spend way too much time messing around Helix Native auditioning different amps to try & elevate the performance. They recommended saving the part (I think the example was drums tbh) to a WAV file so it can be EQ’d etc. but the fundamental tone is what it is.

I hope that makes sense?

Also I take it you have seen this Dan Huff video?

https://youtu.be/pWThQ0DuJr0

Tbh I've never really had an issue with the "analysis paralysis" problem but I do like to have everything modifiable when I'm mixing. I very rarely tweak the amp settings during a mix project but when I do it's usually because I've basically chosen tones that dont complement each other in isolation..ie/ great bass tone, great guitar tone, horrible together or I just haven't had a clear vision of the sound i'm going for until there was more context in the track and not having to rebounce project but instead audition in context is definitely helpful for those scenarios.

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories

In this Discussion

Become a Subscriber!

Mixing guitars

Comments