BigWheeledWagon Posted July 9, 2009 Share Posted July 9, 2009 So, I've always been very adamant about recording guitar via a miked amp and getting that perfect warm tube sound. Well, the other day I was just laying down a guide track that I intended to rerecord later. So, I went in directly. Later, I decided to play around and popped open my Guitar Rig 2 plug-in. I've got to say, it wasn't bad. In fact, I think I may leave the track. Now, I can't imagine using this on a regular basis. This was a guitar track that isn't out front in the mix, that if recorded through an amp still would have utilized modulation effects (it's kind of a trippy track), and that is a track where getting a great amp sound isn't essential. Still, I'm pretty impressed at how much the track actually sounds like it was recorded using the equipment the software is imitating. Also, given that this song has quite a few tracks (there are multiple moog parts going on), it really helped avoid any extra noise build-up. Anyone else have any positive experiences with this kind of software? Before anyone starts in about how nothing can replace a good amp properly miked, I agree. I can't imagine trying to use software on a track calling for a straight-forward overdriven tube amp. I was just surprised to find that in limited circumstances, guitar rig software applied to directly inputed guitar can actually work pretty well used in the right way. NOTE: I'm not necessarily advocating the purchase of a pretty expensive piece of software like guitar rig or amplitude or whatever -- I happened to come across this software in a hand-me-down sort of way. A friend got it but didn't want it, and I feel like you can never have too many plug-ins. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
In a little rowboat Posted July 9, 2009 Share Posted July 9, 2009 DI gets a bum wrap...while i by far prefer micing guitars, DI can be really useful, especially with tube preamps... Yes there are a lot of snobs out there, but i always point out that a good third of the guitars and easily half the bass tracks on the beatles albums starting 1968 went DI into the board...if its good enough for them... Before someone calls me out on that statement, this book is my source, Ive read it twice: http://www.recordingthebeatles.com/ j Quote Link to post Share on other sites
BigWheeledWagon Posted July 9, 2009 Author Share Posted July 9, 2009 DI gets a bum wrap...while i by far prefer micing guitars, DI can be really useful, especially with tube preamps... Yes there are a lot of snobs out there, but i always point out that a good third of the guitars and easily half the bass tracks on the beatles albums starting 1968 went DI into the board...if its good enough for them... Before someone calls me out on that statement, this book is my source, Ive read it twice: http://www.recordingthebeatles.com/ j Wow, you can't argue with that. If it's good enough for the Beatles . . . As far as I'm concerned, George Martin and the Beatles are the bible of how to use the studio. It's hard to believe that most of the work they did was recorded on a four-track (with track-bouncing, sure, but four tracks nonetheless -- Abbey Road was fairly late in moving on to an eight-track, so those few recordings utilizing and eight-track were done elsewhere). Oh, and speaking of the Beatles and direct input, I've always enjoyed the story George Martin told about Lennon being so excited about direct input (if I recall correctly, this was after they ran a guitar through a leslie speaker -- the first ones to do it), that he asked to have his voice done in the same manner (I believe this was for "Tomorrow Never Knows"). Martin responded that he would have to have an operation to install a jack in his throat. As for the book, I need to check that out. As a teen, I read Mark Lewisohn's track-by-track examination of all of their studio recordings (I believe it was called "The Complete Beatles Recording Sessions"). It was basically a studio diary (who played what, how many takes, what takes were used, how the songs came together, etc.), but the book you mentioned looks a lot more technical -- and I mean that in a good way. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jff Posted July 9, 2009 Share Posted July 9, 2009 So, I've always been very adamant about recording guitar via a miked amp and getting that perfect warm tube sound. Well, the other day I was just laying down a guide track that I intended to rerecord later. That's cool that the DI track turned out good enough to keep. I never get good results with DI, but I have a very minimal setup and limited ability to dress up or add effects to the track. It's possible that the informality of the take, being that you intended it just as a guide to be replaced later, contributed something to it that may not have been there if you recorded an "official" take. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jff Posted July 9, 2009 Share Posted July 9, 2009 Oh, and speaking of the Beatles and direct input, I've always enjoyed the story George Martin told about Lennon being so excited about direct input (if I recall correctly, this was after they ran a guitar through a leslie speaker -- the first ones to do it), that he asked to have his voice done in the same manner (I believe this was for "Tomorrow Never Knows"). Martin responded that he would have to have an operation to install a jack in his throat. If I recall, Lennon toyed with the idea of being hung upside down and spun around to get the leslie effect on his voice. This turned out to be an unfeasible idea. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Ghost of Electricity Posted July 9, 2009 Share Posted July 9, 2009 If I recall, Lennon toyed with the idea of being hung upside down and spun around to get the leslie effect on his voice. This turned out to be an unfeasible idea.must try this... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
In a little rowboat Posted July 9, 2009 Share Posted July 9, 2009 Wow, you can't argue with that. If it's good enough for the Beatles . . . As far as I'm concerned, George Martin and the Beatles are the bible of how to use the studio. It's hard to believe that most of the work they did was recorded on a four-track (with track-bouncing, sure, but four tracks nonetheless -- Abbey Road was fairly late in moving on to an eight-track, so those few recordings utilizing and eight-track were done elsewhere). Oh, and speaking of the Beatles and direct input, I've always enjoyed the story George Martin told about Lennon being so excited about direct input (if I recall correctly, this was after they ran a guitar through a leslie speaker -- the first ones to do it), that he asked to have his voice done in the same manner (I believe this was for "Tomorrow Never Knows"). Martin responded that he would have to have an operation to install a jack in his throat. As for the book, I need to check that out. As a teen, I read Mark Lewisohn's track-by-track examination of all of their studio recordings (I believe it was called "The Complete Beatles Recording Sessions"). It was basically a studio diary (who played what, how many takes, what takes were used, how the songs came together, etc.), but the book you mentioned looks a lot more technical -- and I mean that in a good way. Not to hijack this thread, Yes, the Lewisohn book is a must read, i have it as well, and the Recording the Beatles book is its natural successor--600 pages of amazing details, way beyond the scope of any other beatles gear/studio reference ive ever seen, and i learned so much, it was like taking a college level recording class...the Geoff Emerick book Here, there and everywhere is also very good, although not as technical, but oh the stories! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
BigWheeledWagon Posted July 9, 2009 Author Share Posted July 9, 2009 If I recall, Lennon toyed with the idea of being hung upside down and spun around to get the leslie effect on his voice. This turned out to be an unfeasible idea. Ha! Not sure why he would need to be hung upside down -- I would imagine you could just sit in an office chair and spin, but that's nowhere near as funny a mental image. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
BigWheeledWagon Posted July 9, 2009 Author Share Posted July 9, 2009 Not to hijack this thread, Yes, the Lewisohn book is a must read, i have it as well, and the Recording the Beatles book is its natural successor--600 pages of amazing details, way beyond the scope of any other beatles gear/studio reference ive ever seen, and i learned so much, it was like taking a college level recording class...the Geoff Emerick book Here, there and everywhere is also very good, although not as technical, but oh the stories! Funny you should mention it -- I've got the Emerick book on reserve at the library, so I'm glad to hear it's a good read. Unfortunately, the Nashville Public Library system does not have "Recording The Beatles" at any of its branches. That may go on the Christmas list this year -- it seems like the kind of book that would be good to own (much like the Beatles Complete Scores -- one of the best presents I've received). As for good Beatles stories, I also enjoyed Tony Bramwell's "Magical Mystery Tours." It's always cool to hear stories from people who were actually part of the Beatles' experience. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
In a little rowboat Posted July 10, 2009 Share Posted July 10, 2009 Funny you should mention it -- I've got the Emerick book on reserve at the library, so I'm glad to hear it's a good read. Unfortunately, the Nashville Public Library system does not have "Recording The Beatles" at any of its branches. That may go on the Christmas list this year -- it seems like the kind of book that would be good to own (much like the Beatles Complete Scores -- one of the best presents I've received). As for good Beatles stories, I also enjoyed Tony Bramwell's "Magical Mystery Tours." It's always cool to hear stories from people who were actually part of the Beatles' experience. yup...RTB was around $100 when i got it over the holidays...id consider scanning it for you, but itd take me a year to do it... I get a kick out of all the old stories, and even more a kick out of how some of the little details change depending on which '60's refugee is telling them j Quote Link to post Share on other sites
kersplunk Posted July 10, 2009 Share Posted July 10, 2009 I also have Guitar Rig 2, and have been able to get some pretty decent sounds out of it. Sometimes getting the track to 'bed' with everything else and sound natural is hard. I put my regular EQ both in front of and after the plugin. Things I like include the Twin clone (especially the lovely spring reverb), and the SansAmp (with the knob turned all the way over to Tweed). I find a lot of the compressors/distortions unusable tho... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jff Posted July 10, 2009 Share Posted July 10, 2009 Ha! Not sure why he would need to be hung upside down -- I would imagine you could just sit in an office chair and spin, but that's nowhere near as funny a mental image. I think I read this in the "Here, There & Everywhere" book. It is a funny image. Funnier still is that THAT is what Lennon determined to be the ideal way to achieve the desired vocal effect. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Ghost of Electricity Posted July 10, 2009 Share Posted July 10, 2009 Ha! Not sure why he would need to be hung upside down -- I would imagine you could just sit in an office chair and spin, but that's nowhere near as funny a mental image.There are lots of ways to spin...John on a meryy-go-round going really fast (the caaliope music might be hard to avoid on a recording though, a sit and spin (if they were invented then), sitting on a swing unwinding one way then the other, ice skates (slow then fast), wow, now that i think about it.... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
BigWheeledWagon Posted July 10, 2009 Author Share Posted July 10, 2009 There are lots of ways to spin...John on a meryy-go-round going really fast (the caaliope music might be hard to avoid on a recording though, a sit and spin (if they were invented then), sitting on a swing unwinding one way then the other, ice skates (slow then fast), wow, now that i think about it.... . . . and all of those ways seem easier than being hung upside down by your feet. Maybe Lennon was just looking to enhance his buzz by having all the blood rush to his head. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Ghost of Electricity Posted July 10, 2009 Share Posted July 10, 2009 . . . and all of those ways seem easier than being hung upside down by your feet. Maybe Lennon was just looking to enhance his buzz by having all the blood rush to his head.a true genius. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Moss Posted July 11, 2009 Share Posted July 11, 2009 On another note, I just got Cakewalk Sonar for mixing. I think I'm in over my head, I hope this is easier to use than it first appears. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
BigWheeledWagon Posted July 11, 2009 Author Share Posted July 11, 2009 On another note, I just got Cakewalk Sonar for mixing. I think I'm in over my head, I hope this is easier to use than it first appears. I use Sonar. It's a little intimidating at first, but you'll pick it up pretty quickly. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Moss Posted July 11, 2009 Share Posted July 11, 2009 While we are on the subject, I could use some suggestions on what to get. I have Sonar version 8 but don't yet have anything to record direct into the program. Do I just need a simple M-Audio or other device or is it worth getting something like Guitar Rig? I know Sonar has a ton of built in sounds already so not sure something like Guitar Rig is needed. I am a total noob at this stuff. I really just want to be able to plug the guitar in and record directly to Sonar preferably with an array of clean and dirty tones/effects. Any help is more than welcome. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.