Hi Guys,

I have begun producing my bands second official album, and as a bit of bed time reading have started the book "zen and the art of mixing". From what I have read so far this is more about the philosophical approach to mixing rather than a step by step how to.

What got me thinking was I am mixing the second album with the exact same gear I did the first album, yet of course I want it to be a significant leap in quality. Main thing I have done to combat this was get the first set of tracks im working on recorded at a local studio (drum parts only). This allows me to record the guitar and bass at my own leisure. Now in the book it said, to forget the whole "buy better gear" concept and just start with what you have as you can still get good results.. and for the most part this is going to have to be the route I choose, no other options.

First problem I come accross though, clean channel on my guitar head is pretty weak when recorded. It has no tubes and comes accross very thin. inital solution was to look at an orange tiny terror or something like that with tubes. then i got way carried away and looking at the Universal Audio LA-610 MK II from the mic pre end instead. Both im sure very useful. This then lead to me reading about the debat of mixing ITB or OTB.

I have always up to now been of the approach to look for a digital control desk, of which so far the Yamaha N12 has come closest to my approval bar the non-motorised faders. However one guy suggested the old school approcah, buy an old Soundcraft ghost, route everything out of the DAW (cubase4 in this case) then mix in analogue, gain from the warmth of the analogue pres and eq. Also this forces you to do your mix on the day.

This approach really interested me as a few studios I have been to in the past work 100% in analogue and I like the approach and sound, just less flexible when it comes to editing and retakes etc. especially as re-takes when mixing can get very expensive.

In the interim I thought id dust off my old SoundCraft Spirit SX. Not really enough channels to do anything like a full mix down was the first problem, second is of course, my current sound card I didnt buy in mind for loads of analogue in/out (TC Electronics 24D) it only has 4 analogue in/out and one ADAT.

So, this thread really is three fold.

1) What are your thoughts on warmth in a mix or when recording. Should I be thinking I need to buy outboard with a tube (amp head or preamp, or even mic something like Rode K2), or is this something I should try and combat with better mic placement and some careful EQ? (current mics are SM57 -which i use on the guitar cab,SM58, Rode NT1 & SE X1, eq i could do on the Spirit SX before reaching the DAW or within Cubase 4).

2) What are your thoughts on ITB / OTB, it does make sense that re-putting all the channels through another mic pre on an analogue desk would add an extra something, but it would/should have already gone through one of these on record so how dows this add anymore? if this was really the case surely you could just put it through 2 pre amps at the recording stage!?

3) If one did go down the OTB route, 2 things interest me, firstly if one purchased a 36 channel mixer, what sort of soundcard/outboard, would you need to feed it the channels the DA route? would you use something like a MOTU 828mk3 x3, this could add an extra £1500 on to the price before even buying the mixer. What other options are there? the second thing that interested me is, I assume you start with all your faders at unity/0db and then adjust the gain on the preamps to a similar level for each channel whilst also leaving faders at 0db within the DAW?

Sorry for the mamouth thread, hopefully some insight could be shared. Please dont feel the need to respond to all 3 questions, I would love to hear your thoughts on any of the above.

Thanks, Marlon.

--------------------
Marlon King
www.marlonking.co.uk

Whats warmth?

If you ask me its distortion, and you don't need it on everything, but on something's it works well. I would try and demo something like the Kramer MPX master tape and the Soundtoys Decapitator, both are relatively cheap, and used sparingly can add all the warmth your ever likely to need.

However, if your thinking of spending a lot of money on a tube pre-amp to get a better a guitar sound, why not spend a lot less and get a better amp.

Things are always better if they are right at source rather than being 'fixed' afterwards.
You can get something like an Egnater Tweaker for £500 which has great clean channel, for example.
Its a really flexible amp and does loads of things well. If you got the sound you wanted at source, you wouldn't be so worried about adding 'warmth' later...

Re OTB, yes it can sound better but as you rightly state, its a lot more of a faff, and works out expensive when you start factoring decent outboard etc.

Tubes? Tubes? Oh! You mean valves!

//clean channel on my guitar head is pretty weak when recorded//

I know you said "no new gear", but I find a Marshall 9001 pre-amp jolly useful. Doesn't seem to require compressors, mikes and speakers. Cost £120 s/h.

1) better mic placement and some careful EQ?

I don't think you can do it like that. Among the virtues of valves, their overdrive gives a greater emphasis to even harmonics - this is the vaunted "warmth" - as well as typically high impedance, natural compression and a more natural bond with the guitar.

//if this was really the case surely you could just put it through 2 pre amps at the recording stage//

You could - but I think the idea is to create a bit of saturation on the recorded signal. Some people favour tape for this reason.

//What other options are there?//

Well, I use a hybrid method fit for my Korg Soundlink system (12 in and out, 16 mix channels): I mix the subgroups down to stereo IN the box and then send them OUT of the box through my outboard and back IN. Sounds all right.

--------------------
...only the dance remains

Edited by Red Heylin (04/06/12 11:39 PM)

Hey Marlon

The most significant part of the chain is always the source. Is this guitar/amp/pedal etc making the sound that I want to hear? If your amp isn't, I can promise you that no amount of mic pre, converter, desk, mixing messing around will correct it. What you want is to be able to stick a 57 or a basic condensor in front of the amp and basically love what you hear with minimal fiddling. All that analogue mix vs digital mix, this mic pre, that mic pre stuff is about maximising the impact, 3d and depth of the mix using cumulative harmonic distortion to make things come to life more than they do when they're just captured purely 'as they are'. It's so easy to get caught up in it all, but I promise you it's best left until you basically love what you're getting. I see you're doing chilled jazzy guitar type stuff from your website? If I were you, rather than spending 1500 quid on a load of ageing digital converters (MOTU) I'd spend it on a nice old 60's fender combo with tremolo and reverb...SOmething like a Super Reverb for example. Find yourself a lovely amp that's dripping with classic tone and just stick a 57 in front.

I've got all that expensive stuff...high end converters, summing, original SSL bus compressor, Anamod, high end pres, and I work in studios where they've got everything you can think of. And at the end of the day, the stuff I really can't do without on a session is my amps, guitars, drums, bass and bass amp etc etc.

I'm not saying that you shouldn't aspire to mix differently, or to develop your use of those sorts of tools. But if that amp doesn't sound great straight away, I would be very concerned that you're coming at it from the wrong end. I mean, you can make a lemon cake into a chocolate cake by pouring chocolate icing on the top right?

J

--------------------
www.jackruston.com

Jack is spot on. You're worrying about the icing on the cake when what you're really saying is that you don't like the cake. Back to basics - it's the only way.

--------------------
An Eagle for an Emperor, A Kestrel for a Knave.

Obviously that was supposed to be you 'CANT' make a lemon cake into a chocolate cake...

It might be interesting to try.

J

--------------------
www.jackruston.com

Thanks everyone for your comments so far..

jaminem, I've never heard of the Tweaker before, I will definitly be checking that out, dont seem to be available in the usual outlets though (ie Digital Village etc.). I have also bookmarked those plugins to try out.

Red Heylin - Im going to research the marshall preamp you mentioned as that sounds like it could be an option.

Jack Ruston - Thanks for your input, I think you have hit the nail on the head with the icing analargy, Im going to get Aunt Bessy's cook book out But in truth, yes the amp. I own a marshal stack (*cough MG range*) I know everyones thoughts on these, however I gotit for my 21st birthday, and it has served its duty, I actually really like the overdrive channels. The cleans have not sounded so bad on some of my bands previous tracks as we were recording to tape at a 100% analogue studio, so i guess that definitely helped.

I said no gear, but really temptation killed the cat, Whilst I cant stump up £1500 for a super reverb on my credit card, I could potentially do exactly that for a mini tube amp, this is mainly to make the cleans sound better. Im happy with the over drive but there is alot more clean on this album. Tweaker sounds like an option as does the Tiny Terror, I believe there is a Vox amp similar with a 12inch cone and a reverb spring built in for around £600.

Thing is, I dont want to spend £600 if it is just a gimick, JCM2000 is going to be just too loud to record at home which is where i plan to cut costs. However if someone said, we have these mini tube amps in the studio, they work a treat, and you can get good sounds out of them that would probably sway me to buy one.

The Elf - back to basics is the way, I listened back to some early demos I did and some of the clean sounds I got sounded better back then going through the Spirit SX, direct out in to preamp, then back in to the mixer, then in to the soundcard. The first few tracks i have recorded guitar for over the last few weeks was mic, straight in to the sound card, and i have been less than impressed.

I will definitly be thinking over what you guys have said, any more thoughts and comments are definitly welcome. Im early on in the recording stage for this album so I still have time to re-do stuff. What I dont want to do is admit that Equipment stays as is, get to the end of the album and be disappointed.

--------------------
Marlon King
www.marlonking.co.uk

Ok thinking about it, just to keep the thread interesting, (if you get chance) have a listen to a few samples from the side project album my band did. This was recorded at the previously mentioned 100% analogue studio, and is on a similar style to the new album we are recording.

Maybe after hearing the style music, amp/gear recommendations might be easier, Im only worried about the guitar sound being improved for this thread. Im not going on to tape for this new record so im certainly lacking alot more than in these recordings:

My clean sounding good (IMO): (left channel first guitar you hear)

http://open.spotify.com/track/68RwmrDTVtFoZrmRCfdUAv

My Crunch sounding ok (Left channel)

http://open.spotify.com/track/4PcIGDZKNyh96zSwxujEoq

My Clean sounding weak (skip about 40 seconds in on the left channel)

http://open.spotify.com/track/3YYLXFLuLa6OzbD0C0DRAP


So on this im running through my MG100HDFX head on left channel, and the other guitarist on the right is going through a JCM2000. Put together you notice the difference.

--------------------
Marlon King
www.marlonking.co.uk

The Tiny terror doesn't go clean.

Almost all of the mini valve amps are average at best. Don't end up with some branded Chinese job with a load of cheap valves and components.

The audio kitchen little chopper is good.

The problem you have is that the cabinet and speaker are very important for these sounds and they are a corner that often gets cut. Check out the Fender Princeton I think it is. Small US made valve combo with reverb. Nice.

J

--------------------
www.jackruston.com

You got ME reviewing the Marshall 9001 - and a controversial beast it seems to be! However it seems agreeable that this is the best "clean" you can get out of a Marshall. It can be treble-tuned by a "hidden" trimmer control, see http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=E90tMBs9_FEC&pg=PA53&lpg=PA53&a mp;dq=Marshall+9001+pre-amp&source=bl&ots=nf2n8W-o9N&sig=ooD7ynqyckfzok383Fj3x 7ZogEE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=njjOT9jEI4qZ8QOLmbDQDA&ved=0CMUDEOgBMCg#v=onepage& ;q=Marshall%209001%20pre-amp&f=false

Some say "crunch" can be improved with favoured 3rd party valves and by feeding it with a line driver. The "lead" channel has a 2-diode clipper circuit and there's an FX loop with stereo returns and outputs. Criticisms of the channel switching don't really apply to recording. I don't consider myself a connoisseur, but it's always been good to me, though the 5-band EQ (which can be switched out) is a bit feeble and interactive in the mid-range, like many guitar heads IMO.

--------------------
...only the dance remains

Edited by Red Heylin (05/06/12 05:15 PM)

This: http://www.fender.com/en-GB/products/search.php/?partno=2172000000

The Marshall can be good for distorted sounds for sure. But it's the wrong type of amp for the clean stuff.

J

--------------------
www.jackruston.com

Well Jack, though Fender reverbs are wonderful boxes, I must say the URL above claims the 9001 has "the broadest range of clean and distortion tones possible" with a clean channel that "should be described as Super Clean, as it has a glassiness to its sound previously unavailable in a Marshall".

Anyhow, it did all the lecky guitars on http://www.myspace.com/kalheylin if that's any help, though I did not go out of my way to make a 9001 demo.

--------------------
...only the dance remains

Edited by Red Heylin (05/06/12 05:38 PM)

Ok guys, I think you have both made me realise 2 things, one - I want a 9001. Im going to have to keep an eye out for one now, I dont usually use ebay. But looks like the only way for this.

The other thing is, talking fender, my band own a Fender Bassman head 135 (1978 version). Obviously we usually use bass through it, however thinking about it, could probably get some really nice clean guitar tones through this also. Albeit it is 100 watts so dont know how the neighbours will feel about this. I'll grab it off the bass player and see what I can achieve at low volumes, thats definitely a starting ground. '65 Princeton® Reverb looks like a very useful studio tool for the future though. bookmarked.

--------------------
Marlon King
www.marlonking.co.uk