guitar effects, tracking guitar effects

[badperson]

This is sort of a followup to a previous question.

1) Do you track effects out of the amp or go direct? I have an multi effects processor with a volume pedal on it. I'm going to do some tracking this weekend. I'm probably just going to mic the amp, especially since I have a volume pedal, sending the effects separately probably won't work. I like the idea of getting the sound I like, and then capturing that sound with mics rather than adding a lot of stuff to a dry track. How do you all do this?

2) What effects do you all like? Multi units, or individual pedals? What would you reccomend?

thanks!

bp

[Jopry]

I try to record guitars as dry as possible. gives you more options later. I tend to dislike the noise in footpedals.

[homerg]

It just depends. If you're recording a Pop record where the guitar is just going to be used as accent and not a main featured instrument, then recording it direct would work fine. Or through a Pod.
If you're going to be recording Blues or Rock, where the guitar is a key part, then I would get the sound I want on the amp and mic it. The only effects I may leave off are the delays and reverbs. All other effects I would use with the amp. You can add the delays and reverbs later in stereo to expand the sound a bit.
You wouldn't expect SRV or Hendrix to record direct, would you? But you might hear that Larry Carlton did on a Jazz track or something. It just depends what you're after. Don't be afraid to try both ways and see which works best for you.

[REtroJECT]

As a general rule of thumb, I always record an instrument the way I want it to sound. The less done on the production/mixing/plug-in side, the better, in my opinion. And I generally run all effects through my amp and mic it. A lot of people use the POD. I have an RP2000...but I don't use it all that often. It can be harsh. But if I do use it, I use it through my amp.

Personally, I still like stompboxes. They're dedicated to what they are supposed to do. They're not trying to do everything in one package. It costs more money, but I can live with that. And it is still cheaper than rack-units. You're average listener isn't going to care, either. Jon Brion has a great blurb in Electronic Musician. He avoids trendy, expensive gear. Just pick what sounds good. Try different combinations. And most importantly, capture the performance. The song is more important than perfect sonic clarity and quality. (I've heard incredible recordings of some royally piss-poor songs.)

Just my 2 cents.

[pk_hat]

Retro,

good comments. Which issue of EM are you refering to? I happen to revere John Brion as a producer, I'd love to read more about it.

pk

[QuikDraw]

I usually record two versions of the guitar track simultaneously. I run the guitar's output into a direct box and run the DI's low impedence output into a track to record the "direct off the pickups" sound. Then I run the guitar's output to whatever the guitarist wants via the DI's parallel high impedence 1/4" connectors. I record both signals to separate audio tracks.

So I'm recording the guitar exactly as it's supposed to sound... Stomp boxes, amps or amp simulators, etc. And at the same time I'm recording the sound as it comes out of the guitar before any processing of any kind. This gives me total flexibility. If I got lucky and the sound we chose is perfect for the mix then I go with that. If not I can process the direct track in any way I want without having to have the guitarist come back and play it again.

Mike

[j20056]

Quickdraw, does the "dry" track contain the feedback? In other words, if the lead uses massive amp feedback to get say a 10s sustain note, then does the dry track keep that dynamic when you re-amp it, or you lose some of the original dynamic?

[REtroJECT]

pk,

It is the new issue of Electronic Musician. It has the Loop-a-palooza loop sequencing software shoot-out on the cover. It arrived this week.

The article isn't long, but he makes some great points (and he just has the coolest job in the world).

[QuikDraw]

Originally posted by j20056:
Quickdraw, does the "dry" track contain the feedback? In other words, if the lead uses massive amp feedback to get say a 10s sustain note, then does the dry track keep that dynamic when you re-amp it, or you lose some of the original dynamic?

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Yes, the dry track has all the qualities of the amped track but without the amp! Feedback (the good kind) is caused by the strings of your guitar regenerating the sound that's coming at high volume from your amp's speakers. If there's a loud sound coming out of your amp at 440Hz, the open A string of your guitar resonates at that frequency and will start to feed back when it is vibrated by the sound of the amp. Since the strings are actually moving, the feedback will be recorded on the dry track.

Now, what that feedback will sound like through a different amp is sometimes interesting.

I think even the microphonic pickup squeal you get with loud amps and cheap pickups will be on the dry track as well. I haven't tested this theory though. But I would think that anything that's reaching the amp's input would also be reaching the dry track since they are connected in parallel.

You just gotta try it! More often than not the dry track doesn't get used at all because the original amped track sounds perfect. But it's sure nice to have the dry track there if you need it!

Mike