# Recording Guitar with Misha Mansoor



## bulb (Feb 26, 2014)

Hey guys, Jeff Holcomb and I put together a video where I go over my guitar recording tips. This is aimed at people who record at home.
If you guys enjoy this we might get together and do more videos like this on the Top Secret Audio&#65279; youtube channel.

Enjoy!


----------



## TonyFlyingSquirrel (Feb 26, 2014)

That was nicely done, thanks Misha!


----------



## slaws (Feb 26, 2014)

Nice! good stuff.


----------



## Kurkkuviipale (Feb 26, 2014)

Nice tutorial for people that are new to this stuff.

One thing that popped in my mind, people always say you shouldn't track close to the peaking point of the D/A converter because D/A converters (as any analog gear) has usually been configured to work the cleanest @ -18dBFS. However, you're doing the exact opposite. Is there some reason for that, empirical or something else perhaps?


----------



## crg123 (Feb 26, 2014)

Great Tutorial Misha!

Haha I just realized I have the same headphones (Ultrasone Pro 900s) and recording device (scarlett 2i2) as you. Do you have any issues with the scarlet and your Mac? When I upgraded to Mavericks I'm getting constant cutting out and random noises (glitches).


----------



## bulb (Feb 26, 2014)

Kurkkuviipale said:


> Nice tutorial for people that are new to this stuff.
> 
> One thing that popped in my mind, people always say you shouldn't track close to the peaking point of the D/A converter because D/A converters (as any analog gear) has usually been configured to work the cleanest @ -18dBFS. However, you're doing the exact opposite. Is there some reason for that, empirical or something else perhaps?



I'm just showing how I go about it, you may be entirely correct, but this is just my method haha!


----------



## Leveebreaks (Feb 26, 2014)

This is super useful for recording idiots like myself. I would definitely subscribe if you did more Misha \m/


----------



## bouVIP (Feb 26, 2014)

Thanks for the awesome video! Still a beginner at recording so this is very helpful!


edit: Was anyone else's favorite part the Custom Jackson fan service?


----------



## Kurkkuviipale (Feb 26, 2014)

bulb said:


> I'm just showing how I go about it, you may be entirely correct, but this is just my method haha!



Ah, that's what I assumed, just had to make sure.


----------



## Daf57 (Feb 26, 2014)

Excellent, Misha! Thank you for taking the time to create and post this.


----------



## arielmarx1014 (Feb 26, 2014)

I'm currently at work right now but can't wait to get home and check this out. Then I will be a pro-FAKE recorder!


----------



## drgamble (Feb 26, 2014)

Kurkkuviipale said:


> Nice tutorial for people that are new to this stuff.
> 
> One thing that popped in my mind, people always say you shouldn't track close to the peaking point of the D/A converter because D/A converters (as any analog gear) has usually been configured to work the cleanest @ -18dBFS. However, you're doing the exact opposite. Is there some reason for that, empirical or something else perhaps?


 

I've read about the same thing about recording levels/gain staging the only difference is that I have read it as -18dbfs rms. Looked at like this you may indeed have some peaks that hit up around -6dbfs, but the overall rms level is at -18dbfs. No matter what, no clipping.


----------



## BillMurray (Feb 26, 2014)

Helpful stuff, cheers! Would love a drums/Superior tutorial.


----------



## KingAenarion (Feb 26, 2014)

*mod edit: if you want to comment why not do it on the thread that's already up for the video*

But there's still some good stuff.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=er9VhozNHNk


If you're not sure where the derp is, his explanation of signal-to-noise ratio is highly inaccurate and would only be relevant in a 16-bit scenario. 

If you're still having to record at 16-bit it's going to be because you have VERY old converters (pre 2000 or earlier) or your computer is about 10 years old and can't keep up with 24-bit... or you have like a $3 interface.

Otherwise the headroom at 24-bit above the noise floor allows you to record very quiet without having to worry about signal to noise much, if at all. That was the whole point of the move to recording at 24-bit. CD's are still at 16-bit but the 24-bit recording makes a huge difference.


----------



## bulb (Feb 26, 2014)

Yeah, a few people have pointed that out, I honestly didn't know that but at least the way I do it isn't destructive to the sound.

The main thing I was trying to illustrate with that bit was that palm mutes have more low end, and therefore might make you clip even if it looks like you aren't due to the extra output.

Edit: Haha just noticed you tried to make a thread about me derping. Thanks?


----------



## KingAenarion (Feb 26, 2014)

bulb said:


> Yeah, a few people have pointed that out, I honestly didn't know that but at least the way I do it isn't destructive to the sound.
> 
> The main thing I was trying to illustrate with that bit was that palm mutes have more low end, and therefore might make you clip even if it looks like you aren't due to the extra output.



No probs man, you learn something new everyday (e.g. I'd never really noticed the slight smoothing to double tracking until you pointed it out)

Like Kurkk said, the best practice is -18dBFS on average and peaking near -6dBFS. That's usually the sweetspot and just tends to make your mixes easier to work with the bigger they get giving you more headroom in the master... you spend less time time dealing with overly loud master busses, which in turn means you can make your final masters louder (and we all know louder = heavier )

It's nice to know that even those with amazing ears and lots of experience aren't perfect though.


----------



## bulb (Feb 26, 2014)

Nice, glad I can help you sleep a little better at night haha.

Does this actually make any difference if I am bussing to group channels which are turned down? I don't really find that I have issues with lack of headroom honestly. So as long as it's not clipping, what would be the advantage over doing it my way?


----------



## C2Aye (Feb 26, 2014)

bulb said:


> Nice, glad I can help you sleep a little better at night haha.
> 
> Does this actually make any difference if I am bussing to group channels which are turned down? I don't really find that I have issues with lack of headroom honestly. So as long as it's not clipping, what would be the advantage over doing it my way?



As long as you don't have any clipping in your input chain like you have in the video, then there really isn't an issue. The only minor disadvantage is that it's extra work having to constantly turn down guitar tracks that are just short of clipping so that your master channel has enough headroom (once drums and bass and whatever else is thrown in) for effective mastering and gain staging. I find it more streamlined to work around my guitar input level (about -18db peak) and set the levels of drums, bass etc so that the master channel peaks at about -6db, a nice level to work from in terms of both mixing and mastering. Everyone has their own way of working though!


----------



## Santuzzo (Feb 26, 2014)

very cool! Thanks for posting this.
That riff sounds awesome!

One question about the double tracking: the way I have done this in the past is to use different tones for both tracks. Would that actually be a disadvantage and is it better to use the same tone?
I often have riffs that go into a harmony when repeated, in which case I would have one guitar play the original riff and the other guitar the harmony riff, so in total still 2 guitars. Would that still be double tracking? or is it only double tracking if both guitars play the exact same notes?


----------



## sakeido (Feb 26, 2014)

KingAenarion said:


> No probs man, you learn something new everyday (e.g. I'd never really noticed the slight smoothing to double tracking until you pointed it out)
> 
> Like Kurkk said, the best practice is -18dBFS on average and peaking near -6dBFS. That's usually the sweetspot and just tends to make your mixes easier to work with the bigger they get giving you more headroom in the master... you spend less time time dealing with overly loud master busses, which in turn means you can make your final masters louder (and we all know louder = heavier )
> 
> It's nice to know that even those with amazing ears and lots of experience aren't perfect though.



It doesn't matter. Only level you have to keep low is your master, keep that down around -12 or whatever so you have plenty of dynamic range before your mastering chain... that is what will make it easier to master your music in a pleasing way 

If you actually do have analog gear or plugins that behave like analog gear (get overdriven at analog levels), then maybe this will matter. Hell it will probably sound good since you get useful tones out of overdriven analog stuff... but your recording level still doesn't matter because you can reduce gain in software, after recording. 

Just do whatever works. In the end 99% of mixing is in a good ear anyway


----------



## KingAenarion (Feb 26, 2014)

bulb said:


> Nice, glad I can help you sleep a little better at night haha.
> 
> Does this actually make any difference if I am bussing to group channels which are turned down? I don't really find that I have issues with lack of headroom honestly. So as long as it's not clipping, what would be the advantage over doing it my way?



There are actually benefits in the way your converters work. I'm not sure if you're still generally using RME stuff or if you've actually made the move to Focusrite. You'd probably notice it more on the RME, especially with like vocals or clean guitars that if you record in that -18dBFS sweet zone the transients will be cleaner and clearer.

For me it's also a habit from straight line mixing. The idea that you mix reasonably enough as you track, using your headroom, so that the next guy to bring it up in his DAW (even if that's you) can start a mix from scratch with all the faders at 0dB and it doesn't need too much adjusting to be balanced.

It's also about good mix practice I think. I tend to mix at a certain level (around 85dB usually) and I set my monitors so that I know that when a sound is starting to actually feel uncomfortably loud it is actually too loud. If you mix and track with your speakers turned up, you tend to track a little quiter by instinct.


----------



## Kurkkuviipale (Feb 26, 2014)

C2Aye said:


> As long as you don't have any clipping in your input chain like you have in the video, then there really isn't an issue. The only minor disadvantage is that it's extra work having to constantly turn down guitar tracks that are just short of clipping so that your master channel has enough headroom (once drums and bass and whatever else is thrown in) for effective mastering and gain staging. I find it more streamlined to work around my guitar input level (about -18db peak) and set the levels of drums, bass etc so that the master channel peaks at about -6db, a nice level to work from in terms of both mixing and mastering. Everyone has their own way of working though!



No, the problem is not in the digital realm, but the analog realm. You're "driving" the input too hot, which is saturating the tone (before it goes to digital) as opposed to if you were to drive the input at a lower gain you would get cleaner results. I haven't done any testing though so I don't know the exact magnitude of the issue, but if we are to believe multiple tutorials regarding "stuff that home producers are doing wrong", the results seem to be significant.

As for signal-to-noise ratio, in 24-bit realm the 'resolution' of signal amplitude is so high that going into your interface really hot doesn't really make a difference, so there's really no downside in reducing volume.

E: @Sakeido, D/A converters are analog gear so... (And driving them doesn't result in that "warm analog saturation" that you might get from gear that's meant to be driven)


----------



## Reganito (Feb 26, 2014)

Thanks, man! I have a lot of respect for your musicianship and the production of your albums. It's nice to get a peek into your process. One thing that beginning engineers should take away from this is the quality of the chain, from the instrument to the tone, going into the DAW. It makes a big difference in mixing if all of the components of the mix are quality.


----------



## atoragon (Feb 26, 2014)

Thanks Misha! I agree with the guy that said that a Superior drummer tutorial would be very useful too. killer guitar tone btw!!


----------



## Stijnson (Feb 26, 2014)

Very cool video Misha! The double tracking (especially in your video) also seems to create some more clarity for the guitars. It seems to hide some of the noise because you're emphasising the notes you want to hit, twice. 

Do you have any special differences when creating a recording tone compared to a jamming tone? Does the recording tone have more/less mids or bass for example?

Oh, and yes please, make more of these kind of videos!


----------



## Sebazz1998 (Feb 26, 2014)

Awesome video Very helpful! How about a video on how you work with superior drummer!?


----------



## Poltergeist (Feb 26, 2014)

Stijnson said:


> Do you have any special differences when creating a recording tone compared to a jamming tone? Does the recording tone have more/less mids or bass for example?



That is a killer question! I'm also curious about that one too... Any tips on creating and differentiating live vs. studio tones in regards to boosting or cutting would be awesome.. Other than that I love the tutorial Misha.. Helped structure the process a little bit better observing a pro like you go thru your workflow of tracking guitars.


----------



## Winspear (Feb 26, 2014)

Nice vid! You can run into an advantage with _some_ plugins that are designed to closely emulate analogue gears 0VU level (-18dBfs) but it's mainly just a gain staging workflow thing I find. If I track non-peaky sources with meters reading RMS -18 in the DAW and peaky sources (guitar DI for amp software) reading about -6dB peaks which is usually around -18 RMS too, and keep that same level feeding through plugins, busses just add up very nicely towards the master and you don't have to turn things down. You can have pretty much all yours faders at zero and the drum master bus might just be clipping before you add some compression, and the master will be around the perfect level for pre-mastering. Also any interfacing you do in and out of the converters to analogue compressors etc will be at an ideal level for that gear


----------



## bulb (Feb 26, 2014)

Stijnson said:


> Do you have any special differences when creating a recording tone compared to a jamming tone? Does the recording tone have more/less mids or bass for example?



I generally find that I can get away with more scooped tones in a recording environment than I would want to try to use live. I also tend to high pass and low pass a lot more drastically live, low passing around 5.5Khz, because at 100dB+ "air" sounds pretty terrible on guitars, very little useful information in those frequencies, and I usually high pass around 130hz or higher even.


----------



## philkilla (Feb 26, 2014)

That...was cool.

Very informative, now I want to go work on my own fledgling projects.


"All in all, that's sounding pretty decent"...So cool, much modest


----------



## illimmigrant (Feb 26, 2014)

Interesting points all around. I go from my axe fx straight into my Mac via USB. I still don't understand what advantage the interface brings. I don't use input monitoring through cubase either due to latency, so I listen to the tones real time by connecting my speakers to my axe fx. So, Misha, what advantage does the focusrite interface bring you over using your axe fx alone? Thanks for the vid!


----------



## joshthysia (Feb 26, 2014)

bulb said:


> Nice, glad I can help you sleep a little better at night haha.
> 
> Does this actually make any difference if I am bussing to group channels which are turned down? I don't really find that I have issues with lack of headroom honestly. So as long as it's not clipping, what would be the advantage over doing it my way?



Misha, for the sake of exercise, would you perhaps be open to posting a raw guitar track from this recording? I'd be curious to meter your guitar tracks during general recording before sending anything to a buss. By the video, it seems like you don't take a proper approach to gain staging, yet your end mixes sound so incredible. I'm still not too comfortable with the process so I definitely will spend more time reading up on it. 

EtherealEntity has answered more 'gain staging' topics and posts than he probably ever wants to, but he seems so knowledgable about it. I'm probably way out of my mind, but I think it would be a fun experiment to see 'what could be' if it became a group collaboration of the subject. Just a suggestion though!


----------



## narad (Feb 26, 2014)

^^ Yea, that was my only question. Isn't it going guitar (analog) -> axe (digital) -> ~analog out~ -> scarlett (analog -> digital) -> digital? Seems like a lot of extra conversion for something that could be done once in the axe.

Also, do you usually double track solos? Non-1980s solos?


----------



## sakeido (Feb 27, 2014)

joshthysia said:


> By the video, it seems like you don't take a proper approach to gain staging, yet your end mixes sound so incredible.



because it really doesn't matter that much. the hugest part of mix quality comes from your ears, and knowing how to interpret what your ears are telling you in a useful way so you can improve your mix. getting super bogged down in technicalities with mixing will not actually make you any better at it. only practice, and careful listening will. 

gain staging imo is an minor detail that is of little importance even compared to simple things like putting your monitors in the right place, knowing how to use reference mixes, knowing what frequency sounds like what on different instruments. obviously it is low hanging fruit and you might as well learn it early on since it is a simple as tweaking a gain knob - but it is not a big deal. 

if you adjust your levels so you have a bit of headroom on your palm mutes you are probably closer to this -18dBFS number than you would think


----------



## Convictional (Feb 27, 2014)

narad said:


> ^^ Yea, that was my only question. Isn't it going guitar (analog) -> axe (digital) -> ~analog out~ -> scarlett (analog -> digital) -> digital? Seems like a lot of extra conversion for something that could be done once in the axe.



There are a few reasons mentioned in the youtube comments but I'll throw them here for posterity:


if he goes to record vocals or anything that cannot be recorded with the Axe FX his IO is already set up and he doesn't have to go through the hassle of changing the playback engine
1/4" outputs on the Scarlett to put them right out to the monitors
if he wants to run at 44.1, the Axe FX II is locked at 48.


----------



## Gunnar (Feb 27, 2014)

Hey Misha, 

I always double track and then send to a group so that I can work with levels a bit easier. Say I want to double track and not have it hard left and hard right, but maybe one double tracked guitar part left and one double tracked guitar part right, how do YOU do that? Also if you have a very rhythm-y chordy party and a very lead-y noodly part, how would you generally set up your panning?

Thanks in advance,
Cole.


----------



## narad (Feb 27, 2014)

Convictional said:


> There are a few reasons mentioned in the youtube comments but I'll throw them here for posterity:
> 
> 
> if he goes to record vocals or anything that cannot be recorded with the Axe FX his IO is already set up and he doesn't have to go through the hassle of changing the playback engine
> ...



But you can always downsample, right? (point 3). So if I'm just recording guitars and bass, one at a time, there'd be no real benefit? I'm obviously new to this, but that's what I'm getting - run the monitors right out of the Axe, downsample to 44.1 if you prefer it. It just leaves some hassle if you want to record vocals, which I don't think too many of us do too often, judging by everyone's youtube videos!


----------



## p0ke (Feb 27, 2014)

No new information for me there, but very useful video for those who are just starting out 
The only thing I hadn't thought about is direct monitoring, I've always recorded without any effects and then applied them later to avoid latency.


----------



## Santuzzo (Feb 27, 2014)

Santuzzo said:


> very cool! Thanks for posting this.
> That riff sounds awesome!
> 
> One question about the double tracking: the way I have done this in the past is to use different tones for both tracks. Would that actually be a disadvantage and is it better to use the same tone?
> I often have riffs that go into a harmony when repeated, in which case I would have one guitar play the original riff and the other guitar the harmony riff, so in total still 2 guitars. Would that still be double tracking? or is it only double tracking if both guitars play the exact same notes?



anybody?


----------



## Yo_Wattup (Feb 27, 2014)

Sweet video Misha, I do gain staging like yourself. Maximum input without clipping. With DAWs, as long as you dont clip the input, hypothetically you can actually clip the tracks as much as you want internally, the DAW will still process it as though they arent clipping. Not that I condone doing this. Maximum input, then turn the track faders down to mix. 

As for what sort of vid you should do next, I would really like to see and 'advanced' type of video. Theres a million videos on 'how to get brootal tones' and 'how to does the super drummer 2.0 in teh DAW!!1'. I personally am past all that and am having trouble find more advanced tutorials on mixing and mastering. Like doing the really small, finicky stuff. The final 2% etc. Like how to squeeze 0.3db extra out in mastering. For example, when I put MAKE TOTAL DESTROY through my mastering software I can see it is actually clipping by 0.1db (not kidding). Other secrets like that would be really cool to know. 

I'm not sure if you have the means to do so but such a video would be really cool.


----------



## 4Eyes (Feb 27, 2014)

Kurkkuviipale said:


> Nice tutorial for people that are new to this stuff.
> 
> One thing that popped in my mind, people always say you shouldn't track close to the peaking point of the D/A converter because D/A converters (as any analog gear) has usually been configured to work the cleanest @ -18dBFS. However, you're doing the exact opposite. Is there some reason for that, empirical or something else perhaps?


most of modern DAWs have 0dB on VU calibrated at @ -12dBFS, so setting gain to not clip at highest peak of the input signal is quite right method how to set inputs correctly. it will be somewhere in range of from -18 to -12dBFS, which is ok


----------



## jbab (Feb 27, 2014)

That a cool tutorial you got there Misha! I'd love to see another one on how you dial bass tones and record them.


----------



## illimmigrant (Feb 27, 2014)

Santuzzo said:


> anybody?


 
It really depends on who you ask and what they like. Misha and Nolly seem to like using the same tone for both rhythm guitars. Taylor Larson, for example, likes using a different tone for each rhythm guitar because they sound wider in the mix. And by different tone, I mean completely different amplifier, not just different EQ. I think Misha's and Nolly's mixes sound wide enough using the same tones on rhythms anyway.
Regarding your harmony question, what you're doing is the typical thing. One guitar plays the original part, and the other guitar plays the harmony.


----------



## bulb (Feb 27, 2014)

It's a complete aesthetic choice whether you should have the exact same tone or not. 
We go as far as to have the same person track both sides of their riff with the same guitar and settings when we are recording our albums, but that's just the sound we like.
Others are after the imperfections and imbalanced sound that different amps/guitars/players on either side can give. It will make the recording sound a lot more raw, and perhaps more like a band in a room. That can sometimes be the best choice for the band.


----------



## bulb (Feb 27, 2014)

4Eyes said:


> most of modern DAWs have 0dB on VU calibrated at @ -12dBFS, so setting gain to not clip at highest peak of the input signal is quite right method how to set inputs correctly. it will be somewhere in range of from -18 to -12dBFS, which is ok



This is interesting, and might explain why I haven't had gain staging or headroom issues. Got a source?


----------



## Kurkkuviipale (Feb 27, 2014)

4Eyes said:


> most of modern DAWs have 0dB on VU calibrated at @ -12dBFS, so setting gain to not clip at highest peak of the input signal is quite right method how to set inputs correctly. it will be somewhere in range of from -18 to -12dBFS, which is ok



I've always been under the impression that it's about driving the D/A converter too hard (by going too close to the 0db mark), not the DAW.


----------



## 4Eyes (Feb 27, 2014)

Kurkkuviipale said:


> I've always been under the impression that it's about driving the D/A converter too hard (by going too close to the 0db mark), not the DAW.


some of the producers like to drive DA converters to light clipping, just because it sounds "better" for them




bulb said:


> This is interesting, and might explain why I haven't had gain staging or headroom issues. Got a source?


I'll try to find something when I'll have some time. it was quite long time ago when I did research about gain staging, setting input levels.. for myself across number of recording related forums and articles. till then - there was a similar topic on ss.org with nice info about gain levels

http://www.sevenstring.org/forum/re...ls-considerations-gain-staging-mastering.html

reading that topic I see that I didn't remember numbers very well, so I'd like to correct my statement that 0dB in DAW is -18dBFS, and then yes, that explains that you've been doing it right  btw my test for highest peak in my guitar signal are pinch harmonics, but that's when recording guitar directly. your approach with bassy PM through amp simulation is different situation but it seems it works well for you

there are several VST plugins that you can use for different VU, RMS, dB metering, I believe Cubase have something for that, Ozone can do that as well, so you can check if you are/were doing things right


----------



## 4Eyes (Feb 27, 2014)

Santuzzo said:


> very cool! Thanks for posting this.
> That riff sounds awesome!
> 
> One question about the double tracking: the way I have done this in the past is to use different tones for both tracks. Would that actually be a disadvantage and is it better to use the same tone?
> I often have riffs that go into a harmony when repeated, in which case I would have one guitar play the original riff and the other guitar the harmony riff, so in total still 2 guitars. Would that still be double tracking? or is it only double tracking if both guitars play the exact same notes?


it depends on the sound you're after. when you choose too different sounds for same riff, you might end with some kind of "mindf*ck" effect that one side is louder than other, even level meters are saying they are equal. i.e. when you use brighter sound for one side and too dark sound for the other track, you will notice that brighter track cuts through mix better, and darker is dull sounding, but may blend better with your bass track. then it will tend to sound little bit unbalanced in terms of guitar tracks panning. but again, it may be the result that you are after.


----------



## Drew (Feb 27, 2014)

You know, I mentioned the tracking headroom thing when Bulb posted this over at metalguitarist.org, but since he's taking a LOT more heat for it here, let me be devil's advocate for a second. 

Are, technically speaking, there advantages to tracking a little lower than Misha does here? Yeah, there are. However, I think we're kind of overthinking it here - at the end of the day, the finished product is what matters, and over at MG we get a constant stream of new guys posting "Hey, check out my mixtext!" threads from guys using DI tracks with bulb's AxeFX patches and his S2.0 patches and his post-production patches and trying to ape his sound. 

Meanwhile, precisely 0.07% of them have posted original compositions with riffs as cool as the one he's playing here, and very few of their playing is as tight and clean, especially considering he banged this out in two takes. Maybe if we all lightened up a little about the technical aspects of the production and instead focused on _having something worth recording_ we might all be in a better place musically? God knows I'm no compositional genius either, but I think we'd all be more successful musically if we worked on that rather than lost sleep over our tracking levels (and I'm speaking as an _advocate_ of tracking lower, and I rarely peak as high as -10db in my own work).

Just a thought.


----------



## Winspear (Feb 27, 2014)

^ Totally totally! I don't think anyone was giving him heat. Just noting something he said and responding further when he showed interest. The dude clearly knows what he's doing and gets great results haha - like someone else said he's probably closer to -18db *RMS* than he thinks.


----------



## slackerpo (Feb 27, 2014)

bulb said:


> Yeah, a few people have pointed that out, I honestly didn't know that but at least the way I do it isn't destructive to the sound.
> 
> The main thing I was trying to illustrate with that bit was that palm mutes have more low end, and therefore might make you clip even if it looks like you aren't due to the extra output.
> 
> Edit: Haha just noticed you tried to make a thread about me derping. Thanks?



lovely vid man.

on a similar note, would you consider releasing your new album on 24 bit, as a full lossless digital edition?

would you consider it for periphery? 

the lastest megadeth and dream theater albums sound HUGE in this format!


----------



## p0ke (Feb 28, 2014)

bulb said:


> It's a complete aesthetic choice whether you should have the exact same tone or not.
> We go as far as to have the same person track both sides of their riff with the same guitar and settings when we are recording our albums, but that's just the sound we like.
> Others are after the imperfections and imbalanced sound that different amps/guitars/players on either side can give. It will make the recording sound a lot more raw, and perhaps more like a band in a room. That can sometimes be the best choice for the band.



I usually quad track my guitars, 2 guitars 100% panned and two 50% panned + with slightly lower volume. Sometimes I use a different tone for the middle ones, depending on what I feel the tone needs. Sometimes I even put some wah on them to get a different tone, like this: https://soundcloud.com/pauligrinder/attack-of-the-auto-wah (and yeah, I know the guitars could do with some eq'ing )


----------



## The Reverend (Feb 28, 2014)

I second whoever it was who asked for more advanced level stuff. I've got the basics down, but I'd like to know how to take a good mix to the next level. One of the things I dislike is spending hours tweaking something (anyone else remember huge EQ boosts all over the place to make up for shitty tones) only to find out that there's some decent trick or good rule of thumb that sounds better and takes less time.


----------



## bulb (Feb 28, 2014)

The Reverend said:


> I second whoever it was who asked for more advanced level stuff. I've got the basics down, but I'd like to know how to take a good mix to the next level. One of the things I dislike is spending hours tweaking something (anyone else remember huge EQ boosts all over the place to make up for shitty tones) only to find out that there's some decent trick or good rule of thumb that sounds better and takes less time.



I think just starting with good source tones makes a huge difference, dial thing in on the amp/modeler's end so you don't need to do crazy EQing in the mix. And generally speaking stick to eq cuts rather than boosts, unless you use something like the oxford eq, where the overall volume is always adjusted by the plugin to be the same.


----------



## axxessdenied (Feb 28, 2014)

Thanks for the great video, Misha.


Poeple asking for 'advanced tips'
In my opinion it all starts at the source. If your guitar tones, bass tone, DRUM TONE (big one here I believe) is weak then the rest of your mixing will be more difficult.

Record at the proper levels with the tones as close to as you want them actually sound on the record and mixing SHOULDN'T be that difficult. 

Simple volume / panning adjustments should get you MOST OF THE WAY THERE in my opinion.

I think the most important aspect of getting a track to start sounding amazing is to get the drums sounding killer. Weak drums and no matter how good the rest of the mix is, it's just going to lack a lot of energy.

But, I'm just a noob. But I get pretty great sounding mixes with just quick level / panning adjustments since I've got SSD4 for drum samples


----------



## BeforeTheTrial (Feb 28, 2014)

Haha, everyone wants more advanced stuff, but this video answered multiple questions I've had being so new to recording. Thanks man!


----------



## Metaldestroyerdennis (Feb 28, 2014)

axxessdenied said:


> Thanks for the great video, Misha.
> 
> 
> Poeple asking for 'advanced tips'
> ...



That's just the thing. We know all that. We want that extra advanced bit that gets you from a good mix to an epic one.


----------



## 4Eyes (Feb 28, 2014)

bulb said:


> And generally speaking stick to eq cuts rather than boosts


^^^ 
This, if you need boost something, then probably source isn't OK


----------



## ManOnTheEdge (Feb 28, 2014)

Subbed to the thread, really informative for a complete n00b like myself


----------



## Fat-Elf (Feb 28, 2014)

Almost spilled milk all over my keyboard when I saw you using a Focusrite Scarlett 2i2. Do you really use it on all of your stuff or just for this video? I find it good but a bit powerless when working with multiple tracks and VSTs.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Feb 28, 2014)

Thanks, Misha.


----------



## 4Eyes (Feb 28, 2014)

Fat-Elf said:


> Almost spilled milk all over my keyboard when I saw you using a Focusrite Scarlett 2i2. Do you really use it on all of your stuff or just for this video? I find it good but a bit powerless when working with multiple tracks and VSTs.


it depends more on drivers, OS, CPU, Memory, HDD speed, than on audio interface itself


----------



## Fat-Elf (Feb 28, 2014)

4Eyes said:


> it depends more on drivers, OS, CPU, Memory, HDD speed, than on audio interface itself



That's what makes it odd, I should have a computer powerful enough to handle a couple of track.


----------



## Andromalia (Feb 28, 2014)

The sound card just "reads" the stereo signal sent to it by USB, if more tracks give you problem, the issue comes from somewhere else.
Most important I found from experience is having gobs of RAM. My previous PC had "only" 4Go and it had issues when I went crazy with VSTs and superior drummer samples. I'd recommend 8 Go for serious applications. As long as your CPU isn't 10 years old it should be good enough, if you have an i5 you should be fine. No need for i7 monsters costing an arm.


----------



## Fat-Elf (Feb 28, 2014)

Andromalia said:


> The sound card just "reads" the stereo signal sent to it by USB, if more tracks give you problem, the issue comes from somewhere else.
> Most important I found from experience is having gobs of RAM. My previous PC had "only" 4Go and it had issues when I went crazy with VSTs and superior drummer samples. I'd recommend 8 Go for serious applications. As long as your CPU isn't 10 years old it should be good enough, if you have an i5 you should be fine. No need for i7 monsters costing an arm.



Oh, that clear things up a bit but having an i5(-2500K) and 8 gigs of RAM still make it a bit of a mystery. I know some VSTs don't work that well with Cubase.


----------



## Winspear (Feb 28, 2014)

Fat-Elf said:


> Oh, that clear things up a bit but having an i5(-2500K) and 8 gigs of RAM still make it a bit of a mystery. I know some VSTs don't work that well with Cubase.



Buffer setting/latency. An i5 computer is still going to struggle when you insert a few convolution reverbs (cab sims) or amp sims on a low, trackable latency. Turn it up when you start mixing


----------



## 4Eyes (Feb 28, 2014)

EtherealEntity said:


> Buffer setting/latency. An i5 computer is still going to struggle when you insert a few convolution reverbs (cab sims) or amp sims on a low, trackable latency. Turn it up when you start mixing



that. over 60 tracks, with loads of VST plugins on those tracks, multiple instances of same plugin over different tracks, VST instruments with Gigs of samples, maybe someone's using 48khz projects and use SD which has 44,1khz samples so DAW has to resample them, low latency for mixing (with no reason for that)...that would kill even i14 with 100GB RAM 

basically for recording I try to keep everything simple, separate project with - tempo track with drums and bass or something which makes me comfortable to play what I'm going to record, metronome + track which I'm actually recording. this will allow me to keep the lowest latency possible and nothing will consume resources with no reason,

for mixing - highest latency possible, freeze (meaning rendering stems with actual VST settings) of those buses which I'm currently not working on. that will allow me to work with no CPU power issues. 

audio interface is just interface (that's why it's called interface), it has nothing to do with power of the whole system - computer + DAW


----------



## TonyFlyingSquirrel (Feb 28, 2014)

I pretty much do the bulk of any tone editing on the modeler end, ala Pod Farm or my XT Live. I only use a plugin for some early reflections in Sonar in conjunction with my vocal preset in Pod Farm for vocal tracking only.
I set up all of my tones in the recording environment against backing tracks, so there's very little eq'ing necessary after tracking, and that is mainly done during mix down as I hand the project off to objective ears so they can carve out a good mix. More often than not, the comments I receive back are that very little, if any, was necessary.


----------



## axxessdenied (Mar 1, 2014)

Definitely! For tracking you want to set the buffer as low as you can get it without any clicks or pops.

When you're mixing, if you find your CPU maxing out, try increasing the buffer size on your audio interface and it should help things out.


----------



## TREYAZAGHTOTH (Mar 1, 2014)

thanks Misha.

I think a video explaining your signal path ( compressor, eq, gates) would be helpful.

A couple of videos explaining your drum sound would be great.

dinesh


----------



## bulb (Mar 1, 2014)

Fat-Elf said:


> Almost spilled milk all over my keyboard when I saw you using a Focusrite Scarlett 2i2. Do you really use it on all of your stuff or just for this video? I find it good but a bit powerless when working with multiple tracks and VSTs.



I wanted to use it for the video to show that you can get good results with an inexpensive interface.


----------



## Yo_Wattup (Mar 1, 2014)

axxessdenied said:


> Thanks for the great video, Misha.
> 
> 
> Poeple asking for 'advanced tips'
> ...





Metaldestroyerdennis said:


> That's just the thing. We know all that. We want that extra advanced bit that gets you from a good mix to an epic one.




Yep.




bulb said:


> I think just starting with good source tones makes a huge difference, dial thing in on the amp/modeler's end so you don't need to do crazy EQing in the mix. And generally speaking stick to eq cuts rather than boosts, unless you use something like the oxford eq, where the overall volume is always adjusted by the plugin to be the same.



Again, we know we need a 'good source tone' man. We want more advanced stuff. Well I do anyway.


----------



## NickLAudio (Mar 1, 2014)

I see you're recording one guitar part into both preamp inputs, then onto a stereo track panned left, and another panned right for the double.

I don't own an AxeFX so I might be out of the loop, but what is the purpose of recording a mono guitar part into both preamp inputs, then onto a stereo track panned?

I can see the need for this on a clean part with stereo effects on it. But wouldn't it be easier to route out of the AxeFX in mono using just one output and then using one preamp, then onto a mono track panned?

This question isn't just for Misha, anyone with an AxeFX please enlighten me...


----------



## Fat-Elf (Mar 1, 2014)

bulb said:


> I wanted to use it for the video to show that you can get good results with an inexpensive interface.



Oh, that makes sense. Thanks for answering.

Changed the Scarlett buffer from 1 to 10 today while mixing. All them VSTs... working perfectly.


----------



## Drew (Mar 3, 2014)

Yo_Wattup said:


> Again, we know we need a 'good source tone' man. We want more advanced stuff. Well I do anyway.



Honestly, there are very few "secret tricks" or advanced techniques that you really need to be aware of to make great sounding recordings - it's not like you go into a pro studio, track an album, and then the mix engineer sprinkles some magic fairly dust on the console and suddenly, whoah, killer mix. 

Axxessdenied is essentially correct - if by the time you've set levels and panned you don't have something that sounds pretty much like a mix, then you've done something wrong, and the best you can hope to do if you throw the book at it is make it not suck as badly. 

Mixing, the process of mixing, is simple - you listen critically for problems and then you fix them. Having a good ear and a good monitoring chain and really learning your tools is how you get better at that, and that's something that just takes time and experience. A LOT of time and experience.


----------



## sakeido (Mar 3, 2014)

4Eyes said:


> it depends more on drivers, OS, CPU, Memory, HDD speed, than on audio interface itself


Interface does play a role too, my old M-Audio was less demanding on the computer than me new RME. I had to go with a bigger buffer on the RME and even though they supposedly lag less, the larger buffer removed any advantage the RME had so I finally upgraded my computer. went from 50% CPU usage sitting idle in one of my projects, to 5%  



Metaldestroyerdennis said:


> That's just the thing. We know all that. We want that extra advanced bit that gets you from a good mix to an epic one.



Nobody is going to be able to show you that. Chasing after youtube vids, tutorials, spending too much time reading the forum, downloading tons of plugins looking for some special sauce, none of that will work. Just work on your ears. If anything, get Ermz's Systemic Mixing Guide. that was a pretty nice reference that is accessible to all levels.


----------



## Sacha (Mar 3, 2014)

Drew said:


> Honestly, there are very few "secret tricks" or advanced techniques that you really need to be aware of to make great sounding recordings - it's not like you go into a pro studio, track an album, and then the mix engineer sprinkles some magic fairly dust on the console and suddenly, whoah, killer mix.
> 
> Axxessdenied is essentially correct - if by the time you've set levels and panned you don't have something that sounds pretty much like a mix, then you've done something wrong, and the best you can hope to do if you throw the book at it is make it not suck as badly.
> 
> Mixing, the process of mixing, is simple - you listen critically for problems and then you fix them. Having a good ear and a good monitoring chain and really learning your tools is how you get better at that, and that's something that just takes time and experience. A LOT of time and experience.



Couldn't disagree more. The mix makes a HUGE difference from what tracks start out as (actual raw recorded tracks I mean, as opposed to pre-processed things like Superior or Axe-FX etc.) Especially in Metal, where the final tones often barely resemble what actual live instruments sound like. That's why the top mix engineers in the world get paid thousands of dollars per track for doing what they do. 

Of course I do agree with you that getting great takes and good sounds at the source is super important, but that won't get you a final product that sounds like a Sneap mix etc.

That all said there also aren't IMO 'tips and tricks' that will get you a huge mix. It's an enormous collection of small details and skills / experience that all add up in the end.


----------



## 4Eyes (Mar 3, 2014)

sakeido said:


> Interface does play a role too, my old M-Audio was less demanding on the computer than me new RME. I had to go with a bigger buffer on the RME and even though they supposedly lag less, the larger buffer removed any advantage the RME had so I finally upgraded my computer. went from 50% CPU usage sitting idle in one of my projects, to 5%


I woulds say that it's more drivers thing, than interface as a HW



Sacha said:


> Especially in Metal, where the final tones often barely resemble what actual live instruments sound like.


well, then probably that "super insane killer live tone" isn't that great as somebody think of it. setting live tone for working great in a band situation doesn't differ too much from dialing tone that works great in recordings. that applies when you know what sounds good in a band mix.




Sacha said:


> That's why the top mix engineers in the world get paid thousands of dollars per track for doing what they do.


 top mix engineers are paid for getting shitty sounds work great in the mix. yes, that's that magic and know how. but if you have good guitar, with good pickups running through nice amp with good cab, you know how to place mic in front of a cab and you know to dial tone that works in the band mix and you have killer sounding drums with bass tone, then you don't have to work that much magic about it, than just to apply "general" rules for getting instruments sit in the mix


----------



## Sacha (Mar 3, 2014)

4Eyes said:


> I woulds say that it's more drivers thing, than interface as a HW
> 
> well, then probably that "super insane killer live tone" isn't that great as somebody think of it. setting live tone for working great in a band situation doesn't differ too much from dialing tone that works great in recordings. that applies when you know what sounds good in a band mix.
> 
> ...



Agree with your 1st point. 2nd point not so much. Top mix engineers aren't getting shit tracks at all, in fact a lot of times they are overseeing the tracking themselves. I've seen / heard raw tracks going to a top producer in Metal, they were good, tightly played sounding nice and edited etc. Pulling up the faders with those tracks was not a finished mix, not even close.

PS in case it wasn't obvious I'm talking about the 'modern produced' kind of sound here.

I could give you guys some A/B clips of well captured raw tracks vs. finished mix stems just for shits if interested.


----------



## Techdeath (Mar 3, 2014)

Thanks misha!


----------



## works0fheart (Mar 3, 2014)

bulb said:


> Hey guys, Jeff Holcomb and I put together a video where I go over my guitar recording tips. This is aimed at people who record at home.
> If you guys enjoy this we might get together and do more videos like this on the Top Secret Audio&#65279; youtube channel.



You should do more of these Misha, this was really helpful. Maybe some on how to record leads or cleans or maybe even adding backing effects and what not.


----------



## 4Eyes (Mar 3, 2014)

Sacha said:


> Agree with your 1st point. 2nd point not so much. Top mix engineers aren't getting shit tracks at all, in fact a lot of times they are overseeing the tracking themselves. I've seen / heard raw tracks going to a top producer in Metal, they were good, tightly played sounding nice and edited etc. Pulling up the faders with those tracks was not a finished mix, not even close.
> 
> PS in case it wasn't obvious I'm talking about the 'modern produced' kind of sound here.
> 
> I could give you guys some A/B clips of well captured raw tracks vs. finished mix stems just for shits if interested.


with no argument I'm not a pro, but I think I can put together decent sounding recording for a hobby guitar player, who I am, and surely can say if something sounds good or works well in the recording etc.. and that's my experience, you really don't have to do that much with good dialed and captured guitar tone. yes, you can polish it and process it to your liking, but also you literally don't have to touch it to work in the mix. for example let's take Ola Englund's gear videos. most of them have zero EQ or post processing on guitar tracks. this guy knows how to dial in tone that will work in the recording and that's what I'm talking about. Could he polish those recordings with post processing on guitar tracks? yes. does he really need to do something with them to get it sound right in the mix? apparently, no.

that thing with getting paid lot of money for fixing shitty sounds was kind of joke. most of the hard work and most crucial for good results are drums and bass tones, when you get that to sound amazing (that's the secret), guitar is not an issue and you really don't have to work with it very hard, when it sounds right. (hi/low pass filter, wide cut to create space for snare, vocals, leads..maybe few notch filters if there is something odd in the sound and that's it)


----------



## Andromalia (Mar 4, 2014)

Sneap-like recordings do require some specific skills because all sounds are heavily processed. More natural sounding recordings can be done with way less hassle and sound good.
Proof:


----------



## Paincakes (Mar 4, 2014)

Great vid!

Thanks Misha, very informative.
And thanks to those who pointed out the bit about signal-to-noise ratios.


----------



## Sacha (Mar 4, 2014)

4Eyes said:


> with no argument I'm not a pro, but I think I can put together decent sounding recording for a hobby guitar player, who I am, and surely can say if something sounds good or works well in the recording etc.. and that's my experience, you really don't have to do that much with good dialed and captured guitar tone. yes, you can polish it and process it to your liking, but also you literally don't have to touch it to work in the mix. for example let's take Ola Englund's gear videos. most of them have zero EQ or post processing on guitar tracks. this guy knows how to dial in tone that will work in the recording and that's what I'm talking about. Could he polish those recordings with post processing on guitar tracks? yes. does he really need to do something with them to get it sound right in the mix? apparently, no.
> 
> that thing with getting paid lot of money for fixing shitty sounds was kind of joke. most of the hard work and most crucial for good results are drums and bass tones, when you get that to sound amazing (that's the secret), guitar is not an issue and you really don't have to work with it very hard, when it sounds right. (hi/low pass filter, wide cut to create space for snare, vocals, leads..maybe few notch filters if there is something odd in the sound and that's it)



Yeah for sure agree with you there, distorted guitars don't take kindly to over-processing and getting it as good as possible at the source is always advisable. Still some post processing like EQ, saturation and compression etc. can make the difference between a good and great tone. Other instruments do tend to get transformed a fair bit more though I'm with you on that!


----------



## Drew (Mar 4, 2014)

Sacha said:


> Couldn't disagree more. The mix makes a HUGE difference from what tracks start out as (actual raw recorded tracks I mean, as opposed to pre-processed things like Superior or Axe-FX etc.) Especially in Metal, where the final tones often barely resemble what actual live instruments sound like. That's why the top mix engineers in the world get paid thousands of dollars per track for doing what they do.
> 
> Of course I do agree with you that getting great takes and good sounds at the source is super important, but that won't get you a final product that sounds like a Sneap mix etc.
> 
> That all said there also aren't IMO 'tips and tricks' that will get you a huge mix. It's an enormous collection of small details and skills / experience that all add up in the end.



To be fair, I go for a far more organic aesthetic than your typical Sneap mix, so to a certain extent I'll agree with you. However, I think my point is it's a lot easier to make a good sounding recording out of really tight, well performed, cleanly recorded sounds taken from an excellent source than it is to take sub-par tracks and turn them into something that sounds awesome, so if you're looking for some "trick" to make your mixes sound more "pro," my personal thoughts are that you get way more bang for your buck out of spending your time working on getting your tracks themselves sounding great, than you do looking for that "trick" to make your mixes sound better. This is doubly true, I think, in that a lot of the same critical listening skills you need to mix well are also going to be critical while tracking, so working on tracking will likely improve your mixing as well. 

Full disclosure - I use the Superior Avatar kit on my own stuff, but I mic up a Roadster half stack for all my guitars and record bass through a SansAmp pre, so I'm certainly not advocating using a bunch of tools to sort of "pre-mix" everything for you. I really do think even with live instruments tracking is where you're going to shape the bulk of the final sound of a mix.


----------



## ZXIIIT (Mar 4, 2014)

This thread turn into
"but misha, I do things this way, y dont u?"


----------



## sage (Mar 4, 2014)

It was interesting seeing how fluent you are with the software, arming the track for the double, flipping the repeated riffs around... That stuff takes me forever and I lose whatever minimal creative spark I have floating around while I'm dicking around with the mouse. Looks like I need to spend a lot more time doing this stuff so it becomes second nature rather than a chore. Might inspire me to record more often. 

+1 on wanting to see more vids like this. Thanks so much for sharing your knowledge.


----------



## Jaime Mendiola (Mar 5, 2014)

Misha please do a vid on midi programming ie velocity, quantization, ghost notes, etc. I think the whole home recording community would greatly benefit from some tips from you sir!


----------



## skinnyjimmy (Mar 19, 2014)

Jaime Mendiola said:


> Misha please do a vid on midi programming ie velocity, quantization, ghost notes, etc. I think the whole home recording community would greatly benefit from some tips from you sir!



I second that buddy 

I think this is where most people get lsot or stuck in regards to creating the actual drum track with superior drummer. I mean uc an jsut steal beats and change them around, easy enough to do with a gp5 file and transferring the midi over.. Ive tried this several times and come up with some intersting ideas but none of them flow tbh.. I ended up re-recording half of a meshuggah song and it started to sound like gojira.. i was mightily impressed but still cant get the flow right. Midi does my head in but So much easier then hunting down a drummer who isnt a pillock!


----------



## HaloHat (Mar 19, 2014)

BillMurray said:


> Helpful stuff, cheers! Would love a drums/Superior tutorial.



+1
Teach me to prog drums and take my money please. I want to post my efforts on guitar but my style, or lack of it ha, needs the drums and bass in there to sound like music!

Thank you for this tutorial, you are a good teacher  and as busy as you are I'm sure, this was very unselfish of you to take the time and share your knowledge with us.


----------

