# Quantizing Guitar and Bass



## cerebrate42 (Jul 31, 2012)

I've been having some trouble with quantization, and couldn't find a question like this on any forum.

Like most djent, I'm working on recording material that's _incredibly_ complex rhythmically, and, when doing polymetrical stuff in 13/16, 15/16, 17/16, etc., recorded guitar and bass parts have to be absolutely spot on. However, I've been going in and doing all the fine editing manually... and it's getting old veeeery quickly.

First and foremost then, I suppose I should ask, when producing the kind of rhythmic stuff that Meshuggah, Periphery, Animals As Leaders, TesseracT, etc., do, what's the "best" approach for dealing with these rhythms? NO ONE, not even Thordendal, plays these rhythms straight up perfectly. It's not humanly possible.
So, what I'm asking is, production-wise, what's the best way to approach this? They quantize their guitar parts, right? If so, how? 

This brings me to my original question:
I have MIDI parts (i.e., bass drum) programmed with the exact rhythms that I'm recording on guitar and bass. Can I somehow make these bass drum MIDI parts into a groove, which I then use to quantize/audiowarp my recorded guitar and bass parts?
I'm using Cubase 5.
I read the manual, but couldn't find an answer.



Thanks!


----------



## The Uncreator (Jul 31, 2012)

The imperfections in a persons playing are what make it sound good. If you need to manually edit it afterwards, it should really only be for effects (like the inhuman start/stop thing), or to make up for some sort of latency which produces a slightly delay. If you are editing every single part you play, then you aren't playing it on time, that simple. Your better off playing as tight as you can, and then quantizing the drums to fit your groove, will sound more human. No riff is too complex to play on time, If it is, then it probably sounds like shit anyway


----------



## Winspear (Jul 31, 2012)

They do play it 'perfectly'. By that I mean enough to not need editing. Indeed the small differences sound good - but if it's enough to hear as needing editing then you need to work on your timing. It's true, it's hard as fuck and takes a lot of work with a metronome. Being a _recording_ musician is a whole new level. 
Yes some editing on the guitars is fine but if you're having to do more than 1 note a bar (even that is still quite a lot) then it's the playing that needs work.

In direct answer to your question, yes there are usually ways to quantize the transients of one track to another. I have no idea about Cubase. Try a forum


----------



## cerebrate42 (Jul 31, 2012)

Thanks for the responses. 

This is what I was thinking. Obviously, I don't want the quantization to be absolutely perfect--then one can tell (we see (hear) this all the time with programmed drums). 

The thing is, although these players are absolutely amazing, what ends up in the final recording is DEFINITELY not what they just record straight off (and I'm talking about more than just eq'ing). Editing does take place. You can just tell by how it sounds. 

So, what I should really ask then, is is this editing just done manually? Or is there a program/plug-in/technique/etc. commonly employed? 

I'm not saying that I need quantization to "sound right"; I'm saying I'm going for that (what some people call) "over-produced" sound that makes djent so distinctive. 

I'm talking about minimal quantizing; that's the thing. I'm talking about the difference between the recorded tracks, and the final tracks--after editing. The overdubs in these bands are seriously as tight as 64th notes off. 
I'm not talking about playing the rhythms so poorly they're 16ths or more off. But it is absolutely _impossible_, regardless of how good a player one is, to play the stuff these guys play perfectly. You're just limited physiologically. 

Is this not discussed a lot? I would think it would be, djent being such a rhythmically-complex music.


----------



## cerebrate42 (Jul 31, 2012)

"Your better off playing as tight as you can, and then quantizing the drums to fit your groove, will sound more human."

This is the approach I've been taking, with some manual cuts and slides here and there. 

Is this what most people do? 



Thanks again everyone!


----------



## Winspear (Jul 31, 2012)

Editing does take place yes. Wouldn't call it quantization though. I dunno man, Monuments for example isn't edited. And you can see a lot of tracking videos of these bands where the takes clearly don't need editing.
But yes, a manual edit here and there sure. I doubt most bands use actual quantization. 
Humanizing the drums to the guitars is indeed a good idea, I do that sometimes. As long as your double tracked guitars match each other well then you're probably tight enough.


----------



## MetalSlab (Jul 31, 2012)

You can detect and shift transients around quite easily in Logic - have not tried quantizing, but it will sync instruments tracks nicely to add tightness. Not sure whether this helps you at all though (unless you export those tracks into a Logic session for this purpose). 

Actually, I have a feeling that Melodyne does this very thing and may be a plugin option for you with Cubase - you will have to check up on this as I am not 100% certain.


----------



## jsaudio (Jul 31, 2012)

I know several engineers that edit every time the pick hits the strings right to the grid. Which I personally think is far too much. I edit guitars a lot but primarily on tight chug parts that need to be tight. Edit the chugs and stuff lined up with the kick hits. Takes a lot of time to get it right.


----------



## cerebrate42 (Jul 31, 2012)

jsaudio said:


> I know several engineers that edit every time the pick hits the strings right to the grid. Which I personally think is far too much. I edit guitars a lot but primarily on tight chug parts that need to be tight. Edit the chugs and stuff lined up with the kick hits. Takes a lot of time to get it right.



So you just cut before and after the transient and align it by hand? 

That's what I've been doing too. 

It just takes so long, haha.


----------



## jsaudio (Jul 31, 2012)

Yea basically lol. Yea it takes forever but it's worth it in the end.


----------



## Zer01 (Jul 31, 2012)

That's what I do too. Every single note. I cut it just before the transient and stretch it. Yeah it's a pain but it's worth it. When doing this across 4 guitars, the ear can't even hear the editing. I do a lot of copy and paste too.

People may criticize, but I long ago realized I'd never be a great guitarist. Pain and numbness in my hands prevent that. I'm not concerned with whether I can play it live because I can't. I tell people that up front. I just want to make something that sounds cool.

Reaper has a split and quantize option that makes things faster but it's not as accurate. I use that sometimes.


----------



## Drew (Jul 31, 2012)

cerebrate42 said:


> The thing is, although these players are absolutely amazing, what ends up in the final recording is DEFINITELY not what they just record straight off (and I'm talking about more than just eq'ing). Editing does take place. You can just tell by how it sounds.



Some editing may occur, yes, but what the players play (at least, the players of that caliber) is actually pretty damned close to what you hear. Their music may be incredibly rhythmically complex, yes, but Thorendal for example has spent decades practicing those complex rhythms, and is a VERY tight player for it. 

Editing will make a performance sound a little tighter, but if it doesn't sound pretty good before you start, then you should go back and re-record.


----------



## WhiteWalls (Jul 31, 2012)

I practiced those super-edits a while ago just to experiment, and I noticed that while you certainly gain tightness, you lose the stereo effect of the guitars to the point where quad tracking feels useless. I had a lot of trouble to mantain a good wide sound while using the same amp/cab left and right, and sometimes the waveforms line up in such a way that it comes out mono in the center because it's just too perfect


----------



## JamesM (Jul 31, 2012)

Don't record music you can't play. Hehe.


----------



## RickSchneider (Aug 1, 2012)

Yeah my drummer writes like half of the guitar parts for our band with me doing the other half. While sometimes i splurge and write something which takes work to nail, our drummer writes stuff which are my nightmare. It comes down to the old phrase of "Practice makes perfect" (sigh), which can be just as tedious as quantizing the guitar.

But hey, atleast you can play it to other people any time you want after you practice!


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Aug 1, 2012)

As soon as I read "djent is incredibly complex" as an excuse for editing everything to pieces I knew this thread would make me want to kill myself.

Just play tighter. Watch J-browne.


----------



## MetalSlab (Aug 1, 2012)

Quad-tracking is effectively the reason why most big producers actually do sync transients on complex tracks to retain tightness. I see these things as going hand-in-hand. 

I would agree that there should be no need to edit this way with only single or double tracked rhythm parts if the playing is tight, but quad tracking is another story to get right sometimes...


----------



## Drew (Aug 1, 2012)

JamesM and Stealthdjentastic win.


----------



## MetalSlab (Aug 1, 2012)

Not sure whether anyone 'won' at answering the guy's question.... unless there is some sort of latent bravado award up for grabs?


----------



## ArrowHead (Aug 1, 2012)

I'm sad inside, seeing how many people think bands and producers are over-editing their guitars.

Practice to a metronome. Learn the parts. Play them tight. You don't quantize guitars - quantize is for midi. And you don't typically need to edit and realign tracks in the way described throughout this thread.

Any time someone says that's how the big boys do it, ask for an example...


----------



## Drew (Aug 1, 2012)

MetalSlab said:


> Not sure whether anyone 'won' at answering the guy's question.... unless there is some sort of latent bravado award up for grabs?



What, latent bravado in being able to play your own damned parts?


----------



## flaik (Aug 1, 2012)

The more organic your recording is the better it will sound. I think its that simple really.


----------



## Ryan-ZenGtr- (Aug 1, 2012)

The two "easy mode" production techniques are:

Side chain compression

Input key triggering noise gates

(if you have a midi source and have programmed a good representation of your part, you could use this as the input key i.e. guitar pro. Hi hats or other 16th sub division click or the kick are commonly used)

This works live, too. Mad Capsule Market (from Japan) use this production technique on stage to allow them to jump around more, but better playing is always my go to solution, if only for "latent bravado".

Most editing takes place when you have to unscramble poor guitar work, OR guitar work scrambled by latency when recording or mixing. I often have to adjust audio to account for input latency as it increases time smearing with additional tracks and plug ins.

Go google those techniques, but they are no replacement for playing like an *adult. 

Thank you very much. 

*Seeking politically correct descriptive similes, answers on a postcard please*


----------



## Scottckr (Aug 1, 2012)

As previous people said, if it really needs editing that badly you'll have to work on your playing.
That being sad, if you feel like editing it anyway, cutting it up and moving the samples is the best way to go, guitars pretty much always sound like shit if you stretch it("Flex" in Logic Pro). Make sure you do crossfades when you're cutting it up.


----------



## InfinityCollision (Aug 1, 2012)

cerebrate42 said:


> The thing is, although these players are absolutely amazing, what ends up in the final recording is DEFINITELY not what they just record straight off (and I'm talking about more than just eq'ing). Editing does take place. You can just tell by how it sounds.


I don't think you're giving these musicians enough credit. Food for thought. I can't say for certain that track wasn't edited in production to tighten it up, but it would surprise me.


----------



## cerebrate42 (Aug 1, 2012)

Drew said:


> Some editing may occur, yes, but what the players play (at least, the players of that caliber) is actually pretty damned close to what you hear. Their music may be incredibly rhythmically complex, yes, but Thorendal for example has spent decades practicing those complex rhythms, and is a VERY tight player for it.
> 
> Editing will make a performance sound a little tighter, but if it doesn't sound pretty good before you start, then you should go back and re-record.




Yup! I was trying to make this clear. Thordendal (along with Tosin, Misha, et al.) is an AMAZING player. 

But he's not a robot.  And we all are accustomed to robot-sounding music, hahaha. (I like it that way, actually.)


----------



## cerebrate42 (Aug 1, 2012)

Stealthdjentstic said:


> As soon as I read "djent is incredibly complex" as an excuse for editing everything to pieces I knew this thread would make me want to kill myself.
> 
> Just play tighter. Watch J-browne.



Oh c'mon, haha. 
First and foremost, maybe I should've been clearer. I'm not talking about "editing everything to pieces." I'm talking about giving things that "over-produced" almost "robotic" kind of sound. 
That's what I'm (and a lot producers) are going for with this stuff. 

But, yeah, who's not working on playing tighter? 


As for "djent is incredibly complex" (a line I must admit I didn't say), I'm talking about incredibly complex music that happens to be djent. They can be mutually exclusive. 

But, Meshuggah or AAL? That's some COMPLEX djent.


----------



## cerebrate42 (Aug 1, 2012)

MetalSlab said:


> Quad-tracking is effectively the reason why most big producers actually do sync transients on complex tracks to retain tightness. I see these things as going hand-in-hand.
> 
> I would agree that there should be no need to edit this way with only single or double tracked rhythm parts if the playing is tight, but quad tracking is another story to get right sometimes...




As for "answering" questions, I feel like this might actually be it! Haha

So this is what "the pros" do? Sync transients by hand? 

I quad track a lot of stuff. That was one of my original points. Getting the four to align 100% is virtually impossible. 

If there's no shortcut, per se, then this is it.


----------



## cerebrate42 (Aug 1, 2012)

Thanks for the replies everyone!


I probably should've been a bit more specific. 



I'm *not* having "tightness" issues. I'm not trying to boast or anything, but it's not my playing that's a problem.


I'm just a major perfectionist, and I want this stuff to sound perfect. 



Here's an example. This is the djentiest part from the opening track of the (concept) album I'm working on right now. 
1 - A Storm Is Brewing - Progress by Peculate on SoundCloud - Create, record and share your sounds for free
My problem isn't really that it's sloppy when I record it. It's just that I want to try to recreate that "inhuman" sound that I hear in the aforementioned bands.




So when I play stuff like what's above, with a bunch of 5/16, 7/16, et al. bars, 
I am DEFINITELY doing this with many takes; I'm doing a ton of punching in/out.
But when I have a take done, and a few notes here and there are a 32nd note off (it's definitely noticeable at tempos like this), I just wanted to see if there was a faster way (that doesn't produce artifacts or alter the sound of the audio in question) than just going in, cutting, moving it in place, and adding some crossfades.
Although, given all my searches on forums, etc., it seems like this is really just the way to go, hahaha.








Thanks!


----------



## Winspear (Aug 1, 2012)

Without reading everything up above, yeah - your playing does sound pretty tight. It was hard to tell from the OP to what extent you were talking. Could've easily been a noob denying that tech bands even play remotely tightly haha. 
In answer to your question - yeah, all the advice you need is here now.


----------



## Drew (Aug 1, 2012)

cerebrate42 said:


> Oh c'mon, haha.
> First and foremost, maybe I should've been clearer. I'm not talking about "editing everything to pieces." I'm talking about giving things that "over-produced" almost "robotic" kind of sound.
> That's what I'm (and a lot producers) are going for with this stuff.



...and the day that sound goes away, I'll die a happy man. 

But, gate the shit out of your guitar. A lot of that sound seems less to be heavy-handed editing than a gate slamming down aggressively and making the guitar go from almost full sustain to dead silence in a millisecond, so it osunds like something is getting sucked out of the room. 

Listening to your clip, your biggest problem (aside from the djent influence) isn't tightness or gating or anything like that, it's that your guitars are just WAY too dark and muddy and indistinct for this sound. I'll assume this is an AxeFX rather than a real amp - dial back some of that low end and maybe try a more aggressive mic/speaker impulse. If you can't get a guitar to sound good through a SM57 close-mic'd, you're doing something wrong - I'd start there.


----------



## cerebrate42 (Aug 2, 2012)

Drew said:


> ...and the day that sound goes away, I'll die a happy man.
> 
> But, gate the shit out of your guitar. A lot of that sound seems less to be heavy-handed editing than a gate slamming down aggressively and making the guitar go from almost full sustain to dead silence in a millisecond, so it osunds like something is getting sucked out of the room.
> 
> Listening to your clip, your biggest problem (aside from the djent influence) isn't tightness or gating or anything like that, it's that your guitars are just WAY too dark and muddy and indistinct for this sound. I'll assume this is an AxeFX rather than a real amp - dial back some of that low end and maybe try a more aggressive mic/speaker impulse. If you can't get a guitar to sound good through a SM57 close-mic'd, you're doing something wrong - I'd start there.



Haha, thanks for the advice. Will do.


----------



## cerebrate42 (Aug 2, 2012)

EtherealEntity said:


> Without reading everything up above, yeah - your playing does sound pretty tight. It was hard to tell from the OP to what extent you were talking. Could've easily been a noob denying that tech bands even play remotely tightly haha.
> In answer to your question - yeah, all the advice you need is here now.



Haha, good point. My bad. Should have clarified earlier.


----------



## MetalSlab (Aug 2, 2012)

cerebrate42 said:


> As for "answering" questions, I feel like this might actually be it! Haha
> 
> So this is what "the pros" do? Sync transients by hand?
> 
> ...



Nice to see you at least considered my point. Getting four (or more) very complex rhythm tracks to align well does take some transient shifting in many cases... particularly where you are quad-tracking with different picks, pickup positions, etc, and it is a complex arrangement in general. 

As for the whole 'if you can't play it tight live, then don't record it' bravado, then fair enough, but we don't quad-track live do we?...this is my point.


----------

