If most 6 string electric guitar tracks are high passed once recorded, does it make sense to cut those frequencies prior to the mic?

As a guitar player, nothing gives me more pleasure than drowning out the bass player with my 4x12" cabs but as an engineer a separate cab with less low end could help the efficiency of all hardware involved.

The guitar speaker would benefit from eliminating sub frequencies. Those 20-40Hz can't possibly be contributing to the sound. The mic diaphragm wouldn't be subjected to unwanted portions of the signal.

For the last 5-6 years I've had a TC 1128 analog eq for guitar tone shaping, signal splitting and MIDI solo boosting in the efx loop of my amps. Turning on the analyzer was a complete shock to see the pre amp pumping out 20hz-60hz. Cutting those frequencies immediately eliminated any 'flubby' low end even on an openback when turned up.

I'm leaning towards a gradual low cut on all my patches.

 

Interested to see how others weigh in on this. What you're saying makes sense.

 

This is another wake 'n bake theory that seems to work pretty well.

After conquering my laziness and setting up a amp in my closet recently, I recorded these guitar tracks with a TC Electronic 1128 inserted into the effects loop of a Peavey Bravo cutting -5 dB centered around 500Hz for tonal purposes and:
-7dB at 32Hz
-4dB at 40Hz
-2dB at 50Hz
The gonna-cut-later-anyway frequencies for a 6 string.

The Peavey Bravo has a surprising amount of low end from the preamp and the Mesa Thiele cab adds a lot of lows anyway.

 

hi. why don't you dial back the bass on the amp ?

 

i wouldn't say that "most" are. i would say people just starting out do things like that thinking they need to make each instrument as tiny as possible to make space for everything.
the guitar is does not need anything cut from it because the frequency response of the speakers and cabinet do that already ( the mic from speaker cabinet signal is all midrange)

see how quiet the lows and highs are, that is not going to get in the way of anything ( maybe a slight reduction in the 150hz area for this cab though)
the type of cutting you describing in this cabs case would just make it lose detail .

a guitar speaker and cab does not produce anything there see above. nothing to cut away.

but the preamp is just a small portion of the entire guitar signal , the phase inverter cuts bass and highs the power amp cuts bass and highs and the speakers and cabinet cuts bass and highs .
the microphone cuts bass and highs ( usually sm57 variant or e609,e906 senn)

this is the shape your guitar speaker makes when fed equal energy per octave ( then the cab imparts a slope too)











after saying all that, the thing that can help you shape you recorded guitar tone to fit in mix better is using harmonics to shape the track transients., it could be tube preamp , transistor console, tape machine etc any analog modeling plugs or vintage gear or analog gear , to deal with the harmonic structure of the audio track during mixing.

eq is good for lowing or raising a part that is too quiet or too loud by a couple db that is all eq can do.
when you build up a harmonic foundation on a track guitar or anything ( say running through neve console then through neve 1073 then through 2" tape then through 1/2 inch tape and the transistor stages in the tape machines you have built a harmonic foundation that adds 3d and richness in the fine grain detail ofthe sound where it will sit perfect in the mix

so the secret to getting sit in mix for any track or sets of tracks the the transients not the frequency response ( unless the frequency response is wildly out of control somehow)
if the transients are different thickness and width for a guitar track it wont sit as well in mix ( or any kind of track) but then when you add vocals to guitar to drums where each track has transients of different thickness and width in its own track ,added to other tracks now you have transient all over the place that is why it dont sit well.
you could have 25 tracks with a a straight line for frequency response and they wont clash at all with each other as long as the transients are even throughout each track.

 

Last edited: Sep 25, 2017

It's too broad of a spectrum and I have the EQ inserted anyway.

@MMJ2017 you must be an educator because you have the most info per post.
So the TC Electronic EQ has a built in analyzer and the Peavey's preamp is pumping out some inaudible 30Hz - 50Hz. Just like having too much extreme low in a mix decreases headroom, wouldn't those frequencies cause the same for an amp, speaker and possibly mic diaphragm?
Esp. when it's turned up and the speaker is just flapping away, it's the extreme lows below 80Hz causing the flappage?

 

I just record mine the way i want them to sound from the start >>> most times its the blending of the double guitars on each guitar that equals out the frequencies im after >>> say i do one guitar a lil brighter than the other from the start \m/ i dont always cut the frequencies below 100... depends on how strong my other lows are from the bass and kick... synths or whatever other low elements in the mix... if bass is gona be heavy and also the kick i might cut more guitar lows>>> but i do mixes where i dont use any cuts or EQ on the guitar at all... could be 60hz cut,70,80,90,100,up to150,and could be none at all >>> just my take on it>>> the blending of 2 different miced recordings on each side is where i most often find the right Q >>> but to each his own way of achieving his sound \m/ >>> BTW >>>still tho i would rather have to much lowend on my guitar recordings and not need it>>>cut it>>> than need it and it not be there and add artificial boosts \m/

 

I don't usually record my own stuff. I mostly record and mix for others, and one thing I constantly find in rock material is that the guitar player is the hardest one to please (and mostly the alpha in a band), so I set up the cab in a different room and have the guitar player build their sound through the monitors. Once it's achieved, I mix for the guitar tone, which is usually low-mid content rich. Otherwise the guitar part sounds thin and unappealing. If the bass is meddling with the guitar frequencies, for instance, I shape the bass tone to stay away from the guitar's fundamental timbre. I could be EQing it higher to cut through the guitars and so on. I usually thin out keyboards if any, with a hi-pass filter because in rock music it usually tends to complement the guitar tone in the higher register. I always double track guitars and hard pan them to keep them away from the vocals's intellgibility.

 

I agree with Jaymz in recording a guitar as you would like to hear it. Panning is a great way to give instruments space to be themselves without drastically altering their personalities. Altering the sound at the amp to fit into a preconceived idea of how you intend to mix later on is not a profitable solution for me as it negately impacts the feedback of how and what the guitar player plays off of, the tactile feelings between the instrument and player. And MMJ2017 shows how all the factors that contribute to filling the aural pocket and our understanding of where the guitar lives naturally in the spectum of our hearing. Make no mistake, mixing real instruments is a different animal than doing so with soft synths at the point just before the record button as one can profit by making these kind of equalization decisions because of the ability and indeed to create the entire sound of the instrument, it is born of the imagination of the sound designer or programmer, whereas a guitar is pretty much a guitar is a guitar is a guitar minus the effects that can be implimented to augment the sound coming out of the speaker.

 

All great points @Jaymz @mercurysoto @superliquidsunshine. As a person on a not so up to date recording system and seeing all the post about too much eq later will induce phase issues etc., my thinking was wouldn't it be better if the tone was closer to ready-to-mix as possible before the mic. I agree, cutting too much would be drastic if I need it later.

Right now I'm recording in a small apartment complex's closet and I need to control the lows while recording. My cab is a failed sub-woofer designed by EV with Thiele calculations that Mesa appropriated.

My lastest recording today I raised the overall volume from a whisper to normal conversation levels and added a few more dB in cuts on the extreme lows. It turned out pretty good, we shall see when I try to mix down.

I'm enjoying the experiment. I need to get some tennis balls to place underneath the cab to decouple from the floor.

 

Last edited by a moderator: Sep 25, 2017

If for nothing else, your downstairs neighbor will suffer much less lower frequency rumble and will thank you for it. As per my relating the story about using encyclopedias as sound insulation in my apartment, I also had to use one with a piece of rug remnant even under that to placate my friend and hard working public defender lawyer beneath me neighbor to keep him from hearing me tap tap tap in time to the rhythem sometimes all night long.

 

hello fine sir, yes I am, but im always a student at the same time :D
what I try to do is offer a perspective, with clear information if it is not present in the comments, so that on the long run readers of the threads will have every available perspective and bit of information related to a topic so they may get the most out of it in their own en-devours. ( I hope some don't take me as attacking maybe an opposing viewpoint, i just try to have both points of view present for the readers to see , if it is that type of situation which there is more than one view being offered )

 

Either way is valid: you can cut frequencies before you record, either by using an HPF going into your recorder or by the pad on your mic (assuming it has one), or you can keep the full frequency spectrum during recording and then just use an HPF insert during mixing. By doing it at the source, you're getting more headroom during recording. I prefer to insert a HPF during mixing, which allows me to change my mind (you can't put those low frequencies back if you never recorded them), as there could be parts of a song where the guitar might be on its own, or accompanying a minimal bass signal where HPF isn't needed. It really comes down to your ears -- if leaving the low frequencies in sounds right and doesn't muddy up the mix for you, then it's right.

 

you forget one thing which is the identity of sound.
what makes music is not the frequencies but those expressing throughout or with the help of these frequencies.

plus, if you cut frequencies of your your sound, no way to get them back in a mix if you need to.

thinking only in terms of frequencies is a bad option, it's a bit like saying that people should have sex only to procreate..
hey, we need fun

 

Not everyone has a great sounding MIDI analog 28 band EQ in their efx loop anyway. Although these units are dirt cheap if you consider the tone shaping merits, XLR signal splitting to record the preamp, and solo boosting for live. One of my solo patches is a simple boost at certain frequencies instead of overall volume.

In a PA system when you crossover at a certain frequency you often read by adding subs, the 'tops' are more efficient.

With the technology today, we have the opportunity to track with sounds that are close to mix down.

I'm thinking outside the box...........I'm just experimenting. I will report back with some recordings.

 

Good stuff guys i love talkin Guitar \m/ >>> myself other than cutting some lowend im just not a fan of doing any EQ on guitars in the mix phase... if i have to yes then i have no choice but in most cases ill Reamp or Rerecord the tracks... always get smeary wen you start doing heavy Q on the Mid and Upper Mids... just sucks the life out of the tracked guitars

 

Here's what I came up with after today's experiment:

three mic'ed tube guitars the first time around added ampsims second time thru under synth solo.

- raised the cab on 4 tennis balls which decreased the low end felt thru floor significantly, also mades it easier to track without those false lows
- still cut the lows rather drastically

Broke out the Shure E2s in-ears to mix the last half due to shitty apartment living. Please leave any feedback.

 

Last edited by a moderator: Sep 26, 2017

Tonewise, you've got it. i guess I would've panned up the guitars a bit a bit harder to the sides and reduced the stereo feel of the synth since it is the lead instrument in this section. The way the synth is works great maybe a bit lower in volume for a mono-centered guitar solo. What really gets my attention is a lack of definition on the bass the need for a more piercing kick drum. With that I suspect the guitar will open up more. There is some muddiness that might not be the guitars to blame for. I'm on a trip on Panasonic earbuds, so take my appreciation with a pinch of salt.

Kudos for your work.

 

I have absolutely nothing to back this up, but if you have the ability to take something away or leave it in, aren't you better off to decide once all the instruments are in place what stays and what goes?
The other thing is, why would people mix at 196,000 then bring it down to 44,100 as opposed to merely working in 44,100 (Ok that maybe isn't the same thing because you have far more information to play about with, or maybe it is the same, you have far more to play around with at the end.)

Now I'll go read up what everyone else has typed to see how wrong I am!

So THAT's where I have been going wrong (I might be taking out some of the guts from the wrong place)

 

Last edited: Sep 26, 2017

So what you managed to achieve in one night takes me days, and that's without even starting on how your drums sound better too. I love how just how everything seems to fit so well. (Given that I agree with Mercurysoto about the kick not prominent and bass not rich enough)