Heavy Guitar - Taming Low-Mids with MBC or DynEQ

[vvv]

I think I have a pretty good understanding of MBC, and a fair amount of experience using it, but take this as a amateur's $.021.

A simple example of MBC use would be that compression is just applied between certain EQ points, ex., between 100 and 200Hz. The "crossover points" would then be 100 and 200 Hz.

Cool Edit some years ago published an interesting tutorial on splitting a source signal into two or three or more discrete tracks of delineated frequency bands (ex., 0-100Hz, 100-2.5kHz, 2.5kHz to 20kHz), individually processing those bands, and then "re-assembling" the source signal. "Crossover points", of course, more or less resemble an intersection of fades rather then a single location.

FWIW, I always found MBC a lot of fun and very attractive the more I used it (almost always on sub or two-mixes), until the point when I A/B'd it with the original track - I invariably preferred bypassing the MBC.

In those instances when a track really needs help, I prefer to pass-limit to get the problem areas - or more likely areas I want to emphasize to minimize the problem areas or strengthen weak areas (ex., a low kick drum) - process accordingly (which often includes compression, more often peak-limiting) and then bring that back in parallel with the original track - I think it sounds more natural then trying to get a MBC working onna source where the issues are not 100% constant (a pad would be a constant, a kick not).

As for dynamic EQ, I never got a result I liked.

[DrummerMan]

Hey All!
Just popping in to say hi and follow this thread. I've found myself quite unexpectedly in a "heavy guitar" band, though not actually (as far as I'm concerned, though others in the band apply this title) Metal of any kind. Mixing this type of guitar while not having it overwhelm everything else has been a new challenge in my production life and I'm looking forward to reading that link and seeing what kinds of sacrifices I need to make on the altar of doom to achieve the desired results.

[Mustang Martigan]

Is the difference that a MBC compresses the crossover frequencies when they are above the set threshold, while a DynEq cuts/boosts a specific freq when it crosses above or below the threshold?

[vvv]

I would state it,

"The difference is that a MBC compresses between or above or below the crossover frequencies when the entire track's level is above the set threshold, while a DynEq cuts/boosts a specific freq when it crosses above or below the threshold?"

[floid]

How about, an mbc is like compressing only one driver in a 3(or however many)way speaker. Deq is more along the lines of training a gremlin to make a specific eq move every time it hears a specific sound.
Which is all fine and well until you feed your mix to an auratone after midnight.

[Mustang Martigan]

Before doing ANYTHING to any "heavy guitar", you must read this.

http://badmuckingfastard.com/sound/slipperman.html

Then mess with it.

I finally had the time to sit down and read this, and, well.. fuck! It's great. Info is great and it's written well. Even though he mostly talks about recording Nu-Metal bands, and it sounds like he dislikes that genre as much as I do, I'm sure a lot of his tips n tricks apply to any song that has heavy guitar. When he talks about an EQ 'rip' is he referring to cutting a frequency?

Alot, if not all, of the stuff he's mentioning is in the analog domain, with the highest end equipment. I've never had the opportunity to mess around with reel to reel, outboard gear, really anything analog, so some of the stuff he mentions, like hitting the tape hard, or with compression.. basically anything to do with tracking to tape doesn't apply to the digital domain.

I don't have a real guitar amp at the moment and I'm forced to use my old POD XT. When recording DI like this, does it matter whether you EQ the signal on input or wait 'til mixing? I totally understand why EQ, and sometimes other effects, are helpful when mic'ing up an actual cab.

Thanks again for sharing that.

[Nick Sevilla]

I finally had the time to sit down and read this, and, well.. fuck! It's great. Info is great and it's written well. Even though he mostly talks about recording Nu-Metal bands, and it sounds like he dislikes that genre as much as I do, I'm sure a lot of his tips n tricks apply to any song that has heavy guitar. When he talks about an EQ 'rip' is he referring to cutting a frequency?

Alot, if not all, of the stuff he's mentioning is in the analog domain, with the highest end equipment. I've never had the opportunity to mess around with reel to reel, outboard gear, really anything analog, so some of the stuff he mentions, like hitting the tape hard, or with compression.. basically anything to do with tracking to tape doesn't apply to the digital domain.

I don't have a real guitar amp at the moment and I'm forced to use my old POD XT. When recording DI like this, does it matter whether you EQ the signal on input or wait 'til mixing? I totally understand why EQ, and sometimes other effects, are helpful when mic'ing up an actual cab.

Thanks again for sharing that.

Yeah, Slipperman is a cool read. And good too.

"RIP" yes, it is cutting frequencies.

I have an old POD 1.0 (upgraded to the 2.0 chip, so it is "cooler" LOL). It is useful for a few things.

As to EQing an emulator when recording... DON'T. Just get the sound you like and record that. The only effects I recommend NOT recording with the emulator, is "time based effects", like delays, reverbs, etc. Just go for the amplifier / cabinet sound, record that, and then you still have flexibility with the time based effects at mixdown, so if you need to change the delay time or whatnot, you can.

If you are going to record, say, 4 or 8 rhythm guitars, make each one sound DIFFERENT from the others. It does not have to be a lot, but it wil help in the mix later on. Say you do 4 guitars, 2 left, 2 right. Make one "darker / heavier", and the other one less so, "lighter / brighter". Then when mixed they work well together. Otherwise you get MUSHY CRAPOLA.

Again, do not be afraid to EXPERIMENT. Since you are self recording and it is to a DAW you can literally spend days on one song trying out different combinations until you get the right ones. If you want to get super anal, record the two guitars DI DRY, and then run them through emulators all day long, tweaking while listening. I do this sometimes, especially with Clients Who Do Not Know What They Want.

Cheers

[Nick Sevilla]

One last thought:

A MIX is like a 5 gallon bucket. You can only ever have 5 GALLONS OF SOUND. SO you have to be careful what you fill your bucket with.

You need a certain amount of each kind of colored water in there, before it fills up. So don't fill it up with muddy water. And respect the other instruments and the vocals as well.

[Mustang Martigan]

quote="Nick Sevilla" post_id=710040 time=1516546477 user_id=13471]

I have an old POD 1.0 (upgraded to the 2.0 chip, so it is "cooler" LOL). It is useful for a few things.

As to EQing an emulator when recording... DON'T. Just get the sound you like and record that. The only effects I recommend NOT recording with the emulator, is "time based effects", like delays, reverbs, etc. Just go for the amplifier / cabinet sound, record that, and then you still have flexibility with the time based effects at mixdown, so if you need to change the delay time or whatnot, you can.

If you are going to record, say, 4 or 8 rhythm guitars, make each one sound DIFFERENT from the others. It does not have to be a lot, but it wil help in the mix later on. Say you do 4 guitars, 2 left, 2 right. Make one "darker / heavier", and the other one less so, "lighter / brighter". Then when mixed they work well together. Otherwise you get MUSHY CRAPOLA.
[/quote]

Ya, I remove most all effects if I'm using a preset and not one of my own concoctions. Even when a preset has compression, I toggle it on/off a few times to see if it's making that big of a difference.

So you don't even use a HPF/LPF on input? Whether it's the POD's Eq or a plugin? Will those two pass filters, along with any type of EQ tweak, sound the same going in as it will in the mix?

How do you position your 4 guitar, 2 left, 2 right example? There are 4 tracks, but only 2 tones being used, ya? Do you combine the 2 tones and then pan them hard L and R? Or do you use one tone (doubled) hard L and the other tone (doubled) hard R? Or does it depend on the song and what else is going on in the mix?

I understand that there are no rules, well maybe there's a loose set that can be abided by.. just in many different ways. I'm sure each of those layer/pan methods have their advantages and disavantages when it comes to the overall sound/balance of the mix.

Sometimes I feel like panning the guitars hard R and hard L isn't the best route. Hard pans can be overkill and/ot overwhelming in certain situations.

[Nick Sevilla]

So you don't even use a HPF/LPF on input? Whether it's the POD's Eq or a plugin? Will those two pass filters, along with any type of EQ tweak, sound the same going in as it will in the mix?

How do you position your 4 guitar, 2 left, 2 right example? There are 4 tracks, but only 2 tones being used, ya? Do you combine the 2 tones and then pan them hard L and R? Or do you use one tone (doubled) hard L and the other tone (doubled) hard R? Or does it depend on the song and what else is going on in the mix?

Hi,

When doing DI or emulator recordings, no, I do not use any filtering at all. If an emulator, I already EQ it / filter it close to what I wanted to begin with. For example, if I know I will NOT be using the rhythm guitars' low end (under 150Hz), I EQ that out at the emulator, with whatever EQ it has, at least close to whatever it has. then there is no need to process it more later on.

As to position, when doing hard rock mixes, I never pan anything full, I have to leave that last bit for the Stereo EFFECTS, so I don't have to turn those up too much in the mix.

One example of panning could be (for kicks): Gtr 1 80% Left, Gtr 2 65% Left, Gtr 3 65% Right, Gtr 4 80% Right.

This of course completely depends on what else is going on.

I mixed an orchestral metal album last year, and it was more complicated than the usual metal fare. I had to make room for a LOT of instruments.
It took me half a day just panning shit until it all lived happy together. This is after a further half day just getting balances in MONO, to make sure no one was in another instrument's way.

Your mileage WILL vary.

[Mustang Martigan]

When doing DI or emulator recordings, no, I do not use any filtering at all. If an emulator, I already EQ it / filter it close to what I wanted to begin with. For example, if I know I will NOT be using the rhythm guitars' low end (under 150Hz), I EQ that out at the emulator, with whatever EQ it has, at least close to whatever it has. then there is no need to process it more later on.

I'm really bad with lingo. What's the difference between DI and Emulators? Would DI be plugging the Guitar/Bass into a HI-Z input and then running an Amp Sim on that signal? While an Emulator would be a unit, like the POD, where your fully developed* Guitar signal is being sent thru the input? *Fully developed for the tracking stage, to be more specific.

As to position, when doing hard rock mixes, I never pan anything full, I have to leave that last bit for the Stereo EFFECTS, so I don't have to turn those up too much in the mix.

That's an awesome idea/trick.

I mixed an orchestral metal album last year, and it was more complicated than the usual metal fare. I had to make room for a LOT of instruments.
It took me half a day just panning shit until it all lived happy together. This is after a further half day just getting balances in MONO, to make sure no one was in another instrument's way.

Is getting balances in Mono something you, and most engineers that know what they're doing, start with on every mix? Whether it's a three piece or a giant orchestra.

[Nick Sevilla]

I'm really bad with lingo. What's the difference between DI and Emulators? Would DI be plugging the Guitar/Bass into a HI-Z input and then running an Amp Sim on that signal? While an Emulator would be a unit, like the POD, where your fully developed* Guitar signal is being sent thru the input? *Fully developed for the tracking stage, to be more specific.

Is getting balances in Mono something you, and most engineers that know what they're doing, start with on every mix? Whether it's a three piece or a giant orchestra.

Hi,

DI = Direct Inject. Comes from the old days of tape machines. Usually, you would need a console "tape input" channel with the right amount of gain, or a microphone channel, to go into a tape channel. Someone invented a little box that would present the correct impedance to a bass or guitar, and on the other end, be the right level to go straight to tape. Minimizing the amount of circuitry needed. This is different than an amp simulator. It is an actual hardware connection.

Yes, most great engineers (excuse me while I kiss my own tuckus!), start out mixing in mono, to get the basic balance (levels) between the different instruments in the ballpark. This makes it EASIER to then EQ / compress / process stuff, because it becomes REALLY OBVIOUS which instruments need processing in order to fit in the mix. The panning you do a little later, once the initial balance is set. This saves time, energy, and bad processing decisions down the road.

[Mustang Martigan]

Yes, most great engineers (excuse me while I kiss my own tuckus!), start out mixing in mono, to get the basic balance (levels) between the different instruments in the ballpark. This makes it EASIER to then EQ / compress / process stuff, because it becomes REALLY OBVIOUS which instruments need processing in order to fit in the mix. The panning you do a little later, once the initial balance is set. This saves time, energy, and bad processing decisions down the road.

So once you move onto stereo, are you constantly switching back to mono? In order to double check what you've panned

[Nick Sevilla]

Yes, most great engineers (excuse me while I kiss my own tuckus!), start out mixing in mono, to get the basic balance (levels) between the different instruments in the ballpark. This makes it EASIER to then EQ / compress / process stuff, because it becomes REALLY OBVIOUS which instruments need processing in order to fit in the mix. The panning you do a little later, once the initial balance is set. This saves time, energy, and bad processing decisions down the road.

So once you move onto stereo, are you constantly switching back to mono? In order to double check what you've panned

Generally, no. Once you go into Stereo you stay there for the rest of the mix. Only extremely seldom, you can check, but mostly for a phenomenon called "masking", typically BEFORE you further EQ an instrument, to make sure this is the right decision. Sometimes, all you have to do for a small moment in the mix, is turn down another instrument, so the one you can't hear clearly enough can be heard.

[losthighway]

I don't ritualistically do it, but I look at it as warming up in the on deck circle with a weight on the bat. If things are distinct in mono then once you pan they're really going to have their own proper space because they'll be both sonically and spatially differentiated. I think I just convinced myself to do it ritualistically.