A guitarist and his effects pedal

Discussion in 'Tracking / Mixing / Editing' started by stickers, Oct 6, 2005.

  1. stickers

    stickers Active Member

    recording an Emo band...

    So we doing are first guitar overdub and I just do my thing using one of my amps and im setting the distortion sound. Sounds good. at the end of the session they want a cd just to listen to for ideas/ additional parts. Then the rhythm guitarist speaking for the lead guitarist hits me online saying they think it would be better if they use the lead guitarsits multi-effects (distortion presets, delay, verb...) pedal on the next session. I reluctantly say OK. So the next session I record the guitars using his pedal and he listens to it and he likes the way its sounds. I think its a little harsh but He's likes. I just think the sound is a little unforgiving meaning it will be hard to change down the road. I record distorted guitars so its flexible ..capturing a wide range of frequencies nothing over the top and not to much gain (doing live sound i've got a good idea of this. i keep a mental reference of the bands that have played there and the sound that was use for that style and which sucked and didnt...)

    Should I just roll with it?

    Or should I do what is safer and say " let me get record a direct signal of your performance that we can use to reamp if we need to later but on the same take I'll mic the amp using the distortion i think will be more flexible down the road.

    The uncaring side says "roll with it. get the damn project done and if they dont liek the guitars its there own fault"

    The caring and actually my business side says "They'll be sorry later. And if it wont generate business for me if it sounds bad.

    (I think i'll tell them how I feel and if they still want to use that pedal and those sounds , that they please dont reference where they recorded the demo on the CD jacket.)

  2. This is definately the way to go. If you've got the time for it, that is. And if it still turns out sucking, don't let them credit you.

  3. CoyoteTrax

    CoyoteTrax Well-Known Member

    Man, you can never loose by having a direct signal track to archive and re-amp later if someone changes their mind. Err on the side of caution is the lesson of experience. Just tell him as their engineer it's your duty to cover their a$$ and in this case "wisdom rules".
  4. CoyoteTrax

    CoyoteTrax Well-Known Member

    Didn't get to finish my previous post Stickers.


    Not that I'm against "printing" with effects. Not at all. I do it myself. But in the studio, for a client, for their own sake....there should be a direct (uninfluenced) reference for reamping.
  5. stickers

    stickers Active Member

    what i'll do Is say I am going to do a direct track for myself in case his distortion/effects tracks end up not working and then if they realize they dont work and they want me to spend the time to reamp and the sounds I think will work better.

    (So this way, they get their way up front but they always have away to recoup for their ingnorant ways :) )
  6. pr0gr4m

    pr0gr4m Well-Known Member

    Couldn't you just split the signal and record the effected track plus the direct track at the same time?

    That way they don't have to spend any extra time trying to match the two tracks.

  7. That's exactly how that's done. Using a DI or "direct box" so named for the purpose of directly inserting a signal into a path.

  8. stickers

    stickers Active Member


    I never said they would have to perform it twice. Of course I am going to split the signal.

    Instrument to groove tubes brick, balanced line out to a line input on the 002 and the line through on the brick to his effects pedal to the amp and then mic the amp.
  9. pr0gr4m

    pr0gr4m Well-Known Member

    Sorry..must have read it cross-eyed and gotten all confused.

    I've pretty much made it standard practice to record a direct signal regardless of what the guitar sound is. Coyote said it best. It's the right thing to do...just in case.

Share This Page