First of all, tune that guitar or have it set up properly for your tuning. The intonation is out. The room has a lot to do with it but it also may be re-amping in the actual song. I would ditch the distant condenser. Just go with the close mic. It might not be a bad idea to try to get the cab off the floor. Try it. It may not work. If you have a combo amp around try that instead of a 4x12. Combos are easier to make sound good imho.

yes- tune....and maybe, probably, more than likely- double track (record 2 seperate times) and pan them opposite

my 2 cents... put the amp in a new room, get rid of the attenuator, and crank the amp for real (but be careful, obviously).
the guitar sounds painfully dead and somewhat lifeless. your techniques for getting the BEST sound are right-on, but unfortunately, in this situation, the BEST sound is subpar at best.
put the amp in a livelier room, and as mentioned before, possibly raise it off the floor a bit. then apply your 57 technique.
Also, as far as the ST55 is concerned... using an "ambient" mic in a dead room basically accomplishes nothing. If you have no reflections and ambience to work with, all you're doing is providing a second signal that's just quieter and creating phase issues.
Might I add that after only a brief listen, you've certainly got some workable drum tracks there! Did you soundreplace or other-such-replace the kick drum, or was that a live signal?

Cory

EDIT: i just realized how horribly redundant it was to say "painfully dead and lifeless." oh well... point made. lol

Ok Ill try doin some different techniques with the guitar. I also read this very vulgar yet insightful article on recording heavy guitar sounds, so I'm gonna try and pull some pointers from that.

jordy: I know about the double tracking, we just ran out of time to do the second track haha

cory: thanks for the compliments on the drums! They are a live signal and I added a small amount of eq and compression (just used factory settings on URS strip pro VST) I'm a drummer myself, so I am more familiar with mic placement and eq on the drum tracks. But when it comes to guitar I am clueless haha

I concur with the others.
It's not clear where you thought the 'sweet spot' was, but I would start with 1 mic about an inch in front of 1 speaker.
Some engineers will also try to baffle off at least 2 of the other speakers to negate any additional phase problems. But I rarely run into this if the mic is close enough.
If that gets you into the ball park, try adding the 2nd mic, either on the same speaker or a different one and adjust for phase. Be careful if it's on a separate speaker that the speaker itself is not wired out of phase. (it seems to happen more often than you would think)
If you can't raise the cab off the ground, you can either try tipping it back a few degree angle or Mic one of the top 2 speakers. (or both)
Let us hear the results.

Try backing off the gain of the amp just a little. I've found that you don't need as much as you would think to get that really distorted sound. Also, it helps with the clarity of the notes you are playing, so they don't sound like they're running together.

Ok I'll definitely keep all these tips in mind!

Can there be phasing issues when micing two separate speakers of the cab up close? If so how would I take care of that?

xMannequiNx wrote: Ok I'll definitely keep all these tips in mind!

Can there be phasing issues when micing two separate speakers of the cab up close? If so how would I take care of that?

Not likely to happen but if it somehow does, it's just a matter of moving one of the mics.

I think the biggest problem is how the amp is sounding. It has too much gain, and when you double track it you're gonna want way way less gain. Turn the lows down a bit too. Get the amp sounding in the room first.

I agree with pfactionbrett. I just don't think you've got your amp set up right to get the sound you're looking for. It's somewhat close though, don't get me wrong. Remember that guitars' frequency usually sits in the low-mids to mids. That's where all your tone is going to be. For the type of music you're going for, it can be scooped out a little bit but you don't want to scoop it out so much that you've lost all your tone. Also, if you're looking to double-track your guitars, one method you could try doing is splitting your guitar signal...one to the amp with the mic on it and the other DI'ed. Then when you are happy with the recording from the amp, take your DI'ed guitar signal and reamp it through and entirely different amp (if you're able to) and set that amp up to compliment the sound of your first guitar recording. This will help thicken your guitar tone and will be spot on with your recording from the amp (if that makes sense). If you don't know what a reamp box is check out http://www.reamp.com Good Luck!

Ok, were doin more tracking today, so I'm gonna try and take all this advice

i never thought about reamping, but now that you mention it it does seem like a really good idea! The only issue is that there are multiple guitar parts in this song and they play different things. So re-amping would kind of be redundant :/

Here's some other suggestions that you might try; you might already have done all of these things, but just to make sure...

EQ, EQ, EQ. If you don't know how to use active EQ then learn. Hardcore guitars need to be extremely tonally sculpted. Krank amps are very "fat" and seem to have a lot of lows and low mids (I've heard them described as "it sounds like a fat kid is sitting in front of it"), so turn those lows and low mids down if you haven't already. Do not ever scoop your midrange, in fact, you might try boosting 1,000 to 2,000 Hz for more cut and clarity. Once you have a good take, go in and put a moderate to aggressive highpass somewhere at 150 to 250 Hz. Be sure to use only your bridge pickup for distortion. As others recommended, make your L and R tracks different: make one thick and one crisp, pan them slightly differently, offset one of them a bit if you don't do two separate takes, etc... Good luck and God bless.

Ok so we did some more tracking today. I took all your advice, and i have to say the tone turned out MUCH better. But It still isn't getting that clear sound that I'm looking for.

Heres what we did. There is compression and eq on the guitar.
http://codingrockets.com/stuff/music/Intro.mp3

It was recorded in the vocal booth again, this time raise up about 3'. Also used 2 mics; one sm57 on the top left speaker and one on the bottom right speaker.

Any more advice?

If you're going to double the track it's going to need to be a lot tighter than that. What you can try (and this is not a recommendation necessarily) is using a multi-tap delay or some sort of tape delay emulator (just because I personally like the sound of those) set the delay to 20ms +/- a few milliseconds. Set the feedback fairly short but long enough to get a few repeats. This will give you a pseudo double tracking sound. It works for me......sometimes. I think you still need to work on that tone from the amp though. It's still not quite right.

Also, what gauge of string are you using? You should use at least .013s. Heavier would be better. This alone can improve the tone immensely.

I'm not sure exactly what gauge they are, but as far as I know they are the heaviest you can buy for guitar.

As far as the tone on the amp goes, what would you recommend? We tried messing with the gain, but any lower than 6.5 and he would complain cause he couldn't do pinches (even though there are no pinches in this song haha).

Can I be honest? I would try a different cab. That cab is putting out a lot of bass. Too much maybe. If you can locate a 2 x 12 or even a 2 x 10 it might help. Otherwise you can try moving the amp to a different spot in the room. Make sure you're not in a corner. Move the mic to a different spot on the cone. Try putting the mic off axis.

Have you tried isolating the cab altogether? If you have the means. We used to use gobos. to completely enclose the front of the cab or the whole amp if it's a combo. This doesn't always sound good but you can try it.

You can always mess with eq a bit more. Try and scoop out those low mids bit more. Careful that you don't cut the sac off the bull so to speak. 400-500Hz is boom and mud but it also has some of the body.

Hey man! Your definitely heading in the right direction. Huge improvement over what you originally had going. Good job! I agree with hueseph about the thicker strings. It will definitely tighten up the sound, but be a little weary...I've found that using thicker strings also tends to dull down the higher frequencies of the guitar. And if you're doubling tracking each guitar part...I still highly recommend using a DI and reamping, that way when you go to do your double of one guitar part with the reamp you're spot on with the original if that makes sense.

Keep up the good work though!

YES, You're definitely in the ballpark.
That mic technique is fairly textbook, so you're in good shape there.
You can fine tune that by pointing the mic more toward the center of the speaker or more toward the cone to adjust tonal balance.
Also, depending on the age of the cab, some speakers might sound different than others. Especially if you've had any of them re-coned. Sometimes you have to try all 6 combinations (when using 2 mics) to find the right pair that works.

The rest comes down to player technique, type of amp, cabinet, strings, alignment of the stars and karma.

I'm a little confused about how the whole re-amping works. Do you record clean and then re-amp it? Cause there is no way a guitarist is going to want to record clean...

I'm thinking about buying a line 6 podxt pro, which has re-amping capabilities. Would you use that and record one clean track and then one simulated track?

400-500Hz is boom and mud but it also has some of the body.

I have to disagree. 200-400 is probably where a lot of the mud and fuzziness is. 400 to 500 is more the power and body of the guitar.

NCdan wrote:

400-500Hz is boom and mud but it also has some of the body.

I have to disagree. 200-400 is probably where a lot of the mud and fuzziness is. 400 to 500 is more the power and body of the guitar.

400-500Hz is boom and mud but it also has some of the body.

Fair enough.

Re-amping:

1. Plug the guitar into a DI box before going to the amp. The box splits the signal into 1 channel that goes to the amp (1/4"), and 1 that goes to your interface/preamp (XLR).

2. You record the mics on the amp, AND the direct signal from the box (like plugging the gui into the preamp/interface directly). If the guitarist has a problem with the clean sound, give him the amp mics rather than the DI.

3. Later, you can send this direct "clean" signal to the same amp w/ the same mics, or the same amp w/ different mics, or an entirely different amp, maybe w/ entirely different mics, and record that. Lots of flavors.

To do this you'll need a reamping device (like a reverse-DI) that changes the output level from your interface/mixer/preamp to the output level of your guitar. There are a host on the market for a range of prices. The Line6 stuff is pretty good - and gives you the ability to model amps in the box (simulated, as you say)

I always use a DI for a couple of reasons:
1. Sometimes mixing the DI signal with the mics makes for good sounds
2. Reamping to produce varying flavors of the same guitar part is nice
3. If something goes wrong with the mic tracks, my ass is covered

Finally - EQ
I agree w/ *both* NCdan and hueseph.
I often find my guitar tracks sound awesome, but the whole mix sounds muddy/flubby/fuzzy/boomy, etc. Recently, I discovered the problem is in the low-midrange
Roll off those guitar EQs below 200Hz, up to 400Hz.
Sometimes (depending on the bass and busyness of the drummer), I do the combo thing (one cut @ 200-400, one @ up to 800Hz).
Think about all the other instruments occupying that range (at least in part): kick, snare, toms, bass, keys, vocals.
Sometimes it's not just the guitar that is the issue, but that fact that it's fighting w/ all those other tones.

If the arrangement of the song is good, you can get away w/ cutting EQ pretty hard in order to give each instrument its own frequency slot - the other instruments will fill the holes, as will the listener's ears.

Thanks for the tutorial. That pretty much cleared up all my questions about re-amping haha

Do you think the Firestudio Project's instrument inputs would be a good sounding DI? Or would I get a better sound buying a separate DI box? Or are there good multi-channel (8 inputs?) preamps that have a instrument input as well?

I also have the presonus blue tube, would using a DI through that be a good idea?

If you get a *passive* DI then you can use that to go out from your interface to the amp - just go into the Balanced Output and plug the amp into the Input.

I haven't actually used the FS Project. If my experience w/ the Firestudio 26 I/O and Digimax are any measure, those preamps will get the job done for anything. Nothing special, but decent.

All a DI box does is split your guitar cable signal into 2: a regular guitar-level (1/4") signal to an amp, and a mic cable to your interface (though your choice of DI box *does* affect the sound to some degree).
It's a recordist's dream b/c you can record a clean guitar AND mic the amps. W/ the Firestudio (see below), you can then send a headphone mix to the guitarist that doesn't include the direct signal, just the amp mic signals.
Get one (or two) - I own three (one for bass, two for gui/key), and wish I had more and better ones.
Remy is right, it is a sickness!

The Firestudio 26 (& Project) has all neutrik-combo inputs, meaning you can plug a 1/4" or XLR into the input. The first 2 inputs also take direct from a guitar, bass, or keyboard; the next six take XLR or 1/4" sends (like from a preamp or compressor). Go with the box if you want to amp simultaneously, go with the POD or input on the interface if not.

I recommend the 26 I/O over the Project for the I/O capability.
It has 2 ADAT in/outs, which let you link other similar units (MOTU, Presonus Digimax) to increase inputs (up to 26!). It also has 8 regular 1/4" outs for monitors, headphone amps, and the like.

If you want to spend a little more, go for the Focusrite Sapphire.
Essentially the same thing as the Presonus, but better quality.

Blue Tube - I own it, I like it. I often use it for guitar amp mics (my better pres are handling the drums and bass on initial tracking). Play with the blend between the solid state (gain) and tube (drive) knobs to get the sounds you want.
I plug the DI signal into the interface directly, unless I have a better preamp choice available at the time.
The TubePre is a little better imho, but only 1 channel. Consider replacing the tubes in either with better ones.
You just run your guitar amp mics into the BlueTube (or any preamp), and then from the BT to your interface. Check for I/O connections.
Presonus has good customer support when I've needed it, too.

I've been plugging the Presonus stuff so far - b/c that's what I've used.

My engineer friends also recommend Focusrite, M-Audio, MOTU, Digidesign, and Yamaha. Most of them offer similar/parallel products.

Some have better pres, some better converters, etc.
Research, research, research.
Especially check out the stickies on this site.

Others on these forums will offer other solutions still - and they're just as valuable. It's all a matter of how much $$ you want to spend, what you actually need, and what you prefer.

codemonkey - REALLY? I bought a reamping device for nothing???

Codemonkey: I was at guitar center and they were saying that the passive DI would not go backwards like you explained. Is this true? Your explanation of running it backwards makes sense, considering all it is is a transformer.

I have my presonus firestudio project with the instrument inputs, but do you think I could run a line out from the outputs at a low fader level and basically just re-amp using that?

Well, the reason it wouldn't work is that it's designed to take sound in via an input, not via an output. There's probably some impedance mismatch going on however I guess it would still do better than nothing.

I don't worry about going back to instrument level when playing DI'd tracks into an amp. Just be aware the signal is different, being line level and not instrument level and you may need to adjust the amps volume control.

Ok thanks for clearing that up. Ill post some of my results!

so I finished instrument tracking for the song I'm covering, through struggle. Screams are pretty solid, but the singing isn't very good, and has to be redone.

http://codingrockets.com/stuff/music/XGStudios/ThroughStruggle.mp3

I took all of your advice about the guitars, and they turned out excellent in comparison. The cab was recorded in a bit larger bedroom, rather than the vocal booth. 2 57s right in front of the diaphragms of the speakers, with a slight angle. I also hung some large heavy blanket at an angle for some treatment.

I didn't try eqing as much. They sound very heavy on the highs and mids but has no lows, resulting in a very "direct box" kinda sound.

All I'm missing here is the more professional sound. Can I get that by getting the eq right, or am I going to need better mics, signal chain, etc?

If you want more lows, try:

1. Placing the mic(s) closer to the amp to increase proximity effect
2. Double micing w/ a 57 and 421 (kinda like a 57, but w/ a little more bottom end imo) or ribbon mic - try mics in your cab and see what works.
3. Lifting the amp or tilting it so it isn't coupled with the floor. If it's sitting flat, the floor will carry away a lot of the bass.

xMannequiNx wrote: Codemonkey: I was at guitar center and they were saying that the passive DI would not go backwards like you explained. Is this true? Your explanation of running it backwards makes sense, considering all it is is a transformer.

I would consider Guitar Center to be a laughably poor source of practitioner advice.

The most recent recording reminds me of the sound on metallica's st. anger. I'm assuming that's not really the sound you were going for tho. What is sounds like to me is the mids aren't clear enough. It might not even be a recording problem, but the gear might just not be up to par. Cheap guitar pickups will do that...

On my headphones, it sounds quite well balanced between the hi's and lo's. A slightly better mix with the bass gtr could solve your lo end problem. Too much lo end in the gtr will force the bass gtr to be lower in the mix to avoid a mud bath. Use the Bass Gtr to fill in what's missing from the gtrs. (that's not a rule. just something to try to see if you like it before doing more futzing with mics)

I'm thinking more that it's the hi end that's a bit harsh. (which as Nirvalica pointed out could be anything from pickups to speakers to anything else in the signal chain- although to him the mids aren't clear, so I'm not sure we're both on the same page or not)
You can try one 57 as you have it now, and the other 57 somewhere between the center of the cone and the outer edge of the cone.
The further away from the center the less hi end will be had. Blend the 2 mics to taste.
If that doesn't do it, then it's time to look at EQ . It doesn't sound like you'll need much at all. Just a cut here or there and once it's mixed it should sound delightful and pretty. plus a touch 'O compression could also fatten things up too.

In any event this topic is a perfect example of how improvements can be made when people try to actually follow the advice of their peers regardless of musical taste or style.

see thats the thing, there is already compression and eq added to the guitars. I just used factory compression setting with URS strip pro (heavy guitar preset) and i tried doing some eq but I think i messed it up. I want the guitars to sound "brutal" but your right about too much low end drowns out the bass. But cutting off that low end makes it sound awful

theres nothing wrong with the pickups, guitar, gear, or anything like that. It was recorded with a esp500 guitar with a krank rev head into a 4x12 b52 cab. It may, however, be the signal chain. Its 2 sm57s ran into my firestudio project...pretty bland huh...

Your track isn't loading for me, but I may be able to offer some EQ advice. The term "lows" isn't very specific, and subtracting 150 might make one guitar rig sound fabulous and another one sound like crap. You definitely want to get rid of the subs. If you have an analaog EQ, then pick a couple of sub bands (like 32 Hz and 60 Hz) and turn them all the way down. If digital EQ is your only option, then I find it a lot better to apply a high pass filter (you'll have to decide how aggressive you want it to be). With the lows, your best bet is to play around and find what frequencies are adding the boominess and mud, and then subtract those to whatever degree sounds good. Boosting your low mids can do a lot to make your tone sound fat and full. Just some stuff to try if you haven't tried it already. Good luck.