A great example of 'smearing'. This isnt always really evident in solo but becomes very clear when placed in a mix. Sometimes. The beautiful sound we hear and love at the source simply has too much harmonic content to allow it to play well with other sources. This is when we begin to carve out spots with the EQ. Another thing might very well be the mic pres. If you have access to something with some serious 'iron' in the circuit you might find the ability to punch through other things without overwhelming them much easier. I'm a big fan of API pres for distorted guitars.

This would be slightly different for every amp i guess but with my deluxe reverb, if i hi-pass it around 80 and give it a bump with a fairly wide q at around 1k.(sweep around there,but not soloed, you'll hear it).
Then i use a small amount of ITB comp. just to tighten it up, it cuts through very nicely and clearly when distorting.You may have to get the bass out of the way a bit too between 100 and 250 somewhere.(another sweep around there).
Something you could try for free anyway.

Yeah I've messed about with the EQ a hell of a lot.. It might just be my pre's ... I'll have a look into a half decent pre when I can afford it :(!!! Crap that reminds me.. need to sort my presonus entry.. Blah!!!

Thanks for the advise guys.

2 things, when you pan an identical signal L/R it is still mono, just louder. to get around this, i used to drag one of the tracks back or forward a little, creating a pseudo stereo effect. A short delay panned opposite a single track accomplishes the same thing, and is what i do now, because i have more options/control. I personally prefer to record 2 different performances of the same part, panned L/R, if my goal is to 'thicken' a rhythm track.
Turn your gain knob down. Get your sound the way you like it in the room, then turn the gain down a couple notches, the articulation/clarity will increase in the recorded sound. Ever play a solo line that sounds slammin' with tons of gain, then on your clean channel? when ever i do, i end end practicing more LOL. But the truth is you hear what your 'really' playing. Also you might be interested in recording w/ a smaller amp, cranked, so you really get those speakers moving. i love cranking my full stack w/ a 57 on the cloth, just off the cone tho!!
Your current pre's aren't anything magical, but they won't ruin a recording.
Your concerned about mic placement, but did not mention what you did.
Your room influences what you hear/record sooo much. Treat it (no pun) like an instrument itself.
Also, make sure your recording levels allow for enough headroom to eq/compress without peaking, otherwise your sound will shrink.
EQ- make sure you monitor your sound w/ the rest of the instruments, and that it sits well raw. Eq adjusts phase, and phase can thin your sound as easily as enhance it. if you have to add more than a 'little', your incoming guitar sound likely isn't up to par, unless it's for a special effect.
i think that's more than 2 things, sorry. Good luck!

Question, when you say gain ... you're talking about the gain/drive control on the amp correct? not the pre? I've had someone once tell me that once recording distorted guitars, it'll sound like it has more distortion in the recording than when you listen to it in the room. They correct on that? I've not really had much practice with doing heavily distorted guitars myself, so was just wanted to clarify after reading that.

Jonathor, post: 361284 wrote: Question, when you say gain ... you're talking about the gain/drive control on the amp correct? not the pre? I've had someone once tell me that once recording distorted guitars, it'll sound like it has more distortion in the recording than when you listen to it in the room. They correct on that? I've not really had much practice with doing heavily distorted guitars myself, so was just wanted to clarify after reading that.

Yes. Gain on the amp head. Its very telling to discover just how little gain you Dont need to achieve that high-gain sound.

Then you need to look to the micpres. Remy wrote a nice article on this referring to gain staging and ESPECIALLY gain staging lower end equipment in the Recording Vocals forum under "Headroom". I'm going to sticky this one as it has a lot of info in it.

+1 gain on the amp head. Ever tried to stand up in a bunk bed? don't kill your pre levels either.

Dave, "how little gain you Don't need..." Is that a typo, sarcastic? Not trying to be a jerk here, but confused with the use of a double negative.

Without putting too many words in Dave's mouth: Too many people have the amp turned up too high because they THINK that is what is required to get a good distorted guitar sound.

I love the English language because you can explain how things work in recordings much better. There are these sayings, what's old is new again. Then there is what goes around comes around. It's larger-than-life. Keep it simple stupid. Less is more. And when you follow all of the above, you can have clean distortion. Of course many of us know there are also good little distortions & bad little distortions. And you can use both of those little distortions together if you're careful. You can use multiple little distortions from different sources along the way. Or, you can take a bunch of distortion from just one source. Have you ever noticed that when you order an " ICED TEA" that frequently all you get is a tea with ice. Well that's not an iced tea. Semantics make the difference in so many things that we do or listen to. And yet those little things can make such a big difference. It's no big deal which makes a big thing a little deal. The way we manipulate our recordings is the same thing. The way we make our recordings is the same thing but different. So what have I said? What haven't I said? Is that the same sentence? Or is that sentence the same?

I keep saying the same thing I've always said whether I'm saying it now or saying it before which is having said it. My brother has a degree in English and I have a degree in dropping out of high school followed by an actual degree to thwart the previous degree.
Mx. Remy Ann David

New favourite post. Ever.

LOL. Remy, have you seen the movie I Heart Huckabee's? The way you talk reminds me a lot of Dennis Hoffman and Lily Tomlin in that movie.

clean distortion = direct using SS processing.

Yeah....a double negative..... and I'm never sarcastic ....except when I am......
Perhaps we should look at the use of the word 'clear' in this instance. Perhaps this is an abberation of the real meaning of the phrase and it should read 'clean distortion'.

In use, capturing a distorted sound source isnt that hard. Using it with other sources can be....

Clean and Clear distortion still = direct to me. More times than not when we are using a DAW and virtual sounds and then add an acoustic ingredient into the mix it throws us off. Its hard to get it to fit no matter what you do. It takes high end, or hybrid to make that work well from what I'm starting to figure out.

Could be the OP is having this problem trying to find that sound. When this happens, try direct. I have an active AXE with EMG for this very reason.

got it dave. just didn't know you were joking around.
i'm sure you haven't been surprised by the amount of musicians that say the opposite of what they want by accident. Like when the bass guitar is overloading the guitarist's headphone and he says 'turn me up' when he means turn the bass down.
i'm sick of english, I'm going to go learn irish.

At this point this evening I'd recommend Scottish. Single Malt. Slightly older than jailbait if possible.

OK. The Macallan it is. You coming by to join me Dave?

Much as I'd like to.....(the locals wouldnt really like us much!!!) I'm into the the Glen Morangie LaSanta tonight.

( I'm saying that the biker/marine combo might
be a bit much for em....)

Its always good for me .......

kmetal, post: 361536 wrote: got it dave. just didn't know you were joking around.
i'm sure you haven't been surprised by the amount of musicians that say the opposite of what they want by accident. Like when the bass guitar is overloading the guitarist's headphone and he says 'turn me up' when he means turn the bass down.
i'm sick of english, I'm going to go learn irish.

I always joking around.......except when I'm not.

Trust me. You'll know the difference.

I have also noticed the gain thing. I usually find that when I record an amp exactly the way the artist sets it up (I try not to but hey it's their money) it usually sounds very muddy, has no articulation, and has a really obnoxious hiss at about 10-12k that just won't go away. I have found that if we get the amp sounding really great in person, then turn the gain/drive back 2-3 notches and also a small cut back in the high eq on the head 1 to 1.5 notches seems to make it sound incredible.

Also using a smaller, low wattage amp helps because the power tubes tend to be more clear when they break up than gain stage tubes so if you have the headroom to really turn out the volume it helps. I read in a Bobby Owinski book on recording, I think called "The Recording Engineer's Handbook", that Clapton recorded "Layla on a 5 watt 8" practice amp. Another thing I have had really good luck with is using multiple mics and blending the signal. I use an 002 rack so I usually use 3 mics but 2 is still good. In general I use an audix I5 right up on the cloth pointing straight at the junction between the cone and the center dust cover, then I add a Sennheiser e609 at the outer edge of the speaker almost to the rubber, the third mic is a Carvin tube condenser that I put about a foot to 18 inches from the speaker right in the center of the cone. The third mic takes a little work to get the phasing in line but it is well worth it when it's all done. I record all three mics to seperate tracks and then adjust the volumes until I find what i like. (as a side note i generally use Very little of the outside cone sound because it tends to be a little muddy but it does help bring out the body in Rock/Metal guitars)

The same concept could be used with the Mbox using just the 57 in the first position and several mics could work well in the 3rd position depending on what you have on hand.

As far as pre's go, if you are doing this as a hobby like I do and your using an MBox due to budget, your pre's probably aren't the weakest link in your system so look at adjustments and room first. However, they probably aren't the strongest link either so upgrading when you can is a good idea. I have an ART Pro MPA II that is a surprisingly good pre for the price (which was also very affordable.)

Clapton and many others have had a fondness for Fender Tweed Champs. The Reverend Willie G. uses them to a great end.

Now this doesnt mean that EVERY Tweed Champ is going to be the Golden Throated Amp to make you a star. Some of them sounded like crap when they came out of Leo's garage......but probably not too many of em!

I can mess up a mix in the best room, with the best equipment.
There's a quote in guitar world from van halen that says he let other's play his material through his amps and they didn't sound like him.
I'm sure arrogance comes into play, but you cannot deny how performance and tone work together. a 57 through a putman console sounds awsome still today. Would it sound like VH when i play it, heck no. It'd sound like me.
The combination of inspiration, expertise, spotenaety, pro equipment, mood, surrounding, made that sound.
A Good song was the order of the day.
Fidelity is generally acceptable highest to lowest right now.
I also own the ART II, stock tubes. My recent fun w/ it, is overdriving the D.I input, w/ distorted settings on an amp sim pluggin. A reasonable balance between the two sounds fine to me, and more authentic than either element on it's own. This was used strictly on bedroom studio demos', nothing i'd release.
I go to the studio that has the room/acoustics/machines for the final product.
The difference is that the pro studio has options to try (on my time), and the guys who know them very well. while a project studio generally has one sound, or a couple 'golden' peices of gear.
Gain staging applies to everyone.
Lee- i suggest for fun, that your try and get your guitar sound from just the 57. i bet you can get a better result than the sum of your trials thus far. forget the carvin, the audix, the 609.
If a mic doesn't work, adding on more won't help. Try to build a house on sand?
The 57 is an awesome mic. I'd bet your guitar/amp tone/room/monitoring is the culprit well before the 57/pre.
It worked for Van Halen, and his great performance on the first recording. That said, i don't know anyone who has gotten a bad result from the mic, even on vocals, or bass guitar!!!. It also functions as a hammer when you get mad. then it works when your calmed.

I agree 100%. I have done very well with the single 57, as well as several other mics in the same placements. My setup stems much more from my taste for different textures and sounds than from an inadequacy in other placements. The purpose behind tracking all mics to individual tracks as opposed to summing them into a single track is that quite often I end up only using one of them, or one primary track with just a touch of the others. I simply like to have the options. The 57 is indeed an amazing mic, but to my ear I actually prefer the I5 on both guitar and snare drum. I love playing/recording music because any or all of the ideas expressed in this thread can all be right or wrong depending an what your ear and your clients like best. However, I also agree with you that with all of the mic/pre/equipment options listed. Simply fixing your gain staging at the source is the most important part of any good recording. I read a quote once that said "even if you use the best mics, pres, and consoles in the world on an instrument that sounds like trash, you will simply end up with warm, full sounding trash" I think that is wisdom at it's finest. :-)