|
|
Post by betowelch on Nov 24, 2014 14:10:42 GMT
Hi All: I'm not sure if this could be the right secction to post this thread. If not, sorry about and excuse me. Well the thread it's about Hank's earlier tone challenge and a practical discusion. I chose the song The High & The Mighty to perform this test as an attempt to get as close to the Hank's tone in his early years of Shadows. See below the links of this AB Test (one in wav and the other in mp3), where the first part (0 to 15 secs) its the Shadows original, following from mine recording (from 16 to 25 secs), then again Shads (26 to 29 secs) and then mine again (30 to 35 secs) and then again Shads from 36 sec to the end. I'm no expert in mixing and when I hear this test (as well as all my recordings ...) I am very upset to not understand what could be the plugin (if there is someone for such additional effect) that would be responsible for the major difference that my ears capture ... To my ears, it is not an additional EQ correction, or compression, or additional reverb ... but it's something I can not explain but that makes the Hank's tone more, saying, hot, or smoother ... I hope you understand me ... I have dozens of Waves plugins and others, but I can not find one that give me such smoothness of tone ..... I'm convinced that this difference it's getting on the table mix... I wonder, with the various experts in Shadows mixing we have here on this site, if my question is curable or whether I'd better forget it because what you hear and only a small (he he he  ) difference: Hank vs Roberto  EDITI had a crash in my external HD and I lost the recording project files. So I run a new recording and also a new AB Test. The new links are as follows:
New AB Test:
app.box.com/s/5mucdpsy1zg034g50fap
New tune recording:
app.box.com/s/9ea04ggkl6m9fgdio3ry
Lead alone:
app.box.com/s/h32zzzeje5ccy9dlvqbc
BT used (UBHank):
I'm thanking in advance any help about this.... Cheers from Brazil! Roberto[/font] |
|
|
|
Post by rogerbayliss on Nov 24, 2014 16:12:20 GMT
I think the difference is down to gear you used v Abbey Rd. I hear this fatness and smoothness on the Shadows recordings but never on any recording done by sound file posters. I think it is the reason why Abbey Rd is so legendary because of all the warmth in that valve based gear. Plugins are very good but are seldom exact. I think the real difference is something to do with the way that old gear affects the harmonic content. The Meazzi of course is the other factor once again valve gear. Recording to tape and tape saturation also play a part too. So where yours differs I cannot begin to say but the overall feel is that your sound is very good but it is not quite the same and difficult to pinpoint.
There are Abbey Rd plugins but not sure they would put the final polish on the sound.
|
|
|
|
Post by brileary on Nov 24, 2014 23:39:38 GMT
Sounds the same to me.
Bri
|
|
|
|
Post by garystrat on Nov 25, 2014 8:48:41 GMT
Hi Roberto Firstly congratulations on some very nice playing! I too think you are very close, but there seems to be slightly more openness/spacial effect to the original, which adds something I have been experimenting with for while. Interestingly, one of Philc comments about providing settings for his proposed backing tracks may have taken me a little closer in the search, he mentions a panned 20 ms delay. I have been using Vacuumsound's ADT (Double tracking) free plugin, which I set to 20 ms delay and panned to the left (guitar slightly to the right), on the following settings: Delay: 20:.2 ms Dry Level: 0.984 ADT level: 0.627 ADT Pan: 0.204 Wow: 0.075% Wow Frequency: 0.8 Hz Flutter: 0.051% Flutter Freq: 32.0 Hz Both Waveforms set to Sine The plugin is freely downloadable at: www.vacuumsound.de/plugins.htmlPerhaps you would like to try this on your recording and see if you think it's going in the right direction? Regards Gary |
|
|
|
Post by philc on Nov 25, 2014 9:59:09 GMT
Hi Roberto,
Your sound is very similar but not the same as Hanks, but you can get it closer.
For starters, you didn't mention how you are recording your guitar as a lot depends on mic position if you are using an amp. It is also not easy so say to you, do this & that with eq and you will be spot on, it's a hands on thing.
That said, your sound is too mellow and lacks the mids that Hank has. You need to roll off the bottom end, this will help get rid of the muddyness, you then need to lift the mids, with to start, a medium to steep Q, then you need to slightly sweep from side to side to see if that gets you in range, the tone can change drastically when doing this and the Q might need widening, it might also need a dip in the middle. As I said, it's a hands on thing and impossible for me to tell you exactly what to do. It sounds like your root sound is close so that's in your favour.
Gary,
Each tune is different and the effects that AR put on Hanks guitar, if any would be different.
The 20mls panned delay was just an example. This effect can be heard on a few tunes, not all, it is also the same in some cases with the bass and drums, the 20mls delay was just a figure again as an example. Sometimes this "effect" was added as an effect but it was also on occasion the other mics picking up Hanks sound as overspill. The other times this accured was on overdubs such as Geronimo in the middle section, but off hand I can't remember if it was panned........also when Hank is panned say full right and there's reverb panned left and right, very noticeable on the left channel especially when there's a long pre delay sometimes as much as 200mls.
Best regards,
Phil
|
|
|
|
Post by betowelch on Nov 25, 2014 13:27:24 GMT
Thanks Roger / Bri /Gary and Phil.....
Roger: My always first opinion (abaout that standard tone differences) was about the studio capabalites differences, high top quality microphones and old analogical equipments (better than modern digital ones...). But who knows with some special modern plugins...
Gary: Thanks. I'll check this free plugin;
Phil: My recordings are with amp (Vox Heritage) and a microphone (Shure SM57). It's no so easy follow your reccomendations as I'm not so expertise. When you say: "....roll off the bottom end and then lift the mids, a medium steep Q, ......, and slighty sweep from side to side, etc, etc..." I'm feeling something lost... There are any chance to give me a more easysily datailing?
Cheers from Brazil!
Roberto
|
|
|
|
Post by Steve Reynolds on Nov 25, 2014 13:31:49 GMT
Hi Roberto your getting very close but one thing I did notice was yours was clearer than the original, hanks sound is very muddy in comparison not sure what the answer is,
|
|
|
|
Post by philc on Nov 25, 2014 13:57:08 GMT
Steve, what you are hearing is overdriven echo's, a distorted sound, listen again to the both, Roberto's sound is "muddy" it has too much low end and not enough mid/highs, and because of this the echo't are not distinct.
Roberto, at the moment I'm not in a place where I can send you a picture of what I'm talking about regarding the eq. But as starters, you need a parametric eq. Most sequencers have them, there are usually three or four bands, and three controls for each band, a gain lifts the db's (volume) for each band, when you do this, you will see what looks like a mountain, if the Q is narrow, the mountain will be steep, if it's wide the the mountain will be. In other words when it's narrow it will only effect a small amount of frequencies, when wide, it will cover more.
The other control is frequency, when you have that mountain, sweep the frequency control from side to side, you will hear the difference.
To roll off the lows, with the far left controls, move the frequency, full left, select a wide Q and pull down the gain, you should now see what looks like a ski slope falling away to the left. To control how much low end you need to cut, either move the frequency control to the right, or lift the gain, or both.
Phil
PS, if the sound we are hearing is what was recorded without post eq, you need to get that closer at the recording stage.
|
|
|
|
Post by garystrat on Nov 25, 2014 22:36:30 GMT
Hi Phil
I very much appreciate the information, thank you!
Gary
|
|
|
|
Post by betowelch on Nov 26, 2014 13:33:41 GMT
Steve, what you are hearing is overdriven echo's, a distorted sound, listen again to the both, Roberto's sound is "muddy" it has too much low end and not enough mid/highs, and because of this the echo't are not distinct. Roberto, at the moment I'm not in a place where I can send you a picture of what I'm talking about regarding the eq. But as starters, you need a parametric eq. Most sequencers have them, there are usually three or four bands, and three controls for each band, a gain lifts the db's (volume) for each band, when you do this, you will see what looks like a mountain, if the Q is narrow, the mountain will be steep, if it's wide the the mountain will be. In other words when it's narrow it will only effect a small amount of frequencies, when wide, it will cover more. The other control is frequency, when you have that mountain, sweep the frequency control from side to side, you will hear the difference. To roll off the lows, with the far left controls, move the frequency, full left, select a wide Q and pull down the gain, you should now see what looks like a ski slope falling away to the left. To control how much low end you need to cut, either move the frequency control to the right, or lift the gain, or both. Phil PS, if the sound we are hearing is what was recorded without post eq, you need to get that closer at the recording stage. Hi Phil: Thanks for your reply and more details. As I told yet, I'm not a profi mixing engineer but I have some little experiencie managing EQying, parametric and graph ones as I always need to put some EQ correction in everyone of my recordings. This my High & Mighty recording was EQ matched with the original Hank's EQ at the same phrase of tune, and although we have different BTs in each recording, what the final spectrum checking says to me it's that my EQying it's closer to Hank's in about plus or minus 1 or 2 dBs, mainly in the midi region, where the Hank's tone has more importances. So, imho, (sorry if I'm wrong about this my point of view) some that minor differences in EQ, shouldn't responsable for that warmer different tone that I'm looking for. That's is my point and the reason of this my post here in the site. If it could help you, I can send to you my EQ values and the corresponding Hank's, so you can check what I'm telling you upper. My initial thoughts was that this "warmer" or "soft" tone could had provided with the expensive and sophisticated gear at Abbey Road studios as also Roger pointed me in another replied. Sometimes I'd been thought also that it could be microphone model...(I'm using a good but common Shure SM57 pic comparing for the high quality and very expensive Neumann and others...). But also my hope, who knows, it's to find some miraculous plugin that could help me a little just to get this some additional warmer tone.... Cheers from Brazil! Roberto |
|
|
|
Post by philc on Nov 26, 2014 16:56:31 GMT
Hi Roberto, You will not find a magic plugin to give you what you want, as for mics, a Neumann U87 will give a slightly fuller sound because it has a large diaphragm, I have both and all my recordings are done with the U87. What you need is your amp in Studio 2, a U87 or similar, a REDD desk, tape deck etc etc. And then you're half way there  Send me your guitar track with no eq or effects and I will see what you have, I won't be home until Saturday though. Phil |
|
|
|
Post by hubert on Nov 27, 2014 9:13:17 GMT
Hi Betowelch, first, i think you are playing very nice, but is it a Burns or a strat?. also i think the sound from Hank in this piece is not the bridge pickup, but most important, the sound from Hank sounds more mid-scooped, and what i think, it is in the 800Hz range. succes, Hubert.  |
|
|
|
Post by Kurt Fröberg on Nov 28, 2014 9:28:24 GMT
Hi Roberto,
The sound is very close but I really think it is the echo on the original that gives the more "shimmering" sound, perhaps a Meazzi? The original sounds a little more brilliant also.
Kurt
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2014 12:02:20 GMT
Sounds the same to me. Bri i agree it does me too richie |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2014 12:15:00 GMT
that sounds spot on to my ears why do you need to make it sound any closer to hank .id be really happy with that to anyone who likes the shadows was to hear that would say its sounds exactly the same if it dont its only to you and the more experienced shadows fan who has studied hanks sound. you can go on for ever trying to sound completley identical to hank marvin. the way i see it is as long as you have a good guitar a good amp good effects and your fingers can make it sing .what more is needed. ok i wanted to change my pick ups but only cause id heard that 57/62s give that old sound. not for the fact i expected them to make me sound identical to hank. i know it doesnt work like that. then i thought stuff it the pick ups i have sound great why change. personaly i think trying and hoping to sound exactly like your guitar hero might be great . but its not the real you. you have to creat your own style .
richie
|
|
|
|
Post by betowelch on Nov 28, 2014 13:19:15 GMT
Hi Roberto, You will not find a magic plugin to give you what you want, as for mics, a Neumann U87 will give a slightly fuller sound because it has a large diaphragm, I have both and all my recordings are done with the U87. What you need is your amp in Studio 2, a U87 or similar, a REDD desk, tape deck etc etc. And then you're half way there Send me your guitar track with no eq or effects and I will see what you have, I won't be home until Saturday though. Phil Hi Phil: Thanks for your reply. I'm not at home now, so I will send to you the guitar track alone as you asked as soon as possible. Thanks my friend! Cheers from Brazil! Roberto |
|
|
|
Post by betowelch on Nov 28, 2014 13:30:16 GMT
Hi Steve / Hubert / Kurt and Richie:
To all you a very thanks for your replies and comments.... All what you had pointed are very important to me...
Hubert: I use a strato guitar
Richie: You are right in your words and thoughts. In fact I never try to go closer and closer to Hank's...Usually for me it's nice just to have his "signature tone" even approximately...But in this case (The High & Mighty mine re-recording) I decided to try go further and see what I can get with my own gear... and know if it could be possible that extra improvement on tone.
Cheers from Brazil!
Roberto
|
|
|
|
Post by George Lewis on Dec 1, 2014 7:16:44 GMT
Hi Roberto,
Hopefully Phil will be able to give a better opinion of what is needed once he has your pre-eq track.
However, I wonder if you are trying to do too much with all the different EQ's, plugins etc ?
On this tune, apart from anything else, Hank is using the neck pup with the tone control or volume or both rolled off a little. To me it is the typical signature sound of the neck pup in standard "slightly mellow" tone. Quite distinctive and quite different to your sound. With your equipment and touch, you should be able to get quite close to that neck tone even before any post EQ fine adjustment is done.
As a matter of interest are you using the neck pup ?
Regards
George
|
|
|
|
Post by philc on Dec 1, 2014 7:51:29 GMT
Hi George, you hit the nail on the head as the common mistake these days is to add too many plugins, the more added the more clutter on the track and they are not needed.
Phil
|
|
|
|
Post by abstamaria on Dec 1, 2014 12:15:09 GMT
Nice playing, Roberto. Funnily, I never think of "High & Mighty" as an early piece. It must have been played on a Burns already? I am firmly stuck in the very early years!
Andy
|
|
|
|
Post by betowelch on Dec 1, 2014 12:44:53 GMT
Hi Roberto, You will not find a magic plugin to give you what you want, as for mics, a Neumann U87 will give a slightly fuller sound because it has a large diaphragm, I have both and all my recordings are done with the U87. What you need is your amp in Studio 2, a U87 or similar, a REDD desk, tape deck etc etc. And then you're half way there Send me your guitar track with no eq or effects and I will see what you have, I won't be home until Saturday though. Phil Hi Phil: Sorry for my late reply. Unfortunaly, I'd a crash on my external HD where I saved all my recording projects files. Still I'm not sure if I could to recovery all these project files. So I decided to re-record this one again and made a new AB test. The new files, including the lead alone are already post on this thread at the initial. Cheers from Brazil! Roberto |
|
|
|
Post by betowelch on Dec 1, 2014 12:56:05 GMT
Hi Roberto, Hopefully Phil will be able to give a better opinion of what is needed once he has your pre-eq track. However, I wonder if you are trying to do too much with all the different EQ's, plugins etc ? On this tune, apart from anything else, Hank is using the neck pup with the tone control or volume or both rolled off a little. To me it is the typical signature sound of the neck pup in standard "slightly mellow" tone. Quite distinctive and quite different to your sound. With your equipment and touch, you should be able to get quite close to that neck tone even before any post EQ fine adjustment is done. As a matter of interest are you using the neck pup ? Regards George Hi George: Thanks for your comment. Yes I'm using the neck pup with something of tone control (if I'm well remember something about 8). Unfortunaly last week, I had a problem with my external HD (where I saved all the project recording files) it's unable to run some aditional corrections. So I decided to re-recording it again (and crossing fingers to avoid any another HD problem.....). The new links are edited in the initial thread. My main objection about my tone (where compared to Hank's) it's more concerning to the more soft or more ringing tone that I'm listening if compared with Hank's tone. IMHO, isn't a EQ problem... (or it is?  ). Cheers from Brazil! Roberto |
|
|
|
Post by betowelch on Dec 1, 2014 13:02:03 GMT
Hi Andy:
Thanks for your comments. Yes, I also think that this one was recorded in the Burns era......and this it's an adiitional problem to get the tone when you play it with a strat.....
I edited the initial thread with new files as, unfortunaly, I had a crash in my external HD where I saved always my project recording files. So I decided to run a new recording and also a new AB test. (see new links on initial thread).
Cheers from Brazil!
Roberto
|
|
|
|
Post by philc on Dec 1, 2014 13:10:00 GMT
Hi Roberto, That's sounds excellent, great playing and the tone is pretty much spot on even though you're using a Strat Phil PS I would delete the bt link if I were you |
|
|
|
Post by George Lewis on Dec 1, 2014 21:35:31 GMT
Hi Roberto, Taking into account the different backings, slightly different trem use etc, the new recordings are very much closer. Perhaps I should crash my hard disks regularly ! As a recording yours is very nice and beautifully played. As an opportunity for forensic detective work .. read on. There is still the slight difference you first mentioned, particularly on the upper register where Hank's has a little more sustain (singing) and slight creamy breakup, which may be the echo used as Phil pointed out earlier. It also sounds like Hank used quite a soft touch with the pick on this one. From memory you do some of your recordings in a broom cupboard rather than professional studio, so maybe that is part of the missing ingredient. Regards George There are note differences at 32 secs and 1:11. Perhaps intentional since you played both phrases at different places "correctly" ? |
|
|
|
Post by philc on Dec 1, 2014 21:44:43 GMT
Good observations George, to be honest, I just did an average as to get everything right, high/low registers, neck positions, term, picking position and pressure, etc.etc Takes a bit of work and time to get right.
Phil
PS......in a broom cupboard
|
|
|
|
Post by betowelch on Dec 5, 2014 13:38:59 GMT
Hi Roberto, That's sounds excellent, great playing and the tone is pretty much spot on even though you're using a Strat Phil PS I would delete the bt link if I were you Hi Phil: Thanks for your reply and for your comments about this my recording.Nice to know that you liked. OK and thanks about the BT link.... Cheers from Brazil Roberto |
|
|
|
Post by betowelch on Dec 5, 2014 13:43:55 GMT
Hi Roberto, Taking into account the different backings, slightly different trem use etc, the new recordings are very much closer. Perhaps I should crash my hard disks regularly ! As a recording yours is very nice and beautifully played. As an opportunity for forensic detective work .. read on. There is still the slight difference you first mentioned, particularly on the upper register where Hank's has a little more sustain (singing) and slight creamy breakup, which may be the echo used as Phil pointed out earlier. It also sounds like Hank used quite a soft touch with the pick on this one. From memory you do some of your recordings in a broom cupboard rather than professional studio, so maybe that is part of the missing ingredient. Regards George There are note differences at 32 secs and 1:11. Perhaps intentional since you played both phrases at different places "correctly" ? Hi George: Thanks for your reply and comments about this my attemp. Still I'm looking for (and wanting understand ) about that sound difference where Hank's sound very much "ringing" than mine...... Cheers from Brazil Roberto |
|
).