|
Post by philbarker on May 9, 2015 12:34:04 GMT
Charlie Where can we get hold of the backing tracks derived from the original Shadows recordings but with Hank removed? I've got Apache, Wonderful Land, The Breeze & I and a not very good one of Frightened City. I will however remain reluctant to post any of my recordings with your new unit in case I do not do it justice and the fact I am still experimenting. PhilB
|
|
|
Post by localhero on May 9, 2015 12:43:03 GMT
These tracks are not generally available, nor can they be. I was given mine by Roberto Pistolisi and Bruce Welch took exception to me offering them to other people, so I don't. The only way to do it legally is make your own.
|
|
|
Post by Charlie Hall on May 9, 2015 14:01:18 GMT
Hi Phil, If you have a DAW with a phase reverse facility on the individual tracks you can make your own backing tracks. You basically just mix a stereo original recording down to two separate mono tracks, reverse the phase of one of them, pan them both to the centre, and play back the two mono tracks alone with the original stereo one silenced. Doing that should knock out everything that was in the centre of the stereo mix, and leave a mono mix of the rest of the instruments and sounds. In practise it works better sometimes than others. On the other hand, I don't think it is a problem to post recordings using the usual backing tracks. It's only us trying to show how the unit compares with the original sounds in the best way. Regards, Charlie
|
|
|
Post by philbarker on May 9, 2015 14:29:07 GMT
I'll give it a try - Thanks
|
|
TonyL
Member
Vintage stuff
Posts: 190
|
Post by TonyL on May 10, 2015 8:53:36 GMT
OK Charlie/Dave thanks for that.
|
|
|
Post by claude on May 17, 2015 8:06:21 GMT
Hi Localhero, Excellent job with the new unit! Grat sound and interpretation. Which AC4 amp do you exactly use? Best regards. Claude- Brussels
|
|
|
Post by localhero on May 17, 2015 21:49:50 GMT
The AC-4 I have is one of the new ones that retail around £200, not the expensive hand wired one.
|
|
|
Post by Jono on Jun 2, 2015 15:43:16 GMT
To add more detail to what was done today, Dave set up a parametric 5 band EQ to the guitar track only of Apache. Dave had re-recorded the track using a Strat with D'Addario Chromes 11-49 flatwound strings after I suggested there wasn't enough attack on the previous version, and that any compression could spoil the attack, so compression was also left off. The sound was already a lot better to my ears than the previous version, so it seemed worth trying EQ to fine tune it. The recording seemed a bit too bright so we set a parametric section at 2900Hz (the nearest we could get it to 3000Hz) and reduced the level by a few dBs. The bandwidth, measured by Q, was set around 3 or 4. This was a start in the right direction. I then thought there needed to be a more hollow tone so we set another parametric section I think around 1200Hz and with a similar Q of 3 or 4 and reduced the level by several dBs. This also got it closer but then the lack of mids at another frequency became more obvious. We tried a frequency around 700Hz and boosted it there and this helped too. The final touch was with another parametric boost I think around 1700Hz by several dBs. Now I'm going purely on memory which isn't very good so I am hoping Dave has the actual figures written down. We then worked on Wonderful Land with a similar EQ technique. This track was not re-recorded, it is the same take as was posted previously. It soon became obvious that the frequencies used for Apache were not good for Wonderful Land. Again, I hope Dave has the figures written down. After we were happy with the EQ, I decided to try a 29.5ms delay to the guitar track to thicken it up as had been done on the original. This was set about 6dBs below, or about half the track level. This worked well to get closer to the original sound we hear on most versions. If there is any interest in this work, then we will try to elaborate further. Bear in mind that the figures will not work with any guitar or recording take by someone else. The idea is to give some indication of the frequency areas that got nearer to the original sounds. Regards, Charlie Charlie/Dave, With a parametric unit set-up as you suggest, after the HCSE & before the amp (or Di-ing) achieve the same or does have to be post recording stage?. Jono
|
|
|
Post by Charlie Hall on Jun 2, 2015 15:55:23 GMT
Hi Jono, It's really difficult to get anything near a convincing result. The best chance is when you can constantly compare a recorded take with the sound you are trying to match so in that sense it is best to do it after recording. I use Voxengo Span to compare average frequency responses over much or all of a track's length. Sometimes you can get fairly close, other times you have to accept you won't get it any better than what you have and attempts to get closer will make it sound worse. It is always going to be best to get as close as you can to the original sound before recording and I feel it shouldn't have to involve more than having the right sort of playing technique, guitar, echo and amp. Anyway, I think you got as close as anyone I've heard, if not closer, with your version of The Savage. I bet a lot of that is to do with the way you play it. Regards, Charlie
|
|