Vintage Guitar Magazine, March, 2000

Microphones
Recording 201: Life in the Pros

Did you enjoy yourself over the last month crashing around your house putting amps in bathtubs and mics in medicine cabinets? I hope you had some fun experimenting and transcending the limitations of your recording environment. Now that you have a firm grasp of the basics of guitar recording (since recording is such a simple and uninvolved process!), let's get serious. I mean really serious, I'm talking the big time here.

Welcome to the wonderful world of the professional multitrack studio. Here we have such mystical items as 24 track analog 2" tape machines, massive recording consoles the size of a Chevy wagon with more channels than your cable service, microphones from all reaches of the globe, and of course, warm, toasty, analog, tube outboard gear! You may also notice digital recording media as well, often synced up to the analog systems adding extra flexibility.

Now, let me give you a basic idea of on what we're dealing with in the pros. I work primarily at two 24+ track studios in the Boston area, both of which are great studios to begin with, but if you want guitar tracks, it's hard to beat either one. Rear Window Studios in Brookline, the play room of guitarist Milt Reder (featured in the August 1998 issue of VG), is home to a plethora (ok, about 50 in round numbers...) of vintage and boutique amplifiers. Virtually every classic amp ever made stands ready to provide the tone of your dreams, and many of his vintage guitars are also available to studio clients. With all these guitars and amps available, I rarely have a problem getting a great sound on tape, the only real challenge is choosing from the myriad options!

The second studio where I often work, Room 9 from Outer Space in South Boston, is one of the ultimate rock guitar studios. In addition to the numerous civil amps, Marshall stacks and an assortment of Les Pauls and other rock oriented guitars line the walls of Room 9; even the most tempered guitarist finds it difficult to resist the Siren call of the AC/DC tone. We have made many converts over the years by taking the uninitiated into the back room and locking them up with a 50 watt Marshall and a 1960 Les Paul Junior. They invariably emerge with a distinct look of amazement and euphoria, and they never look at their Peavey Backstage quite the same way again....

Even though these two studios have similar consoles, outboard gear and other equipment, they differ in layout, and the rooms have different sonic characteristics. Hence, you must factor various considerations when choosing a studio. You need to clearly identify (as clearly as possible) what you are going for, and what you want your record/track to sound like. Do you need to record everything live, are you tracking a band or simply overdubbing, do you need isolation, do you want an ambient or a dry sound, do you want analog or digital, etc. The more of these questions you answer before booking a studio, the better off you will be when you enter the studio. You also have to look at your budget and determine if you can afford the "extras" you want. Room 9 and Rear Window are more expensive than other studios in the area because they offer more; not all studios have guitars and amps available for client use.

Now, do you remember all that junk I told you about recording in last month's article? Well, forget it all! Kidding, just kidding...relax.... Actually everything from Recording 101 applies in 201, with some minor exceptions. Most of the gear recommendations I made factored in budget constraints. Although you might see some of those items in the big leagues, they will be second or third string at best. Not to say I was pandering junk, but it's the same thing with guitars; you want a '61 Strat but you don't have the money, so what will get you close and not send you into Chapter 7? You will not likely see many of the brands I mentioned in big studios. You might see some here or there, but you will definitely see Neve, API, Urei, Lexicon, Telefunken, Manley, Summit, and hoards of other exotic, expensive and killer sounding pieces.

Anyhow, I digress. The recording principles previously discussed lay the groundwork for the approaches in the studio, and the miking choices and techniques are essentially the same- obviously we have a few more possibilities in the studio. The signal chain is still going to have the same basic links in the studio. I discussed this in some detail last time, but I want to elaborate. In terms of signal flow, the basic path would be:

A. 1) Musician ---> 2) Guitar ---> 3) Amp ---> 4) Mic ---> 5) Mic Preamp ---> 6) Tape Recorder ---> 7) Mixer ---> 8) Monitors

or perhaps:

B.1) Musician ---> 2) Guitar ---> 3) Cables ---> 4) Amps ---> 5) Mics ---> 6) Mic cables ---> 7) Mic Preamps ---> 8) Channel faders ---> 9) Tape buss ---> 10) Compressor ---> 11) Tape Recorder ---> 12) Console tape returns ---> 13) Monitors

In example A, items 1-5 will all have a dramatic impact on the sound of the recording. The recording medium (#6) will also impart a coloration on the sound. The playback chain will affect the sound, but it does not affect the actual recorded signal per se. The output of the recording medium is the same despite the mixer, power amp and speakers. Regardless, we have an equation with 8 variables here, and in reality you have dozens of variables involved in recording a guitar part as hinted at in example B. Each link will create both possibilities and limitations.

The musician is the primary determining factor in any recording situation. Eric Clapton has changed his setup and tone many times in his career, but you can always identify his playing. The tone originates from the player (a recent post to an Internet news group inquired about the bass sound on the Tuesday Night Music Club CD. People responded with various speculations about the bass, strings, amp, miking, etc. Then Daniel Schwartz responded himself and confirmed the fact that the sound was a function of his technique and performance, rather than the rest of the signal path), and you can have two guitarists play the same song on the same rig and they will still sound completely different.

We covered guitars and amps previously, and I don't think any of you need much help in this department. However, the studio affords many opportunities. One is the ability crank amps. Many amps--especially smaller ones--sound best at full throttle and in the studio you can exploit that quality. Even if you don't need or want the tone of an amp on eleven, you still have the luxury of turning the amp up loud enough to avoid hearing any extraneous amp noise. Again, just use your best judgement when choosing your guitars and amps; also, don't be afraid to ask the engineer for help. Guitarists will often rely on my expertise when choosing the right setup since I know the equipment and I can make informed choices quickly which saves them the hassle of auditioning 23 different amps--although, many guitarists relish the opportunity to sample 23 different amps in the studio, and I get paid by the hour so I'm not going to argue!

Another plus is the ability to use multiple amps. When recording tracks for In Step, Stevie Ray had as many as 32 amps roaring simultaneously in the studio--try doing that in your basement! Blending amps can yield remarkable tones. Often one single amp will sound great, but might lack a certain dimension; by adding in another amp you can fill the gap. Most of the guitar tracks on the Four Piece Suit (Milt Reder's band) album Matinee Idylls consisted of a blend of at least two amps. Usually, we would use a brown or black Fender and a Vox together for clean sounds since they tend to compliment each other beautifully.

On the other hand, Sean Costello, one of the guitar players on Susan Tedeschi's Just Won't Burn, liked fat, dirty, and basically nasty tones. With him I set up three different amps (a tweed Kendrick 35 watt Texas Crude, a Matchless HC-30 with a 2x12 cab, and a blackface Fender Deluxe Reverb, although occasionally we would swap one here or there), I miked each amp and put up a couple of room mics and had them all coming up to the board. With each track we recorded, I could quickly adjust the blend of the amps to get the right tone for the particular song, and then record the performance on one track. I could have recorded all the mics and amps on their own tracks, but that can cause more headaches down the road. In mixing, you would have to blend them together anyhow, and mixing is so challenging to begin with, you are better off making things easier whenever you can.

By blending the amps/mics together in the recording process, I committed to a sound, but I knew at the time that the sound worked with the song (otherwise I wouldn't have bothered with the whole process!), and there was no need to create unnecessary options down the road. Plus, we would often record several takes, as is common practice, and that way each one had the same tone, so if I needed to comp takes, I had greater consistency and the ability to mix and match takes from one track each rather than three or four tracks each.

I personally like to capture as much as possible when recording, and paint the picture so mixing takes less time and effort. Ideally, you could record everything perfectly and mixing would simply involve pushing up the faders and letting it roll. That rarely, if ever, happens, but the more you do this, the better you become at putting the pieces together in the recording process. The less you have to construct or manipulate in mixing, the better your mixes will tend to sound, and you can be more experimental and creative. When you have to struggle to put a mix together, your creativity tends to suffer, so plan ahead as much as possible when recording.

Anyhow, back to the amp blending tactics. As I stated, using multiple amps can produce tonal colorations a single amp could never generate. What if you want a thicker tone? Well, try blending together two or more of the same amp. It stands to reason that two Marshalls will sound fatter than one. How about six? For the recording of Joe Stump's Supersonic Shred Machine album, we lined up six Marshall heads and cabs and put a 57 and a Sennheiser 421 on each cab, plus a few other mics scattered around for some additional seasonings. We had 14-16 mics blended together in stereo which we recorded to two tracks at a time. We often double tracked the rhythm tracks which meant we effectively had 12 Marshalls screaming together. Talk about a thick guitar sound....

On another project, I lined up three Silvertone 1482s and a tweed Deluxe and miked them all up for the ultimate artery-clogging tone. As I always recommend, be creative and try different combinations. What's the fun in using a Fender Twin and a 57 all the time. Personally I like to try something different every session, that way I develop new tricks, and I keep from getting bored or stale. Of course, when I'm pressed for time, I stick with one of the many tried and true setups that will always yield a nice tone.

A quick note, when using multiple amps, you want a good signal splitter to feed the amps. Jumping from amp to amp will sap your tone, so you need a buffered signal splitter like the Kendrick model which gives you three outputs. Other people make similar devices, or you can make your own fairly easily if you are so inclined. Either way, you will notice a huge improvement in your tone from each amp.

Now, my favorite part of the chain, microphones. In the studio you will encounter many of the mics mentioned in previous articles. SM57s are native to all professional studios, as are AKG C414s, Sennheiser 421s and numerous others. It is not uncommon to see a studio with a collection of 100 or more mics. Why? Because each mic has its own characteristics just like amps or guitars or any other piece of gear. The more mics, the more sonic options, plain and simple. Learning the qualities of each mic, and knowing which to choose at any given moment is indispensable. Of course, just as two '56 tweed Twins can sound completely different, two Neumann U47s can sound completely different, both great, but different. As an engineer, I must be familiar with a variety of mics in general, but I must know the specific mics in the studios where I work. In addition, most engineers will develop their own personal collection. I currently own around two dozen different modern and vintage mics, and I am always on the lookout for more. I have found certain mics that I love, and I always want them at my disposal regardless of where I'm working.

For recording electric guitars, I still use SM 57s, but I use condensers and ribbon mics more than moving coil dynamics. I regularly use the Audio Technica 4047 and Shure KSM32 (which are considered budget mics) along with my vintage AKG 414EBs. I often use Neumann condensers and tube mics as well as modern tube mics like the Lawson L47MP and Soundelux U95. As far as ribbon mics, I use Beyer M500s and M260s along with the Royer R-121, which is quickly proving to be one of the best guitar mics available. Still, there are times I find that a 57 does the best job. Also, I often use more than one mic, just as I will use more than one amp, because of the way they compliment each other. Basically, I go for the tool that does the job. As I do with blending amps, I will put up several mics, listen to them and try different combinations until I hear what I want.

Also, I have more options as far as mic placement goes. With a larger working area, I can experiment more with ambient miking. I have cut entire albums without using any artificial reverb, simply by combining close and distant miking. Because I have more mics at my disposal, and more channels on the console, I can audition numerous mics when recording a guitar track. Be careful with phase relationships in multiple mic and amp situations, although sometimes you can create some new sounds by intentionally blending mics out of phase to create comb-filtered tones. Again, off-axis coloration caused by aiming the mic at different angles to the amp can also produce unique and useful sounds. Think Brian May....

On acoustic guitars, I generally use small diaphragm condensers, but I do use large diaphragms as well, and sometimes I combine them. I find my Neumann KM84s, KM86s and SM2 (which is a stereo tube mic) give me beautiful acoustic sounds, especially in stereo. However, I can use my AKG C12A and get a huge mono acoustic sound. In the studio I have all the tools I need to get great sounds, it more often then not comes down to choosing the right sound for the particular application. Do I use a D28 or a Larrivee OM-3? Do I mic in mono or stereo? Do I mic close or more distant? Everything is a function of the situation. I can tell you 12 different ways to mic an acoustic, but only one or two might work in a particular application, and your ears are judge and jury.

If I am cutting an acoustic rhythm part, I frequently get the best sound using one mic. The denser the song, the smaller each sound has to be, therefore I don't want a huge acoustic sound. I choose a guitar and a mic that will give me the focused sound I need without stepping on other instruments, or forcing me to eq frequencies out of the acoustic. On the other hand, for acoustic based songs with little else in the track, I will go as far as using two small condensers in stereo around the neck joint, a large condenser on the body and another stereo setup 4-5' away. This gives me a huge sound.

Now, as if things aren't difficult enough, we look down the signal chain. Is one mic pre better than all others? No, but the more you have, the more options, blah blah blah. Same for compressors and eq's. Each brand and model will do certain things, and impart their flavor on the recording. Knowing which to use, and when is a factor of a trial and error learning process. Granted, you can never know what every piece of gear sounds like since people churn out new items daily, but there are industry standard toys (Neve modules, 1176 and LA-2 compressors, Pultec Eq's, etc.). As an engineer, the learning must take place on your time, not the client's. If you are the client, and Capital isn't paying for your recording, you don't want the engineer trying out every mic pre in the studio each time he cuts a track.

Onto another studio convention: recording guitars along with other instruments. During a typical "basic tracking" session, you record drums, bass, guitars, and any other rhythm instruments simultaneously. In the old days, everyone recorded together in the same room and the engineer would use one mic. As technology developed, engineers had the ability to mix together multiple mics, so each instrument could be miked. Next came multitrack recording where each instrument is recorded on a separate track, allowing for the option of replacing or repairing performances. However, when recording live performances to multitrack, if people are in the same room, the instruments will generally bleed into adjacent mics. In other words the drum mics will hear the guitar or piano, the piano mic will hear the bass, etc.

In that case what do you do? Well you have a couple of options. If you have the space to isolate instruments and their mics, you can record them to their own tracks without any bleed, so later parts can be replaced without compromising the overall sound--that is the standard approach today. However, the other option is to set everyone up in the same room, mic everyone (generally using directional mics to minimize bleed), and get the best overall sound. In this case, everyone has to perform together and get the best take since you generally can't replace tracks without causing problems--this approach seemed to work pretty well for Elvis and everyone else that made great sounding records in the '50s and '60s, although it could take 30 passes before everyone nailed the take! You might notice every once in a while when listening to a recording that you hear "ghost" instruments. Commonly, drum overhead mics or other mics will pick up the guitar amp, so if you replace the guitar part later, the original can be faintly heard through the drum mics. Personally, I think artifacts like that can be cool from time to time.

Anyhow, if you are cutting a guitar track along with other instruments, you don't have as many choices as far as room sound and mic placement. You might have to put an amp in an isolation booth while recording drums in the main room, which is why people often overdub guitar tracks later so they can put the amp in the large room and open things up. Often people will record basics in one studio to take advantage of certain features (drum acoustics for example), then move to another, often cheaper, studio for overdubs. I've had clients come from all over the place to cut guitar tracks at Rear Window to take advantage of the offerings. By the same token, I've done plenty of projects where everything including the vocals were cut live with no subsequent overdubs.

Last time, I discussed effects, and I want to revisit the topic. As I stated, if an effect is an intrinsic part of a guitar track, record it! Amp tremolo/vibrato sounds much better than any effect you can add in the mix--same goes for tape echo, or Leslie effects. When dealing with reverb or chorus or other time based effects, I prefer to record them on separate tracks, or wait until the mix. I hate mixing when the guitar parts have too much reverb from tracking, it's nearly impossible to make it go away. Sometimes you want a splash of your amp's lush reverb; go ahead and track with the verb, just use a little less than you ordinarily use. Again, whenever possible, record effects on separate tracks to allow more flexibility in the mix--sometimes you do need to leave certain details for mixing, rather than committing during tracking.

As far as compression goes, again take it easy when recording. Unless you are doing a Los Lobos track and extreme compression defines the sound, don't over compress to tape. You can always add more in the mix--that is one of the recording mantras about effects in general. In mixing, compression helps even out the dynamics of a part, and makes it more pronounced--or smooths out poor technique. Compression increases the intensity of a track by reducing the dynamic range--just like using a Dynacomp for slide guitar, the notes ring out longer and feel thicker. The current trend has been to compress every instrument as much as possible to make the entire song louder. Unfortunately, this volume competition has killed the life of many recordings; without dynamics recordings sound less natural and musical. But, they jump out of the radio and get people's attention, hence they tend to buy the products. Often the art and business of music stand in direct opposition.

On the subject of equalization, I prefer to use guitars, amps, and mics to get the desired sound without using eq. If I have to I will eq when I mix, but I try to avoid that as much as possible -partly as a challenge to myself, and partly to avoid unnecessary circuitry. Ultimately, the shorter your signal path, the more natural and purer the sound. Even though there are some fantastic mic pres, eq's and compressors out there, you still lose bits of your sound the more you process, you might gain some other things, but you end up farther from where you started. This can be good if you started in a lousy place to begin with! I sometimes have to mix tracks recorded by other engineers, some good, some not so good, and often I have to perform surgery to get things to sound musical. In situations like that I may end up using ungodly amounts of eq and every other effect to get the desired end result.

Again, we come back to the key "the desired end result." I said it before, there are no rules, many conventions, a paradigm or two, but the only real rule is make it sound good! Also, remember to have fun in the process. Granted, studio recording is hard work, it is a job, but on good days it can be an amazing job--especially when you get to record a Duke Levine, or Kevin Barry, or Joe Stump, or anyone else with amazing chops. Remember, it all starts with the musician, and a great one make the rest of the job easy. When a great musician isn't available, well, you'd better have something up your sleeve.