|
|
Joined:
January 2006
Posts: 2120
Location: Chicago | Those are beautiful tunes, Mike.
Despite your attempt to "standardize" I gotta say that the recording conditions (volume, mix etc) make for a great variety or disparity across the tracks. I must complain: this is not simply a matter of switching up the guitar!
Put it this way: if you were submitting this set of tracks for a CD you'd have some serious work to do just to make the "finish" of the music more uniform (irrespective of the box used).
Does this make sense to anyone?
Really nice to listen to, though! |
|
| |
|
Joined:
November 2006
Posts: 3969
| Originally posted by dobro:
...if you were submitting this set of tracks for a CD you'd have some serious work to do just to make the "finish" of the music more uniform ... Wouldn't that completely negate the whole point of the test, though? If you want to compare the tone of various guitars you would use the identical settings (mic, distance to mic, gain, effects loop, etc.). Optimizing for final mixdown with post-processing for each guitar would defeat the purpose. Volume, clarity in each range (low, mid, high), uniformity across the fretboard, those are all parameters that could be "corrected" during mixdown and would be lost without the "raw" recording. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
February 2009
Posts: 262
Location: VENISE-EN-QUEBEC CANADA | Well you are a great guitar player
my vote is/#7,#5,#2
thank's for the music
Daniel |
|
| |
|
Joined:
May 2008
Posts: 4996
Location: Phoenix AZ | This post brings up a certain thing that I have always wondered. I once heard a recording engineer comment that he was recording "such and such" a guitar, forget even what it was, because in his words "it just records SO well, even though it really doesn't sound very special in person".
Is this possible? Could a guitar that sounds outstanding to my ears actually NOT be the best choice to record - does the microphone "hear" what I hear. I guess every environment and every mic adds its own "color" so maybe something that's average to my ears really DOES come through just outstanding on a recording?
Anyone else wonder about this? Not at all saying Mike's comparisons are not valid. Just wondering if I would rank them the same in person. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
December 2006
Posts: 6268
Location: Florida Central Gulf Coast | <Paging Paul Templeman...please answer the sunburst courtesy phone in the lobby... > |
|
| |
|
Joined:
March 2005
Posts: 5563
Location: Blue Ridge Mountains | Thanks for listening and the comments...Pez had reposted to this again and we do have some folks who missed it last year...I'm glad I found the files...
To recap: I used exactly the same mic and settings (distance, volume, etc.) for each guitar...you can read about it in the original posts...the point being to make it an even playing field for the tests...it was also the first recording I had done on my Boss 1600CD DAW...so I was green as could be...
Dave brings up a good point: in the test, the 1687 did not record well: those at Amelia last year know what a killer sounding Adamas I that it is: Matt used it in his concert...so some guitars do sound differently in person than they do recorded according to how they were recorded...there are so many variables to get the maximum tone from a recorded guitar, different mic's, angles,eq, etc, need to be used for each situation; again for this test, I wanted everything fair and even for each guitar...it served its purpose and was a fun experiment.
BTW: Randy (Lanaki) won the contest with the right number of matches... |
|
| |
Guitar Sound Test
