Reverb Part II (a.k.a. trying to sound like your guitar hero)

[jim1960]

Might be fun if Barry posts the original unprocessed wav file and we all have a go at it.

[runamuck]

Originally Posted by Doug Young

a lot of distortion here that I don't hear on Barry's original?

I'm listening to both the original and ricslo's tracks on Sony 7506 headphones and I hear quite a bit of distortion in both tracks. I don't normally use these to listen to music because they accentuate the high end. But I know it's not the headphones that are distorting anything.

[TBman]

Originally Posted by jim1960

Might be fun if Barry posts the original unprocessed wav file and we all have a go at it.

Here it is Jim. It's download enabled.

https://soundcloud.com/barry329/sibeagintro

[rick-slo]

Originally Posted by runamuck

I'm listening to both the original and ricslo's tracks on Sony 7506 headphones and I hear quite a bit of distortion in both tracks. I don't normally use these to listen to music because they accentuate the high end. But I know it's not the headphones that are distorting anything.

I don't hear actual distortion in any of the tracks beyond what you might expect from resolution loss in the 128 bit rate quality you get from soundcloud (and perhaps some audio quality loss in the file Barry uploaded to soundcloud to begin with) - but also see comment below about overs.

FWIW I rather hated my Sony 7506 headphones and tossed them out - way to trebly.

Here is part of Wake's SiBeag SiMor recording in its original wav format:

http://dcoombsguitar.com/Temp/WakeSiBeagSiMor.wav

Compare that to soundcloud link provided by Barry to see if you notice any difference.

I will add that Wake's recording uses quite a bit of hard limiting on notes that would have otherwise been
digital overs. That gives a bit of harshness that could have been avoided if it had been not so hotly produced.

[Doug Young]

Ah, I think I hear a hint of the issue on Barry's raw track, now that I can hear unprocessed. There's some slight distortion or graininess that I can't quite identify, but it's the same character as what I hear in Rick's mix, it's just pumped way up there. So all the reverb, etc, may be bringing it out.

Barry, I did a quick mix - didn't listen to Stephen's, just my quick take on what I'd do. It doesn't get rid of the sound I hear (tho I did get rid of the airplane!) I'll PM you a link, and you can do whatever you like with it, feel free to share with others if you want - but it's nothing too exciting. I think I prefer your orignal mix.

[TBman]

Originally Posted by Doug Young

Ah, I think I hear a hint of the issue on Barry's raw track, now that I can hear unprocessed. There's some slight distortion or graininess that I can't quite identify, but it's the same character as what I hear in Rick's mix, it's just pumped way up there. So all the reverb, etc, may be bringing it out.

Barry, I did a quick mix - didn't listen to Stephen's, just my quick take on what I'd do. It doesn't get rid of the sound I hear (tho I did get rid of the airplane!) I'll PM you a link, and you can do whatever you like with it, feel free to share with others if you want - but it's nothing too exciting. I think I prefer your orignal mix.

My recording was done with just the Zoom H5's mics with a wooden "TV" table for a music stand which was very close to the guitar's soundhole. There's a bit of natural reverb in there, I guess maybe from the reflection of the table. Also, I didn't have the Zoom on a cushion or other soft material just on top of the tab that I wasn't reading. I've noticed that putting the Zoom on a folded towel or cotton t-shirt (when I don't feel like getting out a mini tripod) helps get slightly better recordings.

[rick-slo]

Originally Posted by TBman

My recording was done with just the Zoom H5's mics with a wooden "TV" table for a music stand which was very close to the guitar's soundhole. There's a bit of natural reverb in there, I guess maybe from the reflection of the table. Also, I didn't have the Zoom on a cushion or other soft material just on top of the tab that I wasn't reading. I've noticed that putting the Zoom on a folded towel or cotton t-shirt (when I don't feel like getting out a mini tripod) helps get slightly better recordings.

Given that setup, with a better gear and setup you could probably get quite close to Wake's sound. Needs to be more or less the same type of music and openish tunings for best results.

[TBman]

Last version for now. If you're old enough, you'll understand the title...

I think I got that pesky hum out of there.

[rick-slo]

Originally Posted by TBman

Last version for now. If you're old enough, you'll understand the title...

I think I got that pesky hum out of there.

Now some really weird denoise artifact. Just call the airport and tell them you are about to record some music.

[TBman]

Originally Posted by rick-slo

Now some really weird denoise artifact. Just call the airport and tell them you are about to record some music.

Do you mean that ringing kinda artifact?

I may have overdone the eq on the reverb possibly.

Hmm, I'll delete that and try again.

Ok, I think I have it. My speaker's aren't that great though, but to me it sounds better - no plane or other strange noises that I can hear anyway. I changed and reduced the reverb.



Anyway, I think this is doable. I have to slow myself down and learn SW's style, which will result in a big improvement for me and this should trickle down to my own compositions.

Once I get a few more covers of his arrangements under my belt I'll start off with some simple short compositions of my own and try to mimick his arranging and playing style and see what happens.

The difficult part to learn is I guess what is called his "phrasing." My reading of notation isn't that advanced, so its probably me, but I'm not 100% sure of it. What he writes and what he plays kinda of get lost in translation somehow. It will take a while for me to get used to it.

I can take a score by Al Petteway and play it. It's pretty straight forward stuff. Wake's notations have a different sort of learning curve for me. It's not a speed thing but an interpretation thing. I'm learning though and having fun with this.

[jim1960]

After 4 attempts to recreate what was in the reference track, I was regretting having suggested Barry post the original. Every attempt found me lost in the mud and the weeds and not liking what I was hearing. The biggest issue was the reverb that came with the original. Every time I tried to increase the size of the space, it got all muddy on me, and that didn't change when I rolled off the low and high verb frequencies.

In the end, I decided I couldn't recreate what was in the Wake track (and to tell the truth, I'm not a fan of what was done on that track). I didn't want to blow this off after having requested the unprocessed track, so I looked for a happy compromise.

If anyone is interested...
To get there, I first gently applied RX7 DeNoise, then quite a bit of SPL DeVerb Plus to the track. I gave the track a slight bump at 233 and 533, then a couple of dips at 1960 and 6570. That seemed to get it a bit closer to the reference track. Next up was the UAD EQP-1A plugin. I started with the "Low End and Fresh Air" preset and tweaked the levels slightly. Then I ran it through my Kush Clariphonic MS. That unit doesn't have settings in number values so this will mean nothing to anyone who doesn't have it, but I gave a slight "lift" boost and a significant amount of "silk."

I set the reverb up on an aux track. Surprisingly, I didn't like the results I was getting from Seventh Heaven and decided on Altiverb instead and used the Teatru Manoel opera house setting. I shortened the tail slightly. I rolled off the bottom from around 400 and the top from about 1.2.

On the master bus I gave about 1/2 db bump at 168, a 1 db dip at 1khz, and 1.5 db dips at 4.5 kHz and 9 kHz.

It's not really to my taste but like I said, I was looking for some kind of happy compromise. I'm happy to hear thoughts, criticisms, and suggestions. I'm always up for learning.

[rick-slo]

The de-noisers are hollowing out the sound. Sounds better without their use. Pretty hard to remove a constantly
changing noise (in both volume and pitch) such as in this case with a plane flying overhead.

[Doug Young]

I heard no negative impact when I removed the plane using RX. Partly Barry is capo'd so there's no sound down there where the airplane noise is, but RX can remove this kind of thing in general with no discernable impact. There are lots of settings and thresholds to play with and sometimes it takes experimentation to find the right value. I checked when I did it, by having RX play only what it removed. I heard Barry's foot tapping :-) and an airplane, nothing else. Of course, there is a bit of a sensation of less fullness without the airplane bass note in there!

That said, as Jim experienced, I did not come up with a mix that was better than Barry's original.

[rick-slo]

Originally Posted by Doug Young

I heard no negative impact when I removed the plane using RX. Partly Barry is capo'd so there's no sound down there where the airplane noise is, but RX can remove this kind of thing in general with no discernable impact. There are lots of settings and thresholds to play with and sometimes it takes experimentation to find the right value. I checked when I did it, by having RX play only what it removed. I heard Barry's foot tapping :-) and an airplane, nothing else. Of course, there is a bit of a sensation of less fullness without the airplane bass note in there!

That said, as Jim experienced, I did not come up with a mix that was better than Barry's original.

Takes away more than you think at least in the examples presented.

[KevWind]

I also did not try to recreate the reference track , simply did what I thought sounds reasonably good. But with a bit more verb than I usually use