Looking for tips on guitar tone

[throttle]

Are there any Rocktron Prophesy users out there? I am looking for tips on my guitar tone. I am a newb to recording and the following track was recorded via a 002 rig using the stock preamps. www.powerslavechicago.com As you can tell via the website I am currently in an Iron Maiden tribute band. I figured I would start off with a few covers prior to laying down original material. I have learned via this forum and others that you can?t polish a turd, unfortunately I had to do a lot of EQ polishing on those guitar tracks. I feel like I am stuck in turd polishing mode. If any one is willing to share some Prophesy presets/tips that would be appreciated. My signal chain currently is the Phophesy into a Peavey 50/50 power amp with a Celestion V30 loaded cab. The mic used was a 57. The Prophecy has three parametric EQs built in, although that gives me a lot of flexibility before and after the preamp, I find it hard to dial in the tone that I am looking for. Any advice on specific ranges to boost or cut both prior to the preamp and after would be appreciated. The guitar sound for the above track has a lot of EQ applied after tracking which I know is a big no no via the advice I have read from this forum. So my first goal is to get a good source signal? Any tips on how other folks set their Phophesy rigs up for that 80s metal tone would be appreciated. Anyone willing to share presets would also be great!

[Charlie_M]

Well... I'm no expert at recording but I'll chime in with a couple things from my very limited experience:

1. actually if you're trying to capture the IM meets priest meets scorpions sound, I'd say you're well on your way. Musically, you guys have the 80s metal sound quite good I think.

2. On the recording side it sounds like the guitar is in the backgrond more than what you normally hear in metal. Bringing it more front and center will go a long way i think.

3. Have you considered a different mic? Again I don't have a lot of exerience recording but the guy at my local shop who gave me advice on mics and stuff advised me that the 57 (and 58) is really well suited to live performance but not so good for recording. I've followed his advice and frankly have been stunned at the extent to which my cheap little made in china condenser mic (through a digi002) captures what I hear. I paid like $150 for mine - the brand is CAD and I think it's a fairly entry level condenser mic. This cheap little mic captures what I hear and puts that on my hard drive with stunning fidelity IMHO. Mostly acoustic for me so far but a little bit of electric stuff.

Good luck with the project. Band sounds tight.

Charlie

[brandondrury]

1. actually if you're trying to capture the IM meets priest meets scorpions sound, I'd say you're well on your way. Musically, you guys have the 80s metal sound quite good I think.

I thought your recording was way more fizzy than the Maiden I've heard.

Actually, I was never a big fan of the Maiden guitar sound. When compared to Eddie Van Halen (the first Van Halen record), Master of Puppets, etc the Iron Maiden tone is quite tame sounding. A lot of that is due to the strat that one of the guys used.

I think your tone is fairly fizzy on your recording. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but I like to go a tad darker so that some of the balls comes out in the tone. That's one reason the Royer R121 ribbon mic is so popular with the big boy recording guys. The ribbon ignores a lot of the fizz and focuses on the balls. I had a tendency when I first start to make my guitars overly bright, and there is really no need for this.

Rocktron Prophesy
There was a day I was torn between getting a Marshall JCM 800 (for about $600 at the time) or get the Prophesy. Like a horses ass, I thought I needed 10 different sounds for live shows. So I bought the Prophesy because I thought it sounded good and had the midi switching. Of course, I only ended up playing 4 or 5 shows with it before the band split and I jumped into recording.

Now, JCM 800s are rarely going for under $1,000 and are in high demand... why? It's not a trend. The JCM 800s are in demand because many models sound great. I really wish I had one.

Now, I could probably sell the Prophesy for $500. YUCK! Why? Because that's what it is worth. Instead of profiting $400 or more (and having a great amp for years with the JCM 800) I've lost $900 with the Prophesy and have an amp that I don't use.

I had a guy interning at my home studio last year and we did a little shootout with all my amps. It was completely obvious for distortion that the Prophesy was nowhere near the league of my Rivera, 1971 Marshall Superlead, or 5150. The Prophesy sounded more like a pedal.

I do remember that it sounded better with my VHT 50/50 poweramp all the way up, but it still couldn't compete. This was before I had my guitar fort where I could crank up my tube amps.

So, to make a long story short, this is why I'm so against buying gimmicky boxes. Digital units are not there for most of us. Now as a live guy, the Prophesy is fine. I've heard some of the nicer Line6 amps live with bigger bands and they don't sound bad. However, live is a hogwash.

In the studio world, I find the Prophesy unacceptable for what I'm trying to do. I could probably make it work if I had to, but I have better tools for the job these days.

I was about to sell the Prophesy about a year ago but decided to keep it for the effects. When I record weird guitars, I like to find something cool and track with that effect on the amp. If I rely on using plugins and stuff, I'll tinker for months.

So, the Prophesy does give a lot of flexibilty as far as effects and EQ are concerned that warrant the $500 used price tag, but the distortions are not up to the level of that of a killer guitar amp.

The value of old tube amps will always increase and the value of digital boxes (like the Prophesy) will be along the same lines as the Art reverb boxes for the 80s.

That's my opinion.

Now as for getting a better sound with the Prophesy, I have no idea what your personal tastes are. If you take a SM57 and put it on the edge of the dustcap, that part of the equation is done.

The rest is playing around with the amp until you get what you like. The power tube distortion you can muster, the better. Just remember that excessive pre-gain distortion when combined with power tube distortion equals mud. So back down on the low end and the pre-gain.

The rules of guitar are interesting. The guitars on the Pour Some Sugar On Me song (and that entire album) were direct guitars from a modified Rockman (probably to take the fizz out). This worked well for Def Leopard and most people have no clue because those are not your typical direct guitars.

This type of tone is acceptable and even desired for many. However, for some things, a real amp is simply required. So, it's up to you to determine if you are happy with the Prophesy or not and if it is capable of doing what you need it to do.

I don't think the recorded tone sounds bad, but it does sound fizzy...which makes it sound a little thin / weak.

Brandon

[throttle]

Thanks for the replys guys I apreciate your help.

I think your tone is fairly fizzy on your recording. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but I like to go a tad darker so that some of the balls comes out in the tone. That's one reason the Royer R121 ribbon mic is so popular with the big boy recording guys.

Agreed, that?s exactly what I am trying to tame - the high end fiz. I tracked those guitar tracks before I learned about mic placement techniques. I think I recorded those tracks with the 57 dead center on the cone. However since I picked up your tips via the guitar fort article along with moving the mic to the edge of the dust cap I still get fiz. I figured I would learn a little bit more about recording before splurging on a 121. A am a little confused regarding your ?microphones don?t make much different articles?? Should I really consider a 121 or should I focus more on how to use my amp and EQs?

Is there a specific frequency you recommend that I cut in order to get rid of the fiz. BTW my 50/50 power amp sounds better to me on 5 then cranked to 10. Does that mean I am not a power tube saturation guy or do I need to rethink my EQ when using power tube saturation? For me the more I work the amp, the more high end I lose. I am referring to good high end vs. the fiz I am trying to get rid of. Is this the case of a newb not yet developing his ears (me of course) or are we talking about personal preference here?

So, to make a long story short, this is why I'm so against buying gimmicky boxes. Digital units are not there for most of us.

Couldn?t agree more - It?s great for live work especially doing tribute stuff so that I can dial in different tones per each album, but when the live sound translates into a studio recording, the tone goes south?. Looks like I need to pick up a new head when cash permits or maybe go the Triaxis or JPM route. Already tied the Triaxis once but returned it already. Wasn?t impressed with the all the noise the thing put out., maybe I had a bad used unit, not sure. Do you have an opinion on the JMP-1 combination or stick with a Marshall JCM 800?

On the recording side it sounds like the guitar is in the backgrond more than what you normally hear in metal. Bringing it more front and center will go a long way i think.

Brandon ? Do you agree ? maybe I over did it? When I mixed this tune I was conscious to NOT make a ?guitar player? mix where all you hear is just the guitars. Do I need to bring them up or should I change panning etc? How about the rest of the mix, vocals bass and drums are they @ the right levels? How about tone quality advice on the rest of the mix?

[brandondrury]

am a little confused regarding your “microphones don’t make much different articles”… Should I really consider a 121 or should I focus more on how to use my amp and EQs?

The entire point of that article (at least that I intended to be the point) was that fancy gear doesn't mean a damn thing.

That Royer won't help you a bit if you can't make a 57 work. It took me a year of using the Royer R121 before I started to like it. Engineering is kind of like deep sea diving. You jump in the water with your wet suit, those flippers on your feet, an air tank, and a bright light. Then you go looking for treasure or whatever. The search for the treasure is way more important than the brand of light you are using.

So, the search for the tone has got to be the priority. A 57 straight on is a nasty beast that I've never found to be useful.

Another cause of guitar problems is using way too much gain. You should have just enough gain to pop up pinch harmonics. I would never go passed that unless you really want fizz for some reason.

Agreed, that’s exactly what I am trying to tame - the high end fiz.

A major lesson I learned with engineering is to through being "subtle" out of the window. If I held a gun to your head and said "If there is a single hint of fizz, I'm blowing your brains out", you'd reach for the highs and turn them to zero. You'd probably turn the gain significantly down.

Now we are getting somewhere.

So then creep your way back toward where you started. You'll find the not fizzy spot in your settings, mic placement, etc.

Already tied the Triaxis once but returned it already. Wasn’t impressed with the all the noise the thing put out., maybe I had a bad used unit, not sure. Do you have an opinion on the JMP-1 combination or stick with a Marshall JCM 800?

I can't comment on noise. Noise doesn't remotely concern me in the slightest bit when it comes to electric guitars. I just don't give a shit. It's never been a problem for me on a single recording I've ever done (sometimes I want it in there). The last thing I'm going to do is ruin my tone just to knock the noise down.

I've heard good things about the Tri-axis, but to tell you the truth, I have no interest in this rack boxes. It's been years since I tried out a Tri-Axis. I've never used a JMP.

If I was in a tribute band, I'd use an old Marshall (maybe a JCM 800)...maybe the master volumes right before that era. I'd also use a combo amp of some kind for clean stuff (if volume roll offs weren't good enough with the Marshall....which most old Marshalls do EXTREMELY well in my experience). I'd use an A/B box and maybe a few pedals, but only 2 or 3.

Why? Because no one ever sounds like the record...ever. By default everything is covered in reverb at any show, so there is no way to ever get a dry guitar sound...ever.

I'd throw out this multi-tone thing completley. I think it's hog wash. I bought into for years but now that I'm older I realize that nothing beats a cranked up amp for the real deal tone.

Even on your record, I felt that your tone wasn't that close to Maiden at all. Your tone is way more over the top. So, I'd guess you are not exactly perfectly matching it live either. I bet no one complains.

You have to remember that the power section in a real amp is different from a power amp (even a tube power amp). They sound different, I've compared them. I've had my VHT 50/50 all the way up. It just doesn't saturate like my other amps do.

So, if it was me, I'd ditch the rack, get an old Marshall, figure out how to get the necessary tone and not worry about it. There are other damn good 2 channel amps out there that work extremely well too. It's not like you have to go with an old amp (although it's usually a lot cheaper in the long run).

Brandon

[throttle]

Thanks for the info on the head vs. rack thing. Recording has turned me into a gear slut, time to try out a bunch of new heads...

How about the rest of the post? Do you have time to comment on other parts of the track?

Specifically

Quote:
How about the rest of the mix, vocals bass and drums are they @ the right levels? How about tone quality advice on the rest of the mix?

Is it a good mix or does it suck??? Since I am just a newb I can take the pain?

[brandondrury]

Is it a good mix or does it suck???

Hmm. I'm not ever going to say a mix sucks. That's not really what I do. I'll tell you what I may try to improve it.

The drums are good. Not a hint of boxiness at all. That's the hardest part to get right.

The bass is really tinny. I like bass sounds along these lines (like Appetite For Destruction) for this type of music, but it gets a little clacky.

The guitar is not that bad at all, really. However, I still think it could be better.

The mix is exciting. You did good.

For me, the most distracting element is the bad notes the singer hits.

Brandon

[throttle]

Brandon,

Thanks for the info. I was on vacation for a few weeks, hence the late reply...

Hope you don?t mind a few more questions?.. I was thinking of getting the Randall RM4 vs. a JCM800. I still want a little versatility...

Any advice on which modules I should get? I know you check it out during your workshop. Would you use that over your Rivera or Marshall? How did it stack up vs. all the quality you have had a chance to work with?

I currently own a Peavey 50/50 and a Mesa 20/20 power amp. They both use EL84s. How much of a difference will those be vs. an EL34 or 6L6 loaded power amp. Should I just buy the RM 100 instead or still go the rack route.

Thanks

[brandondrury]

Hope you don’t mind a few more questions….. I was thinking of getting the Randall RM4 vs. a JCM800. I still want a little versatility...

The interesting thing about amps is there is no such thing as versatility...except when you switch from Marshall to something like a Fender Twin (that is a totally different sound...and the only totally different sound).

I learned first hand about this whole "versatlility" thing when my buddy brought over his 50 watt 1968 Plexi. Every rock sound in the world is in that amp. Old Van Halen, Guns n Roses, Master of Puppets and Lincoln Park were all pretty easy to get very close to just with that amp. I quickly learned that this whole versality thing is more in the guitars and how you adjust your EQ pedal in front of the amp.

A kick ass Marshall and a kick ass Fender (play on a few) are the sound. The Mesa sound is just an overloaded Fender anyway. The Mesa sound is a little different than the Marshall, but you can fake the Mesa if you know what you are doing.

Wagener had the Randall modules. They were cool. I'm not sure if they would be my first choice for a couple of reasons. #1 my power amp doesn't do much when it's totally cranked when compared to my Marshall or Rivera.

#2 They are expensive. I don't see them going up in value. I know you have the power amps so maybe you could try them.

I just think that the REAL DEAL MAGIC comes from all the pieces in an amp. If I tapped into my Marshall Superleads preamp section and ran it into my VHT, it would not be even close to the same sound. The magic comes from the entire system (known as the amp head).

All this modular gadgetry is just that. Wagener certainly didn't rely solely on the Randalls. He also had 2 Engl amps going plus 2 DIs off the Randalls (3 amps and 2 DIs total).

For home recording guys, I recommend simplicity.

You would do well with the Modules, but I think you would be happier in the long run with either a real vintage Marshall JMP, JCM 800, or older Superlead and then a seperate Fender product. The Fender needs to be one of the sparkly sounding jobs. Some Fenders are a lot more like Marshalls.

That's another thing. I generally prefer the Marshall type of sound for clean as well. If you know how to do it, you can get this clean with a slight dirtiness to it that is really fun. I don't think the super mega clean thing exists on records. I can't recall it anyway. You only find that sound on Zoom pedalboards and stuff.

Always factor in resale value. If the amp doesn't hold value, it's because no one wants them after the "shiny new" factor wears off. The reason the old Marshalls continue to go up in value relies solely on the fact that they are the defining sound of rock and metal....even if you want more modern metal type of tones, you can get them. Hell, a Dual Rectifier and 5150 don't sound like huge metal records right out of the box either.

Brandon