Recording Direct Question

Paul Sutherland · Post by **Paul Sutherland** » 21 Apr 2011 8:05 pm

I just finished the first of three days of recording. At the suggestion of the engineer I recorded direct. Virtually no effects have been added and the steel sounds really sterile, and every flaw in my playing is exposed. For a lot of reasons related to this studio and this project, it would probably be better to finish the project without using my amp. But the tone I'm getting right now really sucks. I'm trying hard not to let this effect my playing.

What should I suggest to the engineer to make sure the steel sounds better in the final mix? He mentioned that the direct steel tracks could be replayed through my amp to get the sound I'm used to. Are there any other suggestions out there?

Herby Wallace · Post by **Herby Wallace** » 21 Apr 2011 8:41 pm

Paul, First, I don't do very many sessions anymore, but I personally have had many arguments with engineers about this and I refuse to play direct. I could write a book about different situations but to my ear, it always sounds sterile as you were saying. Engineers will complain about an amp being noisy, but now with the computer technology they can remove the hum as I have had it done many times on some of my recordings. It's just a little more work for them, but in my experience, most recording engineers don't hear steel as a steel player does, so I don't buy that line that "We'll fix it in the mix". In other words, if the warmth that your listening for when recording is not there, I don't think it can be added later. This is just my opinion, as I have tried it both ways in many studios and the amp always wins!

Herby Wallace

Clete Ritta · Post by **Clete Ritta** » 21 Apr 2011 9:13 pm

If you mic an amp and get killer tone on record, you may have more work recutting the earlier material.

Try for another take with an amp and mic to compare.
If it sounds better, he can retrack your earlier recordings thru the amp to match later. He suggested it. Take him up on it!

Bring some recordings you have done, or ones by others that are similar to your sound.
During a break, have the engineer listen to them with you.
That way, at least he has an idea of what you would like your steel to sound like.
It helps to like what you hear as you are tracking your part.
Recording direct should not hamper your playing, although I can see how it might if you dont like the mix!
A simple matter of proper eq and reverb should get you a decent sound that you're both happy with. Most studios have amp modeling software plugins these days too, no?

Ultimately, you are being paid to play, not record, so just play your best and let the mixer do his best too hopefully.

Clete

If at first you don't succeed, then skydiving is not for you.

Mike Daly · Post by **Mike Daly** » 21 Apr 2011 10:35 pm

Paul....If running direct is your only option you may find that going through a Line6 Pod is a good way to capture a much sweeter tone. Or if nothing else is available, a Boss GE-7 Equalizer guitar effects pedal can help. With that you can cut some of the dull spots (800 maybe?) and sweeten the lows and highs a little before the signal hits the console. But nothing is as fun as a good sounding amp.....

richard burton · Post by **richard burton** » 21 Apr 2011 11:01 pm

I'll second what Mike Daly said,

I just use a boss GE7 graphic equaliser pedal, and add effects later

Dave Boothroyd · Post by **Dave Boothroyd** » 21 Apr 2011 11:39 pm

It is very hard to play well when you are not enjoying the sound you make, but from a recording engineeer's point of view, it is just as hard for him to get the overall sound of a recording right when one of the players has already committed him to certain frequencies and reverb times.
That's why he wants a clean, full range, dry steel recording on his tape (or more likely Hard Drive!) That is what DI recording is all about.
The mixing is all about adjusting EQ and ambience of all the sounds to "sit" together well.
As has been said before, any decent engineer should be able to give you a monitor feed that allows you to be happy with your sound and to play to your strengths. But as for the sound on the final recording, unless you are paying, that's not your call.
Cheers
Dave

Jack Stoner · Post by **Jack Stoner** » 22 Apr 2011 2:16 am

I record instruments and vocals "dry" and add whatever when I mixdown. If something is recorded with effects that limits what I can do with the track.

I record my steel direct using a POD X3, but there are no effects used, just a preamp "tone" (program) that I use only for recording.

I use Sonar X1 Producer for my recording program.

Bob Cox · Post by **Bob Cox** » 22 Apr 2011 4:44 am

Another solution may be playing through your amp and listning to your tone and at the same time send the engineer a signal via a good ab box.

Paul Sutherland · Post by **Paul Sutherland** » 22 Apr 2011 7:30 am

Thanks for your insights and suggestions. The studio is fairly small and has only one isolation room that is being used for the drums. The band is playing all the songs live, and it is basically an acoustic band. Even the final vocals are being recorded along with the instruments. This is not my decision. It is being done to economize. I'm not paying the bills so I have no right to complain.

In the main room there are two vocal mics, a mic on the acoustic guitar, a mic on each of two fiddles, plus the bass and steel. To avoid excessive bleed-through the bass and the steel are playing direct.

If I tried to use my amp in the room I would be louder than anything else and my tracks would be permeating everything. That's why I think that in this situation recording direct makes some sense. I'm just not sure how this is going to turn out.

I'll be leaving soon for today's session and I'll try to talk some more with the engineer.

Thanks again to all.

Rick Schmidt · Post by **Rick Schmidt** » 22 Apr 2011 8:31 am

Hi Paul...although not as ideal as recording a good amp, using a POD or some other comparable preamp w/ EQ is probably your best option for recording direct. I don't think I've ever left it in the engineers hands and been happy with the final product. At least you have some control that you can adjust to what you're hearing through the monitors.

In my case, I'm actually pretty happy with my PODXT! It just takes awhile of trial and error to figure out how to get what you want out of it. I usually go into a session and play with my preset sound for a minute or two which gives the engineer a feel for what I think I should sound like. Then, when he asks me to turn off my reverb/delay etc., he'll have a good idea what I want him to feed me effects-wise in my mix. I've actually had some really top notch engineers choose to use my POD effects down to "tape", so things are better than they use to be!

chris ivey · Post by **chris ivey** » 22 Apr 2011 12:21 pm

paul..most all the recording i do is direct. i try to get away with going through my digital delay pedal , that way i can stand the sound i hear in the studio and there is some depth recorded. if the engineer doesn't want to allow it insist on a good reverb or delay in your monitor/headphone mix so you can enjoy your sound as you record...then instruct and pray that they give you some similar eq in the mixdown.

one thing that i've noticed is that going through the goodrich 10k volume pedal, the line signal becomes low impedance and delivers a good clean signal to the board even through my delay pedal (old ibanez dml10 stomp box).

after many years i've dealt with too many engineer/producers who don't have a clue about this. many times what you record that day is what you'll end up with in the final. the few very good engineers i've worked with over time are a valuable asset and i look forward to working with them.

mtulbert · Post by **mtulbert** » 22 Apr 2011 2:54 pm

Paul,

A suggestion to the engineer from an old engineer who had to use amps in the studio. Suggest tight micing the amp. If he uses the right microphone, there should be very little leakage and you can use your amp.

Only drawback would be if you have to turn it up to get the tone that you want. Then it becomes a problem because of overloading the mic input.

All the great guys in the 70's got their tone using this technique. We really did not have a lot of choices. Finally, if he insists on recording you dry, please ask him for some reverb in the monitor mix so that you have a sound that you are more accustomed to.

Hope this helps.

Clete Ritta · Post by **Clete Ritta** » 22 Apr 2011 8:15 pm

If you are going direct, then count on the preamp as part of the signal chain.
I went from a Hilton VP to an Avalon U5 into ProTools last time I recorded steel and was very happy with the results.

Clete

Joe Rogers · Post by **Joe Rogers** » 23 Apr 2011 4:21 pm

Paul,

Unfortunately, because today's equipment is so good, the flaws in EVERYONE'S playing is exposed.

The recording studio is now a magnifying glass that does not lie. Still, a good engineer knows how to bring out the best in every track; especially the engineers who are really great at digital editing. Digital editing will allow you to get as close to a perfect track as possible....provided they have enough to work with in the beginning.

As far as recording steel, you are dealing with 2 animals. The first is getting the best sound possible on the front end. The second, is what is done with the steel AFTER it is recorded to make it stick out up front in the mix. The downside of both is that the recording engineer has most of the control over both animals no matter how great of a tone you send them.

Most players prefer the sound of miking an amp vs. going direct. This is because you have the fatness of the "air" when the speaker is being pushed. You lose that when you go direct, although a direct signal is hotter and more in your face. The bad news about a direct signal is that the resulting track tends to be really sterile unless you have some sort of speaker simulation.

There are some really good preamps out there, the Avalon is mentioned above. We used the new Telonics preamp in recording all of the tracks on our CD at the link below. This preamp has a killer speaker simulator built in. In the song Pamala, the main melody track had my steel recorded dry with no effect whatsoever.

http://bb.steelguitarforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=202301

I didn't get to mix this project, and felt there was some tonal loss between the original recorded tracks and the mixdown. The project was transferred from my AW 4416 to Pro Tools and there was some digital glitches in the transfer. I did get to sit in with the mixing engineer to get it as close to the original sound as possible, and I did learn a lot in the process of which I will share below.

My Yamaha AW 4416 has onboard effects, one of which is called an Expander. It is absolutely magical on a steel track. It will take a thin weak steel track and fill it out nicely. The mixing engineer on our project had never mixed steel. The first thing he did was use compression which killed all of the dynamics. We went round and round trying to make him understand compression was not doing the trick. I looked through his Waves plugins and found an Expander. As I pulled it in the track, I found out the resulting effect was nowhere near the intended outcome. It worked totally different from the Expander on the Yamaha. In frustration, I went outside and was explaining the situation to his father, an old school VERY experienced engineer. He said, "You know, back in the day when I was mixing steel, I used to use an Expander on it." Before I could tell him my experience with the Waves Expander plugin minutes before he continued, "...but I have never found a decent Expander plugin for ProTools".

We basically took off the heavy compression, did some creative EQ'ing, and maybe used a very soft knee compression....but VERY slight use of it. A week later I recorded in another studio with an engineer who ALWAYS got a terrific sound on me. His trick is to use a Fairchild compressor plugin. He told me the Faichild compresses horizontally AND vertically which brings back some of the dynamics lost from a normal compressor. Of course he also had a VERY high dollar analog console which added to the wonderful tone as well.

I would also like to add one more thing you can do to fatten up your track. Do a Copy and Paste and create a duplicate of your first track. Pan the tracks to something like a 3 o'clock/9 o'clock position. Then add a very slight digital delay on one of the tracks....preferable with minimal feedback if any at all. This should help get the spacial thing happening for you. Also look at expanding the Q on the lower mids to get some tonal fatness there.

One last thing before I go. I played a live theater show 2 weeks ago. The house engineer literally grew up in the recording studio, his father being a legendary producer down here. I had my Telonics preamp running stereo, yet summed into a mono XLR cable. The guy wanted to mike my cabs, but I told him to go direct with the one summed cable. I told him the preamp had a terrific speaker sim in it and his comment to me was, "Joe, I've had a lot of experiences going direct with steel and I would rather not. It sounds too sterile". I mentioned that my cabs were stereo and he would need 2 mikes if he were going that route. He declined and said, "OK, we'll try direct". He was floored. He was raving both during intermission and at the end of the show that it was the best direct signal he ever heard on a steel.....and this guy should know....he has recorded them all his life. By the way, this guy owns an original Fairchild.....the $15,000 model.

Hope this helps.....

Joe Rogers

Paul Sutherland · Post by **Paul Sutherland** » 23 Apr 2011 9:59 pm

Thanks to all for the further input. I've completed the tracking and felt I should share some of my thoughts on this process.

When I returned to the studio on the second day (Friday) I listened to the tracks from the prior day (all recorded direct). The steel actually sounded good on both the studio monitors and a car stereo. It was not exactly what I was used to hearing, but certainly passable, and much better than what I had been hearing in the headphones. After talking with the engineer and band leader (who is also the producer), I elected to continue recording direct. I was reassured that I could re-amp if necessary to get the tone I wanted, once the tracking was completed.

The sound in my headphones continued to be poor. (BTW, I had requested on the first day that the engineer sweetened the tone somewhat with reverb, which he did.) It continued to be a challenge to play my best with the poor sound quality, but I complete the task. I actually gained a little confidence as time went by, as I heard tracks played back that sounded pretty good, despite what was in the headphones. Playing remained sort of an act of faith, just hoping and praying that somehow these sterile, harsh notes and licks were making musical sense.

Today, Saturday, I returned for the final day of recording. I recorded one last direct track, as a modified version of the acoustic band played live. Then we turned to some steel overduds (mostly fixes for clunkers that I had hit on prior days).

I was now the only person playing so I was free to make as much noise as I wanted. We hooked up my Session 400 and the engineer mic'd the amp, while still keeping the direct line.

Instantly I had the tone I was used to, and I was hearing what I wanted to hear. And instantly my confidence level went up several notches. It became fun to play again. I played much better and fairly quickly completed my tracking assignments.

Then I suggested that we should re-amp all the tracks that had previously been recorded direct only. That was meet with resistance from the engineer who apparently felt that was too much work, and the band leader/producer who said it would take too much time (read--cost too much), and wasn't really necessary. We picked out portions of one song and compared the direct line feed to the amp'd feed. It was just a quick comparison, but they were virtually indistinguishable to me. They both sounded good, so I relented.

The lessons I learned are:

1) I will not expect that I will have lots of time in the studio to get the perfect tone, unless I'm working with a really big budget production. (That's never going to happen.)

2) I will record using my amp if at all possible, as I will play much better when I hear a proper steel tone.

3) I will research and buy some sort of pre-amp, or equalizer, or pod, or other thing-a-ma-jig, so that I can get a reasonable steel tone in the headphones, for those occasions (hopefully rare) when recording direct is virtually required.

4) I will strongly urge that the rhythm track be recorded first, and the steel be overdub'd, so I can avoid #3 above.

It's been a fun experience. I can't wait to hear the final product, which of course is totally out of my hands.

Thanks again to all.

Clete Ritta · Post by **Clete Ritta** » 24 Apr 2011 6:45 pm

One thing I noticed is that you were using headphones, which is par for the course in a live group recording. That is part of the issue too.
Headphones dont always sound like it does in the control room, or anything like it sometimes.

Often the mix you hear in headphones is sent by the engineer who may adjust levels by eye on an aux sends from the board. If you need a change in the mix, he will just change send levels until you say its ok. He may not even hear your mix.

Theres always pressure when the red light is on, but especially on a live recording.
I was recording direct, but doing overdubs in the control room, not using headphones. Multitracking is a lot less pressure that way.

Anyway, Im glad your steel sounded good on playback the next day!

Clete

Bryan Daste · Post by **Bryan Daste** » 25 Apr 2011 10:56 am

I work as a recording engineer and also play steel. I've recorded myself a lot, and I've played for other artists and engineers, and I've found that the best thing to do is just be flexible. Sometimes you can use your rig, dial it in just like you want, and go; sometimes, like in your situation, you can't. The headphone mix in this case becomes a huge factor. If you can convince the engineer to spend a little time getting your headphone mix right, maybe with reverb or other effects (or even an amp simulator), it will pay off in terms of comfort and mood

. At my place, we have a system that allows each player to dial in their own special headphone mix. One thing you might think about is investing in a good set of headphones that you can bring to the session - if you're already comfortable with the 'phones, you'll be ahead of the game.

Using a Pod or similar might help as well, in terms of what you're hearing, but if it were me I'd have the engineer record both the Pod signal and the DI signal. Often what sounds great in the headphones might not be the best sound in the mix.

I have actually found that steel is one of the easiest instruments to record. Most of the tone is in the instrument itself (meaning hands, bar, steel, volume pedal) - anything downstream of that is just gravy. Often I record the steel DI, intending to re-amp it later, and then when it comes time to mix I'll find that the DI signal with a little EQ and reverb is actually preferable in the context of the mix. Sometimes it isn't. There's no right answer; you (or the engineer/producer) just have to listen and decide what's right for that particular song. I do like the sound of amp sims on steel, even though for regular guitar I think they're mostly atrocious. You just can't mess up the sound of a well-played steel guitar!

Clete Ritta · Post by **Clete Ritta** » 25 Apr 2011 12:45 pm

I agree with Bryans comments.
Besides not bothering the wife and neighbors late at night,
These are reasons why I usually practice with headphones and no effects at all. Often times unplugged if Im not playing along with something.
When you get used to your steel all by itself like this, any amp or effect is just gravy.
Ive done a good deal of recording, both music and foley, and like to record as pure a signal from the source as possible. This leaves the widest amount of opportunity for mixdown possibilities, IMHO. Most engineers like to record dry and flat. Once an effect or any processing is committed to track, its permanent. My analogy of effects on a track is that of salt and pepper on food: if you put too much on, you cant take it off later to make it taste better.

Todays technology enables both a direct signal track and amp/mic track if desired. Usually the time factor in a studio dictates that it is faster to go direct than set up an amp and mic and other isolation elements such as baffles or gobos. Theres no doubt that the time spent to dial in an amp and mic track may well have been worth it in the end in some cases, but budgets often wont allow this luxury of time.

Clete

Mark van Allen · Post by **Mark van Allen** » 25 Apr 2011 9:16 pm

Hi, Paul, and congrats on finishing the session. One thing you may have noticed through this thread is the difference in perception about what "recording direct" actually means. I'm not sure if you went through an outboard mic preamp, a board channel with EQ, or just directly from your volume pedal into the recording interface. Which way you do it can make a huge difference, relating to impedance matching, pickup loading and other electronic effects.

And as you've found, your headphone mix can have a huge bearing on your feelings about recording.
Regardless of whether you will mic your amp, I'd suggest finding a portable preamp that gives you a serviceable tone that you can turn to when the amp is unavailable as for the session you did.

Although I have a killer stereo rig with cabinets, 9 times out of 10 I record through a Peavey TranstubeFex as it gives me a bunch of tonal and effects (or dry) options, and allows recording in the exact scenario you were in, or while sitting in the control room, which allows great communication with the producer/engineer/artist. I have repeatedly A/B'd the amp recording with the preamp "direct" and the differences are so subtle that the advantages far outweigh the added hassle of micing, isolation, etc.
I have had many engineers try to get me to use their favorite guitar rig to record with, and except for specific effected tones, I get a much more "steelish" recording through the Transtubefex, ProFex II, Pod, Genesis or similar device, and it invariable pleases the engineer and artist.

Best wishes with your future recording projects!

Greg Moody · Post by **Greg Moody** » 26 Apr 2011 9:25 pm

Most all the sessions I play anymore I plug stright in.With the new pro tools or recording software you have a wide range of amp simulators.The last session I done we used a 59 tweed bassman simulator and it had a wonderful warm tone.almost like a Brumley tone,I was amazed how good it sounded.It makes a big difference who is running the gear if you can take the time to work on the tone.One thing I will do if my headphones dont sound right I will slide one ear off just enough to hear my amp a little more or the tone.I dont know if this is incorrect or not but sometimes it really helps me with the presents of whats going down.If the studio has a tube preamp I have ran thru a boss R-V3 and will get the job done.

Paul King · Post by **Paul King** » 6 May 2011 5:09 am

This topic hits home to me. I just did a session last evening and I went direct. I used a Steel Guitar Black Box but not the amp. I thought the sound was terrible. A month ago I used a DD6 and an RV5 along with the Black Box. I had too much effects when the final mix came out. I have found out most engineers just do not know how to make a steel sound like a steel player wants it to sound. I have always marveled at how great the steel guitar sounded on records such as Conways Twittys, Loretta Lynn and others of that era. Those guys knew how to record a steel and make it sound great without all of the effects we have today.

Tony Prior · Post by **Tony Prior** » 9 May 2011 12:44 am

Paul King wrote: I just did a session last evening and I went direct. I used a Steel Guitar Black Box but not the amp. I thought the sound was terrible. Loretta Lynn and others of that era. Those guys knew how to record a steel and make it sound great without all of the effects we have today.

But you don't have to record with or ADD any effects. Actually, you shouldn't, we shouldn't. Direct or mic'd.

Recording direct is not something we should do cold anyway, no different than recording with a few real good mics and analog preamps, you have to test the waters and seek the sound.

I find for my purposes of projects ,demo's and E Sessions, direct recording produces fine results. But it took a while to understand the dynamics of direct recording just like recording with quality mics. Bottom line, you still have to play well, in tune and with fresh strings.

A simple direct chain would be a tube preamp and slight compression before it enters Pro Tools or whatever program you are using. There are many folks getting excellent results with direct recording using various signal paths to the inputs.

happy direct recording !

Paul King · Post by **Paul King** » 9 May 2011 4:00 am

On Saturday I received a CD I had played on last year. I met the man in Oklahoma and he brought a recorder. He stated he was getting distortion and wanted me to record direct. He told me I would be very pleased with the CD. Man was I shocked. The steel and fiddle sound terrible and both were recorded direct and with the recorded he brought. What was recorded in the studio got much better results. My steel sounds like a novice player and has a very muddy sound. My next attempt will be with my amp and a mic. This stuff messes with your head when you hear such poor quality.

Tony Prior · Post by **Tony Prior** » 9 May 2011 9:35 am

Paul, that's bad..sorry to hear this. An engineer that cannot get a clean sound on a recording is basically..well..useless ! The difference between mic'd and direct should only be an opinion of tone, not distortion !

Maybe the trim knob or input gain knob was broken or maybe it was missing ?