Help me spot check some recorded tones? (Heavy MESA content)

  • Thread starter Thread starter GJgo
  • Start date Start date
GJgo

GJgo

Well-known member
Hey guys. So I've been practicing my recording technique a lot, hoping to learn & get better at it. We sorted out the album tone and of course I can never leave well enough alone so I've been messing around trying all kinds of things to see if I can improve on it..?

Here are some reamps of a clip from one of our songs done with all my amps. I'm pretty happy with each tone on its own. If you have a minute to listen, can you weigh in with ANY critiques if there's something that stands out to you as could be better, or hey that's killer? Of course I'm still fine tuning!

First I spent a ton of time dialing in a cab / mic setup. I'm using a 2002 recto trad straight cab with an E609 primary, SM7B secondary & SM57 tertiary on 3 different speakers all blended with my mixer. I'm pretty happy with all of this and I've locked the isolation setup in.

Next I brought in my amps to see what it looks like to dial each in to showcase what they bring to the table. The MKIIB+, MKIIC++, MKIV and Recto have the Griffin Schaffer pedal in front as it adds some dynamics, and the Recto also has the Griffin Chiron klone as a boost.

The "album tone" is the one different one- it's the C+ Chiron boosted with just the E609 & SM7B. I did this a couple months ago and it's been my "reference" as I dial in the others. To me I'm happy with the aggression of this one but I think it could use more mids. The boosted tone also isn't quite as squishy as without it, for better or worse.

Anyway, here's a link to WAV files in my cloud.

What did I get right? What needs work and how so? Thanks!
 
Last edited:
All sound great, nice job!

My initial impression:
Album sounded best

B+ close second; seemed a bit darker, thicker maybe.

C++ was a bit boxy

IV was a bit more boxy

Recto had a bit too much low end and seemed thinner, but I liked the top end of it.
 
I agree with Cardinal; Album #1. IV was next, followed by C++ and B+...Recto was last and definitely sounded thin in comparison. But, they all sounded damn good!
 
not trying to be a jerk at all, but please post on Dropbox or Google drive to get an honest opinion. SoundCloud destroys audio
 
Bram576 said:
not trying to be a jerk at all, but please post on Dropbox or Google drive to get an honest opinion. SoundCloud destroys audio
Click to expand...
Good point. I've put a set of WAV files in my cloud, put the link in the first post. Thanks.
 
cardinal said:
All sound great, nice job!

My initial impression:
Album sounded best

B+ close second; seemed a bit darker, thicker maybe.

C++ was a bit boxy

IV was a bit more boxy

Recto had a bit too much low end and seemed thinner, but I liked the top end of it.
Click to expand...
Thanks man. Yeah, the line between too scooped & boxy in the C+ is always such a fine line..

Recto- too much low end and yet too thin, hmm. How would you solve this?
 
Racerxrated said:
I agree with Cardinal; Album #1. IV was next, followed by C++ and B+...Recto was last and definitely sounded thin in comparison. But, they all sounded damn good!
Click to expand...
A lot of my friends have also been giving the win to the album tone. That's sure convenient. :)

I also think the B+ may have been dialed with a bit much 750. Have to sort that out so it lets the aggression through.
 
GJgo said:
Thanks man. Yeah, the line between too scooped & boxy in the C+ is always such a fine line..

Recto- too much low end and yet too thin, hmm. How would you solve this?
Click to expand...
Not sure the Recto tone needs fixing; could just modestly high-pass around 120 Hz-ish? And blend with the other amps? But one it's own, maybe some type of PEQ in front to push some band of mid frequency to thicken it up? I'm hardly an expert; I've only tinkered with this stuff.

The Recto top end sounded really cool to me, so I would try maybe just blending it with the Marks which can have plenty of midrange.
 
Man it’s all so personal. Album tone and C++ sounded great for that song IMO. Didn’t love the IV honestly. I like the recto but could use a chop in the low end in post and maybe a little more mids on the dial to eat up some high end sting in the treble
 
Interestingly, I've got the recto mids at 3:00, not sure how much more I can get with diming them. I'm givin' 'er all she's got Cap'n!

Too much bass in the Recto huh? Also interesting. That'll make it really thin in this tuning, but will cut more. I've had 10+ rectos & recorded them all in a ton of different ways, and I've just never been able to get the wall of sound they produce in the room, on the mic. I'm starting to think that Rectos only really work like that with 7/8 string tunings where pulling that low end out really works.

I may try a Mark / Recto blend, I have an idea.. Could be a challenge though as the Marks are a lot faster and have to watch out for mud. maybe if I run the Recto bold / diode to get it as fast as it can go, and run the Mark Triode to slow it down a touch? Worth an experiment.

I've always really like the MkIV in the live band, and preferred the older Marks on the mic. Right tool for the job I guess.
 
Racerxrated said:
I agree with Cardinal; Album #1. IV was next, followed by C++ and B+...Recto was last and definitely sounded thin in comparison. But, they all sounded damn good!
Click to expand...
I must have good ears since I agree with Tom.
Album definitely sounds best. IIB had too much 750, and I’d like to hear the C+ and IV with a tad more 6600 for some more aggression.
So the Recto wasn’t on bold/diode? The low end was a tad bloated and soft.
All that said, they all sound really good man.
 
Yeah I think I'll redo the IIB with less 750, messed with it at band practice last night & it was too much. Such a fine line, though. Let me work on some edits.

The Recto was on bold / diode here. The bass was at 4:00 though because I wanted more bottom, however it did bloat it a bit. Keep in mind these are all a Trad cab, not how you're used to hearing a Recto.
 
Alright, I've made some edits! All tracks are updated in the OneDrive folder. Also settings photos are in there.

IIB+ mixtest 2- No pedals. Tighter mids with less 750. The IIB+ & IIC++ settings are now effectively the same other than the C++ has a bit more 6600, and the C++ gets volume from Master 1 (normal) where the IIB+ is running Master 1 & Post FX Master at 5 and getting volume from the Limit circuit. This amp will take your head off if you you set the limit to 0 and use M1 for volume control.

IIC++ mixtest 2- A touch more 6600. Switched from the 4 to the 8 ohm tap to reduce boxiness. No pedals.

IVb mixtest 2- Slightly less 80 & 750. 6600 Dimed. Presence pushed. No pedals. The settings are actually now the same as the Mark IIs other than the 6600.

Recto mixtest 2- Chiron boost only in front. Gain bumped a little. Quite a bit less bass. Mids dimed.
 
They all sound improved! They all now have more cut and definition. My favorites are now the IIB and C+, with the C+ by a nose. I’d still like to hear the Recto scooped out more, and harder on the presence.
IMO they could all still use a little more presence/treble frequencies for even more aggression, but it seems the older I get the more high end I dig, so I’m most likely going fucking deaf for whatever that’s worth. Lol
They all sound great, you’re recordings have improved dramatically over the years, keep it up man. ?
 
Beyond Black said:
They all sound improved! They all now have more cut and definition. My favorites are now the IIB and C+, with the C+ by a nose. I’d still like to hear the Recto scooped out more, and harder on the presence.
IMO they could all still use a little more presence/treble frequencies for even more aggression, but it seems the older I get the more high end I dig, so I’m most likely going fucking deaf for whatever that’s worth. Lol
They all sound great, you’re recordings have improved dramatically over the years, keep it up man. ?
Click to expand...
I have the 2B barely in front of the C+...IV, then Recto but the Recto is MUCH better than before. But the first 2 are far and away the winners.
Nice work!
 
Beyond Black said:
They all sound improved! They all now have more cut and definition. My favorites are now the IIB and C+, with the C+ by a nose. I’d still like to hear the Recto scooped out more, and harder on the presence.
IMO they could all still use a little more presence/treble frequencies for even more aggression, but it seems the older I get the more high end I dig, so I’m most likely going fucking deaf for whatever that’s worth. Lol
They all sound great, you’re recordings have improved dramatically over the years, keep it up man. ?
Click to expand...
Check out the settings pic for the Recto, tell me where you want to see the presence & mids moved to, & I'll make it happen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top