What kind of guitar tone/mix do you prefer

[drb]

There is seemingly a split between those who prefer the variety of (usually) older/traditional guitar tones and mixes and those who prefer the clinical precision of modern guitar tones and mixes. The former is generally associated with analogue gear and more raw performances but that variety may also sound worse as an outcome of being different. The latter is generally associated with modellers and studio magic but is often criticised for sounding the same and not having any standalone character.

I'm aware that some people may like guitar tones and mixes differently but let's generalise for the sake of not creating two separate threads.

 

[Crungy]

I'm having a hard time choosing because it really depends on the song/album, imo.

I really enjoy both options, and sometimes an old/traditionally recorded album could sound better with modern tech and vice versa. Or if they were re-recorded with the opposite they might sound like ass!

 

[GunpointMetal]

I really don't think I have a preference, because it's very music-dependent. Like I wouldn't want to hear Don Caballero music with the Monuments mix, but I wouldn't want to hear Monuments with a Don Caballero mix. Then there's stuff like the last Devourment record where it sounds like they went out of their way to not sound as modern and ended up with a shitty-ass mud mix that kind takes all the punch and power away from otherwise super-heavy music.

 

[gnoll]

Traditional.

I struggle with bright guitar tones/mixes and modern drum sounds mainly. Things are too bright, too dry, and too compressed.

 

[CanserDYI]

There isn't enough space and room in modern mixes in my opinion. Not enough reverb and too much presence.

 

[SalsaWood]

Traditional recording is what I prefer, but it's a whole operation.

I can use full digital, DI, or mic and tube amp. Most often I use mic and tube amp which are always set up, I just slap two EQ on it and the track is done.

I think the biggest draw of digital is that you don't need to crank the volume on anything and you can reamp. I can dime my tangible amps with great tone any time so I don't worry about that too much.

 

[TheBlackBard]

Hmm, the choice between mixes with balls, character, nuance, and the human element, or nails on a chalkboard, duckfart, weedly deedly diarrhea separated by notes that look like a binary code or a string of Cheerios that sound like a robot played it. Shit, I'm at a loss.

 

[STRHelvete]

I enjoy what works for the music...because that's the logical answer.

 

[nightflameauto]

I'm a variety guy. I can love an old-school album where it sounds like the guitars are huge, fat, with plenty of room in them, but I can also dig a precise, everything in its place mix where ever note slams with complete precision. Really just depends on the band, the songs, the riffs, and the way the music flows.

For myself, I tend to dial dark and fat tones, but I have some tunes that just require more that in-your-face mids-up, let the mix breathe type tone, so I'm not even that rigid with my own tones.

 

[CanserDYI]

I really don't think I have a preference, because it's very music-dependent. Like I wouldn't want to hear Don Caballero music with the Monuments mix, but I wouldn't want to hear Monuments with a Don Caballero mix. Then there's stuff like the last Devourment record where it sounds like they went out of their way to not sound as modern and ended up with a shitty-ass mud mix that kind takes all the punch and power away from otherwise super-heavy music.

Quoting to try to get more people to listen to Don Caballero.

 

[Crungy]

I'll have to check them out, I'm not familiar.

 

[RevDrucifer]

Whatever makes the song have the most impact.

The stuff I’m not a fan of is more in the way of editing and relying on a DAW to construct perfection. I’m a 90’s kid and the stuff I love the most came from that era, there’s no perfection on an Alice In Chains album outside of the songs themselves being fucking perfect, but the playing/performances are far from perfect.

This is why I still go for full takes when I’m tracking guitars/bass/vocals and I don’t stress about a string squeak or I hit one note a fraction of a second too early, if I sing something and hit one note 1/4 step flat in a long phrase, fuck it. If it bothers me that bad I’ll re-sing it but the last thing I’ll do is slap auto tune on it because autotune.

That said, I’m quite burnt out on the Sneap-inspired mixes. 20 years has been enough.

 

[tedtan]

In like both.

What I dislike about modern mixes isn’t the “clinical precision”, it’s the fact that everyone uses the same drum samples, the same amp modelers, the same IRS, and goes for the same mix. It just sounds too much the same.

The sound of a band should be as unique as their songwriting, arranging, etc. Bring the clinical precision, but sound like yourself, don’t copy every other mix.

Where is YOUR guitar tone? Where is the bassist’s personal tone? I can be more forgiving with kick drum, because you won’t get a big kick sound and keep things tight in a metal mix. But otherwise, where is the drummer’s choice of cymbals and snare (and tuning)?

 

[Matt08642]

What I dislike about modern mixes isn’t the “clinical precision”, it’s the fact that everyone uses the same drum samples, the same amp modelers, the same IRS, and goes for the same mix. It just sounds too much the same.

I think stuff like drum samples and IRs just made producing music more accessible. In 1991 if I wanted to record an album in my bedroom, my options were basically to use a shitty 80s drum sampler that sounds like a Phil Collins solo album and I guess mic up and ungodly loud amp in a space not meant for it, somehow recording to tape and then god knows how it would get mixed & mastered. As a result, only a "few" bands could go to studios and actually record, and then take their stuff to people who knew what they were doing.

Now we have about 1000x the amount of proficient musicians out there, a lower barrier to entry in both cost and quality components, and as a result a lot of stuff ends up with the same sound because that sound is easier to get than a unique mix for your album.

In regards to the "cut through the mix" vs "traditional" approach, I have to say in 90% of genres the guitar cutting through sounds obnoxious and bad to my ears. For instance, go listen to Images and Words. Half the time you literally can't even distinguish the guitar because it's not the "main event", but the songs still sound great. If that album had a Monuments mix with JP mixed the loudest, it would be fucking terrible Even in a jamming context I had to re-learn what my job was, going from "I'm here to bust out wild solos and fills and everyone's gonna be amazed" to "The band is here as a whole to bring up the energy in the room"

 

[CTID]

i love Archspire and their production works for them, but if you tried to use that same style with say, Alice in Chains it wouldn't work and it'd sound like shit. same goes for countless other bands, as well. there is no right answer for music in a broad way, just use whatever works best for the music

 

[Spicypickles]

Modern stuff really hits nice sometimes, but I really think I prefer the “space” that older production styles offered. Modern music is way too in your face and brick walled.

 

[nightflameauto]

Modern stuff really hits nice sometimes, but I really think I prefer the “space” that older production styles offered. Modern music is way too in your face and brick walled.

I think this may play a part in why I've been gravitating towards the proggier side with modern rock and metal. Most prog bands don't get stuck in that EVERYTHING AT TWELVE ALL THE TIME ALWAYS BRICKIT! ARGH! So you still get the modern slick production, but there's space, there's some air hovering around the band, making it actually feel more like a band, rather than a collection of precision instruments all being surgically placed in the same general vicinity.

Granted, sometimes that works too. But the ear-fatigue gets old with the volume wars style mastering some get put through.

 

[wheresthefbomb]

My answer won't surprise anyone so instead I'll just do my part to help spread the good word:

Quoting to try to get more people to listen to Don Caballero.

 

[tedtan]

I think stuff like drum samples and IRs just made producing music more accessible. In 1991 if I wanted to record an album in my bedroom, my options were basically to use a shitty 80s drum sampler that sounds like a Phil Collins solo album and I guess mic up and ungodly loud amp in a space not meant for it, somehow recording to tape and then god knows how it would get mixed & mastered. As a result, only a "few" bands could go to studios and actually record, and then take their stuff to people who knew what they were doing.

Now we have about 1000x the amount of proficient musicians out there, a lower barrier to entry in both cost and quality components, and as a result a lot of stuff ends up with the same sound because that sound is easier to get than a unique mix for your album.

I was there in the late 80s and 90s, so I get that. And I’m not complaining about amateurs sounding too much alike, though they should be working on developing their own sound, too.

My main issue is with professional bands, where everything is about the sound and developing that sound as a brand. Why would you give up some of that uniqueness just for an easier to achieve mix (especially if you’re paying someone to mix you album)? At that level, choosing to use drum samples rather than mic’ing up your drummer is an artistic choice rather than a necessity as it is for amateurs. But maybe try creating your own sample set of your actual drummer rather than using the same Superior Drummer 3 sample set everyone else uses (complete with the default factory settings, no less ), you know?

 

[Matt08642]

But maybe try creating your own sample set of your actual drummer rather than using the same Superior Drummer 3 sample set everyone else uses

HUH?! I can't hear you over my 127 velocity grid-perfect drum track