Hybrid hotness! Rediscovering my Randall T2HL

[Rex_Rocker]

Tbh honest I'm not much of a Melodeath fan at all. I don't think I've even heard an album by In Flames . What always put me off was the lack of actual guitar solo's (as opposed to Maiden-ish melody lines) The only band I really liked was Arch Enemy...cuz ..solo's (and a few stray others' I could count on one hand). My thing was Old-school Swedish death metal & I actually preferred Finnish bands like early Sentenced (North From here) and Amorphis (First two only) for anything more melodic. As for Nordstrom I guess I was referencing his work w/ power metal bands (which I am a HUGE fan of..cuz..among oher things....solo's). Anyway in general I think Nordstrom leans more towards stronger mids in his productions for the most part & Sneap leans towards more scooped mids.

In Flames had solos (before they sold out). Probably not Yngwie or even COB-ish solos. But they had some cool leads here and there.

I know you're into shred, but there's definitely some neoclassical BWOHM vibes in there in old In Flames.

I don't agree with Nordstrom going for stronger mids. That's kind of oversimplifying. Burning Bridges also has the 90's Metal scooped vibed to me as well. Maybe not as much as Pantera, but certainly no honk in there.

I do think his mixes are (or at least, used to be) "rawer" and rougher around the edges. That sometimes works. Sometimes it doesn't. He did Rise fo the Tyrant for Arch Enemy. The mix on that record SUCKS compared to their previous and following record, which were both mixed by Andy Sneap. IMO, of course.

IMO, his "masterpiece" was Clayman and his breakthrough was Slaughter of the Soul. I love Slaughter. It's probably my favorite album ever, but I don't think the mix holds up by today's standards.

Overall, I just like Sneap better than Fredman in the 2000's. But in the 90's, Sneap was still in his diapers getting Colin Richardson his coffee, LOL.

 

[Phantasmagoria]

No argument there. I've always liked Sneap' productions especially his guitar tones.


My T2 HL get's those Sneap-like rhythm & lead tones perfectly. In fact those are sort of the "default tones" of the amp if you will...it's not a one-trick pony though, you can dial it in to do a lot else..

 

[El Dunco]

I don't consider highs to be highs until about 5khz, so if it's 2khz, for me it's upper mids, and all I hear on that intro riff is upper mids

This is pretty much correct. 2khz is almost smack dab in the middle of the presence range (nothing to do with presence in an amp circuit but the frequency range that our ears are most sensitive to.). Slightly raising or lowering that part of the spectrum even slightly will noticeably bring things forward or push them back in a mix.

In fact that’s why telephones sound the way they do. They’re limited to the bandwidth in which the legible parts of the voice can be heard most easily.

The Sneap and Friedman tones are fantastic and suit the music they belong to perfect. I would just like to hear a bit more variety from band to band. Ano sim hardware and software touts these incredible libraries worth of virtual rigs, yet the average metal guitarists aiming for modern sounds seen to all arrive at almost identical guitar tones.

I like tones with identity. The likes of Sneap and Richardson, you could immediately tell what album you were listening to by the guitar sound if not the band itself. Far from being an indictment of the technology, it’s how it’s being used which could be the solution for the same reason it’s the problem

It’s a bit like the proliferation of digital sound formats. We were given much more headroom and an incredibly low noise floor but we made our music louder and LESS dynamic than it was on the lossier analog formats.

Speaking of dynamics. The problem wity my CD copy of Rise Of the Tyrant is that it’s mastered to sh!t. It is so compressed and squashed, the drums are crushed flat and pushed to the background, just to make it all as loud as possible. When I first bought it as a teen I knew it sounded strange. The real shame though is I heard the uncompressed instrumentals at a Mike Ammott guitar clinic and they sounded really good. The bass and drums were clear and punchy. Another sad case of effort intensive engineering and mixing falling victim to the Loudness War.

Slipknot Vol:3 is another weird example. It doesn’t even reach 0dbfs but is clipped to hell with visible, jagged diagonal lines, the bass drums having a grating “sticky” sound where the transients got looped off. That’s another I found weird sounding as a kid because once again, great sounds rendered squashed and thin. It made me avoid any album with Vlado Meller or Ted Jensen on mastering.

Ted Jensen can shirk responsibility for Death Magnetic all he likes. Too bad it’s not the first time he’s been named on a casualty of the Loudness War. I’m pretty sure streaming and auto balancing features should have rendered it useless and obsolete by now, considering it all started with radio.

PS - I’m glad people are coming around to strategically scooped mids and are stopping telling everyone to turn up their mids and that pushed mids automatically means better tone.

 

[Inflames626]

Eloquently put, El Dunco. I still go for cuts over boosts. To me boosts are more for color, cuts are more for transparency--to the point that something cut drastically in the wrong place will absolutely disappear in a mix.

The funny thing is assuming we can hear from 20 hz to 20khz (at 43 years old I can now hear from about 30-50 hz to about 16 khz), then 10 khz should be considered "mids" strictly speaking.

Again, a producer shouldn't sound like anything, except to facilitate the band sounding like the band.

You don't hear his name too much anymore, but whenever we hear a Cult or Guns and Roses blues rock type band, do we say, "Mike Clink?" I mean, Clink did Megadeth classics too and they sound nothing like GnR.

Metal producing for the past 20+ years has been very cut and paste. The current emphasis on the producer is largely to sell plugins, IMO, and each producer used to sound drastically different--Steve Albini vs. Sylvia Massey vs. Butch Vig.

The emphasis has gone from making creative music and is now focused on production, specifically to tying people to desktop computers, phones, and gear, because that's $$$$.

To be honest, most thrash is harder to play than melodic death metal because melodic death metal mainly does melodies and not pure solos. Also playing fast in standard tuning is a lot more physically demanding.

I feel about Arch Enemy like I do about Slayer. Their good stuff is good. Most is filler. For me AE quality fell off as soon as Doomsday Machine. But they are really 3 bands--Johann's, Angela's, and Alissa's. Johann era AE even tours as "Black Earth"--the name of the first record.

AE is really formulaic too, mainly because that's how Mike Amott does things. Mad respect for him due to the Carcass connection. But I always feel like he's capable of more than what he does. Just check out Spiritual Beggars.

When I was in my 20s in the 00s I was all about a Mesa/Diezel/Engl sound because I thought it was heavier. I always found 5150s too fuzzy and harsh. I thought the then new Marshall JCM 2000 was...limp.

But these days I like a scooped Marshall sound, boosted up front and thickened for the tuning. I would be fine with an old Overkill tone from 1991 tweaked for a lower tuning.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-huLDwRrUk zz0.9m1u2k6mct9zz

 

[Inflames626]

Melodic death metal is different from thrash in that it puts more pressure on the drummer, although arguably thrash kick patterns under verses could be a little intricate, whereas death metal is just busy flurries of blast beats.

In thrash double kick sections had real power because they were sparingly used. It's hard to appreciate Gene Hoglan's power when everybody now plays like Gene Hoglan.

 

[Inflames626]

Also, Terry Date's work with Pantera seems extremely divisive. He seems to come in and out of favor depending upon whether one is a mid scooper. I think he was more popular in the 90s than now.

 

[Inflames626]

Re: the IF link, listen to how kind of crispy and scooped the intro to Episode 666 is. Johann's bass is also crazy mid pushed in the mix. There's no low end, but the bass is clearly audible and separate from the guitar.

This song was so amazing live in 2000. I got to stand right behind their FOH guy I think and watch him work. I was a guest of the band (one of my Swedish friends was a BIT student and knew the band while I was at GIT). Dick Lovgren later from Meshuggah was filling in on bass that evening.

To me, this is a very AJFA guitar tone, but in C. "Whump whump" on the lows all the way.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MG5mlRjyXqg

 

[Rex_Rocker]

Re: the IF link, listen to how kind of crispy and scooped the intro to Episode 666 is. Johann's bass is also crazy mid pushed in the mix. There's no low end, but the bass is clearly audible and separate from the guitar.

This song was so amazing live in 2000. I got to stand right behind their FOH guy I think and watch him work. I was a guest of the band (one of my Swedish friends was a BIT student and knew the band while I was at GIT). Dick Lovgren later from Meshuggah was filling in on bass that evening.

To me, this is a very AJFA guitar tone, but in C. "Whump whump" on the lows all the way.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MG5mlRjyXqg

Talk about nostalgia. That must have been one f the first extreme Metal songs I ever heard. What a killer song.

I don't love the tone/production on Jester/Whoracle, but the songwriting was the best they ever got, IMO.

About Terry Date... I don't love Dime's tone, but I think that's more Dime's doing than Terry's. I mean. I love it for what it is. It fit the music perfectly. It was immediately identifiable. I just wouldn't love it for myself.

However, everything else in those mixes is damn near perfection. Crisp, gritty, clanky, aggressively played bass, HUGE-sounding drums filled with energy while still sounding well-produced and polished. Very up-front vocals. That intro on 13 Steps to Nowhere. The bass tone on I Can't Hide. Oofff. Terry Date is a genius. I also like that record he did with Unearth where they didn't use a click to give it more of a live vibe, but you don't dig Unearth, LOL. That record is anything but midscooped too.

I guess people like the stuff he did with Deftones, but I never quite got into the band. The guitars always sounded weird to me. Like phasey almost.

 

[Phantasmagoria]

Honestly did'nt think a Krank Rev 1 could sound this close to a Recto ..the more i hear the more I like..

 

[El Dunco]

Oh man Inflames626, you are speaking my language. As an active (industrial, slightly proggy) thrash player and certified, commercial level sound producer you’ve hit the nail on the head.

When my band started, we were exactly that. A band. Our first demos were all of us in the room playing live off the floor into a 16 track. We had no idea about how much comping and editing went into the records we listened to. We assumed you had to be able to play thay perfectly. Even punch-ins didn’t occur to us so when we made a mistake, we’d reset the recorder and start from the beginning which inadvertently made us absolutely killer live from the get go and we had no idea why it was a big deal and why it was considered so impressive, especially to the older, more seasoned metalheads in the crowds.

Your absolutey right that the best producers capture a band and bring a vision to life. The ones you mentioned and many others have very varied resulrs band to band. Even Terry Date, Pantera, White Zombie, Deftones and Soundgarden all sounded like themselves and not like a “Terry Date production” and the best production techniques are the ones the listener doesn’t notice that serves to present the song in the best possible way.

I saw an interview with the man who created the sounds for the lightsabers in Star Wars. He mentioned that at first he was a little miffed that nobody in the audience ever complimented his sound effects until he realised it was the ultimate compliment. They were so truly immersed in the film that their brains took it for granted that it’s exactly what that otherworldly device would sound like, they weren’t even thinking about sound effects.

I believe the best production works very much the same way. The “laptop metal” scene just doesn’t grab people because it doesn’t sound like there is any more than one musician in the room at a time, because there isn’t. Nobody cares that you went to production school and you bought the latest, most realistic amp sims and drum software if you don’t have great songs to record with them and nothing to say.

It’s not just my opinion, we’ve straight up been told that measuring up to the modern sounds but retaining the raw feel of a real band playing with feeling is what makes as stand out, it’s been noted from casual listeners to professional reviews in magazines. Rather than let it get me down when I learned how much the industry standard relies on polishing turds, I decided to let our music show how it ought to be done.

Playing heavy music to me is about this:

​​​​​​​

Not this​:

 

[Inflames626]

Oh man Inflames626, you are speaking my language. As an active (industrial, slightly proggy) thrash player and certified, commercial level sound producer you’ve hit the nail on the head.

When my band started, we were exactly that. A band. Our first demos were all of us in the room playing live off the floor into a 16 track. We had no idea about how much comping and editing went into the records we listened to. We assumed you had to be able to play thay perfectly. Even punch-ins didn’t occur to us so when we made a mistake, we’d reset the recorder and start from the beginning which inadvertently made us absolutely killer live from the get go and we had no idea why it was a big deal and why it was considered so impressive, especially to the older, more seasoned metalheads in the crowds.

Your absolutey right that the best producers capture a band and bring a vision to life. The ones you mentioned and many others have very varied resulrs band to band. Even Terry Date, Pantera, White Zombie, Deftones and Soundgarden all sounded like themselves and not like a “Terry Date production” and the best production techniques are the ones the listener doesn’t notice that serves to present the song in the best possible way.

I saw an interview with the man who created the sounds for the lightsabers in Star Wars. He mentioned that at first he was a little miffed that nobody in the audience ever complimented his sound effects until he realised it was the ultimate compliment. They were so truly immersed in the film that their brains took it for granted that it’s exactly what that otherworldly device would sound like, they weren’t even thinking about sound effects.

I believe the best production works very much the same way. The “laptop metal” scene just doesn’t grab people because it doesn’t sound like there is any more than one musician in the room at a time, because there isn’t. Nobody cares that you went to production school and you bought the latest, most realistic amp sims and drum software if you don’t have great songs to record with them and nothing to say.

It’s not just my opinion, we’ve straight up been told that measuring up to the modern sounds but retaining the raw feel of a real band playing with feeling is what makes as stand out, it’s been noted from casual listeners to professional reviews in magazines. Rather than let it get me down when I learned how much the industry standard relies on polishing turds, I decided to let our music show how it ought to be done.

Playing heavy music to me is about this:

​​​​​​​

Not this​:

You were doing it old school starting out, El Dunco. If I recall, Maiden recorded stuff live in studio, entire band playing together at the same time, up until the late 90s. They only went back to put in overdubs or fix mistakes--and since it was analog I'm sure if the mistake was too big they would just rerecord the whole song. Man I would feel pressured.

Of course back then bands rehearsed everything extensively and then recorded, often improvising a great deal during the process, especially on solos. I don't think there was as much writing in studio as there is now because studio time was money, not a time to be experimenting.

I started out much the same as you. I still have an 8 track cassette TASCAM machine that I did my earliest stuff on. I was too young for analog but too old for the new stuff coming up. Did my first original complete demos on a Windows ME desktop.

 

[El Dunco]

You were doing it old school starting out, El Dunco. If I recall, Maiden recorded stuff live in studio, entire band playing together at the same time, up until the late 90s. They only went back to put in overdubs or fix mistakes--and since it was analog I'm sure if the mistake was too big they would just rerecord the whole song. Man I would feel pressured.

Of course back then bands rehearsed everything extensively and then recorded, often improvising a great deal during the process, especially on solos. I don't think there was as much writing in studio as there is now because studio time was money, not a time to be experimenting.

I started out much the same as you. I still have an 8 track cassette TASCAM machine that I did my earliest stuff on. I was too young for analog but too old for the new stuff coming up. Did my first original complete demos on a Windows ME desktop.

That’s probably the thing I dislike the most about the piecemeal writing-in-studio approach. A song that has been crafted, had a chance to “live” as a song to really put thought into it, workshop, take notes and make sure it holds up will always sound more inspired. It’s also hard to create a production plan (you can’t plan to approach recording a song that doesn’t exist) and in the arms race to edit together the most technical sounding songs in a hurry with the sterile precision available to anyone who can use a DAW, some of these bands can’t even perform their own songs.

The old school way, actually laying it down takes up the least amount of time in the studio. When you find sounds you like that serve the song and commit to them, you don’t chase your tail messing with the sim software after the fact and can spend more time getting the best out of what you have.

Meshuggah, while having always fully embraced emergent technology, still started out playing Marshalls on analog tape and boy oh boy do they ever bring it live. I caught them on the ObZen tour in ‘08 and again at a festival. One of the best live acts ever, even to people who aren’t into their music.

They even went back to the old school “live off the floor” method a couple of albums ago.​

 

[Inflames626]

"It’s also hard to create a production plan (you can’t plan to approach recording a song that doesn’t exist) and in the arms race to edit together the most technical sounding songs in a hurry with the sterile precision available to anyone who can use a DAW, some of these bands can’t even perform their own songs."

Preach brother, preach. I believe this approach mainly comes from "Trendiphery" as someone put it on another thread. That said, those guys can play, but the way they associate themselves with the bedroom studio scene is much like modern professional wrestlers being so willing to admit that the product is scripted. It robs the product of authenticity by being...too authentic?

The approach you mentioned also reflects a demotion of the value of recorded music, I think. Used to tours and merch supported an album with the album being the primary revenue stream; now, albums support tours and merch with the tour being the primary revenue stream. The album is a commercial. Who cares if you can't play a deep cut live? You'll never play it.

I dig Meshuggah for what they do. That said most of the songs don't really stick out to me. But I appreciate them for trying to push the envelope.

I think, also, the record-in-studio approach was probably started by Mutt Lange when Def Leppard were recording "Hysteria" from 1984-7, with millions of dollars in support and gear out the wazoo. Now bands seem to enjoy that approach almost as a routine (albeit without the financial support), and can write while on tour. Just get your DI tracks on the bus and then alter with software or reamp as necessary later.

Always a pleasure, El Dunco. Enjoy being right nearly all the time with my appreciation and respect.

 

[Rex_Rocker]

That’s probably the thing I dislike the most about the piecemeal writing-in-studio approach. A song that has been crafted, had a chance to “live” as a song to really put thought into it, workshop, take notes and make sure it holds up will always sound more inspired. It’s also hard to create a production plan (you can’t plan to approach recording a song that doesn’t exist) and in the arms race to edit together the most technical sounding songs in a hurry with the sterile precision available to anyone who can use a DAW, some of these bands can’t even perform their own songs.

The old school way, actually laying it down takes up the least amount of time in the studio. When you find sounds you like that serve the song and commit to them, you don’t chase your tail messing with the sim software after the fact and can spend more time getting the best out of what you have.

Meshuggah, while having always fully embraced emergent technology, still started out playing Marshalls on analog tape and boy oh boy do they ever bring it live. I caught them on the ObZen tour in ‘98 and again at a festival. One of the best live acts ever, even to people who aren’t into their music.

They even went back to the old school “live off the floor” method a couple of albums ago.​

ObZen was released in 2008.

98 must've been Chaosphere.

Both killer records.

 

[El Dunco]

Thankyou

I don’t always enjoy being right but I would never choose blissful ignorance.

 

[Rex_Rocker]

Honestly did'nt think a Krank Rev 1 could sound this close to a Recto ..the more i hear the more I like..

The thing I love about Kranks is their very active and harmonically rich top-end. Sounds like they have more going on higher up than most amps. Some call that "fizzy", but I love love love love it. They also have an almost Marshall-y twang to the attack that Rectos or 5150's don't have.

They're not perfect amps, though. Kinda like Marshalls, they're stupid loud, and they don't deliver goods until you turn them up. The Sweep knob is kinda confusing, and it's almost like it completely breaks your sound if you but look at it the wrong way. The presence is also really touchy. They also NEED a boost. Not only because they're loose-ish, but because they're not super high-gain either.

But they're better built amps than Peaveys for sure. I'd even say than Mesa. They used Schumacher transformers. Pretty beefy too.

I think they're kinda misunderstood amps in the sense that they were almost a decade too late. They sound very 90's. That they should've releasead them when Rectos and 5150's first came out. That, and the name was ridiculous.

About that clip, I think they dialed the Krank in a bit too growly. I'd either have the Sweep knob very slightly higher or the mid lower and the treble knob higher. Or a combination of all like very very slightly. Sounds a bit cloudy compared to the Recto there.

 

[El Dunco]

ObZen was released in 2008.

98 must've been Chaosphere.

Both killer records.

It was ‘08 sorry. Typo.

 

[Phantasmagoria]

The thing I love about Kranks is their very active and harmonically rich top-end. Sounds like they have more going on higher up than most amps. Some call that "fizzy", but I love love love love it. They also have an almost Marshall-y twang to the attack that Rectos or 5150's don't have.

They're not perfect amps, though. Kinda like Marshalls, they're stupid loud, and they don't deliver goods until you turn them up. The Sweep knob is kinda confusing, and it's almost like it completely breaks your sound if you but look at it the wrong way. The presence is also really touchy. They also NEED a boost. Not only because they're loose-ish, but because they're not super high-gain either.

But they're better built amps than Peaveys for sure. I'd even say than Mesa. They used Schumacher transformers. Pretty beefy too.

I think they're kinda misunderstood amps in the sense that they were almost a decade too late. They sound very 90's. That they should've releasead them when Rectos and 5150's first came out. That, and the name was ridiculous.

About that clip, I think they dialed the Krank in a bit too growly. I'd either have the Sweep knob very slightly higher or the mid lower and the treble knob higher. Or a combination of all like very very slightly. Sounds a bit cloudy compared to the Recto there.

Yeah I was getting a bit of that Marshally vibe when I checked out the Rev 1...I thought maybe cuz of the EL34's. The Nineteen 80 would probably be my first choice for a Krank I just liked playing it the most. Both those amp's did seem pretty gainy though...more gain on tap than I would ever be using. I just think that if it came to it I'd have better luck getting him to part with the Rev 1 since he also has a "Plus" model with KT88's or something as well that he seems to favour/use more in his studio. In fact his Rev 1 just seemed to be collecting dust in a corner which is a shame :laugh2:

I thought the mid-sweep was really effective. My T2 has one too so I'm familiar w/ dialing it in. The Krank's seemed even more sensitive/effective though. I'm not really a fan of "tight" amps or tones for rhythm. I think a bit of looseness gives everything a more real/organic & "bigger/fatter" feel.

I don't remember either oft those amp's sounding anything like a Recto whenI played around w/ them though..but the clips show they can sound reasonably close. Yeah I did notice the Rev1's mids sounded a little bit stuffier....but that could probably be fine tuned w/ abit of EQ'ing. IT was'nt bad as it was tbh...definitely in the ballpark.

 

[Rex_Rocker]

The Krank's Sweep was more effective because it's doesn't only affect the mids, but the whole tone stack. It sweeps the frequencies at which all knobs work, not just the mids. That's part of why dialing them in is kinda tricky. Just so much as breathe on that sweep knob, and all the knobs start doing different things.

I'm all about a bit of looseness too. I mean, I like Rectos, LOL. Even if I boost my Rectos (or my digital emulations), they never really get as tight as a 5150III or an ENGL Savage. Unless you use that TC preamp that Meshuggah use that I dread.

The thing about Rectos and Kranks is they don't really have enough gain for my liking (keep in mind, I do like 5150 tones). Kranks have one or two less gain stages than Rectos (they have as many gain stages as 2203's, actually, except they run them colder so that they clip slightly more). Rectos have one gain stage less than 5150's. I think 5150III's might have an extra gain stage, but I'm not 100% sure. I find that Rectos and Krank gain pots are usuable only for so much of the travel of the knob. They have brigh caps, much like Marshalls, so if you turn the gain past a certain point, you start letting more low frequencies through the input stage, and they become bloated and undefined. For me, a Recto's gain knob becomes unusable after past 1:30-2:00-ish. At that point, unboosted, I don't think that's nearly enoug gain for Death Metal.

I'm not a gain junky even. My friends that I jam with always tell me that I dial in my tones too dry. Or at least when they play through my setup because I do play really hard.

 

[Phantasmagoria]

The thing about Rectos and Kranks is they don't really have enough gain for my liking (keep in mind, I do like 5150 tones). Kranks have one or two less gain stages than Rectos (they have as many gain stages as 2203's, actually, except they run them colder so that they clip slightly more). Rectos have one gain stage less than 5150's. I think 5150III's might have an extra gain stage, but I'm not 100% sure. .

I don't get the gain stage thing and how that translates to actual gain. I mean my little Laboga the Beast 30 Plus head stresses that it is all-tube and uses no SS circuitry whatsoever & it's got an unholy amount of gain on tap. But uses just 2 12AX7's in the preamp. I've played amps with 6 12AX7 preamp tubes that did'nt sound as gainy.. :lmao:


Now keep in mind that it's kinda loose/spongy w/o a boost. (he way I like things) cuz of the 4 EL84's in the output.. I actually love the compression this amp has..it's kinda soft/spongy/smooth feeling but it grinds like hell too & never sounds over-saturated or congested. It's great for rhythm playing but also insanely good for soloing/tapping..but yeah gobs of gain from 2 preamp tubes...

Ryan Bruce demo...I know someone was bellyaching about his stuff on here but....he makes it sound like it actually sounds so...