aleclee
Major General GAS
A recent post on The Gear Page got me thinking about the whole business of nailing so-and-so's tone. Les is a guy who's done a lot of recording in his time. He's made his living writing and recording music for commercials and has a "side job" producing records. In short, he knows that of which he speaks:
Further, I question whether it's even desireable in the context of playing in a band. Given the effect that EQ and compression have on timbre and transients, I think you lose a lot of ability to cut through in a live setting. IMO that, more than Fletcher-Munson, is why settings dialed in down in the basement often don't translate to a live band environment.
Just a thought...
To be honest, I don't entirely agree with his last statement. I think it is possible but I definitely agree that you can't expect to duplicate a recorded tone by cloning the rig used to record it.I've said this before, but do not forget that any recordings had a signal path starting with microphones, preamps, consoles, effects, compression, EQ, analog tape artifacts, etc.
What goes in one end isn't necessarily what comes out the other end of the recording chain.
Prove this to yourself: put a mic in front of any amp and record it. Any mic, any recording chain, any amp. Then play back the recording.
Now go play the amp. They will not sound identical.
Now fuss with the recorded sound of the guitar with EQ and compression to cut through the mix. Play the track back soloed, and go play the amp.
Different, huh?![]()
Anyone chasing the EXACT sound of a recording is on a futile mission.
Further, I question whether it's even desireable in the context of playing in a band. Given the effect that EQ and compression have on timbre and transients, I think you lose a lot of ability to cut through in a live setting. IMO that, more than Fletcher-Munson, is why settings dialed in down in the basement often don't translate to a live band environment.
Just a thought...