This thread may not work.

Guitarists often can distinguish gear just by hearing it - "that's definetly a tele thru an AC30." or "That's completely a les paul thru a Hiwatt," etc. Same goes with bassists.

Can you guys "hear" different mics or comps or pre's or whatever on recordings and tell what they are?

For example, there's certainly an 1176 "sound". Or an LA-2a "sound". There's a difference between a D112 and an RE20 that I think I can hear sometimes.

What are these distinguishing qualities?

Share all of your knowledge. Give examples of records.

That is all subjective to how the signal is processed on the way in and out of the control room. I would not try to fool anyone with the "that is a was a u67 into neve 1272, at 8:1 in the 1176, etc. or that was 30ips not 15ips. " I think the real importance is understanding the gear you have or work with to best suit its application. The character of ribbon, condensor, and dynamic mics becomes more obvious with each application and as will your recording environment, as well as certain types of circuits: solid state vs. transformer i/o, vs tube and tube starved circuits. My point is that great recordings have been made at home with unthinkably limited gear and rooms while total crap comes out of the best equipped studio. try everything you have and see what works best with how you use something and gather your own opinion. use the force.

wiggins wrote:This thread may not work.

Guitarists often can distinguish gear just by hearing it - "that's definetly a tele thru an AC30." or "That's completely a les paul thru a Hiwatt," etc. Same goes with bassists.

And most of them really can't do it. How many years did it take before people generally knew that Jimmy Page tended to record with a Tele and a small amp, rather than the les paul/marshal rige he used onstage?

well...

I wrote:This thread may not work.

Can't say I didn't see it comin'.

Zenarchist wrote:

wiggins wrote:This thread may not work.

Guitarists often can distinguish gear just by hearing it - "that's definetly a tele thru an AC30." or "That's completely a les paul thru a Hiwatt," etc. Same goes with bassists.

And most of them really can't do it. How many years did it take before people generally knew that Jimmy Page tended to record with a Tele and a small amp, rather than the les paul/marshal rige he used onstage?

I think there are base tones that can be Identified....If we rule out stomp boxes; while having their own signature tone, they blend with the staple components.

I know what a single coil p/u guitar sounds like thru a Vox, or a Fender (Bassman/Super Reverb), or a JCM900

I know what humbuckers sound like thru a jcm900 or a Mesa/Boogie.

Now whether the humbucker is a LesPaul or an SG or even a copy...that I cannot tell. Or whether the single coil is a rosewood strat or maple tele or copy I dunno. But those are part of the "base" tones that most are familiar with.

I know of some who can identify some components of studio gear too.
Like whether a pre is using I/O transformers or not. Some can identify the "Neve" milky/haze overtones. All of this with fairly good accuracy.

Some can even point out optical compressors versus VCAs.

So I think to some degree these topologies leave a sonic signature. And to this level they can be generally "identified".

Repetition breeds familiarity.

Regards,
spoon

spoon wrote:
I think there are base tones that can be Identified....If we rule out stomp boxes; while having their own signature tone, they blend with the staple components.

I know what a single coil p/u guitar sounds like thru a Vox, or a Fender (Bassman/Super Reverb), or a JCM900

I know what humbuckers sound like thru a jcm900 or a Mesa/Boogie.

Now whether the humbucker is a LesPaul or an SG or even a copy...that I cannot tell. Or whether the single coil is a rosewood strat or maple tele or copy I dunno. But those are part of the "base" tones that most are familiar with.

I know of some who can identify some components of studio gear too.
Like whether a pre is using I/O transformers or not. Some can identify the "Neve" milky/haze overtones. All of this with fairly good accuracy.

Some can even point out optical compressors versus VCAs.

So I think to some degree these topologies leave a sonic signature. And to this level they can be generally "identified".

Repetition breeds familiarity.

Regards,
spoon

While I agree that there are sort of categories, I bet you can be fooled. I can hear a Marshalish tone, and sometimes it comes from a Mesa Mark series, and sometimes it comes from a Marshal, and sometimes from a Rivera, or what have you. Same with a Fendery clean, whcih I have heard from about 10 different amps. The Jam's Voxes sure sound different than Tom Petty's Voxes, and niether of them sound much like Brian May's Voxes. Kieth Richards sounds pretty much the same through Boogies, Ampegs, and Fenders.

I know that Eric Johnson claims to hear differneces in battery types, and brass or chrome 1/4" plugs, and that Garcia was supposed to hear slight changes in house voltage levels.

It's my opinion, and no more than that, that there is not one person on the face of the planet that can make this sort of call consistantly, in a properly set up test situation. Anytime anyone wants to set up such a test, I'll happily play along.

Zenarchist wrote:
While I agree that there are sort of categories, I bet you can be fooled. I can hear a Marshalish tone, and sometimes it comes from a Mesa Mark series, and sometimes it comes from a Marshal, and sometimes from a Rivera, or what have you. Same with a Fendery clean, whcih I have heard from about 10 different amps. The Jam's Voxes sure sound different than Tom Petty's Voxes, and niether of them sound much like Brian May's Voxes. Kieth Richards sounds pretty much the same through Boogies, Ampegs, and Fenders.

True I can and have been fooled. I do not claim to have golden ears but I think they are pretty good.

I am usually fooled by electronics/digital stuff. I heard something by a friend of mine and I thought it was a LesPaulish thru a Fender. I was a LesPaul thru a POD Studio (on their Fender setting). It sounded good to me. That is usually how I have been fooled. I know there are people who claim they can pick out the POD vs. Fender everytime. I would be inclinded to agree except for this incident. Hmm.

I am not saying it hasnt happened the other way; I thought I heard an SG thru a JCM and it was actually a Boogie Mark series. It's just I have had no way to really find out.

But I think in both cases the end result was that a (perceived) paradigm was achieved. Whether by using some digital thing or a Boogie Mark series...I think the intent was to make it (the gear combo) sound like it was a Gibson SG thru a Fender Super Reverb or SG thru a JCM.
Because certain "standard" tones (and tone combos) that define a handful of general categories have circulated the industry for so long.

It all can be so convoluted. But that's the fun isnt it?

spoon

i know some electronic producers nerd that spent loads of time comparing diferent sounds from analog synths vs. soft synths. it´s annoying..
if it sounds good, it sounds good, get over it... and if it doesnt sound very good... it´s not that much of a big deal.

I can usually hear the gear that I own--a Fender Hot Rod Deluxe or a Memory Man, for example. Sometimes I can make out the particular sound of gear whose sound I know really well from a variety of recordings, like the Echoplex. It's just a matter of familiarity and hearing something in a number of different contexts until you build up a sort of mental model of how it affects the sound.

i can usually pick out the kind of bass being played in a recording. but there are maybe 10 different basses used in most rock bands.
precision, jazz, stingray, rick, etc. all of those with pretty signature tones.

active basses are always obvious.

amps are harder for me to pick out.

mic's and pre's, fuck me running, could probably never do it.