fbpx
 

AC/DC “Up To My Neck In You” Audio Attempt One

30 Apr AC/DC “Up To My Neck In You” Audio Attempt One

Well,

given the new discoveries reported here, I tried.

2204, Vega at half TX sensitivity, guitar volume 8 at all times;

Amp settings were presence 0, bass 0, mid, treble 5, master 6 preamp 6

U47 close up; EQ in post was flat except for bass removal and a hole around the five hundred hz; used plexi baffles to obtain boxy sound plus closed reverb.

utmniy

Tags:
avatar
Fil "SoloDallas" Olivieri
sd@solodallas.com

We Are Rock 'N Roll People.

39 Comments
  • avatar
    ar2619Rob
    Posted at 16:04h, 02 May

    Sounds pretty close to me, particularly like the rhythm. Something in the tone of the solo not quite right, needs to be a little fatter to me :) Knowing Opitz technique will really help you nail this album now.

  • avatar
    Mike
    Posted at 19:59h, 01 May

    A completely different sound here compared to your recent BinBl. This is my favorite ACDC sound. It’s got that honky, raw tone. Is it mostly the 220x do you think? THIS is what I’m aiming for. I don’t have a 220x yet-may need to grab one.

    • avatar
      banane
      Posted at 20:15h, 01 May

      Yes, most of it comes from the 2204. Have also one here, with preamp on 6 or above you come pretty close to this tone. Of course the Vega is also important, but the basis of the tone is the 2204. There are some of them on ebay now.

      • avatar
        Mike
        Posted at 20:18h, 01 May

        Yes I saw on Ebay, but not sure if I want a 2204 or 2203 :-)

        • avatar
          banane
          Posted at 20:29h, 01 May

          Doesn’t matter so much I believe. The 2203 has 100 instead of 50 watts, the 2204 breaks up earlier. If you can crank it up, go for the 2203 :)

        • avatar
          adam10603
          Posted at 13:03h, 02 May

          Get a 2203! Because you can pull out two tubes of it, and basically then you have a 2204! So a 100W marshall can be a 50W too! 2 in 1 :) But you can’t put two extra tubes in a 2204 πŸ˜€

          • avatar
            Mike
            Posted at 16:10h, 02 May

            Yep 2203 it is. I will build myself though because it’s just about my favorite thing to do. :-)

    • avatar
      SoloDallas
      Posted at 20:30h, 01 May

      Mike, got your email, responding you here though, as it may be useful for everyone. Not sure if you like more the additional drive OR the microphone position. This is something I used to get confused about, took me years of experimentation to understand. Generally speaking, 220x are a tad brighter, if not a lot brighter. The 2203 is super bright. Also, they have the preamp control which adds a lot of additional drive that a 1987/1959 will never have (unless you use a distortion/overdrive, not a clean boost). They are also definitely mid-rangey. The main thing here in this recording for the tone is the microphone placement though (box thing). Is this you are after? I suggest you experiment with this before you buy. You can simulate a box with a lot of things you have around. Try to literally build a box around the cabinet, in front of it, one that closes it and will let the sound bounce against it and back into the microphone. And try experimenting with microphone position inside the box. IF is the additional drive, then you want a 220x. Between the two, some swear a late ’70s 2204 is the definitive tone machine. Some others think it is the 2203. I wouldn’t know what to choose, but probably I’d go for a 2203. BUt I got them both, as you know. Hope it helps :)

      • avatar
        Mike
        Posted at 20:44h, 01 May

        Interesting! Are you saying the difference between your BnB and Up to My Neck clips are mostly recording technique? How do these sound differently live next to amp? I don’t believe it’s the amount of drive but the tones I’m hearing. Then again I’m have not done any recording as yet.

  • avatar
    guns4hire34
    Posted at 19:49h, 01 May

    Thanks again Fil! It sounds pretty damn good to me!!!

  • avatar
    Max
    Posted at 14:08h, 01 May

    Hey fil,

    sounds good!

    have you tried backing-off the mics a foot or so? you might have to lift the cab off the floor because as soon as you back it off, the room begins to be part of the sound.. :)

    • avatar
      SoloDallas
      Posted at 14:42h, 01 May

      Thank you Maxi :) It was initially at one inch circa, then I closed it up on the grill, which I shouldn’t do with the U47 (it’s that same U47 that you remember from studio58a).
      The cabinet I used sits on top of another 4×12, so it is well raised up. I shall re-try being more far away. I don’t think the room I am into right now sound too good though, so I try to eliminate that from the chain. I have ’60 U67 incoming, the other one I had from Studio58a got sold in time to make money. But I realize I must have an U67. The AT4047s are great mikes, but I understand they are modern emulations of a U47 FET. Maybe I should try those though on this specific track, and I will (actually, on the whole record). I also got a new SM57 for other records (Highway to hell). I DO have an emulation of the U67, that I have never even tried. I bought a mojave 200 months ago, maybe I should take my head off my ass and try what I already have lol Thanks Maxi, your input is as precious as always. Thank you also for the explanation you gave in the other comment about microphone positioning. If fine with you, I am going to insert it in the post mentioning you. I myself hadn’t understood properly what I meant by 90 degrees! Love, Fil :)

  • avatar
    adam10603
    Posted at 13:56h, 01 May

    It sounds a bit “hallow” to my ears. But I guess it’s only caused by the recording and/or post processing. But the actual tone from your amp is there πŸ˜‰

    • avatar
      adam10603
      Posted at 13:57h, 01 May

      sorry, it’s “hollow”, not “hallow” πŸ˜€ πŸ˜€ lol

  • avatar
    Devil'Fingers"
    Posted at 12:47h, 01 May

    You are Blessed guitar player

  • avatar
    Chris
    Posted at 08:43h, 01 May

    WOW, just impressed again and again :)
    The rhythm is damn close to the original, for the solo maybe a bit too much treble
    Even…great what you did again Fil :)
    One of my favs and certainly my fav solo
    Can’t wait for that lesson coming :)

  • avatar
    Tyler
    Posted at 04:08h, 01 May

    Thats tonal magic right there, way to nail it tone master!

  • avatar
    nitroangus23
    Posted at 01:56h, 01 May

    Another one down,

    Matched it dead on Fil.

    Love this song,

    UP TO MY NECK….. YOU!!!!

    (Seems you’re Up To Your Neck In Tone)

    πŸ˜‰

    • avatar
      nitroangus23
      Posted at 01:57h, 01 May

      Dang it,

      Another typo….

  • avatar
    06AngusSG
    Posted at 00:58h, 01 May

    I’ve wondered forever how they got that “hole” of a sound on Powerage. Especially THIS song. NAILED AGAIN FIL!!!!!!

    My question would be when talking about Baffeling their amps by shoving them in a corner, were the studio walls sound proofed or just regular sheetrock?

    • avatar
      banane
      Posted at 01:24h, 01 May

      I was wondering too about that special Powerage tone, but didn’t recognize that it was a sound hole. Thought it was only the MV amp, but now I know it better :)

    • avatar
      SoloDallas
      Posted at 10:42h, 01 May

      Jon,
      I think that naturally the walls were studio-type walls. We did the baffling also at studio58a, both to reduce loudness, limit spillover AND to create a sort of sound booth. This was exactly Optiz intent and what I recreated here. So you have the amp facing the corner AND baffles on the sides to really isolate as much as possible the air in front of the speakers. This alone contributed to the boxy tone you have on several Powerage tracks. Additionally, tone shaping is often done equalizing and Angus has been equalized in post taking out some freqs around 500hz which is also common guitar practice.

      • avatar
        06AngusSG
        Posted at 16:50h, 01 May

        I’m sorry. πŸ˜‰ I should have been less vague. I was meaning sound proof in the sense of; anything on top of the wall. You know? Like the difference between the baffle I made has a foam lining facing the amp (absorbs sound) opposed to plain plexi (reflect sound). So my guess would be “reflecting” around gets the “boxy?” πŸ˜›

        • avatar
          SoloDallas
          Posted at 17:13h, 01 May

          I had kind of an intuition you were actually meaning this. I think Optiz wanted just the sound he got, therefore, the baffles might have been wood, for example (wood absorbs partially and partially reflects). Definitely not plexi lol. Well, keep in mind that a 100 watter like that beast of 2203 (the loudest Marshall 100 watts ever built) at 6 would still reverberate in a box made of absorbing material. So despite of the matter used for the baffles, you’d still get a “boxy” sound!

    • avatar
      SoloDallas
      Posted at 10:46h, 01 May

      So just to clear this out better Jon and Franz, the “boxy” sound is NOT a byproduct of equalization. It’s due to the sound baffles and the corner! The 500hz subtraction is just a more subtle characteristic to define the “quality” of the baffled, boxy sound.

      • avatar
        banane
        Posted at 17:27h, 01 May

        Yes, of course, the boxy sound and the 500hz subtraction are 2 different things :)
        Another question, in another comment you said that taking out some freqs around 500hz is common guitar practice. Do you do this on all your records and if not, why so? :) In other words, when does it make sense and when it don’t?

  • avatar
    banane
    Posted at 23:31h, 30 April

    Ah, there we go :) Still listening to it, but first impression is: damn close!

    • avatar
      SoloDallas
      Posted at 23:33h, 30 April

      Once again, exact equalization apart, I think the texture is there πŸ˜€

      • avatar
        banane
        Posted at 23:37h, 30 April

        Oh yes, it is. Even more than just the texture. Still listen to it, over special headphones, can’t crank my studio monitors now :) Did you damp the plexi baffles?

        • avatar
          SoloDallas
          Posted at 23:41h, 30 April

          Not damped, as they were in plexi.
          I tried to get this sound with the 1959, but there is no way to do it. This is pure MV, be it 2203 or 2204 as I used here, this is MV.

          • avatar
            banane
            Posted at 23:54h, 30 April

            Ok, now I heard it four times, alternating with the original. Indeed very, very close already. Texture itself matches totally. And I have a similar tone on my 2204 here when preamp is above 5. Tone gets “Powerage-like” then :)
            Beside this, I feel that the plexi panel makes the tone a tiny bit harsher than it should.

        • avatar
          SoloDallas
          Posted at 23:53h, 30 April

          Hang on, I had forgotten to take out the 500hz freqs (there’s a clear “hole” there in the record, re-uploading, please relisten to it in 7 minutes)

          • avatar
            banane
            Posted at 23:55h, 30 April

            Alright :)

            • avatar
              SoloDallas
              Posted at 00:08h, 01 May

              Okay, listen to it NOW. The 500hz hole was pretty important πŸ˜€ Here is sounds spot on. But I learned not to trust my speakers too much

              • avatar
                banane
                Posted at 00:18h, 01 May

                Still listening, but yes, sounds better. Now tell me, how did taking out frequencies eliminate a frequency hole? :)

                • avatar
                  SoloDallas
                  Posted at 00:24h, 01 May

                  Expressed myself badly. Thing is that, there IS a hole on the recording. The guitar sound itself wouldn’t have it; you have to make the “hole” taking out frequencies. It’s “subtractive equalization” that, the more I listen and read, the more is used instead of adding/boosting frequencies. When you take out freqs, other freqs sound differently, and the result is like adding frequencies. But it seems to better to take out than to add. So I am learning now. The only thing I did on the equalizer was to subtract excess bass and freqs in the 500hz range.

                  • avatar
                    banane
                    Posted at 00:34h, 01 May

                    Ah, now I understand this, thanks. And my “plexi impressions” are also gone now, so it wasn’t really the plexi. Great tone. Almost fully nailed for me. Congrats, mate, another album debunked :)

                    • avatar
                      SoloDallas
                      Posted at 00:46h, 01 May

                      Thanks Franz :) It was sufficient to follow Optiz directions, this one was probably easier and definitely, I benefited from all the past experience :)

                    • avatar
                      banane
                      Posted at 00:53h, 01 May

                      Yeah, I was surprised how close even the first wrong equalized track was. BiB needed several tries, here’s the first one already a pretty good match. Now I’m curious what George and the other guys say :)

Post A Comment