30 Apr AC/DC “Up To My Neck In You” Audio Attempt One
Posted at 23:21h in Blog, Gear Reviews, Premium, Reviews 39 Comments
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.
ar2619RobPosted 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.
MikePosted 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.
bananePosted 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.
MikePosted at 20:18h, 01 May
Yes I saw on Ebay, but not sure if I want a 2204 or 2203 🙂
bananePosted 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 🙂
adam10603Posted 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 😀
MikePosted at 16:10h, 02 May
Yep 2203 it is. I will build myself though because it’s just about my favorite thing to do. 🙂
SoloDallasPosted 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 🙂
MikePosted 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.
guns4hire34Posted at 19:49h, 01 May
Thanks again Fil! It sounds pretty damn good to me!!!
MaxPosted at 14:08h, 01 May
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.. 🙂
SoloDallasPosted 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 🙂
adam10603Posted 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 😉
adam10603Posted at 13:57h, 01 May
sorry, it’s “hollow”, not “hallow” 😀 😀 lol
Devil'Fingers"Posted at 12:47h, 01 May
You are Blessed guitar player
ChrisPosted 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 🙂
TylerPosted at 04:08h, 01 May
Thats tonal magic right there, way to nail it tone master!
nitroangus23Posted 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)
nitroangus23Posted at 01:57h, 01 May
06AngusSGPosted 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?
bananePosted 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 🙂
SoloDallasPosted at 10:42h, 01 May
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.
06AngusSGPosted at 16:50h, 01 May
I’m sorry. 😉 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?” 😛
SoloDallasPosted 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!
SoloDallasPosted 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.
bananePosted 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?
bananePosted at 23:31h, 30 April
Ah, there we go 🙂 Still listening to it, but first impression is: damn close!
SoloDallasPosted at 23:33h, 30 April
Once again, exact equalization apart, I think the texture is there 😀
bananePosted 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?
SoloDallasPosted 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.
bananePosted 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.
SoloDallasPosted 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)
bananePosted at 23:55h, 30 April
SoloDallasPosted at 00:08h, 01 May
Okay, listen to it NOW. The 500hz hole was pretty important 😀 Here is sounds spot on. But I learned not to trust my speakers too much
bananePosted at 00:18h, 01 May
Still listening, but yes, sounds better. Now tell me, how did taking out frequencies eliminate a frequency hole? 🙂
SoloDallasPosted 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.
bananePosted 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 🙂
SoloDallasPosted 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 🙂
bananePosted 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 🙂