So was this all achieved with EQ techniques? Because K. Shields

I can't get into this album.

Sounds way too 90s, and that's a problem I rarely have.

>>74329757
>Sounds way too 90s
That's a bad thing?

>>74329696
never liked loveless. overrated

reverb is a hell of a effect

>>74329795
>>74329757
not the point of this discussion but thanks for the input.

>>74329696
>So was this all achieved with EQ techniques?
Micing and engineering, EQ came later.

For a lot of tracks he placed two amps facing each other over a U87 and put a blanket over the amps.

>>74329799
>reverb is a hell of a effect
Which type of reverb? Shields used one to reverse his signal and then run it through fuzz, and he used more fuzzes than reverbs.

If you mean the reverb that was used on the studio track input or mixing then yes, reverb has the property in that sense of widening the audio track to cover more aural space.

I think he also claimed that it should be listened to in Mono rather than stereo, with Mono you can get the whole wall of sound effect much more easily.

>>74331728
>I think he also claimed that it should be listened to in Mono rather than stereo, with Mono you can get the whole wall of sound effect much more easily.

Listening to the remastered version now and the album is definitely recorded in Mono. all the guitar and vocals are right in the center of your skull when listening to it.

>>74329696
Well they sure nailed the effect they were going for, considering I can't stand listening to it due to it being such a dense wall of noise. The production kind of gets in the way for me.

>>74329696
Alan Moulder did the production on it, he can do anything.

>>74331803
>>74329795
>>74329757
samefag or newfag get out
As far as i know, the particular effects weren't complex, but he was enough of a perfectionist to tinker around for many hours at time until he got the particular sound that he wanted

>>74331852
>but he was enough of a perfectionist to tinker around for many hours at time until he got the particular sound that he wanted
He changed his guitar strings nearly every time he recorded something while making Loveless. As in, recording 1 or 2 takes and then immediately changing his strings to record another song.

>>74331913
lmao
turns out the hundreds of thousands of dollars to record the album were mostly spent on strings

I don't get this album. It's nothing but the same drone guitars and barely understandable ethereal moaning. It's so fucking boring

>>74331769
>the album is definitely recorded in Mono
You do realize that most individual stems on an album are in mono until they've been mixed into a stereo track right? Very rarely do you actually have a single stem that was originally recorded in stereo being put on a normal stereo mix.

Overheads and room mics are usually only a mono track as well, they're just used to enhance the stereo image of the finished mix. Whether or not an album will be mono or stereo is usually set in stone during the mixing stage.

>>74331852
Sorry to disrupt your attempt at a circlejerk by expressing a different opinion than yours faggot.

>>74331945
>turns out the hundreds of thousands of dollars to record the album were mostly spent on strings
Nah, it was probably studio time itself more than gear, but the strings thing is completely crazy.

>>74331958
yet somehow it just works

>>74331945
Just imagine Kevin going full autist in the studio because someone forgot to buy/bring guitar string

>>74331959
>You do realize that most individual stems on an album are in mono until they've been mixed into a stereo track right?
>Overheads and room mics are usually only a mono track as well, they're just used to enhance the stereo image of the finished mix. Whether or not an album will be mono or stereo is usually set in stone during the mixing stage.

I know this. I've recorded albums, I wasn't talking about how the songs were recorded, most of the actual mix itself is in mono due to how everything is panned center.

>>74331959
>>74331959

I assume you were the "wall of noise" fag

If you give it enough chances, it actually becomes a pretty clear album. But you're clearly new to the board if you haven't been able to enjoy to loveless yet, so get out until you do

>>74332013
do you think he just blasted his guitar instead of reeing

>>74332027
>the album is definitely recorded in Mono
>I wasn't talking about how the songs were recorded
Could've fooled me.

>>74332033
lol

>>74332065
>Could've fooled me.
My mistake, what I meant, instead of said was that most of the mix puts stuff in the center.

Even with 2 mics that you can create a stereo recording, you can make a mono mix out of them by doubling them directly on top of each other.

Still listening to it and it seems like there are some parts in stereo. I think the main tracks were centered, and additional tracks were offset left or right in the mix. That's because if the mix was entirely in mono it wouldn't be able to fill the whole stereo field when listening to it.

>>74331986
does it though? I listened to it and had to force myself to finish it. I think it's just grating and boring.

>>74332145
That seems the most likely scenario, especially given how no one really listens to music recreationally in true mono anymore with just one speaker, which means you have to use both channels even if the album is entirely a mono mix. A good example of this is the mono beatles remasters.

>>74332033
>But you're clearly new to the board if you haven't been able to enjoy to loveless yet, so get out until you do
been here since 2011fag

>>74332210
Depends on what you're accustomed to.
I was a fan of repetitive and droning music with shifting timbres like Reich long before I heard Loveless so it definitely felt right.

>>74332225
Yeah in cases like that it's just the track being mirrored in the stereo field.

I went through this whole thing where I tried to mix a record in mono at near max volume and realized you can't really get a very wide, full sound that way so you have to get creative with additional mics and spacing and reverb to stretch additional dubs out left/right.

>>74332246
that's a long time to be a pleb

>>74332359
It also helps to use interesting layerings of effects to make the central elements sound more dynamic than they would otherwise. You can get far with a still very narrow stereo mix though, you don't need to pan 100% for everything unless it just sounds better that way.

>>74331815
Look at the list of albums he's worked on and it's mindblowing.

It's EQ and sampling. A lot better of the lead stuff is just sampled feedback. A lot of tracks are manipulated by speeding up or slowing them down. Sometimes it sounds like Belinda is singing, but it's actually just Kevin sped up. The main effects in the guitars were fuzz, EQ, and reverse reverb. There were only a few guitar tracks for rack song, but Kevin used his whammy bar to create a phase effect. Most vocals don't have a lot of reverb either, they are multi tracked to get a similar sound. Almost all drum tracks were sampled loops.

>>74332812
Shields didn't just use his whammy bar either, he had 2 pitch shifting pedals to extend his range.

>>74333065
>he had 2 pitch shifting pedals to extend his range

what were they?

>>74333817
Digitech Whammy.

File: IMG_3434.jpg (187KB, 639x1055px) Image search: [Google]

187KB, 639x1055px

>>74334151

>>74329799
Most of the reverb on this album is reverse reverb, there's very little "I use a lot of reverb because I'm not good at guitar" on this album like their is on a lot of shoegaze music

>>74329757
Dude what the fuck are you saying, Loveless doesn't sound like anything else in existence. How can it be of some time when it can't even be compared to anything of that time or any other time for that matter. I guess you could say it's shoegaze like other shoegaze albums but if you can't see how far Loveless is above the rest of shoegaze you need to listen to more music and learn to be properly critical about the way you listen to it. I'm not even exaggerating and I'm sorry if I sound confrontational or condescending I just want you to understand this very crucial step in sonic development.

>>74329696
>just 1-2 guitar tracks
i have decided that shields is just messing with us. there is no way these songs are just 1-2 guitar tracks.

>>74334293
>>74334151
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HsFZCRuA4Qs

Guessing this anon got that from this video.

Just because he has that pedal in that video doesn't mean he was using it when they recorded loveless.

>>74335182
If he was micing two amps, very possible that he had a splitter in his pedal chain that ran different effects into each respective amp. So each amp would be producing its own sound.

>>74331913
Why he did this with the strings?

>>74336430
Probably so they would go out of tune faster when he used the tremolo. Also, brand new strings have a really short temporary sound to them that probably fit with the tone.

EQ boost to mids, Yamaha spx90 reverse reverb, fuzz pedal, Marshall jcm800, playing with at least 2 strings tuned the same, use the tremolo bar on a jazz master/jaguar moved up and down as you strum ez