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

So was this all achieved with EQ techniques? Because K. Shields has stated that most of loveless was just 1-2 guitar tracks.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=HsFZCRuA4Qs
twitter.com/AnonBabble

I can't get into this album.

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

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

never liked loveless. overrated

reverb is a hell of a effect

not the point of this discussion but thanks for the input.

>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.

>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.

>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.

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.

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