Applying an Amp Sim (settling an argument with guitarist)

[LordBTY]

I figured I'd post this here since I'm more likely to get a better amount of knowledge here (the amp forum is... well... we all know.)

 

Since I don't have the means to record a nice sounding amp with plenty of mics, my guitarist has been doing this:

 

Guitar > distortion pedal > PC.

 

Since the distortion pedal sound awful on it's own, I've processed it via Guitar Rig and various amp simulators - of course, this can make it difficult, since it's already got distortion and making it sound less muddy can be a chore.

 

I was thinking if he recorded clean (though able to hear himself distorted somehow) it would be easier to process. He insists that it would sound terrible. However, he then suggested that an amp simulator is ok if it's prerecorded.

 

He insists that:

 

Guitar > Amp Sim > PC

 

will produce something very different to

 

Guitar > PC > Amp Sim

 

Here's his argument:

 

 

"palm muting on a crunch guitar when you palm mute, the distortion creates that chug chug sounds because you're not letting the strings vibrate

if you record a clean guitar palm muting

it doesnt make that sound

it just shortens the note and its muffled"

 

(this was over MSN)

 

The only difference as far as I can see is the possible loss of audio quality on a prerecorded track - I'm thinking it's all in his head.

 

I'm willing to be open here... but I'm not sure what he's getting at... help?

[brandonhackler]

I not only record Guitar > Pedal Board > Interface > Ableton running Guitar Rig 4, I also use it live. Guitar > Pedal Board > Interface > Ableton runnin Guitar Rig > Radial ProRMP > Amp. Lets me use all of my cool weird glitch effects and stuff live.

 

His argument seems logical to him but it's kind of pointless. Running the guitar into the comp into a good amp sim with a good amp sim tone will heed very very usable results. You can still get the CHUG CHUG sound.

[Tibetan_Yak]

The argument is not against using guitar rig etc (I myself use Line6 gearbox) IF it is applied to a live guitar. The argument is against recording guitar clean and THEN applying a distortion onto the recorded audio.

[LordBTY]

 

The argument is not against using guitar rig etc (I myself use Line6 gearbox) IF it is applied to a live guitar. The argument is against recording guitar clean and THEN applying a distortion onto the recorded audio.

 

 

Mmm..

 

And I'm saying the only difference would be in performance if he couldn't hear the distorted result.

[LordBTY]

Ok, it's sorted...

 

It's about tone building being a delicate craft that he likes to be in control of.

 

So... it's a guitarist thing

[MrKnobs]

Mmm.. And I'm saying the only difference would be in performance if he couldn't hear the distorted result.

 

Yes, and that's a huge thing. You need to control the effect by your playing. With it absent, you can't.

 

Terry D.

[JMR]

I've been having nice results using the line out from a small combo amp (Vox Pathfinder). That way I can use all my effects.

[LordBTY]

Yes, and that's a huge thing. You need to control the effect by your playing. With it absent, you can't. Terry D.

 

I was suggesting the signal be split into him being able to hear it distorted and it being recorded clean...

 

I did say to him that the only real problem would be the performance, he said otherwise... but that's not what it's about if you read carefully

[Phil O'Keefe]

 

The argument is not against using guitar rig etc (I myself use Line6 gearbox) IF it is applied to a live guitar. The argument is against recording guitar clean and THEN applying a distortion onto the recorded audio.

 

 

OK, but in essence, you're doing the same basic thing when you run a guitar straight into a dirty amp. Clean signal -> something that distorts it.

 

Running a pedal straight into the amp has its place, but there are things to be aware of when doing that too. First of all, you want to use a high impedance input on whatever audio interface you have connected to the computer; if you use the wrong input, with low impedance, it's not going to sound "right".

 

There is also the cab sim issue to be aware of. You can record the pedal direct like that, but it's not going to sound "right"; or at least not like it would going into an amp... mainly because guitar speakers generally don't reproduce much of anything over 5-6 kHz. Your guitar -> pedal -> PC configuration is going to have way too much high frequency content to sound like it would when going into a guitar amp. However, a good amp sim can address those issues.

 

Look, there's no "right or wrong" to any of this stuff (unless you're planning on doing something like running a speaker output into your computer's line input - not recommended!), so at the end of the day, it's all about what YOU like the sound of... but in general, I prefer mikes on real amps. If I don't have that, then a guitar into a external amp sim (POD, etc.) or guitar into pedals and pedals into the computer, with the computer running an amp sim would be my preference. I almost never run pedals into an amp, sans any cab simulation, and call it a day...

[jchas]

We've been using a technique that seems to cover all the bases. First we use

a KORG rack tuner (with guitars it probably sees as much action as the amps or effects). The KORG has multiple parallel output on the back - all running at the right impedance. One go's to a POD (our guitarist has one at home and spends a lot of time getting the sound he wants), another to a tube amp (one of 2 Epiphone's, 1 with Telefunken 12AX7 and the other with a JJAU7 depending on the song), and a third gos clean to the computer for possible amp-sim later. 9/10 times we go with a combination of the amp and POD.

[Zooey]

Another vote for splitting the signal. If you have a Pod or something handy, he can monitor through that instead of a plugin. Also get a direct take without processing. You can use a buffered pedal with stereo outs in bypass as a splitter.

[TBush]

 

but in general, I prefer mikes on real amps.

 

 

It seems that this ends up being the coolest and most satisfying tone. I have split the signal quite a few times, but then that "clean to the computer" tone usually ends up going back out to a real amp anyway (then insert a sample delay on the original amp track and adjust until it's in phase with the new amped-up track). Whatever works- but for me 9 times out of 10 it's the actual live amp track that sounds the best.

[skunky_funk]

CHUGS aren't as defined even with a reampable clean signal. It really depends on how good your converters are and how realistic your amp sims are. It is a kin to using a badly designed Multifx processor, only that you're doing in on the DAW, where your A/D conversion takes place.

 

From experience, I prefer hardware sims like AxeFX and quite honestly, the DG stomp and Vox Tonelab sounds far more natural than Line 6 stuff. As for software sims, I'd prefer a good tube preamp like a Mesa Boogie Studio preamp or Marshall JMP-1 (whatever floats your boat) and add a Convolution cab simulator software plugin.

 

Ditto on splitting signals. Given the chance, I would want to have a DI signal of the raw guitar sound, the preamp out signal and if permitted, a mic'd cab signal.

[chris carter]

Ok, it's sorted... It's about tone building being a delicate craft that he likes to be in control of. So... it's a guitarist thing

 

Assuming he'd be monitoring himself through the amp sim, this is indeed the only issue. Personally, I like to commit the guitar sound to disk most of the time, but that's a production decision because like the guitarist, I would prefer to commit. When you leave all these options open for something as influential as guitar tone, you can find yourself going down a rabbit hole and next thing you know, you've lost the mojo of the record - and the mojo is more important than anything technical.

 

Since you seem to want post-recording control and he wants pre-recording control, I could recommend two options:

 

Option a) the easiest option is to record as you are suggesting (clean, monitoring the amp sim) and then save the settings on the amp sim. That way you keep his sound, but provide the option later on to tweak it slightly (with his input if desired) during mixdown.

 

Option b) if processing power is an issue, I'd mult the signal and record a clean one and a processed one.

 

But in reality, I have no problem commiting to guitar tone, so I wouldn't do a or b But that's just me!

[mistersully]

if you're talking about a plugin.... aren't you left with a clean signal anyway if you take the plugin off after recording?

[MatrixClaw]

if you're talking about a plugin.... aren't you left with a clean signal anyway if you take the plugin off after recording?

 

Yes.

 

 

Maybe I'm reading your question wrong, but guitar > interface/computer > VST such as SoloC/Shred/etc would sound a hell of a lot better than guitar > distortion > computer. Not only would it sound better, but you'd also be able to change settings on your amp sim without rerecording

[mistersully]

 

Yes.

 

 

i thought i was missing something for a minute

 

 

i'd just set the clean signal.... then apply the plugin... tweaking it to the guitar player's taste , without affecting you clean signal ..eg not changing preamp settings (or whatever the guitar is plugged in to)... then have at it after he's done his take

[chris carter]

 

if you're talking about a plugin.... aren't you left with a clean signal anyway if you take the plugin off after recording?

 

 

Not if you put it on the input.

[mistersully]

 

Not if you put it on the input.

 

 

what would be the benefit of doing that?

[chris carter]

 

what would be the benefit of doing that?

 

 

To print it with the effect.

[BrainChild]

Though I use direct for added possibilities I rarely use it. Even though it is a great chain (Radial-AX16-HD) it still doesn't seem like it sounds exactly like what I thought I played. Usable yes but satisfying, no. YMMV.

[LowYaw]

Guitarists don't play guitars alone; they also play amps. The feeling of how a player should pick, mute, hit, pull and bend to achieve desired effect is at least 50% dependent on the amp (a cab sim in your case)

 

so yeah. I would go amp sim >PC

if you can record both the sim and direct, go for it.

also, in my experience, pedals into PC amp sims almost always sound like {censored}

[weeman]

I almost never run pedals into an amp, sans any cab simulation, and call it a day...

Some pedals into Amps sound amazing! i would always prefer to record the affects rather than apply them in post.

[robin eagleston]

To the O.P

You should really be splitting the guitar into a) D.I and b) amp sound regardless .

It gives you freedom to do what you & said guitarist likes later in the mean time he may not need ever know that this is what your doing until he say's "if only we could rerecord the guitar trax with a different amp sound" then you can perform the impossible infront of his eyes .