Members rockapede Posted January 6, 2009 Members Share Posted January 6, 2009 tell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members knucklefux Posted January 6, 2009 Members Share Posted January 6, 2009 posts wat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members knucklefux Posted January 6, 2009 Members Share Posted January 6, 2009 posts he Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members STEEL KAGE Posted January 6, 2009 Members Share Posted January 6, 2009 I think the first one is the modeler just because the second one sounds kinda distant and notched. I've never heard a modeler sound distant. While through my own experience with micing, I know can be a bitch to get a really present, balanced tone onto tape. I like the first one better, whether or not it is the real amp I couldn't care less. I was going to say amp first, Modeller second but after reading your post, it makes a lot of sense so Im going with that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members knucklefux Posted January 6, 2009 Members Share Posted January 6, 2009 posts sed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members knucklefux Posted January 6, 2009 Members Share Posted January 6, 2009 posts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members rockapede Posted January 6, 2009 Members Share Posted January 6, 2009 sed Yet here we are on post 57 with no answer.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members BusterBuster Posted January 6, 2009 Members Share Posted January 6, 2009 They need mor presents :blah: I never got a Xmas presence :cry: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members jnurp Posted January 6, 2009 Members Share Posted January 6, 2009 the first one sounds more alive and full, while the 2nd sounds a bit distant and not as dynamic. 1st is teh real map, 2nd is teh modeler?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Marshredder Posted January 6, 2009 Members Share Posted January 6, 2009 I thought the 2nd was the modeller, sounded digitalesque. Probably wrong though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members kebabeater Posted January 6, 2009 Members Share Posted January 6, 2009 I like the first one more, but that's because the second sounds distant and muffled in comparison. I'd guess the second is a real amp just because it's harder to mic a real amp and get that up front presence that the first half of the recording has. The thing I've learned about digital vs mic'd amps is that on recordings it's hard to tell the difference. Get them in a live setting with some volume, it becomes very apparent which is tube and which isn't tube if the tube amp is dialed in decently at all. +1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Cyber_Chyld Posted January 6, 2009 Members Share Posted January 6, 2009 I've gone for number one being the modeller and number two being the real amp. The first one has that slightly more compressed 'peaky' sound that I associate with modellers, whilst the second has a little more dynamics. Really though, they're very close. I was expecting it to be night and day, but that's quite impressive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members zygoat Posted January 6, 2009 Members Share Posted January 6, 2009 1st one is modeler. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members killshot Posted January 6, 2009 Members Share Posted January 6, 2009 Unless you didn't mic the cab well, the first one is the real amp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members barny15 Posted January 7, 2009 Members Share Posted January 7, 2009 1 = modeler, 2 = amp. The first clip also sounds better for whatever reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members danbronson Posted January 7, 2009 Author Members Share Posted January 7, 2009 So many people assume it's so hard to mic an amp! Honestly, I just stuck the mics in front and hit record! 30 are wrong, 20 are correct... First half is the real amp, second half is the modeler. I'm biased because I recorded the friggin thing, so I suppose that's why it seems more obvious to me. The second clip is fizzy and one dimensional (and for the record I spent a lot of time tweaking it to get it to sound like a real amp, it's based on a preset I made...no luck I suppose). It reminds me a bit of the convolution amp simulators I've heard in that regard. The first just sounds healthy in comparison to my ear. But hey, I'm used to hearing my amp and like I said, I'm biased. Some of you guys (Derelict, ed_sped2, jnurp, Marshredder) have good ears and the guts to describe what you're hearing! Props! Others of you (I won't name names) should probably start wearing earplugs when you're cranking your halfstacks up! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Marshredder Posted January 7, 2009 Members Share Posted January 7, 2009 Hell yeah mother{censored}ers. You can praise me now, and my 19 other minions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members thinkpad20 Posted January 7, 2009 Members Share Posted January 7, 2009 I know it sounds silly to say now that the cat's out of the bag, but that is what I thought... I just didn't want to make a guess and then look like an idiot And it's painfully obvious once you know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Say Ocean Posted January 7, 2009 Members Share Posted January 7, 2009 Amplitube is set up to be recording as a Shure SM57 and a Sennheiser MD441. I was using a Sennheiser e906 and an Audix i5. Both are placed 1.5" off the grill, looking at the cone a bit towards the dust cap.Whether the tone sucks or not is not in question. It does matter though. What is the point of the comparison if neither are good quality and both have top end fizz? First one sounded more real, but both were bleh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Dewysoss Posted January 7, 2009 Members Share Posted January 7, 2009 So many people assume it's so hard to mic an amp! Honestly, I just stuck the mics in front and hit record! 30 are wrong, 20 are correct... First half is the real amp, second half is the modeler. I'm biased because I recorded the friggin thing, so I suppose that's why it seems more obvious to me. The second clip is fizzy and one dimensional (and for the record I spent a lot of time tweaking it to get it to sound like a real amp, it's based on a preset I made...no luck I suppose). It reminds me a bit of the convolution amp simulators I've heard in that regard. The first just sounds healthy in comparison to my ear. But hey, I'm used to hearing my amp and like I said, I'm biased. Some of you guys (Derelict, ed_sped2, jnurp, Marshredder) have good ears and the guts to describe what you're hearing! Props! Others of you (I won't name names) should probably start wearing earplugs when you're cranking your halfstacks up! Called that {censored} {censored} you all, I liked the tone of the first one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Marshredder Posted January 7, 2009 Members Share Posted January 7, 2009 It does matter though. What is the point of the comparison if neither are good quality and both have top end fizz? First one sounded more real, but both were bleh Dude, why are you trying to counteract your not being able to tell by critising his tone? It wasnt a "Check out this great tone" thread. He probably didnt even dial the amp in that carefully, and as he said, he just chucked the mic in front, little effort there. Chill, it was only a Tube vs Digital comparison. In all honesty I thought it was blindingly obvious, very surprised that the majority thought the first was the modeller. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Say Ocean Posted January 7, 2009 Members Share Posted January 7, 2009 Dude, why are you trying to counteract your not being able to tell by critising his tone?It wasnt a "Check out this great tone" thread. He probably didnt even dial the amp in that carefully, and as he said, he just chucked the mic in front, little effort there.Chill, it was only a Tube vs Digital comparison.In all honesty I thought it was blindingly obvious, very surprised that the majority thought the first was the modeller. Just saw the answer, and I was right. The first one had more depth. I didn't say I couldn't tell, it's just that usually people do these to show that a modeler can sound as good as a tube amp. But in this case, neither sounded good, so who cares which is which? Interesting that you should tell me to chill.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members danbronson Posted January 7, 2009 Author Members Share Posted January 7, 2009 Just saw the answer, and I was right. The first one had more depth. I didn't say I couldn't tell, it's just that usually people do these to show that a modeler can sound as good as a tube amp. But in this case, neither sounded good, so who cares which is which? Interesting that you should tell me to chill.... prediction: 5 posts till you're all running in the special olympics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members danbronson Posted January 7, 2009 Author Members Share Posted January 7, 2009 Called that {censored} {censored} you all, I liked the tone of the first one I think the "scoop the mids, crank the bass" crew (aka 95% of HCAF) would be surprised at how well the tone I recorded would hold up in a full band recording. I'll admit the tone I got is a little hard/brash on the top end, and is not terribly thick in the lows, but it would cut through a rock mix (not too great for metal) like a mofo and give the bassist plenty of room. But hey, this forum doesn't like bassists and most of you aren't 'band material' so... For the record, the only way to get a 'distant' tone through micing is to set the mics up on the other side of the room or mic the far edge of the cone. Otherwise, it's {censored}ty amps and settings that typically get that tone. Speaking of settings, in case anyone is interested. The amp is set up as follows: Channel 3 (Orange) in Vintage mode, bold, 100 watts, silicon diode, loop out, master 9:00, presence 1:00, bass 11:30, mid 10:30, treble 1:00, gain 1:30 The guitar is a Les Paul Special with a Duncan JB in the bridge. Speakers are Vintage 30s (Randall XL cab). Cables are Planet Waves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members JamesPeters Posted January 7, 2009 Members Share Posted January 7, 2009 I can easily get sounds like you got in the first half of the clip using freeware and no I'm not kidding. Some people on this forum have even heard the results. Use a good DI and the plugin "Juicy 77", disable its own cab sim and add "kefir" (impulse plugin) and a good cab sim impulse file. Add an EQ between the two plugins and you have even more options.My preference for hearing the sound as I play: amps. For recording: whatever works. My old prejudices are easily overcome as soon as I hear sounds that work in a mix, let alone sound good on their own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.