Recorded quality of distorted guitar sound

C

canada-paul

New member
I have a P4 1.5 with an SBLive card. I'm using my Korg Pandora's headphone output into the line in of the soundcard. Normally I would think this is shunned (headphone outs are not line level), but there is an output level setting on the Pandora which is turned down far enough so that the signal doesn't distort.

When I play through the Pandora, (computer audio output plugged into home stereo, headphones plugged into home stereo), the sound is great. The palm muting has lots of low end chunk, and the sound is crystal clear. Then when I record something and play it back, it sounds significantly weaker. There's no distortion (okay, the guitar sound is distorted of course, but I mean its not peaking and clipping/popping), the levels are fine, but the chunk is gone, and I'm left with something useable, but certainly less than exciting. I assume that it IS possible (with a better soundcard) to accurately record what I'm hearing through the headphones. Right now my setup seems to only be performing as a sketch pad rather than a true home recording studio.

My question: is this recording performance indicative of the difference between recording in 16-bit vs 24-bit? Or is it the difference between using an SBLive versus something else? I've heard lots of talk, mostly here, about other sound cards, but I've never actually heard the side-by-side comparisons. It would be really interesting to hear someone play a riff and record it with an SBLive at 16-bit, then hear the same thing recorded on a higher end sound card at 16-bit, and then again at 24-bit.

Is there anyone out there who has comparitive samples, or has gone through the same evolution as myself?
 
I would guess the culprit is the SB. I would say put your SB on ebay and get an audiophile 24/96 for $150 new or cheaper on ebay. As far as 16 vs 24 bit, you're not going to hear much difference, but you will have better quality with the better card.
 
yawp yawp,
the soundcard just isn't a "recording worthy" card...
with something on the higher end (audiophile/delta 44/etc)- you'll definately get a LOT closer to what you're hearing before you record.
 
Ok, for the past week I've been working on an idea. I put down a rhythm riff, then goofed around with a melody for a few hours before anything concrete came out of it.

Funny thing is, listening to it last night, the rhythm track actually does have a significant amount of chunk to it, and I haven't changed anything! I'm wondering if there is an extremely subtle difference between the played and recorded versions that my stereo doesn't reveal, but my headphones do. I suppose its entirely possible that my stereo is 'colouring' the sound a bit, which is compensating for a less than perfect recording.

I will attempt to post an .mp3 of the file in the next few days so people can have a listen and maybe comment on the sound quality (whether or not you can spot I'm using a soundblaster).
 
canada-paul said:
I'm wondering if there is an extremely subtle difference between the played and recorded versions that my stereo doesn't reveal, but my headphones do. I suppose its entirely possible that my stereo is 'colouring' the sound a bit, which is compensating for a less than perfect recording.
Click to expand...

Usually the differences are more than subtle. That is why a decent pair of reference monitors are so vital. You need to have one set of speakers that tell you how everything 'really' sounds.
 
Congratulations! You just heard your converters! It takes most people a long time to reach the point you just got to!

When you're playing your guitar live through the soundcard, you are hearing the incoming signal routed directly to the outputs...you are not really hearing the signal "through" the soundcard....the signal you're hearing is purely analog all the way.

Now when you playback the guitar track you recorded, you are hearing what the A/D conversion process did to the sound, and are also hearing what the D/A conversion is doing to the playback (typically analog to digital is more of a hardship than digital to analog though).

And what you're hearing is exactly what you should expect. This is where some people get hung up...they hear their guitar, and they hear the recorded version of their guitar, and they just think "that's my guitar alright"...then when they're mixing they wonder why it just doesn't sound very good. The reason of course is that their soundcard (or whatever) is demolishing their sound!

Yeah, a better soundcard will get you closer. I have a Delta 1010 and it sounds worlds better than my old soundblaster, but I *still* don't like what it does to the sound....it just loses some life ya know? It should feel just as powerful when you hit play as it did when you were playing it! It's not easy, but a better soundcard will get you closer.

And yeah monitors are critical....if you don't have good monitors you really can't trust what you're hearing, and that makes your problem all the more difficult.

Slackmaster 2000
 
What else can you do to get a better sound ?

I'll get a D1010, and if theres something else I can do to make sure the sound is even closer to what it really is, ill do it.
 
well for one - put a commercial album with chuncky guitar in your system, and see if you hear THEIR chunk in their guitar...if you do - then you know your speakers are fine...ha!

if you still think its losing something, get a cheap pair of monitors (or if you got the cash, a nice pair!).

i got a delta 44 (from some old creative AWE16 soundcard)...i tihnk its great. its imperitive to have a least 1 or 2 nice mic pre's though...right now i have some crap ones from my behringer mixer (802a)...i borrowed a friends pre's for one project...and it did worlds more.

so yes - better soundc ard (not nessesarily the 1010...do youy really need that many inputs? if not, save a could hundred dollars!!)...
and yes - better pres
and yes - better mics
and yes - better everything
see where i'm going? money runs the world....
 
a sound sample lies within

Ok, well for what I'm doing, one stereo input is all I need. I'm recording my guitar direct, so I don't own a mic or any pre-amps. I also record the keyboard direct from the headphone output. As far as mic inputs go, if it gets to the point where I want to seriously do vocals, I'll have someone with a decent voice and a proper mic setup to do them. I use MIDI for bass and drums, and like the vocals, when the time comes, I'll get a real drummer and bass player to do their parts. From what I've seen about these adverstised higher end soundcards, they all feature all sorts of fancy multiple inputs (4 up to 10). Some have breakout boxes, rack mounts etc etc... All I want is the best reproduction possible of my guitar and keyboard signals, and retain the MIDI capability. If the difference in sound quality between converters is significant enough to warrant purchasing a new card, then I'll definately do it.

Speaking of that, I'm going to try to attach a sound sample of what the recorded version of my guitar sounds like. Its very short, but the limit is only 100k, and I wanted to use 192kbps to retain the sound quality.
 

Attachments

  • nov30, track 4, mix (1)-2.mp3
    93.7 KB · Views: 58
Not bad, but I really think there's no discussion possible about an other way than mic'ing an amp, like I did on this example (comparise it, you'll hear what I mean) or the LINE out of a Line6 or something.



www.geocities.com/fermatostudio
 

Attachments

  • slave vs dream mix 1 (partial).mp3
    75 KB · Views: 48
Sounds good (we might even have similar musical interests). But its hard to discern the quality of the recorded guitar part amidst the drums, bass, and harmony guitar.
 
canada-paul said:
But its hard to discern the quality of the recorded guitar part amidst the drums, bass, and harmony guitar.
Click to expand...

How does YOUR guitar sound sound when it's in a mix? There are times when a part that sounds great in a full mix sounds kinda weak when soloed.
 
Well, it seems to sound comparable to the solo'd track. I mean, I guess it depends on how experienced one is at mixing (another thread altogether). When I make my rough mixes, I typically don't EQ any of the tracks, I just pan. Since the drum soundfont is already recorded as panned, I don't have to mess with it. So usually its just 'place the guitar a little on the left and the keyboard on the right'. I'm guessing here that if you can get a guitar to sound pretty sweet on its own, you should be able to make it sound good in a mix.

What I meant by my comment to F_cksia was that I couldn't appreciate the guitar sound in his sound sample, as it was a sample of a full mix, rather than just the solo'd guitar. It could very well sound amazing and full on its own, but I just can't tell with the other stuff going on around it.

I do understand, though, that the sample I provided isn't very dynamic. The 'chug chug' riff thing might just be the easiest thing to make a decent recording of, I don't know.
 
I'm not sure I agree with the public at large here. I recently upgraded my "#2 system" from a SB Audigy (and SB Live before that) to an Audiophile 2496. I wanted to be able to play back 24 bit Cakewalk 9 audio projects I had done on another PC. It turns out that the Audiophile refuses to work in 24 bit unless you use WDM drivers, which do not work with Cakewalk (it works in Sonar). So in that sense I'm screwed.

However... the other main use I have for this system is transfering albums & cassttes I have to CDR. Since I am going straight to CDR, I record to wave files at 16/44 and then burn to CDR. At this setting I really can't hear any difference between the Audigy & the Audiophile. So while the Audiophile may well have better converters, in this case I can't hear them.

But on my main recording system (a Gadget Labs Wave 824) I have NO problem telling the difference between live recordings done at 16/44 vs 24/44. The 24 bit playback sounds significantly better.
 
You shouldn't be able to tell much of a difference between an Audiophile and an SB Live if you're recording albums like that...you won't tell much of any difference with any soundcard unless it really happens to be poor quality. Sure there will be some variation...when I play CD's via my Delta they do sound better than via my crappy Fisher CD player, but not enough that it bothers me or that I even notice unless I do an A/B.

The way we hear professionally completed mixes of full bands and our own unmixed individual tracks of single instruments is very different! Subtle dedgredation in a finished recording isn't such a big deal under many circumstances....hell, that's why MP3 works so well. In fact that's a good example. Most people would think that a 256kbps MP3 of a polished recording sounds pretty dang decent, I would anyhow. But would I convert all of the source tracks for one of my projects to mp3 and create a mix from them? No way man...that's where subtle variations like "the guitar doesn't have as much chunk" come into play!

Slackmaster 2000
 
A bit off topic but...

for me personally, the 'cut off' in MP3 quality is 192kbps. 128 sounds obviously bad, and 160 is almost indiscernable from the real thing.

(opinion subject to change as listening skills develop)
 
hey RWhite since im looking into getting homestudio XL and will eventually want sonar 2.0 do you recomend me getting the Audiophile 26/96 for a sound card?

my computer will be brand spankin new and will most likly have windows XP but im not aware of the whole mme and wdm drivers dealy so i dont know i might have some problems with that?
i should mention i want to record in 24bit
 
monstertruck said:
hey RWhite since im looking into getting homestudio XL and will eventually want sonar 2.0 do you recomend me getting the Audiophile 26/96 for a sound card?

my computer will be brand spankin new and will most likly have windows XP but im not aware of the whole mme and wdm drivers dealy so i dont know i might have some problems with that?
i should mention i want to record in 24bit
Click to expand...

I for one recommend the Audiophile. Its the most affordable in its class and it really does live up to the hype. It works great with Cakewalk, but just remember to research on the other hardware you're going to put in your new PC, because thats where the problems will come from.

Speaking of A/D converters, yes, the Audiophile's converters are nice, but it still doesn't get that analog sound 100%. That however STILL beats any gaming card I've ever used by a mile and a half. At least now the drums sound like drums, the cymbals and clappers sound like metal (not some hi-frequency hiss) and the guitars are chunkier,warmer and the pick attack sounds thicker and more "real"(and I recorded this straight from a crappy ZOOM 3030, no amp!). There will still be alterations to be done in the mix, but by far, not as much as I used to make, which at least leaves the original character of the sound more or less intact, and IMO the less you do to your recorded sound in terms of effects the better. It also synchs very well with Cakewalk.
 
hey quattro_xxph i have a zoom 3030 also but i didnt know it was possible to record directly from it. now i think i have my mind set on a 2496 so when i get my computer setup in order i will post all the hardware my DAW will have so i can see what needs to be changed.
hopefully in January my lazy ass will be ready to get all my sh*t together so i can finally move forward.
 
monstertruck said:
hey quattro_xxph i have a zoom 3030 also but i didnt know it was possible to record directly from it. now i think i have my mind set on a 2496 so when i get my computer setup in order i will post all the hardware my DAW will have so i can see what needs to be changed.
hopefully in January my lazy ass will be ready to get all my sh*t together so i can finally move forward.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I was clearly surprised too. I always mic'ed my cheapo practice amp for my old projects but it limits my recording time (cant record at night because of the noise) so I started recording straight into the soundcard through the ZOOM's headphone jack. Now ZOOM 3030 is a digital effect. I think it has nice distortions and its supposed to have an amp simulator, but I think its cack. Anyway, I record straight from it to my old gaming card and it sounds so...fake. Like a cardboard box ripping. The string attack sounded like some high pitch squeak and it sucked. I had to run it through a lot of plug ins to make it sound at least acceptable. I tried it with 2496 and it sounded tons better. Still ran it through the plug-ins, but not as much. If you are going to try this I suggest you get some plug ins like Revalver (its got a free demo so its worth a check out) or Cakewalk Amp Simulator (Im a Cakewalk user so I haven't tried VST plugs like Amplitube which they say is much better). Just lower the distortion level a bit because the ZOOM's distortion sounds awfully cold and harsh. If you got some extra cash, I say go get Amp sims like POD or V-Amp. They sound much better direct and you can get more tones (LOTS more). With an Audiophile these sound wonderful. Quite warm, but will still need some plug-ins to make them sound right but IMO really worth the cost (and without the nasty look from the neighbors too!)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top