DI Guitar recording

[Nimra387]

Hello! I want to make some heavy metal recordings, and as for guitars, I was trying two methods:
1. recording DI guitar tracks, and then re-running them via amp simulators in my DAW (more options for change later)
2. recording guitar tracks directly with amp simulators in input inserts (no option for change later)

Which one would you guys recommend? Also, what I've noticed is, why does the first option sound louder? Can it be the case that it somehow runs through a pre-amp twice?

Thanks!

 

[andrushkiwt]

Hello! I want to make some heavy metal recordings, and as for guitars, I was trying two methods:
1. recording DI guitar tracks, and then re-running them via amp simulators in my DAW (more options for change later)
2. recording guitar tracks directly with amp simulators in input inserts (no option for change later)

Which one would you guys recommend? Also, what I've noticed is, why does the first option sound louder? Can it be the case that it somehow runs through a pre-amp twice?

Thanks!

As "input inserts"? What amp sim are you using? Most of the sims are used by inserting them onto a channel, and anything that's inserted onto a channel, even if recorded through, can be turned on/off or modified. There is always a clean track saved distantly by your DAW.

The only way you wouldn't be able to modify the sim, as far as I know, is if your sim is before your interface. As is the case with my GNX board - it is a hardware unit, so any sound is printed to the track.

 

[ashcat_lt]

As "input inserts"?

Reaper has InputFX which actually do get recorded.

You get to pick, of course, and it's all about how you want to work. There's something to be said for just making a decision and committing to a sound. Recording Input FX is very much the same as sticking a mic in front of an amp. You get what you get, and if you need to change it later, your only tools are "fix it in the mix" things like EQ, compression. If what you really need is to change a setting on the amp itself, you have to retake the whole thing. It's a valid, kind of old school approach, but it does require that you have a real good idea of what you're shooting for, and if you're doing it all in overdubs, it requires that you be able to imagine how the sound you're recording now will fit in with things you'll record later. That ain't easy, but it is a good skill to have.

That said, I still don't see a real point in recording that way. It mostly defeats the purpose of the non-destructive workflow of any decent modern DAW. I can just as easily dial in an amp sim on a regular insert and then never touch it again. Heck, I could even render the FX right away after recording, but the original clean input is still there somewhere in case I want/need to go back to it.

One important thing to keep in mind is that when comping guitar tracks - whether you want to record multiple takes and pick the best parts of each, or even just punch in over a brief mistake, or whatever - it is often a lot easier to make it seamless and transparent when you can do it before the FX. Especially if you've got other effects before the amp like delays or modulations or reverbs, but even ringing strings or sustained notes. It's more forgiving in a lot of ways, but also just gives you finer control.

Edit - ^^^ The above actually applies to most "editing" procedures you might do: Timing or pitch correction, etc...

Can't say for sure why one way would sound louder than another. There's no good reason that should be true. Must be something simple and kind of silly, but I'd have to know a bit more about exactly what's going on to try to diagnose.

 

[andrushkiwt]

Reaper has InputFX which actually do get recorded.

....

That said, I still don't see a real point in recording that way

Um, me either. I didn't know about that, but I can't see why you'd do it. Already, he isn't liking the sound of his recorded part. Therefore, put fx after and make it how you like it.

 

[spantini]

I'd recommend recording dry, then experimenting with sims in the mix.

I'm using Reaper recording dry guitar direct thru an interface while monitoring through amp sims and finding the sims are doing a good
job of covering up imperfections in the original guitar sound. I've pretty much got the sim sounds I'm going to begin with so I'm going
to go back and record new guitar tracks without monitoring through the sims. I'd like to get the original tracks as close to perfect as
I can before mangling.

 

[ashcat_lt]

That's weird to me. It does not at all matter what the clean DI sounds like. It's not what you want to hear. Play to the amp and make it sound the way you want.

 

[andrushkiwt]

That's weird to me. It does not at all matter what the clean DI sounds like. It's not what you want to hear. Play to the amp and make it sound the way you want.

No, but you can set it one way and then change it a bit later, if you'd like. Then you might not need to re-record it. Personally, I've started re-recording guitars if I change the tone - slight changes in the way the amp/sim/board is reacting with the guitar may change the way I'd play it, even if it's a subtle difference. But, in general, most people prob wouldn't do that.

 

[Farview]

Can't you set up two input channels from the same input? That way, you could record the amp sim and the dry guitar at the same time.

However, there really is no point to it.

 

[ashcat_lt]

No, but you can set it one way and then change it a bit later, if you'd like. Then you might not need to re-record it. Personally, I've started re-recording guitars if I change the tone - slight changes in the way the amp/sim/board is reacting with the guitar may change the way I'd play it, even if it's a subtle difference. But, in general, most people prob wouldn't do that.

Sorry, I was talking about your idea of going back, removing the amp sims, and then re-recording so that the clean DI signal sounds...what...good??? That's not likely to happen, and if you do whatever to make it sound good that way, it quite likely won't sound the way you want when you slap the amp on it. I mean, do what you think you need to do, I just don't really get it. Like, if it was a real amp, you'd never know what that sounds like "at the jack" and it wouldn't matter cause you'd just turn the knobs or adjust your playing or whatever to make it sound the way you want. If that didn't work, you'd add pedals or change amps or whatever, but you'd still never know even what's coming out of the pedals. All you ever hear or care about is what's coming out the amp.

 

[Guitargodgt]

Option 1 is what you want guy, just make sure you monitor through an amp sim while recording.

There is no difference in the end result other than option 1 doesn't leave you with an undesirable sound should you decide you hate it later.

 

[Guitargodgt]

It does not at all matter what the clean DI sounds like.

It only matters in terms of accurately reproducing what is coming off the guitar directly, otherwise I agree with what you are saying.

I only bring this up because my cheap L6 interface does not produce good DI tracks. There is a significant difference between plugging in direct to the interface and using a DI box when it comes time to reamp later. I have no idea why the instrument input sucks at capturing the guitar accurately, but it does.

 

[ashcat_lt]

Funny. My line6 interface worked well enough, except that it added too much gain for most of my guitars so it ended up clipping pretty consistently. If there's enough distortion in the amp sim itself, this isn't necessarily an issue, especially for the kinds of things I was doing at the time.

A passive DI will almost always present a lower impedance than the interface input, and in fact usually a bit lower than most amps. How much this matters depends on everything else. There will be somewhere between almost none and a noticeable-but-not-major loss of the highest frequencies. Again, though, you'll just turn the knobs to compensate and probably never really notice.

I notice because my main guitars are otherwise unloaded, so I always just plug my guitar into a pedal and that pedal (or the last in whatever chain) directly into a line or mic input. A lot of times that pedal isn't even on, especially in "studio recordings" for exactly the reasons raised in this thread. I can add whatever FX I want between the guitar and amp in my insert FX and have the option to change them later if I want. Or I can "reamp" through the meatspace pedals if I want. Sometimes I will take a dry split like Farview suggested, but this would be to route around the hardware FX. There's no good reason to record ITB FX at all.

Unless maybe you're manipulating those FX - turning knobs and bypassing things and whatever - in real time as part of the performance. Even then, though, it's usually better to record automation or actual midi CC messages at the same time as the audio.

 

[Robus]

If you are going to use sims, might as well take full advantage of the flexibility they offer. You are paying for that flexibility in tone.

 

[Guitargodgt]

Funny. My line6 interface worked well enough, except that it added too much gain for most of my guitars so it ended up clipping pretty consistently.

I have the old toneport UX2. It has both a normal and padded instrument input. The issue I get with the DI off the software is that it somehow imparts this wierd compression to the DI track, when as you know DI tracks are extremely dynamic so it doesn't reamp as well as when I go through either the digimax, profire, or direct box.

I should do a video myself but just googling around, other people have done comparisons between DI sources on video.

 

[ashcat_lt]

Well that's just ugly! I'm not sure it's really compressed so much as low passed with some resonance. I think the right wrong impedance could do that, but I've never seen specs on that for the Scarlette series. Focusrite doesn't want you to know.

Worth mentioning that the DI used in that comparison is active (and very high Z as I understand it), so the stuff I said about passive DIs doesn't really apply.

So, ok, what the DI sounds like might indicate when there's a real problem in the signal chain... And I was never trying to argue that changing pickups or control settings won't change how it sounds and be important to the tone. All I was saying was that if you know it's working correctly, and you've dialed it in the way you want, it doesn't make a lot of sense to turn off the amp and play to make the DI sound good in hopes that it will make the amp sound better. I guess I practice unplugged all the time. Frankly that tends to sound better than a dry DI, though.

 

[Nimra387]

Thank you, I think I'm going to use the DI method. But one thing is kind of bothering me right now: I'm recording 4 guitar tracks, and it's using hella CPU to monitor and edit all of them at once (and some other instruments). So I was thinking (when I set for a certain sound), to export each track individually, and import them as .wav - would that be a thing?

 

[ashcat_lt]

Reaper has a bunch of ways to do that almost automatically. Render, freeze, apply track FX as new take. That last might be the best. You can bypass the whole FX chain, do your editing listening to the amp sim sound, but then if you want/need you can switch back to the unFXed tacked that got edited at the same time and turn the FX back on to render a final stem.

 

[Nimra387]

Reaper has InputFX which actually do get recorded.

You get to pick, of course, and it's all about how you want to work. There's something to be said for just making a decision and committing to a sound. Recording Input FX is very much the same as sticking a mic in front of an amp. You get what you get, and if you need to change it later, your only tools are "fix it in the mix" things like EQ, compression. If what you really need is to change a setting on the amp itself, you have to retake the whole thing. It's a valid, kind of old school approach, but it does require that you have a real good idea of what you're shooting for, and if you're doing it all in overdubs, it requires that you be able to imagine how the sound you're recording now will fit in with things you'll record later. That ain't easy, but it is a good skill to have.

That said, I still don't see a real point in recording that way. It mostly defeats the purpose of the non-destructive workflow of any decent modern DAW. I can just as easily dial in an amp sim on a regular insert and then never touch it again. Heck, I could even render the FX right away after recording, but the original clean input is still there somewhere in case I want/need to go back to it.

One important thing to keep in mind is that when comping guitar tracks - whether you want to record multiple takes and pick the best parts of each, or even just punch in over a brief mistake, or whatever - it is often a lot easier to make it seamless and transparent when you can do it before the FX. Especially if you've got other effects before the amp like delays or modulations or reverbs, but even ringing strings or sustained notes. It's more forgiving in a lot of ways, but also just gives you finer control.

Edit - ^^^ The above actually applies to most "editing" procedures you might do: Timing or pitch correction, etc...

Can't say for sure why one way would sound louder than another. There's no good reason that should be true. Must be something simple and kind of silly, but I'd have to know a bit more about exactly what's going on to try to diagnose.

Thanks! I'm only using a Scarlet Solo interface, so what would my options for reamping the DI track later be? What method should I use?

---------- Update ----------

Reaper has a bunch of ways to do that almost automatically. Render, freeze, apply track FX as new take. That last might be the best. You can bypass the whole FX chain, do your editing listening to the amp sim sound, but then if you want/need you can switch back to the unFXed tacked that got edited at the same time and turn the FX back on to render a final stem.

Oh you have already answered my question here, thank you!

 

[Robus]

Reaper has a bunch of ways to do that almost automatically. Render, freeze, apply track FX as new take. That last might be the best. You can bypass the whole FX chain, do your editing listening to the amp sim sound, but then if you want/need you can switch back to the unFXed tacked that got edited at the same time and turn the FX back on to render a final stem.

I have not used this function, but I'll try it out right now. What's awesome about Reaper is the redundancy. There are always multiple ways to do something.

 

[ashcat_lt]

Each is slightly different and better for certain things.