Guitar FX, Amp/Cab simulators, etc....

Yeah, it would. But I'm pretty sure I've read a few people saying they record a clean, direct guitar (even solos) and then apply sims after. I never knew if they meant that they're literally recording a clean guitar without hearing what it will sound like distorted. That always seemed just weird to me.
Though not with sims, I always thought that's what re-amping is. And you'd not know exactly what the end result would be until it was !
 
Though not with sims, I always thought that's what re-amping is. And you'd not know exactly what the end result would be until it was !

Oh yeah, you might be right. Now that I think of it, it was more regarding re-amping when I thought people were talking about recording completely clean and dry.
 
Even with re-amping you still record an amp'd signal, or at least listen to one while you record the raw direct signal through a DI box.

You go from guitar to DI or re-amp box. From the box you run a cable to the amp and one back to the interface for the raw signal. Then later you can kick the raw signal back out into the re-amp box and run it into the amp as if a guitar is actually playing. I think that's how it works anyway. I've never done it. It's a totally gay process that sadly has become very popular.

Re-amping is for people that suck at tone or recording tone.
 
Even with re-amping you still record an amp'd signal, or at least listen to one while you record the raw direct signal through a DI box.

You go from guitar to DI or re-amp box. From the box you run a cable to the amp and one back to the interface for the raw signal. Then later you can kick the raw signal back out into the re-amp box and run it into the amp as if a guitar is actually playing. I think that's how it works anyway. I've never done it. It's a totally gay process that sadly has become very popular.

Re-amping is for people that suck at tone or recording tone.

I thought it was sending the raw signal out of your daw into an amp and recording?!?! Don't you still have to go through the process of dialing in the tone, mic selection etc etc???? I would totally do that if I had a great part recorded and had an opportunity to go somewhere with a great room, mic selection, amp selection etc
 
I thought it was sending the raw signal out of your daw into an amp and recording?!?!

It is, but you gotta get it in there first. Recording a direct guitar doesn't inspire most people to play the part properly so you run the guitar into a splitter basically so you can hear the amp but record the raw signal.
 
It is, but you gotta get it in there first. Recording a direct guitar doesn't inspire most people to play the part properly so you run the guitar into a splitter basically so you can hear the amp but record the raw signal.
Sure.
I was thinking in terms of not being happy with either your amp sim, or your original "real amp" recording. Having the raw signal is always a great option in case you want to do something else with it later. You may be better off replaying the part, but I could certainly see doing the reamping thing if the part was there. Especially if you are a one man operation. Reamping would allow you to focus in on the recording without being worried about performing. Agreed that it would very difficult to get a performance with only the raw signal.
 
Wacky races.

I thought it was sending the raw signal out of your daw into an amp and recording?!?! Don't you still have to go through the process of dialing in the tone, mic selection etc etc ?
Isn't the point of the re-amping just putting a straight sound from a guitar into your recorder/DAW, to be manipulated afterwards anyhow you like ? That's when tones, mic placement, pedals and the whole shebang weaves her 'magic'. You just send that clean straight guitar, whether it be originally DI or whatever, out of the recorder, to the amp, then you mic it and perform all manner of 'alteration' :D from thereon.

Re-amping is for people that suck at tone or recording tone.
While that has some truth to it, it can also be a lazy person's thing. But I suspect the tone suckers and lazy bods aren't by any stretch of the imagination the only ones that reamp. Over the decades, many players with no problems in achieving tones they like have reamped. Like many things in recording, it's part of the experimental bent that many people have and it can go both ways. It can either be part of the rich and varied tones available once in a while or it can become the kind of default procedure which, personally, I think makes music creation toytown. I kind of feel that way about drum sample replacement. It isn't the existence and use of it, it's when it becomes the default position. A bit like how in the early days, you only ever put one mic on the whole kit or never turned a guitar amp beyond '6' or whatever.
 
Especially if you are a one man operation. Reamping would allow you to focus in on the recording without being worried about performing. .

I disagree. I, and tons of others, do the whole thing ourselves without problems. The performance is key, and to me, that's the fun part. I can see some merit in saving the "perfect" take or whatever, but I'm of the opinion that if you're good you can do another perfect take with no problem.
 
it can become the kind of default procedure which, personally, I think makes music creation toytown. I kind of feel that way about drum sample replacement. It isn't the existence and use of it, it's when it becomes the default position. A bit like how in the early days, you only ever put one mic on the whole kit or never turned a guitar amp beyond '6' or whatever.

I totally agree with that. Re-amping, like drum samples, is total laziness and acceptance of mediocrity. People really do default to that mentality before they've even pressed record. You see it in here every day. Can't record a drum kit worth a fuck? No problem, samples to the rescue. Hey, wait a minute, this guitar tone sucks! No problem, we'll just re-amp!
 
Well, I think if given your situation, (be it mic selection, amp selection, room) you are limited in achieving the tone the music needs, then reamping is a great solution. I could imagine recording guitar tracks at my leisure through a sim. Trying to get as close to the sound I want as i can. Keeping the raw tracks, then hopping over to a studio or a buddy who has some plexis, boogies and fender amps. Along with a lunchbox full of neve and vintech pres. Maybe an HD rig with a Rossetta or Symphony converter. Or even CLASP. Cascade Fatboys, a Royer 121, MD-421's and M-88s. And a killer sounding room. I think some fun could be had there without jeopardizing the integrity of the art of recording.
 
I disagree. I, and tons of others, do the whole thing ourselves without problems. The performance is key, and to me, that's the fun part. I can see some merit in saving the "perfect" take or whatever, but I'm of the opinion that if you're good you can do another perfect take with no problem.

Agreed on redoing the part, might have even mentioned that. But totally not against reamping a unique take. I've recorded myself plenty, I understand it can be done and it's fun. But I think there is merit in being able to concentrate on only the engineering side.
 
Yes, but if I have the performances I wanted, why would I pay to try to recreate them???

Is re-amping free? :laughings: :laughings:

Your buddy at his pro studio is gonna let you hog up studio time and equipment to experiment with re-amping for free, but he's gonna charge you to bring a guitar in?
 
I think some fun could be had there without jeopardizing the integrity of the art of recording.
I agree. I enjoy experimenting. Sometimes, just to see what will happen. I've just got a thing about certain 'default' positions though. And the music thing, whether pro, am or home or whatever is notorious for that. There's a difference between reamping every now and then and reamping being the only way you record instruments.
In a thread in the singers forum, Stevieb makes an interesting comment to a young contributor about getting away from overprocessed music and vocals. I don't blame her, so much of what she hears involves that default processing so she may well find it hard to conceive of music creation any other way.
 
Is re-amping free? :laughings: :laughings:

Your buddy at his pro studio is gonna let you hog up studio time and equipment to experiment with re-amping for free, but he's gonna charge you to bring a guitar in?

Of course not, but it would certainly take less time to dial in tones than to dial in and try to recreate the take.

Hey, I'm not saying this is the right way, or the perfect way. I just think the process has merit. Everybody's situation is different. Everybody's workflow is different. I'm not prepared to say reamping is for slackers or people who can't get tone. Some players achieve better results tracking on their own time in familiar surroundings and when the inspiration hits them.
 
Back
Top