recording guitar direct in and then sending to an amp modeler

DuddyGuy

DuddyGuy

No good fer nothin!
hey everyone, this is my first post here after finding you guys a while ago and spending a good portion of my life since then browsing through here.

I have a question regarding recording a guitar direct in. my understanding is that the signal coming out of a guitar is a high impedance, low level signal. Now my board has built in di boxes on two of my channels, so i should be good to go there in terms of getting a decent signal to noise ratio. What I want to do here is take that signal and route it either through a bus or an auxillary, or patch my amp modeler(line 6 pod xt) through the channels send and recieve. This will allow me to edit my amp simulators and effects after the guitar has been laid down giving me more flexibility during mix down or in deciding on the perfect guitar sound once i have the entire song recorded. My question is, is the difference between guitar and board impedences and levels going in to the pod going to create excess signal noise, and is this even a practical thing to do, or what would be the best way to achieve this and get a decent result?

thanks much
R
 
I think working on the original signal to get it to sound like I want it and then record it is more practical than fixing the guitar after I record it.
 
DuddyGuy said:
This will allow me to edit my amp simulators and effects after the guitar has been laid down giving me more flexibility during mix down or in deciding on the perfect guitar sound once i have the entire song recorded.
Click to expand...

Mmmmmm...yeah, people like to do that, but from a guitar player's perspective, the "perfect guitar sound" is the one he has while he is playing. :cool:

Dialing in a sound after the fact makes the choice of amp (from the sim) act more like an effect instead of part of the actual guitar rig sound.
Not to mention...most players feed off the sound of the amp AS THEY PLAY...so playing some dry, boring DI signal into a DAW can't be all to inspirational (no matter how good you make it sound later on).

But hey...YMMV...you wouldn't be the first guy to do that.

As far as the noise and signal matching….well, you will just have to find what works best for your rig.
 
miroslav said:
Mmmmmm...yeah, people like to do that, but from a guitar player's perspective, the "perfect guitar sound" is the one he has while he is playing. :cool:

Dialing in a sound after the fact makes the choice of amp (from the sim) act more like an effect instead of part of the actual guitar rig sound.
Not to mention...most players feed off the sound of the amp AS THEY PLAY...so playing some dry, boring DI signal into a DAW can't be all to inspirational (no matter how good you make it sound later on).

But hey...YMMV...you wouldn't be the first guy to do that.

As far as the noise and signal matching….well, you will just have to find what works best for your rig.
Click to expand...

who said anything about dry monitoring?:)

while i appreciate the reply my question is based more on the technical aspect dealing with all the changes in the signal during the routing into the board, through the boards internals, through the ADCs into the card, back out through the DACs, back into the board, out through a bus, aux, or channel send, into the pod, and finally back into the board, and out of it through the ADCs one last time for the ultimate result.

i guess what im trying to ask is what would be the best way to route this setup for optimum results, i have 8 busses, 4 auxs which can either be run as pre or post or tape, and inserts on all of my channels.
 
DuddyGuy said:
who said anything about dry monitoring?:)

while i appreciate the reply my question is based more on the technical aspect dealing with all the changes in the signal during the routing....
Click to expand...

Well...the way I read it... :) it sounded like you were going to just DI without any amp/live monitoring.
Yeah...if you split and go to both amp and DI, then it's going to be much more enjoyable to play/record that way.
My own "problem" has been that I always get locked in to the sound I'm hearing from my amp...that’s “THE” sound I want….so later on, when I mix, I already have that sound in my head..
….and that's how everything else gets done.

Back in my “MIDI madness” days, the option to create a sequence and then audition sounds/patches into infinity seemed like such a great idea.
But after a couple of years of doing things that way, I returned to more "old school" ways, and now I usually have a decent pre-production plan (and sound) already in my head...so for me it's about the sound I'm hearing when I'm recording. Worst case, I just tweak it a bit later on during the mix.

But hey, by all means...you need to experiment for yourself!
That's always a good way to learn about things you like and don't like. :cool:

AFA the signal issue...like I mentioned in my previous post...you'll just have to experiment with what you have and then let your ears be your guide. There's probably more than one "best" way to do it.

Yeah...the REAMP box is great for coming back out of the DAW to audition different amps...but you may want to go for one of these instead for what you are talking about, which I've used a couple of times:

Radial JDX amplifier DI box
http://www.radialeng.com/re-jdx.htm
 
dean1964 said:
hey man.

check this link out

http://www.reamp.com/
http://www.reamp.com/applications.html

In short, the reamp box converts your interface's outputs to the appropriate level. I've been meaning to pick one up for a while.

Cheers!
Click to expand...

beautiful, that looks like a perfect solution!, and of course now my list of absolutely critical and important must buy immediately studio gear has just gotten one longer.

i wonder if it would be possible to modify a standard di box, to do the same, but without all the nice controls of the reamp....
 
Or...just get some software based sims/plugs, and then you will not need to come back out of the DAW and add another A/D/A conversion to your signal.
 
miroslav said:
Well...they way I read it... :) it sounded like you were going to just DI without any amp/live monitoring.
Yeah...if you split and go to both amp and DI, then it's going to be much more enjoyable to play/record that way.
My own "problem" has been that I always get locked in to the sound I'm hearing from my amp...that’s “THE” sound I want….so later on, when I mix, I already have that sound in my head..
….and that's how everything else gets done.

Back in my “MIDI madness” days, the option to create a sequence and then audition sounds/patches into infinity seemed like such a great idea.
But after a couple of years of doing things that way, I returned to more "old school" ways, and now I usually have a decent pre-production plan (and sound) already in my head...so for me it's about the sound I'm hearing when I'm recording. Worst case, I just tweak it a bit later on during the mic.

But hey, by all means...you need to experiment for yourself!
That's always a good way to learn about things you like and don't like. :cool:

AFA the signal issue...like I mentioned in my previous post...you'll just have to experiment with what you have and then let your ears be your guide. There's probably more than one "best" way to do it.

Yeah...the REAMP box is great for coming back out of the DAW to audition different amps...but you may want to go for one of these instead for what you are taling about, which I've used a couple of times:

Radial JDX amplifier DI box
http://www.radialeng.com/re-jdx.htm
Click to expand...

thanks for that link as well! and I do understand exactly what you mean by locking in the guitar sound first as that is how i have always done it, but theres been several occasions where due to the song coming together in a way I hadn't been able to predict at the time of tracking ive always wished for more flexibility in being able to change the overall feel of it at a later time without having to retrack everything. Or wanted to maybe have a duplicated track with a much different sound layering in the background. Or just had a guitarist who during tracking insisted on the gain always being turned to ten with full treble and bass and absolutely no mids;)
 
DuddyGuy said:
...My question is, is the difference between guitar and board impedences and levels going in to the pod going to create excess signal noise, and is this even a practical thing to do, or what would be the best way to achieve this and get a decent result?
Click to expand...

If that was the question, then if Pod takes line level.. good to go?
 
mixsit said:
If that was the question, then if Pod takes line level.. good to go?
Click to expand...

unfortunately pod does not take line level.... i guess i was looking for a way to bypass having to use one of the reverse direct boxes mentioned above in order to bring the signal back down to guitar level for input into the pod.
 
Sorry bout that. I was thiking 'XT = the rack thingy. I see 'Pod is line level option on the output only. :)
 
DuddyGuy said:
Or just had a guitarist who during tracking insisted on the gain always being turned to ten with full treble and bass and absolutely no mids;)
Click to expand...

Your kidding...there's actually some who do that?!

;)


Sorry if I was being "preachy" about the amp approach....I admit that I have a somewhat negative attitude about sims/modelers, though reamping through real amps is certainly a better approach if you have the patience to go that route later on when you start to mix.

I kinda' run out of that patience after the initial tracking, and want to just move on to the next part! :D
 
miroslav said:
Sorry if I was being "preachy" about the amp approach....I admit that I have a somewhat negative attitude about sims/modelers, though reamping through real amps is certainly a better approach if you have the patience to go that route later on when you start to mix.

I kinda' run out of that patience after the initial tracking, and want to just move on to the next part! :D
Click to expand...

no worries... ive felt the same way in the past, but after having bought the pod on a whim for my own playing use, it has done nothing but to impress me with the quality of sound it is able to produce in a recording. and true i would prefer a real amp but my amp collection is not as large as i would like, and some times the people i work with have nothing but absolute crap (bottom of the line marshall and crate solid state stuff) and this gives me many effect and amp sims that i would normally have no access too.

And in response to software modeling unfortunately that is not a real option for me as my daw is linux based, which is a choice i made willingly and have no intention on changing, vst and vsti support is however limited at this point as there are legal issues in including such things in distrubitions, and lack of a solid software host as of yet. There are great ladspa plugins(the open source equivalent of vsts) available for most uses and there are pretty good amp modelers but nothing that can compare to my pod. All the rest of my software is superb and when the price is nothing you cant go wrong, right? I have donated to several dev's so i suppose there is a slight cost but it was a price i was very willing to pay.
 
DuddyGuy said:
i wonder if it would be possible to modify a standard di box, to do the same, but without all the nice controls of the reamp....
Click to expand...

You could, but the parts to build something like the reamp are around $125 anyway. The transformer being the most costly item, around $70. Id gladly pay another $100 to save myself the time and trouble of building it, but it seems this guy is building a much better product than I could make.

Keep in mind that you can reamp a lot of things, not just guitars. For example a snare track can be reamped by 1st gating and compressing (significantly - but varies) the snare track and sending that sound to a guitar amp. Lay the amp on its back and place the new snare directly over the speaker, then mic to taste. Play with the gate and comp until you get the reaction you are looking for.

While it is true that you will record both the old snare via the guitar amp, and the new snare, you might find that you can balance these against each other for more variety.

a little OT, sorry.

Cheers!
 
dean1964 said:
You could, but the parts to build something like the reamp are around $125 anyway. The transformer being the most costly item, around $70. Id gladly pay another $100 to save myself the time and trouble of building it, but it seems this guy is building a much better product than I could make.

Keep in mind that you can reamp a lot of things, not just guitars. For example a snare track can be reamped by 1st gating and compressing (significantly - but varies) the snare track and sending that sound to a guitar amp. Lay the amp on its back and place the new snare directly over the speaker, then mic to taste. Play with the gate and comp until you get the reaction you are looking for.

While it is true that you will record both the old snare via the guitar amp, and the new snare, you might find that you can balance these against each other for more variety.

a little OT, sorry.

Cheers!
Click to expand...

no not necessarily offtopic i probably should have labeled this thread something along the lines of recording direct in and then returning to same signal impedance and level... thanks again for the link, the possibilities have been exploding through my brain of all the off the wall things i could do with such a box and i think i will end up purchasing one(although i am afraid of the midi mania outcome which was mentioned earlier:))
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top