Advantages Vs Disadvantage of DI

[mystasynasta]

Hi guys,
I wanted to know why more people don't use plug ins like guitar rig 2 or similar effects plug ins instead of messing around with trying to get a good sound from a cab. I have been messing around with it with a band i record and the only issue i have is monitoring latency (so the guitarist can hear the effect on their guitar as they record). Other than that I believe i get a great realistic sound from it that can be tailored later in the mix if need-be. I also like that you can simulate different cabs/mic poisition/mics/and even the room noise. What about even going from the guitar effects pedals directly in? Or am I just wrong and more ppl do than I know?


Any comments are appreciated

 

[cusebassman]

Most just hear (or claim to hear) a difference between live and DI'd. I know I haven't gotten close playing with plugins and things on DI'd guitar to what I get from my Heritage 575 and Fender Blues DeVille... but that's just one man's opinion

 

[eyeteeth]

You nailed one reason, latency. Two, most of those take a bit of horsepower to run.

It nice to be able to completely tailer a tone in production... but... I have yet to hear a "modeled" tone that compares to a real amp pushing air. Even through mediocre mics and preamps. The modelled tones just don't compare to the real thing. I haven't yet found a substitute for pushing air.

IMHO, that's just one of those things where if you want "that" tone... you have to have "that" equipment. With all the $200-$300 modellers out there, there has to be a reason Mesa still gets $1500+ for there stuff, or people still search out a vintage Marshell, Fender, Ampeg... etc. Its nice when brainstorming to simply plugs something in and go without all the fuss. But for real tracking, I"ll take the hassles anyday.

 

[scrubs]

The advantages of DI for guitars are pretty much what you said:

1. No need to commit to a specific sound at tracking
2. Many different sonic options (amps/speaker cabs) for less money than real amps
3. Ability to "reamp" through a real amp if needed
4. Ability to record much more quietly and no concern about poor studio room acoustics

The disadvantages are simple:

1. The simulators don't yet sound as good, imo, compared with a good tube amp, driving a real speaker, recorded in a real room with a real microphone
2. Nothing is quite as cool as cranking an amp and feeling it push the air
3. Hard to generate certain effects (feedback, etc.) without a speaker

I think, with a lot of work, you can make simulated amp/cab sounds work well in a mix and most people would not be able to distinguish whether or not they are real. However, there is some high frequency "garble" that seems to crop up on a lot of sim guitar tracks and the heavy distortion sounds just aren't quite there with most simulators. They just don't have the power. They're either too clean and brittle, or just mushy/muddy.

However, you have to weigh the benefits/disadvantages for your own situation.

 

[TripleJ]

Yeah I played around with GuitarRig2 for a few months. It can make some impressive sounds but I'd only ever use it for little licks here and there that I want to tweak later.

There's just something artificial sounding about it.

 

[mrface2112]

IMO, a modeller can get you close......which in context of some mixes may be good enough.........but they can't get you "all the way there". IMO, there's just no substitute for a real amp pushing real air.

sure modellers (plugins, amp sims, etc) are useful and can have their place, and i've used them from time to time--especially when i just want to get an idea down really quickly and don't have the time to deal with an amp. but to my ears, for tracks that really count, i want a mic'd amp.

the drawbacks to a mic'd amp is that it's loud and it requires a room that doesn't suck sonically.

of course, i always take a DI of the guitar as well as the amp track, just in case i want to reamp it later (or mix in a modeller with the amp track).


cheers,
wade

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

I gotta ask some honest questions here:

What is so "real" about a "real" amp pushing "real" air? Isn't that just as artificial or man-made of a sound as anything else? Why do we have the perspective that just because a modeler provides a somewhat different artificial sound than an electrified speaker cabinet does make it "worse" or "more artificial"?

It's not like on the 6th day, God crated the guitar amplifier; or that evolution and natural selection have designed our ears and brains to respond positively to the sound of an electric guitar run through an electric amplifier.

There is nothing "real", or more appropriately, "natural", about the sound of a guitar cabinet, and nothing in the physics of the fact that it's moving air molecules instead of moving electrons that makes it more natural to our heads.

It's really nothing more than a prejudice, and one that's been developed in a very short period of time; less than 100 years for the existance of electric guitars, versus the tens of thousands of years of human existance. The idea that a modeler cannot or does not sound as pleasing as a "real" amplifier is an extremely artificial prejudice based upon a very short and very narrow self-conditioning that has no basis in what is really "real".

If you want it to sound like a physical loudspeaker, it's better to use a physical loudspeaker. Fine. But there is no basis in the idea that such a sound is actually "better" than the tones to be gotten out of an equally artifical but different-sounding electronic device. Mozart and Beethoven and the like would listen to both and think they both sound like crap. A Martian would wonder what all the fuss was about because they "all sound the same to us".

Get over the prejudice that the sound of an artificial electronic amplifier and loudspeaker is how Nature intended it (because it isn't), and a whole world of pleasing sounds can open up.

G.

 

[mrface2112]

whatever glen. the answer is do whatever you think works best and sounds best for the song.

9 times out of 10 i think a mic'd amp just plain sounds better. if you like modellers and they work for the stuff you record, great. 9 times out of 10 i find that an amp just simply fits in the production better than a modeller.

a large part of it is the natural compression you get from a tube amp and the speaker--there's an inherent "fatness" that helps the part "sit" better. and a large part of it is the natural bandwidth limiting you get from a guitar speaker--i find a modeller is often a little too "high fi" and has a lot of low end junk that i need to filter out, and i don't usually find that with an amp.

typically i find that an amp just plain sits in the track better with less hassle.

obviously, your milage varies.


cheers,
wade

 

[cusebassman]

I find playing live, my amp doesn't reproduce the sound of your fingers or pick clicking against the strings like a modeler does... or at least, that sound isn't as pronounced coming out of an amp and going back into a mic as it is when I DI my electric or acoustic, and then run it through a modeler. But again, that's the difference I hear, maybe not everyone does.

 

[xstatic]

Glenns points are valid in my opinion. It is generally accepted that amps sound better, but in the end, what is better? It's a subjective thing. Personally, I prefer the sound of the real deal in almost every occasion. There are certain nuances that the modellers do not seem to reproduce. Then there are the tubes in an amp and the way they affect harmonics, range of sound, volume and note differences etc... I treat amp modellers like Taco Bell. I like Taco Bell at times, but I just don't consider it "mexican food". If I were to think of Taco Bell as mexican food, than it would always rate poorly. With amp modelers I like to think of them as a tool. Sometimes they work well, sometimes not. Typically I use them for a reference track if I do not want to deal with additional noise and micing scenarios, and occasionally use them for a layering track. There is definately something about the way an actual head loads and outputs through actual cabinets that sounds appealing to me that none of the modelers seem to really get. Then there is the way the cabinets react with the guitar itself which also affects the tone that the modelers don't really even come that close to. What I do not understand is why people seem to think that it has to be one or the other. With DAW applications now and the abundance of tracks available, why not do both at the same time? Track through a good DI to the head and then you get both a raw DI'ed track and a good real life guitar sound. This way you have the option to reamp later or process through a modeler as well as still having the real tracks. You get the best of both worlds.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

9 times out of 10 i think a mic'd amp just plain sounds better. if you like modellers and they work for the stuff you record, great. 9 times out of 10 i find that an amp just simply fits in the production better than a modeller.

That's fine, Wade. I just think it's healthy to step back and ask ourselves why we think it sounds better.

Is it because there is an actual qualitative improvement in actual sound, one that actually *naturally* sounds more pleasing to the human ear, or is it because we have been conditioned to believe that an amp is how it is "supposed to sound" because that is all we've had to work with the past 60 years or so?

This pre-judging reminds me a whole heck of a lot of when Dylan went electric and people crucifying him because his stuff was "supposed to be" acoustic.

a large part of it is the natural compression you get from a tube amp and the speaker--there's an inherent "fatness" that helps the part "sit" better. and a large part of it is the natural bandwidth limiting you get from a guitar speaker--i find a modeller is often a little too "high fi" and has a lot of low end junk that i need to filter out, and i don't usually find that with an amp..

I don't disagree with that analysis, except for the use of the term "natural" and the supposition that just because an sound is easier to fit into a mix because of the bandwith constraints impressed upon it that it's actually intrinsically better.

As to the first, there is nothing "natural" about the filtering and processing that an amplifier puts on the sound of an instrument, whether it's a guitar or a harmonica or an oboe. We just think of it as "natural" because that is what we are used to with electric guitars.

Imagine a world where because of some change in the path of music history, recording guitars direct became the vogue early on, exactly because of the expanded dynamics and timbre. All it would have taken would be the likes of a Les Paul (the man, not the machine) to record a couple of hits that way and for that artist to preach the direct gospel. In such a history, the idea of actually miking a guitar amp, previously used only for live performance, would be radical, and the filtering would be considered "unnatural" and limited in personality.

Which brings us to the second. Does anybody complain that the complex harmonics and timbres of a saxophone makes it hard to sit in a mix? Does anybody try to limit and filter and otherwise constrain the sound of the sax by running it through an amplifier just to get it to "sit better"? Do they do that with piano? Drums? Fiddle? Banjo? Harp? No. Yet we manage to get perfectly good mixes with these instruments. In fact if we tried taking their "hi fi" away from them, except when done so for special effect, it would be considered in most cases to be herasy.

No, the only reason it sounds "natural" to do so on guitar is mental conditioning, not intrinsic quality.

Do I often prefer the sound of a "real" amp? Of course I do. Do I always prefer that sound? Of course I don't. I haven't fooled myself into thinking that's how it's "supposed to be", because there is no "supposed to be" when it comes to an electric guitar.

G.

 

[mrface2112]

absolutely, glen, and i think we're largely saying the same thing.

i've used modellers in the past to good success and will do so again in the future. for me, it's ALL about what fits best in the context of the song, production and the mix. i have no qualms about using a modeller if it works best. however, i just find that typically, with the goals i have in mind, that it doesn't typically work best (and that an amp typically does).

as for your comment on DI guitars and Les Paul (etc)........that precedent has already been established. The lead (fuzz) guitar on the Beatles "Revolution" was DI'd. And many (most?) of Jimmy Page's guitars on the LedZep 1 were DI'd. so i think it's safe to say that the precedent was set long ago. and i don't think anyone has any problems at all with those guitar tracks, do we?

again, it's all about what fits the song. and in a lot of cases, it's about what "works good enough while the artist is in the mood to create".

as for sax, i find the limited frequency range of a tenor sax or alto sax, etc., to be one of the greatest allies in mixing it. and we can control what comes through with mic selection and positioning too, as well as with EQ. but yes, sometimes its natural harmonics DO make it a pain in the ass.

the same can be said for piano. how often in the context of a pop or rock mix do we hear C1 and C8? rarely--usually a piano track is centered around a couple octaves and we go from there.

and let's not forget compression and eq, which i know *i* use very liberally when it comes time to mix (and you probably do too). do i really need the bulk of a guitar's low end? not usually. do i need below 150 on a piano track if the part is all at middle C and above? not usually. do i need 12K on a bari sax? usually not. do i usually need "full range" on a snare drum? usually not--in fact, snare is one of those things i'll typically radically eq the most.

a great example is blues harmonica. one could say that a harmonica sounds best when straight mic'd (and no amp), and in terms of "fidelity", that's probably true (think bob dylan or neil young). but in the context of a blues tune, you usually want the tonal "limitations" (and distortion and color) that an amp puts on the harp. i usually find that by further limiting the frequency range of the harp with EQ and compressing the snot out of it usually makes it sit in the busy rock/blues mix a lot better than one that was recorded "full range" without an amp.

regardless of my points about radical eq--i DO try to record the instrument with the sonic idea already in place so i don't HAVE to eq it. mic selection and placement (and the room) go most of the way towards that end.

anyway, it's all about what fits the song and the production best. i know what i want to hear, and however i go about achieving that will differ depending. but where an electric guitar is concerned, usually that result is best achieved, FOR ME, by miking an amp.


cheers,
wade

 

[omtayslick]

I prefer to DI electrics and bass. A whole lot less messin' around for me. I've got a Gibson RD Artist that actually sounds better DI'd. As for disadvantages, your playing must be clean on a DI'd track. It will more readily show flaws in technique. A miced speaker cab can be more forgiving sometimes.

 

[mrface2112]

i'm gonna pick a few nits here

That's fine, Wade. I just think it's healthy to step back and ask ourselves why we think it sounds better.

to me, "better" is most often synonymous with "fits the production" and is therefore "easier to mix". when something fits the production and therefore makes it easier to mix, to me, that "sounds better". personally, i don't care HOW i get there--just so long as i DO get there.

Is it because there is an actual qualitative improvement in actual sound, one that actually *naturally* sounds more pleasing to the human ear

for me, a lot of the "pleasing" aspects of an electric guitar are largely physical. i like feeling the sound of an amp on "stun"--the way the volume hits you in your chest, the interaction of the guitar and the amp as a symbiotic relationship, feeling the guitar on the verge of feedback (and explosion) while you play it. that sort of thing.

a modeller can certainly "sound pleasing" (and often "sound right" for the production)......but unless the monitors are cranked (and even then), i don't usually have that same physical, visceral reaction to the electric guitar with a plugin amp sim that i do with being in the same room as the amp.

keep in mind that this has no bearing on what "works best" for a given production--but rather what i like about playing an electric guitar through an amp, and why i feel it's "better" for me.

In such a history, the idea of actually miking a guitar amp, previously used only for live performance, would be radical

for that matter, one could consider the dreadnought acoustic guitar as "radical", as it was created to compete in volume with the banjo--since smaller body guitars simply could not. one could make the same assessment with amplified archtop guitars in the big band era. or Dylan electric. or when Tesla played an acoustic gig to an unsuspecting audience (and gave us all their version of "Signs").

sometimes radical is good.

Which brings us to the second. Does anybody complain that the complex harmonics and timbres of a saxophone makes it hard to sit in a mix?

absolutely! that's why i use mic selection, placement, the room, eq and compression. to me, a full-bandwidth sax has a lot of "useless" information in it, in the context of a rock/pop mix.

Does anybody try to limit and filter and otherwise constrain the sound of the sax by running it through an amplifier just to get it to "sit better"? Do they do that with piano? Drums? Fiddle? Banjo? Harp? No.

i think using a definitive "no" there is being very shortsighted. i've run drums, fiddle, piano AND banjo through amps in order to help get them to sit better. sure the reamped track is usually mixed in alongside the "non-amped" track, but if it works, how can it be wrong? how can one say that it's never done? it's done ALL THE TIME.

it would be considered in most cases to be herasy.

IF your goal is "classical recording" and preserving natural sound, i would agree with you. but in the studio i'm usually NOT trying to preserve natural sound. in fact, there's usually very little "natural" about what i'm doing. what i'm doing is trying to make things work together and sound good.

sounding good in the context of a mix does not always mean "preserving the natural sound" of something.

I haven't fooled myself into thinking that's how it's "supposed to be", because there is no "supposed to be" when it comes to an electric guitar.

fwiw, i don't think i ever said that's how it's "supposed to be"......all i said what "what i've found to work best".

there are no hard and fast rules when you are "creating reality".


cheers,
wade

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Way too many very good points for me to quote individually

...

anyway, it's all about what fits the song and the production best. i know what i want to hear, and however i go about achieving that will differ depending. but where an electric guitar is concerned, usually that result is best achieved, FOR ME, by miking an amp.

You bring up some excellet points, Wade, and except for a couple of small things which would be just nit-picking on my part to bring up, I agree with you down the line.

Being a blues harpist (not a very good one) myself, your example of the blues harp rang especially true. And I guess amongst guitraists they can be as passionate about "that sound" as a harpist is about using an Astatic JT30 through a dirty 6" PA speaker .

At the same time, though, if we stuck to everybody only sounding like Sony Boy Williamson, where would Stevie Wonder, John Popper and Howard Levy go with many of their sounds? And on the other end of that stick, Dan Ackroyd sounds only mediocre at best even through the grungiest of busking kits. He's not going to sound a whole lot better thorugh the aformentioned setup than he would playing straight to a U47 to tape.

Anyway, I think you're right, we're probably much more in agreement than in disagreement on this. You're advocating the heads side of the coin and I'm advocating the tails side of it, but we both agree the coin has two sides.

All I'm really saying at the bottom of it is that there is more to this discussion IMHO than the statement (which I know you didn't make, but many others have in the past and present) "that modelers give a suck sound because they don't sound like amps the way amps sound like amps". I only asked who died and made amps king?

G.

 

[mrface2112]

would be just nit-picking

i like picking nits! must be the apes i'm descended from.

Being a blues harpist (not a very good one) myself, your example of the blues harp rang especially true.

i thought it might.

And I guess amongst guitraists they can be as passionate about "that sound" as a harpist is about using an Astatic JT30 through a dirty 6" PA speaker

ABSOLUTELY. if not more so. i can't tell you the number of times i've heard the phrase "my tone" from a guitarist--and especially with "don't screw with...." preceding it.

where would Stevie Wonder, John Popper and Howard Levy go with many of their sounds?

that's the beauty of it. everyone's on a quest to find "the tone". and that's defined as the sound that works best for them.

and in some respects, that's where the "preserving nature" part comes in. take SRV or Hendrix for example. their bands (and recordings, by proxy) were completely built around the guitarist's tone. no one talks about the drum sound on Pride and Joy. but you play that opening guitar lick and we know exactly who it is. can you imagine if the engineer in the studio had tried to get him to play a Les Paul and Marshall combo rather than his strat/deluxe duo that he'd worked for years on dialing in just right?

many of the musicians i work with come in with ideas of "i want to sound like _x_ on this part" and i can usually get them most of the way there. they're open to experimenting and trying new things. but some of them come in with "their band" and "this is what we sound like and don't fuck it up, ok chief?" and i'm completely cool with that too.

and both are definitely fun when it comes to a mixing perspective too.

Anyway, I think you're right, we're probably much more in agreement than in disagreement on this. You're advocating the heads side of the coin and I'm advocating the tails side of it, but we both agree the coin has two sides.

we're *definitely* in agreement. but i don't necessarily think i'm advocating either side of the coin......but rather that either side of the coin can work in a particular situation.

as a guitarist, however, i've got a strong affinity for an amp over a modeller. there's just something about the feel and the sound and the interaction between the two. no modeller i've ever used has had the same "reaction" to soft picking and then digging in HARD that my fender champ has--there's just a dynamic response there that you can't model or simulate. then again, i can't make my champ sound anywhere close to a Marshall plexi on stun, either, let alone with a simple turn of a knob.

"that modelers give a suck sound because they don't sound like amps the way amps sound like amps".

i agree that modellers don't sound like amps in the way that amps sound like amps. but that doesn't necessarily make them suck. just like a crescent wrench can't work like a socket set does--that doesn't make the crescent wrench suck. it's just a different tool.

I only asked who died and made amps king?

That would be Leo Fender and Jim Marshall.


cheers,
wade

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

that's the beauty of it. everyone's on a quest to find "the tone". and that's defined as the sound that works best for them.

Again, not disagreeing with your last post, it's good stuff. Maybe it's just the people I tend to work with lately, but I know more than a few great guitarists who would find the above statement to be rather ailen to them. They don't look for a tone that "works for them", they look for a tone that works for the song. They adjust their tone and style accordingly to the song and the production.

Can you still recognize it's them and not another guitarist? Of course; everybody has an inherent "accent" that often breaks through no matter what, that's unavoidable. Hell, you can recognize Carlos Santana from a mile away even when he's not using his PRS. And as far as "Pride and Joy", check out the Unplugged version of SRV performing it on an acoustic. Yeah, you can tell it's Stevie even without the vocals, but not because he insisted playing it on a Strat. I'd also say that I have heard SRV go from channeling Hendrix to emulating Buddy Guy inside one album.

But to a lot of guitarists the idea of "my sound" appears to be boring and restrictive. They are interested in getting the "right sound", not "their sound", and the idea of not trying to adjust their playing and their sound to fit a production, and instead telling the production to work around their sound is antithetic.

I think it's mostly the difference between rock stars and session cats; between those to whom the sound is important and those to whom the playing is important. And it seems to be mostly the stars who dislike the modelers and the DIing, and the cats who are eager to find the right tool for the right job. And yeah, there are a hell of a lot of wannabe rock stars among the home recordists than there are wannabe instrument masters, so yeah, ther's going to be a lot more of them disdaining the DI.

G.

 

[PhiloBeddoe]

there's just something about the feel and the sound and the interaction between the two. no modeller i've ever used has had the same "reaction" to soft picking and then digging in HARD that my fender champ has--there's just a dynamic response there that you can't model or simulate.

+1 on this

I'd love the convenience of using modelers for everything, but the dynamics are not there. They are just not. I believe this is also why mixing modelers can be difficult. People relate to visceral playing, and pods don't do this well. Guitarists need to be inspired by their sounds.

Regarding Glen's philosphical question, there is a reference point for all artists of what is a 'good' sound. For most, the reference point is not artists that used modelers. It could be anything from Zeppelin, Metallica, SRV, Chet Atkins, or Larry Carlton or anything in between, but they all used real amps. Time is relative, but it's arrow moves forward. Maybe someday people will prefer the sound of pods over amps, but that day is not today.

Regarding the original post, if you like modelers, then don't let this debate deter you. Recording a DI track together with an amped one is certainly a good idea in any case.

 

[mystasynasta]

Everyone has a great point in this discussion. One of the main issues I was facing was the feedback issue. Some guitarists (like Tom Morello for instance lol) use the feedback to create certain effects in the music. Using modelers makes this difficult, if not impossible. I like the approach of using two mics on the amp (condenser and dynamic) during tracking, then using a third DIed track. With hard drives being so cheap, what's a little more space taken up to possibly save valuable time later (to reamp or use a modeler)? Thank you for all of your posts, you have helped me tremendously.

-Lee

 

[Chibi Nappa]

I just like to mic guitar cabs because I do the majority of my guitar track eq'ing by moving the mic around. It gets the sound I want most of the time. When it doesn't, yes...I reach for a DI effect.