Amplitube 4 question

andrushkiwt

andrushkiwt

Well-known member
Amplitube lets you select various (8, i think) routing setups. For instance, preset 1 includes a tuner > stomp > amp > cab > rack 1 > output. There are 8 different setups that have a specific signal chain, although, of course, you can change each stomp and cab etc... it's just the path of the signal that is taken in different directions.

One of these setups includes 2 amps and 2 cabs for the same signal, another might take amp 1 into 2 cabs and into both racks, and so on... can anyone elaborate on why/when such things would be useful? (particularly, if you're familiar with amplitube, because there are 8 or so chains, and sorry i don't remember them all) :)

Finally (and i'm guessing the answer is "no") is there any way to use this "multiple chain/amp/cab path" to record 2 guitar parts? In other words, can I save my DAW's processing power by taking advantage of the multiple routing options and NOT have to run 2 instances of Amp4 to record 2 different guitars, say a rhythm L and a rhythm R? I believe this feature still only allows for 1 input signal, but let me know if there's something I'm missing here.

hope that was clear. thanks!
 
I can only guess what the intent for the first option is. I'm pretty sure it's so you can reroute that signal in numerous ways, uneffected or effected and then put through again to add more effects, etc. (?) Rather than trying to stack within a single chain, and perhaps to also have multiple tones from the same input signal.

The second I'm pretty sure is no, since the input signal is determined at the track/DAW level. Even if you routed one guitar into Left, one into Right, amplitube is still going to just treat them as the left/right of the same input and effect accordingly.
 
when would someone want multiple tones from the same input? like running a Dual Rec and matching cab blended with an Orange and cab? when does that come in handy? I'm just wondering the scenarios when that would be helpful...

and i figured, yeah. just making sure. thanks!
 
andrushkiwt said:
when would someone want multiple tones from the same input?
Click to expand...

When they want multiple tones from the same input.

I'm not one of them, but there are people that want two amps running at once. Sometimes it's a clean and dirty at the same time. Sometimes it's a stereo rig. Sometimes it's three amps in a wet/dry/wet setup. Sometimes they switch from one to the other. I've personally run cabs on the bass side of the stage when I'm the only guitar player, but it's still just one head powering the cabs.

But none of that applies to sim recording. I think amplitube is just being cute because they can. It seems like another instance of option overload, and they got you again! :D
 
andrushkiwt said:
when would someone want multiple tones from the same input? like running a Dual Rec and matching cab blended with an Orange and cab? when does that come in handy? I'm just wondering the scenarios when that would be helpful...

and i figured, yeah. just making sure. thanks!
Click to expand...
SRV is kind of notorious for having used (sometimes many) more than one amp at a time on some of his recordings. Hendrix used to do it, too. I'm sure there are plenty of other examples, but those are the first that come to my mind.

...well, actually, my last album was the first that came to mind. Most of that has just one guitar through three different sims. The combinations are different, and sometimes there are different effects chains going into each. Mostly it was a crunch, relatively bright Vox type thing, a solid state (roland JC) thing even brighter and cranked so it's not exactly clean, and then some high gain thing like a Marshall or Orange to fill out some of the sustain and add some extra nastiness. I mostly ended up spreading them a bit across the stereo field, too. I've done multiple amp paths for other things, too, but this was the one where I really did it almost as a template for the whole album.

Bassist sometimes do it too. Les Claypool has been known to use a crunchy or distorted amp leaning toward the upper mids and high end and a cleaner amp to let the low end and some of the top end articulation come through.
 
this answer made me want to try it.

i am finding that i'm needing to EQ my heavy guitars for a little more top end sometimes, but if i can try a setup that includes a nice fat bottom end with a crispy top end, that would be better. i'll try it out.

does anyone know if the more you run devices (amps, cabs, mics, stomps) within a vst like Amplitube, the more it takes processing power? or is it at full potential once inserted, whether or not anything is selected within it...
 
:rtfm:

That's supposed to be the rtfm smiley, but this site is opposed to caps, someone might get offended, so...:facepalm:
 
andrushkiwt said:
does anyone know if the more you run devices (amps, cabs, mics, stomps) within a vst like Amplitube, the more it takes processing power? or is it at full potential once inserted, whether or not anything is selected within it...
Click to expand...
I'd imagine it will use more the more modules you add. There is probably some baseline no matter how many things you've got going, and it just gets bigger after you start adding things. I don't use Amplitube, but it kind of has to work that way. You could open up your DAW and find out in like 15 seconds...
 
Another question on the same topic -

Working w/ guitar sims, I haven't really been subject to deal with phase issues, or so I've thought....

I am working on a track that opens with a single guitar chugging the rhythm. Since it is the same guitar that occupies the heavy chorus, I have two instances of amplitube running and 2 tracks using it split HL and HR. Once in the chorus, I will edit in a true double take, so that they become bigger and wider for that section. But for that intro, I leaving it as one take; effectively, it moves more center then. And that's ok.

Now, I noticed something seems odd about the sound of the guitar there. It doesn't sound bad. It just sounds.......not so big or full. Even as one guitar part should. Again, it is 2 tracks with 2 amps and cabs, but a single take (i'm fuller aware a double take is bigger sounding. that's not what i'm getting at it. it just sounds slightly weak). So, I take a look around inside Amplitube and notice that the microphone section has a fader for the raw DI signal, and above that fader is another pot for "phase". Miraculously, when I start adjusting that phase pot over the DI signal on just one of the two tracks, the whole thing starts sounding thicker and chunkier. More full.

What is it doing exactly? Why is it sounding better? Is it slightly adjusting the delay, making it milliseconds behind? Also, it is NOT a phase switch - it is a phase POT. Therefore, I have complete control over HOW MUCH phase to adjust. Is there a rationale for how much I want to turn that knob? Yes, turning it all the way to the R sounds great. All the way to the L sounds much more like one guitar and less like 2.

Can anyone clear this up for me and help me understand?

thnx!
 
andrushkiwt said:
Another question on the same topic -

Working w/ guitar sims, I haven't really been subject to deal with phase issues, or so I've thought....

I am working on a track that opens with a single guitar chugging the rhythm. Since it is the same guitar that occupies the heavy chorus, I have two instances of amplitube running and 2 tracks using it split HL and HR. Once in the chorus, I will edit in a true double take, so that they become bigger and wider for that section. But for that intro, I leaving it as one take; effectively, it moves more center then. And that's ok.

Now, I noticed something seems odd about the sound of the guitar there. It doesn't sound bad. It just sounds.......not so big or full. Even as one guitar part should. Again, it is 2 tracks with 2 amps and cabs, but a single take (i'm fuller aware a double take is bigger sounding. that's not what i'm getting at it. it just sounds slightly weak). So, I take a look around inside Amplitube and notice that the microphone section has a fader for the raw DI signal, and above that fader is another pot for "phase". Miraculously, when I start adjusting that phase pot over the DI signal on just one of the two tracks, the whole thing starts sounding thicker and chunkier. More full.

What is it doing exactly? Why is it sounding better? Is it slightly adjusting the delay, making it milliseconds behind? Also, it is NOT a phase switch - it is a phase POT. Therefore, I have complete control over HOW MUCH phase to adjust. Is there a rationale for how much I want to turn that knob? Yes, turning it all the way to the R sounds great. All the way to the L sounds much more like one guitar and less like 2.

Can anyone clear this up for me and help me understand?

thnx!
Click to expand...

Throwing a "phase meter" onto the guitar bus and soloing those guitars tells me it's out of phase mostly. Weirdly, only some chords are in phase. 0.4 and then down to -0.4 at worst times.

The value meter shows milliseconds when adjusting the phase pot. So I guess I was right before. I'll think slightly throwing a positive value phase is ok...Its moving it just barely behind and therefore sounding more full on a single take. 20ms either way is the max. I'll go with a smaller number.

Still interested in any thoughts here. Thanks
 
The difference between a phase knob and a phase switch is that the switch inverts polarity (swaps the +/-, top/bottom) of the wave while a phase knob changes the time relation of two waves. The mic and DI would naturally be out of phase just because the mic has a little acoustic delay. A little adjustment might bring them together. I would probably do it with a real 2-mic or DI-plus-mic guitar setup.
 
andrushkiwt said:
Throwing a "phase meter" onto the guitar bus and soloing those guitars tells me it's out of phase mostly. Weirdly, only some chords are in phase. 0.4 and then down to -0.4 at worst times.
Click to expand...

They might just be out of phase at frequencies that don't matter much to what you're doing. You said it was chunkier. Perhaps it's better in the low or low mids where it sounds good to you. A mic and DI will never be in phase at all frequencies so the phase control gives you a way to sort of target what you want.
 
bouldersoundguy said:
The difference between a phase knob and a phase switch is that the switch inverts polarity (swaps the +/-, top/bottom) of the wave while a phase knob changes the time relation of two waves. The mic and DI would naturally be out of phase just because the mic has a little acoustic delay. A little adjustment might bring them together. I would probably do it with a real 2-mic or DI-plus-mic guitar setup.
Click to expand...

The mics are virtual. Does that make a difference? I'm wondering if your response was for real mics.

So no issues for moving one guitar track behind a few ms's? Even if the phase meter reads -0.4 at worst, and 0 at best?
 
Phase is time. When two things are in phase, it means that they are in time with each other.

The reason it sounds fuller when you play with that knob is because you are effectively putting a chorus on the guitar part. The only difference is that it doesn't sweep. If you panned both tracks to the center, you would hear the comb filtering. You've really just found another way to do the copy> paste> delay thing that most people will jump in and tell you sucks.

I don't use amplitude, but if it sounds worse with two tracks of the same performance panned wide than it does with one track panned center, just automate the one track to pan center. Otherwise, you run the risk of spending hours outsmarting yourself, coming up with long convoluted ways to do very simple things.
 
andrushkiwt said:
The mics are virtual. Does that make a difference? I'm wondering if your response was for real mics.
Click to expand...

I'm assuming they model the acoustic delay so it's like a real mic and DI.

andrushkiwt said:
So no issues for moving one guitar track behind a few ms's? Even if the phase meter reads -0.4 at worst, and 0 at best?
Click to expand...

If you're mixing the two to one spot in the pan field then what you hear is what you get. If you pan them apart things might change when someone hears it in mono. I would check things like this in mono just to know what might happen. The meter readings are less important than what it sounds like when you check mono.
 
Is anyone who is using Amp4 noticing that all the mics sound terrible (not even the subjective "terrible") when placed inches off the speaker? I purchased 3-4 extra mics on top of the 6 or so they give you, and I always resort to: on speaker, edge of cone. every time.

anyone?

hmmm... potential project for the week/weekend.... i'll try posting some samples with the Mesa Boogie amps/cabs and various mics at various distances and locations. maybe a screenshot of the mic placement too.

edit: here are the 4 included/standard mics - 4 Microphones – Double Dynamic 57, Dynamic 57, Condenser 414, Condenser 87
here are the mics i purchased - Dynamic 20 Based on Electro-Voice® RE20, Dynamic 421 Based on Sennheiser® MD421, MD1b-FET Based on Groove Tubes® MD1b-FET, and Ribbon 121
Based on Royer® R121
 
I've not played with mic positions a lot, but have a few times. I recall there's a mic gain setting, which I suspect might need to be lowered with a close placement (?). Not at my PC now so can't confirm.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top