|
|
Post by Quint on Sept 5, 2017 20:33:11 GMT -6
I'm sure this may bring people down on both sides of the issue but I've been considering getting four channels or so of SUPER clean preamps to run my already clean DIs through when tracking guitars/bass to later be reamped.
I get the obvious reasons to want to use clean (or at least as clean as you have available) preamps to add gain in this scenario. I generally try to do this with whatever preamps aren't being used on something else at that time and try to keep the gain staging on those preamps from dirtying up the signal anymore than possible. That being said, none of those preamps I've been using in these situations are what I would call super clean.
I've never worried about it too much in the past but I have been curious lately about what I might be losing (or adding in a negative way) by not running those DIs through a really clean preamp when the intention is to reamp those tracks at a later time.
We're not talking a bass track through a Reddi and then a cranked Neve to add some hair here. I'm basically talking wire with gain (clean DI to clean preamp) to achieve an eventual signal at the amp (when reamping) that is as close as possible to what the amp would see if the guitar were plugged directly into it.
Who here really strives to follow this approach and who doesn't? I can see both sides of the discussion, and I've always generally been in the color camp myself, but I am curious about what I might be missing by not running my DI reamp tracks through really clean gain.
|
|
|
|
Post by svart on Sept 5, 2017 21:51:17 GMT -6
I run mine into SSL 9k preamps mainly because I run out of others to use.
I've used most of my preamps for di gain, but I'd say that super clean isn't necessary. Guitar amps are way more noisy and bandwidth limited than even the cheapest preamp..
What I find a lot more necessary is getting both a direct guitar di and a post-effects di.
Many times I've wished to either get a clean guitar signal when I only had effects di, or had a clean signal but no effects.. having both makes it a lot easier if you're doing work where the effects and mix can/will change.
|
|
|
|
Post by pfhuck on Sept 5, 2017 23:29:51 GMT -6
I use el-9 or Lola for clean DI's
|
|
|
|
Post by jeremygillespie on Sept 5, 2017 23:51:11 GMT -6
I'll go with whatever is left that I know I won't specifically need for something else during a tracking session.
I'm like svart and track a before and after fx pedal DI situation if im not going to have specific pedals at my disposal at a later date.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2017 0:21:48 GMT -6
The Avalon U5 will kill two birds with one stone. Very clean DI and 30dB of very clean gain, plus passive EQ!
|
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Sept 6, 2017 1:14:08 GMT -6
The Avalon U5 will kill two birds with one stone. Very clean DI and 30dB of very clean gain, plus passive EQ! A-Designs KGB/KGB-2. The KGB is one channel with 3 band EQ, the KGB-2 is two channels, no EQ. Up to 90 dB of clean gain. www.adesignsaudio.com/kgb-2-kgb1ft-line-preamps.
Also makes a killer make-up gain box for passive EQs, summing boxes, and the like..... Cinemag output transformers will drive the +4 inputs on my Studer 2" with ease. |
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Sept 6, 2017 2:47:17 GMT -6
I run mine into SSL 9k preamps mainly because I run out of others to use. I've used most of my preamps for di gain, but I'd say that super clean isn't necessary. Guitar amps are way more noisy and bandwidth limited than even the cheapest preamp.. What I find a lot more necessary is getting both a direct guitar di and a post-effects di. Many times I've wished to either get a clean guitar signal when I only had effects di, or had a clean signal but no effects.. having both makes it a lot easier if you're doing work where the effects and mix can/will change. Yeah, your post pretty much sums up the approach I have been taking. The makeup gain for my DI channels has generally been whatever is left and I haven't been too worried about getting uber clean gain. I just had to wonder if it could be even "better" running through super clean gain. I mean, the idea of re-introducing the naked guitar track to the amp in an as close as possible manner to that in which it originally came from the guitar (or guitar with FX) makes sense, at least in theory. But in practice, I didn't know if it mattered THAT much and I haven't ever gone to great lengths to try. As for FX, I also try to do what you do as well but I'll generally err towards taking the DI of the FX over the naked guitar tone if I have to pick one due to running out of available AD channels, especially if it involves any manipulation of those FX during the take. I've also been using a Radial Twin City for doing these splits. It's pretty great for splitting into two isolated signals (and then sending one or both to a DI) and it also has a drag control so you can load the pickups up however sounds best. I think the importance of pick up load, and how it can drastically change in these DI type of scenarios, sometimes gets overlooked and may be responsible for some of the tone suck people talk about when using DIs. |
|
|
|
Post by adamjbrass on Sept 6, 2017 7:54:57 GMT -6
I aim for a lower level and a clean recording with no processing
|
|
|
|
Post by subspace on Sept 6, 2017 8:38:22 GMT -6
Guitars get a Countryman feeding an Audient preamp to ADC. The color preamps get used on mics during tracking. Bass can be a Countryman or Redeye depending, into either a Focusrite or ChiNeve depending on thickness requirements. I don't care about transparency for bass capture, though I will track the preamp and compressor outputs to separate tracks.
I tried playing guitar through the Countryman > colored preamp > reamp chain and found it wasn't particularly special compared to just capturing with the clean preamp and inserting a color unit into the reamp chain later if that's what you're after.
|
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Sept 6, 2017 10:39:49 GMT -6
"Super" clean not needed. Anything not breaking up is OK with me. How clean are the outputs of most pedalboards?
|
|
|
|
Post by Tbone81 on Sept 6, 2017 11:30:12 GMT -6
I did a product review of some amp sims a long time back and tested different di's. I remember noticing a difference between different di's (clean vs colored). I also remember not caring either way. With re-amping I cared even less as guitar amps are by nature colored, 100x more than any pre amp.
The impression I was left with was that it just helps to use quality di's, Pres etc, but that it really didn't matter if I used a clean or dirty pre/di.
|
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Sept 6, 2017 21:06:42 GMT -6
I aim for a lower level and a clean recording with no processing I get the clean part but why a lower level? Obvious concerns about analog or digital clipping aside, I'd normally be going for a fairly strong signal to ensure I had enough to healthily drive the amp when reamping, especially if the DI chain was pretty clean to begin with. I guess it depends what you mean by lower level? |
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Sept 6, 2017 21:11:39 GMT -6
"Super" clean not needed. Anything not breaking up is OK with me. How clean are the outputs of most pedalboards? By comparison, you're right, but I guess the discussion would revolve around most accurately and transparently translating that chain (or not), post fx, back to the amp when reamping. My approach thus far hasn't been dissimilar to what you're saying. I was just curious about what any real world perceived difference there would be between the clean versus colored approach. |
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Sept 6, 2017 21:20:30 GMT -6
I did a product review of some amp sims a long time back and tested different di's. I remember noticing a difference between different di's (clean vs colored). I also remember not caring either way. With re-amping I cared even less as guitar amps are by nature colored, 100x more than any pre amp. The impression I was left with was that it just helps to use quality di's, Pres etc, but that it really didn't matter if I used a clean or dirty pre/di. This is the sort of direct comparison feedback I was hoping to hear. All of my preamps are fairly to very colored and I didn't necessarily WANT to buy two to four channels of super clean preamps just for DI use. It could just be GAS taking hold.... |
|
|
|
Post by adamjbrass on Sept 7, 2017 4:44:19 GMT -6
I aim for a lower level and a clean recording with no processing I get the clean part but why a lower level? Obvious concerns about analog or digital clipping aside, I'd normally be going for a fairly strong signal to ensure I had enough to healthily drive the amp when reamping, especially if the DI chain was pretty clean to begin with. I guess it depends what you mean by lower level? No higher than -18 Because hotter level is not the point here. The amplifer used will work better regardless of the re amp box conversion |
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Sept 7, 2017 7:55:20 GMT -6
I get the clean part but why a lower level? Obvious concerns about analog or digital clipping aside, I'd normally be going for a fairly strong signal to ensure I had enough to healthily drive the amp when reamping, especially if the DI chain was pretty clean to begin with. I guess it depends what you mean by lower level? No higher than -18 Because hotter level is not the point here. The amplifer used will work better regardless of the re amp box conversion If you're talking -18, I'm right there with you. I thought maybe you were talking a lot lower than that. |
|
|
|
Post by thehightenor on Sept 7, 2017 8:02:35 GMT -6
The DI on my Millennia STT-1 works great for recording "clean" guitar or bass.
It has a few options, tube or clean pre and a switchable xformer.
The solid state pre on the Millennia with no xformer really is clean!
|
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Sept 7, 2017 21:52:25 GMT -6
I aim for a lower level and a clean recording with no processing I get the clean part but why a lower level? Obvious concerns about analog or digital clipping aside, I'd normally be going for a fairly strong signal to ensure I had enough to healthily drive the amp when reamping, especially if the DI chain was pretty clean to begin with. I guess it depends what you mean by lower level? Healthily drive the amp during reamping? What exactly do you think your recording level has to do with that? As far as I can see thet's totally dependent on the maximum level that your DAC can supply, which has nothing to do with the input level to the ADC. You output level is determined by the level you supply the DAC from the DAW program, which has a maximum level of 0dBfs regardless of input level. So the strength of the reamp signal is totally dependent on how much your DAC puts out from a 0dB fs signal, not the input level to the ADC, unless something is very wrong with your system. Which I doubt. However there's something else to consider that somebody on another forum mentioned, which is the fact that the dynamic range of the raw output of a guitar pickup is around 150 dB (according to my source, I have not done any measurements), which is very much in excess of what your DAC is likely to provide from the recorded signal - which means that the input of the amp or FX chain used in reamping isn't going to really behave the same as it would if driven by the guitar itself. Dunno how much bearing this has on the realities of reamping but it's something to think about. |
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Sept 7, 2017 22:31:50 GMT -6
I get the clean part but why a lower level? Obvious concerns about analog or digital clipping aside, I'd normally be going for a fairly strong signal to ensure I had enough to healthily drive the amp when reamping, especially if the DI chain was pretty clean to begin with. I guess it depends what you mean by lower level? Healthily drive the amp during reamping? What exactly do you think your recording level has to do with that? As far as I can see thet's totally dependent on the maximum level that your DAC can supply, which has nothing to do with the input level to the ADC. You output level is determined by the level you supply the DAC from the DAW program, which has a maximum level of 0dBfs regardless of input level. So the strength of the reamp signal is totally dependent on how much your DAC puts out from a 0dB fs signal, not the input level to the ADC, unless something is very wrong with your system. Which I doubt. However there's something else to consider that somebody on another forum mentioned, which is the fact that the dynamic range of the raw output of a guitar pickup is around 150 dB (according to my source, I have not done any measurements), which is very much in excess of what your DAC is likely to provide from the recorded signal - which means that the input of the amp or FX chain used in reamping isn't going to really behave the same as it would if driven by the guitar itself. Dunno how much bearing this has on the realities of reamping but it's something to think about. The other day, someone here referred to you as a "scolding contrarian". I'd say that description was accurate.... |
|
|
|
Post by adamjbrass on Sept 8, 2017 5:02:31 GMT -6
My amps sound better with a lower level signal for reamping. Way better than a hot signal from DAW.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 8, 2017 5:15:52 GMT -6
Don't most reamp boxes have a level control anyway? Between the reamp input and the output to the amp? I know my Orchid Electronics one does.
|
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Sept 8, 2017 5:58:40 GMT -6
Don't most reamp boxes have a level control anyway? Between the reamp input and the output to the amp? I know my Orchid Electronics one does. Yes, as far as I'm aware most do and, if one didn't, I either wouldn't use it or I'd add a control in line between the the DA and the reamp box. I generally try to record the DI input signal no more hotter (but not less either) than I would for any other signal going into the daw. As for the DA output to the reamp box and amp, I just set the level on the reamp box to whatever level makes the amp sound the best, whatever that particular level may be. It's one of those "if it sounds good, it is good" things. |
|
|
|
Post by thehightenor on Sept 8, 2017 6:06:55 GMT -6
Don't most reamp boxes have a level control anyway? Between the reamp input and the output to the amp? I know my Orchid Electronics one does. Hah ha a fellow Brit :-) Yes Orchid Electronics - best kept secret in the industry - well I keep telling everyone about John the owner designer. I have three of his DI's and the re-amp box. The Micro DI's were £25 each and sound as good as DI's costing £100's! The bigger Classic DI was a mind bending .... £35. And his Re-Amp box (which is beautifully built and does the job brilliantly) was a crazy £56! I also have John make up all my cables for me, which of course he does with great craftsmanship - like everything he does. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 8, 2017 7:30:26 GMT -6
Yes, John is a star. I have a pair of his Classic DIs and the Reamp box, they are all great and very nicely priced. I'd imagine his micro DI's would rival the Avenson Audio ones I used to use, that are small enough to fit on a guitar cable, and the cleanest DIs I ever heard (cleaner than the U5).
|
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Sept 8, 2017 7:42:33 GMT -6
Don't most reamp boxes have a level control anyway? Between the reamp input and the output to the amp? I know my Orchid Electronics one does. Hah ha a fellow Brit :-) Yes Orchid Electronics - best kept secret in the industry - well I keep telling everyone about John the owner designer. I have three of his DI's and the re-amp box. The Micro DI's were £25 each and sound as good as DI's costing £100's! The bigger Classic DI was a mind bending .... £35. And his Re-Amp box (which is beautifully built and does the job brilliantly) was a crazy £56! I also have John make up all my cables for me, which of course he does with great craftsmanship - like everything he does. I need to check these out. |
|
