|
|
Post by notneeson on Aug 21, 2023 18:18:28 GMT -6
Well, then you're inserting an extra round of A/D D/A before the guitar amp, but not the end of the world. How is that better than using a quality DI with a throughput straight to the amp? Maybe I need to read the whole thread? I'm not worried about the extra round of AD/DA in terms of quality (it's gonna get all goofed up by the amp and then shot into a mic anyway) only latency which is negligible here. But what's the benefit? The idea of the Little Labs Red Eye as I understand it is that you can hear exactly what your re-amped signal would sound like since can you use it both as a re-amp and a DI. So for my purposes (which would be to recreate the sound of the amp in the room through re-amping) I was wondering if I would achieve the same thing by using the interface guitar input and then just using a cheaper passive reamp box to the guitar amp. Then I would record the guitar amp of course on its own channel. If it's the same thing, the advantage is simply that I can run two channels like that for $250 instead of $600. Also seems a bit simpler to me in terms of cabling. But the big caveat is I've never done any real re-amping myself. So maybe the proper DI makes a big difference? Yeah, not so much quality as a concern about keeping that connected feel of plugging right into an amp. I feel the one thing that gets a little lost on reamping is that the tactile feedback loop between player/instrument/amp gets sort of disrupted. It’s not necessarily an issue, but it’s one more thing to consider. So personally I’d go for the best possible track today over something theoretically better tomorrow. And that is basically a distillation of much of what I’ve learned over the years. Doesn’t mean your way won’t totally work! I’ve also learned that rules are over rated. |
|
|
|
Post by thirdeye on Aug 21, 2023 18:31:11 GMT -6
Well, then you're inserting an extra round of A/D D/A before the guitar amp, but not the end of the world. How is that better than using a quality DI with a throughput straight to the amp? Maybe I need to read the whole thread? I'm not worried about the extra round of AD/DA in terms of quality (it's gonna get all goofed up by the amp and then shot into a mic anyway) only latency which is negligible here. But what's the benefit? The idea of the Little Labs Red Eye as I understand it is that you can hear exactly what your re-amped signal would sound like since can you use it both as a re-amp and a DI. So for my purposes (which would be to recreate the sound of the amp in the room through re-amping) I was wondering if I would achieve the same thing by using the interface guitar input and then just using a cheaper passive reamp box to the guitar amp. Then I would record the guitar amp of course on its own channel. If it's the same thing, the advantage is simply that I can run two channels like that for $250 instead of $600. Also seems a bit simpler to me in terms of cabling. But the big caveat is I've never done any real re-amping myself. So maybe the proper DI makes a big difference? I personally would always use a quality DI to send a good clean signal to the mic preamp/interface and if there's one used while tracking, mic the amp (amps??) at the same time. The initial amp tracking could still be used to augment the future reamp tracks. I just DI while tracking, usually just before the pedals. If there's some special pedal things going on, I'd DI before and after the pedal board. Type 85 is a good choice. I'll also use the J48 or the U5 sometimes. For reamping, I have the old Radial XAmp and both the Signal Art Reamp boxes - they are all good. I'm sure the Red Eye is great as well. When reamping, I'll split the reamp output as needed and keep all the amp heads used in the control room with the cabinets out in the recording rooms and adjust from there. Sometimes all the mics are blended to one track and recorded, sometimes separate tracks. I love reamping, it's a lot of fun! |
|
|
|
Post by gravesnumber9 on Aug 21, 2023 18:34:53 GMT -6
I'm not worried about the extra round of AD/DA in terms of quality (it's gonna get all goofed up by the amp and then shot into a mic anyway) only latency which is negligible here. But what's the benefit? The idea of the Little Labs Red Eye as I understand it is that you can hear exactly what your re-amped signal would sound like since can you use it both as a re-amp and a DI. So for my purposes (which would be to recreate the sound of the amp in the room through re-amping) I was wondering if I would achieve the same thing by using the interface guitar input and then just using a cheaper passive reamp box to the guitar amp. Then I would record the guitar amp of course on its own channel. If it's the same thing, the advantage is simply that I can run two channels like that for $250 instead of $600. Also seems a bit simpler to me in terms of cabling. But the big caveat is I've never done any real re-amping myself. So maybe the proper DI makes a big difference? Yeah, not so much quality as a concern about keeping that connected feel of plugging right into an amp. I feel the one thing that gets a little lost on reamping is that the tactile feedback loop between player/instrument/amp gets sort of disrupted. It’s not necessarily an issue, but it’s one more thing to consider. So personally I’d go for the best possible track today over something theoretically better tomorrow. And that is basically a distillation of much of what I’ve learned over the years. Doesn’t mean your way won’t totally work! I’ve also learned that rules are over rated. That's a pretty good point. Especially considering the fact that I'm not super likely to use the DI track anyway I don't think. |
|
|
|
Post by gravesnumber9 on Aug 21, 2023 18:36:54 GMT -6
I'm not worried about the extra round of AD/DA in terms of quality (it's gonna get all goofed up by the amp and then shot into a mic anyway) only latency which is negligible here. But what's the benefit? The idea of the Little Labs Red Eye as I understand it is that you can hear exactly what your re-amped signal would sound like since can you use it both as a re-amp and a DI. So for my purposes (which would be to recreate the sound of the amp in the room through re-amping) I was wondering if I would achieve the same thing by using the interface guitar input and then just using a cheaper passive reamp box to the guitar amp. Then I would record the guitar amp of course on its own channel. If it's the same thing, the advantage is simply that I can run two channels like that for $250 instead of $600. Also seems a bit simpler to me in terms of cabling. But the big caveat is I've never done any real re-amping myself. So maybe the proper DI makes a big difference? I personally would always use a quality DI to send a good clean signal to the mic preamp/interface and if there's one used while tracking, mic the amp (amps??) at the same time. The initial amp tracking could still be used to augment the future reamp tracks. I just DI while tracking, usually just before the pedals. If there's some special pedal things going on, I'd DI before and after the pedal board. Type 85 is a good choice. I'll also use the J48 or the U5 sometimes. For reamping, I have the old Radial XAmp and both the Signal Art Reamp boxes - they are all good. I'm sure the Red Eye is great as well. When reamping, I'll split the reamp output as needed and keep all the amp heads used in the control room with the cabinets out in the recording rooms and adjust from there. Sometimes all the mics are blended to one track and recorded, sometimes separate tracks. I love reamping, it's a lot of fun! Another good point. No need DI after the pedals since, presumably, I would just run back through the pedal board to capture the sound I want. |
|
|
|
Post by Bat Lanyard on Aug 21, 2023 19:24:00 GMT -6
Little Labs Redeye DIs are perfect for getting DI takes of guitar signals. They work in active or passive mode, so you can use them with guitars with active or passive pickups. They also have reamp capabilities too. You can use Redeye DIs to grab DI splits at multiple points (naked guitar, post dirt pedals but pre time-based-fx pedals, post entire pedal board, etc.). Redeye DIs are a no brainer for guitars. I use RNDIs for bass and organ. They capture the low end well. I use three RNDIs for capture of my Hammond and another RNDI for direct capture of the bass. The rest of the bass DIs are directly out of the bass amp head itself. Quint for the win here. I use the same as well as the RNDIx2 (?). The Little Labs PCP is the bomb on reamping guitars as well. |
|
|
|
Post by svart on Aug 22, 2023 7:46:53 GMT -6
Ok, thinking about pulling the trigger on the Little Labs Red Eye, but I'm wondering about something else. Why wouldn't I just send my output from my pedalboard into the instrument input on my interface (MOTU Ultralight AVB in this room) and then send the line out to something like a Radial ProRMP and then into my amp. I can do that with virtually zero latency in my setup and I'll be hearing what basically is a re-amped signal. For my purposes (which are to possibly re-amp the guitar if mic bleed in the guitar amp is problematic) wouldn't this be the same function as the Red Eye but at less than 1/2 the cost? And the Red Eye is not prohibitively expensive, but if I did it this way I could afford two setups like this for the room whereas I really can't afford two Red Eye's. What do you guys think? I typically send the DI tracks to amp sims these days so the artist hears an "amp" when playing. It's so much easier than messing around with a real amp for an hour while the artist gets tired of playing and waiting for setup and tones. The sim outputs go to headphones for monitoring. This helps with whole bands too since I can have the drummer, bassist and guitarist in the same small room playing with each other and hearing each other while not needing to have any bleed from amps into the drums. I just go back and reamp things if I need to. I would have ZERO problem running the DI into the interface and then back out to the amp at the same time. The only issues I can foresee are the latency that might add up. The RedEye is EITHER a DI or reamp box. I don't think you can use both at the same time. At least I think I remember not being able to do both at the same time because there is a switch for DI/Reamp. |
|
|
|
Post by gravesnumber9 on Aug 22, 2023 8:38:07 GMT -6
Ok, thinking about pulling the trigger on the Little Labs Red Eye, but I'm wondering about something else. Why wouldn't I just send my output from my pedalboard into the instrument input on my interface (MOTU Ultralight AVB in this room) and then send the line out to something like a Radial ProRMP and then into my amp. I can do that with virtually zero latency in my setup and I'll be hearing what basically is a re-amped signal. For my purposes (which are to possibly re-amp the guitar if mic bleed in the guitar amp is problematic) wouldn't this be the same function as the Red Eye but at less than 1/2 the cost? And the Red Eye is not prohibitively expensive, but if I did it this way I could afford two setups like this for the room whereas I really can't afford two Red Eye's. What do you guys think? I typically send the DI tracks to amp sims these days so the artist hears an "amp" when playing. It's so much easier than messing around with a real amp for an hour while the artist gets tired of playing and waiting for setup and tones. The sim outputs go to headphones for monitoring. This helps with whole bands too since I can have the drummer, bassist and guitarist in the same small room playing with each other and hearing each other while not needing to have any bleed from amps into the drums. I just go back and reamp things if I need to. I would have ZERO problem running the DI into the interface and then back out to the amp at the same time. The only issues I can foresee are the latency that might add up. The RedEye is EITHER a DI or reamp box. I don't think you can use both at the same time. At least I think I remember not being able to do both at the same time because there is a switch for DI/Reamp. I don't think latency will be a problem, I'm already hitting AD/DA as it is with sub 2ms latency so this won't add anything. We're not even using headphones so that's less than the distance from the amps themselves. Anyway, the new RedEye can indeed do both now which is very cool. And I'm leaning towards getting one, I probably will. But it's not like it's all that hard to set up a concurrent DI/ReAmp manually. The cool thing about the Red Eye is how quickly you can toggle from one to the other, I do like that. |
|
|
|
Post by bikescene on Aug 22, 2023 8:46:44 GMT -6
I use a DIYRE L2A reamp box. I use Helix Native occasionally, so I set my levels around Line 6 hardware.
My DI track is set around the levels of my HX Stomp (0.707VRMS 1k sine at around -12dBFS). I plug my reamp into my DI to get unity gain. I dedicated I/O for the DI and reamp so I don’t need to mess around with levels.
I DIY’d a pickup simulator from an online project when I am reamping into impedance-sensitive pedals like fuzzes.
If I reamp into an amp and Suhr Reactive Load, I’ll plug the load into the same DI.
|
|
|
|
Post by gravesnumber9 on Aug 22, 2023 8:55:59 GMT -6
I use a DIYRE L2A reamp box. I use Helix Native occasionally, so I set my levels around Line 6 hardware. My DI track is set around the levels of my HX Stomp (0.707VRMS 1k sine at around -12dBFS). I plug my reamp into my DI to get unity gain. I dedicated I/O for the DI and reamp so I don’t need to mess around with levels. I DIY’d a pickup simulator from an online project when I am reamping into impedance-sensitive pedals like fuzzes. If I reamp into an amp and Suhr Reactive Load, I’ll plug the load into the same DI. This is what I mean by it not being that hard to do what the Red Eye does with separate pieces. If you have the open channels, just dedicate them, get the right relative levels, and move on. (Not knocking the Red Eye cuz it seems like even just the quality of the DI and ReAmp box would justify the cost if you don't have the skills and/or time to DIY.) |
|
|
|
Post by gravesnumber9 on Aug 23, 2023 7:37:45 GMT -6
So while this is not technically re-amping, I have made one decision which is to try out a Friedman Mic No Mo. I was pretty impressed with the sound clips and the $99 price point makes it hard to think of a reason to not at least try it. It's an analog speaker simulator (really just a DI box) that goes between the amp and speaker signal chain and sends a direct out to a board. Supposedly the same thing Friedman uses for the XLR out in their Runt amplifiers. Not a huge amount of info about it out there but what there is sounds pretty good. I'll get it in tomorrow. Really has nothing to do with re-amping but it does potentially solve the problem of bleed into the guitar amp if it sounds as good as the clips. (As is typical of all this stuff, the clips don't provide a lot of clean tones which is where things get iffy... we'll find out.) friedmanamplification.com/shop/essentials/mic-no-mo/ |
|
|
|
Post by gravesnumber9 on Dec 15, 2023 9:41:19 GMT -6
So while this is not technically re-amping, I have made one decision which is to try out a Friedman Mic No Mo. I was pretty impressed with the sound clips and the $99 price point makes it hard to think of a reason to not at least try it. It's an analog speaker simulator (really just a DI box) that goes between the amp and speaker signal chain and sends a direct out to a board. Supposedly the same thing Friedman uses for the XLR out in their Runt amplifiers. Not a huge amount of info about it out there but what there is sounds pretty good. I'll get it in tomorrow. Really has nothing to do with re-amping but it does potentially solve the problem of bleed into the guitar amp if it sounds as good as the clips. (As is typical of all this stuff, the clips don't provide a lot of clean tones which is where things get iffy... we'll find out.) friedmanamplification.com/shop/essentials/mic-no-mo/Following up on this... the Friedman Mic No Mo is awesome. I've used it for a few months now on both my stuff and two or three other projects. It is totally indistinguishable from miking up my Blues Jr with the m88 that it replaced. It's a bit of a hassle setting it up disconnecting from a combo so I ordered a second one which just arrived. Setting it up with my vintage Silvertone Twin Twelve, we'll see how it works with a different speaker. This is suiting my needs (full band in small studio space) very well. Just very, very easy and sounds great. I can imagine that it sounds fantastic in a live scenario considering how well it stands up to scrutiny in a recorded scenario. |
|
|
|
Post by doubledog on Jan 7, 2024 11:48:07 GMT -6
I've split the signal either before or after pedals using a Radial JDI (I have a couple IMP2's as well), but not being a (real) guitar player, I always wondered if this changed the tone for them? I'm using the "thru" connection to give back to the guitar player (to go to their amp or pedals). Or should I be using an active DI? I haven't had any complaints yet, but just wondering if any golden-eared guitar players are sensitive to the type of DI? Do I need to even worry or is it not a thing?
|
|
|
|
Post by bricejchandler on Jan 8, 2024 2:09:56 GMT -6
I've split the signal either before or after pedals using a Radial JDI (I have a couple IMP2's as well), but not being a (real) guitar player, I always wondered if this changed the tone for them? I'm using the "thru" connection to give back to the guitar player (to go to their amp or pedals). Or should I be using an active DI? I haven't had any complaints yet, but just wondering if any golden-eared guitar players are sensitive to the type of DI? Do I need to even worry or is it not a thing? Yes! Anything you put in between is going to affect the tone. Older amp designs seem to be more sensitive. My 64 Princeton sounds far better when the guitar is plugged straight in than going through pedals or directs boxes. Once you start stacking pedals it matters less but if you have a guitarist that plays straight into the amp, he’ll probably notice if you plug a Di before. |
|
|
|
Post by indiehouse on Jan 15, 2024 7:34:30 GMT -6
I am using a Countryman to split the signal from my guitar into my interface (Lynx Aurora n) for DI. What kind of level on the DI should I be getting? Right now, it's EXTREMELY low, RMS around -55db peaks around -36db. Is that normal?
|
|
|
|
Post by audiospecific on Jan 15, 2024 7:58:26 GMT -6
I've split the signal either before or after pedals using a Radial JDI (I have a couple IMP2's as well), but not being a (real) guitar player, I always wondered if this changed the tone for them? I'm using the "thru" connection to give back to the guitar player (to go to their amp or pedals). Or should I be using an active DI? I haven't had any complaints yet, but just wondering if any golden-eared guitar players are sensitive to the type of DI? Do I need to even worry or is it not a thing? Yes! Anything you put in between is going to affect the tone. Older amp designs seem to be more sensitive. My 64 Princeton sounds far better when the guitar is plugged straight in than going through pedals or directs boxes. Once you start stacking pedals it matters less but if you have a guitarist that plays straight into the amp, he’ll probably notice if you plug a Di before. Electric Guitars always had some form of suck due to its wiring technology that is not compatible to itself at times with pedals.
|
|
|
|
Post by bikescene on Jan 15, 2024 8:59:34 GMT -6
I am using a Countryman to split the signal from my guitar into my interface (Lynx Aurora n) for DI. What kind of level on the DI should I be getting? Right now, it's EXTREMELY low, RMS around -55db peaks around -36db. Is that normal? I suggest making up that gain with a mic pre between your DI and interface. I have my chain set for around -12dB. I set my levels to match Line 6 Helix hardware since it is a good middle ground for digital plugins. I also have my reamp box levels set to unity gain in relation to the input levels. That way my reamped levels are as close to the original signal as possible. I leave these levels even when I change guitars, so the pickup level differences are maintained. |
|
|
|
Post by gravesnumber9 on Jan 15, 2024 9:12:27 GMT -6
I took the plunge and ordered a Radial Reamper off Reverb. Doing a bunch of DI'd guitars today that I'll reamp this week. I'm excited, sounds fun.
Guitar player is going to do his tracks through one of those digital Fender amps. Silent output to the board for scratch. Split signal into a hi-z input for later re amp.
I've always taken bass direct but excited about possible re-amping there too for the times when the tone isn't cutting as it should.
Great suggestions on this thread.
|
|
|
|
Post by copperx on Jan 15, 2024 11:20:47 GMT -6
On a tangent here, but isn't weird that so many of us are working with guitar-based music when guitar is nowhere on the map of mainstream consciousness?
Are we just old?
|
|
|
|
Post by indiehouse on Jan 15, 2024 13:24:48 GMT -6
Yes! Anything you put in between is going to affect the tone. Older amp designs seem to be more sensitive. My 64 Princeton sounds far better when the guitar is plugged straight in than going through pedals or directs boxes. Once you start stacking pedals it matters less but if you have a guitarist that plays straight into the amp, he’ll probably notice if you plug a Di before. Electric Guitars always had some form of suck due to its wiring technology that is not compatible to itself at times with pedals.
Does not compute. |
|
|
|
Post by indiehouse on Jan 15, 2024 13:29:15 GMT -6
On a tangent here, but isn't weird that so many of us are working with guitar-based music when guitar is nowhere on the map of mainstream consciousness? Are we just old? Ha. Having similar thoughts lately. I have two young daughters who are discovering Taylor Swifts discography. So by proxy, I have been listening to a lot of Tay Tay. I figured I might as well learn something and listen with a critical ear. Very non-guitar centered music for a songwriter who writes mainly with guitar and piano (the documentaries are kind of cool to watch, funny enough). Anyways, I guess I do me. I don’t care what mainstream does. But, I’m up for trying something new. |
|
|
|
Post by indiehouse on Jan 15, 2024 13:31:55 GMT -6
I am using a Countryman to split the signal from my guitar into my interface (Lynx Aurora n) for DI. What kind of level on the DI should I be getting? Right now, it's EXTREMELY low, RMS around -55db peaks around -36db. Is that normal? I suggest making up that gain with a mic pre between your DI and interface. I have my chain set for around -12dB. I set my levels to match Line 6 Helix hardware since it is a good middle ground for digital plugins. I also have my reamp box levels set to unity gain in relation to the input levels. That way my reamped levels are as close to the original signal as possible. I leave these levels even when I change guitars, so the pickup level differences are maintained. So, a DI to take my instrument level down to mic level, a preamp to take mic level up to line level, then a reamp box to take line level back down to instrument level. What am I missing out on by leaving it at instrument level in the first place? Optimal signal to noise ratio? |
|
|
|
Post by audiospecific on Jan 15, 2024 13:54:11 GMT -6
I suggest making up that gain with a mic pre between your DI and interface. I have my chain set for around -12dB. I set my levels to match Line 6 Helix hardware since it is a good middle ground for digital plugins. I also have my reamp box levels set to unity gain in relation to the input levels. That way my reamped levels are as close to the original signal as possible. I leave these levels even when I change guitars, so the pickup level differences are maintained. So, a DI to take my instrument level down to mic level, a preamp to take mic level up to line level, then a reamp box to take line level back down to instrument level. What am I missing out on by leaving it at instrument level in the first place? Optimal signal to noise ratio? loss at the converter. Because the signal to noise ratio is not linear in a converter. This loss is even worse with tape. Di boxes gets the signal out of the noise ridden interconnect technology called unbalanced line and converts it to balanced. The reverse happens in a Re-amp. |
|
|
|
Post by bikescene on Jan 15, 2024 14:09:10 GMT -6
I suggest making up that gain with a mic pre between your DI and interface. I have my chain set for around -12dB. I set my levels to match Line 6 Helix hardware since it is a good middle ground for digital plugins. I also have my reamp box levels set to unity gain in relation to the input levels. That way my reamped levels are as close to the original signal as possible. I leave these levels even when I change guitars, so the pickup level differences are maintained. So, a DI to take my instrument level down to mic level, a preamp to take mic level up to line level, then a reamp box to take line level back down to instrument level. What am I missing out on by leaving it at instrument level in the first place? Optimal signal to noise ratio? I suppose it’s your preference to which front end you prefer: the Countryman+pre or your interface instrument input. Of course the DI allows you to split your signal prior to recording. I use a DI for my main setup out of habit. Sometimes I use a Line 6 HX Stomp in a portable setup, and just record dry DI signal through USB. I can bring it back and reamp through my amps. I sometimes use the USB reamping in my Fractal FM3 for its amp models. With my recorded DIs referenced at the Line 6 levels, I just have to trim 6dB to hit the FM3 models at the right levels. My interface line outs connected directly into an amp results in a bunch of noise. The reamp box provides isolation. I run it with the ground lift on for the quietest operation. |
|
|
|
Post by gravesnumber9 on Jan 15, 2024 17:45:42 GMT -6
On a tangent here, but isn't weird that so many of us are working with guitar-based music when guitar is nowhere on the map of mainstream consciousness? Are we just old? 1) we're old 2) the sort of people that need to hire engineers are doing music that they can't do in their bedroom which is more likely to have guitars and stuff |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2024 17:54:42 GMT -6
On a tangent here, but isn't weird that so many of us are working with guitar-based music when guitar is nowhere on the map of mainstream consciousness? Are we just old? As someone who listens to very modern dance (at the moment, likely to change at any time). They could do with some real instruments just for a bit of variety, I've decided to incorporate some.. Also it's an easier pill to swallow when going from extreme metal to dance toon's..  |
|
