I am looking for good amp plugin. I wish something with many options. I see amplitube, guitar rig and revalver. Simulanalog is not on my list of possibles.

What are some good and bad of what there is? What is there to try? I own many nice amplifiers, but I wish to bring my laptop and guitar out places and record. My limit for spending on this will be 500$ Thank you.


Thank you very much for your time my friends!

That puts you in Reaktor country. In the provided library you have a great amp sim called banaan electique, & there's a lot of em in the user library on NI's site, including a new one called the TT-amp that sounds real good.

Obviously, you're getting way more than an amp sim by getting R4, it's an infallible investment regardless.

Just about everything in the guitar rig could probably be built in Reaktor given time..if it wasn't to begin with

I'd definitely try Guitar Rig;I haven't played around with it myself,but a couple people whose opinions I respect were on the beta team,and they rave about it.
IMO,Reaktor falls apart on amp simulations,unless you're looking for fizzy preamp tones or out and out stomp box distortion.I haven't heard a really good model yet.You probably COULD build a really good amp model,but it'd take a long time and be hard on the CPU as well...
ew

Reaktor looks like I would be spending much money on something I would use 2 features of

Guitar Rig looks nice! Even built in DI! That is neat

I'm sure you'd find lots more uses for Reaktor;it's an amazing tool for so many things.
Amp modeling is not one of its strong points,though.
ew

trasher is good too

Before I try very much and buy am I missing anything? I see that look good these plugins:

Guitar Rig
Revalver
Amplitube
Trash

I like Tube Baby very much, but this plugin still needs work If this was better finished I think I would not need to look other places.

A big ho hum!

you'd pay like £200-300 for one of those plugs? A waste of money.

To be completely honest, they have no match for a good amp model box. Those plugs are in similar price range anyway. Trust me, the difference in sound quality is *very* noticeable.

Most people would recommend PodXT, but I'll say Vox Tonelab. This thing has much better dynamics, and overall more realistic playing touch (and sound).

I would consider Pod 2, the johnson thing and the behringer quite 'old school' already. Sound quality wise anyway.

Oh yeah. Forget about latency with these.

Kingston wrote:

A big ho hum! you'd pay like £200-300 for one of those plugs? A waste of money. To be completely honest, they have no match for a good amp model box. Those plugs are in similar price range anyway. Trust me, the difference in sound quality is *very* noticeable. Most people would recommend PodXT, but I'll say Vox Tonelab. This thing has much better dynamics, and overall more realistic playing touch (and sound). I would consider Pod 2, the johnson thing and the behringer quite 'old school' already. Sound quality wise anyway. Oh yeah. Forget about latency with these.

I am trying to take only a laptop and a guitar where I want to go Thank you for the suggestion I will look. I heard a vox tonelab soon and I think it sounds very good! If guitar rig has a pedal I should consider these items too

With laptop and guitars you'd still need sound cards DI boxes etc.

Tonelab isn't very large to add to that. And there's knobs

Kingston wrote:

With laptop and guitars you'd still need sound cards DI boxes etc. Tonelab isn't very large to add to that. And there's knobs

I made a second output onto my favorite stratocaster that outputs clean line-level just for this idea I feel pulled away from guitar rig and boxes because I spent so much time on this

The guitar rig examples sound very bad too :\

What's about GreenMachine Amp II ?
Please give it a try.

http://www.greenmachine.pwuq.net

padrake wrote:

What's about GreenMachine Amp II ? Please give it a try. http://www.greenmachine.pwuq.net

Thanks for the hint padrake! I didnt know it was released yet. Waou! Impressive! Great interface (its easy to use at 1600*1200 21" and with crappy eyes).

I only tried it with houseloops, no guitar. It has a 30 days trial with NO anoying stuff like silence or noisebursts every five second.

Ill buy this one ASAP!

Thanks again padrake

Very good! Greenmachine is the top of my list now

I would like to see some delay and other things with it. The modelling is great already I can always use extra plugins for this before the amp.

Thank you! I will evaluate the plugin and my needs some more. I may purchase

I am also seeing revalver to be great too. Very good at fender sounds that I like.

Is there more than I can try?

Heard mixed reviews on this but the price recently dropped big so it might be worth a look....

http://www.audiomidi.com/common/cfm/product.cfm?pid=2331&CPID=472

There is also Nomad Factory's Rock Amp Legends. They have a demo. I tried it out. I didn't like it very much but it wouldn't hurt to check it out.

Alive In Chernobyl wrote:

Very good! Greenmachine is the top of my list now I would like to see some delay and other things with it. The modelling is great already I can always use extra plugins for this before the amp. Thank you! I will evaluate the plugin and my needs some more. I may purchase I am also seeing revalver to be great too. Very good at fender sounds that I like. Is there more than I can try?

While evaluating you might see that it actually has got a delay (and reverb, chorus, (auto(wah and that hammond thing .. rotor)

A big applouse for the 30 day demo!

With a budget of $500 you could get many very nice hardware units that will simply blow away any plugin currently available.I have a Johnson J Station and am very happy with it.There is also the Pod Xt to consider.With hardware units there is no latency to worry about and no cpu demand.Although I am the biggest fan of software when it comes to guitar amp simulations in my opinion hardware is far superior in sound quality.The J Station is small enough to add to your laptop guitar rig with no problem.Also with a hardware unit you can take it other places to jam and record without needing a computer.Just a few things to consider.

Actually, that Greenmachine thingy seems to sound pretty well - especially on half distorted tones, which has allways been a problem for any sort of amp simulation so far, be it hard or software.
Price is almost unbeatable - now if it just wouldn't look THAT ugly and dark...

Sure, others are coming with a lot more amp models, but I'm sure that along with any other distortion/drive/EQ plugins in front of it one might be able to get some pretty great results for almost any style of music out of it.

Alive, with which soundcard are you using it? I mean, to play guitar live through it, you need very low latencies... (unusable along with my EMI, the rack with the Hammerfall inside is too huge to keep it at home).

For $500.00 I'd suggest the uad-1 project pak. The nigel is superb and then you get all those great effect vsts on top of it. I got mine for $530 Canadian so yours should be in the low $400.00 range. - Really you can't beat the price and you get more processing and efx for your cpu. A great deal in my view. - Scott

A) the UAD won't work with a laptop.
B) You'd need a soundcard with even lower latency to use Nigel in realtime because overall latency will be doubled. Even at 3ms you'd get 12ms in total (I/O of your card, I/O of the UAD). Too much for me.

Interface will come second when I see what I need. I may abandon this idea totally It does look that nothing will come close to my real amplifiers.

Greenmachine II is the best sounding of all these Only amp simulation I find with good clean and half-distorted tones. All can do heavy distortion. Greenmachine is superior in classic sounds and customization.

Alive In Chernobyl,

Why is it that you're forcing yourself to laptop with your guitar?

It's just that it would be so much easier with a good amp sim box. I seriously doubt price or size would be an issue. Plus the additional benefits of no crashing, control and (almost) zero latency. Oh, and the better sound.

Kingston wrote:

Alive In Chernobyl, Why is it that you're forcing yourself to laptop with your guitar? It's just that it would be so much easier with a good amp sim box. I seriously doubt price or size would be an issue. Plus the additional benefits of no crashing, control and (almost) zero latency. Oh, and the better sound.

I have never crashed when using reasonable plugins.

My current system gets 128 sample latency. This is identical or less than hardware boxes.

Why you insist upon saying they are better sound confuses me. The systems they use to emulate microphones sound bad to me! AIR is worst. With this turned off they sound very similiar to softwares.

Can you automate a box without complicated midi controlling? What about electric outlet?

My tastes are very strong. I own many amps with some by fender, marshall, mesa boogie, crate, bogner and zvex. I feel I can make a quality decision on my own I appreciate the suggestion! If I want to stay at home and record guitar this is enough for me.

I am looking to goto the beach, or coffee shop, or downtown or many other place. I have laptop with very long battery life already. I am searching for no battery soundcard with good latency too. I am sorry if the intention I have is not clear before.

Quote:

Why you insist upon saying they are better sound confuses me. The systems they use to emulate microphones sound bad to me! AIR is worst. With this turned off they sound very similiar to softwares.

I think you might be referring to POD 2.0 and yes, it sounds pretty bad. I've never been a big fan of PodXT either (apart from its flexibility), but Vox Tonelab really is the bees knees and it's amp equivalent, too. I find it weird you have so many real amps, assuming you're used to their sound, that you don't find the Vox range very pleasing...

Good luck getting low latencies with laptop (USB) by the way. 128ms is pretty much no go, or correct me if I'm wrong. Also, most good USB cards will need an electrical outlet just like amp boxes. (or correct me if I'm wrong)

As far as crashing, they're still computers, and especially when planning to move all the time, well, better be safe than sorry.

Oh, and I wish you very good luck with planning to take your music the beach!

There is another thread on battery-less soundcards

My screen name comes from my work at a campsite near chernobyl. For this I use other hardware device. I have also worked in Alps with same hardware set.

I want to try location recordings at florida beaches! This try I wish to move into the year 2004 with a laptop recording.

Maybe this is a bit OT but you should calculate the "virtual" distance added by the card latency to the real speaker distance:

Using a buffer with 128 samples you will get the following latencies:
~ 1.3ms @ 96kHz samplerate
~ 2.7ms @ 48kHz
~ 2.9ms @ 44.1kHz

Vd = V/1000*L

Vd == virtual distance in meter
V == speed of sound in air (~343m/s @ 20°C or 68°F)
L == card latency in ms

So let's do the work:
Vd = 343/1000*2.7
Vd = 0.9261m !

Wow! Only 1 meter or less will add to my real speaker distance. Mmmh, when I'm playing with some friends in a band mostly the drummer is more than 4 meters away. In that case you have to play with a latency about 11.6ms to the drums !!!
Is that too much? No, this is the life and the human brain has learned to deal with it.


Cheers

Patrick

I gotta agree with that one, even though I'm taking you at your word for the math itself. Lots of times my suggestions on here are met with "too much latency" and I always just scratch my head and think...

"But... but... I was playing in 'realtime' just last night and it sounded fine to me...!"

But I usually just shrug, because I always just assume that 4 extra ms really messes with the mojo of the people out there with the robotic ears, and who am I to say?

Greg

Very true.

You can not stand even 4m from a proper volume amp when recording many of times!

I found myself playing with a 1024 sample buffer last night and not noticing!

I think I am loving revalver more and more. Why do I not hear much of this plugin here?

Can't exactly follow the maths here, all I know is that 3ms roughly equate 1 meter.
In a recording situation you are usually used to wearing headphones, which means there's only mic distance (usually less then a meter).

Then, in addition, in a band context all the instruments you hear have some sort of "room latency", so you may adjust to that. In a recording context the other signals have no noticeable latency at all, so that's quite another thing.

However, I can clearly notice the difference between 128 and 256 samples. As latency on realtime use comes twice (1x in, 1x out) it even becomes more apparent than when using VSTis.

And finally, I couldn't work with 1024 at all, at least not using some amp simulator. That'd be around 23ms at 44.1kHz, roughly equating 8 meters. Now, multiply that with 2 and it's unbearable for tight realtime guitar recording.
At least for me it is.

Why times two? The latency in my host is the exact number of buffer when going in and coming out. Coming out and going in it can do with 0 latency. This is only the latency of the converter you hear.

Maybe your host is different?

For the record, I never use headphones. I stand in a fairly small computer room, between .75 and 1.5 m away from my speakers, OR I put the amp out in the hallway, which ends up being roughly 3m away. To me, the amp is still in 'realtime' and I don't notice any latency between hitting the strings and hearing the f---ing amp, you know?

When someone's in the basement yelling at me to keep the racket down, I'm fairly certain the latency isn't enough to give me time to turn the amp down.

23ms is unbearable, that's true. I've recorded with 46ms (92ms?), and I never ever ever want to do it again. When I got down to 23 (46?), I didn't notice any appreciable difference. But when I bought a "real" card and got down to "8 ms" (what the hardware control panel says, though I suppose according to you, it's actually 16ms, though I've never heard that anywhere else before; I always assumed the manufacturers accounted for 'to' AND 'from' signals in that calculation, but I guess I'm wrong) or even "11ms" (actually 22 I guess) I can record fine.

Furthermore, I suspect that most people record with too many active VST, when they could pick a simpler sound for their realtime recording and beef it up later, if that's what they really want to do.

Greg

The latency figures you get are those for the output (usually). They usually are more or less describing things along the lines of virtual instruments. Regarding those, latency indeed only happens once (apart from the latency MIDI is introducing).

You could perhaps do the prove by yourself. Record something while running it through some realtime simulation thingy (or whatever). At the same time, route that realtime "channel" back to some physical in and record it as well. Compare the originally recorded track to the rerouted and recorded one you've been running through some plugin and do the maths...

Regardless of the maths, 11ms of latency (22 for realtime use) is plenty usable, making 8ms (16 for realtime) imperceptible to me. There's not even a slap-back-like mini-echo throwing me off, and I can play some reasonably quick runs.

Keep in mind that all of these things I'm saying refer just to me, although I admit that I have implied that the "2ms or death" latency-hounds are probably looking too much at the stats sheet rather than trusting that their brains and ears are handling things just fine.

Greg

Sascha Franck wrote:

The latency figures you get are those for the output (usually). They usually are more or less describing things along the lines of virtual instruments. Regarding those, latency indeed only happens once (apart from the latency MIDI is introducing). You could perhaps do the prove by yourself. Record something while running it through some realtime simulation thingy (or whatever). At the same time, route that realtime "channel" back to some physical in and record it as well. Compare the originally recorded track to the rerouted and recorded one you've been running through some plugin and do the maths...

Just one latency buffer.

No sorry Alive - your audio has to be processed twice, one time for the input, one time for the output.

Sascha Franck wrote:

No sorry Alive - your audio has to be processed twice, one time for the input, one time for the output.

It is delayed just one buffer. You are not correct in this case

I can even send out and back in with my host with 0 latency.

This is one of many benefit of SawStudio Try for yourself if you wish to! It can be hard to do if you are not knowing of the host well. PM me and I will lead you to it


Why does no one speak of ReValver? This is great! I have tried all suggested and this comes most close to my vintage guitar amps. The microphone and room sound are amazing! Very close to really miked amp. This is what fun is to me This even lets you make giant rack of a guitar amp! I find it takes time to learn to use this well, and you must know how guitar amps work to make this work like amps.

I must find if Alien Connections is still having good business and support. I will buy this for sure if this is true!!

Hm, might be that SAW is handling things differently, but usually (read: In Logic, Cubase, Sonar) a realtime used plugin will need two times your host's buffers.

while padrake's math is valid, it still doesn't quite apply to most realworld recording/jam situations. Not for me anyway. Most of the time when recording real amps, you'd be standing pretty close, or listening to the mics. Or listening to the room and band.

I can easily tell the difference with realtime input amp plug between 128ms and 256ms. I find it difficult to record time critical stuff with high latencies, like trying to properly groove with the rest of the band or backing tracks. And no, post-process nudging doesn't help as the response has to be immediate to get take right in the first place.

I guess most strummers, metallists or rockers wouldn't care or notice the difference though.


ReValver! Good lord! That is one bad sounding sim, unless they've done a major rehaul! I still dread to think the whimsy bee buzz sound it makes (almost no matter what settings). Cherno, I find it extremely difficult to believe you have even played all those real amps you claim, if you can honestly stand behind those words...

Kingston wrote:

ReValver! Good lord! That is one bad sounding sim, unless they've done a major rehaul! (unlikely) I still dread to think the whimsy bee buzz sound it makes (no matter what settings.

Yeah, I tried it last night..that buzzy un-grounded background crap = instant file delete for me...

You CAN get some fairly decent sounds out of ReValver;it does take a little more work than I like.It works better on synth than it does on guitar though-I've still haven't found a good amp simulator to use with guitar.My Kasha's spoiled me,I suppose...
ew

Kingston wrote:

I can easily tell the difference with realtime input amp plug between 128ms and 256ms. I find it difficult to record time critical stuff with high latencies, like trying to properly groove with the rest of the band or backing tracks. And no, post-process nudging doesn't help as the response has to be immediate to get take right in the first place.

Amen!!!

Quote:

I guess most strummers, metallists or rockers wouldn't care or notice the difference though.

Uh-Oh... I can see some flames coming up
Seriously, the best strummers I know have a really fine feeling for timing and such (be it trained or of some natural sorts).

Quote:

ReValver! Good lord! That is one bad sounding sim, unless they've done a major rehaul! I still dread to think the whimsy bee buzz sound it makes (almost no matter what settings). Cherno, I find it extremely difficult to believe you have even played all those real amps you claim, if you can honestly stand behind those words...

It's been ages ago since I tried ReValver... I couldn't believe "Cherno"'s (hehe, there's a really lame TV dude in germany named Cherno - I wouldn't prefer to use this term for our russian mate) statement either... but then, judging by his recordings he seems to have a rather good taste in terms of guitar sounds. So maybe it's time to give ReValver another try.

Strummers,

think I was referring to sitting-by-thecampfire-strumming.

I just re-checked the revalver site just to make sure. No upgrades or anything. I remember the initial experience quite well as it was distinctly horrifying (like 2000). I had had high hopes for it as the freely adjustable combinations idea looked promising. I remember a half usable tweed sound from it, but at the time even the original Pod sounded better.

By a significant amount, too.

(as for Cherno, I've never been to germany and the offence was not intended)

a friend of mine uses amlitube, and i often split a guitar signal on guitars to my miced fender deluxe reverb and a pre-pedalboard direct box, boost that signal 6 db in a separate file and take them to his house to amplitube them, creating a complimentary guitar signal. i don't ever see myself using exclusively amp sims, but it is really nice to be able to customize a second amp for your guitar, creating just exactly the tone you want while preserving that real guitar feel.

Kingston wrote:

Strummers, think I was referring to sitting-by-thecampfire-strumming.

I'm hardly a sit-by-the-campfire strummer, Kingston.

I guess I could come up with a million arguments, and ways to record in realtime without 'latency'. 128 samples or even 256 sure isn't 'big' latency, I'll tell you that much for free.

I suppose one school of thought is that a millisecond of latency ruins your 'realtime, gotta have it now' "vibe" argument. Another school of thought is that if I'm actually frustrated by any latency (which hasn't happened since I got a 'real' soundcard) I'll just set myself up for direct monitoring and record without the plugins. Some people may think they need to hear 'every element' of the sound in order to get the right 'feeling' for that 'perfect take', but frankly, I think most of those people are full of shit. Furthermore, I think you'll find that most 'real' musicians (ie. not just 'strummers') are quite comfortable and confident playing their instrument even when the situation isn't ideal. Because I like my instruments even when they're not plugged in at all, and spend much of my time watching TV and playing unamplified, I have no qualms about playing an entire solo, riff, or chord progression without hearing even a whit of processing.

Sure, 'vibe' can lend itself to a better performance and put you at the next level... sometimes. But I find that since I'm not usually playing through a fully cranked tube amp anyhow, I'm not exactly getting the 'mojo magic' from my collection of plugins played through my computer.

In a home studio recording situation, there are already so many things against your 'mojo', that you're better off going into it with a positive outlook and vibe off of your own confidence and abilities rather than the elusive angel of tone.

I can't say anything about drums. Not being a drummer, I have no experience with recording with latency, and I can imagine it's a different animal.

Greg

Lunch Money wrote:

Some people may think they need to hear 'every element' of the sound in order to get the right 'feeling' for that 'perfect take',

It's not about that, not at all. But in order to record a distorted guitar sound right you need to hear what the distortion is doing to your playing.
IMO there's no way to do it really right with an unamplified guitar, you'll never know if your pickings and dampings are correct.

That's why I personally prefer using a hardware solution (amp/mic or simulation) which will at least give me some realtime information about my playing and its impact on the sound which will finally be recorded. I uses to use a splitbox to record both the amped and the clean signal but almost never found myself using the latter, so now I'm back to adjusting the basic sound before I track anything. And regarding that I simply want the smallest latency possible. Amp simulators therfor make sense when using my Hammerfall, but as I can't be arsed to allways carry around and connect the (rather large) rack its sitting in I'm using my EMI along with a VAmp at home.

Revalver takes work to make usable. More work than any other. The results are worth all the work by far! It is something you must take time to learn. Not everyone likes to spend this time. Not everyone will learn to use revalver well. I do not wish to take time to learn amplitube well, and this is the best reason why I do not like it much. Revalver gives very authentic sound when patch is made right. This includes the buzzing sound somtimes My fender bassman 50 is not a quiet amplifier at all! This is even more so when playing with telecaster.

I have not purchased this plugin yet. I am still thinking my needs.

With this talk about latency; Why do you need to hear the guitar right away? Is there something wrong with playing then listening?

If the player is in other room sealed, latency will not matter.

If you are playing and monitor with headphone for sound there will be leak into the headphones and your idea is lost.

If you cannot play guitar without hearing it then I feel you are not a good guitarist. The recording sound can be left to the engineer person, or best left to the engineering stage of recording.

I make these comments because I think most guitar is rock, classical and jazz. Latency will be problem with wah-wah or LFO effects in some funk to get the feel. Even with this you should learn to play the instrument first. Instrument playing is all done with feeling, and your hearing is only to time with other musicians

I guess everyone's different, but even 'special effects' like chunky palm muting and pinch harmonics are easily accomplished without the amplified sound.

Don't get me wrong, I PREFER to hear the amplified sound, and it makes life easier. But given these three options:

1. Unamplified, trusting my abilities
2. Amplified with a real amp, pissing off neighbors and making it tough to monitor the track I'm playing along with.
3. "Amplified" with plugins and 4ms of latency

I pick 3 each time, and I've never been disappointed. My last recording was done using 384 samples, which at 44.1k brought me to 8ms. I thought the tone was pretty smokin', and I had no problems 'losing track' of myself.

Incidentally, having just now looked (to get those numbers) at the control panel, that 8ms INCLUDES input and output. Which means that when I'm trying to push it and risk a few clicks, I can get 2 or 5ms, depending of if I'm using 96k or 44.1k.

I have a hard time believing anyone could notice 2ms of latency.

[EDIT:] I forgot to mention, also... that as AIC mentions, it's all in your feel. When you hear your bandmates, your brain can then 'anticipate' the beats, but your fingers are already moving to the desired frets before you actually land on the beat. And then when you're playing with any degree of proficiency, you're not really 'thinking' about each individual note. You SHOULD be playing your notes in a natural and flowing way, which means you're not really listening to each note as it amplifies. By the time it comes out of the speaker, you've already moved your fingers towards the next note, so it's not going to throw you off. When latency is so big that you're playing your next note as you're hearing the last one, THEN it could theoretically be a problem. However, I don't think once you're into the 8ms and under club that it's going to affect you.

Just to reiterate-- your ears are just giving your brain clues as to what's coming next... you can hear the drummer begin a crescendo, you can hear/feel the tempo increase slightly as you reach a part of the song with more fire/emotion, and you respond to that. But you're not responding on a note-for-note basis.

Anyhow, you know how sometimes you reach a point in your argument that you're convinced you can say all that needs to be said, and someone will either listen and believe, or will be even further convinced of their OWN side of the argument? I think I'm at that point.

Greg


Greg

Alive In Chernobyl wrote:

If you cannot play guitar without hearing it then I feel you are not a good guitarist. The recording sound can be left to the engineer person, or best left to the engineering stage of recording.

This is perhaps true. But recording isnt just for good guitarists. Its for beginners, learners, professionals.

I have played an electric guitar probably less than ten times in my life. If I borrow one for a recording on my own (no studio nor engineering crew ), I would really prefer to hear the distorted sound. If i had the expierince that you have, I would probably not. Not everyone is 'there' yet

Btw, good thread. No 3000+ posters have ruined it yet

I would like to ask you a favour. Please record something dry! I would love to 'distort' it with plugins and see how it gets.
I ain't got no guitar, you know

Heh, that post came AFTER my edit, or I would have been done.

Beginners will probably be thrilled with simply using distortion plugins and suffering with the 8ms or less of latency.

Gentlemen,

This is an old one as well: sound travels 300 meter per second. So standing 3 meter from amp is equivalent to 10 ms latency. Who can't play standing 3, or even 10 meter (= 30 ms latency) from amp?

Tend to agree about Revalver comments. Three years ago it was great, but now there's better.

Revalver, like the excellent Amplitude, is a big hog. They can both bring machines to a standstill.

Green Machine is not quite such a hog the others, and it has real nice clean sounds.

Budget for a new PC if you're serious about an amp sim and don't enjoy bouncing down.

I was using the Green Machine while it was still in its beta phase, and I have to say that it's an absolutely excellent piece of software. Especially for the price, it's hard to beat. Now I'm back to the Little Green Amp II, but still pleased.

Greg

murphf wrote:

This is an old one as well: sound travels 300 meter per second. So standing 3 meter from amp is equivalent to 10 ms latency. Who can't play standing 3, or even 10 meter (= 30 ms latency) from amp?

I allready answered this:
- In a recording situation you're used to your sound being WAY closer than 10 meters (or even 3 meters).
- In a recording situation the backing you listen to is not 10 meters away either, so if your guitar sound is, it's not embedded.

And that's all there is about it.
I certainly notice the difference between 256 and 512 samples. Others may not notice or simply not adjust their picking to the sound coming out of the speakers (something I can't do).

Hog? On 2.8ghz revalver take 6% cpu?

I think when a person posts in this thread they should say what their favorite guitar sound is. Many people may give comments to me, but I am looking for more natural fender clean. Sometimes I like distortion but I use my favorite pedals for this. For recording in this direction I want to take I will re-amp into pedal and:or amp later It is hard for me to trust words of some who recommend but I feel they recommend with knowing their recommendation is good for metal. I dont want metal

If everyone who post in this thread can take time to tell what guitar sounds they like we can make this more productive!

Sascha Franck wrote:

murphf wrote: This is an old one as well: sound travels 300 meter per second. So standing 3 meter from amp is equivalent to 10 ms latency. Who can't play standing 3, or even 10 meter (= 30 ms latency) from amp? I allready answered this: - In a recording situation you're used to your sound being WAY closer than 10 meters (or even 3 meters). - In a recording situation the backing you listen to is not 10 meters away either, so if your guitar sound is, it's not embedded. And that's all there is about it. I certainly notice the difference between 256 and 512 samples. Others may not notice or simply not adjust their picking to the sound coming out of the speakers (something I can't do).

I am used to this? When I practice many hundreds of hours of my life I spend much time 3 to 4 meters from my amp. I think this is how most guitarist practice too! In a band setting this is even worse! Sometimes to 5 meters! This is what a guitarist will be most used to!

There is a great change in terms I think. Lunch Money and I feel you can play with this latency very well. The side that discusses with us only states that the latency able to be noticed. I do not say you can not notice it! I ask you why it does matter?

If you grow up learning the guitar you will always know the latency of air moving. If you grow up with the computer and the synth then you do not know what the feel is in the real world. Please know that I and Lunch Money are mostly read to hear what the real world is offering in time

Jimmy Page is notoriously famous for recording his amps several metres away, and even shoving them into other rooms.

I admit, that's a bit of an ad-populem argument, and therefore not strictly logically valid; however, it's comforting to know that I'm in good company.

Greg

I find when Im playing electric guitar, I need to hear what the guitar will sound like in the track, otherwise I wont be able to play it properly. For example, try playing what should be a wailing guitar solo with long sustain, when what you are hearing is the muted sound of a DI'ed guitar, you just can't do it...

As do I. I just don't understand why that's not possible for some people, just monitoring their plugins with the paltry 8ms or less latency.

Greg

there has been some flaming in the air me thinks, but time to throw in more coals

about the DI recording and leaving the guitar sound to post production approach:

works just fine for most stuff, especially backing tracks, some doubling and simpler addon stuff. Or the *extremely* time critical stuff (with DI in the control room, or through phones).

but then someone mentioned emotion, or skilled expressions with distorted sounds. There is a massive dynamic palette with certain overdriven and half distorted sounds. It would be quite impossible to control these types of sounds without simultaneously hearing the resulting sound.

Before you even think about a counter argument, I shall remind you of feedback. Good sounding and controlled feedback is impossible with any simulator. I'm guessing most of you haven't quite experienced the feedback "field" around a real amplifier, which you can use to your advantage by walking around and moving the guitar (sometimes very little) and thus controlling the overtones. Lots of fun by the way! and as a bonus it looks good, too!

think of it as another dimension of interpretation and expression. by the way, here the distance and "latency" between the guitar and the amp plays a massive role. FUN!

Of course it's very possible to record/play good sounding stuff without even hearing the guitar, but the only application would be to show off. With any serious take/jam, you pretty much want to be in control.

If someone proves me wrong, he shall be handed the unofficial KVR deaf guitarist award.

Kingston wrote:

but then someone mentioned emotion, or skilled expressions with distorted sounds. There is a massive dynamic palette with certain overdriven and half distorted sounds. It would be quite impossible to control these types of sounds without simultaneously hearing the resulting sound. Before you even think about a counter argument, I shall remind you of feedback. Good sounding and controlled feedback is impossible with any simulator. I'm guessing most of you haven't quite experienced the feedback "field" around a real amplifier.

Kingston,

I'm sure that AIC and myself have been using the 'massive palette of distorted sounds' for about as long as you have. I've been playing guitar myself for 13 years. You've missed the point. Besides that, as I already mentioned, many distortion-related special effects are easily accomplished by a skilled player, even without the distortion on at the time. Take a squealing, distorted pinch harmonic a la Zack Wylde, for example: if you miss the 'pinch', then you've missed the pinch, whether you can hear it or not. The distortion doesn't MAKE the squeal, it enhances the squeal. And if you haven't squeezed that harmonic out in the first place, no amount of audible distortion will put it there.

Ditto for chunky palm mutes.

Ditto for unexpected string noise.

Ditto for chaotic 'natural' harmonics on the low E string in and around the 1st-to-3rd frets.

Ditto for... well, everything except sympathetic feedback.

Of course, you're right that no plugin will emulate sympathetic feedback, but I gotta say: although I have a measure of respect for you (The RuffRider is featured prominently in my current project), you come off a bit condescending regarding your level of experience and ability when compared to the other users. It's not your opinions that are fanning the flames, but the way you're expressing them.

Quote:

"I'm guessing most of you haven't quite experienced...."

Sorry, chum, but you guessed wrong. And I think you'd be surprised to find out how many people around here are accomplished and/or capable guitarists.

I rarely use sympathetic feedback, even though it can be quite fun, as you say. And when I DO need it or want it, I have two options:

1. Turn up my monitors... you don't need an actual guitar amp to generate sympathetic feedback... you DID realize that, right?

2. Plug into an amp. As a few of us have already mentioned, we're not against amps. We're guitarists, for crying out loud. We LOVE amps. An amp is exactly one third of the tone equation! No more or less! (fingers + guitar + amp = tone) However, I think it's more helpful as a recording artist to embrace new and sometimes more convenient ways of doing things instead of holding on to our one little worldview.

One thing that you haven't even mentioned yet is the importance of the room and microphones when recording an amp. I understand that you have access to proper facilities, but some of us do not. I could put a PG58 in front of my cabs if I want, but I can tell you this: I will not be happy with the room sound, because I don't have a decent room for that kind of recording situation; I will not be happy with the microphone because.. well... come on! It's a PG58! Not exactly world-class!

No thanks, in the meantime when I have the option, I'll still prefer to use (and continue to use) amp sims.

Oh, and I almost forgot one thing: AIC was mentioning that we should talk about what tones we go for. While I run the gamut (as I'm sure we all do), if I had to choose just ONE tone that I go to for my signature sound, it'd have to be Crunch. Lots of mids, enough distortion to help it cut through, but not so much that it turns to mush. If there was ever a distortion that was responsive to the nuances of your playing style, Crunch is one of the top.

Greg

[edited for punctuation, then to add this:]

If you seriously need your amplified amp sound in order to record, you're either a very limited or a very shaky player, and I'll hand you the unofficial KvR "Hides behind distortion guitarist" award.

Neither of you folks is right with their final assumptions.
If you are an experienced player you wouldn't need your amp sound to record things, but at the same time, if you are an experienced player, you want the best results possible - and this defenitely includes being able to listen to what you're playing and what it will sound like.

I'm calling myself a rather experienced guitar player and I just know I could play things without actually hearing anything (not even the dry guitar signal, even tested this once). But I just don't want it to be like that. Part of being a serious guitar player is to interact with the sound you're using. And that's what I'm after.

Widdlers!

All I know is I've been playing now for 22 years & for one particular sound, which is getting against what I consider artistic feeback, I need to have a CS-1 pedal in front of an overdrive through your amp of choice facing a stack with a HOT signal...

I have not & don't ever expect to come anywhere close to recreating that aspect of my playing in a digital forum.

If I wanna employ that in any music I make on my computer, it's rent-a-warehouse-&-cracnk-it-to-11-time..

Unfortunately, that's a large part of my playing style, & in compensation for the lack of that, I wind up learning other shit & other instruments & getting farther away from my true self artistically.

But I can't do grain delay through a boss pedal either..

I guess I'm saying it's a relative thing to your playing style, & you have to adapt, at least temorarily to what's within the current realm of possibility. I never would have seen the things I'm seeing to done to signal modeling, so who knows what's around the corner..hopefully FEEDBACK.

[pardon my rant]

Sascha, I guess I'll say (again) what I've already said about six times. I prefer listening to my 'final' tone while I'm playing. I think we all do, and nobody's disagreeing with that. I can't imagine a single guitarist ever saying "I prefer recording without hearing my tone." If that's what you're getting out of anybody's statements, I think you're receiving the wrong message.

sickle: You have a very specific aim for your tone, and you're quite right that there's only one way to truly accomplish it. When it's time for that CS-1, you just GOTTA do it that way!

DT: No widdly-widdly-widdly for me, thanks.

Edit: Freaking double post...

Lunch Money wrote:

I think you're receiving the wrong message.

I don't think so...
I mean, you're saying that the optimum solution would be to listen to what you're doing 1:1 - so, why not go for that but fool around with imperfect things?
Sure, I'm using a VAmp2 at home, which is FAR away from fitting what I'd think my ideal tone would be like, but still, as far as a mixture of sound and playability goes, it's the best solution so far.
In case I do something really important I'd just split the guitar and record the dry signal as well, so I could run it through my favourite amp/mic setting later on.

Maybe I'll change my mind regarding plugin simulators more or less soon (I actually don't have anything against them), but as long as my home setup is like it is, I'll most likely just continue doing things the way I am.

Anyone here remember that song 'Drown' from Smashing Pumpkins on the 'Singles" soundtrack? The solo whashiface does at the end of that song, that creative use of delay & feedback used as a solo with like no real note playing..I used to do that all the time, just let the feedback run & use delay & my tremolo. I NEVER got sick of that sound..

THAT'S what I like to hear out of a guitar. NOt all the time, mind you, but I'm no fuckin ywmngwei malmsteen, & I had to find a creative way to express myself as opposed to traditional soloing, & it worked great for me.

The sympathetic whatever ya wanna call it of the cabs' output hitting the strings creates that secondary harmonic thingamajig that for me defines a true guitar sound, whether its distorted or not.

Has anyone ever tried taking an output from say a live jam inside Cubase or whatever & hung up against your monitor as you played? You'd get something close to that sympathy, but maybe not have to use a fucking Marshal stack to do it..

I'm on a lotta painkillers right now, so my communication skills are getting a little weak, but I'm trying to think of a way to create feedback digitally...I really DO wanna find a way to be happy as a guitarist from with the computer..hell, who wants to shell out $$$$$ for a Road King?

or have I just lost my fucking bucket?

As the discussion moves I have made another song

Keep talking my friends. I will be making music

Sascha Franck wrote:

(hehe, there's a really lame TV dude in germany named Cherno - I wouldn't prefer to use this term for our russian mate)

"Hmm, no latency! Must tell this on the breakfast show!"

Bonteburg wrote:

Sascha Franck wrote: (hehe, there's a really lame TV dude in germany named Cherno - I wouldn't prefer to use this term for our russian mate) "Hmm, no latency! Must tell this on the breakfast show!"

Hey Churn..can it really be you?!

AUTO-ADMIN: Smilies have been disabled in this post in the quest for sanity! If this post is edited to contain no more than 20 smilies they will magically reappear.

Alive In Chernobyl wrote:

Instrument playing is all done with feeling, and your hearing is only to time with other musicians

Hehe... that was a good one, Bontay.

Sickle: "Drown" is one of the all-time best songs, PERIOD. That swirly feedbacky stretch at the end is supreme.

Sascha: Apparently you DID miss the point. <shrug>

Greg

compression>delay>verb, with a kick ass tremolo system, baby!

WHY DONT YOU JUST ACCEPT THAT YOU ALL HAVE DIFFERENT OPINIONS!?

No one is wronge here. If one wants to hear the distorted sound, then that is his way. If one doesn't want to hear the distorted sound, well, then that is HIS way.


Buddha bless you all!

(And if someone wants to tell me im wrong, don't bother. I will now stop following this thread, witch first was very interesting, but turned out to be a slapfight in the end.)

Lunch Money wrote:

Sascha: Apparently you DID miss the point. <shrug> Greg

I still don't think so. Maybe my english is too bad or whatever, but I clearly know what you are saying...

jeez..what's everyone getting so bummed about? I wasn't arguiing with anyone..diversity os sound & style is what makes us interesting, so what if you don't play the way I do?

I an still appreciate someone else's opinion.

Unless it's regarding the RockMan

Crackbaby,

isn't it always like that though?

Lunch Money,

I did warn I was gonna throw in more coals, didn't I?
(seems you swallowed the bait)

The saying that opinions are like arseholes comes to mind. I always try to embrace the fact though. Unfortunately most of the time it simply pisses people off, to the extent that they forget the most important thing: opinions are like arseholes.

then again, I never said I was against any other techniques. In fact I prefer sim/DI recording sometimes. (read the 'works just fine for most stuff...' line)

Quote:

1. Turn up my monitors... you don't need an actual guitar amp to generate sympathetic feedback... you DID realize that, right?

Cool if it works for you, but here it has always sounded like shite. You still pretty much need that non-flat guitar cab for the "field" I was talking about. Tried Tonelab, Pod 2/XT and v-amp 1 for that with reference monitors, but no luck. It's just not the same with all those cab simulations and "air" attempts in the between.

Kingston wrote:

Lunch Money, I did warn I was gonna throw in more coals, didn't I? (seems you swallowed the bait) The saying that opinions are like arseholes comes to mind. I always try to embrace the fact though. Unfortunately most of the time it simply pisses people off, to the extent that they forget the most important thing: opinions are like arseholes. then again, I never said I was against any other techniques. In fact fact I prefer sim/DI recording sometimes. (read the 'works just fine for most stuff...' line) Quote: 1. Turn up my monitors... you don't need an actual guitar amp to generate sympathetic feedback... you DID realize that, right? Cool if it works for you, but here it has always sounded like shite. You still pretty much need that non-flat guitar cab for the "field" I was talking about. Tried Tonelab, Pod 2/XT and v-amp 1 for that with reference monitors, but no luck. It's just not the same with all those cab simulations and "air" attempts in the between.

I agree kingston. The feel of feedback is different. The new NI Guitar Rig does it very well! I am very amazed with this I am with the tonelabSE as well into my favorite amp.

There is the option of turning on the amp when you need feedback This can be done for the small time many people need this effect. The other eighty times in one hundred I think amp simulations can give good results. This is very true with the new line being shown. ToneLab and Guitar Rig are very good!

ToneLab with a real amp is tiptop! ( thank you putte for my new favorite word )

Quote:

ToneLab with a real amp is tiptop!

It sure is, but do yourself a favour and try the Vox Valvetronix amp as well. It's the original tonelab technology amp combo.

this thread is just as bad as the ones about the acid fanatics and their 303 or the tranceoids and their virus a/b/c/d/e/f/g.. yikes! looks like geeeeetarrr players have their own set of 'qualities'

Kingston wrote:

Quote: ToneLab with a real amp is tiptop! It sure is, but do yourself a favour and try the Vox Valvetronix amp as well. It's the original tonelab technology amp combo.

I am . Today I try tonelabSE pedalboard and also try ValveTronix with pedalboard.

The amp alone will not meet my needs. If the amp sounds good as I hear it does then I will change my needs. If the pedal work well I can run off power of my car to record.

We will see! No one has guitar rig in stock! An no local stores ever will. Special order only!! I will not buy unless I feel the pedal first. Vox is my top solution. I did once own a original AC30 so I know very well the vox legend, and many people tell me it lives still

Thank you everyone so far

Strange how when I first started "debating", my entire point was that there is more than one way to skin a rabbit. If that got lost somewhere, I have to apologize. I was responding to the people who seemed to be saying that a real amp is the "only" way to go, and I came up with several persuasive reasons why that's not the case.

To the bystanders-- if you were PART of the debate, you'd realize that nobody here has any hurt feelings or ill feelings towards anybody else.

And trust me... guitarists arguing about tone and technique is FAR older than 303-users and their debates.

Greg

Lunch Money wrote:

And trust me... guitarists arguing about tone and technique is FAR older than 303-users and their debates.

Hehe... actually it's all the fault of (jazz guitarist) Duane Eddy as he's been the first to like some sort of distorted sound after some of his speakers was penetrated. He then did it himself with a torch or so. There's myths about other guitarists doing the same, but from what I know, he was the first doing it.
Ever since then people tried to cultivate that overdriven sound...

Lunch Money wrote:

And trust me... guitarists arguing about tone and technique is FAR older than 303-users and their debates.

Yes Guitarists have hundreds of guitars, hundred of effects, hundred of amps, hundred of speakers and millions of combonations.

There is one 303, and one accepted way to use it.

The difference is big in the idea of debating

Sascha Franck wrote:

Lunch Money wrote: And trust me... guitarists arguing about tone and technique is FAR older than 303-users and their debates. Hehe... actually it's all the fault of (jazz guitarist) Duane Eddy as he's been the first to like some sort of distorted sound after some of his speakers was penetrated. He then did it himself with a torch or so. There's myths about other guitarists doing the same, but from what I know, he was the first doing it. Ever since then people tried to cultivate that overdriven sound...

Players of lute instrument many hundred of years ago would fix grasses or bells to strings to make a distorted sound. Some classical players in long time ago have loosen nut on guitar to make buzz to model harpsichord sound. Eddy maybe first to try with electric amp and speaker, but he is not first to want distorted guitar.

Even more aged would people use the screaming human voice to distort a perfect clean human voice.

eheh

Sascha Franck wrote:

Lunch Money wrote: And trust me... guitarists arguing about tone and technique is FAR older than 303-users and their debates. Hehe... actually it's all the fault of (jazz guitarist) Duane Eddy as he's been the first to like some sort of distorted sound after some of his speakers was penetrated. He then did it himself with a torch or so. There's myths about other guitarists doing the same, but from what I know, he was the first doing it. Ever since then people tried to cultivate that overdriven sound...

Not Duane Eddy;Paul Burlinson and the Rock and Roll Trio-the original of "Train Kept 'a Rolling"was the first AFAIK-1954 or thereabouts...
ew

ew wrote:

Sascha Franck wrote: Lunch Money wrote: And trust me... guitarists arguing about tone and technique is FAR older than 303-users and their debates. Hehe... actually it's all the fault of (jazz guitarist) Duane Eddy as he's been the first to like some sort of distorted sound after some of his speakers was penetrated. He then did it himself with a torch or so. There's myths about other guitarists doing the same, but from what I know, he was the first doing it. Ever since then people tried to cultivate that overdriven sound... Not Duane Eddy;Paul Burlinson and the Rock and Roll Trio-the original of "Train Kept 'a Rolling"was the first AFAIK-1954 or thereabouts... ew

There is garage punk band in the 1940 using distorted guitar. I think the people here are talking of first distorted guitar in popular music. This is not the same as first distorted guitar to make music

A new debate for us in the same thread. This will be a long thread if we keep discussing new things!

Which guitar amp model will best model the 1950 amp with pencil's in it? Guitar Rig? Amplitube? Pod? Vox? Discuss!

The distorted sound of a speaker cone punctured with a screwdriver is significantly different than one punctured with a pencil.

Furthermore, HB and 2H produce different sounds. 2H is a more 'brittle' sound, while HB is a bit more 'warm'.

Greg

just thought of another thing that I miss and that hasn't been properly modelled:

snare drum wires resonating with a loud guitar. A la 'wind cries mary' for example.

There's quick solution though. Sample the resonance rattle! better get on it straight away.

Quote:

And trust me... guitarists arguing about tone and technique is FAR older than 303-users and their debates.

Heck, there's even plenty of books written about it! Let's not even bring up actually *recording* those sounds...

actually in kvr it might even work, but try it in any (american) recording forum and it'll explode in a matter of hours.