Guitar players, The soundclick MP3 demo page got updated !

[Vervil]

Happy New Year!

Happy new year maestro Keep shreddin'!

[Lunch Money]

Vervil, you're agreeing with points already made, but making it seem like you're arguing against them. OK, so maybe a virtual amp doing something new isn't a "simulation" but rather a "guitar processor". Fair enough, but I think you knew what we all meant, which means that you're just talking semantics and not addressing the point. But, just to be clear:

A computer is clearly capable of creating something new that processes a guitar's signal in a way that a standard tube amp can't or won't. With some imagination, it's possible to conceive that it could even do a better job of it. Some people already prefer Line6 proprietary models (ie. Line6 "Insane") to their emulations. So, even if you believe that we're not there yet, it doesn't take much of a leap to see the possibilities.

A couple other points, but I'll make them short since I have to run (going to the Imax!)

1. Amps aren't as unpredictable as you seem to think. They're engineered to behave a certain (predictable) way. It's not like you're pulling a rabbit out of the hat each time you play. And if they WERE that unpredictable (I maintain that they're not, but for the sake of argument) that means that you have a good chance of getting an unpredicted shitty tone, too. No doubt a better chance of the crap tone since it's so rare to sit there and say, "OOohhhh yeah, now I'm in the magic tone zone!"

2. Algorithms can be made infinitely unpredictable. You can force a guitar processor to be more unpredictable than an amp. A tube will still respond the way a tube will. A virtual amp can be made to be more tube than tube. I don't imagine the results would be stellar, but this whole thing about the randomness of tube amps vs. emulations is a complete myth. Voodoo. It's not like the programmers have made it so that there's no variation to be had. People have assumed for years that "digital" = "set in stone and immutable", and in some cases maybe that's been true. But it's not necessarily true, or in other words it all depends on the creativity of the programmers, the time invested in study, and the resources given to the project.

Greg

[fritzman]

This is the same old discussion that still roars but less loud about analog synths. It can't be emulated, it still sounds sterile, blooblabla.
I grew up with real amps. At the age of 16 I got into tube amp modification. Did that for more than 10 years. Result: I want to leave all this hassle behind me: Tubes, heavy to transport stuff, "will it sound good today?"(Because the tubes DO change by transportation, heat, cold, humidity, Will the tubes break by transportation, etc.
Sure, a VERY GOOD tube amp does sound better than all we have digitally today. But we're getting really close right now. If the tiny little margin of having the real tone available would cut it for me I would still use that shit. But I'm tired of it. Convenience is way more important to me than the last 2-10% of quality gain that I would have by cranking my amps, finding the right mic positions, etc. Would I care playing live with a digital solution? YES!!! I would love it. I didn't play live this year but I will do so next year for sure. So I would like to have a GOOD solution inside a laptop that I can use live. A good foot controller, one or two pedals and 2 good PA monitors. There we go ...


All the best, and have a great new year!

FRitz

[Funkybot]

My thing is this, and I think this is actually the biggest problem facing most amp sims: the mics are generally attached to the cabs (using impulse responses or something similar). Line 6 does this, I believe Midiwork's sim does this, AT2, etc (except for Guitar Rig which approaches this in a much better way, but still doesn't sound right). The reason this is a problem is this: how often are we listening to a modern commercial record with only one mic on a guitar amp? Usually it's a mix of quite a few mics in several different locations at once, which are put together in a way that better captures the actual tone of the amp in the room than a single SM57 ever could. I would want this in a good amp sim.

Let me have a choice between several mics that I can move around and place around the cab in (a) virtual environment(s), then let me route these to discrete outputs and mix as I see fit a la BFD. I think once we get this on top of an already good sounding amp sim (which I personally don't think Guitar Rig is), most of the complaints people have about how amp sims sound in a mix would disappear. I imagine this would be quite processor intensive as it would require the seperate modelling of the amp, cab, and mics instead of most of the current systems that model an amp and use impulse responses or something similar to link the cab and mic together, but it's something to look forward to in the future I suppose.

And I still use both modelers and mic my real Fender Twin when recording. Sometimes I just want a Marshall-like tone that I can't get from my Twin, sometimes I'm just lazy and don't want to use the amp, sometimes the amp is just going to work better in the context of a particular track, etc. They both do different things for me, and have their positive's and negatives so I'm not trying to slag modelling nor am I blind proponant of it. I just want to see modelling become even better and more realistic.

[Lunch Money]

For sure. Regarding the mic thing, though, everything I've seen and read indicates that the one-mic (not always an SM57 now that ribbon mics are back in vogue) solution is still very popular. You don't hear much about people capturing all parts of a room or from all directions with multiple mics.

[Hink]

guitars suck....you guys gotta learn to play a real instrument...

[fritzman]

guitars suck....you guys gotta learn to play a real instrument...

So Hinky, whatcha recommend then?

[egbert]

My thing is this, and I think this is actually the biggest problem facing most amp sims: the mics are generally attached to the cabs (using impulse responses or something similar). Line 6 does this, I believe Midiwork's sim does this, AT2, etc (except for Guitar Rig which approaches this in a much better way, but still doesn't sound right). The reason this is a problem is this: how often are we listening to a modern commercial record with only one mic on a guitar amp? Usually it's a mix of quite a few mics in several different locations at once, which are put together in a way that better captures the actual tone of the amp in the room than a single SM57 ever could. I would want this in a good amp sim.

Excellent point Funkybot. I made have some cab impulses with a range of mics including ribbon and SM57 and you really notice the sound open up on the ribbon - the ribbon has a figure-of-8 response pattern and the rear lobe picks up the room. This room sound is so important to a good tone. I immediately thought about all the discussion I have heard/read about guitar micing in studios over the years where people talk about using multiple mics all over the studio space and recording them to different tracks.

One comment that sticks in the mind: "if you want a big sound you need a big room."

Another guitarist said something to this effect recently: for 10 years I stuck a 57 right on the cone but I set my tone to please myself where stood off axis and 10 feet or more away. Then I finally heard what a nasty sound was going out through the PA.

I think a set of impulses taken with mics in different positions to generate several channels - direct and room - much like BFD offers direct + three stereo pairs (OVH + Room + PZM) - could do a hell of a lot for DI and amp modelled guitar sounds.

Pristine Space has the facility to load multiple impulses - but I think that hosts don't necessarily know how to cope with variable numbers of outputs at this stage.
This is where a plugin with 2 versions - stereo out and a n extended version with 4 stereo pairs of outs could make this easy. You could just pick a set of matching impulses (close and room) or even experiment with mixed impulses. That would take us beyond modelling of course

[airbrush]

hehe well I guess xmas tube freebie dl that was good untill 2006 was for some
foreign date. guess I'll just have to keep using
the "other" stuff.
damn, heh it did sound good though

[Lunch Money]

I don't understand where this whole room sound thing is coming from. Many engineers go to great lengths to isolate the amp and dampen any room reflections. Sure, there are good guitar recording rooms (studios and engineers will have their favourite spaces), but I've rarely heard of anyone picking a room and intentionally getting a lot of 'natural reverb' into the mix. Some will even use isolation boxes and the like.

I personally feel that being able to blend some room sound back in sounds like a great idea, so I'm not against it at all. I just haven't ever seen it talked about at any sort of length as a common or good practice.

As for "big room for big sound", I also disagree with this. It flies in the face of logic. A big room with lots of natural reverb will produce a very distant sound or a mush caused by too many late reflections. I'd never want that in a tight mix.

Greg

[egbert]

I don't understand where this whole room sound thing is coming from. Many engineers go to great lengths to isolate the amp and dampen any room reflections. Sure, there are good guitar recording rooms (studios and engineers will have their favourite spaces), but I've rarely heard of anyone picking a room and intentionally getting a lot of 'natural reverb' into the mix. Some will even use isolation boxes and the like.

I personally feel that being able to blend some room sound back in sounds like a great idea, so I'm not against it at all. I just haven't ever seen it talked about at any sort of length as a common or good practice.

As for "big room for big sound", I also disagree with this. It flies in the face of logic. A big room with lots of natural reverb will produce a very distant sound or a mush caused by too many late reflections. I'd never want that in a tight mix.

Greg

Distant sound will only result if you have one mic at a distant location. If you have a close mic in there it can be bright and up front as you want - as you move any mic back the ratio of direct to reflected sound will shift so that it gets darker and more reverberant.

If you blend mics you can have both the natural reverb field AND the bright close signal.

Do you know the title tune from Cat People? David Bowie sang the vocal - "see these eyes so green/they can stare for a thousand years..."

I heard the producer explain how he got the amazing dynamics into that vocal which starts close and intimate (with the line I quoted) and builds to this huge sound. The engineer/producer set up three mics.
A close vocal mic and two room mics, one ten or twenty feet away and a third 50 feet away. He set up gates on the channels for the later two so that they only came in when the level reached the threshhold.

The result is that when DB sings quietly at first we hear intimate sound of the voice plus (of course) some of the reflected sound from the room which that mic picks up too - even a hypercardiod hears the room - you have to record in an anechoic chamber if you want no ambient sound.

As DB's vocal builds in level in keeping with the dynamics of the tune first one and finally, at the climax, both of the other two mics kick in adding more and more of the sound of the space. At the climax the sound is huge - very effective - and this guy was explaining all this on a doco many years later.

Isolation is mainly about separation from other players. It is also useful if you plan to use sythetic reverb to supply the ambience. A good room is still a good room if you know how to use it. Do you like Angus Young's guitar sounds on Back in Black? Marshall 50, no compression whatsoever - I bet there was a room mic in there for the overdubbed solos.

[Lunch Money]

I love Malcolm's sound in Back in Black. Angus's is mighty good, too, mind you.

Neato story about Bowie. I'd argue that it's more about creative use of effects for an awesome sound rather than "big room = big guitar sound" though.

The point I agree with, though, is that you certainly open up more creative possibilities by having more microphones (more issues, too, mind you!) present. One microphone will still do the job, though.

I'm sure part of it IS just personal taste, though. I think that nothing hits harder than a nice crunchy and DRY sounding guitar amp. I usually like my distorted rhythm guitar sounds so dry that you can't hear much of the room at all.

Blues sounds are another story... a nice weeping solo sounds best when you can picture the amp in an actual room. Delay's not such a bad thing, either.

[egbert]

I love Malcolm's sound in Back in Black. Angus's is mighty good, too, mind you.

Neato story about Bowie. I'd argue that it's more about creative use of effects for an awesome sound rather than "big room = big guitar sound" though.

Don't know if you have ever heard of the Kiwi band Split Enz - Tim and Neil Finn from Crowded House started their careers in this 70s-80s band. On Australia's Radio National (http://www.abc.net.au/rn/)
they have just been running a multipart documentary on the history of that band.

In one part the band members were describing the recording of one of their earliest albums. They were recounting the travails of the lead guitarist who was trying to overdub guitar solos with a really cranked amp in the studio - it was loud as hell and he was sweating. Then he'd go into the control room and this pathetic thin sound was coming back off the tape - he could hardly believe it.

This is typical of situations where you put your ears at one location and mics at a completely different one and - surprise - the recording doesn't sound anything like what you hear while playing. Same goes for recording a grand piano, an acoustic guitar or a sax - close micing the hammers does not produce a sound remotely like the sound you hear playing a grand piano. Close micing is good for isolation from other instruments or for a bright sound that will cut through - classical piano performances are recorded with mics well back in a room or hall with pleasing ambience.

Sticking a mic in the bell of a tenor or soprano sax does not sound much like what you hear playing them either. Sound leaks out of all the open apertures in a sax and heads off in all directions. I read once that some researchers looking at the acoustic properties of the saxophone found they needed 7 close mics to get all the frequencies they got with a single remote mic.

An interesting trick with piano or guitar is to put mics where the players ears are if they like what they hear playing but are unsatisfied with other methods of recording. With reasonably flat mics the sound is often quite close to what you hear while playing.

[Amberience]

guitars suck....you guys gotta learn to play a real instrument...

So Hinky, whatcha recommend then?

spoons

[davor]

4 hours untill 2006

I still get quite a few requests for

XmasTube

So I decided to give you another chance to grab it,
for the next 8 hours.


Here you go again.

http://www.soundspectral.com/updXXd/XmasTube.zip

Now rock the happy new year !


Have fun !

Rene

Missed it once again