|
|
Post by wannaplayblues on Sept 26, 2020 7:25:52 GMT -6
So I recorded a track - with the guitar playing through it twice - however, the guitar part was recorded differently each time. The effects applied to the guitar recordings are EXACTLY the same! Tell me which you prefer and then I'll share the difference in a week or so! Enjoy! Second guitar recording starts at the 1:13 mark  Hear the track here:
The Results are in...
Read about them further down - or get to them quickly with this link: |
|
|
|
Post by cunningr on Sept 26, 2020 8:39:20 GMT -6
Very subtle difference but I like 2 little better.
|
|
|
|
Post by Marc on Sept 26, 2020 8:49:10 GMT -6
I like 1 best it felt more airy. Though both had a great tone.
|
|
|
|
Post by Phil on Sept 26, 2020 13:18:08 GMT -6
That's a tough one. They both sound good to me but #1 seems to stand out more in the mix and I don't think it's a volume thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by bluesbruce on Sept 26, 2020 15:10:21 GMT -6
Subtle difference, but I'll vote for #1
|
|
|
|
Post by blackcountrymick on Sept 26, 2020 17:01:24 GMT -6
With headphones #2 sounds better to me. A more "separated" sound maybe?
I'm guessing #1 is microphone recorded and #2 is direct.
|
|
|
|
Post by Phil on Sept 26, 2020 20:09:34 GMT -6
With headphones #2 sounds better to me. A more "separated" sound maybe? I'm guessing #1 is microphone recorded and #2 is direct. He said he's going to keep us in suspense for a week. I bet he tells us sooner. He won't hold out that long.  |
|
|
|
Post by grampalerxst on Sept 27, 2020 5:10:09 GMT -6
In quality they were indistinguishable. I'd have to say I favored the guitar tone of the first one slightly, but the second perfectly viable. More of a sense of overall space in the mix in the first half, a little more clarity in the second.
|
|
|
|
Post by cunningr on Sept 27, 2020 12:53:17 GMT -6
Grampalerxst hit it on the head tough call, i liked the clearer, but the first one sounded really good too. Lol
|
|
|
|
Post by jack1982 on Sept 27, 2020 17:48:31 GMT -6
The first one is a bit brighter and the delay (and reverb?) accentuate frequencies that are higher than anything in the backing track, making them more noticeable and giving it a wider, more "airy" sound. The second one is fine too, but the effects kind of disappear into the backing track and so it sounds smaller.
|
|
|
|
Post by Phil on Sept 27, 2020 19:51:37 GMT -6
The first one is a bit brighter and the delay (and reverb?) accentuate frequencies that are higher than anything in the backing track, making them more noticeable and giving it a wider, more "airy" sound. The second one is fine too, but the effects kind of disappear into the backing track and so it sounds smaller. That's a good analysis. At first I thought it was volume. After listening a few times I decided it wasn't the volume of example 1 that brought the guitar out more in the mix, but something did and I couldn't put my finger on it. It'll be interesting when WPB tells us what he did differently on these 2 recordings. |
|
|
|
Post by wannaplayblues on Oct 2, 2020 3:35:28 GMT -6
Well, everyone that's going to vote has now (I think) - so here's the answer...
I was using my "beast" of an amp - the Blackstar TVP260. 2x12 (2 x 60 Watt) setup.
...I'm guessing #1 is microphone recorded and #2 is direct.
OK - Why did you ask us wpb?
It's the first time I've recorded and compared my Phantom-powered condensor mic against direct-in. I rarely get the chance as I want to crank the amp up a bit to record and the downside is that the neighbors may complain, etc.
The thing was, I seemed to lean toward the first recording too - but was worried I was biased as I "knew" it was "authentic" - literally what the amp put out. So my intention of asking you all was to see what you thought without the bias.
Positives:
- Seems that recording either way is acceptable quality wise, there were some nice comments about either recording being usable
- I'm still surprised that the mic recording got the most votes - perhaps there really is something different about mic recording we naturally distinguish/prefer in it
Negatives:- The mic definately affects tone - I added some EQ to the mic recording to brighten up the top end.
(the same EQ was applied to the direct-in, but had minimal impact on the end tone, which surprised me)
- Line-in recording is quieter into the DAW mix, I had to up its DAW mixer volume to match that of the mic recording so they were both peaking at "-6"
(anyone know why audio is measured up-to "0" and anything over that is bad?!?)
|
|
|
|
Post by bluesbruce on Oct 2, 2020 6:10:55 GMT -6
Interesting exercise, WPB. I think your conclusion that "either way is acceptable quality wise" is the real take-home message here. Not only can you produce an excellent and pleasing recording either way, but you can also produce a dog either way. You noted that the mic affects the tone - not only what type of mic, but placement of it as well. Then there's about a thousand other factors - your strings, your playing style, the pick-up selection on your guitar, the tone and volume settings on your guitar, the cord you use, the tone and effect settings on your amp, acoustic properties of the room you're in... and on and on. Then, of course, you can play around with what you've recorded almost ad infinitum afterwards - but if you record an effect, you cannot remove it afterwards. So the obvious solution is to get a splitter, record both a clean digital signal AND a miked amp. Of course, you need to record the amp simultaneously with several different mics in different positions, so that you get the optimal recording (or can mix them to get the optimal recording). Then, of course, you can re-amp the digital recording through several other amps, recording each with your array of different mics... You know, at some point though, you just have to say "this tone sounds good" and move on.
|
|
|
|
Post by Phil on Oct 2, 2020 9:34:30 GMT -6
That was an interesting experiment, WPB. I'm glad you kept us "blind" by not telling us how each was recorded ahead of time. It kept our opinions unbiased.
|
|
|
|
Post by blackcountrymick on Oct 2, 2020 15:57:06 GMT -6
Hi WPB, I must say the stereo separation of the line out is really very good on your amp. Re the line out levels, is there a resistance switch or line out level to lift the signal a bit. I could only tell the difference with headphones. Of course, as your amp is stereo, the next experiment is to use use a microphone for each speaker, that would be awesome . |
|
|
|
Post by grampalerxst on Oct 3, 2020 4:13:54 GMT -6
Positives:
- Seems that recording either way is acceptable quality wise, there were some nice comments about either recording being usable
- I'm still surprised that the mic recording got the most votes - perhaps there really is something different about mic recording we naturally distinguish/prefer in it
Negatives:- The mic definately affects tone - I added some EQ to the mic recording to brighten up the top end.
(the same EQ was applied to the direct-in, but had minimal impact on the end tone, which surprised me)
- Line-in recording is quieter into the DAW mix, I had to up its DAW mixer volume to match that of the mic recording so they were both peaking at "-6"
(anyone know why audio is measured up-to "0" and anything over that is bad?!?)
I think "0" (dB) is in reference to a full line-level signal (iirc about 1V rms). If you get much above that you'll get digital clipping (bad) on a digital recording system or distortion/compression on an analog system (sometimes desirable, sometimes not). On good digital systems (24-bit), guitars are typically tracked somewhere between -20 and -12 dB. Especially important for clean tones because clean guitar tones can have a lot of dynamic range/high peaks. Distortion/overdrive tends to compress a signal and squash some of the transients.
Welcome to the world of direct recording. I'm not familiar with Blackstar amps and their direct out. Often direct out is just that, a capture of the signal (scaled down in power) that would be applied to a speaker.
A speaker shares characteristics with a filter, as does a microphone. In the vast majority of situations they are baked into the guitar tone we hear on recordings. In the world of "direct" sound (either direct recording or direct to FoH live performance) there is a huge rabbit trail of compensating for lack of a guitar speaker/microphone (sometimes). The most popular way of dealing with it is use of IRs, IRs being high quality digital representations of the effect of a "mic'd cab" on a signal. There are literally thousands available: even a small difference in mic placement during the measurements can make a large difference in the resulting tone, and all the placement options are superimposed on all the different combinations of cabinets, speakers, and microphones available. All those are then multiplied by all the options of blending different mics and placements and cabinets and speakers together. That's part of the reason I don't invest much time in trying to make my recordings "sound good". Too many options, huge time sink.
As an aside, if you haven't done so, go out on Youtube and look for "isolated guitar" of songs you are familiar with. The first ones I heard were off the first VH album and pretty eye-opening regarding how being in a mix affects the perception of a guitar tone. A tone that sounds really good by itself is often pretty tepid in a mix, and tones that are pretty harsh in isolation often gain that controlled muscularity when dropped in a mix.
Anyway, some newer amps put an amount of "cabinet emulation" into their line out signals (some will even host IRs). There are also "reactive load" devices that can be plugged in in place of a speaker to give a line level output signal even when the amp itself is cranked. Either of those will provide some flavor of a cab/mic, but the odds are about 1 in a bazillion that they will match any given mic placement on any cabinet a person might rig up themselves. Any "fixed" cabinet emulation only approximates one of a universe of possibilities. As an experiment try moving your mic around and compare how the tone changes. Also, I now think what I interpreted as a little more of a sense of space in your first example might have been room reflections being picked up by the mic (basically, natural reverb). IR capturers often go to great lengths to eliminate as much of that sort of information from their IRs as possible. Not because it is bad, it just adds a flavor/wetness to the sound that many users would prefer to dial in themselves via effects.
Sorry, I got a little off track there. "Rant" over, haha. Thanks for putting up the little quiz, it was interesting.
|
|
|
|
Post by wannaplayblues on Oct 5, 2020 1:26:53 GMT -6
I think "0" (dB) is in reference to a full line-level signal (iirc about 1V rms). If you get much above that you'll get digital clipping (bad) on a digital recording system or distortion/compression on an analog system (sometimes desirable, sometimes not). On good digital systems (24-bit), guitars are typically tracked somewhere between -20 and -12 dB. Especially important for clean tones because clean guitar tones can have a lot of dynamic range/high peaks. Distortion/overdrive tends to compress a signal and squash some of the transients.
Welcome to the world of direct recording. I'm not familiar with Blackstar amps and their direct out. Often direct out is just that, a capture of the signal (scaled down in power) that would be applied to a speaker.
A speaker shares characteristics with a filter, as does a microphone. In the vast majority of situations they are baked into the guitar tone we hear on recordings. In the world of "direct" sound (either direct recording or direct to FoH live performance) there is a huge rabbit trail of compensating for lack of a guitar speaker/microphone (sometimes). The most popular way of dealing with it is use of IRs, IRs being high quality digital representations of the effect of a "mic'd cab" on a signal. There are literally thousands available: even a small difference in mic placement during the measurements can make a large difference in the resulting tone, and all the placement options are superimposed on all the different combinations of cabinets, speakers, and microphones available. All those are then multiplied by all the options of blending different mics and placements and cabinets and speakers together. That's part of the reason I don't invest much time in trying to make my recordings "sound good". Too many options, huge time sink.
As an aside, if you haven't done so, go out on Youtube and look for "isolated guitar" of songs you are familiar with. The first ones I heard were off the first VH album and pretty eye-opening regarding how being in a mix affects the perception of a guitar tone. A tone that sounds really good by itself is often pretty tepid in a mix, and tones that are pretty harsh in isolation often gain that controlled muscularity when dropped in a mix.
Anyway, some newer amps put an amount of "cabinet emulation" into their line out signals (some will even host IRs). There are also "reactive load" devices that can be plugged in in place of a speaker to give a line level output signal even when the amp itself is cranked. Either of those will provide some flavor of a cab/mic, but the odds are about 1 in a bazillion that they will match any given mic placement on any cabinet a person might rig up themselves. Any "fixed" cabinet emulation only approximates one of a universe of possibilities. As an experiment try moving your mic around and compare how the tone changes. Also, I now think what I interpreted as a little more of a sense of space in your first example might have been room reflections being picked up by the mic (basically, natural reverb). IR capturers often go to great lengths to eliminate as much of that sort of information from their IRs as possible. Not because it is bad, it just adds a flavor/wetness to the sound that many users would prefer to dial in themselves via effects.
Sorry, I got a little off track there. "Rant" over, haha. Thanks for putting up the little quiz, it was interesting.
Wow - well there's a wealth of knowledge right there!
If by IRs you mean "Impulse Responses", I caught onto those early thanks to the Reaper tutorial videos. I have some of amp cabinets (which I need to think about using more) but my reverb is one from a church hall. Sounds amazing to me.
I'm also thinking of multi-tiering them, using one IR for the amp cabinet then applying the church hall reverb IR after that for a more "true"(?) sound?!?
The line-out does add some cabinet emulation to it.
|
|
|
|
Post by wannaplayblues on Oct 5, 2020 1:30:03 GMT -6
Hi WPB, I must say the stereo separation of the line out is really very good on your amp. Re the line out levels, is there a resistance switch or line out level to lift the signal a bit. I could only tell the difference with headphones. Of course, as your amp is stereo, the next experiment is to use use a microphone for each speaker, that would be awesome . On this amp you turn the "volume" knob up to increase the line-out volume. This was all the way up and I still applied a little DAW volume to it. (The master volume is at 0 so the amp makes no actual noise for silent recording. The master volume has NO IMPACT on direct-out).
Apart from two mics, I was actually thinking of making a mix with direct-in and mic, each panned to a different sides |
|
|
|
Post by grampalerxst on Oct 5, 2020 11:20:51 GMT -6
Wow - well there's a wealth of knowledge right there! If by IRs you mean "Impulse Responses", I caught onto those early thanks to the Reaper tutorial videos. I have some of amp cabinets (which I need to think about using more) but my reverb is one from a church hall. Sounds amazing to me. I'm also thinking of multi-tiering them, using one IR for the amp cabinet then applying the church hall reverb IR after that for a more "true"(?) sound?!? The line-out does add some cabinet emulation to it. Yes, IR = impulse response, sorry I wasn't more clear. I'd say it is reasonably common to use both an IR for a mic'd cabinet response and a second IR for a high quality reverb. If you do use a cab IR on your direct out you'll double-up on the effects of that part of the signal chain since your amp has built in emulation for that output, which will probably tend to darken the sound a little more, but if it sounds good, it is good!
IRs can produce spectacular reverb effects. Because of the long time element (sometimes several seconds) the IRs are large and the computations intense, which is why they are typically crunched on a computer. Cab IRs are usually truncated so they correspond to about 20 mSec iirc--anything further out in time would be reflecting the characteristics of the room the IRs were captured in, not the cab/speaker/mic characteristics.
|
|
