I love the sound of the Tech21 amp, especially when paired with my Line 6 compressor pedal. But when I record on my pc, it sounds sorta lifeless.
Example here:
http://slejhamer.dmusic.com/ (click the green button for hi-fi streaming)
I did that for a "guess the riff" game. Pardon the bad playing. I really need to work on my pulloffs. Anyway ...
No, I haven't yet upgraded my soundcard. Will that really make that much difference? How do I get the big, spacious sound that I hear in other recordings? (Yes, like Zigs.)
?
Hiyah slej!
Sounds clear enough to me; well-balanced, no clipping...and to be honest mate, you're doing more than I could after a year and a bit!
No: upgrading soundcard will not in itself do the biz, or at least not the biz that you refer to.
The "answer" is a little akin to our digi-photo stuff, in that the polish is added by the post-processing, or what one does once it's recorded and in your sequencing software as a wav. (by the way, any terms you're unfamiliar with, do tell me and I'll gladly explain..)
That feeling of " space" could be added by a touch of reverb and compression(I know you've compressed it at the front end already) once it is in your sequencer(that is, in Ntracks, Cakewalk, Cubase or whatever). This is done by the patching of software effects as opposed to external stompers!...think of them like the effects or filters in Photoshop.
I'm unsure if Ntracks has or supports these FX: I use Cakewalk myself. If you are as yet devoid of sequencing software of the bought variety, this is step one for Santa! I'd recommend Guitar Tracks Pro or Home Studio(both from the Cakewalk stable)...these are cost effective and superb; my first CD was with GTPro.
The silky polished "studio" sound might be thought of as the final flattening and sharpening stage of multi-layer digi-photo work: one can apply a compressor to " master" the final mixture of guitars, bass, drums, etc; that one has going. This allows everything to have its own space. Bear in mind that this is called the mastering stage, and is done once all instrument sounds and levels are mixed as best as you can.
These stages and the filters/FX needed for them are all included and explained in any half-decent sequencing/recording software.
The final point is that it will certainly take much practice to feel your way in. Indeed, you wouldn't even want to know some of the costs of standalone multiband compressors, stereo enhancers, aural exciters, noise maximisers..or indeed what all these terms mean. OK, I do my mastering myself(many send their stuff away to mastering houses) in a standalone programme, but very creditable results can be done within one's sequencer with a bit of practice.
And there's the rub: my last CD took me around 450 man-hours; only 50 of them at the outside involved me playing guitar..the rest was editing, mixing and mastering.
The good news definitely is, without doubt, that once you get your chops inside your sequencer, that post-processing with a tad of reverb and a mastering compressor preset WILL get you a long way on the road...and will encourage you greatly.
Absolutely any further queries, no matter how daft you think they might be...just please ask and I'll do my best to help, assist or listen!
Thanks much, Zig!
I'm using freeware Audacity as my "sequencer." It has "post processing" effects I can run (compression, reverb, etc.) but I need to play with the settings to see how they sound. I'm sure it's not as good as one of those pro-level wares.
I was indeed very careful to avoid clipping. Thank you for noticing! Audacity lets you check the input levels before you record. I know what clipping does to digital photographs.
I'm also going to try "Kristal Audio Engines" which is also freeware but looks a little more robust than Audacity. Take a look here:
http://www.kreatives.org/kristal/index.p...on=details
What is the difference between Guitar Tracks Pro and Home Studio? They are roughly the same price (around US$75 each). Does one have significantly more features than the other?
Amazing that you spent so much time post-processing your last CD! Yikes!
Also, my amp has 3 outputs: (1) headphones (not recommended for recording by the manufacturer unless you have an external EQ - gotta love their honesty! too many amp makers just say to use the phones output as line out for recording); (2) effects loop output (effectively an unbalanced line out) and (3) XLR-type direct out (though I believe it's also unbalanced.)
First, any difference in sound quality between line-out (from the effects loop) and the XLR direct out? I wouldn't think so ...
Second, I looked at XLR cables but they are all microphone cables (especially the ones that are XLR on one end and 1/4" phono plug on the other, which is what I'd need to plug into my computer.) Is a mic cable what I want? I wouldn't think so ... are there instrument cables with XLR pins?
Hi mate.
I think the chief differences in the Cakewalk products may just be that with GTPro there are amp sims(which I never bother with as a post-processing thing); the compression at mixing/mastering stage is also easier to use on GTPro than HS. Midi support if required is more certain in HS but not a problem if you're doing audio alone. HS also allows you save in "bundles" that are recogniseable to other Cakewalk users, whereas the bundling format of GTPro uses something of its own. Yet again, not an issue unless one really has a desire to do joint projects with other users of HS or Sonar.
This may have changed in the past year, as the newer Guitar Tracks is even more feature-packed; if I hadn't got Sonar I'd have definitely upped to the latest GT.
Outputs: avoid headphones out; effects loop out gives you a clean signal, but it'll still need boosting to "line level"(as recognised by your soundcard's input) by a pre-amp; the XLR out will give you the cleanest signal at line level: it should actually be balanced too....in which case a mic cable will do(with a mono jack, it will be unbalanced and prone to noise), but you'd need a stereo jack for noise-cancelling/balanced operation.
Best bet, then, with what you have so far: XLR and stereo jack from amp to soundcard.
I have to say that if you resisted any temptation to buy any more effects pedals for now(tough I know!) and instead bought the Behringer V-Amp2, you'd then have both pre-amp and a selection of amp models AND could just do without your "real" amp altogether, plugging guitar into one end and a jack lead in the other.
I'm normally reticent on both advising unbidden and trying to get someone to spend their money on my say-so...but the price of a V-Amp2 would only be marginally more than a couple of decent leads AND would slake thirst for both FX and amp models.
I don't want to blow my own trumpet as it were, but perhaps bear in mind NONE of my recordings that are on these boards were done with an amp: every one was either with a V-Amp2 or Line6 PodXT.
I'll also look at the Kristal site a bit later: thanks for that, I'd no idea of it. As ever, please get back me no matter what the question is, and I'll try to assist.
Thanks again.
One reason I got the Tech21 is that's it's basically a Sansamp with a powered speaker, so to me the Sansamp part of it (with the direct out) should be pretty similar to a V-amp without all the effects. So I'd like to "keep it simple" by just running a cable from amp to soundcard.
I had no idea a mono 1/4" jack would make an XLR cable unbalanced, but now I do see some stereo jacks that claim to be balanced. So thanks for that tidbit!!! I think something like
this one should do the trick nicely, and very inexpensively.
Well, fun fun fun! I think for now I'll stick with what I've got and play with the software some more, or download a trial of one of the Cakewalk items.
Cheers,
PS, one thing I think I really need is some good-yet-affordable powered monitors. Any recs? I was looking at M-Audio, Edirol and a couple others.
I went for cheapies by ESI: pleased I am, yes.
I had tried some Edirols: for me, they coloured the sound too much, too bassy and not flat enough. Good and affordable is as ever a rare combination: M-Audio...er, B8s I think. I've been told to stay clear of Alessis, but I can't remember why.
Don't want to wee on your strawberries here, but please consider why you wish for good monitors. I urge caution because it is the sequencing ware that needs to be there rather than sophisticated monitoring at this stage.
High-end monitors will for sure reveal many audio artefacts that may well be permissible if the end result is going thru a home hi-fi; in other words, you may well find yourself sidetracked into getting a noise-free mix that IS already noise-free on home stereo systems. To boot, unless you pay big bucks for flat EQ'd monitors, chances are the sound you're monitoring form will be too bassy...then again, if you get excellent monitors, you have the problem of believing you have all this extraneous noise you won't in fact end up with.
Your( and my) best reference monitors are something like you'd hear your final mix through: I honestly route mine through my home hi-fi a third of the time...because I KNOW their sound and can refer to my fave CDs as a yardstick. There is no point getting a mix sounding great thru a pair of Mackies if it then sounds crud through the systems you want to play it through. Am sorry to labour this point, but Zig almost spent a fortune on monitors that would have been a pointless expense. My stuff is OK without them but would not be so without deceny sequencing/recording software.
If you simply have to have them, then out of your choices I'd plump for M-Audio. Not cheap cheap...also avoid Behringer, as they have Friday-afternoon-style quality control. I use their V-Amp2 as if it went belly-up, it's cheap enough to replace.
The "balanced" thing: a stereo jack uses 3 "signal paths", via the tip, ring and sleeve of the jack(TRS). The sound is said to be "balanced" in that one of these paths acts in a way as to cancel much extraneous noise from other electrical sources like monitors, lights, etc; simply, the "noise floor" is generally much lower when using all balanced connections. Even more simply: less hiss once you've got a few chordal ensembles going simultaneously.
Honestly honestly: though you may not want to hear this(!) if you've a finite amount of cash and want best results and satisfaction for minimal outlay: recording/sequencing software first(buy it)....a pair of reasonable but basic desktop powered speakers(I'd honestly stay away from "studio" monitors for now...you're needing something to "refer" from after all).
And..yep.. that audio cable is the thing(just make sure your XLR out on your amp is in fact a male)
Top man!
Zig Wrote:(just make sure your XLR out on your amp is in fact a male)
LOL; I stuck my finger in the hole to make sure. Three prongs hanging down. Definitely male.
Re: monitors: oh, I didn't mean high-end gear. I'm using garbage PC speakers now ... a 15-year old Altec Lansing sub/sat arrangement, but the sub is dead and the sats sound like AM transistor radio speakers.
I've seen some highly recommended M-Audio and, just now,
Roland monitors in the US$150 range.
But then I came across a few rave reviews of the
T-Amp, and remembered that I have an extra pair of Bose ( :o ) bookshelf speakers in the basement. (They are OLD Bose, before the sub/sat model junk came out.) So I can power the Boses with the T-amp (which in turn would be plugged into my PC's speaker output), and that's a dirt cheap solution. Now I just need to find one ... which may not be easy.
I will check out the software, definitely, but I really could use the speakers too.
GAS GAS GAS!!!
And we haven't discussed dual-miking my acoustic ...
Miking I know zilch about I'm afraid!
Acoustics? Are they those things that look like real guitars but with lots more fresh air?