I'd like to be able to record the unprocessed guitar, but hear the guitar processed by the Womanizer at the same time. This means somehow splitting the guitar signal.

The idea is that the recorded dry track can be run back through the Womanizer, and re-recorded with whatever processing is desired. This enables auditioning of different tones in the mix AFTER recording the guitar, and then picking the best tone. It also enables changing of one's mind about the tone as the song creation progresses, without having to re-record the guitar track.
I've had no success so far, and am looking for suggestions . . . .

Here's what I did:

I tried running the guitar directly into my Mixer, and going from that channel's direct out to the sound card. This gives me the unprocessed signal for recording.

Then I ran a cable from the channel Insert (with the cable in only one click) to the Womanizer Input. Then another cable from the Womanizer's Direct Out back to a different channel in the mixer. This lets me hear the Womanizer's effect, and record that if I wish to.

I set up two tracks in Sonar, one recording the dry input, and one recording the processed output of the Womanizer.
Later, I can run the dry track back to the mixer, then to the Womanizer, then back to Sonar. This lets me audition different Womanizer tones and record them without having to replay the piece.

The problem is that when I use this method, there is a little extraneous noise, and the tone itself seems to be lacking in quality.

I was wondering if splitting the guitar signal at the insert point weakens it to the point that it doesn't sound as good.
Or maybe it's running the signal through all those cables (although none are more than 15 ft. long), which degrades the signal?
Or maybe re-cording then re-recording lowers the quality?

Any ideas what could be causing this and how to solve it?

Mine still hasn't arrived. Your raving stories don't help. LOL :D

Good thing is, the power supply for my RME Quadmic DID arrive. Man, I love my M-Audio cards but compared to this, the mic pre's of the Omni suck like the elderly...

To answer your other question . . . .

I had a PODxt, and sold it after a lengthy comparision with the Vox ToneLabSE.

I recently compared the Vox and the Womanizer, and the latter is fatter sounding.
I'm keeping both for awhile for further comparisions.

Bump

Well, it sounds pretty damn fine! It's just the volume thing that's a bit annoying: whenever I want cleaner sounds I have to turn up the volume way up high. But when I then switch to Nuclear mode, it's way too loud for my soundcard inputs.

The sound is great though. Exactly what I missed in the Pod: that bell like tone with cleaner sounds, and that thick compressed sound when using a bit more drive. I like the Nuclear 'metal' sounds a lot as well.

I sent my Womanizer back, but in the experimentation process I put my guitar > Tube MP > Tonelab. The resulting sound was amazingly better than the Tonelab by itself, so I went out and bought a better Tube Preamp with EQ and compression, I haven't taken the new tube pre out of the box yet but that will happen later today. My first tests with the Tube MP were amazingly improved over the Tonelab by itself. I am completely satisifed with the sounds of TubeMP into the Tonelab so far. If the new Pre is even better so much the better. If not I have 30 days to return the new pre.

My asessment of the Womanizer, it sounded great but not better than the Tonelab with the TubeMP in front, the Womanizer does not have enough of an output level to satisfy me for recording. Still it sounded surprisingly realistic (not moreso than the TubeMP>Tonelab). Since I already had the Tonelab and the TubeMP I thought the Womanizer did not add anything to my sound, and I decided on sending it back for the $375 credit.

ORIGINAL: Harvey Cedars
I sent my Womanizer back, but in the experimentation process I put my guitar > Tube MP > Tonelab. The resulting sound was amazingly better than the Tonelab by itself, so I went out and bought a better Tube Preamp with EQ and compression

Hey Harv,

Another thing you might want to experiment with someday is the $35 Behringer ULTRA-G GI100 or the Ultra-G Direct Box, which are hardware cab sims. I'm not sure the difference between the two models at this point.

Website

I've heard several people rave about these things. One guy turned off the speaker cabinets on his Tonelab and ran the signal into the Behringer. He said the sound was phenominal.

I think I may get one and do a little experimenting.

i have the Behringers DI w/ Speaker emulation (Ultra G), and it really does great with the speaker emulation on...better on PA's then for recording, but it still adds a lot to recording, I just found that the guitar seemed to have a weird reverb feel to them when recorded through the Ultra G, but better than nothing.