Thanks Danny,
I think I'm going to get a chance to play with a Kemper this weekend. I've heard it's great for cleaner tones. I tend to use my 64 Super Reverb for those, but I would like a decent clean in the box. I use a LOT of effects though, and as a computer geek, having the software ability to tweak the Axe FX is highly appealing. I think both would do great for amps, but it seems the Axe FX is a clear winner in the effects department.
 
Wish I could play them both but I may have to buy the Axe FX on faith... :)

smallstonefan
Thanks Danny,
I think I'm going to get a chance to play with a Kemper this weekend. I've heard it's great for cleaner tones. I tend to use my 64 Super Reverb for those, but I would like a decent clean in the box. I use a LOT of effects though, and as a computer geek, having the software ability to tweak the Axe FX is highly appealing. I think both would do great for amps, but it seems the Axe FX is a clear winner in the effects department.
 
Wish I could play them both but I may have to buy the Axe FX on faith... :)

No problem James. The issue you'll be faced with is....it will probably take you longer than "a weekend" to really see what it's capable of. You'll mess with some presets....some of which will have nothing to do with your sound or style...and then you'll play around with editing presets and you may try to build your own while not doing it to the best that it can be done.
 
Stuff like that makes a HUGE difference believe it or not. The routing inside the Axe, for example, changes the sound drastically. You have to find out which way would be the way for you. The whole experimentation process is what allows you to really see if one of these things is right for you. Two quick stories for you...
 
When I first bought my Digitech 2101 (which to this day can hang darn close with a AxeFxII in certain areas...which is impressive being it came out in 1994/95) the presets showed potential. Most of them excelled in the effects the pre-amp could get over pushing how cool the tones could be. It took me a VERY long time to figure out how to create my own algorithms (and about that long to learn how to spell the word right lol) but once I did, the unit came to life in a way that made just about everyone I knew that played guitar, want one of these things.
 
The other story is my AxeFx. It was pretty easy for me to get a good tone out of it, but when *I* got my AxeFx, it wasn't as far along as it is now. My biggest issue was it sounded a bit too digital to me and transistor sounding. Meaning, the amp voicings. Upon doing more experimenting with it (as well as me working for a VST company called Acme Bar Gig) as well as Cliff updating the thing like crazy every month, it wasn't transistor or digital sounding at all. It was the way *I* was using it.
 
The effects you choose, the way you eq them, the speaker sims, the routing...all that makes a HUGE difference. A difference so grand, it was something that took me a month to totally grasp. So in saying all of the above, chances are even if you spent a week with both a Kemper and an AxeFx, you probably wouldn't be able to make up your mind unless you spent a month so you could really see how these things work.
 
Between trial and error (which we can only do so much of. You have a family right? Work a job....heck, how much time can you put in before wifey or kids miss daddy? LOL!) and reading, watching YouTube vids and picking the brains of other guys in the forum, even a month is a short time to be spent with either of these units. I got almost two weeks with the Kemper. Was it long enough? In my heart I feel it was...then again, in my second week with the Axe Fx, I was JUST starting to grin a little. It took that long just to sort of see a small amount of light. I wouldn't even say I was totally happy with it.
 
So if I had to give any advice on this stuff....from the heart, pick one and give it a month. If you are enjoying the work you're doing with it in a month, chances are in 2 months you'll really be liking it. I got my Axe in September of 2013. I didn't feel comfortable enough to use it live until March 22, 2014, which was my first show with it. I've changed or altered my tones at least once per month or more. I love it, but I'm still learning and dialing it in.
 
That said, the reason for a lot of the changes are due to the new firmware adding new options and possibly altering your tone a bit to where you HAVE to re-tweak it. That sounds like a downer to most people but guess what, you don't have to update. And, if you do and don't like what it does to your tones, you simply go back to the last firmware and all is well again.
 
So you can see what type of road you MAY possibly go down. The software makes it a snap, so yeah...if you're into that sort of thing and really like getting down and dirty with effects and want to use a big monitor opposed to looking on a little screen, the AxeFx will be great. How far I could have taken the Kemper....I really don't know. But editing it was not as cool as the Axe and I had the amp version here...and thought it was hideous looking. I wasn't interested in it right off the bat. If I bought one, I'd get the rack version.
 
At the time of trying the Kemper, I felt that it behaved a bit more like a real amp than the Axe did. But since we've had loads of updates since I tried the Kemper, (I didn't even own the Axe yet I don't think) the Axe has that same real behavior now. And like I said, the dirty tones are exactly what *I* was looking for and both had killer clean, semi-clean and classic tones. Tough call really. I just hope if you do choose the Axe that it is everything I said it was and those things are things that work in your world. :) 
 
-Danny

Hi, Danny. That's what I figured and thanks for following up about the Aux send thing (which I ignored in my last post). I'm starting to formulate some alternate uses for those even if currently I've got the Channel Access points working well for now.

Now this is kind of a combination question for you and smallstonefan (and a reply to smallstonefan)...

In regards to the "buffer" between the guitar and other devices smallstonefan mentioned. I've always operated on the assumption that an instrument level signal (most importantly my guitar) absolutely requires something to bring it up to proper input levels BEFORE being attached to a mixer input.

I figured in my ignorance this was some kind of magic electronics voodoo that simply must be obeyed. I've attached guitars directly to mixers in the past just to see what would happen and I'd be able to get a signal but it was always very weak and crummy sounding so I just followed the premise of "don't connect a guitar straight to a mixer because it sucks". Those were all really pretty crappy mixers though that the Mackie puts to shame. I will be doing some experiments on my own but the following is kind of where my head has been wandering so if ya'll have the patience to read it maybe you can just say "No, that's stupid. Don't do that." or "Yeah, that might work. Give it a shot".

But seriously this is a pile of crazy so only read/ponder if it is convenient/interests you.

As I learn more about my mixer (and mixers in general) and the various levels that devices output as well as how mixers and other devices can compensate for lower and/or higher signals coming into them I'm wondering... if a mixer can make up for a low output device via input trim and other adjustments and I am using high output pickups (but not active pickups at the moment) is it actually possible to plug a guitar straight into a mixer and get a reasonable signal?

The Mackie specifically talks about being able to take "Instrument Level" input but only alludes to keyboards (which I always figured outputted at a higher level than a guitar). It claims that because of the very wide range that the input trim has that it can manage all sorts of input levels so maybe... just MAYBE I could use it as a splitter.

I am very skeptical but I also remember yourself, Danny, talking about plugging straight into your mixer for certain things and then out to various doodads but didn't quite grasp whether you meant straight into the mixer or whether there was always something in between the guit and the mixer or whether it was a fancy mixer that could bring guitar outputs up to the proper level.

So the basic question at this point I guess is... does the so called "Hi-Z" do anything more than turn up the volume being recieved by the guitar? If so... what? If not how much db should added to compensate?


Aaaaand now I'm gonna start getting weirder so if you've gotten this far maybe you want to just ignore the rest buuuuuut....


I have a pile of Boss and other pedals that all have output level controls which raise levels up and maybe add some "buffer" (I did used to use pedals in between my guitar and the multi in on my Layla which I think has some kind of auto detect for Hi-Z and it worked well enough).


Aside from not getting all the sweet textures provided by running through an amp or a pre is there REALLY anything wrong with plugging the guitar straight into a mixer (or into a pedal then the mixer) IF you are able to compensate for the lower volume on the board or elsewhere (after it is outputted to other devices or the DAW)?

I'm starting to get the impression the only problem is that it is quieter and turning it up would raise the noise floor BUT if there were say a Boss pedal with an output control to raise the level BEFORE it hit the mixer perhaps that could help.

The Mackie trim is set so that if you have it set to it's lowest point, but it is receiving a signal from a pro output device at +4db when you turn up the fader to Unity you will hear it at proper levels and it should be all good.

At it's HIGHEST setting it can take a -10db output and bring it up to that +4db. I'm under the impression the output from even a high gain guitar pickup is still below -10db BUT that could be compensated by increasing the output on a pedal (such as one of my Boss pedals) and/or turning up the fader (there is a LOT more room above unity on this mixer) or made up for after it is outputted from the mixer (like in the DAW or perhaps routed back out to another hardware device such as an amp).


aaaand now where can I send those signals....



So if all that is possible with minimal sound degradation then I'd like to know whether the mixer line outs could actually be routed out to a guitar amp's input jack. Now I wouldn't expect that to be possible but hey... I'm dreaming and scheming here so maybe if I used the Aux outs with the output level control perhaps just nudging it up a little (as opposed to unity) maybe that could mimic the signal the input jack would receive from a guitar. If this is possible it could go to the Line6, the Traynor or the other weird little amps I have around (or maybe power amps for stereos I have or other mixers or amps I haul out of garbage or borrow or build myself, etc)

My Traynor has a "Low" input jack that, based on the archaic manual, implies it can be used to take input from a mixer turning the amp into a monitor (it also says to use it for high output guitars if you want more range out of the drive channel but the thing is from the 60's so their idea of Hi Gain is a little... well not modern and it isn't really that great for plugging straight into IMO). So maybe that input could get fed by the mixer then fed out the XLR line out back into another channel on the mixer and then into the DAW.

That would allow for a LOT of crazy routing options for me and put every piece of rig I have in action at once.

So yeah... that is all a little crazy (sorry) but I really want to get my head wrapped around what I can and cannot get away with in regards to my hardware and input routing now that I FINALLY have been physically hooking things up. I'm learning a lot on my own but you guys ALWAYS give me many new things to consider even if I can't afford the more proper devices that get recommended.

Hey... if Tom Waits can record some of his insanity sitting in the middle of a junk heap and connecting all sorts of ridiculousness to other ridiculousness why can't I, eh? lol

Cheers and sorry for being crazy... but hey... that's what makes a beeps a beepster... or something.

Hey Beeps,
 
All my guitar stuff goes into my console via XLR. I also always have some board pre-amp driving me to -6dB into Sonar. I'd never go direct into a console into the line jack with a guitar only. I have to have some sort of pre-amp (guitar pre, mic pre or console pre) driving it. Thankfully all my guitar pre's have XLR so I can treat them like a mic signal and have a little extra bawls. My board pre's work when using 1/4 too...I just prefer the XLR's. The thing with the Mackie pre's....all they do is get you to the correct level and they aren't anything special.
 
Then again, I'm not a pre-amp guy. I really don't like any coloration going in. Give me enough signal to get to -6dB to where it sounds like my tone or what I'm trying to record without hiss or noise, and I'm happy. I got a bit tired of the whole mic pre-amp wars as well as the expenses they carry with them. Everyone brags about a pre making a difference where to me, it either darkened a tone, made a tone a little brighter....or it saturated a little. All that stuff is like having a friend tell you a new Kenny Chesney album rocks....and you hear it and think it sucks...or vice versa.
 
It's cut and dry to me really and doesn't need to be super expensive or confusing.
 
1. Clean signal means decent cables.
 
2. Good signal gets you to -6dB (or whatever you choose your target input level to be) without noise or excessive hiss that is problematic.
 
3. It has to sound the way I heard it in my head.
 
If all that stuff is there...I don't care if a Samson or Behringer got me to that point. :) If I use a Drawmer a Liquid pre or an ELOP, it will be different...not necessarily better. :)
 
-Danny

Cool. Very instructive and simple and cuts down my meandering query above to this...
 
IF I were to plug straight into the mixer...
 
1) What can I expect the output coming direct from my guitar to be using...
 
a) a standard humbucker (not an active one)
 
b) a standard single coil (again not an active one if such a thing exists)
 
I am assuming it is far less than the -6db you mention (and my studies have indicated this as well) but I'm really curious as to exactly how much a guitar will output plugged when plugged in this way.
 
All for purely scientific purposes of course. ;-)
 
As always thank you for taking the time to further my knowledge.

Beepster
Cool. Very instructive and simple and cuts down my meandering query above to this...
 
IF I were to plug straight into the mixer...
 
1) What can I expect the output coming direct from my guitar to be using...
 
a) a standard humbucker (not an active one)
 
b) a standard single coil (again not an active one if such a thing exists)
 
I am assuming it is far less than the -6db you mention (and my studies have indicated this as well) but I'm really curious as to exactly how much a guitar will output plugged when plugged in this way.
 
All for purely scientific purposes of course. ;-)
 
As always thank you for taking the time to further my knowledge.

The output depends on how high you have the channel fader. See, what usually happens is, if you plug a guitar straight in, to get up to the right level, you need to really push the board. This is where the Mackie falls apart. Those pre's (if you can use the pre or trim on your board with a 1/4 signal) sound horrible if you push them where if you used a real mic pre or say the Midas pre's in the Behringer X32, you'd notice a difference.
 
The higher you run your fader on your board to meet the -6dB signal or whatever signal you are after in Sonar, the more noise/hiss you introduce into the sound and that's what you DON'T want. A pre stops the hiss problem unless you use something vintage that has a little natural hiss due to the saturation effect.
 
A humbucker will just about always put out more signal than a single coil pup unless you use one of those newer ones that actually has a humbucker in a single coil body. Even if you got it to the level of your choice, you're pushing a board too hard in a manner it shouldn't really be pushed in. The Mackie pre's are mediocre at best...but work VERY well when used sparingly. As long as you don't push them too hard and have a little help from the instrument in some way, you'll be fine. This is why I always use XLR. You get a hotter signal minus the noise. Even if something is 1/4 inch, you can buy cables that have TRS 1/4's on one end, XLR on the other. Then you are sending the best cable signal to the board which cuts down on noise and is the right way to go in my opinion when using boards of this nature. :) Hope this helps.
 
-Danny

That indeed has helped me wrap my head around some stuff, Danny. I was making some faulty assumptions about how current bounces around between devices (or doesn't) to feed/draw signal. I need to take a damned electronics course at some point because I get all confuzzled when looking at the various symbols/terminology and trying to grasp basic concepts.
 
I'm still going to try plugging the guit right in to the Mackie see how much noise the board produces and how much juice I can get but I won't bother entertaining the idea that that is an acceptable input method (which as I said was what I've basically what I thought for many years until recently).
 
It is however interesting to know that there are boards, like your Berhinger, that are designed for such connections. To me using an actual board to grab a dry signal instead of a splitter/DI box is much more appealing for the obviously superior routing possibilities.
 
I also came up with a good reason to use the 6 aux outs on the board as opposed to the 8 direct outs (if as you say the aux outs are nice and clean). Considering every channel on the board (all 16) has access to the Aux outs (and can access any of the six AND can access 4 of those aux's at one time) then I can set up cables, outboard gear like the Line6/Traynor amps, mics, etc and then set the input trim and EQ for those devices so they sound best. Then I simply have one of my snakes run from the six aux outputs into the six line inputs on the back of the Scarlett. From there instead of having to move cables around and reset channel trims/eq's on the Mackie I can just turn up the appropriate Aux knob on that channel to feed the Scarlett.
 
The direct outs/channel access connections are limited to the first 8 channels on the Mackie and can only be use with the corresponding channel (unlike the aux outs that can take signal from any channel).
 
So here's what I'm thinking (keeping in mind that Scarlett In 1 and 2 are the multi ins on the front which I would rather keep free so if I want to just plug straight in to write something or jam out without firing up all the other gear I can OR I can use the direct outs on the Mackie for special input set ups that I don't need set up all the time)...
 
Mackie Aux Out 1 = Scarlett Line In 3
Mackie Aux Out 2 = Scarlett Line In 4
Mackie Aux Out 3 = Scarlett Line In 5
Mackie Aux Out 4 = Scarlett Line In 6
Mackie Aux Out 5 = Scarlett Line In 7
Mackie Aux Out 6 = Scarlett Line In 8
 
Then I use the 9-16 channels on the Mackie to set up gear I think I will be likely to use on a regular basis, set the ideal trim and EQ and bingo bango... I can just turn on the mixer, turn up the fader to unity, turn up the appropriate Aux level knob on the mixer channel(s) to unity (or whatever I want or even mix and match for blending channels into a single track). If I run out of space within those 8 channels (9-16) I can start creeping backward into the 1-8 channels. Why keep the first 8 channels open? I guess it doesn't REALLY matter aside from organization but the first 8 have the direct outs and I only have two 8 channel snakes (one of which has two bad cables so it is essentially a 6 channel snake). So I would opt to use the direct outs for those eight channels and use them as wild cards or specifically for the TRUE use of the Channel Access which is with a TRS cable sending and receiving from outboard gear (it's an insert... not that I currently have any gear that works like that at the moment but you never know what might come down the pipe). I COULD still use the Aux on those channels anyway but I like keeping things straight in my head because this is all confusing enough as it is. lol
 
So yeah... it's been almost a week since I started really messing with the board but provided I don't run into any stupid noise problems I think this might be a good plan. Even if I do run into a bit of noise with the Aux outs (due to stomp boxes running through the external gear or something) then I can fall back on the direct outs as needed which is a good reason to keep the multi ins 1/2 on the Scarlett free as well.
 
I get the benefits of a permanent patch bay type set up and still have a ton of flexibility. Cool!
 
Guess I should post that in the original thread about this though but the convo seemed to have wandered over here.
 
Thanks again, Danny and to you as well smallstonefan.
 
Cheers.

Beepster
That indeed has helped me wrap my head around some stuff, Danny. I was making some faulty assumptions about how current bounces around between devices (or doesn't) to feed/draw signal. I need to take a damned electronics course at some point because I get all confuzzled when looking at the various symbols/terminology and trying to grasp basic concepts.
 
I'm still going to try plugging the guit right in to the Mackie see how much noise the board produces and how much juice I can get but I won't bother entertaining the idea that that is an acceptable input method (which as I said was what I've basically what I thought for many years until recently).
 
It is however interesting to know that there are boards, like your Berhinger, that are designed for such connections. To me using an actual board to grab a dry signal instead of a splitter/DI box is much more appealing for the obviously superior routing possibilities.
 
I also came up with a good reason to use the 6 aux outs on the board as opposed to the 8 direct outs (if as you say the aux outs are nice and clean). Considering every channel on the board (all 16) has access to the Aux outs (and can access any of the six AND can access 4 of those aux's at one time) then I can set up cables, outboard gear like the Line6/Traynor amps, mics, etc and then set the input trim and EQ for those devices so they sound best. Then I simply have one of my snakes run from the six aux outputs into the six line inputs on the back of the Scarlett. From there instead of having to move cables around and reset channel trims/eq's on the Mackie I can just turn up the appropriate Aux knob on that channel to feed the Scarlett.
 
The direct outs/channel access connections are limited to the first 8 channels on the Mackie and can only be use with the corresponding channel (unlike the aux outs that can take signal from any channel).
 
So here's what I'm thinking (keeping in mind that Scarlett In 1 and 2 are the multi ins on the front which I would rather keep free so if I want to just plug straight in to write something or jam out without firing up all the other gear I can OR I can use the direct outs on the Mackie for special input set ups that I don't need set up all the time)...
 
Mackie Aux Out 1 = Scarlett Line In 3
Mackie Aux Out 2 = Scarlett Line In 4
Mackie Aux Out 3 = Scarlett Line In 5
Mackie Aux Out 4 = Scarlett Line In 6
Mackie Aux Out 5 = Scarlett Line In 7
Mackie Aux Out 6 = Scarlett Line In 8
 
Then I use the 9-16 channels on the Mackie to set up gear I think I will be likely to use on a regular basis, set the ideal trim and EQ and bingo bango... I can just turn on the mixer, turn up the fader to unity, turn up the appropriate Aux level knob on the mixer channel(s) to unity (or whatever I want or even mix and match for blending channels into a single track). If I run out of space within those 8 channels (9-16) I can start creeping backward into the 1-8 channels. Why keep the first 8 channels open? I guess it doesn't REALLY matter aside from organization but the first 8 have the direct outs and I only have two 8 channel snakes (one of which has two bad cables so it is essentially a 6 channel snake). So I would opt to use the direct outs for those eight channels and use them as wild cards or specifically for the TRUE use of the Channel Access which is with a TRS cable sending and receiving from outboard gear (it's an insert... not that I currently have any gear that works like that at the moment but you never know what might come down the pipe). I COULD still use the Aux on those channels anyway but I like keeping things straight in my head because this is all confusing enough as it is. lol
 
So yeah... it's been almost a week since I started really messing with the board but provided I don't run into any stupid noise problems I think this might be a good plan. Even if I do run into a bit of noise with the Aux outs (due to stomp boxes running through the external gear or something) then I can fall back on the direct outs as needed which is a good reason to keep the multi ins 1/2 on the Scarlett free as well.
 
I get the benefits of a permanent patch bay type set up and still have a ton of flexibility. Cool!
 
Guess I should post that in the original thread about this though but the convo seemed to have wandered over here.
 
Thanks again, Danny and to you as well smallstonefan.
 
Cheers.

Yeah it is pretty cool to have the board to assist in tracking etc. It's also cool having a DI too, Beeps. For certain situations, it's just the right way to go as it can be cleaner and in certain circumstances, add a little color. That's the thing with this stuff. Mic pre's, pre's in a board, DI boxes with other options....there's no set way to do anything really. Some add color while boosting line level signal....some just add signal....some just add color and may not be a good driver source. If I can get enough signal out of something just as it is using the pre in the board, I go for it. If I feel a mic pre would be the better choice, it's nice to have a few of those. Sometimes I run a DI and a pre....it all depends on what you are trying to do when you are in that sound creation mode. Most times though, I try to keep it simple unless I'm specifically trying to do something different.
 
Yeah that Behringer board was pretty cool. It wasn't mine though man....a friend of mine was trying to sell me on it so he brought it by the studio. Some cool options for a cheap price. But it's still a live board and though it hurts my heart to say this....it's still "Behringer". Everything I've ever owned from them has broken down in 2-5 years. There ain't no way I'm going to take a chance on a mixer and wire all my stuff up just to have to break it all down to send it out for service.
 
I too like the permanent patching. To some it doesn't make sense, then again...it depends what you're doing. Though I bash on Behringer, I have these multi-com compressors I bought. They are the only things that sort of survived though 2 out of the 4 went bad. LOL! But there is something about them....they just condition signals beautifully to disc. Could I get other stuff to do the same stuff? Yeah...but these work really well and a few other engineers use them for the same thing as I do and love them also. We were sort of embarrassed to even mention we used them...but when one of us let the cat out of the bag (I think it was me lol) the others just followed. For light conditioning to disc, they rule. For anything else...they suck. LOL!
 
The coolest way to experience this stuff is to just dive in and experiment. If you can, try not to let the board do too much processing. For example, I never use the eq's on the Mackie. I get the mic positioning right or if it's a direct sound, I get the sound right before I record it. Anything that needs light adjustment can be done once I'm in Sonar. I also don't go crazy with the board pre's nor do I jack faders up too high on the board. It just doesn't sound good when you color things "Mackie". It's really not the right board to do that with in my opinion. In my little man cave though, I don't need much more than that as most of the things I record here are for demo purposes.
 
But yeah, it's nice to just run everything in your room into your console and then send it to Sonar. That's one of the benefits of having a board....PLUS....you get 0 latency. That's one of the real reasons I use my consoles. I send all my stuff into my interfaces and then come out of two channels of each interface and into 2 dedicated channels in the board. The cool thing about my board is...it sports both line and mic for each channel giving me a load of channels and options. So it's nothing for me to have 6 outs from 3 different soundcards running back into the console so I can hear what's happening in Sonar.
 
With all the input ability I have, I just about always have my ASIO drivers set at 2048 and only need to adjust them to something lower if V-Drums or a keyboard is being used with soft-synths. For all real instruments in real time, the ASIO buffers can stay on the highest setting and there's 0 latency recording in. That to me makes having a console soo worth it. When I do have to drop down, 128 or 64 buffers works perfectly because it's usually only one or two instruments that are calling for that.
 
The other cool thing is, I have assign switches on the master part of my Mackie. This allows me to send effects all through the board and NOT have them send to disc. I can send them if I want to, but this is for monitoring purposes only. So this stops me from ramping up any Sonar/pc resources even though my boxes will handle just about anything. I have some old dinosaur processors that are perfect for stuff like this. Need some delay, a little chorus, reverb, anything else....I got a rack that does it and does it well in real time without any resources being taken and it doesn't go to disc. Though we don't really need consoles today....I'd be lost without using one and will use them for as long as they are around. I just like the whole concept for what *I* do in my studio's. Plus, they look cool as heck! :)
 
-Danny

I've got an Axe FX II coming in on Tuesday of next week.
I am SO STOKED to check this thing out! :)

Full report required........