jamescollins


Danny, slightly OT, but I know you advocate the use of compression on the way in when recording a DI'd electric guitar. Is there any reason why you say it should be a hardware compressor, or can the same thing be achieved ITB? Why? And are you using it to control the sound (ie. fast attack, medium to slow release) or add 'punch' (slow attack, fast release)?

I'm no Danny but I do the same thing - based on his recommendation. The idea is to prime the signal just a bit. And though the difference may seem subtle, for me it's what makes amp sims really usable, at last.

I knew I was onto something when I tried using various plug-ins in front of the amp sim (1176 clone, a tube sim, other compressors), but dealing w/ a hardware compressor just seems to be easier.


But I'm sure Danny will elaborate on the specifics. ;)

jamescollins


Danny, slightly OT, but I know you advocate the use of compression on the way in when recording a DI'd electric guitar. Is there any reason why you say it should be a hardware compressor, or can the same thing be achieved ITB? Why? And are you using it to control the sound (ie. fast attack, medium to slow release) or add 'punch' (slow attack, fast release)?

You know James...it's funny, for some reason I don't seem to get the same results using a comp on the signal after it goes to disc. The main reason I do it is what Rain said. It just conditions the signal a bit. When I'm at my house, I'll use a Behringer or sometimes even a Boss Compressor Sustainer into my Mackie board and then into my Realtek. When I'm at one of my studios I like to use a Drawmer tube comp, or a Manley or a DBX comp while going into my DM 4800 and then into my RME FF 800, Layla 24/96 or my Audio Fire Pre 8. It just conditions the signal and sort of buffers it like a real amp input does, that's all. You can try an ITB comp and see how it reacts. I've just never done that with the same results simply because I like a conditioned signal going to disc at all times...so it's been standard practice that EVERY signal gets a little bit of this treatment. :) Hope that answers your question.
 
Thanks Rain! You were spot on. :)
 
-Danny

Thanks Rain and Danny, thought so! I'll mess around with hardware vs ITB comps when I've next got a free afternoon - I don't see why we couldn't achieve the same thing with software, but we'll see...

The white noise fuzz one can get from the Behringer and Boss pedal compressors acts like analog "dither". It's schweet.

Compressing with hardware on the way in before the Lo-Cut/Hi-Pass helps makes the Lo-Cut/Hi-Pass seem like it's more effective. If you do the Lo-Cut/Hi-Pass before compression you end up with a lot less that get's Lo-Cut/Hi-Pass-ed.

It doesn't seem as effective.

I like to put another Hi-Pass at the very end of the patch too... after the speaker impulse... just to make sure the reverb isn't making too much sense of space down in the low frequencies.



best regards,
mike




edit

  Pleased I posted now.......theres been a lot of interesting info in this thread...I didn't even know about the existance of cab impulses, so i'm checking that one out...thanks everyone

 If you want to learn about impulses it will be helpful to learn about the latest dynamic convolution technology.

 Speakers are reactive. Single impulses don't address that and that is why most popular speaker sims sound stale.

 If you send some lively, uncompressed guitar slinging into a static impulse it will be obvious how it becomes conditioned and un-lively.

 It is less obvious that the sound becomes stale if you send it a less lively signal.

 The latest implementations of dynamic convolution processors use multiple impulses of specific speakers made at varying intensities and states in an attempt to mimic the way a speaker reacts when a music signal is played through it.


 Here's an old paper on Dynamic Convolution:
 
 http://www.sintefex.com/docs/appnotes/dynaconv.PDF



 The paper is old, but the implementation of the idea is just beginning to happen on desktop DAW because average CPU power is now capable of performing the calculations effectively.

 

 best regards,
mike

 thanks Mike I'll check it out

jamescollins


Thanks Rain and Danny, thought so! I'll mess around with hardware vs ITB comps when I've next got a free afternoon - I don't see why we couldn't achieve the same thing with software, but we'll see...

James, the reason being it's not the same signal push. Try it and you'll see what I mean. The whole thing about amp sims that I hate...is how they simply do not react to your playing the way that reaction happens when you use an amp. The little coloration or "push" so to speak from some sort of piece going in to your DI can really make a difference.
 
Here's a little example of what I'm talking about. I was going to make a video of this, but I couldn't make up my mind how I wanted to go about it. So here's an audio example with some narration that may give you a better idea as to what I'm talking about.
 
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/4909348/AmpSimComp.mp3
 
See if this helps any.
 
P.S. And yeah, I know you'll get a kick out of busting on my accent again...darn it! LOL! :)
-Danny

Excellent audio example Danny.  The sustain and feel is exactly what I have always felt was missing from the sims....along with a little fizz.  Using a hardware POD 2 seemed to always have better feel and sustain than the sims.

I don't currently have a hardware compressor, but I am wondering if an Art Tube Pre, TS808, or boost pedal might do something similar.  I am going to have to give this a try now over the weekend.