It is currently Mon Mar 16, 2020 5:22 pm

All times are UTC - 7 hours



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 122 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
Author Message
Post subject: Re: Laptops vs Amplifiers
Posted: Wed Mar 16, 2016 4:14 am
Offline
Hobbyist
Hobbyist
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 18, 2016 2:26 am
Posts: 25
Wow!

Super-old-thread. What has changed in that regard the past 6 years? I assume software has gotten much better.

For me, I'm an IT guy and have been using computers to make music since the 90s.
I do have Guitar Rig on my computer and have been using that for demos. I also have an Amplifi to use with headphones on another site (where there is no computer).

But if I am recording something today, I'll be using one of my tube amps. Just for the sound. Something happens that adds defects to the recording that just works. For me any way.

And that's the best part. There is no right or wrong way to do it. Just the way that works for you.

_________________
Which is the best guitar in the world?
-"The one you're holding."


Top
Profile
Fender Play Winter Sale 2020
Post subject: Re: Laptops vs Amplifiers
Posted: Wed Mar 16, 2016 6:16 am
Offline
Rock Star
Rock Star
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 2:19 pm
Posts: 8827
Man this is an old thread. The arguments got weird. I'm still using tube amps because I like them. I've played around with Amplitube with an iRig and I just can't get into it. The feel and dynamics aren't there. Interesting though. With the solid state drives out now, at least you don't have to worry so much hard drive failure though it could happen. But anything can fail. I don't know too many players in my area that play though computers. One local band does and uses electronic drums too, and they have been around since the late 70's. They sound really sterile and cold. I was weird seeing a guy hit a fake cymbal and pounding on drum pads. The digital stuff still has some weird digital artifacts if you hit it hard. It's coming along, but for now It's tubes.

_________________
Life...... It's sexually transmitted and always fatal


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Laptops vs Amplifiers
Posted: Fri Mar 18, 2016 10:51 pm
Offline
Rock Icon
Rock Icon
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2010 12:48 am
Posts: 26417
Location: Tombstone Territory
63supro wrote:
I'm still using tube amps because I like them.


My sentiments exactly.

The digital gear might be regarded as a "jack of all trades" but the flip side of that coin is, it's really master of none.

Arjay

_________________
"Here's why reliability is job one: A great sounding amp that breaks down goes from being a favorite piece of gear to a useless piece of crap in less time than it takes to read this sentence." -- BRUCE ZINKY


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Laptops vs Amplifiers
Posted: Sat Mar 19, 2016 3:31 pm
Offline
Aspiring Musician
Aspiring Musician

Joined: Wed Mar 05, 2014 10:33 pm
Posts: 811
For a few years I used a Line 6 POD in conjunction with my Vibroverb. I would run a Morley ABY box at the end of my Big Ol' Board of Sonic Bliss, and use the Vibroverb at a lower volume (as my stage volume) and pump the POD into the PA mix (which the audience would hear more than my amp). It sounded good, and I didn't have the feedback problems when using the POD to play harmonica (which I occasionally ran into on a cramped stage with my Vibroverb). I used a Fender Blackface amp emulation setting on the POD.

Anyway, I sat in with a country-rock band when they played a corporate gig/crawfish boil for a construction company one year, and after the sound check, the FOH sound guy asked me how much I depended on/loved my POD. I asked him why...

He put a wireless unit on my guitar and made me stand out on the dance floor in front of the stage.

"Play," he said.

I did. It sounded good.

A few seconds later, he pushed a button, and it sounded 10 times better.

"What did you do?" I asked.

"I mic'd up your amp, and ran it and your POD doohickey into two different channels on the PA. Guess which one was which?"

The Vibroverb won, hands down.

I still use the POD for recording--it does a more-than-adequate job for that purpose, and is easier on the producer than trying to prevent bleed-through of the different instruments (home studio, no isolation booths)...

...but for live performances, give me a real amp.

I learned this because a sound guy did more than pump sound into the audience--he wanted us to sound as good as we were going to sound. I bought him beer for the rest of the evening and appreciate him to this day.

_________________
Good Vibes To Y'all!
Blues, Rock and Outlaw Country
Texas Roadhouse Music at It's Finest...


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Laptops vs Amplifiers
Posted: Sat Mar 19, 2016 4:57 pm
Offline
Rock Icon
Rock Icon
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2010 12:48 am
Posts: 26417
Location: Tombstone Territory
Screamin Armadillo wrote:
The Vibroverb won, hands down.


I rest my case.

:wink:

Arjay

_________________
"Here's why reliability is job one: A great sounding amp that breaks down goes from being a favorite piece of gear to a useless piece of crap in less time than it takes to read this sentence." -- BRUCE ZINKY


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re:
Posted: Sat Mar 19, 2016 6:15 pm
Offline
Aspiring Musician
Aspiring Musician
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 01, 2015 12:32 pm
Posts: 339
Location: Las Vegas
VerySlowHand wrote:
johnny stecchino wrote:
how about hasselblad going digital, like their famed digital 503? have you seen what this camera can do???


Without wanting to sound like I'm bullying you... this nicely illustrates the futility of the argument.

Ask most professional photographers whether they prefer digital or traditional media and they'll say digital for practicality, but traditional media in terms of the 'quality' of the final image.

I put the word quality in parenthesis because quality in the context of the arts is a thing you cannot measure.

To use another analogy. A lot of people prefer the 'quality' of vinyl discs to the so-called perfection of digital media.

You can't quantify these things – so give me subjectivity, opinion, passion and heated argument any day... it's what keeps the Forum alive.


I'm a photographer by trade and went through the film to digital transition. I think this applies to the music issue as well. Digital and Analog are different (not better or worse). The each have advantages and disadvantages. These days the ease of use and editability of digital is undeniable, in the film days you really had to be a craftsman to generate great images, and you didn't know what you had preprocessing. Nowadays anyone can point a camera and shoot as many shots as they like until they get the image they want. The camera will produce a perfect representation of the scene, no photography knowledge required, for the world at large this is a good thing, great images are readily available.
I have often had someone come up to me and say “I’m a pro photographer” they show me a beautiful shot of a sunset and proclaim they are the next Ansel Adams. My response is “ I give you one week , go out and get a shot of any sunset that looks as good” not so easy. I, as well as many photographers, have images captured on film that are truly artwork. They were acquired with skill (camera and darkroom) that took years to perfect. I also have great digital images that I applied the same skill to( be it years of Photoshop the digital darkroom).

Hers the rub, the film images have a character that can’t be duplicated digitally. Just look at a movie or TV show captured on film. The film lends a look that extends the reality, while the digital reproduces it exactly ( a lot of this has to do with a thing called Latitude , not important here)
I think music is the same, Digital is very processable, convenient, less expensive and versatile and obviously sounds great. Analog has a character that feels and sounds more organic. A lot of this probably is due to perception; there is just something about the tactile response of a tube amp blowing your hair back (when I still had hair).

There will always be a place for both, and as I found with photography a combination of analog and digital produces unparalleled results. I think most true artists would agree the result is much more important than the process. A Gilmour lead on a Passport or a Twin sounds just as sweet.
P.S. I use the term analog VERY loosely here I realize tube amps aren’t completely analog creatures.


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Re:
Posted: Sat Mar 19, 2016 7:56 pm
Offline
Rock Icon
Rock Icon
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2010 12:48 am
Posts: 26417
Location: Tombstone Territory
Eroot64 wrote:
there is just something about the tactile response of a tube amp blowing your hair back (when I still had hair).


:wink:

Great comparative analysis, Eroot.

Arjay

_________________
"Here's why reliability is job one: A great sounding amp that breaks down goes from being a favorite piece of gear to a useless piece of crap in less time than it takes to read this sentence." -- BRUCE ZINKY


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Re:
Posted: Sun Mar 20, 2016 1:15 pm
Offline
Rock Star
Rock Star
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 2:19 pm
Posts: 8827
Eroot64 wrote:
VerySlowHand wrote:
johnny stecchino wrote:
how about hasselblad going digital, like their famed digital 503? have you seen what this camera can do???


Without wanting to sound like I'm bullying you... this nicely illustrates the futility of the argument.

Ask most professional photographers whether they prefer digital or traditional media and they'll say digital for practicality, but traditional media in terms of the 'quality' of the final image.

I put the word quality in parenthesis because quality in the context of the arts is a thing you cannot measure.

To use another analogy. A lot of people prefer the 'quality' of vinyl discs to the so-called perfection of digital media.

You can't quantify these things – so give me subjectivity, opinion, passion and heated argument any day... it's what keeps the Forum alive.


I'm a photographer by trade and went through the film to digital transition. I think this applies to the music issue as well. Digital and Analog are different (not better or worse). The each have advantages and disadvantages. These days the ease of use and editability of digital is undeniable, in the film days you really had to be a craftsman to generate great images, and you didn't know what you had preprocessing. Nowadays anyone can point a camera and shoot as many shots as they like until they get the image they want. The camera will produce a perfect representation of the scene, no photography knowledge required, for the world at large this is a good thing, great images are readily available.
I have often had someone come up to me and say “I’m a pro photographer” they show me a beautiful shot of a sunset and proclaim they are the next Ansel Adams. My response is “ I give you one week , go out and get a shot of any sunset that looks as good” not so easy. I, as well as many photographers, have images captured on film that are truly artwork. They were acquired with skill (camera and darkroom) that took years to perfect. I also have great digital images that I applied the same skill to( be it years of Photoshop the digital darkroom).

Hers the rub, the film images have a character that can’t be duplicated digitally. Just look at a movie or TV show captured on film. The film lends a look that extends the reality, while the digital reproduces it exactly ( a lot of this has to do with a thing called Latitude , not important here)
I think music is the same, Digital is very processable, convenient, less expensive and versatile and obviously sounds great. Analog has a character that feels and sounds more organic. A lot of this probably is due to perception; there is just something about the tactile response of a tube amp blowing your hair back (when I still had hair).

There will always be a place for both, and as I found with photography a combination of analog and digital produces unparalleled results. I think most true artists would agree the result is much more important than the process. A Gilmour lead on a Passport or a Twin sounds just as sweet.
P.S. I use the term analog VERY loosely here I realize tube amps aren’t completely analog creatures.


Eroot, Same here. I am also a professional photographer and it was the same for me. I went into digital photography kicking and screaming. I still have my darkroom and still shoot 4x5 large format once in a while as well as medium format. I was never a huge fan of 35mm. I enjoy it and as you said, film does have some qualities that cannot be duplicated digitally.
But that said, business is business and my clients need their shots yesterday and the only way to do it is digitally. I still apply all my lighting techniques from the "old days" to keep my Photoshop work down to a minimum.
The equipment alone and the obsolescence factor is annoying. I just bought a new Mac Pro and Thunderbolt monitor that cost me more than twice as much as my first car. My darkroom gear is over thirty years old and still works. But now, everything is sent to my clients via FTP, Dropbox, Hightail etc. because I do all commercial product and corporate portrait work. No more disks to overnight or drop off. Weird stuff.

_________________
Life...... It's sexually transmitted and always fatal


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Laptops vs Amplifiers
Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2016 12:28 am
Offline
Hobbyist
Hobbyist
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 18, 2016 2:26 am
Posts: 25
Screamin Armadillo wrote:
I still use the POD for recording--it does a more-than-adequate job for that purpose, and is easier on the producer than trying to prevent bleed-through of the different instruments (home studio, no isolation booths)...

...but for live performances, give me a real amp.


Thanks for sharing that story!

But for the recording part, did you ever try low watt tube amps in that application?

_________________
Which is the best guitar in the world?
-"The one you're holding."


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Laptops vs Amplifiers
Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2016 6:58 am
Offline
Aspiring Musician
Aspiring Musician

Joined: Wed Mar 05, 2014 10:33 pm
Posts: 811
jensljungkvist wrote:
But for the recording part, did you ever try low watt tube amps in that application?

Yes, and it worked very well...however...

Sid (my drummer/producer/best friend/home studio co-owner) and I built our home studio (the legendary "Shotgun Studios" in Arlington, Texas) about 11 years ago, and we've tried many methods to lay down tracks, including mic-ing our normal stage rigs (higher-wattage amps), or going directly into the Korg 16-track Digital Audio Workstation, or mic-ing small amps (tube and otherwise), and of course, the POD.

After testing all these methods with various results, we found the following worked best, in terms of a solid, organic-sounding, "live"-sounding recording:

For the initial guitar track and scratch vocal(s), I will play "live" with the drummer. We do this because I hate click tracks, and since we're playing off of one another, it sounds more organic.

I usually play through the Big Ol' Board of Sonic Bliss into the POD, which goes into one or two separate channels of a preamp, which then goes into one or two separate channels on the Korg. The POD has a function called A.I.R., which purports to add the ambience of the movement of sound and air electronically...it does add something to make the recording sound more realistic.

I prefer the (mostly) analog effects on the BOBoSB instead of the on-board effects of the POD or the Korg DAW; also, using those effects makes it easier to replicate the sound when we play the song live...there are a few notable exceptions to this practice, such as delay and reverb. I prefer to record "dry" in the case of those effects, because we sometimes add some reverb and occasional delay to the recording during production.

I choose the amp emulation on the POD based on the song, which guitar I'm using and (a little bit) whatever whim I'm feeling at the moment. I ignore the labels of what they're supposedly modelled after, and tweak until I get a sound I like (with input from Sid).

There are several benefits of this method. His drum parts are generally dead-on in the first or second take; with my guitar being silent in the room, any flubs I make will not be picked up by the drum mics (we're wearing headphones to monitor ourselves).

The slight bleed-through of my vocals into his drum mics add to the "live" sound of the recording. Many times, that bleed-through will fatten up the final vocal track...if I mess up royally in that regard, and the mistake doesn't blend well with the final vocal tracks, he'll grumble at me and re-do the drum lines.

After the first run-through of the song, we can then determine if the initial take of the guitar track is good; if it isn't, I will play it again, usually along with the newly-recorded drums through my headphones (and occasionally we try everything "live" again, if the "feel" is off or the vibe is weak).

If it is good enough, I then move on to the vocals (lead and/or harmony and/or backup, whichever is necessary), the harmonica track (if there is one) or the second/lead guitar track (again, where necessary)...on rare occasions, I record a bass track or third guitar track. At that point, I'm usually done with my part.

If there are other musicians recording or playing with us (more common in the early days of our group, but lately we've been recording as a duo most of the time), they either play their tracks (with a second POD or similar DI device) either during that first pass-through or overdub later, whichever they feel most comfortable doing.

I then turn the whole thing over to Sid, with ideas in how I want the song to sound. Sometimes those instructions are detailed, sometimes I just say, "Do what you want..." (Usually he just does what he wants, either way, lol)...but he will try to go for the vibe I've described.

He's a multi-instrumentalist and vocalist as well, so he'll overdub whatever hasn't been recorded, whether it's harmony/backup vocals (where appropriate), or a complementary guitar track, or some keyboards, or a bass line. He uses the POD for each of those instruments as well...he's gotten pretty good at ramping the Rotary effect up and down with the tap tempo switch, to make his low-end Yamaha keyboard sound like a pretty convincing Hammond (at least for our needs).

When all the tracks are done, he'll start mixing, producing, blending and doing whatever sonic alchemy and voodoo he does, generally making three to five "finished" versions of the song.

We have discovered that if he does four versions, the third is usually the best. If he does five versions, the fourth is usually the best. I joke with him, saying, "Keep going until you think you're done, and then bring me the version just prior to that one..."

The POD works well when I use it for what it was intended--a recording effect. Live, it worked, but not nearly as well as a real amp.

Would I prefer to use a real amp, especially a small tube amp cranked up in the studio?
Yes, but due to space constraints and the lack of isolation booths, we make do, and I'm (overall) satisfied and proud of our recordings.

_________________
Good Vibes To Y'all!
Blues, Rock and Outlaw Country
Texas Roadhouse Music at It's Finest...


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Laptops vs Amplifiers
Posted: Sun Apr 24, 2016 1:46 pm
Offline
Rock Icon
Rock Icon
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 10:47 am
Posts: 15336
Location: In a galaxy far far away
I used to know a fella that played into a computer, which then went to the PA. I never heard him get a good sound once in a live application.
I think computer amped is alright when it's played back through a computer. It doesn't sit well with a live situation, to my ear. Studios everywhere use computers to record these days. After using more than a few different studios this last couple of years. I think quality is mainly bought with that stuff. I can definitely hear the difference between a kitted out studio and a converted basement. Even for 3 chord crash punk.

Funnily enough I saw a band Friday night whose guitarist I'd fallen out with for a long time. He used a Blackstar ID 60. A solid state amp. I had a Blackstar HD100 for a while and hated it. I don't think the thing had a good sound in it. I swapped it for a JVM, luckily.
Anyhow, this ID60, I'd never seen them before. Didn't know what they were. It fooled me. I'd have swore it was a valve amp. It sounded fantastic. Way better than I ever got the valve HD100 to sound

_________________
No no and no


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Re:
Posted: Sun Apr 24, 2016 7:23 pm
Offline
Aspiring Musician
Aspiring Musician
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 01, 2015 12:32 pm
Posts: 339
Location: Las Vegas
Retroverbial wrote:
:wink:
Great comparative analysis, Eroot.
Arjay

Thanks bro


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Re:
Posted: Sun Apr 24, 2016 7:31 pm
Offline
Aspiring Musician
Aspiring Musician
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 01, 2015 12:32 pm
Posts: 339
Location: Las Vegas
63supro wrote:
Eroot, Same here. I am also a professional photographer and it was the same for me. I went into digital photography kicking and screaming.

Wish I still had my darkroom, I closed my photography biz a few years ago. I just couldn't live with charging the same $125 per hour that I did in the 90's, and no one would use me when they could find someone with a Rebel charging $25, get what you pay for I guess. now I'm starting my 3rd career as a chef (still going to work for peanuts, lol).


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Laptops vs Amplifiers
Posted: Sun Apr 24, 2016 8:02 pm
Offline
Rock Icon
Rock Icon
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2010 12:48 am
Posts: 26417
Location: Tombstone Territory
Perhaps you can show those "culinary specialists" who work the buffet restaurants at all of the "Station" casinos a thing or two. That chow tastes worse than hospital or airline food.

:lol:

Arjay

_________________
"Here's why reliability is job one: A great sounding amp that breaks down goes from being a favorite piece of gear to a useless piece of crap in less time than it takes to read this sentence." -- BRUCE ZINKY


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: Laptops vs Amplifiers
Posted: Mon Apr 25, 2016 5:36 pm
Offline
Hobbyist
Hobbyist

Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2016 3:19 pm
Posts: 21
Until computer driven amp simulators are as easy to use as a tube amp, I can't believe anyone would ever switch over.

I recently purchased a Focusrite Clarett 2pre. This might be the biggest waste of money that was ever created! I have been on the phone with their tech support (on hold for hours) and with Sweetwater's support line (VERY helpful) to get this stupid piece of junk working, and it works intermittently at best. The software is a disaster. The 65 reverb deluxe that sits 25 feet way from this smoking pile of garbage is ready to go at a seconds notice. Literally, flip the switch, wait for it to warm up and GO! If I want to play with the computer toys, its a minimum of 15 minutes to get the stupid thing to work.

If they ever get to a point where I can just plug in my guitar and start playing, these things will be great. As it stands, tube amps are the only way to go.


Top
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 122 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

All times are UTC - 7 hours

Fender Play Winter Sale 2020

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to: