Guitar signal splitting considerations...

[miroslav]

Just doing a bit of quick brainstroming before I go try this in my studio.

Heres what I want to do.

 

Assuming I have two Epi Valve Jr Heads(still haven't purchased the second head).

 

I have a Radial Big Shot Y box that will let me split the signal from my guitar to each of the amps.

OK.I want to control the tone going to each of the Epi heads, as neither of them have any tone controlsjust volume.

 

I want one amp the have nothing but crunchy low end chunkand the other amp will be clean/clear mids/highs.

 

I can get some EQ stomp boxesbut heckI have plenty of high end, rack mounted, EQ boxeshowever, they all have low impedance, balanced line I/Os.

OK.from the Radial Big Shot splitI can use DIs that will let me send a balanced signal to the EQ boxesbut then I have to come back from the EQ and go from balanced back to a high impedance guitar level signal to go into the guitar inputs on each of the amps.

 

Im just starting to consider that maybe Im making this more complicated than I need tobut right now, Im having a brain cramp, as I need to look in my studio bag of tricksand see what types of signal matching boxes I have.

I know I have several DI boxesbut not sure if the balanced signal coming out of the EQs will be too funky for the guitar amps.

I know I can turn down the output on the EQsbut I'm wondering if my overall guitar signal will get trashed by all these devices in the chain???

 

All I want is one guitar going to two ampswith one amp giving me low end with lots of crunchand the other amp nothing but clean mids/highs. I dont want any distortion in the highs.

[miroslav]

Besides ordering my second Epi VJ Head tonight...

...I also ordered the DTI box, which is a dual transformer/isolator made by A.R.T.

 

The transformers are wound for 1:1 unity gain and are designed to be used with impedances from 600 Ohms to 100k Ohms.

They have dual XLR, 1/4" and RCA Inputs and Outputs...so I should be able to just take the balanced line outs from my EQs...and via the DTI...go right into the guitar inputs on each of the Epi heads.

 

Other options would have been to get either the ReAmp or Radial re-amping boxesbut I would have needed two...and at about $225 and $180 each...getting two of either brand, just to go from balanced Lo z to unbalanced Hi Z, was going to be a bit expensive.

The DTI should do the trickthough I could even have used a couple of my passive DIs and just send the signals in the opposite direction using an XLR F/F turnaround.

For $45the DTI looks like a more elegant solution than the DIs.

But I'll post back when I get this all rigged up.

 

Hey...if anyone has other suggestions...

[Griffinator]

Why not just do your EQ'ing to the mics in front of your amps?

[Big Red 67]

Good Point. The only problem is once it's on tape you have to work with what is there. EQ later. We recorded this guy that sounded great in the room. Then later on tape it was all reverb and washy. Hard to recover.

[Griffinator]

That's kind of my point, Big Red. Miro, of all people, you should know that EQ'ing should be done after, not before it's committed to tape...

[Griffinator]

Furthermore, if you really need to EQ before the amps, your guitarist should be capable of executing the part more than once. Track him playing the part with the top rolled off, then track him again with the bottom rolled off.

[Caevan O’Shite]

For starters, are these two amps going to be separated, and sonically isolated from one another? I think that'd be a good idea, even if your Radial Big Shot splitter switches between one and the other; even A/B'ing, you're going to have less noise from the cranked, overdriven one bleeding into the mic on the clean one, if there's at least a divider between 'em.

 

Plus, if you can mic in more than one room, you can pick which room sounds best for each amp; I'd think that a more lively, ambient room would better suit the clean amp, and a darker, less reflective room the overdriven one...

 

http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/icons/icon3.gif Now, you might try different mic'ing techniques altogether for each amp, as well, to further enhance and quasi-EQ 'em. Try standard dynamic close-micing of the dirty amp, and off-axis mic'ing of the clean-amp, with a condensor if you've got one, and maybe a bit of compression downstream. Those'd enhance the respective EQ'ing of the two amps...

[miroslav]

Guys...thanks for the great suggestions and concerns...but you are all misunderstanding what I'm going to do.

 

Yeah...EQ after the fact...yada, yada...is OK for a lot of other things...but that's not what most guitarists do, is it?

 

Most guitar amps have some sort of EQ options (Bass/Mid/Treble)...and most guitarists set their tone at the amp (and the guitar).right?

Sure...once your record the guitar tracks...you always tweak them some more...but unless you want to record a flat/clean/dry tone just so you can reamp later...

...most times guitar tone is set at the amp.

I think all you guys will agree.

 

Nowto clarify my first posts for those that misread them or misunderstood me

 

I don't want to just "double up" the same guitar part...which means that playing/recording it twice...is NOT the answer.

 

I want a single guitar...split out to two ampsat the SAME time (not A/Bback and forth).

Since the two Epi VJ heads DON'T have ANY EQ/tone control (just Volume)...I want to be able to individually shape each of the tones going to each of the amps.and I cant do that at the guitar, since that would affect both splits.

Which is why I need to split the guitar singla...then send it to two separate EQ boxes (remember, the Epi head has no EQ)...and THEN bring back the EQ-ed splits, one to each of the amps.

 

The reason to NOT EQ after the fact...is that I want to DRIVE the tubes in each of the amps with specific/individual EQ/tones...so that each of the amps' output has only the frequencies I want.

That's the other reason that EQ-ing AFTER the fact...won't really work the same way.because to drive both amps with the same full frequency spectrum signaland then try to remove highs from one signal and lows from the otheris just not going to sound the same.

That's like mixing Beef Stew with a clear Chicken Broth, on the stove...

and then trying to separate them out at the plate.

The crossover harmonics will screw things up.

 

See...I want one of the amps to be driven by a low/chunky tone...and I want to make THAT amp go to a good crunch.

The other amp will be getting more of a mid/high signal...and that amp will be kept clear/clean.

 

By doing the split...and EQ-ing before the amps...I will have two amp tones happening at exactly the same time, because they are coming from a single guitar (no doubling up by playing twice)

and each amps' output then goes to it's own cabinet.

The low/chunky/crunchy amp goes to a 15" speaker...and the mid/high amp goes to a 12" speaker.

 

I can then set the two speakers opposite/next to each other and just use a single mic going to a single track.

Or I can even use two mics (one for each cabinet)...and then either mix them on the spot to one track...or record them to two separate tracks and mix them together, later.

 

Why all of this...???

 

Because I want a single guitar tone that has a lot of low end chunk and crunch...but with clean mids/highs.

With all amps...if you overdrive them...then entire guitars signal (lows/mids/high) gets crunchy. And often...by the time I dial in the desired amount of low end chunk/crunch...the high end gets that "sizzle"...and THAT'S what I want to get rid of.

I don't want to EQ out the high end...I just don't want any sizzle in the high end...only the low end will have crunch/distortion.

 

When I layer the two tones from the two amps...I think I will have a very nice, unique tone.

Just try to imagine the low end going into sweet, crunchy overdrive...while the highs retains a bell-like clarity, without any hint of sizzle!

 

Yeah...it's a bit of an experiment...but I don't see why it won't work.

Sorry for the long post....but I realized that I needed to clarify myself for some of you.

 

Now...if anyone has suggestions on better/easier ways to achieve what Im going for...I'm all ears!

[Billster]

Originally posted by miroslav:

Now...if anyone has suggestions on better/easier ways to achieve what Im going for...I'm all ears!

Instead of pre-EQ ing the line into the amp, why not dial the tone on the amp? Why add the extra device?

 

I would keep separate tracks for each amp and work the balance to perfection at the mix stage. You don't know exactly how a blend that sounds good at the moment will react with the rest of the tracks when you get to the mixing stage.

[Corner Pocket]

It seems to me that with all of this futzing around, that phase cancellation issues may rear their tone sucking heads.

 

If it works...great. It if doesn't this experiment is not a complete failure, it can always be used as a bad example. :-)

[Guitar Geezer]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Billster:

quote:

---

Originally posted by miroslav:

Now...if anyone has suggestions on better/easier ways to achieve what Im going for...I'm all ears!

[miroslav]

Originally posted by Billster:

Instead of pre-EQ ing the line into the amp, why not dial the tone on the amp? Why add the extra device?

 

I would keep separate tracks for each amp and work the balance to perfection at the mix stage. You don't know exactly how a blend that sounds good at the moment will react with the rest of the tracks when you get to the mixing stage.

As Ive pointed out a couple of times..

The particular two amps that I want to use (Epi Valve Junior heads)...DON'T have anything more than a Volume control.

 

And I know what you mean about tracking each amp to a separate track...which I may do, just so I can control the level balance between them a bit better.

But if I do get a good balance in the room ...using only one mic...I will not complicate the issue further by having two tracks to mix later.

In other words...I may just take the combined tone at face value...and leave it go to a single track....as the two tones have to come together, since one will only have the low end component...and the other the mid/high end component.

 

Originally posted by rockincyanblues:

It seems to me that with all of this futzing around, that phase cancellation issues may rear their tone sucking heads.

Maybe...but we are dealing with a guitar signal...which has a huge amount of harmonic content, especially when the tubes are pushed.

 

So any small phase cancellation is not going to be all that much of an issue...IMO.

I mean...it's not the same thing as putting up a couple of mics a piano or acoustic guitar...and then futzing with mic position in order to avoid phase issues.

 

With all the stomp boxes some guys use to "get their tone"...the rig I'm talking about is pretty straightforward.

 

Guitar...split to two DI boxes (passive or active, will try both)...going to two EQ boxes...and then out to each of the amps...going to two speakers....probably recorded with one mic (but I will try two mics to two track also).

 

It might all end up being nothing special...

...but I just keep hearing this tone that has a lot of low end chunk and crunch...but with clear mids/highs and no high end sizzle.

If I get it dialed in...it should be rather unique, and worth the futzing...don't you think?

[Caevan O’Shite]

All of my suggestions apply just as well to running the two amps simultaneously in parallel; in fact, even moreso. (That's why I worded that the way I did, "even if your Radial Big Shot splitter switches between one and the other; even A/B'ing"...)

 

As for using an EQ in front of each amp- well, yeah, try it! That's the only way you're going to EQ the amps in the way that you want, short of installing a tone-stack circuit in each amp. (You might try stompbox-style EQ-pedals, as well, instead of the aforementioned DI-boxes and EQs.)

 

I'd still mic the two amps separately, though. You'll get the most out of 'em that way. Mix the two tracks down to a single track, blending to taste. Once you've found the perfect combination of EQ/room(s)/mics/mic placement & position/mixing/etc., thoroughly document everything to the last detail for effortless duplication of the process.

[fantasticsound]

I wish I'd shown up earlier. Seems there was a lot of confusion, even after you clarified your idea.

 

If I may summarize your intended setup...

 

1. guitar to Y-box
   
2. Y-box (2 outputs) to separate EQ's
   
3. EQ's to volume-only amplifiers
   

 

 

I hate to say it, Miro, but while this may be interesting to accomplish, it doesn't seem worth the time, money and effort to get your rack EQ's patched in as instrument-to-amp EQ's.

 

I think this is a job for whatever the best quality pedal EQ on the market is. I've only used the Boss and that was 20 years ago. It worked okay, but at that time it was noi-sy!

 

Does anyone else make relatively quiet, high quality pedal EQ?

 

If you're bound and determined to make the Franken-EQ-setup work, I think you're stuck with buying two Reamp boxes.

[miroslav]

Cavean, you're right...keeping the amps isolated is an option.

 

I was just pointing out that even if the low end crunch amp is "bleeding" into the clean mid/high amp...it ultimately won't matter, as I WILL have to bring the tracks together anyway to get the full, final tone.

 

So...I'm figuring that once I do get the right blend in the room....having a single mic...with the two amps blending their tones "in the air" before going into the mic...VS. mixing the tracks in the DAW...

...might sound a bit different/better...and would be the simpler way to go.

Heckif I could get the tone Im after with a single ampI would then end up with only a single mic and a single track anyway.

While having separate tracks would give me other optionsthat wasnt the main purpose of the splitting.

 

I'm a real believer in the K.I.S.S. approach...as I prefer minimalist recording rigs whenever possible.

I never put up mics all over the place trying to chase down some tone. Most times it's one mic, with the drum kit being the exception, where I use a pair of M/S overheads and I spot mic only the Snare and the Kick, each with one mic.

 

And my track count usually stays in the low 20s.

 

I hate leaving too much for "later".

Making commitments on tones/arrangements during tracking...tends to push the production along, and even then...whenever I get to the DAW/editing stagethings still bog down, as there are always endless possibilities to screw around with. Which is why I try and keep my DAW editing limited to mostly cut/paste...rather than spend time doing "sound design" bullshit in the DAW.with all kinds of processing/plug-ins.

[Junior 1]

One guitar signal split into 2 EQ boxes, individually going into 2 VJ heads, I knew you'd buy another one, to create 2 different sounds from the same guitar signal, then record it, right? Oh, with 2 different speaker sizes! I love it! Why the hell else do we buy this stuff? Especially this inexspensive gear! You just can't believe how it sounds for so little. Miroslav, I'll let you know how my Cave Man setup works! How about a sound bite when your done.

[picker]

A better way to make this hapen is with two DIFFERENT amps, one that does the low end chunk thing (one of the little Ampeg reissue Jet amps with a closed back cab will give you the low end thing real nice), and an amp that does the high end shimmer thing( the Epiphone with an open back cab ought to make it happen). Exploiting the natural response of two different amps might make it easier to get what you are lookiing for.

[miroslav]

Originally posted by fantasticsound:

If I may summarize your intended setup...

 

1. guitar to Y-box
   
2. Y-box (2 outputs) to separate EQ's
   
3. EQ's to volume-only amplifiers
   

 

 

I hate to say it, Miro, but while this may be interesting to accomplish, it doesn't seem worth the time, money and effort to get your rack EQ's patched in as instrument-to-amp EQ's.

 

I think this is a job for whatever the best quality pedal EQ on the market is. I've only used the Boss and that was 20 years ago. It worked okay, but at that time it was noi-sy!

 

Does anyone else make relatively quiet, high quality pedal EQ?

 

If you're bound and determined to make the Franken-EQ-setup work, I think you're stuck with buying two Reamp boxes.

YEs...that's the setup as you've outlined it.

But why to say it "it doesn't seem worth the time, money and effort to get your rack EQ's patched in as instrument-to-amp EQ's"...???

 

The time : nothing longer than it would take to patch up a couple of stomp-boxes.

The effort: well...as I just said...a few minutes at most...not really an effort!

The money:...ahhh, no real cost, as I already have MUCH better rack EQs than anything a stomp box would give me.

Heck...ti would cost MORE to buy a couple of stomp-box EQs!

All I'm buying to make this happen...is a dual-channel Low/High transformer box...which is a great studio tool for many other things...and it's only $45.

I could even di this without it...just using "reverse" DI boxes...but I like this liitle Dual-channel transformer.

 

Yeah...a couple of Radial reamp boxes would also work quite well...but they cost $180 each...and I don't really need them to do this.

While they ARE great boxes...this DTI box for $45 will do pretty much the same thing....and it's dual-channel...so it's like two reamp boxes in one.

 

Check it out:

 

DTI : Dual-Channel Trasnformer/Isolator from A.R.T.

[miroslav]

Originally posted by Picker:

A better way to make this hapen is with two DIFFERENT amps...

Got you covered Picker!

 

I have a couple of Traynor amps ('75 Mark 3 and a newer YCV40) that I will also throw into the mix.after I try the Epi heads.

With the Traynors...they have on-board EQ controls....so it will be a simpler rig...

...but the Mark 3 is a 100W, EL34 monster.

And the YCV40 is a 40W 6L6 in-your-face amp...though it has a sweet clean channel...so if I don't get enough clean out of one Epi...I will try the YCV40 and/or the Mark 3.

Neither the Mark 3 or the YCV40 sound like the Epi heads with their single 12AX7 and EL84 power tube.

 

I'm quite confident that I'll end up with a unique tone once I get things dialed in...

...kinda' like some of those funky 2-layer bar drinks...a smooth top with an ass-kicking low end crunch!

[picker]

I'd go for the clean, high-endy sound out of a higher powered amp, like the YCV40, although you could do it with the Mark 3 pretty well, too. Then put the Epi through a closed back 4x10, 4x12, or even a single 15. That ought to give you some chunk. I'd try to work with stuff that gave me the sound I wanted without extensive external EQ. It's just cleaner, somehow.

[miroslav]

It may very well end up that way...as I've already considered that the Epi will not be as clean when pushed hard enough to match up to the chunky/crunchy amp...

...so it will probably be the clean channel of the YCV40 (and one less EQ consideration) for the mid/high component.

But I really need to be able to take out the highs from the signal going to the Epi, as I only want the low end to have crunch....so I have to use the external EQ to do that.

 

Hey...I got several options...I'm sure one will work out very well.

[fantasticsound]

Originally posted by miroslav:

...But why to say it "it doesn't seem worth the time, money and effort to get your rack EQ's patched in as instrument-to-amp EQ's"...???

 

The time : nothing longer than it would take to patch up a couple of stomp-boxes.

The effort: well...as I just said...a few minutes at most...not really an effort!

The money:...ahhh, no real cost, as I already have MUCH better rack EQs than anything a stomp box would give me.

Heck...ti would cost MORE to buy a couple of stomp-box EQs!

All I'm buying to make this happen...is a dual-channel Low/High transformer box...which is a great studio tool for many other things...and it's only $45.

I could even di this without it...just using "reverse" DI boxes...but I like this liitle Dual-channel transformer...

Ok, so you're using two DI's to feed the EQ's and two DI's in reverse to feed the amp inputs. Reducing the output level of your EQ's without reverse DI's is a terrible idea. The impedance and level mismatch would do horrible things to your sound.

 

Y-box - 2 instr. patch cables - 2 DI's - 2 XLR cables - 2 EQ's - 2 XLR Cables - 2 DI's (reversed) - 2 instr. patch cables - 2 amps

 

Even if the DI's work in reverse (many active DI's don't work this way and I'm not sure a passive DI would properly step down a line output, due to impedence mismatch, to a guitar input) I find it odd you say this isn't a lot more work each time you set up vs.

 

Y-box - 2 instr. patch cables - 2 stomp-box EQ's - instr. patch cables - 2 amps.

 

The massive change from instr. level to line level back to instr. level is likely to be problematic.

 

Maybe this isn't work to you, but it seems like a lot of effort to me, considering the alternatives.

 

I'm not certain why you want the 1:1 transformer. Sure, it's a hum eliminator. But you could use it with stomp boxes, if necessary, too.

 

I'm a big fan of KISS too. (The method moreso than the band. ) Your suggestion seems counterintuitive to KISS.

 

Time: The time you're taking to work this out when the KISS solution seems obvious.

 

Effort: Figuring the correct impedance matching scheme and making it work. It may not be as simple as wiring a few DI's backwards.

 

Money: Do you have 4 DI's to dedicate to this project that are of decent quality and low noise?

 

Not trying to rain on your parade, but the way you mapped it out would be a last resort IMHO. KISS.

[fantasticsound]

That last setup you and Picker described sounds best to me. Now you still need to patch in an EQ, but if you're bound and determined to insert your rack EQ at least this reduces you to 2 DI's, assuming the reverse DI will work.

[miroslav]

Originally posted by fantasticsound:

I'm not certain why you want the 1:1 transformer. Sure, it's a hum eliminator. But you could use it with stomp boxes, if necessary, too.

I'm going to us it in place of the reverse DIs.

 

It is meant for changing High/Low impedances in either direction...and it's also an isolator...so yeah, no hum.

 

 

Time: The time you're taking to work this out when the KISS solution seems obvious.

 

Effort: Figuring the correct impedance matching scheme and making it work. It may not be as simple as wiring a few DI's backwards.

 

Money: Do you have 4 DI's to dedicate to this project that are of decent quality and low noise?

 

Not trying to rain on your parade, but the way you mapped it out would be a last resort IMHO. KISS.

 

Well...I have time to work it out, 'cuz I'm wating on the second Epi head and the DTI tranny to arrive.

And (shhhhhh) I'm at work right now working all this out.

 

Theres not much effort in figuring out correct imps...I gotta' go high-to-low-to-high....and I already have a box full of DIs....and I even tried the reverse DI thing last night...and it worked fine with some Whirlwind passive boxes...but I have others.

The only real "extra" cost is the DTI tranny...which I think will be a better solution than the reverse DIs...and of course, I will be able to use if for other things in the studio...so the $45 spent on it will be well spent.

 

As far as the whole K.I.S.S. thing...

 

Your suggestions are to replace the rack mount EQs with a pair of stomp-box EQ. Well, I would need to first buy themand then also patch them in with more cables.

OK...I would not need the DIs and DTI tranny...

but I don't see at all that going from high-to-low-to-high is going to be an issueas that's what is always done when you do the reamp thing...do you agree?

 

Actually...the high-end rack EQs and the tranny/isolator box should help clean up the signal rather then degrade it...

...but its only after a hands-on experiment that anything will be proven.

Yeah...the average guitar player who is thinking about a live gig rig...will automatically think about stomp-boxes for his signal manipulations.

And if I had any plans to make this split-amp rig a live gigging rig...then the DI/rack EQ stuff would be too much to deal with.

But this a studio-only setup....and once it's configured and dialed in...

...the time/money/effort issues completely go away.

It becomes a pure plug-n-play rig...as I do not have to rip it down and set it up for gigs/practice.

And thats what the studio is all about.experimentationright?

[fantasticsound]

(Whispering: I won't tell your boss.)

 

Originally posted by miroslav:

Originally posted by fantasticsound:

I'm not certain why you want the 1:1 transformer. Sure, it's a hum eliminator. But you could use it with stomp boxes, if necessary, too.

I'm going to us it in place of the reverse DIs.

 

It is meant for changing High/Low impedances in either direction...and it's also an isolator...so yeah, no hum.

Everything else aside, I think you may be disappointed with the ART box. If it's like the Ebtech Hum Eliminator, it can handle a wide variety of levels and impedances but the transformer is wound 1:1. It will not transform levels, only impedances.

 

You can hook a low impedance, XLR jack from a source to a high impedance input on 1/4" jacks, but only if the relative input/output level ranges are the similar. I don't think it will accept a line level input and spit out an instrument level output. That would require an assymetric transformer winding and a pad. Otherwise, a DI or bump box.

 

Have fun with the experiment!

[miroslav]

Originally posted by fantasticsound:

I think you may be disappointed with the ART box. If it's like the Ebtech Hum Eliminator, it can handle a wide variety of levels and impedances but the transformer is wound 1:1. It will not transform levels, only impedances.

I considered the 1:1...and it should not be a problem, as the rack EQs have their own master Gain/Level controls...so I can tame the output signal down to guitar level...and the DTI will handle the impedance/isolation.

 

While on the surface, all this connecting/transforming of the signal seems like it might damage it...I always like to keep in mind that of all audio signals (vocals/acoustic instruments, synths, etc)...the electric guitar signal has often been quite "mangled" by many folks in order for them to achieve "their" sound...

so as long as I don't end up with a lot of noise/frequency loss or cancellation...I don't think there will be too much trouble with all the connections/transformations.

 

Heck...once I get the signal past the DI...the low/balanced side is not going to do any damage to the signal...and dropping the level down to go back to the amp should not add anything bad to it either.

 

Hey...nothing ventured, nothing gainedand I may find something new/better during this experiment that I didnt even consider!

[miroslav]

OK...I gave the idea a try.

 

Guitar --->

split the signal --->

send to two separate preamp DIs --->

send each DI output to separate EQ --->

EQ each split, one High the other Low --- >

send EQ Low output to one amp, set for crunch

send EQ High output to second amp, set for clean

 

Record each amp output to separate tracks.

 

 

It was OK...it did what I was trying to do...but the EQ applied before going to amps made the amps a bit noisy...and one amp became sensitive to the "high G" frequency, and would occasionally sustain that note, but not others.

 

I could probably tweak the set up and make it quite manageable...but I've decided to go a different route.

 

Guitar --->

split the signal --->

send each split to separate amp --->

(one set for crunch, other set for clean)

record each amp's output to separate tracks --->

adjust High/Low EQ to the recorded tracks --->

blend to taste.

 

It's a cleaner/simpler signal path...and should allow me to just remove the high-end "sizzle" from the crunch amp...while removing the low-end from the clean ampand then combine the two tracks for a unique tone.

I will then have my low-end with crunch, but with a clean top.