Dembones_dup1 Posted June 2, 2000 Share Posted June 2, 2000 I recently bought a POD and prior have used such boxes as the SansAmp and the now defunk Hughes & Kettner Tubeman. I'm not a great guitarist, but get by very well in the studio using the typical tricks and magic at our disposal. (Sounds suspisciously like, "I'm not a doctor, but I play one on T.V." http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/redface.gif Anyway, as we all know, most good guitarists won't acknowledge any validity to recording guitar direct. Being devil's advocate, I love performing "blindfold" tests with guitarists I respect, asking them to identify which guitars are direct and which are miked. Alas, they are consistantly wrong more than half the time, and a couple have even named the amps that the POD was emulating! I've concluded that there are two main differences... 1) the feel - direct does *feel* different, especially the POD, which I can definately detect a slight delay. AND of course, you cannot duplicate the response and feedback of a roaring amp. The other difference, 2) I believe is purely asthetic and/or familiarity considerations. I feel dumb for dredging up the direct/amp debate again, but rather than trying to convert anyone, I'd be happy with a peace treaty. Can't we all "just get along?" http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/wink.gif Despite my vast preference for recording direct, I would always rather have guitarists use an amp, if only for the reason that they'll feel better. If they are happier, they'll play better. After a lot of surprised looks with the direct/amp "blindfold" test, I had another realization... NO average joe-blow music consumer is going to know the difference. *maybe* 85% of guitarists will truly identify a difference, but out of those, none care... ------------------ Demian Norvell AppleSeed Studios Ruch, OR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anderton Posted June 2, 2000 Share Posted June 2, 2000 Originally posted by dembones: I've concluded that there are two main differences... 1) the feel - direct does *feel* different, especially the POD, which I can definately detect a slight delay. AND of course, you cannot duplicate the response and feedback of a roaring amp. The other difference, 2) I believe is purely asthetic and/or familiarity considerations. I think the "feel" relates more to the physical "kickback" of a guitar amp speaker. No direct box will duplicate that, unless it feeds a guitar amp speaker. However, this is something that only the player feels and doesn't really translate to a recording medium. This is one reason why guitarists can't identify which guitars were recorded direct and which were recorded through an amp. As to delay, that seems strange. Delay on the POD is about 1.2 ms. So if you're playing the POD through near-field monitors that are a couple feet away from your head, or through an amp whose speaker is a yard or two away, the signal from the amp should theoretically sound more delayed because of the distance between ear and speaker. Perhaps it's not delay you're sensing, but that "kickback" I referred to that gives a stronger sense of attack. BTW regarding your blindfold test...at seminars I'd often pull out a "tube pop quiz" where I played recordings of tube, solid stage, and digitally modelled preamps recorded direct. Only one person ever identified each one correctly - a guy named Bob Seal, who was the guitarist for Clear Light (a 60s band). Interestingly, the ones who were most adamant that anything other than tubes sucked were the ones who were least likely to identify the tube sound! Your bottom line is correct: listeners won't notice or care. Sometimes we spend too much time obsessing over nitpicky details instead of writing better chord progressions ; ) Craig Anderton Educational site: http://www.craiganderton.org Music: http://www.youtube.com/thecraiganderton Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/craig_anderton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dembones_dup1 Posted June 2, 2000 Author Share Posted June 2, 2000 Thanks for your reply, Craig. I practically cut my teeth on your books and articles, so in many respects I consider you a mentor of sorts. http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/smile.gif That's perfect about your tube "pop-quiz." http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/tongue.gif Regarding the POD delay, your response is interesting. Like I said, for my own guitar work, I generally ONLY record direct, so I shouldn't be confusing the attack like a typical guitarist as you suggest might. I'm sure my POD is fine, and it sounds great, so I'll be happy with my delusion. There's a lot of voodoo in this recording art, isn't there? ------------------ Demian Norvell AppleSeed Studios Ruch, OR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alphajerk Posted June 2, 2000 Share Posted June 2, 2000 "speaker kickback" goes quite a bit further than that. the sound released reresonates back into the guitars body. the molecules in the room start compounding and fills the guitar and player with vibration. there is absolutely nothing like playing through a 4x12. no simulation will copy that and i bet the performance will be better. i however due to noise restrictions at certain times, like in the middle of the night, will run direct but i do it with purpose and dont try to capture thae same type of sound as a roaring amp. the parts i come up with are different. its not neccessarily worse or better, it just is. i still got a ZOOM that i use quite often. ill even plug direct into a Q2. i use my speaker emulator out of my marshall head (tube) and sounds really nice with no sound iminating from the amp. but each for its own use. i cant do parts properly that i need a halfstack blaring at me. i also cant get the sounds @ times that i need to go direct. also BTW: ever run direct direct and get just the guitar? then no matter if you want to use the pod or some amp you can always run a send to it and mike it up. of course the feedback characteristics arent there but there are a few options available then. alphajerk FATcompilation "if god is truly just, i tremble for the fate of my country" -thomas jefferson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Robinson Posted June 3, 2000 Share Posted June 3, 2000 One thing to add to the "most listeners won't know or care" comment: When I listen to a pro recording as a civilian (which I have the uncanny ability to do sometimes), I almost always assume it sounds *exactly* the way the artist meant it to sound. There is just no percentage in assuming otherwise, is there? I'm not talking about someone's demo, either--I'm talking about someone's musical work. My point is that the way it sounds is the way it sounds. I deal with it. I can't remember a single CD that I own where I think about whether the guitar was recorded "properly." There are guitar sounds I don't like, but i assume that they are due to things that the player was going for, such as Mike Stern's sometimes overuse of chorus, or his slightly hinky-sounding distortion. Now, there are recording conventions that start to sound dated (70s drums being one obvious example), but I'd never blame the room, the mics, the cables, etc. If it's from the 70s, I know that the producer was going for exactly that sound. If it's current but it SOUNDS like the 70s, I still know what the producer was going for. And if the producer wasn't really going for that...so what? It's what he got and eventually released to us. Not sure what all this means, except that even if the consumer doesn't like the way something sounds, he would probably just figure that he wasn't "getting it" before he placed the blame anywhere else. Whew--that was long! Did I say anything at all? http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/wink.gif Doug Robinson www.dougrobinson.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dembones_dup1 Posted June 3, 2000 Author Share Posted June 3, 2000 I like your comments, Doug. That was kinda the point I was trying to make, although in a sense, I didn't say anything in my initial post either. I don't think twice about hearing a guitar sound I can't stand. If the music and/or playing is good, I just shrug my shoulders and enjoy it anyway. I have loved Boston for years, but can't stand Scholz's guitar sounds. On the other hand, great guitar sounds can't save bad music. Hmmm... Any more deeply meaningless comments on this ambiguous thread? ------------------ Demian Norvell AppleSeed Studios Ruch, OR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richt Posted June 3, 2000 Share Posted June 3, 2000 Good job covering the bases fellas, I agree with everything y'all said. Who cares about direct vs. amp anyway, as long as you like what you are hearing! BTW, Dave Gilmour's "Another Brick...Part 2" solo was recorded direct and that is just a great tone! Again, it is the player that makes the real difference! Happy weekend! -Rich T. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anderton Posted June 3, 2000 Share Posted June 3, 2000 Originally posted by dembones: Hmmm... Any more deeply meaningless comments on this ambiguous thread? Sure. I think some of the quirks are what draw us into the music. I started noticing this when I recorded more "live" without editing. The music seemed generally more engaging, even though the edited versions were technically better. I think there is some element of music that cannot be quantified as an audio specification...a more emotional element that transcends whether someone used a dynamic or condenser mic. Even though we don't know how to measure this (yet), this element makes it onto vinyl, tape, CDs, etc. along with the audio data. Craig Anderton Educational site: http://www.craiganderton.org Music: http://www.youtube.com/thecraiganderton Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/craig_anderton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JES Posted June 3, 2000 Share Posted June 3, 2000 Craig wrote: Sure. I think some of the quirks are what draw us into the music. I started noticing this when I recorded more "live" without editing. The music seemed generally more engaging, even though the edited versions were technically better. I think there is some element of music that cannot be quantified as an audio specification...a more emotional element that transcends whether someone used a dynamic or condenser mic. Even though we don't know how to measure this (yet), this element makes it onto vinyl, tape, CDs, etc. along with the audio data. -------- I reply: (how do you get those other people's messages bold?) This reminds me of the analog/digital debates. The argument is that analog is more "organic" and digital is more "flexible" but I bet if you avoid piecing together parts from a gazillion takes the digital part starts sounding more organic. So the new question is: what's the limit case for fixing a part? What is it that pushes you over the edge to fix something once you're committed to the "organic" approach? --JES Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anderton Posted June 4, 2000 Share Posted June 4, 2000 Originally posted by JES: So the new question is: what's the limit case for fixing a part? What is it that pushes you over the edge to fix something once you're committed to the "organic" approach? --JES The way you get bold replies is to hit the "Reply with Quote" icon. Then erase the stuff you don't want. What pushes me over the edge is if I listen back to something and don't like it. It can be a tiny flaw or a complete redo of multiple sections, as long as it gets on my nerves, it's outta there. A lot of times my way to fix is to cut out parts of the arrangement in the mixed version, rather than redo instruments at the multitrack stage. Craig Anderton Educational site: http://www.craiganderton.org Music: http://www.youtube.com/thecraiganderton Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/craig_anderton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 9, 2000 Share Posted June 9, 2000 Sure tip to better mixes. 1. Put hands firmly against edge of mixing board. 2. Push firmly against mixing board. 3. Stand up. 4. Walk away. 5. Walk back when objectivity returns. If a part is basically sound but flawed... fix it. If not, re-record it. Don't waste time debating about it. Make a decision and stick to your guns. Real decision makers get screamed at a little more... but from my informal survey they also seem to make better albums. Amp vs. Direct? PICK ONE! Then forget about it, I've got tracks to lay down... how 'bout you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.