James-Italy Posted October 5, 2003 Share Posted October 5, 2003 Don't want to start a tube vs modeling thread, but just thought this was interesting. I've been recommending the PodXT lately to some people and I think a lot of us write it off without realizing how easy it is to use. And, it doesn't sound that bad! I love tubes, don't get me wrong! When the amps are setup just right the sound is magical to me. I don't think I'll ever be without my Univalve! It's just that when I'm looking for a sound other than that which I call my own, I find myself fiddling around with knobs for what seems like forever. That's cool when I'm looking for my tone, not so cool when I'm trying to cop someone else's. Today I got it in my head to play a little AD/DC and then was curious how it would record with some of the new gear I've got. So in order to get a half way decent sound this is what I did: THD Univalve/JTM45 I like to keep the volume in my little studio maxed out at 95db. I played around with some EL34's in the Univalve, but didn't get anything decent below 100db.... So I stuck back in my trusty Mazda 6V6 and a couple of JJ Tesla ECC83's (ATX7). This kept the max sound (at ear level) below 95db. Fiddled around with the amp settings and mics till I got something decent. This is a lot of work because there are settings on the Univalve (pre) and JTM45 to think about, and they interact very differently. After about an hour I kindof gave up and and settled for where I was. I usually love fiddling with tubes and settings, but today I just wanted to play. PodXT Then back in the apartment and curious to see how the PodXT stacked up, I went to GuitarPort (Line6 website) and downloaded the BackinBlack(solo) patch. Time spent 2 minutes. Oh, and I recorded this one with the headphones. Here they are. The guitar was the same '02 LP Goldtop 57RI, bridge pickup, vol/tune open. I put just a touch of reverb on the Tube track to keep things even. Remember I don't have Angus's fingers or touch so try to listen to the tone not the playing! Can anyone tell which is which? Which one do you prefer? (the files are only 750k each so even DancesWithWhereWolves can listen in ) James butchering Angus #1 James butchering Angus #2 Edit: If you're interested, listen before reading any other posts. I'm gonna spill the beans below! Follow-ups: Snert\'s EQ\'ed mod Tube with Close Mic Tube with mic Off-Axis My Gear My Attempts at Music Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marc_Lafrance Posted October 5, 2003 Share Posted October 5, 2003 I like the sound of number 1 better but I think that number 2 sounds more like the original recording. "What's with these new bands, everyone knows rock attained perfection in 1974. It's a scientific fact." -Homer Simpson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marc_Lafrance Posted October 5, 2003 Share Posted October 5, 2003 Whoops double post "What's with these new bands, everyone knows rock attained perfection in 1974. It's a scientific fact." -Homer Simpson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dylan Posted October 5, 2003 Share Posted October 5, 2003 The 1st sample sounds the best to me. Although it is a bit bright. The 2nd sample sounds very mid-rangy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beermouse Posted October 5, 2003 Share Posted October 5, 2003 Not that my opinion means anything ( ) but I have to go with the general concensus that number 1 sounds better. Edit: Funny that they'd call it the BackinBlack patch when's it's obviously Shook Me All Night Long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael c Posted October 5, 2003 Share Posted October 5, 2003 Tough to compare because the sounds are absolutely nothing alike. #1 is way more overdriven and buzzy. With that said, I would say #1 is Pod and #2 is tubes. I've been using Pod/Amp Farm for the last few years (in the studio) because of convenience and access to different amp sounds. Used a tube amp last week for recording and was shocked at the difference. The modeling amps were really bright and somewhat one dimensional where the tube amp sounded much more natural. Of course it depends how you mic the tube amp. If the mic is centered on the middle of the cone it can be very bright and buzzy. If you move it a little more off axis, the amp records much more natural. Also on the mp3 examples, it sounded like there was a noise gate on #1 which is usually the case on modeling amps. Uh, of course I could be wrong! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caevan O’Shite Posted October 5, 2003 Share Posted October 5, 2003 Originally posted by James-Italy: "Which one do you prefer? (The files are only 750k each so even DancesWithWhereWolves can listen in... )"Schmahta$$!! I'll deal with you later, after I listen to these.... schmahta$$!! Ask yourself- What Would Ren and Stimpy Do? ~ Caevan James-Michael Miller-O'Shite ~ _ ___ _ Leprechaun, Esquire _ ___ _ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James-Italy Posted October 5, 2003 Author Share Posted October 5, 2003 Originally posted by michael c: Tough to compare because the sounds are absolutely nothing alike. #1 is way more overdriven and buzzy. With that said, I would say #1 is Pod and #2 is tubes. I've been using Pod/Amp Farm for the last few years (in the studio) because of convenience and access to different amp sounds. Used a tube amp last week for recording and was shocked at the difference. The modeling amps were really bright and somewhat one dimensional where the tube amp sounded much more natural. Of course it depends how you mic the tube amp. If the mic is centered on the middle of the cone it can be very bright and buzzy. If you move it a little more off axis, the amp records much more natural. Also on the mp3 examples, it sounded like there was a noise gate on #1 which is usually the case on modeling amps. Uh, of course I could be wrong!Spot on! #1 is the PodXT. Patch was downloaded from GuitarPort today "Back in Black (Solo)" and I did no modifications. #2 is the Tube amps. I tried low bass and high mid, treble. Hence the mid-rangy sound. No EQ or effects, except a touch of reverb on the #2 Tube amps to keep things fair. The Pod had reverb and noise gate/compressor. I used a SM57 slightly off axis about 2inches away closer to the outer edge than center. I also used a SM78 off axis and a Sennheiser finger mic, but didn't like them so they're not in the mix. My first attempt in a while recording with mic's on the amp. Should have stuck to the sound I usually use, but I was curious... The Pod's not really that bad and it makes one heck of a practise tool. Thanks for listening everyone! My Gear My Attempts at Music Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caevan O’Shite Posted October 6, 2003 Share Posted October 6, 2003 O.K., I haven't looked yet, but I favor the second track, and believe that that may be the "tube" track, as well. Though, I can't help but wonder, as you were dissatisfied with the results of tediously twiddling and tweaking, and the POD people provided you with a preset, tailor-made to sound like the brothers Young, if I'm only choosing the one that sounds the most like the original... Ask yourself- What Would Ren and Stimpy Do? ~ Caevan James-Michael Miller-O'Shite ~ _ ___ _ Leprechaun, Esquire _ ___ _ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caevan O’Shite Posted October 6, 2003 Share Posted October 6, 2003 Whoa, cool! I was right! I was all prepared to type a "D'OH!!" intro to this, thinking for sure that I'd been fooled. Well, you can be a fool some of the time, or, a lot of people are fools most of the time, but you can't fool around all of the time! Er, uh, or something like that. Look at it this way... both are miles ahead of what you had to work with, for the money especially, only a mere decade ago or so. We truly are NOW living in the golden age of guitar tones! Ask yourself- What Would Ren and Stimpy Do? ~ Caevan James-Michael Miller-O'Shite ~ _ ___ _ Leprechaun, Esquire _ ___ _ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James-Italy Posted October 6, 2003 Author Share Posted October 6, 2003 I prefer the second one and think the tone (not the playin) is closer to the original also. I think I'm gonna try some tone adjustments on the amp and try a close and direct mic placement. After I'm satisfied I'm just gonna set the amps up the way I usually play them. Of course I'll make a note of ALL the settings so next time I'll be able to dial it in quickly. I usually enjoy all that fiddling around, but yesterday I really just wanted to play. The good thing is that you learn from every experience, so hopefully it wasn't time wated. It's kind of weird actually because I was just trying to find Angus's tone of curiousity. I don't plan on recording anything like that anyway. And Kev, you are so right! These new tools out today like the Pod, pc based sutff, and cheap digital recorders are just amazing. My Gear My Attempts at Music Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NMcGuitar Posted October 6, 2003 Share Posted October 6, 2003 Both are good tones. My guess is that #1 is the POD. It has that slightly brighter edge to it which is more common with both modeling & with direct recording. That said, it is also the one I prefer the tone of - I think in a mix it would hold it's own a little better. . . . . . Now let's see if I'm right.... ------ May all your thoughts be random! - Neil www.McFaddenArts.com www.MikesGarageRocks.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loubeck Posted October 6, 2003 Share Posted October 6, 2003 I'll bite... I'm going to guess #1 is the POD and #2 is the amp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caevan O’Shite Posted October 6, 2003 Share Posted October 6, 2003 Originally posted by James-Italy: "I prefer the second one and think the tone is closer to the original also."I think that the "thunk" of a closed-back cab is more evident in the second track. (Are you, in fact, using a closed-back cab there, or is it the open-back combo, near a wall or something?) And the mids, especially the upper-mids, have a more laid back yet complex tone. The pronounced upper-mids- at least, through my cheesey, plasticy sounding little PC speakers (my AKG 'phones are out on loan)- of the first, POD track stood out to me. Probably because I've logged mad hours playing a Les Paul through a similar digital modeling DI preamp and headphones, and tried to sound more like your first track! Originally posted by James-Italy: "And Kev... These new tools out today like the Pod, pc based sutff, and cheap digital recorders are just amazing."Yes, I agree, but I also meant the boatloads of great tube amps and pickups and new guitars as well as a greater awareness of what really does make a great vintage guitar or amp or effect sound as good as it does, and, just as important, what doesn't. Stuff like your THD Univalve, goldtop RI, those pickups that you ordered... it's like the old Sears & Roebucks Christmas "Wishbook" gone completely berzerk on guitar gear nowadays! Ask yourself- What Would Ren and Stimpy Do? ~ Caevan James-Michael Miller-O'Shite ~ _ ___ _ Leprechaun, Esquire _ ___ _ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James-Italy Posted October 6, 2003 Author Share Posted October 6, 2003 Yeah, closed back 1x12" w/Vintage 30. To keep the ear level sound down, I turned the cab facing a acoustic dampened wall. Not the best for recording, but what can you do? I should go back to Florida next week and will be able to get the new pickups and Jensen capacitors waiting at my Mom's, oh and the tube mic I got from Myles. You're right again as usual Kev! Besides all the digital stuff, we also have great guitars and amps and tubes. And more importantly, the internet forums and guys like you and Myles and Dan Erlewine to learn from. Notice I put you in pretty good company there? My Gear My Attempts at Music Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue Strat Posted October 6, 2003 Share Posted October 6, 2003 (posted before reading the rest) I'd say that the 1st sample is with tubes. The second link (bottom) is with the POD. Ok, so I was wrong. To be fair though, we're listening to both of these tracks far removed from the source. I am surprised however, that the POD sounds that good! How did you record the two samples? I'd like a run down of the gear and techniques if you don't mind. Was the POD recorded direct to *.mp3? BlueStrat a.k.a. "El Guapo" ...Better fuzz through science... http://geocities.com/teleman28056/index.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caevan O’Shite Posted October 6, 2003 Share Posted October 6, 2003 Damn, James, that's embarrassing! I just like to talk guitars, I'm not really deserving of that! Besides, I got a lot from Mr. Erlewine, and a lot of others, just constantly reading! Ask yourself- What Would Ren and Stimpy Do? ~ Caevan James-Michael Miller-O'Shite ~ _ ___ _ Leprechaun, Esquire _ ___ _ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James-Italy Posted October 6, 2003 Author Share Posted October 6, 2003 Originally posted by bluestrat: (posted before reading the rest) I'd say that the 1st sample is with tubes. The second link (bottom) is with the POD. Ok, so I was wrong. To be fair though, we're listening to both of these tracks far removed from the source. I am surprised however, that the POD sounds that good! How did you record the two samples? I'd like a run down of the gear and techniques if you don't mind. Was the POD recorded direct to *.mp3?I guess my point was that the PodXT really isn't that bad. And sure easy to use! Hopefully, if I play around a bit I'll be able to come up with the tone that blows it away. Here are the details you were interested in. The PodXT was recorded like this: '03 LP 57RI bridge full vol/tone>PodXT>stereo analogue outs>Yamaha AW16G digital recorder The Tube was recorded like this: '03 LP 57RI bridge full vol/tone>THD Univalve Rock input, Vol 6 Noise reduction off, Hotplate off, Bass 4, Treble 4, Attitude 5>JTM45 Bass 2, Mid 8, Treble 8, Presence 4, Vol 8 (first plug)>second input JTM Vol 5>Engl 1x12" closed Celestion Vintage 30>SM57>Yamaha AW16G (I also used 2 other mics, but didn't like the results. The SM57 really earns it's reputation) Both were then re-recorded in Sonar (digitally transferred so I don't think we lost anything there). I didn't touch any EQ or anything on the recorder/mixer, except to add a touch of reverb to the totally dry Tube track. AW16G Digital out>Edirol SD-90 Studio Canvas Digital In>USB digital connection to PC>Sonar Sonar converts audio tracks to .wav or .mp3 (I've got the .mp3 plug in). Next time- maybe tomorrow night- I'm gonna try to bump the Bass up a notch or 2 and move the cab further away from the wall. Then I'll try close mic'ing direct and once again off axis. Not that I really want to do anything with it if I can nail the tone, I'm just curious. My Gear My Attempts at Music Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcunning30 Posted October 6, 2003 Share Posted October 6, 2003 i play through a tube amp. when you do shows, fans don't run up to you afterward excitedly proclaiming how your awesome tube tone rocked their socks off. to me, the whole tube vs. ss debate is pointless. besides, meshuggah plays through pod pros straight to the board during their shows. and dimebag, he's got those ss randalls too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schnert Posted October 7, 2003 Share Posted October 7, 2003 I think track #2 is miles better. Not as they are now though, but when doing some eq and trying to fit them in a mix. #1 has a tiresome digital quality to it (although some of it may be eq'ed out). Try listening to it loud and you'll see. The POD track is kinda already prosessed, so it's only fair that #2 also gets some eq treatment: James butchering Angus #1 And #2 with some eq treatment: James butchering Angus #2 eq\'ed Rista brød med geitost, nam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caevan O’Shite Posted October 7, 2003 Share Posted October 7, 2003 I would bet that you could find a situation where the somewhat hyped upper mid sound of the POD track would be best in the mix; that's one of the reasons that these modelers have been so successful for recording. My experience with using modeling based preamps is limited mostly to use as a headphone amp, or a jam-preamp feeding effects and a tube amp. I've found the "digital modeling sound" to usually be a bit hyped and "peaky" in the mids and upper mids. The best modeler sounds I've gotten have often been with P-90 equipped guitars. Anyways, by themselves, I like the tone of the Univalve/Marshall/Engle-with-Celestion/SM57 track best. Ask yourself- What Would Ren and Stimpy Do? ~ Caevan James-Michael Miller-O'Shite ~ _ ___ _ Leprechaun, Esquire _ ___ _ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James-Italy Posted October 7, 2003 Author Share Posted October 7, 2003 Originally posted by Schnert: I think track #2 is miles better. Not as they are now though, but when doing some eq and trying to fit them in a mix. #1 has a tiresome digital quality to it (although some of it may be eq'ed out). Try listening to it loud and you'll see. The POD track is kinda already prosessed, so it's only fair that #2 also gets some eq treatment: James butchering Angus #1 And #2 with some eq treatment: James butchering Angus #2 eq\'ed #2 Tubes- without EQ treatment (for comparison to Snert's modded one) Tubes no EQ Wow! That's a dramatic change. What EQ did you use and what changes did you make? I usually only make very slight adjustments, maybe I should play around more when mixing. I'm gonna re-record the Tube one tonight making a couple of amp setting and mic placement changes. I'll post those when I'm done. My Gear My Attempts at Music Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swiggy Posted October 7, 2003 Share Posted October 7, 2003 James, How much room % did you set on the pod ? If you want to achieve a less "in your face" sound, you can put in more room sound and an off-axis mic in the AIR II settings. Vincent Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James-Italy Posted October 7, 2003 Author Share Posted October 7, 2003 Originally posted by swiggy: James, How much room % did you set on the pod ? If you want to achieve a less "in your face" sound, you can put in more room sound and an off-axis mic in the AIR II settings. VincentDon't know... I just used the Pod patch from GuitarPort with it's amp/cab/mic settings. For room (reverb) I've got a pretty light general setting around 20% I think. My Gear My Attempts at Music Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schnert Posted October 7, 2003 Share Posted October 7, 2003 Originally posted by James-Italy: 2 Tubes- without EQ treatment (for comparison to Snert's modded one) Tubes no EQ Wow! That's a dramatic change. What EQ did you use and what changes did you make? I usually only make very slight adjustments, maybe I should play around more when mixing. I'm gonna re-record the Tube one tonight making a couple of amp setting and mic placement changes. I'll post those when I'm done.[/QB]I pulled out a bit around 500Hz, and added 60Hz and 10kHz on the Pultec eq on the UAD-1 card. Some compression to get a little more "thump", since the original was kinda thin. The Pultec is real nice on guitars, so if you don't have the UAD, go get one, or even better, get the real Pultec... Rista brød med geitost, nam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
revolead Posted October 7, 2003 Share Posted October 7, 2003 Originally posted by Marc_Lafrance: I like the sound of number 1 better but I think that number 2 sounds more like the original recording.Ditto that. James - I figured it out. I did prefer the first one, that has nothing to do with why I figured that would be the PODxt. I have a Yamaha DG Stomp that I noticed records WAY louder than micing an amp. I figured that, but it was something totally non-guitar related which lead me to my conclusion. Simple psychology. I figured if you put them in order it would be too obvious. So then you may have thought to just flip the order. But then you probably figured people would figure that. Which leaves you with a head toss. You were trying to prove the PODs recording benefits, which would I thought may have lead you to put it first. Sorry, just my over analysis. Probably doesn't even make sense. Thanks for sharing. Shut up and play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daddyelmis Posted October 7, 2003 Share Posted October 7, 2003 but it was something totally non-guitar related which lead me to my conclusion. Simple psychology. I figured if you put them in order it would be too obvious. So then you may have thought to just flip the order. But then you probably figured people would figure that. Which leaves you with a head toss. You were trying to prove the PODs recording benefits, which would I thought may have lead you to put it first. Sorry, just my over analysis. Probably doesn't even make sense. Thanks for sharing.[/QB]MAN IN BLACK All right: where is the poison? The battle of wits has begun. It ends when you decide and we both drink, and find out who is right and who is dead. VIZZINI But it's so simple. All I have to do is divine from what I know of you. Are you the sort of man who would put the poison into his own goblet, or his enemy's? Now, a clever man would put the poison into his own goblet, because he would know that only a great fool would reach for what he was given. I'm not a great fool, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you. But you must have known I was not a great fool; you would have counted on it, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me. MAN IN BLACK You've made your decision then7 VIZZINI Not remotely. Because iocane comes from Australia, as everyone knows. And Australia is entirely peopled with criminals. And criminals are used to having people not trust them, as you are not trusted by me. So I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you. MAN IN BLACK Truly, you have a dizzying intellect. VIZZINI Wait till I get going! Where was I? MAN IN BLACK Australia. VIZZINI Yes -- Australia, and you must have suspected I would have known the powder's origin, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me. MAN IN BLACK (very nervous) You're just stalling now. VIZZINI (cackling) You'd like to think that, wouldn't you? (stares at the Man in Black) You've beaten my giant, which means you're exceptionally strong. So, you could have put the poison in your own goblet, trusting on your strength to save you. So I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you. But, you've also bested my Spaniard which means you must have studied. And in studying, you must have learned that man is mortal so you would have put the poison as far from yourself as possible, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me. www.ruleradio.com "Fame is like death: We will never know what it looks like until we've reached the other side. Then it will be impossible to describe and no one will believe you if you try." - Sloane Crosley, Village Voice Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strat0124 Posted October 7, 2003 Share Posted October 7, 2003 Thats a fine example of recorded guitar tones vs preconceptions of amplifier tones. Because realistically once you've recorded them, its a whole different animal. I've heard of bands using pignoses (Frank Zappa), those little pocket headphone amps with the earphones taped to a SM58.....can't remember the band, and others who use stuff you wouldn't imagine, and guess what? It sounds fucking great! Plus given the fact that alot of pickers front end their amps with some sort of pedal anyway, I don't see why not use whatever sounds cool. The only place that there is a huge difference between your two examples would be on the stage. And maybe only to the player. What we hear and what our audience hears is way different. I'm an admitted tube snob, but I also will use whatever sounds cool to get what I want. Having said that, recording an amp with absolutely nothing in between the guitar and amp, with your mic preamp going direct to tape, when done right, is the coolest. Down like a dollar comin up against a yen, doin pretty good for the shape I'm in Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James-Italy Posted October 7, 2003 Author Share Posted October 7, 2003 Tried pulling the cab about 2 feet away from the wall, notching the bass settings up on both the Univalve and JTM45 a bit. Tube with Close Mic Off-Axis I like the Close mic one a lot better now. My Gear My Attempts at Music Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caevan O’Shite Posted October 8, 2003 Share Posted October 8, 2003 Daddyelmis- " !!!" Ask yourself- What Would Ren and Stimpy Do? ~ Caevan James-Michael Miller-O'Shite ~ _ ___ _ Leprechaun, Esquire _ ___ _ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.