View Single Post
Old 09-19-2011, 08:20 PM   #2014
flmason
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 642
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fran Guidry View Post
I don't see the term "Gearbox" in the post I quoted. I responded to that post. I was under the misapprehension that you wanted to learn how to get from making recordings that sound like the first one to recordings that sound like the second one.

Clearly you have some other objective.

Fran
My apologies Fran. I assumed you were up on the whole back story.

One part of it is that I've been trying to pin down whether or not amp sims like Gearbox do what they say (provide complete in the box high quality electric guitar sounds) or are bunk.

One group goes by, "It's not the tools it's the artist, equipment doesn't matter". The other pole is Gearslutz crowd.

My argument to the "Carpenter not Tools" crowd is, "Well OK, let's assume the tool (Gearbox et. al.) does exactly what the manufacturer claims, then what *are* the studio techniques that go from 'sounds home recorded to pro"?"

The actual on point responses to that sound about like... <<<crickets>>>, LOL!

Line 6 has claimed in writing, "Our sims produce exactly the same output as our modeled devices... measurably and proveably", in so many words.

So if that's fact, then application or standard recording studio methods from the point of mic output to final track should suffice...

On the other hand, if the Gearslutz are correct and you can't make the sound of a Trainwreck amp or whatever with a digital sim, then one of them with authority needs to make that case loudly and the digital sim industry needs to stop fooling folks out of thier $$$.

So yeah, I want to go from "sounds like ass" to "sounds like pro" and further believe it starts with nailing the tones, first, the the playing second, and so on.

A side constraint is that I need it to happen all "in the box" as I don't have the luxury of what you suggest, a pro studio.

So a side trek that I'm sure is of interest to many other hobbyists as well is... "Well, can it really all be done in the box to a commercial level of quality as the digitial tools manufacturers would suggest, or is that a just marketing BS?"

Haven't found what I'd call a definitive answer. And in asking some of the questions that are relevent I catch some flack along the lines of "No one cares about guitar tone details." (FWIW it's not just guitar that's of interest. Listening to radio today, seemed like not one instrument I heard sounds anything like they really sound in a real room. I'm interested in it all.)

Well, to that I say, "Tell that to the last few generations of audiences that bought all those guitar records, and the artists who obsessed over those tones and the studios that worked on them." There seem to be some folks that think that somehow "recording" exists for it's own sake and not to transcribe and/or be part of the creation process? I dunno.

Seems to me that one reason recordings sound like ass is the basic tones aren't there. So studio techniques to fix that seem to be a fair topic herein.

So when I get blasted, I tend to feel a little puzzled, especially since everyone will acknowledge that "Live" and "Recorded/Studio" are "different things".

Seems that most of the recordings that drew people into music were studio cuts, and studio cuts generally don's sound same as live, so the delta lives in the studio techniques, hence how I arrived here. Looking for answers to that delta.
flmason is offline   Reply With Quote