Firestudio Project, Reamping, and You: Advice?

[ParsonsMatt]

Hey everyone,

I've got a Firestudio Project and I'm planning on reamping for my next CD.

I am going to buy a Radial X-Amp so I can get the best quality guitar signal to the amp. However, is it necessary to get a DI box as well? Or are the instrument inputs on the Firestudio good enough?

Thanks!

 

[Sacha]

An instrument input on your interface probably converts it to line level anywy much like a DI box. Try it out and see how it sounds. The nice thing with an active DI is you can split the signal out so you can record the dry while still monitoring through an amp or POD or whatever.

 

[ParsonsMatt]

Thanks! The Firestudio already does that, so I think I'll be safe with just the X-Amp.

 

[006]

A dedicated DI is usually a little better quality than an instrument IN on an interface...but that also depends on the quality of the DI unit you go with. If you have a budget that will only allow a Behringer DI, just stick with the FSP's inputs. If you can snag a JDI or something, then yeah you are technically better off.

But then again, we're not talking night and day difference (DI vs. interface instrument in), and on top of that the DI has to go into the FSP anyway...so that's really your call.

~006

 

[Metaltastic]

Forget the X-amp dude, get a Little Labs Redeye, which will reamp just as well as the X-amp (with less potential for line noise and ground loops cuz it's passive, and if you wanna say that passive isn't as good as active first off that's not true cuz it's a high-current, hi-Z signal being transformed to a low-current, low-Z signal, and second, the Cuniberti Reamp is passive too, and that one's good enough for Andy and James ), and can be switched to function as a bitchin' passive DI (subtly but noticeably better than the inst. ins on my Mackie Onyx satellite, and I doubt the inst ins on the Presonus stuff are any better)

 

[JeffTD]

The nice thing with an active DI is you can split the signal out so you can record the dry while still monitoring through an amp or POD or whatever.

This is also possible with a passve box like the Little Labs Redeye, which I HIGHLY recommend!

 

[ParsonsMatt]

A dedicated DI is usually a little better quality than an instrument IN on an interface...but that also depends on the quality of the DI unit you go with. If you have a budget that will only allow a Behringer DI, just stick with the FSP's inputs. If you can snag a JDI or something, then yeah you are technically better off.

But then again, we're not talking night and day difference (DI vs. interface instrument in), and on top of that the DI has to go into the FSP anyway...so that's really your call.

~006

Ahh, I see. Thanks for the info! I'll keep it in mind when budgeting my "new toy money"

Forget the X-amp dude, get a Little Labs Redeye, which will reamp just as well as the X-amp (with less potential for line noise and ground loops cuz it's passive, and if you wanna say that passive isn't as good as active first off that's not true cuz it's a high-current, hi-Z signal being transformed to a low-current, low-Z signal, and second, the Cuniberti Reamp is passive too, and that one's good enough for Andy and James ), and can be switched to function as a bitchin' passive DI (subtly but noticeably better than the inst. ins on my Mackie Onyx satellite, and I doubt the inst ins on the Presonus stuff are any better)

Thanks! That's great advice

This is also possible with a passve box like the Little Labs Redeye, which I HIGHLY recommend!

So the Little Labs Redeye is very good... I was also looking at the Cuniberti Reamp, since its the same price as the X-Amp.

Would the C. Reamp be the best choice in this situation, or would the Redeye be better? I think that the difference between the FSP instrument ins and the Redeye's DI wouldn't be too drastic, and if the Reamp is notably better than the Redeye at reamping, the choice would be clear. Also, I could later get a Countryman DI ( those seem to be highly rated in the reamp thread ).

Thanks for the advice!

 

[Metaltastic]

Having never used a Reamp, I haven't been able to compare the two. However, the only thing separating the Reamp from the Redeye is more stuff on the circuit board and more connections to allow it to be reversed to be used as a DI (not expensive differences), and it still costs more than the Reamp by $25. That cost of the Redeye goes to its fantastic transformer, Little Labs is highly respected in the pro audio world, and I trust their products. Furthermore, I usually avoid the gizmos with more features in favor of things that have less, but you have to realize that a reamp box is just a passive DI in reverse with a level control, so being able to switch it back really isn't that complicated, as mentioned above.

AND, more importantly, the tracks I reamp with my Redeye sound fucking great! So that's all that matters, and I think the above quantitative reasons are plenty to explain how the Redeye would sound just as good as the Reamp And the difference between the inst ins and the Redeye was subtle as I mentioned, but it was unmistakably noticeable.

 

[ParsonsMatt]

Thanks again Metaltastic!

Does anyone have any experience with the Reamp? Especially any comparative analysis against the Redeye?

 

[whoispetty]

I don't mean to dig up an old thread, but I was just curious.

Do I need a reamp box or xamp or anything of that sort if I'm wanting to send guitar from an output of the Firestudio into the amp? I have recorded DIs directly into the firestudio.
Will I just sacrifice tone or noise if I just run from the output into the amp?

Thanks

 

[ParsonsMatt]

Well, let me add my experience over the past year

Yes, you do need a reamp box. Otherwise you get a lot of noise and tone loss.

Also, the DI built in to the Firestudio totally sucks compared to the LL Redeye. I really recommend getting the Redeye, its a great piece of gear.

 

[whoispetty]

Awesome, thanks for the experienced advice

I'm gonna have to look for something a bit cheaper though. Hate to admit it, I'm a little low on cash.