Whoops! Typo there... is it "clean sounding" i.e. Am I going to hear a wierd buzz/hiss if I take a Samson dry track & run it thru an amp?
Preparing your tracks for reamping: A Guide
- Thread starter Glenn Fricker
- Start date
Mutant
I hate that supercow !
No weird buzz.
Its noise floor is smoother (much closer to white noise) than the noise floor of my EMGs picking 50hz from low quality power cables in my walls.
http://www.samsontech.com/products/relatedDocs/S-direct_ownman.pdf
Good enough (barely) for EMGs which IIRC have about 80dbs of dynamics (IIRC signal peaks at about -15 and goes down to about -95 when the guitar lies upside down on my bed (and about -104 with volume pot at zero))
Lots of IIRCs because for normal playing for fun i prefer bypassed V-Amp even if it cuts everything above 15500hz.
btw. The EMG signal is loud enough to capture full dynamics, so i don't need a mic preamp, but i wonder if it could be improved by that two 9v batteries trick.
QV
Member
OK lets juggle some numbers.
Q:Why do i need a Direct Injection Box ?
A:To convert your signal from high impedance source to low impedance destination (mic preamp for example).
The formula:
voltage% = di box input impedance/(source impedance+di box input impedance)*100
So lets see what % of your signal will you get if you connect your passive humbucker (37403ohm) directly to:
Bellari RP220 with 600ohm input impedance:
600/(37403+600)*100
=1,578822725%
One and a half mothersucking % !!!uke:
J48: (220000ohm)
220000/(37403+220000)*100
=85,46908933%
OK but not great
Type 48: (10000000ohm)
10000000/(37403+10000000)*100
=99,62736377%
No comment ! Numbers don't lie .
Demeter VTDB-2B: (27000000ohm)
27000000/(37403+27000000)*100
=99,86166201%
JDV 3900000/3937303 * 100 = 99.05257482
Not so bad either...
The UA 6170 has 2.2 MOhm instrument input and it sounds pretty damn good. Numbers don't lie but like someone already mentioned on this forum: two plus two CAN equal FIVE for sufficiently large values of two
Luckily there is more to tone then just signal...
Mutant
I hate that supercow !
Mutant
I hate that supercow !
Go to your physics teacher and tell him "numbers aside !".
In our case numbers=physics=facts.
Look few posts up.
QV
Member
Remember what we are talking about: capturing signal as unaffected as possible for future reamping.
Magic ? Placebo ?
Well, this is my point, unafected signal is NOT always required for great results. In most general terms there are advantages to some coloration - hence my example above with the UA 6176 (only 2,2 MOhm input). If this was not the case why then do we talk in terms of tone, use tube amps and various microphones if not for coloration?
There is more to tone then pure signal, even in the case of future re-amping. The scope is wider then you define it and good results are being obtained with a wider set of parameters. And those parameters can not be fully described by a few simple equations.
So to sum it up, I don't think you're wrong, but I do think you're not right
QV
Member
Another example would be the Avalon DI... don't remember the model. It colors the signal as well and this is why some people use it.
Mutant
I hate that supercow !
Well, this is my point, unafected signal is NOT always required for great results. In most general terms there are advantages to some coloration - hence my example above with the UA 6176 (only 2,2 MOhm input). If this was not the case why then do we talk in terms of tone, use tube amps and various microphones if not for coloration?
There is more to tone then pure signal, even in the case of future re-amping. The scope is wider then you define it and good results are being obtained with a wider set of parameters. And those parameters can not be fully described by a few simple equations.
So to sum it up, I don't think you're wrong, but I do think you're not right
I generally agree with you , but i have one question:
How would you remove the coloration if you later decided that it does not sound that good after reamping the signal with a completely different amplifier that adds the same type of coloration (for example pronounced mids x 2 would be too much mids) ?
greyskull
Member
- Mar 22, 2006
- 6,072
- 7
- 38
last time i had a physics lesson was about 8 years ago.
im just personally not about basing my judgement of a product on figures, specs etc.
i want to know if it works, works reliably and sounds good
_RiseInside_
Member
the little labs red eye is a nice recording tool that should be mentioned when reamplification is discussed.
http://www.littlelabs.com/redeye.html
I would like to know how good it is electronics-wise
http://www.littlelabs.com/redeye.html
I would like to know how good it is electronics-wise
Gnash
Lefty
Maybe a dumb question, I don't know. I was going to buy the J48, but after this thread, I'm looking for something to work good for passives. What is the best (or better than J48) DI for passive pickups in the $200 price range. Here's the dumb ? Would a Sans amp Bass Di be preferable for passive guitar pickups, or even work. Trying to kill two birds...
GuitarHack
Krank it UP!
Given that the Firepod's Instrument Input Impedance is 1 Mohm and I use EMG's, the calculation would be the same for the Samson (as above with the EMG example) as for the Firepod if I was to use it to record my dry tracks:
1000000/(10000+1000000)*100=99%
Therefore I just need a reamp box. I am looking at the Radial X-amp.
The combination of Firepod as my DI and X-amp for reamping would cover my bases nicely wouldn't it???
Mutant
I hate that supercow !
Yes Firepod will be even better than di box because you will not loose anything between your di box and preamp (everything will be ones and zeros at that point).
re X-amp: It does its job.
Always compare different options before you buy, read reviews, look at specs etc.
http://www.radialeng.com/di-xamp.htm
vs
http://www.reamp.com/
vs
http://www.littlelabs.com/redeye.html
vs
http://www.mil-media.com/td-1.html
http://www.reamp.com/users/
Ask him (PM) ! He probably tried/has both x-amp and reamp.
QV
Member
That would be difficult, this is why you have to use the right tool for the right application. The point is there are differences between DI's, and some of those characteristics can be used to your advantage. Having a 99.999% un-altered signal is not the end-all, be all solution, neither is the impedance requirement - the differences gives you that much more creative control. The scenario above could be easily changed to using a colored DI for an instrument with inadequate mids. Avalon DI comes with rudimentary EQ - why?
I have the JDV, the UA and X-Amp.
Happy as a clam
Mutant
I hate that supercow !
Found a thread:
http://www.ultimatemetal.com/forum/andy-sneap/225592-reamp-vs-x-amp.html
http://www.ultimatemetal.com/forum/andy-sneap/225592-reamp-vs-x-amp.html
James Murphy said:
Mutant
I hate that supercow !
That would be difficult, this is why you have to use the right tool for the right application. The point is there are differences between DI's, and some of those characteristics can be used to your advantage. Having a 99.999% un-altered signal is not the end-all, be all solution, neither is the impedance requirement - the differences gives you that much more creative control. The scenario above could be easily changed to using a colored DI for an instrument with inadequate mids. Avalon DI comes with rudimentary EQ - why?
I have the JDV, the UA and X-Amp.
Happy as a clam
IMHO Its easier to change unaffected signal to your liking at the time of reamping than to fix bad (working nicely only with the amp you monitored through while recording) signal with additional possibly noise producing and dynamics reducing effectors + to change the signal for the new amp.
1 operation vs 2.
