#1
Howdy,


I've been trying to recording recently with my 6505 head (Its just a head and a 4x12 picked up by a shure sm57)

So, my problem is the peavy is loud as ****. And trying to listen to tone tests/different mic placements or even just record the other half of a track is hard as hell to do because i can't hear jack shit other than the amp. And seeing as how I don't have a lot of space, I'm thinking that im screwed.

So do I just invest 200$ in some good studio monitor headphones or what? Any advice is appreciated
#2
yeah, you need some good monitor headphones or get a smaller amp to use for recording...
#3
Why don't you just put the amp in a different room to what your playing in?

x
Fender Geddy Lee Jazz
Warwick Corvette $$
Rockbass Streamer Fretless
Hartke HA5000
SWR Triad

Quote by Victory2134
I happen to enjoy every mankiss from shinhoman.
#4
When ever I have recorded big amps. I have recorded while a guy played. He would dick around for a while till I got the right sound then I would go check in another room. This involved long ass chords though lol.

I think trying to record a big amp like that by yourself would be a pain in the ass lol.
#5
Quote by FireHawk

I think trying to record a big amp like that by yourself would be a pain in the ass lol.


Oh man you have no idea.
#6
I share your pain

Good studio headphones (like the Audio Technica ATH M50's) will help a lot. My solution to this problem is I have a bank of DI's, which I played, and I re-amp them with different mic positions (marking the positions with masking tape on the cab) and then I pick the one I like the best to get my mic position.
#7
Quote by AdamG313
I share your pain

Good studio headphones (like the Audio Technica ATH M50's) will help a lot. My solution to this problem is I have a bank of DI's, which I played, and I re-amp them with different mic positions (marking the positions with masking tape on the cab) and then I pick the one I like the best to get my mic position.


How much would that cost to just start doing (getting a DI box and reamping)?
#8
What interface do you have? You may not need a DI- box.

A re-amp box will probably set you back £90, and a DI- box about the same, although there are always cheaper alternatives. Something like the Radial Pro-RMP will give you quality results.
#9
If you record DI you can always reamp later.

Hate to tell you, though, but the #1 problem with your sound is YOU! If you have a good musician playing any instrument in any room with any mic it will sound pretty good.

Changing the mic, the room, the instrument will make a small difference.

Change the musician. That's the big difference.
"Virtually no one who is taught Relativity continues to read the Bible."

#10
Quote by Bubonic Chronic
If you record DI you can always reamp later.

Hate to tell you, though, but the #1 problem with your sound is YOU! If you have a good musician playing any instrument in any room with any mic it will sound pretty good.

Changing the mic, the room, the instrument will make a small difference.

Change the musician. That's the big difference.


I don't have a problem with the sound. It sounds great (and by association, I sounds great ;] ) Its the actual recording process im having trouble with as I said, kind of hard to play to a click track when your peavy head is tearing paint off the walls.


And btw I use a line 6 ux2.
#11
No, you're right man, it can very easily be a huge pain to record yourself no matter how good or bad you sound. Talent/skill only gets you so far when you have the wrong mic pointed in the wrong direction on the wrong side of the room... Not saying you do, just thinking about an earlier poster's suggestion.

Headphones would help a whole lot if you're trying to play to a click track.

To get the tone right, it may take some time, but once you find the "sweet spot" once, you'll have a better place to start each time. Start with the mic on axis in the center of a cone about an inch away. Play for a second and record it. Then listen back and see what needs to be changed. Move it towards the edge and tilt it off axis to warm up the tone if it needs. Keep doing this a few times and you'll find a good spot. Even if you have headphones, with an amp that loud it will bleed through and affect the tone you're hearing so you'd have to take these steps anyway.
#12
Small technicality here, but to reamp correctly, you don't use a DI box, you use a reamp box. Two similar but different beasts.

CT
Could I get some more talent in the monitors, please?

I know it sounds crazy, but try to learn to inhale your voice. www.thebelcantotechnique.com

Chris is the king of relating music things to other objects in real life.
#13
Quote by axemanchris
Small technicality here, but to reamp correctly, you don't use a DI box, you use a reamp box. Two similar but different beasts.

CT

Axeman, this is the first I've ever heard of a "reamp box". Just kinda funny, given the number of discussions I've read and participated in about reamping. Learn something new every day...

I don't want to hijack the thread, but I think discussing my setup and getting your suggestions on that might help the overall discussion here:

I'm still experimenting to see how I want to reamp for serious recording. Here's the gear I have on hand:
- TASCAM 164UF mixing board recorded through USB connection with Reaper; the board can take balanced or unbalanced inputs on each of its 6 channels with pre-amps
- Various electric guitars
- Digitech GNX4 for effects and tone shaping
- JVM-410h head (has XLR line out)
- 1960a cab, w/SM57 and/or sE2200a (large diaphram condenser) available for micing
- Samson DI box (active)
- ART Tube MP Studio
- Roland drums, SM58 vocal mic

Lately I've been plugging the guitar direct into my TASCAM 164UF (recording that channel) and sending the output through the "sub" bus which goes out to the instrument input on the GNX4 for processing, then out to the JVM-410 head, and back out the head's XLR line out into another channel on the board (recoreded) and sending that channel to the main bus for monitoring (through powered wedge monitors and/or keyboard monitors, and/or headphones). The volume level on the sub channel is waaaay down there, like right between 20 and infinity.

This lets me monitor a basic guitar tone (and keep it if we like it), yet have a dry version available for re-amping. It also keeps the volume levels low enough to minimize bleed-through in singer's SM58 for the reference vocal track (the drums are digital and the singer is also the drummer). We can have that "vocal reference track" in the headphones mix while the singer doubles the vocals with the sE2200a in the makeshift vocal booth later. That "reference track" may or may not end up in the final mix.

I plan to re-amp guitar by playing the track back through the sub channel, the MFX, and the amp with various settings, mic combinations, and placements until I get what I'm looking for.

I know I could pass my guitar signal through either the Samson DI Box or the Tube MP to the MXF/amp and out the XLR to the board--I haven't been delighted with the tone/dynamics in the monitors with the current approach and I'm confident that would help out (even though it would be a pain to set up every time since the DI Box and tube pre-amp are part of our stage rig). Both gadgets have 1/4" unbalanced outs in addition to the XLR balanced outs.

After reading up on reamp boxes, I've come to the conclusion that I'm essentially using my TASCAM board as a reamp box. My GNX4 has line inputs that I could use instead of the instrument input, but I haven't tried that yet; it's a pain setting up different I/O chains on that thing.

So, Axeman, I'm interested your thoughts are on this set-up/process. Apparently since I'm not that happy with tone/dynamics on the wet guitar track, the TASCAM board is doing a poor job serving as a reamp box, even with the volume scaled way back; a good re-amp box should solve that, if going through the GNX4's line input doesn't?
Last edited by jetwash69 at Aug 28, 2011,
#15
Quote by axemanchris
Small technicality here, but to reamp correctly, you don't use a DI box, you use a reamp box. Two similar but different beasts.

CT

Almost true You can use most passive DI boxes in reverse to similar effect, however I have heard there is some signal degradation vs dedicated re-amp kits.
Hey, look. Sigs are back.
#16
I can record my Trace Elliot with my B-52 4x12 just fine in my small room, you just need a powerful monitor system, and it's rather easy...and you also don't need a crap tone of volume off the amp to get a decent line level...especially with a 6505, it's all preamp gain, you don't need volume.
#17
Quote by ethan_hanus
I can record my Trace Elliot with my B-52 4x12 just fine in my small room, you just need a powerful monitor system, and it's rather easy...and you also don't need a crap tone of volume off the amp to get a decent line level...especially with a 6505, it's all preamp gain, you don't need volume.


Well as Ola says: Cranking up the volume helps the tubes color the sound, which is very very true for the 6505. Im not cranking up the volume to 5, its stuck at about two, which is fine. But when I have my (not super great quality) headphones on the ONLY thing I can hear is me playing the amp, everything else just sounds fait in the backround.

But as I said, I can get the tone, I know mic placements etc etc. My tone isn't the problem. It's actually being able to hear what i'm playing along to.

the solution seems to be to just get so 200$ studio monitor headphones. Thanks guys!
#18
i recently did this, i used in ear headphones and put like studio headphones on over them. this generally worked even though i was right in front of the amp [120 watts on a 4 by 12]. if even then that fails i have a pair of those ear protection things builders use. but other than that you, you could plug up one ear with like ear plugs, and use your other ear right up against the amp to find the sweet spot, and mark it with a bit of tape. in studios you see they do 2 strips of electrical tape and make an L shape. in the corner of the L, thats where your mic sits comfortably. that what i do and then you never have to find the spot again. you just EQ you amp till it sounds sick on headphones, not by ear, and if need be, EQ it to death after. Simples.
Gibson Les Paul Classic 1960
Engl Powerball 120 Watt
Orange PPC212 Cabi
ISP Decimator
MXR 10-band EQ
Boss OS-2
#19
Quote by DisarmGoliath
Almost true You can use most passive DI boxes in reverse to similar effect,


Correct. Note the word I highlighted. And I *have* done this more than once with acceptable results.

Quote by DisarmGoliath

however I have heard there is some signal degradation vs dedicated re-amp kits.


.... and correct again.

My knowledge of impedance and stuff isn't quite what it should be, but here it is as I understand it:

Your guitar puts out an instrument level signal, which I believe is hotter than the line level signal that something like, say, a mixer or an interface would put out.

Now, you don't always *need* to take advantage of the hotter signal put out by something at instrument level, but here is my experience:

For some things like pick squeals, long-held sustained notes that trail off to feedback and those sorts of things, I find that you DO need that hotter signal to make the amp behave the way you want it to.

If you record a track dry and then feed it back through an amp at line level, the amp just doesn't behave the same. The squeals don't come out right, the sustained notes just die rather than trail off to feedback, and that sort of thing.

I'm sure there are other situations where instrument level is preferable to line level.

So, a DI box will feed a signal to an amp at line level. A reamp box will send it to the amp at instrument level.

CT
Could I get some more talent in the monitors, please?

I know it sounds crazy, but try to learn to inhale your voice. www.thebelcantotechnique.com

Chris is the king of relating music things to other objects in real life.
#20
Sounds like my mixer works a little like a reamp box, but even with the output volume lower than -20 db, it's still putting out line-level impedence, even though it's unbalanced.

And that's enough to screw up dynamics...

I'll have to experiment with the GNX4 and see if it works like a reamp box when you get the input from the line-ins. It does have a reamp feature for the stuff you record with the built-in compact flash card, and I bet that works the same for stuff you record through its USB connection, too. I'll be surprised if it's not the same for the line-in, too.

What do you make of the discussion at the link I posted above?
#21
Probably no one in the original thread cares, but just in case anyone gets this from the searchbar when researching GNX4 reamping, here's some follow-up:

I finally got around to plugging the board's sub output to the GNX4's line-in with the line-in set to run the input through the whole onboard effects chain. Now I can have the sub channel back at normal volumes and I have all the dynamics back.

So basically the board wasn't working much like a Re-amp Box because it was still putting out line-level signal (albeit low decibels, but still line-level), but the GNX4 is working like a Re-amp Box when I use the line-in input instead of the instrument input. The board is doing a great job in a DI Box role, though.

So even if while recording I used a DI Box to split the dry signal straight out of the guitar and send it to the GNX4/JVM at the same time as the board, that would help what I hear in the monitors and record on the wet track, but it wouldn't have fixed the problem when re-amping through the board later. But using the line-in in the GNX4 does fix that, too.

Thanks for the great information everyone; especially Axemanchris. It helped me solve a problem I didn't even know I had.
#22
Dunno if this has been brought up. But recording an amp that big and loud in a small room is going to sound shit... I'm assuming the room hasn't been acoustically treated.
All I want is for everyone to go to hell...
...It's the last place I was seen before I lost myself



Quote by DisarmGoliath
You can be the deputy llamma of the recordings forum!
#23
Quote by ChemicalFire
Dunno if this has been brought up. But recording an amp that big and loud in a small room is going to sound shit... I'm assuming the room hasn't been acoustically treated.

Mentioned this the other day, but not necessarily. Assuming you know how to choose and then place microphones to an educated level, it is pretty easy to get minimal room sound with very basic DIY damping of reflections (namely hanging a thick duvet behind the mic, as you would realistically be using a cardioid mic in this situation).
Hey, look. Sigs are back.
#25
+1 on Iso cabs, that might work.
I do also use a 5150, and probably going to buy myself an SM57 soon, I guess I'll be up for the same pain in the ass protocol for a loooong time. You could try an attenuator of some sorts, and use its line out + cab impulses, but then it won't be as warm as close micing it.
*chugga chugga chuggity chug chug chug*