Found 400 results
Found 400 results
This would be the impossible part - a seriously transparent pre is usually expensive, and the interface would still color the sound.Would it be possible to just run the microphone through an interface and then into the computer to get a completely dry + uncolored signal
You could try running the signal from the interface to the DI box to the inst input on the pre (if it has one), but unless you were going for a particularly colored/distorted sound I would let it go.and then have him "reamp" that signal through his preamp?
These won't work good together nor singularly - the head is a very cheap solid state head and the other is a very cheap cab with cheap speakers, they may look good and stroke your ego but if you want stuff that big to sound good you'll have to pay more than that.Hi all, will this head
work well with this cab at loud volumes?
that's true for tube amps, but solid state amps only need the amp's output impedance to be lower than the cab input's, so 4ohm out into 8ohm in is fine.You've got to match the Ohm sockets
He's right OP lugging a 4x12 cab around is a pain in the ass, and if you want to play venues a PA system and a mic in front of your cab will make you sound so much louder and clearer to the audience it's not even funny.The speakers won't be any good so the overall tone of the amp won't be all that nice. Do you really need a 4x12? They're absolutely massive and in general you just don't need them, you'd be better off with a good 2x12 or even a 1x12.
It's around as much as marshall MG amps, and with a hell of a lot of post production you can make a marshall MG sound good enough, but I don't see that as a reason to keep using MG amps.Guitarrig is disliked by a group of people, but it is around for a reason, and heard some awesome tones created with it.
Bias is shilled by everyone, and the people who praise it so much seem to have never tried it.positive grid bias (everybody seems to love that one)
These are a very very solid choice OP.and the lepou amp sims (those are free)
This is probably true OP, practice with the software you use and you'll lear to use it as you'll learn to make actual amps sound good/better.But if you don't have some experience with the software it could be hard to get a good (recording) tone.
Unless you get a good sample library and you program everything nicely enough, that is.But it will still sound nothing like a real bass guitar.
Any reason you use pro tools instead of any other DAW like reaper, studio one, logic, reason and so on apart from the fact that they've probably told you it's the "industry standard" at the audio engineering course you attended?Pro Tools
Yes.Do I just take the main out's to the MBox line in's?
Latency depends on the computer's processing power, the data interface (usb, firewire, ...) and the drivers.What I'm most concerned with is the latency because the mixer has some really bad latency issues in cubase.
I think you can't do that easily, and the resulting sound won't justify the hassle.What would you guys think of micing the amp and running the preout at the same time?
The amp doesn't sound much good and that wouldn't make it sound any better.Do you think it would be too muddy? I understand that you would have a completely different tone using the pre out. I just don't want to buy another 1/4 cable just for that if the experiment isn't worth my time.
No, you can't.Lastly, does anyone know if this mixer has any fader control capabilities in PT?
Consider switching to something that's not pro fools.I haven't set anything up yet so I was curious to find out some answers before I start.
You should know about the 24 hour rule.I'm thinking about buying the other parts of gear that I will need to get, tonight.
1. read the introduction to recording sticky
1. I'm looking for a audio interface $100 or less.
2. Windows 10
3. Record mic though various programs like games and OBS and teamspeak 3 which is like skype a bit, but way better in the audio way.
4. Being able to record guitar would be nice, but not really remotely needed for now
5. Will it be fine to have on almost all the time?
6. I'm looking to sound really nice, even tho I've only got a Samson R21S (Audio card is near garbage)(May get something like a at2020 later on)
I'd go for a pair of JBL LSR308 at least, then if you're serious about this whole thing you might wanna get a pair of yamy HS8, ADAM a7x or genelec 8040, depending on how you like them.How much do you think is enough to get a good set that will last me a while?
USB3 is of course an improvement over USB2, but if you're gonna use them for audio they're just about the same and they both have the flaws of USB.Surely the 3.0 stuff is at least an improvement over 2.0?
AFAIK the 2112RC (20w, 1ch, controls on top) also has the lucky13 pre.Only the 5212 has the lucky 13 circuit
You tho wrote "Monitoring is one small part. I don;t know who said it, but accurate clocking is just as important", and now you tell me I'm right when I say that's wrong, but again you seem to reiterate what you said was wrong.I understand that.
Most people on this forum won't be going off and buying ADAM/Focal/Barefoot monitors, or buying a nanoSync either.
And I never stated that monitoring wasn't important; it's 1 part of the process.
What I meant is that we are debating that the advantages brought by higher resolution and sampling frequencies aren't a matter of preference, and if we agreed it was a matter of preference we wouldn't be debating anything technical.People debate preference all the time; gear recommendation threads a good example. It's validating your preference that moves that discussion.
Couple things:In terms of hardware, true. 24-bit is all we see.
Not in any current DAW versions, at least.
Pro-Tools 9 was completely 32-float
Pro-Tools 9 HD RTAS structure was 32-float
Logic 9 was 32-float
Reaper was 32-float not too long ago, but I don't really care for Reaper
Ableton 8 used 32-float
Don't really know where you're getting that data from, but from the tech standpoint the headroom offered by 32bit int would be 192.66dB, while that one offered by 24bit int would be 144.49.But, with for a lot of applications, you wouldn't gain the benefits of 24 vs 32 bit depth anyways. I think the depth difference is something like 4 dBFS (from -140 to -144). So, a very negligible difference. Unnoticeable really, but some wad somewhere will say they can hear the difference.
Combing tho has nothing to do with sampling rate and resolution, so I don't see what you're on about here.Some hardware can mask combing.
Yes, but we're not talking about performance and experience and stuff, we're talking about sound, we're arguing that if you record the same shit at a higher sampling rates and possibly higher resolution will still be shit, but it will sound better.I could give some people the best gear in the world and still get a turd. Everything is tied together.
From my experiences, having better sample rates/resolution will never help or correct crap technique and inexperience.
Respectively no, it's a good idea, no, I don't see anything that you're overlooking if I'm getting your description right, and no, what you're doing isn't that common.So, are there any flaws with this approach? Any reason not to do it like this or anything that I am overlooking? Or have I just figured out something that is already common practice?
I haven't read a single book on mixing and I find that theory is something I couldn't live without - it's much better to know why to do something and why it causes an effect instead of knowing that "if my mix sounds too muddy I need to turn down the bass knob on the eq" without knowing what that's actually doing.It seems to be a very practical book instead of just theory it has a series of listening exercises and "homework".
Whoever it was, he was wrong.Monitoring is one small part. I don;t know who said it, but accurate clocking is just as important, as is accurate A/D D/A conversion, properly captured source material, processing, personal technique, etc.
How fast and how much data you can manage/record/reproduce depends on the computer you're using more than anything - if you used the same rednet system on a $200 laptop with a 5400rpm HDD you wouldn't be able to record many tracks at once.a RedNet that samples 60 channels of I/O just fine at 192/32.
If it was a matter of preference alone we wouldn't really be debating.This debate is more about preference.
Floating point audio converters are so uncommon that you could say they don't exist, and there's no DAW that even lets you record floating point audio.a large number of engineering sessions at 88.2/24 and 88.2/32-float.
Meaning what exactly?If you have an analog console (for example, an AWS924+), you can somewhat get away with lower sample rates because of analog signal path.
Nobody's arguing that you can't make stuff sound better when recording it at 16/44.1, we're arguing that stuff sounds better when you record it at higher sample rates and higher resolution.that shows that a good enough engineer can overcome the known and inherent limitations of lower sample and bit rates.
You should read the previous posts in this thread.44.1khz - stick with that and save yourself the hassle - the other sample rates don't sound any better - it's a bunch of marketing hype.
It's likely caused by the fact that you're connecting a line output into a hi-z input.Any ideas what this could be, and how to fix it?