View Single Post
Old 09-20-2011, 08:28 AM   #2016
Gizzmo0815
Human being with feelings
 
Gizzmo0815's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 509
Default

Flmason you don't quit. I admire your tenacity, but it truly is in the wrong thread. The gear thread spinoff died a quick death, which should be a clue for you that it's a tired subject. You want to insist on taking about gear in THIS thread...for some reason. Since you clearly intend to do it regardless, I'll help you drive the thread into the depths of semantic hell:

It is quite clear to me, and I would argue to most everyone that uses them, that amp simulators do not, and currently can not, provide an exact simulation of a real amplifier. But it also doesn't matter what they sound like because there's no right or wrong way to use them.

If you want the sound of a real amplifier...use a real amplifier, understanding that this inherently limits the flexibility of the rig. If you are more interested in flexibility and having a LOT of tone shaping capability typically for a significantly lower price tag, simulators are probably your best bet.

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

This isn't an accurate portrayal of the responses you've gotten here. No one has said that equipment doesn't matter (though some have said that equipment matters less). And the statement above is a blatant mischaracterization of the responses you've gotten so far.

Quote:
Originally Posted by flmason
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"?"
First of all. Yep has already provided a truly PHENOMENAL outline of what his interpretation of good studio and/or recording technique is. Unfortunately his points imply a need to experiment HEAVILY with his suggestions, and find out what works for YOU. If you want US to do it for you, I think you'll find more <crickets>...<crickets>...<crickets>...

Your excercise in assumption, that marketing from the manufacturer of a product like Gearbox is factual is just plain pointless. It's an exercise in the hypothetical. And defining what is and is not "pro" is equally pointless because it is subjective. It would be much more useful to attempt to go from "what sounds bad in your opinion" to "what sounds good in your opinion". Which is still subjective, but it does actually make it personal, as opposed to relying on the directions or opinions of others to define for you what a recording should sound like.

Quote:
Originally Posted by flmason
Line 6 has claimed in writing, "Our sims produce exactly the same output as our modeled devices... measurably and proveably", in so many words.
Translation: "Our computer software uses the same algorithms that our digital amps use. And those algorithms are designed to approximate the sounds of some well known amplifiers."

Simple.

Quote:
Originally Posted by flmason
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 $$$.
There is no authority that can stop Line 6 from conducting their marketing campaigns, this is a ridiculous pipe dream. And the most logical approach from a potential buyer would be to simply try the different options and choose the sound they like the best...and be done with it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by flmason
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.
I'm certain that this is where you're encountering resistance in the form of the "it's the carpenter not the tools" responses. Nailing tone is easy, you've already highlighted that. You simply play a note and adjust your rig until you hear the tone you wanted to hear. If you can't do it, it is easily possible to change your rig so that you can get the tone you want to hear. Your "rig" can include everything between your hands, and the recording medium. Microphones, cables, amps, preamps, picks, strings, amp sims, the room, your headphones, your speakers, your PA system, WHAT...EVER. Easy.

However, playing well, with good technique, and developing your own playing style will go a much longer way towards defining you as an artist. That is what most of the people here are saying. The way you play your rig is much more of a artistic factor than what your rig is made of. This is because YOU will never play the same way as anyone else. The decisions you make when playing, the methods you used to learn to play, the physical limitations posed by your own body will always make YOUR playing different from anyone else's.

Consider this carefully: I don't think anyone here denies you the claim that tone can be reproduced. I do, however, think that most of the people here feel that tone is one small part of the whole finished product. And I would submit that dedicating 90% of the effort to defining tone in a recording that consists of hundreds of other factors (many of which will have a significantly greater impact on the quality of the finished recording than your tone) besides tone is a waste of time and resources.

Quote:
Originally Posted by flmason
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.
Short and sweet. It is impossible to make your in the box recording, done in your home, sound like it was done in a professional studio. Clearly.

This does not, however, mean that your in the box recording can't sound good.

Quote:
Originally Posted by flmason
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?"
The statement "You can make a recording that sounds like it was recorded in a professional studio by using in the box software in your bedroom" is so clearly marketing BS that I have a hard time believing you're even questioning it.

However the statment "You can make a recording that sounds good, or even excellent by using in the box software, or good hardware, and good recording techniques, in a workspace well designed for recording" is what, I think, this thread is about. Understand your tools, understand your limits, and learn the most effective ways to work around both.

Quote:
Originally Posted by flmason
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.)
You HAVE found the answer though. You just don't want to admit that the answer does in fact imply that you have limitations about what you can reasonably achieve given your self-prescribed constraints. You're catching flack because you continue to insists that there is a more clear answer than everything you've already discovered.

Quote:
Originally Posted by flmason
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.
This is personal choice! "Tone" is personal. YOUR tone is personal. So there is no way to FIX tone. Tone is a decision...a choice...not something that can be defined as correct or incorrect. So your search for tone will only end when YOU are satisfied with it. Studio techniques will not provide it for you, and they can not change something you don't like into something that you do like. The studio techniques Yep sought out to describe are designed to take a sound, that you (or "the artist") has already defined, and create a proper recording of it. If you want to change the tone after it is recorded, that is, agian, a personal decision that can be made for any number of reasons artistic or technical and which is again not able to be defined as "right" or "wrong", and, again, there is no answer that anyone can give you that will ensure you are doing it correctly.

You are trying to make art into formula and it can not be done.

Quote:
Originally Posted by flmason
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".
You are getting blasted because you are repeatedly stating the obvious. And then insisting that we tell you how to do somethign that is impossible.

A formula is what you want...excellent...here is a formula:

If:
"In the Box" = A

and:
"In my Bedroom" = B

and:
"Studio techniques that are situationally dependant and can not be applied to every case, especially if A and B are constraints that limit my ability to achieve the result that I define as professional" = X

and:
"Professional Recording" = Y

Then:
(A + B) * X = Y

Happy solving. We'll meet up with you in the loony bin.

Last edited by Gizzmo0815; 09-20-2011 at 10:44 AM.
Gizzmo0815 is offline   Reply With Quote