AMT pedals - cab sim vs impulses

digitalscream

On a whim this morning, I thought I'd knock together a quick demo of AMT's pedal doing the one thing that Burgs' demo didn't - comparing the built-in cab sim to the preamp output recorded with impulses. Here you go:

Samples are:

1 - AMT C2 (heavy rhythm), bridge pickup, into Redwirez impulses (AKG C414 + SM57, 2" from dust cap)

2 - AMT C2 (heavy rhythm), bridge pickup, cab sim output

3 - AMT C2 (clean with boost engaged), neck pickup, into Redwirez impulses (AKG C414 + SM57, 2" from dust cap)

4 - AMT C2 (clean with boost engaged), neck pickup, cab sim output

Impulse recordings are all with the free Redwirez G12M impulses, 96kHz, 24 bit. No EQ or other effects have been applied to any of the samples, so you're getting it raw. Oh, and I'm using my Jaden Rose Series 2 with Oil City 'buckers (Alnico 8 Nightfighter in the bridge, Scrapyard Dog in the neck).

I tend to use that impulse setup whenever I'm recording demos for the band...I prefer the sound, but I'll let you all draw your own conclusions.

As always, be nice about the playing or keep comments to yourself

ThePrettyDamned

Impulse wins for me, too.

digitalscream

I should say, by the way, that the impulse/cab sim recordings were done simultaneously using the two outputs for each clip (ie I only played each section once) to avoid any differences in playing clouding the issue.

steamabacus

The impulse's do sound better, but two questions come to mind ...

1. With some EQ, reverb, etc can the cab sim be made to sound as good, or even better, than the impulse?
2. Do you notice any difference in feel due to latency when recording and monitoring via the impulses.

I'm a bit of a luddite and have stuck to analogue direct recording (with analogue speaker simulation) as the thought of the latency/monitoring problems with the impulse method gives me the heeby-jeebies.

digitalscream

steamabacus said:

The impulse's do sound better, but two questions come to mind ...

1. With some EQ, reverb, etc can the cab sim be made to sound as good, or even better, than the impulse?
2. Do you notice any difference in feel due to latency when recording and monitoring via the impulses.

I'm a bit of a luddite and have stuck to analogue direct recording (with analogue speaker simulation) as the thought of the latency/monitoring problems with the impulse method gives me the heeby-jeebies.

I've tried, and...no, not really. There's a kind of fizzy sheen over the top of the cab sim that I just couldn't quite get rid of; that and the fact that even with the free impulses from Redwirez, there's a massive amount of tweakability beyond EQ which you don't get with the cab sim.

That's not to say that the cab sim sounds awful; to me, it'd be perfectly adequate as a "get out of the shit" solution to your amp dying at a gig. I'd just rather have the impulses if I've got a choice.

As for the latency thing...I use a TC Electronic Impulse Twin for recording, with 8.3ms latency and indirect monitoring. I don't notice any lag at all, and it's perfectly comfortable to record with. However, even if it's an issue with your interface and rig, you should be able to take both outputs simultaneously but use the interface's control panel to disable the direct monitoring on the preamp-only output, so you can record the preamp-only signal and apply impulses while getting the cab sim output in your monitors.

One thing worth considering is that I've noticed ambient impulses use a lot more CPU time than close-mic impulses (probably due to the impulses themselves being longer). I disable those while recording to use as little processing power as possible, then add them later. This is another thing you can't do with the cab sim output.

steamabacus

Hmmmm... food for thought.

I've evolved a rather convoluted direct recording setup with the guitar split into stereo - the left channel comes from the speaker sim out of a Blackstar HT5 and the right channel comes from the speaker sim out of an Award-Session JD10 preamp. I am able to tap both channels pre-speaker sim, though.

If I can pluck up the courage I may have to experiment with Redwirez. I do have a decent interface with direct monitoring (Focusrite Sapphire).

digitalscream

No courage needed, my man - they're free. All it'll cost you is a bit of time recabling and an hour or so of experimentation. What have you got to lose?

steamabacus

digitalscream said:

 What have you got to lose?

My sanity.

digitalscream

Fair point. I won't lie...it's hard enough choosing a single impulse. When you start blending them, you can head off into "option paralysis" territory, and that's just with the free ones - if you buy the full pack, you throw a choice of speakers into the mix as well.

I tend to start off with a setup that mimics what I'd do in the real world (choosing mics as close to what I have here), and tweak from there.

One word of caution - make absolutely sure that you match the sample rate and bit rate of the impulses and your interface. If you choose the wrong ones, it'll sound bloody awful.

steamabacus

digitalscream said:

One word of caution - make absolutely sure that you match the sample rate and bit rate of the impulses and your interface.

Haha - I think you've scared me off right there!

The 'option paralysis' is not so much of an issue. I just find the 'virtual world' of the digital domain to be quite stressful/fatiguing compared to the familiarity of the real world of actual physical things.
I like my knobs and faders, me.

Plus, what I have at the moment works. There's always the fear that adding/installing something new will result in it suddenly not working. Plus, my studio computer is an old Windows XP machine (not SteamAbacus for nothing!) which may not be compatible with new software.

Using impulses does interest me, though. I shall ponder some more. I shall probably procrastinate some more too.