I've got a little vamp I recorded as a project that is currently Midi Drums (Superior Drummer) with a bass track and 3 guitar tracks (each played through my M-audio Profire 610 interface and using Guitar Rig 5 pro to model. Here's a quick mix:
What I want to do is take the original dry input from my guitar tracks and send them out to my Mesa Boogie to then "amp" them and then record the new "amped" track using my mics back into the M-Audio. I plan on experimenting with mic placement - with single and double micing, with dynamic and condensers.... this will probably get me into questions of phase - lots of new areas to explore - but also allow me an opportunity to really play with the technique and sound of micing while not having to play the part again (using the original dry signal). It will also allow me to compare the end product of all digital vs analog (and may be a good way to incorporate using my real amps without getting bogged down in the engineering workflow during the performance stage).
What this will get me into is latency - something I'm still trying to wrap my head around. I'm using Reaper, and reaper "corrects" for latency from the interface (but I don't think that correction includes FX - and it may or may not be sufficient or efficient at that task anyway) -- and this would certainly not include the reamping I plan to do - so I should anticipate various degrees of latency in my tracks that will be needing to be addressed individually.
Are there general strategies in dealing with this stuff? Am I right in assuming I can hand-tweak the tracks to line them up? Is there an algorithm or Macro that can analyze the reamp track and make it align with the original dry source track? I guess what I'm asking is what is the workflow for this reamping with respect to latency.
Cheers - thanks
You shouldn't need to tweak. When replaying, you can set Reaper to correct for internal delays (this is not latency) up to the point of D-A conversion, such that if you fed the output waveform back via a piece of wire into an A-D input, the replayed waveform and the newly-recorded waveform would line up in time when viewed on the screen.
And that's all you need for re-amping. Feed the D-A output via a re-amp box into the guitar amp and record the resulting acoustic output via microphone(s) through your interface back into Reaper. As long as you close-mic the amp cabinet, the time delays involved are small and in any case can contribute to the sound. I would avoid doing any EQ or other processing using plug-ins during the re-amping process. You can apply effects and EQ later on the recorded tracks if needed.
The key here is the re-amp box. What do you propose to use?
OK -- Just doing some reading on this -- initially I had assumed that it would be as simple as sending the signal from the DAW out from my Interface (the M-Audio) into my amp... but I guess what I would be running into is that that signal from the DAW has been amplified by the preamp in the M-Audio Interface so that signal being sent back from the DAW is boosted already and would arrive at my amp too hot?
I thought punching in at the effects loop (post preamp) would be the route to go (but I would lose the unique characteristics of the preamp so probably not a great thing) and I'm uncertain about the impedance at this stage as well
So I guess I do need a reamp box that would attenuate the signal sent from the DAW to the amp - like a reverse preamp kind of thing? Would this be sufficient? I read about guys plugging into the bypass of a pedal to convert impedance? Is that a thing or is this just misinformation or bad practice (I have some BOSS pedals and a Korg Tuner w/ bypass). Thanks Boswell.
Yes, that's exactly the box I would recommend. Signals out from an audio interface are balanced, high-level (+4dBu). A re-amp box converts these to unbalanced, guitar-level. The ProRMP is a passive transformer-based box, so it also gives electrical isolation between the audio interface output and the guitar amp, removing a likely source of ground-loop hum.
Would the active version (an extra 100) be even better? or does my M-Audio do the job well enough to get me enough (balanced) juice (I just read some comments about the signal not being "enough").
Which M-Audio interface do you have? A re-amp box does need proper +4dBu balanced outputs and not a headphone output or domestic level -10dBu outputs on RCA jacks. Which site has the comments about the signals not being "enough"?
I've got an M-Audio Profire 610 -- the comment was an amazon review, but there was a reference to this thread on some mEtal Forum: on further investigation the amazon comment did not look credible and the thread on the forum looks.... busy.
Went down to Long & McQuade today -- they had the active version there [[url=http://[/URL]="http://www.radialeng.com/xamp.php"]The Reamp X-Amp[/]="http://www.radialeng.com/xamp.php"]The Reamp X-Amp[/] for $199 -- they also had an option to rent one for a week for like $10 or so - so I may test drive it that way first -- they didn't have the passive one in stock atm. Cool thing about these products is that they are made about 20 minutes from my house - Radial manufactures in Burnaby. I resisted the urge to just buy this until I read a little more and waited for opinions from the board on the active/passive question. Good to put the breaks on as I've made a few purchases of late that were very impulse based (a new guitar - cough...)