Post by johneppstein on Jun 26, 2020 17:33:38 GMT -6
None of them.
I guess that I was bothered least by C, but all of them had a certain intermittent grainy sort of dirt that I found distracting, especially on the lead. There were points where the lead seemed to be taking off into a kind of glorious soaring clean tone with just enough bite but then that damn dirt would come in and blow it. That dirt might have been fine in a different context, but on a lyrical passage like the test it was just distracting.
It's possible that in the context of a full mix it might not have been so obvious or grating, but I wouldn't bet on it, due to the points where it occurred. Beautiful liquid sustained note that decays into the feel of coarse sand in my shoe instead of dying out gracefully....
I kinda feel like it might be some subtle problem with the amp.
Other than that particular distracting problem I thought they were all pretty good.
I thought C sounded best, then A > B. First listened on ipad this morning and noticed mostly tone, B being darker and A somewhat bright. Just now listening though the board both A and B sounded more harsh (gritty?) to me - C seemed "cleaner" - curious to see what the differences where.
Post by christopher on Jul 1, 2020 10:33:39 GMT -6
Your stuff could be on the local station I listen to quite a bit, KRSH.com. Actually anyone on here can try and hit them up. I bring that up because they play a mix of guitar music, new and old. Both could be on there.
D sounds like a new artist. I can imagine the room the guitar is in, and imagine the person playing, kind of that intimate close modern thing.
E sounds like something that could be from the old record days to me. The tone isn’t as full and deep, brighter and I can’t really place the room it is in. Maybe I imagine a big studio? I like how the lead isn’t fighting over the same sonic space, the echo is able to be more audible.
Just wanted to let you know that’s the vibe I get, so you can choose what you are aiming for.
Haven't read through, but I thought B sounded the most "realistic" - maybe these are all real, though. I just hear some different harmonics and unpredictability that I don't hear in the others. That said, C was probably more ready to go.
These were some DI tracks I already had and I just re-amped to check these various methods out. I just used the IRs that I had already loaded onto the Iridium (and used the same ones within TH-U). So the IRs for each part were the same across the three methods.
Guitars 1: Suhr RL
Guitars 2: Iridium
Guitars 3: TH-U
With these, I used the IRs I'd already picked/loaded for the Iridium but for the Suhr I picked out IRs specifically for it (though I had them hosted on the Iridium, in amp bypass mode). Picked specific IRs for TH-U as well, just trying to get good sounds, not match all the IRs.
Guitars D: Suhr RL
Guitars E: mic'd amps
Here, instead of printing through IRs hosted on the Iridium, I recorded the signal straight out of the Suhr and then applied IRs within the DAW. This let me go through and put the multi-mic IRs on separate channels and treat them like I do when I multi-mic (like in Guitars E). So grab the 57 and then decide to blend it with some 121 or 421 or U87 or whatever.
This last test surprised me, pleasantly. I picked the Suhr (blind) over the actual mic'd amps. I really like both but I prefer the Suhr version. This is what I'm gonna go with going forward. I've re-positioned my amps so they're within reach at mix position and am making up the cabling to have everything tidy. Oh, and the amps are a Deluxe Reverb 68RI and an AC15 (C1).