Reamp vs Original Mic'n

[amiller]

I have a basic idea of how to reamp and what the potential benefits are. In your experience, has reamping improved the original track or do you prefer the original over the reamped track?

What's the verdict?

 

[defpearlpilot]

EVERYTHING I record, I record direct and reamp. Also, there is nothing that prevents you from recording direct and sending that output to an amp and recording that way. That's what I do and the latency in not noticeable.

 

[amiller]

EVERYTHING I record, I record direct and reamp. Also, there is nothing that prevents you from recording direct and sending that output to an amp and recording that way. That's what I do and the latency in not noticeable.

What's the benefit for you?

 

[Jordon]

The benefit to me is being able to fucus on the performance, and then worry about tones and getting it to sit in the mix at a later time. This is really helpful with uber-complex stuff with 2 guitarists.

 

[defpearlpilot]

EVERYTHING I record, I record direct and reamp. Also, there is nothing that prevents you from recording direct and sending that output to an amp and recording that way. That's what I do and the latency in not noticeable.

What's the benefit for you?

Flexibility is the largest benefit. Being able to hear the same performance using different settings or different amps. Sometimes you want to suppliment different frequencies and not necessarily double a take. You'd have to play perfectly in order to do that.

 

[amiller]

So, does the reamped tone sound better than not reamping?

 

[Jordon]

So, does the reamped tone sound better than not reamping?

It depends on the quality of the signal and the time you spent. It can sound horrible (like when you forget to plug the power into the reverse DI ) just like anything else, but the time you can spend dialing things in should give you a lot of leeway on your tones. I like taking one rhythm track form each guitarist and running them through 2, 3 or 4 amps. This way you can accentuate certain frequencies. Here at my myspace you can hear reamped tones. All gutitars and bass were reamped, and the rhythm guitars had the DI track run through multiple amps. Each amp had fairly low gain settings as well.

 

[cyndicate]

Can someone explain to a noob like me what re-amp is

 

[Jordon]

Can someone explain to a noob like me what re-amp is

Recording the guitar signal straight into the board via a DI box, then sending that out at a later time through a reverse DI (Radial Xamp) to the amplifiers.

 

[Anonymous]

If I were recording for a cd, I would always record a live mic'd amp and a DI'd track for later reamping. I'd be doing this for flexibility, in case I wanted to completely change the tone of something. This is the biggest benefit of reamping.

The second reason is so that I can record late at night. I can record endless DI'd takes, monitoring through my PODXT Pro until I get a performance I am satisfied with using headphones and not bothering my wife while she's trying to sleep. I can then reamp the track the next day as loud as I want because instead of recording endless takes, I only have to reamp the track a couple times (honestly, mostly just once with my main amp - I know how to set it to get what I want) to get the tone I want.

If you listen to my clips, some of them were made with a live mic'd amp and some were reamped after recording a DI'd track and monitoring my PODXT Pro so I could hear a real guitar sound. What is cool about mine is that almost every one was made with the same amp with the same exact settings, whether reamps or original mic recording. I bet you cannot tell which tracks were a live mic'd amp and which were a DI tracks that have been reamped. The reamping process works well enough that you cannot tell the difference from an original mic'd amp performance.

For all the reasons I mentioned, reamping kicks ass...

BTW - I use the original REAMP (http://www.reamp.com) and it is brain dead simple to use and sounds great!

Steve

 

[cyndicate]

If I were recording for a cd, I would always record a live mic'd amp and a DI'd track for later reamping. I'd be doing this for flexibility, in case I wanted to completely change the tone of something. This is the biggest benefit of reamping.

The second reason is so that I can record late at night. I can record endless DI'd takes, monitoring through my PODXT Pro until I get a performance I am satisfied with using headphones and not bothering my wife while she's trying to sleep. I can then reamp the track the next day as loud as I want because instead of recording endless takes, I only have to reamp the track a couple times (honestly, mostly just once with my main amp - I know how to set it to get what I want) to get the tone I want.

If you listen to my clips, some of them were made with a live mic'd amp and some were reamped after recording a DI'd track and monitoring my PODXT Pro so I could hear a real guitar sound. What is cool about mine is that almost every one was made with the same amp with the same exact settings, whether reamps or original mic recording. I bet you cannot tell which tracks were a live mic'd amp and which were a DI tracks that have been reamped. The reamping process works well enough that you cannot tell the difference from an original mic'd amp performance.

For all the reasons I mentioned, reamping kicks ass...

BTW - I use the original REAMP (http://www.reamp.com) and it is brain dead simple to use and sounds great!

Steve

Wow looks like a cool unit to have I'll probably consider picking this up later

 

[degenaro]

So, does the reamped tone sound better than not reamping?

It's not a matter of that...it should sound about the same.
The idea is this, you can use a tone that's more confortable to play (as in mondo gain), and then use a ton that's better suited to the track later.
Also when you realise in the end that you woulda liked say the amp to cut more but adding eq in the mixer doesn't sound right compared to say adding sizzle on the amp do that.

 

[amiller]

Oh man, I've learned a ton from this thread and some of the web research I've done. I gotta give this stuff a try.

 

[cyndicate]

Oh man, I've learned a ton from this thread and some of the web research I've done. I gotta give this stuff a try.

Seems like a really awesome tool, especially for dialing in an amp to fit the mix, if I was to do a take 500 times before I EQ'd my amp right I would probably give up

 

[GRK]

I'm using Little Labs Redeye. It's both a DI and a Reamp tool. I love it. I'm still losing a tad bit of top end when I re-amp but it's user-error for sure. I'll figure it out soon enough. Haven't got to try it full gear yet anyways.

 

[cyndicate]

I'm using Little Labs Redeye. It's both a DI and a Reamp tool. I love it. I'm still losing a tad bit of top end when I re-amp but it's user-error for sure. I'll figure it out soon enough. Haven't got to try it full gear yet anyways.

Is there usually supposed to be signal loss when Re-amping, or should it be a pretty accurate representation of actually doing a retake?

 

[GRK]

I'm using Little Labs Redeye. It's both a DI and a Reamp tool. I love it. I'm still losing a tad bit of top end when I re-amp but it's user-error for sure. I'll figure it out soon enough. Haven't got to try it full gear yet anyways.

Is there usually supposed to be signal loss when Re-amping, or should it be a pretty accurate representation of actually doing a retake?

People've told me that when you do a take through A/B/Y box, A going to your amp and B going to your DI, The mic'ed amp signal and the reamped dry signal should be pretty much exact or super close. Which means ofcourse yes, they are supposed to be very accurate. I think it depends on your DI recording process more than anything. I think you gotta find a good healthy level in which the signal is juicy enough but not distorting.