![]() totally quiet means of achieving that "amped up" Ampeg Bass sound. and run the DI out thru the "Pro Bass" cab from Guitar Rig 4. Ie: Take the little Ampeg Micro VR head ($300). and running that signal just thru a cab sim. One thing I like doing is taking the DI out of a quality Amp head. whereas many mediocre offerings sound somewhat static. The best of the current generation AmpSims respond to your dynamics/playing. (It's easy to mic a good sounding amp and record a good sounding track.) But there's a lot of subtle response/interaction taking place. Not all AmpSim plugins are created equal. UA's Solo 610 is nice in this scenario.Ī-designs Reddi is also a good choice. The DI - If you want to add size/girth to the signal, a quality tube DI can work wonders. Ie: If the patch was created using a LesPaul (humbuckers), it probably won't sound right when you're playing a Tele thru those same settings.ģ. ![]() You need to tweak each AmpSim (preset) to sound good with your particular instrument. The instrument itself - Pickups can vary radically. Plugging a passive guitar/bass straight into a standard line input will rob the signal of fidelity (due to impedence missmatch).Ģ. ![]() Using a proper Hi-Z input will ensure you achieve a good/full sound. The end result you hear from AmpSim plugins depends on several factors:ġ. and it's really not that much of an inconvenience. I'd rather have stellar sounding plugins. IOW, I'm not excited by being able to run 200 simultaneous instances of mediocre sounding plugins. IMO, the quality of said plugins is also of paramount importance. If you're running a current generation quad-core DAW (especially the i7 variety), qauntity won't be a problem. Quantity is important to be able to complete a mix. So, what the hell, for $60 I can really afford both so I shall be buying a license for Reaper - I think I owe the developers that much, and I guess if more people buy it, the better for everybody. Also, although at first I thought the GUI looked a bit 'simple' in real terms I am starting to find it more efficient to work with than Sonar. Interesting - I have had absolutey no problems (yet) running Amp 3 in Reaper, in fact I can run several instances of it at 'Hi' whereas in Sonar I would need to reduce to 'low' - Reaper does see less CPU intensive than Sonar.įor what I need to do (record guitar, bass, and use MIDI VST's for drums and other insts) I have found nothing it cannot do that I can do in Sonar. I can run in Cubase 5 (imagine now within Reaper)(when I say spikes, is because Cubase doesn't use well the quad core, somewhere in the range of 50%% it starts to spike for no reason!!!):ĪMPLITUBE 3 2-3 (SO, ESSENTIALLY IT SUCKS) Instead I can use like 50 Metal Amp Rooms from Softube alone, and that with the lowest buffering. With Amplitube, I could have like 4 instances in cubase and it was already giving me trouble (yeah, cubase is guilty too coz it doesn't use the quad core properly). Every time you hit the space button (play) it always starts before you take the finger of that key.Īnd the main reason I switched is coz it uses the quad core to its full potential (then I found out the truth reaper is, and that truth is that Reaper is so awesome it's silly but exiting. Finally I am making progress with my album. Besides, if you want good effects, the delay that comes with Reaper is the ROXXORS (the delayGUI is great, better than what I've heard of other commercial delays, like the one of GR4 or Amplitube). ![]() And they ask you to submit a support ticked (which is nice, but starts to feel like avid-digidesign all over again). I tested it within Cubase and it sucked CPU like mad, even having a quad core. Even some people at KVR say they rather use Lepou free plugins than Amplitube. Despite the wisdom already leaked over this thread, I'd say Reaper a 100 times.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |