ReAmp Boxes. Why are they necessary?

[lukasxpop]

From what I have read about impedance matching for audio and sending Low Z Output signals to High Z inputs being fine and actually ideal, I cannot see why one would even need a ReAmp box.


Are they only really used for attenuation of the signal?

[kyle barton]

...for me, it's to separate the performance from the engineering. I can record a DI signal, while playing with sustain/distortion/effects/etc in the control room, and then use that same DI take to record a dry amp tone later on when the house is empty, and the girls aren't asleep downstairs.

when you are re-amping you can focus on getting the sound right, the mic positioned right, the amp positioned in the room right, etc, and not have to worry about the performance.

[lukasxpop]

No, I mean from a technical / Electrical point of view. Why do you need to use a Re-Amp box to run the recorded take back into the Amp? I understand why you would want to reamp a guitar take. but I doin't understand why you need a special "Reamp" box? Why do i need one of these?

Is it just for the attenuation?

Can you not just reduce the volume of the line (mixer send or some such method) and run it directly into an Amp?

[macleod]

i dont think you need a reamp box, if you go from the output of your DAW through a bypassed boss pedal to the amp the pedal will reconvert the impedance back for you.
Just make sure that when you play back you give out a level from the daw that is the same is the output from a direct gtr signal.

K

[kyle barton]

sorry, i misunderstood you. it's for impedence matching, and loading the front of the amp correctly. some of them have a ground-lift to defeat some of the hum that always seems to happen when doing this.

[Zeppelin]

Without any deep theory, I tried to reamp with a Groove Tubes Passive DI. Since it's just a transformer I thought it would just unbalance the signal. The problem however was obviously that it was so friggin loud I had the fader on -100dB in PT. I don't think the resolution/bits are doing you a favour in those levels. So next time I will borrow my friends Little Lab dedicated reamp unit. Conclusion: You definately need some kind of attenuation when reamping. But don't know how a proper reamp device affect the sound.

[lukasxpop]

ah, yes I can see that would be a problem trying to come directly out of a DAW.

if the DAW volume has to be set so low.

However in terms of Impedance matching well most of the theory i've found around seems to suggest that it isn't necessary with todays solid state stuff.

Although I suppose that may then mena that it is important when using an old Tube Amp?

have a look at this thread:
http://gearslutz.com/board/showthread.php?t=105504

[Kiwiburger]

If your soundcard has consumer (-10 dBV) unbalanced line level, it's not such a problem. This is basically exactly the same as inserting a Pod or any of the digital guitar processors between guitar and amp. Not that I recommend it - but people do it, and it works.

But if you are using pro (+4 dBV) balanced line level, you really need some attenuation as well as the unbalancing. Impedance matching is not so much a technical problem as it is an artistic choice. Different impedance loadings will just sound different - maybe better, maybe worse. Hard to say.

That's where the decision to use active or passive reamp boxes becomes a difficult choice. Try both with each amp, if you can.

[excellrec]

I found myself asking the same question a couple weeks back and ended up at the Prodigy forums.

http://www.prodigy-pro.com/forum/vie...ighlight=reamp

After they go on a few tangents it generally explains the ideas and reasons behind some of the various re-amp devices.

[Bolt Thrower]

There seems to be quite a lot of resentment over Mr. Cuniberti's patent. But what about all those re-amp-related devices from Radial Engineering? They have tons of them, and I notice their site always uses the spelling "re-amp".

Does this mean they have found a suitable workaround to the Cuniberti patent?

[excellrec]

I'd presume their workaround is paying Mr. Cuniberti.

[Bolt Thrower]

I sit at the feet of the gurus here, but just for argument's sake, if they did license the Cuniberti process, then I believe that would buy them the right to use the word Reamp (R). They don't use that messaging, so therefore, I think there may be something else afoot over at Radial.

[SNJ Studio]

Been re-amping for years with out a "ReAmp" device.

Delta 10/10LT has switchable +4 or - 10 output calibrations.

Using a passive DI sometimes helps if it has buzzes or ground loops or whatever.

8 out of 10 guitarists play solos when you ask them to "just play something so I can get a tone". Or feedback. Or metallica or Pearl Jam. Yeah thanks mate, I'll just re-amp THE ACTUAL PERFORMANCE and get my sounds that way. Opened up a lot of options for me. Allows me to use POD's and Amplitube plugs on tracks that if the guitarists saw me do that they would kill me. But when they hear the mix they think that is thier amp that sounds so good.

But I have never felt the sound has been comprimised by not using a "reAmp" device. That is like buying a specialised de-gauzing woven fibre swab for your monitor. My Chux Superwipes work just fine thanks.

Adam R Barns

[kyle barton]

my tube amp sounds like poop without the Hi-Z output from my Reamp. my amp needs more than the attenuation to swallow a DI signal properly.

[Harley-OIART]

In short - although someone will likely come and provide a more technical (and useful) answer :

A Re-Amp Device is used to match the load and level of the recorded signal to a Guitars Pickup. It is an efficient way to get line-level signal to behave like it is coming out of an insturment (guitar usually).

Hence it should sound just like you walked up and plugged your guitar in to the amp.

Yes, we all know it does work if you go directly out : Unbalanced, Line-Level, Volume Turned way down : from your recorder to the amp, but as previousy said...

Originally Posted by Kiwiburger

Different impedance loadings will just sound different - maybe better, maybe worse. Hard to say.

[Jim Williams]

Seems to me a couple of resistors and a switchable capacitor load would do quite well in presenting a high impedance load emulating the roll-offs common in electric guitar volume/tone controls and the cable.

Am I missing something here?

Jim Williams
Audio Upgrades

[Tibbon]

Jim,

I think you're right. However I know that you know (and just don't want others to get confused) that rarely are the "guts" of a piece of gear the main cost. For most smaller devices the main costs come in the way of jacks, enclosures, screen printing, distribution, sales, PCB etching/printing, etc. Even the best guitar pedals (non-digital) are rarely costing over 5 USD for their internals, but it's all those switches and stuff that make them expensive.

[mtstudi@pacbell]

One very useful application is take a +4 Balanced signal off your DAW, example a Vocal to Reamp Box to a line level Ibanez Tube Screamer to DI box and back to DAW.
You can not do that without a Reamp Box, the input would overload the Pedal.

www.bluethumbproductions.com

[markhan]

Can I get some recommendations on which re-amp box people recommend? It seems to me the ReAmp and the Radial are in the same price range.

[7 Hz]

Originally Posted by Zeppelin

I tried to reamp with a Groove Tubes Passive DI. Since it's just a transformer I thought it would just unbalance the signal. The problem however was obviously that it was so friggin loud I had the fader on -100dB in PT.

So wait, what did you do? Take a balanced line sigal and put it into the XLR out of a DI box, then took a cable from the DI box instrument in and put that into the guitar amp?

You realise that is gonna bump UP your level 12 times? No wonder it was so loud! Bet the current was so small the signal was about 1 electron!

[brendondp]

Originally Posted by markhan

Can I get some recommendations on which re-amp box people recommend? It seems to me the ReAmp and the Radial are in the same price range.

Yes, you can.

I'll recommend the Little Labs IBP.

It re-amps. It's a DI. It allows you a broad sweep in relation to phase as opposed to 0 and 180 degrees only. It has an external power supply. It's very well built. It sounds good.

There you go.

Cheers,

bdp

[Jim Williams]

Originally Posted by Tibbon

Jim,

I think you're right. However I know that you know (and just don't want others to get confused) that rarely are the "guts" of a piece of gear the main cost. For most smaller devices the main costs come in the way of jacks, enclosures, screen printing, distribution, sales, PCB etching/printing, etc. Even the best guitar pedals (non-digital) are rarely costing over 5 USD for their internals, but it's all those switches and stuff that make them expensive.

How about this: Take a 200 k mf resistor, or a carbon comp to "emulate" the 60's, put it in series with your track's output. Then take a 10k resistor and put it on the output side of the 200k to ground. That will attenuate 26 db and will present a suitable signal for the guitar amp. Then, place a 470~2200 pf cap across that 10k for filtering. This whole thing can be hung across a plug and costs less than $1.

Am I missing something here?

Jim Williams
Audio Upgrades

[paterno]

Originally Posted by Jim Williams

How about this: Take a 200 k mf resistor, or a carbon comp to "emulate" the 60's, put it in series with your track's output. Then take a 10k resistor and put it on the output side of the 200k to ground. That will attenuate 26 db and will present a suitable signal for the guitar amp. Then, place a 470~2200 pf cap across that 10k for filtering. This whole thing can be hung across a plug and costs less than $1.

Am I missing something here?

Jim Williams
Audio Upgrades

Grounding issues, for one...

Plus, the point is NOT to 'emulate guitar cable roll off' or whatever it was you said before.

I know you don't like transformers, but maybe this is one place where one might prove useful.

John

[feyshay]

If in doubt,
go to your local music store.
Buy a Radial X-Amp or Little Lab device.
Bring it home and reamp from your audio interface thru the X-Amp.
Have the X-Amp unplugged and listen or bypass the X-Amp.
Turn up the amp loudly and listen.
Then do the same with the X-Amp. Pay attention to ground loop noise and preservation of the sound. I think it makes a significant difference. The high and low end frequencies seem to be improved.
I imagine the difference would not be as much without the groundloop issue (or whatever noise that I'm hearing) when not using the X-Amp.
You could do potentially do the same with a Radial JDI. Sort of the difference between using a passive reamp versus an active reamp.

[Tibbon]

Originally Posted by Jim Williams

How about this: Take a 200 k mf resistor, or a carbon comp to "emulate" the 60's, put it in series with your track's output. Then take a 10k resistor and put it on the output side of the 200k to ground. That will attenuate 26 db and will present a suitable signal for the guitar amp. Then, place a 470~2200 pf cap across that 10k for filtering. This whole thing can be hung across a plug and costs less than $1.

Am I missing something here?

Jim Williams
Audio Upgrades

Nope, that seems to be it. That should do the trick for the most part. Speaking of, if i don't go photograph some bands tonight I'll put one of these together really quick.

Now that I think of it, there's all sort of little weird devices that places charge WAY too much for (probably in order to make up for razor thin margins on other pieces of gear that are more glitzy), that really are simple to do by yourself.

[Harley-OIART]

Originally Posted by Tibbon

...I'll put one of these together really quick.

I'd really appreciate it if you let me know how it turns out if you do end up getting a chance.

Thanks

[Tibbon]

Didn't get a chance to do it tonight. I'll shoot for tomorrow. I don't have a reamp box to A/B it against, but I'll try to give some examples of just directly out of my Mackie 400F and with this cable built in the middle.

I'll be using my SonicCord amp (~15-22 watts, class A, EL34 amp, 1x12 Emminence Red Fang in it) and an e609 on the speaker (don't got no fancy ribbons around) with the Mackie preamps (not slutty at all i know, but they do amplify the mic signal most of the time...)

[Harley-OIART]

Originally Posted by Tibbon

Didn't get a chance to do it tonight. I'll shoot for tomorrow. I don't have a reamp box to A/B it against, but I'll try to give some examples of just directly out of my Mackie 400F and with this cable built in the middle.

I'll be using my SonicCord amp (~15-22 watts, class A, EL34 amp, 1x12 Emminence Red Fang in it) and an e609 on the speaker (don't got no fancy ribbons around) with the Mackie preamps (not slutty at all i know, but they do amplify the mic signal most of the time...)

Thanks. Is it possible for you to post 3 short mp3's?

-Original Recording with guitar direct to amp
-Reamped via direct from mackie 400f
-Reamped via custom built reamp device

[Tibbon]

Will do. Still not happening tonight sadly. I have 300 photos to edit, 2 films to deliever, and i'd like to hit the clubs later.... I'm a nut.

[+6/185]

Originally Posted by Bolt Thrower

I sit at the feet of the gurus here, but just for argument's sake, if they did license the Cuniberti process, then I believe that would buy them the right to use the word Reamp (R). They don't use that messaging, so therefore, I think there may be something else afoot over at Radial.

Radial and I have worked out a simple arrangement for the patent not the trademark Reamp®. This arrangement is commonplace in the electronics industry. In fact, most of the gear in your rack has some form of third party licensing involved in its design and or construction. No one is getting rich from these very small licensing agreements so there is no need for anyone to be upset.

The trademark Reamp® was not part of my deal with Radial and that is why they don’t use it.

The Radial boxes and my Reamp have very different design goals. I prefer minimal signal path, expensive transformers and reliability. Radial goes the way of added features that re