View Single Post
Old 7th December 2019
Originally Posted by Sascha Franck View Post
Right, as if you would run around on stage and measure everything.
Only an amateur would think you would need to do that. With a little practice you can SEE what you need unless you're seriously perceptively challenged. It's not hard to estimate distances and angles. I just have to look at an amp in an environment and I pretty much KNOW where the mic goes nearly all the time. I can also tell when placement of an amp will be likely to cause a problem and have a pretty good idea what to do about it.

An open back cab is an acoustic dipole and it's *extremely* difficult to achieve predictable results on a live stage. Yes, the results might be ok, but they're still not predictable in many, more likely even most cases.
Again, if you actually know anything about sound it's really pretty easy.

The trick is knowing about sound, which does in fact require a certain amount of learning and studying how things work - and I mean studying real amps in real situations, developing an understanding of the geometry of sound (it's rather like figuring shots on a 3D pool table). It takes a bit of work to get there, like anything else worth knowing.

A lot of people seem to expect to have things handed them on a silver platter and that just ain't how the universe works.

You have to understand what you're doing and why you're doing it. Once you get there it pretty easy. If you don't put in the work you'll never get there and relying on canned shortcuts really won't help.

It's not magic. There's nothing at all mysterious about it. It's definitely NOT a matter of chance.

It's all physics and geometry.

Music is about sounds, not about words.
That's a silly statement. Words are how we communicate information. If you don't communicate you don't learn.

Posting things such as recommendations to purchase a small vintage tube amp, a bunch of pedals and build an isolation cab around it are completely meaningless in case you have no idea what to expect.

Cart before the horse. You won't know what to expect if you haven't tried it.

Actually, I'd start with just the guitar, amp, and microphone. You can add the other stuff after you get the basic concepts down.

Commercially available iso boxes are limiting as to what you can do, which is one of the main reasons I'd advise converting a closet - it gives you a bit more room to work with.

However you'll never learn ANYTHING about the art of recording guitar is you only use modelers.

Also, if this thread was about "help me chose a new tube amp", you can bet it'd take no more than a handful of posts until the first links with sound samples appeared - but once it's about bedroom recording, there's NONE, just excuses.
Excuses such as "it's the most common thing, hence there's no need for sound examples". What a load of bull. The vast majority of home dwellers don't use an iso cab. I know plenty of guitar players around here and apart from one other guy, nobody ever owned an iso cab.
You have a rather limited and somewhat crippling concept of "bedroom recording".

Add to this that since around somewhat over 10 years, it's completely meaningless. For the money a decent iso cab plus a mic or two would cost, you could as well just get a reactive load and record your speaker out, then slap an IR of your liking onto the recording. For monitoring purposes, a cheaper DI with cab simulation would be sufficient, such as the Palmer PDI-09 (heck, if it's good enough for Joe Bonamassa...). You might even get away recording just that signal.
Settling for mediocrity is always an option, yes.

I would happily be proven wrong in case there were iso cab recordings that were absolutely impossible to match with that method - just that apparently there aren't any, at least they haven't been posted in this thread.
I'm sure there are plenty if you wanted to did around on YooToob.


Next step: The amp.
It doesn't help anyone to know that "Layla" was recorded with a Champ or whatever (let alone that Clapton was known for having blown quite some amps because they were cranked all the way and connected in some "don't do this at home!" ways). And well, apart from that it's pretty new to me that "Layla" has made it onto the olymp of desirable guitar tones (IMO the guitars sound mediocre at best and the recording itself sounds like a pile of mud).
Add to this that I don't believe for a second that you could get, say, a decent, let alone great modern rock rhythm tone out of a Champ in an iso box. If that was the case, people would do it all over the place. But they just don't.
First off, the "Layla" sounds that are talked about in this context are LEAD sounds. And anybody who doesn't think that the guitar sounds (on the original Layla with Duane Allman) aren't great, stirring tones must be a little dead inside.

Second, despite this, the tweed Champ is rather limited, especially as regards the speaker. There's a lot of stuff I wouldn't use it for. But where in works, it works with no fooling around.


Again, I would happily be proven wrong. But hey - there's no samples.
Samples, schmamples.

If I had a tweed Champ I'd be glad to post "samples" of my lead guitarist noodling in the bedroom, if I could get him to do it (his attitude toward this "sample" crap" isn't much more positive than mine), but at the moment we don't have one in the collection. Class 5 or Pro Jr, yes, even a little SS Frontman.

In an iso box? Probably not. In a closet? Certainly. I don't know what the point would be though.Neither one of us really has much impetus to do it - it's silly.


Next step: amps vs. modeling.
I don't even doubt that there might still be occasions when the real deal would be the prefered option.
I don't doubt - in fact I'm quite sure that in certain circumstances might be a commercially acceptable option. I'll giv e you that.

Artistically? Well, if you accept a "paint by numbers" painting as art, sure. And certainly ther are :"paint by numbers" artists who are capable of trabnscending the limitations of tham medium to create something approachiong original art.

But it's still not, and never will be as great as the art created by somebody who goes through the processes of actually LEARNING the art of creation - which includes learning to use the tools one's self and not relying on "paint by numbers" crap.

You may not be able to tell the difference, in which case I genuinely feel sorry for you.

And for humanity in general, if they accept a "paint by numbers" fake as art that's a sad thing for humanity.

Especially in case you already own all the goodies, why not try to make them bedroom compatible?
Shirley, you jest!

"Bedroom compatible"? Why in hell would anybody want to downgrade their capabilities?

I make my "bedrooms" compatible to my music , I don't compromise the music to accommodate the bedroom.

The trick is not to downgrade your abilities to the lowest possible denominator, the point is to learn to deal with the limitations you're presented with and overcome them.

You need to figure out how to express your art in the situation you are presented with, not to downgrade and diminish your art to accommodate your limited situation.

But then, in these days, especially for bedroom dwelling, there's little to no points in doing so.
If all you're interested in is playing with toys, sure.

By all means, allow your situation to limit and degrade your art.

Yet again, I would happily be proven wrong, but I haven't heard anything that wouldn't be easily to do with a decent modeler as well.
It can be done. A true artist does not accept external limitations.


Along with that there's the nonsense of "no professional is doing it with modelers". Which is, well, nonsense. Not only that we're talking about bedroom recording and not some big bucks professional productions, no:
A) The pros do it.
B) The pros don't record with Champs in iso cabs, either.
C) What is good for the live tones of some highly acclaimed professional acts should be just fine for some bedroom dwelling, right?
Utter and total nonsense.

To begin with, are YOU one of those "Pros"?

No, you are not.

Do the "pros" record in bedrooms? I very seriously doubt it, except of course for songwriting "sketchpads" which we are not discussing.

Do the "pros" record with iso cabs? They obviously don't need to. However I've known some "pros" who do, in fact, use iso cabs as part of their live rigs.

Your "B" is stupid.

Are some pro musicians using Axe FX and Helix for their live FX? Sure. Are they using those for amps? Mostly not. Are people using Kempers for live amp sounds? Yes, some are - AFTER PROFILING THE SOUNDS OF THEIR RARE AND EXPENSIVE VINTAGE AMPS that they don't want to risk on tour.

BUT THE KEMPER IS NOT A MODELER and only people who don't understand the Kemper - or understand modelers - think it is.

Just as some examples: Mark Knopfler is using a Kemper. Metallica are using Axe FX units. Isaiah Sharkey (rhythm player for John Mayer and guitar player for several big names) is using a Helix. I would guess that the tones these guy are after would be working just nicely for some appartment recordings.
But still people insist that running a Champ in an iso cab would be a better solution.
Well, it's been years since I've been in touch with Metallica, but as I understand it most people using Axe FX and Helix units onstage are using the for FX only, not as modelers. I have it on very good authority that this is how Richie Castellano with BOC is using his.

The Kemper is a horse of an entirely different color. It is NOT a modeler in any conventional sense, and only somebody who does not understand modelers and the Kemper would disagree. Tjhe Kemper is a PROFILER - it takes "snapshots" of the sounds of real amps with particular settings and reproduces those sounds. IT DOES NOT USE CONVENTIONAL MODELING TECHNIQUES. There are also some things it cannot profile.

What it come down to is this - Do you want to produce your own original art or do you want to do "paint by numbers" refrigerator paintings?

It's up to you - at this point I really don't came.