• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Analogical or Digital preamps???

#6
Also I am planning to record clean and then reamping through each preamp, and finally through the ampeg svx...
Then mixing the different signals, and still having a clean recording for any matter
So 3 different tracks mixed
1-A clean and warm signal from the sdowsky pre
2 A overdriven tone from the VT dlx
3-Reamping the clean original track through the ameg svx for a heavy compressed bottom and growly track.
 
#7
Why? If you're looking a particular sound, try getting at the source. If you're unhappy with the results, try changing the components at the beginning of the signal chain, processing like that won't give you better results, because ince each component on the chain will add artifacts and phase shift that results in poor quality material.

One of the golden Rules of Recording Audio Engineerings is "there is no such thing as Fixing in the mix, if the sound is bad, then fix it at the source!"
 
#8
The main place losses occur is when converting from analog to digital and back again. It's not that there's anything wrong with digital, but each conversion back and forth is an invitation to signal degradation. And it is precisely this type of subtle degradation or change in tonal qualities that would make a person say one type of preamp is better than another. So this idea of recording and then reamping through a variety of preamps is fine on its own, but doing that means the question of "which is better, analog or digital" has lost all meaning by that time.
 
#9
Hellbastard said:
Why? If you're looking a particular sound, try getting at the source. If you're unhappy with the results, try changing the components at the beginning of the signal chain, processing like that won't give you better results, because ince each component on the chain will add artifacts and phase shift that results in poor quality material.

One of the golden Rules of Recording Audio Engineerings is "there is no such thing as Fixing in the mix, if the sound is bad, then fix it at the source!"
Click to expand...

So if I want an overdriven sound, do you recomend to get it at the source???
But how can you add a clean track affterwards
 
#10
I already gave directions on how to do this with your equipment, remember?

Hellbastard said:
You can record two signals simultaneously with the Scarlett. I would lay the signal flow like this:

1. Instrument out to VT Bass input
2. VT output to Scarlett input 1
3. VT parallel output to Sadowsky Pre
4. Sadowsky Pre out to input 2 of the Scarlett.

As for reamping, unless you have a good microphone, a quality passive DI and a good room to record in, I would say is a lot of trouble for a signal you might not end up using at all.
Click to expand...
 
#11
bongomania said:
The main place losses occur is when converting from analog to digital and back again. It's not that there's anything wrong with digital, but each conversion back and forth is an invitation to signal degradation. And it is precisely this type of subtle degradation or change in tonal qualities that would make a person say one type of preamp is better than another. So this idea of recording and then reamping through a variety of preamps is fine on its own, but doing that means the question of "which is better, analog or digital" has lost all meaning by that time.
Click to expand...

So by reamping thourgh a preamp you are lossing quality, cause you are converting from digital to analag...I understood right??
Sorry if my english and soundwise ignorance are limiting my understanding
 
#13
Yes, each time you go out of one device and into another, if there is an analog/digital conversion taking place then there is a tiny loss of signal quality. One or two conversions, maybe nobody can hear the difference. But the more you do this, the more those tiny corruptions add up. It's not such a big deal in the sense that you will not be "ruining" your tracks, it's not a disaster--but the difference in sound is the same as the differences that would make one kind of preamp "better" than another in the first place. Re-amping is a totally valid studio technique, so I am not saying "don't do it"; I'm just saying that re-amping means forget about the analog versus digital question. :)
 
#17
To clarify my original doubt...
There is no difference between analog preamps and digital vsts, only thing that matters is the sound that you want to achieve??
But soundwise the sansamp and the ampeg svx have the same purpose, emulating an ampeg real amp....so the doubts continue....
 
#18
No, there are differences.
Analog devices used circuitry and electronic components to produce a sound, they take an analog signal and amplify it, EQ or filter it to create a final sound.

Digital VST, are mathematical operations and don't create a sound perse. In order to do their work they require the signal to have been converted to a digital signal. VST only works with 1 and 0s, they are algorithms progammed to serve a purpose.

So there is a difference between analog Preamps and VSTs, but in this case what you ant to know is which method is better to emulate the sound of an ampeg amplifier. Well I have had both and they both do really well.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back