Effect pedal (processor) vs Amp sim (Vst)

[Boogie Woogie]

Hi to all

What interests me is what is your opinion on this question.

Today we have lots of Amp simulators and vst's (Amplitube, GK Amplification 2 Pro, Mark Studio 2, Pod Farm, ReValver, Guitar Rig etc..) at one side.

And, on the other side, we have a bunch of guitar effects pedals and processors (Zoom B3, Boss GT, ME50, Mooer, Tech..you name it) which are all simulators of some real amps in a sense)

Now, if you'd want to use some of it with PC (for playing along some music, or for recording) what would be your choise and why?

Is the, for example, Zoom B3 better than Amplitube and why? Because, they both essentially do the same thing, right..?

Thank you

 

[FaithNoMan]

Analog overdrive/preamp into a cab sim vst if I don't have the option of mic'ing up my amp and cab.

Then I can mess with virtual mocs and moc angles/cab types and sizes after I recorded

 

[JimmyM]

Easier for me to plug in a pedal than load up a DAW.

 

[cheapbasslovin]

For recording, probably the VSTs are going to be better because you can change that after you lay down tracks.

But for just practicing I prefer the simplicity of a pedal.

 

[gregmon79]

I prefer plugging my board into an interface into the DAW. Seems the easiest but then it really depends what you're trying to accomplish.

 

[Boogie Woogie]

I prefer plugging my board into an interface into the DAW. Seems the easiest but then it really depends what you're trying to accomplish.

Well, a better sound?

 

[Mili]

I think it depends on how much time you put with them. If i use a multi fx daily then obviously i knew its capabilities and behavior much much better than Vst plugins so i prefer practice and record through them. I think Line 6 did a great job to solving this problem by Helix because the algorithms of physical board and vst is same as each other. But i prefer to collect decent pedals and use them for every situation for better quality sound.

 

[Skybone]

A lot will also depend on the PC that you are using to record with.

If you can afford an all singing, all dancing, super duper, top of the range PC with the bestest processor & tons of RAM, then you probably have enough processor "headroom" to run multiple effects & amp sims within the DAW.

However, if you have specced your PC on how affordable it is, then you will have compromised on both the processor and the RAM, and you may well not have the capability of running effects & amp sims within the DAW, and may well have to resort to using external effects units instead.

This approach will also have the benefit of being able to use your effects unit not only as a DI for recording, but for gigging as well.

 

[superheavyfunk]

The real deciding factor for me would be the potential of a CPU bottleneck when running multiple plugins (assuming you're doing more than just jamming along with songs). This would cause me to lean toward having outboard gear, leaving the processing power for the DAW.

 

[gregmon79]

Well, a better sound?

It's easier to set up for me. The things I do I prefer ease and speed over quality most times. It's not like I need studio grade quality recordings for the things I do on my own. I guess the better (more expensive the gear), the better you're going to sound. Not in all cases but in most I would think. When you're recording it's always best to have your best stuff. Not to knock Zoom, I have had a like many of their products. But I wouldn't use one of their multis to record if I had a choice. Now the Helix line from Line 6, I def would use to record.

But then this is all so subjective. If you know what you're doing and or are working with people that know what they're doing, expensive gear isn't a must. I would think what would matter most is what you're recording WITH and through. Like what mics are you using, what programs. It's like the difference between recording with your iPhone mic or a nice/decent program like Cubase or Reaper. Or running your bass through an iRig interface to record or something else like Foscurite Scarlett Solo. Those are things that will have a pretty adverse effect on your recording sound and quality.

 

[waveman]

Do both. Get an audio interface with at least two inputs and a DI box of some sort. Run the dry signal to one input, run the effected signal to another input. Record both at the same time. Then, if you don't like the effected signal, you can copy the clean track to another track and reamp and reeffect any way you want and still have the clean to blend with the effected signal.


I have a livewire DI or a Aphex Big Bottom I can use for the DI signal, then run from there to the effected chain. I use a Behringer UMC404HD as an audio interface to the PC/Mac and run two channels for bass and two channels for guitar for this so I don't have to reconfigure everything everytime I want to record. In fact I keep it setup this way to practice through as well. I use the line out to go direct to the PA for practice and USB to record.

 

[JACink]

If I am just recording a track I am composing/putting together, then I will record it as I play it with pedals etc. Although I do agree with @waveman that 2 tracks is preferred (one dry) because you can do whatever you want with the dry track later.

If I am recording something that is to be mixed into a track with other people/instruments then I prefer a clean track into the DAW so I can do any processing I want later. If I need to send it through my pedals I can always reamp it to do so later.

 

[Boogie Woogie]

What actualy interests me is, would be some bass multieffects pedal (let's say Zoom B3) be improvement or upgrade, for someone that plays bass guitar trough PC using for example Amplitube.

Using the same PC, the same studio monitors, the same audio interface of course

 

[waveman]

What actualy interests me is, would be some bass multieffects pedal (let's say Zoom B3) be improvement or upgrade, for someone that plays bass guitar trough PC using for example Amplitube.

Using the same PC, the same studio monitors, the same audio interface of course

Probably not an upgrade, just complimentary or a different option.

Now if you spent the money on something like an Fractal AxeFX/AX or Line 6 Helix, maybe. Really just different ways of doing the same thing.

FWIW, I only recently started recording and trying out different things, but I can say the quality of my production has gone up since I started recording both effected and uneffected. However, I started in a different place where I was recording only an effected track with outboard devices like my Zoom MS 60 B

 

[Boogie Woogie]

Fhat I've noticed recently:
I compared Amplitube and Zoom G3 (for electric guitar) and found that the signal I get from Zoom is stronger, more accurate and all in all - be

Probably not an upgrade, just complimentary or a different option.

Now if you spent the money on something like an Fractal AxeFX/AX or Line 6 Helix, maybe. Really just different ways of doing the same thing.

I've tried Zoom G3 with electric guitar and it sounded somehow much better to me than Amplitube. Much stronger signal and detailed sound with much more dynamic and so on..But never tried B3 with bass guitar. And the bass guitar is even more sensitive and much demanding instrument so I thought the Zoom B3 would give some more punch and deffinition to the sound (which somehow I can't get from any vst or amp sim that I've tried.. )

 

[waveman]

Fhat I've noticed recently:
I compared Amplitube and Zoom G3 (for electric guitar) and found that the signal I get from Zoom is stronger, more accurate and all in all - be


I've tried Zoom G3 with electric guitar and it sounded somehow much better to me than Amplitube. Much stronger signal and detailed sound with much more dynamic and so on..But never tried B3 with bass guitar. And the bass guitar is even more sensitive and much demanding instrument so I thought the Zoom B3 would give some more punch and deffinition to the sound (which somehow I can't get from any vst or amp sim that I've tried.. )

Maybe you need better plugins? I don't know since I have so far only used some compression, reverb, delay, and tremolo ones. I used my Zoom MS-60B in some capacity with most of mine. But I am not using any amp/cab modeling for bass, and I also use an MXR M-81 as the last part of my chain. They (Zoom's) are cheap enough to try out an resell if it doesn't work out.

 

[cosmicevan]

Well, a better sound?

Any engineer who actually knows anything will tell you that the absolute most important thing on a recording is the performance. Whatever brings out the best performance in you is the route to go.

If you feel most at home tweaking on a computer to get your sound, then there's your answer...
If using a computer slows you down and nothing brings out that great solo in you like kicking on your boost and stepping up, then there's your answer...

What good is an immaculate recording if the performance/song lacks magic? I'm sure you have some favorite albums from back in the day before sonic audiophile fidelity was what it is today...and I wouldn't be surprised if you love the overall sound and vibe on some of those inferior recorded albums too.

 

[Sunset Shalom]

I really love both for different reasons. Pedals/hardware is more fun to use, and analog stuff can definitely have a special sound. But on the other hand there are literally thousands of amazing free VST effects, and they are easy to use for post production and recording. So VST's allow you to do infinitely more on a budget. And comparing digital pedals to VST's can be surprising in many cases, even some free VST's can get some of the same sounds with a little tweaking.

One nice thing about using VST's these days is with MIDI controllers you can use them as if they were hardware, so you get the best of both worlds. And it's also easy to combine hardware into VST's when recording which gives the most options.

Anyways I think people severely underestimate a lot of software/VST's. You can find almost any kind of effect for free, including a lot of amazing quality donationware and even open source plugins which is an awesome concept.

Here's the best source for VST's that I have come across: Invalid Link Removed

I tend to use more VST instrument then effects, there are tons of amazing sample based ones such as mellotron and orchestra instrument emulations or drum kits. As well as all sorts of weird/unique synthesizers for any kind of sound you can imagine, I found a bundle of synths specifically for sound FX such as animal/bird/insect/rain/thunder/string/horn sounds, really complex synths that physically model natural sounds in fascinating ways.

Here's the Bowed String synthesizer: Invalid Link Removed

It uses a series of resonant filters + the physically modeled bow/string sections to create some very realistic string sounds (at some settings) as well as some glitchy/synthy stuff at other settings. Only downside to it is no presets and it's super complex, but fun to experiment with. The creator Xoxos has made tons of other sweet VST's too. Some very creative stuff, his horn synth is similarly physically modeled.