I currently use a BOSS GT-1 (which i think is really great) via USB as my DAW on my PC. However the cab sims aren’t the best, so i want to buy a Mooer Radar to compensate for this shortcomings. Problem is: i don’t really know, how to get the signal from the GT-1 over the Mooer Radar to my PC DAW (USB GT-1). I want to keep everything as simple as possible, so i’m planing to buy the high praised Focusrite Scarlet Solo. But it got me wondering as a recording noob: in direct comparison (ignoring the Mooer Radar situation), where is the advantage of using for example a Scarlet Focusrite over a FX Processor DAW? Do i benefit in other ways than a easier, directer way to record my guitar?
reaper and Audacity. Sorry if i mixed up DAW with Audio interface. As i said earlier, i’m totally new in the recording territory. I definitely want to get the Radar, because i don’t want to be reliant on a pc to get a decent cab sim.
There are a load of similar spec multi-fx boxes that hit the market recently. They all have similar spec and all have IR loaders (usually max of 512 up to 1024 samples). All can function as a USB sound cards, as well as standalone devices.
The standalone USB input device (scarlett) - the only advantage would be 1) Slightly better sound quality.
These devices are around the cost of a mooer radar!
i see. Well, i will work then for the moment with the GT-1 as DAW and NadIR als IR Loader for the PC and use the Mooer Radar when i’m playing with a Amp or PA System.
I guess, the Focusrite Scarlett would be a good idea for a later date because it’s a “cleaner” solution in regards of volume and gain control instead of wiggle around in the GT-1 menu.
thats quite interesting. I guess, i need more time to think about it to get my priority straight. At the time i only want to afford either the Mooer Radar or the Scarlett, depending what makes more sense with my GT-1 setup.
I use my new muti-fx now - My Scarlett is in a box waiting to be sold - even tho it’s better quality, I love being able to upload IR’s in the multifx and have everything in one place - so damn handy - plus I can use it whilst working on my Laptop (work from home). If I was into super high end output quality - It’s be using my Scarlett, NS10’s and all that jazz.
that’s pretty much my mindset too. I want to have it as versatile und handy as possible, even if i would play via a PA System. BOSS GT-1 + Mooer Radar - both powered with a Powerbank, so no extra power outlet is required.
Having an IR loader setup with the PC is nice, but my vision would be to have presets, which are tweaked with the radar, so i don’t need to fiddle around too much with the Multi FX when i play over a PA or anything similar.
There is an ADC to turn an analog voltage (what a guitar produces) to digital, and then a DAC to turn a digital number (what a computer uses) back to an analog voltage (what the speakers likely want). Depending on the manufacturer, they can run the ADC at higher speeds and also more bits of resolution.
So if you look at the Solo’s sample rates it starts from 44.1kHz (all one would need, that’s a CD), and goes to ridiculous speeds from there, up to 192kHz (I don’t see the point, particularly for guitar). They intentionally don’t want to talk about how many bits their ADC has, so instead they give various numbers that they would prefer that you use instead, you can see them here, specs.
I have what I think are normal ears and doubt that I could hear the difference in two ADCs, but I’ve never tried, and you might be able to hear it. (I am not an audiophile!)
The moment you go through an ADC you’re basically set, and there should be a way to connect USB and then get that signal, so there is probably nothing wrong with using your GT-1’s ADC and then going from there, assuming that you can figure out how to configure it for that purpose.
I think the key thing that I have realized (better late than never) about recording is that one must ALWAYS record the “dry” signal (no effects) as well as the “wet” signal (effects), because the “dry” signal can be run through signal processing as needed to tweak the sound in the future.
That’s some quality info, thanks a lot. So there really isn’t a point in buying a Scarlett in my current situation. Also, even if there would be a small better recording result - it wouldn’t matter much in my case. I mean, i’m no petrucci. Only practise can deliver better quality audio in my case
Currently i’m fiddling around with IR’s (Reaper NadIR) and the GT-1. And boy - that’s a sensitiv topic in regards of effects. If i setup a twin reverb clean and a DS1: the moment the effect level hits the 60 mark, it gets pretty fizzy. It seems like, i’m way too much used to the boxy, tolerant Cab Sims of the GT-1.
nice, gonna check that out too. At one hand, it’s kinda of a hassle, that this IR stuff is so convoluted, but on the other hand it’s thrilling, that there are sheer infinite tonal possibilities
If you’re connexting your multi-FX unit via USB to your computer, and recording that as an input, there’s probably no point - depending on the FX unit it very well might have cleaner analog-digital conversion than the Scarlett, and at a minimum I’d say is likely no worse.
The major advantage would be down the road if you wanted to try recording something that involved mics, say an acoustic guitar or a vocal, but I suspect if that were the case then the Solo would probably not be the digital interface you’d want - something with more/better mic pres, probably.
Reaper’s a great program - affordable, but extremely flexible and full-featured, and while a lot of the stock plugins aren’t exciting from a “color” standpoint, they’re generally all very transparent, resource-efficient, and effective. I don’t use them on everything, but ReaEQ, ReaComp, and ReaDelay are definitely still in rotation for me. Happy to help with any Reaper/recording questions you may have, and good luck!
Sample rate and bit rate are the “pixelation” of the digital audio system. Just like in visual, there is a point of diminishing returns. Moreover, once you DO hit that point of diminishing returns, the digital resolution (sample and bit rates) isn’t even the critical factor, by a long shot.
Here’s the thing: If you’re talking 4k or 8k or 1080p in the video world, is THAT what’s determining your image quality, or is that just kind of an “image quality reproduction level” or something? What’s really determining your image quality is the lighting, lenses, etc. – THAT kind of stuff. A well-shot high-budget movie at 1080p looks like a well-shot high-budget movie, at least until you get onto an IMAX screen or something, where I guess it would look like a high budget movie with a little pixelation. A student movie with decent but not great lighting, etc. shot at 4k still looks like a student movie, though.
The analog part of the chain is analogous to the “lighting” and “lenses” here. When the Pro Tools HD thing hit in 2005 or whatever, at first, there was a rush to the higher sample rates. I can tell you that by 2010, it kind of became a “whatever,” and people who had the option to work at 88/96 would still work at 44/48 so their DSP wouldn’t be cut in half, so their files wouldn’t get as bloated, so internet digital transfers in the iChat or early Dropbox days would be twice as fast, etc. In fact, I thought one of the big advantages of 88/96 was that you could really get into some faster low-latency settings. More than once, I would end up bumping a project down to 44/48 in the mixing stage, if I was mixing in the box.
That’s not to say there wasn’t a difference. I did a distance-miking experiment with the guys on the old studio’s pricey speakers – I ran the system at 192 but exported and re-imported at some lower rates. Everyone in the room could definitely hear it in the reverb tails, 10/10 times. That’s always been where you notice it, though. The biggest jump by far was from 16-bit to 24-bit around the time of Pro Tools TDM, and the reverb tails would be where you hear it. But a mixing level for a reverb might be -25 dB, so the tails get REALLY low. Psychoacoustically, we hear “space” in a VERY sensitive way – it’s a survival mechanism. That information at -30 dB can tell you what kind of room you’re in, even with your eyes closed. If you ever don’t think you’re an audiophile, close your eyes and clap your hands, and try to deduce what size the room is, whether the walls are hard or there are curtains, what general shape the room is and if there is an opening to a hallway or something. That’s an awful lot of information. You know, “bats hunt with sound (SONAR) or whatever.” Well, you can clap your hands and listen and figure out the layout of a room. Trust me, you’re an audiophile.
Those same engineers, though, would be like, “if you want my Neve 1073, you’ll have to pry it FROM MY COLD, DEAD HANDS!” And I’m not talking about some sim on the DAW – that’s actually doing a different job. I’m talking about the preamp itself. A/D converters are the same way – some of these 2-channel A/D’s from the early 2000’s that used to be $1500 plus are going for peanuts on eBay because – horror of all horrors – you have to connect them by S/PDIF or AES/EBU to your DAW’s interface and set your DAW to sync to the clock (inconvenient, but engineers might pay $1000+ JUST for this level of digital clock. Do you think there’s a reason?). Guess what: those pieces were and still are some high-end audio pieces, with high end components, etc.
I mean, if it’s 2006 and someone is doing an album on a $100k budget, getting a $3k/track person to mix, and the SSL 4000 E/G+ is running to 1/2" Ampex and also to digital, and you’re sending both to your $300/hour mastering studio, what’s the converter for the digital version? If you say, “well, THAT’S a 2006 converter, I’d rather have my ____ because it was built in 2018” and your box has USB power or some weird wall wart…I’m just trying to point out that those 2006 converters are still JUST AS GOOD at the SAME BASIC JOB that they ever did (uncompromised conversion to make recordings that actually ARE broadcast quality), and people dump them on CL or FleaBay for a steal because they’re just a little bit inconvenient for certain workflows.
OK, now here’s the other part of the story: the “audio quality” thing sneaks up on you, and you don’t understand where you’re really at on that level until you’re mixing. In mixing, you’re bringing things into focus, and you have the option of doing lots of snazzy stuff – do you realize what is actually happening when you put that +5 dB high shelf at 10k onto the vocal that’s pulling 10 dB compression (with 10 dB makeup gain, of course) on the 1176 or whatever? The highs are 15 dB louder at that point (I know, it’s not quite rigorous, but bear with me…). Now, if you know audio, you know that 3 dB is already HUGE in terms of actual raw power – our ears don’t notice the volume going up as quickly as you’d think. This is why even a 5 watt amp can get annoyingly loud – on a certain level, it doesn’t “feel” like 1/20th the power of a 100W. So sound reproduction is a funny thing like that. That 15 dB is the sonic equivalent of taking a TEENY thumbnail picture and blowing it up to POSTER SIZE, or maybe bigger. And, when you really hit those tracks hard in mixing to see what you can get out of them, these 10 dB+ kinds of moves with dynamics or EQ (or just level) can happen a lot. The thing is, that vocal that someone recorded on a $200 USB bus-powered interface (what is that, $20 for each preamp and $20 for each converter channel?), at some point, will quit “taking” the EQ that you’re trying to hit it with, and it will turn to something that ceases sounding like natural audio reproduction. And it’ll be too late in the process to do ANYTHING about it – you’ll be stuck going, “let’s lo-fi it and distort it to make it vibey.”
I apologize for the venting – I think I still have PTSD from mixing gigs where someone would bring stuff with a lot of potential that was recorded in a closet on an Mbox, paying me (and expecting me) to make it sound like the stuff I tracked on the $$$ gear, in the nice room, with enough technique to at least not dig a hole for myself. Their hopes and dreams for a defining recording are tied up in it, and you have to be like, “sure, I think I can beat the rough mixes, but you have to realize I’m already sensing a bit of a ceiling here.” That is not a fun conversation with someone who wants sparkly vocals and airy cymbals and has actually put a lot of time and dedication into a project.
I gotta say, @gotmixes, as someone who flatters himself as knows a fair amount about recording, I’m starting to really enjoy having you around here, in part because there generally ARE new things I’m learning when you go on a rant about something, and in part because the things I already know, you usually have an interesting way of explaining them, whereas when I try it always comes across like a textbook.
This is an excellent post. I should go back and revisit 44.1/88.2 on my current setup (the rule of thumb I was given, but god only knows if there’s any truth to this even if it seems reasonable, is working in an even multiple of your project’s intended final bitrate makes sense since it vastly simplifies conversion) and see if I’m still wrking in 24 bit or if I knocked it back down to 16 while just doing scratch demos - I guess there’s no sense worrying about file space if the iMac I’m working on is now the better part of a decade old and I’m nowhere near filling the hard drive, lol.
I should go back and revisit 44.1/88.2 on my current setup (the rule of thumb I was given, but god only knows if there’s any truth to this even if it seems reasonable, is working in an even multiple of your project’s intended final bitrate makes sense since it vastly simplifies conversion) and see if I’m still wrking in 24 bit or if I knocked it back down to 16 while just doing scratch demos - I guess there’s no sense worrying about file space if the iMac I’m working on is now the better part of a decade old and I’m nowhere near filling the hard drive, lol.