Author Topic: Software-based stompboxes  (Read 16031 times)

SirPoonga

Re: Software-based stompboxes
« Reply #20 on: November 18, 2005, 01:49:48 PM »
I'm using Guitar Rig at home, for practicing and some recordings.  I don't have their pedalboard...
I haven't used the program.  Do the pedals just emulate a gamepad or keyboard?  Can you turn on and off effects with a certain keyboard combo?

PenPen

Re: Software-based stompboxes
« Reply #21 on: November 18, 2005, 02:38:27 PM »
Neat, but it doesn't appear to be worth the $500 they are asking for. I'll stick with the crappy but flexible dsp patches that came with my Audigy Platinum card and Audacity for recording.

vanessa

Re: Software-based stompboxes
« Reply #22 on: November 18, 2005, 04:12:34 PM »
Neat, but it doesn't appear to be worth the $500 they are asking for. I'll stick with the crappy but flexible dsp patches that came with my Audigy Platinum card and Audacity for recording.

The $$$ seems a bit steep. But it includes a foot controller and of course a very well written software program. This may not be intended for the gigging musician or the basic at home noodle guitarist. I think it's aimed at pre (some post) production DAW applications, the guitarist who's got everything and wants more. For a studio or a working song writer $500 is very cheap compared to most of the outboard gear and software needed to compete in today’s market.
And compared to the POD they both come in at the same price point. I would bet most here could afford a POD? But we look at that as hardware not the combo of software/hardware of which it is. The NI GR is no different, just more powerful. Comparing the two the POD can't compete due its limited processing power, unlike the rig where the sky's the limit. Amplitube is coming out with a new version, so that may be in the running.

markr04

Re: Software-based stompboxes
« Reply #23 on: November 18, 2005, 04:41:05 PM »
I've been using Guitar Rig since it was released. It sounds awesome, but it doesn't replace my stompboxes for playing outside of my studio. Software and stompboxes have two different uses, in my opinion, and GR may not be a replacement for any stompbox in that respect.
Pardon my poor English. I'm American.

amz-fx

Re: Software-based stompboxes
« Reply #24 on: November 18, 2005, 05:43:26 PM »
Along these same lines...  if you are interested in a software amp emulator, you can get one for free:

Amplitube Uno

regards, Jack

SeanCostello

Re: Software-based stompboxes
« Reply #25 on: November 18, 2005, 08:03:14 PM »
Just want to point out that there is no reason why the algorithms in the NI Guitar Rig couldn't be ported into algorithms running on a hardware DSP that would fit into a stompbox. A 32-bit floating point algorithm is a 32-bit floating point algorithm, whether it is on a CPU or a DSP. Sure, modern computers are very powerful, but the latest SHARCs are hella fast (up to 400 MHz, 2-way SIMD), and are still way cheaper than computer CPUs.

The VisualAudio software I work on at work allows you to develop audio algorithms in C, where the complexity is about the same as writing VST plugins for PC. I have written oversampling distortion algorithms for tube emulation, and they took up a tiny fraction of the available CPU - and will take up less if ported into native SHARC assembly.

Comparing DSP MHz to CPU MHz is not really that useful, as the DSP can be entirely dedicated to audio processing, without having to deal with a hugely complex operating system. On a 200 MHz SHARC (ADSP-21262), we were able to run over 1400 biquad filter sections in real time. I know that most personal computers of many times that MHz would choke trying to perform such a task.

I'm sure that the above applies to floating point DSPs from TI as well, but I have not worked with those. Fixed point DSPs would require some considerable changes to a floating point algorithm, but my guess is that most guitar amp simulators could be ported to fixed point with a little know how.

Sean Costello

MartyMart

Re: Software-based stompboxes
« Reply #26 on: November 19, 2005, 06:06:03 AM »
Vanessa's point about the "percieved" value for money, when buying a piece of
software is a valid one.
I write/record and gig for a living, so I dont have any problem shelling out 1000 bucks
for a program like Logic 7 Pro and a bit more than that for a serious 24 bit piece of recording hardware.
There are some who find this hard to "justify" but that level of recording/editing and
production/mastering tools would have cost hundreds of thousands only 10/12 years
ago !! ..... we need to remember that, could you have afforded a 24 track 2 inch machine
at 40,000  bucks ... ??
I love the sound of a "real" amp but there are times when you just can't "crank" one
up to record something and the sound of a "mic'ed up" amp through studio speakers
is WAY closer to software generated ones than "standing" in front of your amp  !!
Try it   !!
It's about the "song" more than "how you got there" anyway  :D

MM.
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm"
My Website www.martinlister.com

vanessa

Re: Software-based stompboxes
« Reply #27 on: November 19, 2005, 02:38:21 PM »
I have a friend that is very old school about his approach to recording (I am very impressed by his knowledge by the way). He just recently moved off tape (for the most part) to a Pro Tools HD system. Other than that all the stuff in his studio is outboard. He still mixes down via an analog board to tape or sometimes to DAT.

I made a demo for a friend’s band that came off very sweet. They wanted that Mesa Boogie Rectified tone that's all the rage with pop-punkers these days, but they only had Marshall amps. I remembered that the POD really shines in the Mesa Rec dept. (in fact I found that really it's best two emulations are the Mesa Rec and the Marshall) so I had the idea to DI them and mic their amps. When I went home to mix I did three mixes, one with just the POD Mesa, one with just the Marshall's, one with the POD up front in the mix of the two.
I gave the demo to them and told them to tell me in a week what mix they wanted to keep. They came back wanting the POD Mesa only mix. So I kept it.

Later I gave that old school friend a CD compilation of some of my friend’s bands I had recorded. I wanted to see what he thought of my style and get some pointers. He liked the CD, later claiming he has been spinning two tracks off it all the time (one with the POD Mesa). I forgot to tell him about the POD recordings, I never brought it up and I never thought it to be a big deal.

Months later we got into a discussion about some of the VSTi plugin synths that are out there. I really have been blown away by the new Mini-Moog VSTi plugin. He was not having it, not one bit. We argued for a while about it. I then brought up how the amp emulations have really come along and are great for use in recording. It was here that he lost it. "Nothing can take the place of mic'd speakers, nothing etc.” It was then that I had him play that CD and had him try to pick which track was using an amp emulation. He picked the wrong track. And he was left like a deer in the headlights when I told him which one it was, as this was one of his favorite tracks off the CD.

He later admitted to me that he just guessed and that he really could not tell which one was the POD.

"So I got that going for me".


 :icon_wink:
« Last Edit: November 19, 2005, 02:43:08 PM by vanessa »

MartyMart

Re: Software-based stompboxes
« Reply #28 on: November 19, 2005, 03:20:20 PM »
Vanessa, I hope he isn't too "wiped out" by that revelation !!
I have a good friend who's an engineer, right back to being the
"tape op" on "Bohemian Rhapsody" !  he's recorded hundreds of
famous bands and artists.
Whilst he knowledge is "old school" and very valuable, he embraces all
the new "toys" and records with Logic and Protools these days.
His skill at "placing" guitars and other "real" sounds in mixes, is
fantastic and I think he would not have that pallet to draw from, had
he not spent 20 years "micing up" amps and drum kits etc !
 Both sets of toy's and skills are still valid  :D
I use both "outboard" processing, a big mackie mixer and software
synths/plugins ..... but it gets ever closer to being just a nice stereo
mic-pre, Genelec speakers and a computer  !!  :icon_wink:

MM.
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm"
My Website www.martinlister.com

vanessa

Re: Software-based stompboxes
« Reply #29 on: November 19, 2005, 04:01:18 PM »
No, I think he's over it. I also think it will be a while before he tries emulated amps on recordings. But who knows, I'm sure he will down the road.

One point I wanted to make is the Guitar Rig's amps are even better than the POD I used in this recording (POD v2.0). The Fender amp really sounds like the real deal. I never found the POD's Fender very convincing. The GR lets you combine any speaker cab you want 1X10, 1X12, 2X12, 4X12 etc., etc., you can even pick from a number of closed back stacks. You have a number of mic'ing options, several from the front, even back placement on open back cabs. I know the POD XT can do some of that stuff as well but having a visual interface via software is very nice and lets you come up with variations very quickly.

I have tried their Vox AC30 in the guitar combo’s demo. I was not impressed. It is supposed to be in the GR 2.0. I was not really impressed with the POD's AC30 either. The emulations seem to lack the mid range honk and the grit that a real AC30 has when cranked. I'm sure they'll get it down the road. I used to use a Roland GP-100 and this stuff has come a long way from then, heck can you say Rockman?


Squeal

Re: Software-based stompboxes
« Reply #30 on: November 19, 2005, 04:47:10 PM »
Big Fuzz Psi.........comedy.

amz-fx

Re: Software-based stompboxes
« Reply #31 on: November 20, 2005, 07:51:10 AM »
So what's a good Host to use live with some VST plugs? 

Several people have recommended energyXt or Wavelab.    The latter is too expensive for just my experimentation.  Audacity is free but only hosts one plugin at a time.  The real fun comes when you chain several together!  ;D

regards, Jack




Pedro Freitas

Re: Software-based stompboxes
« Reply #32 on: November 20, 2005, 02:02:53 PM »
  Do you know anyone using it live?  I guess in some years we'll go on stage with a laptop, a cab sim and obviously a guitar.

Ever seen Jonh McLaughlin (spelling?) live at Clapton's Crossroads Guitar Festival?  :o 
It's really disturbing, such great skills wired into a chip.
It sounds "enhancement", rather than "tone".
Oh, well. Wathever makes you happy is fine by me.


Pedro

vanessa

Re: Software-based stompboxes
« Reply #33 on: November 20, 2005, 03:44:47 PM »
You can try n-track. I think it has support for VST and it's free. I think the full version is $50. Not bad.

pswoods

Re: Software-based stompboxes
« Reply #34 on: November 20, 2005, 07:52:29 PM »
LMAO - those cheeky titles and graphics would up the value for me. Their Rat is hilarious!

tommy.genes

Re: Software-based stompboxes
« Reply #35 on: November 20, 2005, 09:31:09 PM »

So what's a good Host to use live with some VST plugs?

Check out Plogue Bidule. It's a modular/patchbay style of host that includes its own low-level DSP modules as well. It also allows options for routing of midi and audio plus automatable control of parameters even if these are not coded in the plugin itself. If only my analog circuit design skills were up to the level of freaky effects I've created with this thing...

It's free to try up to v1.0 (they are now at v0.9), and if you pay $75 to unlock it now, any sub-1.0 version will remain usable even after v1.0 comes out. You also get a "significant" rebate on the full version when released.

I've no affiliation with the developers, just a happy user. And I'm sure any accomplished DIY-er here could appreciate what this software can do. Prototype your pedal designs before you build them!

-- T. G. --
"A man works hard all week to keep his pants off all weekend." - Captain Eugene Harold "Armor Abs" Krabs

bwanasonic

Re: Software-based stompboxes
« Reply #36 on: November 20, 2005, 10:36:03 PM »
If anyone here is using a laptop/software setup for live performance, I'd like to hear any tips. So far I haven't been able to get anything that feels right. Sure, I can get plenty of *WoW* factor, and for recording it's easy to dial in something that sounds professional. But when playing live, it doesn't give the same organic responsiveness to touch and playing dynamics (including volume and tone adjustments at the guitar). The Guitar Rig 2 setup with the floor unit looks interesting, and I'd be curious to hear from any users. It just seems to open up another can of setup woes versus lugging my amp and the *bag of doom* that is my pedal board. Namely, reliable monitoring.

Kerry M

MartyMart

Re: Software-based stompboxes
« Reply #37 on: November 21, 2005, 04:01:19 AM »
If anyone here is using a laptop/software setup for live performance, I'd like to hear any tips. So far I haven't been able to get anything that feels right. Sure, I can get plenty of *WoW* factor, and for recording it's easy to dial in something that sounds professional. But when playing live, it doesn't give the same organic responsiveness to touch and playing dynamics (including volume and tone adjustments at the guitar). The Guitar Rig 2 setup with the floor unit looks interesting, and I'd be curious to hear from any users. It just seems to open up another can of setup woes versus lugging my amp and the *bag of doom* that is my pedal board. Namely, reliable monitoring.

Kerry M

As far as "guitar" plugins ... no, but have gigged with a Mac laptop running Logic and playing "synth/Keyboard"
virtual instruments, such as EVP 88 ( rhodes ) "B4" hammond and the Arturia Mini moog.
For a total "70's Funk rig !!
I use the "Digigram pcmcia" card audio interface, which has balanced I/O and a small M-audio midi port.
Worked fine, and the laptops "battery" helps if the power gets pulled  !!
There's a touch of latency, but i could get it down to about 6 ms which you can only just "feel"
( some MIDI keyboards have at least that amount of delay built in !! .. it's not a recognized feature  :D )
So long as your sound card can do "direct software monitoring" and the procesor is up to it, no
problems at all.
A decent PC laptop with 2.8 gig processor, setup for audio, will be like a walk in the park  :D

Marty.
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm"
My Website www.martinlister.com

Elektrojänis

Re: Software-based stompboxes
« Reply #38 on: November 21, 2005, 04:44:17 AM »
So what's a good Host to use live with some VST plugs?

You could try kristal: http://www.kreatives.org/kristal/index.php

It's a free multitrack recording thingy, but it has a live input er... thingy too.

You need ASIO-drivers for your soundcard for good realtime operation. The better soundcards that are made for recording have those. If not you can use ASIO4ALL for most souncards and integrated soundchips: http://www.asio4all.com

ASIO4ALL will not give the sound quality of the better soundcards, but reduces the latency (delay between input and output) to an acceptable level.

The inputs of most soundcards are not suitable for plugging a guitar straight into them. Too low impedance. A clean preamp with a high impedance input plugged into the line-in (not mic in) would be ideal in this aplication. With some soundcards even just a buffer might be enough. (You probably know this stuff Jack, but I just wanted to say this to other people who may wish to experiment too.)

Check out these plugins too:
http://antti.smartelectronix.com (there are two effects under the synths on this page)
http://www.simulanalog.org (This seems to be currently down. I hope it comes up soon. There are a few nice plugins for guitar use in there)