Bass Guitar

I just watched the video and now I see why my method worked that didn't require a Re Amping box. His points were: First the Level needed to be attenuated. So that was my use of the 3/4 Bus. But now I see that in the case of my Scarlett 6i6 I could have used the second headphone jack and simply controlled that using it's level which I would assume is analog. Too bad I bought the SSL2 that doesn't have the second headphone output. But my Zoom L8 has 4 independent headphone mixes. Then second, the Ground Lift issue. I didn't have that because I was running though Battery Powered pedals. I did get a hum if I used a power supply. I almost always use batteries for recording. Third was the Impedance miss match of which he came to the conclusion that it didn't seem to make any difference sound quality wise. So instead of a Re Amp box one could most certainly get by using any Audio interface that sports an independent headphone mixes. Done. I use my L8 at live gigs and one set up is running the Bass track from my laptop into my Fender Rumble. I guess that's sort of Re Amping a Bass.

It must be similar in design to my Radial Trim-Two Passive Stereo DI. It is designed specifically for connecting the headphones output of a laptop or tablet to the PA. Built like a tank. I used to live near the Factory in Port Coquitlam BC. I see they are still there. Back then I think they were called Cabletek. In the 90’s I had a music store and I bought all my cables and a bunch of stuff from them. I still have every last one of the cables they made. It’s not the cheapest gear made but it will never let you down. I looked the company up and this was on the page. The history of the Radial RE Amp- ReAmp Playing a recording through an amplifier - 2011 Prior to 1994 anyone wanting to re-amplify a previously recorded audio track from a professional tape recorder had only a few options. The most common technique was to drop the gain of the tape recorder's output to a modest –30 or more and feed it into the back end of a passive direct box's XLR connector. Then connect the direct box's ¼" input jack to the guitar amp's input. The result was disappointing at best for a number of technical and practical reasons so the process of Reamping never really caught on in a big way. In 1993 engineer John Cuniberti, while in the studio recording with Joe Satriani, Cuniberti began to realize that the current issue was a simple interface problem with no off-the-shelf solution, so he and audio tech James Ganwer set out to build a box with off-the-shelf parts for the purpose of Reamping. The project was a success from a technical standpoint but took several years to gain traction in the market. The sheer high cost of parts complicated the situation. Several years and changes in the market place later, Cuniberti, realizing the difficulty in building a small-scale product economically, decided to sell the company. Realizing the importance of this technology, Radial Engineering Ltd. purchased the assets and in June 2011 began shipping a Radial version of the original.

The count down and nag screen are designed to purposely annoy you to the point that you give in and either return to Platinum or buy a membership. Regarding perfect timing and bass lines. I have played bass for about exactly 60 years now. My timing is not the issue but getting a clear, clean bass sound was always a challenge. My solution was I just don’t worry about it and I convert the analog bass track into midi. If you played to the metronome or a midi drum track then quantized to the appropriate degree. Which is the answer to your question. A simple push of a button. Converting to midi takes less than 30 seconds and then the editing process can be done in a few minutes if you are adept with the tools. The other option is you can use Melodyne as it handles audio in the same way you would work with midi. But it’s a lot of work. Midi gets the bass track sounding great in no time at all.

@bmarlowe That’s weird that they recommend using the headphone jack? Seems clunky. And most people don’t have the option that you have of 2 separate headphone mixes. I would still try the 3/4 jacks as well.

@mettelus Ah Ok I now see it’s a Mustang. I thought it was a GTO. Hard to tell in a 1/4” picture. Ya the Cutlass is drum brakes but I’m used to old school. In the background of the picture you can see my 1984 GMC camper van. I love that thing. I use it to haul my PA to Gigs in the summer. Absolutely zero technology. It’s in brand new condition thanks to the former owner who pampered it. Old cars are like classic guitars. Example my father in law paid $3,500 for the Oldsmobile in 1972, we sold it for $30,000. If I still had my 1963 Gibson Studio I paid $100 for, Im sure it would be worth at least $5,000 or more now. I still have my 1965 Guild L series. But it goes with me to my grave. And my Gibson Skylark amp too. My son has my 1969 Fender P Bass that he has been offered $2,000 for. I paid around $100 for it in the 80’s . He has a 1989 BMW he restored that is also now worth gold. Cars and guitars are where it’s at! OK back to the boring stuff.

Totally off Topic, @mettelus I have always identified you with that beautiful red convertible, We just sold this 1972 Cutlass Supreme for my wife's dad. I had it all summer and hated to let go of it. What a gas to drive these old beasts. Everyone waves at you. But Guitars and Cadillac's and hillbilly music is where it's at.

@brandon What you are proposing is simply looping the output of the Daw through hardware and then recording it once satisfied with the results. It most certainly does not have to be an amp or so called re- amping device. I’ve had my Lexicon mx200 connected in my system for a long time. Lots of my older projects you will find a stereo track called Lexicon. That is exactly what you are proposing. The beauty of just using a pedal board is that you don’t need a Mike. Just return it to your interface and you will hear the results in your studio monitors. I think lots of people loop to a pedal board and record the sound. Possibility’s are endless. Im redoing my studio but when done I am hoping to have everything connected using my Yamaha OV1 as a dedicated patch bay for all my hardware effects and midi sound modules. That way everything is always connected. With the mixer I can change guitars or grab my bass etc and that way I only need a 2 input interface. But it needs 4 outputs for looping. As far as how you get the original guitar track to output 3/4 try the suggestions listed above and pick the one that suits your needs. I would want to be able to mute the original without it killing the 3/4 outputs for looping. So a send pre fader on the track would be ideal.

Well it was $840 but seems like it is on Sale for $504. That is still rather expensive though compared to other brands. I have Elements and it is very limited in features. But yes the right software makes life easier.

@mettelus Yes exactly what I was thinking. The whole thing is all about taking a lame DI recording and sweetening it up with some big fat overtones. You can do amazing stuff with the latest versions of all the Guitar sims and I think it’s really what most people are happy with. But for a person like myself who has always had some sort of Tube amp the sims fall just a little short of the sound Im after. It’s not just the tubes, the speaker is also part of that sound. I almost always record my electric guitar through my amps. That sound never lets me down. But sometimes Im just goofing around and it would be way too loud for my family to put up with so it’s the DI thing as last resort. But I think it’s that same elusive sound that has a lot of top notch recording engineers using older analog outboard hardware. Then there’s the analog synths too. Once you’ve heard it - then it gets stuck in your head. The in the box sound never gets you exactly where you want to be. I think re amping is just a fancy word for using hardware after the fact. David’s suggestion of using an insert is something that I have never tried before. I don’t think many Daw’s support it. Im using Platinum and I think the insert was added later on. I looked up the Scarlett 2i4 2nd Gen and it works exactly like my 6i6. That was the interface I used as described above.

It’s been almost 2 years and seems like the producers of Next still haven’t gotten around to making simple tutorials. I made a few Next tutorials back then but they only got a few views so I removed them. The users Manual is very useful for beginners because it is simple and only around 270 pages. That is your best chance of success.

Trouble shooting 101. Swap out components Try a different interface Try a different Computer Try a different Daw Try different cables and Ports Try a different project Windows updates will sometimes undo settings you had made to optimize your system for audio. And rolling back doesn’t always fix that. First place is the list of Start up Apps. Try disabling the internet. Test your memory, bad memory sticks are known to cause problems like yours. Could even be dirty connections

I actually don’t know what re-amping capabilities means because it seems all it would be is properly matching the signal going into the amp. That’s what I mean by adjusting the signal fed from the 3/4 output. It most certainly works. Example is I can feed a guitar track that was recorded using a DI so it is clean, to my Fender Princeton and by adjusting the output from Sonar and the Amp set at 7 or 8 I can get that wonderful tube overdrive. It’s a little extra work compared to using TH-U but it’s the sound quality difference that makes it worth it. Hence I end up with the 2 completely different sounds on the 2 tracks and then I like to pan those. The original clean track will get the TH-U. Experimenting with different guitar sounds is the most fun for me of anything else I do in recording.

You monitor it the same way you monitor any input signals. Your interface has a proper control for direct monitoring. You can control the balance between the mikes input and the Daw playback with the direct monitoring balance knob. This gives you the Zero Latency option. And @David Baaythis is why I don’t have any latency. I think too many people rely on using the input echo system for monitoring. Why would you use that with audio when most all interfaces have direct monitoring capabilities. The only use case for using the input echo to monitor is when you want the wet signal like when using a guitar sim. If you’re hearing latency when tracking then you are not set up properly.

Never had an issue with delay. The way Im doing it is no different than any overdubbing routine. I used to use this technique back in the early days of 8 track tape. You had only one guitar track and to make it sound huge you would run the guitar track out in to the live room into one or more amps. Then sometimes set up 4 or more mikes around the room. These returned to the mixer and then used in the mix down to master. Gave a mono guitar a huge fat stereo sound. That was the days of Nirvana and Green Day. And we came up with that idea only through using our imaginations and a glimmer of information that this could be done. Having unlimited tracks took all the fun out of recording.

AI answers me— MIDI RPN (Registered Parameter Number) is a standard way to control parameters on MIDI devices with higher resolution than standard MIDI Control Change (CC) messages. RPNs use two separate Control Change (CC) messages (CC 101 and 100) to select the parameter, followed by data entry messages (CC 6 and 38) to set the value, allowing for a 14-bit value range. This enables a precise 16,384-step resolution for features like filter resonance or envelope times, as defined in the standard MIDI specification.