twin reverb comparison recording - real w/ mic vs. modelling

[orri]

I did this comparison for fun.

roundmidnighttwincomparison.mp3 - Google Drive

first A part
setup one: guitar -> twin reverb (silverface 1975) -> mic (shure beta 57) -> audio interface -> EQ in computer
second A part
setup two: guitar -> zoom g3n -> audio interface -> EQ in computer
B part
setup three: guitar -> audio interface -> guitar rig


guitar is always the same: ES175 neck pickup tone and volume controls open
audio interface is zedi8
recording software is reaper.

I used a bit of DAW built in eq.
for setup one I took down a bit in the 300Hz range, in setup two I took a bit in the 1k and up.
For setup three I changed the amp (model) eq a bit after recording, but added no further EQ.


In terms of usability the real amp is by far easiest, just plug in the guitar and it sounds good.
For recording you need to figure out mic position. and mic gain.
One interesting thing is that the mic seamed to pick up some EM noise from the amp if I miced up the right speaker. From the supply voltage circuitry I guess. Micing the left speaker did not have any issues.

It took most tinkering and time to get a good sound out of guitarrig.
I guess partially because it has most options, and I haven't used it much and was learning at the same time.

I did each recording in one take (some test takes), so there are some mistakes there and I mess up the timing a bit.

[WilliamScott]

Very interesting. Gotta say. I like the guitar rig best. What did you use in Guitar Rig?

[Jim Soloway]

Great comparison. I preferred both the Guitar Rig and the Zoom G3N but most importantly, the difference were easy to hear. My own belief is that really talented engineers can work wonders mining guitar amps and cabs but for the rest of us it seems to be the most challenging part of recording guitar. Alternate tools like modelling, sims and re-amping may never get to the quality of a really well recorded amp but for those of us who lack the engineering expertise, they can be really wonderful tools for getting a quality recorded sound.

[Rob MacKillop]

I actually preferred the amp. It sounded the most natural, with more air around the notes.

[orri]

Very interesting. Gotta say. I like the guitar rig best. What did you use in Guitar Rig?

Here's a screenshot ow what I ended up with.
Also played around with some of the control room features, but ended up not using them.


Personally I prefer the real amp the best and guitar rig the least.


But I think in the end there are a lot of variables to play with. guitar settings, amp settings, mic positioning, choice of mic or mics, as well as endless number of post processing options.
An improvement would be to have a second mic an

Perhaps the significance of this test is: what can a guy who plays guitar and is a novice at recording do with these different setups.

[JazzNote]

Here too, i prefer the amp. The sure beta 57 is a relatively cheap mike, i bet with a C414 the result would show even more difference in favor of the amp.

Both, the zoom and the guitar rig sound dead to me in comparison, the zoom maybe a bit less. As Rob writes, probably i miss the air around the notes. To me this translates into a lack of liveliness as is typical for music which is recorded straight from the pickup via direct box into the recording device.

[Spook410]

Thanks for taking the time to do this.. interesting stuff.

I kind of prefer the amp as well. There is something almost too up front about the sound of the others. That would probably be a benefit mixed with other instruments but the amp seemed somehow more natural.

[jzjazz]

Very good stuff!

I liked the amp most. It's a shame it wasn't a blind test, then I maybe wouldn't :-)
The second setup sounds most transparent, the third one a bit boomy. In the first one you can hear that fender character (never played a twin, but deluxe reverb and princetons have the same) and this is my favourive. But the differences aren't too obvious.

BTW. These all sound VERY GOOD to my. Great sounding 175. What year and specs?

[bluefonia]

Great comparison. I like the amp best.
The Guitar Rig is not that good to my ears. There are some noise artifacts - maybe coming from a noisegate that opens/closes? The tone is decent though.

Well, I may be biased. Years ago I made my living as a recording engineer/producer. Still having a small recording rig at home. Have used many of the amp sims on the market and must admit I have never really come to grips with GuitarRig.
In my opinion some of the competitors have done a much better job during the last few years.

For ease of use and great tone I can recommend Schuffham S-Gear. (There is a free demo)
It does not come with one million different amps, effects and what not, but the amps - six as I remember - and few effects which are included, sounds great. It is easy to dial in a great tone - and without having to fight the harsh treble, which most other sims suffer from. Last but not least the S-Gear feels the closest to a real amp to play of all the sims I have played.

[WilliamScott]

Here's a screenshot ow what I ended up with.
Also played around with some of the control room features, but ended up not using them.


Personally I prefer the real amp the best and guitar rig the least.


But I think in the end there are a lot of variables to play with. guitar settings, amp settings, mic positioning, choice of mic or mics, as well as endless number of post processing options.
An improvement would be to have a second mic an

Perhaps the significance of this test is: what can a guy who plays guitar and is a novice at recording do with these different setups.

Thanks for the screen shot. Sounds good with my Tele too.

[rhoadsscholar]

I liked the zoom the best might I ask what settings you used in the zoom. I love the format of that pedal. Thanks for taking the time to do this

[princeplanet]

Well, as a long time engineer specialising in guitar tones, this test, while interesting is meaningless. Without boring us all with specifics, micing up a cab and tweaking the amp to compensate for the recording process (as well as to suit the surrounding context of the rest of a recording) is a true art. Room placement, mic combinations and placement, guitar and amp (pedal?) tweaking, pre amp tweaking, subtle outboard compression tweaking, pre or post EQ tweaking, post FX tweaking.... There's a lot to get right before you can judge whether the amp is agreeable or not.

Sure, the amp sims are tweakable as well, and also need experimentation in order to seduce good tones, I know, I've done a lot of this when a DI split was available and no time to re-amp! I've tried just about everything, and at times I've made almost any amp sim sound acceptable, context dependent obviously. But when a jazz guitar performance needs to be right out front, and under the microscope, then dynamic, organic interaction with the whole signal path is everything. The best players, with the greatest dynamic range, expression, and nuance usually sound most compelling with a real rig. Lesser players surprisingly have sounded "better" through the sims, perhaps because the sim hid some tonal weaknesses under some compression and processing...

The other point I should make is that all such comparison tests must be blind, the psychological factors at play are too insurmountable, and is the reason why I try blind comparisons myself when testing between options with the help of my assistant. Did you notice that once someone in this thread expressed preference for the real amp with plausible reasoning, it was easier for others to hear the same preference? Expectation bias, the best of us are seduced by it, more often than we care to admit!

[JazzNote]

Well, as a long time engineer specialising in guitar tones, this test, while interesting is meaningless. Without boring us all with specifics, micing up a cab and tweaking the amp to compensate for the recording process (as well as to suit the surrounding context of the rest of a recording) is a true art. Room placement, mic combinations and placement, guitar and amp (pedal?) tweaking, pre amp tweaking, subtle outboard compression tweaking, pre or post EQ tweaking, post FX tweaking.... There's a lot to get right before you can judge whether the amp is agreeable or not.

Sure, the amp sims are tweakable as well, and also need experimentation in order to seduce good tones, I know, I've done a lot of this when a DI split was available and no time to re-amp! I've tried just about everything, and at times I've made almost any amp sim sound acceptable, context dependent obviously. But when a jazz guitar performance needs to be right out front, and under the microscope, then dynamic, organic interaction with the whole signal path is everything. The best players, with the greatest dynamic range, expression, and nuance usually sound most compelling with a real rig. Lesser players surprisingly have sounded "better" through the sims, perhaps because the sim hid some tonal weaknesses under some compression and processing...

The other point I should make is that all such comparison tests must be blind, the psychological factors at play are too insurmountable, and is the reason why I try blind comparisons myself when testing between options with the help of my assistant. Did you notice that once someone in this thread expressed preference for the real amp with plausible reasoning, it was easier for others to hear the same preference? Expectation bias, the best of us are seduced by it, more often than we care to admit!

I don't think the test is meaningless. It confirms to me once more that there are audible differences between modeling and the real sound. Meaning that modeling can't capture hundert percent of the "air, warmth and smoothness" which comes natural with miked guitar sounds.

Blind tests do make the listener listening harder with increased "neutrality" but i believe the goal of this thread was not to prove that any of the methods is superior, i perceive it as sharing knowledge and experience.

One of my duo partners once financed a cd which he chose to be mixed from the direct signals only. The engineer tried hard to clone my AI/RE sound - he came pretty close but i still dislike the result because of the absence of air and warmth which was audible on the mic track . In my duo partner's opinion the result was perfect, he likes it the way it is, so i believe that in the end it all just boils down to individual taste anyway.

[princeplanet]

... i believe the goal of this thread was not to prove that any of the methods is superior, i perceive it as sharing knowledge and experience....

Sure, and while we're on that note, the other night I was given some sugar free chocolate, after a very salty meal and a little too much wine, but I think it tasted ok, mmm, not sure, maybe not... anyway, just sharing some more knowledge and experience about chocolate. Hope you found that useful!

[JazzNote]

Sure, and while we're on that note, the other night I was given some sugar free chocolate, after a very salty meal and a little too much wine, but I think it tasted ok, mmm, not sure, maybe not... anyway, just sharing some more knowledge and experience about chocolate. Hope you found that useful!

Not useful here .... if i needed knowledge and experience about chocolate i would not look for it on a jazz guitar board :-)

[princeplanet]

Not useful here .... if i needed knowledge and experience about chocolate i would not look for it on a jazz guitar board :-)

Of course not, how could any one here teach the Swiss anything new about chocolate !

[JazzNote]

Of course not, how could any one here teach the Swiss anything new about chocolate !

Don't take this for granted, i know absolutely nothing about sugar free chocolate ;-).

[orri]

...
The other point I should make is that all such comparison tests must be blind, ...

Depends on the purpose and goal.
If the test purpose is to determine what most people perceive to be "best". The test must absolutely be blind.
(you'd also want to isolate a variable to test for, and/or gather far more datapoints, but that's an other discussion).
However the intention was just to do a little demonstratation for fun. Not doing actual science.

These all sound VERY GOOD to my. Great sounding 175. What year and specs?

It's from 2007. All original as far as I know with D'addario chromes 12s.
I bougth it two years ago from a forum member. Here are the for sale and NGD threads:
Gibson Es-175 2007 Blonde (includes really nice photos by the seller).
NGD - Gibson ES175 2007

[princeplanet]

....the intention was just to do a little demonstratation for fun. Not doing actual science. ...

Sure, but it could have been more fun (and useful?) if you had not told us what was what, maybe.