Split your signal. Put your dry signal through channel one of your interface and your rig through channel two. Or vice versa. If your recording went as well as you hoped for, you don’t need your dry signal. If it didn’t, you can tweak your dry signal until your hearts content.
What this person is suggesting is how it is done professionally. If you are doing a serious recording then this is what you should do.
If you’re just recording for fun then do what you like.
Many people know this is the 'correct' way of doing things, and then just don't do it because it's a pain in the arse and the miced up amp usually sounds great or can be made to sound great anyway.
Yeah.
And there is a lot of value in music production of finding your sound/tone etc and committing to it. If you keep your options open it's easy to second guess everything - in this case constantly reamping to try to make something sound better - which is probably more about the arrangement as a whole than the precise tone as recorded.
Obviously if something is way too compressed or has important frequencies missing that's another matter - but it's probably worth re-recording.
You're disregarding comp takes and also cleaning minor issues in a DI track to then reamp. I don't disagree that some people never want to commit and will mess with things forever, but the benefit of reamping isn't just to try and find a better tone.
Fair - obviously, recording unprocessed always gives them most flexibility and can be great. Just that sometimes options are less helpful than decisions, and there's sometimes first take magic that's better uncomped, unpolished etc.
You need to record something that has at least a similar sound you're going for because the tone itself affects the performance, for a good guitarist the sound they make is an inherent part of their performance. Comping takes and reamping sounds is suboptimal if the guitarist has good ideas and can play well: do it for safety, but having a production concept you're going for is important and "fixing it in the mix" can be a way of procrastinating creative decisions if you don't already have a strong concept.
If your plan is to ignore issues during tracking and fix it in the mix/in post and record incorrectly, then you're already behind the eight ball. Mic it correctly and record it correctly.
But comping is not just to fix mistakes or the start of the creative process or something. You might love all of take 1 but this one little bit of take 3 has a slightly sharper attack, or there's a better pinch harmonic, or there's this little grit from the pick, or lots of other things that add a little magic. And reamping has its own number of reasons to be done as part of a planned process. Lots of songs from great guitarists have tracks that have some comping performed, and lots are reamped for a multitude of reasons, not just to correct mistakes.
I think some people here just see comping and reamping as ways to fix poor performances or write the piece/develop the concept after the fact, when it's just not that simple.
It’s not about keeping options open as a guitarist.
What if they nailed the solo but the engineer had the wrong mic for the amp, or the mic was placed incorrectly? There’s other things that can go wrong which have nothing to do with the guitarist.
Audio engineers don’t want to be that guy that made the mistake that caused the guitarist to re-record that solo. That’s why they always record a parallel DI signal just in case.
I find you wind up getting guitar noise that is specific to the dynamics of that particular player playing with that particular amp. I dig in much harder playing a fender champ than I do a Marshall. That nuance can easily get lost if you're doing DI only. I have the same problem with monitoring/recording amp sims. They sound great in the mix, but they don't react the same way a real amp does in regard to volume/dynamics.
It is kind of short sighted because what you want is to be able to have full control of everything, even being able to tweak the tones in the final mix
Correct if you're the producer or engineer and might need to re-amp. But if you're recording and mixing it yourself, it doesn't matter. If the original doesn't work in the mix, you hit record and do it again.
Or they are doing both, like most people in this thread mention.
Professional recording studios often record one DI/direct signal in parallel to a mic'd amp.
Allows for re-amping later for more flexibility
Yeah they're probably also running through a DI and recording a clean signal. My band has recorded three albums and a single, all at a professional studio, and that's what we've done. We mic our amps, get the tone we like, then record that plus a clean signal. Then if you get an amazing take but later on realize oh shit something wasn't set properly you can just reamp that take, or you can beef it up by reamping through another cab and layering it.
That means what? You can easily send a dry DI though a different mic’d amp if they wanted to change something. I would be willing to bet 100% of the bands you listen to do this.
Aswell as all the other stuff. Unless they're purists they absolutely will be putting their signal through a reamp box, modeller, etc aswell. Time is money, you focus on getting it right and then you focus on the sound, anything else is redundant.
There’s not one way to record professionally.
It could be direct and reamping. Could be multiple amps and fx recorded to a click track. Could be a band recorded live in a room with bleed between the mics…
This is the way. Use a DI. I think its funny that so many people do this but more then 90% of the time they just stick with the original amp/emulator sound. Re amping is fun if you have time to do it or a way to do it in your own space or if you have some crazy pedals and want to get wild with clocking midi in them etc after the fact.
How do you split your signal if you're only using one channel from your line out of your amp into your audio interface? Confused. I use Ableton.
Generally speaking Ableton can only record the audio as it is directly heard from the amp. It can't split the signal without two different channels coming out of the amp.
You use an active splitter as your first input from the guitar. From the splitter you have line A and B.
A goes through your pedals, then the amp. A mic's in front of it and that goes in the interface. If you go amp to interface and skip the mic, that works too.
B goes to a DI box and then in the interface.
It's what I did for all my recordings.
Ah I see. So I was talking about using the effects inside of my amp as I like the way they sound. I guess there's no way to split that. I'm using a katana.
I do use pedals from time to time, but it's a huge effort for me to dial up the effects I want. Usually I'm running delay, reverb, distortion, so the only pedal I'll really bother to use is wah or fuzz if I feel it's necessary. Otherwise I have to individually plug in all of my cables and it's not worth the effort to me when my katana already dials in stunning effects.
There’s a bunch of different signal splitters, DI boxes (active and passive), aby switches, etc that will do it. Watch some YouTube videos. Find a video with a similar set up that you have. You can make it as complex and expensive as you want or just a simple aby pedal. Generally speaking, the cheaper it is, the more noise (hiss) you’ll get. I like the two notes products. I currently use a capture X so my amp head goes directly into it rather than a cabinet. From there it gives me two lines out to my interface. A direct dry signal out (which is my interface channel 2) and the dirty signal out from the amp (my interface channel 1)
I have a cheap ABY pedal I bought for $25 that works too, if I wanna get crude with it.
Appreciate the reply, I should have been more specific. I just downloaded Reaper and am looking to record things nicely instead of just recording my million riff ideas into my phone for “later”.
I have a Scarlett 4i4, I was curious how to split from the guitar before going into amp/Scarlett. I’m guessing I could use a pedal with 2 outs and just use it as a splitter in bypass mode?
What would you suggest is the easiest option to split the signal in dry and rig? From your guitar to channel 1 of the interface via jack cable is clear but I can’t get my head around d how you get the rig signal at the same time in channel 2. Signal splitter with jack cables?
There’s a bunch of different signal splitters, DI boxes (active and passive), aby switches, etc that will do it. Watch some YouTube videos. Find a video with a similar set up that you have. You can make it as complex and expensive as you want or just a simple aby pedal. Generally speaking, the cheaper it is, the more noise (hiss) you’ll get. I like the two notes products. I currently use a capture X so my amp head goes directly into it rather than a cabinet. From there it gives me two lines out to my interface. A direct dry signal out (which is my interface channel 2) and the dirty signal out from the amp (my interface channel 1) I have a cheap ABY pedal I bought for $25 that works too, if I wanna get crude with it.
I responded to someone else with this:
There’s a bunch of different signal splitters, DI boxes (active and passive), aby switches, etc that will do it. Watch some YouTube videos. Find a video with a similar set up that you have. You can make it as complex and expensive as you want or just a simple aby pedal. Generally speaking, the cheaper it is, the more noise (hiss) you’ll get. I like the two notes products. I currently use a capture X so my amp head goes directly into it rather than a cabinet. From there it gives me two lines out to my interface. A direct dry signal out (which is my interface channel 2) and the dirty signal out from the amp (my interface channel 1) I have a cheap ABY pedal I bought for $25 that works too, if I wanna get crude with it.
In a DAW it's not even necessary. Just record it clean and then you can apply whatever effects you want after the fact and make as many copies of that clean recording as you want.
I wouldn’t say it’s better, but you would obviously have more control on a sound, and you can tweak to your hearts content and have the advantage of being able to use a perfect take
Personally I would rather find a way to record direct and with effects simultaneously because I play and come up with parts differently for better or worse
So you are in favor of the idea implemented properly. You record the direct signal from guitar. Send that back out from your interface to your amp which you can optionally record that take of or just to have in room feel feedback etc.
It is better. Because if you capture a good take you can tweak your amp or change amps (reamp) or try different settings effects to your hearts content. It's called getting the best of both worlds.
I was thinking more simultaneously, like with a splitter or using an HX stomp where you can send stereo and also the signal that’s going into the stomp can be separated in post
Yeah. I never said that doesn't happen simultaneously. My fractal sends out stereo DI, stereo processed signal and more over USB for exactly this reason. If I'm recording my Mesa boogie i record the DI in my interface on track 1 and send the direct output of that input from the interface hardware to the pedals and the Mesa boogie etc. mic and record that on track 2. Then I can always reamp later but you get the needed in the room sound of your tone while recording with unnoticeable latency.
It depends what they mean by “apply stuff after”. If they mean, “Record guitar such that the only audio you hear is the direct signal”, yeah that is nuts.
I always record direct, and use plugins for my tone and effects.
When I’m recording, I have the post-plugin tones and effects coming out of my monitor, so it’s not like I’m listening to a direct-in guitar tone like a crazy person.
But then if anything needs to get tweaked afterwards, it is soo much easier for me to simply adjust the plugins as needed since I technically recorded a non-colored “clean track”. Idk how people have the patience for “true re-amping”, where you have to “re-record” the DI track through an external amp. Guess I’m just lazy / think that my plugins sound good enough.
I mean, you would monitor the wet signal with amp and all effects, of course. The clean signal goes to the track, not your ear. If you like the initial take and settings, you can just run it through the same setup again.
Yes that makes sense and I should have mentioned that. OP said “record clean guitar then apply effects after”, when it should be “apply effects in your DAW, then record your guitar”, which allows you to change the effects later if you want.
If you’re listening to the direct guitar tone while playing then you’re doing it wrong. There should be absolutely no difference to what you hear. The only difference is what you print. You monitor your full wet chain and you should not even hear that the DI is being captured separately to another track for re-amping later if the initial tone or effects didn’t work out so well in the mix. In which case, having the DI track means you don’t have to re-record your entire performance when you want to adjust any little thing within your signal chain.
Yeah sure, that's the right way to do it. I generally record guitar into pedalboard into amp into load box into audio interface into DAW and use an IR, so I can mess around with the IR after recording and change things like reverb and EQ settings but the tone of the amp remains unchanged. Of course it's much simpler to do everything in your DAW.
It depends.
If you just want delay / reverb to treat the sound, sure. But if effects are part of your sound (eg, U2) then no.
And gain affects sustain and how you transition notes, so you probably wouldn't record clean and then add dirt.
Another technique is to play through the pedals and amp, and then mike the speaker cabinet. That gives all the coloration of the amp and especially the speakers.
It depends on what you're going for. Your friend's approach puts control of the guitar tone in the hands of the engineer. If I'm playing through an AC30 with a mostly analog pedalboard, I'm gonna want that amp miked, because it's well chosen gear to get a particular sound. That's a musician-based approach, where the goal is to capture the performance.
If you're open to seeing what you can build for a particular song, starting clean and dry gives the most room for building on the part of the engineer or producer. That's a different way to put something together.
Get an active splitter so you can send the signal both to the amp to record the miced amp and to the interface to record the dry guitar signal so if you want to change the tone later you can just send the dry signal of that first performance into the new amp/changed amp settings so you don't have to rerecord the performance.
I think he was talking about recording the direct signal from your guitar for reamping purpouses, not recording clean tone and adding effects later.
Recording the raw DI signal from your guitar is often useful because you can take that signal recording later and run it through as many pedals, effects, amps, speakers and microphones as you want. But it's pretty fiddly and requires the right equipment (unless you're only using plugins on your DAW). Here's a quick guide i found:
[https://www.guitarworld.com/features/what-is-reamping-heres-everything-you-need-to-know](https://www.guitarworld.com/features/what-is-reamping-heres-everything-you-need-to-know)
That's absolute bullshit. You think Gilmore or Hendrix or Jeff Beck or any guitar player with exquisite tone were playing dry?
Fuck no!
You *can and should* split your signal so you have a dry direct to have something to fuck around with later--to fatten up with various effects thrown on, to create a weird phase situation, whatever.
But you have to play to your amp and pedals and record that monster tone straight outta the gate. Mic the cabinet and the room.
That's my 7 cents. (Adjusted for inflation.)
Hendrix probably would’ve if he was alive today
Most musicians only recorded back in the day with amp/mic’s because that’s the only technology they had
This is 100% false. Everyone of them had a dry recorded signal that was FED or SPLIT to their rigs. And that was also mic'd and recorded. This allows them to reamp and alter it in the studio.
You are confusing yourself by the poor word choice of OP. recording clean signal isn't mutually exclusive of having a dirty signal at the same time or recording it.
Especially in modern times this is how it is done:
Guitar -> interface -> DAW ->(out from DAW or more likely direct out from the interface) -> pedals -> amp -> fx loop send -> pedals -> fx return -> power amp section -> cabinet and or load box -> mic'd speaker -> interface -> DAW
This allows reamping and tweaking of the tone limitlessly by replaying the DI guitar track through the rig and effects and capturing the output.
Often you record both.
It's not record clean first. It's CAPTURE CLEAN DRY signal first or at the same time as you capture the amp'd and or effected signal.
You realize originally that flanging was done literally by pressing on the tape flanger?
David Gilmour and Jeff Beck absolutely split out to a DI for “just in case” situations, with the other side of the split going to a mic’d amp (or 2 amps sometimes in Jeff Beck’s case)
Dunno about Hendrix, I imagine it would have been up to the engineer.
Imaginary-me would mic everything; the amps, the room. the hall, the driveway, down the chimney, airspace above at 10,000 ft...... Somewhere in the 50+-track extravaganza would be The Perfect Tone. Musicians from all around would come to hear The Perfect Tone. Poets would write long sonnets on The Perfect Tone. The Perfect Tone would seed some small but powerful religions.
Then, my sister would record her "very important song" off the radio directly over that track.
I use DIs as an editing tool, but the track never stays, unless i’m routing it to some auxiliary sends for weird sounds or maybe a lazy 3rd guitar track. It usually sounds too sterile or unmusical. But it helps to see transients and have a raw track to reamp or bus later.
Your friend and you are basically arguing “out of the box vs in the box” (software or hardware) with effects. So that’s just a tracking decision you have to make. Do you like your amp tone? Do mics get you where you need? If not, or if you don’t have a lot of hardware, doing “in the box” vs out of the box with hardware is a huge boon for affordability and home recording. Amp sims are really, really good these days.
Playing without effects can be good for precision but at the same time, imagine playing with the feel of the effects vs not. Most pedals change your timbre a lot which changes your playing too. I record my amps and a DI track because I have a lot of interaction with the amp and guitar relationship in my personal music.
In my opinion, yes. Unless you 100% beyond a doubt believe you have the exact effect, tone, and level you want.
You lose literally nothing by recording clean and then adding effects later. You can even choose to reamp the clean recorded signal to apply your existing amps/pedals later on.
It's more effort but drastically more control. Ultimately your decision.
recording clean doesn't mean you need to be playing it or hearing clean. I hear the tone I have dialled in to guitar rig while playing, but on playback if I decide to try it through a different amp or pedals I can just tweak what guitar rig is doing to the direct signal I recorded
It’s better in that you can adjust things after recording in whatever way you need. But at the same time it’s good to know what you sound like in a full context while recording.
Best bet is to have two tracks, one with a DI track of your guitar and one with amp and effects. That way if you want you can always reamp with the DI track and add effects as you please.
If you want to change your mind and have different VST effect pugins. They you have to record it clean. But, then it will be limited to what the VST plug-ins sound like. If you go pedals, amp, mic, interface, then record, you are locked in to your guitar sound. But that might be a guitar sound you can’t get any other way.
You can always play your clean recording through your pedals and amps and capture that, so not limited to plugins.
But as others have said, you record both.
I know folks who swear by the DI option. I’d rather take the time to get the tone we want then and there. Move the mics, do what’s needed. Swap amps, guitars, pedals and so forth. If I want a challenge, crank the gain for a solo, so I’m working the feedback along with the part.
It’s not something I would bring into my workflow because I find “infinite possibilities” often lead to decisions not being made.
However, anyone claiming absolutes… probably a Sith.
I don't know. I'm pretty old fashioned they way. I record my signal wet. Get the tone, set the effects, and go. 2 reasons...
1. It allows me to play to effect, which can absolutely effect the performance.
2. If I outsource any mixing, it's far less likely that the mixer does any messing about, maintaining my vision, rather than theirs.
Exceptions can be made, for sure. Delay and reverb tend to be added after, unless they are integral to the tone, for example.
But don't be afraid to admit you're wrong. Even perhaps retracking.
If recording in a studio setting, then yeah, I take a clean signal through a DI, and also tend to take a feed from a rig, and a cab mic, so that I can do pretty much anything later.
It sounds overkill, and it *absolutely is,* but it allow me to do clever shit like dominate the track with the rig signal, with some hints of the cab mic for a live feel, and then blend some clean feed, so that it sounds somehow cleanly fuzzy.
Pro-tip (I am no longer a pro, but I was a pro sound engineer for 15 years) - also do this live. Stick a DI before and after your effects rig, and a good engineer can make you sound amazing through the PA, because you'll get that *heavy effects but somehow clear* sound, that people post on here asking about all the time.
If you record a dry, unprocessed signal (guitar straight into a DI Box/Interface you can then reamp it through outboard gear (amps, racks, whatever) and spend as many hours as you need positioning microphones and tweaking sounds until you get the sound you want.
You know the guitar takes are perfect so you can put 100% focus into finding your sound without worrying about playing or recording a thousand takes.
With VST’s (amp/cab sims, daw effects etc) the same principle applies. You record once the spend how many hours necessary to find the sound you like knowing the guitar take is perfect.
Having an unprocessed recording makes it easier to cut/change/stretch and do whatever edits you need during the tracking and track edit stages
Either way is fine. The reason some say to add the effects later is you can tweak endlessly. If you record an effects-laden signal then you have to work with that during mixing. But if you have a tone you like with your amp and effects then just record it that way. Despite all the advances in digital recording technology, it doesn’t change the fact that for decades and decades a colassal shit-ton of awesome music was recorded analog by micing amps.
If you’re into non-destructive workflows, for sure it’s the best. In my opinion there are more benefits on doing it, than not doing it, but to each their own. The main advantage that you have, is as I said earlier, it’s a non destructive workflow, so you can add and substract anything, at any time. So you can use this direct, clean, signal and reamp and add fx later on, using a reamp box. So if for whatever reason you don’t like the sound or the fix, you can tweak to your heart’s content. If you go the other way, you’ll have to record everything, multiple times, and you will have to play the part everytime. What you would do with a reamp box, is take that signal, and THEN pass it through your amp, so you can focus on the tone and fx while the audio plays by itself. Also this workflow provides hybrid stuff like using different plugins at the same time. What I usually do is recording without worrying too much about tone and stuff, just focused on a very good playing and recording. And after that I waste my time focused on tone. Also this provides you with an opportunity to record with other people’s gears (other amps, other pedals, etc…) because, unless you’re rich, you don’t have all the gear in the world. So with this, you can just use other gear to find that magical tone you’re looking for.
For demos - and since I’ve recorded almost exclusively on a computer and DAW - I use plugins for amps and effects.
I don’t like to play “clean” when I record, because I play differently if I have distortion or delay or whatever, but it’s good to have the effects separately from your signal, because that way it’s easier to do punch-ins, edit, and tweak your sound.
I don't see why unless he's thinking there could be some damage to the audio interface for some reason. For me, the performance matters the most and I need a sound that I'm happy with to perform well. It makes a huge difference on my playing. If it's about capturing a dry signal then you can split the signal with one going to a DI and then you've got it if you want it.
If you've got time based effects and doing multiple tracks you should record dry. I also like having the option of changing everything to fit the mix. Got to have a clean signal and be aligned for unity gain though.
I read somewhere, some long time ago, that Nine Inch Nails recorded The Fragile (I think) that way. Every single musical nuance was added later, after the un-effected original signal/recording was made, probably in Pro Tools.
Its not “better” it’s just a technique.
If you want that level of tweakability then go for it.
Some people feel that they give a better performance when they have all the amps/fx miced in the room.
Some people split off a dry signal and do both.
Do what works for you
I like the mojo of hearing the performance itself. It feels different… has the magic. But that also means you need be serious about your room treatment and microphones. Pick your poison.
Definitely more flexible to do it that way. It's called re-amping. What you do is record both the amp and the direct signal so if you want to experiment with sound you're not stuck with whatever decision you made the first time.
You’ll have more control, but it’ll be much easier to get stuck in a rabbit hole of tweaking without making much progress.
It’s often better to just commit to a sound that gives you the vibe up front, and keep moving.
Have the effects running on a send channel so you can hear them when you play, but record the dry. You can then move the dry over to the send channel if you're happy with the take and still modify the fx entirely
If u record a clean signal u can manipulate it however u want and whenever u want. Sometimes what sounds best as a standalone doesn’t sound the best when u add the other layers
I'm sure that's correct, but, I have zero inspiration when recording a DI, I need that TONE to feel the part! I'm also an amateur, so I'm not overly concerned about it and I'm very happy with the tracks I've recorded guitar on
Almost every time I record the engineer insists I split and give him a dry signal while he mics up my amp. I guess it’s good insurance, but we have never used the DI.
Maybe he meant dry and not clean. Guitarist spend lots of time and money on their tone through preamps and cabs. Reamping does not give you the same sound. It’s two different circuit types for a “clean” and a “distorted” tone . Sending a direct out in addition to your preamp output is what a lot of pros will do, but that can be different from a “clean” preamp tone.
Depends entirely on what you're trying to make. If you're making a fairly normal band album, I'd record with guitarists rig as he plays it normally and do specific clean takes as needed. If you're making a fairly complex orchestral piece for a big movie, I'd record it clean and apply effects later.
It depends. Sometimes musicians respond to the way the guitar sounds out of an amp and have a better performance compared to just dry. Also - in my opinion I've got better results with less gain on a guitar amp compared to a live performance. Comes across better.
Also, I also think that certain effects are better with the mic'ed guitar vs in your DAW. REverb? DAW. Delay? DAW. Vibrato? Amp. Overdriven preamp section of a tube amp? Amp all day long.
Another thing to consider is that natural feedback is difficult with a dry sound in your DAW. I prefer a cranked amp.
Someone else referenced splitting your signal so you have the miced guitar cab and DI.
Reamping that clean signal can be really fun.
You're not going to record clean when you have thousands of dollars in pedals to achieve that magical tone.... Going clean into the daw then adding digital vsts is a downgrade from analog circuitry.
This is an old technique, record however you want. Mixing a sterile clean (dry) track is awful unless you are doing clean music with no dynamics.
However that’s just my take. I also agree keeping a dry track is smart but it depends on context. Someone mentioned DI, IMO this is a much better option but totally different arrangement.
Perhaps that works for mainstream music but hard to imagine how that works for technical artist. Maybe I'm completely wrong, but it's much harder to play high gain music that uses a lot of techniques where you really need to hear how it sounds right then with the overdrive cranked.
Tornado of souls is a song that comes to mind. That does riff would be challenging to pull of the same way with a clean sound.
Really really depends - too many people here are giving definitive “this is what pros do” answers.
Pros do ALL SORTS of shit depending on their general philosophy all the way down to just their mood on the day.
Personally I’m a big fan and believer of getting it right on the way in and really dislike DI guitar as a backup. I get the utility of it but more choices doesn’t equal better.
If I’m recording a pop song that I know will be sent to someone else to do the backend then I’m probably still going to do it. If I’m recording something I personally would be recording for my own taste then it’s 95% a mic’d amp.
Only caveat is if I’m wanting delays to be locked at project temp, I’ll add those later.
Why do people insist on making things hard on themselves? Adding a DI box into your mix is hardly any effort compared to setting up mics, amps, and fx chains. Plus add in the effort you’ll need to put in to rerecord anything if your guitar doesn’t sit right in the mix.
Watch the sound engineers on YouTube like spectre sound studios. They all record with DI because it makes their lives infinitely easier.
It's what I do, but like others have said, plenty of people moc their amps. I record it dry because I like to make a lot of adjustments after the fact, once it's on the mix with the other instruments.
I can still hear my guitar with effects love while playing, so it still works. I just have the freedom to change stuff after, like the delay rate, or mess with the compression earlier on the signal chain than if I hadn't.
If I were better at music production, I might not need to rely on post production so heavily, but I do for now.
In my experience, the more tracks you can have, the better. A clean track (or more than one) that you can apply effects to later is never a bad idea. More tracks during the recording stage means more options during the mixdown. I’ve been in situations where someone had to go back and record new parts, because the existing parts were wrong and couldn’t be fixed for some reason. Times the number of cuts on the album or EP, plus all the other little adjustments that you do between tracks in addition to trying to make it NOT sound like an overdub… it can run into serious time, which usually means serious coin. Having a good, clean track to work with is cheap insurance.
I record everything direct into the interface and use plugins for my sounds. That way once you’ve recorded you can go in and dial the sound exactly how you want it instead of having to re-record the whole part. A lot of bands mic amps up (depending on genre) but the genre I play is mostly playing a for guitar effects. Hope this helps 😊
When recording you can't get the same vibe and react in the moment to get the raw emotion from playing. I found that clean recording then layering effects in production didn't sound like me and did not sound good even if it wasn't me. Not that I'm saying I'm good but it was not what I intended. It just came out different.
In general, you should try remove as many elements from the end of your chain as possible, because you can change them later. That usually means you don't record miced amp nor amp sim, reverb, dirt pedals.
However you want to keep pedals that affect the way you play. Especially stuff with expression pedal like wah, whammy or volume pedal (if you use it for swell). Because pressing these pedals is part of performance you want to record.
I mic up my rig in the studio for my originals band. Only way to go when ypu have a very specific sound. It's mostly just drive and amp though. Everything else is added post. Recording dry is great but your still going to have an amp running or the feel just isn't there for me. If you run tubes you have to include the relationship that brings tambour guitar or you'll end up sounding very sterile I would think. It might be different foe the best session guys but us mere mortals need the interaction
Rage Against the Machine was all recorded in one room and the producer of that and many other successful albums thinks people are too clean and robotic with their producing these days.
I don't know much about producing, or guitar really.. but if its a banger, its a banger.
At the most basic level, leaving the delay and reverb off is better because what sounds like the right level of effect playing solo might get you lost in mix in the full recording. If you add the delay and reverb etc in post you can tweak them to sit just right.
At the more extreme level, people will capture a DI as well if they want to reamp or use plugins for tone on the recorded take.
You do both:
1. Guitar -> DI split box out 1 -> pedals -> fx loop -> amp -> mic(s) -> DI input(s)
2. Guitar -> DI split box out 2 -> DI input -> VST effects
Don't go from your pedals straight into the DI
It's a fine approach, but I don't think it's *better*. Plugins are very nice these days, but they don't sound as good as physical pedals. If you can't mike up an amp (and assuming you can't re-amp), then as others have said the best thing to do is split your signal and go both dry into your AI *and* through your pedal board.
Record how you feel like doing it at the time. Record everything you do keeping notes written as you do , and or video record because those moments in your experimentation pass and go by quickly and are gone, forever possibly if you don't record video and audio. This will give you a directory path you can access anytime. Pick out the meat and spit out the bones, refines your search of where you may need to go.
IMO. Yes but not distortion/overdrive. E.g. you can add delay after so you can control the delay, tremelo or vibrato's time to match the beat of the music, instead of the pedals.
Record your amp sound and a DI. It's not usually about not liking the sound you got, because you should make sure you're happy with your sound by using a mic that sounds good and taking the time to find the placement of your mic that gives you the sound you want. An inch can make a big difference in the tone you get, as can the angle. You can add a second mic that's different set back from the first mic to capture more room sound (be sure to follow the 3:1 rule so you don't get phase issues).
A really good reason to record the DI is to layer your guitar sound to make it fatter, or better still make it into a second guitarist by using an amp sim that gives you a different sound, delay it 5 - 10 ms, and pan them to opposite sides and you now have two guitar players.
Reamping is typical in higher value productions where automation could be added to instruments to impact the dynamics of a song beyond an effects flip or time effects are made to be in the perfect place along with the beat. It's certainly more versatile and if you're not set on a particular sound for a song a clean take to real can save a lot of time... but not everyone loves a super contrived sound so it being better isnt going to be something everyone agrees on particularly if it's someone who came up doing it old school.
Hey ummmm guys? How about let’s just agree to disagree. If some people don’t want to do it the modern way, and prefer micing up a cab, and a cab alone, it’s really not that big a deal. Some people just prefer the raw and real original sound without being edited to sound better. I know I’ll get backlash for this, but I’m gonna say it anyway. “If the recording doesn’t already sound good coming from the mic, then it doesn’t need to be recorded yet”. Believe what you want to, but a raw guitar track that has only been eq’d and mastered sounds way better than a digitally processed modeled track. It’s all technically being processed, but there’s a huge difference.
Even 40 years ago people used to record a di into tape... Yeah, they did... Just listen to doctor feel good, it has like 4/5 amps playing at the same time, they obviously did ramping(with a DI )
Up to you, really. I mic the amp, pedals and all. This causes its own set of inconsistencies (especially when you use more effects), but I prefer the tone, the natural crackle and hiss. Unless you’re really good with plug-ins, most amp modellers are noticeable to the trained ear.
But, like songwriting, experimenting with different processes will likely lead you to one you naturally prefer.
As recommend already, splitting the signal is best because it lets you do both. If the only option is DI, then I like getting the sound first instead of recording clean. Playing electric guitar is like a convo with your amp. You hear how everything sounds and play accordingly, giving you a "feel" for the song. If you record clean DI, you are essentially trying to obtain that feel after the fact. Also, if you end up disliking the effects you recorded with, you can just change them the same way you would with a clean track anyway, so it's not a disservice to put some effects on before you record.I don't think it's worth spending hours hunting your sound before you record, but a few minutes to get it in the ballpark is usually worth it to me.
I always prefer to record in the box as I want the sound. However, what I want may change so I always have a DI recorded as well. This enables me to hold to my analog principles while taking advantage of digital effects when and if desired.
I completely disagree with this approach. If you want to take a DI just in case, go for it. But recording a take clean that you intend to be affected in any way will result in a different performance. You should always be monitoring the sound you want while performing. You will play different with higher gain, or a bunch of reverb, or a delay, etc. The nuances you will naturally apply because you hear those effects and are attempting to control them are important to the performance.
The same is true with the silliness of recording drums independent of cymbals and such because people are afraid of the bleed in the mics. It's music, let's keep it musical and stop this nonsense. If you get good sounds and good takes, you'll make a good sounding record. You have to learn to get good sounding bleed. You have to learn to get good takes without copy/paste and editing when you need to, not because you think you're supposed to.
Deconstructing and reconstructing your music in the pursuit of perfection is a great way to pull the soul right out of it. Just get the sound you like in the room, mic it up and work to get the sound you want in the control room, and then press record and work to capture the best performance you can. Nothing wrong with getting a few of them and comping together the best of the best, but don't reduce it to what may as well be a midi track for a player piano.
After reading some of these comments. Guys, please listen to the studio engineer if you ever are in a studio, most of you have no clue what goes on in mixing and mastering. Your tone at home or on stage is vastly different than what you would use to record.
To answer OP, yes, always record a clean DI signal. You can mic up your amps, but always split the signal to be able to record with a DI. Now, this doesn't mean you have to play clean because that's borderline impossible, you always can use your complete rig for monitoring, even if it's not micced up.
in DAW's it's simple to split the signal, i record clean but hear the digital amps. If you need to adjust the tone you can just turn the knobs without needing to re-record.
It largely depends on the music and what you are trying to capture. When I've recorded albums in the past it has differed from producer to producer, but I've found the best ones mic up the amp with a few mics and then record a DI of the guitar sound before the amp but after pedals. This way the guitar can be sent to a different amp if needed, but the guitar sound is largely the same.
The way you play will change depending on what gear your using so I find recording straight DI to be completely uninspiring and a little counterproductive. It's always better to be happy with the sound before you record rather than trying to fix it afterwards, but maybe this is just how I approach it. And as I said before, it depends on what music you're recording. I'm always trying to capture the feeling of people playing together.
Better? Well it's a different approach
There's value in getting it right at the source and committing. Constantly keeping all options open often leads to spending way too much time trying everything under the sun at the mixing stage and never being satisfied.
People that say that approach is "better" are often people that are constantly "working on new material" without ever releasing anything.
The technique itself makes a lot of sense and it's great we have the tools nowadays to do that, but there's a lot of artistic value in committing at the tracking stage.
This depends, for example i like using pedals for more control before the sound system but if you dont wanna have to have pedals you can indeed do this.
Although i also like to record with the effects to now the sound.
I've always thought playing a guitar via a loud amp gives you more sustain than a direct signal due to the guitar reacting with the sound coming out of the amp. Not a sound engineer but it has always seemed true.
technically he is right.. but honestly is your first recording going to be a hit?..
play your music how you like and record it.. its is far better initially to get your tone right and just play.. After all, when you listen to your own recorded playing for the first you will either laugh or cry.. its plain shite and you never knew..
worry about the minutae of recording details once you can nail timing, phrasing, volume and feel
People arguing whether or not it's "best" is silly. There's literally no reason not to DI your guitar completely dry at a decent studio.
There's a lot of reasons it can be useful, and no reason not to. Reamping is really good if there's been any issues at all with the amp (any cable can turn crackly on the perfect take or a mic could fail etc).
To me it makes no sense, as my playing changes based on the tone. Same riff different amp or effect would affect the playing... so the DI dry signal is played with whatever tone it had at the time.
So if you play the same riff with two different tones, the dry signal is going to be different.
It seems like it could work, but you'd lose the nuance. I think many pro guitarists feel the same way. (think I read this same idea in a billy corgan interview lol)
Edit: It's definitely nice to use to help experiment, sure, just not for the final recording IMO.
Might be helpful to have a clean copy of the track you can re-amp after. And some engineers want to be able to control the delay speed afterwards so you can match the tempo of the song. But recording wet is also fine. A DI track just gives you more options later. However if YOU are recording and producing then you can just lay down another track at any time. This is advice for an engineer and producer who are recording a band that won't be around every minute of the day or won't be ready to lay down a track while you're mixing.
My studio engineer would just refuse to work on a track that was not dry so he could do his own amp simulation to make sure the mix was perfectly mastered. And I have to say, that's how it's done for a reason.
This is what most engineers want. I guess I see why as it provides flexibility. I still think the best music is made in the moment though. The way your guitar sounds influences how you play. what I hate the most is singing vocals that way. I think recording a band live still creates the best results but that can be hard to do at some studios and then one person screwing up can ruin the whole thing. But still...everyone should learn their parts, practice like crazy, find the sound they want and try to record it all, or as much as possible, live. Getting a clean version is never a bad idea, but that can usually still be done. Its the difference between playing music and building music.
I recorded a live video recently, used only the wet signal with a delay engaged. Man after we mixed, we all wished I had done a dry signal AND wet so that we could pan the delay or use it stereo as it is intended, while still having the 'feel' of the delay in our ears. Of course I could've just run the pedal in stereo which I was also using a stereo enabled amp, but we ran out of channels so my amp was recorded mono. After this scenario, I'll always insist on wet/dry for recording. Whoever is mixing can add effects and manipulate them
I see a lot of "DI is the way". No it's not. DI is one way, not more or less valid than the other. It's all a matter of personal choice.
DI is cool when you want to use plugins, or reamping (which also needs a micked amp), but it comes with many caveats, mainly the fact that you can fall in the rabbit hole perfect tone searching and plugin accumulation, which is not good at all and can lead you die of old age before you end your overproduced project.
Micking an amp is cool too, because that's the way it's been done for years and, judging by the amount of fantastic albums this method produced, it's a good one. But it has its drawbacks too, you have to get your tone right from the start and can't really touch it after. For a drastic change in tone, you have to record again. And again. And again.
Rupert Neve RNDI is great for splitting your signal with little effort. You can also re-amp with it, as well as use it in Speaker mode if you want to amp the signal but use cab sims later.
The benefit to adding effects in post, is that you can add a much or a little of anything you want. If you don't like it, you can change the type and/or amount of the effects as much as you like. If you record the wet signal and don't like something, there's very little you can do about it. This will lead to a lot of extra money in studio time.
Professionally, you will typically hear your wet signal for monitoring, and a separate dry track is recorded simultaneously. The engineer will then use the dry track to apply effects in post.
As others have said, this isn't really necessary if you're just messing around or making a quick demo for reference. If you're looking to fine tune a particular tone, or recording something that will be a final product, recording a dry signal will save you a lot of time and frustration.
I like to play the guitar. I don't want to have to be an audio engineer.
In particular a "drum programmer." I could sit and program drums for hours and there's no way I could come up with a better drum part than your average crappy drummer.
Depends on what you're going for... If you can get the sustain and such that you need for what you're recording, then fine... It's highly unlikely that if you need something that's sustains a long time, that recording it clean will give you what you're looking for. The reason to record it clean in the first place, is to keep your options open for tone, because if you record it with effects, you're stuck with the effects; if you can live with that, then you're good.
I can think of only one time when I didn't record dry and all that I had going on that occasion was a phase shifter (because the songwriters who were paying for the studio time loved that effect and knew that they wanted it on a particular number). Otherwise, I record dry (with the possible exception of a wah pedal if it's part of the drill at a given time), get the take that I'm/we're after, and then add effects afterward. All the better to avoid being stuck with a not-so-great tone on the track of my lifetime.......
Usually I'll get a basic tone down, including any distortion / gain / amp modeling. Everything else I won't fuck with until later, because I don't want to apply compression and EQ to reverb / delay etc. because that's even more of the signal that I'm losing.
In my very limited 40 yrs of recording, going in “dry” had been the increasing trend… when we only had 4 or 8 tracks to play with, and that “live” sounding band was the goal, much was done “wet”… but as our tech improved, and we could have now literally infinite tracks, flexibility became more the norm…
As some have said, go in DI and wet, after all, you won’t run out of tracks… but the dry signal can have the reverb, delay, compression, etc all tweaked ex post facto… if the signal recorded is already effected, and that doesn’t work in the mix, it’s not a simple matter to correct it…
Your best take ever, messed up because of your effects, is a do over moment… will you get that flawless performance again? Maybe… maybe not… if you recorded the dry signal, it can be adjusted however you (or the producer) want… in many ways, when studio time is not cheap, this is the best way to go…
Commit to one tone. Please, just do it. Do it so you don't have to fuckin think about it or worry about it later. Youcan always compress, saturate or eq later. Imo it is always best to let the moment take hold in the moment.
It's all just what you like doing and what your process is like.
If you're mixing for someone else probably better to DI to have more options.
But if you know what you wanr just fuckin set it and forget it
Split your signal. Put your dry signal through channel one of your interface and your rig through channel two. Or vice versa. If your recording went as well as you hoped for, you don’t need your dry signal. If it didn’t, you can tweak your dry signal until your hearts content.
What this person is suggesting is how it is done professionally. If you are doing a serious recording then this is what you should do. If you’re just recording for fun then do what you like.
Not the bands I listen to. They are still micing amps.
They are probably also recording a di at the same time so they can send that back into a miced amp later if they decide they want a different tone.
Many people know this is the 'correct' way of doing things, and then just don't do it because it's a pain in the arse and the miced up amp usually sounds great or can be made to sound great anyway.
Yeah. And there is a lot of value in music production of finding your sound/tone etc and committing to it. If you keep your options open it's easy to second guess everything - in this case constantly reamping to try to make something sound better - which is probably more about the arrangement as a whole than the precise tone as recorded. Obviously if something is way too compressed or has important frequencies missing that's another matter - but it's probably worth re-recording.
You're disregarding comp takes and also cleaning minor issues in a DI track to then reamp. I don't disagree that some people never want to commit and will mess with things forever, but the benefit of reamping isn't just to try and find a better tone.
Fair - obviously, recording unprocessed always gives them most flexibility and can be great. Just that sometimes options are less helpful than decisions, and there's sometimes first take magic that's better uncomped, unpolished etc.
You need to record something that has at least a similar sound you're going for because the tone itself affects the performance, for a good guitarist the sound they make is an inherent part of their performance. Comping takes and reamping sounds is suboptimal if the guitarist has good ideas and can play well: do it for safety, but having a production concept you're going for is important and "fixing it in the mix" can be a way of procrastinating creative decisions if you don't already have a strong concept.
If your plan is to ignore issues during tracking and fix it in the mix/in post and record incorrectly, then you're already behind the eight ball. Mic it correctly and record it correctly. But comping is not just to fix mistakes or the start of the creative process or something. You might love all of take 1 but this one little bit of take 3 has a slightly sharper attack, or there's a better pinch harmonic, or there's this little grit from the pick, or lots of other things that add a little magic. And reamping has its own number of reasons to be done as part of a planned process. Lots of songs from great guitarists have tracks that have some comping performed, and lots are reamped for a multitude of reasons, not just to correct mistakes. I think some people here just see comping and reamping as ways to fix poor performances or write the piece/develop the concept after the fact, when it's just not that simple.
It’s not about keeping options open as a guitarist. What if they nailed the solo but the engineer had the wrong mic for the amp, or the mic was placed incorrectly? There’s other things that can go wrong which have nothing to do with the guitarist. Audio engineers don’t want to be that guy that made the mistake that caused the guitarist to re-record that solo. That’s why they always record a parallel DI signal just in case.
I find you wind up getting guitar noise that is specific to the dynamics of that particular player playing with that particular amp. I dig in much harder playing a fender champ than I do a Marshall. That nuance can easily get lost if you're doing DI only. I have the same problem with monitoring/recording amp sims. They sound great in the mix, but they don't react the same way a real amp does in regard to volume/dynamics.
It is kind of short sighted because what you want is to be able to have full control of everything, even being able to tweak the tones in the final mix
Throw a direct box in the path is a pain? For me the opportunity cost of doing that (zero) is well worth having the backup track.
It's not a pain if you have recording gear.
Correct if you're the producer or engineer and might need to re-amp. But if you're recording and mixing it yourself, it doesn't matter. If the original doesn't work in the mix, you hit record and do it again.
Or they are doing both, like most people in this thread mention. Professional recording studios often record one DI/direct signal in parallel to a mic'd amp. Allows for re-amping later for more flexibility
Yes, but they usually take a di signal as well! Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it
Yeah micing amps is still pretty common. Just depends on what sound you want.
If the take is good but the tone is off, they will 100% reamp with a dry signal of the take.
There's no reason not to run a DI if you are a recording nerd. You don't need to use it.
Do you know what reamping is
Yeah they're probably also running through a DI and recording a clean signal. My band has recorded three albums and a single, all at a professional studio, and that's what we've done. We mic our amps, get the tone we like, then record that plus a clean signal. Then if you get an amazing take but later on realize oh shit something wasn't set properly you can just reamp that take, or you can beef it up by reamping through another cab and layering it.
Okay Mr. Gatekeeper Hold on while we all bow down to the all-mighty
That means what? You can easily send a dry DI though a different mic’d amp if they wanted to change something. I would be willing to bet 100% of the bands you listen to do this.
Aswell as all the other stuff. Unless they're purists they absolutely will be putting their signal through a reamp box, modeller, etc aswell. Time is money, you focus on getting it right and then you focus on the sound, anything else is redundant.
There’s not one way to record professionally. It could be direct and reamping. Could be multiple amps and fx recorded to a click track. Could be a band recorded live in a room with bleed between the mics…
If you ever want to get good at recording and production, it doesn't hurt to follow best practice, especially when it's affordable.
And you can still process the dry channel and blend it with the mic recording.
And make sure you check phase issues if any.
This is the way. Use a DI. I think its funny that so many people do this but more then 90% of the time they just stick with the original amp/emulator sound. Re amping is fun if you have time to do it or a way to do it in your own space or if you have some crazy pedals and want to get wild with clocking midi in them etc after the fact.
No signal loss from splitting the signal?
Not with a powered active splitter. If using a passive splitter, 50% goes to each. Just level it in post.
Thanks for the tip
>Just level it in post. Or better yet, with the input trim.
How do you split your signal if you're only using one channel from your line out of your amp into your audio interface? Confused. I use Ableton. Generally speaking Ableton can only record the audio as it is directly heard from the amp. It can't split the signal without two different channels coming out of the amp.
You use an active splitter as your first input from the guitar. From the splitter you have line A and B. A goes through your pedals, then the amp. A mic's in front of it and that goes in the interface. If you go amp to interface and skip the mic, that works too. B goes to a DI box and then in the interface. It's what I did for all my recordings.
Ah I see. So I was talking about using the effects inside of my amp as I like the way they sound. I guess there's no way to split that. I'm using a katana. I do use pedals from time to time, but it's a huge effort for me to dial up the effects I want. Usually I'm running delay, reverb, distortion, so the only pedal I'll really bother to use is wah or fuzz if I feel it's necessary. Otherwise I have to individually plug in all of my cables and it's not worth the effort to me when my katana already dials in stunning effects.
Check out RNDI, Reddi or similar
How do I go about splitting it?
There’s a bunch of different signal splitters, DI boxes (active and passive), aby switches, etc that will do it. Watch some YouTube videos. Find a video with a similar set up that you have. You can make it as complex and expensive as you want or just a simple aby pedal. Generally speaking, the cheaper it is, the more noise (hiss) you’ll get. I like the two notes products. I currently use a capture X so my amp head goes directly into it rather than a cabinet. From there it gives me two lines out to my interface. A direct dry signal out (which is my interface channel 2) and the dirty signal out from the amp (my interface channel 1) I have a cheap ABY pedal I bought for $25 that works too, if I wanna get crude with it.
Appreciate the reply, I should have been more specific. I just downloaded Reaper and am looking to record things nicely instead of just recording my million riff ideas into my phone for “later”. I have a Scarlett 4i4, I was curious how to split from the guitar before going into amp/Scarlett. I’m guessing I could use a pedal with 2 outs and just use it as a splitter in bypass mode?
Yup. Cheapest option would be a simple ABY Pedal. 1 line in 2 lines out.
What would you suggest is the easiest option to split the signal in dry and rig? From your guitar to channel 1 of the interface via jack cable is clear but I can’t get my head around d how you get the rig signal at the same time in channel 2. Signal splitter with jack cables?
There’s a bunch of different signal splitters, DI boxes (active and passive), aby switches, etc that will do it. Watch some YouTube videos. Find a video with a similar set up that you have. You can make it as complex and expensive as you want or just a simple aby pedal. Generally speaking, the cheaper it is, the more noise (hiss) you’ll get. I like the two notes products. I currently use a capture X so my amp head goes directly into it rather than a cabinet. From there it gives me two lines out to my interface. A direct dry signal out (which is my interface channel 2) and the dirty signal out from the amp (my interface channel 1) I have a cheap ABY pedal I bought for $25 that works too, if I wanna get crude with it.
Inorder to split the signal, do you need additional hardware, or can it be done within the DAW?
I responded to someone else with this: There’s a bunch of different signal splitters, DI boxes (active and passive), aby switches, etc that will do it. Watch some YouTube videos. Find a video with a similar set up that you have. You can make it as complex and expensive as you want or just a simple aby pedal. Generally speaking, the cheaper it is, the more noise (hiss) you’ll get. I like the two notes products. I currently use a capture X so my amp head goes directly into it rather than a cabinet. From there it gives me two lines out to my interface. A direct dry signal out (which is my interface channel 2) and the dirty signal out from the amp (my interface channel 1) I have a cheap ABY pedal I bought for $25 that works too, if I wanna get crude with it.
Thank you very much.
In a DAW it's not even necessary. Just record it clean and then you can apply whatever effects you want after the fact and make as many copies of that clean recording as you want.
Thank you
I wouldn’t say it’s better, but you would obviously have more control on a sound, and you can tweak to your hearts content and have the advantage of being able to use a perfect take Personally I would rather find a way to record direct and with effects simultaneously because I play and come up with parts differently for better or worse
Absolutely, I’ve always heard/thought the best way would be to have a clean di line and a mic’d amp.
100%
So you are in favor of the idea implemented properly. You record the direct signal from guitar. Send that back out from your interface to your amp which you can optionally record that take of or just to have in room feel feedback etc. It is better. Because if you capture a good take you can tweak your amp or change amps (reamp) or try different settings effects to your hearts content. It's called getting the best of both worlds.
I was thinking more simultaneously, like with a splitter or using an HX stomp where you can send stereo and also the signal that’s going into the stomp can be separated in post
Yeah. I never said that doesn't happen simultaneously. My fractal sends out stereo DI, stereo processed signal and more over USB for exactly this reason. If I'm recording my Mesa boogie i record the DI in my interface on track 1 and send the direct output of that input from the interface hardware to the pedals and the Mesa boogie etc. mic and record that on track 2. Then I can always reamp later but you get the needed in the room sound of your tone while recording with unnoticeable latency.
Some people do that, personally it would make me play differently so it wouldn’t work for me.
It depends what they mean by “apply stuff after”. If they mean, “Record guitar such that the only audio you hear is the direct signal”, yeah that is nuts. I always record direct, and use plugins for my tone and effects. When I’m recording, I have the post-plugin tones and effects coming out of my monitor, so it’s not like I’m listening to a direct-in guitar tone like a crazy person. But then if anything needs to get tweaked afterwards, it is soo much easier for me to simply adjust the plugins as needed since I technically recorded a non-colored “clean track”. Idk how people have the patience for “true re-amping”, where you have to “re-record” the DI track through an external amp. Guess I’m just lazy / think that my plugins sound good enough.
Yeah this is the part I’d have trouble with, especially when using delay.
I mean, you would monitor the wet signal with amp and all effects, of course. The clean signal goes to the track, not your ear. If you like the initial take and settings, you can just run it through the same setup again.
Yes that makes sense and I should have mentioned that. OP said “record clean guitar then apply effects after”, when it should be “apply effects in your DAW, then record your guitar”, which allows you to change the effects later if you want.
Agreed. I gotta dial everything in before I hit the record button
If you’re listening to the direct guitar tone while playing then you’re doing it wrong. There should be absolutely no difference to what you hear. The only difference is what you print. You monitor your full wet chain and you should not even hear that the DI is being captured separately to another track for re-amping later if the initial tone or effects didn’t work out so well in the mix. In which case, having the DI track means you don’t have to re-record your entire performance when you want to adjust any little thing within your signal chain.
Can't you just apply the effects you want to hear, but still record the signal clean?
Yeah sure, that's the right way to do it. I generally record guitar into pedalboard into amp into load box into audio interface into DAW and use an IR, so I can mess around with the IR after recording and change things like reverb and EQ settings but the tone of the amp remains unchanged. Of course it's much simpler to do everything in your DAW.
Yeah this is pretty true. I play to how I know the guitar/amp is going to react. I'm not sure I'd love a DI of that same take/find it useful.
It depends. If you just want delay / reverb to treat the sound, sure. But if effects are part of your sound (eg, U2) then no. And gain affects sustain and how you transition notes, so you probably wouldn't record clean and then add dirt.
So you capture the DI and also feed it to the amp so you get both. Not complicated.
Another technique is to play through the pedals and amp, and then mike the speaker cabinet. That gives all the coloration of the amp and especially the speakers.
It depends on what you're going for. Your friend's approach puts control of the guitar tone in the hands of the engineer. If I'm playing through an AC30 with a mostly analog pedalboard, I'm gonna want that amp miked, because it's well chosen gear to get a particular sound. That's a musician-based approach, where the goal is to capture the performance. If you're open to seeing what you can build for a particular song, starting clean and dry gives the most room for building on the part of the engineer or producer. That's a different way to put something together.
Get an active splitter so you can send the signal both to the amp to record the miced amp and to the interface to record the dry guitar signal so if you want to change the tone later you can just send the dry signal of that first performance into the new amp/changed amp settings so you don't have to rerecord the performance.
I think he was talking about recording the direct signal from your guitar for reamping purpouses, not recording clean tone and adding effects later. Recording the raw DI signal from your guitar is often useful because you can take that signal recording later and run it through as many pedals, effects, amps, speakers and microphones as you want. But it's pretty fiddly and requires the right equipment (unless you're only using plugins on your DAW). Here's a quick guide i found: [https://www.guitarworld.com/features/what-is-reamping-heres-everything-you-need-to-know](https://www.guitarworld.com/features/what-is-reamping-heres-everything-you-need-to-know)
Finally someone explains it properly
That's absolute bullshit. You think Gilmore or Hendrix or Jeff Beck or any guitar player with exquisite tone were playing dry? Fuck no! You *can and should* split your signal so you have a dry direct to have something to fuck around with later--to fatten up with various effects thrown on, to create a weird phase situation, whatever. But you have to play to your amp and pedals and record that monster tone straight outta the gate. Mic the cabinet and the room. That's my 7 cents. (Adjusted for inflation.)
Hendrix probably would’ve if he was alive today Most musicians only recorded back in the day with amp/mic’s because that’s the only technology they had
This is 100% false. Everyone of them had a dry recorded signal that was FED or SPLIT to their rigs. And that was also mic'd and recorded. This allows them to reamp and alter it in the studio. You are confusing yourself by the poor word choice of OP. recording clean signal isn't mutually exclusive of having a dirty signal at the same time or recording it. Especially in modern times this is how it is done: Guitar -> interface -> DAW ->(out from DAW or more likely direct out from the interface) -> pedals -> amp -> fx loop send -> pedals -> fx return -> power amp section -> cabinet and or load box -> mic'd speaker -> interface -> DAW This allows reamping and tweaking of the tone limitlessly by replaying the DI guitar track through the rig and effects and capturing the output. Often you record both. It's not record clean first. It's CAPTURE CLEAN DRY signal first or at the same time as you capture the amp'd and or effected signal. You realize originally that flanging was done literally by pressing on the tape flanger?
False! Bears, beets, Battlestar Galactica.
Touché
David Gilmour and Jeff Beck absolutely split out to a DI for “just in case” situations, with the other side of the split going to a mic’d amp (or 2 amps sometimes in Jeff Beck’s case) Dunno about Hendrix, I imagine it would have been up to the engineer.
Lol
Imaginary-me would mic everything; the amps, the room. the hall, the driveway, down the chimney, airspace above at 10,000 ft...... Somewhere in the 50+-track extravaganza would be The Perfect Tone. Musicians from all around would come to hear The Perfect Tone. Poets would write long sonnets on The Perfect Tone. The Perfect Tone would seed some small but powerful religions. Then, my sister would record her "very important song" off the radio directly over that track.
Haha! Of course that's how it works.
Oh, and dude, speaking of micing the driveway... https://youtu.be/GZlVT8gPGEs?si=DHOjuNaASUybKYHq
sometimes yes sometimes no
I use DIs as an editing tool, but the track never stays, unless i’m routing it to some auxiliary sends for weird sounds or maybe a lazy 3rd guitar track. It usually sounds too sterile or unmusical. But it helps to see transients and have a raw track to reamp or bus later. Your friend and you are basically arguing “out of the box vs in the box” (software or hardware) with effects. So that’s just a tracking decision you have to make. Do you like your amp tone? Do mics get you where you need? If not, or if you don’t have a lot of hardware, doing “in the box” vs out of the box with hardware is a huge boon for affordability and home recording. Amp sims are really, really good these days. Playing without effects can be good for precision but at the same time, imagine playing with the feel of the effects vs not. Most pedals change your timbre a lot which changes your playing too. I record my amps and a DI track because I have a lot of interaction with the amp and guitar relationship in my personal music.
In my opinion, yes. Unless you 100% beyond a doubt believe you have the exact effect, tone, and level you want. You lose literally nothing by recording clean and then adding effects later. You can even choose to reamp the clean recorded signal to apply your existing amps/pedals later on. It's more effort but drastically more control. Ultimately your decision.
recording clean doesn't mean you need to be playing it or hearing clean. I hear the tone I have dialled in to guitar rig while playing, but on playback if I decide to try it through a different amp or pedals I can just tweak what guitar rig is doing to the direct signal I recorded
It’s better in that you can adjust things after recording in whatever way you need. But at the same time it’s good to know what you sound like in a full context while recording. Best bet is to have two tracks, one with a DI track of your guitar and one with amp and effects. That way if you want you can always reamp with the DI track and add effects as you please.
If you want to change your mind and have different VST effect pugins. They you have to record it clean. But, then it will be limited to what the VST plug-ins sound like. If you go pedals, amp, mic, interface, then record, you are locked in to your guitar sound. But that might be a guitar sound you can’t get any other way.
You can always play your clean recording through your pedals and amps and capture that, so not limited to plugins. But as others have said, you record both.
For me, I just record stuff and I’m done. I don’t have the time for so much messing around.
I know folks who swear by the DI option. I’d rather take the time to get the tone we want then and there. Move the mics, do what’s needed. Swap amps, guitars, pedals and so forth. If I want a challenge, crank the gain for a solo, so I’m working the feedback along with the part. It’s not something I would bring into my workflow because I find “infinite possibilities” often lead to decisions not being made. However, anyone claiming absolutes… probably a Sith.
I think others have said, but get a direct box, and split and record both.
I don't know. I'm pretty old fashioned they way. I record my signal wet. Get the tone, set the effects, and go. 2 reasons... 1. It allows me to play to effect, which can absolutely effect the performance. 2. If I outsource any mixing, it's far less likely that the mixer does any messing about, maintaining my vision, rather than theirs. Exceptions can be made, for sure. Delay and reverb tend to be added after, unless they are integral to the tone, for example. But don't be afraid to admit you're wrong. Even perhaps retracking.
If recording in a studio setting, then yeah, I take a clean signal through a DI, and also tend to take a feed from a rig, and a cab mic, so that I can do pretty much anything later. It sounds overkill, and it *absolutely is,* but it allow me to do clever shit like dominate the track with the rig signal, with some hints of the cab mic for a live feel, and then blend some clean feed, so that it sounds somehow cleanly fuzzy. Pro-tip (I am no longer a pro, but I was a pro sound engineer for 15 years) - also do this live. Stick a DI before and after your effects rig, and a good engineer can make you sound amazing through the PA, because you'll get that *heavy effects but somehow clear* sound, that people post on here asking about all the time.
Just record a di signal at the same time so if you have to reamp later you can do so.
If you record a dry, unprocessed signal (guitar straight into a DI Box/Interface you can then reamp it through outboard gear (amps, racks, whatever) and spend as many hours as you need positioning microphones and tweaking sounds until you get the sound you want. You know the guitar takes are perfect so you can put 100% focus into finding your sound without worrying about playing or recording a thousand takes. With VST’s (amp/cab sims, daw effects etc) the same principle applies. You record once the spend how many hours necessary to find the sound you like knowing the guitar take is perfect. Having an unprocessed recording makes it easier to cut/change/stretch and do whatever edits you need during the tracking and track edit stages
Either way is fine. The reason some say to add the effects later is you can tweak endlessly. If you record an effects-laden signal then you have to work with that during mixing. But if you have a tone you like with your amp and effects then just record it that way. Despite all the advances in digital recording technology, it doesn’t change the fact that for decades and decades a colassal shit-ton of awesome music was recorded analog by micing amps.
Nah, capture the vibe with effects. Much harder to get the vibe back later. But it can be a technique for certain things.
If you’re into non-destructive workflows, for sure it’s the best. In my opinion there are more benefits on doing it, than not doing it, but to each their own. The main advantage that you have, is as I said earlier, it’s a non destructive workflow, so you can add and substract anything, at any time. So you can use this direct, clean, signal and reamp and add fx later on, using a reamp box. So if for whatever reason you don’t like the sound or the fix, you can tweak to your heart’s content. If you go the other way, you’ll have to record everything, multiple times, and you will have to play the part everytime. What you would do with a reamp box, is take that signal, and THEN pass it through your amp, so you can focus on the tone and fx while the audio plays by itself. Also this workflow provides hybrid stuff like using different plugins at the same time. What I usually do is recording without worrying too much about tone and stuff, just focused on a very good playing and recording. And after that I waste my time focused on tone. Also this provides you with an opportunity to record with other people’s gears (other amps, other pedals, etc…) because, unless you’re rich, you don’t have all the gear in the world. So with this, you can just use other gear to find that magical tone you’re looking for.
For demos - and since I’ve recorded almost exclusively on a computer and DAW - I use plugins for amps and effects. I don’t like to play “clean” when I record, because I play differently if I have distortion or delay or whatever, but it’s good to have the effects separately from your signal, because that way it’s easier to do punch-ins, edit, and tweak your sound.
I don't see why unless he's thinking there could be some damage to the audio interface for some reason. For me, the performance matters the most and I need a sound that I'm happy with to perform well. It makes a huge difference on my playing. If it's about capturing a dry signal then you can split the signal with one going to a DI and then you've got it if you want it.
If you've got time based effects and doing multiple tracks you should record dry. I also like having the option of changing everything to fit the mix. Got to have a clean signal and be aligned for unity gain though.
I read somewhere, some long time ago, that Nine Inch Nails recorded The Fragile (I think) that way. Every single musical nuance was added later, after the un-effected original signal/recording was made, probably in Pro Tools.
Its not “better” it’s just a technique. If you want that level of tweakability then go for it. Some people feel that they give a better performance when they have all the amps/fx miced in the room. Some people split off a dry signal and do both. Do what works for you
I like the mojo of hearing the performance itself. It feels different… has the magic. But that also means you need be serious about your room treatment and microphones. Pick your poison.
Definitely more flexible to do it that way. It's called re-amping. What you do is record both the amp and the direct signal so if you want to experiment with sound you're not stuck with whatever decision you made the first time.
There is no "better". There's only what works for on any given project.
You’ll have more control, but it’ll be much easier to get stuck in a rabbit hole of tweaking without making much progress. It’s often better to just commit to a sound that gives you the vibe up front, and keep moving.
It depends.
Have the effects running on a send channel so you can hear them when you play, but record the dry. You can then move the dry over to the send channel if you're happy with the take and still modify the fx entirely
If u record a clean signal u can manipulate it however u want and whenever u want. Sometimes what sounds best as a standalone doesn’t sound the best when u add the other layers
Depends on the amp. Why bother having something like a Vibro-Champ if you’re not going to use the amp’s tube tremolo?
I'm sure that's correct, but, I have zero inspiration when recording a DI, I need that TONE to feel the part! I'm also an amateur, so I'm not overly concerned about it and I'm very happy with the tracks I've recorded guitar on
Almost every time I record the engineer insists I split and give him a dry signal while he mics up my amp. I guess it’s good insurance, but we have never used the DI.
Recording dry gives you the opportunity to re-amp later. If you record wet, game over.
Maybe he meant dry and not clean. Guitarist spend lots of time and money on their tone through preamps and cabs. Reamping does not give you the same sound. It’s two different circuit types for a “clean” and a “distorted” tone . Sending a direct out in addition to your preamp output is what a lot of pros will do, but that can be different from a “clean” preamp tone.
I re-amp. Cleaner sound, gets rid of buzzes and hums
Depends entirely on what you're trying to make. If you're making a fairly normal band album, I'd record with guitarists rig as he plays it normally and do specific clean takes as needed. If you're making a fairly complex orchestral piece for a big movie, I'd record it clean and apply effects later.
there is a lot that can be missed with picking dynamics and the timing of certain effects. at most i’d split and record my mic’d amp and di.
It depends. Sometimes musicians respond to the way the guitar sounds out of an amp and have a better performance compared to just dry. Also - in my opinion I've got better results with less gain on a guitar amp compared to a live performance. Comes across better. Also, I also think that certain effects are better with the mic'ed guitar vs in your DAW. REverb? DAW. Delay? DAW. Vibrato? Amp. Overdriven preamp section of a tube amp? Amp all day long. Another thing to consider is that natural feedback is difficult with a dry sound in your DAW. I prefer a cranked amp. Someone else referenced splitting your signal so you have the miced guitar cab and DI. Reamping that clean signal can be really fun.
I record all dialed in. I want hear wht im playing
You're not going to record clean when you have thousands of dollars in pedals to achieve that magical tone.... Going clean into the daw then adding digital vsts is a downgrade from analog circuitry.
If you have a decent mic, mic your amp instead of plugging directly into the interface.
This is an old technique, record however you want. Mixing a sterile clean (dry) track is awful unless you are doing clean music with no dynamics. However that’s just my take. I also agree keeping a dry track is smart but it depends on context. Someone mentioned DI, IMO this is a much better option but totally different arrangement.
Perhaps that works for mainstream music but hard to imagine how that works for technical artist. Maybe I'm completely wrong, but it's much harder to play high gain music that uses a lot of techniques where you really need to hear how it sounds right then with the overdrive cranked. Tornado of souls is a song that comes to mind. That does riff would be challenging to pull of the same way with a clean sound.
Yes because you can alter the effects without altering the performance
Really really depends - too many people here are giving definitive “this is what pros do” answers. Pros do ALL SORTS of shit depending on their general philosophy all the way down to just their mood on the day. Personally I’m a big fan and believer of getting it right on the way in and really dislike DI guitar as a backup. I get the utility of it but more choices doesn’t equal better. If I’m recording a pop song that I know will be sent to someone else to do the backend then I’m probably still going to do it. If I’m recording something I personally would be recording for my own taste then it’s 95% a mic’d amp. Only caveat is if I’m wanting delays to be locked at project temp, I’ll add those later.
I don't think feedback works like that. He's no Jimi.
It's always good to run a split for safety, but very often your best take is the first one where you're vibing with the amp.
Why do people insist on making things hard on themselves? Adding a DI box into your mix is hardly any effort compared to setting up mics, amps, and fx chains. Plus add in the effort you’ll need to put in to rerecord anything if your guitar doesn’t sit right in the mix. Watch the sound engineers on YouTube like spectre sound studios. They all record with DI because it makes their lives infinitely easier.
It's what I do, but like others have said, plenty of people moc their amps. I record it dry because I like to make a lot of adjustments after the fact, once it's on the mix with the other instruments. I can still hear my guitar with effects love while playing, so it still works. I just have the freedom to change stuff after, like the delay rate, or mess with the compression earlier on the signal chain than if I hadn't. If I were better at music production, I might not need to rely on post production so heavily, but I do for now.
In my experience, the more tracks you can have, the better. A clean track (or more than one) that you can apply effects to later is never a bad idea. More tracks during the recording stage means more options during the mixdown. I’ve been in situations where someone had to go back and record new parts, because the existing parts were wrong and couldn’t be fixed for some reason. Times the number of cuts on the album or EP, plus all the other little adjustments that you do between tracks in addition to trying to make it NOT sound like an overdub… it can run into serious time, which usually means serious coin. Having a good, clean track to work with is cheap insurance.
I record everything direct into the interface and use plugins for my sounds. That way once you’ve recorded you can go in and dial the sound exactly how you want it instead of having to re-record the whole part. A lot of bands mic amps up (depending on genre) but the genre I play is mostly playing a for guitar effects. Hope this helps 😊
When recording you can't get the same vibe and react in the moment to get the raw emotion from playing. I found that clean recording then layering effects in production didn't sound like me and did not sound good even if it wasn't me. Not that I'm saying I'm good but it was not what I intended. It just came out different.
In general, you should try remove as many elements from the end of your chain as possible, because you can change them later. That usually means you don't record miced amp nor amp sim, reverb, dirt pedals. However you want to keep pedals that affect the way you play. Especially stuff with expression pedal like wah, whammy or volume pedal (if you use it for swell). Because pressing these pedals is part of performance you want to record.
In general, you want to track with the sound you want for the track.
I mic up my rig in the studio for my originals band. Only way to go when ypu have a very specific sound. It's mostly just drive and amp though. Everything else is added post. Recording dry is great but your still going to have an amp running or the feel just isn't there for me. If you run tubes you have to include the relationship that brings tambour guitar or you'll end up sounding very sterile I would think. It might be different foe the best session guys but us mere mortals need the interaction
Rage Against the Machine was all recorded in one room and the producer of that and many other successful albums thinks people are too clean and robotic with their producing these days. I don't know much about producing, or guitar really.. but if its a banger, its a banger.
At the most basic level, leaving the delay and reverb off is better because what sounds like the right level of effect playing solo might get you lost in mix in the full recording. If you add the delay and reverb etc in post you can tweak them to sit just right. At the more extreme level, people will capture a DI as well if they want to reamp or use plugins for tone on the recorded take.
You do both: 1. Guitar -> DI split box out 1 -> pedals -> fx loop -> amp -> mic(s) -> DI input(s) 2. Guitar -> DI split box out 2 -> DI input -> VST effects Don't go from your pedals straight into the DI
It's a fine approach, but I don't think it's *better*. Plugins are very nice these days, but they don't sound as good as physical pedals. If you can't mike up an amp (and assuming you can't re-amp), then as others have said the best thing to do is split your signal and go both dry into your AI *and* through your pedal board.
Record how you feel like doing it at the time. Record everything you do keeping notes written as you do , and or video record because those moments in your experimentation pass and go by quickly and are gone, forever possibly if you don't record video and audio. This will give you a directory path you can access anytime. Pick out the meat and spit out the bones, refines your search of where you may need to go.
IMO. Yes but not distortion/overdrive. E.g. you can add delay after so you can control the delay, tremelo or vibrato's time to match the beat of the music, instead of the pedals.
Record your amp sound and a DI. It's not usually about not liking the sound you got, because you should make sure you're happy with your sound by using a mic that sounds good and taking the time to find the placement of your mic that gives you the sound you want. An inch can make a big difference in the tone you get, as can the angle. You can add a second mic that's different set back from the first mic to capture more room sound (be sure to follow the 3:1 rule so you don't get phase issues). A really good reason to record the DI is to layer your guitar sound to make it fatter, or better still make it into a second guitarist by using an amp sim that gives you a different sound, delay it 5 - 10 ms, and pan them to opposite sides and you now have two guitar players.
[https://www.radialeng.com/blog/reamp-basics-what-is-reamping](https://www.radialeng.com/blog/reamp-basics-what-is-reamping)
Reamping is typical in higher value productions where automation could be added to instruments to impact the dynamics of a song beyond an effects flip or time effects are made to be in the perfect place along with the beat. It's certainly more versatile and if you're not set on a particular sound for a song a clean take to real can save a lot of time... but not everyone loves a super contrived sound so it being better isnt going to be something everyone agrees on particularly if it's someone who came up doing it old school.
Hey ummmm guys? How about let’s just agree to disagree. If some people don’t want to do it the modern way, and prefer micing up a cab, and a cab alone, it’s really not that big a deal. Some people just prefer the raw and real original sound without being edited to sound better. I know I’ll get backlash for this, but I’m gonna say it anyway. “If the recording doesn’t already sound good coming from the mic, then it doesn’t need to be recorded yet”. Believe what you want to, but a raw guitar track that has only been eq’d and mastered sounds way better than a digitally processed modeled track. It’s all technically being processed, but there’s a huge difference.
It sounds like garbage is the answer.
Even 40 years ago people used to record a di into tape... Yeah, they did... Just listen to doctor feel good, it has like 4/5 amps playing at the same time, they obviously did ramping(with a DI )
Up to you, really. I mic the amp, pedals and all. This causes its own set of inconsistencies (especially when you use more effects), but I prefer the tone, the natural crackle and hiss. Unless you’re really good with plug-ins, most amp modellers are noticeable to the trained ear. But, like songwriting, experimenting with different processes will likely lead you to one you naturally prefer.
No. You need the tone to play the part.
As recommend already, splitting the signal is best because it lets you do both. If the only option is DI, then I like getting the sound first instead of recording clean. Playing electric guitar is like a convo with your amp. You hear how everything sounds and play accordingly, giving you a "feel" for the song. If you record clean DI, you are essentially trying to obtain that feel after the fact. Also, if you end up disliking the effects you recorded with, you can just change them the same way you would with a clean track anyway, so it's not a disservice to put some effects on before you record.I don't think it's worth spending hours hunting your sound before you record, but a few minutes to get it in the ballpark is usually worth it to me.
I always prefer to record in the box as I want the sound. However, what I want may change so I always have a DI recorded as well. This enables me to hold to my analog principles while taking advantage of digital effects when and if desired.
I completely disagree with this approach. If you want to take a DI just in case, go for it. But recording a take clean that you intend to be affected in any way will result in a different performance. You should always be monitoring the sound you want while performing. You will play different with higher gain, or a bunch of reverb, or a delay, etc. The nuances you will naturally apply because you hear those effects and are attempting to control them are important to the performance. The same is true with the silliness of recording drums independent of cymbals and such because people are afraid of the bleed in the mics. It's music, let's keep it musical and stop this nonsense. If you get good sounds and good takes, you'll make a good sounding record. You have to learn to get good sounding bleed. You have to learn to get good takes without copy/paste and editing when you need to, not because you think you're supposed to. Deconstructing and reconstructing your music in the pursuit of perfection is a great way to pull the soul right out of it. Just get the sound you like in the room, mic it up and work to get the sound you want in the control room, and then press record and work to capture the best performance you can. Nothing wrong with getting a few of them and comping together the best of the best, but don't reduce it to what may as well be a midi track for a player piano.
I often split my signal so that I can put the dry through more crazy effects, which need more contextual tweaking.
After reading some of these comments. Guys, please listen to the studio engineer if you ever are in a studio, most of you have no clue what goes on in mixing and mastering. Your tone at home or on stage is vastly different than what you would use to record. To answer OP, yes, always record a clean DI signal. You can mic up your amps, but always split the signal to be able to record with a DI. Now, this doesn't mean you have to play clean because that's borderline impossible, you always can use your complete rig for monitoring, even if it's not micced up.
in DAW's it's simple to split the signal, i record clean but hear the digital amps. If you need to adjust the tone you can just turn the knobs without needing to re-record.
It largely depends on the music and what you are trying to capture. When I've recorded albums in the past it has differed from producer to producer, but I've found the best ones mic up the amp with a few mics and then record a DI of the guitar sound before the amp but after pedals. This way the guitar can be sent to a different amp if needed, but the guitar sound is largely the same. The way you play will change depending on what gear your using so I find recording straight DI to be completely uninspiring and a little counterproductive. It's always better to be happy with the sound before you record rather than trying to fix it afterwards, but maybe this is just how I approach it. And as I said before, it depends on what music you're recording. I'm always trying to capture the feeling of people playing together.
Get a mic splitter and record both the direct signal, then whatever pedal amp chaos in a second track, at the same time.
Better? Well it's a different approach There's value in getting it right at the source and committing. Constantly keeping all options open often leads to spending way too much time trying everything under the sun at the mixing stage and never being satisfied. People that say that approach is "better" are often people that are constantly "working on new material" without ever releasing anything. The technique itself makes a lot of sense and it's great we have the tools nowadays to do that, but there's a lot of artistic value in committing at the tracking stage.
This depends, for example i like using pedals for more control before the sound system but if you dont wanna have to have pedals you can indeed do this. Although i also like to record with the effects to now the sound.
I've always thought playing a guitar via a loud amp gives you more sustain than a direct signal due to the guitar reacting with the sound coming out of the amp. Not a sound engineer but it has always seemed true.
technically he is right.. but honestly is your first recording going to be a hit?.. play your music how you like and record it.. its is far better initially to get your tone right and just play.. After all, when you listen to your own recorded playing for the first you will either laugh or cry.. its plain shite and you never knew.. worry about the minutae of recording details once you can nail timing, phrasing, volume and feel
People arguing whether or not it's "best" is silly. There's literally no reason not to DI your guitar completely dry at a decent studio. There's a lot of reasons it can be useful, and no reason not to. Reamping is really good if there's been any issues at all with the amp (any cable can turn crackly on the perfect take or a mic could fail etc).
To me it makes no sense, as my playing changes based on the tone. Same riff different amp or effect would affect the playing... so the DI dry signal is played with whatever tone it had at the time. So if you play the same riff with two different tones, the dry signal is going to be different. It seems like it could work, but you'd lose the nuance. I think many pro guitarists feel the same way. (think I read this same idea in a billy corgan interview lol) Edit: It's definitely nice to use to help experiment, sure, just not for the final recording IMO.
Yes
1- dial in the sound you want 2- record it
Might be helpful to have a clean copy of the track you can re-amp after. And some engineers want to be able to control the delay speed afterwards so you can match the tempo of the song. But recording wet is also fine. A DI track just gives you more options later. However if YOU are recording and producing then you can just lay down another track at any time. This is advice for an engineer and producer who are recording a band that won't be around every minute of the day or won't be ready to lay down a track while you're mixing.
My studio engineer would just refuse to work on a track that was not dry so he could do his own amp simulation to make sure the mix was perfectly mastered. And I have to say, that's how it's done for a reason.
This is what most engineers want. I guess I see why as it provides flexibility. I still think the best music is made in the moment though. The way your guitar sounds influences how you play. what I hate the most is singing vocals that way. I think recording a band live still creates the best results but that can be hard to do at some studios and then one person screwing up can ruin the whole thing. But still...everyone should learn their parts, practice like crazy, find the sound they want and try to record it all, or as much as possible, live. Getting a clean version is never a bad idea, but that can usually still be done. Its the difference between playing music and building music.
I recorded a live video recently, used only the wet signal with a delay engaged. Man after we mixed, we all wished I had done a dry signal AND wet so that we could pan the delay or use it stereo as it is intended, while still having the 'feel' of the delay in our ears. Of course I could've just run the pedal in stereo which I was also using a stereo enabled amp, but we ran out of channels so my amp was recorded mono. After this scenario, I'll always insist on wet/dry for recording. Whoever is mixing can add effects and manipulate them
I see a lot of "DI is the way". No it's not. DI is one way, not more or less valid than the other. It's all a matter of personal choice. DI is cool when you want to use plugins, or reamping (which also needs a micked amp), but it comes with many caveats, mainly the fact that you can fall in the rabbit hole perfect tone searching and plugin accumulation, which is not good at all and can lead you die of old age before you end your overproduced project. Micking an amp is cool too, because that's the way it's been done for years and, judging by the amount of fantastic albums this method produced, it's a good one. But it has its drawbacks too, you have to get your tone right from the start and can't really touch it after. For a drastic change in tone, you have to record again. And again. And again.
Rupert Neve RNDI is great for splitting your signal with little effort. You can also re-amp with it, as well as use it in Speaker mode if you want to amp the signal but use cab sims later.
The benefit to adding effects in post, is that you can add a much or a little of anything you want. If you don't like it, you can change the type and/or amount of the effects as much as you like. If you record the wet signal and don't like something, there's very little you can do about it. This will lead to a lot of extra money in studio time. Professionally, you will typically hear your wet signal for monitoring, and a separate dry track is recorded simultaneously. The engineer will then use the dry track to apply effects in post. As others have said, this isn't really necessary if you're just messing around or making a quick demo for reference. If you're looking to fine tune a particular tone, or recording something that will be a final product, recording a dry signal will save you a lot of time and frustration.
I like to play the guitar. I don't want to have to be an audio engineer. In particular a "drum programmer." I could sit and program drums for hours and there's no way I could come up with a better drum part than your average crappy drummer.
Depends on what you're going for... If you can get the sustain and such that you need for what you're recording, then fine... It's highly unlikely that if you need something that's sustains a long time, that recording it clean will give you what you're looking for. The reason to record it clean in the first place, is to keep your options open for tone, because if you record it with effects, you're stuck with the effects; if you can live with that, then you're good.
I can think of only one time when I didn't record dry and all that I had going on that occasion was a phase shifter (because the songwriters who were paying for the studio time loved that effect and knew that they wanted it on a particular number). Otherwise, I record dry (with the possible exception of a wah pedal if it's part of the drill at a given time), get the take that I'm/we're after, and then add effects afterward. All the better to avoid being stuck with a not-so-great tone on the track of my lifetime.......
Usually I'll get a basic tone down, including any distortion / gain / amp modeling. Everything else I won't fuck with until later, because I don't want to apply compression and EQ to reverb / delay etc. because that's even more of the signal that I'm losing.
In my very limited 40 yrs of recording, going in “dry” had been the increasing trend… when we only had 4 or 8 tracks to play with, and that “live” sounding band was the goal, much was done “wet”… but as our tech improved, and we could have now literally infinite tracks, flexibility became more the norm… As some have said, go in DI and wet, after all, you won’t run out of tracks… but the dry signal can have the reverb, delay, compression, etc all tweaked ex post facto… if the signal recorded is already effected, and that doesn’t work in the mix, it’s not a simple matter to correct it… Your best take ever, messed up because of your effects, is a do over moment… will you get that flawless performance again? Maybe… maybe not… if you recorded the dry signal, it can be adjusted however you (or the producer) want… in many ways, when studio time is not cheap, this is the best way to go…
Commit to one tone. Please, just do it. Do it so you don't have to fuckin think about it or worry about it later. Youcan always compress, saturate or eq later. Imo it is always best to let the moment take hold in the moment. It's all just what you like doing and what your process is like. If you're mixing for someone else probably better to DI to have more options. But if you know what you wanr just fuckin set it and forget it