Jump to content


Photo

Acoustic Sounds Get Worser From Update To Update?


  • Please log in to reply
67 replies to this topic

#61 Junis

Junis

    Just Startin'

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 80 posts

Posted 18 September 2013 - 05:46 AM

I recorded a quick sample here via usb audacity in comparing the two patches .1 what you recommended and 2 patch I've ever had here, listen to see what you think ok? but we know that in PA it would sound completely different, but just to have a little notion

Attached Files

  • Attached File  test.mp3   482.35KB   33 downloads

  • 0

#62 Rewolf48

Rewolf48

    Iknowathingortwo

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 317 posts
  • LocationUK

Posted 19 September 2013 - 04:01 AM

That is roughly what I get, but also what I was going for (I am actually using the D12 with six strings).  

 

The first part (my roughly remembered settings - I am having a lunch break at work so I can't check) is artificial sounding, more full but without a muddy low.  I am trying to get a Peizo Acoustic sound that work in a band mix; a bit like an Ovation.  It is not a recording sound or intended to be, and it is not a solo acoustic guitar sound (but try switching the eq off).

 

The second part I think sounds great as an isolated guitar, and is the sort of thing that I had before, but with electric guitar, bass, keyboards, drums and vocals also playing it was just disappears into the mix leaving just high-end "zing" coming through if the drummer is light on the cymbals.

 

Or at least that is what I am hoping is the case -  I am an amateur struggling with the technology and had accusations of it being both Muddy and Thin at the same time before - the 2.0 update destroying the original sounds meant that I had to urgently try again; I get to try it out properly tonight.

 

I added a Hall reverb (as well as the Spring) as an optional effect to my patch last night; the spring reverb is short and dense and is filling out the guitar sound (giving it more body perhaps), the hall verb is acting more as a true reverb for those periods when I am playing by myself for an intro, it would get switched off when the other instruments come in.


  • 0

#63 Junis

Junis

    Just Startin'

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 80 posts

Posted 19 September 2013 - 09:49 AM

you really think that eqs should stay in 1 in the chain of effects? the compressor would go where?


  • 0

#64 Rewolf48

Rewolf48

    Iknowathingortwo

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 317 posts
  • LocationUK

Posted 20 September 2013 - 04:24 AM

I want to withdraw my suggestions for an acoustic patch as I need to do some more fine tuning. I might even start by re-flashing both devices and checking the piezo settings as there is something wrong that I can't sort out. I even have a big click as I change to Acoustic patches.

 

The "general rule" is that the Compressor always comes after initial EQ. This is so that a big signal in the unwanted part of the spectrum (removed by the EQ) doesn't control the compression amount.


  • 0

#65 hurghanico

hurghanico

    Power User

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1260 posts
  • LocationBologna, Italy

Posted 20 September 2013 - 05:29 AM

..I even have a big click as I change to Acoustic patches..

 

I think it's an old variax characteristic to do an audible click going from electric models to acoustic

my 700 does a click too

maybe it's correlated to the switching between 2 different underlying engines, or to the sudden change to a wider frequency spectrum of the acoustics, or to some sort of compression.. who knows


  • 0

#66 Rewolf48

Rewolf48

    Iknowathingortwo

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 317 posts
  • LocationUK

Posted 25 September 2013 - 06:42 AM

OK, I think I have it - at least until the next rehearsal.

 

First the 2.0 update has boosted the volume of the Acoustics significantly; they are much louder than any other model - that is the primary reason why my carefully balanced patch was destroyed.  The patch can be lowered in volume in Workbench of course.

 

But before I did that I tweaked the individual string volumes so that they were balanced to my ears and some needed to go about half the original level - which means less chance of clipping in the JTV modelling.

 

I also remembered somebody responding to requests for Acoustic patches with the idea of using an Amp.  I initially dismissed this because surely you want EQ and Compression right?  Actually want I really wanted was to be able to tweak the EQ directly using the knobs rather than having to muck about with the menus, and then it hit me. Doh! :wacko:

 

The HD500 already has EQs that respond to the knobs - abut 25 different ones in fact.  The Amp models, or more specifically the Amp Pre models with No Cab; excluding the high gain ones there are still 8 or so that are very clean when you take away the power amp and cab.

 

So my new patch is:

 

Marshall JTM-45 Pre: No Cab, Gain ~ 60, Tone and Presence as you like it and Vol nearly Full.

Tube Comp: Thresh 90 Gain 19

 

Reverb for when I am the solo instrument (I have Hall)

 

And that's it really - how can I have missed this for all the time I have had the HD500?  And to those who think they want an Acoustic Amp Model...have you tried the current models Pre No Cab?


  • 0

#67 johnnyayyy

johnnyayyy

    Power User

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1364 posts

Posted 25 September 2013 - 09:16 AM


The "general rule" is that the Compressor always comes after initial EQ.

 

Erm,...  I always compress first - with the eq before the compressor some eq changes tend to make the compressor do crazy things.

 

But I believe the rules are: "There are no rules".

 

The case for putting compression before eq: http://www.soundonso...es/qa1007_1.htm


  • 0

#68 guitarno

guitarno

    Iknowathingortwo

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 164 posts

Posted 25 September 2013 - 09:36 AM

OK, I think I have it - at least until the next rehearsal.

 

First the 2.0 update has boosted the volume of the Acoustics significantly; they are much louder than any other model - that is the primary reason why my carefully balanced patch was destroyed.  The patch can be lowered in volume in Workbench of course.

 

But before I did that I tweaked the individual string volumes so that they were balanced to my ears and some needed to go about half the original level - which means less chance of clipping in the JTV modelling.

 

I also remembered somebody responding to requests for Acoustic patches with the idea of using an Amp.  I initially dismissed this because surely you want EQ and Compression right?  Actually want I really wanted was to be able to tweak the EQ directly using the knobs rather than having to muck about with the menus, and then it hit me. Doh! :wacko:

 

The HD500 already has EQs that respond to the knobs - abut 25 different ones in fact.  The Amp models, or more specifically the Amp Pre models with No Cab; excluding the high gain ones there are still 8 or so that are very clean when you take away the power amp and cab.

 

So my new patch is:

 

Marshall JTM-45 Pre: No Cab, Gain ~ 60, Tone and Presence as you like it and Vol nearly Full.

Tube Comp: Thresh 90 Gain 19

 

Reverb for when I am the solo instrument (I have Hall)

 

And that's it really - how can I have missed this for all the time I have had the HD500?  And to those who think they want an Acoustic Amp Model...have you tried the current models Pre No Cab?

 

That's interesting... I started to notice on some acoustic type patches on my HD500x that the variax had some particular notes (F#) that were really dominant when played with other notes. I went into workbench and for the 1st time started adjusting the string levels on one of the acoustic models - I forget the model (position 3 on the pickup selector of my 59). That one always seemed a little boomy and not as usable as the other 6 string acoustics. Adjusting the string volumes really improved that model. Maybe as Rewolf48 said, that is the key to getting a better sound out of the 2.0 acoustic models. I'll have to spend some time playing with the string balances.

 

   Also, I'll have to try your suggestions for the amp settings. Thanks for posting this! B)


  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users