Jump to content
wolbai

Fw 2.0 Recording - Martin 6-string / Gibson Les Paul

Recommended Posts

Hi,

 

I am excersing the song "Through The Barricades" from Spandau Ballet currently with my band. And from time to time I  prove my jingle-jangle by recording.

 

I have therefore used the JTV FW 2.0 Martin 6-string and the Gibson Les Paul model. Especially the Les Paul now sounds very much Les Paul like: I now can clearly hear the modeled PU-switching. Much more differentiated than former JTV-FW IMO.

 

EDIT: Sorry for the initial mistake - I have used the Gibson J-200 Acoustic model (position 5) and not the Martin 6-string.

 

 

I this regard I have more accidently discovered the Vintage pre amp for acoustic-sounds. Sounds pretty good and adds some more flexibilty with high and low frequencies. I have simply used the "no amp"-model before.

 

The first part of the song is completely recorded w/o a playback. I also recorded some string-like sounds with my guitar and the Octo-reverb. Not perfect - for shure, but as an option for a lack of a keyboard not the worst to me.

 

I have used a playback for the second part of the song (average quality) and I recorded various guitar tracks. All in all I wanted to sound it more rocking than a cuddly ballad.

 

The current JTV-modellng still has the problem with the "dying sustain" when swichting the PU-selector in guitar phrases where a lot of sustain is necessary. It is hearable at a certain point in the recording.

 

Although the FW 2.0 is battlesome, the resolution of the modeled guitars is more differentiated to me compared to FW 1.9. When switching the PUs now on the Les Paul model gives a more authentic feel. I therefore find myself now playing more with position 3 and 5 which I haven't done that much before.

 

For the electric guitar tracks I choosed the POD HD Soldano full amp model. The POD HD is linked via a TASCAM-audiointerface to the PC. Recording software is Cubase/Artist 7. Pretty simple setup.

 

During the recording, the song got somehow its own flavour to me:

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIo5HTwX9so
 

 

Any thoughts ?

 

cheers - wolbai

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds great! I don't know why people complain about the new acoustics, I think they sound amazing, especially on your song. Sounds like a real mic'd acoustic!

The Les Paul tone is great as well, very nice mid-range tone!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi clay-man,

 

thanks for your kind words! The Acoustics and the Gibson Les Paul sounds great in FW 2.0 to me. As always you have to fiddle around a bit, but not a big deal.

 

You probably have heared some string noises on the Acoustics: I recorded it with my JTV69 and there I have set the strings pretty low far faster playing. Unfortunately for Acoustics this is not the best. But these are more physical limitations which the modeling has to deal with.

 

The Gibson model has indeed a nicely midrange tone. It cuts also very good through a LIVE-Band mix. I do the old trick by setting the mid-EQ on the amp somewhere between 70-90% depending on the amp models.

 

wolbai

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi clay-man,

 

thanks for your kind words! The Acoustics and the Gibson Les Paul sounds great in FW 2.0 to me. As always you have to fiddle around a bit, but not a big deal.

 

You probably have heared some string noises on the Acoustics: I recorded it with my JTV69 and there I have set the strings pretty low far faster playing. Unfortunately for Acoustics this is not the best. But these are more physical limitations which the modeling has to deal with.

 

The Gibson model has indeed a nicely midrange tone. It cuts also very good through a LIVE-Band mix. I do the old trick by setting the mid-EQ on the amp somewhere between 70-90% depending on the amp models.

 

wolbai

 

Yeah, I liked the amp setting you had on the Les Paul. Great lead tone.

 

I know you did a bit of tone tweaking but I just feel like the acoustics sound incredibly real. I'm guessing it requires a bit of EQ tweaking for a good live/band setting though. That's what most Acoustic tracks need though. I just think it sounds remarkably close to when I mic my acoustic with my AT2020.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

can you share this acustic patch?

Hi guilhordas,

 

attached you will find the HD500-preset. Unfortunately I did a mistake: it is not the Martin 6-string I have used. It is the Gibson J-200 (position 5 in the JTV):

 

http://line6.com/customtone/tone/239966/

 

 

wolbai.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I liked the amp setting you had on the Les Paul. Great lead tone.

 

I know you did a bit of tone tweaking but I just feel like the acoustics sound incredibly real. I'm guessing it requires a bit of EQ tweaking for a good live/band setting though. That's what most Acoustic tracks need though. I just think it sounds remarkably close to when I mic my acoustic with my AT2020.

 

Hi clay-man,

 

you are so right: all acoustics need some EQ-tweaking live and for recording. The reason for that is that the frequencies are more complex and have a wider bandwith than electric guitars.

 

In the acoustic preset I have used a StudioEQ at the very first place in the signal chain:

 

-12 db at 80 Hz

- 3,5 db at 220 Hz

- 11 db at 440 Hz

+ 1,5 db at 1,1 Khz

 

I also have used the HPF + the LPF in the Vintage Pre amp to color the tone.

 

The are 2 effects in the preset: dimension (with sw2 + sw3 off) at 20% and Hall reverb (standard) with 20%.

 

The Tone-knob is set to 85% in the JTV-Acoustic model to get more room for that specific recording.

 

In the recording software itself I have changed additional seetings with a Studio EQ, Stereo Enhancer and bit of Vintage Plate Reverb.

 

Sounds a lot of tweaking, but I think that is (unfortunately) normal for Acoustic sounds.

 

wolbai.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the JTV acoustics can sound several ways I've heard them recorded when using the HD500.  The old Variax acoustics also sounded several ways like I've heard them recorded when going through one of the X3 mic preamps.  However they are both very different.  I lean towards the old Variax through the mic preamp.  Just my opinion and I think that's what people are complaining about.  I personally thing the JTV acoustics sound a little thinner, for lack of a better word.  I only use my JTV and the HD500 so I haven't given up on them.  I have a few tricks I still need to try but I also wish the HD500 offered a bigger selection of mic preamps.  I liked what you did but I wish there were a way to come closer to what I had with the old Variax and X3.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the JTV acoustics can sound several ways I've heard them recorded when using the HD500.  The old Variax acoustics also sounded several ways like I've heard them recorded when going through one of the X3 mic preamps.  However they are both very different.  I lean towards the old Variax through the mic preamp.  Just my opinion and I think that's what people are complaining about.  I personally thing the JTV acoustics sound a little thinner, for lack of a better word.  I only use my JTV and the HD500 so I haven't given up on them.  I have a few tricks I still need to try but I also wish the HD500 offered a bigger selection of mic preamps.  I liked what you did but I wish there were a way to come closer to what I had with the old Variax and X3.

Hi brue58ski,

 

(luckily) I am completely blank in acoustic sound history with L6-gear (older Variaxes, X3-Live, etc.). The existing FW 2.0 is pretty okay for my needs so far:

 

I am gigging with my band (no possibility and desire to carry acoustic guitars and additional equipment. I have decided to go for the "all-in-one" solution and therefore I was prepared that I can't have everything) and I do from time to time some recordings for (my) private fun.

 

The used Vintage mic preamp was a sound improvement in my acoustic sound - as explained above - to my former presets. So that may overlap to your experience with other L6 mic preamps you have used in the past. So I can understand your wish for a wider range of mic preamps.

 

What still remains at the end of the day: acoustic sounds needs more fiddling and tweaking than E-guitar sounds regardless what equipment is used.

 

wolbai

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guessed right, the martins not sound so good, I can only use the J200 live

Hi guilhordas,

 

attached you will find the HD500-preset. Unfortunately I did a mistake: it is not the Martin 6-string I have used. It is the Gibson J-200 (position 5 in the JTV):

 

http://line6.com/customtone/tone/239966/

 

 

wolbai.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

trying your patch I confirmed something that I had noticed a short time ago, your patch when playing alone sounds a little thin, no bass, but it sounds great in your Recording, this is what I have tried, as I play with a band, I have also taken out all the bass frequencies to not mix with the bass and kick, even though it sounds bad when I play alone in the band is good.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very nice job  wolbai. I like you acoustic sound.

Did you change firmware 1.9 > 2.0 or did you used an older FW than 1.9 ?

Because I am in FW 1.9 and normally, there is no change in acoustics sounds between 1.9 and 2.0

I hesitate to change FW......

Thank you for your answer.

Regards

Philippe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very nice job  wolbai. I like you acoustic sound.

Did you change firmware 1.9 > 2.0 or did you used an older FW than 1.9 ?

Because I am in FW 1.9 and normally, there is no change in acoustics sounds between 1.9 and 2.0

I hesitate to change FW......

Thank you for your answer.

Regards

Philippe

Hi Cachera,

 

thanks for your nice feedback! The recording was done with JTV FW 2.0. I personally haven't noticed differences in the acoustics between FW 1.9 + FW 2.0. And that is what I have read so far from the one or another L6 Experts in this forum.

 

wolbai

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok thanks. On your example acoustic, did you play with finger or picks ?

fingerpicking - like the original played by Gary Kemp.

 

But that is a good question. I am pretty shure that the preset I have used will sound different (more highs, less warm, more percussive) when played with a pick.

 

To complete "fingerpicking versus pick story":

 

I have used a Sharkfin plectrum from Landström (white) for the e-guitar tracks. It is a pretty amazing plectrum with 3 in 1. It is my favorite now. In addition to a regular pick it has also a sharkfin part which is awesome for faster playing and another sawtooth like part which is pretty cool for special distorted guitar rhythms and harmonics.

 

When I changed to that pick, I was reminded how heavily a pick can influence your overall tone. So in reality the signal chain (apart of yourself) starts with a pick. I think that is underestimated sometimes.

 

wolbai.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just feel like the old acoustic sounds far from a mic'd acoustic. The tone is great, but the acoustics are more or less referenced as a mic'd acoustic sound. I think the new acoustic sounds accomplish the tonality of a mic'd acoustic that the old ones couldn't get.

 

Some frequencies on the new acoustics are a little wonky, like the high end was lacking when I heard the 1.8 update. That's easily fixable through EQing though, which is what you normally do to accomplish a preferred acoustic tone.

 

I can EQ my Variax 600 to sound like it has more body like a mic'd acoustic, but there's still a lot of tonal differences that make it obvious that it's not mic'd, but the new acoustics honestly sound convincingly like a mic'd guitar. I kind of prefer the tonality of a mic'd acoustic over a plugged in one, and it's nice for when I want to use the Variax over a real mic'd acoustic to track acoustic parts on a song.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybre differences between 1.8 and 2.0 fw for acoustics sounds but i don't think between 1.9 and 2.0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi clay-man,

 

you are so right: all acoustics need some EQ-tweaking live and for recording. The reason for that is that the frequencies are more complex and have a wider bandwith than electric guitars.

 

In the acoustic preset I have used a StudioEQ at the very first place in the signal chain:

 

-12 db at 80 Hz

- 3,5 db at 220 Hz

- 11 db at 440 Hz

+ 1,5 db at 1,1 Khz

 

I also have used the HPF + the LPF in the Vintage Pre amp to color the tone.

 

The are 2 effects in the preset: dimension (with sw2 + sw3 off) at 20% and Hall reverb (standard) with 20%.

 

The Tone-knob is set to 85% in the JTV-Acoustic model to get more room for that specific recording.

 

In the recording software itself I have changed additional seetings with a Studio EQ, Stereo Enhancer and bit of Vintage Plate Reverb.

 

Sounds a lot of tweaking, but I think that is (unfortunately) normal for Acoustic sounds.

 

wolbai.

Thank you  wolbai for your clean explanations of setting. I have now Variax acoustic guitar model which seems to something acoustic !!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi cachera,

 

I am glad to be beneficial to you!

 

As the output systems, the playing style and the musical context (recording, practicing at home, Live-perfromance with a band) are varying from user to user, specific user presets like mine,  always needs some adjustments to these specifics.

 

Apart of EQ-ing, the gain/volume level is something which may be adapted to the user environment. I mainly use two possibilities in that preset: First is the Mixer. Could be increased up to 7db (that is my subjective experience just by listening) w/o any clipping/distortion.

 

Another possibility to increase gain/volume w/o sound coloration is the Studio-EQ. I have used that second Studio-EQ at the very end of the signal chain solely to increase by increasing the gain-parameter +8db.

 

What I haven't done so far is to play a bit with the positioning of the "vintage pre amp" in the signal chain. I will do some testing at the rehearsal room on that in the next days. May be this will turn into a bit of additional improvement.

 

wolbai.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello wolbai, i try and compare my variax JTV 59 with the new setting that this post suggest, and my Seagull MJM6.

The sound of the Variax (Gibson position 5) is great but a little  dry and seems coming far from. I feel a lack of "presence".

I had a equal pre vintage to try to color but it is not what i feel, particulary in your video !!

Thank for your help.

Philippe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×