Levels hitting the amp (in dBu) when reamping and/or capturing

[Progressive_disclosure]

I leave the chain as I calibrated it for NAM & ignore ToneX guidelines. I got the best results this way.

My latests captures was like this as well and they turned out good to my ears.

 

[MirrorProfiles]

If you believe everything is a nail, you believe there’s no disputing that a hammer is the best tool and works better than a screwdriver. You are approaching Tonex from a Kemper perspective and until you figure out why that is wrong, you will always believe calibration is important.

I’m not comparing ToneX to Kemper any more than I am capturing ToneX to ALL other capturing tech, or amp modelling (or even analog modelling) in general. It’s not so much an option or a preference as much as something that just always exists, and it’s whether you want to pay attention to it, or wilfully choose to ignore it.

ToneX plays by the same rules as everything else in the digital domain, which is why properly calibrated inputs and outputs lead to the most accurate and consistent results with the least amount of fuss.

Yes, you can get calibrated levels by earballing but it takes more time, more guesswork and the accuracy goes in the bin as soon as someone else wants to try them. It’s the lowest common denominator approach that leaves much to be desired, unless you’re a fan of redundancy and time wasting.

 

[MirrorProfiles]

My experience with ToneX is the exact opposite. If you follow the wizard guidelines you risk of always being undergained & what happens is people try to compensate from their converters so they introduce clipping etc.

Users will generally be constrained by the maximum level they can get out of their reamp chain, which can often be quite low - either by weak D/A converters, and/or a significant number of reamp boxes which can attenuate a lot. I’ve used pro level reamp boxes which attenuate 30dB as default.

The fact is, levels are the wild west and vary wildly user to user. Properly calibrated levels and metadata would make the experience much more streamlined and predictable, ESPECIALLY when using known HW like a ToneX pedal.

 

[Chocol8]

I’m not comparing ToneX to Kemper any more than I am capturing ToneX to ALL other capturing tech

You are not understanding.

Kemper, with everything built into one box, setup a paradigm where it was supposed to be like plugging into the amp as set when captured. Set the volume on amp XYZ to 6.5 capture it and then plug in a high output LP and its crunchy, a low output filtertron and its clean, just like if you plugged into the amp without touching a thing. To operate in this mode "accurately", with Kemper, NAM or whatever you need calibrated levels. This approach is very appealing on the surface, but it's not how people really use amps. With a real amp (or a modeler), you plug in a different guitar, and you twist a knob to get the gain level you want. Kemper only worked so well with that, so if you wanted to adjust gain more than a little you would have to swap captures.

Tonex wasn't really designed to be used that way. It was setup so if a capture was created where it was intended to be crunch, and the user followed the level setting for their rig, they would get crunch. If the capture was meant to be just on the edge of breakup, the user would get edge of breakup. It doesn't matter if the guitar or rig is high or low output, if you set the levels the Tonex way, you got the gain level intended. It is a totally different paradigm. Not better, not worse, different.

The reasons the Tonex approach has been problematic for some people is 1) way too many users and capture makers didn't read and follow the instructions buried deep in the manual, 2) Besides not being clear with the instructions and their importance, IK set the default input level poorly and then changed it causing confusion, and 3) a lot of people think like you and wanted it to work like the Kemper approach and Internet forums have convinced them they need calibrated levels. The result is you are trying to hammer a screw into a board and you are frustrated that its not working like a nail.

 

[MirrorProfiles]

Tonex wasn't really designed to be used that way. It was setup so if a capture was created where it was intended to be crunch, and the user followed the level setting for their rig, they would get crunch. If the capture was meant to be just on the edge of breakup, the user would get edge of breakup. It doesn't matter if the guitar or rig is high or low output, if you set the levels the Tonex way, you got the gain level intended. It is a totally different paradigm. Not better, not worse, different.

I’m not sure where you’ve got this idea from, but it doesn’t help with captures all being a vague mishmash of levels which could be easily solved. It also doesn’t help with captures being totally all over the place and needing adjustment and guesswork every single time to get something potentially useful.

There’s too much nuance with where gain is applied in the chain to just rely on winging it, especially on a platform that supports capturing chains including boost pedals.

Furthermore, using calibrated levels simply gives you a point that is unity gain. You can adjust your preset from there to suit your guitar, if you want it cleaner or lower gain if you need to adapt it to a particular guitar.

The reasons the Tonex approach has been problematic for some people is 1) way too many users and capture makers didn't read and follow the instructions buried deep in the manual, 2) Besides not being clear with the instructions and their importance, IK set the default input level poorly and then changed it causing confusion, and 3) a lot of people think like you and wanted it to work like the Kemper approach and Internet forums have convinced them they need calibrated levels. The result is you are trying to hammer a screw into a board and you are frustrated that its not working like a nail.

You’re still totally missing the point that achieving unity gain can involve extremely wide ranging levels. ToneX has no way of measuring the output of the reamp chain. IK even make reamping devices that output incredibly weak signals, that to achieve unity gain require the kind of input level that would cause red clipping lights everywhere, and users won’t intuitively set up (unless they know a specific target to aim for).

The range of potential levels is too wild for this to be a suitable approach - it leads to situations where you have to have your loud guitar just below clipping, and still need to add 10-15dB more gain. A user making a “high gain” model with maximum reamp level at -6dBu is going to require very bizarre, unintuitive levels for someone using humbuckers.

It’s a flawed approach that really doesn’t offer any benefits and leads to a janky and inconstant experience, especially as most guitarists are going to have no clue why it’s so random.

 

[Chocol8]

You’re still totally missing the point

Looking an a mirror?

For Kemper and QC it works because they control all the hardware and levels. For NAM or Tonex, you can use all sorts of hardware. The intended Tonex approach was meant to be simple for the end user. Plug in the guitar, strum and set the levels where to where it is green/good. To calibrate levels you are counting on users to lookup their interface specs, which are often not published or easy to find except on some spreadsheet somewhere. If their interface is a new model and not on the spreadsheet, oh well. That kinda works for NAM because NAM is popular amongst the geek musician crowd that is most likely to understand what dBu means and how to calibrate. If you were making a mass market product and you had to pay people to respond to customer service calls, you probably wouldn't take the same approach.

As I said, you are fixed in your beliefs, nothing I can say will make you stop hitting screws with a hammer and thinking they are bad nails.

 

[MirrorProfiles]

Looking an a mirror?

For Kemper and QC it works because they control all the hardware and levels. For NAM or Tonex, you can use all sorts of hardware. The intended Tonex approach was meant to be simple for the end user. Plug in the guitar, strum and set the levels where to where it is green/good. To calibrate levels you are counting on users to lookup their interface specs, which are often not published or easy to find except on some spreadsheet somewhere. If their interface is a new model and not on the spreadsheet, oh well. That kinda works for NAM because NAM is popular amongst the geek musician crowd that is most likely to understand what dBu means and how to calibrate. If you were making a mass market product and you had to pay people to respond to customer service calls, you probably wouldn't take the same approach.

As I said, you are fixed in your beliefs, nothing I can say will make you stop hitting screws with a hammer and thinking they are bad nails.

Some things to consider:

- The vast majority of users on any capturing platform don’t make any captures at all. And many who do make their own make very few.

- The ones who do make collections of packs are more likely to have an array of studio equipment and knowledge beyond what the average guitarist end user has

- Many ToneX users are using models made by either IK or 3rd party creators on ToneX pedals.

- Having the ability to add calibration metadata and automatically achieve unity doesn’t mean it has to be required. Simply having the option available for those who are able to take advantage means the vast majority of users can benefit from it. It’s not just reserved for the geeks.

- Figuring out input levels is nowhere as hard as some people want to make it sound. I’ve talked to many users and helped a LOT of people - I’m actually amazed at how the people who struggle most are the people with more experience who get more stuck in their ways and ignorant vs beginners who are keen to learn and understand things.

I’m fixed in my beliefs only until someone can convince me otherwise. I’m not shutting myself off from the discussion and am available to changing my mind on anything - there is simply no good reason not to support calibrated levels, it’s a simple flaw in the design that could be so easily fixed.

 

[Richard_G]

Btw, @MirrorProfiles, I've recently bought four of your Tonex v2 capture packs (JMP1992 AJ Super Bass, Dual Rectifier Multiwatt,, 5150 Block letter, Uberschall Rev Green).

I'm a bit surprised I'm having a hard time figuring out @ what dBu level into the amps you used when capturing these, considering your emphasis on this. I haven't seen this info provided in the description on your website, via e-mails during ordering and receiving or embedded as info within the captures.

 

[MirrorProfiles]

Btw, @MirrorProfiles, I've recently bought four of your Tonex v2 capture packs (JMP1992 AJ Super Bass, Dual Rectifier Multiwatt,, 5150 Block letter, Uberschall Rev Green).

I'm a bit surprised I'm having a hard time figuring out @ what dBu level into the amps you used when capturing these, considering your emphasis on this. I haven't seen this info provided in the description on your website, via e-mails during ordering and receiving or embedded as info within the captures.

For ToneX models, I try to include it in the comments field so the user has a direct reference to it. NAM models all have them embedded directly within the file.

I also try to include it on each product page’s description, some of the recent packs had it missing (which I’m just adding now). Either way, I’m always available to share that information and encourage users to take advantage of being able to hear my captures as close to plugging their guitar into my amps as possible.

 

[Richard_G]

I can find some info in the comments on some of your Tone models on Tone.net. Thanks, that's useful. But not in the comments in the presets I've recently imported after purchase. If possible, I'd guess that would be a nice place to also put this info.

 

[MirrorProfiles]

I can find some info in the comments on some of your Tone models on Tone.net. Thanks, that's useful. But not in the comments in the presets I've recently imported after purchase. If possible, I'd guess that would be a nice place to also put this info.

I’ll try and get it added to the presets, it’s usually in the comments field of the captures themselves (as I tend to add that information while I’m reamping).

Generally speaking, you can aim for 12dBu with my stuff and be in a good place. Some models are 13dBu and some are 11.4dBu, it’ll depend on the pack which is which.

 

[Richard_G]

But back to the discussion about the usefulness of providing a dBu reference level:

Tonight, I made a single Tonex capture of my Catalinbread Dirty Little Secret Mk. I pedal (available here on Tone.net, if anyone is interested).

I used the V2 modeler for this capture, with the extended training. Calibration send dBu level: 14.8 dBu.

Knowing the 14.8 dBu level is useful when I'm using the capture in Logic with the same audio interface used for the capture connected to my Mac. This interface (a Motu M4) has a max input dBu of 16 dBu on its Hi-Z input. But if I want to use the same capture on my Tonex One or Tonex pedal, I would have to adjust the gain staging to achieve the same result; the Tonex pedals have a max input dBu of something like 8 dBu.

Knowing the dBu used when capturing, I can use this capture in both use cases.

 

[EOengineer]

Hopefully not hijacking here, help me understand how the Lehle P-Split III is working as a reamp box?

I feel like I fundamentally understand we need to step down from line to instrument level coming out of our interface so that the amp sees that signal as close as possible to the original guitar signal, I just don’t get how a signal splitter solves that problem? What am I missing? How do you adjust levels?

EDIT - ok I guess it just works in reverse. I’m still puzzled by the lack of adjustment.

 

[Richard_G]

As you point out, the P-Split III does not have a signal level control - it pretty much just delivers the same level as you feed it. So that must be controlled by other means. (In my case the line output from my Motu M4 delivers an ok level as is, as discussed in this thread.)

But it changes the impedance.

And it has a few other features, like ground lift, its pretty neutral etc.

 

[EOengineer]

As you point out, the P-Split III does not have a signal level control - it pretty much just delivers the same level as you feed it. So that must be controlled by other means.

Oh ok this makes more sense. Are you finding you have to bring in more hardware to attenuate that output or are you just letting it hit the amp at line level? I know there’s some back and forth on wanting to hit the amps a bit harder on capture.

 

[bikescene]

I see some of you have found success in ToneX by maintaining your NAM levels. I read about ToneX being slightly undergained using their recommended input adjustment method but never understood the issue. I suppose I will find out once I jump into ToneX.

 

[MirrorProfiles]

Hopefully not hijacking here, help me understand how the Lehle P-Split III is working as a reamp box?

It’s basically just a 1:1 isolation transformer that can accept a balanced line level and output an unbalanced instrument signal (with optional ground lift etc).

I read about ToneX being slightly undergained using their recommended input adjustment method but never understood the issue

I found the ToneX undergaining thing wasn’t related to how they guide you to set levels, and merely just a result of how their training behaves. Obviously setting levels will impact things, but even with levels balanced within 0.1dB of each other, ToneX models would be undergained. It’s still worth checking tonex models once they’re complete IMO.

 

[Orvillain]

The ideal result from taking a line level output from your audio interface, going through some kind of device, and into the front of the valve amp... that would be:

- same signal level as if your guitar was plugged straight in
- same noise floor as if your guitar was plugged straight in

In practice, I don't think this is 100% achieveable. But some devices seem to work better than others for this.

 

[EOengineer]

The ideal result from taking a line level output from your audio interface, going through some kind of device, and into the front of the valve amp... that would be:

- same signal level as if your guitar was plugged straight in
- same noise floor as if your guitar was plugged straight in

In practice, I don't think this is 100% achieveable. But some devices seem to work better than others for this.

Yup - this is kind of the next stone I have to turn over for my own capture experiments. Many of the reamp boxes on the market feel like even the folks who’ve put out hardware don’t fully understand the problem.

Seems like you can get boxes that handle the impedance issue but not the level issue, so you’re either too hot or not hot enough. Just give us something that handles the impedance and allows us to adjust levels up or down within a range.

This shouldn’t be rocket surgery but perhaps the variability is the issue.

 

[2dor]

Yup - this is kind of the next stone I have to turn over for my own capture experiments. Many of the reamp boxes on the market feel like even the folks who’ve put out hardware don’t fully understand the problem.

Seems like you can get boxes that handle the impedance issue but not the level issue, so you’re either too hot or not hot enough. Just give us something that handles the impedance and allows us to adjust levels up or down within a range.

This shouldn’t be rocket surgery but perhaps the variability is the issue.

This one's pretty much the Signal Art reamp box rebranded and has the ability to go above unity gain a bit:

United Studio Technologies Replay Box

Dual-Transformer Reamp Box Two transformers for different timbres, Transparent circuit for transparent sound, Harmonic circuit for warm sound with harmonic distortion, Low-noise design with high gain, ground lift and phase reverse switch, Level...

www.thomann.de

Pretty flat frequency response too since it has the transformer that made the Signal Art reamp box great for reamping.