TwoNotes GENOME!!!

[MirrorProfiles]

If I set my gain to minimum, the waveform display is incredibly tiny. Which is something I hate dealing with. Yeah, Logic has that "waveform widening" thing, but it's valid for all waveforms at once, so that's not of much use.

Its kind of moot if you're not fussed about accuracy anyway, but you can always clip gain the region up or toggle the waveform view depending on what you are trying to look at. Many interfaces these days produce quite a hot signal already at minimum gain - with things like Focusrite/UAD/Audient/RME etc they're probably more likely to clip with humbuckers than be too quiet.

Unrelated, but Logic's audio editing & waveform display is one of the reasons I swapped it for PT. You don't see what happens to the waveform when you apply fades (it just puts a white corner over the area), all the flex editing stuff does weird things to the waveform view (for instance slice mode, you cant see where the fades start and stop or what waveform information is in that area), and quite often there would be unexplained clicks and pops that you could hear but the waveform display doesnt show. It would drive me nuts editing drums, merging regions, and then suddenly all of the regions would become random lengths, and clicks and pops that weren't present in editing would appear. UHHH.

 

[Sascha Franck]

but you can always clip gain the region up

That'd be counterproductive to the "set it once" approach.

or toggle the waveform view depending on what you are trying to look at

As said, that's a global thing, so I'd have to constantly switch back and forth.

with things like Focusrite/UAD/Audient/RME etc they're probably more likely to clip with humbuckers than be too quiet.

I'm still using my Zoom UAD-2 mainly, when I set the gain to minimum, there's really very little signal, even in Hi-Z mode.

Unrelated, but Logic's audio editing & waveform display is one of the reasons I swapped it for PT.

I absolutely agree on all you've said. Logics audio editing is still <y2k-ish (in fact, at least the sample editor actually is indeed).

Fwiw, I don't doubt you folks are onto something. But seriously, I never had an issue to adjust amp sim input levels. And interestingly enough, as an example, with Helix Native, everything I did sounded almost identical compared to the same patches loaded into the hardware (not using the Helix as an interface).

 

[Jkist7]

That'd be counterproductive to the "set it once" approach.



As said, that's a global thing, so I'd have to constantly switch back and forth.



I'm still using my Zoom UAD-2 mainly, when I set the gain to minimum, there's really very little signal, even in Hi-Z mode.



I absolutely agree on all you've said. Logics audio editing is still <y2k-ish (in fact, at least the sample editor actually is indeed).

Fwiw, I don't doubt you folks are onto something. But seriously, I never had an issue to adjust amp sim input levels. And interestingly enough, as an example, with Helix Native, everything I did sounded almost identical compared to the same patches loaded into the hardware (not using the Helix as an interface).

Let me put it to you this way. You'll often times see someone say about one VST amp "oh its the cleanest amp in the plugin, I love the lush tones", but then the next guy says "sounds like a fuzzy mess". Or for example, you hear some artist preset used in a video, and it sounds amazing, but then you plug your guitar into it and it sounds bad.

The truth of it is there has been a disconnect between the way we all experience guitar plugins due to the input level differences between audio interfaces.

Most plugin companies use a standardized input level to create and train these plugins. We can call this "reference level". This is the level that these companies designed everything around. This level is important because, in order to experience the plugin the way they intended, in order to achieve perfect accuracy of sound, you should be feeding the plugin the same "level of headroom".

The problem is, this number has never really been advertised or known. Only now are people becoming aware of the issue. A few especially enterprising individuals have taken it upon themselves to contact the companies and obtain this number from them.

Once we have the reference level, we can all set our interfaces appropriately and then, no matter what you are using, my plugin and your plugin should sound the exact same (considering the same guitar etc.)

The reason you can't trust auto-level setting in plugins is because it is arbitrary. It is going to read whatever you feed it, and then try and boost or cut the signal appropriately. The problem is, it is usually taking a single measurement, such as the average peak level, and setting the plugin according to that. Depending on how someone plays when doing that, it could influence the level to be set any number of places. So we face the same problem: no consistency, and probably off from what the manufacturer designed.

I hope that makes sense. The community has been pushing for these numbers so that we can "set and forget", and know we are experiencing the plugin the way it was designed to be experienced.

 

[Sascha Franck]

we can all set our interfaces appropriately and then

I understand all the other points, but setting the interface input level to suit your amp plugin is not what should be done - you set your interface input level so you get perfectly healthy recording levels.

 

[dronerstone]

setting the interface input level to suit your amp plugin is not what should be done - you set your interface input level so you get perfectly healthy recording levels.

Yes, and that's why you leave the interface input level at ZERO and do the rest digitally.

As said quite a few times already, by now.

It really makes things easier.

I do believe that many of us have legit ears and a good hand for tweaking/adjustments, but why can't you grasp the approach using numbers, instead of a mere "oh that sounds fine".

This is not 2006 anymore, luckily.

 

[Sascha Franck]

Yes, and that's why you leave the interface input level at ZERO and do the rest digitally.

No, that's not good recording practice. That'll get you wildly varying recording levels and hence waveforms. If you want to be dealing with that, more power to you, but I don't.

 

[dronerstone]

No, that's not good recording practice. That'll get you wildly varying recording levels and hence waveforms. If you want to be dealing with that, more power to you, but I don't.

One last time:

1) Record guitar/bass -> hardware input gain at ZERO, deal with leveling in the plugin (according to the actual numbers given by manufacturers), to ensure correct model response

2) Vocals, hardware synths, ambient mics, anything -> level to taste

3) ?????????????

4) Profit.

 

[Sascha Franck]

1) Record guitar/bass -> hardware input gain at ZERO, deal with leveling in the plugin (according to the actual numbers given by manufacturers), to ensure correct model response

One last time: With my interface that will often give me very low levels. Something I don't want to deal with.
The fact that the mixture of interface input level and adjusting the input of whatever plugin is adding another layer of gain staging is of no concern to me. It never has been.
Yes, I want to get into the "ballpark" regarding plugin input levels, too, but for that, the input indicators (and adjustment options) of, say, GR, HXN and Amplitube are just fine for me.
There's so much differences coming from the the Hi-Z input stages of different interfaces, so you won't get the same sonic performance from them anyway. Heck, even the highly acclaimed RME interfaces didn't come with a proper Hi-Z input for quite some generations (just 340kOhm instead of 1mOhm impedance), go figure.

Is it a valid approach to remove that input level layer from the equation? Defenitely. But it's still not for me. For all the mentioned reasons.

 

[Ed DeGenaro]

One last time:

1) Record guitar/bass -> hardware input gain at ZERO, deal with leveling in the plugin (according to the actual numbers given by manufacturers), to ensure correct model response

2) Vocals, hardware synths, ambient mics, anything -> level to taste

3) ?????????????

4) Profit.

So your supposition is only guitar/bass should be recorded it’s DI level with no boost from the AI but rather a gain plug?
Because it’s science, yet for vox use your ears? because the thing that in most genres makes/sells the track isn’t as important than DI get through a plug.

How many times did you go platinum or had your stuff Grammy nominated.

 

[dronerstone]

One last time: With my interface that will often give me very low levels. Something I don't want to deal with.
The fact that the mixture of interface input level and adjusting the input of whatever plugin is adding another layer of gain staging is of no concern to me. It never has been.
Yes, I want to get into the "ballpark" regarding plugin input levels, too, but for that, the input indicators (and adjustment options) of, say, GR, HXN and Amplitube are just fine for me.
There's so much differences coming from the the Hi-Z input stages of different interfaces, so you won't get the same sonic performance from them anyway. Heck, even the highly acclaimed RME interfaces didn't come with a proper Hi-Z input for quite some generations (just 340kOhm instead of 1mOhm impedance), go figure.

Is it a valid approach to remove that input level layer from the equation? Defenitely. But it's still not for me. For all the mentioned reasons.

Alright, you do you.
But don't say we didn't try.

 

[Sascha Franck]

Alright, you do you.

Defenitely

But don't say we didn't try.

I did underdstand the approach from the first moment. It's just not relevant for me.
In a nutshell: There's so many other factors affecting the gain staging (and other sound related aspects) before the signal actually hits the plugin that I'm fine with getting into the ballpark and go from there.

 

[dronerstone]

So your supposition is only guitar/bass should be recorded it’s DI level with no boost from the AI but rather a gain plug?
Because it’s science, yet for vox use your ears? because the thing that in most genres makes/sells the track isn’t as important than DI get through a plug.

How many times did you go platinum or had your stuff Grammy nominated.

Well, mic/vocal recordings usually don't feed into simulations of guitar/bass amps.

Not saying that you can't, but the topic is primarily about having such plugins (guitar/bass amp sims) respond in the most "real" way possible.

If you're using a mic pre plugin that's modeled after a real-life hardware unit, then we can probably talk about it.

And, just fyi, factoring in award nominations is crazy. No one says stuff won't be able to sound "good" without proper leveling/calculations, since that goes far into subjective territory.

Wouldn't hurt having an amp model react the same way as the actual amp sitting in your mancave, am I correct?

Maybe it's a bit too novel, and thus still just a thing that a bunch of modeler-using guitar/bass geeks are aware of.
Maybe. For now...

 

[Sascha Franck]

And fwiw, I just did a test. HX Stomp DI vs. UAD-2 DI /w the trim at 0. HX Stomp is throwing out more level. So I would have to readjust my levels depending on the interface used, too. And what if I was using the input pad of the Stomp? Or a DI instead of the Hi-Z in of my interface? Each and every of these scenarios would require different gain adjustments. So I can as well just get along with what I used to do anyway, namely using a mixture of common sense and my ears.

 

[Sascha Franck]

but the topic is primarily about having such plugins (guitar/bass amp sims) respond in the most "real" way possible.

Of course. But very likely there's as many other factors affecting that response every bit as much as "authentic" input gain.

 

[Jkist7]

And fwiw, I just did a test. HX Stomp DI vs. UAD-2 DI /w the trim at 0. HX Stomp is throwing out more level. So I would have to readjust my levels depending on the interface used, too. And what if I was using the input pad of the Stomp? Or a DI instead of the Hi-Z in of my interface? Each and every of these scenarios would require different gain adjustments. So I can as well just get along with what I used to do anyway, namely using a mixture of common sense and my ears.

The idea is you use the plugin to boost or cut according to your device. Most of us do have our interfaces set somewhere that works for us. Mine is set to 0 gain for the hi-z input. With the Neural plugin, I need only add 1db of input boost within the plugin to achieve reference level for THAT plugin. Other plugins I might need to cut or whatever. That is where the handy excel sheet posted above comes in.

So yeah, you COULD adjust your actual interface constantly for each plugin, but that would be tiresome, and that isn't what the argument is about. Its about knowing what to feed into the plugin exactly, and knowing that is a combination of what your audio interface puts out at 0db and what the reference level of the plugin originally was.

But yes, you are correct. Millions have been playing guitar plugins just fine with whatever settings they set by ear, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. At the end of the day, "if it sounds good, its good" is still king. However, there are some of us that are striving for that last .4% of accuracy. We can't have that without knowing specific measurements that, until now, only a few developers have been willing to provide.

 

[dronerstone]

The idea is you use the plugin to boost or cut according to your device. Most of us do have our interfaces set somewhere that works for us. Mine is set to 0 gain for the hi-z input. With the Neural plugin, I need only add 1db of input boost within the plugin to achieve reference level for THAT plugin. Other plugins I might need to cut or whatever. That is where the handy excel sheet posted above comes in.

So yeah, you COULD adjust your actual interface constantly for each plugin, but that would be tiresome, and that isn't what the argument is about. Its about knowing what to feed into the plugin exactly, and knowing that is a combination of what your audio interface puts out at 0db and what the reference level of the plugin originally was.

But yes, you are correct. Millions have been playing guitar plugins just fine with whatever settings they set by ear, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. At the end of the day, "if it sounds good, its good" is still king. However, there are some of us that are striving for that last .4% of accuracy. We can't have that without knowing specific measurements that, until now, only a few developers have been willing to provide.

Thanks.

Yet, as vocal as I might've been about it, let's not have this divide us into "team authentic" and "team ears".

We're better than that.

 

[Sascha Franck]

However, there are some of us that are striving for that last .4% of accuracy.

I don't think you'll arrive there, though. At least not just by leveling properly.
If you wanted this to be like with a physical amp, everybody would have to use the same audio interfaces, too. And as said, there's some pretty dramatic differences, especially when it comes to Hi-Z inputs, which often aren't much more but a sort of gracious afterthought. Add to this different op amps and converters and it's quite clear that leveling is just one of several things - and perhaps not even the most important one.

 

[MirrorProfiles]

So your supposition is only guitar/bass should be recorded it’s DI level with no boost from the AI but rather a gain plug?
Because it’s science, yet for vox use your ears? because the thing that in most genres makes/sells the track isn’t as important than DI get through a plug.

How many times did you go platinum or had your stuff Grammy nominated.

With vocals are you looking for an accurate gain response from a guitar amplifier?

With guitar it’s slicing the signal in the middle of the signal path with something that will affect level.

With EQ’s and compressors, they are purposefully designed to operate with a wide range of signals, but even still this concept applies to things like 1176’s and other analog modelled stuff. Different companies use different reference levels and if you want to match them 1:1 with the real HW, you have to account for it. But it’s less noticeable than with a guitar amp, because amps just expect an instrument level signal.

Not sure why you’ve brought up grammy’s and going platinum here either but maybe I’m missing something.

 

[MirrorProfiles]

Add to this different op amps and converters and it's quite clear that leveling is just one of several things - and perhaps not even the most important one.

Whether or not it’s the most important factor, if everything else was perfectly matched to the real amp you still won’t get the most accurate response from the amp unless the input level is correct.

It’s not a silver bullet that will make all the problems go away, but it’s also not that difficult or time consuming that there needs to be any kind of resistance to just acknowledging that the levels may require some amount of adjustment IF you want an accurate response. I’d imagine a lot of people aren’t too fussed either way, but likewise, many simply didn’t know or understand this but DID want an accurate gain response (or simply just the removal of doubt).

 

[Sedaxel]

If I don´t own a JCM800, AND I want to feel the closest simulation by a plugin that has the BEST and more accurate behaviour compared to the real deal... I need to enter the plugin with the gain that the plugin is expecting, and the one it was developed for, to get said great accuracy.

I have 2 ways of doing that. One is by ear. I can tweak the gain (in the interface input or digitally in the PC) until I guess it´s OK. BUT, let´s remember that I don´t own a real JCM800... so my ear can´t compare the sound/feel to anything. My ear will just serve me to get a sound/behaviour I like. Not necessarily the one I´d have from the real amp. So I´ll be playing with a nice sound... but I´d not be getting the target of knowing how a JCM800 feels like. It´s OK, nobody says that´s bad. If you don´t really care about getting the real amps character, just need to be aprox there, then it´s perfect.

Or, I can be told by the programmers what the plugin was programmed for, in terms of input signal level expected for making the algorithm perform the closest possible to the real amp. Then I don´t need to have the real amp, because I have the info that will lead me to tweak the input gain, with my audio interface, to get the simulation as real as possible. And this is all about it. I don´t own a Mark IIC+... I couldn´t tell by ear how to adjust a simulation to sound and feel like a real one because I don´t know it. If I owned one... I could by ear more or less get the same response by comparing amp and plugin.

So... If I don´t own the amp, the only safe way to get the most real behaviour of a plugin is with this method.

EDIT: and that´s the very same reason I don´t use NAM too much. Each profile is made with different input gain, and you can make it sound great by ear... but you never know if it´s nearly similar to the real amps that were profiled. You can only guess. I only use NAM with my own amp profiles... because I can compare amp-vs-profile and tweak the gain until I get the same response. Of course this is JUST MY PREFERENCE. It´s perfectly fine to care a little less about accuracy and just search for a nice setting.