Recording Guitar - DI vs Miced Amp

[Crowley5150]

Hi Folks,

Just wondering something. I'm doing alot of recording of guitar parts which I predominantly use Guitar Rig 2 for the effects. My question is this..... when using simulation software for the guitar effects, do you get a better sound DI'ing the guitar straight into the computer application (my case its an MBox2 with Pro Tools) or is it advisable to plug it into your amp first (still with a clean tone, ie, no distortion etc), mic it up, then add the effects later?

http://www.soundclick.com/bands/page_songInfo.cfm?bandID=685713&songID=6236508

This is a track I recorded (a punk/rock cover of Foolish Games by Jewel) purely with a DI'ed guitar and Guitar Rig 2 for effects.

The reason I ask this is because I hear people talk about micing up a guitar or bass into an amp, then recording that into the recording software then working with it... I know often an amp can add punchiness where DI relies heavily on the guitar-->pickups-->input device.

I'd be keen on hearing others ideas and experiences. (I would test this myself just that I only have a 300w Bass amp not a guitar amp.

[Motleyguy]

In my experience, DI'd electric guitar sounds like crap, even if you use an amp simulator like SansAmp. DI works well for bass, but not for electric guitar.

Your DI'd guitar sounds half decent, but I think it would sound way better if you mic'd it up. You could even DI it and mic it at the same time. Blend the 2 into one track, or keep 'em as seperate tracks. Use the mic'd track fairly dry and put all of your effects on the DI track. Could work for you, I dunno. Try micing it up though, it'll give it some more balls, which is what DI'd guitar lacks.

[Crowley5150]

Hey dude, thanks for the feedback. When you say Mic up the amp, in the case of the track I linked to, are you saying I should overdrive/effect the amp before recording it? or to amp it up, getting a punchy yet clean sound through the mic, then still use the amp simulation software to add the effects?

[Moseph]

Amp Simulators are intended, by design, to be used with DI inputs, rather than miking an amp. This mostly to do with convention: there is no written rule that says you couldn't do it this way.

Basically, in the average "traditional" rig, the guitar cabinet is always after the preamp. This is how the vast majority of guitarists play (there are good reasons why this is true for a "traditional" setup). I would be surprised if the developers optimized, or even really tested how setups sound with this alternate

However, given the circumstances, I can't think of any reason to do this other than for the purposes of experimenting or getting a purposefully "weird" sound. This is because I can only think of three reasons (other than experimental ones) for using an amp simulator:
1) You want to use an amp you do not have access to, or find your amp unsuitable for some reason.
2) You lack the appropriate other equipment (mics/cables/pres) to record your amp.
3) You cannot record live for the purposes of volume control (eg, you live in an apartment).

#2 lifts out of the scenario easily, because if you're considering this usage, you've got the gear you need.

#1 doesn't make sense for this, because if you don't find the amp suitable for some reason, adding it into the chain will only move you further from your goal timbre.

#3 doesn't apply to this usage since if you're considering this method, you can make noise.

That being said: go for it. You've only got your own time to lose, so see what you think for yourself.

[Motleyguy]

Good call.

[Crowley5150]

I guess that was my main query.

It's a combination of the 3 actually... I don't own any guitar amps so amp simulation gives me a huge range of options I don't own. Even if I did own an actual guitar amp, I rarely get the chance to crank it and mic it because.... family with 2 kids and no recording room makes it tough to get the house on your own.

My main query tho was... if, on the very rare chance I DO get the house on my own, would it be a worthwhile experiment to do this.....

Guitar --> Amp (clean but punchy sound out of speakers) --> mic --> MBox2 --> Guitar Rig 2 for effects

Or is it really just pissing into the wind and stick to DIing the guitar and try and get the best sound out of the software settings?

[Motleyguy]

It's all about experimenting man, why not try it... you might like it.

[asomata]

I'm a bassist that doesn't own a guitar amp, so DI has always been the way I have to do it. (I'd mic if I could)

But with the software amp, sometimes you can get a better sound by duplicating the track with the guitar, then EQing the new track differently. (And of course lower the volume of both tracks a bit)

[Crowley5150]

asomata, you and I both... I'm primarily a bassist who dabbles in guitar (ie, recording a section 200 times over and over until you get it right, them move onto the next section hehe)

I've actually played with the duplicate channel/different sound/heavily panned left/right setup which seems to work quite well, That track I linked to in the first post had that. The left channel was a more traditional metal type distortion using a modified preset of Guitar Rig 2, and the right channel was more of a Marhall head, chunk style of overdrive... both panned left and right, and it seems to thicken up the sound....

My main problem is the mids seem to lack that crunch. I might hook up my bass amp, throw the guitar through it, mic it up with Beta 58 and then run it through Guitar Rig and see what it sounds like.

[tonalfusion]

My theory is, make it sound good. I've had some DI sound ok, and some like crap. Some MIC'd good and some crap. Just trust your ears... But usually MICing is much consitantly better.