Recording guitar directly into the computer...

[K2000]

Is it a losing battle for the average person? I want to record -- not a demo, I mean for real --- directly into my home computer, if possible.

Is there is a way to simulate the interaction that happens between guitar/pedalboard/tube amp, but still going into the computer directly? Traditional "good tone" is not really a goal, I like noisy guitar sounds.

My other option: I could possibly buy a used laptop, and bring that to an hourly-rental jamspace to record, with a real amplifier and microphone (I have a decent portable audio interface). But that is much less practical than recording at home for me, where I can take my time and experiment (and take off my pants). Is there an option for going in direct, that would give me the same interactivity of the signal chain, but not be insanely expensive, and sound almost as good? Or is that unrealistic if I'm starting out with just a DAW, an interface, and a bunch of weird pedals?

[jrmy]

For my personal project (Crotchthrottle, link in my sig below), I record exclusively directly into Garageband with an M-audio Fast Track Pro as the interface. For my other band (still working on the recording), it's 50/50 miked and direct into the DAW for both guitars and bass.

With the right pedals and amp sims, I've gotten some "live-like" tones (feedback, quasi-amp sag, interesting sustain & decay) that I'm really happy with.

[friendship]

Is it a losing battle for the average person? I want to record -- not a demo, I mean for real --- directly into my home computer, if possible.

Is there is a way to simulate the interaction that happens between guitar/pedalboard/tube amp, but still going into the computer directly? Traditional "good tone" is not really a goal, I like noisy guitar sounds.

My other option: I could possibly buy a used laptop, and bring that to an hourly-rental jamspace to record, with a real amplifier and microphone (I have a decent portable audio interface). But that is much less practical than recording at home for me, where I can take my time and experiment (and take off my pants). Is there an option for going in direct, that would give me the same interactivity of the signal chain, but not be insanely expensive, and sound almost as good? Or is that unrealistic if I'm starting out with just a DAW, an interface, and a bunch of weird pedals?

edit: cool I typed up a really long response but it got deleted after I hit Submit. I had a lot of very good reasoning to support this, but the short answer is yes, you can get great guitar recordings with direct-in. Do it.

[cheesecats]

i've used a pod before with good results. but you still need an input device. you may want to look into the pod studio ux2--it has amp modeling, effects, and recording software:

[Doctor X]

would it be simpler/cheaper than getting a laptop/recording space, to just mike up a little amp at low volume at home?

[skullservant]

For my personal project (Crotchthrottle, link in my sig below), I record exclusively directly into Garageband with an M-audio Fast Track Pro as the interface. For my other band (still working on the recording), it's 50/50 miked and direct into the DAW for both guitars and bass.

With the right pedals and amp sims, I've gotten some "live-like" tones (feedback, quasi-amp sag, interesting sustain & decay) that I'm really happy with.

I too use Garageband and record mostly direct for my projects using Behringer and M-Audio interfaces.
After doing it for years I've found the following which I can offer for advice:

Get yourself a reverb or make a reverb preset in your program that can simulate halls, rooms, and different spaces as if you were in an actual studio with mic'd cabs.

I've found that the BEST combo as far as feedback and making it sound like you are playing tubes or through an amp in general is running a Harmonic Percolator before ANY sort of fuzz or distortion. It clips the other side of the sound wave and can do crazy shit in terms of feedbacking that most other gainy devices don't do without an amp and a cab.

Also- EQ'ing. Most fuzzes/drives/etc tend to be sizzly/grainy/a little weak without going through amps, speaker cables, and then speakers.
A good EQ pedal or EQ preset on your software will you simulate this 'softening' and 'beefing up' of the sounds that are coming out of your pedals.

Other than that, it's good to possibly have at least a small combo amp to experience first hand the difference in sound and correct what you hear through the software

[D.o.S.]

Both the Crotchthrottle and the Savage Cross stuff should give you a great idea of the versatility of direct recording.

[rfurtkamp]

Everything that follows is from the perspective of someone not doing generic crotch rock, and who loves ambient amp noises and the like.

Software modeling can be useful, but you're stuck with planned obsolescence - when a new operating system or DAW comes out, they may not work any more.

It's why I stick with hardware devices for it plus interface, I know I'll be able to get the same sounds if I want 2 years from now etc.

The Fender Mustang amps through DI (just use the USB) work quite well. I've got a few patches that simulate the room here using real amps to a point where I can't tell the difference if I didn't note it on the cue sheet.

Mustang works wonders as well because it lets me tweak faux bias and other internal settings, and the GR-55 lets me do mic type/positioning/etc as well in the software. V Amp is just a Pod 2.0 clone in a rack format, which is just fine if I want that era of sounds or an extra tap (I'll run it in a fake blackface Fenderish thing that's dead clean while the other amps/models/chain are screaming for their lives).

I'm partial to running multiple versions in hardware of the 'same' amp family from different manufacturers - like layer a guitar split to faux Voxes on the V Amp Pro and the Mustang, and blend later in mixing.

No need to use a real amp any more if you don't want to especially if you don't need a specific, specific sound of your exact amp this second.

Even in a soundproofed environment where I could crankl amps 24/7, I'd probably split off to a combo of mic'd and modern modeling stuff.

[K2000]

I don't understand -- a software amp simulator can give you all the harmonics and subtle nuances, and it will react like a real amp? I'm having a hard time believing software will know how to react to a "starve' setting, for example.

I have a Bass Pod (older one) which I've used as a practice tool. It definitely does not react to my pedals like a real amp.

[Sardocasm]

Fryette is making a recording amplifier/interface that looks really promising: http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/917 ... ording-amp

[D.o.S.]

I don't understand -- a software amp simulator can give you all the harmonics and subtle nuances, and it will react like a real amp? I'm having a hard time believing software will know how to react to a "starve' setting, for example.

I have a Bass Pod (older one) which I've used as a practice tool. It definitely does not react to my pedals like a real amp.

I think that Skully and Jrmyrmyrmyrmy are saying that they've worked with and around their interfaces and pedalboards to get sounds they're happy with while going direct. So while plugging a pedal straight into an M-box or what have you won't sound like it does coming out of your amp, you can massage and manipulate the signal to sound awesome to the point where no one would think it was anything other than a Mic'd amp.

I have a Crotchthrottle CD. I did not know that the stringy-thingys were anything other than amplified.

[univalve]

sidenote for ipad/iphone users:
ipad with garage band and the thomann adapter rule pretty hard. Had fun using this shit.

[rfurtkamp]

I don't understand -- a software amp simulator can give you all the harmonics and subtle nuances, and it will react like a real amp? I'm having a hard time believing software will know how to react to a "starve' setting, for example.

The software/hardware stuff doesn't do much of the esoterica - but frankly, for 'amp on edge of breaking', I can dial in very close to what some of the old Sunn and Fender stuff I've literally and figuratively lit on fire when it was cheap and I wfas young and stupid. Again, it may not sound exactly like every example I've had, or even be the same amp versus the sound result (ie I use a tweed Bassman into a 1x12 BF cab model with some bias tweaks to get very close to what my little preferred Jazz Chorus clean sounds like in a small room), but it's a case of "I get sounds I'm happy with vs. mics or real iron."

And I still use both, just like I have tube and SS amps too.

I have a Bass Pod (older one) which I've used as a practice tool. It definitely does not react to my pedals like a real amp.

Modelling has come a long, long way in the last ten years or so. It'll only get better from here.

Right now the thing that most suffer from is snapshotitis, i.e. you get a good setting in the model and that's it, the controls don't respond quite the same, even if you can get a good sound from it.

[jrmy]

I don't understand -- a software amp simulator can give you all the harmonics and subtle nuances, and it will react like a real amp? I'm having a hard time believing software will know how to react to a "starve' setting, for example.

I have a Bass Pod (older one) which I've used as a practice tool. It definitely does not react to my pedals like a real amp.

I think that Skully and Jrmyrmyrmyrmy are saying that they've worked with and around their interfaces and pedalboards to get sounds they're happy with while going direct. So while plugging a pedal straight into an M-box or what have you won't sound like it does coming out of your amp, you can massage and manipulate the signal to sound awesome to the point where no one would think it was anything other than a Mic'd amp.

I have a Crotchthrottle CD. I did not know that the stringy-thingys were anything other than amplified.

Exactly what D.o.S. was saying (also for the nice comment on the tonez). If you have "the right pedals" for your setup, you can get surprisingly fun texting convincing textures out of even the most basic of DAWs. But it could take some experimenting. For example, since I play bass, many of my "guitar-ish" sounds are made using an EHX POG. Unfortunately, not all drive and dirt pedals like to go after the POG. After some futzing around, I found that my Buzzaround sounds awesome after it, and turns the octave-up artifacts that many POG users gripe about into a great "amp on the verge of feedback" sort of harmonic content. Also, my Gnomeratron VTF into a decent amp sim does a great job of doing ye old "amp sagging on the verge of exploding" sound. Heck, with the right amp sim and amounts of gain dialed in, I have gotten some really nice feedbacky sustain-y sounds out of the GB DAW.

Also, as for obsolescence, I used the very first version of GarageBand for the last ten years. The only reason I stepped up was because my old computer died. The new version of GB ported my old files over without a hiccup.

That said, those are all using bare-bones GarageBand. My other band records using my bandmate's fancy-pants DAW (can't for the life of me remember the name), and all the DI guitars go through Amplitube. And I've been shocked by the level of control and "real life" sound we've gotten out of it. He has some supernice real amps (a Marshall Silver Jubilee and Vox AC30), nice mics, kickass preamps, and a serious interface... and 9 times out of 10, we end up using Amplitube for the majority of the final guitar sound, because a) it sounds great, b) it's easy to edit on the fly, and c) it's so damn flexible.

I don't want to come off as a digital shill - these are tools, not panaceas. But in my experience, they've made the recording experience much more rewarding and effective. There's always a learning curve, and a "your mileage may vary" caveat. But that's my two cents on the matter.

[patrick]

I've had really great results running through an ART tube preamp into a Tascam interface. That said, it only really works for clean tones; I still have to figure out how to get good overdriven sounds using DI.