Tempting to jump on board... dual instrument setup?

[robmartino]

Hi guys,

I want to get started on an album recording project of my solo Chapman Stick stuff and am trying to get a solid recording foundation in order. When I use effects live, I use both a Boss GT-10B and GT-10 (for bass and melody sides of the Stick) and I've got some nice sounds programmed on those, but in a recording situation I realize there are some deficiencies (for example the reverb quality on the Boss units), same for Guitar Rig 3- despite the amazing flexibility there is something lacking in the "feel" of it I can't quite put my finger on (and I hate monitoring through plug-ins because of the latency).

Just about every sound sample I hear of the AXE-fx has me shaking my head as to how good it sounds, but I wonder if I can accomplish similar effects setups with one Ultra for both sides of the Stick. I see what is available for the effects "inventory" but I could potentially be using all four signal paths.

For example one song setup is something like this on the pair of Boss fx, and I'm wondering if the Ultra CPU would handle something like it:

BASS------>comp--amp--eq--chorus--reverb------------------------------------------------->stereo out

MELODY---->comp--------clean amp----------------------eq----------chorus--delay--reverb-->stereo out
                   |                                          |
                   |-slow gear/expander--pitchshifter--delay--|

I already have a preamp I can use before running to the line inputs on the AXE-fx.

I often use slow gear (adsr) on each Boss and understand that the AXE-fx can't process these independently on the L and R channels (not sure if this is a hardware design or potentially addressed by a firmware update), but I think I can accomplish the same thing with the expanders.

Does anyone with experience using the AXE-fx in a dual instrument arrangement (maybe separate processing for magnetic and piezo pickups) have any thoughts on this?

Thanks.

 

[DNW]

Hi guys,

I want to get started on an album recording project of my solo Chapman Stick stuff and am trying to get a solid recording foundation in order. When I use effects live, I use both a Boss GT-10B and GT-10 (for bass and melody sides of the Stick) and I've got some nice sounds programmed on those, but in a recording situation I realize there are some deficiencies (for example the reverb quality on the Boss units), same for Guitar Rig 3- despite the amazing flexibility there is something lacking in the "feel" of it I can't quite put my finger on (and I hate monitoring through plug-ins because of the latency).

Just about every sound sample I hear of the AXE-fx has me shaking my head as to how good it sounds, but I wonder if I can accomplish similar effects setups with one Ultra for both sides of the Stick. I see what is available for the effects "inventory" but I could potentially be using all four signal paths.

For example one song setup is something like this on the pair of Boss fx, and I'm wondering if the Ultra CPU would handle something like it:

BASS------>comp--amp--eq--chorus--reverb------------------------------------------------->stereo out

MELODY---->comp--------clean amp----------------------eq----------chorus--delay--reverb-->stereo out
                   |                                          |
                   |-slow gear/expander--pitchshifter--delay--|

I already have a preamp I can use before running to the line inputs on the AXE-fx.

I often use slow gear (adsr) on each Boss and understand that the AXE-fx can't process these independently on the L and R channels (not sure if this is a hardware design or potentially addressed by a firmware update), but I think I can accomplish the same thing with the expanders.

Does anyone with experience using the AXE-fx in a dual instrument arrangement (maybe separate processing for magnetic and piezo pickups) have any thoughts on this?

Thanks.

I run a dual output guitar (magnetic and piezos) into my Ultra, and it works brilliantly. Both signals can be processed separately, or together, or however you want to do it.

There isn't a huge number of bass amps in the Axe, and I've done limited bass playing through it so far, but the sounds I was getting were great.

That said, my main patch is basically as follows.
Magnetic pickups -> wah (bypassed) -> amp -> cab (dual cabs), -> parametric EQ -> Delay (in parallel, linked to a pitch modifier so that as I move higher up the fretboard, the delay creeps in) -> Output
Piezo -> a bunch of compression, EQ and I think multiband compression -> delay and volume/pan block in parallel (to split the signal left and right, with the right being very slightly delayed) -> Output (fed to the same output as the magnetic signal)

This set up uses all four rows at the moment, at least to some extent. I could probably rearrange things to free up a row to use for something else, but I don't really have a need to at the moment. Plenty of CPU power left in this patch too, from memory.

Not sure how that example you posted would pan out, CPU-wise. You've got a few delays, reverbs, pitch shifter etc, which all take a bit. Can't really comment on the ADSR side of things, as it's not something I use. If I get a chance tonight, I'll just whip up a patch throwing everything I can you've listed in there and see how the CPU holds up.

 

[lilbman]

insufficient CPU for everything you
described. Just checked it out on my
ULTRA. The 2 amp blocks are use a lot
of CPU. You'd probably want to use the
FXloop for your second input also which
you don't have listed.

 

[DNW]

Saves me having to try it. Depending on how he's using the reverb and chorus blocks though, he could possibly combine the signal and run just one of each to save some CPU power. If he wants very different sounds for each signal, that would be a different story though.

 

[lilbman]

By the way he's routing his effects, that's how it seems.
I'm no Guru. I saw the thread and thought I would
check it out for ya'll.

 

[godprobe]

insufficient CPU for everything you
described. Just checked it out on my
ULTRA. The 2 amp blocks are use a lot
of CPU. You'd probably want to use the
FXloop for your second input also which
you don't have listed.

yep... closest I can get is everything except minus Amp2 and both of the cabs on Lores (I assumed you wanted amp/cab and not just amp).
runs about 92.7-93.0% CPU usage.

 

[DNW]

insufficient CPU for everything you
described. Just checked it out on my
ULTRA. The 2 amp blocks are use a lot
of CPU. You'd probably want to use the
FXloop for your second input also which
you don't have listed.

yep... closest I can get is everything except minus Amp2 and both of the cabs on Lores (I assumed you wanted amp/cab and not just amp).
runs about 92.7-93.0% CPU usage.

Christ, that's brutal.

Possibly the EQ blocks won't be needed, depending on what he's doing with them, and possibly the chorus and reverbs could be combined. Still, even all that I'm not sure is going to amount to what an amp block requires. :?

 

[godprobe]

changing Compressor type from Studio to Pedal saves ~3%
lots of variation with the Pitch block Type parameter... I had it set on default (Detune), but if I remember the OP's post, he wanted it in Custom Shift mode, which adds ~4%
...yeah... not much to be done, if it must be kept on the original plan.

 

[robmartino]

Wow, thanks guys, this is helpful information.

Here's a bit more detail- in general, I'm not actually adding much coloration from amp simulation - when I have "amp" in the chart above, on the Boss unit it is really just the "Full Range" option with 3 band EQ, and NO cabinet simulation. So possibly in this clean configuration I don't need a cab or amp at all?

Sometimes on the melody side I'll do a smooth distorted lead kind of sound, in which case I'll use a more "guitar-like" setup with overdriven amp and cabinet, but I've yet to use an amp/cabinet pair on both sides at the same time.

Also, it's possible I can achieve similar effect results just by having higher quality effects available and not needing to use so many blocks.... for example, the reason I have a parallel chain on the melody side is to have a synth-like "swell" on top of the normal clean sound. Perhaps that can just be done with a higher quality delay based on some of the AXE-fx sound samples I've heard.

I'll likely just have to try a unit for the 15 day period and see what I can do with it, but the information in this thread so far is very useful.... thanks!

 

[javajunkie]

Wow, thanks guys, this is helpful information.

Here's a bit more detail- in general, I'm not actually adding much coloration from amp simulation - when I have "amp" in the chart above, on the Boss unit it is really just the "Full Range" option with 3 band EQ, and NO cabinet simulation. So possibly in this clean configuration I don't need a cab or amp at all?

Sometimes on the melody side I'll do a smooth distorted lead kind of sound, in which case I'll use a more "guitar-like" setup with overdriven amp and cabinet, but I've yet to use an amp/cabinet pair on both sides at the same time.

Also, it's possible I can achieve similar effect results just by having higher quality effects available and not needing to use so many blocks.... for example, the reason I have a parallel chain on the melody side is to have a synth-like "swell" on top of the normal clean sound. Perhaps that can just be done with a higher quality delay based on some of the AXE-fx sound samples I've heard.

I'll likely just have to try a unit for the 15 day period and see what I can do with it, but the information in this thread so far is very useful.... thanks!

If you use a GEQ or PEQ w/o cab simulation on the top you ought to be able to do it. You can also save cpu by mixing the signals together on down the chain and sharing effects that are common (when appropriate).

 

[robmartino]

If you use a GEQ or PEQ w/o cab simulation on the top you ought to be able to do it. You can also save cpu by mixing the signals together on down the chain and sharing effects that are common (when appropriate).

Thanks... I can see the advantage of sharing effects when appropriate, I assume it's possible to at least control the amount of the effect on the bass and melody sides (typically I want more reverb on melody than bass)? Almost like an aux send kind of configuration?

 

[javajunkie]

If you use a GEQ or PEQ w/o cab simulation on the top you ought to be able to do it. You can also save cpu by mixing the signals together on down the chain and sharing effects that are common (when appropriate).

Thanks... I can see the advantage of sharing effects when appropriate, I assume it's possible to at least control the amount of the effect on the bass and melody sides (typically I want more reverb on melody than bass)? Almost like an aux send kind of configuration?

Yes exactly, you could do a parallel routing of the effects and send the desired amount of signal to both.