|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| uite a bit more than a Switchbone, but Re: Where in Paris should Amplitube be installed?? [message #64408 is a reply to message #64320] |
Thu, 09 February 2006 07:41   |
![Deej [1] is currently offline](/theme/PARIS_Forum_Template/images/offline.png "Deej [1] is currently offline")
Deej [1]
Messages: 2149
Registered: January 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Steve,
My solution to this is called a Radial Switchbone. One guitar input, two
guitar outputs. I send one output to an amp and track with effects so that
the player can have whatever he wants to hear in his cans. the other output
is routed to preamp and recorded clean. Not necessary for the player to be
hearing this one. Then after recording, I can open whatever (Amplitube,
Nigel......name your poison here) on the uneffected track and use one or
both of them in the mix. Also, the POD XT Pro has a dry channel output.
Quite a bit more $$$ than a switchbone, but with some advantges of it's own.
I think, for the purposes of achieving wretched excess, you could run a
guitar into the Switchbone and split the output of the Switchbone to both a
miced amp and the POD XT Pro, record both the amp and the XT PRO with FX
plus also use the dry channel input out of the XT Pro as well. I think you
could probably also get two Switchbones, run the guitar into one of them,
send the outputs to two more Switchbones which could then be sent to two
amps and two POD XT Pro units so that you could simultaneously record 4
effected sources and two dry sources.
;o)
"Steve" <stevec1@charter.net> wrote in message news:43e92aa7@linux...
>
> Where in Paris should Amplitube be installed, so I can use it and here it
> while the guitar player is recording?
> Steve
|
|
|
|
| Re: uite a bit more than a Switchbone, but Re: Where in Paris should Amplitube be installed?? [message #64418 is a reply to message #64408] |
Thu, 09 February 2006 16:06 |
Aaron Allen
Messages: 1988
Registered: May 2008
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Just make sure you wordclock all that together
;-P
AA
"DJ" <animix_spam-this-ahole_@animas.net> wrote in message
news:43eb6f4a@linux...
> Steve,
>
> My solution to this is called a Radial Switchbone. One guitar input, two
> guitar outputs. I send one output to an amp and track with effects so that
> the player can have whatever he wants to hear in his cans. the other
> output
> is routed to preamp and recorded clean. Not necessary for the player to be
> hearing this one. Then after recording, I can open whatever (Amplitube,
> Nigel......name your poison here) on the uneffected track and use one or
> both of them in the mix. Also, the POD XT Pro has a dry channel output.
> Quite a bit more $$$ than a switchbone, but with some advantges of it's
> own.
> I think, for the purposes of achieving wretched excess, you could run a
> guitar into the Switchbone and split the output of the Switchbone to both
> a
> miced amp and the POD XT Pro, record both the amp and the XT PRO with FX
> plus also use the dry channel input out of the XT Pro as well. I think you
> could probably also get two Switchbones, run the guitar into one of them,
> send the outputs to two more Switchbones which could then be sent to two
> amps and two POD XT Pro units so that you could simultaneously record 4
> effected sources and two dry sources.
>
> ;o)
> "Steve" <stevec1@charter.net> wrote in message news:43e92aa7@linux...
>>
>> Where in Paris should Amplitube be installed, so I can use it and here it
>> while the guitar player is recording?
>> Steve
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: uite a bit more than a Switchbone, but Re: Where in Paris should Amplitube be installed?? [message #64424 is a reply to message #64418] |
Thu, 09 February 2006 21:36 |
Deej [1]
Messages: 2149
Registered: January 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I'm working on a more organic solution involving hemp twine boiled in
pachouli oil and lodestones encased in kiln-fired cow dung.
Stay tuned.
;o)
"Aaron Allen" <nospam@not_here.dude> wrote in message
news:43ebda2b$1@linux...
> Just make sure you wordclock all that together
> ;-P
>
> AA
>
> "DJ" <animix_spam-this-ahole_@animas.net> wrote in message
> news:43eb6f4a@linux...
> > Steve,
> >
> > My solution to this is called a Radial Switchbone. One guitar input, two
> > guitar outputs. I send one output to an amp and track with effects so
that
> > the player can have whatever he wants to hear in his cans. the other
> > output
> > is routed to preamp and recorded clean. Not necessary for the player to
be
> > hearing this one. Then after recording, I can open whatever (Amplitube,
> > Nigel......name your poison here) on the uneffected track and use one or
> > both of them in the mix. Also, the POD XT Pro has a dry channel output.
> > Quite a bit more $$$ than a switchbone, but with some advantges of it's
> > own.
> > I think, for the purposes of achieving wretched excess, you could run a
> > guitar into the Switchbone and split the output of the Switchbone to
both
> > a
> > miced amp and the POD XT Pro, record both the amp and the XT PRO with FX
> > plus also use the dry channel input out of the XT Pro as well. I think
you
> > could probably also get two Switchbones, run the guitar into one of
them,
> > send the outputs to two more Switchbones which could then be sent to two
> > amps and two POD XT Pro units so that you could simultaneously record 4
> > effected sources and two dry sources.
> >
> > ;o)
> > "Steve" <stevec1@charter.net> wrote in message news:43e92aa7@linux...
> >>
> >> Where in Paris should Amplitube be installed, so I can use it and here
it
> >> while the guitar player is recording?
> >> Steve
> >
> >
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: uite a bit more than a Switchbone, but Re: Where in Paris should Amplitube be installed?? [message #64439 is a reply to message #64408] |
Fri, 10 February 2006 09:52 |
Tony Benson
Messages: 453
Registered: June 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Why does the name Rube Goldberg always pop into my head when reading Deej's
posts? ;>)
Tony
"DJ" <animix_spam-this-ahole_@animas.net> wrote in message
news:43eb6f4a@linux...
> Steve,
>
> My solution to this is called a Radial Switchbone. One guitar input, two
> guitar outputs. I send one output to an amp and track with effects so that
> the player can have whatever he wants to hear in his cans. the other
> output
> is routed to preamp and recorded clean. Not necessary for the player to be
> hearing this one. Then after recording, I can open whatever (Amplitube,
> Nigel......name your poison here) on the uneffected track and use one or
> both of them in the mix. Also, the POD XT Pro has a dry channel output.
> Quite a bit more $$$ than a switchbone, but with some advantges of it's
> own.
> I think, for the purposes of achieving wretched excess, you could run a
> guitar into the Switchbone and split the output of the Switchbone to both
> a
> miced amp and the POD XT Pro, record both the amp and the XT PRO with FX
> plus also use the dry channel input out of the XT Pro as well. I think you
> could probably also get two Switchbones, run the guitar into one of them,
> send the outputs to two more Switchbones which could then be sent to two
> amps and two POD XT Pro units so that you could simultaneously record 4
> effected sources and two dry sources.
>
> ;o)
> "Steve" <stevec1@charter.net> wrote in message news:43e92aa7@linux...
>>
>> Where in Paris should Amplitube be installed, so I can use it and here it
>> while the guitar player is recording?
>> Steve
>
>
|
|
|
|
The PARIS Forums
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
