Best way to take DI dry signal when tracking with kemper

  • Was wondering is it better to take the DI signal when tracking from the DI output on the back into an input of a scarlett interface or is it more true DI from splitting the spdif output di/master. Thanks for the help!

  • IMHO the rear-DI output is more-pure because if in your output settings it's set to "Git Analog", the signal is passed through sans any processing, amplification or A/D conversion.


    From the manual:

    The pure and clean instrument signal is sent to the DIRECT OUTPUT by an analog splitter, no AD/DA conversion is taking place. The analog signal level is the same as on the instrument input. Useful for reamping or running a second amp in parallel.

  • Since we're recording digitally (I think), the less A/D and D/A conversion there is, the better. So my solution would be to use the S/PDIF output for the direct signal. Then only the Kemper makes an A/D conversion once. When you record the other S/PDIF output with the amp, there won't be any conversion anymore. Stereo effects are impossible here, one could put them on afterwards in the box.

  • Since we're recording digitally (I think), the less A/D and D/A conversion there is, the better.

    I know of quite a few scenarios where additional AD/DA conversions are made in a studio setting like sending a track to a speaker to record/add room ambiance, to excite acoustic guitars tuned to chords, or to a tape machine and back...


    What I mean is, there are more important things to consider than additional AD/DA conversions.

  • I know of quite a few scenarios where additional AD/DA conversions are made in a studio setting like sending a track to a speaker to record/add room ambiance, to excite acoustic guitars tuned to chords, or to a tape machine and back...


    What I mean is, there are more important things to consider than additional AD/DA conversions.

    Yes, you're absolutely correct, although I didn't know about these techniques. I think most of us work more in home-studios than in top-of-the-notch studios who can afford the time to do these things. When you can afford A/D converters of 2000 bucks (I worked in a studio once that had these), it's a different story of course. In home-studio, I think it's more convenient, as Bryan Daste said, to use the S/PDIF direct out.

  • Yes, you're absolutely correct, although I didn't know about these techniques. I think most of us work more in home-studios than in top-of-the-notch studios who can afford the time to do these things. When you can afford A/D converters of 2000 bucks (I worked in a studio once that had these), it's a different story of course. In home-studio, I think it's more convenient, as Bryan Daste said, to use the S/PDIF direct out.

    You should be quite safe with converters at considerably less expense. Just remember that guitar signals do not contain a huge frequency range as a DI signal and are quite robust. In fact you can even have bad edits and clicks all over the place and happily reamp a great guitar track.


    There are more gains to be made in looking for a great amp profile!

    Karl


    Kemper Rack OS 9.0.5 - Mac OS X 12.6.7

  • Indeed.


    You could probably pass a guitar-DI signal through a "low-range" interface's convertors several times before you'd be able to notice any difference.


    Mid-range interfaces such as MOTU, well, you're probably looking at 20 or more times.


    High-range, forget about counting.


    IOW, in the real world where we rarely exceed a few pass-throughs, this stuff isn't relevant, especially for bandwidth-limited signals like guitar.


    Pristine, "finished" stereo mixes are a slightly-different story; you'll notice the stereo image's beginning to collapse after one or just a few passes using cheap convertors. Mid-range and above handle this very-well so it could take many passes before artefacts become apparent.