Acoustic Simulation

  • Thanks @DaleOz , @CPHfx ! :)

    I'm not a good guitarists 11014-blush-gif I recorded guitars using the ORTF method in an ordinary living room.

    The sound is mainly due to the bell like sound of Furch ;)


    @CPHfx I think acoustic and electric guitar piezo doesn't need acoustic simulator.

    The sound from piezo sounds already sufficiently acoustic.

    I think simulators are designed for electromagnetic pickups.

  • I see no reason not to do it as long as you are happy with the sound you get.


    In a mix, most people might not even be able to tell the difference. You're always going to have the cork sniffers that demand everything be done the old fashioned way, but if we were worried about that, we wouldn't be playing through Kempers, now would we?


    If you can't tell the difference between sim and a natural acoustic in your mix, you're definitely not a cork sniffer and definitely you shouldn't deal with mixes ;) Cheers!

  • Nice playing DamianGreda!

    Besides your playing skills, I am missing a good room, mics and the knowledge how to mic an acoustic the way you do ;)

    ...so as soon it is released, I will try how far I can go with the simulation.

    I am also happy to try the piezo of the acoustic with the kemper acoustic simulator. Thanks to my bad recording knowledge, it might get me further than a badly miced acoustic;)

    It's really not as hard as you make it out to be. Most rooms can be made to be good enough with a few additions; blanket hung in the right place for example. A nice mic helps but a basic condenser mic will do a great job. I've achieve good results with very affordable mics.


    Then, it's a case of moving yourself around in front of the mic. Move one way and you might get more bass; move the other way and you bring out more of the pick against the strings.


    Sure, if you're going for high end solo acoustic stuff you need to up your game but otherwise it really is easy.

  • It's really not as hard as you make it out to be. Most rooms can be made to be good enough with a few additions; blanket hung in the right place for example. A nice mic helps but a basic condenser mic will do a great job. I've achieve good results with very affordable mics.


    Then, it's a case of moving yourself around in front of the mic. Move one way and you might get more bass; move the other way and you bring out more of the pick against the strings.


    Sure, if you're going for high end solo acoustic stuff you need to up your game but otherwise it really is easy.

    agreed


    i did this a few years back at home with just a Rode NT1A. I originally thought it was before I got the Rode and was two C1000 cheapo mics but I just noticed the Rode in on of the clips.


    Two Acoustics with cheap mic


    This one is just a pair of C1000 though

  • If you can't tell the difference between sim and a natural acoustic in your mix, you're definitely not a cork sniffer and definitely you shouldn't deal with mixes ;) Cheers!

    I didn't say "I" couldn't tell the difference, I said "most people"... I'm talking about the people listening to the final mix, most of which aren't musicians. IE- the masses listening to mp3's these days.


    For most of those people, a sim (especially the Kemper version we've heard a demo of) is indistinguishable from a "real acoustic" that's been mic'd up. It sounds close enough that, given their lack of knowledge about sim's, they wouldn't even question whether it was "real" or not. Maybe people some will notice it sounds a bit "off", but I doubt it.


    But say that isn't the case, say it's obvious that it's not a real acoustic. Who cares? As long as it's the sound you are looking for or works in the song.


    Prime examples: Hall and Oats, Genesis, ZZ-Top, et al used drum machines for certain songs because that's the sound they wanted. And yes, it was very obvious that those were not real drums, but it worked for the song. Phil Collins, a DRUMMER, used one on one of his most popular tracks, "In the Air Tonight", even though he had access to any drum set he could possibly want and some of the best engineers on the planet.


    And these days, there are sims for just about everything, and many of them can fool even the most snobbish cork sniffer. I even heard about one company that uses software and hardware combined to make simulations of real amplifiers, and even professional musicians can't tell the difference!!! I'm sure you'll tell the likes of Neal Schon to stay out of any recording studios too....... waiting.....waiting......waiting..... ;)

  • Always makes me laugh when peeps spend a fortune on a new Martin guitar the go along to an open mic where they plug it into a pa where it sounds no better than my cheap Simon and Patrick. Acoustics plugged in sound crap. I can’t see the kemper acoustic sim sounding worse than that for sure

  • Well, this is another can of worms! To most listeners, they can't tell the difference between a Fender Twin and a Kemper. To most listeners, they can't tell the difference between a Kemper and Amplitube. Most listeners can't tell the difference between a Custom Shop Fender Strat and a Harley Benton......


    No one here is saying that the acoustic simulator isn't wanted, a great tool, amazing for those without an acoustic or even a great way to come up with some very useable sounds but if you have an acoustic and are remotely serious about recording and want to record the sound of an acoustic guitar, most people are going to do the real thing. Else we'd all be using a Variax already!


    And let's face it, the drum machine section in songs such as In The Air Tonight are not trying to sound like an acoustic drum set, it's there for a specific sound which is very challenging to get from acoustic drums.


    But my original point is that recording an acoustic guitar is not hard. Easier than recording a human voice in most circumstances. If you're recording instrumental music with no acoustic instruments, then a sim makes some sense but if you're recording a singer or real drums, micing a real acoustic is the least of your problems.


    I don't record music to please anyone else, certainly not the mp3 listeners. If I want the sound of a Telecaster, I use my Tele. If I want acoustic, I will use my acoustic otherwise I might as well sell it.


    Not trying to persuade others to do the same just countering points raised which suggest recording acoustic guitars is difficult.

  • Acoustic in a live setting is a PITA IME.


    Rumble, feedback, stage noise pickup, etc. make it especially difficult when working a live stage that isn't a huge production setup with a stage big enough to play tennis on ;).


    For doing a little eagles "take it easy" strummin, I have a feeling that the Kemper acoustic sim is going to be fantastic. Sadly, most people in the audience don't know what an acoustic guitar is supposed to sound like anyway!


    For the rest of us .... sure. Nothing as sweet as a Martin (I prefer my Taylor personally) mic'ed up with a Neumann in a sound room. I guarantee I could hear the difference on a recording (not in the mix).... but I don't think that is the intended use case.

  • I agree for live in a band scenario (not a solo acoustic performer like Tommy E) that this will sound just as good or better than an acoustic with a soundhole bung and heavy EQ to keep it from feedback.


    In the studio I also think it'll bring some cool new sound options, but I wouldn't use it instead of an acoustic for a featured part. It's not just the amp - the playing feel is completely different.

  • I believe Tommy uses a piezo and an on board mic blended together live fwiw. But yes, I couldn't imagine why you would record an acoustic sim, at least never in a professional setting.


    It's funny as a guitarist, you lose the ability to hear music from a non musician's perspective, but it's surprising how often the average punter can hear that something doesn't sound right although they don't know why.


    A real acoustic will always have a more natural ambience about it, a sim will always sound somewhat synthetic.


    Can't wait to give it a try though!

  • If the new acoustic simulator can help me to mix basic sounds(a convincing acoustic sound with the electric drama) and most of all to change extremely fast between them..I will be very happy.For me personally this would be a really giant step.A quantum Leap.Jimmy Page and Rory would have burned all their Strats, LesPauls and Teles for being able to do this.And Jimmy anyway..;)^^

  • I don’t think anyone is deluding themselves thinking this is a replacement for a real acoustic. My Martin D28 will still be used in the studio. It is what it is and will be used by lots of people.
    This acoustic sim will be more than welcome live for me and also when I am throwing quick demos together in the studio when I am writing.

  • Should be nice to get the option of a parallel path. If acoustic sim is a stomp effect, only this acoustic stomp dry on one path and in parallel the normal chain for a normal profile.
    a blend % and that’s it. At a profile level and why not at a global level ? With a clean profile you can get this Petrucci blended tone of the intro of Pull me Under, but the most interesting should be with overdriven profiles. My 2 cents.


    I put this idea also in feature request section

  • The Rig Settings provide a parallel signal path, which feeds directly to the Output Section, bypassing both the stack section and the effect modules X, MOD, DLY, and REV. When “Parallel Path” is activated, module A and B become exclusive to the parallel path, allowing you to add compression and EQ, for example. modules C and D remain within the regular signal path, along with the Stack and subsequent effect modules. This routing is visualized by the signal chain on the home screen.


    Signal flow with Parallel Path

    soft button ”Parallel Path” enables and disables this function. When enabled, the “Parallel Path Mix” parameter determines the balance between the parallel path (more to the left) and the regular signal path (more to the right).

    If you use effects like distortion or compression in one of the two paths, you might find that the levels of each differ significantly. This is because the signal level is usually dependent on the instrument level, but this is often not the case when distortion or compression are involved. You can avoid level deviations like this by adjusting “Clean Sens” in the Input menu. “Clean Sens” balances clean and distorted (or compressed) sounds to equal levels. This also affects the Parallel Path.

  • Should be nice to get the option of a parallel path. If acoustic sim is a stomp effect, only this acoustic stomp dry on one path and in parallel the normal chain for a normal profile.
    a blend % and that’s it. At a profile level and why not at a global level ? With a clean profile you can get this Petrucci blended tone of the intro of Pull me Under, but the most interesting should be with overdriven profiles. My 2 cents.


    I put this idea also in feature request section

    Exactly!


    "Blending" could be indeed the key and I hope also that @CK will give us a great solution since he already gives the simulator as a stomp which is really really a great solution already which gives us huge possibilities for blending and mixing acoustic with electric sounds in one rig.


    Btw..I already use morphing to achieve "blendings" of two rigs with two KPAs and in my mind I already contemplate about what I could do with two KPAs,the acoustic SIM as stomp and "internal blend" within each KPA..