Posts by dhodgson

    I'm not judging, but if I had to put a band-aid on those wasps I might start with:


    Fizz Shite 1: 4267Hz / 1.59Q / -16.29 dB
    Fizz Shite 2: 3621Hz / 1.34Q / -12.51 dB
    Fizz Shite 3: 4311Hz / 1.83Q / -14.22 dB


    ...those are some pretty big cuts for sure!


    -djh

    I did something like this for my recent Montrose track actually. If you extract the cab from an existing profile (see this thread) you can modify the impulse response of that cab after the fact (by running in through your Neve perhaps) and then send the modified result off to CabMaker or Rig Manager to create a new cab incorporating that response. Works pretty well!

    If the only thing you're trying to extract is the Kemper's cab, it can be done. Just reamp an impulse through the Kemper (ideally through S/PDIF and capture the output digitally with everything disabled except for the cab. Crop & normalize, there's your IR.

    Thanks, everyone! I can't get over how this kind of thing is even possible now. In the context of a full mix, it's hard to tell that that that I wasn't working with an original vocal stem but in solo one can hear the artifacts pretty readily. Sames goes for the tone matching; the intro gave me a target to aim for, but unlike the original I didn't need a Big Muff, just guitar into a MXR EQ pedal and from there straight into the Kemper. I'd be curious to know what Ronnie used in the right channel for the phasey effect, what would he or Ted Templeman have used in 1973?

    Latest fully-loaded retro rock cover. I only make these when the inspiration strikes and have had enough time to recover from making the last one. Don't get me wrong, I love guitar but I love hacking around in the recording studio more.


    So as it happened, I was noodling one night and out popped the hook to Montrose's party track "One Thing On My Mind". A new tube head (Victory's VX100) had just arrived, so I used that to create a tone-matching profile & along with the assist of an AI-based French vocal extraction project, resurrected Sammy in a new key to create Ronnie's band from scratch!


    Everything transcribed, played, sequenced, mixed, mastered, etc by me except for Mr. Hagar, who is unwittingly lending me his pipes here and doing a great job of it.


    So before SoundCloud's ContentID robots get me, let's do this.


    Vocal Version Here:


    Karaoke Version Here:

    https://soundcloud.com/dhodgso…ing-on-my-mindkaraoke-mix


    Thanks for listening! #ReverseKaraokeIsTheNewBlack


    -djh

    Another Torpedo Reload user here. When my Victory VX100 came in a few weeks ago the first thing I tried was making some direct profiles and A/B'ing them vs. the amp's preamp out. Both were successful, and as far as the power amp went I got exactly the sound I was expecting both in 30W & 100W mode. No surprises or disappointment here.

    If you follow the entire thread, posts, the main reason I commented at all was to supply additional background re: the BBE in order to clear up any misunderstandings implying that EQ was all the BBE had to offer. Casual users who weren't familiar with the history of the box could easily think that, and I suspect my information was new to you as well. So don't take it personally, this is how urban legends start - "You don't need a BBE, because any old EQ will do!"

    Addressing your "if you can't hear a difference, what difference does it make?" question, I believe I already answered that but the point is that woofers & tweeters can get smeared in time due to their crossover networks, leading the upper harmonics to detach from the lower fundamentals, taking away some of the impact or "punch" of the bass if you will. This problem is speaker & time dependent, it's not an EQ thing and it's more of a problem for PA designers & hi-fi enthusiasts perhaps but there you go. On some speakers, flat BBE will make your mix sound better in a subtly psychoacoustic way, whereas on others it may not matter.

    I used the word "nearly" inaudible to cover the edge case that a straight wire may sound slightly different from a buffered circuit etc. Just being lawyerly, because some people like to make those kinds of arguments.

    tl;dr - There's more to sound than just EQ.

    ColdFrixon, a setting of 3.0 means that you've got some corrective EQ (Lo and/or Processing) going on so of course your EQ isn't flat. If you'd set the knobs to zero (i.e., phase correction only), everything is as I said. The Yellow curve below is white noise running through my BBE Sonic Stomp with Lo & Process controls at zero. Behind it, which you can barely see, is with the pedal in bypass. The curves are almost completely flat, and overlap entirely.

    The white curve is what things looks like with the pedal on and both Lo & Process controls set to maximum. I also tried 3.0 as you did, but the curves were as you'd expect, similar to the white line only much shallower.



    So again - obviously you can hear the Lo & Process EQ's, if they're being used - that's not up for debate. But if you leave the controls at minimum, the Maximizer effect is nearly inaudible from a EQ perspective. Like I said... those knobs are for convenience only, like any EQ - and not responsible for the Maximizer's loudspeaker correction effect (which is why BBE got a patent.)

    I never said EQ can emulate exactly what the BBE is doing, but it can emulate the end result it produces, no question. How do I know? Well, if you EQ match a signal with the BBE engaged and A/B the results in a blind test, I'd wager you'd be unable to tell the difference. If you disagree, try it, or let me know and I'll put a blind test together.

    You're missing the point, as there is no EQ to match - the Sonic Maximizer process is phase-only, flat. In fact, on single-driver speakers you can't even make out the phase correction. The Lo & Process knobs are niceties but most people don't realize that they are there for convenience and are not, actually, the effect. I can point you to the patent if you wish.

    You can emulate the BBE's effect using a Studio EQ. Set the frequency for one of the bands to 9 kHz and the Q to 0.248. Adjust the gain to taste.

    Actually, no. The BBE effect was designed to delay the phase of low frequencies in order to compensate for frequency-related impedance skew in speakers with crossovers. The "Lo Contour" & "Process" knobs make the product more interesting, but the original intent of the patent was to make mixes played through hi-fi speakers sound better.

    Great track... a classic!

    Hi,

    First, what a great job on coast to coast. I've tried to recreate Schenker Wah on Built to Destroy (slightly more pronounced than on Coast to Coast). But I don't seem to be able to do it. 1) I insert a Wah and it sound identical to my original profile, 2) I am lost on the frequencies adjustment.

    Would be able to guide me as to how to dial it properly?

    Stephane

    A little off topic, but I did a cover of "Rock You To The Ground" from that album a few years ago that turned out very similar but alas it was using an amp sim rather than the Kemper. A lot of tone chasing was involved, but if you like to know how that was done please PM me. But to address your comment, if you have your wah enabled and working the tone should indeed sound much different from the original profile!

    I have a BBE (stomp pedal version) in my Kemper's FX loop, but it's not for major EQ surgery or anything like that; just a little extra depth or sparkle as a mastering corrective. Small amounts of effect, nothing radical.

    I have a rackmount Alesis unit just for this. It can convert to & from ADAT format in addition to performing hardware resampling between 44.1 & 48K IIRC. If you really need a device like this, it might be for sale!