ReAmp Alternatives?

I used Radial ProRMP.
http://www.radialeng.com/re-prormp.htm
Works good but I don't think it's much cheaper then ReAmp...
F.

bump <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>Anyone know of specific direct boxes that work in reverse as a less
>expensive alternative to the ReAmp?. I think I remember someone here
>mentioning that some worked better than others (I don't know why that
>would be) and that perhaps some wouldn't work at all in this
>application. I'm assuming that it would at least have to be passive.

Any passive one will work in reverse. Some have better loading than
others, and ALL will be very touchy about levels.

I did a DIY Reamp Box article for Recording magazine a couple years
ago, and a call to their offices should get you the back issue. It
uses a fixed inductor to make it look like a guitar pickup to the load.

>Oh, and stereo would be nice.

Why? Guitars usually have only one output....
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Thanks for the replies.

Scott said: "Any passive one will work in reverse. Some have better
loading than others, and ALL will be very touchy about levels." How
do I determine which ones have better loading?? I'm assuming the
higher the input impedence the better but how does one go about
determing the impedence on the output now being used as an input? Is
there a formula er sumfink?



> >Oh, and stereo would be nice.
>
> Why?  Guitars usually have only one output....
> --scott

Hi Scott, I own (notice I didn't say play ;) a Chapman Stick and like
to hear the effects, comp, etc that I am adding with outboard gear to
both tracks, (bass and melody), at the same time. Goes for guitar
tracks that were recorded with stereo effects as well. Also goes for
keys, drums, anything else that I want to send back out and through a
stereo guitar effect.

Hey Scott, altho' I don't have a desk job that lets me hang out around
here on "down time" like I used to, I just wanted to say thanks for
the years of advice you and the others have given me.

Rob Cathcart

bump wrote:

> I'm assuming the
> higher the input impedence the better but how does one go about
> determing the impedence on the output now being used as an input?

You could measure it, but it really makes very little difference. You'll
be feeding it from a low impedance source. The output impedance (which
is the input input impedance when it's used conventionally, as a direct
box) has some effect on the amplifier, but it's pretty subtle. What
might be a problem, though, is level. Since a direct box is designed to
have something around mic level on the XLR side, and if you feed that
side with a line input, you could drive a crummy transformer into
saturation, causing some distortion that you might not want.

--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me here:
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
([email protected])

bump <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>Scott said: "Any passive one will work in reverse. Some have better
>loading than others, and ALL will be very touchy about levels." How
>do I determine which ones have better loading?? I'm assuming the
>higher the input impedence the better but how does one go about
>determing the impedence on the output now being used as an input? Is
>there a formula er sumfink?

The thing is, what you want is a high impedance output that is somewhat
inductive, because you want it to act like a guitar pickup to the amp.
You're trying to emulate the interaction between the guitar amp and the
pickup as much as possible.

If you use something that is a perfect low-Z source, it won't sound the
same.

I'd suggest just trying them. I have used the IMP-2 for reamping, and
it didn't sound the same way, but it wasn't horrible. And everybody should
have a couple IMP-2s in the closet just in case.
>
>Hi Scott, I own (notice I didn't say play ;) a Chapman Stick and like
>to hear the effects, comp, etc that I am adding with outboard gear to
>both tracks, (bass and melody), at the same time. Goes for guitar
>tracks that were recorded with stereo effects as well. Also goes for
>keys, drums, anything else that I want to send back out and through a
>stereo guitar effect.

That's a weird thing, indeed. I guess some of it comes down to what
box you like the sound of, especially since I'm not really sure the
Chapman is "supposed" to sound like anything in particular anyway.

>Hey Scott, altho' I don't have a desk job that lets me hang out around
>here on "down time" like I used to, I just wanted to say thanks for
>the years of advice you and the others have given me.

I'd recommend you build my reamp box, from the April 2006 issue of Recording.
It should be easy to make a stereo one, you just need to replace the 10K
pot with a stereo pot and duplicate everything else. Keep the chokes a couple
inches away from one another so they don't interact. Of course, I am biased
on the subject, but I think it's a good design and the parts cost is around
$25 for a mono one.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

bump wrote:
> Hi there, long time,
>
> Anyone know of specific direct boxes that work in reverse as a less
> expensive alternative to the ReAmp?. I think I remember someone here
> mentioning that some worked better than others (I don't know why that
> would be) and that perhaps some wouldn't work at all in this
> application. I'm assuming that it would at least have to be passive.
> Oh, and stereo would be nice.
>
> Thanks!!
>
> Rob Cathcart

Well cheaper than 2 Reamp boxes (for stereo) could be Native
Instruments "Guitar Rig". Recording with it as a plug in you can
change everything in the software during playback, it records the
sound direct. The Guitar Rig Studio XE is about $199 (with an
interface box and Cubase 4 LE), and Guitar Rig 3 with the foot
controller I have seen on blow outs around $300. I dig the Orange amp
model a lot, and Cubase LE 4 is handy to have around (UB version.)
Fun for session work, but a laptop for guitar is Mojo unfriendly for
my live gigs. Might work OK with your Chapman Stick vibe though.

Will Miho
NY TV/Audio Post/Music/Live Sound Guy
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

> Well cheaper than 2 Reamp boxes (for stereo) could be Native
> Instruments "Guitar Rig".

I have to say that IK Amplitube 2 http://www.amplitube.com/ is a little
better then Guitar Rig 2...
F.

On Jun 9, 8:18 am, "Federico" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >    Well cheaper than 2 Reamp boxes (for stereo) could be Native
> > Instruments "Guitar Rig".
>
> I have to say that IK Amplitube 2http://www.amplitube.com/is a little
> better then Guitar Rig 2...
> F.

Well Guitar Rig XE Session is based on Guitar Rig 3 - and includes a
nifty interface with a mic in and a stereo guitar pair in for $199.
That's cheaper than a pair of Reamp interfaces, does record direct and
you can bus out to real amps if you prefer that to using the software
amps and effects. Even guitar Rig 3 with it's pedal at $300 is
cheaper, also a USB interface with stereo ins.

Never done a side by side btw GR3 and Amplitude though, but everything
sounds better if you're a "build your own presets" kind of guy.
.
Will Miho
NY TV/Audio Post./Music/Live Sound Guy
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits