Quote:
Originally Posted by James May
To my ear:
The first WaveMap sounds excellent and very realistic, with a lot of articulation.
The second is somewhat duller, but still sounds like a guitar. (That's JM-speak for good.) I think either of these could be made to work well live, the first probably as is, the 2nd with a touch of EQ. Of course I know it really does depend on what sound you're going for.
The 3rd colors the sound of the 2nd with the speaker and the room. And I think you had verb on the first clip. (I think) I can hear the room modes, and I wonder about the 10" active speaker. Was it something like a Mackie powered monitor?
The 4th is certainly respectable, and a cut above most of what I hear amplified acoustic guitars sounding like. Not very natural to my ears, but certainly a good usable sound.
I suspect if you'd used the 1st brighter WaveMap through the speaker, with no verb, it would have changed the discussion. IMHO, adding reverb usually just muddies things up in the context of a typical performance space, since the space usually has plenty of its own verb going on.
As to the last point, no, that statement is not correct. CH0 is all WaveMap, no blend. CH0 strips the excess phase and time information out of the full mic sound CH2. CH1 splits the difference. There are no tonal balance differences between CH0, CH1, Ch2, only the sense of dryness or closeness. CH0 is often a good choice for live. In order to blend you need to go CCW from the straight up CH0 position.
|
Thank you James for your valuable contribution.
I will try to play around with the other wavemap (the less muddy one) and see if I get better outcomes through a PA. I agree that adding reverb made things worse in this scenario, lesson learnt.
Regarding CH0, thanks for the explanation, now it makes more sense to me, what the character control is doing. Just a suggestion - it could be worth to include that information in the manual.