LXH2 guitar cab sim - anyone tried it?

Hey all,

Was stumbling around the net recently looking for things to experiment with while waiting for parts to arrive, and came across this:

http://home3.netcarrier.com/~lxh2/marsh.html

Not the first time I've seen it mind you, but given the way I've started changing my distorted guitar recording techniques to direct-to-disk instead of miked-cab, it got me curious again. From a quick search of the forum I notice that a few members here like to use convolution plugins to simulate guitar cabs (also the way I currently do it now), but a little DIY-ed box that simulates the cab sounds far more appealing - the latency with convolution plugins shits me when live-monitoring, especially with some of the better/bigger cab impulses.

I already have a preamp that I love to bits (a two channel adaption of the Soldano X88R), so in the above schematic I'm thinking of building from opamp #8 onwards, omitting the preamp section and picking up the "LF boost" and "damping" controls along the way.

I should also point out that I just finished an untested layout of the Marshall SE100 cab sim (excluding the power soak section and LED signal indication), but seeing the LXH2 again I'm wondering if it is any better sounding than the SE100?

Any thoughts?

Cheers! :thumb:

I use impulses for some demos but I also use a marshall speaker emulator for monitoring purposes. impulse latency and my poor pc aren`t good friends. :roll:


what layout of the se100 are you using? I did a layout a long time ago maybe it is the same. I would like to know if it really works. I found some interesting information about the attenuator recently.
http://music-electronics-forum.com/showthread.php?t=1555

for me the most important part of a cabinet emulator is the low pass filter it must be of a high order(especially if you're going to use it with distorted guitars), the marshall is basically a second order high pass filter a mid notch and a high order low pass.

the lxh2 have a lot more filters for peaks and notchs, I`m not sure about the low pass ... it is 4 order? anyway an impulse is a colection of hundreds of filters, it is practically impossible to have such filters with similar presicion in the analog world.

cheers
Rafael

Hi, I built the pre-amp section about two years ago on stripboard ! I think it
was 11 or 12 IC's and it worked very well indeed.
It would be best to have that paired with the full speaker sim, but I couldn't
face another 20 IC's - or whatever it is !

I've used it with a much simpler marshall spkr sim and the "Condor" from
www.runoffgroove.com also the Behringer Gdi DI box with spkr sim.
They all sound pretty good IMO.
Check the audio samples, it makes a VERY cool noise and is about as "amp like"
as you're ever going to get from that kind of circuit.
Good luck !
Marty.

Hi Rafael,

what layout of the se100 are you using? I did a layout a long time ago maybe it is the same

Click to expand...

I did my own layout. I had seen links to yours here on the forum, but they all seemed to be dead. I ended up doing a no-frills version - no LED signal indication, no support for the power attenuator section, no headphone section, no unfiltered output. Just line in, line out, level control, and the speaker cab filters and associated filter tweaking switches. The whole board is something like 200x90, and I included an PCB-mount power transformer and +/-12V regulators. The only other thing I added was a transformer-coupled output - just a single NE5534 feeding a 10k:10k tranny. I figured it might be handy to provide a proper balanced output.

the lxh2 have a lot more filters for peaks and notchs, I`m not sure about the low pass

Click to expand...

The frequency response plots shown on the LXH2 page seem similar to what I've seen plotted for 4x12 cabs, mainly due to all the peak/notch filters. It's the plot in particular that got me wondering if the complexity of the LXH2 made for a more accurate sim - the SE100 seems comparably simpler, and must have a less "jagged" response.

That said, I could be worrying about nothing. I notice that a lot of people quite like the SE100 as a sim, so it obviously can't be too shabby!

I've used it with a much simpler marshall spkr sim and the "Condor" from
www.runoffgroove.com also the Behringer Gdi DI box with spkr sim.
They all sound pretty good IMO.
Check the audio samples, it makes a VERY cool noise and is about as "amp like"
as you're ever going to get from that kind of circuit

Click to expand...

.


Thanks Marty, I did check out the Condor samples (and the LXH2's for that matter). The Condor seems pretty similar in principle to the SE100 - a notch and some high- and low-pass filtering. The Condor and SE100 seem realtively easy to do so I could probably put them both in the same box and switch between the two for comparison!

Anybody compared such an 'analog 20 opamp' speaker emulator with the various DSP-emulators ? (POD, V-Amp,..., DAW-software,...)

[quote author="clintrubber"]Anybody compared such an 'analog 20 opamp' speaker emulator with the various DSP-emulators ? (POD, V-Amp,..., DAW-software,...)[/quote]

I'm not a huge "pod" fan but have switched the spkr sim "off" on the podxt and
used it with various sim boxes, including a palmer and the SE100, was 100% improvement
IMO , MUCH better than the models and became more "analog" right away.
MM.

Curtis - I know a few guys who built the whole LXH2 spkr sim section and the reports were VERY
good, I'm OK with what I have but to get the sound "right" you need all those notches !!
At the back end of my LXH2 pre section, I had to add a dual RC network of 2n2's and 12k's to knock
some very high frequencies out, that worked well when followed with a simple spkr sim, such as the
Condor etc.

Circuit --> OUT - 12k - 2n2 to ground - 12k - 2n2 to ground OUTPUT top of last 2n2 -->

MM.

[quote author="MartyMart"][quote author="clintrubber"]Anybody compared such an 'analog 20 opamp' speaker emulator with the various DSP-emulators ? (POD, V-Amp,..., DAW-software,...)[/quote]

I'm not a huge "pod" fan but have switched the spkr sim "off" on the podxt and
used it with various sim boxes, including a palmer and the SE100, was 100% improvement
IMO , MUCH better than the models and became more "analog" right away.[/quote]
Interesting to heard that... for some reason I was expeciting it the other way around since expecting that DSP would be modelling more details, but you did the test and that's way more informative.

BTW, my experiences with 'analog' are not much fancier than the sims from the H&K 1/2 19" gear (think 'active redbox'-style) & the PAiA SIAB & the modest Boss TM-7.

Bye,

Peter

I'm not saying that I'm right, just sounded better to me, others may prefer
"digital" but when it comes to gtr/bass I don't !

Pod recording for one part is fine but try several gtr parts and they become
almost impossible to separate in a mix, they all seem to get a wierd tone to
them that's a bugger to get rid of.
It's very hard to beat a good mic'ed up cab in the end !

MM.

a lot of people at the andy sneap`s forum(metal producer) are using pods with the speaker sim off and with impulses, from what I `ve heard it sound a lot more better. is closer to what metal bands like gamma ray do, the pod to a tube power amp and to a 4x12.

if you use a great preamp with a good speaker simulator I think it should sound better than the pod, a lot less digital. :roll:

here is my layout of the se100 if someone is interested .
http://plexilandia.googlepages.com/

Rafael

OT: I'm interested in a following path:

guit -> preamp -> D/A -> offline cleanup/gating -> impulses in a sequencer

does anybody have a hint/schematic of a pre that would "sag" convincingly, also may have a --separate-- cabsim output for direct monitoring.

any clues? (apart from a rockman)

Try here : www.runoffgroove.com
Look at the "English Channel" ( vox ) and "Thor" ( Marshall ) also the "Matchbox" is a cracker too.
"Condor" is their version of a decent cab sim.

MM.

Pod recording for one part is fine but try several gtr parts and they become almost impossible to separate in a mix, they all seem to get a wierd tone to them that's a bugger to get rid of.

Click to expand...

I've heard several other people say this too. I find that if I record several tracks of my preamp using the same cab impulse for each track it gets a bit out of control. Using a slightly different cab impulse each time seems to help things out a bit. Maybe the same thing is happening with the POD?

It's very hard to beat a good mic'ed up cab in the end !

Click to expand...

I guess it depends a bit on the style of music and what kind of sound you're after. I've heard nu-metal-ish type tunes where the dirty guitars sounded highly convincing, and then since found out that they were tracked entirely using a POD direct to the DAW - if I hadn't been told I wouldn't have guessed otherwise, and I reckon 99% of the world wouldn't either!

For more "alive" tracks where some degree of interaction between the player, speaker and room is involved, I agree a miked amp is the way to go.

Look at the "English Channel" ( vox ) and "Thor" ( Marshall ) also the "Matchbox" is a cracker too. "Condor" is their version of a decent cab sim.

Click to expand...

There's also a Fender sim on the LXH2's website that is supposed to sag like the real thing.

[quote author="Curtis"]I guess it depends a bit on the style of music and what kind of sound you're after.[/quote]
Right, I guess that's the bottom line. Way too many people determine their 'way to go'-approach based on what they read on the net, but they most likely wouldn't be want to found dead at the same kind of concerts.

So far I haven't heard anyone about getting better results than doing it by mic'n'ear, so while you can do it like that (the 'old fashioned way'), be sure to keep doing it like that.

So far, advantages 'by emulating' seem to be in the 'convenience'-realm only.
In other words, the real clear benefits of being able to re-tweak a mic that was well-placed right away aren't worth all the additional trouble.

Bye

[quote author="clintrubber"]
So far, advantages 'by emulating' seem to be in the 'convenience'-realm only.
In other words, the real clear benefits of being able to re-tweak a mic that was well-placed right away aren't worth all the additional trouble.

Bye[/quote]

That's why I stopped buying "Guitarist" magazine, it all boils down to the fact that you need :
Either/and a Strat /Telecaster /LesPaul a decent amp or two and some talent in your fingers
to get just about every "pro" guitar tone.

Everything else is either "convenient" or a Laptop travel "gizmo" that's trying to sound like the
above list !!
Not knocking digital stuff at all, I use it every day and record / program on a Mac since 1993
so I use the "tools"

Guitar and Bass sounds can be digitally recorded without "Joe Public" even noticing but those same people
also don't give a monkies about the recording process, they just like a good "Tune"
They wouldn't know a Neve pre-amp from a cheese sandwich and couldn't care less about where
it was mastered.

MM.

Guitar and Bass sounds can be digitally recorded without "Joe Public" even noticing but those same people also don't give a monkies about the recording process, they just like a good "Tune" They wouldn't know a Neve pre-amp from a cheese sandwich and couldn't care less about where it was mastered.

Click to expand...

The other side of the coin is that I would hope that somebody who does know a thing or two about the recording process wouldn't immediately poo-poo the idea of a direct-recorded guitar, especially if they initially thought they were listening to a miked guitar amp.

The question in my mind is less "should a guitar amp be miked?", and more "does the guitar sound work, irrespective of how it was recorded?"

[quote author="Curtis"]

The question in my mind is less "should a guitar amp be miked?", and more "does the guitar sound work, irrespective of how it was recorded?"[/quote]

Absolutely, anything that "works" for the recording/song is fine and dandy.
You could have an amp/mic and good player and easily get a "bad" sound !

When recording here ( home studio ) I use a small "Matamp" valve amp that's
7 watts - but makes a great sound and not too loud, I just stick an SM57 in front
of it and a Condenser mic a few feet away.
I also use a JMP-1 quite a lot, it's a "proper" Marshall front end but spkr sim out.
....ha I've used one of those tiny "toy" Marshall amps too for "wierdness" !

Cheers,
Marty.

Absolutely, anything that "works" for the recording/song is fine and dandy. You could have an amp/mic and good player and easily get a "bad" sound !

Click to expand...

Yep, definitely. I've heard just as many ordinary miked amp recordings as I have highly convincing sim'ed tracks. There's a time and a place for everything I guess.

For our first album we did do the whole crank-an-amp-mike-it-up thing. All the dirty rhythm guitars were triple-tracked, with one pass through one of three amps - a Peavey VTM60 (left), a Mesa/Boogie Caliber 50 (right) and some crappy thing that I built years ago (centre). Examples on the website for those who care :? I was pleasantly surprised with the results at the time, but since we started demoing the second album I've been using impulses to take care of the cab, and the results I've been getting are quite convincing. Almost to the point where I'm thinking of recording the keeper takes this way, hence my interest in exploring direct sim'ed cab recording...

Hey, some good stuff and good sounds there Curtis !
Don't shoot me, but I can tell they are amps on the second sampler track !!
( you're going to tell me that they are a Pod now right ?? )

Shoot over here and have a listen to the Album I produced a year or so ago with
"The Decoders" www.thedecoders.com
There's 1 minute mp3's of all 11 songs.
"Changing" has some cool gtrs on it and Huge ones on "Humble"

Cheers,
Marty.

Anything else then runoffgroove etc. (I'm familiar with that diy scene, sansamps etc., have an aria rockman clone with diying pots and sockets ...)

I'm after a schematic of "something" that would have the convincing "sweet sag" while not being ---totally--- overdriven. I built something in this fashion (discrete circuit, all-bjt's) with a "sagger" circuit in late 80's (was used on some studio recordings) but I don't know what tha circuit was anymore. Don't have a schem and the pcb is "missing in action".


It is my opinion that in sequenced music the "real" miked guitar may sound "to real" in certain context. I tested and listened to some digital plugins but I favor analog preamp/driving circuit over digital. Same goes for basses. So there: any "sagging" schematic?

Hey, some good stuff and good sounds there Curtis !
Don't shoot me, but I can tell they are amps on the second sampler track !! ( you're going to tell me that they are a Pod now right ?? )

Click to expand...

Hehe, thanks. No, they're all amps.

Shoot over here and have a listen to the Album I produced a year or so ago with "The Decoders" www.thedecoders.com There's 1 minute mp3's of all 11 songs. "Changing" has some cool gtrs on it and Huge ones on "Humble"

Click to expand...

Thanks for the links, some nice tunes there. So are these examples of direct guitar sounds or amped?

Did some more hunting around on the interweb last night and found
http://www.amptone.com - Very large site devoted to low volume guitar recording and reproducing. Seems un-maintained at the moment and a bit difficult to navigate, but interesting info to be found there. I'm particularly curious about his info regarding ultra-low wattage tube power amps feeding regular guitar cabs, or feeding dummy loads tapped off to a cab sim. The info on the old Hughes and Kettner Crunch Master and Lexicon Signature 284 were interesting...if you can find it!

I notice that LXH2 also has a ultra-low wattage EL84 power amp schematic, although running such tubes with only 15V at the plates seems a little dubious...