# Guitar Rig rules them all



## lux (Jan 30, 2009)

Finally,

after a long while and a lot of attempts i finally came to conclusion. Guitar Rig defeated all the competitors in my setup. I've tried lot of stuff (i really own too many guitar processors), Amplitube, Th1, Flying Haggis, tried Revalver as well and a few others.

What makes a huge difference is the ability of GR to leave lot of space and breath to the mix, even when using bad distortions. It never gets too sharpy and noisy.

I've been critical sometimes in the past with NI on some products, but have to say, GR is quite a greatly released piece of software.

Luca


----------



## Dynamitec (Jan 30, 2009)

I totally agree. GuitarRig is really a great piece of software and it has almost endless options to tweak. Besides the sound I particularly like the UI, it's really intuitive and easy to use.

PS: But Petrucci still has a better tone! :mrgreen:


----------



## bryla (Jan 30, 2009)

Glad to hear this 

As GR as my only processor alongside GuitarAmp in Logic, I have thought of other product and if/how they could complement. This just eases my mind 

And I'm also a fan of GR, and I fully understand your comments on it.

Also for creativity it seems the best because of the workflow and all the weird modules you can combine. Used it on a theremin recently with great result


As Gandalf the grey said: One Rig to rule them all...


----------



## Aaron Dirk (Jan 30, 2009)

aside from the latest GR3 version messing up the activation and being stuck in demo mode for me - It's not too shabby sound-wise
I think Revalver mkIII has an edge over it though.


----------



## lux (Jan 31, 2009)

well, taken individually there are good alternatives, but when it comes to busy mixes i've found more comfortable with GR3 than anything else.

Dunno, of course its a personal thing, but i've never been a big fan of revalver, mostly for its edgy/oversharp attitude. The compressor is pratically unusable to me for the same reason. But, as said, debating about pedals is still one one of the funniest games since the seventies 



> PS: But Petrucci still has a better tone! :mrgreen:



you...you...P**SSYYYYYYY!!!!!

:mrgreen:


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Jan 31, 2009)

I agree with you 100% I made the jump after having had a chat with Craig, who convinced me. Love it. =o


----------



## Alex W (Jan 31, 2009)

GR is pretty great. I have found though that I can get a much fatter sound for heavy metal stuff by using Waves GTR.

GR is usually my go-to plugin for guitars though. Especially for rock stuff - or 80s leads with delay . That psyche delay is sweet.


----------



## Aaron Dirk (Jan 31, 2009)

GR3's saving grace is Ultrasonic, which rocks

I really wish it had some features in it like Revalver has, like speaker IR and vst


----------



## fv (Feb 1, 2009)

Hi,

I like GR3 quite a bit as well. With sampled guitars, I found that GR2 could get harsh sounding on anything that involved distorted and overdriven presets but GR3 is much better. I really like TH1 quite a bit too and find that it has a warmer tone to it for some things. It has a certain sponginess to it that I really like. I really like some of the cleaner and slightly overdriven tones in Waves GTR3 too. I don't know that I have a clear favorite as it will depend on what I'm going for. I still find that GR3 can get a little bit harsh sounding on sampled guitars but it is greatly improved in the warmth department IMHO. 

FV


----------



## Blackster (Feb 1, 2009)

Hi,

I use GR3 for almost everything  ... not only for guitar-tracks but also for creating space, atmos or unique-sounding stuff. For instance I put a bamboo flute through the GR3 and it sounded absolutely amazing  ... of course, it depends on the chosen preset but almost every effect coming with GR3 is very usable. 

Great plugin !!


----------



## synthetic (Feb 2, 2009)

But micing a guitar amp is FUN!  And always sounds better, IMO. Every time I record with Guitar Rig or any other modeler, I always regret the buzzy, one-dimensional tone. Even though I live in an apartment, I crank a tube amp (with a Weber attenuator) for my best guitar tones.


----------



## Waywyn (Feb 26, 2009)

It was really funny to read through a lot of post until finally Alex W mentioned GTR3.

Okay, GR3 is definitely a great piece of software, but with GTR3 I feel you get a much warmer sound. Especially in the Blues, Rock, Crunch genre.

Beside that and similar to Alex W I had some great success by creating some damn ass metal patches with GTR3.
Of course it is a matter of taste, GR3 sounds really great but it is definitely nothing really special nor top of the guitar software. GTR3 definitely can compete if not sounds much warmer than GR3.


Btw:
If someone of you guys work with or heard the ProTools Amp Farm you know what I am talking about. The sound of that plugin is so cool and real, you sometimes hear the Tubes ringing when playing ... and I am serious about it. It is not just "literally", you REALLY hear 'em ringing as with a real amp/case setup. ~o)

even more btw 
Try the amp simulation in Cubase 4. I am not really a friend of the internal Cubase plugs, but even this amp simulation got more balls than GR3


----------



## Waywyn (Feb 26, 2009)

synthetic @ Mon Feb 02 said:


> But micing a guitar amp is FUN!  And always sounds better, IMO. Every time I record with Guitar Rig or any other modeler, I always regret the buzzy, one-dimensional tone. Even though I live in an apartment, I crank a tube amp (with a Weber attenuator) for my best guitar tones.



Paul is right, whereas I am not quite sure if a real amp "always" sounds better, but especially in the "twang" register. To get that bluesy twangy sound similar to Stevie Ray Vaughn - you simply can't achieve that with a plugin.


----------



## lux (Feb 26, 2009)

i think nothing out there is like the GR gratifier, is one of the most gritty toys for a guitar player. Lot of fun.

Gtr is just plain great for blues i'm not fond of the metal tones though. 

I recently changed my approach, and i'm using pedals to add distortion/warmth (and wah) while leaving the amp simulation and some other effects to GR. It seems to work better than using internal overdrives because sound gets way more presence to my ears.

edit. I mean leaving the cab simulation to GR, i'm bypassing the amp section.


----------



## SvK (Feb 26, 2009)

Peavey's Revalver is the best sounding......Don't believe me?

Download the demo


SvK


----------



## Alex W (Feb 26, 2009)

Amplitube 2 is also very good all round. I just started using it and I'm tempted to say it's up there with GTR. There's an endorsement from Malcolm Young on the website, which also claims he used it on 2 tracks on the latest Album(!)

Revalver?? Man, I haven't used that in years. I'll hafta check out the new version.


----------



## lux (Feb 27, 2009)

yup i had the same impression with revalver, nasal and sharpy.

But it worths saying that from early time really guitar stuff have lot of subjective influences, so no rigid rules apply.


----------



## Waywyn (Feb 27, 2009)

lux @ Fri Feb 27 said:


> But it worths saying that from early time really guitar stuff have lot of subjective influences, so no rigid rules apply.



Yeh, definitely!
If you listen to rock and metal albums you find at least different guitar tones on every album. So it is all about taste in the end and of course we can just have our personal opinion. It is also important in which context we use it, but if I would judge it from a puristic standalone point of view. GTR, GR and especially Ampfarm is way beyond


----------



## Aaron Dirk (Feb 27, 2009)

Sorry Guy's, 

But I disagree with your assessment of Revalver  

Just comparing the Rectifier style amps, Revalver comes out on top by a long shot.
It's pretty close to the real one.
Guitar Rig's Rectifier type amp.... isn't remotely close to sounding like my Dual Rectifier. 
In fact, I can't seem to get a decent sound out of GR's Gratifier at all :? 
I do really like the Ultrasonic amp in GR3, for a bone crushing sounding amp

I much prefer to use third party speaker IR's with Revalver though
The free GuitarHack IR's floating around the net are pretty nice.

Hosting vst's within is a big plus too. (like other amp sims, get the best of all of them)

Plus, if you're handy with photoshop, you can change the skins to look like the real stuff. 
While that doesn't physically make Revalver sound any better, it seems to do so mentally :lol:


----------



## lux (Feb 27, 2009)

well, at this point i think we cannot resolve this thing without weapons... >8o


----------



## Craig Sharmat (Feb 27, 2009)

the hands down winner is....

http://www.fractalaudio.com/

you can listen to the demos on site but will get a much better idea of what is possible here

users sound clips

http://www.fractalaudio.com/forum/viewf ... 5e66d725df

they are coming out with a software version in the not to distant future (whatever that really means). If it sounds close to the rack mount it will be a must buy for all serious guitarists except...

It might be expensive or eat processor space but then again maybe not.


----------



## lux (Feb 27, 2009)

the axe is expeeeeensiiiiiveeee


----------



## Craig Sharmat (Feb 27, 2009)

the rack is for sure, the software may not be as it uses your computers power.


----------



## Aaron Dirk (Feb 27, 2009)

Craig, 

I like how it sounds, 
But when I look at the sticker price, I can't help but say to myself "Dang, I could get another really nice head for this much!"
And then I think about all the guitar rack gear I wasted getting in the nineties. 
You know, the stuff that was suppose to better than the real stuff :roll: :lol: 
Until you plug into the real thing and realize something was missing.
Which is nothing against this unit itself.

Is this unit worth passing up on the real thing at a comparable price?

Perhaps the software version will be the no brainer


----------



## Waywyn (Feb 27, 2009)

Craig Sharmat @ Fri Feb 27 said:


> the hands down winner is....
> 
> http://www.fractalaudio.com/
> 
> ...



uh, one question, on the demos ... is there any kind of preamp involved?
Or is it just guitar into device, tone out of device into sequencer?


----------



## Craig Sharmat (Feb 27, 2009)

no preamp needed or would you want you probably as the unit is great. That said you have the option of turning off the internal preamp(s) and running one of your own.


----------



## Craig Sharmat (Feb 27, 2009)

Aaron Dirk @ Fri Feb 27 said:


> Craig,
> 
> I like how it sounds,
> But when I look at the sticker price, I can't help but say to myself "Dang, I could get another really nice head for this much!"
> ...



Hi Aaron,

Do some research and listening tests. It really simulates better then anything out there and in many ways is better than a head. I do keep a head miked at my place (A Naylor) cause I like that, but this is the most important piece of guitar equipment I own hands down. the fx alone are pretty stunning.


----------



## Alex W (Feb 27, 2009)

Craig - wow. Nice playing on your demos btw. Think I'll add this to my wishlist.


----------



## Seb (Mar 1, 2009)

Hey guys!

I like GR3 and GTR 3 a lot for experimenting with FX or new sounds that use stompboxes I don't have in my real rig. 
But when it comes to high gain metal-sounds, there's no software out there that convinced me until now. When I'm writing songs at home, I'm okay with the Gratifier and stuff. But when I am recording a final version, I always use the pre-amp-out of my Peavey 6505, which I usually play on stage, and throw some really nice IRs I found for free on the net on it. Since my collection of IRs has grown to several hundreds by now, which I am able to combine as I wish to achieve the sound I am looking for, I even offer a re-amping service for bands and producers because
this method it pretty flexible. Additionaly, I put together a simple construction with some resistors, so there is no further need to run a cab on my amp -> I can even record with headphones. If you are interested on how it sounds, take a look at my band's profile (in my signature). All guitar-sounds on our album were recorded this way. 
I know that this thread is about modelling and that my method has nothing to do with the Guitar Rig - discussion. But I thought it could be helpful for someone, at least for the ones that allready own a nice amp.


The AXE-FX sounds pretty impressive, but for it's price I would definitely go for a nice KRANK amp or stuff, which I could use on stage, too. 
My opinion on this may change if the software-version of the AXE-FX is more affordable. If not, I will keep on saving my money for Symphobia  By the way, after trying out the AXE of a friend for hours, and then returning to our rehearsal room and playing with the stacks we got in there: No, at least for me (just my opinion) the AXE doesn't sound better than the real thing, but this may be because I'm used to play live a lot. For a quick knob-tweaking in the studio, with the goal to get a good sound fast, it's awesome!


Cheers, 

Seb

PS: I apologize if the method I wrote about is common in here and I simply didn't get it =)


----------



## Waywyn (Mar 1, 2009)

To be honest, you simply can NOT compare a real stack in a rehearsal room or on stage with a software or hardware simulation device.

If you want to compare those you HAVE to be in a studio and listen to the mic'ed amp on the studio monitors. Also the amp in the recording room has to be really far away from the listening room in order to NOT feel vibrations which are coming from the amp.

EDIT: Sorry, did you mean you tried your friends AXE out in another live ennvironment or at home through normal speakers?


----------



## Seb (Mar 1, 2009)

Hi Alex!

Sure, it's a whole different situation, you're right. But even for recording I still prefer to use a mic'ed stack or this IR-solution instead of just modelling. Perhaps I'm a bit old-fashioned on that  

Seb

edit: I tried it on his monitors in a studio-situation


----------



## Waywyn (Mar 1, 2009)

Seb @ Sun Mar 01 said:


> Hi Alex!
> 
> Sure, it's a whole different situation, you're right. But even for recording I still prefer to use a mic'ed stack or this IR-solution instead of just modelling. Perhaps I'm a bit old-fashioned on that
> 
> ...



To be honest I never tried to work with IRs etc. since I sold my LANEY V100R top a while ago :( I simply didn't need it anymore. Maybe it was a mistake. I didn't even think of using the preamp only and run it through IRs or whatever.

So nothing old fashioned on that ...


----------



## Seb (Mar 1, 2009)

Too bad you sold it, since this IR-stuff is a pretty neat toy to play around with. In this case the IRs are made from certain cab-mic-situations. So you can load them into the IR-capable reverb-VST of your choice and choose the mic, the cab, the angle of the mic to the cone, there are even IR-sets with different distances and so on. + its fun to build your own IRs to make a virtual model of your own room and/or equipment. 

This is basically what Guitar Rig and other modellers do, too, but with a tube-powered preamp "on eleven" its (for me) a whole other feeling / sound.


----------



## lux (Mar 1, 2009)

I see Seb's point about real rigs. I dig the old way too, of course you need the right micing asset and stuff, and sometimes you just cannot play trough a big pile amp at the right volume to record your stuff. But i'm too a kind of real thing lover, on paper.

Working with irs is a good way, had some nice stuff using voxengo boogex and several ir's even if i finish messin up with the many options/irs. Using GR helps me simplifying things, because i have just the cab opened and place some rack asset after it where needed. My preamp/distort chain is actually physical so i have better control over it. 

Btw, Seb you have cool stuff goin on with your band, found few minutes to listen.

Luca


----------



## Seb (Mar 1, 2009)

Hi Luca, 

thanks for the kind words @ my band!



> Using GR helps me simplifying things, because i have just the cab opened and place some rack asset after it where needed.



That indeed is a true advantage of GR and other modelers of this quality. That's why I still use it for writing and arranging my stuff. It's just way faster and intuitive to set up a fitting sound. I wouldn't want to start connecting my stack and working with IRs if me and our drummer want to record a nice riff or idea in a minute. 



> My preamp/distort chain is actually physical so i have better control over it.



Yes, that, on the other hand, is why I prefer the touchable hardware. 

Best wishes, 

Seb


----------



## Aaron Dirk (Mar 1, 2009)

Generally, I'll use GR3 for tracking and writing etc, and then re-amp the direct signal to a mic'd real rig later.

I've heard of re-amping with the head pre and IR, but haven't actually tried it.


Seb,

I'm curious what you have between your pre out and back into your computer.

Alex,

I feel your pain, I sold my 6550 tubed Marshall head ten years ago, thinking I no longer had use for it. You can still hear me crying about it today. dumb de dumb de dumb :cry: :lol: I had a Laney 100watt head in the early nineties, it lost out when the Dual Rectifier came along a few years later. I was too poor to keep everything back then :wink:


----------



## Synesthesia (Mar 1, 2009)

Wow - Craig, that hardware unit looks incredible...

That's the kind of thing that calls out to (amateur) guitarists like me 'I will make your tone fuller and rounder my friend! Come to me!'

...must.... resist... .. put ... credit ... card../..... back ... in ....pocket.....

~o)


----------



## Seb (Mar 1, 2009)

Hi Aaron, 

there´s nothing between the pre-out and my PC except a cable  Just when I´m re-amping stuff I am using a re-amping box by "Littlelabs" to route the signal from the PC to my amp. 

Cheers


----------



## Craig Sharmat (Mar 1, 2009)

The Axe Fx will take IR's to those who are interested. It also has a plethora of amp models so it is not dedicated to a particular sound. It can be used as I use it in the studio but to those who want to use it live it can be configured in a number of ways.

Possibly the best article on I have seen was the review given of it by Scott Peterson who is a mod at "The Gear Page" which is probably the largest guitar forum on the web.

This is the first in a 3 part series that keeps progressing as the Axe-Fx is continually updated.

http://www.thegearpage.net/board/showth ... t+Peterson

Just read the first post as the thread is ungodly long.


----------



## lux (Mar 1, 2009)

Craig, was the Fractal that produced a small amp that sounded good at low volumes? i recall we talked about it a while ago.

Having a small amp being able to pull off cool rock sounds at very reasonable volumes could be another nice option, so i'm wondering whats out there on this matter.


----------



## Frederick Russ (Mar 1, 2009)

Guitar Rig is pretty good for software. Waves GTR is fat and smooth also. After getting the Fractal Audio Axe FX however there is a significant difference in both realism and responsiveness - it behaves like a real amplifier and once you scroll through the many models available (Bogner, Mesa Boogie, Trainwreck, Dumble, Rectifier, Marshall, Fender Vintage etc) the value it lends to guitar work is really exceptional. These are the most realistic guitar sounds and playability I've ever worked with. Its expensive. But if you want the best and you're a guitar player, its there for consideration.


----------



## Aaron Dirk (Mar 1, 2009)

Wow! that is quite the massive 3 part thread :shock: 
It is truly remarkable the response this unit is getting, for being a guitar processor rack

After a ton of reading and listening the past few days, The AxeFX has officially shot up to the next must have purchase =o


----------



## Seb (Mar 1, 2009)

> After a ton of reading and listening the past few days, The AxeFX has officially shot up to the next must have purchase



+1

I'm too close to Symphobia right now, to spend all the money on the AXE FX. But hopefully I'll get my shot on a used one in summer or sometime...just too interesting to let it go.


----------

