![]() ![]() I think this is mainly due to not needing to attenuate the output level from my I/o from within the software. It sounds much better than my old method of doing the same job. I wanted the most basic model so that the signal path is simplest and I have plenty of di boxes etc. ![]() I've marked it as "okay" for features as it doesn't really have much to play with but that's kind of the point. It's tough, lightweight and I can't ever seeing it getting damaged. The radial firstly struck me as being really well build. It became obvious that a dedicated reamp box was going to save me a lot of hassle and I could actually have it permanently wired into my pro tools rig rather than building something that just did the job out of attenuators and do boxes etc. However, in the last 18 months I've found myself doing more mixing of stuff that other people recorded and when the cab signals don't cut it in the mix If be reaching for that old faithful. It was "alright" and not something I used to do a lot of. Re-amping was something I'd always "got round" before by using various passive devices in line to achieve the same ultimate goal. Suitable for "re-amping" all instruments: Transformer isolation prevents the generation of ripple loops and noise. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |