Hi, I'm trying out the Amp Simulator effects in Cubase 5.0 (Under plugins/Distortion) on a stereo audio track. The result appears to be mono, taken from the left channel. If I pan the audio track all the way to the right *before* the effect, I don't hear anything at all. Is this supposed to work this way? The amp simulator sounds good otherwise, it gives a nice crunch to e.g. a Fender piano. In mono it would be useless. It takes away the stereo tremolo effect, for instance. Can anybody confirm this? Jos. -- Ardis Park Music www.ardispark.nl
Jos Geluk a écrit : > Hi, > > I'm trying out the Amp Simulator effects in Cubase 5.0 (Under > plugins/Distortion) on a stereo audio track. The result appears to be > mono, taken from the left channel. (...) > Can anybody confirm this? > > Jos. > I just tried it to confirm it. You are right: the output is mono. Anyway, in plugins such as Guitar Rig, AMps are treated like they are in real lifa: if you want a stereo sound, you have to split the signal and apply 2 amps on each channel. But this behavior should be a choice, not an obligation, I agree with what I think you will answer ) Huey
Op 1-7-2010 11:24, Hueyduck schreef: > Jos Geluk a écrit : >> Hi, >> >> I'm trying out the Amp Simulator effects in Cubase 5.0 (Under >> plugins/Distortion) on a stereo audio track. The result appears to be >> mono, taken from the left channel. > > (...) >> Can anybody confirm this? >> >> Jos. >> > > I just tried it to confirm it. > You are right: the output is mono. > > Anyway, in plugins such as Guitar Rig, AMps are treated like they are in > real lifa: if you want a stereo sound, you have to split the signal and > apply 2 amps on each channel. > > But this behavior should be a choice, not an obligation, I agree with > what I think you will answer ) Yes, I was afraid it would be a case of works-as-designed. But we've got computers to make things easier, haven't we? Not to make it just like real life. Grrr. Merci for checking anyway. By the way, what would be the easiest way to split a stereo VST output into two mono channels for further processing? I'm fiddling around with mono group channels and mono FX channels, but no straightforward solution has presented itself yet. I'm used to doing this in Reason (and, long ago, in Logic) by cabling elements together. Jos. -- Ardis Park Music www.ardispark.nl
Jos Geluk a écrit : > > Merci for checking anyway. - Welcome - > > By the way, what would be the easiest way to split a stereo VST output > into two mono channels for further processing? I'm fiddling around with > mono group channels and mono FX channels, but no straightforward > solution has presented itself yet. I'm used to doing this in Reason > (and, long ago, in Logic) by cabling elements together. How about you don't split anything in the signal routing , but rather the stereo sound file. Once you have your L and R channel on 2 seperate files, you just apply the same FX on each mono tracks they're on and you're on your way, aren't you? Huey
Op 1-7-2010 18:24, Hueyduck schreef: >> By the way, what would be the easiest way to split a stereo VST output >> into two mono channels for further processing? I'm fiddling around >> with mono group channels and mono FX channels, but no straightforward >> solution has presented itself yet. I'm used to doing this in Reason >> (and, long ago, in Logic) by cabling elements together. > > How about you don't split anything in the signal routing , but rather > the stereo sound file. > Once you have your L and R channel on 2 seperate files, you just apply > the same FX on each mono tracks they're on and you're on your way, > aren't you? Yes, that's easy. But I would like to do that in real time. Apparently Cubase likes to keep its stereo pairs together. You can't just route the left channel this way and the right channel another. (Like you can in Reason, I repeat.) Unless I am missing something. Merci encore une fois for thinking along. Jos. -- Ardis Park Music www.ardispark.nl
On Jul 1, 5:09 pm, Jos Geluk <> wrote: > Op 1-7-2010 18:24, Hueyduck schreef: > > >> By the way, what would be the easiest way to split a stereo VST output > >> into two mono channels for further processing? I'm fiddling around > >> with mono group channels and mono FX channels, but no straightforward > >> solution has presented itself yet. I'm used to doing this in Reason > >> (and, long ago, in Logic) by cabling elements together. > > > How about you don't split anything in the signal routing , but rather > > the stereo sound file. > > Once you have your L and R channel on 2 seperate files, you just apply > > the same FX on each mono tracks they're on and you're on your way, > > aren't you? > > Yes, that's easy. But I would like to do that in real time. > Apparently Cubase likes to keep its stereo pairs together. You can't > just route the left channel this way and the right channel another. > (Like you can in Reason, I repeat.) Unless I am missing something. > > Merci encore une fois for thinking along. > > Jos. > Port it out to an external wave editor like Wavelab and dick around with it there?
Op 2-7-2010 9:45, XODDI schreef: > On Jul 1, 5:09 pm, Jos Geluk<> wrote: >> Op 1-7-2010 18:24, Hueyduck schreef: >> >>>> By the way, what would be the easiest way to split a stereo VST output >>>> into two mono channels for further processing? I'm fiddling around >>>> with mono group channels and mono FX channels, but no straightforward >>>> solution has presented itself yet. I'm used to doing this in Reason >>>> (and, long ago, in Logic) by cabling elements together. >> >>> How about you don't split anything in the signal routing , but rather >>> the stereo sound file. >>> Once you have your L and R channel on 2 seperate files, you just apply >>> the same FX on each mono tracks they're on and you're on your way, >>> aren't you? >> >> Yes, that's easy. But I would like to do that in real time. >> Apparently Cubase likes to keep its stereo pairs together. You can't >> just route the left channel this way and the right channel another. >> (Like you can in Reason, I repeat.) Unless I am missing something. >> >> Merci encore une fois for thinking along. >> >> Jos. >> > > Port it out to an external wave editor like Wavelab and dick around > with it there? As I said, post-processing is easy. Hooking up the effects in real time is hard, harder than it should be. -- Ardis Park Music www.ardispark.nl
"XODDI": > Port it out to an external wave editor like Wavelab and dick around > with it there? No real difference to using the sample editor within Cubase, anyway - at least for this action. The bigger problem would be to make Wavelab "see" the Cubase-only plug-ins! ;-) Yes, they´re VST, of course... but the Cubase plug-ins are also host-dependent and won´t even run in Wavelab, which comes from the same company.
On Jul 2, 3:25 pm, "Phil W" <> wrote: > "XODDI": > > > Port it out to an external wave editor like Wavelab and dick around > > with it there? > > No real difference to using the sample editor within Cubase, anyway - at > least for this action. > > The bigger problem would be to make Wavelab "see" the Cubase-only plug-ins! > ;-) Yes, they´re VST, of course... but the Cubase plug-ins are also > host-dependent and won´t even run in Wavelab, which comes from the same > company. But Wavelab does run 3rd party VST plug-ins. If you use the same 3rd party plug-ins that you work with in Cubase you should be OK (except for stuff with weird time domain shit.) I am not happy with Cubase's sample editor and bounce things over to Wavelab a lot. But I may be a Luddite about this. I'm always - popping one track or another out of Cubase for work in Wavelab, like normalizing channels that don't get normalized to my liking in Cubase, or resynthesis in Audiomulch. I'm an airhead, so detailed notes are a must, but I get it to work. A caveat - anything I do is aimed at getting things to sound as harsh and unnatural and weird as possible so my processes may be suspect. My aesthetic may lead me to do things that you wouldn't.
I'm probably coming in way too late to answer this but usually what I do is set up a stereo group channel with the amp simulator on it and route the guitar track through that. The same thing happens for me when I use Amplitube on a stereo guitar track for instance. The result is always in mono after you put it through Amplitube. If you route it through a group channel though, it leaves it in stereo for some reason. In article <85f70$4c2c58d2$5ed2adfc$1.nb.home.nl>, Jos Geluk <> wrote: > Hi, > > I'm trying out the Amp Simulator effects in Cubase 5.0 (Under > plugins/Distortion) on a stereo audio track. The result appears to be > mono, taken from the left channel. If I pan the audio track all the way > to the right *before* the effect, I don't hear anything at all. > Is this supposed to work this way? The amp simulator sounds good > otherwise, it gives a nice crunch to e.g. a Fender piano. In mono it > would be useless. It takes away the stereo tremolo effect, for instance. > > Can anybody confirm this? > > Jos.
