Real amps vs fake amps

[TBurst Std]

Comparing what most people think of when you say "modeler" to one of those units is like comparing a Piper Cub to an F-22 Raptor.

AMEN!

I love tube tones. And have had a number of nice tube amps. I am exceptionally happy with my AXE.
Even my "cork sniffing" boutique tube amp friend who plays for a living was loving the tones I had the other day when we got together for a jam.

I spent most of the time on my main patch which is a blend of a Ruby Rocket and a Morgan 20 (think Vox on steroids on the edge of breakup).

He asked what else I had. I pulled up my OZ patch as I knew he is an ACDC fan. He commented that he has never heard Malcom's tone more nailed. Malcom's tone comes from a Marshall blackflag and filtertrons. With the AXE I used the Jumpered Marshall 50 with a tweak on the transformer setting. Replace the tone stack with one from a JTM 45 and you basically have a Blackflag Marshall. The White Falcon supplied the filtertrons.

Then I let him play through it. His biggest surprise was the responsiveness to the dynamics of playing. And I will admit, that is where most modelers come up short.

If you like tube amps, great, enjoy them. But if you haven't played through a properly tweaked high end modeler, you might be in for a surprise.

Don't even get me started on recording and live situations. I play live weekly to 1500. I love the fact whever I go, my tone is there. Give me an XLR, set the EQ flat, and within seconds of tweaking, the tone is there.

I hadn't recorded much with it (my DAW is dead), but had the chance the other day with my cork sniffer friend. HE was surprised about how easy it was and how little post EQing was needed to have what we were hearing.

 

[Cagey]

Plus, it's as predictable and easy to deal with as sunrise. No worn out tubes, dried up capacitors, burned resistors, arcing and sparking, etc. No needing a truck and a hilo to move it. No need for tons of room or stage real estate.

I still get my monthly catalogs from all the usual suspects, but between my Warmoth guitars and Axe Fx rig, they're getting less and less interesting. Poorly built guitars at outrageous prices? Not interested. Hundreds of sfx with from EH to Eventide? Got 'em. Dozens of pages of one-trick pony amps and cabs? Got 'em already, plus some.

My GAS is more or less cured.

Now all I gotta do is learn how to play again.

 

[Re-Pete]

I've got a tube combo amp & it's a great amp for what it is. But I'm one of those players that searches for sound palettes, and that means wanting access to a range of amps & guitars.
Obviously I'm not The Edge of U2 so a room full of gear is not at all likely.
I have tried the Amplitube 3 software, but to be honest, there's the latency issue & reliability issue that prevents anyone with a brain wanting to use that live. Some A3 simulations are very good.
But the developers of Amplitube 3 have reshaped their business model with the A3 & it's infuriating to find you can't get uploads of free amps now as they can only be bought through their "Custom Shop". Also, I suspect the developers,IK Multimedia, have installed some sort of cookie within the A3 Installation process that signals an authorisation update upon bootup of my PC that I am not at all happy about. It has caused a hang more than once.
The answer to my search for sound palettes will inevitably lead me to the Kemper. The display layout of the Kemper appeals to me more than the Axe FX. The Kemper's profiling ability will allow me to profile my combo amp when it is fresh with good tubes and in top condition, as well as profiling the AER amp I have for my acoustic electric.

 

[stratamania]

One thing we haven't discussed much in this thread if at all is amps that use modelling technology fully or partially.

I mention this as Line 6 is announcing a new product in January, that according to the web site is about to change amplification.

There are products such as the Blackstar ID series, it's an amp that relies on modelling technology, there is the H & K Grandmeister which is a valve or tube amp that relies on digital pots to recall preset tones.

 

[TBurst Std]

The answer to my search for sound palettes will inevitably lead me to the Kemper. The display layout of the Kemper appeals to me more than the Axe FX. The Kemper's profiling ability will allow me to profile my combo amp when it is fresh with good tubes and in top condition, as well as profiling the AER amp I have for my acoustic electric.

FYI, with AXE Edit, the dsiplay can be negated. Also AXE has profiling with "Tone Match".

 

[Cagey]

One thing we haven't discussed much in this thread if at all is amps that use modelling technology fully or partially. I mention this as Line 6 is announcing a new product in January, that according to the web site is about to change amplification. There are products such as the Blackstar ID series, it's an amp that relies on modelling technology, there is the H & K Grandmeister which is a valve or tube amp that relies on digital pots to recall preset tones.

Right. There's also Marshall's JMD:1 series, which has a digital front end that models a good number of Marshall amps, and Fender has several such as the Super Champ XD and X2 models and the Mustang series which also model other Fender amps and include some sfx as well. I'm sure there are others.

It's notable though, that they often call the various amp settings "voices" rather than "models", so as to give them an out with the purists who'll accuse them of all sorts of heinous motives for calling a setting "Blackface Bassman" when it clearly doesn't sound exactly like the 50 year old rotted out beaten-and-modified-to-death Bassman they had when they lost their virginity.

 

[Jumble Jumble]

ToneMatch is an extremely cool feature, but it's not profiling.

 

[DavyDave53]

This has been my experience with fake amps...

The first one I bought was a Fender Mustang.  It had Amp Models.  The problem was that the low gain Fender type amps sounded bad and the high Marshall and Soldano types were horrible.  Fender was patching the amps firmware and added Amp Models to the software, so I thought, no problem Fender is a reputable company, I’m sure that they will fix this nasty beast.  After all it’s just ones and zeroes.
Wrong!  Fender dropped the line and came out with a V2 line which had a few minor improvements.  Way to go Fender.  No more amps from you.
The second digital amp I bought was a BlackStar ID.  This amp does not model the amps but it models the tube dynamics and their tonal signatures.  You get six tube types and six channels of varying gain. There is no cabinet or speak type modeling.  It sound like the speakers you are playing it through.  For this reason I bought the head not the combo.  Unlike the Fender Mustang this thing is amazing.  No need for a serious upgrade for this amp it is close enough to perfect for me.

 

[Cagey]

None of those devices has anywhere near enough processing power to do any credible modelling. They're basically just applying fancy filters to get the general tone of what they're trying to pass off.

There is no cabinet or speak type modeling.  It sound like the speakers you are playing it through.  For this reason I bought the head not the combo.  Unlike the Fender Mustang this thing is amazing.  No need for a serious upgrade for this amp it is close enough to perfect for me.

The speakers you play any device through have a major impact on the sound. Even with a KPA or Axe Fx, if you don't have a very good FRFR speaker, nothing is going to sound right. It may be good, but it won't be right. Speakers are to amps as pickups are to guitars. It's 80% of the sound.

 

[stratamania]

I have yet to try or hear a Blackstar ID, I tried a Vox VT series a couple of years back that has an AX7 in it to warm the sound.

Yes the JMD is another amp in this category, and I think for a lot of folks from a point of view of practical application a combination of digital and analog may be the halfway house. Usable patches you can set up in advance with flexibility for performance and then also just to be able to use it as a "traditional amp" when you want.

However there are also tube purists, that if your rectifier is of the wrong type or even a PCB used where it makes sense doesn't match up with point to point hand wired approaches it would not meet their approval.

Then there is the aesthetic aspect, a Vox AC30 may sound good but it doesn't look like a wall of Marshalls. Or that AXE FX, Kemper or whatever doesn't look like a back line at all.

So I wonder at times when we look at traditional, vintage, modelling or profiling, digital versus and/or analog are we always objective in what we may choose for practical purposes and for the sound required ?

It's ok to say I like the look of a wall of Marshalls, but for practicality I have an Axe FX as it fits in the space I have and when I play out I can carry it without issue and go direct. Does one sound as good as the other, that could go either way depending on subjectivity, but can they both sound great ? Yes of course they can. Conversely in the wrong hands either could be less than great.

I find all of this gear fascinating that is available now. If I had the cash and space I probably would build some combination rig with an Axe FX, two or three real amps, some effects, a sophisticated switching and MIDI system to control it all. The ability to go from FRFR and fully modelled to a 4CM set up at the flick of a switch.

Anyway to sum up I think at the end of the day it's all gear, and if it suits your budget and you can get usable sounds for your particular situation then what's good for you is just that.

So is it really real compared to fake, or is all of it real with traditional and modern with various shades in between ?

 

[Re-Pete]

I have yet to try or hear a Blackstar ID, I tried a Vox VT series a couple of years back that has an AX7 in it to warm the sound.

Yes the JMD is another amp in this category, and I think for a lot of folks from a point of view of practical application a combination of digital and analog may be the halfway house. Usable patches you can set up in advance with flexibility for performance and then also just to be able to use it as a "traditional amp" when you want.

However there are also tube purists, that if your rectifier is of the wrong type or even a PCB used where it makes sense doesn't match up with point to point hand wired approaches it would not meet their approval.

Then there is the aesthetic aspect, a Vox AC30 may sound good but it doesn't look like a wall of Marshalls. Or that AXE FX, Kemper or whatever doesn't look like a back line at all.

So I wonder at times when we look at traditional, vintage, modelling or profiling, digital versus and/or analog are we always objective in what we may choose for practical purposes and for the sound required ?

It's ok to say I like the look of a wall of Marshalls, but for practicality I have an Axe FX as it fits in the space I have and when I play out I can carry it without issue and go direct. Does one sound as good as the other, that could go either way depending on subjectivity, but can they both sound great ? Yes of course they can. Conversely in the wrong hands either could be less than great.

I find all of this gear fascinating that is available now. If I had the cash and space I probably would build some combination rig with an Axe FX, two or three real amps, some effects, a sophisticated switching and MIDI system to control it all. The ability to go from FRFR and fully modelled to a 4CM set up at the flick of a switch.

Anyway to sum up I think at the end of the day it's all gear, and if it suits your budget and you can get usable sounds for your particular situation then what's good for you is just that.

So is it really real compared to fake, or is all of it real with traditional and modern with various shades in between ?

There's no real way of knowing if the images of what we see are affecting our opinions of the sounds we hear. Unless we set up a scientific 'blind' test and A/B'd each proposal.
In that regards, there are YT vids of various profile models that Kemper have done & straight away, without a further refinement, you can see & hear how close to the reference sound the Kemper is getting. The sampled/profiled amp & the real one are easily A/B'd. Close your eyes on one of those vids to escape the visual bias and hear how close that becomes?  :dontknow:

In the end, though, I suspect that players will decide what they feel most comfortable with. For me, a Kemper is appealing as I do my playing in a home studio environment and a real tube amp requires miking up or controlling via attenuation or speaker simulator. By going straight to a digital profile of that same amp & DI into a DAW, I can bypass the time spent setting up the mikes/ simulator/attenuator. However, if I was gigging I'd be looking at a reliable combo amp & a range of pedals.

 

[DavyDave53]

The whole problem with recording a guitar is that the process is lossy.  The same is true when a facsimile of the guitar is send to a PA.  It may sound 'like a guitar', but it's not what the guitar sounded like while it was being captured.

 

[Jumble Jumble]

Hey guys, remember when this thread all got a bit weird in the middle, with someone first claiming that a volume pedal was modelling, and then casting doubt on whether or not I wrote articles for Seymour Duncan? Well, something really weird just happened.

http://www.seymourduncan.com/blog/the-tone-garage/what-is-modelling/

SD have published an article on their blog written by the same "Richard Irons" I claim to be, which addresses what modelling is and isn't, and even specifically mentions that a volume pedal isn't modelling! Spooky.

Well. This is awkward. There are only a few options left: either I was lying about writing the articles, but someone who writes for SD agrees with me, or I wasn't lying about writing the articles after all and SD have implicitly agreed with my definition by publishing the article.

Either way, this thread has seen better daze.

 

[Cagey]

Nice job.

 

[Jumble Jumble]

ccasion14:

 

[bagman67]

I found your SD article clear and informative.  Thanks!

 

[stratamania]

Cool, next thing you know that chap on the SD blog will be asking you to write the articles.... :icon_jokercolor:

Nice job...

Just finished reading it, it's a very good write up.

 

[Jumble Jumble]

I found your SD article clear and informative.  Thanks!

Thanks man. A little bit of positive feedback goes a long way!

 

[SustainerPlayer]

But ... but ... how can you be here ... and there ... at the same time?  :doh: :icon_jokercolor:

 

[stubhead]

I am (virtually) in love with all the various "descriptions" from purveyors of tonal expertise who interact with tone through 1.9" computer speakers. Or even listening to fairly high-grade headphones. Headphone makers are often pleased to tout the fact that their set has "40mm" drivers, and here, mmm, OK: 40mm is just a shade over 1.5 inches, at least above the equator. Now, I do agree that any reasonably-made set of headphones in existence (i.e., NOT Dr. Dre's "Beats") will sound "better" in terms of accuracy than anything that can be done with speakers flapping air - except, speakers flapping air is what guitar amps are supposed to DO.

Way back when, there was an album by Mountain, in which Leslie West sustained a note for 45 seconds because - it was feeding back. In 1969 the Grateful Dead released a live album, interestingly enough called "Live." And on it was a track consisting of 7:42 of feedback, surely enough, titled "Feedback." (Hey, they were friends with Ken Kesey!)

I would surely think that the sound of that could be modeled, and every little fuzzbox in the past decade has been blurbed to death with the "touch responsiveness" of it - you pick harder it squawks better - your guitar's volume knob develops a sense of meaning - but unless you put a fan into the speaker box, it won't flap your pants. And nothing under about 90-some decibels (mebbe mo) could make your guitar strings wiggle on their own. I'm not sure how much touch responsiveness is a result of the sound of tubes barfing and how much is the actual air trying to escape from it, but any modeling that's done - at a decent, socially responsible level - if you're only modeling the barf and not the splatter (so to speak) IT AIN'T REAL!!!

Now, I am a great fan of non-reality. Why, some of my best friends aren't really real, at least as far as I can tell. Or they might as well not be...  And the first time I heard the first phase shifter - which was described as "making your guitar sound like it's flying through outer space" (thanks Leo) I had to have one. To the point: is a phase shifter that artificially makes your guitar sound like it's flying through (real) outer space a REAL model if it's analog; &, even realer-than-real if amplified though a tube amp? What is the upper and lower dimensions of realitude, and who gets to decide the proportional cutoff point? Is this like something you go to school for, like... this actually matters, you know....