Real Amps vs. Modelling

[MP+]

I think amp modelling is great. I have a fractal with a matrix power amp and the two paired together are spectacular. I use it in my apartment at lower volumes and for recording. With a proper ir you can dial in a great sound. I think modellers started out trying to be a tube amp but now they’ve taken up a life of their own. As with most solid state gear I do find the more you crank it the more I dislike the tone. Doesn’t sound as good to me on higher volumes and of course the feel is still not perfect like a tube amp. So at home I use a fractal and when I play out live I always use a tube amp. My current setup is a 5150 or Marshall with a fractal fm8 in 4 cable method. Best of both worlds!!

"Modelers started out trying to be a tube amp but now they've taken up a life of their own." Precisely! Every third post on this forum goes on about the EVH tone, and rightly so, I love it as much as anyone but that hit the scene over 40 years ago and it wouldn't have come about if it wasn't for a musician trying something new. Let's not forget that modeling systems are still under development in a big way and why are so many so spooked about it? Click on any post and you'll soon bump into a rave about someone twiddling a few resistors or something similar but there's very little posted about basic audio signaling. What killed the EVH brown sound and set guitar tones back? Rack mount digital effects units. The Analog to digital conversion, then digital to analog conversion feeding back into the return of the effects loops killed the tone and you're stuck with it, no true bypass. You'll probably pull a better tone just running a Guv'nr pedal into JC 120. This is why everyone is moving back to pedal boards, but they also have issues like poor power feeds, or running more than 3 buffered pedals without a loop bypass on each pedal which takes up space and kills your tone for the amount of patch lead connections involved. It's easy to point the finger at the modeling unit as a tonesucker but there might be other factors causing problems in a setup. The truth is that the analog to digital conversion systems in new modeling systems hitting the scene now are far more sophisticated and precise vs. the analog to digital conversions involved in old rack mount effects units, then your tone gets sucked even more in the reverse digital to analog conversion. The future is approaching.

 

[CroTone]

I am mostly hybrid these days. Real tube amp head --> load box (such as Suhr) --> IR loader --> studio monitors. Getting some perfect tones and perfect for recording.
UAFX stuff sounds great to get convincing tube tone --> stuff like Dream 65, and Ruby --> great boxes indeed.

For the live... tube is the king. I would take my tube head and physical box.

And yes, as someone above said, when discussing RECORDED tone, I bet 99.9% of people would not be able to discern what was, for example, nicely tuned tube amp + IR cabinet vs. tube amp mic'd without any digital part.
For the live, we can discuss...there is a whole feel thing and cutting through the mix, moving the air behind, etc. But I think we have all this technology today that we can embrace to make some good sounds.

 

[MP+]

If you play through any Marshall with a Digital Effects rack in your loop, you're playing through a modeler. Audio fact. Depending on the unit itself, probably a really mediocre one at that. Your only chance at getting your original tone back is to set up battery driven (to avoid hum) relay switched hard bypasses on each rack. Then face the nightmare of getting all the individual rack levels / volumes matched. If there's a better way of doing something, do it the better way.

 

[What?]

The future is approaching.

It's not here yet though. I'm not interested in a subscription to the milestones. Always choose a product for what it is now, not for what it could be in the future.

 

[MP+]

Half the missing tones around these days are poor set ups like a 24kbit D/A - A/D converter in your effects loop. My boss GT-6 would give that a run for its money. The A/D conversion in the Fractal is light years ahead. Right now.

 

[MP+]

Mine doesn’t, and that’s with another guitarist and keyboards. They need to be dialed in for playing at volume, with other instruments. Too many people dial them in at home at low volume, and that doesn’t translate regardless of whether it’s tubes or digital.

Some of the issues could easily come down to hook up cabling. Back in the day when I was messing with the GT- 6, the end best result came from using heavy blue "Soundlink" triple shielded 8mm hook up cabling. I was running an 18 foot length which I now use as a link between my pedalboard and front of Amp. Not easy to find jacks for the thickness of cable but there are some around. Cheap thin patchleads will do the job but might cause issues since this is all line level signaling, not instrument level. Any dodgy patchleads will result in a big fail.

 

[Ufoscorpion]

Here’s an advancement on my blow up doll analogy. You could get in an aircraft simulator and learn how to fly a 747, loverly , marvellous , super smashing , great . After that you sit your arse in the pilot seat of the real thing full of passengers and you’re told ‘ go on get on with it then ‘ somewhat different isn’t it ? There is and will always be enough of a difference .

 

[MP+]

Here’s an advancement on my blow up doll analogy. You could get in an aircraft simulator and learn how to fly a 747, loverly , marvellous , super smashing , great . After that you sit your arse in the pilot seat of the real thing full of passengers and you’re told ‘ go on get on with it then ‘ somewhat different isn’t it ? There is and will always be enough of a difference .

I'm back to pedalboards and "the real thing". It's looking like that's the way its going to stay and that's cool, I love my rigs to pieces, but I did check the modeling scene out without any prejudice back not long after the GT-6 came out. For me, it just missed the cut, but it was miles better than a friend of mine's set up which was a rack mount JMP 1 running through a stereo Marshall stereo tube power amp with two JCM 900 quads and of all dogs of dogs in the effects loop - a Quadraverb. Players were lining up for those things when they came out. I found that the shortfalls of the GT-6 turned me into a better player when I did move back to Amps. The GT-6 just missed the cut and if there was something better around at the time, it might have made the cut. I really don't get the negative vibes? Ever since the 80's there were distortion boxes getting released that claimed to get the "Marshall" tone did they? I think the only one that came close was the original Guv. Even now, check out ebay, there's at least 30 varieties named "Plexi" this or "Brit" that. Do they sound like the real thing? Nah. No one raised or raises an eyebrow about it. So here we're talking about a digital set up that claims the same and probably gets closer than anything previous, then the whole Marshall fan club starts waving fists and pointing fingers at each other? Over and Out.

 

[LyseFar]

I really don't get the negative vibes?

There are no negative vibes
Just some friendly banter I think. The culture on this forum is that people respect each others choices. At least that is what I am seeing when I browse around.

 

[tallcoolone]

I’ll take that bet. As long as we’re using an analog tracking machine (teac/tascam/ampex) to record with and no other digital medium involved. Means NO PROTOOLS/CUBASE/LOGIC. I’ll hear it every time.

Oh, this test would be live in person. There are a number of clubs here in NH that would host—I’m sure Fractal would get involved they are close. 5 examples of each, live through a PA spaced apart 3-5m. Remember you have to put up $ as well

 

[tallcoolone]

The modeler will get buried in the mix next to a tube amp.

Tell me you have no experience with this generation of modeling without actually telling me you have no experience with this generation of modeling.

 

[Derrick111]

s

 

[Derrick111]

If you play through any Marshall with a Digital Effects rack in your loop, you're playing through a modeler. Audio fact.

Processing sound and modeling sound are two very different technologies. While digital effects racks and modelers are both digital, that doesn't make them both modelers. There are many digital effects that are processors alone without modeling technology.

 

[What?]

Processing sound and modeling sound are two very different technologies. While digital effects racks and modelers are both digital, that doesn't make them both modelers. There are many digital effects that are processors alone without modeling technology.

Things are blurred these days. There are processors that are modeled and/or profiled, at least in the software plugin realm.

 

[What?]

I'll be convinced that modeling or profiling has arrived when it can produce the sounds of something as simple as good treble boosters and fuzzes. As simple as it gets, but none of the best processors can do it yet. When they can, the sky is the limit. Why? Because they involve impedance interaction.

 

[What?]

Oh, this test would be live in person. There are a number of clubs here in NH that would host—I’m sure Fractal would get involved they are close. 5 examples of each, live through a PA spaced apart 3-5m. Remember you have to put up $ as well

PA sound quality is never that great for reproduction. I mean, PA speakers are fine for live sound reinforcement, but definitely not on the hifi end of things. So a stage getting it's core sound from a set of PA speakers is always going to be of lower quality than a stage getting it's core sound from amps and being supplemented by a PA.

 

[Derrick111]

I'll be convinced that modeling or profiling has arrived when it can produce the sounds of something as simple as good treble boosters and fuzzes. As simple as it gets, but none of the best processors can do it yet. When they can, the sky is the limit. Why? Because they involve impedance interaction.

I have several processors that are not modelers. Racks from the 70s through early 2000s tended to be processors, not modelers.

To your point, it's not just the sound or when/if it arrives... it's the feel too. That is a big issue for me with modelers. For some playing styles it doesn't matter much, but for me it really does. That is a hard one for a manufacturer to tackle because it has to do with a few things including physics that you just can't design around. Another is that modelers are designed to model sound, not to react to the input the same way as the amp its modeling/profiling. So modelers react completely different to some pedals such as overdrive/boost/fuzz. If you have a germanium fuzzface, it won't do the same cool thing they will on some tube amps. I don't use many pedals anymore, but that is a big part of the magic for a lot of pedal users. They may even sound rather flat or harsh. Either way, there are new other cool sounds to dial in on a modeler using these pedals that may be to someone's liking... just not the same. Right tool for the right job. They're all relevant though.

 

[What?]

I have several processors that are not modelers. Racks from the 70s through early 2000s tended to be processors, not modelers.

To your point, it's not just the sound or when/if it arrives... it's the feel too. That is a big issue for me with modelers. For some playing styles it doesn't matter much, but for me it really does. That is a hard one for a manufacturer to tackle because it has to do with a few things including physics that you just can't design around. Another is that modelers are designed to model sound, not to react to the input the same way as the amp its modeling/profiling. So modelers react completely different to some pedals such as overdrive/boost/fuzz. If you have a germanium fuzzface, it won't do the same cool thing they will on some tube amps. I don't use many pedals anymore, but that is a big part of the magic for a lot of pedal users. They may even sound rather flat or harsh. Either way, there are new other cool sounds to dial in on a modeler using these pedals that may be to someone's liking... just not the same. Right tool for the right job. They're all relevant though.

I fully agree. And that's why I said that when one of these processors can do something as simple as fuzz, they have arrived. But they can't do that yet at all. Full on, and a fuzz will be blown out chaos. Roll down the guitar volume some and you get get a more controlled fuzz. Further down and you get an overdrive. Then into chimey cleans. These processors can't even do step one (blow out fuzz) yet. It's an impedance interaction from top to bottom.

And by the way, a plexi reacts in much the same way as a fuzz. From a bit blown out to chimier clean with a roll of the guitar volume.

 

[tallcoolone]

PA sound quality is never that great for reproduction. I mean, PA speakers are fine for live sound reinforcement, but definitely not on the hifi end of things. So a stage getting it's core sound from a set of PA speakers is always going to be of lower quality than a stage getting it's core sound from amps and being supplemented by a PA.

If you are by yourself in your basement sure. If you are in a band playing in front of people what comes out of the PA is what your audience is judging you by. It is everything. Unless you are playing a tiny under 100 person bar no one is going to hear your amp, they are hearing FOH. If you are only playing at home alone with no volume restrictions there is no replacement for (or need to replace) amps/guitar cabs/moving air. On a big stage (and I'm talking big small stage since I'm a local hack) you usually end up monitoring yourself through the stage monitor, even with an amp on stage. THAT is what these modelers are replacing. That is where no one can tell one from the other. No one is claiming that alone in a room amps thru guitar cabs are great.

It's not that hard man, you just need to realize that your situation isn't the same as everyone else's.

 

[tallcoolone]

FWIW I am currently in the basement playing a tube amp thru a guitar cab.