Will we lose the sound of traditional amps or what they used to sound like.

[Matthews Guitars]

There is literally no parameter of the vacuum tube and the circuit it is in, from input rectifier to output transformer, that can't be accurately modelled in exacting detail, if a suitably qualified engineer knows what those parameters are.

Absolutely the day will come when the difference will be no difference at all. And in some cases we are already there.

Earlier I mentioned the Fender Tonemaster amps. They're as good an example as exists today. You can put a Tonemaster Deluxe side by side with a "real" vintage Deluxe, play gigs with both, switching back and forth between them often, using the same settings, and....probably you'd never be sure which one you were using if you weren't the person who plugged your signal chain cable into the front of the amp. In a live setting, in a studio setting, at the local bar, or in your bedroom.

What, in my opinion, is holding back modellers from having the complete experience of a tube amp is that people tend to run modellers with solid state power amps and often use FRFR speaker cabinets which have a totally different feel all by themselves. This really comes out when you're playing with volume and feedback, as the interaction between guitar and amp and cabinet has a LOT to do with the way that sound is radiated from the speaker cabinet, as well as the frequency response of the speakers themselves as well as the cabinet resonances. FRFR cabinets just aren't like that.



If you were to slave out a modeller into the power amp stage of a Superlead running two 4x12s full of Greenbacks, and the modeller was set up to NOT emulate speakers, cabinets, or power amplifier characteristics, you'd probably find that what you've got is absurdly close in sound and feel to a regular Superlead stack.

 

[StingRay85]

@StingRay85 I’ve owned over a hundred tube amps and played hundreds of gigs using both amps and modelers. I’ll put my experience up there with anyone’s.

What exactly are you basing your opinions on?

Science?

A model cannot replace a real instrument or amplifier. That's why it is called a model or simulation. Can it be convincing for some purposes? Perhaps. Just like an mp3 can sound pretty decent. And surely for some genres it might be easier to do than for others.

But I'm not a believer of modellers replacing tube amps for 60s-70s style rock where amps are pushed to their limits, especially not in the studio recording. Provide us one convincing studio recording with a modeller in this 60-70s rock genre, and we can further talk. As for now, I rest my case.

 

[Caffeinated]

This has been cooking since the early 80’s at least when Hartley Peavey and his dudes were showing anyone who was interested a comparison of tube amplifiers and transistor amp on oscilloscopes and insisting they sounded the same.

Realistically, we are beyond the point where the response of the amp to the signal can determine for sure whether it’s ‘real’ or not and into territory where you need to play the thing. And even then may not be fussed by the difference.

Personally I see it as a balance; modelling is great for convenience and wins for cost although once you start yeeting nicer cab sims and hardware in there the cost distinction between virtual and ‘real’ isn’t as big as if you’re happy with a vst on a pc or maybe a Headrush, Ampero or whatever. There’s something about a big steamer of a valve amp though that stirs a *player* response that software just can’t emulate.

 

[StingRay85]

There is literally no parameter of the vacuum tube and the circuit it is in, from input rectifier to output transformer, that can't be accurately modelled in exacting detail, if a suitably qualified engineer knows what those parameters are.

Absolutely the day will come when the difference will be no difference at all. And in some cases we are already there.

Earlier I mentioned the Fender Tonemaster amps. They're as good an example as exists today. You can put a Tonemaster Deluxe side by side with a "real" vintage Deluxe, play gigs with both, switching back and forth between them often, using the same settings, and....probably you'd never be sure which one you were using if you weren't the person who plugged your signal chain cable into the front of the amp. In a live setting, in a studio setting, at the local bar, or in your bedroom.

What, in my opinion, is holding back modellers from having the complete experience of a tube amp is that people tend to run modellers with solid state power amps and often use FRFR speaker cabinets which have a totally different feel all by themselves. This really comes out when you're playing with volume and feedback, as the interaction between guitar and amp and cabinet has a LOT to do with the way that sound is radiated from the speaker cabinet, as well as the frequency response of the speakers themselves as well as the cabinet resonances. FRFR cabinets just aren't like that.



If you were to slave out a modeller into the power amp stage of a Superlead running two 4x12s full of Greenbacks, and the modeller was set up to NOT emulate speakers, cabinets, or power amplifier characteristics, you'd probably find that what you've got is absurdly close in sound and feel to a regular Superlead stack.

I also don't believe this theory. This is just try to expand the model and break in down further. It's trying to step away from the pure empirical approach of providing a single function to go from point A (input signal) to point B (output signal); where you try to define as much as possible the variables and make sub-functions of your problem. But again, besides bringing it perhaps one step closer, you are still experiencing the same problem that a model can never replace the real thing, because it's a model. Just like autotune cannot replace a crappy singer

 

[Matthews Guitars]

"A modl cannot replace a real instrument or amplifier." .....They can, they will, and they do. And modellers will get better generation by generation. BUT...computer based products don't have the longevity of a well made tube amp. That old Marshall will still be going strong, as long as there are still tubes for it, many years after the Axe-FX XXV is a legacy product no longer supported.

Modellers have already replaced MANY instruments and performers. To cite but one example, a lot of movie soundtracks have huge orchestral works in them....but the orchestras exist only in computer memory. They're usually sampled and synthesized and you'd never know it if you weren't made aware of it intentionally.

There's no magic to tubes. They're WAY simpler than any CPU in any computer.

And, computer "models" of various types are what are used to design and develop virtually everything these days. The days of empirical engineering in most categories of manufacturing, research, and development are dead. We have functional spacecraft that are man rated that were modelled long before they first took flight. And do you think that a SPACEX Falcon 9 is not more complicated than a tube amp? Just the engines alone are far more complex to model than any tube amp that was ever made, hundreds of thousands of times over. And if those models aren't accurate, the engines would not work, or would not perform to specifications, or fail. But they're very reliable and reusable. Because the MODELS were right and ACCURATE to real life.

I've been in electronics my whole life. I understand modelling theory and practical electronics well enough to know that there is nothing about a tube or an amplifier it's in that can't be modelled. It's ALL math. There is a formula to represent every parameter and every interaction. The trick is to account for them all. Including and especially those dynamic behaviors that don't reveal themselves in steady state testing. You name the behavior, there's a formula to describe it. Thus a model can be created of it.

When an amp model falls apart, that's where an important aspect of amp behavior was not identified, characterized, or modelled accurately.

 

[Derek S]

I can toss up one more slice of personal experience (on the end result/tone vs feel of a tube amp). I'm a new owner of a high end modeler. I've owned many fine tube amps over the ages as well. So when I started sifting through all the fancy new presets of the new unit, I spotted a Splawn Quick Rod preset/model, an amp I recorded a bunch of stuff with and am super familiar with tone and FEEL wise. If you've owned one you know exactly what I'm talking about...when you play a QR, you instantly notice how dry and stiff it feels, very raw and immediate, very little sponge in the mids (but amazing sounding!)...and whoa, the sound from the modeler is uncanny, it's as if I had my old QR back in the studio! The stiff, dry feel was simply not present however, nope, not even close...but again, the resulting end tone IS. I don't know how they do it, don't care, but it's cool to have that tone at my disposal once again.

This thread will get ugly soon, dudes get too wound up over this topic. I don't have anything else to add anyway, modelers are there in the studio IME, live, I can't say as much...others can go there. I likes both tools. Peace gents.

 

[Karl Brake]

Yes, modeling is getting better, and, in a recording situation, a lot of good and bad things can be done; I just wonder...the tube is still quasi-organic, a physical pulse going through actual physical things, like glass bottles and metal plates, physical things transmitting physical things. There is still a visceral connection, and changing everything to 1's and 0's is still detached and approximated. Some technologies stick around, like paint, brush, and canvas. Yes, you can make purdy picher with the computer, looking rather like a painting, but can it ever be exactly the same? Why don't we use all the new technology to like, end hunger, clean up the air and water, build better solar panels and such. They are still making acoustic instruments in the same basic way they did, say, 500 years ago, with some changes in materials, like strings. It's a niche market, but a big niche market. And those factories are not in communist countries...you can't call China and Russia and Slovakia communist. They're just oligarchic capitalist counties, not that different than the US. As long as they can make a buck from a simple manufacturing process, those factories will stay open. I say the tube amp is really another category of acoustic instrument.

 

[StingRay85]

No they are not because a CPU does simple logical calculations, while a tube is not performing calculations, it is amplifying an analog signals according to a certain function, but this function is not fixed it has variables like input voltage, temperature, ripple in the currents etc... Complexity of the technology doesn't give you any clue on how easy it can be reproduced

 

[Karl Brake]

"A modl cannot replace a real instrument or amplifier." .....They can, they will, and they do. And modellers will get better generation by generation. BUT...computer based products don't have the longevity of a well made tube amp. That old Marshall will still be going strong, as long as there are still tubes for it, many years after the Axe-FX XXV is a legacy product no longer supported.

Modellers have already replaced MANY instruments and performers. To cite but one example, a lot of movie soundtracks have huge orchestral works in them....but the orchestras exist only in computer memory. They're usually sampled and synthesized and you'd never know it if you weren't made aware of it intentionally.

There's no magic to tubes. They're WAY simpler than any CPU in any computer.

I hear the difference between real orchestras and modeled orchestras. The only reason they substitute modeled tracks for real ones is to break the musicians' union, to just make more money. It's the MacDonald's of music. You can grab some market, yes, but is it really any good? Watch out when you think ANYTHING is inevitable. The takeover of art, music, acting, education, by computer interests is purely financial, and we should all be smart enough not to buy into sales pitches. Someone is trying to replace you, whatever you do, with a computer. Are you going to take the blue pill, or the red pill???

 

[Seven]

Let me make my case before throwing it under the bus. It's the long way around, but I've been the "long way around" and have the perspective to go with it.

First, the majority of modern day music consumers (non-musicians) who listen to music on their smart device don't give a flying farkus about tone, gear, etc. Many grew up with hip hop, rap, pop or flavor of the day programmed fluff and never really progressed past that point. Also, many of the big acts of today are all about the vocalist, not the supporting musicians, which are simply hired to do a job. Some may see that as their prime objective (and I get it) but that's not what being "in a band" is all about. (IMO).

Sure there are some die hard metal, rock and blues fans out there (thank goodness) and they probably have a parent or musician-friend who introduced them to it. Prog rock or similar highbrow material is simply way too much for the short attention span of modern people. Personally, I love prog, but I was introduced to it by another musician at a young age, because that's usually how it works. (I was an 80's metal head before having the prog world opened to me). After that, the music world became huge, right down to listening to some guy in a desert pluck a single string on a instrument made of goat skin and gut. His "tone" was pure. No one really cares anymore or so it seems.

Of course there are the audiophile types or hardcore music fans that "get it" but anymore, they are like unicorns at a dinosaur convention. The renewed interest in vinyl albums and "record stores" is a sign of hope, but again, these are hard core music lovers, not mass consumers.

Festival/concert goers are VERY different today as well. They are going for the collective experience, which is great, but what about the music ??

Is the music just live background karaoke ? To you and me, no, but my guess is that much of the audience is there for reasons less to do with the performance of the band and more for the socialization. I'm not saying this is wrong either. I'm simply pointing out that the majority of today's festival/concert audience are there for the experience, not the music. Musicians ego's may think otherwise, but the promoter only cares about ticket sales. The band is just a product to exploit. Nothign new there, but I do propose the vast audience has drastically changed. This includes the average person who listens to music on their smart device.

To be fair, many of the concert goers of my time also didn't know what "tone" meant, but they were definitely into how great the band sounded and sure as hell knew who the band was. We all listened to the albums at parties or sat down together and listened to a new release before going to see the show. This includes a mix of both musicians and non-musicians.

Today's music consumer (for the most part) couldn't give a flying farkus about whether a guitar amp has real tube/valves in it or if the the entire show is run off midi into a Protools rig, which it probably is.

Something has changed and if we follow the money trail, we will probably discover the answer.

For me, I will stick with THAT TONE that came from back-in-the-day when amps had tubes and people were real.

The plastic fake lines of "code in a box" does not maketh a roaring tube amp !

 

[Caffeinated]

No they are not because a CPU does simple logical calculations, while a tube is not performing calculations, it is amplifying an analog signals according to a certain function, but this function is not fixed it has variables like input voltage, temperature, ripple in the currents etc... Complexity of the technology doesn't give you any clue on how easy it can be reproduced

This is true, but as someone else pointed out earlier, the question is more a combo of how well the model is defined and how good the hardware it’s run on is (both processor power and output circuitry).

The more complex the model, the better hardware is needed. Ultimately, the quality of the model depends strongly upon how well the person defining what is important to emulate understands the amplifier being mimicked (both electrically and from a player perspective).

The days when this stuff was entirely dealt with by software engineers who’d never gigged are long gone. The big guys have realised they need player input and they’re getting it. Once they know what the important points are to model, mostly it’s mathematics although this gets complex as so much Physics relies on fudge factors for ‘hard’ ideas, so accurately modelling analogue circuits (especially when they’re technically running beyond normal parameters like almost every real guitar amp) gets very complex very quickly which is why this is such a slow burner.

The bottom line is still that at least now, modellers are not for everyone, but they can be an epic win in the right situation for the right player. Just like everything else in guitar land

 

[Justin Whitstine]

I can get a better recorded sound for cheaper with a plugin than I can with a tube amp and mics, because:

• I don't have anywhere to crank a tube amp
• I don't own expensive microphones
• I don't know how to position mics optimally

HOWEVER, those are my personal limitations. A recording engineer with experience in a studio could get better tones from the real deal.

Would I rather have a full stack, a big soundproof room, and expensive mics and all that stuff? YES OF COURSE! Do I? NO! Can I afford a $120 plugin that gets me 95% of the way there? YES Does my playing and music still suck? YES!

Remember, perfect is the enemy of good. No one here is saying plugins are better.

 

[NoelH]

Vacuum Tubes are still being manufactured and used. This is yet another subject that comes up every now and again. There will always be those who prefer real amps and speakers. I'm one. I wanted to like modeling amps. But I just don't. They just don't feel the same. Yeah, many of them sound great. But when I plug into one, three isn't the same tactile experience under my fingers.

 

[Justin Whitstine]

I like them all. They all have their place. Crank the tubes when I can and its always a treat.

 

[StingRay85]

I hear the difference between real orchestras and modeled orchestras. The only reason they substitute modeled tracks for real ones is to break the musicians' union, to just make more money. It's the MacDonald's of music. You can grab some market, yes, but is it really any good? Watch out when you think ANYTHING is inevitable. The takeover of art, music, acting, education, by computer interests is purely financial, and we should all be smart enough not to buy into sales pitches. Someone is trying to replace you, whatever you do, with a computer. Are you going to take the blue pill, or the Musicians are essentially viewed as consumers, it's all about getting money out of those pockets and find new ways to get money from those pockets. Pay influencers to promote the products. Its simple economics. Musicians would benefit k

The starting point of any company is making money, and finding consumers for their products. Promoting their products through all possible channels. Your regular ads, but also endorsing artists, paying influencers. Modelling is a good way to go because every few years they can claim their model became better, hardware becomes more performant, and convince you to upgrade. Paying for plugins. From a business side it all makes sense. But I still see it as some kind of devolution

 

[Mrmadd]

It is evident. The younger generation of musians have so much more to pick from in types of amps and instruments. Unless they are guided by some one, they may not discover the beauty of a real Marshall tube amp.
The tube amp is still very strong and is well embedded into rock and roll history.
I beleive it will take several decades to see the tube amps fall to the wayside.

 

[Justin Whitstine]

I've never owned a full stack, but I'll never forget the first time I played on one of my friends cranked as a teen. It was exhilarating!

 

[Im247frogs]

Motley Crue said they were never going to tour again, and in fact SWORE that they were contractually disallowed from doing so ever again.

 

[GregM]

I

It is evident. The younger generation of musians have so much more to pick from in types of amps and instruments. Unless they are guided by some one, they may not discover the beauty of a real Marshall tube amp.
The tube amp is still very strong and is well embedded into rock and roll history.
I beleive it will take several decades to see the tube amps fall to the wayside.

If at all, I used to love my fender mustang, but stopped playing for awhile, forgot my user name and password, usual stuff.
Reenter email, send me new pw blabla, fender no longer supports fender muse or whatever it was, OK, download new plugin, mustang is not supported on this site, you need blabla or newer amp
So that was 7? Maybe 6 years old at the time, and now my amp still plays, but I can't upgrade anything on it or use the eq/mods without taking 10 minutes to set it manually by the slow ass 2 inch screen on my amp, still a great pedal platform, but a tube will need replacing for 1/3rd the cost of my mustang and not tell me I need a newer amp in 6 or 7 years

 

[ST035]

If Marshall as a company continues to produce products which don't live up to their name and marketing strategy (including prices) - Marshall will go bankrupt. And it should.

I mean, you can't rely on maybe a hundred people (industry professionals) and maybe a 3-4 thousand hobbyist to buy stuff like 1987x at that price point and then offer SV20 which (along with Origin line) is far from 1987x or 1959slp in terms of I dunno... those new tube amps DSLs ORigins and Studio series are inherently bright and harsh - quite the opposite of 1987x which is dark, even muddy. Couple that with Celestion speakers which for the most part are on the bright side and you get treble cutting piercing shit.

I bought Marshall thinking I would get that "sound" but I got fucked and I regret not buying a Buger V22 or Tube 15 (Voxish, Laneyish sounding amps).