Has Amp Modeling Technology Hit the Ceiling?

[Ken]

It seems that the digital method (amp modeling) of re-producing amp tones has not really shown any substantial improvements in quite some time, which indicates that maybe the technology has reached its limitation.

Outside of tweaking the current technologies that have been in place the past few years, I have not seen anything new on the horizon that makes me feel that we are ready for the next big thing in amp modeling.

I understand these companies, like Line 6 bring out the ads (marketing) to make you think they are progressing, but these only seem like very minor tweaks intended to keep sales moving forward.

Anyone have any information to offer, if indeed this technology is showing any promise to get us "Tube Lovers" to make the jump? :eek:

[TieDyedDevil]

Rumor has it that one of the big names in modelling is going to start offering floorboards in different colors. Colors, dude! Collect them all! :p


Seriously, though...

I agree with you. The trend has been to layer more features and complexity upon the same tired old technology. The only company that's bucking the trend is Vox with their ToneLab products. They're using a completely different technology that doesn't rely on DSP for amp modelling.

I think modelling has run out of steam because the DSP-based technology was based upon the (flawed, IMO) premise that you can model the dynamic behavior of a guitar amp using some steady-state approximations. Doing it right (by creating an accurate circuit model rather than a simplified transfer function) is difficult, expensive and probably way beyond the reach of DSP technology.

[macmax77]

the only mod amps i can stand are the Vox amps

There is no second for me, i prefer tubes and always will

[Pearly Gator]

Modelers have not kept up with computers in advancements in technology. Modelers should have faster processors, higher clock speeds, lower noise and better A/D and D/A converters.

For some reason, we skipped past good multi effect units. I have great guitars and amps. What I need is a small "all-in-one" multi effects unit for the price of a Digitech RP-50. Perhaps I missed the boat...

/ 2 cents

Gator

[electronpirate]

I disagree.

I think that it's just getting started. The best ones have already added a small tube.

I've had (and would still have if not for the 'too many amps' from the wife) a Valvetronix. Very versatile, very 'responsive like a tube amp'. Loved all the tones except for the Mesa Rect. emulations.

Also since the Line6 and Valvetronix have done a pretty decent job (opinions may vary!), and tube amps have become MUCH more versatile (Herbert, Superly, etc) the clamor for additional technology is just not there yet.

EP.

[rwe333]

I thought the now-discontinued Yamaha DG-series was pretty happening for some sounds...

[whitehall]

The market always goes where the profit is. Modelers have been out for quite some time now. There isn't a major manufacturer that doesn't have some type of "effect" in one of it's amps. Remember that the GP is not the market, GC is the market. All those amps you hate and make fun of outsell the amps you drool over by a huge margin. What's next ? Tube amps from China and beyond. Look at Vox, Epi, Peavey and the rest. Their just the tip of the iceberg. It's called change , and it's a good thing. I can hardly wait for $500 hand wired p to p amps to start coming from overseas.

[Ken]

Originally posted by TieDyedDevil

I think modelling has run out of steam because the DSP-based technology was based upon the (flawed, IMO) premise that you can model the dynamic behavior of a guitar amp using some steady-state approximations. Doing it right (by creating an accurate circuit model rather than a simplified transfer function) is difficult, expensive and probably way beyond the reach of DSP technology.

That's the thing about the Modelers...They Model a sound but do not really get the essence of the dynamics, warmth and feel. I guess right now you can only get that from the good old vacuum tube!

And thats at the heart of my post...I know some play and like modelers, but I was talking more about technological improvements that would make someone like me sell my Bogner Shiva and buy the modeling amp.

[mbratch]

Originally posted by Pearly Gator
Modelers have not kept up with computers in advancements in technology. Modelers should have faster processors, higher clock speeds, lower noise and better A/D and D/A converters.

For some reason, we skipped past good multi effect units. I have great guitars and amps. What I need is a small "all-in-one" multi effects unit for the price of a Digitech RP-50. Perhaps I missed the boat...


I agree totally. Whether one likes the amp modeling or not, there seems to be no selection of non-rack-based multieffect units that focus on the effects only. They all have to include the amp modeling that you must bypass to use the effects with your amp. And in some units, the bypassing doesn't come without tonal penalty.

Regarding the original comment on amp modeling, I don't think it's hit a ceiling, but perhaps a temporary plateau.

[mbratch]

Originally posted by Ken
And thats at the heart of my post...I know some play and like modelers, but I was talking more about technological improvements that would make someone like me sell my Bogner Shiva and buy the modeling amp.
I believe one would be more inclined to keep the Bogner and buy the modeler. Although I prefer my tube amp, sometimes the modeler hits a spot my tube amp won't do. To me, modelers are not amp replacements necessarily, but are in some sense a different form of instrument that complements the choice of tones.

Amp modelers remind me of the time when digital algorithm synthesizers from Yamaha hit the market after people were acclimated to analog synths. The digital algorithms were horrible at making rich acoustic instrument tones. But they were great at certain less natural tones, or purer harmonic tones like certain kinds of bells, etc. Synths eventually relaxed their pursuit of an algorithmic approach to generating tones and went toward manipulating samples of the real thing.

I wonder if amp modelers will eventually somehow become sample based. ;)

[Unburst]

Not an amp as such but I thought NI's Guitar Rig was a major step forward in modelling technology.

[trisonic]

My view is that some of them sound good at low volumes.
On stage they have a nasty habit (haven't heard the Vox stuff) of coming over as weak, thin and completely failing to cut through with any authority.
This seem to be the most simple problem to solve:D

Best, Pete.

[electronpirate]

If you have the chance, check out a Vox VTX. It has the punch of a tube amp, at very reasonable volumes. It cut through in a two guitar - keys band nicely. The other guitarist (playing pedals and a 5150 II) was frequently jealous that I could go from a Voxy ballad tone, to a ballsout Marshall with a step.

Keep in mind, with ANY modeler, that a decent part of your tone is high wattage moving a speaker cone, so it's very tough to get that without cranking.

Add a +1 to that about the effects as well. There are so many crappy multi-effects things out there. I want one that can do many things, with NO distortion models, and don't want to pay 1k+ for it.

I have gone through SO many iterations of effects. I had the Vox (decent FX), to tube and a G- Major (okay, but never quite seemed to give me what I wanted), to just plain pedals (better, but sort of dull after awhile), now I have an Xpression on the way, and hoping that it will scratch the itch (credit the Herbert demo video with this new revelation.)

EP

[riverastoasters]

Originally posted by TieDyedDevil
I think modelling has run out of steam because the DSP-based technology was based upon the (flawed, IMO) premise that you can model the dynamic behavior of a guitar amp using some steady-state approximations. Doing it right (by creating an accurate circuit model rather than a simplified transfer function) is difficult, expensive and probably way beyond the reach of DSP technology.

It's well within the reach of DSP technology from a few years back. The thing it's not within the reach of is the DSP guys that are working in the guitar amp modeling business. The cell phone people hired a huge amount of DSP talent over the past decade, and so the price of hot DSP guys is very high.

At some point, someone will get around to it. It's not that different from the old days - the guys designing guitar amps from tubes were getting ideas from the RCA Radiotron Designer's Handbook; the guys writing that book were doing things twenty years before that are fancier than almost anything that ever got into a guitar amp.

What I'm saying is that the limits of technology are really not the things that limit guitar amps. How many guitar players and how much they're going to pay is the thing that limits it.

[rastaman]

I love the sound and smell of vacuum tubes!!

[VacuumVoodoo]

There are things happening in Sweden in this area, check these guys (http://www.softube.se)

[KennyM]

My experience with modeling amps is 100% limited to recording and I must say that it has been very positive. I always receive great comments from other players and producers on my guitar sounds.

Unfortunately for live gigging guitarists, I think that the areas that have progressed the most are in the software now available. In my own experience, I feel that using Line 6 Amp Farm gives me much better sounding results than a Pod or one of their amps. Of course, I have a few little tricks signal chain wise and some real high end mic pre's and A/D convertors that can make a huge diference in the end result. I also think that this points out the fact that maybe not enough attention and quality is going into the analog portion of these products. This is something I think is starting to be of concern to companies like Waves, who have had PRS design an interface as a front end for there software. I personaly use a VHT Valvulator as the front end because I like the fact that I'm going through a good old tube, but any good buffered FX box will do wonders.

In an effort to wean myself off of Amp Farm I've been buying a lot of new and old amps and putting a new recording rig together. It will be interesting to see how much better going back to real amps actually is (or is not).

Kenny M.

[telelion]

I'm with the ones who said why isn't there a simple affordable effects floor unit without the modelers. A pick-up and go unit for gigging when you leave the boutique pedals at home or for just playing with your Pro Jr. at home. Ideally Boss would package a few of their highest regarded stomp boxes together but they probably don't want to and admittedly it would cost a bit more but it would be nice to own as a backup. Ibanez used to have such a product I believe with a TS and a few other effects. I would think Zoom or somebody would see the market for making a decent unit very affordably that covered the basics.

[riverastoasters]

Originally posted by VacuumVoodoo
There are things happening in Sweden in this area, check these guys (http://www.softube.se)

I have to take back what I said about the guys doing this stuff.

At Linkoping, (because they have Lennart Ljung), they know pretty well what they are doing with system identification. I have some differences with their way of doing things, but they are mostly high quality guys.

EDIT: I just checked - their math guru is Fredrik Gustafsson; he would be doing things in a way that would make a lot of sense to me.

I will be very interested to hear what they've come up with.

[RickC]

Originally posted by mbratch
I wonder if amp modelers will eventually somehow become sample based. ;)

Why the wink? I think you're right on

/rick

[hunter]

Just did a gig this weekend using a Roland Cube 60. Uses Roland's COSM modeling method (no I don't know what that is). I used two models, the "Brit Combo" (AC30) and the "Black Panel" (Twin). Not crazy loud stage volume but we had a full band including B3, and a horn section. I didn't use any pedals and controlled the amp with the guitar volume. Decent tube amplike feel (especially the Blank Panel - very Fendery). Not thin or weak at all. And in a tiny box too.

So I find there is at least one working modeling amp out there.Have to get a few more gigs on it to really say for sure though. I realize the question was has modeling hit the ceiling. That I don't know but I do still see signs of improvement so my guess would be no. Even if the modeling is peaking out, the method of packaging and implementing (gig quality parts, cabinets, speakers, effects support etc) has got room to improve.

In the timeline of amp development modeling is brand new. Look how long it took for the high gain multichannel amp to emerge. About 20 years after Fender started amp production in earnest. Gotta give the modeling guys some time.

FWIW I have also gotten a lot of good use out of a DG Stomp too. For recording, the convenience is tough to beat. I haven't DI'd the Cube yet but I'm thinking it is gonna work well that way.

hunter

[OOG]

Hunter
i'm with you
played a Micro Cube, thought i was hearing things, took it home and have loved it ever since
i almost always use the Blackface model. with pedals
tried the 30 and didn't like it at all-harsh and brittle sounding to my ears
maybe it's the speaker
i bought the 60 and really like it

there's a picture of Robert Keeley on his site with a Micro Cube on his test bench
i've run into a few other tube guys who love thse things
it's the best sounding SS amp i've ever heard
the only one i've been happy with

[Swampash]

I don't think that amp modeling has any more "hit the ceiling" than your PC has. The major difference is that you now expect that you'll have to replace your PC every so often. The folks at Line 6 and others are faced with a problem: update the processing horsepower frequently and tick-off their existing users, or be seen as complacent and uninterested in moving forward insofar as realism is concerned.

The one area I think that they need to work on is the guitar amp interface. A guitar is an LCR network that presents a variable impedance to the input of the guitar amp. When you turn the volume control down, the network changes and the frequencies that are passed by the network change. I'm no electronics expert, but it seems that there is some level of interaction between the front end of a tube amp and the guitar...the "whole" interconnected "system" seems to change with different volume levels (both guitar and amp levels), and (obviously) different guitars. I think that this interface (or lack thereof in "modeling amps"), may be where that elusive "feel" is lost...the "remaining 5-10%" of realism that tube-lovers complain about.

Of course, everything I just said may just be pointless rambling....;)

[mbratch]

Originally posted by Swampash
I don't think that amp modeling has any more "hit the ceiling" than your PC has. The major difference is that you now expect that you'll have to replace your PC every so often. The folks at Line 6 and others are faced with a problem: update the processing horsepower frequently and tick-off their existing users, or be seen as complacent and uninterested in moving forward insofar as realism is concerned.
Tick them off or not, it may be the only way to make a business out of amp modeling. The PC analogy you give is a good one. Either you offer more processing horsepower every year, or sell (not give away) amp model or software upgrades on a regular basis. Or both. Without that annuity, there's no business. That's how it works with PCs.

[MikeyG]

Originally posted by mbratch
Tick them off or not, it may be the only way to make a business out of amp modeling. The PC analogy you give is a good one. Either you offer more processing horsepower every year, or sell (not give away) amp model or software upgrades on a regular basis. Or both. Without that annuity, there's no business. That's how it works with PCs.

PC's have evolved to a point where the basic models off the shelf meet all *my* computing needs.

There's still a market, however, for higher-powered machines, for music production, high intensity graphics and movie production, etc.

Some people can gig with a production modeler, and be happy.

Some won't be happy until the equivalent of a high powered graphics workstation is what they use. These types of machines don't tend to be mass produced, tend to be very expensive, etc.

The tube afficionados want the latter, and can't get it. At least in a production modeler.

Amp Farm is probably the closest thing, from what I've read. (I know I read about a band that was using PCs and Amp Farm live - I think it was Big Head Todd and the Monsters).

Line6 is due for a next generation modeler, I'd say. Has anyone heard any news from them??

[Mark Kane]

MikeyG, just want to say that I agree, Barney Rubble, what an actor as is Rick M.

[MikeyG]

Originally posted by Mark Kane
MikeyG, just want to say that I agree, Barney Rubble, what an actor as is Rick M.

That's a quote from "Night Shift", with Michael Keaton and Henry Winkler.... stupid stuff like that makes me LMAO!

[EADGBE]

Personally, I wish they would just focus on making a really good transistor amp. And just leave the digital stuff out of the equation. I think if they tried hard enough they could make a really good sounding one. It could never be as good as a tube amp, but it could come close.

[Swampash]

Originally posted by EADGBE
Personally, I wish they would just focus on making a really good transistor amp. And just leave the digital stuff out of the equation. I think if they tried hard enough they could make a really good sounding one. It could never be as good as a tube amp, but it could come close. Actually, there are a couple of very good solid state amps builders out there. Try Pritchard Amps at www.pritchardamps.com There is another company (Blue Moon?) that has also gotten good press.

I've played through Eric Pritchard's amps at a guitar show, and they are VERY good. He designed the original PRS amps years ago, and never stopped chasing the goal of emulating tube circuits using solid state devices. If I'm not mistaken, he holds several patents on his proprietary circuit designs.

He even offers a money-back guarantee, so you can try one in your own environment.

There, now all your wishes have come true! :D :p

Meantime, I think there's still work to be done in the digital amp modeling realm...

Remember FILM? Who would have thought that it would become a curious relec of the past for most published pictures? There will come a day, in the not too distant future, where you'll be able to print your pictures using "virtual" Kodak or Fuji, etc. film color settings (in Photoshop, for example), to get rid of the accuracy of the digital color rendition, and "regain" the "Character" of film.

This may seem unrelated, unless you consider that sight (looking at the image) is one of the 5-senses just like hearing is.

[Lex Luthier]

Originally posted by rwe333
I thought the now-discontinued Yamaha DG-series was pretty happening for some sounds...

Something I found out is that the discontinued Yamaha DG amps weren't technically a modeling amp. Notice none of the presets were cloning anything, I think that maybe was one of the reasons why they didn't sell. Most people want to turn a knob to British Stack or whatever like a Line 6 and expect that sort of sound. The Yamaha requires more from the user to tweak and experiment to find those tones.

FWIW, Holdsworth uses one of the crunch modes for clean with the gain turned down, and sure enough when I tried that, it sounded very good.

[msymank]

Don't engineers design circuits in computers anyway?
I can't understand why a program which traces a circuit, and for the sake of sound, gives components a randomizing algorithm, +-10%.
It just seems like something that would be possible to me.
where the signal mimics the its response to the components its placed thru, the end result being exactly what you would hear if the circuit was physically built.
Now analog reacts to a variety of considerations, I would still have to believe that those can be factored in somehow.

On another note. Its probably true that modeling has come leaps and bounds. Unfortunatly, as mentioned in a previous post, the audience for this stuff isn't players its guitar center.
And to be even more truthfull,
Who comes up to you after a gig and tells you how smokin your sound was that night?

90% of the time its other guitar players.

I don't think the audience cares about anything other than your playing and interaction.

[LaXu]

Originally posted by Lex Luthier
Something I found out is that the discontinued Yamaha DG amps weren't technically a modeling amp. Notice none of the presets were cloning anything, I think that maybe was one of the reasons why they didn't sell. Most people want to turn a knob to British Stack or whatever like a Line 6 and expect that sort of sound. The Yamaha requires more from the user to tweak and experiment to find those tones.

I've had a Yamaha DG80 combo for years, in fact it's the amp I've had for the longest time. Nowadays it mostly serves as a cab for my Stephenson LJ10 tube amp, but every now and then I plug in the amp and I always find it sounds good.

Considering the DG amps came out in like 1997 or 1998, they are pretty stunning. I think the Vox Valvetronix do sound better, but I have found some very nice tones out of the DG. What I really like about the amp is the user interface - instead of tiny LCD screens or fiddly "press button A and turn pot X" usage it's more like a regular amp - a bunch of pots and a few buttons for everything. Simple and intuitive. Plus it looks like a "real" amp and is definitely built better than most modelers these days. Then again when it was new it was more expensive than the competitors' stuff.

I remember reading some bit about what the design goals for the amp were and basically Yamaha seemed to just aim to reproduce tube tone with a solid-state amp, instead of trying to emulate various amps. It does have it's own tone definitely and the various amp models are basically more like different voicings than Marshall this or Mesa that type things. This is something I'd like to see other brands pursue - often the biggest qualms about modelers are that they don't sound anything like whatever they emulate, so why not try to come up with an amp with your own tone?

I've noticed that what makes the Yamaha DG amp really work is the power amp. I don't know what they did, but I find that it really adds to the tone. I've tried running the preamp section through the cabinet emulated line out, direct (using fx loop send) and into a few other amps' power sections and it's own poweramp was the one that sounded best. Maybe this is an area where other brands could try to look for improvements?

To be honest, I don't think amp modeling has really improved that much. Line6, being the most wellknown amp modeling company, might make it seem like that but what they have really done is mostly just fixed the problems of their earlier amps. They aren't really doing much new, the Variax for example is basically doing what Roland was doing with the VG amps and floorboards, just stuffed inside a guitar minus the amp modeling etc. Personally I don't expect them to take amp modeling to the next level. I think they are really great at marketing but not so much in the product department.

One thing that really surprises me is that there are no good sounding amp modeler softwares on the market. I've tried pretty much all the major players (Guitar Rig, Amplitube etc.) and they all sound significantly worse than the "hardware" modelers. The basic premise of something like Guitar Rig is great and the user interface is very well thought out, but sadly the tone sounds so fake and congested no matter how much you tweak it.

Speaking of Pritchard amps, I'd love to try those. But am I the only one who finds that his models and website are really confusing? I have a really hard time figuring out what the difference between each model is aside from one or two channels. The pretentious names don't really help either.

PS. I'm thinking of picking up a Vox AD15VT or AD30VT for an amp I can take with me when I go visit relatives etc. Kinda tired of using a Fender Minitwin... :D

[TieDyedDevil]

Originally posted by Swampash
There is another company (Blue Moon?) that has also gotten good press.

Blue Tone
http://bluetoneamps.com/

[mbratch]

Originally posted by EADGBE
Personally, I wish they would just focus on making a really good transistor amp. And just leave the digital stuff out of the equation. I think if they tried hard enough they could make a really good sounding one. It could never be as good as a tube amp, but it could come close.
That's basically what Tech 21 (http://www.tech21nyc.com) makes with their SansAmp PSA-1 and their Trademark series amps. It's analog circuitry based on FETs (Field Effect Transistors) which have some of the characteristics that tubes have when they are overdriven.

[mbratch]

Originally posted by msymank
Don't engineers design circuits in computers anyway?
I can't understand why a program which traces a circuit, and for the sake of sound, gives components a randomizing algorithm, +-10%.
It just seems like something that would be possible to me.
where the signal mimics the its response to the components its placed thru, the end result being exactly what you would hear if the circuit was physically built.
Now analog reacts to a variety of considerations, I would still have to believe that those can be factored in somehow.
I believe the issue is that it's more complicated than just a few different randomizing and simulation factors. Behavior variations and interactions between the components and due to temperature, etc, are complex and numerous enough as to make it formidable to simulate with DSP algorithms.

In the synth world they've had some limited success along these lines actually modeling the physical behavior of parts of an acoustic instrument (like the mouthpiece through to the bell on a brass instrument). But the sampling synths are still the most successful instruments on the market.

[Fluke]

It's well within the reach of DSP technology from a few years back. The thing it's not within the reach of is the DSP guys that are working in the guitar amp modeling business. The cell phone people hired a huge amount of DSP talent over the past decade, and so the price of hot DSP guys is very high.

At some point, someone will get around to it. It's not that different from the old days - the guys designing guitar amps from tubes were getting ideas from the RCA Radiotron Designer's Handbook; the guys writing that book were doing things twenty years before that are fancier than almost anything that ever got into a guitar amp.

What I'm saying is that the limits of technology are really not the things that limit guitar amps. How many guitar players and how much they're going to pay is the thing that limits it.


+1

I work in the design of cell phones and "steady state approximations" have been left a long way behind.

When you talk to someone on your cell phone, that's not thier voice you are hearing. It's not even a digitisation or an MP3 of their voice. Thats a DSP simulating their voice, based on a bare minimum of data that is being transmitted.

If the DSP tallent sitting in the same building as me right now were engaged in modelling guitar amps, you would see some serious progress!

[Fluke]

I'm with the ones who said why isn't there a simple affordable effects floor unit without the modelers. A pick-up and go unit for gigging when you leave the boutique pedals at home or for just playing with your Pro Jr. at home. Ideally Boss would package a few of their highest regarded stomp boxes together but they probably don't want to and admittedly it would cost a bit more but it would be nice to own as a backup. Ibanez used to have such a product I believe with a TS and a few other effects. I would think Zoom or somebody would see the market for making a decent unit very affordably that covered the basics.

Boss ME50

[Miles]

This argument has been going on and on. I've tried and owned a couple modellers and really tried to like them. However, I have reached my concrete conclusion:

-As amplifiers, in an acoustic environment, they lack the feel and punch that I desire from a true amp. Therefore, as instruments, they fail

-Everyone argues that "99% of the audience can't hear the diff" and, yeah, that's true. BUT, it's not always about just the sound or tone heard, it's about how it feels and reacts.

-Modellers sound fine for recording and/or through a PA system, but when put into an amplifier for YOU to hear, they fall tremendously short.

-Tweaking sucks. And again, it sucks. Sometimes, you just want to get to the gig, turn it on, maybe increase the mids or highs to sit better in the mix, and play. Or you want to go to your 'place' late at night to practice, and you just want to PLAY!! Not adjust, tweak, save patches, make sure they sound consistent from patch to patch, timbre to timbre, etc...And it's just too much.

Sometimes less is more. And the guitar needs to punch through. Modelers are not for me.

[electronpirate]

This argument has been going on and on. I've tried and owned a couple modellers and really tried to like them. However, I have reached my concrete conclusion:

-As amplifiers, in an acoustic environment, they lack the feel and punch that I desire from a true amp. Therefore, as instruments, they fail

-Everyone argues that "99% of the audience can't hear the diff" and, yeah, that's true. BUT, it's not always about just the sound or tone heard, it's about how it feels and reacts.

-Modellers sound fine for recording and/or through a PA system, but when put into an amplifier for YOU to hear, they fall tremendously short.

-Tweaking sucks. And again, it sucks. Sometimes, you just want to get to the gig, turn it on, maybe increase the mids or highs to sit better in the mix, and play. Or you want to go to your 'place' late at night to practice, and you just want to PLAY!! Not adjust, tweak, save patches, make sure they sound consistent from patch to patch, timbre to timbre, etc...And it's just too much.

Sometimes less is more. And the guitar needs to punch through. Modelers are not for me.

Miles has some good points here. The tweaking DOES suck to get all your volumes right across the patches. Fine if you can do this at volume, but sort of the point behind the modeler is that you can do this while the rest of the household is sleeping.

But gotta disagree with 2 points:

-The Valvetronix ADxxVTX series had easily reachable and tweakable EQ, so no thumbing through menus, etc. A quick flip of the mids, press a button, done. I've done this in the middle of many a song. I'll agree not all are this easy to work with.

-Modelers that sound great in the PA don't sound great when you plug in because of their inherent nature. It's a modeler, so it wants to reproduce all aspects of that tone from preamp to poweramp to speaker cab. Most of the time when you are plugging that into an external amp and cab, it interferes with that process, so the *best* way to avoid that problem is to get a clean SS power amp, and put that tone through a full spectrum speaker.

And back to the original question. I'm going to have to contradict myself (as posted earlier) and believe that we really are close to where it will all be. The new Amp-FX seems like it's going to be close to the top of the heap, and I cannot believe that anything else would be significantly better.

EP

[Ben Furman]

Speaking of Pritchard amps, I'd love to try those. But am I the only one who finds that his models and website are really confusing? I have a really hard time figuring out what the difference between each model is aside from one or two channels. The pretentious names don't really help either.

This only registered on my radar since the thread got resurrected, but... no, LaXu, you are not the only one. The website has been improved recently, but it still gives too many options. I and others would like to see the standard offerings limited.

All of the amps are non-master-volume designs except for the Estoc, which has one MV channel and one non-MV channel. The differences in the single channel amps amount to a different choice of voices. Likewise between the Satori and the Margaux, although the latter has some other unique features. It might be more straightforward to decipher if the amps were organized under application headings, but this is problematic because the versatility of all of the amps is emphasized by the maker.

IMO, there should only be one dual-channel model, and it should have all of the bells and whistles. One single-channel model (perhaps with a choice of voices) should do the trick for the plug 'n play type who uses pedals and likes simplicity.

-Ben

[bluescube]

Zoom has increased the computing power:

96 kHz sampling brings out authentic sounding tube amp harmonicshttp://www.zoom.co.jp/english/img/spacer.gif
Everyone knows that the sound of tube amplifiers is the ultimate in guitar tone. By employing high-accuracy sampling at 96 kHz, G2 pedal faithfully model these sonic properties, right up to the highest harmonic register. Dynamic range is also excellent, thanks to 24-bit A/D/A conversion. These extremely high levels of digital processing also make your playing sound cleaner and clearer thanks to the fast processing speeds.
http://www.zoom.co.jp/english/img/spacer.gifhttp://www.zoom.co.jp/english/products/g2/09.gif
http://www.zoom.co.jp/english/img/spacer.gif● ZFX-3: A new-generation DSP from ZOOMhttp://www.zoom.co.jp/english/img/spacer.gif
The heart of any multi-effect device is its processor and decoder section. Zoom has reached a new level with its newly developed ZFX-3 chip. 32-bit architecture ensures smooth and detailed signal processing. Accuracy and speed bring out the character of your instrument without restrictions.

[Miles]

Miles has some good points here. The tweaking DOES suck to get all your volumes right across the patches. Fine if you can do this at volume, but sort of the point behind the modeler is that you can do this while the rest of the household is sleeping.

But gotta disagree with 2 points:

-The Valvetronix ADxxVTX series had easily reachable and tweakable EQ, so no thumbing through menus, etc. A quick flip of the mids, press a button, done. I've done this in the middle of many a song. I'll agree not all are this easy to work with.

-Modelers that sound great in the PA don't sound great when you plug in because of their inherent nature. It's a modeler, so it wants to reproduce all aspects of that tone from preamp to poweramp to speaker cab. Most of the time when you are plugging that into an external amp and cab, it interferes with that process, so the *best* way to avoid that problem is to get a clean SS power amp, and put that tone through a full spectrum speaker.

And back to the original question. I'm going to have to contradict myself (as posted earlier) and believe that we really are close to where it will all be. The new Amp-FX seems like it's going to be close to the top of the heap, and I cannot believe that anything else would be significantly better.

EP


Yeah, but rather than get a clean SS power amp, and deal with that complexity and tweaking x 2. Why not get a $400 tube combo and maybe a decent pedal, and just play?

I owned the Valvetronix 2x12 for backup, practice, and recording for a year and a half. Not bad at all, and it is more 'tweakable' but again, it's not just about how they sound in the PA. I'm talking about in a room or stage where it's you and your rig to play with the band. In those settings, I feel all the sterile and less dynamic response all over the place, and that's where they failed for me. To boot, I would deal with inferior tone AND complexity. Who needs that?

and to the post above regarding ZOOM. I think it comes down to physics. It's not just the sound that they need to nail, and that's where modeling companies are failing as well. They try to get all the nuances of tone, when sometimes, it's not just the tone, it's the response and feel. And many of us preach about tone is in the fingers, but if your fingers aren't feeling it, where does tone come from? Sorry, no modeler comes close for me, and I've tried and tried to like them.

Plus, why buy a product that is trying to model other amps? After wrapping my head around this concept it just hit me. Get an amp. The better modelers are on the market often priced more than a decent valve combo. What's the point? Plus, if something ever goes wrong...you're screwed, and it's time to ship it to the manufacturer to deal with 001001011010101, rather than a few days in the shop.

Modelers do have their advantages. They are great for recording...great, and there are many good uses for modelers, and the tone is fine. I think feel is tremendously forgotten, and that's not something that modeling is coming close to right now whatsoever IMO.

Edit:

I apologize for a somewhat wreckless rant. Many of these amps offer a library of tones, so my point of view only applies to me; a simple minded and impatient person who just likes to plug and play.

[stratovarius]

I agree with what others are saying here:

Guitars are not line level, low impedance, linear signals - Ignoring this part of the equation seems to me a big part of the problem

Quality isn't cheap - High quality converters and the like are expensive. Manufacturers won't want to double the price point just to satisfy the cork sniffers

Economies of scale - This technology isn't for boutique builders. Lots of units have to be sold to pay for the R&D and manufacturing startup costs. This forces lowest common denominator considerations on the design

[Miles]

I agree with what others are saying here:

Guitars are not line level, low impedance, linear signals - Ignoring this part of the equation seems to me a big part of the problem

Quality isn't cheap - High quality converters and the like are expensive. Manufacturers won't want to double the price point just to satisfy the cork sniffers

Economies of scale - This technology isn't for boutique builders. Lots of units have to be sold to pay for the R&D and manufacturing startup costs. This forces lowest common denominator considerations on the design

Very good points as well.

[Griz]

"Modelers that sound great in the PA don't sound great when you plug in because of their inherent nature. It's a modeler, so it wants to reproduce all aspects of that tone from preamp to poweramp to speaker cab.
EP"

Good point. It's a problem that is interestingly similar to the problem of getting the recording line-out of a good tube amp to sound exactly the way the amp sounds to your ears in an acoustic environment.

A guitar amp being played live is a wild beast in comparison to a recording of that same guitar amp; a modeler is more like a recorded guitar amp, in terms of dynamics and sonic impact.

As noted above, a modeler is trying to give you the whole amp sound right in the signal itself, so by the time that signal passes through another amp and speakers, even if the modeled signal originally sounded pretty good it has now become something else.

For a modeler-type guitar system to really be able to swim equally well in the studio or in a live performance setting, it would have to be designed to achieve two very different, even in some respects mutually contradictory, sets of objectives.

It's interesting to note that most of the very positive experiences we have with modelers happen in the studio. To really work as a live performance tube amp substitute, a modeler rig would have to have everything from the software to the speaker designed to behave like a tube amp - not a recording of one. And even if everything up to the speaker was on target, can you imagine any one kind of speaker successfully covering all the bases?

[electronpirate]

Griz:

Have you checked out the Axe-FX? It is a fairly complex basically computer that does modeling of quite a few (20ish) amps as well as the power sections, etc. It also models plenty of cabs.

The exciting part here is that there is multible routing options. So you can plug into the Axe-FX, then have one signal path go through pedal - preamp - poweramp - cab(s) (FX anywhere in that chain), and have that line out to the PA, then ANOTHER signal that could go pedal - preamp (FX), and out to your external tube poweramp and speaker cab. Best of both worlds there.

Check out the owners manual at http://www.fractalaudio.com . It looks like a very impressive unit with excellent amp sims, and Studio level FX. Not too many clips here, but over at Huge Racks Inc. forum do a search, and there are plenty. I was suitable impressed.

EP

[TieDyedDevil]

-Tweaking sucks. And again, it sucks. Sometimes, you just want to get to the gig, turn it on, maybe increase the mids or highs to sit better in the mix, and play. Or you want to go to your 'place' late at night to practice, and you just want to PLAY!! Not adjust, tweak, save patches, make sure they sound consistent from patch to patch, timbre to timbre, etc...And it's just too much.


Yes, yes and yes!

IMO modelers are following the old adage: "If you can't dazzle `em with brilliance, baffle `em with bull****."

I would love to have a modeler that emulates a really outstanding one-channel clean amp in a compact, lightweight, big-sounding package. Not one of those bottle-of-bees fifty-seven-effects three-hundred-patches deep-computer-editing nightmares, but rather an amp that has the attributes of a great Fender amp (for example) without all the iron. A modeling amp that does *one thing* well: respond to player dynamics like a good tube amp. No hidden noise gates hiding the sound of your fingertips brushing against a muted string. No limiting to flatten out the pop of string against fret. And no patches or LCD displays: pointer knobs are just fine, thank you.

There are things I don't like about tube amps: they're heavy and require periodic maintenance. When I don't want to lug 70 pounds of wood and iron my Vox Tonelab comes in handy - but mainly because it's small and lightweight.

But until someone comes up with a digital marvel that can *properly* emulate the behavior of amp based upon 100 year old technology, I'm sticking with the real thing.

[Turbo Gerbil]

whats that old saying... the last 20% of the work takes 80% of the effort? I think thats where modelling technology is now... the "easy" part has been done.... the more difficult part of making even more complete models still has alot of effort to be put into it. I suspect we'll see more incremental improvements verses gigantic leaps, unless somebody has a brainstorm that leads to an accelleration of that "last 20%".

besides, there will always be somebody saying "it doesn't feel like tubes" no matter how good it gets. ;)

[baddmann28]

Coming from someone who's used nothing but Podxt gear for the last three years, Tube amps three years before that, Line 6 Axsys 212 for four years, and a mixture of solid state and tube stuff prior, I think i've got a pretty good handle on this subject.

almost two years ago I bought an atomic to go with my xtl. Did improve things alot, and I get very good sounds out of it. I was happy until I decided I'd give the Epi valve Jr a shot. 99 bucks, what the heck, haven't had a tube amp in a while.

You know what, I'm addicted to tubes again. This cheap ass little 99 dollar amp showed me the feel and response I've been missing. I'm having fun with it again.

So, I'm waiting a few weeks for the temporary love interest to wear off, and probably going to sell my xtl and atomic. I'll keep my toneport for recording purposes and probably look for a low watt Fender type amp to run in stereo. Since I'm not gigging anymore, I don't need 50 watts, 5-10 are plenty for recording. I really have to quit trying new gear, because too many lighbulbs go off over my head.

I've been a modeling guy for some time now, but I have to admit, Tubes sound organic. They sound real. They feel. Modelling used properly sounds good, and records well. For for some good old fashioned butt kicking, chicken stomping fun, Go tubes. Here's my analagoy that will probably get me kicked off the board. Things look great at the nudey bar, but the girl next door has the feel and is more fun to play with, if you catch my drift.

[electronpirate]

Things look great at the nudey bar, but the girl next door has the feel and is more fun to play with, if you catch my drift.

She costs less too.

[Swampash]

Four quick thoughts:

When the piano was 1st introduced, it was called the "devil's instrument" by the......harpsicord people.

I had dinner with some Line 6 people during NAMM....there IS more to come....

Fender was debuting a "modeling guitar" similar to the Variax. It was in the front door to their booth/suite area. Competition breeds.....

Lastly, you don't have to like the current modeling stuff to see just how cool it *could* be....and maybe/probably, eventually will.

[vinney57]

It seems that the digital method (amp modeling) of re-producing amp tones has not really shown any substantial improvements in quite some time, which indicates that maybe the technology has reached its limitation.

Outside of tweaking the current technologies that have been in place the past few years, I have not seen anything new on the horizon that makes me feel that we are ready for the next big thing in amp modeling.

I understand these companies, like Line 6 bring out the ads (marketing) to make you think they are progressing, but these only seem like very minor tweaks intended to keep sales moving forward.

Anyone have any information to offer, if indeed this technology is showing any promise to get us "Tube Lovers" to make the jump? :eek:

I'm sorry but this is just a ridiculous statement. Guitar amp modelling has barely begun.

Don't base your assumptions on Line 6; they have simply created a machine for extracting money, I think they are more interested in refining their business model than their amp model.

[electronpirate]

I'm sorry but this is just a ridiculous statement. Guitar amp modelling has barely begun.


I'm sorry. I still disagree with this.

Do you think that they are going to develop technology that will make it sound significantly MORE like a '72 Super Lead than it already does?

I think the tone is pretty much there. They have some work still ahead of them to get that 'tube' punchyness there, but that is a detail (since you can use things like the Atomic Amp to punch your audience in the throat. And honestly, most folks don't know enough (or care) about properly EQ'ing the modeling amp to get what they're wanting to hear. That may be a RTFM issue more than anything else.

EP

[mbratch]

In most cases, as long as a technology continues to have development work put into it, it may plateau for awhile (sometimes quite awhile), but it doesn't hit the ceiling forever.

I think this applies to amp modeling. It may appear to have hit a ceiling, but as long as companies find it profitable to sell, they'll keep trying to out-do each other and pay for developments. At some point someone will find a noticeable improvement.

Meanwhile, I still enjoy tube amps for feel. :)

[TieDyedDevil]

I had dinner with some Line 6 people during NAMM....there IS more to come....

I've heard that before. They've made some incremental improvements, but they seem to be more about milking the technology they already have rather than making any fundamental breakthroughs.

I'd love it if my skepticism was unjustified, but I'm not gonna hold my breath waiting for Line6 to come out with something that I'd prefer to a great Fender amp...

Fender was debuting a "modeling guitar" similar to the Variax. It was in the front door to their booth/suite area. Competition breeds.....

Well, Fender didn't really come up with anything new there, did they? Roland technology in a refreshingly simple package. The big "technology" breakthrough is being able to run the Roland stuff on batteries.

Don't base your assumptions on Line 6; they have simply created a machine for extracting money, I think they are more interested in refining their business model than their amp model.

I agree, but if Line6 (or Roland, for that matter) don't advance the state of the art, who will? Good R&D takes deep pockets.

I think the tone is pretty much there. They have some work still ahead of them to get that 'tube' punchyness there, but that is a detail (since you can use things like the Atomic Amp to punch your audience in the throat. And honestly, most folks don't know enough (or care) about properly EQ'ing the modeling amp to get what they're wanting to hear. That may be a RTFM issue more than anything else.

If the "detail" of "tube punchiness" can be addressed by tweaking the existing technology, then you're right. I'm not convinced that the gap between a modeler and a tube amp is as simple as something like better A/D-D/A or faster processing; I think the problem is that the underlying model of a tube amp is far from being complete.

As far as the RTFM comment... I didn't need to read any manual to use my tube amps and get great sound out of them. Furthermore, I can adjust my amps all I want and not risk losing that one great setting out of some tens of thousands of possible combinations. This, though, is a matter of preference. I'd much rather have one really great amp that responds well to my instrument and to the way I play than to have a palette of thousands of tonal variations, each one of which masks the details of my instrument and technique.

I think this applies to amp modeling. It may appear to have hit a ceiling, but as long as companies find it profitable to sell, they'll keep trying to out-do each other and pay for developments. At some point someone will find a noticeable improvement.

You're assuming that the majority modeling amp buyers spend their money based upon improvements in modeling rather than features and cost.

[Ken]

I'm sorry but this is just a ridiculous statement. Guitar amp modelling has barely begun.


Ok Vinney, since you decided to call out my post that I made way back in 2005, when I started this thread...Instead of calling my post a "Ridiculous Statement" why don't you answer the question that I asked way back in 2005 then?

Question:
Anyone have any information to offer, if indeed this technology is showing any promise to get us "Tube Lovers" to make the jump?

[AndrewSimon]

I love guitar modelers.

Here are some sample with AmpliTube2 and ReValver2:

http://www.andras-shimon.com/TEMP/XoticAC.mp3
http://www.andras-shimon.com/TEMP/ACM900.mp3
http://www.andras-shimon.com/MUSIC/NYwinter.mp3


:)

[LSchefman]

I guess I don't understand the NEED for modeling amps.

You can buy tube amps, today, that sound really good, in all price ranges.

I "get" the attractiveness of modeling processors for quiet recording sessions, ease of carrying a kidney bean shaped little thing to a gig to plug into the PA, and I have no problem with that.

But if you're going to drag around a combo or a head/cab combination?

What is the actual point of NOT using a real tube amp (and a few pedals if you want to mess with tone alternatives)? In my experience, tube amps are just as reliable as anything else, if not more so.

I think modelers will be what they currently are until an actual NEED arises for them to get better.

[ringemaster]

I think Electronpirate hit this above, but seriously check out the Axe-FX at www.fractalaudio.com (http://www.fractalaudio.com). From those who have one, they claim that 'the feel' is extremely good. The other BIG advantage to the unit is that it has the effects processing power of an Eventide Eclipse (really good pitch shifting and can do that 'shimmer' effect everyone talks about all the time)....and all for a measly $1500. As soon as I can afford, I'm replacing the PODxt Pro that I only use for special effects with one of them.

-Dave

[Miles]

I think Electronpirate hit this above, but seriously check out the Axe-FX at www.fractalaudio.com (http://www.fractalaudio.com). From those who have one, they claim that 'the feel' is extremely good. The other BIG advantage to the unit is that it has the effects processing power of an Eventide Eclipse (really good pitch shifting and can do that 'shimmer' effect everyone talks about all the time)....and all for a measly $1500. As soon as I can afford, I'm replacing the PODxt Pro that I only use for special effects with one of them.

-Dave

A measly $1500?

Give me a Twin Reverb or an AC30 and an SM57:moon

[Miles]

I love guitar modelers.

Here are some sample with AmpliTube2 and ReValver2:

http://www.andras-shimon.com/TEMP/XoticAC.mp3
http://www.andras-shimon.com/TEMP/ACM900.mp3
http://www.andras-shimon.com/MUSIC/NYwinter.mp3


:)


I also think that this point has been validated. I also agree that for recording, modelers can be great tools sitting next to your computer to access a library of tones for a certain recording. I think this is their niche.

But I leave it at home and grab my 30 or 50 watt valve combo to play anywhere, or practice for that matter.

[electronpirate]

A measly $1500?

Give me a Twin Reverb or an AC30 and an SM57:moon

Well, considering that there are several Studio class FX in there, plus the amp models, etc, this is still an attractive pricepoint (although he was offering them for a few hundred more...don't know if that will continue.)

Yes, and AC30 and a mike is fine, this is great if you are not doing wildly diverse music. I know, I know...a tube amp and a few pedals and you can play anything. I am lucky that I can use my tube amp to go from Beatles to Velvet Revolver without pedals. In the end, a Twin Reverb will not sound like a pissed off Marshall, don't care how high end the pedal is.

While it works great this way, I STILL like to be able to NAIL that tone. Enter a modelers. Good ones are a joy to play.

I'm not here to convert anyone...too many sceptics, and I really don't care whether anyone else likes them or not, but I would love having 20 amps in a 2U Rackspace that I can plug into the PA at any gig.

EP

[TieDyedDevil]

I guess I don't understand the NEED for modeling amps.

You can buy tube amps, today, that sound really good, in all price ranges.

I "get" the attractiveness of modeling processors for quiet recording sessions, ease of carrying a kidney bean shaped little thing to a gig to plug into the PA, and I have no problem with that.

But if you're going to drag around a combo or a head/cab combination?

What is the actual point of NOT using a real tube amp (and a few pedals if you want to mess with tone alternatives)? In my experience, tube amps are just as reliable as anything else, if not more so.

I think modelers will be what they currently are until an actual NEED arises for them to get better.


Well put!

There really is a divide between those who view the modeling amp (or processor, or plug-in) as a tool in its own right, and those (like me) who would like a modeler to be a (less expensive, lightweight, smaller, more reliable) substitute for a really good tube amp. It seems obvious that the vendors are catering to the first group.

[ringemaster]

Here here......

Personally, I still like the real tube amp route - I will ALWAYS play through a live rig. However, just like ElectronPirate, I also like my options. My band is about as diverse as U2, and until I can afford the $100k worth of gear to build my own world of stuff, I must use good amps and guitars for the majority of my sounds and use a modeler (into my amp) for those sounds that I can't get to just yet.

Also, its a good way to get two sounds in one - a distorted signal through your amp and a cleaner signal through the PA. It definitely widens the palette.

Again, I will always use tube amps over modelers anyday. I just think they have things to offer.

-Dave

[Miles]

a Twin Reverb will not sound like a pissed off Marshall, don't care how high end the pedal is.
EP

I don't know, I've owned a couple of pissed off marshalls, and a few really pissed off rectos and I can definitely say that the most hellacious tone I've ever heard was a ZVEX Fuzz Factory through a Twin cranked. Not necessarily the most usable tone for my music, but hellacious indeed and huge sounding, it made a pissed off marshall sound inferior. Only to my ears though.

Back to modelers, I think the thread kind of says it all. Modelers are nice for many applications. It's nice to have a library of tones at your dispense and fingertips without forking around with microphones and cables and a cranked amp when recording. And on recordings, I think they do sound good, and that's why I still own my PODxt kidney bean.

For live, it's not even close. And with the stresses of playing out or getting a good live tone, simplicity really is the key. Let's face it, nothing sounds like a cranked plexi kicking the shit out of the speakers in a live setting...that tone comes from only those conditions, not a processor.

I think it would be best to consider modelers the equivalent of a nice synthesizer. While you can get great grand piano tones out of an Alesis, nothing beats the feel and resonance of the real thing, and this pertains to a valve amp and the dynamic of the player using it as well. It just can't completely suffice and I don't think it ever really will. Even if people consider modelers superior, they will still be different.

[vinney57]

Ok Vinney, since you decided to call out my post that I made way back in 2005, when I started this thread...Instead of calling my post a "Ridiculous Statement" why don't you answer the question that I asked way back in 2005 then?

Question:
Anyone have any information to offer, if indeed this technology is showing any promise to get us "Tube Lovers" to make the jump?

Well your basic premise makes no sense. Are modellers perfect? No. Is the future of modelling based on a developing technology, ie. computer processors? Yes. Is there a demand for accurate amplifier modellers? Yes.
Has amp modelling technology hit the ceiling? Of course not!

I didn't realise that your post was from 2005. Since then we have had GuitarRig 2, Amplitude 2 and WavesGTR. There is also AxeFX and the recently updated Roland, Digitech, and Vox boxes

AxeFX is interesting in that unlike the rapidly ageing Line6 technology, they have taken a route similar to the software packages with the algorithmic modelling of the individual amplifier component blocks, ie. input amp, eq, driver, recitifier, power valves, output transformers etc.

Imagine in the future being able to model the characteristics of a Mullard el34 as opposed to a JJ or Groove Tube; and so on.

The other area of audio dsp development is in convolution systems which sample the characteristics of systems over thousands of different settings and apply the results to any digital signal slice, thus accurately simulating the original system. This has been used for a while for reverberation software like Altiverb http://www.audioease.com/index.html and is now being used by Sintefex http://www.sintefex.com/ and Focussrite to very accurately model vintage tube compressors and eq's.

Back in a bit...

[stratovarius]

So has anyone tried an AxeFX? They're at a bit of a disadvantage trying to overcome the stigma attached to modelers, eh? I know I'm not going to be the first on my block to run out and buy one.

[Ken]

Well your basic premise makes no sense.

My basic Premise makes no sense???

I asked a question for those who might have an answer, if amp modeling has hit a ceiling in development, that was a question, not an indictment of the technology...I still have not played any modeling technology that would make me sell off my tube amps...At this point, the jury is still out. If someday, modeling can give me the feel of playing real tube amps live in a band I would be very happy but it looks like it is still many years away.

[hudpucker]

Has amp modelling technology hit the ceiling? Of course not!




+1


The technology will continue to evolve; after all, who still uses Windows 95 on a 486?

[mbratch]

You're assuming that the majority modeling amp buyers spend their money based upon improvements in modeling rather than features and cost.This is true. When people comment on their amp modelers, most of what I've heard/read is how they like the models. Generally, they don't say much glowing about the "other features" (in fact often neutral or negative about effects). So that's why I made that assumption. Cost and compactness are somewhat an implicit assumption. Much cheaper than buying all those amps. ;) But if cost were a primary driver, a lot more Behringer V-Amps would be sold instead of Line6 Pods.

[vinney57]

My basic Premise makes no sense???

I asked a question for those who might have an answer, if amp modeling has hit a ceiling in development, that was a question, not an indictment of the technology...I still have not played any modeling technology that would make me sell off my tube amps...At this point, the jury is still out. If someday, modeling can give me the feel of playing real tube amps live in a band I would be very happy but it looks like it is still many years away.

Well then the answer is no, it hasn't hit a ceiling; but if you are happy with them why would you want to sell your amps anyway? Modellers are like most technological advances; they provide convenience and choice. In a modern studio situation they can be invaluable and in particular live situations they can certainly also be usable. but, there is no reason suppose they will ever replace the tube amp, why should they? Horses for courses.

[neutrino]

Well, considering that there are several Studio class FX in there, plus the amp models, etc, this is still an attractive pricepoint (although he was offering them for a few hundred more...don't know if that will continue.)

Yes, and AC30 and a mike is fine, this is great if you are not doing wildly diverse music. I know, I know...a tube amp and a few pedals and you can play anything. I am lucky that I can use my tube amp to go from Beatles to Velvet Revolver without pedals. In the end, a Twin Reverb will not sound like a pissed off Marshall, don't care how high end the pedal is.

While it works great this way, I STILL like to be able to NAIL that tone. Enter a modelers. Good ones are a joy to play.

I'm not here to convert anyone...too many sceptics, and I really don't care whether anyone else likes them or not, but I would love having 20 amps in a 2U Rackspace that I can plug into the PA at any gig.

EP

I'd like to know what amps goes from beatles to velvet revolver... and how much is gonna cost me?

[Miles]

I'd like to know what amps goes from beatles to velvet revolver... and how much is gonna cost me?


Well, unless you're really critical, you can do it with just about any amp, and look at a pedal if you have to. But I can think of several amps off-hand that can in-fact cover those tones sufficiently>

DSL50
XTC
Stiletto
PV Classic (really close)
Boogie Road King

Now, whether I actually like these amps, is another story, but could I play 'daytripper' on any of their cleans, and then the next song, go to Slash? Yes. Would anyone be out there with a Droop Dog voice going? "That's not a real beatles tone"? I hope not.

Whoops, didn't mean to get off track.
:worried

[Miles]

Well then the answer is no, it hasn't hit a ceiling; but if you are happy with them why would you want to sell your amps anyway? Modellers are like most technological advances; they provide convenience and choice. In a modern studio situation they can be invaluable and in particular live situations they can certainly also be usable. but, there is no reason suppose they will ever replace the tube amp, why should they? Horses for courses.


Great point, IMO the end of the debate for now. Modelers have their uses, real valves have theirs. Snap.

[aleclee]

IMO, there's a chicken/egg issue at work.

Companies won't invest the $$$ to make a really stellar modeler when they're stuck at a sub-1K price point. There's just not enough money to justify the R&D. OTOH, the more time that goes by without any "high-end" modeling gear, the more entrenched the mindset becomes that modelers aren't capable of toe-curling performance. As a result, people are less likely to accept a higher price point for modeling gear.

I suspect that the technology and DSP talent are out there to take DMAs to the next level. By the same token, I'm dubious that the economics would support it. The number of guitarists who hear with their eyes certainly doesn't help the situation. :(

[Paul Conway]

Personally, I wish they would just focus on making a really good transistor amp. And just leave the digital stuff out of the equation. I think if they tried hard enough they could make a really good sounding one. It could never be as good as a tube amp, but it could come close.

What do people think of these samples? http://www.award-session.com/sessionette.html Unfortunately, Blue Tone is out of business, so Session is the only upmarket UK SS amp I'm aware of.

[Rock Johnson]

+1


The technology will continue to evolve; after all, who still uses Windows 95 on a 486?

Don't need that fancy crap, I still use DR DOS on a 286. I've got a vintage Apple IIe that's ready as a backup in case the IBM box fails.

And I don't need a computer to write a letter! I have a typewriter for that.

;)

[JPenn]

I don't believe that modelling has hit its limits, although I'm with a lot of others her that think it's not being pushed too hard.

Hey amps are amps. I have used Flextones with lots of success. I have used Twins & 50 watt Marshalls with success.

If I had to gear up for a small tour backing a singer/songwriter I'd probably use a Flextone with a Shortboard. It can cover a lot of different sounds and effects in a package that's easy to transport and easy/quick to set up. The focus wouldn't really be on me, so I'm not sure anyone would know the difference between a modeller or tube amp.

For a gig where there was more emphasis on guitar, I'd probably go all out and do the high dollar stuff!!!

[ford]

My view is that some of them sound good at low volumes.
On stage they have a nasty habit (haven't heard the Vox stuff) of coming over as weak, thin and completely failing to cut through with any authority.
This seem to be the most simple problem to solve:D

Best, Pete.

I just heard a band play a show with one guy using a Vox Valvetronix 60 I believe. He was a rythem player and his tone was thin and not very nice. The other guitar player in the band was using a Dr. Z Route 66 head into a Marshall 4x10 cab... his tone was glorious.... even my non musician friends could hear the buzziness of the Vox Valvetronix...

rock

bford

[Troubleman]

the only mod amps i can stand are the Vox amps

There is no second for me, i prefer tubes and always will

The Hughes & Kettner ZenTera isn't bad either. If they'd stop breaking down, Fender Cyber-Twins and get some decent sounds. In general, I'll stick with Budda, Fuchs, and Marshall tube amps thank you.:AOK

Peace,

jb

[TieDyedDevil]

Unfortunately, Blue Tone is out of business

Too bad about that. Intriguing product, at least on paper. I was never able to find one to play.

In retrospect, I'm kinda glad I didn't get one... Didn't he pot his PCBs to protect his proprietary technology? (ISTR having read that in one of the guitar mag reviews.) Owners are gonna be SOL if that's true...

[myles111]

It seems that the digital method (amp modeling) of re-producing amp tones has not really shown any substantial improvements in quite some time, which indicates that maybe the technology has reached its limitation.

Outside of tweaking the current technologies that have been in place the past few years, I have not seen anything new on the horizon that makes me feel that we are ready for the next big thing in amp modeling.

I understand these companies, like Line 6 bring out the ads (marketing) to make you think they are progressing, but these only seem like very minor tweaks intended to keep sales moving forward.

Anyone have any information to offer, if indeed this technology is showing any promise to get us "Tube Lovers" to make the jump? :eek:


Anytime digital processors are imbedded into a product there is no ceiling.

[Electric I]

What do people think of these samples? http://www.award-session.com/sessionette.html Unfortunately, Blue Tone is out of business, so Session is the only upmarket UK SS amp I'm aware of.

The samples sound damn fine to me & since I have the newest version of the JD10 preamp, it's easy to believe the amp/combo version kills as well.

[rockon1]

As far as Im concerned the whole modeling concept is flawed. It never had anywhere to go in the first place.

[vinney57]

As far as Im concerned the whole modeling concept is flawed. It never had anywhere to go in the first place.

The 18th Century called... they'd like their attitude back.

[rockon1]

The 18th Century called... they'd like their attitude back.


Should I consider this a personal attack?

[LaXu]

Well, unless you're really critical, you can do it with just about any amp, and look at a pedal if you have to. But I can think of several amps off-hand that can in-fact cover those tones sufficiently>

DSL50
XTC
Stiletto
PV Classic (really close)
Boogie Road King

Now, whether I actually like these amps, is another story, but could I play 'daytripper' on any of their cleans, and then the next song, go to Slash? Yes. Would anyone be out there with a Droop Dog voice going? "That's not a real beatles tone"? I hope not.

Whoops, didn't mean to get off track.
:worried

I've been wondering this for a while. When people talk about modelers they always mention how versatile they are. They do go from Fender to Vox to Marshall to Mesa to whatever, right? But is that really what we need? I don't think I've ever heard someone say "you played great but that clean you have didn't sound like a blackface Fender at all." There are lots of simple tube amps that are well suited for many genres. No, they don't do Fender, Vox, Marshall and Mesa in one box but do they really even have to? I say no, as long as the sound is nice. There's always going to be compromises, I don't think my Diezel has the best cleans I've heard but it does make up for it in the distortion department. It's a compromise but then again so are modelers.

[Benlevy]

There's a big difference between the player being happy with a modeler (or any amp for that matter) and the audience noticing any detailed nuance about the tone. The standard is lower for the audience; they are much easier to satisfy tonewise. As for the player, they have to feel it in their hands too. If you aren't happy with the tone, it will grate your nerves all night and you won't feel good about the gig, even if people are telling you they loved your band and you sounded great. So forget the audience.

The feel seems to be missing among other things. And there's the psychology of whether a respectable guitarist can use a modeler and not feel like a lame newbie because everyone uses tubes. Thank goodness I'm immune to that. I play with a tube junkie Marshall freak (that's not a bad thing! He has the $$$) who most times has me wanting high-dollar stuff, but I'll use a cheap lame POS if it sounds/feels good to me. I want to use a modeler, but haven't tried one that felt right as well as sounded good. I'm hoping an AxeFx will do it, but am glad they have the 30-day return period. Something else that's attactive about the modelers: you can get any of those wide variety of sounds with a single stomp, no endless tweeking before every song.

[Turbo Gerbil]

They do go from Fender to Vox to Marshall to Mesa to whatever, right? But is that really what we need? I don't think I've ever heard someone say "you played great but that clean you have didn't sound like a blackface Fender at all."

Why not use a modeller to adjust the tone to what is most appropriate to the song being played, *especially* if you are playing original music and you have the freedom to make the tone serve the song?

[Red Planet]

There's a big difference between the player being happy with a modeler (or any amp for that matter) and the audience noticing any detailed nuance about the tone. The standard is lower for the audience; they are much easier to satisfy tonewise. As for the player, they have to feel it in their hands too. If you aren't happy with the tone, it will grate your nerves all night and you won't feel good about the gig, even if people are telling you they loved your band and you sounded great. So forget the audience.

The feel seems to be missing among other things. And there's the psychology of whether a respectable guitarist can use a modeler and not feel like a lame newbie because everyone uses tubes. Thank goodness I'm immune to that. I play with a tube junkie Marshall freak (that's not a bad thing! He has the $$$) who most times has me wanting high-dollar stuff, but I'll use a cheap lame POS if it sounds/feels good to me. I want to use a modeler, but haven't tried one that felt right as well as sounded good. I'm hoping an AxeFx will do it, but am glad they have the 30-day return period. Something else that's attactive about the modelers: you can get any of those wide variety of sounds with a single stomp, no endless tweeking before every song.


Ben you really need to come up with Eric one day to the Beasley House of Tone and bring your POD. We can hook it all up and just see what sounds like what. I'd like to hear the differences. :dude

[stratovarius]

I've been wondering this for a while. When people talk about modelers they always mention how versatile they are. They do go from Fender to Vox to Marshall to Mesa to whatever, right? But is that really what we need?

It's not what I need or want at all. I always liked the layout of the SansAmp PSA-1 that lets you manipulate basic tonal characteristics rather than select specific amp simulations. I'd like something like the PSA-1 that goes much, much deeper.

With this type of setup, you could still have specific amp models that are nothing more than presets. I realize that you can kind of still get to the same place with the current offerings, but it just doesn't align with how I think about it.

[Paul Conway]

Too bad about that. Intriguing product, at least on paper. I was never able to find one to play.

In retrospect, I'm kinda glad I didn't get one... Didn't he pot his PCBs to protect his proprietary technology? (ISTR having read that in one of the guitar mag reviews.) Owners are gonna be SOL if that's true...

Shame the website's no longer there. The samples sounded great. Basically, there were problems finding a factory as the UK manufacturer went overseas. Shame - it seemed to be a product with a future.

[Paul Conway]

The 18th Century called... they'd like their attitude back.

That's the funniest thing I've read all day. (-;

[Paul Conway]

The samples sound damn fine to me & since I have the newest version of the JD10 preamp, it's easy to believe the amp/combo version kills as well.

With rising petrol prices and traffic congestion, I am seriously thinking about just getting a jd10 and taking that, a crybaby, a tuner and a Reverend Slingshot to the rehearsal rooms via push-bike. How does the jd10 compare to, say, a POD or Sansamp?

[Benlevy]

Hey Red, I'm always up for a jam, and Eric has nothing but good things to say about The Beasley House of Tone. :)

If a modeler could cough up the tones and feel, I'm there. Of course it'll go through a tube power amp. Eric loves the sound of his 800, but I'm not ready to go deaf. I need three or four good tones, and at reasonable volume. The effects would be gravy. I'll use an all-tube amp instead if there's one that does three or four good tones at reasonable volume without having to sell my car...

[Rod]

I have yest to hear a modeller that sounds as good as a Pritchard SS amp...

[Rod]

mispel..."yet" sorry

[Chadley]

Not an amp as such but I thought NI's Guitar Rig was a major step forward in modelling technology.

Ditto.

[electronpirate]

They do go from Fender to Vox to Marshall to Mesa to whatever, right? But is that really what we need? I don't think I've ever heard someone say "you played great but that clean you have didn't sound like a blackface Fender at all." It's a compromise but then again so are modelers.

Nothing wrong with this attitude, but this is still at the 'you don't get it' point.

Of COURSE you can get close to where the audience doesn't give a shit when playing these songs. This has always been conceded.

But there are folks (myself included) who want to NAIL DOWN the tone. At least as close as possible. And do it in a most toneful and efficient way. That means a good modeler.

No, noone would come up to me and say 'Damn you nailed the SuperLead sound on that', but every once in awhile, I have a few folks come up and say 'you sound JUST like every song that you play'. This is all I need.

Certainly I love to have my own tone, which I do quite often. But on the other side, it is much less distracting to have 'right there' tone on bullshit cover songs rather than try to have the illusion of independence and say 'oh, I'm playing someone else's songs, but my tone is MINE'.

EP

[jezzzz2003]

I plug into a modeller every now and then to remind myself how bad they really are,

Its usually for a customer interested in versatility,
most of them are amazed by the tone and cant get the grin off their faces, at the same time Im laughing inside and thinking "youre actually gonna buy this?"

Different strokes for different folks though, youve just seen a good example of that.

[rockon1]

That's the funniest thing I've read all day. (-;


Im glad you think so. It was directed at me and I considered it offensive.

[John Phillips]

But on the other side, it is much less distracting to have 'right there' tone on bullshit cover songs rather than try to have the illusion of independence and say 'oh, I'm playing someone else's songs, but my tone is MINE'.
I'm exactly the other way round. Distraction to me would be thinking about how 'close' a sound is to some other, rather than just playing with what I've got. But bad tone does put me off.

But there are folks (myself included) who want to NAIL DOWN the tone. At least as close as possible. And do it in a most toneful and efficient way. That means a good modeler.I still find it odd that anyone should think that a digitally-modeled sound is 'as close as possible' to a particular tube amp.

Any fairly versatile tube channel switcher on the clean channel sounds far closer to a Fender than a Line6 modeling a Fender does, IMO. (Repeat for dirty channel and Marshall). And certainly more toneful.

I'm not talking about the sound, I'm talking about the tone. I'd far rather have a similar sound with good tone than an exact sound with bad tone, no matter what the musical context.

To me, modelers hit the ceiling regarding tone a long time ago, or maybe started out that way. It's just the sounds which are getting more developed IMO.

Just my opinion, no offense intended.

[MikeyG]

I got a Vetta a few months back.

I hopped over to Institute of Noise to ask if there was a modeling amp that 100% replicates tubes, in every way, sitting in Line6's workshop. Not to stir things up, I really thought that most there would concede that they're great for what they do, but just can't reproduce tube quality tone 100%.

I got reamed like you wouldn't believe. Many (most?) are convinced we're already there.

There's still quite a ways to go.

I'm a champion of that technology. Who wouldn't want all eras of Marshall, Vox, Fender, Mesa, Dumble and Trainwreck all at your feet, and 100% accurate, with good quality built-in effects??? I do!

I have a feeling Line6 probably has a prototype of an amp that DOES nail tubes 100% but they can't yet afford to mass produce it, and make a decent profit.

Here's where the improvements are needed.

1) Mids. None of the modelers seem to capture the warmth and punch and sing of mids. They all sound cold in the mids.

2) Compression. One good trick I learned at Institute of Noise is to add compression in front of every patch. It's true. It does make it more tubey. But why have to add it in every time? Build it in.

3) Details in the top end. The clarity, brilliance, sweetness of a tube amp's top end isn't there yet.

4) Bloom. The natural feedback and harmonic overtones of tubes as the notes sustain and then die out.

5) Feel. The reaction between the player and the amp. They all feel somewhat stiff to me.

I don't think we're too far from the end of the curve. When we get there, and I think we will, I will sell all my tube amps.

[Miles]

I've been wondering this for a while. When people talk about modelers they always mention how versatile they are. They do go from Fender to Vox to Marshall to Mesa to whatever, right? But is that really what we need? I don't think I've ever heard someone say "you played great but that clean you have didn't sound like a blackface Fender at all." There are lots of simple tube amps that are well suited for many genres. No, they don't do Fender, Vox, Marshall and Mesa in one box but do they really even have to? I say no, as long as the sound is nice. There's always going to be compromises, I don't think my Diezel has the best cleans I've heard but it does make up for it in the distortion department. It's a compromise but then again so are modelers.


yeah, I agree.

I get everything I need from my guitar into a single channel w/ boost 30 watter Black Pearl, or my Classic 50. I don't care if they're mesa/marshall/fender "like". It just doesn't matter. If I like the tone, the sounds and versatility will be there.

[MikeyG]

I would think if you played in a top 40 type band, you'd need all those tones.

[Nick Patterson]

My view is that some of them sound good at low volumes.
On stage they have a nasty habit (haven't heard the Vox stuff) of coming over as weak, thin and completely failing to cut through with any authority.
This seem to be the most simple problem to solve:D

Best, Pete.

This is usually because the individual has not set the EQ correctly. The one downside of mine is I have to set the mids between 7 and 9 to cut through well. Not sure why, just a quirk I guess.

[epluribus]

I'm a champion of that technology. Who wouldn't want all eras of Marshall, Vox, Fender, Mesa, Dumble and Trainwreck all at your feet, and 100% accurate, with good quality built-in effects??? I do!

Been there too. Thought my CyberTwin would be an amp museum in a box. Nope, just a great amp in a box, but it took yours truly forever to figure that out. :)

I have a feeling Line6 probably has a prototype of an amp that DOES nail tubes 100%

Locked up in Area 51...

but they can't yet afford to mass produce it, and make a decent profit.

Here's where the improvements are needed.

Not to be contrary, cuz I agree with this list for most modellers. However...

2) Compression. One good trick I learned at Institute of Noise is to add compression in front of every patch. It's true. It does make it more tubey. But why have to add it in every time? Build it in.

The CT's Drive menu lets you deep edit this characteristic by simply selecting a "circuit" as squishy as you want, sometimes even impossibly so. But I agree bigtime, that's a great tip--lacking deep-edit like that, use a comp to build in the feel.



3) Details in the top end. The clarity, brilliance, sweetness of a tube amp's top end isn't there yet.



For you CT users, try your "Ultra Clean" in the FX menu, and set all the paramaters fast and low. You can actually enhance this behavior so it makes an amp sound like it's ten feet away when it's all the way across the room. Ditto the subtle chorus of the power tubes. BTW, optimum pup output and accurate gain structure on the input levels is crucial IME--but works wonders.



4) Bloom. The natural feedback and harmonic overtones of tubes as the notes sustain and then die out.

5) Feel. The reaction between the player and the amp. They all feel somewhat stiff to me.



See "Drive" menu, above.

I don't think we're too far from the end of the curve. When we get there, and I think we will, I will sell all my tube amps.

Excellent list, may I add a few more?

6) Response to changes in the instrument. The acid test of responsiveness to nuances from the player is how the amp responds to a complete change of guitar. Does it react as a "real" amp would? If it can't do that, IMHO, then it's probably not reacting intuitively to the small things you're doing with your hands either. For all it's achieved, even the Cyber series has a little trouble doing this at such an extreme, though I find it to be one of the best. IMHO, Setups are still best done with a "real" tube amp.

7) Cab sim limits. No matter how hard I try, the 2x12 combo won't sound like a pair of Marshall 4x12s or a single 6 incher. (Works much better DI to PA, however.) Not present enough in the first case, too present in the second--if an amp museum in a box is what you want. Also, to me the Celestions will always sound like Celestions. Good, dramatic, useful, but not a "copy."

9) Manuals. Does any modeller come with decent instructions? :messedup

--Ray

PS--Don't care what DSP does, I ain't sellin' my tubes. :dude

[epluribus]

This is usually because the individual has not set the EQ correctly. The one downside of mine is I have to set the mids between 7 and 9 to cut through well. Not sure why, just a quirk I guess.

Hey Nick, great observation.

OT, sorta...actually, when I'm workin' FOH, I do this even for real tube guys when they're not cuttin' through or the bassman and keys are getting muddy. Seems to carve out turf in the freq band for everybody to live in. IMHO, cutting the bass and boosting the mids on a guitar can do great things for a mix, regardless of gear.

--Ray

[John Phillips]

Who wouldn't want all eras of Marshall, Vox, Fender, Mesa, Dumble and Trainwreck all at your feet, and 100% accurate, with good quality built-in effects???
Me. Not even if it could be done using 100% tube technology, cost next to nothing and weighed as much as a small solid-state combo.

I simply don't care about replicating any of those sounds... and it's not that I don't like them, on the contrary some of those amps sound great. But I have no interest in having them all available, and certainly not '100% accurate'. I just don't need or want that level of detail - especially as they all have flaws and limitations... why replicate those too?

All I want are good sounds - various degrees of clean, light breakup, mild overdrive, heavy distortion etc, with effective enough EQ to be able to dial them how I want. Some form of controllable or switchable power stage would be nice too, for different flavors of compression etc. And I want them with good tone.

I don't own any 'classic' gear, BTW. I just don't understand the obsession with having to nail those sounds.

I would think if you played in a top 40 type band, you'd need all those tones.
I don't agree. All you need is a clean sound, a light-breakup sound, a crunch sound, a smooth midrange overdrive and a scooped heavy distortion and you have all the guitar amp sounds there are, to the degree necessary to play almost any song. You may need to add a fuzz or hard-distortion pedal, plus a few modulations etc to get all the sounds you need for a top 40 band. You'll also need maybe three or four guitars, tops.

But at that point if the sounds aren't close enough to the record, then neither is the singer's voice... and you're going to have problems duplicating a lot of studio production tricks too. You can't make a live band sound exactly like a record, so why get hung up on duplicating the guitar sound?

I honestly just don't get it.

[TieDyedDevil]

I hopped over to Institute of Noise to ask if there was a modeling amp that 100% replicates tubes, in every way, sitting in Line6's workshop. Not to stir things up, I really thought that most there would concede that they're great for what they do, but just can't reproduce tube quality tone 100%.

I got reamed like you wouldn't believe. Many (most?) are convinced we're already there.

For future reference, you might want to avoid walking into a church during a sermon to strike up a conversation about how there is no god... LOL :)

There's still quite a ways to go.

I agree.

I've gone so far (you can probably find my full argument using search) as to assert that it's likely that no modeling technology will ever be 100% authentic and accurate - not because of limitations in technology but rather because of limitations in knowledge. People who know how to use tubes in a circuit are still a dime a dozen even now, roughly forty or fifty years after tubes became "obsolete". People who understand how and why tubes work, starting from first principles, are a dying (literally) breed.

I'm a champion of that technology. Who wouldn't want all eras of Marshall, Vox, Fender, Mesa, Dumble and Trainwreck all at your feet, and 100% accurate, with good quality built-in effects??? I do!

I'm pretty sure I don't. It'd be a nice coup from a technical viewpoint, but there really aren't a lot of different amps that I like. Give me a nice Fender clean tone and I'm happy. Give me that tone and a nice selection of effects in a two-pound box that I can plug into a PA and I'll be ecstatic.

The Fender/Boss pedals announced at NAMM are intriguing. I'm curious as to how that Deluxe Reverb pedal will sound into a full-range amp or PA.

I have a feeling Line6 probably has a prototype of an amp that DOES nail tubes 100% but they can't yet afford to mass produce it, and make a decent profit.

I'd be surprised. (See above)

Besides, they're getting plenty of mileage out of tacking on features and coming up with alternative packages...

Here's where the improvements are needed.

1) Mids. None of the modelers seem to capture the warmth and punch and sing of mids. They all sound cold in the mids.

2) Compression. One good trick I learned at Institute of Noise is to add compression in front of every patch. It's true. It does make it more tubey. But why have to add it in every time? Build it in.

3) Details in the top end. The clarity, brilliance, sweetness of a tube amp's top end isn't there yet.

4) Bloom. The natural feedback and harmonic overtones of tubes as the notes sustain and then die out.

5) Feel. The reaction between the player and the amp. They all feel somewhat stiff to me.

I think several of these points have more to do with application and programming than to the underlying technology. Items 1 and 4 in particular are affected dramatically by performance volume. The Fletcher-Munson effect tells us that our perception of B/M/T balance varies with overall SPL. And bloom, I believe, cannot be discussed without considering the interaction between guitar and amp which of course depends upon a certain volume level. There are certain behaviors of a live guitar/amp rig that will never be preserved as the volume decreases.

Item 2 (compression) illustrates the gap between modelers and tube amps. There is no compressor in a tube amp, yet the amp exhibits compression because of the way its components behave. Adding a compressor to a modeler's patch is a band-aid solution for the fact that the modeler really isn't accurate enough to capture that aspect of the modeled amp's behavior.

Item 3 (high-end detail) is probably the easiest to fix. This could be done today by throwing more money at the problem. Better converters and higher sample (and processing rates) would fix this. Vendors who still sell modeling products with this defect are betting that their customers are more interested in low cost than in a detailed high-end response.

Item 5 (feel) is probably the most subjective. Not all modelers suffer equally in this area. In fact, some modelers have a better feel than some tube amps. Remember, tubes alone do not make a great amp.

[quote=MikeyG;2060387] I don't think we're too far from the end of the curve. When we get there, and I think we will, I will sell all my tube amps.

It depends on how you define "the end of the curve". If you're talking about the ability to accurately emulate a real tube amp, capturing the interaction of the various stages, the behavior of the tubes and transformers under a wide range of steady-state and transient conditions, and - especially - the complex electro-mechanical behavior of the speaker(s) and cab... I'd say that the current technology is nowhere near being able to do most of that.

OTOH, if you define "the end of the curve" as being "good enough" for performance and recording, then I think the latest generation of modelers is close. Maybe they've already reached that point. Yes, there are some players who will never be satisfied without the smell of hot tubes and the mojo of a real tube amp cranked to 117 dB. But there are a lot of players who can do just fine without the last 5% or 10% difference between "good enough" and "perfection".

Ultimately a modeler is a tool like any other. The question is: does it really have to behave like a perfect copy of a great tube amp? Personally, there are situations where I'll use a modeler in preference to an "authentic" rig. Weight and size is a big factor in that decision. But I sure as heck don't need (or even want) to switch from a Fender to a Marshall to a Boogie to a Trainwreck to a Dumble over the course of a performance. Heck, I wouldn't do that even if I could afford the real thing and a staff to maintain, transport and prep them for play. Give me a great base tone and a few effects and I'll be happy.

[Deaj]

I'm hopeful about the future of digital modeling for musical instruments. I do agree that todays modelers fall short of the mark. To be honest I could care less what's inside my amp just so long as it provides warm, rich, musical tone and dynamic, tactal interaction. It just so happens that those qualities are best realized in a tube amp at this time. I'm not interested so much in having a host of vintage/rare amps at my disposal (though, if done right, this could be handy in some settings). Rather I believe that as modeling closes the gap and becomes more responsive and musical the potential for new sounds by combining / modifying modeled elements will be the real benefit. That's my 0.02$

I used to own a Line6 POD v.2. I enjoyed it for what it was - a useful direct recording device. I used it mostly for scratch tracking and late night recording or noodling. The interface never really got in the way for me. Early on I built patches that worked well as base tones ranging from dead clean to full on grind - not modeled after anything specific, just built to sit well in a mix. I had a set of dry patches for recording and a set with ambient effects for noodling. I didn't base the patches off of any particular amp type. I just used my ears to combine elements and values to build useable tones and it was pretty well plug and play from there. It was a very useful tool and well worth the money spent! I eventually sold it to help fund the purchase of a Fuchs ODS amp - no regrets there. :)

[MikeyG]

I've seen many arguments that it's impossible to model the interactions of the various components in a signal chain. If that's true (I'm not an engineer, it may well be) then we'll never get to 100%.

I've definitely noticed a point of diminishing returns in the latest generations of modeling ... the most popular ones, at least most popular to former tube players, are the ones where tubes are used either in the preamp, or plugged into a separate power amp (like Axe-FX). To me that's cheating! At least it's not fair to compare yourself to companies that do everything via modeling, like Line6. I've considered checking out the Axe-FX, because it seems like it has the best of both worlds

Yeah, someone who plays one style of music, that can be covered with one amp and a couple pedals, will probably never have use for a modeler. For example, I use my Vetta primarily for late night low volume stuff, so as not to disturb my family. It's a perfect tool for that, because at that low volume, the lines between modeling and tubes blur. In fact modeling has a huge edge, in that tube amps simply cannot produce tones at that low a level. I play tunes from the 50s to today, so I like having all those various tones available to me.

On the church comment, yeah, I had no idea that it was that serious of a topic!! :)

[MikeyG]

Well, to reply to John Phillips and TieDyedDevil in one reply, you may not have a need for all those tones. But there are tons of people who do. Heck even if it's simply a want and not a need.

Another thing I brought up as a suggestion for future enhancements is to make the modeling amps 'a la carte'. In other words, buy the amp shell, and buy a software 'bundle' that chooses, for example, 6 amp models that you would actually use. And 4 effects that you would actually use.

With the technology they have now, this would easily be doable, and it would satisfy the "I just need a good basic tone" people and the "I gotta have it all" types equally.

The "I just need a good basic tone" people may never have a need to come over to modeling, which is fine. No one is twisting anyone's arm. I do think that people who have an emotional connection to tubes do tend to squirm a bit at the very mention of ANYONE stating that they'd sell their tube amps once modeling was 'good enough'. And as stated many times here, one man's "good enough" is another man's "far from it".

[Paul Conway]

Im glad you think so. It was directed at me and I considered it offensive.

Whoa. Sorry, man. Not for me to compound the perceived slight. My apologies.

[John Phillips]

I definitely don't have an emotional connection to tubes - I like solid-state analog, and if I could find a solid-state amp that sounded as good as my tube amps, and had the same sort of build quality and pure class (possibly a difficult concept to explain!), I would own one. In fact, I've owned many solid-state amps in the past and may get another one anyway - there are a few I like enough. The problem with tubes is the diminishing availability of (what I would call) good tubes. It's not yet a very serious issue, but I suspect it will be within my playing lifetime. Sadly, I think any chance of really serious development and acceptance of better analog solid-state amps has gone now, because the marketing is all driven by this 'accurate' modeling concept. Many people don't even seem to be aware that solid-state and digital are not the same thing (even though digital amps use solid-state hardware).

I also had great hopes for digital, originally - to create sounds that could not be done either with tube or solid-state - I'm thinking of the synth-like sounds on the Roland VG8. This direction really doesn't seem to have been explored since then, instead all the R&D has gone into these IMO pointless, "accurate" reproductions of vintage gear.

But it would also have to sound good for me to be interested in using one. I don't think the VG8 sounds did really, and I haven't heard anything in conventional amp modeling to make me think that's changed either.

[Miles]

I definitely don't have an emotional connection to tubes - I like solid-state analog, and if I could find a solid-state amp that sounded as good as my tube amps, and had the same sort of build quality and pure class (possibly a difficult concept to explain!), I would own one. In fact, I've owned many solid-state amps in the past and may get another one anyway - there are a few I like enough. The problem with tubes is the diminishing availability of (what I would call) good tubes. It's not yet a very serious issue, but I suspect it will be within my playing lifetime. Sadly, I think any chance of really serious development and acceptance of better analog solid-state amps has gone now, because the marketing is all driven by this 'accurate' modeling concept. Many people don't even seem to be aware that solid-state and digital are not the same thing (even though digital amps use solid-state hardware).

I also had great hopes for digital, originally - to create sounds that could not be done either with tube or solid-state - I'm thinking of the synth-like sounds on the Roland VG8. This direction really doesn't seem to have been explored since then, instead all the R&D has gone into these IMO pointless, "accurate" reproductions of vintage gear.

But it would also have to sound good for me to be interested in using one. I don't think the VG8 sounds did really, and I haven't heard anything in conventional amp modeling to make me think that's changed either.

Agreed. Bottom Line. Digital: Brilliant Idea, bad reality, hope it gets better for reasons stated above.

[Scott Peterson]

I've stayed off this thread.

It's the converted vs. the will-never-convert vs. the not-so-bad-as-long-as-you-don't-need-to-convert.

:D

Will a modeler ever match or exceed a given amp it is modeling?

No.

BUT - who gives a hoot if it will or not. If that's your angle on this, you'll smugly put your feet up on the desk and throw that out every time and know in your heart that you are right. Because you are.

BUT that begs the issue. And it's a bit silly.

Let's just think in terms of tube amps. Heck, choose one. Pick a given Fender Twin. Okay. What year is it? SF or BF? What shape is it in? Will this specific Twin sound good/bad/okay? Dunno. It'll be a crap shoot, just like it always is/was. Holds true with most ANY tube amp. From the boutique side to the straight up PCB side (though much less on the PCB side; they are much more uniform from amp to amp, but give up less detail, bloom, swirl and all the other stuff that is the meat of the topics on this thread).

The key to any "amp" isn't the tubes. It isn't this or that. It is the whole rig, the player, the guitar. It's a system, a virtual bio-system of tone. It is NOT the exclusive right of those with $1500+ boutique amps. (I have heard plenty of cats with $2500+ guitars, $3,000+ pedals, +$200 cords, and $2500 amps/cabs sound utterly dreadful).

Look at any pro-level player's pedalboard; on many you'll see some Line 6 delays. Check the real recording notes and you'll see plenty of POD's and Amp Farms. Good or bad, it isn't modeling vs. Tube amp.

It's tools.

And you don't have to like them. You don't have to use them. You don't have to want them. And they are the end all/be all. They are not the replacements for tube amps. They cannot do this and that in a superior manner vs. anything else.

It's about the end result, the thing that we call music.

I get all the fun of arguing about this topic, and I stand with feet on both sides of the fence myself. I get both camps, and have been on either side of the fence over the years.

What this is is an oversimplified way of approaching a system that generates music by a guitarist. You can do things with modeling you could never do in "real life"; you can do things with tube amps you could never really pull off to the same degree with modeling rigs.

I say, pffft to the whole "debate" and just make some damn noise and enjoy it.

In fact, after work today I'll fire up my POD XTL into my tube Atomic/Tone-Tools 112 rig and play my Melancon loudly and smile. Not to prove a point, or win some arguement/debate. Nope. Far more simple reason - to make music.

Peace.

[TieDyedDevil]

Well, to reply to John Phillips and TieDyedDevil in one reply, you may not have a need for all those tones. But there are tons of people who do. Heck even if it's simply a want and not a need.

Another thing I brought up as a suggestion for future enhancements is to make the modeling amps 'a la carte'. In other words, buy the amp shell, and buy a software 'bundle' that chooses, for example, 6 amp models that you would actually use. And 4 effects that you would actually use.

With the technology they have now, this would easily be doable, and it would satisfy the "I just need a good basic tone" people and the "I gotta have it all" types equally.

The "I just need a good basic tone" people may never have a need to come over to modeling, which is fine. No one is twisting anyone's arm. I do think that people who have an emotional connection to tubes do tend to squirm a bit at the very mention of ANYONE stating that they'd sell their tube amps once modeling was 'good enough'. And as stated many times here, one man's "good enough" is another man's "far from it".


Personally I don't care whether or not a modeler can do 3 billion different sounds, so long as there's one sound that I can fit into the way I play guitar. The rest of the sounds are just there: they don't cost anything and they don't take up any space. And if someday I get bored with my one good sound, maybe I can find something else to inspire me. And that's OK. It works for me, and it works for the folks who - for whatever reason - really do need (or want) the digital equivalent of a warehouse full of gear. It's all good.

I'm even willing to invest a bit more time in evaluating a new modeler to find out whether it might contain something of use to me. I figure an hour is about the most time I'd be willing to spend. If I can't find a workable tone in the modeler in that amount of time, I probably never will. And that's really giving a modeler the benefit of the doubt. The added complexity means that I have to invest my time in climbing the modeler's learning curve before even forming an opinion. A tube amp is a lot easier in that respect: I can form a first impression in thirty seconds and explore most of the amp's sonic territory in a few minutes. (Yes, I don't play with complex amps.)

For me, the benefits of modeling have more to do with portability than flexibility. I love tube amps, but am first in line to point out what a PITA they are to lug up and down narrow stairwells.

My point, though, was not so much about disinterest in the palette of potential sounds, but rather a lack of concern for whether that palette includes spot-on emulations of iconic amplifiers. When I turn to the modeler's broad palette for inspiration, I'm more interested in how the model responds to my playing than whether it's an accurate representation of some particular instance of a particular tube amp that I'd never have a chance to play anyhow. If the model works within a musical context and doesn't make me fight it to get the sounds I want, that's good enough for me.

[TieDyedDevil]

I've stayed off this thread.

It's the converted vs. the will-never-convert vs. the not-so-bad-as-long-as-you-don't-need-to-convert.

:D

Will a modeler ever match or exceed a given amp it is modeling?

No.

BUT - who gives a hoot if it will or not. If that's your angle on this, you'll smugly put your feet up on the desk and throw that out every time and know in your heart that you are right. Because you are.

BUT that begs the issue. And it's a bit silly.

Let's just think in terms of tube amps. Heck, choose one. Pick a given Fender Twin. Okay. What year is it? SF or BF? What shape is it in? Will this specific Twin sound good/bad/okay? Dunno. It'll be a crap shoot, just like it always is/was. Holds true with most ANY tube amp. From the boutique side to the straight up PCB side (though much less on the PCB side; they are much more uniform from amp to amp, but give up less detail, bloom, swirl and all the other stuff that is the meat of the topics on this thread).

The key to any "amp" isn't the tubes. It isn't this or that. It is the whole rig, the player, the guitar. It's a system, a virtual bio-system of tone. It is NOT the exclusive right of those with $1500+ boutique amps. (I have heard plenty of cats with $2500+ guitars, $3,000+ pedals, +$200 cords, and $2500 amps/cabs sound utterly dreadful).

Look at any pro-level player's pedalboard; on many you'll see some Line 6 delays. Check the real recording notes and you'll see plenty of POD's and Amp Farms. Good or bad, it isn't modeling vs. Tube amp.

It's tools.

And you don't have to like them. You don't have to use them. You don't have to want them. And they are the end all/be all. They are not the replacements for tube amps. They cannot do this and that in a superior manner vs. anything else.

It's about the end result, the thing that we call music.

I get all the fun of arguing about this topic, and I stand with feet on both sides of the fence myself. I get both camps, and have been on either side of the fence over the years.

What this is is an oversimplified way of approaching a system that generates music by a guitarist. You can do things with modeling you could never do in "real life"; you can do things with tube amps you could never really pull off to the same degree with modeling rigs.

I say, pffft to the whole "debate" and just make some damn noise and enjoy it.

In fact, after work today I'll fire up my POD XTL into my tube Atomic/Tone-Tools 112 rig and play my Melancon loudly and smile. Not to prove a point, or win some arguement/debate. Nope. Far more simple reason - to make music.

Peace.


:dude

Nice post!

[MikeyG]

Personally I don't care whether or not a modeler can do 3 billion different sounds, so long as there's one sound that I can fit into the way I play guitar. The rest of the sounds are just there: they don't cost anything and they don't take up any space. And if someday I get bored with my one good sound, maybe I can find something else to inspire me. And that's OK. It works for me, and it works for the folks who - for whatever reason - really do need (or want) the digital equivalent of a warehouse full of gear. It's all good.

I'm even willing to invest a bit more time in evaluating a new modeler to find out whether it might contain something of use to me. I figure an hour is about the most time I'd be willing to spend. If I can't find a workable tone in the modeler in that amount of time, I probably never will. And that's really giving a modeler the benefit of the doubt. The added complexity means that I have to invest my time in climbing the modeler's learning curve before even forming an opinion. A tube amp is a lot easier in that respect: I can form a first impression in thirty seconds and explore most of the amp's sonic territory in a few minutes. (Yes, I don't play with complex amps.)

For me, the benefits of modeling have more to do with portability than flexibility. I love tube amps, but am first in line to point out what a PITA they are to lug up and down narrow stairwells.

My point, though, was not so much about disinterest in the palette of potential sounds, but rather a lack of concern for whether that palette includes spot-on emulations of iconic amplifiers. When I turn to the modeler's broad palette for inspiration, I'm more interested in how the model responds to my playing than whether it's an accurate representation of some particular instance of a particular tube amp that I'd never have a chance to play anyhow. If the model works within a musical context and doesn't make me fight it to get the sounds I want, that's good enough for me.

Can't disagree with a word of that, at all.

[rob2001]

Modelers will get better, if there is money to be made, they WILL get better. But to me thats good and bad. I think the last thing music needs is to sound even more the same. Even with more supposed versitility, you'd end up with stuff sounding even more the same. Do we want the airwaves and CD players full of guitars that all sound identical? I don't. Just to qualify, I played in a cover band for 20+ years with one amp, a few pedals and a few guitars. The versitility came thru playing, and different settings. My experience with tube amps is that no two, of even the same model sound the same.

Thats part of the diversity that makes us all sound unique. I had the opportunity to work with a guy that had a Vetta. I spent some time with it. Seemed to me every guitar I plugged into it sounded the same. Switching pickups didn't matter. It all sounded like Vetta! He got some very cool sounds from it i'll agree but it would take me a long time to adjust to that kind of rig.
And if I might disagree with some about recording. Now maybe I haven't spent enough time tweeking my Vamp but I can't say it another way, it sounds bad! It puts a strange sheen on the entire recording that you can't get rid of. Ok, I could run it thru a preamp, or use EQ's and stompers to get it better. But if my end result is better with an amp, i'll spend my "tweek time" with a real amp and take my time with mic placement and different mic's. I don't care about convienience either. I want my stuff to sound as good as it can. I'll lift 4x12 cabs around all day long if I end up with a killer track or a great performance. Maybe i'm old school, hard work doesn't bother me! I guess if I couldn't turn my amps up or had health issues, i'd look at that differently.

Somthing else that doesn't get mentioned, an entire new world of sounds is opened up by trying to make a tube amp sound like other amps. Different settings, different speaker setups, different pedal arrangements etc... I can't ever imagine a model thats titled, JCM 800 w/ Siemons el34's,V30's, bright cap clipped, preamp at 3 master at 9, in a medium room, running thru a Timmy set as clean boost!?! Believe it or not, with a Strat and some well thought out EQ moves you'd have a tough time telling my 800 from a Fender in a recording, or you'd certainly never guess it to be an 800. Modeling has a long way to go in that regaurd, the versitility of the same amp. You just can't cover all the territory of an 800 with "hot British".
I appologize to those who have and use modelers. I suffer from the same problem we all have. Everyone thinks what they believe is the true and only right way. People will say they have an open mind about issues but deep down we all think we are correct and everyone else would be better off if they could just figure that out! FORTUNATLY and THANKFULLY thats not the case! What I believe now isn't what I believed 4 years ago and so on.
On a final note, I wish the modeling companies would sh*# or get off the pot! The entire thing is driven by money, not artistic expression. They know they are on the hot topic list and all they have to do to keep the cash rollin in is to come up with an improvement here or there, and start all of us goin at it until even hardcore tube guys just have to buy one to see what the fuss is!

[Benlevy]

I gotta respectfully diagree with you Rob. Two of the same model tube amps can sound the same. Or so close that the difference rounds off to zero. How many bands do I have to see with guitarists using Dual Recs and TSLs and they sound just like the last 100 bands with Dual Recs and TSLs. Modeler use will yield just as diverse tones as tube amps. It's up to the player.

So you think Marshall and Fender are not driven by money?? The crap overdrive and reliability problems of a HRD is artistic expression? Come on, it's all about money period unless you're dealing with a Roccaforte or Aiken type situation where one person is really creating an amp for you. Then again, those amps cost a fortune, they have to make a buck too.

You tried the Vetta and didn't like it. That's fine. But it sounds like deep down inside you may have condemned the technology and no longer have an open mind. That's ok for now with the current state of modelling, but I hope you won't rule them out later if someone makes a breakthrough...

I understand your comments on recording. I don't do any recording, just rehearsal and hopefully some gigs here and there. I need three or four good sounds I can get with one stomp without tons of gear and long setup times. I've been told to get a Fender and a Marshall and use attenuators and ABY boxes and pedals. While tweeking a modeler may take a long time, they're sure simple to gig with.

I agree that digital isn't there yet. I just haven't given up hope that they'll make it one day...

[rob2001]

I gotta respectfully diagree with you Rob. Two of the same model tube amps can sound the same. Or so close that the difference rounds off to zero. How many bands do I have to see with guitarists using Dual Recs and TSLs and they sound just like the last 100 bands with Dual Recs and TSLs. Modeler use will yield just as diverse tones as tube amps. It's up to the player.

So you think Marshall and Fender are not driven by money?? The crap overdrive and reliability problems of a HRD is artistic expression? Come on, it's all about money period unless you're dealing with a Roccaforte or Aiken type situation where one person is really creating an amp for you. Then again, those amps cost a fortune, they have to make a buck too.

You tried the Vetta and didn't like it. That's fine. But it sounds like deep down inside you may have condemned the technology and no longer have an open mind. That's ok for now with the current state of modelling, but I hope you won't rule them out later if someone makes a breakthrough...

I understand your comments on recording. I don't do any recording, just rehearsal and hopefully some gigs here and there. I need three or four good sounds I can get with one stomp without tons of gear and long setup times. I've been told to get a Fender and a Marshall and use attenuators and ABY boxes and pedals. While tweeking a modeler may take a long time, they're sure simple to gig with.

I agree that digital isn't there yet. I just haven't given up hope that they'll make it one day...

I do agree I overstated things sounding the same and should have clarified my point better. It has to do with all the guitars I plugged into that vetta loosing what they were. Sure lots of bands use Boogies and Marshalls but you can tell the difference when the guy has a Tele on VS an LP. Of coarse those lines are blurred with the insane amount of preamp gain guys are using in the mainsteam. And yes indeed, I have condemmed modeling, I've also condemmed Fender amps, Pearl drums and anything with the Digitech logo! I have because in my experience they either sound bad or are unreliable. Thats been my experience. Until I hear different or should I say experience different my opinion won't change. If i'm completly happy with what I have I don't need to have faith that someday i'll change my mind.

[lspaulsp]

I have four quite nice tube amps in the back room and I have to admit, I played a cyber deluxe the other day and I was close to buying it. I was very much floored. Even more than the Carvin SX did me about five years ago.

For a 112 amp it got a sound very quickly I could very much live with and I'm sure would cut thru a mix real well. And I mean live nightly on stage. 99% of the people in the audiance could care less what you play and if you don't wanna drag your Dumble out it's a keeper. For a versitile amp under 1000 it's a serious consideration for someone gigging in a cover band who needs several amps to work with and is on a budget. You know not everyone has $5000 to spend on a 112 amp. (Did I day that?):eek:

[rockon1]

Whoa. Sorry, man. Not for me to compound the perceived slight. My apologies.

No sweat. Im just a little miffed at what I percieve as being insulted for my opinion.

[MikeyG]

No sweat. Im just a little miffed at what I percieve as being insulted for my opinion.

You made a totally dismissive statement with no backup for your argument. Not saying you deserved such a comment, but your comment didn't add any value to the thread whatsoever.

[rockon1]

You made a totally dismissive statement with no backup for your argument. Not saying you deserved such a comment, but your comment didn't add any value to the thread whatsoever.

Read between the lines. I thought it was fairly obvious. Even if it wasnt thats absolutely no reason to insult. Besides if I didnt deserve it why are you bothering to respond?:confused:

[Scott Peterson]

Pssst: Can we drop the perceived insult debate?

Thanks.

[MikeyG]

Read between the lines. I thought it was fairly obvious. Even if it wasnt thats absolutely no reason to insult. Besides if I didnt deserve it why are you bothering to respond?:confused:

Well my non-confrontational reply would've been "Why do you think modeling had nowhere to go?"

It really wasn't "fairly obvious" to me.

Not trying to ride your case here, I'm trying to get at what you meant by that statement.

[Benlevy]

I do agree I overstated things sounding the same and should have clarified my point better. It has to do with all the guitars I plugged into that vetta loosing what they were. Sure lots of bands use Boogies and Marshalls but you can tell the difference when the guy has a Tele on VS an LP. Of coarse those lines are blurred with the insane amount of preamp gain guys are using in the mainsteam. And yes indeed, I have condemmed modeling, I've also condemmed Fender amps, Pearl drums and anything with the Digitech logo! I have because in my experience they either sound bad or are unreliable. Thats been my experience. Until I hear different or should I say experience different my opinion won't change. If i'm completly happy with what I have I don't need to have faith that someday i'll change my mind.

Well said, especially the use of so much preamp gain that all other nuances of tone are lost...

[rockon1]

Well my non-confrontational reply would've been "Why do you think modeling had nowhere to go?"

It really wasn't "fairly obvious" to me.

Not trying to ride your case here, I'm trying to get at what you meant by that statement.


Well,Ive always thought the concept of modeling was "flawed" in a way. Just has always struck me as odd to try and digitally recreate the sound of a particular tube amp.Why digitally recreate what you can have for real? (yes I know the convienience aspect )At least for now. Imagine if modeling amps were all thats left -what would you model? Other modeling amps ? lol! I can see it now-50 years from now someone trying to make a "model" of a particular vintage tube amp without a decent antique amp to work with! At any rate I know how I feel about the subject and Im poor at putting it into words. thats all Ive got on this.
FWIW-I think there are some decent sounding digital amps. My real issue is the concept of "modeling" itself.

[MikeyG]

we digitally recreated analog recordings, and i bet many young people on here never even owned an LP..... even though most audiophiles consider analog to be superior to digital (in the recorded music realm), analog got clobbered. Don't assume tubes will be around forever simply because they sound better ....

[lspaulsp]

Unless you designed the very first preamp/power amps (GE/RCA and others)every origional tube amp design after that point was a recreation (barrowed). Some were tweaked, but they were recreations and interpritations of the origional circuits.
IE tube amp imulations. Some are good some are not. They will get better. At least I think so. We'll see. You're wasting a lot of space argueing about something you can't change.

[Griz]

I say,

I do hope we haven't hit the ceiling just yet. If so it needs a bit of raising.

:messedup

[Attila]

I disagree.
I think that it's just getting started.
EP.
+1

-Attila

[epluribus]

Well,Ive always thought the concept of modeling was "flawed" in a way. Just has always struck me as odd to try and digitally recreate the sound of a particular tube amp.Why digitally recreate what you can have for real? (yes I know the convienience aspect )

Might be able to shed a bit of light here--cuz I can play a zillion amps I could never hope to own. Is DSP truly an "amp museum?" Sorta close, but no cigar IMHO. But it does something very cool--a catalog. Couldn't decide what "my" sound was, so I just blew the details off and started playing the patches that sounded and felt good. Metal, R&B, vintage country...you'd think I'd be playing forty-eleven different rigs right?

Nope. Found out I was gravitating to two sounds: A Deluxe Reverb/Twin and a Marshall Plexi. (Early JCM 800 for hi-gain, but I could get there with the Plexi, and I'm not big hi-gain anyway.) So a few months ago I snagged a Fender/Rivera Deluxe Reverb II--fits like a glove, felt like I'd played it a hundred times. Never woulda got there without try-before-buy modelling.

But moreover, DSP showed me who I'm not. Vox chime, MB Dual Rectifier (SS selected), Sunn Model T, '53 Champ...(gasp)...cool, but I don't get tones out of those anyone would want to hear. Playing 3 out of 4 for real (missing the Sunn,) confirmed what the modeller told me. And if someday I acquire the taste for a hot tweed Champ, which is more probable now that I have "one," I can work with "one" till I pick a real one out.

One final bennie--my Dr. Z patches from a bud with a real Dr. Z. Incredible how accurate they are, nice to be able to play his "amp" and talk to him about it, esp when we get into guitar, FX, and FOH issues. Unfortunately, when he sends me a track that smokes mine, I can't blame it on his Z.

At least for now. Imagine if modeling amps were all thats left -what would you model? Other modeling amps ? lol!

ROFL! :rotflmao Classic, wondered that myself. Will my grandkids model my CyberTwin? What will it sound like?

--Ray

[epluribus]

People who understand how and why tubes work, starting from first principles, are a dying (literally) breed.

+1. Bugs me bigtime.

...Besides, they're getting plenty of mileage out of tacking on features and coming up with alternative packages...

Here's where the improvements are needed.

1) Mids. None of the modelers seem to capture the warmth and punch and sing of mids. They all sound cold in the mids.

2) Compression. One good trick I learned at Institute of Noise is to add compression in front of every patch. It's true. It does make it more tubey. But why have to add it in every time? Build it in.

3) Details in the top end. The clarity, brilliance, sweetness of a tube amp's top end isn't there yet.

4) Bloom. The natural feedback and harmonic overtones of tubes as the notes sustain and then die out.

5) Feel. The reaction between the player and the amp. They all feel somewhat stiff to me.

I think several of these points have more to do with application and programming than to the underlying technology. Items 1 and 4 in particular are affected dramatically by performance volume. The Fletcher-Munson effect tells us that our perception of B/M/T balance varies with overall SPL. And bloom, I believe, cannot be discussed without considering the interaction between guitar and amp which of course depends upon a certain volume level. There are certain behaviors of a live guitar/amp rig that will never be preserved as the volume decreases.

Item 2 (compression) illustrates the gap between modelers and tube amps. There is no compressor in a tube amp, yet the amp exhibits compression because of the way its components behave. Adding a compressor to a modeler's patch is a band-aid solution for the fact that the modeler really isn't accurate enough to capture that aspect of the modeled amp's behavior.

Item 3 (high-end detail) is probably the easiest to fix. This could be done today by throwing more money at the problem. Better converters and higher sample (and processing rates) would fix this. Vendors who still sell modeling products with this defect are betting that their customers are more interested in low cost than in a detailed high-end response.

Item 5 (feel) is probably the most subjective. Not all modelers suffer equally in this area. In fact, some modelers have a better feel than some tube amps. Remember, tubes alone do not make a great amp.

Great stuff, I love the substantive opinion, esp to understand how yours diverged so much from mine. For pure DSP rigs, I agree in several places. BTW, you touched on performance issues, a biggie it seems to me. As a sometime FOH, IMHO DSP is immensely easy to foul up in a mix--talk about error traps. If you mind your basics, you're okay, but we still have some guys mixing with gain knobs. Not exactly a forgiving technology.

Anyhoo, my opinion on the above items was based on a CyberTwin--IMHO an analog channel switcher on steroids with a cybernetic digital control system and just a touch of true DSP for things like the tone stacks and FX. It's also MHO that cybernetic control of analog circuits is a far underrated approach, and I'd love to see it done much more comprehensively, and in a pure tube rig. Like programmable fuel injection for amplifiers.

Give me a great base tone and a few effects and I'll be happy.

Ironically, most of us who've been in the DSP world a while seem to end up pretty much there anyway. But I love being able to explore.

--Ray

[drbob1]

I agree that the concept of modelling is flawed. It's not that there aren't a lot more cpu cycles and memory to throw at it, it's just that a tube amp is not a simple system. It's a highly complex interaction between mechanical/magnetic and electrical systems with multiple interfaces and interactions between them. It's not possible to completely describe the action of a single tube, let alone and amp with hundreds of components all interacting. As soon as you start to simplify to allow a description a programmer can use, you lose some of the complexity and that loses the feel that we value. All other instruments have actually given up on the "emulation" technology. They all use variations of sampling with the instrument acting as trigger. Could we sample for guitar amps? Sure. Would it feel like playing a guitar thru an amplifier to trigger samples with the guitar? I doubt it, it doesn't feel like a tuba to trigger tuba samples with a guitar synth. Can the problem ever be solved? I'd never say never, but for now, I'm holding onto my tube amps and not holding my breath!

[epluribus]

Rather I believe that as modeling closes the gap and becomes more responsive and musical the potential for new sounds by combining / modifying modeled elements will be the real benefit. That's my 0.02$

Hey Deaj, interesting point--the ability create new rigs. New instruments, really, and ultimately new music. But I see it the other way around, sort of like Meatloaf's bike...

With a tube amp, SS, or any analog system, your ability to personally re-invent the instrument, misuse it, explore it, and take us someplace new is limited only by your imagination and ability. But with DSP, you're boxed in by what you're allowed to change in the menues. Is that Rock? I gotta ask myself: Was Meatloaf's Silver-Black Phantom Bike built from a menu? :)

--Ray

[Ah Xoc Kin]

The Hughes & Kettner ZenTera isn't bad either.

I would say it’s pretty good. Out of all the modelling devices I’ve used, analog and digital, it is my favorite. Unlike most modellers, the zenTera does respond to the dynamics in my playing.
It’s a shame that H&K have not supported these amps more thoroughly.

[MikeyG]

H&K just came out with the amp 'That killed modeling' (Switchblade), effectively killing one of their own products (assuming customers buy their sales pitch).

[Ah Xoc Kin]

It’s interesting to see that it includes digital effects. While I liked the amp modelling in the zenTera, I preferred to use my own effects.
Hopefully they have improved them for this new amp.

[Red Planet]

How about a Hand Wired SS Amp?

[MBreinin]

Well, I took out an old rig today, my V-Amp Pro run through the return of an old mid '90s Peavey Studio Pro 112. This was my only rig for about a year and I was always amazed at what I could get from it. Hadn't played it in over a year and I wanted to try it out with my new Gretsches...guitars that I had only played through my tube amps.

I was immediately impressed. Amp models I had never used before, were suddenly very tasty with a different type of guitar. Like before, I found the effects very digital and sterile. So, I just used my outboard echo and reverb effects, along with a compressor and I found all kinds of very juicy and excellent tones. And this is why modelers are cool. How would I know how my 6120DSW or my '58 Annie would sound with a cranked black face twin, or a tweed Champ, or an AC15 unless I had this $200 box that can replicate them to an extent? I wouldn't. With a twist of a knob they are there. I am not a performing musician, I play for personal pleasure. I don't play at very high volumes, and for this type of application...the modeler is simply great. Is it a tube amp? NO, however there are "amps" in that box that I don't own, and that allowed very different sounds to come forth from my guitars. I was really inspired to play and I found some very enjoyable tones and basically had a great day playing. And, in the end...is that not what counts?

Mike

[Ben Furman]

Another thing I brought up as a suggestion for future enhancements is to make the modeling amps 'a la carte'. In other words, buy the amp shell, and buy a software 'bundle' that chooses, for example, 6 amp models that you would actually use. And 4 effects that you would actually use.

I am in total agreement with this. The modular approach allows the manufacturer to streamline product offerings while offering versatility at the same time. Modules could even be offered as "upgrades" when the user changes his/her mind later on.

Personally I don't care whether or not a modeler can do 3 billion different sounds, so long as there's one sound that I can fit into the way I play guitar. The rest of the sounds are just there: they don't cost anything and they don't take up any space.

There is a development cost. Also, in the case of analog hardware emulation, there is a physical cost to complexity. Why should everyone pay for features they're not likely to use in a product just because a company felt like adding them?

This is the same phenomenon that is sweeping the digital music industry. People want targeted product offerings.

And if someday I get bored with my one good sound, maybe I can find something else to inspire me. And that's OK. ... I'm even willing to invest a bit more time in evaluating a new modeler to find out whether it might contain something of use to me. I figure an hour is about the most time I'd be willing to spend. If I can't find a workable tone in the modeler in that amount of time, I probably never will.

I think MikeyG got it about right. Six models is more than most people can realistically use for a set and is probably ample for even the most diverse recording.

I have a Pritchard with six voices, but I really only use three of them on any regular basis. For the most part, I stick with one. There's enough choice that I can branch out on that odd day when I'm feeling like doing something completely different, yet I don't feel lost in a sea of patches. I'm the same as you in that if I don't get it dialed in within a few minutes, then it isn't going to "happen" for me.

For me, the benefits of modeling have more to do with portability than flexibility. I love tube amps, but am first in line to point out what a PITA they are to lug up and down narrow stairwells.

My point, though, was not so much about disinterest in the palette of potential sounds, but rather a lack of concern for whether that palette includes spot-on emulations of iconic amplifiers. When I turn to the modeler's broad palette for inspiration, I'm more interested in how the model responds to my playing than whether it's an accurate representation of some particular instance of a particular tube amp that I'd never have a chance to play anyhow. If the model works within a musical context and doesn't make me fight it to get the sounds I want, that's good enough for me.

I am in total agreement with all of this, and that's precisely why I bought the Pritchard. It doesn't copy anything perfectly, but it has the kind of musical response and feel that make me smile every time I plug into it. Problem is, the amp is too expensive for most folks to want to take the plunge and try one out for themselves....

It makes me curious, though. What would you be willing to pay for something that honestly addressed your requirements above?

I ask because it seems to me that people are a lot more forgiving of inexpensive gear that tries to copy something but only gets 90% of the way there than they are of an product that sounds uniquely good but carries the cost of innovation. I think part of the cost solution may come down to modularizing.

-Ben

[jezzzz2003]

How about a Hand Wired SS Amp?

Ha ha Red, now youre thinking :D

[MikeyG]

The Axe-FX has now effectively refuted this topic of discussion ....

But Line6 may have hit the wall, since they're talking about making a tube amp (sorry couldn't resist) :p

[JPenn]

After being away from modellers for a while, I really have no desire to revisit them right now. I tried an XTLive and it sounded pretty good run thru the front of my Classic 50, but it just give me the "been there, done that" feeling.

The tube head from L6 would not be about furthering the technology, it would be about $$. Too many Atomics sold for their liking I'm sure. I really shouldn't have a problem with that way of thinking, I guess. It seems to be the way of the world. It's not enough to make good money from a business, you have to make all the money it seems.

The Axe-FX is probably a very good unit, the clips sound very good. It would still require I carry a power amp, cabinet and controller so I'm not sure how much easier it is. If they get a combo or head version + a dedicated footswitch I might be more willing to try it out. I would like a "Flextone" version of it also. I've never owned a Vetta because it just really looks like more work than I want to do just to get a tone.

I still have faith that the technology will get better.

[Eagle1]

First up I hate modeling as it stands (I can't get to try an AXFX I'm in the UK ,clips are good but i need to see how it feels first)I think the main problem is the algorithm's aren't up to it as yet .Not the processes necessarily .
The reason for my thinking this is that some old and poorly specked processes still sound better than newer higher (hardware)specked stuff.
Examples of this are the Rocktron Intelifex same CPU as a Peavey profex ???? (so different).The old TC 2290 lexicon PCM60 great sound pitiful speck .In these units it is the software that makes the difference.
So when a computer software designer with the ears of Alexander Dumble and the playing ability of Eric Johnson gets through the door at a major amp manufacturer we may start to get products that are worthy of serious consideration instead of this Line 6 crap.

[drbob1]

Well, they had Mr. Way Huge at Line 6, and it didn't miraculously fix things. I suspect that they constrained him financially till he left (witness the fact that he did a few Katrina auctions with upgraded L6 pedals-I suspect that's where he wanted to go).

One of the problems with modelers is the "price point" issue. The original Eventide Delays are being copied for plug ins because they sounded so darn good, even though their A/D conversion is crap compared to modern cheap processors. Why? Really decent analog circuitry and great studio guys doing the programming. Neither of which Line 6 is ever going to pay for...

[Scott Peterson]

www.fractalaudio.com

There is only a ceiling if you put your head in the sand.

[riverastoasters]

It seems that the digital method (amp modeling) of re-producing amp tones has not really shown any substantial improvements in quite some time, which indicates that maybe the technology has reached its limitation.

No, only one company I know of is even trying to use what, from an engineering point of view, is the current front line technology for this sort of problem.

And, that technology, although a bit tricky to master, does not have any limitations on how accurately it can model analog amps. It should, when fully deployed, flip over all the cards and provide completely accurate models.

The success of less ambitious attacks on the problem, such as the AXE-FX, show that people will settle for considerably less than a fully accurate model; this may be why there is less motivation for musical instrument companies to get hold of the top of the line modeling talent when the WiFi and cell phone developers pay so well for it.

[MikeyG]

The success of less ambitious attacks on the problem, such as the AXE-FX, show that people will settle for considerably less than a fully accurate model; this may be why there is less motivation for musical instrument companies to get hold of the top of the line modeling talent when the WiFi and cell phone developers pay so well for it.

This sounds almost like a back-handed compliment.

Did you not have a good experience with the Axe-FX?

[guitarist58]

I think it's interesting this thread started in November of 2005! :p

[Ken]

I think it's interesting this thread started in November of 2005! :p

Yep...I'm the one who started this Thread sooo very long ago! It keep re-surfacing...Can't seem to put it to bed...


Do I get some kind of award for the longest running thread on TGP? :crazyguy

[MikeyG]

Ken, we should get together. I have an Axe-FX, and I can demonstrate that Modeling has mod def not hit the ceiling. (I realize your query is now 2 years old ....)

I work in White Plains, I'm 1.5 hours away ...

[Ken]

Ken, we should get together. I have an Axe-FX, and I can demonstrate that Modeling has mod def not hit the ceiling. (I realize your query is now 2 years old ....)

I work in White Plains, I'm 1.5 hours away ...

MikeyG...Great would love to get together and have a go at the Axe-FX!
PM me or email me and let me know when we could hook up.

After asking this question soooo long ago maybe I will finally have an answer LOL :p

[Lucidology]

The new Tonelab LE is serving me very well ...

[Moat]

www.fractalaudio.com (http://www.fractalaudio.com)

There is only a ceiling if you put your head in the sand.

Hi Scott - :)

I had an AxeFx (for the 30 day trial, many hours/days of tweaking). My head is not in the sand... and I returned it. I'm no "tube snob" (make my living with modelers/analog pedals thru cheapo SS amps, primarily), I'm adept at tweaking - and I concluded that even the AxeFx's simulations have a considerable ways to go. My analog OD's simply smoked it in terms of touch sensitivity, natural note decay, pleasant harmonics, low-mid compression ("warmth", "fatness", "punch"), sparkle, "dimension"/soundstage, etc.

No comparison, really.

Tonelab LE actually "feels" better to me - warm, punchy (organic?), touch-responsive, with a more gradual and natural distorted note decay. But it's not quite there, either - IMHO - for other reasons. (Although I'm still tweaking on it...)

Each company's modelers' seem to carry their own, signature, un-natural "artifacts" alongside the modeling (or even between divergent products/algorithms within a single manufacturer's product line - like between Line6's old POD 2.0 and the later POD-XT). Each products' "artifacts" characteristically different from the others... but still ultimately identifiable (and bothersome!), nonetheless.

Still waitin'!

[skylabfilmpop]

a giant case of the emperor has no clothes from day one IMO, sorry to be harsh. Good in a pinch or if you need to sketch or write on phones. I need tubes and volts and air and mics and mic pres before I'll let you turn my guitar into ones and zeros!

[Eagle1]

Hi Scott - :)

I had an AxeFx (for the 30 day trial, many hours/days of tweaking). My head is not in the sand... and I returned it. I'm no "tube snob" (make my living with modelers/analog pedals thru cheapo SS amps, primarily), I'm adept at tweaking - and I concluded that even the AxeFx's simulations have a considerable ways to go. My analog OD's simply smoked it in terms of touch sensitivity, natural note decay, pleasant harmonics, low-mid compression ("warmth", "fatness", "punch"), sparkle, "dimension"/soundstage, etc.

No comparison, really.

Tonelab LE actually "feels" better to me - warm, punchy (organic?), touch-responsive, with a more gradual and natural distorted note decay. But it's not quite there, either - IMHO - for other reasons. (Although I'm still tweaking on it...)

Each company's modelers' seem to carry their own, signature, un-natural "artifacts" alongside the modeling (or even between divergent products/algorithms within a single manufacturer's product line - like between Line6's old POD 2.0 and the later POD-XT). Each products' "artifacts" characteristically different from the others... but still ultimately identifiable (and bothersome!), nonetheless.

Still waitin'!

I couldn't agree more and although I have not had the chance to try an AXE FX you have covered my exact concerns .There is nothing worse than being in the audience of a Vetta power gig where the guitars are too loud but you can't here them and at the end of the night you have a Line6 induced headache (shrill indistinct one dimensional come to mind and always recognizable somehow fake.)
I don't rule out the technology but it's got a long way to go for me to buy in to it.

[Scott Peterson]

Moat, it's cool we all have our opinions and it's cool with me that you don't agree with my opinion.... because you are informed about what you are making your opinion about. Other folks should follow your lead, try it before you knock it. That you are using and liking a Tonelab LE though is proof enough that the technology is still moving forward. And that was the OP's topic to discuss.

I think that putting a 'ceiling' on anything related to digital technology is silly from the get-go. That's like saying today's computer is it, they'll never get any faster, better, etc..

[MikeyG]

I think that putting a 'ceiling' on anything related to digital technology is silly from the get-go. That's like saying today's computer is it, they'll never get any faster, better, etc..

Exactly. As long as chip technology advances (pretty safe assumption), so will amp modeling....

Cliff has stated that he knows there are things he can do, mathematically, to make improvements, but there currently isn't enough processing power.

I was chatting with another owner last night. He says, and I agree, that it's not as important to 'nail' an amp's tones, as it is to get many tones you really like, and most importantly, get the tube feel. The Axe-FX succeeds at nailing quite a few good amps. Some it doesn't nail, but the tones are great, nonetheless.

Komets, Dumbles, Wrecks, Alessandros - the more hi-fi amps out there - won't feel challenged just yet. No worries there. The Axe-FX is very responsive, but it still doesn't have the subtleties of the really great tube amps.

Is the Axe-FX the end of the road? No ... it will improve, as will the other companies' products. But for what I have been wanting from a modeler, I've reached that point where I get the playing experience I want (and was previously missing).

[cochese]

To me the problem is that most companies tend to be driven by marketing and sales and not musicians. Line 6 was running ad campaigns in Guitar Player months before they ever released their first product. Roland is another huge company that operates this way. This is not to say that these companies don't make some great and innovative products but when things like market share, profit to cost ratios and other big business axioms enter the equation in the design stage there will always be compomises.

What a big part of the appeal now in this digital revolution is that most of the real upfront cost is in R&D. Once that is finished and products go to market the cost of a software based amplifier, effects unit, recording unit what have you is relatively low compared to an analog based piece of gear. You are really buying a mathmatical equation. This is what is great about software plugins. A Waves bundle can cost you $1500+ and yes they do sound great but what have you purchased. The Emperical Labs Distressor which is a digitally controlled analog compressor has hundreds of components and sells for about $1500 and while it is very flexible it can't give you everything the Waves bundle can. As for the sound beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. It really comes down to everyones choice.

To me where modeling has fallen short is that they have tried to do too much too soon. Believe me I have no love for tubes and any amp that sounds and feels great that I am comfortable using is fine by me. The way I see it they should have just tried to do "electronically" what a tube amp does and skipped trying to model the physics of a speaker cab. There are way too many variables. What cab, the construction, the wood , the speakers, open back, closed back, what microphone, close mic'd, room mic, the perspective of a player in front of a double stack or a combo etc...
Any given tube amp will sound radically different through a different cab or with different speakers. I was never so surprised by this when I plugged my modern amp into the speakers of a vintage Vox AC30. This is why I always had a hard time comparing my Line 6 to the real thing. The better test would be to just plug the modeled Twin reverb into the speakers of a real Twin but you really can't because the amp has been modeled with the speaker in the equation. It's been awhile now and maybe some new units can get around this.

The reason digital works so well with video and photography now is that the format has always been compromised from the start. 3D images converted to 2D. With audio this is not the case. You could listen to the sound of a person speaking in another room and then hear a recording of it and have a hard time telling the difference.

[WeAreOurGear]

Hi Scott - :)

I had an AxeFx (for the 30 day trial, many hours/days of tweaking). My head is not in the sand... and I returned it. I'm no "tube snob" (make my living with modelers/analog pedals thru cheapo SS amps, primarily), I'm adept at tweaking - and I concluded that even the AxeFx's simulations have a considerable ways to go. My analog OD's simply smoked it in terms of touch sensitivity, natural note decay, pleasant harmonics, low-mid compression ("warmth", "fatness", "punch"), sparkle, "dimension"/soundstage, etc.

No comparison, really.

Tonelab LE actually "feels" better to me - warm, punchy (organic?), touch-responsive, with a more gradual and natural distorted note decay. But it's not quite there, either - IMHO - for other reasons. (Although I'm still tweaking on it...)

Each company's modelers' seem to carry their own, signature, un-natural "artifacts" alongside the modeling (or even between divergent products/algorithms within a single manufacturer's product line - like between Line6's old POD 2.0 and the later POD-XT). Each products' "artifacts" characteristically different from the others... but still ultimately identifiable (and bothersome!), nonetheless.

Still waitin'!

Yikes! Someone who is not comparing this to other modulars but to the absolute sound of the amps being modeled? You can't do that! :rotflmao

[MikeyG]

well, if theres one thing i've learned it's that we all hear differently... 500 'nailed' evh tone clips prove that... so wouldn't there naturally be dissention amongst guitarists over which models are accurate?i'd be hard-pressed to nail the tones of the 20-30 amps in the axe-fx.... one man's small difference is another's 'I cannot live with that...'

[guitarman_1]

Im a vintage amp snob, and have had the pleasure of owning almost everything under the sun at one time or another. While tube amps have a certain 3D sound thats hard to duplicate without tubes,I have become a Axe FX convert.It is the most enjoyable amp Ive ever owned.It has incredible models on a few amp, and a few not so incredible, but for sheer tunability, tone and feel, nothing comes close.Will it sound better or react like a Komet or a real Dumble, Yes and no, but its so good I dont care.It wont have that final 3D tone, but it has the feel in spades,and you dont have to have Robben Ford's chops to know it.I have been down the path a long time, tried all the others including the best bang for the $$ Roland Cube 60. Nothing and I mean nothing that models, aproaches the Axe Fx for Tone and feel, and after all. Isnt it all about the tone. At least for me I have a big smile everytime I fire up my rig.Cant say that was always the case with my much loved vintage amps. I guess the proof is in my rig. Most of my vinatge has been sold.
I actually got rid of my pedals, rack effects, and a ton of cables.I have not once missed or wanted to change a thing since I got it.It makes me play more, and I can honestly say its the simplest best rig Ive had.

[stvnscott]

OK, I'm a tube snob. But I still have an opinion...

I love the idea of modelers. When they eventually get there, I will probably convert. At the moment, I emulate the benefits of modelers to get my tone. Unfortunately, it isn't easy, convenient, or light weight.

In the studio, I use a variety of home brew tube amps plugged into a variety of speaker sims. Then I have a plugin chain to simulate the ambience and resonance of mic'd cabinets.

On stage, I use 2 two channel amps with A/B boxes for switching channels and amps. Each amp is turned up enough to give me the stage volume I need for monitoring via power scaling, then run into the PA for the crowd through a speaker sim.

I would love to be able to ditch the multi-amp setup on stage and just run a modeler and powered monitor plus the feed to the PA. HEAVEN!!!

I actually do use a PODxt in the studio sometimes, but only to add layering or odd sounds or when I want something really heavy. All primary tracks are real amps. To get the POD to sound right, I run into a home-brew tube buffer, into the POD, then into a tube mic pre. I guess the studio isn't such a bother, but it would be cool to be able to use a single device all the time instead of moving different amps in and out for different tones...

Haven't tried the AXE-FX yet. But I will eventually.

[pgissi]

The problem with modelling is stilll the same as when I first experienced it way back in 1990 with my first purchase of the Digitech GSP. No this was not a modeller per se but shares the same digital heritage with ADA conversion at its core.

The problem here is simple and the resolution of this would be in violation of the current understanding laws of physics ala Einsteins spooky Action at a distance, specifically, being able to predict an event before it occurs and then creating a timley response to this predicted event and in the case of guitar, the picked or plucked string is the event and the response or action resulted is the rendered tone of course.

The problem with digital is simply that no matter how fast processing gets, it still seems to suffer from inherent processing delay, the rendered tone will always occur post event and today this is on the order of a very small delay but somehow I suspect, is what many dislike and refer to as not feeling correct to them.

What is needed is a technological leap beyond current designs to bring digital to the performance of analogs instantaneous response.

Using computer technology advance is a bad example since we dont expect the degree opf real time response from a pc for most of its functions and applications but playing a guitar is as real time as it gets and this is where digital modelling etc. at least when trying to duplicate the magic of analog electric guitar fails.

Modelling seems to work well with Synths or drums though and thats because the interface is digital, the key is a resistor divider network, not a magnetic field and miniscule ac current.

I have not played the Fractal but have listened to the samples and realize they are samples, subject to the recording process but was not impressed as I expected to be especially since, its 2007. I heard the same artifacting but reasoned it may have occurred in the recording and will keep my mind open here until I try it. I have not touched my old GSP since 91 for guitar anyway. It now sits in a rack collecting dust but has killer delays etc. but still requires ADA conversion so I have found it more useful using it for processing a track or a live source through the FOH.

Once I realized so long ago that digital modelling or processing seemed to get in the way of the purity of an analog process, I abandoned it and the post stating about being in the audience at a Line 6 powered show where the guitars were loud but you still could not hear them, speaks volumes about what I discovered way back when.

Naked, it sounds great but in the context of the band it gets lost and is the most universal criticism of digitaly derived guitar tone.

An Enigma wrapped in a Riddle wrapped in a mystery

I will not comment on the Fractal to any extent other than not really being blown away by the tone of the samples but my gut says, we aint there yet and until we break the laws of physics and can predict when your pick event will be so the proc can trigger note generation exactly as an analog interface does, your tone will still occur in the past, history.

Even expressed in milliseconds, its too late to render the feel that analog gives.

Just as a sidenote, I work in telecom engineering and spend my time getting the audio to its destination on time in voice over IP (voip) applications so your conversation you expect to take place now, can take place now and not in the next 30 seconds and in this packet driven world I see the same problems and the irony is that digital makes it all possible but analog is still the delivery method if its gonna "feel" good, even when your talking on the phone.

P.S. VoIP telephony to the home, yeah it works but try to have a conversation of any length or meaning without the burps and the regular "can you repeat that" or get some critical info to someone when it really counts and you realize analog still kills there.

[TieDyedDevil]

The problem with modelling is stilll the same as when I first experienced it way back in 1990 with my first purchase of the Digitech GSP. No this was not a modeller per se but shares the same digital heritage with ADA conversion at its core.

The problem here is simple and the resolution of this would be in violation of the current understanding laws of physics ala Einsteins spooky Action at a distance, specifically, being able to predict an event before it occurs and then creating a timley response to this predicted event and in the case of guitar, the picked or plucked string is the event and the response or action resulted is the rendered tone of course.

The problem with digital is simply that no matter how fast processing gets, it still seems to suffer from inherent processing delay, the rendered tone will always occur post event and today this is on the order of a very small delay but somehow I suspect, is what many dislike and refer to as not feeling correct to them.

Sorry, but I have to call BS on this so-called latency argument. You may be experiencing something that gives you a sense of the modeler "not feeling correct", but it isn't latency. Most modelers have an input-to-output latency of a couple milliseconds. That is equivalent to taking a step away from your amp. That's not going to affect your playing experience.

I have not played the Fractal but have listened to the samples and realize they are samples, subject to the recording process but was not impressed as I expected to be especially since, its 2007. I heard the same artifacting but reasoned it may have occurred in the recording and will keep my mind open here until I try it. I have not touched my old GSP since 91 for guitar anyway. Believe it or not, things have progressed a bit since `91...

Just as a sidenote, I work in telecom engineering and spend my time getting the audio to its destination on time in voice over IP (voip) applications so your conversation you expect to take place now, can take place now and not in the next 30 seconds and in this packet driven world I see the same problems and the irony is that digital makes it all possible but analog is still the delivery method if its gonna "feel" good, even when your talking on the phone.

P.S. VoIP telephony to the home, yeah it works but try to have a conversation of any length or meaning without the burps and the regular "can you repeat that" or get some critical info to someone when it really counts and you realize analog still kills there.Interesting but totally irrelevant. There's no stochastic queuing of packets in a modeling processor.

[daphil]

FIIW...

You can be very anal about it but many folks, including some "name" guitar players, prefer the sound of a modeler over a badly recorded amp in a bad room. Less hassle, more time for creativity, more music.

Modelers have their use and most of us probably can't recognize them over a "real" amp in the middle of a recorded mix.

It's just a tool, and a pretty good one. Some people make it work, some don't. Some WON'T...

"Analog" is no garanty for good tone, neither are tubes. Get the right speaker, though. Imho, ymmv...

[Flux]

The problem with modelling... when it really counts and you realize analog still kills there.

I agree with pgissi - modelling will never be as good as the real thing. The analogy of the abacus being faster than even a super computer comes to mind. The reason? With an abacus, as soon as you've entered the data you have the answer, there's no processing time. In a similar sense any processing of signal degrades it - by definition processing degrades. OTOH just as an electric guitar doesn't sound like a real guitar but creates a new sound I think we have to look at modelers as a way of creating new sounds and stop comparing them to the 'original'. Modelers excel in their convenience, IMO that's what we need to focus on.

[pgissi]

Originally Posted by TieDyedDevil
That is equivalent to taking a step away from your amp. That's not going to affect your playing experience.


Yes it is.

Take 10 steps from your amp, maybe 20. There is an effect and yeah 1 step away is no biggie but you dont provide any data to relate that 1 step is an apples to apples argument so I stand by my comments especially since I am not refering to the inherent latency being perceived as such, an audible delay but am presenting it as a difference in feel and maybe tone, realizing tone is subjective but feel is less so.

Using the distance from the speaker comparison is not accurate here

To clarify my argument, not all processing labeled digital is the same and there would be differences between designs but fundamentally, there is much more happening in digital processing than in analog where an analog sine wave is generated from the guitar and then sees very few components comparitively to digital during its travel to the transducer, the speaker.

Digital simply more processing and thats not BS, its fact especially since there is a 2 way conversion, sorry. No matter how you slice it this conversion will ALWAYS add latency and once again its not audibly perceptible but feels different.

The only way around is to duplicate some cutting edge physics where an electron reaches its destination before it leavers its origination as "alleged" in soem scientific journals and I dont think the Supercolider will be available for guitar tone tests anytime soon.

The more digital processing you put between your guitar and the transducer, the more inherent latency and you say milliseconds is of no consequence, I disagree. Human audiotory perception may not be tuned to the degree to perceive it as time alignment offset but rather we may percieve it as feeling different, with a squishy feel and once again, its a generalization not targeted at Fractal or Line 6 but rather ADA conversion as a whole.

Telecom technology is relevant and it happens that audio standards were invented by the telecom industry. The analogy I make with comparing VoIP telephony to guitar ADA is that it also requires more digital processing from source to destination and hence, suffers more processing delay if its delivered as VoIP to your destination and once again, it depends on your connection speed and a host of other things in between and in that shares the variables argument with differing modeller designs.

Some good some bad but generally IMO different feeling than analog

I realize things have changed since 1990, have even played the Line 6 Spider recently and liked it after my son checked it out so I am not closing the door, just remaining skeptical for specific reasons I state below.

Bottom line, most guitar players like analog tone because it is analog and this is more representative of the core argument, choose the orginal or the modelling of the original.

Yes to each his own and to me for now, the original is it

I am not alone on this and this post on how digital feels is just one in addition to other players I have talked with and read comments in regard to this topic-


Originally Posted by Moat http://www.thegearpage.net/board/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.thegearpage.net/board/showthread.php?p=2779158#post2779158)
Hi Scott - :)

I had an AxeFx (for the 30 day trial, many hours/days of tweaking). My head is not in the sand... and I returned it. I'm no "tube snob" (make my living with modelers/analog pedals thru cheapo SS amps, primarily), I'm adept at tweaking - and I concluded that even the AxeFx's simulations have a considerable ways to go. My analog OD's simply smoked it in terms of touch sensitivity, natural note decay, pleasant harmonics, low-mid compression ("warmth", "fatness", "punch"), sparkle, "dimension"/soundstage, etc.

No comparison, really.



Frankly I dont give a rats you know what in regards to what some name players use, especially some names of today.

I am not a "WONT" kind of person, the problem with me is I already "HAVE" and once again my biggest beefs with modelling-

-feel
-does not render tone to compete in context to other loud instruments
-artifacting

This argument also rages when discussing music on CD's or Analog sources barring that horrendous device called the cassette. If my comments were not relevant and BS this would be settled but its not and its funny that the older technology still has relevance if not critical to a large share of the players/listeners market today.

If this were not true a 59 Les Paul would not cost over 100k and anything labeled digital would be subject to long waiting lists for product, their not and ironically, analog point to point tube designs are and cost x times as much although contain less complexity and circuitry and why?

"Cause the Ears have it" and analog still pleases and I look forward to and welcome the day when digital reigns supreme since it will weigh alot less but then again, forget about tweaking with a soldering iron.

So if you like digital fine, but like analog tube understanding its weaknesses will utlimately move it forward.

Just so you know, I just picked up the Digitech Jimi Hendrix "Modeller" pedal and love this thing. I am aware of the stand alone or use with other pedals argument and have not worked with it enough yet but can say this, it is a step in the right direction and to be fair, I will give the Fractal and others a good test drive also but am thinking the Jimi pedal may be a case of less is more in my digital argument.

Meaning if you have to live with ADA, to minimize latency reduce complexity or architecture length.

[Greggy]

It's well within the reach of DSP technology from a few years back. The thing it's not within the reach of is the DSP guys that are working in the guitar amp modeling business. The cell phone people hired a huge amount of DSP talent over the past decade, and so the price of hot DSP guys is very high.

At some point, someone will get around to it. It's not that different from the old days - the guys designing guitar amps from tubes were getting ideas from the RCA Radiotron Designer's Handbook; the guys writing that book were doing things twenty years before that are fancier than almost anything that ever got into a guitar amp.

What I'm saying is that the limits of technology are really not the things that limit guitar amps. How many guitar players and how much they're going to pay is the thing that limits it.

Right. So a happening modeler would probably be priced around $3,000 (for the sake of argument) assuming a reasonable margin. If so, I'm surprised someone is not willing to hire the talent, then take the chance and design, develop, and market one. Design it stateside, and build it in China. Seriously, the desire for a modeling solution is there. The issue would appear to be the size of the target market at a relatively high price point.

I bought the pod pro because I love the "concept" of a digital modeler for the home studio. Unfortunately, the tonal quality was so poor it was laughable. I paid around $600 new and sold it for less than $300.

[stratzrus]

There is nothing worse than being in the audience of a Vetta power gig where the guitars are too loud but you can't here them and at the end of the night you have a Line6 induced headache.

Does anyone who has tried the Axe FX in a live gigging context have any thoughts about this? Does it disappear in the mix when playing live like so many other modelers and/or SS amps?

stratzrus

[MikeyG]

Audiophiles are a pretty discerning, particular bunch. Analog is the only way for them.

But that didn't stop inferior quality, lower res CDs from becoming an industry standard. Bye bye LPs ....

I'm not sayin', I'm just sayin......
:munch

[guitarist58]

An Enigma wrapped in a Riddle wrapped in a mystery


TieDyedDevil, how dare you call anything in this post BS? :Spank

:rolleyes:

[Scott Peterson]

The complete total cumulative latency from input to speaker output with the Axe-FX is 2ms.

If you can 'feel' that; you are full of something. It's literally 6" from the speaker in real terms. But... whatever. Believe what you want to, for the reasons you want to.

But always realize that maybe, just maybe, you are wrong. No matter how much you believe whatever you believe or why. Myself included. There are no absolutes. And whenever modeling of any sort is mentioned, the absolutes absolutely fly. :D

Does anyone who has tried the Axe FX in a live gigging context have any thoughts about this? Does it disappear in the mix when playing live like so many other modelers and/or SS amps?

stratzrus

Please search out my thread on this section of TGP called "Fractal Audio Axe-FX... this thing's a monster!" and you'll find my thoughts there. Quick answer - it hangs. As well or better than any of the boutique tube amp rigs I've run. And also at the same time recorded direct; it's the first modeling anything that hangs in a full blown real mix with real instruments.

[daphil]

Digital simply more processing and thats not BS, its fact especially since there is a 2 way conversion, sorry. No matter how you slice it this conversion will ALWAYS add latency and once again its not audibly perceptible but feels different.

Let's call it sag... (I'm joking.)


Frankly I dont give a rats you know what in regards to what some name players use, especially some names of today.

I am not a "WONT" kind of person, the problem with me is I already "HAVE" and once again my biggest beefs with modelling-

-feel
-does not render tone to compete in context to other loud instruments
-artifacting


I don't give a rats either... Just to show that it works for some people.

"HAVE"? 1991 (digital NON-modelling) and a recent Line6 Spider tryout? C'mon...

The "does not render tone to compete in context to other loud instruments" argument is silly because it has nothing to do with the shortcoming of a modelling preamp but the shitty design and price cutting choices of a specific company in the all analog path from power amp to speaker of their product. My Cube 60 cuts like a knife through a band, especially with a good aftermarket speaker and external cab.

Once again, it's a tool. Learn how to use it. Many have, with success.


If this were not true a 59 Les Paul would not cost over 100k and anything labeled digital would be subject to long waiting lists for product, their not and ironically, analog point to point tube designs are and cost x times as much although contain less complexity and circuitry and why?

You have seen digitized 59 Les Pauls? You are not only comparing different technology approaches, but also manufacturing and market models. You know and I know that 59 Les Pauls are not "worth" 400K outside the speculating collector's world. It's value is driven by factors that could not be as remote to the analog vs digital argument we are discussing here. And "ironically", as you say, Axe-Fx seem to have a hefty waiting list. Fender and Gibson are good example that this industry is driven by many things unrelated to tone, sound and music in general.

You know, you make interesting points and I can relate to some of it. I had the same feeling as you for a long time until I got into a situation where modelling technology was the best tool for a certain job. The results were better than I expected and I got to learn to use new technology.

Still regarding modelling technology, there is good and there is bad stuff out there. And my good is probably someone else's bad. Just like tubes amps and analog pedals.

Anyway, I ditched all tubes now, with no regrets. If I play by myself at home, yes, it's a bit different than my old PR but when I play MUSIC, be it recording guitar tracks direct or playing out, it works and I forget.

[TieDyedDevil]

Take 10 steps from your amp, maybe 20. There is an effect and yeah 1 step away is no biggie but you dont provide any data to relate that 1 step is an apples to apples argument so I stand by my comments especially since I am not refering to the inherent latency being perceived as such, an audible delay but am presenting it as a difference in feel and maybe tone, realizing tone is subjective but feel is less so.

Using the distance from the speaker comparison is not accurate here

Not accurate? Why not? There's a direct correlation between latency and distance: about a millisecond per foot depending upon temperature and altitude.

Sure, if I walk 20 or 50 or 100 feet away from my amp the latency is going to mess with my perceptions and impair my ability to play well. So what? That's a reductio ad absurdum. I stated that a two foot difference in the distance between you and your amp is not going to affect your timing or any other aspect of your playing. If it did you'd find yourself with the same discomfort that you experience with a modeler just by taking a step away from your all-analog short-signal-path tube amp. Because that's what latency is: a fixed delay between when you pluck the string and when the attack of the note reaches your ears. Even with zero latency attributable to the signal path, you still have the propagation time of the sound wave, which is about 1 millisecond per foot whether you're playing a tube amp or a modeling amp.

To clarify my argument, not all processing labeled digital is the same and there would be differences between designs but fundamentally, there is much more happening in digital processing than in analog where an analog sine wave is generated from the guitar and then sees very few components comparitively to digital during its travel to the transducer, the speaker. I'm not arguing this point. I acknowledge that there's more complexity in the signal path of a modeling processor than there is in an analog device.

Digital simply more processing and thats not BS, its fact especially since there is a 2 way conversion, sorry. No matter how you slice it this conversion will ALWAYS add latency and once again its not audibly perceptible but feels different. Latency is just latency. It doesn't matter how you get the latency.

The only way around is to duplicate some cutting edge physics where an electron reaches its destination before it leavers its origination as "alleged" in soem scientific journals and I dont think the Supercolider will be available for guitar tone tests anytime soon. Let's stick with the over-the-counter technologies, OK? :crazy

The more digital processing you put between your guitar and the transducer, the more inherent latency and you say milliseconds is of no consequence, I disagree. Human audiotory perception may not be tuned to the degree to perceive it as time alignment offset but rather we may percieve it as feeling different, with a squishy feel and once again, its a generalization not targeted at Fractal or Line 6 but rather ADA conversion as a whole. Don't confuse quantization with latency.

Telecom technology is relevant and it happens that audio standards were invented by the telecom industry.Sure. Audio standards for telephony...

The analogy I make with comparing VoIP telephony to guitar ADA is that it also requires more digital processing from source to destination and hence, suffers more processing delay if its delivered as VoIP to your destination and once again, it depends on your connection speed and a host of other things in between and in that shares the variables argument with differing modeller designs. The fundamental difference between VoIP and a modeling processor is that the former involves large (on the order of tens or hundreds of milliseconds) non-deterministic delays during data transmission. While I acknowledge that it must be challenging to pass an intelligible voice conversation over the `net under such conditions, these conditions are not present in a modeling processor.

Signal latency through a modeling processor is stable (i.e. non-varying) and on the order of a couple of milliseconds.

Some good some bad but generally IMO different feeling than analogI submit that it's just as likely that the differences you cite are due to sampling artifacts (which have nothing to do with latency) and limitations in the modeled dynamic response of the amp. All of these are very real concerns. A good designer will minimize these difference within his constraints of budget and technology. The real question in my mind is not whether there are differences, but rather: how good is "good enough"?

I realize things have changed since 1990, have even played the Line 6 Spider recently and liked it after my son checked it out so I am not closing the door, just remaining skeptical for specific reasons I state below.I'm not surprised that the Spider was better than your early `90s unit. Just be aware that the Spider is a low-end modeler. There are products that are better, even within Line6's own catalog.

Bottom line, most guitar players like analog tone because it is analog and this is more representative of the core argument, choose the orginal or the modelling of the original.

Yes to each his own and to me for now, the original is it

I am not alone on this and this post on how digital feels is just one in addition to other players I have talked with and read comments in regard to this topic-Again, I'll never claim that there's an identity between a modeler and the modeled device. I'll assert that there's probably some point at which a modeler is "good enough", but won't speculate or name products because that is a matter of personal preference and expectations.

My only claim in this discussion is that a couple milliseconds of added latency is not the underlying cause of the difference in sound and feel of a modeler compared to an analog amp.

[TieDyedDevil]

TieDyedDevil, how dare you call anything in this post BS? :Spank

:rolleyes:



:BEER

[guitarist58]

There are basically old arguments such as the latency thing and error from low sampling resolution and the quality of A/Ds and D/As that are continually becoming irrelevant as technology progresses. The "real time" aspects, as TyeDyeDevil pointed out, are not the cause of any modeling not "feeling" or sounding right, and certainly can't be when you're talking about a concert setting where many many milliseconds are being affected by sound reinforcement variables (the physical nature of "sound reinforcement" such a the same sound being reproduced by multiple sources) and acoustics!

If it isn't already there, I think all it would take to get modeling up to where it can (lets say) "fully compete" is a talent (or two) analogous to a Ken Fischer or H. Dumble or Michael Zaite in the area of the algorithms used within the digital realm to create some great "tone machines". I think that's probably just a matter of time. Just my opinion :)

[TieDyedDevil]

Once again, it's a tool. Learn how to use it. Many have, with success.

Yup.

I'll add that the real dichotomy is not analog vs. digital... It's tools that work for me vs. those that don't.

Anyway, I ditched all tubes now, with no regrets. If I play by myself at home, yes, it's a bit different than my old PR but when I play MUSIC, be it recording guitar tracks direct or playing out, it works and I forget.


Likewise. I think I've found that "good enough" modeling rig. It has proven itself in varied playing situations over the past six months. I'm still going to wait a while before pulling my tube rig out of storage to sell, partly because I want to really explore the limits of the modeling rig and partly because of a sentimental attachment to tubes. But so far - for my situation - the modeling rig is a hands-down winner.

[r9player]

To eh answer the question to this post ... nope Amp Modeling hasn't hit any kind of ceiling .. and the argument over if it can sound as good as a tube amp will exist as long as there is more then two people on this world .... :)

[bluesdoc]

Likewise. I think I've found that "good enough" modeling rig.

Me too. Same modeler (GT8), whichI run into tube power amps to any number of cabs du jour (or use my new awesome Atomic 50). I play lead in a loud classic rock band and it totally delivers. And I've had many, many tube amps, and prior modelers (which don't hold a candle to the GT8, for me, imho, etc). You can argue this stuff all day but I'm making music and having a great time. Maybe I'm tone deaf, but my bandmates also agree. Just one tiny, totally subjective, data point here. The 'feel' thing, which I also disliked with the POD, PODxt, GNXs, TL, GT3, GT6, Zoom 9, is a non-issue with this unit. But you might not like it..... :eek:

jon

[pgissi]

Originally Posted by TieDyedDevil
My only claim in this discussion is that a couple milliseconds of added latency is not the underlying cause of the difference in sound and feel of a modeler compared to an analog amp.


From your response, this is not your only claim and this type of reaction is typical, how dare I question "technology" and then get a few responses along these lines with more agreeing with me so bottom line for me and others, latency IS the issue but not because of a perceivably audible delay but rather, feel.

And in the early days of audio telecom defined audio standards that are used today in audiop production in addition to newer and proprietary methodologies to facilitate moving huge amounts of voice data and very fast so if anywhere some answers or insight can be found, its where the same application of ADA conversion (quantization) then digital transmission and then transduction to the audible, its where it is done in quantities that defy understanding.

Not accurate because in this discussion we are not correlating latency with distance, we are correlating latency with input and in this case the human brain is doing the comparison. If we were correlating latency with distance then the solution would be similar to concert sound with repeater towers and in that your dealing with the speed of sound at sea level coupled with the acoustic properties of surrounding air and materials and their interaction.

You cant be serious, quantization and latency are interelated the latter the result of the former and my claim that latency is the issue simply due to delay is not the complete picture but a good place to start since the most commonly expressed negative, is the way it feels hands down.

In addition to the brain passing on its perception of the way its "feels" there is also the issue with the way it sounds and I think an earlier post said it best in that what you get as a result is less replication of the original but something new.

So to clarify, this is about sitting just in front of your rig, not at a distance and playing the digital modelled versus analog tube original and some of us notice, it feels different and that is due to the nature of the beast, digital.

Not arguing against it just sharing, and seeing confirmation of my obrservation from others and my points about digital harkening back to 1990 or 91, although much has changed one thing remains...

There are still some of us that prefer the way analog tubes or even SS amps feel verusus a Quantized tone, sorry.

I chalk this up to the peculiarities of the electric guitar since this technology has seen much greater success in synthesis or even modelling and the difference is, in the synthesis application, the original source is derived electronically from a resistor divider network not a steel string vibrating in a magnetic field so the former her is more at home in the digital domain.

[daphil]

Me too. Same modeler (GT8), whichI run into tube power amps to any number of cabs du jour (or use my new awesome Atomic 50). I play lead in a loud classic rock band and it totally delivers. And I've had many, many tube amps, and prior modelers (which don't hold a candle to the GT8, for me, imho, etc). You can argue this stuff all day but I'm making music and having a great time. Maybe I'm tone deaf, but my bandmates also agree. Just one tiny, totally subjective, data point here. The 'feel' thing, which I also disliked with the POD, PODxt, GNXs, TL, GT3, GT6, Zoom 9, is a non-issue with this unit. But you might not like it..... :eek:

jon

I need to try a GT8. I'm a bit weary of the "on the floor" stuff, for reliability. But it's a Boss, so it should be fine.

[guitarist58]

I personally like tube and analog gear, too, btw. Just for fun:

This here feller doesn't seem to have any problem with digital:

http://img.photoamp.com/pa/07/08/01/1MkvxoDrL7.jpg

[pgissi]

Yeah he plays so fast his brain cant even keep up so it relents.

Have not listened to him in some time but from what I remember he is of a different mindset, its not really the decay and fade of some subtle picked note but its moree composition and technical prowess, so for him it feels fine which is the perfect point here,

Digital dont bother me as much when I am shredding since subtlety is not the goal there its when I want to play so soft you can barely hear or when you want to catch the way the rooms reflections come back as your one note solo fades into glory.

That is where digital traditionaly beelows, but I will keep an open mind and give it another go.

[daphil]

From your response, this is not your only claim and this type of reaction is typical, how dare I question "technology" and then get a few responses along these lines with more agreeing with me so bottom line for me and others, latency IS the issue but not because of a perceivably audible delay but rather, feel.

And in the early days of audio telecom defined audio standards that are used today in audiop production in addition to newer and proprietary methodologies to facilitate moving huge amounts of voice data and very fast so if anywhere some answers or insight can be found, its where the same application of ADA conversion (quantization) then digital transmission and then transduction to the audible, its where it is done in quantities that defy understanding.

Not accurate because in this discussion we are not correlating latency with distance, we are correlating latency with input and in this case the human brain is doing the comparison. If we were correlating latency with distance then the solution would be similar to concert sound with repeater towers and in that your dealing with the speed of sound at sea level coupled with the acoustic properties of surrounding air and materials and their interaction.

You cant be serious, quantization and latency are interelated the latter the result of the former and my claim that latency is the issue simply due to delay is not the complete picture but a good place to start since the most commonly expressed negative, is the way it feels hands down.

In addition to the brain passing on its perception of the way its "feels" there is also the issue with the way it sounds and I think an earlier post said it best in that what you get as a result is less replication of the original but something new.

So to clarify, this is about sitting just in front of your rig, not at a distance and playing the digital modelled versus analog tube original and some of us notice, it feels different and that is due to the nature of the beast, digital.

Not arguing against it just sharing, and seeing confirmation of my obrservation from others and my points about digital harkening back to 1990 or 91, although much has changed one thing remains...

There are still some of us that prefer the way analog tubes or even SS amps feel verusus a Quantized tone, sorry.

I chalk this up to the peculiarities of the electric guitar since this technology has seen much greater success in synthesis or even modelling and the difference is, in the synthesis application, the original source is derived electronically from a resistor divider network not a steel string vibrating in a magnetic field so the former her is more at home in the digital domain.

Latency, latency... Which device, in what context? I don't have any problem with latency. I play a chord, I get a sound. I mean, you keep hitting the same nail but do you have any extensive experience of what you are talking about?

If modelling has shortcomings it has more to do with the actual ADA conversion (sampling of the analog signal) and replicating the non-linear nature of tube amplifiers. Not latency.

And I never said (no one else in fact AFAIK) that I prefer modelling technology over tube amps. Apples and oranges. The two taste good when that's what I'm into.

[MikeyG]

That is where digital traditionaly beelows, but I will keep an open mind and give it another go.

Good idea.

I don't think it's the end of the road, but to me, this product makes a big leap forward in many of the areas you mention (subtlety, sweetness, responsiveness, etc).

[Moat]

Other folks should follow your lead, try it before you knock it.

Absolutely agreed!! The vast majority that have - like yourself - love the danged thing to death... and there is a lot to love in the AxeFx, for sure.

If anything, I might simply be the errant, "odd-guy-out" - who just so happens to be endlessly tormented by my particular combination of hands, hearing and perception of "tone". Can't tell ya' how frustrating (and financially debilitating) it is!

As far as the "latency issue" raging above... I don't believe latency is the "problem". Many modelers/effects processors introduce latency, whether the amp models are running or not.

ie.) - Playing a sweet tube rig with a digital delay in the loop - there's your latency... but still sounds/feels great.

[Tony Foran]

I personally like tube and analog gear, too, btw. Just for fun:

This here feller doesn't seem to have any problem with digital:

http://img.photoamp.com/pa/07/08/01/1MkvxoDrL7.jpg

Oh,what does he know.:D

[guitarist58]

ie.) - Playing a sweet tube rig with a digital delay in the loop - there's your latency... but still sounds/feels great.

Another good point--but just to be clear, the amount of latency is not as much as any audible delay, not even the delay of a chorus... It's in the range of delay used in a flanging effect. Flanging (or a comb filter effect if not swept) only becomes audible when the delayed signal is blended with the non-delayed signal. I'm not arguing there can't be any difference in feel, but based on my experience there isn't.

Regardless, I think it's a good idea for anyone to just play and see what they enjoy. For me, I don't think of modeling as a "replacement" (in what I like and enjoy), but for my purposes (playing live every week in the same venue) it might be a replacement in an actual use sense.

One other thought--I've had a variety of modeling stuff, and noticed there seems to be quite a bit of differences between the different brands. I liked some of the yamaha and rocktron equipment best--in some cases a lot better than others I tried. I think this boils down to algorithms and implementation (I wish I'd saved the article about the Japanese guy who went to studios around the world listening and programming the Yamaha DG series gear--it was really interesting!)

[JoeB63]

.... There are no absolutes. And whenever modeling of any sort is mentioned, the absolutes absolutely fly. :D.....

....it's the first modeling anything that hangs in a full blown real mix with real instruments. Talk about absolutes!

[mullard]

http://img.photoamp.com/pa/07/08/01/1MkvxoDrL7.jpg
I think he traded me one old tube amp for that pair of converse shoes.

[guitarist58]

I think he traded me one old tube amp for that pair of converse shoes.

Well, the question I wonder: Were those Converse shoes "vintage", NOS or just used? :D

[MikeyG]

If anything, I might simply be the errant, "odd-guy-out" - who just so happens to be endlessly tormented by my particular combination of hands, hearing and perception of "tone". Can't tell ya' how frustrating (and financially debilitating) it is!


I'm the odd guy out when it comes to /13 amps .... I seem to be the only guy on the planet who's not gaga over them....

There's always an odd guy out ... hey some people rejoice in being different than the crowd ... :)

[Scott Peterson]

Talk about absolutes!

Producer's comments, not mine. He took the time to email me after the project to make the point - emphatically - that he was blown away by how my 'non-amp' hung with his real amp and other real instruments.

That's the absolute truth. :)

[orogeny]

i MUST chime in.

i mUST

I MUst

i MUST!!!!

Here is a kudos to modeling this past Saturday night:

Fr8_trane ALWAYS brings his Cube 60 as a backup. THAT dude is a PRO. I don't have room for a backup AMP b/c I bring the PA for cryin out . . .

Anyway . . . .


His FUCHS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

FRIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You could smell it. . .

The REST of us move on without him. . . for ONE song. Luckily, it REALLY was the NEXT song in the set where I take one of my measly little solos.

Fr8 comes back with his Cube 60 . . .

. . . and makes it sound better than his FUCHS has in MONTHS.

My two cents.

My true experience.

He is a gear freak.

He is responsible for my problems (just kidding).

He has also made me come to realize that within LESS than TEN, probably FIVE years. . .

there won't be a SINGLE pedal or amp that modeling won't be able to . . .

you know. . . .

I believe he is correct.

I also believe that within 20 years (yes! I'll still be playing) . . .

. . . all that technology will be in the size of an IPOD. The AXE FX will probably be the size of a quarter.

Thems be my own thoughts, not his.

[Ken]

Music Man Amps made in the late 70's into the late 80's were very popular amps used by many mainstream artists...I owned two of them myself during the 80's.

These Music Man amps are hybrids, they have a tube power amp section of either El-34's or 6l6's, and a solid state preamp (no tubes).

Now we move ahead to the year 2007 and we now have the new Axe-Fx Preamp (no tubes) that you can run into a tube power amp.

Just some food for thought~

[Scott Peterson]

Music Man Amps made in the late 70's into the late 80's were very popular amps used by many mainstream artists...I owned two of them myself during the 80's.

These Music Man amps are hybrids, they have a tube power amp section of either El-34's or 6l6's, and a solid state preamp (no tubes).

Now we move ahead to the year 2007 and we now have the new Axe-Fx Preamp (no tubes) that you can run into a tube power amp.

Just some food for thought~

Or into a solid state power amp and cab. Or direct to FOH. Or interfaced with any amp. Or, well, any damn well you want.

My way is not the only way, or even the 'correct' way. It's just a way.

[guitarist58]

Music Man Amps made in the late 70's into the late 80's were very popular amps used by many mainstream artists...I owned two of them myself during the 80's.

These Music Man amps are hybrids, they have a tube power amp section of either El-34's or 6l6's, and a solid state preamp (no tubes).

Now we move ahead to the year 2007 and we now have the new Axe-Fx Preamp (no tubes) that you can run into a tube power amp.

Just some food for thought~

I used to have one of those! Can't remember what it sounded like, though :rolleyes: --too long ago. I actually have an amp like that now--a Fender Champ 25SE. SS preamp, tube driver and 2 6L6 power tubes. Great clean sound, and cost me $175 less than a year ago! Takes pedals really well, too.

Right at the moment, I'm using a Yamaha Magicstomp for a preamp (not the models, just for modulation/delay/ambience and gain up to line level) into a Peavey 50/50 power amp (Class A/B EL84s). I use analog pedals (Barber, Lovepedal, CMATmods, etc.) in front and it works surpisingly well IMO. I've used tube preamps and tube amps, over the years as well. I think the usefulness of a lot of modeling gear is dependent on dialing it in, of course. Some have been easier to dial in, others a total PITA, and others no amount of dialing could save LOL. I have, however, been flat out amazed at just how warm, responsive, even detailed the sounds can be coming out of some modeling amps, at times. When an internal (heater) fuse blew in my power amp, I used a Rocktron Replitone 112 combo as an emergency amp. I thought it sounded really good--and it cut like a knife live (had to restrain myself :p). I had to sell it to pay bills, though.

I'm on the list for the Axe-fx, and I'm really curious to see how it compares--both through my tube amps (just cos I like it :)), as well as into the FOH (may save me from having to buy mics as well--I'm still not mic'd), and of course how it compares to "previous" modelers. The effects on that unit alone--unlike on many modelers--are reported to be top notch and sound great to me on some of the clips I've heard on the Axe-fx forum. Will probably replace my Lexicon MPX-1 (talk about "latency"--that thing takes a frikkin' one to two seconds to load patches when you change them!). That makes the Axe-fx a better value to me if all else works out. I think things will continue to get more interesting in the future.

[pgissi]

Yes I have been harping on latency and your all missing the point. I agree that todays digital is a vast improvement over digital of yesteryear and I keep repeating over and over that the latency I refer to is not audible but affects tone less so than feel but nevertheless contributes to the tone of digital. Most affected is ADSR and that would Attack Decay Sustain Release.

Even with my 1990 GSP 21, audible latency was a non issue, only switching between presets but the feel and tone, thats where it lacked except for lush effects.

Its just physics 101. With digital conversion your adding processing and thus adding time to route the signal to the output and with that your addding a miniscule amount of latency simply due to the fact that your doing an ADA conversion remembering this defines the total processing architecture and it will likely remain this.

If you understand that time (latency) is for the sake of this argument and simplisticaly the phase relationship of sound('s), and phase is one aspect that defines tone, timbre etc, your then going to understand what I am saying.

With Analog, there is no conversion and when there is latency like the fx loop example in an earlier post, its on an order thats even more miniscule than digital, and I am assuming less affecting, to where many people share my opinions in regard to tube amps better feel and tone. I dont have data but maybe someday a number could be derived, essentially identifying the difference in the output.

Is this audibly detectable, no. But how is it affecting, I and others feel it is and my hunch is it affects attack, which then affects envelope and ultimately the tonal character. Not saying its bad, just different and I believe that difference is a good thing and is something new rather than tube amp emulation so lets be clear.

I proved this last night and put the Digitech Jimi modelling pedal to the test at low, high and everything in between volume and most importantly using the volume pot on the guitar because this is where Digital for me, fails miserably preventing me from using it as effectively as I would a tube or ss amp.

In my testing I was testing noise floor, headroom, output level, tone and most importantly, feel.

What I found is what I expected, the modelling falls short when the guitar volume pot is reduced to barely on or just over that and as you increase the volume pot, the modelled sound returns but here is where something strange happens and I believe its intentional.

They may have designed in an input threshold where below the thresh, the pedal passes the analog tone its sees at its input pre ADA (or maybe not) and as this threshold is exceeded the modelled sound is mixed in more and more but this is where I detected a sort of limbo state of in between.

This is good and bad and as far as good, I was able to emulate some sitar like tone with the guitar vol pot down in model setting 1 using the fuzz and octavia within, very cool.

Where it was bad was in subtlety only an analog tube or ss amp IMO can deliver. As far as full bore tone, its fine since its getting strong signal but once again, different than tubes.

When I criticise the feel of digital, this is exaclty what I mean, low signal level tones. My hunch was right, that has not changed to the degree where you dont have the 50/50 split of tube versus digital camps of opinions.

I then compared the Digi Jimi with my analog pedals, a Sparkle Drive, Roger Mayer Mongoose Fuzz and a Beano and analog still proved to do all the modeller can do and what it cant, pass the whisper guitar volume pot tone without a detectable threshold effect, digititis.

Will this change as digital progresses, probably. Will I change my opinion, maybe. Do I need to check out the Fractal or other, sure.

But the point of my posts is simply this, with digital, ada conversion, quantization etc., there is a difference and thats the point and I believe its due to inherent design differences and when I refer to latency, I mean on a timescale of such a miniscule amount its affecting perception of feel and to some like me, tone simply when holding up against a tube amp and other analog gear I am not alone in this opinion and thats the point.

A tube amp is apples and digital is oranges and someday they may make juice but I suspect my generic criticism of digitals lack of responding to input threshold changes in a predicatable manner or shalle we say, tube like is accurate.

I believe it can be conquered and its cost that is limiting the technology since, digital needs a price point to be able to be marketable and that is probably what is holding it back the most.

But my gut says what I really dont like is an approximation or quantized version of what I put in, unless of course I am looking for that and typically I am not.

Analog, according to some expects of yesteryear should have been history by now but it continues to be the thorn in the digital arse!

[Den]

Aaahhh ... So that's the point!

[MikeyG]

From my non-technical point of view, the prior modelers were actually too immediate in their attack. That dreaded 'solid-state feel'. Actually, the modern metal guys love SS amps for that very reason, because their hyperfast chugga chugga riffs need that instant response.

The Axe-FX is a big step up precisely because you can control that attack. You get a Sag control that lets you dial it in the way you want.

I've always hated that digital 'clank' at the onset of pick attack. In the first 5 seconds of playing the Axe-FX, that's what I was looking for, to see if that clank was gone. It was. Very tubelike response ....

[pgissi]

I did not mean to say analog can do ALL a modeller can do in regard to tonal construction, where I mean that I simply mean analog tube's, ss and pedals respond like any acoustic instrument can to input/attack changes with a predictable subtlety when reducing input level in degrees, nothing more

For me this is my most basic need, I need to know I can do the following since I find more variations of tone than just switching through presets or engaging/disengaging pedals

-reduce pick attack
-reduce guitar volume pot

With modellers its seems you need a preset for every subtle change (how much is debateable of course) and it can become unatural and by the end of the night you feel like you danced the chicken dance with all of the floor button pushing.

Translation, it seems your playing the guitar less and the control surfaces more.

I just checked out some demos of the Fractal on Youtube, very nice, lush, rich and can even add synthesized strings, very cool but I will wait to render judgement until I can get this thing in a band context and see if it can do a good raw and olde fashioned blues/rock/hard rock/metal tube tone with the subtlety I expect will decide for me the following-

Use it exclusively or combine it with my fave tube rig

After hearing some of the distorted samples, I dont think its time to throw out the tubes but the clean examples are gorgeous. unfortunately I am hearing the same thin quantized tone when using distortion but where the distortion excels is when creating a new tone ala hybrid guitar/synth type tones. I will have to see for myself and at stage volume

Somehow I have been down this road

There is a demo of someone doing U2 Vertigo intro I think, nails it and is the hybrid synth thing I refer to.

[TieDyedDevil]

pgissi --

If I understand your description correctly, the phenomenon you're describing w.r.t. the guitar sound at extremely low volumes (i.e. extremely soft pick attack) is a result of quantization. As the input level decreases the resolution of the A/D conversion also decreases. Yes, this can be a very real problem in cases where the tail of a very softly-played note can be clearly heard in a quiet room.


That said, I only hear this under extreme conditions. Certainly nothing that would be musically useful in the presence of any amount of room noise... Keep in mind that analog has different problems (i.e. hiss) at extremely low input levels.


With modellers its seems you need a preset for every subtle change (how much is debateable of course) and it can become unatural and by the end of the night you feel like you danced the chicken dance with all of the floor button pushing.

This definitely depends upon which modeler you're using and how it's programmed. It's dangerous to generalize your limited experience with modelers to apply to the entire product category.

I use one patch for everything; that patch is as responsive to playing dynamics as my tube rig was. If it wasn't, I'd still be using my tube rig.

[pgissi]

Originally Posted by TieDyedDevil
As the input level decreases the resolution of the A/D conversion also decreases. Yes, this can be a very real problem in cases where the tail of a very softly-played note can be clearly heard in a quiet room.


Yes but not always under such extreme requirements and your right, I should preface by saying not all modelling is created equal. I understand the fractal or other devices may be designed to counter this and even counter the perception of a piercing attack by some players by incorporating sag.

In the case of some who claim that digital or ss in general has a faster attack, I agree on the ss but not on digital because as we all know a transistor is a more efficient and faster switch than a tube but with digital, your adding processing so mathematically I would need to see proof and maybe its out there and yes digital designs incorporate transistors but there is still a conversion. The reason I think some include digital processing in this claim may be due to the altered wavefrom phase due to my original point, latency as a result of quantization in the entire A/D process, differing in what a tube does by rounding the wave and emphasizing a different range of harmonics, smoothing etc. The tube is by its nature, flawed and wonderfully so.

To prove that you could say any out of phase setting on a guitar pickup can be perceived as a faster attack because of the emphasized highs or higher resonant peak but its an acoustic illusion and is another topic altogether and is rooted in how hi freqs travel faster through the air from a driver, like I said another topic.

To get back to the main point and yes these are generlizations but are relevant to the design of digital, the taper or linear response of the A/D conversion when reducing the guitar volume is not as natural as it could be for me and thats point 1.

2 is that the distorted digital sounds on record are almost indistuinguishable from tubes since its being mixed/treated and mastered etc so its live that I look to judge not a sample. This is where I find digital is lacking for me since you can do anything in a recording process in the post treatment or even during the recording.

From what I have experienced myself and heard live is tubes still rule in thse 2 domains and since this foundational tone differs in digital versus tube and with tube I overcome that by adding delays etc and even can add outboard triggering for me and not suffer the 2 negatives above means, I still need my tube amp.

But yes the packaging of 1 module many sounds is appealing and if the 2 issues above can be overcome with digital, I am sold and I predict there is a list of magic numbers as far as proc speed, sampling and bit rates and data path architecture that is required to null these negatives.

The problem is now, that number/architecture etc is some ways off and there is a host of reasons.

I guess I just expected this to be further along by now and its just my opinion, others may disagree but my hunch is in tune with some others.

You can say I am slightly critical especially since I jumped on the digital bandwagon quite literally and very early as in 1990 and could say was blinded by science.

The next time I take that leap I have to be 100% certain

[daphil]

From what I have experienced myself and heard live is tubes still rule in thse 2 domains and since this foundational tone differs in digital versus tube and with tube I overcome that by adding delays etc and even can add outboard triggering for me and not suffer the 2 negatives above means, I still need my tube amp.

Still, if you go to a major act show, what you are listening to is a "mix" that is not that far from a recording pushed through a loud PA.

Digital modellers performance in live settings can only be as good as the very analog power amp and driver that's producing the sound. A digital modeller is only a preamp after all.

I'm not saying that modellers do not have flaws. They do. Tube amps do have flaws to and all tube amps are not created equal. It's just a matter of choosing what's best for you. You like your tubes, fine, and I do too. Modelling works better for me in the present situation though.

[Flux]

Well said pgissi. :) So we can conclude that modelling hasn't hit the ceiling but there is indeed a ceiling. Personally I suspect that modelling and conventional amplification will coexist for many years to come, like so many other technologies. I want both (again) but would keep my tube gear above all (again) though I can easily see why others might choose differently.

[pgissi]

Originally Posted by daphil
Still, if you go to a major act show, what you are listening to is a "mix" that is not that far from a recording pushed through a loud PA.


Yes it is a mix agreed but its the players ears in realtime performance whille getting their tone from their cabs that either bring out the best performance or not regardless of what the FOH sounds like.

Whats strange is this, tubes are inherently inefficient and round off the harshness in guitar tone especially when using distortion and this is in contrast to transistors (and this is a generalized observation that has improved immensely with transistor/ss designs) that are more efficient and do less rounding so were talking tube latency here that contributes positively to the tone for many ears, a kinder gentler distortion if you will in addition to lush and round clean tones, a case of latency being desired but not due to ADA conversion.

Weird but I think what I dont like about digital is that it combines the least desirable aspect of SS, its lack or at least lower degree of soft rounding the wave with the added quantized ADA and the result is predictable, at least for those who share my opinion that modelling although having no ceiling theoretically, is at one now.

And just to be clear it is my opinion and not all modelling is the same, totally down with that.

I know what I need to do and if what I am thinking will work I may just be filthy stinking rich someday as I re-invent the wheel!

It is the 21st century and its ashame that for guitar players although we have seen much progress, in comparison to synthesis we are still some ways behind and for some of us, our ears just wont let go of tubes or good SS design.

But I know from playing actively in a band and on stages and seeing other acts, whether the guitar tone is right for the night is the most inconsistent aspect of live music wheras mr keys plugs in and gets his "tones".

I think this is where digital has advanced the art more so than tone, control and function and IMO should be married with analog tone more so.

Yeah its called the cyber twin, I know but I dont whats in that beast and it may or may not be what I am thinking and I have read some negatives from others, never played one but dug the Greg Koch samples of it and expected to start seeing it more.

I plan on trying more of the digital offerings and got a good start with the Digitech Jimi pedal and realize now, when I viewed the youtube video with paul of guitar world demoing (great player) he was plugged in direct using the line out and I was hearing, a mix.

Fooled me but it is worthy of its namesake and renders the classic jimi tones you would expect, just differently than its analog counterparts in ways I have described before.

It was an impulse buy and I am pleased, will use this as a test bed to torture modelling tones and see what havoc I can wreak....through my tube amps lol!

[El Caballo]

I keep repeating over and over that the latency I refer to is not audible but affects tone less so than feel but nevertheless contributes to the tone of digital.

Most effect makers don't release latency specs, but it's easy to measure with a dual-trace oscilloscope.

Where this really becomes an issue is stringing together multiple digital effects. Pedalboards tend to grow larger and larger, and it's easy to see 4-5 digital effects strung together. Even if each one had only a 64-sample buffer, imperceptible by itself, five of them daisy-chained would produce a very perceptible delay of ~22 milliseconds.

I agree that latency affects feel. If you don't know how to listen for it, it's very hard to articulate what's wrong...it just "feels" strange.

If you understand that time (latency) is for the sake of this argument and simplisticaly the phase relationship of sound('s), and phase is one aspect that defines tone, timbre etc, your then going to understand what I am saying.

Latency doesn't affect the phase relationships within the sound. It's not a phasing issue, it's a feel issue.


What I found is what I expected, the modelling falls short when the guitar volume pot is reduced to barely on or just over that and as you increase the volume pot, the modelled sound returns but here is where something strange happens and I believe its intentional.

They may have designed in an input threshold where below the thresh, the pedal passes the analog tone its sees at its input pre ADA (or maybe not) and as this threshold is exceeded the modelled sound is mixed in more and more but this is where I detected a sort of limbo state of in between.


Actually, here is what is happening (probably...I don't work at Digitech):
The problem with low-budget digital is that the A/D and D/A conversion is noisy, just like your cheap PC sound card. Good codecs cost real money. Also, the physical compromises of stuffing everything in a small enclosure sometimes introduce noise. This gets really nasty-sounding in high-gain situations.

So what most cheap digital effect makers do is put in a noise gate. This gets rid of the noise, but also messes up your low-volume signals. What Digitech seems to have done is a slightly smarter version of that: instead of gating the low-level signals, just turn the gain way down.

I think that's what you're hearing, and it's not an artifact of digital at all...just an artifact of coping with cheap and/or noisy circuitry.

[bluesdoc]

Just got back from band practice, using my GT8 to power amp to cab. It sounded terrible. I couldn't believe that I'd deceived myself for the past few months thinking this was going to be OK, stand in for my tube amps, cut the mustard, etc. I was exasperated and thinking about what I would do next. Second to last tune of the night I found that I had used the phone out instead of line out to the power amp......:nono:nono:jo:jo:jo:messedup

Sounded really good after that......... :YinYang:BEER

Back to the discussion at hand ----->>>>

jon

[TieDyedDevil]

Had me worried for a minute... :worried

Glad it worked out! :dude

[Flux]

Brain latency... happens all the time...
Low ceiling?

[Lex Luthier]

One other thought--I've had a variety of modeling stuff, and noticed there seems to be quite a bit of differences between the different brands. I liked some of the yamaha and rocktron equipment best--in some cases a lot better than others I tried. I think this boils down to algorithms and implementation (I wish I'd saved the article about the Japanese guy who went to studios around the world listening and programming the Yamaha DG series gear--it was really interesting!)

The Yamaha DG amps were not technically modeling amps, they were digital amps that were not based on modeling. I found the Yamaha stuff didn't have the funny pick attack like the Line 6 stuff, and didn't fart out on the end of long, sustained notes like Line 6 or Vox. Too bad Yamaha bailed on the amps, would have loved to have heard what the next generation would have been like.

Anyone else besides me notice the DG ampifiers hardly ever pop up for sale anymore?

[pgissi]

Latency doesn't affect the phase relationships within the sound. It's not a phasing issue, it's a feel issue.


I am not saying its a phasing issue at the speaker but am saying any amplifier, guitar or others tone is affected by its inherent design and in the cae of poorly designed eq or in the case of digital, low resolution quantization, contributes to its overall tone, its character if you will.

When I talk of phasing I simply mean during pre-amp signal processing.

Thats the nature of filtering and phasing is time manipulation of freq. This is what makes one instrument or amplifier sound different from the next and in the case of an amp, only detectable on a scope.

You dont have to think of phase as either in our out, there are graduations of it. When you think of stereo if you were 180 out of phase there would be cancellation so its somewhere in between, just enough to create the perception of increased dispersion, distance, largeness etc.

Somehow I think that ADA induced latency causes some degradation of the original waveform, meaning the orignal freq balance of the inputted waveform, i.e. phase relationship, is not maintained and requires some post treatment to restore or other, contributing to the digital stereotype of cold or sterile etc.

This is the best way I can put it

Think about this, what is the fundamental difference between digital modellers and analog tube/ss?

Analog requires no conversion, Digital does..thats it other than that they are the same!

Analog- tube/ss, no conversion induced latency
Digital- conversion induced latency

Other than that they are no different than their analog counterparts whether tube of ss and the one distinction between tube and ss is transconductance which in tubes, gives them softer sound.

Is it tone affecting, has to be we can hear it and why?

When you attack you string you expect to hear the sound but in the case of electric amplification, you must get the signal to the output and time is of the essence.

Alter time means altering freq ratios in the output = altered phase, tone etc. but on a timescale your ears only detect as being brighter or darker or more midrange etc.

With analog your not doing a conversion, with digital you are, and my hunch is that in that conversion and post ada some treatment is required since I am guessing that some freqs are propagating at different rates through the ADA process, requiring post treatment to correct, contributing to the tone.

This is THE fundamental difference but eliminate ada induced latency in digital gear (good luck on that, you may find bigfoot first) and they are the same and would only differ slightly based on their rated componentrys transconductance.

the most telling aspect is that you can tell one tube amp of the same model from each other, they are so individual and less so with SS but all digital gear from the same design and manufac, is virtually indistinguishable, more consistent and I suspect this is the most negative aspect for many.

I believe this is due to the nature of digital being more synthesis than anything and ada induced latency has to be a major contributing factor since it is the only procesing aspect that sets digital apart from analog.

[cochese]

...
But I know from playing actively in a band and on stages and seeing other acts, whether the guitar tone is right for the night is the most inconsistent aspect of live music wheras mr keys plugs in and gets his "tones".


The reason for this is that no keyboard player in the world is directly responsible for the "tone" of their instrument. Sure a great player can make a great or cheap acoustic piano sound better by the virtue of their playing but 15 lbs of pressure on the middle C of any keyboard is still 15 lbs and it doesn't matter who's playing it. The reason why this technology works great in sound modules is that an electronic keyboard is a series of switches activating recorded samples. If the designer takes the time to fully sample the entire range of the instrument at many different velocitys the majority of sound is in there. Guitar is much different in this aspect in that two different people playing the same guitar and amp can sound very different. You're physically touching the strings, the pressure of your left hand, you're picking technique, gauge of pick, using pick and fingers, etc.

As for the technology hitting the ceiling I think we should concede that some people ( I used to be one of them) feel they need dozens of tones at their disposal in each and every minute. Some guys take a more simple approach and just want to use two instruments, a guitar and an amp. No wrong or right. It's funny though that certain companies that were known for making very "do it all in one box" tube amps like Bogner, Rivera, Suhr etc are now offering lowerl wattage amps that are much more simple and user friendly.

If we look at the history of two popular guitar amps (Fender & Marshall) that were basically coming from the same Western Electric Amplifier circuit, these companies started with a basic product that evolved. The Vox AC30 was one of the first guitar amps that was designed "as" a guitar amp from the ground up. The technology isn't really all that important to me just as I don't really need to understand the inner workings of the combustion engine to drive my car.

I still wonder if we would have been better served if technology was moving one step at a time and instead of trying to build everything in the digital domain how about starting with a device than can replace the tubes of a guitar amp and sound exactly the same in that circuit. Maybe a good next step would be to design a device that can replace those heavy transformers in a typical guitar amp circuit. I would be more than happy to play a light weight amp that has the tonal complexity that's as good or better than my favorite amp and has tactile controls. I don't like menus, and digital encoders and LCD screens when I'm playing the guitar. In my studio my Motu 828 interface is routed to an anolog mixer that's also running outboard effects. I don't like having to touch a mouse whenever I want to hear another track or add more reverb or treble...

[electronpirate]

The reason for this is that no keyboard player in the world is directly responsible for the "tone" of their instrument.

As a sometime keyboard player, this is just patently incorrect. As with any good instrument, there is inflection, pedal use, FEEL. By your argument, every piano player over a certain proficiency level would sound EXACTLY the same because of a limited instrument.


As for the technology hitting the ceiling I think we should concede that some people ( I used to be one of them) feel they need dozens of tones at their disposal in each and every minute. Some guys take a more simple approach and just want to use two instruments, a guitar and an amp. No wrong or right. It's funny though that certain companies that were known for making very "do it all in one box" tube amps like Bogner, Rivera, Suhr etc are now offering lowerl wattage amps that are much more simple and user friendly.

I still wonder if we would have been better served if technology was moving one step at a time and instead of trying to build everything in the digital domain how about starting with a device than can replace the tubes of a guitar amp and sound exactly the same in that circuit. Maybe a good next step would be to design a device that can replace those heavy transformers in a typical guitar amp circuit. I would be more than happy to play a light weight amp that has the tonal complexity that's as good or better than my favorite amp and has tactile controls. I don't like menus, and digital encoders and LCD screens when I'm playing the guitar. In my studio my Motu 828 interface is routed to an anolog mixer that's also running outboard effects. I don't like having to touch a mouse whenever I want to hear another track or add more reverb or treble...

I'm confused as to why you keep posting on this subject when you clearly don't need or even like the modeling concept. Complaints about something like 'no knobs' is ridiculously far off the point. If I had to position a rib-eye towards the north on top of a lightbulb to get good tone I'd do it (of course I'm sure someone out there probably makes an interface.)

It sort of sounds to me like your the guy who will rail against something when he secretly wants to be convinced. As Scott and others have pointed out, with our Modeling solutions we are not trying to sell anyone, so 'convince me' arguments and posts that say 'it's still not as good as my amp' are generally ignored (I did say 'generally'.)

EP

[stratzrus]

I had the GT-8 and POD XTL and while both were distingushable from a tube amp, the sounds they made were fine for the way I was using them which was for songwriting/recording and late night playing in an apartment. Once I got an Atomic 50 they sounded even better.

But I wanted a modeler that I also had complete confidence in for live work as an alternative to tube amps so that I could use whatever was best in a given situation, and I haven't spent enough time tweaking the XTL to get there (while "more powerful" and probably the better of the two, the challenge of programming the GT-8 vs. the ease of programming the XTL led me to keep the XTL).

I have little doubt from what I have read that the Axe FX will be a superior recording tool and may work out fine for live work as well, and so I'm willing to try one for 30 days to see if it's a good fit for me, and if it is, I'm willing to put in the time to get the sounds I want out of it. From what others have said, it takes much less diddling to get a decent sound out of it than other current modelers.

Despite the pages spent argueing the point, I think the latentcy issue is specious. The ear and the brain are very complex in how they interact and who knows why we hear what we hear. I'm absolutely convinced that part of it is based on what we expect to hear (psychoacoustic phenomena), and that may be as much, or even more of an issue, than a millisecond or two.

The poster who said that audiophilles only accept analog is dead wrong. There are some diehard audiophiles who will only play vinyl, but they are in the vast minority these days. I used to argue until red faced that digital didn't sound as good, but that was ten years ago. Few "Golden Ears" could reliably identify which was digital and which was analog in a blindfold test of the best audio equipment offered today like the Rega Saturn.

I don't know if that's true of the Axe FX or not, but one way or the other the "tube is the only way to go" curmudgeons will increasingly be in the minority as time passes.

I used to be one of them.

Now it's "the right tool for the right job", and I could care less about what type of amp it is...the only thing that matters is will it enable me to express what I hear in my head, try to play with my fingers, and expect to come out of my amp.

I don't think there's a ceiling, but expect that that there will always be some players that prefer tubes, and that's okay. I'm glad we have a choice and that digital has come so far.

stratzrus

[pgissi]

I don't know if that's true of the Axe FX or not, but one way or the other the "tube is the only way to go" curmudgeons will increasingly be in the minority as time passes.



I dont think its accurate to call us, the tube/ss/analog snobs, curmudgeons. Fact is for us what digital does render is less desirable and remains so to this day despite all the wonders of digital. Trying to draw a parallel between generating musical tone versus simply playing back what has been recorded are simply 2 different tasks and IMO its tone generation as it applies to electro-mechanically induced and resistive/capacitively coupled tone generation that is the electric guitar is where digital, for us analog snobs, simply falls short



I don't know if that's true of the Axe FX or not, but one way or the other the "tube is the only way to go" curmudgeons will increasingly be in the minority as time passes.



Yes the statement above is likely and ironically this will happen as digital becomes more...dare I say it, tube like.

But guess what, your statement above was declared in 1980, then again in 89 then again in Y2k and now in 07 and tube gear if anything has grown signifigantly since the advent of digital guitar gear and still represents a signifigant portion of the market as far as amplification.

When I go into musical store or online retailer what do I see, tube amps with ss representing more of the low wattage market and modellers representing most of the rack and some of the pedal offerings.

I orginally stated that a keys player does not struggle with deriving a good tone and I meant via his cabs not the FOH and thats because they use synthesis where no conversion is necessary but in electric guitar, for digital you have to first convert and when you convert..

Something is always lost and that is a fact and until that day when digital is less synthesis and more shall I say organically representing the original then us analog snobs will be found.

Now I have to go into a meeting with some vips who sue cellualr and wifi and explain to them why wireless transmission of voice/data is not the utopia they think it is and to learn to live with its negatives

[pgissi]

I don't know if that's true of the Axe FX or not, but one way or the other the "tube is the only way to go" curmudgeons will increasingly be in the minority as time passes.



I dont think its accurate to call us, the tube/ss/analog snobs, curmudgeons. Fact is for us what digital does render is less desirable and remains so to this day despite all the wonders of digital. Trying to draw a parallel between generating musical tone versus simply playing back what has been recorded are simply 2 different tasks and IMO its tone generation as it applies to electro-mechanically induced and resistive/capacitively coupled tone generation that is the electric guitar is where digital, for us analog snobs, simply falls short



I don't know if that's true of the Axe FX or not, but one way or the other the "tube is the only way to go" curmudgeons will increasingly be in the minority as time passes.



Yes the statement above is likely and ironically this will happen as digital becomes more...dare I say it, tube like.

But guess what, your statement above was declared in 1980, then again in 89 then again in Y2k and now in 07 and tube gear if anything has grown signifigantly since the adbent of digital guitar gear and still represents a signifigant portion of the market as far as amplification.

When I go into musical store or online retailer what do I see, tube amps with ss representing more of the low wattage market and modellers representing most of the rack and some of the pedal offerings.

I orginally stated that a keys player does not struggle with deriving a good tone and I meant via his cabs not the FOH and thats because they use synthesis where no conversion is necessary but in electric guitar, for digital you have to first convert and when you convert..

Something is always lost and that is a fact and until that day when digital is less synthesis and more shall I say organically representing the original then us analog snobs will be found.

Please excuse while I step into a meeting to explain to some why wireless voice is not the utopia they thought it was.

[cochese]

As a sometime keyboard player, this is just patently incorrect. As with any good instrument, there is inflection, pedal use, FEEL. By your argument, every piano player over a certain proficiency level would sound EXACTLY the same because of a limited instrument.

I had a feeling this would ruffle feathers. My point is that the sound of the instrument cannot be changed I did state that by virtue of playing skills a great or accomplished player can make the instrument sound good but if I were to record the sound of just a middle C note on an acoustic piano with me hitting it with X amount of pressure or a concert pianist hitting it with X amount of pressure or a rubber hammer hitting it the same way the "Tone" would not change. The pedals on the piano allow you to change dynamics but at no point are you ever physically in contact with the strings like a violinist or guitarist etc. If Keith Emerson, Ray Manzarek or Elton John hold a C triad on the same Hammond B3 you're telling me it would "sound" different with each player. I don't think so. Take the same acoustic guitar and have a few different people play the same chord over and over and the "tone" will change. Have Larry Carlton bend say his C note to D on the third string of his guitar and give me the same guitar and amp and I doubt I will sound exactly the same.



I'm confused as to why you keep posting on this subject when you clearly don't need or even like the modeling concept. Complaints about something like 'no knobs' is ridiculously far off the point. If I had to position a rib-eye towards the north on top of a lightbulb to get good tone I'd do it (of course I'm sure someone out there probably makes an interface.)

It seems like a number of people post here on this subject that don't agree with you but you seem do be more upset over my opinion than others. Do you have a vested interest in these companys or is your opinion so fragile that your world falls apart whenever someone has a valid point or disagrees with you. As for tactile control this is a very valid concern which Line 6 had no problem addressing with their Flextone which is why I bought one and tried it for awhile. My accountant does my taxes by computer but whenever I'm in his office and he need to give some hard figures he uses a dedicated desktop calculator not the one in his computer. I guess it could be said that tactile control and ease of use applys to other things besides guitars.

It sort of sounds to me like your the guy who will rail against something when he secretly wants to be convinced. As Scott and others have pointed out, with our Modeling solutions we are not trying to sell anyone, so 'convince me' arguments and posts that say 'it's still not as good as my amp' are generally ignored (I did say 'generally'.)

I'm not railing against anything. If you read my post without so much emotion you would see I'm all in favor of trying a new technology. I don't have anything against modeling I thought it was a good idea. My point is that I think if say a company like Line 6 for instance would have just spent all that time trying to produce a basic amplifier that did a few things as good or better than a traditional one they might be further along than I think they are now. As for you and Scott not trying to convince anyone I have no idea what your motives may be but when people make proclamations as why they are using this and that to a certain degree it could be construed you are trying to influence people. As for me I have rarely played or used a product that I didn't think needed improvement including my present tube amp and guitars. I usually will pass on to any manufacturer who'll listen my likes and dislikes. If I had Line 6's ear or other designers of modeling technology to talk to I would certainly have no problem letting them hear my suggestions.

[TieDyedDevil]

One thing that strikes me in this "tube vs. digital" aspect of the discussion is that there seems to be an implication - at least among the detractors of modeling - that all tube amps are inherently better than all modelers. Or maybe I'm just reading a bit too far between the lines...

For me, the amplifier - whether digital, analog or hybrid - is simply a part of the instrument. As others have said: it's a tool.

I've played modelers that haven't sounded or felt right to me. The same goes for tube amps. I've been lucky enough to find an amp and a modeler that meet my expectations.

I can honestly say, though, that I've rejected far more tube amps than I have modeling processors. That's not because the tube amps are generally worse than the processors - it's just that there are more of the former.


I don't buy any of the reasoning by analogy that's been going on over the past few days, BTW. I've just decided that it's not worth arguing over unsound, misleading and fallacious reasoning. It's like trying to reason with a marketing campaign. The words are twisted to mean what they need to mean to support the objective of the campaign...



Although I take an interest in understanding the technology (and using the proper terminology), that's secondary to using these technological tools (both old- and new-school) as components of the musical instrument that's my guitar rig.

I also don't care for the "ten million flies can't be wrong" style of argument. I'll choose the gear I need without endorsement from "the masses", thank you very much.

I've learned to trust my ears. My ears tell me that there are tools which work for me and those that don't (but certainly may for someone else). The technology has nothing to do with the primary objective (sound and feel), but may have secondary characteristics that are either positive or negative (size, weight, cost, availability, serviceability, repeatability, reliability, etc.)


Meanwhile, use what works for you. I'm not going to argue for or against anyone's choice. I'll talk about the technology. I'll talk about the process I've gone through to figure out what works for me. I can speculate with the best (or at least the rest...) regarding the future of the MI marketplace. And when I see BS masquerading as fact, I'll do my best to try to inject some technical accuracy into the discussion. But there are limits to my patience...

[bluegrif]

I think if say a company like Line 6 for instance would have just spent all that time trying to produce a basic amplifier that did a few things as good or better than a traditional one they might be further along than I think they are now

I realize this is a mere "aside" within the scope of this entertaining thread, but I believe that was the idea behind the DuoVerb. I realize it didn't last long, but the concept was very cool. No effects (other than reverb) just amp models that could be combined in stereo. No menus, just knobs which were programmed to behave like the amp being modeled. A sound idea and not a bad piece of gear. But obviously not a big seller at the time and not because it didn't sound as good as other Line6 amps or modelers. I think buyers of modeling amps, at that time, were for the most part not interested in a "less-is-more" approach. The traditional players it was geared towards tended to stick with their traditional tools.

One other observation. Since the early days of Line6 modeling, I've noticed complaints were mostly directed at the hardware modeling devices. I heard nothing but raves about Amp Farm. I think it was Pete Anderson who said the Flextone or Vetta version of, say, a Fender Deluxe Reverb sounded a lot like a Deluxe, but the Amp Farm version sounded exactly like the Deluxe. This has always led me to believe the most serious deficiency may not be in the software side at all, but in the inability to perfectly mate the software and interface with the necessary hardware (amplifier) to make it work in the real world. Perhaps that's why Big Head Todd used (or uses, haven't heard lately) a Mac Powerbook running Protools and Amp Farm for his live tone rather than an actual modeling amp.

[Den]

David (TieDyedDevil),

Excellent post ... nice to see some clear thinking in the midst of the nonsense.

[MikeyG]

Right b4 te Duoverb came out, I'd been screaming for just that kind of thing.

BUT, my deal was: take all the DSP power required for effects, and put it towards better amp models. Stripped down effects, beefed up amp models. In my opinion, the amp models did NOT improve, they simply cut out all the effects. Bummer.

[cochese]

I realize this is a mere "aside" within the scope of this entertaining thread, but I believe that was the idea behind the DuoVerb. I realize it didn't last long, but the concept was very cool. No effects (other than reverb) just amp models that could be combined in stereo. No menus, just knobs which were programmed to behave like the amp being modeled. A sound idea and not a bad piece of gear. But obviously not a big seller at the time and not because it didn't sound as good as other Line6 amps or modelers. I think buyers of modeling amps, at that time, were for the most part not interested in a "less-is-more" approach. The traditional players it was geared towards tended to stick with their traditional tools.


I'm glad to see somone got my point. The thing with modeling by the very virtue of calling it modeling it has to be compared with what it is attempting to model. I don't discount it's use and I understand why many are drawn to this. One poster said he's been more disappointed by tube amps than modelers but then again the number of modelers available over the years to real amps doesn't make this piece of information a good statistic. I think if some of these companys had just decided to create a new amp technology and let it stand on it's own there wouldn't be this constant disagreement about which is better. Of course when you claim to sound just like a Plexi Marshall people will call you on it just as they have with new tube amps that claim to sound like amps of old. When amps like Gallien Kruger and Accoustic came out in the '70's they were just solid state amps although GK at the time claimed the secret to tube amp sound was in part the transformers but they never claimed to be more than what they were.

I just find it hard to believe how emotional some people get over this and having not read the entire thread perhaps others have been criticized worse than me. Of course I'm so closed minded about modeling you know. I'm home early tonight because the place I was playing had a power failure during my first set. Oh yeah the gear I was using tonight, my Boss GT-5 direct into a Bose PAS system. Funny how someone recently accused me of having no use for modeling

[El Caballo]

With analog your not doing a conversion, with digital you are, and my hunch is that in that conversion and post ada some treatment is required since I am guessing that some freqs are propagating at different rates through the ADA process, requiring post treatment to correct, contributing to the tone.

Your hunch is incorrect, at least as it applies to guitar effects. A/D/A conversion doesn't affect phase in any reasonable implementation.

It is true that in the early years of CD players and digital recorders, before oversampling, 22KHz brickwall filters would crunch up the high end with phase issues. This is exactly what oversampling was invented to fix: you can push the filtering frequency way out above audio range, leaving audio phase relationships intact.

There are plenty of other things that can affect the tone in a digital model, and since each unit's software is different, there is no way to generalize across all of them.

the one distinction between tube and ss is transconductance which in tubes, gives them softer sound.

The number of potential differences is infinite. Software can munch the signal any way you like. It's easy to make a "softer" digital processor or a "harsher" analog processor.

The differences have a lot more to do with the models themselves than with any inherent characteristic of digital. Most "modeling" consists of very simplistic approximations to what is actually going on. The problem is that these simple approximations can get you about 80-90% of the way there -- but that extra 10-20% is much, much harder, because you have to throw out the simple models and actually do some heavy lifting. I think there are a few people starting to do this, but it hasn't trickled down to the mass market combo/head price point yet, and since everyone is very close-mouthed about their technology, it's hard to tell what is actually a new simulation technique and what's just another marketing buzzword.

[guitarist58]

The differences have a lot more to do with the models themselves than with any inherent characteristic of digital. Most "modeling" consists of very simplistic approximations to what is actually going on. The problem is that these simple approximations can get you about 80-90% of the way there -- but that extra 10-20% is much, much harder, because you have to throw out the simple models and actually do some heavy lifting. I think there are a few people starting to do this, but it hasn't trickled down to the mass market combo/head price point yet, and since everyone is very close-mouthed about their technology, it's hard to tell what is actually a new simulation technique and what's just another marketing buzzword.

El Caballo, thank you for your post! It addressed a number of thoughts I had--but they couldn't get past the cobwebs in my brain! :p

I followed the development of a lot of digital technology in audio, from the advent of CDs through a lot of what happened with synths/keyboards and studio signal processing in the 80's--early 90's (had a small mostly analog studio in the 80's). As early 8-bit audio and filtering gave way and (IIRC) a variety of PCM techniques such as "adaptive delta modulation" brought improvements, it seemed (to me anyway) that at some point in time, as you pointed out, higher sampling rates and better quality A/Ds and D/As eventually "got out of the way" and then more directly the software issues took precedence (algorithms!:BOUNCE).

I mentioned in a previous post a Japanese fellow who did the programming for the Yamaha DG series of "modelers". I tried to find the article, but it was years ago I saw it on Yamaha's Japanese web site and it appears to be long gone. He apparently focused on "modeling" [I]sounds instead of "amps". He traveled around the world--to all kinds of world class studios--listening to pro guitar rigs and all kinds of amps (even some famous players), and constantly tweaked the programs, with input from engineers and the players themselves. I was in awe--this guy was quite gifted--sounded like a genius to me :D! Anyway, I remember Yamaha actually could not come out with the DG series in the early 90's (or thereabouts) because it took 5 of their most powerful processors at the time, and it couldn't be produced cost effectively until about 4 years or so after the software had been developed!

I believe you are absolutely right about the approximations getting 80-90% of the way there, and the rest of the trip requiring a lot more work! All of the companies producing modeling gear are businesses that have to try to stay in business, so marketing and balance sheets have to co-exist with research & development.

If I'm not mistaken, I thought I'd read somewhere that Cliff at Fractal Audio actually has analyzed the behavior of vacuum tubes themselves, and taken it from there. Even if that's not the case, that would be one approach that could yield improvements in trying to simulate the way a vacuum tube guitar amp sounds and responds (instead of just trying to model some kind of "amp"). That's also what I was thinking of earlier when I posted that if a talent like a "digital version of" a Ken Fischer or Michael Zaite comes along who can develop the algorithms, that would also break through another "Ceiling". From what I hear, Cliff at Fractal just might be one of those talents!

So to the OP's question--I believe we may have hit a ceiling--at least around 2005 anyway. But I'm confident it was a temporary one! :AOK

Disclaimer: I'll probably always lust after and buy tube amps and analog gear too, cos I'm a gear slut :p

[Lucidology]

I've always hated that digital 'clank' at the onset of pick attack. ....

This also doesn't happen with the new Tonelab LE... :YinYang

[TieDyedDevil]

...[I should have been more clear, BTW, when I say "modeling", I think of it in the scientific simulation sense, like the way you can "model" the effects of an earthquake on a bridge, not that the digital device is trying to model a JTM45 or Twin Reverb or whatever, which is what I think most folks might mean when they refer to modeling in the guitar amp/effect sense.] ...


This is my sense of the word "modeling": it's a name for a process, not a promise of a copy of the original. The latter is specious anyway... I've certainly heard significant differences between tube amps of the same model - is the "model" supposed to capture all the potential variations?

I can understand why folks would be unimpressed by modelers if they expect an accurate imitation according to the labels on the menus or switches. My advice to folks seeking a modeler is to buy it based upon whether they like the actual sounds. (In other words: listen with your ears, not your eyes.)

[MikeyG]

That's a good point. The Axe-FX has an XTC model. But that amp has so many switches and settings, there's no way you can get it exact. Excursion, A/AB, Vintage/Modern, Gain/Boost, etc, all generate pretty different variations on the Bogner theme. All a model can do is get a general theme, on an amp that complex ...

For a more simple amp, though, like a Fender Super or a Bassman or a Plexi, you should be able to get pretty durn close. All I really care is that I capture the essence of that tone, and it sounds good. I don't get caught up in whether it's exact or not.

[MikeyG]

I've ben listening to the Tonelab LE clips, they sound nice. Need to see how they 'feel'.

Do they have tubes in them?? I know the Valvetronix does (did?)

[Form]

My first post! :dudeI've been a lurker for a while, and I usually don't have anything to add. But I can't resist anymore... btw great thread everyone!

I like modelers for what they are, but IMHO they are still ss amps (or preamps if you're talking about a pod or axe fx). I'm happy with a cheap ss practice amp in my house, but when I go to rehearsals or perform I prefer tube amps because they just have more wallup, for lack of a better term. This is the "feel" factor that everyone is talking about as I understand it. Tube amps just give a feel that lends itself to a more pleasurable playing experience for the player. True, this is a generalization, but it has been my experience and I think others can back me up.

This phenomenon is similar to when a soundguy forces me to turn my amp low and just feeds me my sound through the monitors. I'm still hearing roughly the same thing, but it FEELS very different, and not in a good way. I'm hearing the pa board's eq, ss power amp, and speaker after my amp gets miked. This experience is very similar to my experience with modeling products. Most of the sound is still there, but the feel isn't. (The modelers I have used are line 6 and tech 21 products, btw. I've never had the opportunity to perform with a vox or roland.)

And guess what? A lot of the modeling amps are built to the same pricepoints as the cheaper ss amps are. This probably isn't an accident, because this is where these companies feel they can make the most $$$. I also imagine that they are made to sound good in guitar stores and bedrooms instead of with a band. This is no way to make a replacement for someone's favorite marshall or twin.

Most of this has been said before, but here's my point. I wonder what would happen if a modeling company like line 6 would try to build if they were tasked to create a genuine tube amp replacement. They would have to make a few breakthroughs:

-Build an ss power amp that's worth a damn. Even if the preamps are spot-on, you still need a power amp if you want to perform. If someone can make a ss power amp that "feels" like a tube power amp, or even just one that gives a more pleasurable playing experience, this could win over quite a few people. I don't know if anyone has ever tried to do this, or if it is just so out of the question no one ever bothered.

-Use better cabinets and speakers. This technology already exists, but pricepoints force the companies to use cheaper builds and components.

-Make everything lighter! A good ss power amp would probably have a massive tranny just like a good tube one would, but has anyone ever tried to design a lighter tranny that does the same thing as a heavier one? Is there a space-age material that is light and can be used to make a good cab?

The end result might be just as expensive as a boutique tube amp, or the technology might lend itself to cheaper manufacturing. If they can't make anything lighter, it would probably be just as big and heavy. I really hope that the modeling amp companies at least think about putting some R&D effort into the high end of the market, because this is where they can truly make their mark. IMHO amp modeling technology has not hit the ceiling, because there is so much more that they can do. It just depends on which part of the market the modeling companies want to sell to.

[Ray Gianelli]

If you have the chance, check out a Vox VTX. It has the punch of a tube amp, at very reasonable volumes. It cut through in a two guitar - keys band nicely. The other guitarist (playing pedals and a 5150 II) was frequently jealous that I could go from a Voxy ballad tone, to a ballsout Marshall with a step.

Keep in mind, with ANY modeler, that a decent part of your tone is high wattage moving a speaker cone, so it's very tough to get that without cranking.

Add a +1 to that about the effects as well. There are so many crappy multi-effects things out there. I want one that can do many things, with NO distortion models, and don't want to pay 1k+ for it.

I have gone through SO many iterations of effects. I had the Vox (decent FX), to tube and a G- Major (okay, but never quite seemed to give me what I wanted), to just plain pedals (better, but sort of dull after awhile), now I have an Xpression on the way, and hoping that it will scratch the itch (credit the Herbert demo video with this new revelation.)

EP

I've always loved the Rocktron stuff and have gotten good results from it. The interface doesn't change from model year to model year, which I like. The only place the G Major won out was pitch bending.

[DC1]

There are also cultural differences between DSP code writers and analog circuit designers.

One thing that is really holding digital systems back is the analog portion of the box. The digital folks often do a poor job on this because they think the DSP is where all the sound comes from. Well, as Scott and others have shown, it ain't so.

Putting the right pedal in front of a modeller can make a huge improvement in sound. I usually use a Barber Tone Press, but tonight I put my new Jetter Gain Stage Red in front of a Digitech modeller. Much better, even without using any dirt from the Jetter.

When they do front end design as well as they do DSP design, things will get better for digital.

Will they replace tubes? Nah....

The whole obsolescence paradigm is no longer meaningful. Not if you use your ears at least. We want both!

I refuse to get religion about guitar sound...

DC

[VaughnC]

I've tried a few modeling amps along the way and, out of the one's I've tried, I liked the Fender Cyber twin best mainly because I felt it did a respectable job on fleshing out classic Fender amps (which are generally my favorite amp type). However, I remember the non-Fender amp models being so, so. No, the amp ain't perfect....but I think Fender's approach of using non-modeling digitally controlled FET switching to reconfigure/rewire an analog tube preamp has merit. And, if Fender had married the Cyber Twin preamp to a tube type power amp (for the feel factor), they might have really had something a lot closer to what we'd want out of a gigging modeling type of amp (even though the Fender approach isn't actually "modeling" per se). Fender probably opted for a stereo SS power stage to keep the price down and use stereo effects for the initial wow factor. A cool concept for the Cyber Twin might have been to have an internal 60 watt 6L6 mono power amp, but with an optional external 2X12 amp/cab powered with a 2nd 60 watt 6L6 power amp for full stereo if so desired.

However, I haven't tried the newer SE version of the Cyber Twin so I don't know if it's an improvement but, now that I'm no longer gigging, the Cyber Twin SE is starting to look appealing to me again as a fun amp for just dinking around in my den when I get the urge. But, for snicks & grins, I'll still be tinkering with my homebrew tube amp too ;).

[TieDyedDevil]

You have some interesting thoughts, Form. That was a very thoughtful first post. Welcome!

My take on the "feel" thing - or as you put it the presence or absence of "wallop" - is that it's a problem that can be solved in SS with the application of sufficient power. In my experience it takes a (roughly, depending upon speakers) 300 watt SS amp to keep up with a 50 watt tube amp.

This is because of the well-known characteristics of tube vs. SS power amps under overload conditions: tubes sound good, SS doesn't. If you're running a modeler into an SS power amp you have to make sure that the power amp runs clean at all times, and that takes more power to leave headroom for the peaks.

The equation, of course, balances out differently if you're running a modeler into a tube power amp.

Try some other modelers if you get the chance. Every brand has a characteristic sound and feel, regardless of what the labels say on the menus or switches. I went through a lot of different products trying to find the one that worked for me. Modelers are just like any other piece of MI gear - you have to keep looking for the one that satisfies your expectations.

You commented on the weight of a good SS power amp, saying that it must be heavy because of the massive power transformer. That, at least, is a solved problem thanks to switching power supplies. These chop the AC line voltage at frequencies well above the audible range. The magnetics and filter capacitors are much smaller and lighter at these frequencies.

Another approach to high-power lightweight SS power amps is the use of switching amplification (sometimes referred to as Class D). This works on the same principles as a switching power supply except that the audio input modulates the output voltage, which is applied directly to the speakers. Because of the high-frequency operation, magnetics are small and light just like in switching power supplies. Class D amps can run at efficiencies in excess of 90%, which means that they generate very little waste heat for their power.

[Robert1950]

A few months ago, there was a short article in Guitar Player about guitarist Nori Bucci. She admitted being a tube snob until she started working with the Fender Jazzmaster Ultralight had and cab. She runs a Boss GT8 (GT6?) into the Jazzmaster and now it's her goto gigging rig.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VcDqz-yVKEo&mode=related&search=

[trisonic]

It's been nearly two years since my first post on this thread. At the time I'd only experienced a modeller second hand as a listener - it was the first Fender. Unfortunately the bass player was using an old Fender Bandmaster and it really showed up the CyberTwin.

Where I think most makers err is in concentrating on the efx. As many have alluded to they should concentrate more on the basic amp sound(s). The best that I have come across is the Roland C60 and I purchased one for around the house. It's wysiwyg (that's another bane of mine is the interface of the musician with the device) with just a few add on efx (the Reverb is actually very good, indeed).
To be honest I only ever use it in either JC120/BF or occasionally AC30 modes - never even tried the Marshall types.

It's pretty good. Would I ever gig with it is a harder question.

Best, Pete.

[jbow]

Good first post Form. I don't post much either. This is an interesting thread to me because, while I don't play out these days, I still like to get loud why I can... there is nothing like it. I have a C Vibrolux reverb with Weber C10Qs and I really love the amp. It satisfy's my tube craving. I have a bunch of other tube and SS amps including a Flextone III Plus and a VOX AD30VT. To my ears the VOX sound's way better than the Flextone unless I really crank the FT, then it sound's better on some models and with much tweaking, usually turning off the speaker modelling. I am considering buying a VOX VT 100w head to see how it does at volume. I also have Powerblock and it also sound's nice loud. I play it through a Tweed Deluxe cab with a EMI Texas Heat, nice speaker!
Some of the really old SS amps sound good to me too, I have a Jordan 2x15 combo from the 60s and it really sound's good turned up.

You should check out the VOX VT amps when you get a chance.

Another good amp for good tones at apartment volume level is the Roland Micro-Cube. I had both the Micro-Cube and a Cube-60. The Cube-60 is one loud amp but it really lack's that something special... it's just loud. On the other hand the Micro-Cube has something special but not enough volume for anything more than an acoustic jam or for playing with CDs or such as that. As weak as modelling amps are they are, IMO, better than modelling guitars...

If someone could make a modelling amp sound the way a POD does through phones, and have the needed "whump"... they would have what we are looking for.

J

[JohnMS]

Try out an Axe FX.

Apart from that, digital modelling has certainly not hit the ceiling. One might as well say PCs have hit the ceiling.

DSPs and algorithms are continuously refined and designed and improved. In a few years, noone will be able to notice a real difference, IMHO.

[DC1]

Try out an Axe FX.

Apart from that, digital modelling has certainly not hit the ceiling. One might as well say PCs have hit the ceiling.

DSPs and algorithms are continuously refined and designed and improved. In a few years, noone will be able to notice a real difference, IMHO.

I disagree with this, and I don't buy the obsolesence paradigm at any rate.

Why has there never been a convincing model of a HIWATT?

They are very useful tools, but they will likely never replace analog electronics. Look at recording: the more the DAW's work and sound great, the more gear the analog guys sell.


Life and existence itself is analog. Time resolves infinitely in the real world.



The future is hybrid.

DC

[TieDyedDevil]

Time resolves infinitely in the real world.

Maybe so. But do our senses have infinite resolution?

[DC1]

Maybe so. But do our senses have infinite resolution?

With hearing, it's a series of cilia attached to nerves in the cochlea. It is an amazingly hi-res process, so much so that if we could see as well as we hear, we would see a VW on the moon with the unaided eye.

One of the hardest things for auditory science to deal with is that we can hear better than we can currently measure, including the ability to hear sounds that are totally masked by noise. No one quite knows how we are able to do that, (perhaps trying to tune-up during practice?) but that phenomenon and many others, are beyond our ability to measure at this point.

I am not making a blanket statement about digital audio. I record things and build studios for a living and I came up in analog land years ago, and I MUCH prefer good digital recording to analog. But we traded one set of issues for another, and while most of those issues are pretty well worked out now, but that does not mean that modelling nirvana is around the corner.

My own view is that modelling will eventually put terrific algorithms, major DSP horsepower, low-latency, and great circuit design together and sound wonderful. Will they sound the same as a great amp? No. I don't buy it for a moment.

More tools. A good thing. I too want to try an Axe FX.




But you can have my HIWATT when you pry it from my cold dead fingers...

;)

DC

[TieDyedDevil]

Interesting comments. Thanks, DC.

I'm curious about your comment "... I MUCH prefer good digital recording to analog." What's the rub with analog? Noise? Distortion? Reliability? It seems like there's a large subculture of analog recording enthusiasts who prefer the "euphonic" distortions. Just curious as to your thoughts...

[DC1]

I'm curious about your comment "... I MUCH prefer good digital recording to analog." What's the rub with analog? Noise? Distortion? Reliability? It seems like there's a large subculture of analog recording enthusiasts who prefer the "euphonic" distortions. Just curious as to your thoughts...

To run an analog studio properly, you have to learn about tape levels and bias. Once you learn about those things, you start to learn how much pure noise and distortion is added in the process of putting sound on tape and taking in back off again. Remember those phenomenal-sounding direct-to-disc vinyl records back in the late 1970's? That's what analog sounds like without 3 generations of tape in the process. I have heard original acetates from the 1930's and 40's (outtakes from Benny Goodman and Sinatra) that sounded flippin' wonderful... No one wants to talk about this, because we have become used to all this garbage involved with analog multi-tracking and some even like it... Not me. I can add it if I want it, but I am no longer stuck with it.

Also, I can get a huge hard drive in a FW box for a couple hundred bucks and record forever, and 2 inch tape is stupid expensive and runs out in 30 minutes at 15ips. :messedup

I run a PARIS DAW here at my studio. It's an obsolete, orphan of a DAW and sounds so damn good I can't get rid of it. If you lay into it hard, instead of digital overs, you get a great old console and tape. Back off and you get clean again. Amazing.

DC

[Lucidology]

If you're curious: Here's a live clip of the Tonelab LE through a Bose L1

Shamelessly Wanking Santana (by request) - The Gear Page (http://www.thegearpage.net/board/showthread.php?p=2797081#post2797081)