If a digital piano will never be like a real piano....

[Sethian]

Originally Posted by Pietro

You've heard "fake piano" and "modeled amps" on way more recordings than you probably could even imagine.

+ "fake cellos"
+ "fake violins"
+ "fake percussion"
+ etc. etc. etc.

Playing piano for over 20 years now. A good sample library + a good keyboard (Doepfer, Kurzweil..) and you'll be satisfied. Especially when you're gigging. Plus: this comparison (digital piano and modeling amps for guitars) is far away from reality.

Originally Posted by Rena Rune

pgissi; the issue isn't whether someone can handle an opposing viewpoint. The issue is that it bothers people when people can't come to terms with modern technology and some rather basic scientific ideas.



Which physics in particular? What about physics and natural law state it's impossible to emulate the effect of a tube amplifier?


[/I]
Sorry but you have no clue what you're talking about. How is it any less someone else's feel when someone else made the piano?

You don't seem to understand that everything in theory can be emulated.

Just ignore them. Their ignorance is based on huge lack of knowledge.

[soundchaser59]

Obviously started by a guitar player who has never played Pianoteq on a grand piano keyboard.....it's as real as the sound system you hear it thru can make it sound, some of which are mighty darn real. I sat down at one and had no idea it was digital......until the saleman walked over and shut it off.

[seeker]

This thread is going in the same direction as most D**ble threads.... I predict lockdown....

[dspellman]

Originally Posted by pgissi

what gives you or anyone the right to tell me I am silly or clueless and guess what if you do, I wont back down and take it, its disrespectful

I would never do that. I'm sure you're highly serious. I did call the argument silly.

the digital photography analogy is bunk, the ear is a better instrument the eye cant compare and thats why we communicate with verbal language and not visually to that degree of complexity and you could spend a lifetime trying to draw parallel between analogies using photography and music in the analog and digital realm

You're not going to find many scientists that will agree with any of that. Good luck, though.

sure on a 2,3 or maybe 4 inch screen but 326ppi on a large flat panel is the equivalent of going blind and not sure what this has to do with the effect on our aural acuity when using technology designed to produce musical tones

326 pixels per inch on a large screen is the equvalent of going blind? You're kidding, right? I'm not talking about the total resolution of the screen, but the resolution of each INCH of it. Most computer screens are around 100 pixels per inch these days. If you have a 16" x 12" screen, you get 1600 by 1200 pixels. If you have 326 pixels per inch on a large screen, you'd be running a 5216 x 3912 resolution. You've never seen one. Or else you don't understand what you're talking about.

if find it hard to believe that in the word of modeling where sampling is central, that improved resolution will really ever change the simple law of nature that says in order to observe an event then replicate it, it must occur first

And, of course, you're missing the point. We've already observed the event. Done deal. We KNOW what happens and what sounds are produced by a tube amp. The results been measured in every conceivable way. Modeling replicates it. A tube amp and speakers react in predictable ways, and the more accurately (the higher "resolution") the modeler replicates that reaction, the more difficult it becomes to tell the two apart. At some point, the ear can't tell the difference; it has limits. It "resolves" (thus the use of the word resolution) the two identically in the brain.

[pgissi]

Originally Posted by seeker

This thread is going in the same direction as most D**ble threads.... I predict lockdown....

yep because the inmates cant play nice sometimes although this latest volley is at least civil.

326 pixels per inch on a large screen is the equvalent of going blind? You're kidding, right? I'm not talking about the total resolution of the screen, but the resolution of each INCH of it.

sorry glossed over the ppi and wtf does this have to do with sound, tone, nothing, 2 different things and the differences in analog and digital photog are well known but you forget when I stated my opinion that

I like analog (tubes) for their purity in feel and color in tone

I dislike digital (modeling) for its artificial feel and purity in tone, I want color which in the analog world is the result of a tuned circuit('s) and the LCR properties that exist.

like the differences in ge and si, there are differences in Tube and SS and finally Tube, SS and SS Modeling. In regards to photography, one wants purity if were talking pure photography maybe science and if art, maybe color the technology can impart for effect, thank you photoshop

anyway the analogies do break down and sound/music does not only elicit a deeper emotional response, it can be physical too and that means we have better auditory skills, just does not compare and the point of this is, we interpret the info in each discipline differently

And, of course, you're missing the point. We've already observed the event. Done deal. We KNOW what happens and what sounds are produced by a tube amp.

your missing my point

analog transduction requires no sampling or conversion, right out of the gate its not impared in that way, it does not have those hurdles to get over and for some reason some seem to think digital holds all the answers, well yes it does hold many but IMO, and your free to disagree, the most important is a compromise and that is feel

and then there is the little matter of tone

all of these ancedotal claims of "i had no idea it was digital" or "I found players who could not discern the difference" or "the audience does not care nor can they tell"...all meaningless to me and to those like me who hold these opinions

telling me in so many words I am ignorant or lack knowledge without refuting my points with something tangible means your looking in the mirror, I have used, studied and worked with the tech both personal and professional, its not just talk

the major difference and one that is an advantage for digital pianos is that and you may want to sit down,

THE SAMPLES ALREADY EXIST AND ARE MERELY TRIGGERED WHERE AS IN A GUITAR MODELER THE SAMPLE (event) HAS NOT TAKEN PLACE YET, THE NOTE MUST BE STRUCK, SAMPLED, OVERSAMPLED, CONVERTED, PROCESSED, CONVERTED AGAIN AND OUTPUT

exhausting process, imagine how the electron feels

Digital Pianos got it all over digital guitar, always had

[Miles]

Originally Posted by pold

That means that modeling amps will never be like tube amps. Let's face it guys. Those who are saying that modeling is the future or that Axe-fx is getting close have no idea of what a good amp sounds like. Modeling is good for metal, but for the Hendrix tone of a cranked Marshall that's where it will be too difficult with modeling amps. Think about modeling a violin or a human voice, you can get close but it will never be the same. And the same thing is for tube amps.

This clever analogy is crippled at birth since it's not remotely equivalent of a digital vs. real piano.

A piano is a completely acoustic instrument. It might work if you compare an acoustic sim pedal to an acoustic.

Amps are only electronics, circuits, wires, etc... designed to amplify an instrument to a certain frequency. They are not a holistic acoustic instrument.

With that said, I'm with you - I still think it's really hard for any digital amplifier to actually sound like a tube amplifier in the room.

Going direct and recording? Digital amps kill mics and speaker cabs and room irregularities and such.

For performance? Having a digital rig vs. tube rig in the room? Tubes are where it's at. It doesn't mean that digital rigs don't work and even work well, but that they aren't the same as a valve rig and the way a valve rig works in a room/stage mix. I really want them to, because I think digital tools are wonderful, but I've owned many and I'm still not convinced.

[fetishfrog]

Originally Posted by Miles

This clever analogy is crippled at birth since it's not remotely equivalent of a digital vs. real piano.

A piano is a completely acoustic instrument. It might work if you compare an acoustic sim pedal to an acoustic.

Amps are only electronics, circuits, wires, etc... designed to amplify an instrument to a certain frequency. They are not a holistic acoustic instrument.

I agree with this.

Originally Posted by Miles

With that said, I'm with you - I still think it's really hard for any digital amplifier to actually sound like a tube amplifier in the room.

I disagree with this. Dig up ed degenaro's demo of his Axe-FX and JTM 45 where he sweeps real time back and forth between the two. The tones are ever so slightly different, both tones sound great, and no one listening who's worth a damn could possibly care less.

[stratzrus]

Originally Posted by pold

Teemuk seems to think that we "cavemen" have intent to purge all violators from our ranks so he has to post border line inflamatory or troll like posts in order to prove his point.

What he forgets is that we really are a live and let live crowd and if it was not for those like him who constantly make "tube like" claims, we would not care otherwise or feel the need to engage in circle jerk debates of which is better.

Please correct me if I'm wrong but didn't one of your "live and let live" crowd just start a thread, unprovoked, slamming modelers?

Given your lengthy and multiple posts you seem to care more than you are willing to admit...even to yourself.

If you really believe in "live and let live" enjoy playing your tube amps and be glad that others have also found amps they enjoy, even if they differ in design from your personal choice.

I have never once seen a person who uses modelers start a thread denigrating tube amps. This thread, and your posts, seem as far from live and let live as it gets.

Personally I use and enjoy both, but I don't start threads about amps I don't like. Really, what's the point?

[pold]

Originally Posted by soundchaser59

Obviously started by a guitar player who has never played Pianoteq on a grand piano keyboard.....it's as real as the sound system you hear it thru can make it sound, some of which are mighty darn real. I sat down at one and had no idea it was digital......until the saleman walked over and shut it off.

Started by a guitar player and pianist, I play Steinway and Pianoteq and the gap is still very very deep. Pianoteq? Hahahaha, no offence to Pianoteq and you, but if you can't hear and feel the huge gap between a Steinway in good shape and Pianoteq then I am not surprised that you can't tell the difference between a cranked Plexi and an Axe-fx. Anyway I hope I am wrong and one day the difference won't be as big as it is now.

[soundchaser59]

Originally Posted by pold

....but if you can't hear and feel the huge gap between a Steinway in good shape and Pianoteq then I am not surprised that you can't tell the difference between a cranked Plexi and an Axe-fx.

All your words, not mine. You dont have a clue what I can or cannot distinguish with my ears. And no, the gap is not huge. If you think that then you need better gear.

You are a provocateur.....I think that's French for "troll."

Your next move should be to add me to your permanent ignore list.

[pgissi]

once again it begins to self destruct, civility that is and I am the one who said live and let live LO F'ing L

some of you get yo panties all in a knot when someone declares their position, frankly who cares, its boring, I would rather be playing

the other funny aspect of this, most of ya'll freely admit, there is a difference

thats the point, there is, how much is probably the most subjective aspect maybe difficult to quantify but oops there it is

The tones are ever so slightly different, both tones sound great, and no one listening who's worth a damn could possibly care less.

your ever so slightly is my grand canyon of difference


thats fine, I like the tools to0, I dont go hating, just expressing a viewpoint, if you disagree, I dont see a problem, express it and do it civily and stop throwing the troll label around when you cant find the constructive words to counter with

its old tired and does not fit

I have never once seen a person who uses modelers start a thread denigrating tube amps.

tube amps dont claim to sound like modelers

[MRscratch]

i guess albums recorded on pro tools, can never sound like a real recording either.i think the idea of modeling is to capture the IDEA of an amp, and to give a tool for the task at hand. i have heard a line 6 vetta II recorded direct to pro tools sound completely indistinguishable from my slo recorded in the same song. not in its "tone" but in its performance in the song and mix.
im a 100% tube amp guy. i was flabergasted! so was john mclean at the factory in vancouver. you may know it as little mountain sound. famous 80s studio , for motley crue, aerowsmith,acdc etc

[Sethian]

Originally Posted by pold

Started by a guitar player and pianist

I think troll is the right description here.

[pold]

Originally Posted by soundchaser59

All your words, not mine. You dont have a clue what I can or cannot distinguish with my ears. And no, the gap is not huge. If you think that then you need better gear.

You are a provocateur.....I think that's French for "troll."

Your next move should be to add me to your permanent ignore list.

all opinions are welcome as long as we discuss politely, I am not here to provoke, I actually enjoy debating this, and everything I said are just opinions. What's the point of trolling??

[1fastdog]

Modelers have much to recommend them. I have tried a few of them over the years.
Some get better and some are still not very good at all.

I have yet to play one that responds < touch sensitivity > as intuitively as a very good tube amp loaded with very good tubes, through a good speaker. Their sound is getting there. The feel, at least to me, still has some way to go.

I hope they get better as the supply of truly great tubes is finite.