The modeling proces, Line 6 info

Discussion in 'Amps and Cabs' started by Vettavillenl, Sep 17, 2005.


  1. Vettavillenl

    Vettavillenl Member

    Messages:
    391
    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2005
  2. MikeyG

    MikeyG Supporting Member

    Messages:
    11,123
    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2002
    Location:
    RDU Area
    If 1/4 of those enhancements actually make it to the final product, that would be an impressive amp.

    I keep waiting for each generation of new amp, hoping some real tubiness will be there.

    Personally I think Line6 should drop all the built-in effects and other crap, and put 100% of the R&D into the tubiness. Add a great loop, and make that the final product.
     
  3. Vettavillenl

    Vettavillenl Member

    Messages:
    391
    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2005
    I guess the Duoverb was a kind of in effort in that way. Just amps no effects.

    I guess the good part is they actually took the time to listen / discuss with us on what we want. It'll be impossible to get all the features mentioned but who knows...
     
  4. MikeyG

    MikeyG Supporting Member

    Messages:
    11,123
    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2002
    Location:
    RDU Area
    But the Duo didn't beef up the modeling, just stripped the effects, right??

    I'm saying take all the cost savings and leftover processing power of not having effects, and put that $$ into chips that will more accurately model the tubiness.
     
  5. JPenn

    JPenn Member

    Messages:
    1,767
    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    Blytheville, AR
    I think the idea looked better on paper;)

    I've never went the Vetta route, just because I don't really think I need all of that, but some folks get plenty of use out them. The Flextones have worked out pretty good for me, but I think if they didn't try to put so many models and effects in there they could make a better sounding amp.
     
  6. Vettavillenl

    Vettavillenl Member

    Messages:
    391
    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2005
    I would think that if they have the option of getting better coding of the modeling (apart from speed/quality of chips used) they would do it, wouldn't they. To me there's no real sense in not doing it out of competition issues..

    So the matter of sticking effects in or out doesn't make real sense, if the processing code stays the same. If they would come up, or find out better ways or optimize code the produced tones would beneifit overal, wouldn't it?

    In that way of thinking it would also apply for the the effects/cabs etc..
     
  7. MikeyG

    MikeyG Supporting Member

    Messages:
    11,123
    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2002
    Location:
    RDU Area
    I've heard rumors that they've got some prototypes that can flat out nail the tubiness that everyone seeks ... but the cost is way too high to make it affordable for the typical user.

    I don't think it's a matter of the technology not being there, it's cost. So if effects are part of the cost, remove them, and use that money to put in the faster chips that will more accurately model the amps ....
     
  8. Design Guy

    Design Guy Member

    Messages:
    595
    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2003
    Location:
    Calabasas, CA.
    The DuoVerb was exactly the amp you describe. It had the latest & best modelling available (SHARC processor), could do two amps at once, and only had reverb (plate or spring was automatically selected depending on the amp model and it's relation to the original amp modelled).

    It sounded great to my ears and was by far the most overbuilt amp we made. The cab was marine-grade baltic birch ply etc.

    It turns out, people want the effects! lol

    People always think that we are wasting money/bandwidth by adding effects, but that's not necessarily the way it works. The DuoVerb's SHARC was completely used up doing 2 amps at once with reverb; there was no extra DSP for effects if we wanted them. The Vetta has 2 SHARCs which provided enough DSP for amps + a ton of effects (amp models use a lot more DSP than most effects). Different effects take up different amounts of DSP space, and from what I understand (I'm not an engineer) it is quite the balancing act to ensure that there is enough power to do everything that is possible at all times. This means that some amp/effects combos leave some processing power unused, but there are others that competely tap out the power of the SHARCs.

    Our effects library is constantly being tweaked and improved upon, as is the amp modelling process, but different engineers work on the two, so we are not "wasting" money or resources by doing one or the other; they are seperate.

    Just thought I'd throw that out there FYI.
     
  9. MikeyG

    MikeyG Supporting Member

    Messages:
    11,123
    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2002
    Location:
    RDU Area
    good info, thanks! I'll check out a Duoverb based on your comments.

    So, how far way are we from being able to toss tube amps out the window??

    I'm a big believer in the technology. But my ears can't take the 'hard' quality of modeling amps. That sweet, breathy quality of tubes just isn't there.... yet .....

    My wager is, in 20 years, they will be indistinguishable. Based on the rate of progress over the last 10 years.
     
  10. MikeyG

    MikeyG Supporting Member

    Messages:
    11,123
    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2002
    Location:
    RDU Area
    Just re-read your comments, did I read it correctly that the Duoverb is using 1 SHARC, and the Vetta, 2?

    So what I'm pushing for is a Duoverb with 2 SHARCs dedicated to amp processing only :)
     
  11. Design Guy

    Design Guy Member

    Messages:
    595
    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2003
    Location:
    Calabasas, CA.
    That's correct, however adding a second SHARC doesn't add to the quality of the modelling process. It's a common misconception, but simply not true. There are only so many data points that can be measured and accurately reproduced, and we are constantly working to improve on that, but DSP bandwidth hasn't been our limitation yet. The trick, as I understand it, is finding better ways to ascertain quantifiable information about an amps character, so it can be translated into a mathematical / digital equivalent.

    Like I said, I'm not an engineer, but I know it's not nearly as easy as giving it more DSP power, not even close. All adding a second SHARC would do is allow more DSP space for effects and other features. It wouldn't alter the quality of the sound one iota. ...if it were that easy, the GuitarPort would sound better than any of our amps, because today's PCs have far more processing power than a SHARC (or 3).

    I wish I could give a more enlightened look into the actual limiting factors, but I can't. I just wanted to clear up a couple points. 1) that more DSP power doesn't make for a better model, and 2) we DID make an amp that had the very best technology available and was stripped of effects; it didn't sell.

    The #1 comment people made about the DuoVerb was "For that much money, it should at least have delay, etc (add your effect of choice here)."

    We sold that amp as cheaply as the technology inside would allow, and the market proved that it wouldn't support such a product, regardless of how much the people that owned one liked it.
     
  12. JPenn

    JPenn Member

    Messages:
    1,767
    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    Blytheville, AR
    I just happen to have one I'd let go for a good price!!:D

    My main gripe with the newer L6 technology is in the lowend response of the amp. The wound strings get a funky muffled quality like the tone knob on your guitar is turned to 0. It does this with both the FlexIII and the DuoVerb. I've tried to figure out a way to get rid of itwith no luck. There was also a thing with the Plexi model of the DV and humbuckers, but I'm the only one that could ever hear it so it must not be there.

    I'm with you Mikey, I welcome the technology. I'm not a tweak freak though, so the Vetta doesn't interest me in the least. I'm hoping the next version of the Flextone adds the volume boost and drive boost the I & II had. That would save me the trouble of hooking up a TS9 in front of the amp and an RC Booster thru the loop. I still think less models is the way to go, just focus on the best models. I do want effects, otherwise I'll just use a tube amp and pedals:)
     

Share This Page