Discussion in 'Digital & Modeling Gear' started by ColdFrixion, May 24, 2019.
The proof is in the playing through a stage monitor, not sound clips.
Or that guitarists are rather conservative.
I mean what truly different sounds are there for amps? They fall all into basic categories with variations.
Not like I didn't have to listen to enough consultants that weren't players while working in MI.
Same when I've done Alpha and Beta testing for various companies.
What are the basic sounds in a Variax? Right there it shows what the market's expectations are.
And as of modelling...how many rodded Marshalls in an Axe-Fx cause guys like what someone told them is good.
The most obvious models to go after wanting a different sound so of be the Fractal models...
Show of hands...fractal idealized JMP vs. JMP model?
And with all this amp in the room talk and there are more guys were a JMP would do nothing but howl...
And how many tube screamer clones we need?
Again, I would submit that if players were, by and large, not receptive to products that failed to conform to tradition, there would be little (to no) demand for amp modelers in general.
All of this begs the question, how many developers are actually offering alternative means to create sounds that are truly different than those of decades old convention? If the answers is not many, then what would necessitate the demand for such sounds? And if there were a large enough demand, is there any doubt at least some developers would put forth an effort to capitalize on it?
If there is a demand, then what unconventional sounds is the demand for? Examples? If there aren't many (or any) examples, how can one expect to motivate developers to create products that will satiate it?
There are numerous factors that determine the success or failure of a product, completely unrelated to any sort of adherence to tradition. I mean, that's potentially one factor, but one of many.
how so? Not seeing the first for the trees? How many delays emulate boss like the Binson, DP3, SDD.
How many LA2A comps.
It's not just guitar but guitarists are the slowest to adapt.
Multi band distortion been around for decades via ohmforce.
not sure I was talking an odd sound with what I said.
How many of the clips you posted are 80s Rock tone?
Clearly...and guys not in MI arguing on fora are not much empirical evidence.
Tony MacAlpine has made good use of multi band distortion.
In which album....I'm intrigued
Tony MacAlpine-Tony MacAlpine
-Death of Roses
The monitors in the studios that were being used to produce the music we are listening to every day, probably are different from the monitors / devices through which we are listening to that music. The differences in frequency response def. aren’t similar. That doesn’t mean that the sound reproduction is wrong or not accurate. I don’t see the issue here.
How so ..the source audio pedal?
Chicken or egg? There really was no demand for boxes that included 64 amps, 128 effects, 16 microphones, 32 cabinets, hundreds of adjustable parameters, dozens of stereo and mono routing options, etc. etc.
The early stuff was pretty simple and straightforward and then in a very short period of time the designers were given 1000X more horsepower to work with and you started getting stuff like the ART SGE and Digitech 2120. In hindsight the amp tones were bad, but us guitarists were quickly hooked on the endless possibilities. What, no scroll wheel?
The market's been flooded with digital crack addicts ever since. I'd argue the machines came first. The demand grew slowly after.
Then you are using the FRFR moniker wrong then... Replace FRFR #2 by "any random speaker", then your claim makes sense.
Full range, flat response
Flat to a certain standard - i.e. an average person begins to detect changes at 3dB on average. Combine this with concept of critical bands - that's what a "flat system" means.
Full range - It's bandwidth should be wider than the system is trying to replicate.
There's other considerations as well other than the two above but we'll stick with those.
Two separate systems that are True FRFR (i.e. meet the criteria above and note there are not many), then by definition an FRFR wouldn't cause such drastic changes as to be perceptible on average by a person.
Effects (whether emulations or otherwise) in pedal and rack format have existed for decades. Emulating a guitar store worth of amps, effects and cabs in one box is a more modern innovation.
Which begs the question, what types of sounds are you referring to?
Many, because that's the sound I like and that I'm attracted to, despite the fact there are many famous decades old tones that do absolutely nothing for me. It's not as if I wouldn't be receptive to something new if I were exposed to it, but there are already seemingly infinite sonic possibilities afforded to guitar players with current modelers (eg. amps, IR's, effects). A person could literally spend their entire life mixing and matching amps and IR's and never exhaust the potential palette of tones they offer. I mean, there's a bajillion sonic possibilities already at our disposal. If someone wants to try and improve on what's already on the table, more power to them, but the table is already overflowing.
With regard to mixing and mastering, is the goal of the mixing / mastering engineer to ensure that a mix sounds the same on every consumer monitor / speaker / playback system as it does on their studio monitors?
I agree. If there was a demand, I didn't really see it. However, once introduced, the concept of modeling was certainly appealing on its face to many guitarists. The product created demand where there really wasn't much of one beforehand.
Fast forward to a few years ago, where discussions and rumblings, expressing a desire for more sonic innovation and less focus on conventional tones from developers, began to surface. The common thread among such enthusiasts was that the focus on traditional / conventional tones is what's holding back sonic innovation. However, most of these enthusiasts rarely offered examples of what such sonic innovation would actually sound like. If one of them would've actually focused less on talking about it and more on actually showcasing examples that inspired the same type of intrigue and appeal that all-in-one modelers did a number of years ago, they might find that guitarists are actually receptive. But paying lip service to an idea without actually offering examples of said idea is a hollow endeavor that does little to inspire demand, in my opinion.
There are myriad monitors and full range flat response (eg. PA) speakers which are touted as "flat" / "neutral" yet sound perceptibly different from one another when A/B'd using the same listening material in the same listening environment.
Then they aren’t. Pretty simple.
While this is true it is important to point out for those that dont have direct experience.
This isn't just about fact but about education.
To dismiss any facet as common knowledge does not serve.
Well, they aren't with respect to the way you've defined FRFR, however I'm using the acronym within the context with which it's discussed colloquially on this forum.
Having said that, my Mackie HR824's have a tolerance of ±1.5 dB between 39 Hz - 20 kHz and sound perceptibly different from the KRK RP6G3W's, which have a tolerance of ±1.5 dB between 38Hz - 35 kHz. The reality is no monitor is truly flat, and when you put them in a real room, they are even less flat.
FRFR - A powered PA speaker/monitor designed to have a full bandwith flat response. And just like PA speakers/monitors their actual measured performance will vary quite a bit depending on brand and model, i.e., type of enclosure, quality of transducers and amp/crossover circuits, production FR tolerances, etc.
Why serious musician's on this forum are getting hung up on a marketing term is a bit mind boggling.