Using modelling has made me weird

gearaddict

So I thought I'd bring my valve & analogue pedals kit to practice last week, having just been turning up with the Pod HD500x and a Magnum44 and plugging into whatever's there....and it was weird. I expected it to be a million times better but in fact I really struggled. Mainly with volume levels. I was too loud, then too quiet, then too loud, then too quiet. Then I couldn't control things the way I wanted - struggled to roll off gain easily...dirtboxes were too loud through the clean channel or not enough / too much gain. I just felt really stressed by the whole thing.

Soundwise, the leads sounded really good...the rhythm was less stand out better, but still good. I wouldn't say the sound quality was stellar to the point where all the other hassle was worth it.

There's no doubt (in my mind anyway) that a valve power amp makes a huge difference to how the thing sounds. I definitely think it's worth the expense of going down that route. But on balance, I think the convenience and controlability of modelling is just so good...

professorben

Sounds like your playing inadvertently had dynamics.......   

gearaddict

Yeah, fuck that shit.

Octafish

That's what I like about valve amps, lots of dynamic interaction that once you have control of gives you great expressiveness, something you play rather than play through. Dare I say that i.m.o some digital proccesing just flattens and compresses your signal into an easily manageable, but somewhat lifeless constant.

gearaddict

TBH I think this was more about finding the right volume setting rather than dynamics per se. I kept thinking it was about right and then it wouldn't be.

Also my DS1 started doing weird things - seemed to be getting odd crackly trails on the end of notes. Mind you, that sounds pretty nasty even when it's working. I just couldn't get the boost volume right. And then I stomped on my MXR microamp and this seemed to cause my volume pedal to partially vomit out the guitar cable. Took me ages to figure out what had happened.

Sassafras

Maybe the Magnum 44 isn't the ideal amp for digital modelling.

gearaddict

Sassafras said:

Maybe the Magnum 44 isn't the ideal amp for digital modelling.

It sounds better than the Harley Benton GPA400 I had but I've never tried one of the more expensive SS power amps.

I don't understand why you can buy a whole valve amp for 250 quid or less but you can't buy a simple valve power amp for that kind of money.

ThePrettyDamned

Octafish said:

That's what I like about valve amps, lots of dynamic interaction that once you have control of gives you great expressiveness, something you play rather than play through. Dare I say that i.m.o some digital proccesing just flattens and compresses your signal into an easily manageable, but somewhat lifeless constant.

Depends on the amp. 

A jcm 800 has dynamics for days. A fender twin is amazingly responsive to input. A Princeton is a super dynamic amp at moderate volume. 

Crank up a tweed champ or an ac15 and dynamics are replaced by compression and everything sounds the same. A peavey bandit has more dynamics at the same volume. 

digitalscream

gearaddict said:

TBH I think this was more about finding the right volume setting rather than dynamics per se. I kept thinking it was about right and then it wouldn't be.

With valve amps - unless you're using a 3+ channel monster or you have loads of pedals - the compromise is always in terms of gain levels vs volume. Getting everything in perfect balance - to my mind - takes almost as long as building all the patches you need on a modeller.

gearaddict

Yeah. I was probably being more ambitious with that particular amp than I used to be, pre-modelling. I used to set it on one channel with loads of gain and pretty much leave it. I've got used to having much more flexibility though. Part of the 'problem' with that particular amp is that the two channels are so hugely different.

Slartibartfarst42

I think a valve amp is simply a great thing to experience but on a day to day basis there are a lot of compromises. They just don't sound that great at bedroom levels if you're using the same amp you use for gigs and the fact that the character of the tone changes so much as the volume changes makes it difficult to find consistency. They're also a pain in the backside to cart around everywhere and if you're considerate of your neighbours, late night playing is completely out. Conversely, modellers can give you all of that convenience and consistency but the actual tone is really rather sterile and digital. I tried a few over the years and they always ultimately left me wanting a valve amp again. Having said that, times are certainly changing. Now that I've switched to the Atomic AmpliFire I'm finding that for the first time I don't want a valve amp again. Actually, I can't imagine why I'd ever want to mess around with a valve amp again this thing is so good. The technology is moving very fast and that helps, though undoubtedly the fact that my Atomic has more processing power than any unit I've used before also helps. Paying the extra for the Atomic over something like a Pod or GT and sacrificing some of the options has been the best thing I've ever done. I still wouldn't say a Boss GT-100, Digitech RP1000 or Line 6 Pod HD is a legitimate alternative to a valve amp without sacrificing tone but an Atomic is certainly a viable alternative.

Cabicular

I had the exact issue with the Yamaha thr 100
the Helix is very good at simulating that sag and dynamic range even through a relatively cheap power amp
i have to admit I hated the HD500X. I just couldn't get a workable tone out of it

TTBZ

Imo you don't have any of these problems with a good single channel amp set to the most gain you need, then adjust dirt with guitar volume.

digitalscream

TTBZ said:

Imo you don't have any of these problems with a good single channel amp set to the most gain you need, then adjust dirt with guitar volume.

Really? In such a situation, how would you get a lower-gain lead sound without losing volume, then?

ICBM

TTBZ said:

Imo you don't have any of these problems with a good single channel amp set to the most gain you need, then adjust dirt with guitar volume.

You then can't get a properly clean sound at the same volume, or a solo sound that's noticeably louder.

It depends on the context - if you only ever use a crunchy rhythm sound and a dirtier lead sound then that approach works fine. For anything more complex with a different correlation between gain and volume it doesn't.

The thing I usually seem to struggle with when using a digital amp is the less natural hand dynamics to tone response - that's the best way I can describe it. Almost all valve amps and many analogue solid-state amps do it very naturally, so you can set-and-forget the amp, and do the other changes (within a particular type of sound) by playing differently. Digital amps tend not to do that so well, and I find myself constantly fiddling with the settings.

I didn't find that with the THR100, but I'll bear Cabicular's warning about the dynamics in mind before I buy one… it may not work for me at gig volume either. It sounds like the same problem I have with compressor pedals - I like them at home or for recording, but hate them for playing live - I can never get them set right, they're either too loud or too quiet.

Cabicular

It may just not suit the way I play.
With a traditional setup I get the volume of the amp to the top end of where it needs to be. Maybe even a bit louder than it should be and then back my playing off so that when I do dig in it is loud enough but I can quite it down when the singing starts
Sounds like you do a similar thing

peteri

I think to echo what others have said, that this was one of the biggest disappointments for me in the previous generation of modellers (HD etc) - when I tried the Helix there were two things I focussed on:

1. How the pedals interact - ok it sounds like a Tubescreamer, but does it impact the next pedal/amp in a way I'd expect a TS9 to? And the answer was always no

2. How are the dynamics of the amp? Can I change drive with my technique and my guitars volume. Again the answer was always, a bit.

I don't have a Helix, but my take on the current generation is that's the problem they've solved. I owned every previous iteration of Line 6 products and sold each one - for the two points above and also that to a greater or lessor degree they masked the character of my guitar.

Sounds like you've got the same, the modeller has masked gain structuring - as I remember they did. So you had an amp set with a load of headroom and then you stuck an overdrive in front of it with a volume boost - so it got louder.

I think you (me) often forget about gain structuring in modellers.

A valve amp doesn't need to react as you describe, but it will if it's not compressing. All amplifiers do the same thing.

With the Pod series, there was much less grey - it was pretty black and white that's all.

An easy way to solve the problem is to stick a compressor in your chain, and use this to simulate the compression of a valve amp sweating away, makes stuff more controllable and natural at lower volumes, and is the only reason I use a compressor

Hope this helps

professorben

ICBM said:

TTBZ said:

Imo you don't have any of these problems with a good single channel amp set to the most gain you need, then adjust dirt with guitar volume.

You then can't get a properly clean sound at the same volume, or a solo sound that's noticeably louder.

It depends on the context - if you only ever use a crunchy rhythm sound and a dirtier lead sound then that approach works fine. For anything more complex with a different correlation between gain and volume it doesn't.

The thing I usually seem to struggle with when using a digital amp is the less natural hand dynamics to tone response - that's the best way I can describe it. Almost all valve amps and many analogue solid-state amps do it very naturally, so you can set-and-forget the amp, and do the other changes (within a particular type of sound) by playing differently. Digital amps tend not to do that so well, and I find myself constantly fiddling with the settings.

I didn't find that with the THR100, but I'll bear Cabicular's warning about the dynamics in mind before I buy one… it may not work for me at gig volume either. It sounds like the same problem I have with compressor pedals - I like them at home or for recording, but hate them for playing live - I can never get them set right, they're either too loud or too quiet.

This, Getting a really clean clean and a filthy rhythm tone is impossible. 

Roland

peteri said:

An easy way to solve the problem is to stick a compressor in your chain, and use this to simulate the compression of a valve amp sweating away, makes stuff more controllable and natural at lower volumes, and is the only reason I use a compressor.

A compressor certainly helps. For years I've been putting a soft knee compressor at the front of my chain. With successive software releases I've reduced the compression. With the 8.02 AxeFX firmware I've removed the compressor from everything except my highest gain patch, which isn't  high gain by most people's standards, and from my acoustic simulation patch.

What we're saying in this discussion is that, as players, we respond to the way our equipment responds. That's one of the reasons why we buy different amps, effects, and guitars. 

digitalscream said:

gearaddict said:

TBH I think this was more about finding the right volume setting rather than dynamics per se. I kept thinking it was about right and then it wouldn't be.

With valve amps - unless you're using a 3+ channel monster or you have loads of pedals - the compromise is always in terms of gain levels vs volume. Getting everything in perfect balance - to my mind - takes almost as long as building all the patches you need on a modeller.

It's never ending. Even when you've been playing happily for months you'll find an evening when it doesn't work, and you have to adjust your playing. It might be the room, or the drummer's new snare, or the bassist being too loud. There are a couple of factors which have made it more difficult to adjust when using modelling. Dynamics and compression and EQ have been the main culprits. Conversely, those are the things which have made it easier to turn up the volume without changing the sound too much.

TTBZ

@digitalscream & @ICBM good points, didn't even consider those things as it's something I'd never use!

Slartibartfarst42

The consistency of a modeller is very important. Very few bands now rely on stacks of Marshalls to create volume as they use the PA for that because it allows for greater control of the sound. When my last band just used the PA for vocals, the ultimate sound was severely compromised because each band member ends up fighting someone else. We eventually dropped the volume of the amps right down, mic'd them and just used the PA for volume and everything became better. The problem was that a loud valve amp was never at its best at that sort of volume so it became pointless having one. My Atomic AmpliFire can go straight to the PA with my own amp simply acting as a monitor and especially if I load specific IR's, I have total control of the sound the audience hear from my guitar as I can even choose IR's with specific mic placements.

I get the appeal and dynamics of a valve amp but these days, any small advantage they may have is easily outweighed by their many limitations and compromises. My Atomic sounds VERY good and VERY like a real valve amp so I'm happy. It may be argued that such units have a slightly more hifi quality to them but even that doesn't matter. 99.9% of your audience couldn't tell a boutique valve amp from even a mid-price modelling amp anyway and as everything they usually hear is hifi sound anyway, the chances are they'll actually prefer the modelling amp over the real thing. I freely admit that there is 'something' about a valve amp at full tilt that is magical but it's so rare you have the opportunity these days to hit that musical nirvana that it becomes a waste of time, effort and money. With my Atomic I can experience a wide variety of great tones at any venue and at any volume and I can do it with remarkable consistency while not breaking my back and saving space. For me, there's no going back.