A slightly different angle on Digital Versus Tubes

Maynehead

Jez6345789 said:

Sorry to the original question 
I think you are right in one way stop modelling Fender marshall boogie etc.

But then you have one big problem Guitarists.

in a world of Strats Les Paul and Tele derivatives being probably 80% of the market who will want to play something original. Unless you spend a fortune trying to get a group of players to endorse it. Have a successful album or a tone that ignites a whole style of music.

I think a number of software plugin companies have tried to model a few of there own things suited to a style of music but not slavishly one thing. Studio Devil back in the early days when I used it was really just some sort of good sounding hot Rod marshall without slavishly trying to model one thing. Same with toneforge menace as an extreme metal amp but most have expanded out these days to become more of what people know and expect Fender Boogie Marshall etc.

So it’s not can it be done but do people actually want or use it.

I believe that if someone released a digital amp that was genuinely innovative, leveraging features that would not be possible to achieve on traditional amps, rather than trying to model existing valve amps, it would gain popularity and support pretty quickly. I for one would definitely be interested.

Right now, when people talk about digital amps, it’s all “it sounds almost the same a <valve amp X>” or “no one could tell the difference live between it an <valve amp Y>”.

I want to hear more discussions along the lines of: “I really love the huge low end on my Dual Rectifier, I don’t think any amp can beat it”. “Well on my new Quad Digitizer PW-n, I can shape my waveform to exactly how I like it, so I can achieve your huge distorted lows, but tighten them up a bit, and at the same time, reduce the clipping on the highs so I get nice musical treble frequencies without all the fizz and harshness that you can’t dial out!”.

When people start to talk about digital amps like this is when it will start to get really interesting... and also when the valve manufacturers should start thinking about converting their machines to produce upmarket lightbulbs instead (like those oddly shaped ones with massive filaments that you see in trendy restaurants nowadays).

WiresDreamDisasters

octatonic said:

Maynehead said:

PolarityMan said:

Do you know how many albums have original pods on them?

I don’t know of a single one...

There are loads, especially once the second iteration of the Pod was released.
And through the 90’s truckloads of albums were done with the Line 6 Amp Farm ProTools plug-in.

Steven Wilson recorded a lot of the Porcupine Tree stuff with a Pod as well I believe. Live he used a Bad Cat amp, but in the studio he used a Pod XT.

WiresDreamDisasters

Maynehead said:

I want to hear more discussions along the lines of: “I really love the huge low end on my Dual Rectifier, I don’t think any amp can beat it”. “Well on my new Quad Digitizer PW-n, I can shape my waveform to exactly how I like it, so I can achieve your huge distorted lows, but tighten them up a bit, and at the same time, reduce the clipping on the highs so I get nice musical treble frequencies without all the fizz and harshness that you can’t dial out!”.

When people start to talk about digital amps like this is when it will start to get really interesting... and also when the valve manufacturers should start thinking about converting their machines to produce upmarket lightbulbs instead (like those oddly shaped ones with massive filaments that you see in trendy restaurants nowadays).

I think the thing you need to understand is that even in digital modelling you're still limited to the physicality of how real amps work. Truth is - there is only so much you can do to a signal before it starts to sound shit.

The process of running a signal through a bunch of preamp stages and out into a power stage isn't going to change. That's one of the things that is inherent to signal processing and playback systems - and not just for guitar stuff. Your phone does the same sort of thing just on a surface mount microprocessor level.

Your Quad Digitizer PW-n could offer you a level of flexibility you wont get with a valve amp. But what will the workflow be like? How many bad sounds will you have to go through before you find the set of good sounds you're looking for? What will the compromises look like?

I'm not really one of those guitarists who thinks "it needs to be valve or nothing!!!" and then run away and take my ball home. Just right now I use the right tool for the job - in the studio environment I use modelling a lot, and there is even little bits of modelling on the albums we've released. But for live performance the thing I've always run into is the compromises versus the benefits.

Once I get a good amp modelling unit and a poweramp that I am happy with, I'm basically carrying the same kind of weight as I am carrying with my valve amp. I've tried FRFR solutions and I don't like the way guitar feels under those conditions, so it's a 4x12 cab for me. So I'm not going to benefit much from a more modern guitar rig.

I say that though - a Diezel D-Moll and a Line 6 Helix for effects is still fairly modern comparatively!

@Digital_Igloo might have some stuff to say on this topic. I saw him talking about a blog he wanted to write on modelling recently. Maybe this thread will show there is appetite for it.

robinbowes

As evidenced by the last few posts, most of the resistance to modelling is around what experience the guitarist is prepared to accept rather than the sounds the modeller is able to produce.

I use a Helix (Rack + Control) direct to the PA, relying on monitoring for my on-stage sound. Most of the time, I'm using my own gear (an HK Linear 5 rig), but for 3rd-party PAs I will sometimes take my own wedge. As much as I am happy with how it sounds, it's not the same as a real amp/cab. I have made the conscious decision to accept and live with that as the other benefits are worth it, IMO.

I'm sometimes tempted to consider reverting to an amp/pedal board, especially since my current requirements are pretty simple, but the live experience is still so much easier with the Helix.

R.

ESBlonde

robinbowes said:

As evidenced by the last few posts, most of the resistance to modelling is around what experience the guitarist is prepared to accept rather than the sounds the modeller is able to produce.

I use a Helix (Rack + Control) direct to the PA, relying on monitoring for my on-stage sound. Most of the time, I'm using my own gear (an HK Linear 5 rig), but for 3rd-party PAs I will sometimes take my own wedge. As much as I am happy with how it sounds, it's not the same as a real amp/cab. I have made the conscious decision to accept and live with that as the other benefits are worth it, IMO.

I'm sometimes tempted to consider reverting to an amp/pedal board, especially since my current requirements are pretty simple, but the live experience is still so much easier with the Helix.

R.

I can really appreciate that sentiment. If I'd shelled out for new shiny digital I think I might be swayed a bit more by the convenience factor (pretty sure in fact). But my recording experience is the reverse of most peoples where the inconvenience of micing up a real good amp far outshines any digital alternatives I've tried.

Don't missunderstand me, the sound can fit the recording and most people won't differentiate, but it's not the best sound and certainly not the sound I want to create. I think if your base line tone is overdriven to some degree then a processed sound may be more acceptable, for me my base line tone is clean (but not crystal) and I struggle with that in the vrtual world.

digitalscream

robinbowes said:

I'm sometimes tempted to consider reverting to an amp/pedal board, especially since my current requirements are pretty simple, but the live experience is still so much easier with the Helix.

R.

I recently attempted to do something like this, being convinced that my X88R preamp clone with some MIDI control and a few pedals would be able to produce a "better" experience (both sonically and ergonomically) than my Helix with a power amp.

I was totally wrong. I ended up spending way more than I expected - almost as much as another Helix LT - and it still didn't do what I wanted. Moreover, I could actually get it to sound the way I wanted it to, either.

In fact, without the Helix LT adding some processing before and after the preamp, it sounded pretty crap.

So I abandoned that effort, sold the X88R and tried the Helix with the trusty old JCA50H. Still didn't sound quite right, and the workflow was much harder.

So I put that back in the cupboard, bought a SD Powerstage 170 and put it between the Helix and my cab. Sounded perfect.

Turns out that the "all modellers involve a sonic compromise" crowd weren't exactly right in my case. Thus ends the lesson on listening to the crowd instead of your own rig

robinbowes

ESBlonde said:

robinbowes said:

As evidenced by the last few posts, most of the resistance to modelling is around what experience the guitarist is prepared to accept rather than the sounds the modeller is able to produce.

I use a Helix (Rack + Control) direct to the PA, relying on monitoring for my on-stage sound. Most of the time, I'm using my own gear (an HK Linear 5 rig), but for 3rd-party PAs I will sometimes take my own wedge. As much as I am happy with how it sounds, it's not the same as a real amp/cab. I have made the conscious decision to accept and live with that as the other benefits are worth it, IMO.

I'm sometimes tempted to consider reverting to an amp/pedal board, especially since my current requirements are pretty simple, but the live experience is still so much easier with the Helix.

R.

I can really appreciate that sentiment. If I'd shelled out for new shiny digital I think I might be swayed a bit more by the convenience factor (pretty sure in fact). But my recording experience is the reverse of most peoples where the inconvenience of micing up a real good amp far outshines any digital alternatives I've tried.

Don't missunderstand me, the sound can fit the recording and most people won't differentiate, but it's not the best sound and certainly not the sound I want to create. I think if your base line tone is overdriven to some degree then a processed sound may be more acceptable, for me my base line tone is clean (but not crystal) and I struggle with that in the vrtual world.

Recording and live are rather different. I would be more likely to use a real amp in a studio environment.

As I said previously, "the live experience is still so much easier with the Helix.". I guess I should say "my live experience..."

R.

Cirrus

dindude said:

Genuine question - can anyone point towards a truly stunning guitar tone that was done with a modeller, recorded or live. All the talk is of convenience and “no one can tell the difference” but wondered if anyone was pushing the boundaries with them to create great sounds in their own right.

Deftones' Koi No Yokan was all Axe FX, I think. And imo, it's got amazing tones.

But therein lies a trap, because as soon as I point to something specific, someone else can come along and say they don't think it's as good as his old Marshall jmp-1 stuff. But to that, I can only answer that the Koi No Yokan tones are perfect for the art they made on that record.

Valve or Modeller or whatever, artists/musicians/producers use whatever they have at their disposal at the time looking for inspiration and struggling to make something they can still be proud of in 30 years. It's all just tools. Whether it's Stephen Wilson crafting Deadwing-era soundscapes through his pod, or Angus Young playing through a Marshall stack while recording Back in Black, the common factor was that they were using the tools they had and understood to make their art real.

Another example. The Korg A3. A guitar multi-effects processor released in 1989. It had laughably over-processed patches; fizzy fake distortion, crazy modulation, and if you compared it to a decent cranked valve amp it would come across as pathetic. But the Edge took one to the early U2 songwriting sessions for Achtung baby and it became an integral part of those jams - "Mysterious Ways" is literally stock patch 76, and I bet at the time they were recording that song thousands of amateur guitarists around the world were scrolling through the presets convinced they'd just wasted their money on a pile of shit. That shit processor helped inspire U2's greatest album, and they took it all over the world on the subsequent tours.

My point? The Edge took the tool and ran with it. He didn't sit around comparing it to his existing stereo AC30 rig. If he had, he'd have chucked it and never written those songs because obviously the 1980's 1 unit processing box doesn't compare to standing in front of cranked AC30s.

A conversation about the relative pros and cons of any type of gear, taken in isolation, will always be circular and never resolve itself because we're only thinking about part of the story, and ignoring the thing all these tools were made to do - they were made to be used to make art. The test of any gear: Does it inspire you? Does the art you create with it make you proud?


Only you can answer those questions.


Right, back to the mountaintop...

gearaddict

digitalscream said:

So I abandoned that effort, sold the X88R and tried the Helix with the trusty old JCA50H. Still didn't sound quite right, and the workflow was much harder.

So I put that back in the cupboard, bought a SD Powerstage 170 and put it between the Helix and my cab. Sounded perfect.

Is there something odd about the way the fx loop is implemented in the JCA50? You'd have thought it would sound better as a Helix loudener than the powerstage...or at least as good.

I've never liked the sound I have got from modellers using cab modelling...into headphones, or PA equipment. I think I just don't have the skill or the right tools to get this sounding authentic. Through a power amp into a real cab though - sounds fine to me.

sweepy

Modelling has its place, I've owned the big 3 at one time or another and still have my Kemper but there is a sheer almost visceral pleasure from plugging into a warm valve amp

monquixote

dindude said:

Genuine question - can anyone point towards a truly stunning guitar tone that was done with a modeller, recorded or live. All the talk is of convenience and “no one can tell the difference” but wondered if anyone was pushing the boundaries with them to create great sounds in their own right.

Doves used Line 6 amps studio and live if I remember correctly.

Slightly different, but a lot of Nile Rodgers recordings were straight to desk through a rack compressor and IIRC with Kiss the amps were just for the band on stage and the FoH was all done with the programmable Sansamp Racks.

Roland

Cirrus said:

dindude said:

... All the talk is of convenience and “no one can tell the difference” ...

... therein lies a trap, because as soon as I point to something specific, someone else can come along and say they don't think it's as good as his old Marshall jmp-1 stuff...

... A conversation about the relative pros and cons of any type of gear, taken in isolation, will always be circular and never resolve itself because we're only thinking about part of the story, ...

I’ve quoted you both, and slightly out of context, but for me these are the key points. As guitarists we play different styles, using different techniques, and listening to different aspects of the sound. 

We could have a similar discussion about humbuckers vs P90s vs single coils. However, back to the OP ...

WiresDreamDisasters said:

... I wonder - will we ever reach a point where it's no longer even something that is thought about? ... I think the amplification and playback stages are now where effort needs to be concentrated. And I wonder if that will ever be truly solved?

I think the market for the amplification and playback stages is players who want to get the valve amp and cabinet sound on stage. Stadium filling bands, and people who play directly to PA, will increasingly find modelling more convenient.

Will everyone go that way? No, because many of us were brought up on valve amps, and feel comfortable with them. Many others aspire to that 60s/70s view of music in the same way as they want original specification Strats and Les Pauls. Even after we’ve died there will be discussions about the merits of valves and digital, just as some people discuss the relative merits of the Allison V-1710 and the Rolls Royce Merlin, or the Albatross and the SE5a. A dwindling number of people will care, but some will still talk about it.

monquixote

Maynehead said:

I believe that if someone released a digital amp that was genuinely innovative, leveraging features that would not be possible to achieve on traditional amps, rather than trying to model existing valve amps, it would gain popularity and support pretty quickly. I for one would definitely be interested.

Right now, when people talk about digital amps, it’s all “it sounds almost the same a <valve amp X>” or “no one could tell the difference live between it an <valve amp Y>”.

I want to hear more discussions along the lines of: “I really love the huge low end on my Dual Rectifier, I don’t think any amp can beat it”. “Well on my new Quad Digitizer PW-n, I can shape my waveform to exactly how I like it, so I can achieve your huge distorted lows, but tighten them up a bit, and at the same time, reduce the clipping on the highs so I get nice musical treble frequencies without all the fizz and harshness that you can’t dial out!”.

When people start to talk about digital amps like this is when it will start to get really interesting... and also when the valve manufacturers should start thinking about converting their machines to produce upmarket lightbulbs instead (like those oddly shaped ones with massive filaments that you see in trendy restaurants nowadays).

People have done that in the past, but guitarists usually just say meh..

If you look at the PODII there are Various Line6 models like the Line6 clean which is a hybrid of a JC-120 and a JTM45 obviously not possible in real life.

If you want even freakier then try the Boss MDP stuff like the DS-1X which processes different frequencies in different ways. Does not sound or feel like a normal distortion, but very cool. Not sure it's been super popular though.

Scuffham have gone an interesting route by getting an amp designer to design the circuits of several virtual amps. Even those are marketed as being Plexi-ish, Soldano-ish, etc.

Roland

Here’s a thought from Alan Phillips, the owner of Carol-Ann amps:

”When I designed the Triptik 2 model, this was done in reverse. It was proto-typed as a model in the Axe-FX long before it was a physical prototype. I saw value in testing the concept first, kind of used the Axe-FX as a first level design / audio test tool. It worked tremendously well and certainly shortened the design timeline quite dramatically and with much less expense. While this toolset is not available through the user interface, Cliff is a close friend of mine and made some suggestions to the original Triptik model that I took on board and drew up a schematic. He then modelled it in the Axe-FX using the original Triptik has a foundation.”

lukedlb

Maynehead said:

Jez6345789 said:

Sorry to the original question 
I think you are right in one way stop modelling Fender marshall boogie etc.

But then you have one big problem Guitarists.

in a world of Strats Les Paul and Tele derivatives being probably 80% of the market who will want to play something original. Unless you spend a fortune trying to get a group of players to endorse it. Have a successful album or a tone that ignites a whole style of music.

I think a number of software plugin companies have tried to model a few of there own things suited to a style of music but not slavishly one thing. Studio Devil back in the early days when I used it was really just some sort of good sounding hot Rod marshall without slavishly trying to model one thing. Same with toneforge menace as an extreme metal amp but most have expanded out these days to become more of what people know and expect Fender Boogie Marshall etc.

So it’s not can it be done but do people actually want or use it.

I believe that if someone released a digital amp that was genuinely innovative, leveraging features that would not be possible to achieve on traditional amps, rather than trying to model existing valve amps, it would gain popularity and support pretty quickly. I for one would definitely be interested.

Right now, when people talk about digital amps, it’s all “it sounds almost the same a <valve amp X>” or “no one could tell the difference live between it an <valve amp Y>”.

I want to hear more discussions along the lines of: “I really love the huge low end on my Dual Rectifier, I don’t think any amp can beat it”. “Well on my new Quad Digitizer PW-n, I can shape my waveform to exactly how I like it, so I can achieve your huge distorted lows, but tighten them up a bit, and at the same time, reduce the clipping on the highs so I get nice musical treble frequencies without all the fizz and harshness that you can’t dial out!”.

When people start to talk about digital amps like this is when it will start to get really interesting... and also when the valve manufacturers should start thinking about converting their machines to produce upmarket lightbulbs instead (like those oddly shaped ones with massive filaments that you see in trendy restaurants nowadays).

Exactly what I did last night with my Revival Drive. 

John_A

IMO all the 'it sounds almost the same a <valve amp X>' stems from valve amp users that refuse to accept modelling as a valid alternative.  If a Helix (or an Axe FX) isnt a genuinely innovative product that allows to to do things that areny possible on a traditional set-up I don't know what it.  Of course they'll do trad sounds too, but that's just the start

PolarityMan

Cirrus said:

dindude said:

Genuine question - can anyone point towards a truly stunning guitar tone that was done with a modeller, recorded or live. All the talk is of convenience and “no one can tell the difference” but wondered if anyone was pushing the boundaries with them to create great sounds in their own right.

Deftones' Koi No Yokan was all Axe FX, I think. And imo, it's got amazing tones.

If we're getting modern then kemper is all over everything these days

Maynehead

John_A said:

IMO all the 'it sounds almost the same a <valve amp X>' stems from valve amp users that refuse to accept modelling as a valid alternative.  If a Helix (or an Axe FX) isnt a genuinely innovative product that allows to to do things that areny possible on a traditional set-up I don't know what it.  Of course they'll do trad sounds too, but that's just the start

I think it’s more to do with the fact that modellers mainly provide you with models of other amps. In fact that’s the definition of a “modelling amp”.

What I’d like to see is a “digital amp” that’s designed from the ground up to leverage the extra capabilities provided through DSP.

Just as an example (so don’t hold me to it), why constrain your EQ section to just bass/middle/treble, that you can only increase/decrease? With a digital amp you could have 10 EQ sections instead of 3, and each section of the EQ could have its own level and waveform selection. I say waveform rather than gain because you no longer need to rely on gain to clip your waveform.

I’m sure people cleverer than me could think of lots of ground breaking designs for a digital amp that is not modelled after, or conforms to the same control options as traditional analog amps. That’s the kind of stuff that excites me, modellers don’t because I’ve already got the real thing at home, which gives me pretty much what I need and I can take it to gigs without too much bother.

WiresDreamDisasters

robinbowes said:

As evidenced by the last few posts, most of the resistance to modelling is around what experience the guitarist is prepared to accept 

Um.... that seems a bit backwards to me. It's not what people are prepared to accept. It's what people are looking for.

Big difference. People that play electric cello aren't playing it out of some sense of being on the cutting edge. They're playing it because they're looking for a specific sound and/or experience.

I don't see why as an artist I should be prepared to accept something that is sub-optimal for what I want to achieve.

Roland

Maynehead said:

John_A said:

IMO all the 'it sounds almost the same a <valve amp X>' stems from valve amp users that refuse to accept modelling as a valid alternative.  If a Helix (or an Axe FX) isnt a genuinely innovative product that allows to to do things that areny possible on a traditional set-up I don't know what it.  Of course they'll do trad sounds too, but that's just the start

I think it’s more to do with the fact that modellers mainly provide you with models of other amps. In fact that’s the definition of a “modelling amp”.

What I’d like to see is a “digital amp” that’s designed from the ground up to leverage the extra capabilities provided through DSP.

Just as an example (so don’t hold me to it), why constrain your EQ section to just bass/middle/treble, that you can only increase/decrease? With a digital amp you could have 10 EQ sections instead of 3, and each section of the EQ could have its own level and waveform selection. I say waveform rather than gain because you no longer need to rely on gain to clip your waveform.

I’m sure people cleverer than me could think of lots of ground breaking designs for a digital amp that is not modelled after, or conforms to the same control options as traditional analog amps. That’s the kind of stuff that excites me, modellers don’t because I’ve already got the real thing at home, which gives me pretty much what I need and I can take it to gigs without too much bother.

This type of thing already exists. The AxeFX has a multi-band EQ in each amp block.