A slightly different angle on Digital Versus Tubes

What's Hot
124

Comments

  • robinbowesrobinbowes Frets: 1904
    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.

    By "what the guitarist is prepared to accept" I am referring mostly to the immersive experience, ie. you may be able to get a FoH/recorded sound just like a pair of Marshall full stacks on 11 but it ain't gonna feel the same to the player as standing in front of a pair of Marshall full stacks on 11. For me, that's the only thing "missing" from the experience, but I choose to discount that factor in favour of all the positives.

    R.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • gearaddictgearaddict Frets: 745
    Cirrus said:
    John_A said:
    Line 6 2204 Mod Line 6 Original based on a hot-rodded Marshall® JCM® 800

    IMO this is a cooler model than the actual 800 on there. I initially discounted the L6 orginals out of snobbery - "Line 6? Ha! What do they know?" Then I realised all the models of real amps were only going to be as good as Line 6's understanding of modelling and guitar tone anyway, so tried them out.
    Yeah, this was my favourite Marshall sound on the Helix. :)
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • PolarityManPolarityMan Frets: 4494
    Oh god the spider series sucked ass...I used them in a practice room back in my student days and they were terrible.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • ICBMICBM Frets: 35500
    edited February 6
    Oh god the spider series sucked ass...I used them in a practice room back in my student days and they were terrible.
    I found that too, when they're pushed hard against a loud band - a lot of people report similar experiences with a lot of different modellers too.

    They're actually fine for home practice or a low-volume gig where they aren't being driven hard, and especially if there's a backing track - because they're very un-dynamic and sound more like a recording of an amp than an actual amp, they sit in the mix against a similarly compressed background very well, whereas a 'real' amp tends to be too dynamic and uncontrollable. I wouldn't have realised that until I heard a friend doing 'guitar karaoke' with one - but he also tried it with his proper band and it was appalling.

    (Edit) I'll have to take some of this back. I've got a Spider II 15 here today, and admittedly it's the smallest, cheapest model - but I cannot get anything approaching a tolerable overdriven sound out of it, and barely a usable clean one. It's truly awful - it has a grating, whiny, metallic midrange that cannot be dialled out no matter what you do. On the bright side it doesn't need repairing after all - it must just have shut itself down when the owner was playing bass through it! So it's a fairly sturdy thing - if that's a plus, given how terrible it sounds...

    This is the kind of thing that gets modelling a bad name - even the worst analogue solid-state practice amp I've ever played through sounds better.
    "Take these three items, some WD-40, a vise grip, and a roll of duct tape. Any man worth his salt can fix almost any problem with this stuff alone."
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • ArjailerArjailer Frets: 16
    Weren't the Blackstar TVP amps doing that?  Modelling "genres" of popular amps (clean, crunch, modern etc), but not specific models?

    Works for me anyway - I think my TVP 100 sounds great playing at volume with the band. Our other guitarist has a Blackstar HT Club 50 - admittedly his clean tone is better (though we don't use clean much in our 80's/90's metal covers band :smiley:) but for the high gain stuff that we mostly play there's really not much in it - both amps sound great  :+1:
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • drwiddlydrwiddly Frets: 688
    Disappearing in a live mix used to be a real feature of Line 6 gear. I had a couple of Pods and they both did it, a friend had a Flextone amp and that did it and a pro player I knew had a Vetta and that did it too!
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • Maynehead said:
    Maybe my question was slightly confusing.

    Basically what I’m asking is, is it the actual tone of the amps that draws people towards modellers, or is it all the other conveniences that they offer?

    If you were a millionaire rockstar recording an album at the studio, would you still use a Helix?
    I don't know if he's a millionaire but that's what Chris Robertson from Black Stone Cherry did with their last album. I saw an interview with him - he said they were struggling to get a tone and he thought he'd just try the Helix and he got a tone straight away and that's what they used for the whole thing.

    The more I think about modelling, the more confused I get. What is the purpose of modelling? Is it to re-create the sound you hear as a punter out of a PA? Or is it to re-create the sound you get out of a guitar amp. When people complain that modelling doesn't sound like a real amp, they get told "Ah - but it's not supposed to...it's supposed to sound like a recorded tone or a tone out of a PA".

    But that's not right is it...the sound we all love, and the only sound people used to hear before the invent of modern PA equipment, is the sound out of a guitar amp...surely that's what everyone wants to hear at the end of the day? If the FoH PA sounded exactly like a classic Marshall into a 4x12, the audience isn't going to go "hang on...that's not quite compressed enough and lacking in detail". OK, I'm being deliberately facetious but you get the idea.

    I was watching a comparison of various FRFR speakers today and they were commenting on how some of them were better because they sounded more like 'real amps'...but I thought hang on...I thought they weren't trying to be real amps.

    I guess I'm saying modellers are great at sounding like a guitar amp through a PA...which is probably why a lot of pros are totally happy to use modelling tech while us amateurs are still a bit hesitant. They are focused on delivering a 'PA' sound to punters and a recorded tone, whereas most of us still mostly experience the amp in the room tone.

    Dunno. Just a thought.



    You definitely raise some interesting points here but I think there is a distinction to be made, particularly with who 'everyone' is. Your general punter in a pub probably has no idea what a classic Marshall into a 4x12 in isolation in a room sounds like. They expect when they see a band for it to sound like the record which is of course, a mic'd up amp. Ultimately though, they don't care one bit as long as its loud and played right. I myself have generally preferred the sound of gigs I've been to where Kempers/Axe-fx have been used.

    I think also a lot of kids playing today, with the modern technology we have, expect their amp to sound like the record when they first start out. It's only natural. When we started out we had cheap transistor amps that sounded pretty bad and then you eventually upgraded to the classic Marshall when you had been playing a while. The quality jump was astronomical. Kids today can buy a modelling amp for less than a hundy and have access to much better tones as a beginner. This becomes their expectation for what tone sounds like; their ears learn based on a 'model' of an mic'd up amp. When they play the real deal its too raw and unpolished. I guess what I'm trying to say is we never expected amps to sound like a record, but kids now do. They learn on modelling gear. They GAS over valve amps on YouTube thinking that is what an amp sounds like, oblivious to the fact that the amp in the video has been mic'd up. Thus it always falls short for them because they are used to getting an exact EVH tone on their POD. A 5150 would be too fuzzy to their ears!

    The second distinction here is with regard to the video you watched about various FRFR speakers. I have myself heard people say they prefer 'x' because it sounds more like an amp in the room which of course defeats the purpose, but I don't think they mean 'sounds' but rather 'feels'. I personally think FRFR is great, especially in a gigging situation, but when I'm looking for a modelling/FRFR setup I need something that 'feels' like a traditional setup because it's what I'm, used to. I don't expect it to sound like one though, in fact I don't want it to. The reason I'd gig FRFR is to get away from gigs with un-mic'd cabs in pubs giving me a terribly mushy stage sound, but I can't sacrifice that 'feel' because the feel affects my playing, my own personal enjoyment of the experience. I can only assume that the type of power amp has something to do with this? I don't know the first thing about it but I know when I've played cheaper FRFR speakers (like a Behringer Eurolive) it has felt sterile in my hands, a little stiff and harsh to me. It does seem the more that you spend on FRFR the better it feels. That doesn't necessarily mean it sounds better to the audience - surely FRFR is FRFR right? but there is something in the feel of speakers that differs greatly and I think when someone says 'X FRFR sounds more like a real amp than Y' they possibly mean it feels more like a real amp?

    I think modelling is great but as someone else pointed out, while the whole system is based around modelling real valve amps, the real amps are by definition better. Its the whole 'sounds like a Golf' thing... that very marketing stance sets the bar at the Golf. Until digital does its own thing it'll always play second fiddle. But why would it do its own thing when everyone wants it to sounds like 'X'? Ironically this is exactly why I didn't get a THR100 even though on paper its perfect; I wanted whatever I bought to nail me a Slash tone. I got a Kemper instead and it does just that.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • John_AJohn_A Frets: 2019

    I think modelling is great but as someone else pointed out, while the whole system is based around modelling real valve amps, the real amps are by definition better. Its the whole 'sounds like a Golf' thing... that very marketing stance sets the bar at the Golf. Until digital does its own thing it'll always play second fiddle. But why would it do its own thing when everyone wants it to sounds like 'X'? Ironically this is exactly why I didn't get a THR100 even though on paper its perfect; I wanted whatever I bought to nail me a Slash tone. I got a Kemper instead and it does just that.
    I don't agree that 'real amps are by definition better' for most people anyway.  The sound the audience at my gigs is better than if I had a real JCM800 IMO because of the constraints around getting that sound, with the amp cooking, in a little pub, with spill in to all the vocal and drum mics etc etc

    The sound you get is as good (or very nearly) as the real amp, on a big stage through a good, well placed mic, i.e. I'll sound more like Slash to the bloke in the Dog 'n' Duck than I would with a 100W marshall blasting over the top of everything

    I think :)
    Do me a favour and like this:

    https://www.facebook.com/MarkedCoversBand
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • robinbowesrobinbowes Frets: 1904
    chrishill901 said:

    ...the real amps are by definition better.

    That does not necessarily follow.

    Real amps are more *authentic*, because they're real not copies, but they're not necessarily "better".

    R.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • ICBMICBM Frets: 35500
    chrishill901 said:

    Until digital does its own thing it'll always play second fiddle. But why would it do its own thing when everyone wants it to sounds like 'X'?
    I don't. All I want is for it to sound good.
    "Take these three items, some WD-40, a vise grip, and a roll of duct tape. Any man worth his salt can fix almost any problem with this stuff alone."
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • John_A said:

    I think modelling is great but as someone else pointed out, while the whole system is based around modelling real valve amps, the real amps are by definition better. Its the whole 'sounds like a Golf' thing... that very marketing stance sets the bar at the Golf. Until digital does its own thing it'll always play second fiddle. But why would it do its own thing when everyone wants it to sounds like 'X'? Ironically this is exactly why I didn't get a THR100 even though on paper its perfect; I wanted whatever I bought to nail me a Slash tone. I got a Kemper instead and it does just that.
    I don't agree that 'real amps are by definition better' for most people anyway.  The sound the audience at my gigs is better than if I had a real JCM800 IMO because of the constraints around getting that sound, with the amp cooking, in a little pub, with spill in to all the vocal and drum mics etc etc

    The sound you get is as good (or very nearly) as the real amp, on a big stage through a good, well placed mic, i.e. I'll sound more like Slash to the bloke in the Dog 'n' Duck than I would with a 100W marshall blasting over the top of everything

    I think :)
    You've certainly misinterpreted me - for me digital is better. I get a significantly superior sound with my Kemper than I've ever had with real amps. Going digital has been something of a revelation for me. It sounds better for the exact reasons you say. To quote myself: 

    Your general punter in a pub probably has no idea what a classic Marshall into a 4x12 in isolation in a room sounds like. They expect when they see a band for it to sound like the record which is of course, a mic'd up amp. Ultimately though, they don't care one bit as long as its loud and played right. I myself have generally preferred the sound of gigs I've been to where Kempers/Axe-fx have been used.

    The very punters in question there would probably prefer the sound of digital because it will nail the sound they hear on the record. Its what they want, its what I want. It's the future. Your man in the Dog 'n' Duck is likely to prefer your Kemper Slash tone than you rocking up with a 100w Marshall and either under-using it at low volume or making everyone's ears bleed.

    My point is this: while digital is pitching itself as 'like a JCM800', the very nature of this mindset and language connotes that the real JCM800 is superior. Every modeller is striving to model it - why? It must be the holy grail. The natural effect this has on the consumer is to revere these amps as something greater than the imitation, and thus the real amp is, by the very definition that that 'modelling' creates, superior to the digital version that is trying to copy it. In reality we are both on the same page. I get a better JCM800 tone on my Kemper than I ever got with my JCM800 because of the limitations you mentioned, but the connotations surrounding the modelling process are very much like when you get something from Aldi - 'these are the Aldi knock-off of Jaffa Cakes' - that very sentence suggests the superiority of the Jaffa Cake when in reality the Aldi version might be nicer, and for me in the case of digital, gimme some aldi jaffa cakes.

    Poor example, I hate Jaffa Cakes. But we have seen this in countless 'Andertons' video where they try to catch Dick and Dom out by blindfolding them with a real amp vs the Kemper. They usually get it wrong but that's not the point. There is a snobbery and an assumption that the real deal is better because it has to be by definition. They look for nuances that 'only a real amp' can produce when in reality the Kemper is just awesome in its own right. But that snobbish mentality contributes to the problem of digital vs real amp which is ultimately the general assumption that the real amp must be better because its the 'real' one. This just isn't true IMO.

    @ICBM thats great but you must accept that the majority of players expect a certain spectrum of tones on a digital/modelling unit that usually cover the same famous amps. People want 'Fender like cleans', a good Marshall rock tone and a 'recto' metal sound. There's not much out there that doesn't adhere to this. The Blackstar IDTVP that was mentioned is unique and I do like that amp. 
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • digitalscreamdigitalscream Frets: 13243
    ^^ wot he said.

    Also...

    Had an interesting experience while recording our currently-unreleased album. Once we got to the mixing stage, the engineer we hired (the guy who owns/runs The Nave in Leeds, with the associated ludicrous collection of amps, both vintage and modern) was quite impressed with the tones I got from the Helix for my parts (Soldano and Friedman), but didn't like the other guitarist's tones.

    He suggested a combination of a JCM800 and something Twin-esque, but with the latter ragged to death. Because I was using Helix Native, putting that together was relatively trivial, so I re-exported the stems, and it turns out that the result was exactly what he wanted to work with.

    The critical part is that he'd never used or heard a Helix before, and he had no idea what those models were like, yet the result was what he was hoping to get.

    Recording-wise, that's the best indication I've seen that modelling works. Needless to say, he'd rather have done it with real amps in a real room, but that doesn't really matter to me because the end result (the album) sounds exactly as it did in my head.

    For my part, I don't care how accurate the models are. I just want to my rig to sound good, and like @chrishill901 my tone has never been as good with valve amps and pedals as it is with the Helix.
    "Mains is ouchy if you get it up you" - Sporky
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • John_AJohn_A Frets: 2019
    You've certainly misinterpreted me - for me digital is better. I get a significantly superior sound with my Kemper than I've ever had with real amps. Going digital has been something of a revelation for me. It sounds better for the exact reasons you say. To quote myself: 

    Think I've probably misinterpreted and misquoted everyone!  Reading back through the thread it's all very confusing, Think the outcome is we're in agreement :)
    Do me a favour and like this:

    https://www.facebook.com/MarkedCoversBand
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • ICBMICBM Frets: 35500
    chrishill901 said:

    @ICBM thats great but you must accept that the majority of players expect a certain spectrum of tones on a digital/modelling unit that usually cover the same famous amps. People want 'Fender like cleans', a good Marshall rock tone and a 'recto' metal sound. There's not much out there that doesn't adhere to this. The Blackstar IDTVP that was mentioned is unique and I do like that amp. 
    Yes, but they don't have to be accurate copies or even based on specific amps. An open sparkly clean sound, a tight midrangy crunch and a scooped heavy distortion will fill those three requirements - and in fact can be given much wider ranges of control over gain, EQ and dynamics if they're *not* tied to emulating particular amps.

    I also like the Blackstar ID approach - although not the typically Blackstar voicing. I also think they made a mistake by emulating particular valve types, since they reinforced the myth that it makes that much difference - the models are very exaggerated - and that valves are still the be-all and end-all. Yamaha did it with the THR100 as well.
    "Take these three items, some WD-40, a vise grip, and a roll of duct tape. Any man worth his salt can fix almost any problem with this stuff alone."
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • John_A said:
    You've certainly misinterpreted me - for me digital is better. I get a significantly superior sound with my Kemper than I've ever had with real amps. Going digital has been something of a revelation for me. It sounds better for the exact reasons you say. To quote myself: 

    Think I've probably misinterpreted and misquoted everyone!  Reading back through the thread it's all very confusing, Think the outcome is we're in agreement :)
    Haha it would seem we are all in agreement!

    I took a long time to convert but it has nothing to do with the quality of modelling. It wasn't until I changed the outdated mindset in my head that I could embrace it. I thought valves gave me something that couldn't be replicated. I bought a Kemper in 2015 and didn't get on with it, had a Helix a while back and that was the same. I was totally sold on the notion that I could have any amp at my fingertips that when I got them I was just hopping from one to another, never really dialling in one sound well. I was overwhelmed by the level of tweaking you could do on a Helix and that put me off too. So I had loads of average sounding patches and was left feeling underwhelmed. This time round I decided I wanted a hot rodded Marshall tone and not much else so I got a Kemper, tried a lot of profiles, found a few great ones, tweaked them slightly and now I'm the happiest I've been in a long time.

    I'd love to revisit a Helix now my mindset has changed...
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • John_AJohn_A Frets: 2019
    John_A said:
    You've certainly misinterpreted me - for me digital is better. I get a significantly superior sound with my Kemper than I've ever had with real amps. Going digital has been something of a revelation for me. It sounds better for the exact reasons you say. To quote myself: 

    Think I've probably misinterpreted and misquoted everyone!  Reading back through the thread it's all very confusing, Think the outcome is we're in agreement :)
    Haha it would seem we are all in agreement!

    I took a long time to convert but it has nothing to do with the quality of modelling. It wasn't until I changed the outdated mindset in my head that I could embrace it. I thought valves gave me something that couldn't be replicated. I bought a Kemper in 2015 and didn't get on with it, had a Helix a while back and that was the same. I was totally sold on the notion that I could have any amp at my fingertips that when I got them I was just hopping from one to another, never really dialling in one sound well. I was overwhelmed by the level of tweaking you could do on a Helix and that put me off too. So I had loads of average sounding patches and was left feeling underwhelmed. This time round I decided I wanted a hot rodded Marshall tone and not much else so I got a Kemper, tried a lot of profiles, found a few great ones, tweaked them slightly and now I'm the happiest I've been in a long time.

    I'd love to revisit a Helix now my mindset has changed...
    That's pretty much what I've done, I use one patch on the Helix with JCM800 cleanish and dirty and then throw a few pedal on top of that.  That gets me through 95% of our set.  
    Do me a favour and like this:

    https://www.facebook.com/MarkedCoversBand
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • ICBM said:
    chrishill901 said:

    @ICBM thats great but you must accept that the majority of players expect a certain spectrum of tones on a digital/modelling unit that usually cover the same famous amps. People want 'Fender like cleans', a good Marshall rock tone and a 'recto' metal sound. There's not much out there that doesn't adhere to this. The Blackstar IDTVP that was mentioned is unique and I do like that amp. 
    Yes, but they don't have to be accurate copies or even based on specific amps. An open sparkly clean sound, a tight midrangy crunch and a scooped heavy distortion will fill those three requirements - and in fact can be given much wider ranges of control over gain, EQ and dynamics if they're *not* tied to emulating particular amps.

    I also like the Blackstar ID approach - although not the typically Blackstar voicing. I also think they made a mistake by emulating particular valve types, since they reinforced the myth that it makes that much difference - the models are very exaggerated - and that valves are still the be-all and end-all. Yamaha did it with the THR100 as well.
    Yes I must say I regret not giving the THR100 a go, I think I'd have fallen in love with that amp.

    I'm entirely agreeing with you, they don't have to be accurate copies at all (for me and you) but the market largely expects accurate copies which perpetuates the problem.

    I think its all in peoples heads too - everyone loved the Katana (and still do) while they thought the 4 amp models were original. It was refreshing, it wasn't 'modelling' it was a kick ass sounding new digital amp. The fact that they're models off the GT100 (I think lead is the 5150 and brown is the Soldano?) wasn't immediately noticed and shows you can create likenesses to these amps without having to say 'hey check out our 5150 emulation'. But as a modelling amp I think the Katana for me now stands out - there are amps that do a way better 5150 out there. But while it was 'original' it was great. I think it shows there is a definite trust for digital in the market and shows that it doesn't have to be tied down to emulation and mimicking. If someone created a truly original sounding digital amp now then it would perhaps be well received. There will always be the 'British/American' distinction and tone will always be in the ballpark of a predecessor but it doesn't necessarily have to ride on it's coattails. I for one would like to see more THRs etc.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • PolarityManPolarityMan Frets: 4494
    I was watching a tutorial with John Browne from monuments the other day and he basically pointed out that the reason a lot of people in the studio dont like modellers is that the hihg end, even with a cab sim doesnt look like a mic'ed V30. He showed the profile difference in an EQ.

    That got me to thinking that of course he's always making that conscious decision because he started recording with a V30 mic'ed but we've def got generations coming up now who make entire records in the box and I think they wont have the same kind of inherent bias'es built in through their experiences.

    So I think the point that people are starting from a position of trying to detect the "difference" etween a model and a real tube amp is probably only true for a certain demographic and that demographic is going to be overtaken by people who dont have those preconceptions.

    As I quoted before there are definitely products on the market that don't emulate a specific model.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • PolarityManPolarityMan Frets: 4494
    Also worth pointing out that not all the model names on helix are obvious so i actually dont know what some of them are modelling without looking it up. And i certianly dont care aobut the minor differences between various fender cleans..i jsut pick the best sounding one.
    1reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • sgosdensgosden Frets: 720
    I was watching a tutorial with John Browne from monuments the other day and he basically pointed out that the reason a lot of people in the studio dont like modellers is that the hihg end, even with a cab sim doesnt look like a mic'ed V30. He showed the profile difference in an EQ.


    got a link ? couldn't see it on his channel
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • PolarityManPolarityMan Frets: 4494
    Its a URM tutorial..need to be a member
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • ModellistaModellista Frets: 983
    as a modelling amp I think the Katana for me now stands out - there are amps that do a way better 5150 out there. But while it was 'original' it was great.
    ^ this is a good point - when there's something directly to compare digital to, it will often come off second best.  So better off using generic names and making something which just sounds good in its own right.

    The new That Pedal Show compares a Boss Nextone in EL84 mode next to an actual AC15.  The Boss sounded naff in comparison.  I suspect in isolation it would have sounded fine, but because they've gone with actual valve names for the settings, it begs comparison, and I doubt the Boss will win any of those.
    0reaction image LOL 1reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • MayneheadMaynehead Frets: 1480
    as a modelling amp I think the Katana for me now stands out - there are amps that do a way better 5150 out there. But while it was 'original' it was great.
    ^ this is a good point - when there's something directly to compare digital to, it will often come off second best.  So better off using generic names and making something which just sounds good in its own right.

    The new That Pedal Show compares a Boss Nextone in EL84 mode next to an actual AC15.  The Boss sounded naff in comparison.  I suspect in isolation it would have sounded fine, but because they've gone with actual valve names for the settings, it begs comparison, and I doubt the Boss will win any of those.
    When you say it "sounded naff", do you mean it sounded worse, or just different? Because if it sounded bad in comparison, changing the name of the setting isn't going to make it sound any better...
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • John_AJohn_A Frets: 2019
    No-one can say a Line 6 Badonk doesnt sound like a Badonk!
    Do me a favour and like this:

    https://www.facebook.com/MarkedCoversBand
    1reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • PolarityManPolarityMan Frets: 4494
    Althoguh presumably it was originally supposed to be vaguely recto-like back in the day when it was still called big bottom or whateever.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • John_AJohn_A Frets: 2019
    Althoguh presumably it was originally supposed to be vaguely recto-like back in the day when it was still called big bottom or whateever.
    It still is 'vaguely recto-like' but also quite different, I like it :)  Suppose anything is going to be vaguely something-like, much as a Friedman is vaguely Marshall-like or a Dr-Z is Vox like, they all have to sound like a guitar amp 
    Do me a favour and like this:

    https://www.facebook.com/MarkedCoversBand
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • There's a ridiculously high gain Line 6 Original amp on Pod Farm 2 called the Spinal Puppet. I've no idea what it's based on. But I tend to use that for high gain recording more than any recent software options.

    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • TTBZTTBZ Frets: 784
    edited February 9
    their ears learn based on a 'model' of an mic'd up amp. When they play the real deal its too raw and unpolished. I guess what I'm trying to say is we never expected amps to sound like a record, but kids now do. They learn on modelling gear. They GAS over valve amps on YouTube thinking that is what an amp sounds like, oblivious to the fact that the amp in the video has been mic'd up. Thus it always falls short for them because they are used to getting an exact EVH tone on their POD. A 5150 would be too fuzzy to their ears!
    This happened to me when I first switched to valve amps and I still have this "problem" to some extent. I think I just prefer playing with that polished sound, rather than the raw sound of it going into an amp. The only reason I moved away from modelling when I was younger was that I thought I needed a valve amp to be a real guitarist with the purest all-valve toanz. When I first plug into a valve amp I love the tone and feel, then after a while when I've adjusted to it I start hearing that fizz and harshness. To be fair that does disappear in a mix but playing alone I find myself not always being fully satisfied with my tone. However I'm also coming to terms with the thought that maybe Marshalls aren't the best amps for the sort of tone I like to play with. I love them but I reckon something more saturated and thicker suits my playing style better.

    I just spent some time playing at home a/b'ing my amp and some modelling software (mercuriall spark + IRs) and all in all I weirdly kinda preferred the modeller! The real amp just has that fizzy raw quality which I get frustrated with after a while. I'm also too conscious of my playing when it's loud as I know the neighbors are in and probably getting pissed off. With my headphones on or through some monitors I can have the consistently good sound of the cranked up amp through an IR of a good cab, good mics etc. Basically when funds allow I think I'm going to get a HX Stomp and see how it goes from there.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • PolarityManPolarityMan Frets: 4494
    A real amp shines loud and maybe to an extent in a band mix though. That's where modellers don't quite get there for me.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • ModellistaModellista Frets: 983
    Maynehead said:
    as a modelling amp I think the Katana for me now stands out - there are amps that do a way better 5150 out there. But while it was 'original' it was great.
    ^ this is a good point - when there's something directly to compare digital to, it will often come off second best.  So better off using generic names and making something which just sounds good in its own right.

    The new That Pedal Show compares a Boss Nextone in EL84 mode next to an actual AC15.  The Boss sounded naff in comparison.  I suspect in isolation it would have sounded fine, but because they've gone with actual valve names for the settings, it begs comparison, and I doubt the Boss will win any of those.
    When you say it "sounded naff", do you mean it sounded worse, or just different? Because if it sounded bad in comparison, changing the name of the setting isn't going to make it sound any better...
    To me it definitely sounded worse in comparison.  In isolation it’s harder to say whether it was a “bad tone” or not, but in comparison to the Vox I’d take the Vox comfortably. 

    The point about the name is, if the sound wasn’t named after EL84s it wouldn’t be so tempting to plonk an AC15 next to it as a comparison. If you say your amp is emulating certain classic tones, but it doesn’t sound as good as the original, then what’s the point?
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
Sign In or Register to comment.