Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In with Google

Become a Subscriber!

Subscribe to our Patreon, and get image uploads with no ads on the site!

Read more...

The final leap in solid state amp design to give them equal performance with tube amps ?

What's Hot
24

Comments

  • The modellers do sound quite good to me, especially the far-out distortion bit, it's as good as any overloaded stack and way more controllable.

    Where solid state amps tend to show their weakness (IMO) is that point where single notes are clean but you can hear the grit when 2 strings are sounded together or one note is hit especially hard. Valve amps do that far better in my opinion.
    "Working" software has only unobserved bugs. (Parroty Error: Pieces of Nine! Pieces of Nine!)
    Seriously: If you value it, take/fetch it yourself
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • jpfampsjpfamps Frets: 2724

    The decision by Metallica to use modelling amps on the last your was, believe it or not, made on the basis of cost. It was simply a lot cheaper than dragging around a mountain of analogue / valve gear.

    A friend of mind is an engineer at the BBC, and was working on a Metallica live session at Maida Vale, where they ran out of channels (96!), so I expect they have reduced massively their live set up.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • JalapenoJalapeno Frets: 6378
    How on earth does a 4 piece need 96 channels of live sound ? :/

    Smacks of Spinal Tap .....
    Imagine something sharp and witty here ......

    Feedback
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 2reaction image Wisdom
  • darthed1981darthed1981 Frets: 11680
    Jalapeno said:
    How on earth does a 4 piece need 96 channels of live sound ? :/

    Smacks of Spinal Tap .....
    Lets be honest, Spinal Tap wouldn't be a good parody unless real life mirrored it!
    We have to be so very careful, what we believe in...
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 2reaction image Wisdom
  • Jalapeno said:
    I'll bet that Metallica had a programmer or two to dial-in the correct JCM800 patches, cant see Hetfield et all putting the time in learning the AxeFX manual
    They have a tech, but Fractal has a specific guy who helps artists sort out their sounds to begin with.

    Fractal have also included amp models and control features at Metallica’s request
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • nick79nick79 Frets: 252

    I went to see Metallica on Saturday and the guitar sound was fantastic. 

    I saw them last night in Birmingham, and i agree they sounded very very good. First time i've seen them since they switched to Axe FX, and they sounded as good as ever. 
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • aord43aord43 Frets: 287
    I am no expert (the opposite in fact) and couldn't tell the difference if you played them to me but at the end of the day both Valves and SS are just shuffling electrons around to drive a speaker.  Any perceived difference can only be in the frequency response, right?  So in theory you could design a SS or digital system to give the same frequency response as you expect from valves.  There's nothing magic about valves.
    I'd be willing to bet a lot of it is nostalgia, emotion, woo etc. and wouldn't stand up in a blind test. Similar to CDs vs. [new, unscratched/non-dusty] vinyl.  And all the audiophile nonsense.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • ICBMICBM Frets: 71963
    aord43 said:
    I am no expert (the opposite in fact) and couldn't tell the difference if you played them to me but at the end of the day both Valves and SS are just shuffling electrons around to drive a speaker.  Any perceived difference can only be in the frequency response, right?  So in theory you could design a SS or digital system to give the same frequency response as you expect from valves.  There's nothing magic about valves.
    I'd be willing to bet a lot of it is nostalgia, emotion, woo etc. and wouldn't stand up in a blind test. Similar to CDs vs. [new, unscratched/non-dusty] vinyl.  And all the audiophile nonsense.
    No, it's surprisingly more complicated than that. The actual sound - as in a steady-state frequency, or combination of frequencies - can be made exactly the same.

    What sets them apart - especially if you're the player, so you're inside the 'feedback loop' of generating the signal - is how they respond to *changing* signals, both in terms of dynamics (how changes to incoming signal are reproduced in the outgoing signal) and frequency response (how changes in incoming signal affect harmonic content, especially when overdriven) - some people call this 'feel' or 'touch response'. This is *much* harder to get right, and is why it hasn't been done 100% convincingly yet even though it's theoretically possible. It's a lot easier to get it right from the point of view of an outside listener who is not the player, so FOH sound at a gig or recorded sound is pretty much there.

    But I think it will come even for the player, and fairly soon.

    "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." - Walt Kowalski

    "Just because I don't care, doesn't mean I don't understand." - Homer Simpson

    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 2reaction image Wisdom
  • aord43 said:
    all the audiophile nonsense.
    mate, I've A/Bd the CD and vinyl of Traffic On The Road and trust me the CD sounds like it's been put through a graphic EQ with every other band notched out - it's dreadful. I've also heard the Linn CD of Dietrich Buxtehude's Membra Jesu Nostri and been knocked out by how good it sounded.

    Audiophile is about sound quality, it's not nonsense if you can recognise quality when you hear it irrespective of the medium or the means of amplification: I love my little Leak Stereo 20, but have to concede that my Quad 33/303 can sound better even though it is entirely solid state.
    "Working" software has only unobserved bugs. (Parroty Error: Pieces of Nine! Pieces of Nine!)
    Seriously: If you value it, take/fetch it yourself
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • i look forward to the day i go see a live band with a stack of empty katana boxes  and empty kemper boxes and hiding behind stage a row of marshall stacks.
    2reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • CirrusCirrus Frets: 8481
    nick79 said:
    ...and they sounded as good as ever. 
    *snigger*  =)
    2reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • aord43aord43 Frets: 287
    ICBM said:
    aord43 said:
    I am no expert (the opposite in fact) and couldn't tell the difference if you played them to me but at the end of the day both Valves and SS are just shuffling electrons around to drive a speaker.  Any perceived difference can only be in the frequency response, right?  So in theory you could design a SS or digital system to give the same frequency response as you expect from valves.  There's nothing magic about valves.
    I'd be willing to bet a lot of it is nostalgia, emotion, woo etc. and wouldn't stand up in a blind test. Similar to CDs vs. [new, unscratched/non-dusty] vinyl.  And all the audiophile nonsense.
    No, it's surprisingly more complicated than that. The actual sound - as in a steady-state frequency, or combination of frequencies - can be made exactly the same.

    What sets them apart - especially if you're the player, so you're inside the 'feedback loop' of generating the signal - is how they respond to *changing* signals, both in terms of dynamics (how changes to incoming signal are reproduced in the outgoing signal) and frequency response (how changes in incoming signal affect harmonic content, especially when overdriven) - some people call this 'feel' or 'touch response'. This is *much* harder to get right, and is why it hasn't been done 100% convincingly yet even though it's theoretically possible. It's a lot easier to get it right from the point of view of an outside listener who is not the player, so FOH sound at a gig or recorded sound is pretty much there.

    But I think it will come even for the player, and fairly soon.
    Unsurprisingly it's hard to get across what you mean to someone like me without an actual demo.  Maybe I can find some examples on Youtube.
    Thanks for trying :)
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • aord43aord43 Frets: 287
    aord43 said:
    all the audiophile nonsense.
    mate, I've A/Bd the CD and vinyl of Traffic On The Road and trust me the CD sounds like it's been put through a graphic EQ with every other band notched out - it's dreadful. I've also heard the Linn CD of Dietrich Buxtehude's Membra Jesu Nostri and been knocked out by how good it sounded.

    Audiophile is about sound quality, it's not nonsense if you can recognise quality when you hear it irrespective of the medium or the means of amplification: I love my little Leak Stereo 20, but have to concede that my Quad 33/303 can sound better even though it is entirely solid state.
    Re. CDs. probably some are just crap.  But if it samples the original sound at a sample rate higher than the ear/brain can detect, then theoretically it should be the same.  I appreciate that the production process will vary too, leading to differences between CD and vinyl, I just don't think it's due to the digital medium.
    Re. Audiophile, I was being a bit provocative, but I absolutely agree you can get great quality via great equipment.  I was thinking of the overpriced snake oil such as special mains leads and the like.
    1reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • aord43 said:
    ICBM said:
    aord43 said:
    I am no expert (the opposite in fact) and couldn't tell the difference if you played them to me but at the end of the day both Valves and SS are just shuffling electrons around to drive a speaker.  Any perceived difference can only be in the frequency response, right?  So in theory you could design a SS or digital system to give the same frequency response as you expect from valves.  There's nothing magic about valves.
    I'd be willing to bet a lot of it is nostalgia, emotion, woo etc. and wouldn't stand up in a blind test. Similar to CDs vs. [new, unscratched/non-dusty] vinyl.  And all the audiophile nonsense.
    No, it's surprisingly more complicated than that. The actual sound - as in a steady-state frequency, or combination of frequencies - can be made exactly the same.

    What sets them apart - especially if you're the player, so you're inside the 'feedback loop' of generating the signal - is how they respond to *changing* signals, both in terms of dynamics (how changes to incoming signal are reproduced in the outgoing signal) and frequency response (how changes in incoming signal affect harmonic content, especially when overdriven) - some people call this 'feel' or 'touch response'. This is *much* harder to get right, and is why it hasn't been done 100% convincingly yet even though it's theoretically possible. It's a lot easier to get it right from the point of view of an outside listener who is not the player, so FOH sound at a gig or recorded sound is pretty much there.

    But I think it will come even for the player, and fairly soon.
    Unsurprisingly it's hard to get across what you mean to someone like me without an actual demo.  Maybe I can find some examples on Youtube.
    Thanks for trying :)

    Having A/B'd a bunch of stuff I would agree with ICBM.  It does seem to be the valve poweramp that makes the biggest difference.

    I rate what Fractal have managed so far in terms of modelling, through a beefy enough solid state poweramp it's really quite good and consistently improving - I've had mine 2+ years now and the playing feel is really very good.  Not 1:1, but close enough to where I don't care and all the other benefits more than make up for it.  There are a million other ways to screw up a band performance/recording, a digital solution probably isn't the weak link these days by a long stretch. 

    Been impressed with the sounds of the Kemper too though I haven't played one.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • aord43 said:
    Re. CDs. probably some are just crap.  But if it samples the original sound at a sample rate higher than the ear/brain can detect, then theoretically it should be the same.  I appreciate that the production process will vary too, leading to differences between CD and vinyl, I just don't think it's due to the digital medium.
    Re. Audiophile, I was being a bit provocative, but I absolutely agree you can get great quality via great equipment.  I was thinking of the overpriced snake oil such as special mains leads and the like.
    I'm not entirely convinced about that, although you are right that there are crap CDs (there are also crap LPs!). The problems IMO are (i) if you try to cut everything above (eg) 20kHz you may say you're only cutting what most people can't hear but you're ignoring that the presence of these higher frequencies will modulate the things you can hear - there will be heterodynes, or beat frequencies set up (ii) when you re-assemble the analogue you have to add a noise floor to it to smooth out the harsh transitions between a very high sample and a very low sample (iii) re-assembling the analogue means you are adding to the re-assmbled sound the modulation effects of other high frequencies which weren't in the original. That doesn't mean that you can't produce a digitised then decoded sound which is pleasing and acceptable - I have one or two CD players (Rotel, Marantz to be specific) which sound very civilised indeed.

    You're right about the snake oil :)
    "Working" software has only unobserved bugs. (Parroty Error: Pieces of Nine! Pieces of Nine!)
    Seriously: If you value it, take/fetch it yourself
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom
  • ICBMICBM Frets: 71963
    aord43 said:

    Re. CDs. probably some are just crap.  But if it samples the original sound at a sample rate higher than the ear/brain can detect, then theoretically it should be the same.  I appreciate that the production process will vary too, leading to differences between CD and vinyl, I just don't think it's due to the digital medium.
    Re. Audiophile, I was being a bit provocative, but I absolutely agree you can get great quality via great equipment.  I was thinking of the overpriced snake oil such as special mains leads and the like.
    Actually I think it's because CD is better than vinyl - it really is, technically. But it's the imperfections in the sound of vinyl that people love. CD is too pure and lacks 'warmth', for want of a better word - where 'warmth' is a subtle mixture of harmonic distortions that just for some reason suits our human ears/brain.

    Same with solid-state and valve amps. Valves sound 'better', because they're worse - the distortion (even on an unclipped signal) they introduce just sounds naturally pleasing, and is quite hard to precisely emulate with a different technology, particularly as the ways the circuits work are non-linear. Even the apparent perceived volume is strangely different - a watt is a watt, but a valve amp of a given rated power will almost always sound louder than an exactly equivalent solid-state one, even when both are clean - because the dynamic response is different.

    It's actually quite a fascinating subject. I honestly wonder whether it will be all finally figured out, or whether people will just stop caring once the difference gets small enough and other practical considerations outweigh it.

    "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." - Walt Kowalski

    "Just because I don't care, doesn't mean I don't understand." - Homer Simpson

    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom
  • darthed1981darthed1981 Frets: 11680
    ICBM said:
    aord43 said:

    Re. CDs. probably some are just crap.  But if it samples the original sound at a sample rate higher than the ear/brain can detect, then theoretically it should be the same.  I appreciate that the production process will vary too, leading to differences between CD and vinyl, I just don't think it's due to the digital medium.
    Re. Audiophile, I was being a bit provocative, but I absolutely agree you can get great quality via great equipment.  I was thinking of the overpriced snake oil such as special mains leads and the like.
    Actually I think it's because CD is better than vinyl - it really is, technically. But it's the imperfections in the sound of vinyl that people love. CD is too pure and lacks 'warmth', for want of a better word - where 'warmth' is a subtle mixture of harmonic distortions that just for some reason suits our human ears/brain.

    Same with solid-state and valve amps. Valves sound 'better', because they're worse - the distortion (even on an unclipped signal) they introduce just sounds naturally pleasing, and is quite hard to precisely emulate with a different technology, particularly as the ways the circuits work are non-linear. Even the apparent perceived volume is strangely different - a watt is a watt, but a valve amp of a given rated power will almost always sound louder than an exactly equivalent solid-state one, even when both are clean - because the dynamic response is different.

    It's actually quite a fascinating subject. I honestly wonder whether it will be all finally figured out, or whether people will just stop caring once the difference gets small enough and other practical considerations outweigh it.
    The experience is also important in both cases.

    Vinyl clicks and pops, you need to sit and listen to a whole side of an album, manually turn over, you can hear the music from the needle when you show your ear next to it.  It is very tangible.

    Same with valve amps, they need to warm up, they react in a certain way to changes in signal, they get hot when driven.

    One one hand the preference for vinyl and valve amps is damn silly.  On the other hand, If all we had was reality, we probably wouldn't bother with music at all!
    We have to be so very careful, what we believe in...
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 2reaction image Wisdom
  • nick79nick79 Frets: 252
    Cirrus said:
    nick79 said:
    ...and they sounded as good as ever. 
    *snigger*  =)
    Have a lol. 
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • ecc83ecc83 Frets: 1592
    edited October 2017

    +1 to ICBM's "more complicated than that" . If you take a valve output stage (p-pull, hate SE!) it has at least one property that  transistor stages don't inherently have and that is an output impedance quite a bit higher than the load. The classic AC30 design is IIRC close to 50 Ohms. Even a big, 4 OPV 100 watter with a whiff of feedback  would likely be no lower than 10 Ohms.

    One consequence of this is that as a speakers DC resistance increases as it heats up (Thermal Compression) and the drive current drops, valves are able to maintain the power into the load because they can supply the necessary greater voltage. I have no evidence for this (can't play for ***t!) but I would put money on this high OPZ being the major factor that players call "feel"?

    The other effect is that the amplifier gives virtually no damping to the speakers and so they are allowed to 'sing' as they wish albeit maybe not a YOU want them to sing at times (e.g. The Rocket) !

    Yes, it is possible to engineer a high OPZ into a transistor amp but it is NOT an inherent property and likely does not sound the same. In a word it is a kludge.  It can also cause instability, and reliability problems.

    Move back to pre amps. Triodes when distorted produce mainly even harmonic distortion. ICs, because they are symmetrical devices, produce mainly rather nastier odd harmonics but in general you don't overdrive ICs ('specially not TL072s!) . Yes, discrete transistors are asymmetrical and can do even harmonics but their headroom is pitiful compared to triodes, volts pk-pk not tens of volts pk-pk  and anyway, transistors have a MASSIVE bandwidth, even audio devices reach into tens of MHz often 100. The humble junction FET makes an excellent VHF radio preamp! The HF rolloff of valves is a 'good thing'!

    No, just because they both 'push electrons around' does not mean sstate sound the same as valve, WHEN overdriven. You can make very good hi-fi valve amps but in the limit NOT as good as the best transistor designs. Horses for...

    So, do I think a modeller will come along that will fool player and audience? Yes. in fact I think we are very close now.


    Dave.

    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 3reaction image Wisdom
  • p90foolp90fool Frets: 31371
    The experience is also important in both cases.

    Vinyl clicks and pops, you need to sit and listen to a whole side of an album, manually turn over, you can hear the music from the needle when you show your ear next to it.  It is very tangible.

    Same with valve amps, they need to warm up, they react in a certain way to changes in signal, they get hot when driven.

    One one hand the preference for vinyl and valve amps is damn silly.  On the other hand, If all we had was reality, we probably wouldn't bother with music at all!
    Wis'd. 
    I'm totally pragmatic about technology, but a little romance doesn't hurt as long as you know that's what it is. 

    I can be totally charmed by an oily, scruffy 1930s motorbike while still recognising that new ones are "better". 


    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
Sign In or Register to comment.