The way we think about amps

Cirrus

ICBM said:

I agree about the *sound* but not about the *tone* - it's hard to quite explain, but to me digital modelling sounds more like a valve amp in terms of overall sound, but analogue solid state still sounds better in terms of tone.

Absolutely agree here. I guess with digital modelling we're holding the sound up to valve amps as a comparison, and that's what they're aiming for so it stands to reason that they'll be close, but every deviation will be percieved as a failure on the part of digital. Whereas solid state amps don't sound like valve amps, and the way you might approach their use in terms of how you achieve distortion etc and how they fit into the world of band playing and recording is enough of a difference that they stand or fall on their own merits.

maybe.

To add my own two pence, I very much think of the whole signal chain as my instrument - from plectrum to speaker cab - and it's a very interdependent system where the response of each component influences my settings and indeed my playing. What I like about the amps I settle on is that they give me the sounds I need in the situations I use them in - it wouldn't be enough for a modeller to sound like an AC30, it would need to fill the room like an AC30 does, respond to my playing dynamics on live stage, in recording and band practice, and have controls as intuitive as an AC30. By which I mean for example that I wouldn't respond well or be particularly inspired in a situation where I was endlessly tweaking parameters to get the sound in my head. What I like about valve amps is that they take a quite wide range of input signals and still give you something that is subjectively musical while maintaining the character of what you're putting through it.

bertie

jpfamps said:

amps have never been more affordable.

fixed.

The greatest single advance in the years Ive been playing is the quality and choice of kit available to "beginners" on a budget.

Drew_TNBD

koneguitarist;164433" said:

Drew_fx said:



thecolourbox said:

Its an interesting discussion. I think we would all agree that valves feel and sound better to us guitarists, but to Joe Public and through a PA system, there probably isn't a perceivable difference.

I really wish people would stop saying this kind of chod.















Don't tell me you are the one that can tell the difference ?

I can't tell the difference when I'm in the audience, not sure anyone can, even top muso's. But that's another discussion. I am no saying valves are not worth doing only I wonder how long the next generation will actually care if it's valves, SS or digital, as long as it works for them.

I think that actual tests should be taken, rather than people just spouting commonly accepted "wisdom" like 'oh the muso can tell, but the crowd can't' or 'under a microphone it all sounds the same anyway' ... it's piffle and physics does not support it.

bertie

Drew_fx said:

I think that actual tests should be taken, rather than people just spouting commonly accepted "wisdom" like 'oh the muso can tell, but the crowd can't' or 'under a microphone it all sounds the same anyway' ... it's piffle and physics does not support it.

maybe for your band and  your crowd that may be true, but Id wager that for most - the crowd really only cares about the choon and it not sounding totally shit.  

Most crowds in the UK are pub audiences, listening to covers bands - they appreciate the music like a woman does a car.  

Red ones and Blue ones.    

Cirrus

I never understand why people want to scientifically test something that's subjective art. What are we trying to achieve?

Drew_TNBD

Cirrus said:

I never understand why people want to scientifically test something that's subjective art. What are we trying to achieve?

Well the argument being given is that through a PA, you wouldn't notice the difference. This is definitely in the realms of science and no subjective art. It's a claim, and I see nothing to back it up.

bertie said:

Most crowds in the UK are pub audiences, listening to covers bands - they appreciate the music like a woman does a car.  

Red ones and Blue ones.    

Unfortunately this does seem to be the case.

timmysoft

We play some pretty big shows, but the beauty of my band is the fact we play originals, i'm not trying to replicate or get in the "ballpark" of a certain sound, i just have to play and sound like me. Its easy to sound like me because i play so terribly and have a pretty unique (lazy) style.

I was lucky enough to play at Download last year, the stage manager offered us the use of the festival backline, just to save a few minutes on set-up so we'd have more time line checking. I took him up on the offer as it was JCM900 4100 and 1960a cab, a rig i'm pretty familiar with. Everyone who watched who has seen us before still gave us the exact same compliments "guitars sound huge" etc. Considering i'd spent the previous 18 months touring with a Laney VC302x12 and a Diamond Fireburst, i dont think you could get a much more different sounding rig.

Its all about playing how you play, i try to not let my amps and effects influence the way i play too much, i'd rather take that influence and inspiration from the more organic piece of equipment, the guitar.

Fusionista

koneguitarist said:

Drew_fx said:

thecolourbox said:

Its an interesting discussion. I think we would all agree that valves feel and sound better to us guitarists, but to Joe Public and through a PA system, there probably isn't a perceivable difference.

I really wish people would stop saying this kind of chod.

Don't tell me you are the one that can tell the difference ? I can't tell the difference when I'm in the audience, not sure anyone can, even top muso's.

But that's another discussion. 

I am no saying valves are not worth doing only I wonder how long the next generation will actually care if it's valves, SS or digital, as long as it works for them.

Live, I can not only tell the difference, I can tell if the guitarist is putting the signal through too many pedals. When I am the guitarist, it's blatantly obvious. Every time I check out a new amp I can tell if the signal is too processed, let alone digital. One of my mates has got an AxeFX2 and although it's brilliant, after a while it's just too clinical/samey. 

Playing a good valve amp is like walking a high wire: there's a narrow range where the thing is singing, and if you fall off it the sound changes rapidly.   Modern amps are more forgiving, and you just don't (IMO) get that 'peak' resonance.  Attack with valve amps is critical, so you get a changing variety of sounds which is difficult to emulate with digiware.

Not saying all valve amps are 'good', or always better.  It is about the guitar/amp (valve+tonestack)/speaker combination and sometimes it doesn't work.  

Neither am I saying there aren't some great digitones out there. But this guy was imprinted in the late 60's and that's the tone I want.

Of course I could be fooling myself, but I've spent a long time tone hunting, and that's my take on it.

LastMantra

If you look at any discussion like this people say valve amps sound better...but can never pin it down to any real physical difference. It's always none-specific descriptions like "tone" or "feel". If we could describe a physical/mechanical difference then, I'm sure, we could make a digital amp that sounds exactly like a valve amp.

If the difference is psychological however...

One of the main reasons I have a valve amp is that they are usually simple and easy to work on. 

How light do you want an amp too? Combos anyway. Surely there's not much difference in the weight of the actual circuit?   

bertie

Fusionista said:

Live, I can not only tell the difference, I can tell if the guitarist is putting the signal through too many pedals. When I am the guitarist, it's blatantly obvious. Every time I check out a new amp I can tell if the signal is too processed, let alone digital. One of my mates has got an AxeFX2 and although it's brilliant, after a while it's just too clinical/samey. 

Playing a good valve amp is like walking a high wire: there's a narrow range where the thing is singing, and if you fall off it the sound changes rapidly.   Modern amps are more forgiving, and you just don't (IMO) get that 'peak' resonance.  Attack with valve amps is critical, so you get a changing variety of sounds which is difficult to emulate with digiware.

Not saying all valve amps are 'good', or always better.  It is about the guitar/amp (valve+tonestack)/speaker combination and sometimes it doesn't work.  

Neither am I saying there aren't some great digitones out there. But this guy was imprinted in the late 60's and that's the tone I want.

Of course I could be fooling myself, but I've spent a long time tone hunting, and that's my take on it.

all very lovely,   but WE arent the average person in the crowd. The average person in the average crowd. realy doesnt give a shit about all that.   

maltingsaudio

Cirrus said:

I never understand why people want to scientifically test something that's subjective art. What are we trying to achieve?

Usually more sales! 

Really don't know where this thread is going but from my corner:

 Certain types of music benefit from having more articulate amplification and others it tends to be just air movement. 

The perfect sound in your head is only available once in your lifetime, try and reproduce it again and you'll be close not exactly. 

I would much rather carry a solid state amp up stairs than a valve one.

The information on the interweb on how an artist achieves "his sound" is usually marketing bull

Companies have a vested interest in selling you a valve amp because it has serviceable parts which need replacing on a semi regular basis Solid State ones don't.

The average audience know what a horrible sound is but really couldn't tell the difference between a good and a great one 

The best sound occurs when you least expect it

Drew_TNBD

bertie said:

Fusionista said:

Live, I can not only tell the difference, I can tell if the guitarist is putting the signal through too many pedals. When I am the guitarist, it's blatantly obvious. Every time I check out a new amp I can tell if the signal is too processed, let alone digital. One of my mates has got an AxeFX2 and although it's brilliant, after a while it's just too clinical/samey. 

Playing a good valve amp is like walking a high wire: there's a narrow range where the thing is singing, and if you fall off it the sound changes rapidly.   Modern amps are more forgiving, and you just don't (IMO) get that 'peak' resonance.  Attack with valve amps is critical, so you get a changing variety of sounds which is difficult to emulate with digiware.

Not saying all valve amps are 'good', or always better.  It is about the guitar/amp (valve+tonestack)/speaker combination and sometimes it doesn't work.  

Neither am I saying there aren't some great digitones out there. But this guy was imprinted in the late 60's and that's the tone I want.

Of course I could be fooling myself, but I've spent a long time tone hunting, and that's my take on it.

all very lovely,   but WE arent the average person in the crowd. The average person in the average crowd. realy doesnt give a shit about all that.   

I still fundamentally disagree with that.

Fusionista

bertie said:

all very lovely,   but WE arent the average person in the crowd. The average person in the average crowd. realy doesnt give a shit about all that.   

Agreed.  I loved the comment about women and cars - dead on.  So I don't disagree with the OP either. 

However, at the time, I certainly thought it was all 'here today, gone tomorrow' music. I thought I would graduate to classical (in fact I've gone further away from that predictable stuff) and I sure as h*** never thought my kids would be listening to Zep and enjoying it!  Also I've been expecting the demise of the guitar for decades, and where is it ?

Cirrus

LastMantra;165222" said:

If you look at any discussion like this people say valve amps sound better...but can never pin it down to any real physical difference. It's always none-specific descriptions like "tone" or "feel". If we could describe a physical/mechanical difference then, I'm sure, we could make a digital amp that sounds exactly like a valve amp.If the difference is psychological however...

I think there's so much to a valve amp's sound, and not all of it is easy to emulate or test; if it was just about frequency response then that'd be fine, but it's not so straightforward. You've got different frequency responses at different volumes, THD and the precise nature of the distortion at different frequencies is equally fluid, headroom in different stages is a dynamic property based on the signal applied which influences the above, then you've got slew rate, phase rotation at different frequencies caused by the dozens of filters in an amp, the way a speaker cab loads an output section and influences the operation of the output valves. 

You add them all up and you end up with a really complicated picture - you're modelling a sound that's dynamically variable in scores of dimensions, and this is just in the purely digital realm, before you get to practicalities like the quality of the converters/solid state power amp, cab and speaker quality. 

That's why I don't think it's easy to get an emulation bang on - there are so many differences to consider and speaking purely on a theoretical level I see no reason whatsoever why our ears might not pick up on some of the above even if those properties are hard to measure scientifically.

thecolourbox

I get that people don't agree with my (and others') very generalised view that to the audience it doesn't make much difference. Whether or not they can notice or not is potentially a different question to whether they actually do if not looking for it specifically, or whether they actually care that much. How people think of guitars at gigs ive been to seems to be they like to see somebody playing the instrument, but that what they hear is "guitar" rather than the greater detail us players might listen for. I'm thinking of two gigs I've been to at two different extremes - Bright Eyes sound was awful, but the songs were brilliant and i loved the gig, and others around seemed to. When I had the misfortune of seeing Jake Bugg, he was playing through three tube amps all lined up, the sound was brilliant, but the music was disappointing and the atmosphere and appreciation from me and the larger crowd seemed to reflect that (apart from a couple of his hits). My point then really is that it doesn't seem to have much bearing on the enjoyment to the listener, if the songs are good i would think people would not care if the sound was not as amazing as with a tube amp. Maybe that's more the music I like, i suppose for the more technical artists that may be different.

Just to be clear, as a player i much prefer the tube amp feel and sound, but when performing I'd be more than happy to use whatever method is appropriate and practical...

Drew_TNBD

Sound is culminative. It just is. One tiny difference might not make much of a difference, but add them all together, and you're going to get a drastically different sound.

Note: This isn't a better/worse issue. I am not saying modelling or solid state cannot be as good as valve amps.

I've heard from a few people that a couple of the bands that I really like on record, but have never seen live, are pretty boring live. These people are not musicians. But they DO have ideas on sound. I just find the whole "the audience wont know the difference" thing to be really dismissive of the audience. They do have ears, and they do know what they like.

If you're looking for a certain mojo, you're going to want whatever creates it, as a player or an audience member.

fretmeister

Drew_fx said:

bertie said:

Fusionista said:

Live, I can not only tell the difference, I can tell if the guitarist is putting the signal through too many pedals. When I am the guitarist, it's blatantly obvious. Every time I check out a new amp I can tell if the signal is too processed, let alone digital. One of my mates has got an AxeFX2 and although it's brilliant, after a while it's just too clinical/samey. 

Playing a good valve amp is like walking a high wire: there's a narrow range where the thing is singing, and if you fall off it the sound changes rapidly.   Modern amps are more forgiving, and you just don't (IMO) get that 'peak' resonance.  Attack with valve amps is critical, so you get a changing variety of sounds which is difficult to emulate with digiware.

Not saying all valve amps are 'good', or always better.  It is about the guitar/amp (valve+tonestack)/speaker combination and sometimes it doesn't work.  

Neither am I saying there aren't some great digitones out there. But this guy was imprinted in the late 60's and that's the tone I want.

Of course I could be fooling myself, but I've spent a long time tone hunting, and that's my take on it.

all very lovely,   but WE arent the average person in the crowd. The average person in the average crowd. realy doesnt give a shit about all that.   

I still fundamentally disagree with that.

I'm with Bertie. And I think I see it even more as a bassist. Have the time the punter's don't even realise I was on the stage!

The average audience in the average venue don't give a shit. They split it into "Good" and "Bad" beyond that they really don't care.

Of course there are a bunch of people who go "ooo a Marshall" without knowing anything about the model. Just the logo.

These are the people who have come up to me looked at one of my posh basses and said "Do you wish you could afford a Fender?"

Not only do they not give a shit, they don't have enough education in equipment to be able to give a shit.

thecolourbox

And if the songs and performance is good, why should they? They probably went to the gig cos they liked the songs, not cos they heard a Marshall?

ICBM

I agree with Drew. Audiences absolutely can hear the difference and do care - they won't be able to say what it is other than 'bad' or 'good' usually, but anyone who's ever listened to recorded music knows what a band should sound like, and it's often painfully obvious to them when it doesn't. It's just musician-snobbery to think it isn't.

While an average audience member isn't going to know or care whether your amp is valve or solid-state, they'll notice straight away if it's too harsh or too loud (which is usually a result of lacking dynamics, in fact). Often this comes from using crap gear - this is nothing to do with cost or snobbery, some gear just sounds good and some doesn't.

I've lost count of the number of times I've been complimented on the sound of my band - occasionally as a question, as in "why does your band sound so much better than all the others?". The answer is simple - I really, really care about getting a good sound, both for me and the other players, and I'm a benevolent dictator on this ... I will not tolerate poor sound, and I will go to some trouble to help the other members get the right gear if necessary. It doesn't have to be expensive, it just has to be good. (And it has to be reliable too, but that's a totally different point.)

If you really don't think it matters or had anyone tell you you sound great, you're both doing your audience a disservice and you've probably never actually got a good sound. (Offence intended .)

Whether it spoils anyone's evening if they're out for a drink or a dance and the music is secondary is irrelevant - you still shouldn't not care. You can do both - entertain *and* sound great.

martinw

They shouldn't.

But you should.