Isis
Ok, so I'm probably going to open a can of worms with this topic.
We always hear how tube amps "feel" better bla bla bla. Is this something that modelers can model? Is the tube amp hype genuinely warranted or are we being duped into buying stuff based upon the mythical "feel" aspect?
MIKA-the-better-one
Nope, Tube amps generally sound better..... for most pro music circles....... Every band / artist i listen to uses a tube amp, and thats because they sound better.
I am not going to argue if modelling amps are decent (as I dont care for imitations)
Tube amp + good guitar = the best sound
All trouble thats occurs after this comment is not important, tube amp wins
Manfred-Klose
Tube amps will always be the best and most warmest sound you can get. i will always rather record a tube amp, just because its more fun and the dynamics feels real.
but the harsh reality is that amp modelling is starting to catch up fast, like guitar rig, amplitube and even Axe FX.
if you got a good ear, you can fool anyone.
but then again amp modelling would not be here if it wasn't for tube amps they were trying to model.
not everyone can afford to own tube amps, because if you got one, i'm pretty shure your gonna want more, and they'll need to be serviced and need new valves every few years, and that can be lots of money for someone that is not a Pro muso.
Warren
Isis wrote:
Ok, so I'm probably going to open a can of worms with this topic.
We always hear how tube amps "feel" better bla bla bla. Is this something that modelers can model? Is the tube amp hype genuinely warranted or are we being duped into buying stuff based upon the mythical "feel" aspect?
Sound is a subjective thing. While I do think tube amps can sound cool, I also think that modelers (particular the better software ones like Guitar Rig or Amplitube) can get you as near as dammit to the sonic ballpark, and are more than good enough for most I reckon.
Isis
What exactly do we mean by "warm"? This whole tube amp warmth thing seems a little vague to me.
vic
I've been playing tube amps (Vox AC30's) for many years. Recently I got myself a Vox VT100 (modeller) for its onboard Fx etc. This amp has one pre-amp valve... now this amp sounds very good BUT there's just that something missing...it does not have the richness of the all valve AC30 for example.... It's good... and one can certainly play live with it. But really there's no comparison...tube amps are just much better sounding. Well...it also depends on the type of music you play. Modelling amps should be fine for metal I think.
MikeM
Two important things. 1. solid states don't respond to pedals the way tubes do. 2. They don't have the dynamics tubes do.
Solid state can sound dam good, but I can not hear the difference between similar pickups on Guitar Rig, on my tube amp, I can.
Another thing, tube amps TYPICALLY have a few knobs, modellers often have loads. Some think more versatility, I think more way to bugger up your tone ? Unless you got golden ears and know exactly what you want, tube amps are the best (Not cheapest) option. Next best would be a valve based modelling amp, ala Vox Valvetronix, which has a 12ax7 in.
Manfred-Klose
What exactly do we mean by "warm"? This whole tube amp warmth thing seems a little vague to me.
after playing for many years and on many different amps , solid state and tube, you'll know why.
valve amps reacts to volume changes, take 2 very different people, like say a very mellow guitar player that plays very suttle and an aggressive metal head, plugged them into a marshall jcm 800 with the same guitar and same settings.
the mellow guitarist will make it sound very clean, the metal guitarist on the otherhand will make that amp sound like the gates of hell just opened. getting what i am saying ?
besides the fact that the mellow guitarist will complain that the amp is to loud, and the metalhead wants more pre amp gain, it responds well to dynamics.
AlanRatcliffe
I like and use both. For playing live, the real thing is usually more fun and simpler to use (so far). For recording or a well controlled stage with a good monitor/mix engineer, the modellers make getting a good tone to tape or desk quick and easy as well as offering a degree of flexibility and consistency way beyond the real thing.
There is a small difference, but it's narrowing every year - and we are already at the stage where the listener and 99% of players cannot tell the difference in a double-blind listening test in studio (regardless of how they protest otherwise). And interestingly, in these tests often when they do hear a difference, more than half will pick the modeller as the better sounding amp.
The "feel" thing is mostly in the dynamics: something subtle in the way the guitar interfaces with the input circuitry; the way the amp compresses when driven; and the way it responds to the guitar's volume control and the player's dynamics (also why the heavier players are happier with modellers - they have little need for dynamics).
Modellers also let us play clean and cranked tones at any volume level and that itself creates a difference in our perception of the tones. Valve amps you have no choice but to play at the volume levels they were designed for and that colours your perception.
A big problem most of the modellers have IMO is they cram too much into the amp - too many FX/models. Simpler works better for most players at the best of times and for live playing the simplicity coupled with easy adjustment like a real amp will always win out. I'd love to see a bigger modelling amp where they use all the processing power for higher res modelling and leave the FX for conventional pedals. Then they should use the money saved to pay for a simple valve input circuit - which is IMO the best place to have a valve if you are going to incorporate one.
I could pontificate for days, but it all boils down to what works. Nothing is perfect, but don't worry about what a piece of gear isn't - find out what it is and use it to make music. That's what all our heroes did.
BMU
Alan Ratcliffe wrote:
I like and use both. (..and more wise stuff like that)
Well said sir. That post should be framed. Every single paragraph is a shining beacon of clear reasoning.
Personally I come down heavily on the modeler side for reasons Alan mentions, but truly there is nothing to argue against in that post, from either side.
MIKA-the-better-one
sssss s s s s s suck u u uuuuuu uuu p ?
singemonkey
I think that modelers make fantastic sense for recording. The quality is less of an issue, because your mic'd sound from your amp is being digitised anyway - losing some of the richness of information. With modeling software, it seems to me that you lose nothing. So it balances out because the software's digital to start with.
But then there are all kinds of advantages. Easier to set up, more options, and - most of all - the ability to "re-amp" your dry guitar signal later, with better modeling software, is a huge plus.
Gearhead
I guess the discussion on 'feel' is more about how well your playing develops than it is about how good a performance by a seasoned player can sound through either setup. I would recommend playing a real tube amp to anyone for three reasons:
1. Your playing adapts to your rig and its sensitivity, and everyone agrees that the dynamics of tubes is not modeled accurately yet;
2. It is easier to get great sounds (given your cab and your axe) out of a well designed tube amp than it is to get great sounds out of a modeler. Presets only help so much since they are usually made for someone else's setup;
3. Eventually everyone winds up with at least a tube amp and sometimes people also use modeling. Buy once is cheaper than the buy-sell-buy-sell cycle lotsa guys seem to be caught in.
I don't buy the recording argument since it is only valid if you do want to record for money, and if you do you should spend some to make some. I'm saying a real Bassman through a real 4x10 with real Jensens recorded with a real SM57 just off-center will sound at least as good as a model of the same setup? If you want to reamp you can always tap a clean signal somewhere and record both?
Renesongs
I don't think it is such a can of worms. Most people will go for real valve than simulation. In fact in the professional world it seems to be a no no to use prefabricated multifx. I have heard legends about some pro acts hiding uncool simulators behind their stacks - I don't know if that is true or not.
I prefer multifx with amp modelling like the Boss GT series because I can spend weeks tweaking the exact sound I want and simply press save and take it with me and set up on stage. I use a Roland solid state amp with a very clean sound so there is no tweaking from that side. If my amp dies or the back line is already on stage all I do is kill the amp sim on the pedal and I have still got my wha delay overdrive expression etc exactly where I want it.
I used Guitar Rig in live situations for about a year. Although it produces a great sound it is a bit of a nightmare working with a laptop on stage with spotlights blinding you and the potential knocking it off the music stand. I ended up putting the laptop closed and on the floor but had to open it every time I needed to check my tuning. Guitar Rig Kontrol pedal 's stomp switches are placed far to close together to be useful in a live environment.
ActionArnie
Not sure how many of y'all know who Lincoln Brewster is, but he used to use Pod X3 Live in his live rig direct to the house PA. Uses axe-fx now I've heard:
Skip to about 3m30 to see him talk about the X3.
Keira-WitherKay
Alan Ratcliffe wrote:
A big problem most of the modellers have IMO is they cram too much into the amp - too many FX/models. Simpler works better for most players at the best of times and for live playing the simplicity coupled with easy adjustment like a real amp will always win out. I'd love to see a bigger modelling amp where they use all the processing power for higher res modelling and leave the FX for conventional pedals. Then they should use the money saved to pay for a simple valve input circuit - which is IMO the best place to have a valve if you are going to incorporate one.
I
i think sansamp are now doing the simple modelling thing with the "character series" each box just does one amp.........
=
just a few vids they do em all, marshall/orange /vox/fender/mesa ect ect
great idea and they quite CHEAP in comparison if the online prices are anything to go by ........
sansamp's answer to the future....... i like the blonde but i've always had a weakness for blondes ?
AlanRatcliffe
Renesongs wrote:
it is a bit of a nightmare working with a laptop on stage with spotlights blinding you and the potential knocking it off the music stand.
+1000. As you know I worked with a laptop for a couple of years. On the one hand it's nice and portable and way more flexible and powerful than any conventional system. Unfortunately laptops are just too delicate for regular gigging, they are made for portability rather than durability..
I haven't given up on the idea of Guitar Rig completely though. After looking into the Muse Research Receptor (a hardware plug in host), I decided I'm going to build a road-ready rack computer with more than enough processing power to handle anything I might throw at it. Then I can take my guitar-MIDI converter along in the same rack and host the synths in the same PC.
Keira WitherKay wrote:
i think sansamp are now doing the simple modelling thing with the "character series" each box just does one amp.........
True, but I want to see that idea expanded to an amp. Anyway, modelling a few different amps is fine - you only use one at a time.
Malkav
This always turns into such a painful argument, and even though 99% of them would test wrong in a blind hearing test the valve snobs will constantly insist it's the only way to go.
Personally I think you can get lots of tones digitally that valves can't get, and some of them sound f***ing rad ? Just another side to the argument though, I've gotten some horrificly buzz saw like distorted tones - some almost squarewave in sound. Did I go "Ah! that is not true valve amp tone, it sounds like a guitar synth being overdriven" no, I went "F*** yeah, if I double that with this model to add some clarity and definition in the fundamental I'll have something completely unheard of", then I proceeded to give myself a ^5 ?
Bottom line is modellers are almost there, they'll probably have it right within the next decade. Even when they are getting it completely right and everyone is failing on the blind tests there will still be some stuck up old sod defending valve amps, cause people are stupid and they don't like change.
I look forward to the day I can rock up to a gig with a floorboard or a rack mount unit that literally just does it all, in the end it's what you do with it.
I'm going to be going full modelling soon, saving up for a stereo P.A amp and stuff. Turns out most valve amps, with the exception being Mesa so far, can't handle 8-string guitars - this has more to do with cabinet design than anything else but I still find it hilarious, you will never see a Fender or Marshall shit themselves harder than when they're trying to handle that low E ?
vic
@Chad...I'm one of those old sods who prefer valve over solid state etc. I have little experience with modellers...only a bit with the new Vox VT100 (2*12) which I'm sure you know. I got it only for recording and of course for its many onboard Fx..I'm not into pedals and am hoping that this amp will eliminate to use of such in live situations. This amp mimics about 20 different amp models and has all the common Fx onboard...oh,it takes time to learn how to use it properly.
It's a very good sounding amp I tell you..BUT there's that something missing when compared to my vintage AC30.
Of course nowadays you get many of these modellers and software,.I would n't mind getting more exposure to these.
Gearhead
Chad Adam Browne wrote:
This always turns into such a painful argument, and even though 99% of them would test wrong in a blind hearing test the valve snobs will constantly insist it's the only way to go
Any discussion will turn into an argument if people don't listen. Us valvists were saying it's more about the feel than about the sound, but you do not address that. Pity. Any argument will turn into a painful argument if you start calling people names. I don't think I am a snob if prices for the more modern modeling rival those of tube amps.
