Real Amps vs. Modelling

[Riffraff]

I'm in this happy/content place too. Don't get me wrong, debating is fun, gear talk is why I'm here lol, etc, but I've always maintained it still comes down to what you do with your gear that speaks the loudest to me, let your material do the talking, etc (not talking about skill here, just sharing whatever music comes out of you using whatever tools you prefer, because yes, it's a form of personal expression for many). I'm proud of the content I've created with all my toys, tube amps, rack preamps, pedals and a modeler alike and I'm sure as I age even more and look back I won't care about details, only that the final piece of music was the best I could do and the tones were cool...and so far, so good.

I couldn't agree more with Derek on this. It's all just tools in your tool box.

I got my FM3 to use for inspiration and recording. I don't play out anymore and haven't even attempted to use it at band volume with a power amp yet but I'll try it eventually. My job eats up a lot of my time so the only time I have to play is very early in the morning from 4 a.m. to 6 a.m. and I really can't mic a cranked tube amp at that time of the morning. I don't even want to when I can because it's a pain in the ass. I've been loading down my tube amps with an attenuator so I can get a line level signal to run through my interface and use IR's. I add effects with rack effects, plugins and sometimes pedals. This already sounds radically different than my amp in a room tone. Not necessarily bad but nothing like the amp does run through a cab. Since it's easier to dial in a cool tone using my rack preamps instead of an amp and an attenuator I did that most of the time. The Fractal has added a ton of legit amp tones to my arsenal. It's just fun to play through which is why I play in the first place.

 

[PentodeLicious]

Honestly I never had anything against modeling.
For me the full digital path never sounded as good as miked amp in the full mix.
I wanted it to be better. but it simply wasn't.

I have a lot of pro studio experience with guitar amplifiers running thru the finest preamps and mics(neve/SSL/Avalons.... + neumans/royers).
I think a lot of the people that prefer digital modeling simply did not had their amplifier miked by a pro sound engineer in a pro studio.
So if you compare a kemper/ AXE FX/plugin to a miked amplifier with a consumer level sound card, cheap mics, bad acoustics and someone that is not a sound engineer yeah probably you won't be able to tell the difference.
Do it in a professional environment and you will hear the difference. big time.

And don't give me the youtube stuff.
yes after 2 times the mp3 audio has been compressed you won't hear the difference.
Try in uncompressed WAV format sources and then tell me if you hear the difference or not.

BUT! I truly believe that in less than 5 years modeling will be even better and then you won't be able to tell the difference.

 

[Lo-Tek]

Jeff Beck would also talk about how old, carbureted hot rods are superior to modern, fuel injected sports cars. Some would agree with him, some would not.

I don't think he is saying one is better than the other. He is saying the technology makes it too easy.

A better analogy might be vehicle stability control or park assist; used to be driving and parking took skill now technology does it for us.
Using sims/fake amps does not require dialing in an amp and they are much more forgiving than an a real amp. At least some of us find them much easier/safer than using a real amp.
I mean, he recorded a whole album with a Champ which is very unforgiving. Then again he is Jeff Beck and one of the all time greats.

He mentioned Auto-Tune too. Used to be singers had to get close to the right pitch- now they don't have to. Auto-tune just fixes it for you. There is nothing inherently wrong with that approach but isn't it better when a singer can really hit the notes?

 

[What?]

And don't give me the youtube stuff.
yes after 2 times the mp3 audio has been compressed you won't hear the difference.
Try in uncompressed WAV format sources and then tell me if you hear the difference or not.

The only problem with youtube audio is the 128 kbps data rate. If they were using 256 or 320, no one could really hear the difference.

 

[PentodeLicious]

The only problem with youtube audio is the 128 kbps data rate. If they were using 256 or 320, no one could really hear the difference.

320 is still taking a lot of the fine details out compared to a WAV format.
Mainly in the sub department and the stuff above 10Khz.
Listen on good monitors and a good room you will hear the difference.

But it's not only that.
The main problem is that when you render the video you compress the audio.
Then it is being compressed again by youtube processing.

 

[Derek S]

I don't think he is saying one is better than the other. He is saying the technology makes it too easy.

I personally don't buy into this at all (and I LOVE Jeff Beck, by far one of the most expressive players to ever pick up the instrument, an icon, I consider his playing an influence actually...but he's never had a tone that blew me away FWIW and in many cases, pretty unimpressive at that IMO).

I have a multi mic'd up cab in and iso room and amps over at the workstation, a VERY consistent setup (the mics rarely get touched because they're already positioned just right and the door stays closed) where all I have to do is sit down and play/record. I find playing through THAT setup every bit as convenient (easy) as playing through my Fractal setup, in no way does one approach feel easier to play than the other. Both deliver great tones and I sound/play like me through both regardless. Yes, there's always a few minutes of adjusting your playing to the volume when running through a loud rig (like stage/live loud) but heh, it's nothing after a few minutes of playing. Like I said earlier in this thread, I believe if you can play, you can play. If you can dial in good tones, you can dial in good tones.

I agree however that if you don't happen to have years of experience dialing in amps and mic'ing cabs and no desire to learn it then yes, a modeler can be a cheat, a super easy way to get pro level tones with the push of a button. But so what? I'm personally not a purist, as long as a device delivers excellent results, I'm ok with it.

 

[ITburst]

I think everyone missed the joke I tried (failed) to make.
My point was modelling amps are “real” as well.
I have absolutely nothing against them. I really like my Boss Katana 100. I do like my Marshall’s better though.

 

[saxon68]

If it sounds good it’s good. I don’t care what’s between my guitar and my ears as long as it sounds good and I can turn back towards the speakers and get that interaction. Period. End of debate for me.


I will however add that I got the Fractal thinking I’d record and that didn’t happen for one reason or another.

 

[MP+]

I couldn't agree more with Derek on this. It's all just tools in your tool box.

I got my FM3 to use for inspiration and recording. I don't play out anymore and haven't even attempted to use it at band volume with a power amp yet but I'll try it eventually. My job eats up a lot of my time so the only time I have to play is very early in the morning from 4 a.m. to 6 a.m. and I really can't mic a cranked tube amp at that time of the morning. I don't even want to when I can because it's a pain in the ass. I've been loading down my tube amps with an attenuator so I can get a line level signal to run through my interface and use IR's. I add effects with rack effects, plugins and sometimes pedals. This already sounds radically different than my amp in a room tone. Not necessarily bad but nothing like the amp does run through a cab. Since it's easier to dial in a cool tone using my rack preamps instead of an amp and an attenuator I did that most of the time. The Fractal has added a ton of legit amp tones to my arsenal. It's just fun to play through which is why I play in the first place.

The debate always turns back to this point of modeling amps like the FM3 falling well short in sound quality when it comes to live band situations with good reason. This is a chink in the configuration that could be brought up to standard using ready made "off the shelf" components configured in an appropriate way. Running into a power amp is a hit and miss proposition at the moment since you would need great amounts of power to leave your stored patches "uncolored", then you take a gamble on some sort of P.A. type speaker. You're really back to square one as far as the amount of gear you would lug around and then you're up for some serious tweaking to get your patches sounding the way they do in your headphones or home monitor speakers. When running into a high powered house P.A. everything cruises along nicely, mostly due to the fact that you're basically running as mic'ed up guitar amp. but attempting to come up with a dedicated stand alone amp configuration generally leads to pain. The current trend looks to be steering towards existing FF-FR powered cabs. but the reality is that there is no chance that something like a blow molded plastic cab. relying on a compression driver to push out higher frequencies will ever close the gap with something like a 1960A 4x12" cab. This has been mentioned by players on other forums with complaints like "underpowered", "boxy / boomy bass", "crackling distortion" and so on. Too many options and not enough definite direction. It's a missing piece that has lead to the main, easy target of criticism, which is then directed at the modeling unit itself being the root of all evil. It's not! The Fractal forum quotes "Cliff" as suggesting class AB amps are the preferred option but that's it, no further information. What's needed is something that doesn't yet exist "off the shelf", but could easily exist using a combination of "off the shelf" components. I'm seriously considering making a prototype and taking it to "shark tank" or somewhere. The solution to this weakness is ready to roll. The potential to make a 2x12" 60 pound FF-FR powered modeling amp cab. using mesh re-enforced plywood construction that pumps out similar power and similar tone to a 100watt tube amp running through a great cab. is all but banging on the door to be made. This shortfall is what turned me away from modeling units for live band gigs / rehearsals and left me entrenched back in tube amp. city, in a big way. I know plenty of "modeler dumpers" in this debate will love reading that, but I'm just being objective, calling a spade a spade. What has changed now is some of the newer "off the shelf" components that weren't around even as little as 2 or 3 years ago which could be used to smash this shortfall, but for some reason aren't being used.

 

[What?]

320 is still taking a lot of the fine details out compared to a WAV format.
Mainly in the sub department and the stuff above 10Khz.
Listen on good monitors and a good room you will hear the difference.

But it's not only that.
The main problem is that when you render the video you compress the audio.
Then it is being compressed again by youtube processing.

I have listened quite a bit and mixed down quite a bit to 320 kbps. Is there some specific piece of audio you can point to that loses detail when encoded to 320 kbps mp3?

 

[What?]

The debate always turns back to this point of modeling amps like the FM3 falling well short in sound quality when it comes to live band situations with good reason. This is a chink in the configuration that could be brought up to standard using ready made "off the shelf" components configured in an appropriate way. Running into a power amp is a hit and miss proposition at the moment since you would need great amounts of power to leave your stored patches "uncolored", then you take a gamble on some sort of P.A. type speaker. You're really back to square one as far as the amount of gear you would lug around and then you're up for some serious tweaking to get your patches sounding the way they do in your headphones or home monitor speakers. When running into a high powered house P.A. everything cruises along nicely, mostly due to the fact that you're basically running as mic'ed up guitar amp. but attempting to come up with a dedicated stand alone amp configuration generally leads to pain. The current trend looks to be steering towards existing FF-FR powered cabs. but the reality is that there is no chance that something like a blow molded plastic cab. relying on a compression driver to push out higher frequencies will ever close the gap with something like a 1960A 4x12" cab. This has been mentioned by players on other forums with complaints like "underpowered", "boxy / boomy bass", "crackling distortion" and so on. Too many options and not enough definite direction. It's a missing piece that has lead to the main, easy target of criticism, which is then directed at the modeling unit itself being the root of all evil. It's not! The Fractal forum quotes "Cliff" as suggesting class AB amps are the preferred option but that's it, no further information. What's needed is something that doesn't yet exist "off the shelf", but could easily exist using a combination of "off the shelf" components. I'm seriously considering making a prototype and taking it to "shark tank" or somewhere. The solution to this weakness is ready to roll. The potential to make a 2x12" 60 pound FF-FR powered modeling amp cab. using mesh re-enforced plywood construction that pumps out similar power and similar tone to a 100watt tube amp running through a great cab. is all but banging on the door to be made. This shortfall is what turned me away from modeling units for live band gigs / rehearsals and left me entrenched back in tube amp. city, in a big way. I know plenty of "modeler dumpers" in this debate will love reading that, but I'm just being objective, calling a spade a spade. What has changed now is some of the newer "off the shelf" components that weren't around even as little as 2 or 3 years ago which could be used to smash this shortfall, but for some reason aren't being used.

The cab and power amp are definitely a big part of it, but that's not the whole of it. And it would be a major step forward to get a much closer amp in the room sound. But part of it is still in the result of how aliasing and dynamics are handled. Part of it is needing a noise gate. Part of it is in the amp modeling sounding somewhat more simplified in interactions of the parts. Part of it is in the effects that come along for the ride not being up to snuff with stomp box and old school rack counterparts.

Any way, I like checking in once in a while to see what is the state of things with modeling and profiling. But I'm not throwing any more money at it until I'm satisfied that I can have an amp in the room experience without a bunch of tradeoffs. I do still keep a little Roland micro cube in the living room for plinking around on. It's cheap and cheerful for what it is, and I don't expect anything more from it than that.

 

[MP+]

The cab and power amp are definitely a big part of it, but that's not the whole of it. And it would be a major step forward to get a much closer amp in the room sound. But part of it is still in the result of how aliasing and dynamics are handled. Part of it is needing a noise gate. Part of it is in the amp modeling sounding somewhat more simplified in interactions of the parts. Part of it is in the effects that come along for the ride not being up to snuff with stomp box and old school rack counterparts.

Any way, I like checking in once in a while to see what is the state of things with modeling and profiling. But I'm not throwing any more money at it until I'm satisfied that I can have an amp in the room experience without a bunch of tradeoffs. I do still keep a little Roland micro cube in the living room for plinking around on. It's cheap and cheerful for what it is, and I don't expect anything more from it than that.

The complete stand alone amp. setup has for modelers been a missed play big time. It leads to confusion since modelers are generally a pre-amp unit outputting a complete amplifier tone. This leaves some attempting to amplify the signal via a small mediocre portable P.A. system to bring patches up to band volume, and others attempting to feed the signal back into the output stage of a guitar amp resulting in a "doubled" output tone, or in other words, something that is tending towards mush. Both approaches are less than ideal and are the main cause of issues relating to bad outcomes. The improvements required to the modeling side of the situation are small and getting smaller, even as it stands now, signal deterioration issues would be roughly on par with issues faced in complex "old school" rack mount units in the 80's and 90's, especially if they suffered from connective ground loops, which most of them did. I don't remember seeing a single rack mount set up that didn't include a "Rocktron Hush" noise suppressor in one of its rack spaces. Those were and probably still are the best option going and I speak from personal experience in stating that those units were much more intrusive to quality guitar tones than what is encountered within a high end modeling unit. Even so, guitarists lived with that back in the day. In fact the industry in general encouraged the whole scene and likely 90% of guitarists were pushing each other out of the way to jump on the "bandwagon" (not meant to be joking there). Current day FF-FR powered cabs are the right format for modeling amps looking to operate as stand alone guitar rig amps, but they have taken numerous wrong turns. I'm not happy with them being ported, plastic shells don't cut it for me and whatever is out there at the moment has to be driven hard to the point where the internal amp starts to break into solid state distortion. Once that's sorted out, which it can be as I previously mentioned, the focus can be shifted by players onto really fine tuning patches to suit the amp setup that would be used at band rehearsal or in a small venue with a P.A system that might only have enough juice for vocals, drums and possibly minimal guitar mic. I have home made open back cabs. that I have tuned via various means to sound identical in tone to my 1960A cab. in all aspects, speaker play/compression, simulated windings of additional speakers in line and general "Q" settings tied in with resonant frequencies to compensate for less plywood in the housing. Much better than going ported in a "take a stab" approach attempting to achieve increased efficiency. The ball's been fumbled on this.

 

[What?]

The cab being part of the sum is one reason why Fender went the way they did with the tonemaster amps. It didn't solve all problems of course, but it did address a big one of, sound of an amp in a room. A deluxe reverb got a 112 cab, a super reverb got a 410 cab, etc., although the cabs are lighter weight with their neo speakers than the cabs for the tube counterparts.

On rack units, I don't have a lot of experience with them. But there were some rack units that, despite some signal loss, provided highest quality effects available even still today. Lexicon reverbs for example. One thing I hear common to modelers is lesser effects than what is available otherwise. And being a bigger fan of classic effects such as tremolo, spring reverb, univibe, fuzz, I especially hear it in these particular effects. I'm not a fan at all of the generic soundscape algo's that tend to get displayed from modelers, as if the instrument being played is a synthesizer instead of a guitar, which to my ears adds a layer of cheapness to modelers, like gold plated hardware on a guitar. Most times I just want a really good spring reverb like what is in my old Fender amps. But instead of the focus being on fewer effects at much higher quality, modelers are loaded with dozens of much lesser effects. I think what needs to happen here is inviting third-party developers in to the platforms, in the same way that there are plugin standards for pc/mac/linux.

 

[MP+]

The cab being part of the sum is one reason why Fender went the way they did with the tonemaster amps. It didn't solve all problems of course, but it did address a big one of, sound of an amp in a room. A deluxe reverb got a 112 cab, a super reverb got a 410 cab, etc., although the cabs are lighter weight with their neo speakers than the cabs for the tube counterparts.

On rack units, I don't have a lot of experience with them. But there were some rack units that, despite some signal loss, provided highest quality effects available even still today. Lexicon reverbs for example. One thing I hear common to modelers is lesser effects than what is available otherwise. And being a bigger fan of classic effects such as tremolo, spring reverb, univibe, fuzz, I especially hear it in these particular effects. I'm not a fan at all of the generic soundscape algo's that tend to get displayed from modelers, as if the instrument being played is a synthesizer instead of a guitar, which to my ears adds a layer of cheapness to modelers, like gold plated hardware on a guitar. Most times I just want a really good spring reverb like what is in my old Fender amps. But instead of the focus being on fewer effects at much higher quality, modelers are loaded with dozens of much lesser effects. I think what needs to happen here is inviting third-party developers in to the platforms, in the same way that there are plugin standards for pc/mac/linux.

I can relate to most of your points but can't get definite since I have limited experience with modelers in general. You might be on to something with the less is more effects approach. I thought the GT-6 had some lame effects additions that were just out of place but on the flip side, having some synth. sounds handy might not be such a bad thing. Gibson in conjunction with Roland launched a massive joint project back in the late 70's attempting to achieve that outcome with the relative limited technology available in that era. This obviously comes down to a Genre and skill issue, when I say skill, I mean using something like that sparingly rather than all in, in which case you'd do better just looking up what Moog have to offer. I get your angle, guitar should be guitar because nothing else can replicate guitar and in some ways, we're on the same page. Bad guitar tone hits us all.

 

[Lo-Tek]

I personally don't buy into this at all (and I LOVE Jeff Beck, by far one of the most expressive players to ever pick up the instrument, an icon, I consider his playing an influence actually...but he's never had a tone that blew me away FWIW and in many cases, pretty unimpressive at that IMO).

I have a multi mic'd up cab in and iso room and amps over at the workstation, a VERY consistent setup (the mics rarely get touched because they're already positioned just right and the door stays closed) where all I have to do is sit down and play/record. I find playing through THAT setup every bit as convenient (easy) as playing through my Fractal setup, in no way does one approach feel easier to play than the other. Both deliver great tones and I sound/play like me through both regardless. Yes, there's always a few minutes of adjusting your playing to the volume when running through a loud rig (like stage/live loud) but heh, it's nothing after a few minutes of playing. Like I said earlier in this thread, I believe if you can play, you can play. If you can dial in good tones, you can dial in good tones.

I agree however that if you don't happen to have years of experience dialing in amps and mic'ing cabs and no desire to learn it then yes, a modeler can be a cheat, a super easy way to get pro level tones with the push of a button. But so what? I'm personally not a purist, as long as a device delivers excellent results, I'm ok with it.

His tone is hit and miss with me. I listened to a few tracks from the album he made with the Champ and it was good but I wouldn't say great. He evidently EQs his amps in a strange way and heavily relies on guitar tone pot.
Sometimes I think he gets great tones- seems I might like him best when he is using a Plexi.

 

[Derrick111]

One thing I hear common to modelers is lesser effects than what is available otherwise. And being a bigger fan of classic effects such as tremolo, spring reverb, univibe, fuzz, I especially hear it in these particular effects. I'm not a fan at all of the generic soundscape algo's that tend to get displayed from modelers, as if the instrument being played is a synthesizer instead of a guitar, which to my ears adds a layer of cheapness to modelers, like gold plated hardware on a guitar. Most times I just want a really good spring reverb like what is in my old Fender amps. But instead of the focus being on fewer effects at much higher quality, modelers are loaded with dozens of much lesser effects. I think what needs to happen here is inviting third-party developers in to the platforms, in the same way that there are plugin standards for pc/mac/linux.

This is related to what I was mentioning before about how many outboard effects interact with an amp much differently than the way they interact with the front end of a modeler. That aspect is a big deal to people and a huge part of what is enjoyed about many effects (especially with classics like you mentioned). This is a shortcoming that leads many to just end up using the effects that are on board. When you realize this is caused by multiple factors such as type/design of various amp front end circuits, impedance, etc. you can understand why this becomes quite a challenge for modeling designers to figure out how to overcome.

 

[PentodeLicious]

I have listened quite a bit and mixed down quite a bit to 320 kbps. Is there some specific piece of audio you can point to that loses detail when encoded to 320 kbps mp3?

Yes. Try some really high quality mixes that do not suffer from brick wall mastering.
And of course listen to the original masters from the original CDs.
R.E.M - automatic for the people. especially drive. you will hear the difference in the reverb and high frequencies.
Pearl Jam - Ten
Rage Against The Machine - the debut album
Pink Floyd -The Wall
Alan parsons project - Eye In The Sky
Also from the newer stuff:
David Gilmour - On an island
Daft Punk - Get Lucky
A Perfect Circle - Thirteenth Step

Well I wish we were neighbors I would've invited you to a listening session in my man cave.
Also don't do A/B.
Listen to the whole song in both formats.
You will experience a difference and i'm pretty sure the WAV file experience will be more enjoyable.

 

[What?]

Yes. Try some really high quality mixes that do not suffer from brick wall mastering.
And of course listen to the original masters from the original CDs.
R.E.M - automatic for the people. especially drive. you will hear the difference in the reverb and high frequencies.
Pearl Jam - Ten
Rage Against The Machine - the debut album
Pink Floyd -The Wall
Alan parsons project - Eye In The Sky
Also from the newer stuff:
David Gilmour - On an island
Daft Punk - Get Lucky
A Perfect Circle - Thirteenth Step

Well I wish we were neighbors I would've invited you to a listening session in my man cave.

Thanks. I'm curious about it, so I'll convert a few tracks and see what I hear. I did some tests long ago and settled on 256 kbps for most renders and 320 kbps for anything that is really dynamic and detailed. I pretty much always use the Lame encoder at constant bitrate in Reaper.

 

[MP+]

This is related to what I was mentioning before about how many outboard effects interact with an amp much differently than the way they interact with the front end of a modeler. That aspect is a big deal to people and a huge part of what is enjoyed about many effects (especially with classics like you mentioned). This is a shortcoming that leads many to just end up using the effects that are on board. When you realize this is caused by multiple factors such as type/design of various amp front end circuits, impedance, etc. you can understand why this becomes quite a challenge for modeling designers to figure out how to overcome.

To say that modeling units are the only device in the history of guitar gear that involved some sort of "trade off" is just misleading. Just getting back to my point of rack mount units from a few years back and the all but compulsory requirement of some sort of noise suppressor / noise gate in the set up. The "Rocktron Hush" surfaced as the best least intrusive device but even so, all the issues you mention about front end amp. circuit interaction suffer similar consequences. Add a wireless guitar hook up system and the trade off ends up more affected than straight guitar cabled to modeler front end. Guitarists at all levels still went for it in a big way, ditching any benefits of having a good sounding fuzz box to open up a massive array of tones which could not be achieved with gear that was previously available. Some items like "spring reverb" probably haven't translated over to modeler / desk plug ins in the best way SO far, but other items like Lexicon reverb, plate reverb and particularly some of the tape echo options are right on the money, maybe even better.

 

[Frodebro]

To say that modeling units are the only device in the history of guitar gear that involved some sort of "trade off" is just misleading.

Understatement of the year!

Reverb, delay, distortion pedals, wah pedals, chorus pedals…. All are trade offs.