Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Amp Modeling' started by Rocco Crocco, Dec 4, 2016.
Completely agree. Reminds me of when Coke Cola created "New Coke" almost put them out of business.
Just forwarn him that Lars is a bit of a trainw eco live, and James can sound like he is going through puberty from time to time.
Yeah, I'm wondering if they can keep up the Metal for much longer. I've only seen them once, back when they headlined the Lollapalooza tour. Much younger band then. I do want to hear them live with a kickass bassist, would love to hear the Cliff Burton stuff with a mighty gallop.
That one's really interesting. The difference between the two was very clear on the vid, and the guy thought it was down to the speakers. I reckon he may be right. The Super clone had Jensen AlNiCo reissues, and these don't reproduce bass very well at all. The Mustang had Celestion 12" 70/80s. These obviously reproduced more bass, and that would be because:
* they're 12"s
* they've got ceramic magnets; and
* they're not crap.
The crappiness of the Jensens aside, I have noticed very large differences in amp voicing as a result of different speakers. My 5E3 sounds completely different through a closed cab with Celestions, and sounded completely different when it had a Weber 12A125 than it does now with a Celestion G12 greenback. I also know that open cabs fill a room really differently to closed, and that 10s sound different to 12s: they're faster and more articulate, and also punchier if they've got good power handling. Tighter. In comparison, 12s are warmer, but looser.
And so on.
And I often wonder how modelling amps deal with this issue. For example, if I'm running a tweed Bassman model (4x10" AlNiCo speakers) straight into some amp that's driving a full range speaker with 12" drivers using ceramic magnets, there's no way on this planet that those 12" drivers can respond like a quad of 10s. They're just not going to be fast enough, and the increased power of the ceramic mag will slow it even further. It's a physical constraint. As in the vid, too, they'll reproduce more bass, but I suspect a decent rig would let you correct for that. But the speed issue is different.
Anyway, I just found that interesting because the effect was so pronounced in that vid.
On a different point, I noted that the two amps sounded very different in each vid. The guy is obviously hearing something really different in the room if he thinks the patches are close, because on those vids, they weren't. Different mic or mic technique would help.
Nope, if anything the modelers have extra sonic elements.
Again, I feel NO difference in playing my Kemper, than playing my former and one still tube amps.
What 'people' mention when referring to missing feel/"vibe" as you put it, is a combination of, frankly "in their head" and generally the difference of low volume vs the louder volume they are used to having to play those tube amps at. That is, when they aren't using 10 year old modellling tech as their comparison.
I can crank up the Kemper, through the Atomic CLR, and trust me, you WILL think you are playing that amp (what ever profile is dialied up), in all aspects.
That's how it is with the Helix. Last night at rehearsal my guitar (PRS SC245 57/08) was doing that awesome thing where the notes sustain to feedback when I hold them and add some vibrato. The reaction is EXACTLY the same as when I use my Rivera rig. It is uncanny....even more so since it is a regular thing. While the Helix sounds great at whisper volumes, it really shines when given some volume.
Well, in THEORY, the model would be created with the cab sim of a 4x10" Bassman cab. Recorded straight, assuming it's a good moedel, that is what you will record, the sound of a Bassman through a 4x10". NOW, this is why many of us believe in linear amp and linear, FRFR speaker to amplify the signal. In theory, that linear amp/FRFR speaker will take what comes in, and send it out louder, exactly the same, uncolored. So, if that model was good, then you will hear that bassman in a 4x10 Alnico etc. If the Cab sim part is good, then it will respond, and 'feel' like that 4x10 as well. The amplification part, that linear amp and speaker, in theory won't 'color' the feel and response either, that is all produced in the Model and modeler.
Profiler, actually 'captures' the above, during the profiling process, i.e. a Bassman and that 4x10. But, you can also capture just the amp portion, amp and speaker interaction, to use with other cab profiles or IRs. Difference is only that it captures, as opposed to the model created/programmed to accomplish the same thing.
Any slight discrepancies you end up with, when using your rig, you tweak for.
Mustang, using a 70/80 doesn't have the above. 70/80 is a fairly flat guitar speaker. But, it is still a guitar speaker and will color the tone, and responds like itself. A True FRFR speaker is a different beast. Among other things, are often a completely different motor configuration. It has to, to reproduce what comes in, as close to exactly, just louder. See the Pics below of an Atomic CLR
Pretty certain, those are near stock models they used in the vid. To get them more 'accurate' some tweaking is needed. But, your right, on the mustang, there is a limit in some cases, because it ultimately uses that 12" 70/80 with it's motor and how that motor responds. Then again, it is also low level rig too.
This was somewhat my point before. I too, hear the difference. That doesn't mean the Mustang is bad sounding, just different in those vids. And, again, Mustang, good as it is, is still bottom level modeler. But, they can record differently than you hear them sometimes. Recording tends to capture less than the modeler's full complexity. That guy in the vids, generally has a good ear.
Again, should have been in purple my comment
Modelled cabs generally sound like dookie when ran through other guitar cabs. Either turn off the cab model or go through a hi-fi amp and speaker setup. If it's a setup you can monitor CDs or MP3s through without compromise you're good. That's how I test a speaker configuration for modeler compatibility.
Then I will respectfully have to bow out of this debate. I thought I had a potential explanation of one aspect of the tube / modeller comparison that could be accepted from both sides.
However, I can't go anywhere when the opposition are arguing both that modellers produce identical sounds / response yet they react differently to recording / compression due to the difference in the audio signals they produce ... only one of those two can be true.
No, only one doesn't have to be true. YOU'RE confusing identical perceived as completely identical. A 'sound, can be perceived by a human the same, as another, and both not be identical, 100%. Not sure, how else to explain that.
And neither has anything to do with response.
Frequencies not audible to the human ear could cause a difference in how the guitar resonates / reacts / feeds back with the amplifier. I was postulating that could explain a difference (some people perceive) in "feel" when playing a tube amp vs a modeller.
Note that I say different - not better / worse. It's entirely possible that some people might equally like (or even prefer) the interaction between guitar / modeller.
I had a Custom Fender Tweed build for me by Soul Tramp. It was a beautiful piece of work. It sounded marvelous. It also only lasted 2 weeks here. I found that I enjoyed the Tweed presets I had in the AXE FX more then the real Tweed. So yeah. There are people that prefer the touch and feel of the modeler over the real thing.
Guys some people will never be "convinced"! It's not an discussion about facts or even through demonstration. It's an mindset based on a personal belief system that overrides all other factors.
There are tons of people who think vaccinations cause Autism despite the fact that the UK Dr who claimed this conclusion in a study was found to have falsified his evidence and was banned from any practice, despite the fact the Autism Society also states there's no connection.
We've recently had two children die here in Canada in separate incidents, where the parent(s) were distrustful of modern day medicine. One couple treated their deathly ill son with horseradish and other supposed "natural cures" and didn't call for help till the child was basically dead. Same with a mother who tried just treating her son with dandelion tea, till his seizures just before death prompted her to call for help. The list of what he had was recently disclosed and she's been found criminally negligent.
My point is some people are going to believe what they want, it's based on a feeling, not on any evidence or facts, so arguing along those lines will not accomplish anything.
I also have to remind myself that the vast majority of forum members are amateurs at best (myself included of course), a few "gig" for $$ but I think there aren't many true professionals here that rely on the gig $$ to live. I wonder what the "Real Pro's" would say and then remember a lot of them use or at least have respect for modelling and I take the rebuttals on forums with a serious grain of salt (for what they're worth).
Wtf do vaccines have to do with guitar amps?
Add medication to the list of things I don't want modeled.
It's about mentalities. Plain and simple really.
Boom, there it is
Point meet example. Example, point
Not everyone can draw a straight line between two points!
Okaaaay ... I'll give the above post the benefit of the doubt and respond to the point, not the tone ...
Firstly, yes. Absolutely. An awful lot of this is based on feeling. We're talking about MUSIC - a performance art form - so subjective opinion doesn't so much come with the territory as to BE the territory: the entire arena is based on subjective assessments of what style is good, what sound is good, what band/artist is cool, what do YOU like. Therefore any discussion has to take that into account.
Music is not a purely functional medium: it's not simply right or wrong. We're all sitting on a Les Paul (the guitar - not the musician) forum here. Why do we like Les Pauls? The music that our idols have made with them? The sound they make? The history and tradition behind them? The way they feel when we play them? The way they look? The answer - of course - is "all of the above".
There's absolutely no reason why an electric guitar needs to be hand made in the USA out of mahogany and shaped like a Les Paul is but, for a lot of us, that's the "holy grail" of guitar. It represents more than the sum of its parts and I don't think anyone should be derided for thinking that and/or valuing that over a more modern guitar - even if it can sound exactly the same.
The same is true of amplifiers: I agree, with the high end modellers there's often no apparent sonic reason for why they can't sound "just as good" (quoted since that's subjective, regardless of amp tech) as a valve amplifier to any given person. But, like the guitar, I don't think the experience of owning and playing an amplifier is solely down to the sound. Sure - that's a massive part but there are other facets to consider. Yes - the reaction between guitar and amp is important. And I still hold that if the modeller crowd accept that the totality of the sonic output can differ between valve and modeller then you must also accept that this could alter the way the guitar reacts to that sonic output. Equally, non-sonic qualities can come into play: in the same way that a guitar that feels right or inspires you can make you play better, so too can an amp.
I value the history of the technology behind the amplifier; the craftsmanship that goes into designing and producing a valve amplifier circuit; the legacy that valve amplifiers have behind them in helping to create some of the music I love. I value these things as I value the equivalent in a guitar and knowing that is part of the instrument that I use to create music gives me a sense of connection to the music and musicians that have I have looked up to over the years in a way that playing through a computer simply doesn't.
And please, don't under estimate the image factor: a lot of music - and rock music in particular - has always been about image, style, rebellion ... the "cool" factor if you will. A sense of belonging within a particular group. Anyone who says they got into playing guitar for the music alone is either a classical player (nowt wrong with that) or being at least a tiny bit disingenuous: we all looked up at Buddy Holly / The Beatles / Hank Marvin / Hendrix / Jimmy Page / Eric Clapton / Slash / <<insert your guitar hero here>> and wanted to "be" them, as much for how they sounded as how they looked - how "cool" it was to be able to do "that" with "that guitar" and - I dare say - "that amp".
As a final point - where might we be once valve amps have ceased to be ("He's an ex-amp!") entirely? Once we are fully in modeller land? I can't see artists reminiscing over that time they "tweaked patch 72 to get such a unique tone" in the same way we hear stories about Slash's mystery Marshall, how the producer for Semisonic cut the speaker leads and rolled them around with a quarter in their hand to get just the right scratchy tremolo or how certain vintage guitars sound wonderful whereas others do not. Once everything is digitally identical where will we be? Everything might well sound "great" but surely - by definition - everything will equally sound average?