Would You Model Live?

[cynic79]

The last thing I want is some of the "SoundMen" around here with more control...

That's why I made a point about them being "decent" soundmen.

I've known a few good ones (I'm even in a band with one now), but I will admit that I never would have gone the POD route at most of the clubs I used to play in Tallahassee.

 

[LOGPauls]

I love my FlextoneIIIxl. Tweak'd just right... I have a hard time missing my tube amps of yor. Also, there's just so many variables that it can be be tweaked for. If i use 'this guitar, with these pups in it', I can then tweak for it, and have a set of presets for each (very)different guitar. Save the presets, and never have them get bumped out of place ... or change on the fly without issues.

 

[snaredrum]

yeah, i bought the valve amp i have so i could use the power amp section with the pod x3 live. sounded awesome. then i wondered what the preamp section sounded like. then i started buying normal pedals again... stupid me!

anyway, long story short is the x3 is awesome, and on the software front Guitar and Bass magazine have said that with the release of Revalver 3, the gap is officially closed. it's pretty good, apparently

 

[Liam]

That's where I want to get too. Being a software developer, I respect intellectual property and the price it commands. The only way to bring the price down is to get the masses to embrace the technology.

Helloooo!!! Liam!!!!

But isn't it quite telling that the software is still attempting to imitate old technologies. The best a digital tonewheel can do is to imitate a real one. The best the modeling software can do is to imitate great amps and effects. The real things don't have to imitate anything, they are the standard the software modeling attempts to meet.

Liam

 

[River]

But isn't it quite telling that the software is still attempting to imitate old technologies. The best a digital tonewheel can do is to imitate a real one. The best the modeling software can do is to imitate great amps and effects. The real things don't have to imitate anything, they are the standard the software modeling attempts to meet.

Liam

No argument from me. But I'll never have a '68 Plexi, Tweed Bassman, and Twin Reverb. Even if I could afford them, the wife wouldn't allow them in the house! Plexiglas panels to put in front of them? I'd have my walking papers.

We all need to keep pushing the developers for more accuracy and more options. That's a prime driving force in getting them to do it better and better. I guess the only thing we really disagree on is whether or not "nailing it" is possible. I think it is. So let the debate continue with gusto! I don't think it's a dead horse.

 

[Jason]

Just wait till the day when all you have to carry around is your guitar. Everything's built right in, just plug straight into the console and rock. Getting too and from gigs, and setup time would be drastically cut. Sounds pretty awesome to me.

 

[snaredrum]

hell, my arthritis isn't getting any better... maybe we can make the actual playing obsolete

 

[River]

Just wait till the day when all you have to carry around is your guitar. Everything's built right in, just plug straight into the console and rock. Getting too and from gigs, and setup time would be drastically cut. Sounds pretty awesome to me.

Right around the corner. If Les were still tinkering in his shop...

 

[rodneyk915]

That is a compliment to the old stuff. But not everyone can afford to spend thousands and thousands of dollars on equipment, find a place to store it all, or tote it gigs. Software allows everyday people to closely simulate that great stuff without breaking the bank or their back.

 

[dwagar]

closely simulate.

that's the point I think. If it's close enough for you, that's great.

 

[Tone Seeker]

But isn't it quite telling that the software is still attempting to imitate old technologies. The best a digital tonewheel can do is to imitate a real one. The best the modeling software can do is to imitate great amps and effects. The real things don't have to imitate anything, they are the standard the software modeling attempts to meet.

Liam

There are some "Fractal" models in the AxeFX and one or two others that don't exist in real life (a Tweed with a lot of gain for example).

I would suggest that many / most tube amps are based on a few core designs from the 50's and 60's, and those designs largely come from an RCA tube handbook from the 40's. What differentiates tube amps, IMO, are how the core pieces are assembled along with the fine tuning done in key areas.

To that end, the AxeFX provides some powerful tools to alter the amp simulations, allowing you to create you own amp. You can, for example, take a Marshall simulation and move the tone stack to a different location in the preamp circuit and change the B+ (power supply) capacitance. The circuit and component changes are modeled mathematically, so they're not sexy labels that just make tone changes. The "warmth" and "sag" parameters, for example, change the sound characteristics (dynamics in this case) in a way that could never be accomplished with a tone control. They alter the fundamental response of the amp.

So, what I'm saying is that you can create something new yourself.

Here's a list of the parameters you have to work with (minus a few of the newer ones). This is in addition to the traditional controls like volume, treble, mid, presence, etc. They default to what is standard for chosen amp simulation, to give you a starting point. If you like the traditional amp you can leave them as-is. If you want to be creative and develop your own sound, you can. This is very powerful.

• Deep - alters the negative feedback frequency response, which will boost the low end of the power amp simulation.
• Damp - changes the amount of negative feedback in the power amp (tighter/brighter vs. loose/gritty).
• Sag - impacts how dynamic the power amp simulation is by changing the power supply impedance.
• Output transformer warmth - changes amp dynamics just as an old, vintage transformer would.
• Amount of filtering between the pre and power amps can be adjusted, impacting the brightness of the amp.
• Brightness capacitor value can be changed.
• An active tonestack can be chosen, rather than the traditional passive tonestack. This makes a large difference in how the bass, mid and treble controls respond and interact with the preamp (a modern touch!).
• Centre frequency of the tonestack can be adjusted.
• Location of the tonestack can be changed, either to the input of the preamp or between the preamp and power amp.
• Upper and lower cutoff frequency of the output transformer can be adjusted, altering the overall tone of the amp.
• Transformer Match - changes the output transformer output impedance impacting how the power amp and speaker interact (fuller/looser vs focused sound).
• Centre frequency of the presence control is adjustable.
• B+ Capacitance - the amount of filtering capacitance on the power supply (stiffer/faster vs. looser).
• Resonance frequency of the speaker cabinet can be adjusted.

Interesting discussion.

Terry.

 

[River]

There are some "Fractal" models in the AxeFX and one or two others that don't exist in real life (a Tweed with a lot of gain for example).<snip>

You don't write this stuff do you, Terry?

Great post. I think one problem with acceptance of this technology is that many of us have a hard time believing such things can actually be done in software. Someone with that mindset (which I find perfectly understandable) would have to suspend disbelief and, to be practical, sit with someone who is a wiz at operating the parameter-setting software.

Re my latter point, I was all but ready to give up on my POD until I downloaded someone else's settings for it. I believed what I wanted was in there, but I couldn't pull it out. When I saw how Lincoln Brewster had set everything, I asked "why didn't I think of that?". In my case the answer was that I didn't know enough about how to tweak a valve amp in real life; for others it'll be that they aren't that good with computers.

It's a brave new world, of that I am sure.

 

[Tone Seeker]

You don't write this stuff do you, Terry?

If you're wondering if I'm with Fractal, the answer is no. I'm just really pleased with the tones I've been able to come up with lately.

I think one problem with acceptance of this technology is that many of us have a hard time believing such things can actually be done in software. Someone with that mindset (which I find perfectly understandable) would have to suspend disbelief and, to be practical, sit with someone who is a wiz at operating the parameter-setting software.

Using your computer to get "tube" tones is a huge paradigm shift! I completely understand why many have reservations about this even being possible, especially with the less than stellar performance of some tools in the past. What you suggest is a great way to begin changing that. For those that don't have this option, forums like this can help with the education process by getting the word out about what's possible. That's why I've made the posts I have in this thread.

Re my latter point, I was all but ready to give up on my POD until I downloaded someone else's settings for it. I believed what I wanted was in there, but I couldn't pull it out. When I saw how Lincoln Brewster had set everything, I asked "why didn't I think of that?". In my case the answer was that I didn't know enough about how to tweak a valve amp in real life; for others it'll be that they aren't that good with computers.

You've raised something very important. Getting the most from digital tools requires an investment of time and a willingness to learn, just like when you first picked up the guitar. Having an strong user forum, a body of knowledge to draw upon, and patches to dissect, will make a big difference. Still, you have to dig in yourself because the instruments we use and the tones we seek are all different. However, this is no different than with tube amps, especially when you consider all the "tweaking" (tubes, mods, etc.) and buying / selling that many do. The difference is that there's already a large body of knowledge and experience base with tube amps to draw upon.

That brings me to another point. If we were all to agree for a moment that digital technology can fully reproduce the tube amp experience, I would not necessarily suggest that digital tools are best for everyone. Put another way, there is also an elegance to plugging in an amp, hitting the "on" switch and turning three or four knobs to get your tones.

You have to look at what you needs are and how you like to work, and then evaluate each solution to see which is the best fit. For me, the tonal variety, integration with effects, the portability, ease of recording and ability get the same tones live and when recording lead me to a digital solution. I had a Super Reverb for years, and never got to the tone I wanted. It's all I could afford. Now, I can explore different amp simulations and find the one that best fits each of my guitars. I can realistically find "my tone", and morph it as I change. That's really important to me.

It's a brave new world, of that I am sure.

There is much uncertainty, so one must be brave in this new world!

Terry.

 

[River]

If you're wondering if I'm with Fractal, the answer is no. I'm just really pleased with the tones I've been able to come up with lately. <snip>

Please rest assured I was not suspecting you of Spamming. I just thought you might be a fellow pocket-protector-wearing person who might have at least dabbled (or more) in writing this kind of software. Or maybe "just" atmospheric modelling... There are more complex systems than amps that are being successfully modeled in software - a lot of folks don't realize that.

 

[Tone Seeker]

Please rest assured I was not suspecting you of Spamming.

Thanks for clarifying that.

I just thought you might be a fellow pocket-protector-wearing person who might have at least dabbled (or more) in writing this kind of software. Or maybe "just" atmospheric modelling... There are more complex systems than amps that are being successfully modeled in software - a lot of folks don't realize that.

No, I'm not a developer, although I'm an IT professional by day (with an electronics background) and I love fiddling with technology. I've long had a vision for combining traditional guitar tones with "other" sounds. The AxeFX into a full range, flat response amp nicely positions this to happen in a live setting. I have dabbled with an Axon guitar synth and some synth sounds in ProTools. Spectrasonics Omnisphere with its' psychoacoustic soundsources looks really interesting. So does the Roland VG-99 (for certain sounds) since it's so expressive for guitar players, as it's modifying the guitar signal rather than triggering midi tones. Still, great guitar tones are core to me!

Terry.

 

[elliott5400]

in my opinion, i can get a decent direct line in clean sound on guitar rig, the overdrive however is horrible, nothing can beat the real deal, i would rather have a huge pedal board than some low quality modeling unit

 

[River]

in my opinion, i can get a decent direct line in clean sound on guitar rig, the overdrive however is horrible, nothing can beat the real deal, i would rather have a huge pedal board than some low quality modeling unit

Well, me too. But not all modeling units are "low quality". Just how many of them have you tried?

 

[rodneyk915]

in my opinion, i can get a decent direct line in clean sound on guitar rig, the overdrive however is horrible, nothing can beat the real deal, i would rather have a huge pedal board than some low quality modeling unit

Of course you would, I don't think anyone would disagree with you about that but most of the modeling units discussed are far from low quality. For example, the AxeFX is a top of the line unit. Check it out.

 

[Nigel T.]

But isn't it quite telling that the software is still attempting to imitate old technologies. The best a digital tonewheel can do is to imitate a real one. The best the modeling software can do is to imitate great amps and effects. The real things don't have to imitate anything, they are the standard the software modeling attempts to meet.

Liam

Correct for 100 %. Period. But... as I said before if I go the "real way" I would need a stage for myself. Hammond organ, grand piano, Rhodes electric, Mellotron, Clavinet, MiniMoog, Prophet V, Modular Moog, Roland Jupiter 6, PPG Wave 2.2, Yamaha DX-7... I better stop now that I only have to lug around a clonewheel (by Hammond), a Controller and my MacBook Pro.

Same applies to guitars... If it were up to me and wouldn't cost me several arms and legs, I'd buy the real thing. Fact is that would be way too expensive, my girl would bury me somewhere deep in the woods if my band members wouldn't because of the logistical problems. In the studio I'd like to use the real thing, but for rehearsal and live I go virtual. I play for a crowd, not for the individual audiophreak that can hear whether the solo is done on a 010 string gauge or an 011 one.

 

[dwagar]

I play for a crowd, not for the individual audiophreak that can hear whether the solo is done on a 010 string gauge or an 011 one.

I think clonewheels, especially when run through a real Leslie, are quite acceptable.

But, whenever I can, I will use my Hammond. Because when I'm playing it, I'm playing it for ME, not for some guy in the crowd. And I personally don't think there is anything that sounds as good as that 300+ pounds of wood and wires and tubes and spinning tonewheels.

As in the comparison between tube amps and modelers, IMO it's about the little things, the physical and mental interaction between the player and the instrument/amp. That little bit of feedback you pick up standing just THERE in front of the cab, that extra harmonic you weren't prepared to hear.

In the 'digital age', with people judging music and tone based on their itty bitty computer speakers, maybe it doesn't matter as much to a crowd as it did when every bar and venue you went to had live music.

But surprisingly, a lot of the comments I heard after seeing Joe B here last weekend weren't just about him being a monster player, a lot of them were about his tone. Les Paul + cranked Marshall. Yeah, that delivers the goods.