Will effects amp/cab modeling ever sound better than the actual amps?

[mbengs1]

I think by 2020's, they will be. but will they ever replace real amps and cabinets? that would be cool. you can settle for a solid state amp and still get the best tone ever.

[1001gear]

Slingers who know their sound will say no way. I'd point out that they've been custom EQd in the ears. Just play your amp at "toan" levels for a few minutes and multiply by [career] and you might get it.

 

Just from an observer standpoint I gotta say amps are too temperamental and mfkn loud to have to deal with. Modeling will get you in the zone with less work and stress.

 

Here's a solid state amp - real speaker and all that's there.

 

[video=youtube;xOCkvtStD80]

 

And it's not official without Andy...

 

[video=youtube;Q6eQVVnKbKM]

[Phil O'Keefe]

Can we define "better" please?

 

That word (and "good" sound itself) is so subjective as to make the question moot.

[StratStevo]

In the 70's I was getting plenty of Tang playing Sunn 100% solid state amps, if you think you need a toob amp to get laid your kidding yourself.

[DeepEnd]

If something sounds "better" than something else, that means it sounds different. The goal with modelling is to sound the same as whatever is being modeled. Playing through a SS amp is only "settling" if you listen with your eyes (i.e., you look at those big, glowing tubes and think "That sounds good") or if you really want the sound tubes give you. Bear in mind that a tube amp generates huge amounts of second harmonic (for example, a 110 Hz A has a lot of 220 Hz signal mixed in with it). When that happens with a SS amp, it's called "distortion." When it happens with a tube amp, it's called "that warm tube sound." Phil reviewed an Ampeg reissue bass head recently that's rated at 20% THD, 'way more than any SS amp. Fans of tube amps frequently run them so that they just start "breaking up." If you prefer that sound, you're a tube fan. If you like cleans, a SS amp will do nicely as long as you don't overdrive it.

[mbengs1]

Can we define "better" please?

 

That word (and "good" sound itself) is so subjective as to make the question moot.

 

better means the amp model sounds more like the amp than the amp. sort of like, the amp model sounds more authentic than the real amp itself. because it is less susceptible to change and is more consistent.

[DeepEnd]

better means the amp model sounds more like the amp than the amp. sort of like' date=' the amp model sounds more authentic than the real amp itself. because it is less susceptible to change and is more consistent.[/quote']

Sorry but that makes no sense. "More like the amp than the amp" is like higher than up or bluer than blue. Granted, an amp model is a snapshot of a particular amp at a particular moment but real amps--real tube amps anyway--change over time. Tubes degrade continuously. It's part of the deal. If you're after consistency, buy a SS amp.

[larryguitar]

 

better means the amp model sounds more like the amp than the amp. sort of like, the amp model sounds more authentic than the real amp itself. because it is less susceptible to change and is more consistent.

 

I don't know about 'more like an amp than the amp', but things like the Kemper can certainly give you 'more like the BEST of the amp than many people could dial in on a given day', or 'the best specimen of the best set-up version of that amp.'

 

Larry

[WRGKMC]

Are you talking about software emulators in computers or hardware based emulators?

Are you talking about Live or Recorded.

 

If you're talking about live amps then of course an original amp is going to provide the real thing.

If you're talking about recording, than I have to suggest you haven't got a clue about what you're talking about.

I use a half dozen different hardware based amp emulators that do a killer job nailing all kinds of amps.

I also have software based amp emulator plugins that can do fairly well but they have issues, mostly with high CPU consumption, gain staging and latency that make them less favorable to use.

 

The key here of course is capturing good sound on a track. Actual amps require good micing techniques, Good mics and good room acoustics so capturing the actual amp tones is handicapped before you even start. Nearly all mics color the sound so its not going to sound exactly the same as an amp does live on the ears. Add to that the mixing and processing used to get it to sound good in the mix and it can wind up sounding like a totally different amp.

 

A newer hardware based modeling preamp with speaker emulation can blow chunks over a poorly recorded amp of any kind using a mic.

It does come down to dialing the device up properly though. I been using hardware based units for direct recording for at least 35 years and they just keep getting better. To suggest otherwise shows an obvious lack of experience using them. I can play you tracks recorded with them in a blind A/B test and there would be absolutely no way in hell you'd be able to tell the difference between a good hardware direct recording and an actual amp miced. I could even use hardware that's 25 years old and nail most common amps like Fenders, Marshalls, Vox, you name it.

 

It does take experience finding optimal settings and setting a guitar up to record direct well. An amp and speaker cover up allot of guitar setup issues that are highly magnified and can sound rotten if those problems aren't fixed before you attempt to use any kind of DI gear. Even the software based modelers are critical there because the gain staging of a dry guitar plugged into an interface is critical. The frequency response of an interface is 20 to 20K hz with no humps or dips. Again, if those pickups aren't tweaked right you wind up with poor results.

 

As far as Guitar amps with built in modeling goes, You have issues there. You cant get the exact amp tones because its basically the same as using a box in front of the amp. All those colorations are done in the preamp section and the power amp and speaker color them all. If the Power amp and Speakers were completely flat, and produced high fidelity tones, then yes it would be possible to generate realistic tones in the preamp section to get realistic modeling tones up to a point. The problem is most amps use the power amp and the speakers to get their uniquely colored and gained tones, so the drive and pump just wouldn't be the same. You can get away with it recording because you can add the compression needed to make it sound realistic. The playback speaker take the place of the guitar cab and the playback amp becomes the guitar amp head when you play tracks back.

[Mr.Grumpy]

I've read* that some engineers & producers actually prefer modelers for recording. I'm sure consistency and ease of use are big factors, but the modern high-end modelers like Kemper and AxeFX sound great. So in that respect they are already "better" than a live amp. There have been blind listening tests where recording engineers have been asked to listen and compare recordings of modelers and live mic'd guitar amps. Even recording engineers have a hard time telling a good modeler from a live guitar amp.

 

For playing live, most people don't need the ability to dial in 40 different amp models, maybe if you're in a cover band.

 

* read on the internet while baked, so may or may not be factually true.

[1001gear]

One thing I'd like to see detailed is the ability of modeling algorithms to accurately predict the complete behavior of the circuit output and if players can detect response deviations. I'd guess that expert players could pick their rig from the models.

[WRGKMC]

Even budget modeler pedals do a fantastic job. The last two I bought were a Digitec RP150 and a Vox Stomplab.

The digitec has a built in USB interface so you can just plug into a computer and record with it. I'd say that one is a bit more generic sounding

with the amp types but its still pretty good.

 

The little Vox unit is just outright killer recording direct. It not only nails the tones but the string dynamics and touch nail the response of an actual amp.

 

The key here is you use your studio monitors as amp cabs when playing and dial up the amp tones you want. Headphones work but you're much less likely to get accurate results. When I consider how much work it takes to make a miced amp sound good in a mix compared to direct, the time saved in significant.

 

This is the key item. If you run a DAW in the same room as the live amp without an Iso Cab using only headphones, the results are going to be pot luck. You're going to get bleed into those headphones usually in the bass frequencies that influence the sound you dial up. I have a full band setup in the studio and was recording bands twice a week for 20 years. As you can guess that's thousands of recordings when you consider how many songs can be recorded in a 3 hour session.

 

I had all the time in the world to analyze the results and make minor tweaks to mics, settings, speaker choices, you name it before and after each session because the gear never got moved. It was always setup and miced up to track. I would get the best possible sound quality tracking this way, and I'd also use multiple amps/cabs/mics. I would have up to 4 different guitar amps being recorded at the same time, often using stereo effects to broaden the sound quality. This was my live modeling amps. That along with 27 different guitars to choose from I could nail just about any sound I needed.

 

Many times I didn't need to touch anything in the mix. I'd mix the raw tracks without any additional EQing or effects. The only times they needed tweaking is when the drummer would retune drums, or I had a new player come in who would dial up his tone and it wound up having masking issues in the mix. I'd have to shift frequency responses using EQ to get them to fit nicely. Of course the musical material has certain demands that require tweaking too, but again, if you're working steady with others, allot of this works out on its own as you develop a good sound playing together. That with the minor tweaks between sessions, its something you can nail down pretty good.

 

We rarely used headphones tracking live either. We'd play like we were playing out and focused on the music. We tried it with headphones for awhile but drummers often have issues with them. Their dynamics can change drastically because their sound is two dimensional instead of three.

 

Working solo, using a hardware based modeler is highly efficient. You aren't under pressure to get rolling like you are playing live. You can spend the time to tweak the exact amount of gain tone and effects needed for the track. and what you hear through the monitors is eactaly what the track is going to sound like. Again, Using headphones isn't needed if you have good monitors.

 

About the only thing you don't get is allot of sympathetic string vibration like you get from a loud amp. Having an amp cranked so the speakers vibrate the body and then make the strings vibrate on their own (like Hendrix and Santana) isn't easily done through studio monitors. I can of course get some of it using additional compression and cranking the monitors up. Or I can take a small amp and place it directly in back of the guitar body to get that happening (or just crank up an actual amp)

 

My Marshall head has an Speaker Emulated line out that sounds fantastic. I can crank the amp to get the strings to self sustain and just record the head direct. I've used an SM57 in front of the 1960 cab which is loaded with 75W Celestions. Its a wonderful sounding amp by the way. I've tracked the cam with the mic and the Speaker Emulated line out to two separate tracks and compared them side by side. The DI sounded better every time when it comes to direct sound. Of course if you're capturing actual room reverb and its a great sounding room or hall you'd want to use a mic to capture that.

 

That's the two areas where micing an amp still excels. Capturing real room reverb and self sustaining string vibration.

Everything else just comes down to what gives you the most comfort playing so you perform well. If playing through headphones, Monitors, Direct is uncomfortable or unnatural, then its less likely you're going to play well and your recordings suffer. If you put the time in and acclimate to using those techniques I guarantee you there are few sonic differences between using the two different methods.

 

Even the room reverb thing can easily be gotten around. You simply re-amp the track in a great sounding hall and record the new track at the same time.

 

 

[runbeerrun]

Any guitar amp is a flavor of midrange, it's loud and basic. An amp sim is anything they want, and softer on the ears. But you have to approach it differently, so that actually probably will never happen (in our lifetime, as they say) , but yes, it already exists.

[AJ6stringsting]

The Digitech 2112, 2120, Eleven Rack and the Behringer V Amp Pro are pretty good.

[jazzgitter]

There are plenty of moders that are certainly gigable. I have a Zoom G2 that worked well for me direct to a PAwhen I didn't feel like schlepping my 100w tube amp. Did it sound better than my tube amp? No way. I haven't heard many modelers that don't have that digital "thinness" thing happening in the highs especially with distortion. I think it's hard to replicate all the complex harmonics that happen with a good tube amp. Some of the analog pedals that have come out like the Ethos and Tech 21 FR5 do a pretty good job of simulating a tube amp. The high end modelers are getting closer than they ever have to modeling tube amps. The new Line 6 Helix could be a game changer. I think it's great to have a modeler as an alternative when you need to travel light or need more flexability than one tube amp can provide.

[mbengs1]

coz I'm quite impressed with my digitech rp100. i use the JCM900 amp model but it doesnt sound that much like a JCM900. it has more bass and a more vintage flavor than jcm900's i've tried. and this unit was made way back in 2001.

[onelife]

I think musicians will start using the technology for what it is capable of rather than for what it is designed to emulate - along the lines of what Jimi did with the Stratocaster.

 

I used a Twin Reverb with EV speakers for fifteen years and it required quite a bit of maintenance. Changing power tubes made a huge difference in the quality of the sound. What I appreciate from my Yamaha digital amp is the consistency in sound because the virtual tube circuitry does not change over time (and the fact that it is half the mass of the Twin) which has, over time, allowed me to bring much more subtleties into my playing.

[AJ6stringsting]

My old Digitech 2112 SGS has two 12AX7 tubes and I have two VHT ( now Fryette) Valvulator II (w/ two 12AX7 tubes) that give me some great dynamics and beautiful tube tone.

Sadly, I believe Fryette stopped making them.

I have Marshalls, VHT's, Carvin, Peavey, Fender and some Mesa-Boogie amp heads. Since I got my 2112 SGS, I recreated those amp heads on that rack unit, so my amp heads are safe from the rigors of gigging or rehearsals.

[WRGKMC]

coz I'm quite impressed with my digitech rp100. i use the JCM900 amp model but it doesnt sound that much like a JCM900. it has more bass and a more vintage flavor than jcm900's i've tried. and this unit was made way back in 2001.

 

I have an RP150 which is similar to the 100. maybe a bit better. Its modeling isn't that hot. I can do fairly good with its cleaner amp tones but gained up it makes everything sound the same. The cab tones aren't bad but the type of gain Digitec uses seems to be a one trick pony. Even their old rack units were like that.

 

To my ears its got a thin thin edgy drive that works OK for what it is but dialing back the gain to get all the various shades of drive that mimic real amps is much tougher to dial up. I spent quite a while messing with all the various settings and have maybe a dozen presets that do a fair job recording. Run through an amp however, allot of those tonal shades are colored by the amp making them sound similar to one another. Some guys live the digitec units for their metal edge and maybe their higher end units are better but their low end boxes aren't very impressive.

 

You can get a couple of good tones and that's it and I understand why you started this thread asking when they will get better.

You assume all modelers will produce similar results, but that's far from the case. That little Vox stomplab I paid $40 for blows the doors off any of any of Digitec units. I bought both the Bass and Guitar unit for recording and have barely scratched its capabilities so far and I'm highly impressed with both. I may even sell the smaller unit and go for one of their larger units with expression pedals, mainly because its easier to navigate. The small one only has 20 user presets which is enough for most, but I like creating several shades of the same settings,. A clean, medium drive and a high gain gives me better options when changing settings.

 

The big difference involves the circuitry architecture. Vox does it in a way that comes much closer to how an amp would actually react with pedals. The gain knob sounds nearly identical to how an amps preamp overdriving occurs overdriving an actual power amp. Even stray hum that may come from the pickups gains up in a similar way which tells me they are using similar analog circuitry.

 

Some of the settings not only nail the way many tube amps sound with their tube warmth and natural drive but the pick attack of those amps change with the different models. The range of different sounds blows the doors off the digitec too. Small amp models actually sound like small amps and the high gain settings can easily satisfy meat eaters. The effect quality is better too.

 

I ran through all the Digitec effects settings from A to Z finely tweaking every parameter of every effect to build those presets I have. There's enough there to work with but things like the compressor, chorus reverb are not anything to get excited about. The EQ is lacking big time.

 

You get away with them if you don't dial up too much, but select any one of them solo and compare them to other boxes and they just don't measure up. Even a Behringer Echo pedal would blow the doors off the echo in the Digitec. The pick dynamics are limited and change very little too. You can tell its architecture is being done off a single chip, most likely using DSP like their older pedals. Their drive is limited to maybe an op[ amp or two with EQ to color it but just about all the drive settings get that clipped diode sound. The effects are very flat two dimensional sounding and the settings all lack dynamic punch.

 

Like I said, you can get some good sounds but many wind up sounding very generic. This isn't meant to bash digitec either. I have 4 different Digitec units and I do use them but they are what they are. They produce some good tones but I'm not overly impressed with their variety of tones. Other manufacturers do a much better job overall. Even the Boss units have better mids and lows. They too can wind up producing some overly generic sounding tones but they do work well with amps. My buddy had one of the larger effects units and he could nail the exact tones in every song we were playing in that cover band very well. It just takes time tweaking settings to get them just right.

[skviggel fhank]

if you believe TGP it's still a bargain to spend $250 on a 5 part fuzz pedal and nothing digital can come close