So How good is amp modeling these days?

[cratz2]

I'd say it's so close that if this test were blind people here wouldn't be able to tell. I think the real marshall sounds better...tighter and more focused...but really it's pretty {censored}ing close. And who knows if that factor is something that could messed with in amplitube. I'm starting to think with my room situation being kind of crap I might want to record with these software packs. But I love the sound of my tube amp. I just don't know if I can record it.

 

That's kind of a funny example. The first comparison, I absolutely 100% preferred the live amp to the Amplitube and it clearly sounded better and more 'real' to my ears. I'm confident I would have guess correctly if it had been a blind test.

 

Then most of the comparisons in between were a toss up. Usually the amp sounded a bit better, but not enough better to justify the hassle of dialing in a loud tone that would wake the neighbors three doors down.

 

But then the song example at the end... the live amp definitely sounded better. Not sure it was so much the actual guitar tone, but the song was mixed and had post making it sound like a bitter, more spacious recording which isn't always conducive to that straight ahead crunch tone ala AC/DC, Scorpions or the better stuff by Metallica.

 

 

But yeah... I'm with ya. For noodling around, I absolutely prefer a tube amp and as my current living situation allows me a lot of time to crank up, I can't see myself going full modeler anytime soon. But for recording purposes, I think the future is the software modelers.

 

[scuzzo]

once you get past the fact is will never sound like a perfect copy of the original signal..

and its not really fair to put that up as a watermark any way, they make good usable tones if you know how to set them up.. but you see a modle as a tool, which offers way more colors to the pallet, then you start to see the advantage,

and if you like the big chord sounds of say, Pete Townshend, or quacky strat tones of MK, weird fripp, or belew time delays and such, but also want to do weird andy summers kinda things,, well the scads and scads of gear required vs an synthoid amp,,, the time to swap out amp heads cabs tweak the board.. meh...

 

but here is a pretty good example of guitar rig 4 vs Ampitube 3

 

i like Ampitube 3 better for its soundstage, its just more dynamic better analog sims

but for cool expermental kinda tones and user interface, work flow, ease of use. Guitar rig 4 wins..

 

 

[Arr0wHead]

I'd like to see someone do the following: (although, since I'm telling you up front it wouldn't work now anyway)

 

Do a blind test, comparing a modeler to the same style amp - as an example lets say a JCM800. However, do NOT use a modeler. Just use two different JCM800 heads through two of the same cabs, with the same type of mic in the same position on each. Then watch people go on and on about which one is better, more realistic, etc......

 

The tiniest difference in mic placement (even a QUARTER of an inch) and it won't sound the same. From one JCM800 to the other, it won't sound exactly the same. Two different versions of the same cab? won't sound exactly the same, ESPECIALLY if they are not in the exact same place! (room reflections, etc...) Much like guitars, two of the same amplifier can be HUGELY different in sound.

 

 

The whole A/B comparison thing is just so highly unscientific, even the original post with the studio engineers guessing. Unless you use more people, and repeat each example multiple times, it's no more scientific than buying 5 lottery tickets for 5 guys and whoever wins more is obviously the luckiest guy in the room.

 

The part no one seems to want to come straight out and admit is that the modeled amps sound GREAT, and the latest generation of modelers also replicate that "feel" that everyone until now has faulted modeling for. "it sounds great, but it doesn't have that 'feel'". Everyone here has given their two cents on a real vox vs modeled, etc... - but what about if we took 10 DIFFERENT amps, of DIFFERENT varieties, modeled AND real, and asked you guys to match the BRAND/TYPE of amp to the example? Would you know a JCM800 is a JCM800 compared to VOX AC30? What if the AC30 were modeled, would you still peg it as an AC30?

 

I think the "myths in audio" video someone posted earlier is an amazing and educational thing, probably the single most valuable post in this entire thread, and NOT just because neuroscientist Poppy Crum is insanely HOT HOT HOT!!!!! (hot, nerdy, and into audio!) Did anyone here besides me honestly set aside an hour to watch that video?

[Arr0wHead]

 

 

 

Re-post of the "Myths in Audio" workshop video from earlier. Not just for the sake of argument, either. I strongly suggest EVERYONE here with serious interest in audio (even home theater) and sound watch this. Set aside an hour (or more - I ended up watching three or four of Ethan Winer's related videos after) and watch it all the way through. Some parts get a bit boring and super-nerdy and scientific, but in the end there is a TON to learn here. It WILL change the way you audition new gear, listen to recordings, and understand the sounds you hear.

[Arr0wHead]

And again - Poppy Crum is the hottest nerd alive!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

 

 

 

[edit] - and 50 bonus points go to anyone that sings along with the backwards messages in "Stairway to Heaven" BEFORE she gives us the lyrics.

[Jarick]

When I'm listening to those A/B clips, most of the time it sounds like a similar amp being recorded with a different mic in a different position. A lot of the time the basic sound is the same. With higher gain models, sometimes it's difficult to nail the sound of the midrange (where a lot of the character is), getting the high end right (muddy vs plinky), and the sense of low end of a loud amp moving air through a speaker. But in a busy track, probably indistinguishable.

[Arr0wHead]

 

When I'm listening to those A/B clips, most of the time it sounds like a similar amp being recorded with a different mic in a different position. A lot of the time the basic sound is the same. With higher gain models, sometimes it's difficult to nail the sound of the midrange (where a lot of the character is), getting the high end right (muddy vs plinky), and the sense of low end of a loud amp moving air through a speaker. But in a busy track, probably indistinguishable.

 

 

You nailed the gist of what I was saying in my last post - these sims are so realistic that much like real amps, duplicating an exact setting or environment on two different amps (of the same type) is near impossible, just like with a REAL amp.

 

 

As for mids, one common thing I hear (and witness myself) is the OLD line 6 stuff has this really over-pronounced top end. There's a bit of a mid-boost, and there is a HUGE spike around 8k, which has for years been referred to as the "Line 6 Fizz". I've used an eq cut at 8k until now to tame it, but recently I discovered that this "fizz" resides mainly in the CABINET EMULATION. I have, in the past weeks, been turning OFF the cabinet in my line 6 tone, and instead run it through some high quality cabinet impulse responses and the tone is less fizzy and 1000 times more natural and realistic. I would chalk it up to the fact that the line6 stuff I have is old technology, but I notice the same top end boost and fizz on some of the new HD500 demos on youtube as well. I think that Line 6 might just be behind the pack on the cab emulations.

[soundcreation]

 

And again - Poppy Crum is the hottest nerd alive !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

 

I've seen some of that video before and yeah it's pretty cool. I'll have to watch it again.

[Jarick]

 

As for mids, one common thing I hear (and witness myself) is the OLD line 6 stuff has this really over-pronounced top end. There's a bit of a mid-boost, and there is a HUGE spike around 8k, which has for years been referred to as the "Line 6 Fizz". I've used an eq cut at 8k until now to tame it, but recently I discovered that this "fizz" resides mainly in the CABINET EMULATION. I have, in the past weeks, been turning OFF the cabinet in my line 6 tone, and instead run it through some high quality cabinet impulse responses and the tone is less fizzy and 1000 times more natural and realistic. I would chalk it up to the fact that the line6 stuff I have is old technology, but I notice the same top end boost and fizz on some of the new HD500 demos on youtube as well. I think that Line 6 might just be behind the pack on the cab emulations.

 

 

That's exactly why I didn't like the Line 6 stuff I owned. At the time, the sims were some of the most organic sounding, except for the top end. Never sounded right. They also had a tendency to sound flat and distant rather than up front and present.

 

And that's one more reason I dig the Mustang, you can dial the "sag" all the way down and it sounds really present and immediate like a real amp, or turn it up and get a more compressed sound if that's your thing.

[Arr0wHead]

Could you explain what "SAG" is? This is one of the terms that newer modelers (like the Mustang and Axe-FX) are using, and I've heard it referenced towards tube amps, but I honestly don't know exactly what it is.

 

 

Oh, and Jarick, I love your avatar. That used to be my favorite soda back in the day. They must have discontinued it, because I can't find it anywhere. Even back in the 80's, it must have been rare because my Mom would hide it under the kitchen sink. Then she'd get all mad when I drank it all. Nowadays I just drink Mountain Dew, it's still green but it doesn't make my burps all fizzy like the Mr Yuk stuff.

[BryanMichael]

What I don't get is why everyone is obsessed with making modeling sound like something else. Shouldn't the question really be "is this a good clean sound?" or "Is this a good overdrive sound?" Not "Does this sound sound EXACTLY like a vintage Fender Twin?" or "Does this sound sound EXACTLY like a vintage Marshall pushing into poweramp distortion?" For live use, I can see the concerns with reproducing the tone on stage or in a performance environment. But for recording??? Unless you can afford to have the entire chain there- why not use modeling? They sound great.

[soundcreation]

 

What I don't get is why everyone is obsessed with making modeling sound like something else. Shouldn't the question really be "is this a good clean sound?" or "Is this a good overdrive sound?" Not "Does this sound sound EXACTLY like a vintage Fender Twin?" or "Does this sound sound EXACTLY like a vintage Marshall pushing into poweramp distortion?" For live use, I can see the concerns with reproducing the tone on stage or in a performance environment. But for recording??? Unless you can afford to have the entire chain there- why not use modeling? They sound great.

 

 

I think the thing is...at least for me anyway....is there really is something to the idea of that 12" cone moving the air. My amp may not really be as good as some of the sounds a modeler could deliver but that feeling I get from it next too me is not something I've experienced from modeling. Of course that is from the perspective of live playing in my bedroom. The amp feels "organic" and the modelers feel like I'm playing a recording of a great sound. I'm starting to realize that WHEN I record I should probably WANT that great sound, but because it sounds like a recording I don't FEEL like it sounds as good as the amp that's moving the air next to me.

 

Just an idea anyway. In the end you're right though...it either sounds good or it doesn't.

[BryanMichael]

I think the thing is...at least for me anyway....is there really is something to the idea of that 12" cone moving the air. My amp may not really be as good as some of the sounds a modeler could deliver but that feeling I get from it next too me is not something I've experienced from modeling. Of course that is from the perspective of live playing in my bedroom. The amp feels "organic" and the modelers feel like I'm playing a recording of a great sound. I'm starting to realize that WHEN I record I should probably WANT that great sound, but because it sounds like a recording I don't FEEL like it sounds as good as the amp that's moving the air next to me. Just an idea anyway. In the end you're right though...it either sounds good or it doesn't.

I get that aspect of it, but as far as the resulting SOUND that ends up on the recording...

[soundcreation]

I get that aspect of it, but as far as the resulting SOUND that ends up on the recording...

 

Well yeah...that's what I'm saying. With the equipment I have I'm quickly coming to the realization that I'll never get as good sounds with my gear than I probably would with some of those programs. It's just hard to break the idea that I should do it the old school way. Basically I'm being illogical about the best way to get good sounds.

[Arr0wHead]

 

What I don't get is why everyone is obsessed with making modeling sound like something else.

 

 

That's where the MODEL in MODELing comes from. Without the initial amp, what is it a MODEL of?

[Arr0wHead]

Soundcreation: A good set of monitors with accurate response is important. At the same volumes, through accurate speakers, the newer modeling plugins and such (like axe-fx) will give you that same "playing through an amp" feeling. I'm betting a big part of the difference you feel is going from a 12" speaker to a pair of headphones or some crappy computer speakers. You're right in that regard, moving air is a BIG part of the equation.

[BryanMichael]

That's where the MODEL in MODELing comes from. Without the initial amp, what is it a MODEL of?

I get that part- but it's a starting point- and like many have pointed out, changing a mic, mic position, or even getting a different amp of the same model is going to sound "different" than whatever model the modelers are modeling. So it seems to me it should be about whether the sounds are
1. Useful
2. Musical
3. in the ballpark of what the modeler indicates they should be

[Arr0wHead]

 

I get that part- but it's a starting point

 

 

 

That's YOUR opinion as the end-user, and I much agree with you. However, when a product claims to re-create XYZ amp, you cannot be surprised when people place a huge amount of emphasis on whether or not the product meets those claims, right?

[jds22]

A few posts back, somebody mentioned different generations of modeling technology. Is there any info or an article I could read on that? It sounds interesting.

BTW, I jumped on the modeling bandwagon right from the start. I bought the original Line6 AxSys and pedal board. I gigged with it in a cover band for a few years. It worked great and allowed me to cover a lot of ground. I never recorded with it so I can't comment on that.

I have tried different modelers over the years. I tried the Vox Tonelab and Pod XT Live and found out I prefer amps. I then bought the Spider IV and PV Vyp75 with the intention of keeping the one I liked better. I kept the PV. I just never got on with the Spider's tones and found the Vyp to be easier to dial in, for me anyways.

I really want to try the Mustang to see what all the fuss is about. I'm kind of itching to replace the Vyp and was thinking of going back to tube. But for my needs, low volume playing at home and the occasional YouTube vid, modeling just makes more sense.

[Arr0wHead]

 

A few posts back, somebody mentioned different generations of modeling technology. Is there any info or an article I could read on that? It sounds interesting.

 

 

 

I'll try to find some links for you. In the meantime, the basic idea is:

 

Generation 1: Line 6 AxSys through POD series. (although they did update a little between POD 1 and 2, it was mostly changes to processor handling, not the modeling.)

 

Generation 2: Most of the TWOS are in here: Guitar Rig 2, Amplitube 2, etc....

 

Generation 3: The newest of the bunch - Amplitube 3, Guitar Rig 3, TH1 Overloud, Line 6 HD series, Axe-FX, etc...

 

Generation 4: Supposedly the newest modeling amps (not out yet) will model ENTIRE amp architectures simply through a quickly recorded sample, a-la convolution style. Much like current cab impulses are created. In other words, they start at the END instead of modeling from the ground up.

 

 

These aren't hard fast rules, there's not a specific set of requirements or features that differentiate between the varying generations. It's more like each step up the ladder was touted by it's respective company as the "newest" generation of modelers.

[Jarick]

 

What I don't get is why everyone is obsessed with making modeling sound like something else. Shouldn't the question really be "is this a good clean sound?" or "Is this a good overdrive sound?" Not "Does this sound sound EXACTLY like a vintage Fender Twin?" or "Does this sound sound EXACTLY like a vintage Marshall pushing into poweramp distortion?" For live use, I can see the concerns with reproducing the tone on stage or in a performance environment. But for recording??? Unless you can afford to have the entire chain there- why not use modeling? They sound great.

 

 

We compare it because that's the standard. When most people think of a great guitar amp, they think of a Bassman, a JCM 800, a Twin, an AC30, etc. Those are the amps that not only were used for almost all electric guitar driven music in history, they often shaped the direction of that music and inspired those artists. We're not just looking for a sound, but a feel, and for the amp to disappear.

 

For me, personally, here's what I've tried/used in terms of modeling:

 

Korg multi-effect from the mid 90's - fun toy, but not really realistic

Digitech RP10/20/etc - pretty bad modeling but lots of great DIGITAL effects and flexibility

Boss GT-5 - again, awful models but neat DIGITAL effects

Line 6 PODxt - much more realistic ANALOG/TUBE amps and effects but poor feel and mediocre sound quality

Roland Cube series - mediocre at best amps and effects, but great feel, actually got me PLAYING rather than tinkering with the sound

Vox Valvetronix series - good amps and effects, good feel, again something you can PLAY through, even if the sound wasn't quite there

Fender Mustang - great amps and effects, great feel, you can play through it and get inspired, and the sound is fantastic IMO (although the USB is a little off compared to the speaker...need to tinker with it more)

 

So what I've experienced is that we're hitting a point where the technology has hit probably 95% of the sound and feel at a ridiculously low price. And like most technology, it went from being a fun gadget, to something really powerful and loaded with possibility but very time consuming, and now at the point that it's becoming so refined and easy to use that it's disappearing into the background. Which is what we want from a guitar amp, not a programming language or a bunch of effects patches, but a sound that's inspiring and you just PLAY instead of tinker. And for me, the Mustang's Twin and Bassman are THERE (don't do much high gain anymore).

[Arr0wHead]

 

So what I've experienced is that we're hitting a point where the technology has hit probably 95% of the sound and feel at a ridiculously low price.

 

 

 

Yes. And that 5% feel you're missing is a direct factor of price/processing power. Which is why people say the Axe FX nails it 100% - it's got the hardware (and the PRICE TAG) to get that huge amount of detail and response out of it.

 

I can only attest to what I've heard and seen, as I cannot afford an Axe FX at all. However running some of my plugins like the Overloud on my very powerful recording rig, and using some good cabinet impulses (bad example, the cabinets in Overloud are already pretty stunning) I've been VERY happy with the response.

 

So you can get there 95% with a $400 modeler, or you can spend a LOT more on that to just get ONE of the amps included in the modeler. Or, you can get even closer with a $2000 axe-fx, which is about the same cost a some individual amps modeled in there.

[crashclc]

Re-post of the "Myths in Audio" workshop video from earlier. Not just for the sake of argument, either. I strongly suggest EVERYONE here with serious interest in audio (even home theater) and sound watch this.

That's just outstanding!!!

All of the cable snobs should be forced to watch this all the way through

[Arr0wHead]

One additional note:

 

PIRACY.

 

You're gonna see a lot of guys that say "I have revalver, amplitube 1,2,3, Guitar rig 1,2,3,4, Overloud TH1, and I didn't like em..." etc.....

 

I'm not here to debate piracy. What I will say is when you download over $2000 worth of software at NO cost, all together, there is no way in HELL that you're going to be as thorough about reviewing/learning/using the software as you would if you had just spent almost $300 on one of the above mentioned plugins. In terms of hardware, you're not likely to buy a $400 amp, plug in, play ten minutes, and walk away never to touch it again because you don't like the sound. You're gonna tweak it, play with it, rest and try again, right?

 

It's funny too, how rampant the piracy is. You can tell pretty easy in a thread like this, because you'll get 100 guys all saying they have ALL the plugins, revalver, amplitube, guitar rig, TH1, etc..., but when you start talking about HARDWARE modeling every is usually still using the years-old Line 6 PODS, or v-amps, etc..... - you'd think those guys who can afford thousands on plugins would have an Axe FX or at least an HD500 by now, right?

 

However, keep in mind that all the plugins I listed DO have demo versions you can download. I encourage people to try them out! Just remember how important speakers are - don't compare your crappy laptop speakers or $30 ipod buds to your guitar amp, no matter HOW good the models it will NEVER be the same. Then again, your AMP won't sound the same through laptop speakers or these ipod buds EITHER.

[ashasha]

 

- and 50 bonus points go to anyone that sings along with the backwards messages in "Stairway to Heaven" BEFORE she gives us the lyrics.

Yes she is.

 

I watched that the other day and it's really nice to know that I haven't been completely off base for all these years in a lot of my thinking except for probably the dither section. I've heard granulation noise on things below about 12 bit, but it's only noticeable in audio that's low level and without a lot of dynamics. If you're messing with pop music or even anything that's pretty full dither won't do anything, it's really only for the LSB's and tricks your A>D converter into switching values. Of course who records at less than 16 bit today anyway?