The Amp Modeling Dilemma - The future for tube/modeling amps

[Explorer]

I seem to recall there being a blind listening test or two where the POD HD models were put up against the actual amps, and that listeners couldn't tell which was which. That was a while ago, instead of in the future.

I'm sure that somewhere in this thread, in the time since it was started, I've commented on how many analog keyboard players have switched to virtual analog. That revolution started maybe 15 years ago, and there came a point where the prices on non-pristine analog machines just fell out of the bottom of the market.

Having known a lot of people who were hardcore analog-heads who switched, I suspect that hardcore tube-heads are just as likely to switch in such a major way when the technology hits the right price/usability point. It will probably be a combination of the availability of a low-cost, low-weight, high volume FRFR sound system and a decent modeler. That would be the equivalent of when things tipped in keyboards....

 

[Andromalia]

Yeah, but those amp tests were likely done with finished tracks, with lots of processing and such. This might work for some metal genres right now, but I'm not convinced it would cut the mustard for genres with a much more raw sound, ie blues and jazz...for now. At some point the difference will be negligible and the processing power needed won't go up with time and be easier to reach.

Someone on another topic said in 20 years we'll all play with our mobile phones as amplifiers with a WIFI (or what will pass for it then) relay into the PA.
As a comparison, I'd have to pile up something like 4000 computers I had 20 years ago to get a random consumer level current PC. ^^

This will soon become a moot point, and Fractal has shown that what matters is actually the algorythms. Someday I guess someone will release preprocessed amp+mix emulators like the way some drum software already exists now, but will do so in real time.

 

[Curt]

Just a quick aside, I did try that on the Blackstar HT5 and it was completely viable and was probably the heaviest rhythm tone the amp had to offer.

On most large amps, I agree that would suck, but small amps tend to handle extreme preamp changes with aplomb - which makes perfect sense when you think about how the ratio of preamp level is to output level.

Ok, sorry, didn't mean to distract too far from the main topic

fwiw, I was just being a dick.

 

[SnowfaLL]

Know what someone should make? Something along the lines of the Axe-FX, but completely simplified in a small combo amp, with only 1-2 types of each effects.. I love the versatility of modellers and plan on finally getting the Axe-FX, but part of me which really likes the Spidervalve (or even the HD500, in comparison) is how simple they are. Just put your amp, turn on abit of reverb and chorus, and thats it.

Axe-FX quality amp sims, with very basic (yet hi-quality) reverb/chorus/delay, in a small 1x12combo with like three/four EL84's would be a dream for me, and would most likely sway some of the tube snob guys into the digital realm also.

Most people only want one or two sounds, and can be completely happy with just a Fender deluxe or Marshall; and those are the guys obviously not interested in digital modelling; but if you could very accurately replicate what they need + afew more amp sims in the same package, that might just be the ticket for them to switch over. Having to go thru 50 menus of adjusting is what stops many people from getting involved with something like the Axe-FX (myself included, its the most intimidating aspect)

The Spidervalve is the best step in that direction; but due to the out-dated amp sims (X3 series? its good but not "great") combined with the Line 6 name.. Not many people take it seriously, even with Bogner's help. If a semi-boutique company released something along those lines, they could have a hit.

 

[Curt]

^ The thing that really makes the Axe-Fx shine compared to other modelers is the level of tweaking you can actually do. You can make it replicate the sound of cranked up plexi at whisper volumes due to all the parameters they have for you to tweak. Without that ability, said product wouldn't really have the same impact as the Axe-Fx does.

However, I see where you're coming from, as for the longest time I had a Flextone III combo that served me well.

 

[SnowfaLL]

^ The thing that really makes the Axe-Fx shine compared to other modelers is the level of tweaking you can actually do. You can make it replicate the sound of cranked up plexi at whisper volumes due to all the parameters they have for you to tweak. Without that ability, said product wouldn't really have the same impact as the Axe-Fx does.

However, I see where you're coming from, as for the longest time I had a Flextone III combo that served me well.

Oh I definitely understand, and a large part (probably 95%+) of the Axe-FX userbase WANT that insane tweakability.. but theres some of us who just want to plug-and-play, but with the versatility of a modeller to have 5-10 great amps in one.

Thats not really the Axe-FX customer base, but there is a market out there in my opinion for a product like that, with the quality of the Axe-FX.. Essentially, take a Spider Valve and replace its digital innards with the Axe-FX quality amp sims/effects (just basic effects) and you would have a shit ton of happy customers in a completely different niche than the rackmount Axe-FX.

Im talking about people who dont want the EXACT tone to the point where they are changing the "digital" tube bias or capaciters, just the basic bass/mid/treble/gain type controls. This is more for the gigging musician who wants the versatility of a Fender with a Marshall and Mesa in one, not a studio tweaker whos trying to replicate Van Halen's Eruption tone to the exact frequency. For that type of thing, obviously the rackmount Axe-FX is the way to go.

(im not even suggesting Fractal/Cliff should do this, but SOME company out there should take the Spidervalve/Vetta model and just make it with higher quality sims, even if Line 6 made one with the HD series, I would instantly buy it)

 

[JohnnyMcFly]

They did not win. That case went on for six years, and then Harley withdrew its suit.

I believe that Harley Davidson also once tried to sue for trademark violation based on the Harley appearance, and lost due to stealing the look from Indian, Excelsior and three others.

The Harley V-Twin engine, which produces the sound Harley attempted to both copyright and trademark, was stolen/copied from Jason Preswick.

I think that Harley Davidson also once sued a shop called the Hog Farm, claiming a trademark on "hog." Harley lost that case due to the "Hog Farm" having been in business longer than Harley Davidson's claim on the trademark. (Always make sure your precedents are in order! *laugh*)

----

Anyway, moving back to the trademarking/copyrighting of sound, Harley didn't gain any traction in its lawsuit because all the other companies, in addition to witnesses, testified that a particular engine configuration will produce a particular sound. In the same way, one could argue that a tube amp of a particular configuration will produce a very similar sound to another of the same configuration.

In a related field, there are a lot of recordings which use loops. At some point, loopers began recording their own versions of the sections of songs they wanted to loop... and people started losing lawsuits when they asserted that their song was the basis of the loop-based composition. If someone had the original recordings of their loops, it became next to impossible to prove that their recording was the source of a throw-away musical idea.

It would be impossible under current law to copyright or patent an instrument's sound, only the method of production. Otherwise, sample libraries wouldn't be possible.

Thanks Explorer, I didn't know about all that...very interesting read..

 

[JohnnyMcFly]

I just wanted to point out something about my earlier posts, I was speaking directly about software modeling vs software digital amps. AXEFX was not included as Cliff has done some absolutely fantastic work on that. One of the few companies that are actually moving forward! To a certain point I'm not sure thats its not so much modeling as a real virtual amp now...Given the options available...

 

[budda]

I don't know why we can't just all get along .

I don't care what the other guy uses. I've used an Axe-FX, I've tinkerd with my friend's POD X3 or whatever bean he has, I have gone from rage 158 - MG250 - YCV80 - JSX - Dual Rec Roadster.

If it sounds good, and it suits what you do, I don't really worry about what you use. But I'll definitely be interested to find out!

So long as we have people that push the boundaries working alonside the people that churn out songs that sound straight out of '74 then it's all good to me.

 

[Andromalia]

I don't know why we can't just all get along .

These debates are not that bad as long as they're civil, even though they're useless since it's well known Darth Vader plays Gibsons on a PC in his star destroyer.

wonder if the nth degree wasn't a bit too much there

 

[JohnnyMcFly]

These debates are not that bad as long as they're civil, even though they're useless since it's well known Darth Vader plays Gibsons on a PC in his star destroyer.

wonder if the nth degree wasn't a bit too much there

haha, nice, but you are MISTAKEN SIR! He uses a Charvel Model 2 with a Nick Crow amp sim! AND Elvis is his singer!

 

[Curt]

Oh I definitely understand, and a large part (probably 95%+) of the Axe-FX userbase WANT that insane tweakability.. but theres some of us who just want to plug-and-play, but with the versatility of a modeller to have 5-10 great amps in one.

Thats not really the Axe-FX customer base, but there is a market out there in my opinion for a product like that, with the quality of the Axe-FX.. Essentially, take a Spider Valve and replace its digital innards with the Axe-FX quality amp sims/effects (just basic effects) and you would have a shit ton of happy customers in a completely different niche than the rackmount Axe-FX.

Im talking about people who dont want the EXACT tone to the point where they are changing the "digital" tube bias or capaciters, just the basic bass/mid/treble/gain type controls. This is more for the gigging musician who wants the versatility of a Fender with a Marshall and Mesa in one, not a studio tweaker whos trying to replicate Van Halen's Eruption tone to the exact frequency. For that type of thing, obviously the rackmount Axe-FX is the way to go.

(im not even suggesting Fractal/Cliff should do this, but SOME company out there should take the Spidervalve/Vetta model and just make it with higher quality sims, even if Line 6 made one with the HD series, I would instantly buy it)

I 100% agree with that line of thought. As that's the type of mindset I had when I was using the Flextone combo. An essentially tonally upgraded version of that kind of thing from a different manufacturer would be great.

 

[Mordacain]

Know what someone should make? Something along the lines of the Axe-FX, but completely simplified in a small combo amp, with only 1-2 types of each effects.. I love the versatility of modellers and plan on finally getting the Axe-FX, but part of me which really likes the Spidervalve (or even the HD500, in comparison) is how simple they are. Just put your amp, turn on abit of reverb and chorus, and thats it.

Axe-FX quality amp sims, with very basic (yet hi-quality) reverb/chorus/delay, in a small 1x12combo with like three/four EL84's would be a dream for me, and would most likely sway some of the tube snob guys into the digital realm also.

Most people only want one or two sounds, and can be completely happy with just a Fender deluxe or Marshall; and those are the guys obviously not interested in digital modelling; but if you could very accurately replicate what they need + afew more amp sims in the same package, that might just be the ticket for them to switch over. Having to go thru 50 menus of adjusting is what stops many people from getting involved with something like the Axe-FX (myself included, its the most intimidating aspect)

The Spidervalve is the best step in that direction; but due to the out-dated amp sims (X3 series? its good but not "great") combined with the Line 6 name.. Not many people take it seriously, even with Bogner's help. If a semi-boutique company released something along those lines, they could have a hit.

Interesting that I was thinking something along these lines when I started my search for a new, small modelling amp and I found the Fender Mustang does pretty much just this. The HiGain models are apparently kinda 'meh' but all of the Fender models are pretty much bang-on.

What I hadn't known when I initially dismissed them was that Fender's Fuse software opens up reams of tweakability along the lines of Revalver; you can't substitute tube types and resistor values, things like that, but you can control sag, bias and the cabinet models which places it much more in the POD HD range of tweakability.

 

[SnowfaLL]

Interesting that I was thinking something along these lines when I started my search for a new, small modelling amp and I found the Fender Mustang does pretty much just this. The HiGain models are apparently kinda 'meh' but all of the Fender models are pretty much bang-on.

What I hadn't known when I initially dismissed them was that Fender's Fuse software opens up reams of tweakability along the lines of Revalver; you can't substitute tube types and resistor values, things like that, but you can control sag, bias and the cabinet models which places it much more in the POD HD range of tweakability.

I've been somewhat skeptical of Fender modelling, I dont know why.. Its just hard to believe they can compete with companies like Line6 and Digitech in that realm, but guess I'll have to try the newest Mustang sometime soon.

Honestly the Spidervalve was so good for me, I was thinking about buying it on the spot (this was the Mk I version too, which also made it under $500 so it was a great deal) - but I A/B'd it afew times against many Fenders and Mesa's, and honestly thought the Spidervalve was right up there, at least 90% as good.. Now if they made a Spidervalve III with the HD amp sims, wow that would be awesome. My only complaint then would be making it's size smaller; the cabinets are quite oversized (yet I suppose that is good for achieving a decent bassy metal tone in a 1x12)

Anyways, my point is, I think this "method" is going to be what takes us into the future of modelling, from the standpoint of phasing out tube amps.. It will start with more combos from most companies having digital preamps, yet tube poweramps.. and eventually the tube poweramp sections will be replaced by SS again.. but that will have to take place after tube snobs start seeing how far digital amp sims like the Axe-FX, 11R and HD500's have come.

 

[Mordacain]

I've been somewhat skeptical of Fender modelling, I dont know why.. Its just hard to believe they can compete with companies like Line6 and Digitech in that realm, but guess I'll have to try the newest Mustang sometime soon.

Honestly the Spidervalve was so good for me, I was thinking about buying it on the spot (this was the Mk I version too, which also made it under $500 so it was a great deal) - but I A/B'd it afew times against many Fenders and Mesa's, and honestly thought the Spidervalve was right up there, at least 90% as good.. Now if they made a Spidervalve III with the HD amp sims, wow that would be awesome. My only complaint then would be making it's size smaller; the cabinets are quite oversized (yet I suppose that is good for achieving a decent bassy metal tone in a 1x12)

Anyways, my point is, I think this "method" is going to be what takes us into the future of modelling, from the standpoint of phasing out tube amps.. It will start with more combos from most companies having digital preamps, yet tube poweramps.. and eventually the tube poweramp sections will be replaced by SS again.. but that will have to take place after tube snobs start seeing how far digital amp sims like the Axe-FX, 11R and HD500's have come.

I'll update with my findings when I try out the Mustang II & III this week. I've got a pretty limited need list as far as my needs go, but I love the idea of behind the scenes tweakability.

I'm personally not a fan of tube power simply for the tonal difference with regards to volume level.

 

[Explorer]

Yeah, but those amp tests were likely done with finished tracks, with lots of processing and such.

Nope.

http://www.sevenstring.org/forum/gear-equipment/134279-little-hd300-treat-can-you-guess.html

----

As a weird side-effect of this thread starting up again, I started looking at PODs for some uses. I might pick up an old bean....

 

[SnowfaLL]

Nope.

http://www.sevenstring.org/forum/gear-equipment/134279-little-hd300-treat-can-you-guess.html

----

As a weird side-effect of this thread starting up again, I started looking at PODs for some uses. I might pick up an old bean....

well, the HD300 used is such a great price, theres no reason IMO to get an old bean. You can find a HD300 for like $200 used at times.

Im pretty sure im gonna pick one up while I wait to save up for an Axe-FX II. Theres nothing that beats the value of an HD300 for being the 2nd best modelling unit out there IMO

 

[atticmike]

I see this all as a temporary adrenalin friction. Within a professional environment, there will always be a tube amp.

I know that with processors such as the axe fx 1 / 2, you can't almost make out whether this is modeled or genuine tube sound.

However, a properly equalized tube amp will never be outmatched by a modeler.

We should rather redirect this question to the sake of portability and live environment. Talking about the people who are a lot on the road.

 

[budda]

I saw mention of the Fender Mustang. Having spent a little time with the IV model, I was very surprised at the tone I got out of it!

 

[ShadowFactoryX]

However, a properly equalized tube amp will never be outmatched by a modeler.

untill the technology does allow it to be outmatched

that time will come, its been well on its way for a while now, its essentially inevitable.

but that wont deter people from using amps all together.

the benefits of modeling live (i.e. axefx > pa) is monumentally better than a conventional tube amp setup

i had a good, yet short discussion with devin townsend about this when he played here last week.

and from my perspective, his rig had the best clarity out of all the bands