Much has been written about the Fender Tonemaster series. Many have become converts ,ditching their tube amps along the way. They cant hear the difference. Should we now expect a TM AC30 &15 ? or TM '59 Marshall Plexi , JCM 800 ? or Mesa Rectifier? It comes back again to the tube v SS debate. It could happen , but somehow I feel tubes are not finished yet ..
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Could all famous amp models become Tonemasters?
Collapse
X
-
Tubes will never be done but digital technology is making it easier to mimic tubes. It is naive to think we cannot digitally mimic a vacuum tube at a time when we can use AI to mimic the human brain. We can fly to the moon and back but the vacuum tube is the one technology that has baffled scientists and engineers. Yes, digital/solid-state can sound exactly like a tube amp but tube amps will never go away.
- 1 like
-
Originally posted by Securb View PostTubes will never be done but digital technology is making it easier to mimic tubes. It is naive to think we cannot digitally mimic a vacuum tube at a time when we can use AI to mimic the human brain. We can fly to the moon and back but the vacuum tube is the one technology that has baffled scientists and engineers. Yes, digital/solid-state can sound exactly like a tube amp but tube amps will never go away.Last edited by Gold star; 03-17-2023, 02:42 PM.
Comment
-
As long as there is a demand for something, there will be a company there to provide. Still, I know young players that have played for 7 years and use only software and have never played through a tube amp (and are fine doing what they do). I love my Tone Master Deluxe (my back does, too), and if the idea of a single model vs a SS amp, I'd take the modeling every time (except Tech 21's stuff).Dave, Ambassador/Writer/Artist for Seymour Duncan
Comment
-
It's digital modeling, so it's not a solid-state vs tube argument. "Solid state" is a physical circuit made of transistorized components, PC boards, with op amps and diodes replacing tubes and point to point circuitry. That's different from digital modeling where the modeling is trying to emulate tubes and the point to point circuit, and remove any actual physical circuitry from the equation.
Anyone who's stood in front of a tube amp pushing air and a modeled amp pushing air can perceive the difference. In particular, a tube amp sounds like a really nice amp, with punch and dynamics. A digital model sounds like a recording of a nice amp, even if you run it through a tube power amplifier. I'd rather put a microphone in front of an actual tube amp than a digital modeled sound coming through a digital power amp and 'custom designed for digital' speaker. Putting a mic that close to an amp is the same as putting your ear there - it starts to expose all the details of what's different.
Fender would have to tread carefully to enter into direct competition with Marshall, VOX and other brands, selling Fender versions of the same amps. Third parties have done that, in an equal opportunity plagiaristic way, but the big names try to avoid that. Marshall is based on a Fender Bassman, but Fender has never made an "M-flavored British Bassman" in response (that I'm aware of), at least not so overtly to hint they are copying something. I think they would be wiser to stick to their brand and push their own brand.
Comment
-
Originally posted by beaubrummels View PostIt's digital modeling, so it's not a solid-state vs tube argument. "Solid state" is a physical circuit made of transistorized components, PC boards, with op amps and diodes replacing tubes and point to point circuitry. .
Comment
-
Honestly . . . I don't care. If it sounds good, I'll play it. If it doesn't sound good there will be enough demand that I can get equivalent amps from elsewhere.
So far I have slightly preferred tube amps for the stuff that I do. The modelling stuff is getting better all the time though, can't rule it out.Join me in the fight against muscular atrophy!
Originally posted by Douglas AdamsThis planet has - or rather had - a problem, which was this: most of the people living on it were unhappy for pretty much of the time. Many solutions were suggested for this problem, but most of these were largely concerned with the movements of small green pieces of paper, which is odd because on the whole it wasn't the small green pieces of paper that were unhappy.
- 1 like
Comment
-
I would be very interested to see an amp company fo that exact thing where it does their own amps perfectly rather than trying to model a whole bunch of amps. The Marshall Code was pretty awful.The opinions expressed above do not necessarily represent those of the poster and are to be considered suspect at best.
Lead guitarist and vocalist of...
Keep up to date on our Facebook
Comment
-
For me, the "Tonemaster" amps don't have many advantages other than being a bit more manageable weight-wise, potentially requiring less maintenance (assuming they prove to be reliable), and costing slightly less than the "tube" amps they are copying.
For one thing, they are still expensive for a "modeling" type amp, especially in today's world.
Also, the technology doesn't seem that "unique". I'm reminded of what Peavey did with their "Revalver" software, where each of the individual components were modeled to get the final "amp" sound. The Tonemaster appears to do something similar, except you're pinned to just one amp model, rather than dozens, for much more money.
In the Andertons Princeton comparison video below, the two amps did sound reasonably similar for the most part, but I could easily pick out the Tonemaster a majority of the time.
Furthermore, as soon as they stuck a fuzz in front of it (around the 14:00 mark), the Tonemaster completely fell apart! Makes me wonder how many people are shoving expensive pedals in front of these things and really missing out without knowing it!
I think Fender should collaborate with Boss on a Fender-only series of Katana-based amps that are designed to look and emulate classic Fenders.
Tubes will never be fully replaced. But great music can be made with any technology, being mindful of its respective limitations.
- 2 likes
Comment
-
buddy of mine bought a tonemaster twin. did two gigs with it and returned it and bought an old sf twin and is much happier. ymmv
- 1 like
Comment
-
Most of the people that buy the tube amps, want those tube amps. If you're going digital, you might as well go with a different solution that offers far more flexibility than a simple single tone from a digital amp. Especially once you factor in the cost of the other options on the market.
In a silent environment you can hear that a model sounds "different" than an amp, but if you compare five or ten amps and one model you will hear quite a difference between the amps as well. Once you put it in the mix, the differences become pretty much inaudible. Technology continues to get better and making it harder to hear the difference.
Comment
-
Originally posted by chadd View PostIf you're going digital, you might as well go with a different solution that offers far more flexibility than a simple single tone from a digital amp.
Originally posted by chadd View PostOnce you put it in the mix, the differences become pretty much inaudible.
Comment
-
i actually dont agree with the mix part. a few guys i play with regularly use a helix and i pretty much always use my old dr. every sound guy says i cut through better. obviously theres more than just the amp involved, but theres consistency across three other players and multiple sound teams in multiple venues.
- 1 like
Comment
-
Originally posted by beaubrummels View PostIt's digital modeling, so it's not a solid-state vs tube argument. "Solid state" is a physical circuit made of transistorized components, PC boards, with op amps and diodes replacing tubes and point to point circuitry. That's different from digital modeling where the modeling is trying to emulate tubes and the point to point circuit, and remove any actual physical circuitry from the equation.
Anyone who's stood in front of a tube amp pushing air and a modeled amp pushing air can perceive the difference. In particular, a tube amp sounds like a really nice amp, with punch and dynamics. A digital model sounds like a recording of a nice amp, even if you run it through a tube power amplifier. I'd rather put a microphone in front of an actual tube amp than a digital modeled sound coming through a digital power amp and 'custom designed for digital' speaker. Putting a mic that close to an amp is the same as putting your ear there - it starts to expose all the details of what's different.
Fender would have to tread carefully to enter into direct competition with Marshall, VOX and other brands, selling Fender versions of the same amps. Third parties have done that, in an equal opportunity plagiaristic way, but the big names try to avoid that. Marshall is based on a Fender Bassman, but Fender has never made an "M-flavored British Bassman" in response (that I'm aware of), at least not so overtly to hint they are copying something. I think they would be wiser to stick to their brand and push their own brand.
- 1 like
Comment
-
Originally posted by Gold star View PostAs for DSP Marshall & Vox, I was implying that those brands may decide to do the same thing themselves, though I doubt Marshall will. They feel people want tube amps..
Comment
Comment