Could all famous amp models become Tonemasters?

[Gold star]

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 ..

[Securb]

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.

[Gold star]

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.

This is what I was thinking. It's a strange one. something to do with the way the electrons move inside a tube compared to what happens in a transistor. After many years of going solid state, Audio amps started incorporating tubes again. These are for people sitting at home listening to classical music & Jazz ..they swear they can hear the difference..

[Mincer]

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).

[beaubrummels]

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.

[Securb]

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. .

Sure but you are seeing more and more DSP finding its way into SS circuits via chips. As far as digital being able to move air the last time I saw RUSH Alex was playing through a MacBook Pro and it sounded just as powerful as when I saw him play Marshalls on the Moving Pictures tour.

[GuitarStv]

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.

[El Dunco]

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.

[Masta' C]

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.

[jeremy]

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

[chadd]

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.

[Masta' C]

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.

This

Once you put it in the mix, the differences become pretty much inaudible.

And this!

[jeremy]

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.

[Gold star]

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.

I used the term solid state as meaning transistors & PC boards rather than tubes...whether that be modelling or not, they use those components. As 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..

[Masta' C]

As 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..

Marshall has been in the world of solid state and modeling for years now. I could see them creating an upper-mid tier of digital amps similar to the Fender Tonemaster series someday. I wouldn't buy one, but someone would!