Could all famous amp models become Tonemasters?

[Securb]

Sure. It does useful things. And may capture the actual experience 95%. Only if you don't look inside.

There is nothing wrong with fake things for the people who "just want the experience." I mean, a fake Rolex can probably fool 99% of people and actually keep accurate time. But its not the same thing.

Some people actually wear fake watches, handbags, accessories, etc. There is a market for them. The fake Gucci bag hold things just like the real one. This amp make noise just like the original.

The original "dogs playing poker" painting probably quite expensive. A print of the original conveys the same emotion but costs alot less.

It is not really about the tools but what you do with them.

"All this machinery making modern music can still be open-hearted. Not so coldly charted, it's really just a question of your honesty. Yeah, your honesty"

- Neil Peart

[Top-L]

But real things doing real work by real professionals at real gigs and real recordings...that kind of stuff is being done with all kinds of tools.

A fake rolex is a real time piece.

[Mincer]

A fake rolex is a real time piece.

I have no idea what you are arguing here.

[Top-L]

I had a friend that used to go on rants like yours. He came over to play one day and thought he was plugged into my Mesa Road King and was raving about his tone. When he tried to switch channels and it didn't do anything he was confused, until I told him he was plugged into my Kemper. All of a sudden he had complaints about the tone being "off" and "artificial". Sound is sound, there is no "real" or "fake". If you can hear it, then it's real.

What? I use modelers more than "real" amps. Some of my favorite models are "made up" amps.. I dont care how real something is. I'm pragmatic.

What is amusing to me is the contortions people will go through to protect their egos, with regards to gear/life/anything. The Tonemaster amps are built to look just like the real amp, in an effort to "fool" the user. Just like a fake Rolex is made to look like a real one to fool people into thinking it is something it's not.

In the case of the Tonemaster, it probably is just an evolution of the Fender Mustang modeling amp tech. The Mustang has 50 different models, the Tonemaster has only one; but it looks like the amp it is modeling, thus it appeals to the ego of the person buying it. Obviously it is "more real" than the Mustang. (lol)

I am just generally amused at the marketing folk and the people who are attracted to these products.

I suspect in the case of the Tonemaster, it is geared to the player who wants the experience of a Deluxe Reverb and wouldnt be satistifed if the amp looked like a Mustang and had 49 other models built in. It has to "look" like a real DR, meaning it has to have the same chassis, grill, knobs, etc. This is why I put it in the same category as reliced guitars and fake rolex watches.

[Mincer]

I suspect that your expectations don't work in every case here.

[beaubrummels]

I don't regard emulations or models as fake. They're a perfectly legit option as a signal path. But IME usually they are like second generation copies of the original sound; there is either a loss in fidelity or some other decisions that were made and baked into the sample/algorithm, like tube manufacturer/type, speakers and cab, or a particular revision of the amp that was modeled. Doesn't mean it doesn't or can't sound good and be very useful for work, it is just a different experience from standing in front of the original amp. But modeling is getting better. It's getting harder to tell the original from the model.

[chadd]

I had a forum bro over here playing some of my guitars. He fell in love with my Iceman and asked what kind of pickup it had. When I told him a 498T he said that was impossible he hated 498Ts. At least he didn't flip like your friend he kept exclaiming how great the guitar sounded.

I think we if not most of us all approach gear with preconceived ideas of quality, tone, and performance. Our preconceptions are typically wrong.

We all have preconceptions, the only question is if we're open to believing we were wrong. The folks that aren't are pretty easy to spot, speaking quite definitively in vague generalities

[Securb]

The folks that aren't are pretty easy to spot, speaking quite definitively in vague generalities

Lot of them out there.

[Chistopher]

The problem with modeling software that makes people not like it is that they don't actually understand how simple it works. Earlier modeling sucked because they didn't have to processing power to do this in real time, but modern models are oftentimes just a virtualized simulation of the actual circuit of the original amp.

One weakness of most modeling amps that I see today is they don't move far enough away from guitar technology of yesterday. If you've got a computer that can perfectly simulate an amp/cab combo, you don't need to run it through guitar speakers, you want maybe a subwoofer, some midwoofers, and a bunch of tweeters. No post model coloring.

[El Dunco]

The problem with modeling software that makes people not like it is that they don't actually understand how simple it works. Earlier modeling sucked because they didn't have to processing power to do this in real time, but modern models are oftentimes just a virtualized simulation of the actual circuit of the original amp.

One weakness of most modeling amps that I see today is they don't move far enough away from guitar technology of yesterday. If you've got a computer that can perfectly simulate an amp/cab combo, you don't need to run it through guitar speakers, you want maybe a subwoofer, some midwoofers, and a bunch of tweeters. No post model coloring.

My favourite aspect of modelling which is criminally underutilised is making virtual rigs that straight up don’t exist in real life or would be insanely impractical. I’ve been getting incredibly unique tones using a general distortion plugin in intended for synths that has control over every parameter it’s possible to have (extensive pre and post distortion filters and adjustments) into IRs. I haven’t seen anything like that in a dedicated modelling device.

Admittedly it’s not very user friendly but a skilled ear can use it to emulate just about any amp voicing that’s exist, and many that don’t.

[Mincer]

The problem with modeling software that makes people not like it is that they don't actually understand how simple it works. Earlier modeling sucked because they didn't have to processing power to do this in real time, but modern models are oftentimes just a virtualized simulation of the actual circuit of the original amp.

One weakness of most modeling amps that I see today is they don't move far enough away from guitar technology of yesterday. If you've got a computer that can perfectly simulate an amp/cab combo, you don't need to run it through guitar speakers, you want maybe a subwoofer, some midwoofers, and a bunch of tweeters. No post model coloring.

I like making sounds that sound nothing like a guitar with my Fractal.

[Gold star]

virtual tubes? how far we have fallen

a good attenuator doesnt hurt anything. running the amp cranked up will burn through tubes faster but shouldnt hurt trannys. adding an attenuator to reduce the volume wont add any undue stress to the amp, but just cause it isnt as loud, doesnt mean the amp isnt working hard

You say cranked up the tubes burn out quicker. Valve combos, even low wattage ones, can sound loud even at low volumes, so with the volume at say 10 or 11 o'clock plugging in an attenuator to lower the volume further should not mean the tubes are working harder? and I assume the stress will be mostly on the power tubes?

[jeremy]

the amp is working as hard as you turn it up. the attenuator just knocks the volume down, a good attenuator doesnt stress the amp any more than if it wasnt being used

[beaubrummels]

You say cranked up the tubes burn out quicker. Valve combos, even low wattage ones, can sound loud even at low volumes, so with the volume at say 10 or 11 o'clock plugging in an attenuator to lower the volume further should not mean the tubes are working harder? and I assume the stress will be mostly on the power tubes?

The attenuator is a completely separate circuit outside the amp. Reducing power outside the amp doesn't do anything to reduce the signal and power going on inside the amp. The amp, cranked up, is burning out components just like any cranked up amp running hard will do. The attenuator is just appearing to the amp like a speaker load, letting all that distorted goodenss in, as far as the amp knows, so the amp is still running hot and burning up tubes and whatever else. What the attenuator does after appearing to the amp as a load is, internally to the attenuator, reduce the power of the signal to the actual speakers on the other side of the attenuator. Because all that happens outside the circuit of the amp, the attenuator is not doing anything that preserves components in the amp.

[Gold star]

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.

Thinking back to this thread , I wonder how long before Eric Johnson or John Mayer step out on stage with Tonemasters ?? that would turn a few heads. I get the feeling Fender would rather they did not...