Has modelling "topped out"?

[davedvdy]

Re: Has modelling "topped out"?

Getting to the original question, to say modelers have topped out, can very much be similar to saying that computers have topped out, IMO.

[ArtieToo]

Re: Has modelling "topped out"?

Quality in digital is measured in bits. 24k bits basically means that there are 24,000 (approximately) values of resistance / power measured along one electrical line (or stereo means two, etc). This is because they get converted to digital. The Boss ME-50 says it's 24 bit, but it's more than likely 24k. Sampling frequency is 44.1kHz, or 44,100 x second it reads resistance or power across the input line (in this case, guitar: one signal) so the sensitivity is basically 24,000 different values it's capable of knowing, and 44,100 x second it is sampling this line.

Just to clarify, 24 bit means 2^24th power. Thats 16,777,216 different analog levels. The limitation in digital is the 44.1k sampling rate. Many studios now use 96k and more. (Maybe up to 192k sampling rates.)

Besides, every time music "upgrades", people remark at how much better it sounds, in terms of digital equipment. CD quality is 16 bit 44.1kHz stereo, and I remember when I heard my first CD, I was like "wow!" It was much better than audio tape at the time. We all should remember that. In fact, you can also tell the difference in CD quality versus FM radio.

With that in mind, a modeler should sound no different than a tube amp when played on a CD. The CD is the limiting factor. One other thing thats important to point out: the "digital" part of any audio system, whether it be a CD player or a modeling amp, ends deep within the circuitry. At a bare minimum, the analog portion takes over at the power amp section. Usually, long before even that. Your ear never recieves a "digital" signal. For one thing, air won't support it.

My main concern isn't whether or not modeling has peaked, (it hasn't), but that audio production is deteriorating to match it. The quality of so many discs these days is abismal.

I think that where modeling technology has its best chance, is in the infinite blending of different models. To be able to smoothly transition between a Marshal stack and a Fender Blackface. Thats one of the areas where the J-Station shines. You can select the Blackface, then mate it with 4x12 Fanes or a Tweed 12". That kind of thing.

I'll end this with a cute anecdote that happened this last week. My friend, who is re-learning guitar, went out and bought a beautiful Epiphone LP Custom. He then snagged a nice VOX AD50VT to go with it. We took it to his house, along with my J-Station and my H & K Edition Blu 60. After a few minutes, he asked me if I'd trade the VOX for the H&K. I said no. He returned the VOX, ordered the H&K online, and is looking for a J-Station on the bay.

(The VOX uses a real 12ax7 tube.)

Artie

[davedvdy]

Re: Has modelling "topped out"?

Your ear never recieves a "digital" signal. For one thing, air won't support it.

I don't know the theory behind that, but I do know that your ears can perceive a lack of warmth in a signal. Digital signal is also thinner sounding than Analog. This is true in the recording world as well....I think the actual wave lengths are smaller, from the way an audio recording professional described it to me.

[ratherdashing]

Re: Has modelling "topped out"?

I'm thinkin' it runs in cycles.

Bingo. Look at any famous software product, like Windows, for example. XP has been out for 4 years, and we are finally now seeing the next release (Vista). Prior to that, Windows 2000 was out for over 3 years before XP made its debut. For a complex commercial product, the development cycle is measured in years. They aren't releasing a new version of Windows every few months. This is because:

1. It takes a bloody long time to make quality software. Before you even start coding, you have requirements gathering and analysis, then design, then prototyping. Once you start the actual coding, you also have to test code, then test modules, and finally test the system as a whole. Bugs will be found, and the code will have to be changed, and changed again, and again, etc. Once you're satisfied with your product, it has to be packaged, marketed, and shipped. In other words, it takes a lot of time. Did I mention that it takes a long time?

2. No one would want to spend money on a new piece of software that has only minor improvements from the previous release. If a Pod XT2 was essentially a Pod XT with better cabinet modelling, would you buy it? I wouldn't. Major improvements take major time ... see #1.

Guitarists have to understand that modelling has more to do with software development than it does hardware. The hardware is just a conduit by which the software does its work. It is fairly easy for Line6 to take their existing software and repackage it a dozen different ways (Pod XT, Vetta II, Flextone III, Pod XT Pro, Pod XT Live, effects units, Tonecore pedals, and so on), but changing the software is a much more challenging task.

[ArtieToo]

Re: Has modelling "topped out"?

I don't know the theory behind that, but I do know that your ears can perceive a lack of warmth in a signal. Digital signal is also thinner sounding than Analog.

To be clear, you can definitely hear a "digital" recording. There's many factors that affect that. I just meant that I've seen discussions here that talk about the "small steps" that a speaker puts out in a digital recording. The power amp and the speaker only ever see a true analog signal.

This is true in the recording world as well....I think the actual wave lengths are smaller, from the way an audio recording professional described it to me.

That part is completely whacked. I'm guessing you misunderstood him/her. Wavelengths aren't in the equation.

[Jeffrec]

Re: Has modelling "topped out"?

This may sound like blasphemy, but I believe that eventually modeling will be good enough to replace tube.

I agree. The whole field of modelling is still in it's early stages. They'll eventually nail the "tube" thing to a tee.

[ParameterMan]

Re: Has modelling "topped out"?

I don't know the theory behind that, but I do know that your ears can perceive a lack of warmth in a signal. Digital signal is also thinner sounding than Analog. This is true in the recording world as well....I think the actual wave lengths are smaller, from the way an audio recording professional described it to me.

It's not necessarily the digital that's bad. It's what's getting thrown away at current sampling levels, and what it's not doing. Call me insane, but I can hear an improvement when switching to 24/96. But...

The 'problem' with higher sampling rates is not digital artifacts(what it's doing), but lack of analog gear and tape compression(what it's not doing). Some of the thinness you hear is the lack of analog fatness. And that, my friend, is hard to duplicate. The current set of Pro Tools tape/tube/SS warmth emulation plugins are still lacking that elusive 'something'.

But the geeks are working on it....


EDIT: If the wavelengths were smaller, everything would go up in pitch. Low frequencies suffer at lower bit rates, and high frequencies suffer at lower sampling rates. You will notice a lack of depth in the lows, and a lack of transparency in the highs.

[Vasshu the humanoid typhoon]

Re: Has modelling "topped out"?

Digital is good for quite a few things....but modellers....nah, convinient and useful yes, but it has very little to do with the real thing in my not so humble opinion.
I think more analouge stuff will keep showing up instead.
Anyways all this has so many parameters...just like normal amps and so on
But sound like an old Hiwatt or Marshall at userlevels..no.

[Imp]

Re: Has modelling "topped out"?

i think modelling technology will only progress as fast as processor technology - you can get the best resolution you can get in a feasible unit, but until your processor 'raw materials' improve the best you can do is minor tweaks.

i guess when we see a common 4 GHz CPU in a family computer, we'll see higher resolution modelling... dual core isn't suited to minimal-cost one-purpose stuff like modelling IMO!

tom

[Vasshu the humanoid typhoon]

Re: Has modelling "topped out"?

It will still lack that "fat" factor anything with huge trannies has, or the push of air that speakers have!
They can stuff 10000000megagigaultraHZ and it would matter little!
It is like making artificial wood...it is just not right!

[davedvdy]

Re: Has modelling "topped out"?

That part is completely whacked. I'm guessing you misunderstood him/her. Wavelengths aren't in the equation.

It's not necessarily the digital that's bad. It's what's getting thrown away at current sampling levels, and what it's not doing. Call me insane, but I can hear an improvement when switching to 24/96. But...

The 'problem' with higher sampling rates is not digital artifacts(what it's doing), but lack of analog gear and tape compression(what it's not doing). Some of the thinness you hear is the lack of analog fatness. And that, my friend, is hard to duplicate. The current set of Pro Tools tape/tube/SS warmth emulation plugins are still lacking that elusive 'something'.

But the geeks are working on it....


EDIT: If the wavelengths were smaller, everything would go up in pitch. Low frequencies suffer at lower bit rates, and high frequencies suffer at lower sampling rates. You will notice a lack of depth in the lows, and a lack of transparency in the highs.

From what I understand, Analog sound has a fuller sound recorded, which can somehow be shown in bigger or perhaps fuller waves visually?

[ErikH]

Re: Has modelling "topped out"?

It will still lack that "fat" factor anything with huge trannies has, or the push of air that speakers have!
They can stuff 10000000megagigaultraHZ and it would matter little!
It is like making artificial wood...it is just not right!

I totally understand what you're saying here and agree, but it's only going to matter when the guitar is the only thing being played. When the entire band is going at 120 decibels, nobody is going to be able to tell the difference, even the person playing.

[ratherdashing]

Re: Has modelling "topped out"?

It will still lack that "fat" factor anything with huge trannies has, or the push of air that speakers have!
They can stuff 10000000megagigaultraHZ and it would matter little!
It is like making artificial wood...it is just not right!

Everything can be accurately simulated given enough resources - guitar amps are no exception.

[Jeff_H]

Re: Has modelling "topped out"?

Let me just start by saying I am a tube snob, and a pursit when it comes to equipment.

I agree that modeling has not topped out, and is in it's early development. The key to it's continued popularity will be it's cost....as long as it is kept affordable in general to players. Floor processors under $400, combo amps around $699 and head's/cab's in the $1,000 range will keep these things moving of the shelfs like crazy. Most people want more than one sound, and many options.

Modeling has come leaps and bounds in just the past 3 years. I purchased my Boss GT-6 3 years ago, and it has been eclipsed by many products. I happen to think my -6 does a great job, and there are a bunch of very, very useable amp models and patches. If I were more of a tweaker, and a better player, it would be even better.

If you doubt how good it can sound...Jolly uses digital modeling on all of his songs, and his amp is 4-5 years old. All of his clips sound amazing to me. Also, every complete song I have in "my soundlips" down in my sig was recorded with my -6. I think the tone is great.

Technology will get to the point where it will be very, very difficult to tell the difference between tube and modeling.

[Vasshu the humanoid typhoon]

Re: Has modelling "topped out"?

Well those factors are a major part of the sound....even at loud those modellers lacked that tacticle feel one has with a good normal amp, even live that is important, imagine getting the most unconvincing feedback
Or getting strange artifacts in the sound that are not analouge..hehe
I know that some can produce very good and fat tones, even live, but I have grown up with tubeamps, I know that feel, I use it in my playing, and I use a simulator here at home...and while it has a pleasent sound, it is not great by any means.
Dunno it has never convinced my ears, but it would be nice if they could make something that sound and feels as good as old style amps, maybe they are simply just too perfect....0111001010010 is what it is, not 011056852300010