Has modelling "topped out"?

[ErikH]

Re: Has modelling "topped out"?

For the longest time I swore up and down that I wouldn't get a modeller. I didn't like the POD too much at first, couldn't stand, and still can't, the Spider amps, and thought the Flextone amps were lacking a little. My Marshall was still running so I was quite happy with that for years.

Then that amp blew the power tranny and I needed something fast. I had taken to the Roland Cubes but hadn't messed with the Vox's too much. When I did, I realized that it works for what I'm doing and is the closest to a real amp that I'm going to get from a modeller today.

Is the AD50 the same as playing through my Marshall? No, not 100%, but it's damn close, and I'm getting some tones that inspire me to practice more.

I've used the AD50 for a couple of live performances (not just rehearsals) and there have been folks who had nice things to say about how it sounded, players and non-players. Half the players had no idea it was a modeller. They saw Vox and liked what they heard. That's good enough for me. Point is, once the whole band is playing, 98% of the people listening (and even you) won't be able to pick out all of what's missing.

Has the technology topped out? Not at all. There's loads of avenues to go (Gearjoneser gave a few great ideas). I think, like GJ has said, that the power amp section is the next thing to evolve, or should be. Start with the Vox Valve Reactor and move forward.

And lastly, modellers are NOT solid state. They are digital. Solid State amps are tubeless analog circuits.

 

[Dirt123]

Re: Has modelling "topped out"?

Modelers will get better. I expet to seeModelers will get better. I expect to see better user interfaces, smaller units, & more options. Possibly the opportunity for users to build up their own amps, by swapping preamp configurations, output tubes & speaker choices.

On another note, many pros use modeling amps & have great tone. Seymour Duncan comes to mind.



Dirt.

 

[these_go211]

Re: Has modelling "topped out"?

there's no way modelling has topped out! it's digital technology, it will always be moving forward. it's the same as with computers. we've got more horsepower on our cell phones now than the computers that were used to put the first man on the moon. it will keep getting better and better. ultimately though it's a matter of personal preference. and there will always be those who just don't like them because they are modellers. maybe they sound just as good but they are seen as an imitation, which they are. nothing wrong with holding that view. to each his own.

do the tones you can get out of your current rig satisfy your requirements? if the answer is yes then it doesn't matter if you are tube, SS, or modelling. if you are modelling then it does't even matter necessarily if the pod can nail a jcm800 sound or a vox ac30, or whatever. if it sounds good to you then it is good. cuz let's face it, do you really think even 10% of your audience could pick a marshall tone vs a mesa tone vs a vox, etc etc. they don't care. they just want to hear music that sounds good to them.

 

[JohnnyGuitar]

Re: Has modelling "topped out"?

Rockstars will always date models...


Rock will never die!!!!! And you would always want to date beautyfull women...





Hmmmmm...

Line 6 stompboxes... pretty looking, thin and rather fake products...

Think about it...

 

[shred4Him]

Re: Has modelling "topped out"?

If Vox takes their approach to the next level, then I think a lot of people will be more open minded, who weren't previously. Vox needs to come out with the Tonelab SE II. It is about time.

 

[ParameterMan]

Re: Has modelling "topped out"?

Arg. Y'all keep getting sidetracked discussing the current state of modelers, rather than their future. That said, what's lacking in the current technology, and what's needed to make it up?

I would venture the main reason for the lack of 'feel' is the sampling and processing delay inherent in a digital system. Faster processors and higher sample rates could result in a tighter, more 'real' playing response.

The secondary lack is not tonality, but the note envelope. The modelers I've tried nail the larger-than-life tonal sweetness of a tricked out vintage amp. What they don't nail is the attack 'whomp' and sparkly smooth compressed sustain of a cranked tube power section. I think this'll be the next innovation they work on.

I think they'll continue advancing, and getting more convincing all the time. I'm not sure if they'll ever be able to nail exactly the complexity of tubes, but I don't think that'll be the point. I mean, there's some things about tube response that are less than ideal. Even now, modelers are offering a larger than life, better than original versions of the classic amps. It's like diet Coke. Some people like the extra sweetness of diet Coke more than the original.

--------

And, really, when playing live, the only reason I use tube gear is for me. I'm the only one that's standing in front of my amp and thus able to tell the difference. By the time it gets out through the sound system, who can tell? If anything, the highly processed tonality of a modeler sounds more like the highly processed studio recordings the audience is used to. No, I use a tube amp for me, because that's the environment I'm the most creative in.

 

[Dirt123]

Re: Has modelling "topped out"?

Part of the tube simulation equation that will get worked out is the variability factor. We all try different tube types to fine tune our amps. Pretty soon modelers will have the processing horsepower to make that level of variability controllable. Same goes for speakers. Soon you’ll be able to model a specific, tweaked rig, not just an average one.

The power amp equation will be addressed, too. If it can be analyzed, it can be duplicated.

 

[JeffB]

Re: Has modelling "topped out"?

Good discussion folks...

I guess my feeling is...with the way digital and computer technology advances in other mediums...why have we seen such a slowdown/lack of progression in modelling technology?


If Korg/Vox would get off their butts I think they could really go someplace with the Valvetronix. It does a significantly better job of capturing a real tube-amp's vibe and feel..much more-so than Line6 and Roland products. It has some of that tube sparkle and compression and there is no "disconnect" like with an all digital section.

Line 6 has the voicings down right, but are "flat" so to speak, and roland (as always) seems more focused on giving us more electronic variety and complication..instead of focusing on the COSM tech itself.

Right now the actual modelling technology is totally stagnant. We are not seeing any new technology or truly improved modelling gear. Only more features...able to do more varied things with the tech we do have. There has been no real progress in modelling the amps, proper.

My laptop was "obsolete" 2 years ago. Its been much longer than that since we've seen any kind of significant improvement in modelling.

 

[ratherdashing]

Re: Has modelling "topped out"?

This discussion has predictably degenerated into a "Modeller suck! Me only like all-tube!" caveman chest-thumping session. Very few people actually answered the real question, let alone actually understood what was being asked.

The answer is, no, modelling has not "topped out". I have said this before: since it is computer-driven, it will continue to benefit from lower priced, better performing hardware as time goes by. As the computer hardware improves, the software developers will have fewer constraints on what their code can do, and thus the software will improve. Better software = better sounding, more responsive, more accurate modelling.

There is no problem on Earth that can't be solved with computer software. Our only limitations are hardware (which is improving constantly), and our minds. We can write software that decodes the human genome, puts spacecraft into orbit, beats a grand master at chess, and renders vast armies of elves and orcs in stunning detail; the idea that we can't write software that accurately simulates archaic, dead-simple amplifier technology is laughable.

Good software development takes time, however, which is why we are currently waiting for the next generation of modellers.

 

[davedvdy]

Re: Has modelling "topped out"?

Line 6 has the voicings down right, but are "flat" so to speak, and roland (as always) seems more focused on giving us more electronic variety and complication..instead of focusing on the COSM tech itself.

I prefer the Boss GT pedals to the PODs...there is this plasticy layer that seems to be over the sound on the PODs. I thought the XT would be different, but someone described it as a layer of "cotton" over the sound...I knew he was describing the same sound that I heard w/the 2.0 that I took back.

 

[ParameterMan]

Re: Has modelling "topped out"?

I guess my feeling is...with the way digital and computer technology advances in other mediums...why have we seen such a slowdown/lack of progression in modelling technology?

I'm thinkin' it runs in cycles. But if I had to theorize, I would guess that modelers are getting classified as affordable, do-everything boxes, and the discriminating people who would drive further research are not buying the expensive, top of the line modelers. Just a theory.

 

[Mephis]

Re: Has modelling "topped out"?

I propose a challenge to all you modeler junkies. Post clips of modelers and real amps that you find to be good or great and let us "tube snobs" decide if it's a modeler or a tube amp.

 

[ErikH]

Re: Has modelling "topped out"?

I propose a challenge to all you modeler junkies. Post clips of modelers and real amps that you find to be good or great and let us "tube snobs" decide if it's a modeler or a tube amp.

Give me a day or so. I need to locate some and rename the files so it's not obvious which is which. I've got clips of my own amps, modeller and tube amp. I'll do it in another thread though.

 

[ParameterMan]

Re: Has modelling "topped out"?

I propose a challenge to all you modeler junkies. Post clips of modelers and real amps that you find to be good or great and let us "tube snobs" decide if it's a modeler or a tube amp.

That would be interesting. But please...not in this thread.

 

[Mephis]

Re: Has modelling "topped out"?

Yea when you do this start a new thread.

This should be fun.

 

[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.

 

[Artie]

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.

 

[Artie]

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.