Modeling amp technology still lagging

[Iron Horse]

Re: Modeling amp technology still lagging

The big companies would lose a lot of money if the modelling amps were developed seriously. Everyone would need just one amp, made cheaper than tube amps, with no pedals to get all the sounds one could ever need and more. Now people have to buy an amp (or three) for Marshall sounds, one or two for Fender sounds, and a Vox-like amp. And then loads of overdrives, fuzzes, distortions, boosts, delays, reverbs, echoes, phasers, flangers etc etc.

 

[Petrovsk Mizinski]

Re: Modeling amp technology still lagging

For me, i couldn't do without modeller because you can play them quietly or with headphones.

Sure, i LOVE the sound of a tube amp... but how the hell do you guys ever crank them up without the neighbours complaining?

My Neighbors just don't complain.
I got my friend to stand outside when I had my amp blaring and he said he could barely hear it.
Granted, I have a modern, 120 watt head that sounds its best around 3/3.5 on the master (I need a fairly tight, preamp gain based amp, any higher than 3.5/4 and it starts to flub out and sound overly compressed), so it's a lot more neighbor friendly than those old Marshall 100 watt non master volume type amps.
3.5 is still loud enough that I have to wear ear plugs to be able to play my amp in the same room though.

 

[aleclee]

Re: Modeling amp technology still lagging

Axe-Fx is there. And $2000+. But they are the undeniable top-o-the-heap.

While an Ultra is two geez (new), the Standard is $1,500 and capable of meeting most people's needs. Especially the folks who complain about clips with too many effects. . The sound quality is identical. It just has less RAM and CPU. That's not cheap but how fair is it comparing a $500 modeler to a $1000 (or more) amp like a Marshall?

As someone who tried to make modeling work since getting a Line 6 AX2 in 1999, I was pretty frustrated until I tried the AxeFX. 20 minutes after I plugged in, I knew I had to have the thing. I suspect that the GSP1101 might fill the bill but those aren't much easier to check out than the Axe. YMMV of course but few who have actually tried the AxeFX would say that modeling is stagnating.

One common complaint I haven't seen in this thread is "in the room" sound--modelers typically sound like recordings more than the amp in the room. The AxeFX's custom IR (impulse response) feature let's you get around that by using far field IRs where the stock IRs are all captured by close miking. I've tried some free far field IRs and they definitely add some live vibe. I'll probably try some commercially produced far field IRs later this summer.

 

[innerdreamrecords.co]

Re: Modeling amp technology still lagging

My only complaint with modelers when recording direct is that they don't move air like a mic'd speaker. I can always hear it and more important is you can feel it. There is nothing like organic recording.

 

[zionstrat]

Re: Modeling amp technology still lagging

There's an easy way to tell if modeling works or not...I was with working for a DAW manufacturer in the early days of digital recording, and we did blind testing comparing analog to digital...it turned out that by the mid 90s, few could tell them apart (unless analog was noisy or didn't capture high frequencies. )

With modeling, building good patches is the key...the presets are usually overkill. The other issue is it has to be in the mix...

Modelers who have put in the energy and effort into a good sound can have a lot of fun with this... On your next demo (with the entire band) or at your next gig, set up so you flip back and forth between tube and models and then get your buddies to pick the tube In the mix, there is so much masking that it's practically impossible to tell the difference and it's a fun experiment.

I've got a wide range of modeling gear for the road, but my Peavy Classic 50 4*10 is the only thing I play at home and you have to ask why? Because, when I plug straight in, no effects,by myself, nothing can touch that sound.

But in the mix? There's no way to tell the difference and you can prove it in one evening

Have fun!

 

[innerdreamrecords.co]

Re: Modeling amp technology still lagging

^ For the average listener you're probably right.

 

[zionstrat]

Re: Modeling amp technology still lagging

Nope, should work with anyone-
We had Nashville producers as our guinie pigs...try it with the best ears you can find and let me know if you find any difference...

the trick with modeling is masking... by definition, there is really no way to 100% model any system. But in the mix there are so many frequencies that very little of the sound that we love from tubes is really getting through. the technical term is masking, the bass, keys, etc are all mixing together.

It's the reason that we all love tubes when we're at home. No other sounds to compete with...

But in the mix, the 98% accurate model (assuming it's a good one) is more than you need to get same sound through...

I know it sounds strange, so try it! My favorite tube buddies cannot beat it better than average...(again, you have to start with good, realistic models to start with and have to make sure no one is peekign when you change from one system to the other

 

[DrNewcenstein]

Re: Modeling amp technology still lagging

Which is exactly what I said earlier - you've got the Haters who are comparing a POD preset through their PC or half-assed into a poweramp into some crappy cabinet vs their prized 100w all-tube head and 4x12 paintpeeler, and they're purposely avoiding the REAL test - mixing with the band.

A mic in front of a raging 4x12 is putting the same sound to tape that the POD is with little to no extra EQing. Period. It's just that the raging 4x12 is peeling the paint off the walls and making your balls rattle, so he Haters assume there's a problem with the modeler.

Classic Caveman vs Modern Man dilemma.

 

[innerdreamrecords.co]

Re: Modeling amp technology still lagging

We had Nashville producers as our guinie pigs...try it with the best ears you can find and let me know if you find any difference...

I have the best ears of anyone I know. I can usually hear it.

 

[zionstrat]

Re: Modeling amp technology still lagging

So Innerdream, sounds like you would be the perfect test subject -

DrN, sounds like you are an entusiastic modeler...so why dont you and other modelers post some tracks and see if innerdream and other golden ears can get better than 50%, eh?

Sound like fun?

 

[misterwhizzy]

Re: Modeling amp technology still lagging

By definition, there is really no way to 100% model any system.

I'm going to take issue with this statement, although I don't think it really affects your point. Let's take a digital system, such as a CD, and play it back. It can be played back EXACTLY the same way multiple times. It's modeled perfectly.

Now, let's move to guitar equipment. You can prove that signals can be sampled digitally and played back exactly with Fourier Analysis. As long as the sampling frequency is high enough, you actually CAN generate EXACTLY the same combination of frequencies and intensities.

Is it easy? Absolutely not! And it probably costs more than just buying the thing you're modeling. But it CAN be done.

 

[innerdreamrecords.co]

Re: Modeling amp technology still lagging

So Innerdream, sounds like you would be the perfect test subject -

DrN, sounds like you are an entusiastic modeler...so why dont you and other modelers post some tracks and see if innerdream and other golden ears can get better than 50%, eh?

Sound like fun?

All though it would be interesting I'm not interested. I will say I have owned almost every modeling software and modeler on the market and have made hundreds of tracks. I can usually hear the difference between an amp and a modeler.

 

[Virtual Kevorkian]

Re: Modeling amp technology still lagging

I think I recall VK having some nice ones when he had his AxeFX.

I never posted any clips with mine - really hated the high-gain rhythm tones out of it and still do.

few who have actually tried the AxeFX would say that modeling is stagnating.

I'll agree, but this brings me to the reason I opened this thread in the first place.

Modeling technology, for amplifiers, is pretty dead-on at this point. The amp models are stellar, especially on the AxeFX. Where we're running into problems now is with cabinet and speaker modeling.

The Line6 cab modeling is just... not great, and the impulse technology that's taken hold in the last few years (what's used in the AxeFX for cabinet modeling) is better, but still not there. The problem with these modeling techniques is that they're static. We need to develop a way to model saturation over time to be able to accurately capture speaker movement and distortion. The new program Nebula can *kind of* do this, but the programmers haven't fully taken to the idea of using it for impulses yet.

A mic in front of a raging 4x12 is putting the same sound to tape that the POD is with little to no extra EQing. Period. It's just that the raging 4x12 is peeling the paint off the walls and making your balls rattle, so he Haters assume there's a problem with the modeler.

Dead wrong - where modellers fall short these days is when recorded without micing up an amp. Speaker movement is INTEGRAL to the sound. A POD straight to the desk with some processing does not sound like a real tube amp mic'd up, period.

 

[XSSIVE]

Re: Modeling amp technology still lagging

Modeling technology, for amplifiers, is pretty dead-on at this point. The amp models are stellar, especially on the AxeFX. Where we're running into problems now is with cabinet and speaker modeling.

BINGO!

i HATED my podXT but that was due to always using the cab emulators in it.

my GSP1101 that i run through and ART sla-2 power amp into my 4x12 v30 loaded splawn 4x12 with the cab sims OFF on the GSP sound and feels as real as can be and gets some killer tones.

turn on the cab sims and run through the 4x12 and it sounds horrid and just fake in simplest terms. run it through headphones with the cab sims and it's ok, same with studio monitors. the real key with modeling i've found is to NOT model the cab, mic and speaker and just use modelers to model the amp and FX you're after letting a real cab add its own vibe and feel just like if you plugged in a real marshall then a mesa then a peavey head into that same 4x12. doing this makes it sound, react and feel very natural compared to using the cab sims. are the amp sims 100% dead on, nah probably not but they're certainly close enough and can get some great tones if you're not obsessed with how real it sounds and are just after good tone based on whatever head it is you've chosen.

so i agree with VK for sure. amp and fx modeling is good, it's the cab, mic and speaker modeling that is lacking.

-Mike

 

[FrankyBoy]

Re: Modeling amp technology still lagging

I've looked into the Axe-fx online, but all the clips and demo's I can find are effects drenched tones. The very few times you can find what sounds to be a dry amp tone in a clip, it actually sounds pretty crappy to me.

Here's a nice comparaison I think.

 

[JeffB]

Re: Modeling amp technology still lagging

Th real amp has more "push" for lack fo a better term in that rectumfrier song. Its harder to tell though with all that cookie monster and drums going on.

Modelling high gain is not nearly as difficult as modelling lower gain type situations. That tube amp & speakers just starting to "crack" is the place where modelling has the biggest issue- a Vox or Fender Bassman, or Plexi just starting to cook. Although I am no electronics wizard, It makes sense to me that as mentioned the amp circuits themselves can be duplicated pretty closely- but the physical movement of the speaker and it interacting with a physical mic cannot (yet).

 

[Petrovsk Mizinski]

Re: Modeling amp technology still lagging

VK/Jeff is on the money.
I've yet to hear modeled tones that can replicate that truly 3 dimensional sound of a mic'd up cab.
I'm not convinced on the Axe FX at all. I've yet to hear anything out of one that can beat the best POD Farm tones out there.

Unless you count "djent" which the Axe FX does really well, but it's not my playing style at all (I'm more into the saturated tone thing personally).
The Axe FX seems to have a mid range quality that suits djent, but absolutely does not suit the modern saturated type tones of modern metalcore, death metal and groove metal (of the non djent variety anyway).
The Axe FX really worked for Periphery's debut album because it's the vibe they were going for, a kinda mechanical, static-y sound.

And with all the free software sims that sound better than the Axe FX anyway for modern metal, and heavy rock, I find it way too hard to justify $2K on an Axe FX Ultra, when free amp sims and a second hand Peavey 5150 could do it better anyway.
Plus it's just more rewarding to get a good mic'd up tone, rather than to just sit down and dial a tone in with amp sims.

 

[Kosh Naranek]

Re: Modeling amp technology still lagging

Ok, I've made my case for modeling technology being at a stand still for too long. What are your opinions on the matter? I'd like to hear any reviews or recommendations on amps I have not played.

Modeling technology is progressing, but you're right, it's still not like playing a real tube amp. Especially one that's set to break up only with a heavier pick attack. I own Amplitube, and while some of its models sound good tonally, the dynamic weren't right. The guitar had a plinky sound that didn't sound natural. If I put a compressor pedal (in Amplitube) ahead of the amp, it sounded more like juist playing through an amp. That tells me there's a natural compression going on in a real tube amp that wasn't happening in Amplitube.
Amplitube 3 just came out, and IK claims that in addition to adding more amps to choose from (I think it's good that they did that, there were certain ones I thought the previous version should have had which were missing) they also claim they reworked the models to get the dynamics closer to a real tube amp. I just got version 3 not long ago so I haven't had a great deal of time to spend with it, but I have programmed a few of my own presets and the dynamics sound much improved. The attack of notes or chords sounds closer to a real amp. It's certainly useable as it is, assuming the amps sit well in a mix. I've actually never used an amp simulated track in a mix yet. Just listened to them on their own. That is one thing I've wondered about modeling programs. How well do tracks that use a simulated amp sit in a mix?

 

[dominus]

Re: Modeling amp technology still lagging

Its harder to tell though with all that cookie monster and drums going on.

Cookie Monster?

Pfft, those vocals were no heavier than Pantera. Who do you normally listen to, Justin Bieber?

 

[Jessie Sammler]

Re: Modeling amp technology still lagging

Cookie Monster?

Pfft, those vocals were no heavier than Pantera. Who do you normally listen to, Justin Bieber?

I thought it was Pantera. I'd rather listen to Tom Araya; he's like Frank Sinatra compared to those guys.