Chris of Arabia
Desert RATT
Re: No love for modeling 'round here, uh?
I'm happy enough with my PODs, they do what I need them to.
I'm happy enough with my PODs, they do what I need them to.
No love for modeling 'round here, uh?
- Thread starter LtKojak
- Start date
FuseG4
Our Neighbor Totoro
Re: No love for modeling 'round here, uh?
Modeling has come a long way in how it responds to your picking, guitar volume, and pickup choice. This I like. Also modelers give you a TON of options at your fingers but when I had a fender mustang I I found myself using only 2 or 3 amp models 99% of the time.
my comparison between the mustang I BFDR model vs a DRRI
mustang I: warm but artificially so. "cardboard-y mids" is how I'd describe it. also very compressed sounding
DRRI: bright and very little mids, but a much different chime and sparkle. The lows are lower and the highs are higher and the transition to breakup is much smoother.
With the mustang it's like the amp's gain is quantized... if you don't hit it you get no breakup, but if you hit it medium you get a certain low breakup tone and if you hit it hard you get a certain more breakup tone. The real thing has many more levels in between.
Modeling has come a long way in how it responds to your picking, guitar volume, and pickup choice. This I like. Also modelers give you a TON of options at your fingers but when I had a fender mustang I I found myself using only 2 or 3 amp models 99% of the time.
my comparison between the mustang I BFDR model vs a DRRI
mustang I: warm but artificially so. "cardboard-y mids" is how I'd describe it. also very compressed sounding
DRRI: bright and very little mids, but a much different chime and sparkle. The lows are lower and the highs are higher and the transition to breakup is much smoother.
With the mustang it's like the amp's gain is quantized... if you don't hit it you get no breakup, but if you hit it medium you get a certain low breakup tone and if you hit it hard you get a certain more breakup tone. The real thing has many more levels in between.
zenmindbeginner
New member
Re: No love for modeling 'round here, uh?
Standing in front of an amp and trying to capture the sound you are hearing with your head and ears with a microphone or even a handful of them is NOT easy.
Microphone technique must be learned... I took a studio recording program at Charlotte's community college back in the 90's and I learned microphone technique at Reflections Studio (Joe Walsh, R.E.M, Southern Culture On The Skids, Kirk Franklin etc).
I used to use their mastering suite before the age of affordable computers and digital gear... there is a LOT of skill to recording with microphones.
Modelers are great for musicians who RECORD... if you're just a bedroom riffmaster who plays gigs on the weekends and nothing more, then why would anyone want a modeler?
So, say you have this great tube amp... how are you going to capture it's sound? One SM57 in front of the speaker will give you a decent signal, but it won't sound anything like what your ears hear when you stand in front of it.
So, you add a large diaphragm condenser microphone to the mix... where do you place it? Is it a switchable pattern? Which pattern? When you do find the sweet spot... how will you align the phase and polarity in POST to reduce comb filtering?
A dynamic microphone and a large diaphragm condenser will get you a lot closer than with just one mic alone. But it's not exactly the sound you are hearing in your head and has left you wanting...
Then it gets tricky. You can then add another condenser as a room mic... you can use a pair of mics in an X-Y pattern (mid side if you're dangerous), maybe experiment with a small diaphragm condenser (you'll again, have to align phase and polarity in post)... you can use a boundary microphone... maybe another dynamic mic at another location of the speaker? Maybe mic the openback cabinet from behind? ANY microphone that you add will need to be aligned in phase and polarity... the more mics and the more you'll have patterns overlapping and the phase staring to smear all over the place.
Recording amplifiers properly is VERY difficult and the mics are not cheap. I'm recording my blackface with an SM57 and a vintage AKG 414EB... the 414 is not cheap. And I could still use a nice ribbon mic and something fancy like a U87... I'm dying for an EV RE20... you get the picture, microphones are like guitar gear although not anywhere near as much fun and just as expensive. A Nueman U87 will set you back the cost of an entire Kemper Profiling rig.
Recording amplifiers is expensive and extremely time consuming and let's face it... requires the knowledge to use the gear.
I've been getting the best results by splitting my signal into my digital rig and my blackface rig I then record my amp and my digital rig to PC via USB simultaneously.
I use both amp and digital modeling to get the BEST sound possible. But then again, I was taught mic technique by engineer Tracy Schroeder (Corrosion of Conformity, MUSE, Smithereens) so I know what I am doing.
Many guitarists don't know much about studio recording (or home recording for that matter) but would like to get some studio quality recordings done in the convenience of their bedroom or rehearsal room. This is where modeling comes in.
IF YOU DON'T KNOW THE FUNDAMENTALS OF RECORDING, YOU HAVE TO USE MODELING TO GET A DECENT SOUND. It's as simple as that... I'm not sure why there has to be haters and proponents of digital modeling.
Digital modeling divides into 2 camps... one with money and one without. The ones with money poo poo all over the affordable digital modelers and the poor guitarists make do with whatever they can afford, anywhere from Behringer to Line 6. There's a real snarky thread over at The Gear Page stating that the Kemper and Fractal guys are leaving the poor guitarists in the dust and that there is NO debate about which modeler is superior, it is Kemper/Fractal vs everything else.
My ultimate thing would be to have a Kemper, but I will keep using my Line 6 POD X3 Live till "the wheels fall of of it".
Standing in front of an amp and trying to capture the sound you are hearing with your head and ears with a microphone or even a handful of them is NOT easy.
Microphone technique must be learned... I took a studio recording program at Charlotte's community college back in the 90's and I learned microphone technique at Reflections Studio (Joe Walsh, R.E.M, Southern Culture On The Skids, Kirk Franklin etc).
I used to use their mastering suite before the age of affordable computers and digital gear... there is a LOT of skill to recording with microphones.
Modelers are great for musicians who RECORD... if you're just a bedroom riffmaster who plays gigs on the weekends and nothing more, then why would anyone want a modeler?
So, say you have this great tube amp... how are you going to capture it's sound? One SM57 in front of the speaker will give you a decent signal, but it won't sound anything like what your ears hear when you stand in front of it.
So, you add a large diaphragm condenser microphone to the mix... where do you place it? Is it a switchable pattern? Which pattern? When you do find the sweet spot... how will you align the phase and polarity in POST to reduce comb filtering?
A dynamic microphone and a large diaphragm condenser will get you a lot closer than with just one mic alone. But it's not exactly the sound you are hearing in your head and has left you wanting...
Then it gets tricky. You can then add another condenser as a room mic... you can use a pair of mics in an X-Y pattern (mid side if you're dangerous), maybe experiment with a small diaphragm condenser (you'll again, have to align phase and polarity in post)... you can use a boundary microphone... maybe another dynamic mic at another location of the speaker? Maybe mic the openback cabinet from behind? ANY microphone that you add will need to be aligned in phase and polarity... the more mics and the more you'll have patterns overlapping and the phase staring to smear all over the place.
Recording amplifiers properly is VERY difficult and the mics are not cheap. I'm recording my blackface with an SM57 and a vintage AKG 414EB... the 414 is not cheap. And I could still use a nice ribbon mic and something fancy like a U87... I'm dying for an EV RE20... you get the picture, microphones are like guitar gear although not anywhere near as much fun and just as expensive. A Nueman U87 will set you back the cost of an entire Kemper Profiling rig.
Recording amplifiers is expensive and extremely time consuming and let's face it... requires the knowledge to use the gear.
I've been getting the best results by splitting my signal into my digital rig and my blackface rig I then record my amp and my digital rig to PC via USB simultaneously.
I use both amp and digital modeling to get the BEST sound possible. But then again, I was taught mic technique by engineer Tracy Schroeder (Corrosion of Conformity, MUSE, Smithereens) so I know what I am doing.
Many guitarists don't know much about studio recording (or home recording for that matter) but would like to get some studio quality recordings done in the convenience of their bedroom or rehearsal room. This is where modeling comes in.
IF YOU DON'T KNOW THE FUNDAMENTALS OF RECORDING, YOU HAVE TO USE MODELING TO GET A DECENT SOUND. It's as simple as that... I'm not sure why there has to be haters and proponents of digital modeling.
Digital modeling divides into 2 camps... one with money and one without. The ones with money poo poo all over the affordable digital modelers and the poor guitarists make do with whatever they can afford, anywhere from Behringer to Line 6. There's a real snarky thread over at The Gear Page stating that the Kemper and Fractal guys are leaving the poor guitarists in the dust and that there is NO debate about which modeler is superior, it is Kemper/Fractal vs everything else.
My ultimate thing would be to have a Kemper, but I will keep using my Line 6 POD X3 Live till "the wheels fall of of it".
DrNewcenstein
He Did the Monster Mash
Re: No love for modeling 'round here, uh?
As Crusty said, you don't get the wasted energy of tube heat and the smell of cooking tubes. Another thing about modellers is you don't get the white noise of a real amp (unless you use Amplitube or the AcmeBarGig vsts).
My GSP1101, for as cheap as it is, gets good useable tones from it with amp sim names like "Brit800", "SLO100", "TripleRec", "Bassman", etc etc. Are they identical to real vintage expensive boutique amps made by Marshall, Mesa, Fender, Peavey, Dr.Z, etc etc? Probably not. General consensus says no.
Do I give a flying frick? Not in the least.
It gets a tone I'm happy with. If someone else says it doesn't sound like their "real thang", I really don't care.
As Crusty said, you don't get the wasted energy of tube heat and the smell of cooking tubes. Another thing about modellers is you don't get the white noise of a real amp (unless you use Amplitube or the AcmeBarGig vsts).
My GSP1101, for as cheap as it is, gets good useable tones from it with amp sim names like "Brit800", "SLO100", "TripleRec", "Bassman", etc etc. Are they identical to real vintage expensive boutique amps made by Marshall, Mesa, Fender, Peavey, Dr.Z, etc etc? Probably not. General consensus says no.
Do I give a flying frick? Not in the least.
It gets a tone I'm happy with. If someone else says it doesn't sound like their "real thang", I really don't care.
ErikH
Well-known member
Re: No love for modeling 'round here, uh?
I have a modelling combo amp that I've gigged with a majority of the time I was in my last band. At home, if I can't use the amp I'm using Amplitube on my iPhone with the iRig adapter. Works great for what I need, which is the ability to play at low volume or with headphones even with the family asleep. Would I like to use my tube amp more? Absolutely. But reality says I cannot right now, so modelling is the answer.
I have a modelling combo amp that I've gigged with a majority of the time I was in my last band. At home, if I can't use the amp I'm using Amplitube on my iPhone with the iRig adapter. Works great for what I need, which is the ability to play at low volume or with headphones even with the family asleep. Would I like to use my tube amp more? Absolutely. But reality says I cannot right now, so modelling is the answer.
Virtual Kevorkian
New member
Re: No love for modeling 'round here, uh?
Kemper. It's literally all I use for guitars/bass these days.
Kemper. It's literally all I use for guitars/bass these days.
Axl H
Blowthebloodydoorsoffologist
Re: No love for modeling 'round here, uh?
I thought you had heard that all the MSG albums were done with alnico-666 pickups and Line6 modellers?!?
I like modelling software for practice and jam recording.
All clips that I make, have been recorded with Guitar Rig 5. Its a great solution for home recording, and practicing at 3 AM with headphones. What I dislike is that you dont get the feel of the amp - you have to get the gain high up to get the same sustain, and the amps tend to lack balls. I have never heard a good soundind JCM800 model in either Amplitube or Guitar Rig, and Plexis tend to be too muddy. In general I think that cleans and metal sounds are good with modellers, mid gain and crunch are where you hear their short commings. I try to work around this by always running a stereo rig, sometimes throw in some heavy EQ'ing, various reverbs on each "amp" etc, to make a decent result..
But I would never use it live. I like mid gain sounds and old school high gain sounds - the kind that comes from a old dimed Plexi with a pedal in front, and no modeller can do that convincing IMO.
Vox AD series are decent, but if I had to use it live, I would run them fairly clean and use pedals for gain - it gives a much better result IMO.
I thought you had heard that all the MSG albums were done with alnico-666 pickups and Line6 modellers?!?
I like modelling software for practice and jam recording.
All clips that I make, have been recorded with Guitar Rig 5. Its a great solution for home recording, and practicing at 3 AM with headphones. What I dislike is that you dont get the feel of the amp - you have to get the gain high up to get the same sustain, and the amps tend to lack balls. I have never heard a good soundind JCM800 model in either Amplitube or Guitar Rig, and Plexis tend to be too muddy. In general I think that cleans and metal sounds are good with modellers, mid gain and crunch are where you hear their short commings. I try to work around this by always running a stereo rig, sometimes throw in some heavy EQ'ing, various reverbs on each "amp" etc, to make a decent result..
But I would never use it live. I like mid gain sounds and old school high gain sounds - the kind that comes from a old dimed Plexi with a pedal in front, and no modeller can do that convincing IMO.
Vox AD series are decent, but if I had to use it live, I would run them fairly clean and use pedals for gain - it gives a much better result IMO.
Last edited:
richard parker
Active member
Re: No love for modeling 'round here, uh?
Agree with Axl H. Modellers still don't do well with the middle ground crunch sounds which is where I spend most of my time. Also I don't want/need an amp with 500 footswitchable sounds. Give me an amp with a basic tonality that I like and enough EQ and gain adjustment to tune it to my liking and I'm done. My Cornford does that with 6 knobs and 1 footswitch. But I'm all about gigging. My set up would be useless to a home recordist. Different strokes.
Agree with Axl H. Modellers still don't do well with the middle ground crunch sounds which is where I spend most of my time. Also I don't want/need an amp with 500 footswitchable sounds. Give me an amp with a basic tonality that I like and enough EQ and gain adjustment to tune it to my liking and I'm done. My Cornford does that with 6 knobs and 1 footswitch. But I'm all about gigging. My set up would be useless to a home recordist. Different strokes.
SongsForTheDeaf
New member
Re: No love for modeling 'round here, uh?
I think good tones can be had by modelling like the kemper profiling amp and the axe fx but I prefer a tube amp in the 30 watt range pushed hard rather then digital distortion. Just different sounds no one sound is better than the other just different... In my books there is a use for everything!
I think good tones can be had by modelling like the kemper profiling amp and the axe fx but I prefer a tube amp in the 30 watt range pushed hard rather then digital distortion. Just different sounds no one sound is better than the other just different... In my books there is a use for everything!
DrNewcenstein
He Did the Monster Mash
Re: No love for modeling 'round here, uh?
Regarding the difference in "balls" between the live amp and the headphoned modeller, I really have to scratch my head at this because I cannot understand why so many people miss the obvious - a guitar into a 12" speaker in a wooden cabinet is *always* going to sound completely different from a set of headphones, studio monitors, earbuds, or PC speakers. The largest blatantly obvious difference is the size of the speaker and the housing. Then you have the materials used in the speakers themselves - paper vs mylar.
This is why you use EQ with vsts - to shape the sound, not to notch out feedback or tame the rumble between kick, bass, and guitar in a room.
As well, look into Impulse Responses for your DAW or VST. Those help.
Regarding the difference in "balls" between the live amp and the headphoned modeller, I really have to scratch my head at this because I cannot understand why so many people miss the obvious - a guitar into a 12" speaker in a wooden cabinet is *always* going to sound completely different from a set of headphones, studio monitors, earbuds, or PC speakers. The largest blatantly obvious difference is the size of the speaker and the housing. Then you have the materials used in the speakers themselves - paper vs mylar.
This is why you use EQ with vsts - to shape the sound, not to notch out feedback or tame the rumble between kick, bass, and guitar in a room.
As well, look into Impulse Responses for your DAW or VST. Those help.
beaubrummels
Well-known member
Re: No love for modeling 'round here, uh?
I don't know if there is even a modelling "snob-line" where some of my simulation amps don't qualify for this thread, but in addition to using quite a few real tube amps, I have a Line 6 Flextronics III and a Tech 21 Sans Amp (rack). I've set both of them side-by-side with the actual amps they were simulating in order to create settings that match the original amps. The things I ran into are:
1. Line 6 doesn't sound like an amp, it sounds like a recording of an amp. Running it through a cab with a real Celestion helps it, but it still lacks punch because it's a 'recorded, mixed, produced' sound. So if you use it live, putting a mic in front of it, you've already lost one generation of sound, to my ears.
2. Tech 21 does a good job of imitating big amps, but there are very subtle details it doesn't get right. For example, in my Marshall, when I hit a chord, as the sound dies off, the distortion fades first, then the clean ringing of the strings continues and fades. But in the Tech 21, the distortion sounds dead-on correct at first, but doesn't fade out inside the overall sound, but rather just cuts off abruptly, then the strings continue to ring and fade. It's a minor detail but makes playing through it less satisfying.
3. Modeling amps seem to be more sensitive to differences in rooms. In other words, with modelers/simulators I have to alter my settings much more from room to room to consistently maintain my sound; much more than with the real amps.
All that said, I still use modeling/simulating amps live because if you are doing covers in a cheap bar/cafe; you have to change tones 180 degrees completely, and do it very quickly. If you're not famous, nobody is there to see you; they are there to hear songs they know and hook up with each other. So it doesn't make sense to me to lug 5 vintage amps and a switcher if I'm just being a human jukebox. I keep the big money amps in the studio because when you put a mic a half a foot away from a cab, where people's ears will never be, it exposes a great deal of detail about the amp, cab and speakers, and you can perceive that difference on the recording. To my ears anyway.
I don't know if there is even a modelling "snob-line" where some of my simulation amps don't qualify for this thread, but in addition to using quite a few real tube amps, I have a Line 6 Flextronics III and a Tech 21 Sans Amp (rack). I've set both of them side-by-side with the actual amps they were simulating in order to create settings that match the original amps. The things I ran into are:
1. Line 6 doesn't sound like an amp, it sounds like a recording of an amp. Running it through a cab with a real Celestion helps it, but it still lacks punch because it's a 'recorded, mixed, produced' sound. So if you use it live, putting a mic in front of it, you've already lost one generation of sound, to my ears.
2. Tech 21 does a good job of imitating big amps, but there are very subtle details it doesn't get right. For example, in my Marshall, when I hit a chord, as the sound dies off, the distortion fades first, then the clean ringing of the strings continues and fades. But in the Tech 21, the distortion sounds dead-on correct at first, but doesn't fade out inside the overall sound, but rather just cuts off abruptly, then the strings continue to ring and fade. It's a minor detail but makes playing through it less satisfying.
3. Modeling amps seem to be more sensitive to differences in rooms. In other words, with modelers/simulators I have to alter my settings much more from room to room to consistently maintain my sound; much more than with the real amps.
All that said, I still use modeling/simulating amps live because if you are doing covers in a cheap bar/cafe; you have to change tones 180 degrees completely, and do it very quickly. If you're not famous, nobody is there to see you; they are there to hear songs they know and hook up with each other. So it doesn't make sense to me to lug 5 vintage amps and a switcher if I'm just being a human jukebox. I keep the big money amps in the studio because when you put a mic a half a foot away from a cab, where people's ears will never be, it exposes a great deal of detail about the amp, cab and speakers, and you can perceive that difference on the recording. To my ears anyway.
DrNewcenstein
He Did the Monster Mash
Re: No love for modeling 'round here, uh?
If your amp/cab nuances are detectable in the mix, then your mixes aren't mixed properly :lol:
Seriously, with the Line6 stuff, does it have a "target selection" so you can tweak it for the destination such as mixer, cabinet (size/type), etc? The Digitech 1101 lets you select all that, and (allegedly, haven't really explored it) has the internal tweaks for each target - Direct, Mixer, poweramp, etc.
One of the biggest gripes I had back when I got my Digitech GSP21 Legend (with all the Artist presets), was that they gave no information on what poweramp and speakers they were using to verify these tones, not to mention how the built-in speaker sim was set. I mean, it's supposed to be "common knowledge" that different cabs and speakers yield noticable tonal differences.
For the modeling stuff, they don't really go into detail explaining what they model - circuitry? End-result? Design concept? Any electrical circuit can be duplicated using identical components. Any physical electrical circuit can be simulated by a computer in software. However, there are tolerances in the physical realm that may not be replicable in the digital realm. Even a 500K pot can range from 480 to 520, so the components used in an old P2P hand-wired Plexi head can vary. If every component is off-perfect by +/-3%, that cascades down the circuit. With the modelling, it's harder to factor that in because it's all mathematical calculations and deals with absolutes - the 500K pot is 500K, no more, no less, etc.
Even if the component variances could be dynamically randomized, you could in theory end up with a -3% cascading variance, which would simulate a head that had leaky caps and a bad rectifier to perfection, but would be utterly useless from a tonal standpoint.
Personally, if you're going to model amps, model the individual components and use the software to make the connections, rather than "this amp uses this architecture and features that tonal characteristic (mid hump, treble boost, etc) through y cabinet/speaker combo on Tuesdays in the wood room at Electric Lady studios in August".
If your amp/cab nuances are detectable in the mix, then your mixes aren't mixed properly :lol:
Seriously, with the Line6 stuff, does it have a "target selection" so you can tweak it for the destination such as mixer, cabinet (size/type), etc? The Digitech 1101 lets you select all that, and (allegedly, haven't really explored it) has the internal tweaks for each target - Direct, Mixer, poweramp, etc.
One of the biggest gripes I had back when I got my Digitech GSP21 Legend (with all the Artist presets), was that they gave no information on what poweramp and speakers they were using to verify these tones, not to mention how the built-in speaker sim was set. I mean, it's supposed to be "common knowledge" that different cabs and speakers yield noticable tonal differences.
For the modeling stuff, they don't really go into detail explaining what they model - circuitry? End-result? Design concept? Any electrical circuit can be duplicated using identical components. Any physical electrical circuit can be simulated by a computer in software. However, there are tolerances in the physical realm that may not be replicable in the digital realm. Even a 500K pot can range from 480 to 520, so the components used in an old P2P hand-wired Plexi head can vary. If every component is off-perfect by +/-3%, that cascades down the circuit. With the modelling, it's harder to factor that in because it's all mathematical calculations and deals with absolutes - the 500K pot is 500K, no more, no less, etc.
Even if the component variances could be dynamically randomized, you could in theory end up with a -3% cascading variance, which would simulate a head that had leaky caps and a bad rectifier to perfection, but would be utterly useless from a tonal standpoint.
Personally, if you're going to model amps, model the individual components and use the software to make the connections, rather than "this amp uses this architecture and features that tonal characteristic (mid hump, treble boost, etc) through y cabinet/speaker combo on Tuesdays in the wood room at Electric Lady studios in August".
the guy who invented fire
Fuzzy. Guitars
Re: No love for modeling 'round here, uh?
Being as honest and blunt as possible I have no use for modeling amps or modeling gear in general and FWIW, I have yet to see a guitar player live that was using a modeling amp that sounded worth crap.
Being as honest and blunt as possible I have no use for modeling amps or modeling gear in general and FWIW, I have yet to see a guitar player live that was using a modeling amp that sounded worth crap.
Securb
One of Jerry's Kids
Re: No love for modeling 'round here, uh?
Alex Lifeson's new setup is modelers
"All of Alex's amps are run direct through Palmer PDI-03 Speaker Emulators. There are no speaker cabinets anywhere on stage. The biggest challenge with that is phase coherency. Every amplifier, effects processor, and plug-in inherently has a certain degree of latency, and getting all of them properly time aligned and in phase can be a bit of a challenge. The inputs of all of the amps and Mainstage are switched via a Mesa/Boogie High Gain Amp Switcher. There are times when all of them are on simultaneously.
"We will have 11 guitars out this year: several of the Gibson Alex Lifeson Signature Les Pauls, his original 355, and a couple piezo-equipped Les Pauls.
"I try to have a backup for everything. We have a rack full of back-up amps ready to go, we have a backup Macbook Pro with Mainstage, backup AxeFX IIs. I think the only thing I don't have a backup for is the TCl210 Spatial Expander + Stereo Chorus/Flanger in his rack. They are getting really hard to find."
http://www.cygnus-x1.net/links/rush/guitar-player-11.2012.php
Alex Lifeson's new setup is modelers
"All of Alex's amps are run direct through Palmer PDI-03 Speaker Emulators. There are no speaker cabinets anywhere on stage. The biggest challenge with that is phase coherency. Every amplifier, effects processor, and plug-in inherently has a certain degree of latency, and getting all of them properly time aligned and in phase can be a bit of a challenge. The inputs of all of the amps and Mainstage are switched via a Mesa/Boogie High Gain Amp Switcher. There are times when all of them are on simultaneously.
"We will have 11 guitars out this year: several of the Gibson Alex Lifeson Signature Les Pauls, his original 355, and a couple piezo-equipped Les Pauls.
"I try to have a backup for everything. We have a rack full of back-up amps ready to go, we have a backup Macbook Pro with Mainstage, backup AxeFX IIs. I think the only thing I don't have a backup for is the TCl210 Spatial Expander + Stereo Chorus/Flanger in his rack. They are getting really hard to find."
http://www.cygnus-x1.net/links/rush/guitar-player-11.2012.php
L
Little Pigbacon
Guest
Re: No love for modeling 'round here, uh?
Last edited:
Mattr4president
New member
Re: No love for modeling 'round here, uh?
This.
I do a lot of writing with my pod in to my tascam. Easy as hell. I'm not waking my fiancé and it doesn't sound that bad. There doesn't need to be this "tube or modeler" sort of this. Use what you like.
This.
I do a lot of writing with my pod in to my tascam. Easy as hell. I'm not waking my fiancé and it doesn't sound that bad. There doesn't need to be this "tube or modeler" sort of this. Use what you like.
L
Little Pigbacon
Guest
Re: No love for modeling 'round here, uh?
Oh, but there must be -- as soon as proponents of one start making judgmental, ignorant-ass comments about the other.
Oh, but there must be -- as soon as proponents of one start making judgmental, ignorant-ass comments about the other.
Condemnedsoul
Active member
Re: No love for modeling 'round here, uh?
There is another side to the modeling question. Have you thought about those of us with a short attention span or those that are easily distracted.
Unlimited modeling makes for unlimited choices. Not pleased with your sound today, ok change something. Not happy with.... and the cycle continues.
Some years ago, I had a chance to play the first generation Line 6 Ax212 amp or what ever it was for an extended length of time.
I could set up a black face clean---black face crunchy ---- JCM 800 clean ---- JCM 800 dirty ----- Soladano
And all the amps with and without overdrive pedals. Oh and I also had to set the controls like the real thing.
This amp was awesome. But the dark side reared its ugly head.
Seemed that I was never satisfied. No matter what I set up, I was already trying to change it.
No I don't have a modeler right now as I' happy with my current equipment. As a tool, I can see that a modeler has some good uses.
There is another side to the modeling question. Have you thought about those of us with a short attention span or those that are easily distracted.
Unlimited modeling makes for unlimited choices. Not pleased with your sound today, ok change something. Not happy with.... and the cycle continues.
Some years ago, I had a chance to play the first generation Line 6 Ax212 amp or what ever it was for an extended length of time.
I could set up a black face clean---black face crunchy ---- JCM 800 clean ---- JCM 800 dirty ----- Soladano
And all the amps with and without overdrive pedals. Oh and I also had to set the controls like the real thing.
This amp was awesome. But the dark side reared its ugly head.
Seemed that I was never satisfied. No matter what I set up, I was already trying to change it.
No I don't have a modeler right now as I' happy with my current equipment. As a tool, I can see that a modeler has some good uses.
the guy who invented fire
Fuzzy. Guitars
Re: No love for modeling 'round here, uh?
Not sure what your point with this post really is...
First there is no mention of the amps Alex is using but I assume they are tube amps.
That said you are mentioning Alex Lifeson who, IMHO has always had a crappy, over processed tone anyway so that example holds no meaning for me.
While we're at it you or anyone else is welcome to use whatever they want to use but for me personally I hate modeling gear and stand by my statement...I have yet to hear a guitar player live using a modeling amp that had a tone that was worth talking about...of course, IMHO.
Not sure what your point with this post really is...
First there is no mention of the amps Alex is using but I assume they are tube amps.
That said you are mentioning Alex Lifeson who, IMHO has always had a crappy, over processed tone anyway so that example holds no meaning for me.
While we're at it you or anyone else is welcome to use whatever they want to use but for me personally I hate modeling gear and stand by my statement...I have yet to hear a guitar player live using a modeling amp that had a tone that was worth talking about...of course, IMHO.
