The Amp Modeling Dilemma - The future for tube/modeling amps

[Key_Maker]

I don't really think that "digital and solid state will ONE day dominate the market", basically for the huge ammount of guitarrist and studio persons that doesn't need those enterprise boards and buttons and options, don't forget that only metalheads or madonna/gaga/wayne guitarrist (and some douchebags) likes/need the small package/full options from this things, but bluesmans, jazzist or straight forward rockrers just need some guitar, a couple of cables, a cab and a head.

The only downside is that there will be marshalls for ever.

[blister7321]

^ this is all true

Originally Posted by JJ Rodriguez

I read that

I'm just saying that this discussion is primarily about the Axe, since it's pretty much the top of the line as far as modelers go right now. You can't just say ".... modeling amps" when you haven't tried the better ones out there.

Ever try a Vetta? The Digitech GSP1101? Until you do, completely discounting all modeling and making a statement like that is just being a tube/analog snob

I also don't use modeling, but there are some options out now that are very decent, and make for a very flexible rig if you do need it.

yes i have theyre too over the top rediculous for me
again i like simplicity and while i see the point behind modeling amps
for me tho they dont do what theyre supposed to do and make everything too complicated and so thats why i said that
im entitled to my own opinion, you have yours

[JJ Rodriguez]

How exactly do they not do what they're supposed to do? They're supposed to amplify your sound....why they do just fine.

Your entitled to your opinion, but if you had offered something a bit more than ".... modeling amps" than I doubt we'd be having this conversation.

I personally hate the 5150 and all it's variants, but I'm not going to say ".... the 5150"

[TemjinStrife]

I like my six-knob two-channel combo amp that gives me a great clean tone when I roll off the knob on my drive channel, and sick saturated sounds when I crank it. Sure, it's loud, heavy, and eats tubes, but I get more pleasure out of playing it than I have with any modeler.

Probably because it forces me to "play" instead of "tweak endlessly."

Modelers are great, and they have many advantages, but I haven't found one that's had a sound that's "spoken" to me.

[LordOVchaoS]

Originally Posted by JJ Rodriguez

I personally hate the 5150 and all it's variants, but I'm not going to say ".... the 5150"

Sweet!!! I thought I was totally alone on this one

[Crucified]

Originally Posted by LordOVchaoS

Sweet!!! I thought I was totally alone on this one

cockknobblers. my 5150 is awesome. i might like my axefx more though. so can i effectively tell this whole thread to .... off? or is that going too far?

[Thaeon]

There's no digital equivalent to electrons passing through tubes and wires. You can aproximate it. But never duplicate it without the exact amp system. The system you reproducing the sound on will color your sound and further skew it from what it's supposed to resemble. My opinion is that software can't perfectly emulate physics in all of it's respects. Or can't until all of these variables can function as algorhythnms at a small enough bit rate and depth to resemble analog.

[Customisbetter]

^I can NOT hear the difference, and i Can feel the weight difference. So that my argument.

[TomAwesome]

Things could still go any number of ways, I think. If the quality of tubes in general keeps going down, though, tube amps are definitely going to end up being a thing of the past. Depending on where other technologies go in the meantime, though, it may not end up being such a terrible thing.

One of the biggest problems I see as far as moving forward with amp technology is that anything that's not a tube amp generally gets judged on how much like a tube amp it is. Digital and solid state both have a lot of potential. I think that solid state amp manufacturers especially should stop trying to come up with ways to better emulate tubes and just focus on how good they can get a solid state amp to sound.

Any given piece of gear should be treated as what it is and not as what you're used to or what you wish you'd have bought instead. One of the things I like the most about my Axe-FX is that I can do things to the amps that I'd never be able to do with a real amp. .... authenticity. If I can turn some knobs and get something that sounds better, I'm going to do it. Products that are made to emulate other things in a more affordable or convenient package are great, but when the whole industry is hung up on making something sound like something that it isn't rather than exploring what it could be in its own right, it really sets back real progress.

[Key_Maker]

Always will be guitar players that are looking to replicate the sound of his guitar hero, a Slash fan boy never could buy an AXE for that purpose becouse he uses a Gibson Les Paul and a Marshall Amp, as long those guys exist will be stuff for them.

[LordOVchaoS]

Originally Posted by Thaeon

There's no digital equivalent to electrons passing through tubes and wires. You can aproximate it. But never duplicate it without the exact amp system. The system you reproducing the sound on will color your sound and further skew it from what it's supposed to resemble. My opinion is that software can't perfectly emulate physics in all of it's respects. Or can't until all of these variables can function as algorhythnms at a small enough bit rate and depth to resemble analog.

Who gives a ....?

Like Tom just said, who cares if it sounds EXACTLY like a tube amp??? What if it sounds better???

Change... embrace it...

[JPhoenix19]

Originally Posted by TomAwesome

...but when the whole industry is hung up on making something sound like something that it isn't rather than exploring what it could be in its own right, it really sets back real progress.

This concept, in and of itself, is good. In practice, however, consider the context of music amplifier history. Amps started with tubes- that's all we had. When solid state technology developed it was celebrated for being cheaper, and having greater headroom than tube technology- yet amplifiers and the sounds they make are dependent on the reactions between their physical components. It just so happens that tube technology has that 'mojo'- the combination of various factors that make tube sound what it is, and that 'mojo' is the most widely accepted and sought-after element in music making. Again, while the concept you presented is sound, in practice there's good reason for digital/solid-state amp manufacturers to strive to emulate tube technology.

One of these days, we'll all be in the Matrix and perfect digital emulation of physical components will be possible.

[Andromalia]

Originally Posted by Key_Maker

Always will be guitar players that are looking to replicate the sound of his guitar hero, a Slash fan boy never could buy an AXE for that purpose becouse he uses a Gibson Les Paul and a Marshall Amp, as long those guys exist will be stuff for them.

One interesting point in this, is that guitar heroes are not ashamed to say they use the axe-fx today. If tomorrow's Mark Knopflers (ie, large audience mainstream guys, not just metal) start advertising modelers, that would be a big break.
Today's rock stars were born and started playing with tube amps. We'll see in 20 years what the next generation will do. Remember, 20 years ago your computer had 64Ko of RAM...

[budda]

A couple things to remember:

1. Some guitar players wont sell their rig if they already have a tone dialed in that does what it needs to do - why sell gear that is doing what you want?

2. There's so many guitarists that aren't hanging around guitar forums

[Thaeon]

Originally Posted by LordOVchaoS

Who gives a ....?

Like Tom just said, who cares if it sounds EXACTLY like a tube amp??? What if it sounds better???

Change... embrace it...

You find me a modeler that does my Budda's tone as good as my budda does and I'll sell my Budda. The point being made is that a Modeler is doing just that. Modelling. The tube amps that sound good do so because of those tubes. They're trying to get the tube sound with a modeler. It it doesn't get that sound, it doesn't sound right. And it's just stupid to think that it could be better at sounding like a tube than a real tube. I'm all for tech. The majority of my sound IS digital. In fact I own a modeler. The industry is driven by the tube sound. So until there is something out there that's physical properties make it sound better than a tube, the tube will rule tonally. Everything else is an approximate. And that doesn't sound as good to me.

[Explorer]

Ah... analog purity...

There have been recent listening tests in which average music listeners rate the sound of various recordings. Apparently, a bit of bit-crunch from digital compression schemes like .mp3 are considered normal, and sometimes superior to uncompressed digital and analog.

According to analog purists, vinyl is the superior format to CDs, just as Betamax is superior to DVD compression. Unfortunately, analog purists just don't seem to have the numbers to dictate the market, because normal retailers of prerecorded movies and music go with DVDs and CDs, and might carry a few LPs as a boutique item for the purists.

If there was such a press for pristine analog quality, instead of space and value for the money, the iPod wouldn't have been such a hit for Apple.

----

Now we have kids who are growing up in a modeled world, who can download VST plug-ins and hosts for free. We have current artists who are respected regarding their gear choices, and some of those well-regarded artists are turning to modelers. We have up-and-coming artists who cut their teeth on modeled gear.

Is it likely that a majority of guitarists will go for boutique gear, based on mojo, or will they vote with their wallets, going for the most value for the money?

----

There's no doubt to me that some of my analog gear sounds much more organic than digital. However, my solid-state gear is much less problematic, and if I can find a chorus which is just a tad less organic, but which doesn't rely on a noisy bucket-brigade chip which was last manufactured over 10 years ago, I'll go for it.

Similarly, if I can find a small VST host in a box for performance, and can buy the best modelling plug-ins to replace my individual pedals, I'm there. Muse Research's Receptor and Manifold Labs' Plugzilla didn't go far enough for me, but you can believe that I'd replace pedals in a heartbeat and just put down a couple of FCB-1010 boards if the solution existed.

----

Tell a kid he can spend a certain amount on a Marshall stack, or that he can spend the same money on a modeler which can do a few versions of a Marshall, as well as other amps. If the guitar idols are saying they sound the same, how much will the voices of online analog junkies saying otherwise count in the face of that?

[TMM]

What I'm wondering is, why is the argument always one or the other? Tube or modelers? I'm just waiting for the day that someone makes something the caliber of the Axe-Fx with tubes. Ever since the birth of modelers with Line-6, I've been wondering when someone was going to make a modeler that actually used tubes in the preamp. When I talked with a Line-6 employee, he said it was because they were striving to make a modeler that was good enough to not need tubes, and to avoid the inconsistency and upkeep cost of tubes. I think someone just needs to accept that, you will never be able to perfectly replicate the tone and 'feel' of an analog vacuum tube circuit... so why fight so hard against that? It's like a negatively sloped exponential curve that get's closer to 0 faster and faster, but will never reach it.

Why not instead, embrace the strength of both technologies, tube and digital modeling, and come up with something that has the best of both worlds? It just seems obvious to me, but no one with the capital to make a difference seems to think that way. If something like this ever hits the market, and the developer puts even half as much work into it as Cliff has with the Axe-Fx, I suspect it will have no trouble dominating the market (assuming it has a price point within reach of a non-professional musician, even if it's a stretch like the Axe).

[MaxOfMetal]

I think part of the current "problem" is that people think that recreating the "tube sound" 100% is absolutely impossible.

Who's to say that ten or so years down the road it won't be done. The speed at which digital technology advances is exponential, and when you factor in how fast programming is moving forward it seems like it's only a matter of time. Not several decades, but several years.

[MaxOfMetal]

....ing Double Post

[TemjinStrife]

Originally Posted by TMM

What I'm wondering is, why is the argument always one or the other? Tube or modelers? I'm just waiting for the day that someone makes something the caliber of the Axe-Fx with tubes. Ever since the birth of modelers with Line-6, I've been wondering when someone was going to make a modeler that actually used tubes in the preamp. When I talked with a Line-6 employee, he said it was because they were striving to make a modeler that was good enough to not need tubes, and to avoid the inconsistency and upkeep cost of tubes. I think someone just needs to accept that, you will never be able to perfectly replicate the tone and 'feel' of an analog vacuum tube circuit... so why fight so hard against that? It's like a negatively sloped exponential curve that get's closer to 0 faster and faster, but will never reach it.

Why not instead, embrace the strength of both technologies, tube and digital modeling, and come up with something that has the best of both worlds? It just seems obvious to me, but no one with the capital to make a difference seems to think that way. If something like this ever hits the market, and the developer puts even half as much work into it as Cliff has with the Axe-Fx, I suspect it will have no trouble dominating the market (assuming it has a price point within reach of a non-professional musician, even if it's a stretch like the Axe).

Vox's POD-killer modeler used a tube in the preamp. Never tried one though.

[TMM]

Originally Posted by TemjinStrife

Vox's POD-killer modeler used a tube in the preamp. Never tried one though.

It had a cool tonal quality to it, and even sounds like it has potential, but (IMO) they never really finished exploring the path. I think they kind of threw a few basic ideas together in the product (the Tone Lab series is what you're talking about, right?), but it has nowhere near the number of models or level of flexibility that even the POD has, let alone the Axe.

The Rocktron Prophesy seems like it's actually a step in the right direction. It's not a modeler, per say, but it is a fully integrated tube and digital preamp, and very flexible from what I can tell, with a couple really cool features that nothing else has, even the Axe. I think all they would need to do is add modeling capabilities, and it's there. I know I say that like it's an easy thing, but I also think Rocktron has both the technological background and the capital to be able to pull it off.

[Thaeon]

Originally Posted by TMM

What I'm wondering is, why is the argument always one or the other? Tube or modelers? I'm just waiting for the day that someone makes something the caliber of the Axe-Fx with tubes. Ever since the birth of modelers with Line-6, I've been wondering when someone was going to make a modeler that actually used tubes in the preamp. When I talked with a Line-6 employee, he said it was because they were striving to make a modeler that was good enough to not need tubes, and to avoid the inconsistency and upkeep cost of tubes. I think someone just needs to accept that, you will never be able to perfectly replicate the tone and 'feel' of an analog vacuum tube circuit... so why fight so hard against that? It's like a negatively sloped exponential curve that get's closer to 0 faster and faster, but will never reach it.

Why not instead, embrace the strength of both technologies, tube and digital modeling, and come up with something that has the best of both worlds? It just seems obvious to me, but no one with the capital to make a difference seems to think that way. If something like this ever hits the market, and the developer puts even half as much work into it as Cliff has with the Axe-Fx, I suspect it will have no trouble dominating the market (assuming it has a price point within reach of a non-professional musician, even if it's a stretch like the Axe).

The Johnson Millenium had tubes. So far it's my fav of the modelling amps.

Max- physics makes it impossible to make an exact model. All that copper the electrons are moving through has an effect on your tone. Even if you get a proper model in the factory, the system you play it through will be different enough that it can alter the tone. And your speakers are different, different cab, etc., etc.

[Variant]

I think part of the current "problem" is that people think that recreating the "tube sound" 100% is absolutely impossible.

Or furthermore, that it even needs to be 100% duplicated. Back to the "duplication is the only way that will make it sound good" shit logic. I say 97% duplication + 20% improvement = 117%.

Look at the world of reverbs. Does a Lexicon PCM-96 reverb sound 100% like a real plate? .... no. Does it sound better? Damn right it does. There was a point when digital reverbs stopped trying to copy the limits of washy plate sounds and took advantage of what the digital realm could provide. I predict modelers will do the same, then we'll see if it doesn't turn around and people will ask, "Can Mesa make an all tube amp to copy the sound of the 2016 Digital Wunderbox X-34?" And, you know you know what. It won't... just like you're not hammering out a plate that will ever match what a lush, complex, massive Lexicon verb can spit out of it's 1's & 0's hole.

[Thaeon]

This is where it comes down to opinion... Better is subjective. Tubes are more responsive to my picking and intonation and I can hear artifacts in most digital stuff. Thus I think tubes are better... Tube sound is better to me. It's what I listen for. Until someone presents me with something that does exactly what a tube does better, it's not an improvement. There's no need to be hostile about it either. I don't think less of someone cause they like modelers. It may be what they listen for. It's like taste in music. No one is wrong for liking what they like. It's all subjective. I hate Creed... Someone else here may love them. They aren't automatically subhuman because they llike Scott Stapp and he's a Neanderthal. Come on... I'm merely stating that I love tubes, including their flaws. They have a vibe I dig and nothing else can give me the feel that they give, the interplay between my guitar and amp is unmistakable. If you like a modeler better... That's your thing... I like my tubes and there's an army of jazz, country, blues and rock players behind me that feel the same. Sure at some point they'll find something better. Maybe next week a new modeler will come out that changes my mind. Till then tubes FTW.

[Gameboypdc]

I think that maybe some companies will start to offer preamps that capture their brand name signature tone and design them for direct recording in your daw.