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



## asmegin_slayer (Jun 13, 2010)

Straight to the point.

With amp modeling hardware/software becoming more and more advanced and replicating actual tube amp companies tone. What will happen to those companies who pioneered the British/German/American sound?

Well I for one have a few thoughts of what will happen:

1. If people are going to start selling there equipment or buy an AXE/eleven rack products, we'll definitely see a great number of tube amp companies going out of business.

or

2. Amp companies will start suing modeling companies of there "sound" and force them to take it off of there products. Or maybe start licensing the sound from the tube amp companies.

or

3. Tube amp companies will change the way they do business and start there own software/hardware rack systems.


What's your guys opinion?


----------



## Cheesebuiscut (Jun 13, 2010)

My opinion is traditionalists will NEVER let go of their tube amps and you won't see a single change to the current state of the big tube companies.

We MAY see a rise in modeling stuff when/if the axe-fx gets around enough for it to start competing with the usual tube amps.

The big name amp companies that we already have will probably never run out of customers competing with digital products because of traditionalists and they haven't even begun to get into digital stuff to bother spending the money. I honestly don't think things will change much (just like how things haven't really changed much in the last 40+ years...)

There will be us gear nerds who take advantage of the axe and things like it and create a small niche market for the stuff and there will be the exact same massive consumer base that these companies have had for decades.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Jun 13, 2010)

The tube amp may well become obsolete, but I think for that to happen then digital modellers would have to be able to replicate the warmth of a tube amp perfectly.

I personally prefer the full bodied raw tone you get from tube amplifiers over digital modellers every time.


----------



## CornSyrup (Jun 13, 2010)

Cheesebuiscut said:


> My opinion is traditionalists will NEVER
> There will be us gear nerds who take advantage of the axe and things like it and create a small niche market for the stuff and there will be the exact same massive consumer base that these companies have had for decades.



+1. Well put


----------



## Customisbetter (Jun 13, 2010)

Tube amps will always be around. They have been engrained into every new guitarists mind as "the gaol". The "Pro" setup. 

Us Forumites may have seen the light, but most bedroom warriors don't go to stores filled with Pods and Engls etc.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Jun 13, 2010)

Cheesebuiscut said:


> My opinion is traditionalists will NEVER let go of their tube amps and you won't see a single change to the current state of the big tube companies.
> 
> We MAY see a rise in modeling stuff when/if the axe-fx gets around enough for it to start competing with the usual tube amps.
> 
> ...



This.


----------



## Andromalia (Jun 13, 2010)

I'm not so sure. 
The amps will definitely stay as at least a niche market, because to a musician it's sexy and still does the job. People still use collectible cars when they work.

BUT: 

-The benefit of modelers isn't only the sound. It's also a gain of space and weight, added reliablility, suppression of random factors (room acoustics, mike placement, shitty cab in the venue, etc), ability to get a decent sound without angering the neighbours and price. The today top of the line modeler costs less than a mesa head+cab+SM57+effects.

Computing power is on the verge of becoming a non-issue with technological advance, and although not perfect, companies are issuing better and better products at quite a steady pace if you compare it with the history of amplifiers.

The ONE downside of modelers is that...they can't do anything that hasn't been programmed in already. So if a real novel idea appears, say, discovering that a cab is best while having a kangaroo jumping on it, you can't do it with a standard issue modeler.


----------



## JohnIce (Jun 13, 2010)

Let's put it this way: Gibson and Fender still produce guitars with 60-year old designs, many of which are horribly obsolete with design flaws that have been long since eliminated on countless cheaper guitars from lesser brands. Yet Gibson and Fender remain the undisputed top sellers in the guitar world.

It is fucked up but it's how things work, the power of marketing and prestige. Personally though, I definately like playing a tube amp by myself but for all practical purposes my Axe-Fx wins all the way around and I can't see myself ever going back to real amps.


----------



## Metalus (Jun 13, 2010)

JohnIce said:


> Let's put it this way: Gibson and Fender still produce guitars with 60-year old designs, many of which are horribly obsolete with design flaws that have been long since eliminated on countless cheaper guitars from lesser brands. Yet Gibson and Fender remain the undisputed top sellers in the guitar world.
> 
> It is fucked up but it's how things work, the power of marketing and prestige. Personally though, I definately like playing a tube amp by myself but for all practical purposes my Axe-Fx wins all the way around and I can't see myself ever going back to real amps.



+1


----------



## technomancer (Jun 13, 2010)

4) None of the above, things are going to continue as they are now with different musicians using different products for different purposes.


----------



## orb451 (Jun 13, 2010)

If it's one thing history should show us, is that musicians, however creative, *can* be stubborn. They *can* be resistant or at least very slow to change. Like JohnIce is saying Gibson and Fender have done very well with designs that have changed very little in over half a century. Compare the musical instrument / amplifier manufacturers to car manufacturers. How much more have cars changed in the last 100 years than guitars and amps? 

I think what others are saying is true, the tube amp manufacturers will remain in business. There will always be plenty of people that just prefer *that* sound than anything modeled. No matter how good modeling gets. There's nothing wrong with that. In the short term what I think will happen is that if for example, the AxeFX continues to gain popularity and momentum, that Fractal will be bought out by a major corporation.

Right now they're still small and very agile, very customer-service and results oriented. I hope that Cliff never "sells out" as it were, but I wouldn't blame him if someone with very deep pockets shows up in the next year or two with copious amounts of money to throw his way. 

Once a "big corporation" has taken a hold of the Axe, I think they'd essentially run it into the ground or turn it into a series of spin-offs and marketing nonsense that will do the same thing (run it into the ground) over time instead of immediately.

And I'm not saying big corporations are bad or evil or anything, it's just that in the case of some, it's easier for them to kill off a really great product, even unintentionally, just partly based on their shear size and mass.

Hope it never happens, but it could, in the end though, whether it or others pop up to compete with it, there will always be tube amps and tube amp buyers imo.


----------



## blister7321 (Jun 13, 2010)

fuck modeling amps


----------



## shogunate (Jun 13, 2010)

^That right there is EXACTLY why tube amps will not go out of business 

There will always be purists. There will be those who swear by tube amps, there will be those who swear by the Axe-Fx. There will be those who want the feel of plugging in to 4 knobs and 4 tubes and GO. There are many markets that the Axe-Fx will just not be able to reach for many reasons that are integral to what it is. 

The Axe-Fx has broken a lot of ground and torn down many beliefs about the capability of modeling amplifiers, and will not be going anywhere (in comparison to the huge coming and going every season of other modelers, hybrids, etc. every year). Marshalls and Mesas and every other solid amp manufacturer have been around for decades and have only gotten larger, and will not be going anywhere. 

We as tone chasers now have more options than ever to pursue, and power to every fucking one of us that on that journey, and even more power to those that make it possible for us.


----------



## Customisbetter (Jun 13, 2010)

orb451 said:


> If it's one thing history should show us, is that musicians, however creative, *can* be stubborn. They *can* be resistant or at least very slow to change. Like JohnIce is saying Gibson and Fender have done very well with designs that have changed very little in over half a century. Compare the musical instrument / amplifier manufacturers to car manufacturers. How much more have cars changed in the last 100 years than guitars and amps?
> 
> I think what others are saying is true, the tube amp manufacturers will remain in business. There will always be plenty of people that just prefer *that* sound than anything modeled. No matter how good modeling gets. There's nothing wrong with that. In the short term what I think will happen is that if for example, the AxeFX continues to gain popularity and momentum, that Fractal will be bought out by a major corporation.
> 
> ...



If somebody buys the AxeFx and puts out a "modular" AxeFx with A la carte' models for varying prices, i'd on that shit INSTANTLY.


----------



## jbcrazy (Jun 13, 2010)

Metalus said:


> +1



+1 Again.. Very good words JohnIce.


----------



## Bevo (Jun 13, 2010)

I think you have a few different types of people, some like to tweak on technology (sp?) some don't.
There is also another group that likes gear and it does not matter what it is.

Once the digital stuff get's better and more affordable more people will try it out.
If the cost of a good digital pre is easy then you will see more people with both.

They both have a place in the market, I think they compliment each other.
After all, how do you like a tube amp model if you never heard it?


----------



## signalgrey (Jun 13, 2010)

i dont believe that modeling tech is what will make tubes go obsolete. if anything its starting its own new journey. if anything watching how modeling tech will evolve should be really interesting, JUST as interesting as how tubes are going to evolve. its the branch theory of evolution. same starting point , branching off, living parallel...etc..


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Jun 13, 2010)

blister7321 said:


> fuck modeling amps



I really hope you're kidding, considering your profile lists your gear as a Marshall MG30 with a Death Metal pedal


----------



## asmegin_slayer (Jun 13, 2010)

Amp modeling does make it simple to transport an entire rig in a small portable box, especially if your a touring band.

However, I will always enjoy putting physical pedals/racks/cables together because it's just fun.


----------



## asmegin_slayer (Jun 13, 2010)

JJ Rodriguez said:


> I really hope you're kidding, considering your profile lists your gear as a Marshall MG30 with a Death Metal pedal



burn!


----------



## LordOVchaoS (Jun 13, 2010)

Oh wow 

Different strokes for different folks. 

Modeling has definitely started to put a dent in the tube amp market. I, for example, have only an Axe-FX now. I went from tube, to hybrid, to just modeling. 

Another example is how popular the Axe-FX is at The Gear Page... We're talking about guys who spend SEVERAL thousands of dollars on a single channel, low watt amp. There's a lot of RICH people over there that can buy whatever they want and they are TOTAL tube snobs!!! But... a lot of them ditched their amps for an Axe-FX in recent years.

Another thing to consider is the demand of vaccum tubes... it's not that great... Tubes are a product of a very small hobby in the big picture. What? Guitarists and HAM radio enthusiasts  that's about it. Maybe 1% of the worlds population is still buying tubes, it's not going to last forever. I and a VERY reputable tube salesman had a talk about this once. He gives it less than a decade and you'll be limited to used tubes, the companies are hanging on by a thread right now and the quality of tubes, per capita, is HORRIBLE.

SO... we have modeling or transistors. Computers or solid state. Both of these are part of our everyday life now, they're not going anywhere anytime soon.


----------



## sevenstringj (Jun 13, 2010)

I don't think there will ever be a shortage of musicians wanting a simple plug and play tube amp.


----------



## LordOVchaoS (Jun 13, 2010)

sevenstringj said:


> I don't think there will ever be a shortage of musicians wanting a simple plug and play tube amp.



The production of tubes has almost come to an end... They can want! People may have to learn to manufacture their own tubes if they refuse to give them up 

I dare say modelers are more "plug and play" if you want them to be. Plug in, scroll till you find a patch you dig, play. I've always had 1-2 modelers in my house through almost 2 decades of using tube amps and I always found them easier to use. 

Modelers are as hard as you make them... I make the Axe-FX super-complicated  I like to tweak. People who don't like to tweak, won't.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Jun 13, 2010)

^ I'm not so sure about that, most line 6 stuff in my experience sounds like absolute garbage until you have really fucked around with it. Obviously the higher end stuff is different but a cheap tube amp like a 6505/5150 is pretty hard to make sound bad


----------



## sevenstringj (Jun 13, 2010)

LordOVchaoS said:


> The production of tubes has almost come to an end...



References, please.


----------



## blister7321 (Jun 14, 2010)

JJ Rodriguez said:


> I really hope you're kidding, considering your profile lists your gear as a Marshall MG30 with a Death Metal pedal


 
hah
good one ya got me 
i havent edited it in a while i used the DMP cuse the shitty mg sucked and at the time it was a i had(the marshall is dead and i havent used the dmp in months)
i really dont even use distortion pedals, only chorus and sometimes wah but i prefer the simplicity of just plug and play
but i hate modeling amps theyve fucked me over during gigs too many times, 
it dosnt matter if its a line 6 or a vypir or an ibby mimx they sound too fake to me my prefered settings dont work because modeling amps with my settings sound like mud, or white noise 

solid state or tube amps both do what i want modeling amps dont



now let me say this is based off of amps alone ive never used the axe fx stuff(cuz i dont use rack mount or pedals)


----------



## LordOVchaoS (Jun 14, 2010)

Stealthtastic said:


> ^ I'm not so sure about that, most line 6 stuff in my experience sounds like absolute garbage until you have really fucked around with it. Obviously the higher end stuff is different but a cheap tube amp like a 6505/5150 is pretty hard to make sound bad



I have, without a doubt, heard more 5150s sound like shit than I have modelers! 



sevenstringj said:


> References, please.



There's not an article about it, it's just common sense. Guitar amps and some hobby radios, amplifiers, etc... are the only reason tubes are still produced. It's not the 70's when it was a large, highly profitable market where they went in every TV, radio, tons of military equipment, etc... Damn near everything but guitar amps has gone solid state or digital, why would companies continue to cater to such a small, niche market? In this economy? A LARGE number of this market has switched to digital in the last few years making it even smaller and less profitable. 

Tube salesmen don't make shit anymore as about half the tubes they get go in the dumpster after they grade them. That came straight from Doug Preston, arguably the most knowledgeable tube salesman alive today. I have personally grown frustrated with them, hence the move to modelers. The last 4 sets of JJ power tubes I've owned have had at least one go bad within hours except one... two of them were bad when they got here 

Tube manufacturers just don't give a shit anymore. Why would they?


----------



## yacker (Jun 14, 2010)

LordOVchaoS said:


> Tube manufacturers just don't give a shit anymore. Why would they?



 
You raise a lot of interesting and scary points. Unfortunately they make sense too. This is precisely why New Old Stock tubes (NOS) sell for such a pretty penny and why people are willing to buy them. In decades past, tubes were used for loads of things, including military use. When a person's life could depend on the performance of a tube, reliability would be a top concern. When audio purists are the only ones using tubes today....that sort of concern just isn't there.

Personally I just don't see tubes completely disappearing though. Tube companies may end up being purchased by the successful amp manufacturers, quality may degrade, and the industry of these tubes may change just like so many other things have with advent of the internet. However, I just don't see the shear number of tube amps out there suddenly going obsolete and suddenly nobody can play their 65 twin reverb anymore. Or more importantly that reissue they just bought. Fender wouldn't have that and fender has the money to make sure that doesn't happen either. That's just one example.

I completely see your side the argument, but I don't foresee tubes suddenly being unavailable in ten years. Maybe tube salesmen will become extinct, maybe tube brands as we know them will vanish, but I can't see tubes disappearing. Even if there isn't the market there was in the past, there is still a VERY large market for tubes, at least in my opinion.


----------



## newamerikangospel (Jun 14, 2010)

Alot of people already run modelers live, and most record with some type of vst for amp modeling. People swear that the axe-fx has the feel of a tube amp, and podfarm gets awfully damn close to the feel/sound of my cobra. When you start looking at some of the current modelers out there, alot of them are running with hardware that is equivilent to computers 10-12 years ago. We will eventually be able to emulate the sag/pull of a tube amp with very complex algorhythms and high processing abilites, and when that happens, we wont really need tube amps. Tubes are already becoming something that are no longer used outside of guitar amps (TV/computer monitors and high end audio "audiophile" amplifiers are the newest ones to go solid state). There aren't many companies still making tubes, and even now the quality is starting to suffer. 

40 years ago a preamp was looked at as a ridiculous idea. Why would someone want to distort their signal? 15 years ago, drum samplers were looked down upon as a new technology that would fade away. Which they have to a degree, moving from physical modules to computer based vsts, but they still do the same thing. Go into the recording section and find a post that doesn't involve S2.0. Everyone that states that tubes amps will "never die!" will be the old man on the corner, who forgot to wear pants that morning, yelling at all of the new kids about how what they have today doesn't even compare to what he had when he was their age. But it will. 

Today's super computer can take extremely complex mathematical equations and perform them thousands of times a second (such as the models of the universe with their movements of the celestials bodies, which would take a team of people a year+ to do a full rotation). However, the computer I am typing this message on has more computing power than a "super-computer" from 20 years ago (my car has more monitoring functions/computing power than what it took the apollo mission to go to the moon). What will the "basic PC" of 10 years from now run like? If we can map the celestial travels of hundreds of galaxies for the next thousand years, what is a little tube sag algorhythm in comparison? 

*drops mic*


----------



## mattofvengeance (Jun 14, 2010)

asmegin_slayer said:


> However, I will always enjoy putting physical pedals/racks/cables together because it's just fun.



You've witnessed my rig. Get a power amp, rack case, and a MIDI foot controller, and its essentially the same thing.


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Jun 14, 2010)

blister7321 said:


> now let me say this is based off of amps alone ive never used the axe fx stuff(cuz i dont use rack mount or pedals)




Well then your statement is pretty ignorant in a discussion which mostly revolves around a piece of gear you say you've never tried then.

And a modeling amp with "Your preferred settings" sounds like mud? How about changing the settings? 

Too many people are concerned with what their settings look like, as opposed to how they sound. When you approach a modeling rig (or anything) with that mindset you're doomed to fail.

It's like people who ditch the Axe because they can't 100% replicate whatever amp they were using. How about trying to get a better sound, or something that might not sound the exact same as your other amp, but just as good?


----------



## MF_Kitten (Jun 14, 2010)

i have a feeling digitally modelled preamp sections may go up, leaving the tubes for the power section only. which is where they shine, anyways.

the different amp companies will have to start looking around for the next step up soon. they are the ones who invent the different sounds and feels, so it's not like they're obsolete just yet. i know tube power amps (and tube power amp sections in heads) and cabs will be produced for ages to come at the very least. as for the actual tone shaping and distortion, i'd say the digital stuff has gotten that part down pretty damn well.

also, the only reason i think power amps will still be tube based, is because of how much more effective they are at doing that job compared to solid state power amps. they do the nice sounding soft clipping/compression instead of hard clipping, when you turn them way high up, and the volume-to-watts ratio is much nicer with tube power amps. low wattage still gets you hellishly loud sound.

notice how even atomic/fractal makes their power amp, which is designed for digital modellers, with tubes.

edit: also, about the future of it all, i think purists will keep being purists until tubes die, and then they'll keep nagging about it for ages, and then they'll be gone themselves. if good tone is good tone, then why does it matter how it got there? the usual complaints about digital modelling has always been that the feel isn't there, and it never quite replicates all the subtleties of a good tube amp, etc. well, the modellers that have been out for the last decade or two haven't been very technologically advanced, have they? i mean, look at the high end CPU's out there today, and look at the ones inside most digital modelers. faaaaar away from eachother! there's alot of space to grow into, folks!

i think more and more companies will take note of the approach Fractal is taking, and will start going for that level of accuracy and care themselves. it's never been taken quite seriously by all the big companies, but that'll happen sooner or later.


----------



## JPhoenix19 (Jun 14, 2010)

> i think more and more companies will take note of the approach Fractal is taking, and will start going for that level of accuracy and care themselves. it's never been taken quite seriously by all the big companies, but that'll happen sooner or later



I wouldn't say that the other companies didn't take it seriously- they were just more focused on the bottom line than making a great modeler. Not to mention the competition was pretty much Boss and Line 6. I'll agree by saying that the introduction of more competition will result in these companies striving to put out more competitive modelers. I can't wait to see how Boss and Line 6 choose to compete with Fractal Audio.

Overall, I don't think tube technology is going anywhere. Even though our ears can be fooled to think "close enough", I don't think we'll be able to fully mimic the interactive symphony of physical components that is a tube amp- yet. I also wonder whether which technology is cheaper to work with (that is, tube vs digital).


----------



## Variant (Jun 14, 2010)

> Well then your statement is pretty ignorant in a discussion which mostly revolves around a piece of gear you say you've never tried then.
> 
> And a modeling amp with "Your preferred settings" sounds like mud? How about changing the settings?
> 
> ...



*So* much win in this statement.  Honestly, I think the modeling amps need to spend *less time* trying to mirror others' killer sounds and _*more time*_ on generating their own killer sounds.  There's a lot of unexplored territory in chipset-land because every one of these companies is trying to duplicate something else. All the best solid state amps aren't trying to cop all tube heads, the same approach should apply to modelers.

Franky, I don't see tube amps going away altogether, but much like pianos haven't been completely replaced by digital pianos... but, have done a pretty good job of filling 90% of the market for piano sounds.  The best digital pianos sound exactly the same to all but the uber-trained listener (and even than, I'd like to see a double-blind test of that) so as guitar modelers approach that level, why the crap am I going to deal with the inflexibility of a single tube amp, its loud heavy cabinet, and micing the thing up when I've got an array of sounds at my fingertips that are 99% the equal of that?


----------



## blister7321 (Jun 14, 2010)

JJ Rodriguez said:


> Well then your statement is pretty ignorant in a discussion which mostly revolves around a piece of gear you say you've never tried then.
> 
> And a modeling amp with "Your preferred settings" sounds like mud? How about changing the settings?
> 
> ...




dude learn how to fuckin read  it says i havent based my statement on axe fx stuff and dosnt even touch on it just on amps


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Jun 14, 2010)

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 "fuck 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.


----------



## Sacha (Jun 14, 2010)

IMO they are seperate tools and both useful, but neither replaces the other. Why does it have to be either / or? An amp is an amp, a modeller will never be an amp and vice versa. I'll always have a tube amp on hand to crank up.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Jun 14, 2010)

I think the divide has more to do with the interface than the tone at this point, especially with the quality of sounds the AxeFx is capable of. 

Imagine having a 5150, with the same headshell, controls, EVERYTHING, except the guts are digital. It sounds EXACTLY like a 5150, just DSP instead of tubes under the hood. Would folks in the "tubes or bust" camp still be extremely averse to it?


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Jun 14, 2010)

Double Post


----------



## orb451 (Jun 14, 2010)

MaxOfMetal said:


> I think the divide has more to do with the interface than the tone at this point, especially with the quality of sounds the AxeFx is capable of.
> 
> Imagine having a 5150, with the same headshell, controls, EVERYTHING, except the guts are digital. It sounds EXACTLY like a 5150, just DSP instead of tubes under the hood. Would folks in the "tubes or bust" camp still be extremely averse to it?



This. That is exactly what *some* company *should* do. Build an amp, that looks like an amp. Either hide the LCD screen or put it somewhere out of the way... Have a little door slide over it or some shit, I dunno. Just so that it's there when you need it for advanced tweaking, but out of the way when you don't. And leave the regular bass/mid/treble/presence/pre/post gain etc as regular analog looking knobs, even if they're not analog pots at all behind the scenes.

And it wouldn't be to *fool* anyone or anything, but it would be designed to make it EASY for the plug n' play guy to walk up, tweak a few knobs and start playing, and for the guy who wants to tweak, there's the screen he can use when he wants to.

Right now, Fractal is like Tucker Automobiles. They've taken others ideas and built on them in a major way. In the process of doing so, they've reinvented the wheel a bit, and in a very very good way. I'm telling you, someone, somewhere in the corporate food chain is going to notice and I think they'll get bought out.

And I agree with Customisbetter, if they (Fractal or whomever) who were to start offering some of the amp models a la carte, I could see a lot of people buying them (or just what they need) $$$$.

EDIT: I'm sure someone has already done something similar (combining traditional amp controls with modeling), just saying it'd be cool to see it at Fractal's level.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Jun 14, 2010)

orb451 said:


> This. That is exactly what *some* company *should* do. Build an amp, that looks like an amp. Either hide the LCD screen or put it somewhere out of the way... Have a little door slide over it or some shit, I dunno. Just so that it's there when you need it for advanced tweaking, but out of the way when you don't. And leave the regular bass/mid/treble/presence/pre/post gain etc as regular analog looking knobs, even if they're not analog pots at all behind the scenes.
> 
> And it wouldn't be to *fool* anyone or anything, but it would be designed to make it EASY for the plug n' play guy to walk up, tweak a few knobs and start playing, and for the guy who wants to tweak, there's the screen he can use when he wants to.
> 
> ...



To expand on all of our ideas.

What if they made a digital system packaged like the Randall MTS series? 

You'd have the option of either going rack, OR using a headshell. Instead of tube pre-amp modules you'd have model-specific digital tone modules. Then, for stuff like effects and deeper tweaking they'll be the "hidden" screen and controls.


----------



## orb451 (Jun 14, 2010)

MaxOfMetal said:


> To expand on all of our ideas.
> 
> What if they made a digital system packaged like the Randall MTS series?
> 
> You'd have the option of either going rack, OR using a headshell. Instead of tube pre-amp modules you'd have model-specific digital tone modules. Then, for stuff like effects and deeper tweaking they'll be the "hidden" screen and controls.



That's it. *That* is what should be done. Fuuuuuuuck. This is one of those times when, if we had the resources, we'd be gozillionaires. You get an amp and amp like controls, the quality/sound of Fractal's stuff, in either rack, head or combo form, analog looking controls and the ability to load in amp modules digitally, on the fly, a la carte.

Game. Fucking. Over.


----------



## Sepultorture (Jun 14, 2010)

i personally do think digital and solid state will ONE day dominate the market

i wouldn't say completely, but tubes have only been around as long as radio has been around. so we have roughly 100 years, and tube guitar amps didn't come into play until what, the late 40's early 50's, maybe earlier i dunno, to lazy to look it up.

so that's 100 years of tubes, 60 or so years of tube amps, i don't think tubes will be gone in 10 years, but they will be reduced as time passes. companies doing the tube thing will slowly move over to digital. look at peavey, they have their revalver software out, and i personally don't think it does a good job at recreating their tube tones, but it's the way things are heading.

i wouldn't be surprised that in 20-30 years MOST people playing live and recording at that point will be all digital, and most likely will be better sounding than the current digital offerings. i also see the Fractal Axe FX being one of the best steps forward in digital audio innovation, cus this one guy said, "hey, enough of this let's cut corners BS let's actually put our nose to the grind stone and try to emulate these tones the best we can, and not skimp on the hardware while we are at it".

Tubes will still be the norm, for the time being, but they will be phased out of popularity. as for tube amp companies being COMPLETELY gone, i doubt that, i see Fender, Marshall, and Mesa/Boogie sticking to their guns the most. they will continue to put out tube amps, maybe even while dabbling in the digital market as well. Tube amps might be cheaper, cus less would use them, but might also become more expensive because of the BOUTIQUE like stigma put upon them by the minimizing of the tube amp market.

i still like tube amps, Peavey 6505 i like, even my dream amp of the ENGL Fireball 100, but even i'm starting to see benefits of the digital offerings, mostly thanks to Fractal.

there is no question of IF the tube amp will die out, it really is a matter of WHEN


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Jun 14, 2010)

orb451 said:


> That's it. *That* is what should be done. Fuuuuuuuck. *This is one of those times when, if we had the resources, we'd be gozillionaires.* You get an amp and amp like controls, the quality/sound of Fractal's stuff, in either rack, head or combo form, analog looking controls and the ability to load in amp modules digitally, on the fly, a la carte.
> 
> Game. Fucking. Over.



Right?!


----------



## Customisbetter (Jun 14, 2010)

I was actually thinking software based. Maybe cards that can get stuck into an AxeFX box. Im not fond of heads anymore so this is personal preference.


----------



## orb451 (Jun 14, 2010)

Customisbetter said:


> I was actually thinking software based. Maybe cards that can get stuck into an AxeFX box. Im not fond of heads anymore so this is personal preference.



Using the Axe as the basis for this hypothetical scenario, seeing as it's basically a PC, then you could add in an SD memory card reader (or equivalent) and load your a la carte amp models / effects as needed. That or via USB from the PC/DAW.

I really believe that what Max and I are describing would be *the* killer app, for amplifiers. 

We'd be RIIIIIIIIIIIIIICH Beatch!!!


----------



## Sepultorture (Jun 14, 2010)

orb451 said:


> Using the Axe as the basis for this hypothetical scenario, seeing as it's basically a PC, then you could add in an SD memory card reader (or equivalent) and load your a la carte amp models / effects as needed. That or via USB from the PC/DAW.



i really do think the AXE FX needs a USB strictly for the software and updating firmware. too many have been finding problems trying to get it all to work using the MIDI method, Nick as having this problem right now


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Jun 14, 2010)

So you're basically thinking a Vetta or Spider Valve or something, but with an Axe as it's brain?

That would be pretty cool. The only problem I see with that is that it wouldn't be modular, ie you couldn't choose to run a Mesa power amp, or VHT, or a Carvin solid state. Would be something simple for a more traditional rig I suppose.


----------



## orb451 (Jun 14, 2010)

JJ Rodriguez said:


> So you're basically thinking a Vetta or Spider Valve or something, but with an Axe as it's brain?
> 
> That would be pretty cool. The only problem I see with that is that it wouldn't be modular, ie you couldn't choose to run a Mesa power amp, or VHT, or a Carvin solid state. Would be something simple for a more traditional rig I suppose.



Yes, that's pretty much what I'm picturing. The AxeFX is the "heart" of it, but add in the physical controls and other stuff as needed. Plus, imagine the modularity you'd get if amps / effects were sold individually or in small packs. You wouldn't need to worry about a bunch of blues amp models if you don't want to.

And I agree, the AxeFX does need (at some point) some kind of USB interface. I'm sure they'll probably work one into the next hardware iteration. But for the present, for me, it's not a deal-breaker, I don't mind the MIDI stuff at all.


----------



## LordOVchaoS (Jun 14, 2010)

Muse is another company to think about... Their rack gear basically just loads VST effects. Their newest one comes with Peavey Revalver. The possibilities are endless at this point! There are some VERY good software modelers out there, free ones at that!


----------



## Key_Maker (Jun 14, 2010)

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 (Jun 14, 2010)

^ this is all true 






JJ Rodriguez said:


> 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 "fuck modeling amps" when you haven't tried the better ones out there.
> 
> ...


 



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 (Jun 14, 2010)

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 "fuck 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 "fuck the 5150"


----------



## TemjinStrife (Jun 14, 2010)

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 (Jun 14, 2010)

JJ Rodriguez said:


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



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


----------



## Crucified (Jun 14, 2010)

LordOVchaoS said:


> 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 fuck off? or is that going too far?


----------



## Thaeon (Jun 14, 2010)

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 (Jun 14, 2010)

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


----------



## TomAwesome (Jun 14, 2010)

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. Fuck 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 (Jun 14, 2010)

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 (Jun 14, 2010)

Thaeon said:


> 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 fuck? 

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

Change... embrace it...


----------



## JPhoenix19 (Jun 14, 2010)

TomAwesome said:


> ...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 (Jun 14, 2010)

Key_Maker said:


> 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 (Jun 14, 2010)

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 (Jun 14, 2010)

LordOVchaoS said:


> Who gives a fuck?
> 
> 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 (Jun 14, 2010)

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 (Jun 14, 2010)

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 (Jun 14, 2010)

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 (Jun 14, 2010)

Fucking Double Post


----------



## TemjinStrife (Jun 14, 2010)

TMM said:


> 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 (Jun 14, 2010)

TemjinStrife said:


> 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 (Jun 14, 2010)

TMM said:


> 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 (Jun 14, 2010)

> 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? Fuck 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 (Jun 14, 2010)

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 (Jun 14, 2010)

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.


----------



## scottro202 (Jun 14, 2010)

orb451 said:


> Using the Axe as the basis for this hypothetical scenario, seeing as it's basically a PC, then you could add in an SD memory card reader (or equivalent) and load your a la carte amp models / effects as needed. That or via USB from the PC/DAW.
> 
> I really believe that what Max and I are describing would be *the* killer app, for amplifiers.
> 
> We'd be RIIIIIIIIIIIIIICH Beatch!!!



So, would that mean, when somebody asks you to post a pic of your rig, you would post:







Instead of:






That sounds pretty cool, to me  

But, on-topic, I think tubes may stick around, seeing as how directly to my left is a guitar that was designed 50 years ago. We (guitarists) are purists. We still use things designed decades ago (anybody who plays a LP or Strat, tube amp falls into this category), so I think they'll be here to stick around, for at least a little while longer.

That all being said, my experience with modelers is minimal, so besides my Line 6 Spider 3  , I have no clue how far they've come lately.

But Max and Orb, your idea sounds fucking awesome. Go patent it!!


----------



## Variant (Jun 14, 2010)

> _Some_ (guitarists) are purists.



Fixed. 







> So, would that mean, when somebody asks you to post a pic of your rig, you would post:



I dunno, I just got this amazing sounding bass: 






Funky rectangular shape, I know.


----------



## Explorer (Jun 15, 2010)

Over two decades ago, when I played more keyboard and was a member on the then-new synth forum Synthsite, there was much discussion about how pure analog synths just couldn't be duplicated in software.

Over the course of a decade, more and more modelers came onto the market, coming closer and closer to that analog sound. The whole time, the cries from Anything Analog (and, most poignantly, from the Oberheim Abbey) grew fainter and fainter. 

Now, there are still some analog monosynths and polysynths around, but the software emulations allow one to get a lot more done. I would never be able to afford to keep an analog Yamaha CS80 going (think lush Blade Runner soundtrack), but I can buy an indistinguishable emulator for a few hundred.

And, in addition to those indistinguishable emulators, there's also new types of synths which take advantage of the processing power, in order to create new sounds. There's a world of physically modeled synths which are based on nothing real, but which sound amazing and organic, for example.

No one thought that bucket brigade chips would become so scarce, or even unavailable. No one really thought that analog synths would be, for the most part, just for purists.

----

Now we're looking at a world where American vacuum tubes aren't all they could be. I remember when the Soviet tubes first became available, and, due to availability, there was a revival of sorts. 

Those tubes are now becoming more scarce. New tubes aren't reaching the same military specs, because they're not being made for serious applications any longer. Over the next 20 years, there might be a handful of people making tubes for niche markets, but, just like the synths which relied on unobtainable or scarce (and therefore very expensive) parts, tube amps will also reach a point where the effort and cost in trying to maintain them will be at a serious disadvantage compared to software modeling. 

----

Just thinking about the effort and cost in keeping an EHX Black Finger in working tubes (because it's rare that a group of tubes will all work when they arrive), compared to the relative hardiness of the White Finger and Soul Preacher (FET) makes me spend money on the thing which won't burn out before or on a gig. I'm sorry, but mojo only goes so far when the gear doesn't work and you're on the clock....


----------



## McKay (Jun 15, 2010)

Modellers gotta model something. Until Fractal, etc start building their own 'amps' there'll always need to be real ones to develop new sounds, regardless of the market. Otherwise we'll end up playing Peavey/Mesa/ENGL sims for eternity.


----------



## JohnIce (Jun 15, 2010)

McKay said:


> Modellers gotta model something. Until Fractal, etc start building their own 'amps' there'll always need to be real ones to develop new sounds, regardless of the market. Otherwise we'll end up playing Peavey/Mesa/ENGL sims for eternity.


 
Here are Fractal's own amp models included in the Axe-Fx:

FAS Metal 
FAS Big Hair
FAS Hellbeast
FAS Supertweed
FAS Fusion
FAS Clean
FAS Crunch
FAS Lead 1
FAS Lead 2
FAS Modern

None of these are based on any pre-existing schematics from actual amplifiers, but are conjured up by the people at Fractal. Aside from those, every parameter in the preamp and poweramp section is tweakable, more or less. You can choose where to put your tonestack, use ridiculous bias settings at no risk, completely control how the poweramp behaves etc. with clever EQ'ing I could probably get a stock MESA amp to sound like a Marshall Plexi if I thought hard and long enough about it. So you don't have to model anything if you don't want to. Hell, you can even run an overdrive pedal straight into a cab on this thing


----------



## Bevo (Jun 15, 2010)

McKay
I thought that too but looking at all the posts makes me realize that it may not be an issue of preference but of availability.

Think of your cell phone or computer from 10-15 years ago and look at what you have now. Hell just over 100 years ago we had no cars or even fridges in our homes.

How about a 69 Camaro vs a 2010, big difference but it has both people the love and hate them.

Tubes will be the same, people will always love them but they will start getting more expensive and more digital. Once tubes become a specialty item they can charge what they want, good time to get into manufacturing them by the way.
Pure classic tube amps will be used sparingly just like the old hot rods.

Digital will get so good it will make today AXE look like a pocket calculater, who would not want one? At that point supply and demand kicks in and the price drops to dirt cheap. remeber 42 inch LCD TV's 10 years ago?

Great topic by the way!


----------



## yacker (Jun 15, 2010)

budda said:


> A couple things to remember:
> 
> 2. There's so many guitarists that aren't hanging around guitar forums



I think the above is something that's being greatly underestimated here. Just in this thread alone there is still a significant amount of disagreement in the tube/digital argument and we would be considered the techy/gear geek crowd. In my city, for every one guitarist like me (gets on forums, post/reads up on the latest gear) there has to be a thousand guitarists who don't do any of the above (or at least several hundred). I know many, many, many guitarists who don't get on the boards, don't constantly look into new gear, and are still certainly consumers. 

Does that mean all those other guitarist are tube snobs? Of course not. Many other factors will influence their purchases. I just think that the growing popularity of the axe-fx and other modeling gear on guitar forums is leading to a false sense of 'modeling is suddenly taking over' when in reality I'd guess they are capturing a small fraction of the market. 

So long as there is significant demand for a product it will be made. Look at how much shit is made that we _don't_ give a shit about. I don't see anything other then the different amplifier technologies coexisting for a very long time.


----------



## chaosxcomplex (Jun 15, 2010)

It was mentioned to have a digital amp with the layout of a classic head...I had the line6 hd147, it was pretty damn straight forward. Gain, bass, mid, treble, presence, channel volume, master volume, and simple controls for the effects and gate. It did not have tubes in the power section, but good god man!!!! I can't even imagine the nut rattling crunch that would have made!!!


----------



## TMM (Jun 15, 2010)

yacker said:


> I think the above is something that's being greatly underestimated here. Just in this thread alone there is still a significant amount of disagreement in the tube/digital argument and we would be considered the techy/gear geek crowd. In my city, for every one guitarist like me (gets on forums, post/reads up on the latest gear) there has to be a thousand guitarists who don't do any of the above (or at least several hundred). I know many, many, many guitarists who don't get on the boards, don't constantly look into new gear, and are still certainly consumers.
> 
> Does that mean all those other guitarist are tube snobs? Of course not. May other factors will influence their purchases. I just think that the growing popularity of the axe-fx and other modeling gear on guitar forums is leading to a false sense of 'modeling is suddenly taking over' when in reality I'd guess they are capturing a small fraction of the market.



+1 that's a really good point. I think there's a pretty strong correlation between being a 'techy/geek' guitarist and being more likely to be on forums vs a classic LP / tube amp player. So, the people more likely to mess around with modelers and convert to fully digital rigs are also the people that are more likely to be posting on a forum.


----------



## McKay (Jun 16, 2010)

> axe-fx own brand amp models



I guess I got the wrong impression. Consider my statement retracted.


----------



## LordOVchaoS (Jun 16, 2010)

McKay said:


> I guess I got the wrong impression. Consider my statement retracted.



I could continue with...

Line 6:

Big Bottom
Fuzz
Octone
Smash
Sparkle Clean
Throttle
Clean
Mood
Agro
Class A
Lunatic
Bayou
Crunch
Purge
Sparkle
Super Clean
SuperSpark
Twang
Chunk Chunk
Insane
Spinal Puppet
Chemical X

Digitech:

Blackbass 
Blues
Bright Clean 
Brownsound
Chunk
Clean Tube
Crunch 
Darkmetal 
Fuzz
GSP2101TM Artist Clean Tube
GSP2101 Artist Saturated Tube
High Gain
Metal
Monster
Mosh
Solo
Spank
Stonerrock
Transistor
Tweedface

THEN there's VST modelers like AcmeBarGig that kick all kinds of ass and they're almost all original models!


----------



## McKay (Jun 16, 2010)

LordOVchaoS said:


> I could continue with...
> 
> Line 6:
> 
> ...



I never liked Line 6's stuff that much, so I chose to ignore their attempts. 

I really like what Peavey try with revalver though.


----------



## LordOVchaoS (Jun 16, 2010)

Fractal Audio Systems &bull; View topic - Interesting New Axe FX Owner


----------



## TMM (Jun 16, 2010)

Big Bottom FTW  Everybody likes those


----------



## cwhitey2 (Jun 17, 2010)

tubes will never die... when they can fix all the little bugs with the digital stuff it may be competitive. i personally have the best of both with line 6 spider valve mkii, but it is by no means near perfect. the tones you can get out of it are sweet but its like using a computer instead of an amp. i bought it with the idea that theres more effects in there than ill ever need, so i should have no problems coming up with new song ideas. I think the spv mkii is the closest to tube modeling out now (only for the fact that it has actual tubes in it). i have not tried any other modeling software besides pod 2.0 but i thought that sucked. what they need to do is put axe-fx in an actual amp instead of seperate.


----------



## ellengtrgrl (Jun 17, 2010)

LordOVchaoS said:


> Oh wow
> 
> Different strokes for different folks.
> 
> ...


 
Ummm actually not that many Ham Radiio operators use them anymore for the main radio (I've had a Ham Radio license for the past 32 years). Most transceivers are microprocessor controlled . The only tube rigs/radios anymore, are vintage ones (I have a couple that I restored - they're not as flexible as my modern rig, but they are fun to use), and power amps, to boost the basic 100 watt ham radio's signal several hundred, 1000 watts, or in the case of U.S. hams 1500 watts (the legal limit). The only reason the majority of power amps use tubes yet, is because a 3-500Z, 3cx800, 4CX250B, are still cheaper than power transistors (some Motorola power transistors can cost $300 or more, and most power amps need more than one power transistor [forget about power ICs - you won't get hundreds of watts out of those]) . Tubes also don't need lots of funky circuitry (which can still act up every now and then), to keep them from nuking out like a power transistor can when an impedance mismatch occurs. 

So, in a nutshell, tubes do have their uses. At super high power, they are the only way to go (almost all shortwave broadcasters use huge power tubes, to pump out their 100,000, 500,000, or mega watt signals). 

With regards to tube vs digital modeling amps - wellllllllll, it's a horse a piece. Modelers, be they the Axe FX, or a POD XT, will never sound 100% like a tube amp, because they are not digitally sampling the entire (analog) signal, that a tube or analog transistor amp puts out. But, if the sample rate is high enough, a modeling can still do a good enough job of sounding like the amp, that it's trying to emulate, that most people would never realize that it's not a tube amp in a blindfold test. But, as was mentioned earlier, you you are still working with the basic digital soundfile made of the amp you're emulating, and there may be things that a player of the tube amp in question is doing with it (say running it through a variac in a low outlet voltage state), that you just can't do with your modeler, because you can only tweak a soundifile so much (even with addtional processing power), before it just plain sounds like wierd synth noise. But, the majority of the time, a modeling amp, probably is more than enough to do the job musically. Also, in the case of preamps like the AxeFX, you don't have to deal with just about breaking your back lugging a 70 pound head, or 100 pound Mesa 2x12 combo. That is a BIG plus! By the same token, an analog amp is more plug in and play, with less time spent in doing the "what parameter can I tweek in the settings to hit that narrowly defined perfect sound I want?" thing.

IMO - tube, transistor, and modeling amps all have their place. There is no such thing as the perfect amp technology.


----------



## sevenstringj (Jun 17, 2010)

And don't forget, people are still looking to tubes to amplify this stuff.


----------



## Distortion (Jun 18, 2010)

I find this thread pretty interesting, a lot of great ideas and opinions out there...

I just checked out a "gear tour" video Chris Broderick of Megadeth did not too long ago and he's actually using Axe-FX Ultra units going to a Marshall poweramp.

Honestly, the fact that some musicians in important bands are actually starting to use modelers as the main part of their rigs will in have an impact on how modelers are perceived and accepted in the long run. As many have mentionned, I think modelers have pretty much been imbraced by musicians that stay current with what gear is out there and by "guitar geeks" that read up on forums. Your average rocker might not be interested in learning or using relatively complex gear to get the sound he wants... Chris was explaining how he was routing things with his Axe FX and talking about some features in the unit. Awesome stuff but to some people, there's just no interest in learning all that stuff and some people, no matter how simple the interface is to use, are just overwhelmed by all the possibilities.

I remember when I got my GuitarPort a few years ago how overwhelmed I felt seing all the options I had in Gearbox... Today, now that i'm used to it and understand how it all works, I get through it easily but for someone's who's been used to just plug a guitar into an amp head, adjust bass mid and treble and rock out, might not be interested in so much features.

Sound quality and what sounds good is subjective. No, no matter how efficient an algorithm gets or how much detail can be put into it or the processing power available, it'll never ever be able to simulate all the variables and aspects of a flow of electrons through a tube. It's just too complex and most of the time, mathematical functions that describe movement (for example) are all aproximations and don't take into account a bunch of things that will produce a more "exact" result at the cost of extra calculations and variables. Hell, some formulas get so complex when we take into account very minute details that we don't even have a way to actually resolve them.

I personally think the way the Axe-FX works is a step in the right direction in emulating an amp. Instead of taking an amp as a whole, every little stage in the amp is emulated. This is how we'll end up having something that sounds very close to a tube amp but in the end, it'll never be possible to have the exact same result. It might not be perceivable, but it won't be the exact same thing.

In the end, like mentionned above, we still use tube power amps to amplify the signal coming out of the modeler unit 

I have a feeling that modelers are very popular in home studios and for recording since it's a very hastle free way to record compared to blasting an amp and micing it, etc. You can get very good quality recordings for a fraction of the price it would of cost, say 20years ago. That, for me, is a huge advantage.

The flexibilty aspect of modelers appeal to some people, but not everyone for the reasons I mentionned above. The place where tube amps might disapear (in my opinion) is in the studio. For a live setting though, you can't beat the punch and air moving power of a tube amp, or at least, a modeler going through a tube power amp


----------



## Sepultorture (Jun 18, 2010)

going back to a more DEMISE of tubes type theory

even though there will always be people that are into tube amps, myself included. give it another 60-100 years an i think there won't be tubes anymore. in that span of time, what company is STILL going to make tubes. what amp company is going to use ancient tech that will in the end cost them more than the current tech. i don't see tube being gone in say 20 years, but i still think that tube will eventually be on it's way out in the future. we will eventually get that good at writing code and algorithms that emulate and maybe even surpass tubes someday. 

Distortion is also right that there really are to many variables in a tube amp that cannot be simulated 100%. i also think that digital, even though they MODEL after tubes, will one day just do it's own take on amp tones, not modeling after a current amp, but just making their own, like the FAS models on the AXE FX.

the digital realm has also seen the inclusion of power amp and cab sims, being able to tweak variables that you other wise couldn't do. tweak transformer settings, tube types, use of Parametric EQ's, low/high pass filters, all in one effects with massive tweakability. this might be too much for your average or first time buyer, but that's why these units have presets. put on the preset and go, don't like it, just tweak the bass, mids, treble, presence, depth, volume what have you, and kids if they really dug into digital stuff they could come up with some pretty sick shit.

meshuggah already uses the AXE FX to great effect


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Jun 18, 2010)

Honestly, I think if the AxeFx had a global EQ control on the front (actual knobs) with Bass, Mid, Treble, Presence, etc. it would be A LOT more attractive to some players. 

I think the old "single knob" editing that all the "classic" preamps from the 80's have, have poisoned the idea of having to go through multiple menus and extra button mashing just to get to the core tone/EQ controls. 

That will mean all the "I need to make EQ adjustments on the fly!" crowd will be able to.


----------



## TemjinStrife (Jun 18, 2010)

MaxOfMetal said:


> Honestly, I think if the AxeFx had a global EQ control on the front (actual knobs) with Bass, Mid, Treble, Presence, etc. it would be A LOT more attractive to some players.
> 
> I think the old "single knob" editing that all the "classic" preamps from the 80's have, have poisoned the idea of having to go through multiple menus and extra button mashing just to get to the core tone/EQ controls.
> 
> That will mean all the "I need to make EQ adjustments on the fly!" crowd will be able to.



This. If I need more mids in a live setting, or less gain, or need to tweak bass to fit a room, I want to be able to walk over to my amp mid-song, grab a knob, and turn.


----------



## Larrikin666 (Jun 18, 2010)

TemjinStrife said:


> This. If I need more mids in a live setting, or less gain, or need to tweak bass to fit a room, I want to be able to walk over to my amp mid-song, grab a knob, and turn.



+1. I'm pretty comfortable going in and tweaking things, but a few more knobs would have been less overwhelming for me at first.


----------



## TMM (Jun 18, 2010)

TemjinStrife said:


> This. If I need more mids in a live setting, or less gain, or need to tweak bass to fit a room, I want to be able to walk over to my amp mid-song, grab a knob, and turn.



+1 I think this is at least 1 pretty huge advantage the Prophesy & PODx3 have over most of the other highly-programmable preamps on the market. That kind of ease-of-editing convenience can't (or shouldn't) be overlooked.


----------



## Forced Chaos (Jun 19, 2010)

I don't know about ya'll but personally processors to me are a nightmare. All too often the stock patches are not all that great and then you basically have to make your patches from scratch which leads to alot of time in tweaking. They are super versitile and a great tool but I can't stand over complicated shit when it comes to guitar tone and effects. I will always just want to plug into a head and have my pedalboard where I can dial in a few knobs on my pedals and get the sound I want easily. I've tried processors in the past but ended up spending most of my time fucking with the thing rather than actually playing guitar LOL!


----------



## JohnIce (Jun 19, 2010)

I've actually found it easier to get good tones with the Axe-Fx than with tube amps... I mean, once you've dialed in a patch (which now takes about 10 minutes on average since I've really learned the unit), that patch is saved and won't change for a hundred years if I don't want it to.

But with an amp rig... disregarding all the physical aspects of tubes breaking or being bad quality, cables sucking signal, etc., you can set up an amp onstage and it'll sound nothing like it did last night. The room is shaped differently, the walls are different material, the air is a different temperature, the house-mics are of varying quality, the sound guy doesn't know how to mic sh*t so you have to position, walk out on the floor and listen, go back and adjust etc. until you think it may sound good once there's a bunch of people in the room absorbing and reflecting sound. Then there's mic leakage from the other instruments, you need to turn up to get the poweramp working thus ending up in chaos on stage and kittens die.

Not to mention, If I feel the cab is a little fizzy on the Axe-Fx, I can dial that down in seconds. But with a real cab, the only way to change that is to buy new speakers or a new cabinet.

I think "plug and play" isn't all it's cracked up to be, as most of the time when I've been happy plugging and playing there have been a million other things fucking up my tone that I couldn't do anything about. This is why I love the Axe-Fx, it'll always sound good because I said so.


----------



## LordOVchaoS (Jun 19, 2010)

JohnIce said:


> I've actually found it easier to get good tones with the Axe-Fx than with tube amps... I mean, once you've dialed in a patch (which now takes about 10 minutes on average since I've really learned the unit), that patch is saved and won't change for a hundred years if I don't want it to.
> 
> But with an amp rig... disregarding all the physical aspects of tubes breaking or being bad quality, cables sucking signal, etc., you can set up an amp onstage and it'll sound nothing like it did last night. The room is shaped differently, the walls are different material, the air is a different temperature, the house-mics are of varying quality, the sound guy doesn't know how to mic sh*t so you have to position, walk out on the floor and listen, go back and adjust etc. until you think it may sound good once there's a bunch of people in the room absorbing and reflecting sound. Then there's mic leakage from the other instruments, you need to turn up to get the poweramp working thus ending up in chaos on stage and kittens die.
> 
> ...



and... every time you turn on a tube amp you degrade the life of the tubes  It never sounds the same. Two identical amps next to each other never sound the same. It also never sounds the same at your house as it does anywhere else due to differences in wiring of buildings. Modelers don't have these problems.


----------



## TemjinStrife (Jun 19, 2010)

LordOVchaoS said:


> and... every time you turn on a tube amp you degrade the life of the tubes  It never sounds the same. Two identical amps next to each other never sound the same. It also never sounds the same at your house as it does anywhere else due to differences in wiring of buildings. Modelers don't have these problems.



And, IMHO, modelers don't have the same sound. Believe me, I started on a POD and I love the "idea" of modeling; however, nothing I have played to this day (digital or otherwise) has put a smile on my face like my Budda combo.


----------



## Thaeon (Jun 19, 2010)

TemjinStrife said:


> And, IMHO, modelers don't have the same sound. Believe me, I started on a POD and I love the "idea" of modeling; however, nothing I have played to this day (digital or otherwise) has put a smile on my face like my Budda combo.



Amen dude... Anyone who hasn't played a budda is missin' out. Mine sounds badASS with my universe...


----------



## Sepultorture (Jun 20, 2010)

LordOVchaoS said:


> and... every time you turn on a tube amp you degrade the life of the tubes  It never sounds the same. Two identical amps next to each other never sound the same. It also never sounds the same at your house as it does anywhere else due to differences in wiring of buildings. Modelers don't have these problems.



let's not forget acoustics of differing rooms as well mate


----------



## TemjinStrife (Jun 20, 2010)

Sepultorture said:


> let's not forget acoustics of differing rooms as well mate



Stuff like that you still have to worry about with a modeler


----------



## AkiraSpectrum (Jun 21, 2010)

just want to say that i love this discussion and think its a great idea...

to give some input of my own:

I think there will be a number of factors that play into how tubes and modelling tech will look in years to come. I think modelling has the upper hand due to the western obsession with digital technology but this doesn't mean tubes will be conquered by the digital counterpart. Demand is a factor that I don't think has really been mentioned so far. If enough people demand tube technology then manufacturers will more than likely respond by concentrating on tube amps and maintaining pressure for tube production. 

Something i've noticed in my time as a musician (which really isn't all that long, ha) is that most people are brought up on digital and ss amps as beginners nowadays (SS amps were what I used and then I moved on to digital modelling pedals and now im using a tube amp but still using digital and ss amps for certain occasions and purposes). For it is these 'beginners' that really become important to the future of ss,digital and tube amps. Will there be a demand from these 'new, up and coming' players in the years to come to have the flexibility and style/sound of digital or will they remain enticed by the tube sound? So many factors come in to play such as what guitarists in popular bands are using etc.

I am open to whatever the future may bring for guitar amps. I think there is something 'special' in tube amps that we should try to preserve if we can/if we want to. Really it comes down to what people want and if enough people hold tube amps in high regards then odds are future generations will probably (but not for certain) feel the same way. If the market is saturated with digital and ss amplifiers (especially for beginners) and there isn't a big enough pressure to move on to tube amps then yes tube amps will start to dwindle. 

What I think is interesting currently is how a lot of companies are not too quick to jump on the digital bandwagon. Sure, a number of companies are throwing out a digital amp in the lower/mid priced bracket but no one seems to be altering their 'new amp' production much. A lot of companies if anything are doing MORE tube stuff as opposed to ss or digital. I think its very interesting how Line 6 (probably the most influential digital amp manufacturer right now) has dropped a number of their amps (Flextone/HD147) without tubes in favor of their Spider Valve amps and are concentrating most of their marketing towards this amp. Randall has introduced a new line called the RT series and are concentrating less on their hybrid technology in favor of pure tube tech. 

Before ending my contribution i'd also like to bring up the question about where SS (in the preamp) amps are going, if anything they seem to me to be the type of amp that is dying. SS amps (ss preamps) seem to be relegated mostly now to small beginner combos and a few higher wattage combos and as well a few heads. Right now SS preamps seem to be the ones in the most danger. Personally I hope that all 3 types (and all their variations) will continue to exist so that we maintain a variability in guitar playing in music and use each type (SS/Digital/Tube) in different situations and for different tastes.


----------



## LordOVchaoS (Jun 21, 2010)

Here's an interesting thread comparing one of the new models that came with the firmware last week to the Axe-FX sim of it:

Axe FX 10.0 Marsha Vs. the real deal poll! - The Gear Page

I always liked this one too: 

Bogner Überschall VS Podfarm w impulses // rate please - Ultimate Metal Forum


----------



## JPhoenix19 (Jun 21, 2010)

LordOVchaoS said:


> Here's an interesting thread comparing one of the new models that came with the firmware last week to the Axe-FX sim of it:
> 
> Axe FX 10.0 Marsha Vs. the real deal poll! - The Gear Page



Just when I had my Axe-Fx GAS under control!


----------



## blister7321 (Jun 22, 2010)

with my first post here
i became the most hated man on SS.O(i know because am now -16 rep because of it) (not bitching its your opinions)
you people really like this stuff dont ya

oh well 

i read it again
and i am sorry for being so forward with my beliefs (i was used to posting on the esp forum at the time and you have to be blunt there)


----------



## Explorer (Jun 22, 2010)

LordOVchaoS said:


> Here's an interesting thread comparing one of the new models that came with the firmware last week to the Axe-FX sim of it:
> 
> Axe FX 10.0 Marsha Vs. the real deal poll! - The Gear Page
> 
> ...



How can someone argue with the demonstrated inability of folks who can't consistently tell the difference between modeler and physical? The demonstrated fact is, there is no way one can argue that a modeler can't accurately model a physical amp.

It would be interesting for all the tube supporters here to post their guesses about the Marsha sound test before the sound sources are revealed....

BTW, LoC, are either of those chicks in your avatar the redhead from CIAM's avatar? Because that image just seems like it violates some rule of avatar hotness.... *laugh*


----------



## TemjinStrife (Jun 22, 2010)

I don't deny that modelers sound great recorded; I just don't like the way they feel and the amount of work it is to learn, tweak, and program them. They're also fairly hard to tweak onstage.


----------



## Larrikin666 (Jun 22, 2010)

TemjinStrife said:


> I don't deny that modelers sound great recorded; I just don't like the way they feel and the amount of work it is to learn, tweak, and program them. They're also fairly hard to tweak onstage.



It's clearly not for everyone. I'm not very comfortable tweaking the Axe-FX yet on my own. The ability to upload other user patches has helped me tremendously though. I honestly didn't know jack about how to implement filters or parametric EQs until I saw some great patches from some guys on this site (thanks Bigness). 

The key moment for me is when I finally bought my Axe-FX and 2/90/2 to band practice last week. Our drummer and other guitarist are super opinionated about guitar tone, and they can both generally have good taste in tone. The bass player and vocalist know what they like, but could never really explain why. As soon as I started playing, everyone just stopped and stared. They looked and saw that my ENGL wasn't turned on and saw the rack beside it. Everyone kept saying how much they loved the sound. As soon as I said that it was a digital modeling preamp, they guitarist and drummer both said it was a piece of shit and I should get rid of it.

We didn't get much practice in that day. We basically argued for an hour about it. I just find it very funny that the two tone snobs absolutely loved it until they found out it was a modeler. That pretty much just tells me that a lot of musicians out there (myself included) care more about perception than reality.


----------



## LordOVchaoS (Jun 22, 2010)

Larrikin666 said:


> As soon as I said that it was a digital modeling preamp, they guitarist and drummer both said it was a piece of shit and I should get rid of it.
> 
> We didn't get much practice in that day. We basically argued for an hour about it. I just find it very funny that the two tone snobs absolutely loved it until they found out it was a modeler. That pretty much just tells me that a lot of musicians out there (myself included) care more about perception than reality.



That's how it goes...

You play a clip for tone snobs, "WOW, that's amazing!!! What amp are you using?" 

"It's (insert modeler here)"

"Upon second listen I hear "digital artifacts". Just sounds fake and "digital", the low end is thin and the highs are brittle and fizzy. It could never compare to a real amp." 

These same conversations were had 20 years ago about recording  

"Digital will never replace analog tape recording... Digital just lacks warmth, no computer program will ever record as good as reel-to-reel..." 

I GUARANTEE we will see similar comments in the Gear Page thread I posted after Pete reveals the answer. The snobs have no idea right now, they're waiting for the revelation to say, "I could tell. Blah blah blah t3h digital, etc..."


----------



## TMM (Jun 22, 2010)

Explorer said:


> How can someone argue with the demonstrated inability of folks who can't consistently tell the difference between modeler and physical? The demonstrated fact is, there is no way one can argue that a modeler can't accurately model a physical amp.



I think those are both pretty poor representations of what a 'real' tube amp can sound like. I'll admit that both sound very similar (though my familiarity with POD Farm allowed me to guess the first one correctly in seconds - I think the 'real' Marshall is the 2nd in the Marsha clip... we'll see if I'm right), but as far as I can tell it's only because the actual amp in both cases is being subjected to conditions that totally kill it's tone. That is the absolute worst I've ever heard an Uberschall sound, and I know even Marshalls can sound better than that.

Sure, if you cut the tube poweramp and speakers and mic (ie. 80-90% of the tone) out of the equation when comparing a tube head to a digital modeler, and instead just run the preamp into a bunch of programs to 'level the playing field', you can get them to sound pretty similar... but that shouldn't surprise anyone.

The playing field isn't level, and that's the point - if that Uberschall clip had been comparing an Uberschall into an Uberkab mic'd with an SM57 into a recording interface, tone untouched, against a modeler that modeled an Uberschall going into an Uberkab mic'd with an SM57, and they sounded as similar as those clips did, then I'd be convinced. You can't cut 80% of tone creating elements out of a 'real' rig, then compare it to a modeler, and say they sound the same.



LordOVchaoS said:


> "Upon second listen I hear "digital artifacts". Just sounds fake and "digital", the low end is thin and the highs are brittle and fizzy. It could never compare to a real amp."



 so true. I especially love the 'digital artifacts' statement.


----------



## Customisbetter (Jun 22, 2010)

There is distortion in your tone? OH NOES!


----------



## sevenstringj (Jun 22, 2010)

I dunno. Tubes are supposedly all about touch response. So I think it's safe to say that most A/B comparisons, with their utter lack of dynamics, are worthless. Let's see someone who owns both digital and tubes change up the pick attack, play with the volume knob, do some hammer-on/pull-off swells, etc.


----------



## Sepultorture (Jun 22, 2010)

TemjinStrife said:


> Stuff like that you still have to worry about with a modeler



oh i know, i didn't take audio engineering for nothing LOL


----------



## TemjinStrife (Jun 22, 2010)

Then again, a lot of the complaints people have with modelers (thin, fizzy, doesn't 'cut' in a live situation) I've had with real tube amps like the Engl Fireball 60, Powerball, and the Framus Cobra!


----------



## JPhoenix19 (Jun 22, 2010)

TMM said:


> I think those are both pretty poor representations of what a 'real' tube amp can sound like. I'll admit that both sound very similar (though my familiarity with POD Farm allowed me to guess the first one correctly in seconds - I think the 'real' Marshall is the 2nd in the Marsha clip... we'll see if I'm right), but as far as I can tell it's only because the actual amp in both cases is being subjected to conditions that totally kill it's tone. That is the absolute worst I've ever heard an Uberschall sound, and I know even Marshalls can sound better than that.
> 
> Sure, if you cut the tube poweramp and speakers and mic (ie. 80-90% of the tone) out of the equation when comparing a tube head to a digital modeler, and instead just run the preamp into a bunch of programs to 'level the playing field', you can get them to sound pretty similar... but that shouldn't surprise anyone.
> 
> The playing field isn't level, and that's the point - if that Uberschall clip had been comparing an Uberschall into an Uberkab mic'd with an SM57 into a recording interface, tone untouched, against a modeler that modeled an Uberschall going into an Uberkab mic'd with an SM57, and they sounded as similar as those clips did, then I'd be convinced. You can't cut 80% of tone creating elements out of a 'real' rig, then compare it to a modeler, and say they sound the same.



 Thank you! You summed up my thoughts perfectly.


----------



## yacker (Jun 22, 2010)

LordOVchaoS said:


> I GUARANTEE we will see similar comments in the Gear Page thread I posted after Pete reveals the answer. The snobs have no idea right now, they're waiting for the revelation to say, "I could tell. Blah blah blah t3h digital, etc..."



This is ridiculously true. I'm trying to look at the Marsha vs fake thing as objectively as possible. I can't say with 100% certainty which is the Axe and which is the amp. What I can do though, is hear a difference and reason out why i think I hear that difference. One thing I really don't like is how long the guy plays before you get to hear the 2nd amp, plus he's playing a different part so that the same part is never back to back. 

Oh well, if you have a wav editor this is an easy fix. I went in and took the first 5 seconds of each amp clip and put them side by side so I could go back and forth much easier. (If anybody is interested in hearing the cut up version let me know). The answer hasn't been reviled yet to my knowledge and if I had to take a guess I would say number 2 sounds more "tubey" to my ears. It has a bit of what I call 'tube twang'. Which is that sound you get when you have a sharp pick attack and can hear the tubes break up (somewhat nasally) because of it. The first one seems to have more of a soft fuzz to it and is a bit darker. Kinda muffled like you often hear modelers described as.

I will be the first to say that what I'm hearing can be caused by other variables though. For what they are, both clips sound very similar and a tricky tester could have setup the real amp slightly darker to give off that muffled sound people associate with modelers. If the 2nd sound ends up actually being the AXE I'll be pretty impressed.


----------



## JohnIce (Jun 23, 2010)

Explorer said:


> It would be interesting for all the tube supporters here to post their guesses about the Marsha sound test before the sound sources are revealed....


 
I'm not a tube supporter, but as an Axe-Fx owner, i recognize a signature type of high mids in the first clip that seems to come with a lot of the Axe-Fx patches I've made and others have recorded. Scrutinizing guitar tones outside of a mix like this is of course quite pointless (unless you're actually a solo artist without a band), but still, I think no. 1 is the Axe-Fx due to those high mids.


----------



## cwhitey2 (Jun 23, 2010)

i started a post about the modelers not cutting through the mix. i have a line 6 spv mkii and unless i f'd up the eq (which i think i did) its hard to be heard mix. granted i just started playing in band with it so i need more time to adjust the settings.


----------



## cyril v (Jun 23, 2010)

I thought the marshall comparison was pretty obvious IMO... at least a lot more obvious than the Uberschall test to me (because I've never gotten my hands on that amp or even bothered with the pod version of it). In all honesty I prefer the AxeFX in the marshall thread... I'm sure a decent engineer could make them both sound ridiculously awesome but it just happens in this case I like the Axe better (which was clip A).


----------



## JohnIce (Jun 23, 2010)

This one is pretty sick, regarding the Axe-Fx vs. Marshall:


----------



## JohnIce (Jun 23, 2010)

Btw, that Marsha comparison was appearently recorded by Pete Thorn, a session guy who's played in Chris Cornell's band among others. I just saw he's got this video up:



Great player for sure, he's also done a sweet demo song on the Fractal page.


----------



## Cancer (Jun 23, 2010)

Preface: I fell in love with a tube amp the other day at GC. I played a PRS Torero through a Mesa Stiletto combo, and it absolutely blew me away.

That being said I think tube amps will be gone in 10 years, and here's why.

Before I start, let all agree that the desire for guitar amps has always been "largely" market driven. Tones generated by particular amps has defined entire genre of popular guitar music (particularly rock and metal). Younger players looking to emulate their heroes tones continue the cycle of sales until something comes along to make them switch, this desire being either discovery of their own tone, or their own changing taste in music.

That being said, here's what I think will happen.

A: 
Modelling will continue on it's present course appearing on albums and stages worldwide. This will spur sales in other modellers by younger artists looking to replicate that tone, and because of budget constraints.

B;
as dictated by Moore Law, processing in modellers will grow exponentially every 18 months. This has the dual benefit of adding power and capability to the user, and lowering the cost of production.

C:
Modelling companies will continue to add their own in-house models (Fractal, Line 6 and others do this now) in addition to the popular amp equilavents that they currently offer. In addition, some will offer the ability build models from the ground up using modelled parts (Peavey Revalver does this now). Some of the modelled parts will probably include parts that are hard, if not impossible, to find to in reality, or include parts that are only available virtually (like cabinet impulses). Companies will do this out of competition with each other, in an attempt to lock in consumers, and also to impart an identifiable sonic signature into their products. It also gives incentive to have consumer continue to buy hardware as the price of it components races to zero.

D:
An act, or musical genre (probably some future form of metal) will use the above and after their rise of popularity cause younger players to emulate their gear choices.

E: Increased sales will cause increased competition, causing a loop back to B:

F: After a few itierations of B through E, modellers will evolve to the point that no tube amp system can emulate the sounds, thus relegating tube amps to antiquity.

G. Tube amps will never go away, but even the simplest designs will be prohibitively expensive, and offer less functionality as their modern counterparts (we're starting to see this already).


----------



## Larrikin666 (Jun 23, 2010)

^ Very well articulated. I totally agree.


----------



## AkiraSpectrum (Jun 23, 2010)

Cancer said:


> Preface: I fell in love with a tube amp the other day at GC. I played a PRS Torero through a Mesa Stiletto combo, and it absolutely blew me away.
> 
> That being said I think tube amps will be gone in 10 years, and here's why.
> 
> ...






this comment is speculative at best. i am not saying that this isn't a potential future for guitar amps but it is too 'matter of fact'. 

a problem I have with this comment and others like it is that it assumes digital amps are going to be the norm (or rather dominant) in the future merely because eventually they will match (or in some ways surpass) tube amps in sound quality. touching on your opening statement (something similar to a post I made not to long ago on this thread) amps are very much market driven. as such there must be a 'need/desire' for digital amps from the masses which for many depends largely on what the 'pros' are playing. if generations of pros to come stick with tube amps and the average guitar player aims to 'be like their fave guitarist' the desire for digital will most likely not 'take over'.

just because technology becomes better does not mean it becomes more desirable. as a rough example not too long ago everyone thought phones would today be extremely tiny; however, the opposite has occurred, when we have the technology to produce extremely small phone technology we don't, instead phones have gotten bigger again to make way for screens and buttons for texting. we can't assume that because modeling tech gets better that it will dominate the market. what will play a significant role in the future of digital technology will be "us" not the technology itself. again if you look at my previous post you will see my mention of line 6's spider valve and their discontinuation of their flextones and hd147's as well as randall's new RT (all tube) line. right now there is still a huge desire for tubes and if that desire doesn't change then tube amps will continue to exist until the average guitarist and or pro guitarist wants to switch to digital. 

again any post that says "this will happen" should be regarded as merely speculative as we cannot predict exactly how the future will turn out. again, im not saying that digital technology wont become the norm or anything like that, i am saying that just because digital technology is getting better doesn't mean with any certainty that guitarists will want it.


----------



## McKay (Jun 23, 2010)

AkiraSpectrum said:


> this comment is speculative at best. i am not saying that this isn't a potential future for guitar amps but it is too 'matter of fact'.
> 
> a problem I have with this comment and others like it is that it assumes digital amps are going to be the norm (or rather dominant) in the future merely because eventually they will match (or in some ways surpass) tube amps in sound quality. touching on your opening statement (something similar to a post I made not to long ago on this thread) amps are very much market driven. as such there must be a 'need/desire' for digital amps from the masses which for many depends largely on what the 'pros' are playing. if generations of pros to come stick with tube amps and the average guitar player aims to 'be like their fave guitarist' the desire for digital will most likely not 'take over'.
> 
> ...



As for idols using modelling gear - Meshuggah, Meagdeth, Cynic and DT are using the Axe now. Pretty big names.


----------



## TomAwesome (Jun 23, 2010)

If by DT you mean Dream Theater, Petrucci isn't using modeling. He has an Axe-FX, but he's just using it for effects.

Edit: You probably meant Devin Townsend, huh? In that case, yeah.


----------



## McKay (Jun 23, 2010)

TomAwesome said:


> If by DT you mean Dream Theater, Petrucci isn't using modeling. He has an Axe-FX, but he's just using it for effects.
> 
> Edit: You probably meant Devin Townsend, huh? In that case, yeah.



Yeah, should have been more specific there.


----------



## LordOVchaoS (Jun 23, 2010)

AkiraSpectrum said:


> this comment is speculative at best. i am not saying that this isn't a potential future for guitar amps but it is too 'matter of fact'.
> 
> a problem I have with this comment and others like it is that it assumes digital amps are going to be the norm (or rather dominant) in the future merely because eventually they will match (or in some ways surpass) tube amps in sound quality. touching on your opening statement (something similar to a post I made not to long ago on this thread) amps are very much market driven. as such there must be a 'need/desire' for digital amps from the masses which for many depends largely on what the 'pros' are playing. if generations of pros to come stick with tube amps and the average guitar player aims to 'be like their fave guitarist' the desire for digital will most likely not 'take over'.
> 
> ...



Again, I refer to the analog recording purists of the late 80's/early 90's  They said digital would NEVER replace analog recording. Pro-tools anyone? If it works better, it is better.


----------



## Heavy Ed (Jun 23, 2010)

The tube vs modeller topic is being discussed on all the instrument/gear forums I visit with alot of different opinions. I personally think modeling will replace tube amp but exactly when I don't have a guess. Will tube amps completely disappear? I doubt it! I know years ago people claimed SS amps signaled the end for tubes, and now it seems like we have a rebirth in tube amp interest with all the new amp companies that sprung up in the last decade. So I doubt Mesa and Marshall will be closing their doors in the next 10 years.

I think the true death of tube amps will be the tubes themselves. The technology is old and there are fewer places that produce them. Eventually quality, consistancy, and affordability will be out the window. But who knows?


----------



## yacker (Jun 23, 2010)

LordOVchaoS said:


> Again, I refer to the analog recording purists of the late 80's/early 90's  They said digital would NEVER replace analog recording. Pro-tools anyone? If it works better, it is better.



And while pro-tools may have taken over digital editing, analog technology in the recording studio is far from extinct. Tube mics, tube/analog mastering gear, and tube preamps are all still widely used.

I really don't mean to come off as one of the tube snobs, I just don't think this issue is as clear cut as some may think. I think demand will completely dictate how much longer tubes are around and it could go either way, but will most likely stay somewhere in the middle.


----------



## Sepultorture (Jun 23, 2010)

AkiraSpectrum said:


> this comment is speculative at best. i am not saying that this isn't a potential future for guitar amps but it is too 'matter of fact'.
> 
> a problem I have with this comment and others like it is that it assumes digital amps are going to be the norm (or rather dominant) in the future merely because eventually they will match (or in some ways surpass) tube amps in sound quality. touching on your opening statement (something similar to a post I made not to long ago on this thread) amps are very much market driven. as such there must be a 'need/desire' for digital amps from the masses which for many depends largely on what the 'pros' are playing. if generations of pros to come stick with tube amps and the average guitar player aims to 'be like their fave guitarist' the desire for digital will most likely not 'take over'.
> 
> ...



digital will one day become the norm, it's really a matter of WHEN, soon, probably not, but someday in the not too distant future

i want my flying car, fack you blade runner and your false hopes of flying cars *shakes fist*


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Jun 23, 2010)

yacker said:


> And while pro-tools may have taken over digital editing, analog technology in the recording studio is far from extinct. Tube mics, tube/analog mastering gear, and tube preamps are all still widely used.
> 
> I really don't mean to come off as one of the tube snobs, I just don't think this issue is as clear cut as some may think. I think demand will completely dictate this sort of thing in the long run and it could go either way, but will most likely stay somewhere in the middle.



Though look at all the folks using digital gear for home recordings right now. You think that's not going to have an effect on what future studio owners and producers use?


----------



## Cancer (Jun 24, 2010)

Actually, there is one other option (electronics geeks feel free to chime in). Amplifiers with digital components, but not controlled by a central processor. I'm not 100% sure how it would work, but it would very analogous to how I "believe" tube amps work in general now (ie. signal is input, split off into various components, processed by those components, then recombined before being output).


----------



## yacker (Jun 24, 2010)

MaxOfMetal said:


> Though look at all the folks using digital gear for home recordings right now. You think that's not going to have an effect on what future studio owners and producers use?



Haha, I knew someone would bring that up. I'm really conflicted on that whole issue. Clearly the home recording industry is putting a lot of engineers out of work and it's yet to be seen whether that industry as we know it will become a thing of the past. 

What I'm still uncertain about is whether the top of the spectrum of engineers working with major labels and having large budgets on their side will go extinct. So long as that still exists I think whatever sounds the best will continue to be used and purchased, if that happens to be tube then so be it...or digital, so be it. I think the question is whether that group of elites will become so small it wont matter what they prefer. 

However, I really don't see the mastering profession disappearing. We may continue to make strides in home recording, but when it comes to having the top dollar room acoustics, insanely flat response monitors, and yes...analog mastering gear to make a mix sound the same on any sound system out there, they've got us beat. So if they need their analog gear, it will be had. I'm sure people will argue that it shouldn't really matter since everything seems to end up being an mp3 these days....but I think that's all the more reason mastering engineers are necessary.

What the hell do I know though, a few generations down the road quality may not be the chief concern, even in the recording industry, it may be convenience. Supporting large pieces of analog gear might just become too much of a burden....I just hope by the time that happens it truly won't even matter.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Jun 24, 2010)

yacker said:


> Haha, I knew someone would bring that up. I'm really conflicted on that whole issue. Clearly the home recording industry is putting a lot of engineers out of work and it's yet to be seen whether that industry as we know it will become a thing of the past.
> 
> What I'm still uncertain about is whether the top of the spectrum of engineers working with major labels and having large budgets on their side will go extinct. So long as that still exists I think whatever sounds the best will continue to be used and purchased, if that happens to be tube then so be it...or digital, so be it. I think the question is whether that group of elites will become so small it wont matter what they prefer.
> 
> However, I really don't see the mastering profession disappearing. We may continue to make strides in home recording, but when it comes to having the top dollar room acoustics, insanely flat response monitors, and yes analog mastering gear to make a mix sound the same on any sound system out there, they've got us beat. So if they need their analog gear, it will be had.



What I'm saying is those future big budget studio owners, big name producers, and pro studio builders who cut their teeth using digital gear of today (AxeFx, ProTools, Waves, etc.) might not be so eager to throw all their past, positive experience with digital gear to the wind the very second they get a bigger budget. 

Think of the teenager in his room working with his Mbox Pro and tons of digital gear. Imagine where he'll be in twenty or thirty years down the road. If he's in the equivalent of a modern studio of his day, how much of his great grandpas gear do you think he'll realistically using? 

Though, consider where digital gear will be in two or three decades. It was less than a decade ago where the POD was the absolute pinnacle of digital guitar technology.

While I certainly don't think that studios will go all digital soon, think about the next generation. It's going to get here a lot sooner than we all think.


----------



## AkiraSpectrum (Jun 24, 2010)

LordOVchaoS said:


> Again, I refer to the analog recording purists of the late 80's/early 90's  They said digital would NEVER replace analog recording. Pro-tools anyone? If it works better, it is better.



im not sure how this is a response to my post. my post is not saying digital wont take over what it is saying is that we can't be 100% sure when and if it will happen. remember the time when everyone "knew" that the world was flat? we have to be very careful about what we think we "know." that is all im saying. 

as for the 'if it works better it is better' quote i am unsure what that even means. how do you define 'works better' in what way does something 'work better'? especially in relation to this topic? it seems that one guitar tone isn't objectively better than another guitar tone, rather just different (i say this because tone is subjective). in reality nothing is truly "objective" but this is going into philosophy, something we will not get in to here. 

In relation to this quote: "As for idols using modelling gear - Meshuggah, Meagdeth, Cynic and DT are using the Axe now. Pretty big names."

Response: again I don't think anyone is actually reading my post here but anyways-- some bands are using modeling gear (some of which are bands I love by the way), but it is a small % in relation to others at the current time. Plus these bands you name, while big names in their respective circles, are not widely popularized to the majority of music listeners in the western world. 



to sum up: 

as i've said many times, we cannot be certain what the future has in store for the popularity of digital guitar amplifiers. it seems likely that digital technology will reign supreme but we can't be sure that this will happen. does this mean im a 'tube snob'? no! I own digital, ss and tube guitar equipment and I honestly don't care which of the three becomes 'standard'. what i am saying is that any post that is 'tubes will be dead in x amount of years' is clearly speculative, we don't know how many years it will take for 'tubes to be dead' or if it will ever happen, maybe it will maybe it wont.


----------



## yacker (Jun 24, 2010)

MaxOfMetal said:


> What I'm saying is those future big budget studio owners, big name producers, and pro studio builders who cut their teeth using digital gear of today (AxeFx, ProTools, Waves, etc.) might not be so eager to throw all their past, positive experience with digital gear to the wind the very second they get a bigger budget.
> 
> Think of the teenager in his room working with his Mbox Pro and tons of digital gear. Imagine where he'll be in twenty or thirty years down the road. If he's in the equivalent of a modern studio of his day, how much of his great grandpas gear do you think he'll realistically using?
> 
> ...



Yea, you definitely have a point and so long as the quality of digital gear continues to increase and eventually surpass or at least equal tube/analog technology in the different fields....I can't say that I'll really miss tubes. I just don't think we're all the way there yet. I'm still a bit skeptical of whether we will truly get to that point, but I'm open minded as well.



AkiraSpectrum said:


> to sum up:
> 
> as i've said many times, we cannot be certain what the future has in store for the popularity of digital guitar amplifiers. it seems likely that digital technology will reign supreme but we can't be sure that this will happen. does this mean im a 'tube snob'? no! I own digital, ss and tube guitar equipment and I honestly don't care which of the three becomes 'standard'. what i am saying is that any post that is 'tubes will be dead in x amount of years' is clearly speculative, we don't know how many years it will take for 'tubes to be dead' or if it will ever happen, maybe it will maybe it wont.



+1


----------



## LordOVchaoS (Jun 24, 2010)

AkiraSpectrum said:


> as for the 'if it works better it is better' quote i am unsure what that even means. how do you define 'works better' in what way does something 'work better'? especially in relation to this topic?



Hard drives work better than reel-to-reel tape  I don't think that can be argued anymore. 

In many ways a good modeler "works better" than a tube amp. The tone is consistent, no degrading components (tubes), the humidity won't change the tone of the guitars from day to day during your studio session, you can record guitar parts for an album in100 different places (and sound exactly the same from place to place) as room acoustics are taken out of the equation, when you go to a gig you don't have to worry about them having good mics, just plug a cable into the PA, no pedals in front of you, only a small rack behind you, no more batteries for the pedals going bad during a gig, etc... etc...

Plus ~20 amps and a bunch of cabs with several thousands of dollars worth of nice modeled effects and microphones doesn't hurt  All for the price of one amp.


----------



## DrunkyMunky (Jun 24, 2010)

For a beginner like me, modeling is a gift from above - I have everything I can think of under my feet (RP500) for little money. And there are thousands of weekend musicians that will never pay a small fortune for a Mesa and a few boutique effects.

I speak for myself when I say I can't tell much difference from a tube amp and a digital model (RP 500 rocks?). It doesn't matter for me - little space, weight and choices take precedence. But hearing everyone talking about the superiority of tubes kind of makes me want one. But hey, I hear a lot about Axe FX and now I want one too, even though I don't need it. If I played in a band and had the money to spend that's what I would get...


----------



## LordOVchaoS (Jun 24, 2010)

DrunkyMunky said:


> For a beginner like me, modeling is a gift from above



I've been gigging for 18 years and I feel the same.



DrunkyMunky said:


> I have everything I can think of under my feet (RP500) for little money. And there are thousands of weekend musicians that will never pay a small fortune for a Mesa and a few boutique effects.



I have paid small fortunes for several amps and effects  Still happier with my modeler. In fact, when I decided to go modeling again (that's what I was using before taking the tube plunge) I had an Engl SE, G-Major, Decimator ProRack-G, Engl Z-12 to control it all, and a Vader cabinet. Add that up  All replaced by a $2000 Axe Ultra. 



DrunkyMunky said:


> RP 500 rocks?



Yes it does. I had a GSP1101 before the Axe-FX and I LOVED it. Same modeling as what you have. The only reason I decided to go with the Axe-FX is the limited selection of cabs on the Digitech that sound good  I really liked the amp modeling!


----------



## DrunkyMunky (Jun 24, 2010)

LordOVchaoS said:


> Yes it does. I had a GSP1101 before the Axe-FX and I LOVED it. Same modeling as what you have. The only reason I decided to go with the Axe-FX is the limited selection of cabs on the Digitech that sound good  I really liked the amp modeling!



Funny you mentioned the cabs... I occasionally scroll through them and end up where I started. Hey but it still beats trying 25 real cabs  that would be painful.


----------



## JPhoenix19 (Jun 24, 2010)

LordOVchaoS said:


> Hard drives work better than reel-to-reel tape  I don't think that can be argued anymore.
> 
> In many ways a good modeler "works better" than a tube amp. The tone is consistent, no degrading components (tubes), the humidity won't change the tone of the guitars from day to day during your studio session, you can record guitar parts for an album in100 different places (and sound exactly the same from place to place) as room acoustics are taken out of the equation, when you go to a gig you don't have to worry about them having good mics, just plug a cable into the PA, no pedals in front of you, only a small rack behind you, no more batteries for the pedals going bad during a gig, etc... etc...
> 
> Plus ~20 amps and a bunch of cabs with several thousands of dollars worth of nice modeled effects and microphones doesn't hurt  All for the price of one amp.



Thank you for putting "works better" in quotations. I completely agree with you. Having never tried an Axe-Fx or GSP1101, and only ever hearing clips, I have yet to be completely convinced that I'd be able to get 'that' tone in my head with a digital modeler- a tone I have gotten with my Roadster. I'd really love to sit down with an Axe-Fx and try!


----------



## AkiraSpectrum (Jun 24, 2010)

LordOVchaoS said:


> Hard drives work better than reel-to-reel tape  I don't think that can be argued anymore.
> 
> In many ways a good modeler "works better" than a tube amp. The tone is consistent, no degrading components (tubes), the humidity won't change the tone of the guitars from day to day during your studio session, you can record guitar parts for an album in100 different places (and sound exactly the same from place to place) as room acoustics are taken out of the equation, when you go to a gig you don't have to worry about them having good mics, just plug a cable into the PA, no pedals in front of you, only a small rack behind you, no more batteries for the pedals going bad during a gig, etc... etc...
> 
> Plus ~20 amps and a bunch of cabs with several thousands of dollars worth of nice modeled effects and microphones doesn't hurt  All for the price of one amp.



this is your definition of 'work better,' in no way is it universal... (again philosophy)...

this kind of reminds me of the state of televisions right now... what is dominating the market almost exclusively? plasma and lcd televisions... why? perhaps because they are more convenient and smaller in size etc. HOWEVER, CRT televisions still have better picture quality and have better life expectancy. just because something is 'better' doesn't mean it will dominate the market. 

for all we know digital tech may lose a lot of popularity (in comparison to what it has now) for the next ten years and then take over in 20 (who knows?) or perhaps some new technology will develop in the amp market?


----------



## Explorer (Jun 24, 2010)

AkiraSpectrum said:


> for all we know digital tech may lose a lot of popularity (in comparison to what it has now) for the next ten years and then take over in 20 (who knows?) or perhaps some new technology will develop in the amp market?



How much popularity would digital audio equipment have to lose in order to have equivalent sales volumes to analog audio equipment? 

My friends who work in music retail see much more in digital and solid state sales, both in pedals and amps, than in analog/tube gear. For all that some might be under the impression that there is a huge demand for whatever analog/tube gear they themselves prefer, the numbers just aren't there to support the idea that analog/tube gear even begins to compare with that. 

How many tube heads sell compared to even just the Sam Ash solid state amps? How many total unit sales of boutique analog pedal makers would you have to combine in order to equal unit sales of, say, Boss distortion pedals in the US alone? 

(Taking a quick look, incidentally, the only non-digital piece on my pedalboard is a Mastotron. The bang-for-the-buck factor with my Chorus Factory and Digiverb, for example, made it an easy choice, and the fact that there is no analog gear that can do what my PS-3 or HOG can do means the only place I can go from here is modeled effects...)


----------



## AkiraSpectrum (Jun 24, 2010)

Explorer said:


> How much popularity would digital audio equipment have to lose in order to have equivalent sales volumes to analog audio equipment?
> 
> My friends who work in music retail see much more in digital and solid state sales, both in pedals and amps, than in analog/tube gear. For all that some might be under the impression that there is a huge demand for whatever analog/tube gear they themselves prefer, the numbers just aren't there to support the idea that analog/tube gear even begins to compare with that.
> 
> ...



digital and ss sales are very popular because they cater towards the 'average' guitar player (for good reason). however among 'pro' guitar players tube is still dominant at the current time. also note that i was referring to digital amplifiers not digital audio equipment in general. 

also note that by 'available options' digital amps are outnumbered by tube amplifiers at the current time. will this change? yeah probably, it is very likely digital amps will start to grow in the next decade and may even become the standard for touring musicians but to say this is only to speculate and to guess. we can't predict the future with 100% certainty. 

im not sure how you going through your gear setup is helpful here, one account doesn't prove anything. to reiterate, i didn't say digital and ss weren't very popular among the average guitarist rather digital amps are still far behind tube amps among professional touring musicians (at least currently). 

this quote is just silly:

"For all that some might be under the impression that there is a huge demand for whatever analog/tube gear they themselves prefer, the numbers just aren't there to support the idea that analog/tube gear even begins to compare with that."
-- kind of how you tried to show your digital gear as proof (obviously that which you prefer)?
-- my argument has been in relation to the popularity of tube and digital amplifiers among pro/semi-pro touring musicians not the popularity of amplifier type among the 'average person who plays guitar'.


In addition:

I am not saying what has happened in the drum world will also happen in the guitar world but remember when everyone thought digital/electronic drum sets were going to dominate by now? the majority of players have stuck with standard drum kits. this doesn't mean the guitar world will stick with tube amps, but it shows that digital tech (drums or guitar amps) have a lot of fighting to do. we can only sit back and watch how the future will pan out, as well as participate in this future which is always 'to come'.


----------



## TMM (Jun 24, 2010)

AkiraSpectrum said:


> I am not saying what has happened in the drum world will also happen in the guitar world but remember when everyone thought digital/electronic drum sets were going to dominate by now? the majority of players have stuck with standard drum kits. this doesn't mean the guitar world will stick with tube amps, but it shows that digital tech (drums or guitar amps) have a lot of fighting to do. we can only sit back and watch how the future will pan out, as well as participate in this future which is always 'to come'.



I have the feeling there won't be a 'victor' in this debate. The most likely outcome is that the market will settle on some balance of the two, as the drum market has. As an example, Broderick's switch from an all-tube Engl setup to a mixed Axe-Fx + Marshall EL34 100/100 setup. From my point of view, that type of a rig is a 'best of both worlds' setup, where you have the versatility and flexibility of the Axe, coupled with the tried-and-true, harmonically rich tone of a tube power section.

Granted, for guitars, the market will probably be tilted toward digital / modeling gear, rather than analog, where the drum world is tilted in the other direction (more 'analog' than digital). Both markets show different distributions depending on the segment you're looking at, whether it be beginners, non-pro but experienced, recording engineers, pros, etc.


----------



## AkiraSpectrum (Jun 24, 2010)

TMM said:


> I have the feeling there won't be a 'victor' in this debate. The most likely outcome is that the market will settle on some balance of the two, as the drum market has. As an example, Broderick's switch from an all-tube Engl setup to a mixed Axe-Fx + Marshall EL34 100/100 setup. From my point of view, that type of a rig is a 'best of both worlds' setup, where you have the versatility and flexibility of the Axe, coupled with the tried-and-true, harmonically rich tone of a tube power section.
> 
> Granted, for guitars, the market will probably be tilted toward digital / modeling gear, rather than analog, where the drum world is tilted in the other direction (more 'analog' than digital). Both markets show different distributions depending on the segment you're looking at, whether it be beginners, non-pro but experienced, recording engineers, pros, etc.



definitely, i think this is likely, going from the current state of affairs in drums and guitars. we'll just have to wait and see what happens


----------



## JohnIce (Jun 24, 2010)

I don't know if it's been mentioned, but the keyboard world has really pretty much had this same evolution already... starting with acoustic pianos, progressing into electric pianos into analogue synthezisers, finally into digital keyboards and MIDI-triggered plugins etc. Granted, there's a difference there to the guitar in that an acoustic piano (especially a grand piano) is damn near impossible to tour with because of size and weight. But a tube halfstack with an accompanying rack and pedalboard isn't the most portable thing in the world either, especially if you bring several guitars...

But well, many top-dogs in the keyboard world are now fine with using digital products, so I don't see why guitar players should fall too far behind. Granted the keyboard technology has been developed over a longer time, but with the advent of Line6 and now Axe-Fx, not to mention MIDI and Piezo systems from Roland and Axon etc., we're getting pretty close to the same goal I'd say.

Maybe the future standard rig is something like a Line 6 Variax into an Axe-Fx? Because that's really the kind of flexibility that keyboardists are used to by now. An instrument that holds a multitude of guitar tones, acoustic and electric, vintage and modern, into an amp modeller that does the same thing.


----------



## LordOVchaoS (Jun 24, 2010)

Most drummers, at least in the metal scene, have gone to a mix of acoustic/triggered drums. Triggers = digital. No different than an electronic set, just the triggers are on acoustic drums.


----------



## TMM (Jun 24, 2010)

Here's a different take on it (maybe you could view it as a 'The Time Machine' view?) -

Rather than directly competing against each other, maybe developers of digital vs tube technology will just specialize in their respective strengths... it's the only real way to move forward past a certain point. Think of it like this - how many times have you heard the recommendation, "well, if you're looking for huge versatility and good tone, go with [modeler X]. But if [tube amp Y] is the tone / responsiveness you're looking for, go with that, because nothing else is going to nail that tone". A modeler will never fully capture the 'feel' & tone (100%) of an all-tube head, and an all-tube head will never come close to the versatility of a digital modeling rig. So I suspect each will (or at least should) specialize and focus on their respective strength that the other can't touch - the modeling rigs can work on making their tone better, but specifically on becoming increasingly more flexible and useful, and the tube head alchemists can focus on creating tube heads that truly excel in a narrowly-defined tonal spectrum. An SLO100 is a wonderful existing example of this - it's not massively versatile (at least when compared with a modeler), but within it's tonal spectrum, no other tube head can touch it, let alone a modeler. On the other side, even a tube head mothership like the Engl SE doesn't come close to a PODx3, let alone the Axe-Fx in terms of features and versatility.

Just food for thought... I'm not sure which one is the grunty, orge-y one, and which is the telepathic pale one.


----------



## jbcrazy (Jun 25, 2010)

TMM said:


> Here's a different take on it (maybe you could view it as a 'The Time Machine' view?) -
> 
> Rather than directly competing against each other, maybe developers of digital vs tube technology will just specialize in their respective strengths... it's the only real way to move forward past a certain point. Think of it like this - how many times have you heard the recommendation, "well, if you're looking for huge versatility and good tone, go with [modeler X]. But if [tube amp Y] is the tone / responsiveness you're looking for, go with that, because nothing else is going to nail that tone". A modeler will never fully capture the 'feel' & tone (100%) of an all-tube head, and an all-tube head will never come close to the versatility of a digital modeling rig. So I suspect each will (or at least should) specialize and focus on their respective strength that the other can't touch - the modeling rigs can work on making their tone better, but specifically on becoming increasingly more flexible and useful, and the tube head alchemists can focus on creating tube heads that truly excel in a narrowly-defined tonal spectrum. An SLO100 is a wonderful existing example of this - it's not massively versatile (at least when compared with a modeler), but within it's tonal spectrum, no other tube head can touch it, let alone a modeler. On the other side, even a tube head mothership like the Engl SE doesn't come close to a PODx3, let alone the Axe-Fx in terms of features and versatility.
> 
> Just food for thought... I'm not sure which one is the grunty, orge-y one, and which is the telepathic pale one.


 
I used to think this. But it certainly is not true in my situation. I am not willing to say that a modeler can catch 100 percent the feel of a tube but with my set up right now I would be lying if it wasn't so close I could tell a difference.

The Axe-FX along with the Mackie 1531HD has been my pandora's box of tone. Tube amps... modeler.. whatever. It is that sound that made me go "What the hell" the first time I had my Diezel Herbert Stack.. or my Engl Invader... only better.  I a/b my Diezel Einstien and Axe/Mack systems numerously... each time the Axe-FX/Mack not only sounding just as powerful, but just as dynamic. Heck the Einstien felt more compressed depending on the model I chose.

The Axe-FX to me feels as tube as tube can get. My first amps were Line 6, and I remember first time jamming on a Hughes and Kettner Triamp MK2 and being blown away by the feel and power of tubes. From then on I swore away from modelers... the line 6 stuff just was not cutting it for me.

Fast foward to now? I think the Axe-FX with the right setup not only captures the "tube" dynamic to a tee. But it improves it by giving you the versatility. There is no way in hell I am going back to a tube/4x12 rig. The only reason for me would be for pure decoration or nostalgia. I've owned them all. Hughes and Kettner Triamp, Mesa Mark V/IV, Diezel Herbert/einstien, Engl Invader, various Fender combos, Peavey 6505plus...

To me, for the first time... a digital "modeler" and some awesome loudspeakers smoked the tube amps I've owned. Its not even a contest for me.

Will Tubes be completely replaced? Probably not. But for me... I just don't see any reason to go back. It would be pointless.


----------



## TMM (Jun 25, 2010)

jbcrazy said:


> a) But it certainly is not true in my situation
> b) I am not willing to say that a modeler can catch 100 percent the feel of a tube...



These 2 statements are contradictory - either it is true, and a modeler will never be 100% of a nice all-tube amp, or it is not, and a modeler can catch 100% of the tone / feel. I believe the former to be true, and it sounds like that's what you were trying to get at, too. I understand what you're saying though, that it's too close for you to care, tonally & feel-wise, and you prefer the flexibility (and probably mobility) of the Axe rig. That is the compelling argument for a modeling rig.


----------



## Key_Maker (Jun 25, 2010)

Why everybody asumes that the "flexibility" the way for more and better equipment?

You can't forget that there's people (i am one of those) that is completely happy making the plug-and-play as a statement.




Just 1 amazing sound!

More play, less gear...


----------



## TMM (Jun 25, 2010)

Key_Maker said:


> Why everybody asumes that the "flexibility" the way for more and better equipment?
> 
> You can't forget that there's people (i am one of those) that is completely happy making the plug-and-play as a statement.
> 
> More play, less gear...



That is this argument:



TMM said:


> ..."well, if you're looking for huge versatility and good tone, go with [modeler X]. But if [tube amp Y] is the tone / responsiveness you're looking for, go with that, because nothing else is going to nail that tone"...



People can be on one side or the other of this, but I think there will always be representation on both sides, which is why tube amps will not disappear from the market, while their quantity may decrease.


----------



## jbcrazy (Jun 25, 2010)

TMM said:


> These 2 statements are contradictory - either it is true, and a modeler will never be 100% of a nice all-tube amp, or it is not, and a modeler can catch 100% of the tone / feel. I believe the former to be true, and it sounds like that's what you were trying to get at, too. I understand what you're saying though, that it's too close for you to care, tonally & feel-wise, and you prefer the flexibility (and probably mobility) of the Axe rig. That is the compelling argument for a modeling rig.


 
Its not. Because i can't speak for other people in terms of what a "tube amp" subjectively feels like. We can all describe to eachother how a tube amp reacts and feels but in truth all tube amps react differently. 

Warmth... sag... balls.. power... dynamics... slight "tube" compression. 

Those are words to describe tubes that I've heard. But really, all of us fight over what exactly "warm" is in the first place. Some persons "warmth" can be another persons muddy tone... etc. Some persons incredibly dynamic amp can lack girth... a too compressed amp may sound "digital"/flat... Yes.. "digital"...

What we like about our tube amps is experienced subjectively... and in terms of the nuances of a picky guitar player I can't sit here and say to EVERYONE the Axe-FX will 100 percent satisfy their "ear" of what a tube amp is. I do know alot of guys believe what I believe.. and I now i know why. 

To me? It feels completely and sounds like an all tube amp no ifs, ands, or buts. The Diezel patch I ran in the Axe-FX with a Mackie is more my thing than a Diezel with a Diezel Cab or a Bogner cab in fact. The harshness of listening to cab straight in your face is gone... but its still in your face! I don't know how it is for others. That's what I meant. Probably worded it wrong. 

I hope tube amps don't go and they CAN'T go...

Cliff needs to model more amps...


----------



## TMM (Jun 25, 2010)

jbcrazy said:


> Its not. Because i can't speak for other people in terms of what a "tube amp" subjectively feels like. We can all describe to eachother how a tube amp reacts and feels but in truth all tube amps react differently.


 
I just meant that, for a given all-tube amp, a given modeler won't be able to copy the tone & 'feel' exactly; I can't tell if it sounds like you disagree, or if you agree, but actually like the tone and / or feel of the Axe better. 



jbcrazy said:


> Those are words to describe tubes that I've heard. But really, all of us fight over what exactly "warm" is in the first place. Some persons "warmth" can be another persons muddy tone... etc. Some persons incredibly dynamic amp can lack girth... a too compressed amp may sound "digital"/flat... Yes.. "digital"...


 
Haha, yeah, I've read that more than once. Hilarious when someone describes an Engl SE as sounding 'digital' (yes, I've read that multiple times). What does a Line-6 sound like, then? An automatic can opener?



jbcrazy said:


> To me? It feels completely and sounds like an all tube amp no ifs, ands, or buts. The Diezel patch I ran in the Axe-FX with a Mackie is more my thing than a Diezel with a Diezel Cab or a Bogner cab in fact. The harshness of listening to cab straight in your face is gone... but its still in your face! I don't know how it is for others. That's what I meant. Probably worded it wrong.


 
Speaking of this... (maybe slightly off-topic) What do you think of the Mackie? Do you get enough volume / tone for practice / shows out of just 1, or do you use a pair of them? Feel free to PM instead of reply if you'd prefer to keep it out of this thread.



jbcrazy said:


> I hope tube amps don't go and they CAN'T go...
> 
> Cliff needs to model more amps...



Haha, yeah, someone mentioned that earlier in this thread, that tube amps will exist if for nothing else then to be something new to model. I think someone else replied that the digital companies (Fractal, Line-6, etc) are already making their own signature digital models (like the Line-6 Big Bottom) that are plenty successful on their own. I haven't tried an Axe myself yet, so I can't speak to Fractal, but I know with Line-6, as cool as the Big Bottom and Chunk Chunk are, I still like the Triple Rec and Silver Jubilee (ie. 'real' amp) models better.


----------



## jbcrazy (Jun 25, 2010)

TMM said:


> I just meant that, for a given all-tube amp, a given modeler won't be able to copy the tone & 'feel' exactly; I can't tell if it sounds like you disagree, or if you agree, but actually like the tone and / or feel of the Axe better.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
About copying tones. I am unsure if it is 100 percent because unless Cliff comes over to my house and shows me the process of the modeling and how he runs his rig to make his models, I don't think I'd ever get a perfect replication. I am not interested in that though as you said. 

And you are correct. I actually like the tones coming out of the Axe-FX more than the real deals. I am not so much looking for a VH4 clone for instance when i use the VH4 "amp model" in the axe-fx. There are attributes in the VH4 I like, and given the right set up with the Axe, you can only improve on it... that's how good the "modeling" is and its better than just having a fake VH4 in your house IMO. It sounds better than my Diezel rig.

About the Mackie don't need a PM.  In short, you need to tame the low end, but once you do.. its loud... powerful.. pushes air and will beat down any drummer and any brutal cabinet you can name. I run it mono for now, just sold my VHT poweramp and going to pick up another to run stereo. Someone is going to die. 

I run the mackie MINIMUM DB, with the Axe-FX output at 10 o'clock and its already just BLAZING.


----------



## cyril v (Jun 25, 2010)

Key_Maker said:


> Why everybody asumes that the "flexibility" the way for more and better equipment?
> 
> You can't forget that there's people (i am one of those) that is completely happy making the plug-and-play as a statement.
> 
> ...



Govan uses three different amps on Erotic Cakes...

Joe Bonamassa... check out his gear tour, he uses 4 amps live (you can actually see them pan past them in the video you posted, lol). I'd bet he has way more that he uses in the studio.



Plus they both rock huge pedal boards... their set-ups are pretty far from plug-in and play, also all of that stuff could be done with just one Axe FX. 

Just sayin'


----------



## JohnnyMcFly (Jul 14, 2011)

> Haha, yeah, someone mentioned that earlier in this thread, that tube amps will exist if for nothing else then to be something new to model. I think someone else replied that the digital companies (Fractal, Line-6, etc) are already making their own signature digital models (like the Line-6 Big Bottom) that are plenty successful on their own. I haven't tried an Axe myself yet, so I can't speak to Fractal, but I know with Line-6, as cool as the Big Bottom and Chunk Chunk are, I still like the Triple Rec and Silver Jubilee (ie. 'real' amp) models better.


 
IMO for this industry to move forward, we have to separate the digital world from the analog world. There is no way that a digital "model" will be able to replicate 100% accuracy to its tube counterpart. Any person, or company that tells you theirs can, is full of shit. Full stop. 

Is there great sounding amp sims, hell yeah, but making it look like a Marshall doesn't make it a Marshall. I fully respect that amp modelers are starting to create their own original digital heads and I think that is where anyone who uses these technologies should look to and support. Get rid of the marketting hype and the make believe that there is a little VOX living inside the comuter and start really developing digital virtual amps that take advantage of all the extra features digital can bring, instead of the deception that amp models can model 100% accurate, because simply put they cannot.

Its commonly agreed that SPICE can accurately model circuits, and I believe it can and does. The source code for SPICE is available free, so why hasn't anyone turned that source code into an amp model? If we have something that can represent any circuit including tubes, and we all agree its accurate(which we do), then why isn't anyone using it? Its one thing to mathematically represent what a circuit does at a certain given frequency, its quite another to represent what that circuit does at ALL frequencies, oh and there is the little thing we call infinit sample rate found in tube amps, so how many samples away from 96k is infinit?

The best the industry can do, and this is only my opinion, is grow some nuts and start promoting their own digital creations. Then maybe we'd see this technology really move forward... 
KM


----------



## Van Heezey (Jul 14, 2011)

JohnnyMcFly said:


> IMO for this industry to move forward, we have to separate the digital world from the analog world. There is no way that a digital "model" will be able to replicate 100% accuracy to its tube counterpart. Any person, or company that tells you theirs can, is full of shit. Full stop.
> 
> Is there great sounding amp sims, hell yeah, but making it look like a Marshall doesn't make it a Marshall. I fully respect that amp modelers are starting to create their own original digital heads and I think that is where anyone who uses these technologies should look to and support. Get rid of the marketting hype and the make believe that there is a little VOX living inside the comuter and start really developing digital virtual amps that take advantage of all the extra features digital can bring, instead of the deception that amp models can model 100% accurate, because simply put they cannot.
> 
> ...



Amen man. I don't have anything to say after this.


----------



## Dead Undead (Jul 15, 2011)

LordOVchaoS said:


> The production of tubes has almost come to an end...



Shit. Better stock up. I just ordered my first tube amp.


----------



## Van Heezey (Jul 15, 2011)

Dead Undead said:


> Shit. Better stock up. I just ordered my first tube amp.



Same! Reading his post made me all sad inside.


----------



## asmegin_slayer (Jul 15, 2011)

I don't doubt tubes will diminish, but not totally go out of production as there will always be people wanting to experiment with tubes for any audio/amp purposes.


----------



## JohnnyMcFly (Jul 15, 2011)

asmegin_slayer said:


> I don't doubt tubes will diminish, but not totally go out of production as there will always be people wanting to experiment with tubes for any audio/amp purposes.


Plus there is some military applications that need tubes. Not because the equipment is old, but just because tubes are just better suited for them..

More about the original topic, The future of these technologies

Tube amp or amp sim?
For me, Tube amp most of the time, but digital amps also have their place. 

Now if there was not all these 9 gazillion versions of what are deemed to be a Marshall, Fender or VOX, we would not have people who really know what Marshall sounds like taking up odds against this technology. As a result I think these tube purists(like myself) would be more apt to giving the digital amp a try, thus expanding the digital amps user base. These people would NOT be seeing the digital amp as a cheap imitation, but as another tone creation tool, perhaps accepting it for its own set of strengths instead of looking at it for its weaknesses.

I know when I get an amp sim and it is billed as an AC30, instantly I'm like yeah OK? Sure it is! I have owned AC30's and know them very well. I have still yet to find one that is 100% as billed. There is very close imitations, but in the end, if you want a tube amp sound, there is only one place to get it, thats a tube amp..

In summary about the question at hand, (the future of these technologies). The amp SIM industry has not changed for how long? Well since it started! Its still the same. Same marketting approach where they bring out a new model and re-sell the the latest upgrade with a new Marshall, maybe a fender, and perhaps something really original like a 5150...

Now compare the analog amp industry and decide if it has moved forward. 

The Bassman, the grand daddy of amps! What has changed since then? Thousands of innovations, from the way tubes are made in manufacturing, to their design, from resistors and capacitors to their placement inside a head, from adding reverb to building in digital effects, speaker design cabinet design, speaker masterial, cabinet material, the list goes on and on. 
Now thats an unfair comparison one may think, after all the analog amp industry has been around a lot longer than modeling. So lets compare some innovations that have happened since modeling started, and see which industry is actually forward thinking.

Lets compare speakers for example
What's new in analog since modeling started? First thing that comes to mind is Neodymium Magnets, acrylic adhesives, Kevlar, and Konex to name a few innovations.

What's new in speaker simulation since modeling started..
Modeled speakers based on thiele small...I believe thats what the first modeled speakers were based on(I could be wrong). Those measurements have been around since the mid 70's and recently there has been a push back to modeled cabinets and away from convolution! So could it be going backwards?

So what else has happened since then? Well convolution cabinets and impulse response files, volterra...Now these are not really anything new, these ideas/techniques have been around in some cases for centuries. The application of them in this way, is the only innovation, but hardly an innovation. Its just a new twist on convolution reverbs, the guys that first started employing that technique deserve the credit for convolution cabinets...

You can literally pick apart each major section in an amp system and compare it in this way. The contrast is stark, the modeling world seems to lack innovation when compared to the analog world. 

So the danger to the future of modeling is simple, if no one makes tube amps and schematics, then the modeling world will have nothing to copy...

Its a catch 22 for the modelers, people want imitations of the real thing, because they have not been given the opportunity to try some of the innovations that the modelers could come up with, the modelers can't create these innovations because people want the imitations..

Thats why I say, someone needs to grow some nuts and go against the grain...

Just my 2 cents..
KM


----------



## Albionic (Jul 15, 2011)

I think in the future as pc's become more advanced (we are tralking way way in the future here) marshall,peavey etc will sell you a software model of an amp,speaker,pedal,etc. rather than an actual amp. you want a jcm 800? you just go to the marshall website and buy the download. be prapared for massive law suits as amp companies try to stop the likes of line6 form releasing similarly named cheaper copies of their models.the amp companies will eventually have to take on the modeling companies. i mean who would pay £2000 for a mesa when the axe fx 10 ultra can sound the same and also sound like any other amp. they will have to make it so that the only way to sound like a mesa is to buy an amp or model from them.


----------



## demigod (Jul 15, 2011)

post below^^


----------



## demigod (Jul 15, 2011)

My opinion: Screw analog. Heavy, bulky, inefficient, and i dont have a problem with something being old but. Just convenience is the most important thing. We live in a world that if it wasnt for diseases there wouldnt be room to breath, and space is going to become ever more scarce. Look at Japan. cliche, but true. And inefficiency is a great factor to take into account. It's naive to think that moddelers will not overtake tubes, and the most people that cling to there tubes is because they probably sold a kidney and half a liver to get it. 


JohnnyMcFly said:


> Plus there is some military applications that need tubes. Not because the equipment is old, but just because tubes are just better suited for them..
> 
> More about the original topic, The future of these technologies
> 
> ...


And i do have to agree on that in the sense that the moddelers need to create theire own sounds too, not that they do not already but they should put a lot of effort into creating those tones.


----------



## Joelan (Jul 15, 2011)

I'm just glad that in my 10 years of playing, I've still owned the same SS practice amp. Only now am I getting an Axe-FX and I don't have enough experience with tube amps to miss what they supposedly offer.

I'm a practical man, so the way I see it, if you are happy with the sound of your modeller, then it doesn't matter if it nails a tube tone. Who's to say that tube amps offer the best tone anyway? I may just happen to prefer the sound of a modeller. Thankfully, I will probably never know and I will hopefully be 100% satisfied with my expensive-ass modeller


----------



## JohnnyMcFly (Jul 15, 2011)

I completely agree with what everyone said. In my heart of hearts I don't believe in the end modeling will take over, Virtual amps will, but not modeling. Afterall, the simple name modeling alludes to it being an imitation and I don't think people ever want to settle for second best, which is a model! Now original digital virtual amps, yes I believe thats where the future lays. 

I just wish we'd stop seeing so much time being spent on making imitations and more time on original works. I just don't see how spending more time on the fallacy that amp sims are like the real thing is helping the industry move forward as a whole?

@Jolean what is missing from modelers is the true dynamics that tubes and real speakers bring. This is not so much for the recorded piece but for the player actually playing the piece. Most of your style and technique come from the feel that the amp and speakers bring to the table. 

Great conversation guys!


----------



## demigod (Jul 15, 2011)

My whole problem is that this supposed "tube superiority" is just a movement instigated by the tube manufacturers.


----------



## JohnnyMcFly (Jul 15, 2011)

demigod, yes, agreed that is entirely possible...However, I would like to know why the modeling community is so slow to move forward...


----------



## Joelan (Jul 15, 2011)

JohnnyMcFly said:


> @Jolean what is missing from modelers is the true dynamics that tubes and real speakers bring. This is not so much for the recorded piece but for the player actually playing the piece. Most of your style and technique come from the feel that the amp and speakers bring to the table.



I guess I've been playing through solid state amps and cheap modellers for so long that that's what I'm used to the feel of.

I don't feel like the amps are restricting my playing at all, though they could sound better 

The tube amps I've played through weren't life changing. They sound great but they don't feel revolutionary. Granted, I was playing a Fender Hotrod Deluxe in a metal setting but still


----------



## JohnnyMcFly (Jul 16, 2011)

Well some amp sims can give a feel, although I have never had one match the feel of a real tube amp, nor the power. If it works for you, then at the end of the day thats really all that matters. As long as you are playing then life is good..

My only real peeve with amp simulation is the apparent lack of originality and innovation. Its a computer for gods sake, it can do more than what we are having it do now..Its the only machine in mankind's history that does not have any end purpose defined.


----------



## Van Heezey (Jul 16, 2011)

demigod said:


> It's naive to think that moddelers will not overtake tubes, and the most people that cling to there tubes is because they probably sold a kidney and half a liver to get it.



I dunno man, I traded an amp that I bought for $350 for a used tube amp, and I'd fight swordsmen to keep that thing. But that's just me 

I'm sure all the POD and Axe-Fx owners out there also have tube amps to play through, simply because they love the sounds, and the whole charisma that they bring to playing. I know that playing through my POD doesn't give me near the enjoyment as playing through my amp.


----------



## Explorer (Jul 16, 2011)

I absolutely agree with the idea that the .mp3 format, or any compressed format, will never become more popular than vinyl, or someday outsell it. Vinyl sounds vastly superior, even though one needs to be more careful with the system's more delicate components. 

I absolutely agree that a modeled amp, or any non-tube amp, will never become more popular than tubes, or someday outsell a tube amp. Tubes sound vastly superior, even though one needs to be more careful with the system's more delicate components. 

----

There have been studies where people who grew up with compressed audio tended to prefer those artifacts when doing blind listening tests. Tastes shifted because the population changed. 

In the same way that the generation which preferred its horses and buggies to the newfangled Model T eventually displaced the older generation, and the Model T generation was supplanted in its turn, tastes change in amps. 

Line 6 has been around since 1996. You have more and more bands who use modelers to good effect, and as people learn how to use them better (not running amp sim into amp, for example), the results sound better and better. Few people really argue that Tosin sounded bad when he recorded with a POD.


----------



## JohnnyMcFly (Jul 16, 2011)

Yes exactly it boils down to taste, and Explorer, you point about the model T is bang on. Can models replicate a near sound, yes for sure they can. Is it 100%? absolutely not, and we'll not see that until we have 5 gazillion ghz cpu haha. Actually even maybe not then. So the point is to embrace virtual amps for their strengths and get them recognized on their own, not keep making imitations of the real thing, but original digital amps. Lets see some real innovation in this area and so long as companies keep putting out the same stuff year after year, I'm afraid we won't see the same level of innovation we see in the hardware world.


----------



## KingAenarion (Jul 17, 2011)

I don't think Tube Amps will ever die because of the K.I.S.S. principle.

Keep it simple stupid.

The classic Guitar, lead, amp setup is simple, and if well cared for reliable. While you can get amazing tones out of modellers... the feel and touch of analogue or digital but individual gear... having knobs and buttons... I think a lot of people find comfort in that. Having a phase pedal for your phaser... a distortion pedal for your distortion. Those things just do that. You don't have to program them other than twisting the knobs

While I personally can not wait to get an AxeFX II and go direct to the PA... the convenience of being able to plug in and just go is great. The other great thing about good Tube amps is that they are in, in essence, relatively simple electrical machines. You can easily learn to pull apart and repair or build a basic tube amp... If a part fails it's reasonably easy to work out what it is.

Simplicity is appreciated by a lot of people. It's why some guys idea of perfect tone for everything is a Gibson Les Paul into a Marshall stack... or a Fender Strat into a Fender Twin.


----------



## vlover (Jul 17, 2011)

I doubt Marshall or Mesa Boogie will ever go out of business for a lack of business. When Angus Young, Clapton, Page, Van Halen and Santana go all digital that will be the sign the industry will change. And when Guitar Center create a section only for Digital Modeling, and get rid of half their tube amps will there be a change. 

Those who can afford multiple tube amps to tour with usually have them to tour with. With a few exceptions. And Axe-Fx's really are being used by a niche market here.


----------



## Mordacain (Jul 17, 2011)

vlover said:


> I doubt Marshall or Mesa Boogie will ever go out of business for a lack of business. When Angus Young, Clapton, Page, Van Halen and Santana go all digital that will be the sign the industry will change. And when Guitar Center create a section only for Digital Modeling, and get rid of half their tube amps will there be a change.
> 
> Those who can afford multiple tube amps to tour with usually have them to tour with. With a few exceptions. And Axe-Fx's really are being used by a niche market here.



I agree with you, though I doubt the players you named will ever make that switch before they stop playing, regardless of how good the technology gets just because of who they are (not mention people tend to get set in their ways as they age).


Just a sidenote - 

I was stuck playing my malfunctioning Roland Cube 60 for a week on vacation (only has the clean and one model working - though not sure which) and I've got to say I actually started to enjoy some of the tones when I didn't have my Blackstar sitting around to compare it to. Sadly, now I'm finding I kinda like the Cube's clean a bit better than the Blackstar.


----------



## Explorer (Jul 17, 2011)

KingAenarion said:


> Keep it simple stupid.
> 
> The classic Guitar, lead, amp setup is simple, and if well cared for reliable. While you can get amazing tones out of modellers... the feel and touch of analogue or digital but individual gear... having knobs and buttons... I think a lot of people find comfort in that. Having a phase pedal for your phaser... a distortion pedal for your distortion. Those things just do that. You don't have to program them other than twisting the knobs



This is why products like the Boss ME series are still so popular. Everything is accessible from the front, with no hidden menus. It's also why I like programming my GT-10 on a computer, so I can see everything that's going on at once.

However... once I find a lot of what I want, I can save it for later recall, and have a lot of such patches available.

----

There was a series of synths from when Korg was purchased by Yamaha. They used the same FM synthesis Yamaha had developed, but used a simpler paradigm for editing it, with the modulating operator being treated as a filter. Users had no idea, they just had to "open and close the filter." 

I wonder how popular a modeler would be that just had the normal knobs of a tube amp. You could load different amp models on it, but the controls on the amp itself were simple. 

Does something like this exist? I don't know, since I use a FRFR PA system with my modelers.


----------



## Explorer (Jul 17, 2011)

KingAenarion said:


> Keep it simple stupid.
> 
> The classic Guitar, lead, amp setup is simple, and if well cared for reliable. While you can get amazing tones out of modellers... the feel and touch of analogue or digital but individual gear... having knobs and buttons... I think a lot of people find comfort in that. Having a phase pedal for your phaser... a distortion pedal for your distortion. Those things just do that. You don't have to program them other than twisting the knobs



This is why products like the Boss ME series are still so popular. Everything is accessible from the front, with no hidden menus. It's also why I like programming my GT-10 on a computer, so I can see everything that's going on at once.

However... once I find a lot of what I want, I can save it for later recall, and have a lot of such patches available.

----

There was a series of synths from when Korg was purchased by Yamaha. They used the same FM synthesis Yamaha had developed, but used a simpler paradigm for editing it, with the modulating operator being treated as a filter. Users had no idea, they just had to "open and close the filter." 

I wonder how popular a modeler would be that just had the normal knobs of a tube amp. You could load different amp models on it, but the controls on the amp itself were simple. 

Does something like this exist? I don't know, since I use a FRFR PA system 6r a clean keyboard amp with my modelers.


----------



## Mordacain (Jul 17, 2011)

Explorer said:


> This is why products like the Boss ME series are still so popular. Everything is accessible from the front, with no hidden menus. It's also why I like programming my GT-10 on a computer, so I can see everything that's going on at once.
> 
> However... once I find a lot of what I want, I can save it for later recall, and have a lot of such patches available.
> 
> ...



Both the Vox VT series and the Peavey Vypyr (though to a lesser degree) have traditional control layouts. Or did you mean like a total amp modeller where you could create a new kind of amp digitally and control it via a simple, traditional interface?


----------



## The Reverend (Jul 17, 2011)

I have to disagree with some of you guys on the point of amp modelers being inherently inferior because they _model_, instead of coming up with their own sounds. Think of how the beginning guitarist (if my own personal experience can count for anything) comes up with a rig. You see someone you idolize using certain gear, and you try as close as is possible to replicate that. Is that wrong? No, I don't think anyone would say that.

How I think modelers are intended to be used, and more specifically the individual 'Triple Rec' patches and their ilk, is to be used as a starting point. For example, I'd love to have a Mesa/Boogie Triple Rectifier, but due to my budget and future living situations for next six years, I won't be able to buy one, or even play it at a volume that would do it justice. I can, however, find a model that sounds to my ears, at least, pretty much exactly the same, and from there I can tweak it to what I feel is perfect, which in some cases means doing things and going above and beyond what I could do with the actual amp.

As far as the argument about tubes being simpler than modelling, again, I have to disagree. I know nothing of tubes, having instead only used digital devices, and I understand PODs perfectly. I know exactly what I have to do to adjust or change something. Put the world's best tube amp in front of me, and tell me I have to bias it a certain way or something, and I'll be totally lost. I think to truly understand both items is an art unto itself, and one that people like me won't have true fluency in.

Having said all that, I really do think that at some point, even the staunchest tube purists, or the most discriminating tone whores with a digital twist won't be able to tell the difference between a well-dialed in, beautiful glowing tube amp, or a well-dialed in Line6-FX Ultra . 

Tubes won't disappear, as they hold an appeal totally unrelated to digital amps, but I certainly could see, as Explorer suggested, them becoming something of a niche, or something perhaps on the most tone-dedicated would truly appreciate. Go to a local metal show, and tell me how many of the bad bands are rocking cheap Line 6 or Crate amps, and not something like what we here regard as 'good' amps. Many people will settle for less, out of ignorance or necessity, and as the gap between the two technologies narrows, the fact that they're 'settling' for something less will become nearly impossible to tell. 

I think companies will in the future have to trademark their sounds, and while I'm not sure that you can keep something that's 98% the same (for argument's sake) from being produced by modelling companies, it would be a good way for them to both make a little bit of cash (with either official patches or licensing deals) and a way to define their sounds even more.


----------



## KingAenarion (Jul 17, 2011)

Mordacain said:


> Both the Vox VT series and the Peavey Vypyr (though to a lesser degree) have traditional control layouts. Or did you mean like a total amp modeller where you could create a new kind of amp digitally and control it via a simple, traditional interface?



I think that's what he meant.

That I think would be quite cool. So like a more advanced version of a Line 6 Vetta. A Vetta with AxeFX level moddeling with a cab that's designed as FRFR...


----------



## Mordacain (Jul 17, 2011)

KingAenarion said:


> I think that's what he meant.
> 
> That I think would be quite cool. So like a more advanced version of a Line 6 Vetta. A Vetta with AxeFX level moddeling with a cab that's designed as FRFR...



I'd really LOVE to see something that brought Revalver's level of tweak-ability into an amp format. I'd be fine with having to use a computer to do the tweaking and then save the modified amp model in separate banks.

I'd live on the Diezel model I've screwed around with in Revalver if that were the case...


----------



## Curt (Jul 17, 2011)

blister7321 said:


> hah
> = with my settings sound like mud, or white noise



10-0-10 will sound like mud or white noise on every amp. 



MaxOfMetal said:


> I think the divide has more to do with the interface than the tone at this point, especially with the quality of sounds the AxeFx is capable of.
> 
> Imagine having a 5150, with the same headshell, controls, EVERYTHING, except the guts are digital. It sounds EXACTLY like a 5150, just DSP instead of tubes under the hood. Would folks in the "tubes or bust" camp still be extremely averse to it?



I wouldn't, that's for sure.

I am not at all against modeling, I have owned the axe-fx, i'm just not the greatest tweaker when it comes to having all those variables and I usually ended up getting close, but not where I wanted.

So I went back to tube amps. Much easier for me to tweak.

But if companies like Mesa, Fender/EVH, ENGL, Peavey, and Diezel start doing that, i'd definitely buy.


----------



## Mordacain (Jul 17, 2011)

Curt said:


> 10-0-10 will sound like mud or white noise on every amp.



Just a quick aside, I did try that on the Blackstar HT5 and it was completely viable and was probably the heaviest rhythm tone the amp had to offer.

On most large amps, I agree that would suck, but small amps tend to handle extreme preamp changes with aplomb - which makes perfect sense when you think about how the ratio of preamp level is to output level.

Ok, sorry, didn't mean to distract too far from the main topic


----------



## Spinedriver (Jul 17, 2011)

I think another aspect of it is that 20 yrs ago if you wanted to record at home, you had to get some sort of multitrack recorder, microphones, a _very_ quiet place to record and then try to find the 'sweet spot' in front of the speaker. Now, all you have to do is fire up Reaper, turn on your modeler/software and away you go. If you were a session player or played various styles, you had to try and make one or 2 amps fit whatever style you were playing. Whereas now with the Axe-Fx, Pod, etc.. you can easily get great Rock, Blues, Metal, etc.. all in one box... effects included.

Granted, nothing moves air quite like a cranked JCM800 or 5150 but when it comes to versatility (which is what more & more are coming to expect out of gear) both at home and on stage, the trade off seems to be worth it. Personally, I no longer play in a band but I do like to experiment with different tones. I don't want to commit to buying a single amp and more or less be stuck with whatever I can do with it at home. With a GSP1101 however, I have access to a few dozen amps and a ton of effects to play round with.

In all, just like there are loads of people who still own & drive old 60's & 70's muscle cars, there will always be a market for tube amps old and new. However it would be very naive to dismiss the ever evolving market of digital gear as automatically being tonally inferior just because they aren't "handwired" or have vacuum tubes in them.


----------



## Explorer (Jul 17, 2011)

Mordacain said:


> Both the Vox VT series and the Peavey Vypyr (though to a lesser degree) have traditional control layouts. Or did you mean like a total amp modeller where you could create a new kind of amp digitally and control it via a simple, traditional interface?



Well... if you're using a traditional control panel on the front, you could have emulative tones or new tones running behind it. 

Imagine something like the virtual knob positions availalble on some of the Nord gear.







See that knob at the top left? When you switch patches, it jumps to a virtual position determined by the patch, with the LED showing the current position... like this piece.






So, if you have a knob-laden interface like some of Doepfer synth gear, you press a button to choose your Mesa Boogie patch, or your Marshall patch, or whatever, and the "correct" knob config is enabled, with your lead or rhythm tone all ready to go. 

And, personally, if I wanted to make things even simpler, I'd probably use the same layout for every simulated amp, whether that particular "sound" originated from a real-world amp or completely from software. Volume, gain, treble, mids, bass, superbass (virtual, so I could use the amp for guitar OR for bass, right?), power sink (to get high gain sounds at lower volumes), etc. 

Again, keep in mind that I tend not to buy a lot of gear for the gee-whiz newest factor, so this may already be on the market. 

----

I believe that one cannot copyright or patent how something sounds, only a unique way of making that sound. So, if there is a current patent on a tube circuit, no one can sell that circuit besides the ones allowed by the patent holder(s). If a Vox amp or components thereof are patented, no one can reproduce the patented bits. So, if they have a better driver with a unique tone but the rest of the amp uses a circuit from 1965, no one can duplicate that driver, but they can use everything else.

One can also protect the name of one's brand as a trademark, so that no other company can call their amp, say, the Better Marshall/Boogie Combo Amp. 

A company can also protect its unique trade dress or appearance. Rickenbacher is ferocious about not letting people use its lettering style, as well as a host of other visual points about their instruments, which is why clones are few and far between, and usually shortlived in the US itself.


----------



## JohnnyMcFly (Jul 17, 2011)

The Reverend said:


> I think companies will in the future have to trademark their sounds, and while I'm not sure that you can keep something that's 98% the same (for argument's sake) from being produced by modelling companies, it would be a good way for them to both make a little bit of cash (with either official patches or licensing deals) and a way to define their sounds even more.


 
I totally respect your opinion Reverend.. But...

That's exactly what I have been saying is holding the modeling industry back with almost zero advancements since it started. The chase to model the next JCM 800! Do we really need another JCM imitation? 

These guys surely are good enough to bring out some new ideas and sounds from their own thoughts and wants! Yet they don't, because the public is happy with making believe there is a Marshall that lives inside their computer..

@Explorer


> I believe that one cannot copyright or patent how something sounds, only a unique way of making that sound.


 
I don't know? How did Harley Davidson do it? I believe they won a lawsuit against Yamaha because one of the new Yamaha's sounded too much like a Harley? As for the exact IP of it, I don't know...?


----------



## Van Heezey (Jul 17, 2011)

> Does something like this exist? I don't know, since I use a FRFR PA system 6r a clean keyboard amp with my modelers.



Idk man, I always thought the POD beans were simple as hell 

Maybe I'm just used to it.


----------



## Explorer (Jul 18, 2011)

JohnnyMcFly said:


> @Explorer
> 
> I don't know? How did Harley Davidson do it? I believe they won a lawsuit against Yamaha because one of the new Yamaha's sounded too much like a Harley? As for the exact IP of it, I don't know...?



They did not win. That case went on for six years, and then Harley withdrew its suit. 

I believe that Harley Davidson also once tried to sue for trademark violation based on the Harley appearance, and lost due to stealing the look from Indian, Excelsior and three others.

The Harley V-Twin engine, which produces the sound Harley attempted to both copyright and trademark, was stolen/copied from Jason Preswick.

I think that Harley Davidson also once sued a shop called the Hog Farm, claiming a trademark on "hog." Harley lost that case due to the "Hog Farm" having been in business longer than Harley Davidson's claim on the trademark. (Always make sure your precedents are in order! *laugh*)

----

Anyway, moving back to the trademarking/copyrighting of sound, Harley didn't gain any traction in its lawsuit because all the other companies, in addition to witnesses, testified that a particular engine configuration will produce a particular sound. In the same way, one could argue that a tube amp of a particular configuration will produce a very similar sound to another of the same configuration.

In a related field, there are a lot of recordings which use loops. At some point, loopers began recording their own versions of the sections of songs they wanted to loop... and people started losing lawsuits when they asserted that their song was the basis of the loop-based composition. If someone had the original recordings of their loops, it became next to impossible to prove that their recording was the source of a throw-away musical idea. 

It would be impossible under current law to copyright or patent an instrument's sound, only the method of production. Otherwise, sample libraries wouldn't be possible.


----------



## StratoJazz (Jul 18, 2011)

As far as i'm concerned, their are going to have to be *ALOT* of issues covered before analog purists will change to digital.

But that aside, I do think that the most effective modeling amps will become hybrid. I also think that they're going to have to make amp models that Sound, Feel, and Respond completely like a tube amp does. Amps will have to work with the Guitar as opposed to processing it.

I see about 10-20 years before they have Amps and Effects that sound like the originals.


----------



## RGD MIKE (Jul 18, 2011)

Curt said:


> I am not at all against modeling, I have owned the axe-fx, i'm just not the greatest tweaker when it comes to having all those variables and I usually ended up getting close, but not where I wanted.



+1. too many things to worry about.


----------



## Mordacain (Jul 18, 2011)

StratoJazz said:


> As far as i'm concerned, their are going to have to be *ALOT* of issues covered before analog purists will change to digital.
> 
> But that aside, I do think that the most effective modeling amps will become hybrid. I also think that they're going to have to make amp models that Sound, Feel, and Respond completely like a tube amp does. Amps will have to work with the Guitar as opposed to processing it.
> 
> I see about 10-20 years before they have Amps and Effects that sound like the originals.



I seriously doubt it will take that long. Its quite arguable that the Axe-FX does sound like that now. 

Even to a lesser degree, the Vox Valvetronix line does the clean and low gain stuff beautifully and having played many of the originals I'd have to say I'd be hard-pressed to tell the difference. 

I'd say another 3 years and technology will have progressed to the point to be good enough that all but the purists will be swayed.

And on a side note, the Valvetronix's implementation of Hybrid is a much better utilitization than say the Peavey Vypyr Tube variants. Vox's iteration uses the tube as part of the modelling, to recreate the feel and responsiveness of a tube amp whereas the Vypyr just feeds the preamp into a tube power section. To be honest, I like the SS Vypyr better, but after spending considerable time with the Tube 60, I have to say Vox sounds more authentic and feels more responsive.


----------



## kevinarich (Jul 18, 2011)

in my opinion, I could care less what a jcm 800 sounds like. If an axe fx says this is what one sounds like then who care. I dont use that model anyway. 

tube amps are inefficient and old fashioned. I remember reading on fractal forum this little quote and it always makes me smile..because its true.. 

"ive gone from a tube snob to an axe fx snob. "


----------



## Explorer (Jul 19, 2011)

I seem to recall there being a blind listening test or two where the POD HD models were put up against the actual amps, and that listeners couldn't tell which was which. That was a while ago, instead of in the future.

I'm sure that somewhere in this thread, in the time since it was started, I've commented on how many analog keyboard players have switched to virtual analog. That revolution started maybe 15 years ago, and there came a point where the prices on non-pristine analog machines just fell out of the bottom of the market. 

Having known a lot of people who were hardcore analog-heads who switched, I suspect that hardcore tube-heads are just as likely to switch in such a major way when the technology hits the right price/usability point. It will probably be a combination of the availability of a low-cost, low-weight, high volume FRFR sound system and a decent modeler. That would be the equivalent of when things tipped in keyboards....


----------



## Andromalia (Jul 19, 2011)

Yeah, but those amp tests were likely done with finished tracks, with lots of processing and such. This might work for some metal genres right now, but I'm not convinced it would cut the mustard for genres with a much more raw sound, ie blues and jazz...for now. At some point the difference will be negligible and the processing power needed won't go up with time and be easier to reach.

Someone on another topic said in 20 years we'll all play with our mobile phones as amplifiers with a WIFI (or what will pass for it then) relay into the PA.
As a comparison, I'd have to pile up something like 4000 computers I had 20 years ago to get a random consumer level current PC. ^^

This will soon become a moot point, and Fractal has shown that what matters is actually the algorythms. Someday I guess someone will release preprocessed amp+mix emulators like the way some drum software already exists now, but will do so in real time.


----------



## Curt (Jul 19, 2011)

Mordacain said:


> Just a quick aside, I did try that on the Blackstar HT5 and it was completely viable and was probably the heaviest rhythm tone the amp had to offer.
> 
> On most large amps, I agree that would suck, but small amps tend to handle extreme preamp changes with aplomb - which makes perfect sense when you think about how the ratio of preamp level is to output level.
> 
> Ok, sorry, didn't mean to distract too far from the main topic



fwiw, I was just being a dick.


----------



## SnowfaLL (Jul 19, 2011)

Know what someone should make? Something along the lines of the Axe-FX, but completely simplified in a small combo amp, with only 1-2 types of each effects.. I love the versatility of modellers and plan on finally getting the Axe-FX, but part of me which really likes the Spidervalve (or even the HD500, in comparison) is how simple they are. Just put your amp, turn on abit of reverb and chorus, and thats it.

Axe-FX quality amp sims, with very basic (yet hi-quality) reverb/chorus/delay, in a small 1x12combo with like three/four EL84's would be a dream for me, and would most likely sway some of the tube snob guys into the digital realm also.

Most people only want one or two sounds, and can be completely happy with just a Fender deluxe or Marshall; and those are the guys obviously not interested in digital modelling; but if you could very accurately replicate what they need + afew more amp sims in the same package, that might just be the ticket for them to switch over. Having to go thru 50 menus of adjusting is what stops many people from getting involved with something like the Axe-FX (myself included, its the most intimidating aspect)

The Spidervalve is the best step in that direction; but due to the out-dated amp sims (X3 series? its good but not "great") combined with the Line 6 name.. Not many people take it seriously, even with Bogner's help. If a semi-boutique company released something along those lines, they could have a hit.


----------



## Curt (Jul 19, 2011)

^ The thing that really makes the Axe-Fx shine compared to other modelers is the level of tweaking you can actually do. You can make it replicate the sound of cranked up plexi at whisper volumes due to all the parameters they have for you to tweak. Without that ability, said product wouldn't really have the same impact as the Axe-Fx does.

However, I see where you're coming from, as for the longest time I had a Flextone III combo that served me well.


----------



## SnowfaLL (Jul 19, 2011)

Curt said:


> ^ The thing that really makes the Axe-Fx shine compared to other modelers is the level of tweaking you can actually do. You can make it replicate the sound of cranked up plexi at whisper volumes due to all the parameters they have for you to tweak. Without that ability, said product wouldn't really have the same impact as the Axe-Fx does.
> 
> However, I see where you're coming from, as for the longest time I had a Flextone III combo that served me well.



Oh I definitely understand, and a large part (probably 95%+) of the Axe-FX userbase WANT that insane tweakability.. but theres some of us who just want to plug-and-play, but with the versatility of a modeller to have 5-10 great amps in one.

Thats not really the Axe-FX customer base, but there is a market out there in my opinion for a product like that, with the quality of the Axe-FX.. Essentially, take a Spider Valve and replace its digital innards with the Axe-FX quality amp sims/effects (just basic effects) and you would have a shit ton of happy customers in a completely different niche than the rackmount Axe-FX.

Im talking about people who dont want the EXACT tone to the point where they are changing the "digital" tube bias or capaciters, just the basic bass/mid/treble/gain type controls. This is more for the gigging musician who wants the versatility of a Fender with a Marshall and Mesa in one, not a studio tweaker whos trying to replicate Van Halen's Eruption tone to the exact frequency. For that type of thing, obviously the rackmount Axe-FX is the way to go.

(im not even suggesting Fractal/Cliff should do this, but SOME company out there should take the Spidervalve/Vetta model and just make it with higher quality sims, even if Line 6 made one with the HD series, I would instantly buy it)


----------



## JohnnyMcFly (Jul 19, 2011)

Explorer said:


> They did not win. That case went on for six years, and then Harley withdrew its suit.
> 
> I believe that Harley Davidson also once tried to sue for trademark violation based on the Harley appearance, and lost due to stealing the look from Indian, Excelsior and three others.
> 
> ...


 
Thanks Explorer, I didn't know about all that...very interesting read..


----------



## JohnnyMcFly (Jul 19, 2011)

I just wanted to point out something about my earlier posts, I was speaking directly about software modeling vs software digital amps. AXEFX was not included as Cliff has done some absolutely fantastic work on that. One of the few companies that are actually moving forward! To a certain point I'm not sure thats its not so much modeling as a real virtual amp now...Given the options available...


----------



## budda (Jul 19, 2011)

I don't know why we can't just all get along .

I don't care what the other guy uses. I've used an Axe-FX, I've tinkerd with my friend's POD X3 or whatever bean he has, I have gone from rage 158 - MG250 - YCV80 - JSX - Dual Rec Roadster.

If it sounds good, and it suits what you do, I don't really worry about what you use. But I'll definitely be interested to find out!

So long as we have people that push the boundaries working alonside the people that churn out songs that sound straight out of '74 then it's all good to me.


----------



## Andromalia (Jul 19, 2011)

budda said:


> I don't know why we can't just all get along .



These debates are not that bad as long as they're civil, even though they're useless since it's well known Darth Vader plays Gibsons on a PC in his star destroyer.

wonder if the nth degree wasn't a bit too much there


----------



## JohnnyMcFly (Jul 19, 2011)

Andromalia said:


> These debates are not that bad as long as they're civil, even though they're useless since it's well known Darth Vader plays Gibsons on a PC in his star destroyer.
> 
> wonder if the nth degree wasn't a bit too much there


 

haha, nice, but you are MISTAKEN SIR! He uses a Charvel Model 2 with a Nick Crow amp sim! AND Elvis is his singer!


----------



## Curt (Jul 19, 2011)

NickCormier said:


> Oh I definitely understand, and a large part (probably 95%+) of the Axe-FX userbase WANT that insane tweakability.. but theres some of us who just want to plug-and-play, but with the versatility of a modeller to have 5-10 great amps in one.
> 
> Thats not really the Axe-FX customer base, but there is a market out there in my opinion for a product like that, with the quality of the Axe-FX.. Essentially, take a Spider Valve and replace its digital innards with the Axe-FX quality amp sims/effects (just basic effects) and you would have a shit ton of happy customers in a completely different niche than the rackmount Axe-FX.
> 
> ...



I 100% agree with that line of thought. As that's the type of mindset I had when I was using the Flextone combo. An essentially tonally upgraded version of that kind of thing from a different manufacturer would be great.


----------



## Mordacain (Jul 19, 2011)

NickCormier said:


> Know what someone should make? Something along the lines of the Axe-FX, but completely simplified in a small combo amp, with only 1-2 types of each effects.. I love the versatility of modellers and plan on finally getting the Axe-FX, but part of me which really likes the Spidervalve (or even the HD500, in comparison) is how simple they are. Just put your amp, turn on abit of reverb and chorus, and thats it.
> 
> Axe-FX quality amp sims, with very basic (yet hi-quality) reverb/chorus/delay, in a small 1x12combo with like three/four EL84's would be a dream for me, and would most likely sway some of the tube snob guys into the digital realm also.
> 
> ...



Interesting that I was thinking something along these lines when I started my search for a new, small modelling amp and I found the Fender Mustang does pretty much just this. The HiGain models are apparently kinda 'meh' but all of the Fender models are pretty much bang-on. 

What I hadn't known when I initially dismissed them was that Fender's Fuse software opens up reams of tweakability along the lines of Revalver; you can't substitute tube types and resistor values, things like that, but you can control sag, bias and the cabinet models which places it much more in the POD HD range of tweakability.


----------



## SnowfaLL (Jul 19, 2011)

Mordacain said:


> Interesting that I was thinking something along these lines when I started my search for a new, small modelling amp and I found the Fender Mustang does pretty much just this. The HiGain models are apparently kinda 'meh' but all of the Fender models are pretty much bang-on.
> 
> What I hadn't known when I initially dismissed them was that Fender's Fuse software opens up reams of tweakability along the lines of Revalver; you can't substitute tube types and resistor values, things like that, but you can control sag, bias and the cabinet models which places it much more in the POD HD range of tweakability.



I've been somewhat skeptical of Fender modelling, I dont know why.. Its just hard to believe they can compete with companies like Line6 and Digitech in that realm, but guess I'll have to try the newest Mustang sometime soon.

Honestly the Spidervalve was so good for me, I was thinking about buying it on the spot (this was the Mk I version too, which also made it under $500 so it was a great deal) - but I A/B'd it afew times against many Fenders and Mesa's, and honestly thought the Spidervalve was right up there, at least 90% as good.. Now if they made a Spidervalve III with the HD amp sims, wow that would be awesome. My only complaint then would be making it's size smaller; the cabinets are quite oversized (yet I suppose that is good for achieving a decent bassy metal tone in a 1x12)

Anyways, my point is, I think this "method" is going to be what takes us into the future of modelling, from the standpoint of phasing out tube amps.. It will start with more combos from most companies having digital preamps, yet tube poweramps.. and eventually the tube poweramp sections will be replaced by SS again.. but that will have to take place after tube snobs start seeing how far digital amp sims like the Axe-FX, 11R and HD500's have come.


----------



## Mordacain (Jul 19, 2011)

NickCormier said:


> I've been somewhat skeptical of Fender modelling, I dont know why.. Its just hard to believe they can compete with companies like Line6 and Digitech in that realm, but guess I'll have to try the newest Mustang sometime soon.
> 
> Honestly the Spidervalve was so good for me, I was thinking about buying it on the spot (this was the Mk I version too, which also made it under $500 so it was a great deal) - but I A/B'd it afew times against many Fenders and Mesa's, and honestly thought the Spidervalve was right up there, at least 90% as good.. Now if they made a Spidervalve III with the HD amp sims, wow that would be awesome. My only complaint then would be making it's size smaller; the cabinets are quite oversized (yet I suppose that is good for achieving a decent bassy metal tone in a 1x12)
> 
> Anyways, my point is, I think this "method" is going to be what takes us into the future of modelling, from the standpoint of phasing out tube amps.. It will start with more combos from most companies having digital preamps, yet tube poweramps.. and eventually the tube poweramp sections will be replaced by SS again.. but that will have to take place after tube snobs start seeing how far digital amp sims like the Axe-FX, 11R and HD500's have come.



I'll update with my findings when I try out the Mustang II & III this week. I've got a pretty limited need list as far as my needs go, but I love the idea of behind the scenes tweakability.

I'm personally not a fan of tube power simply for the tonal difference with regards to volume level.


----------



## Explorer (Jul 19, 2011)

Andromalia said:


> Yeah, but those amp tests were likely done with finished tracks, with lots of processing and such.



Nope.

http://www.sevenstring.org/forum/gear-equipment/134279-little-hd300-treat-can-you-guess.html

----

As a weird side-effect of this thread starting up again, I started looking at PODs for some uses. I might pick up an old bean....


----------



## SnowfaLL (Jul 19, 2011)

Explorer said:


> Nope.
> 
> http://www.sevenstring.org/forum/gear-equipment/134279-little-hd300-treat-can-you-guess.html
> 
> ...



well, the HD300 used is such a great price, theres no reason IMO to get an old bean. You can find a HD300 for like $200 used at times.

Im pretty sure im gonna pick one up while I wait to save up for an Axe-FX II. Theres nothing that beats the value of an HD300 for being the 2nd best modelling unit out there IMO


----------



## atticmike (Jul 20, 2011)

I see this all as a temporary adrenalin friction. Within a professional environment, there will always be a tube amp. 

I know that with processors such as the axe fx 1 / 2, you can't almost make out whether this is modeled or genuine tube sound. 

However, a properly equalized tube amp will never be outmatched by a modeler. 

We should rather redirect this question to the sake of portability and live environment. Talking about the people who are a lot on the road.


----------



## budda (Jul 20, 2011)

I saw mention of the Fender Mustang. Having spent a little time with the IV model, I was very surprised at the tone I got out of it!


----------



## ShadowFactoryX (Jul 20, 2011)

atticmike said:


> However, a properly equalized tube amp will never be outmatched by a modeler.



untill the technology does allow it to be outmatched

that time will come, its been well on its way for a while now, its essentially inevitable.

but that wont deter people from using amps all together.

the benefits of modeling live (i.e. axefx > pa) is monumentally better than a conventional tube amp setup

i had a good, yet short discussion with devin townsend about this when he played here last week.

and from my perspective, his rig had the best clarity out of all the bands


----------

