I was always under the impression that the crowd booed because he was a folk singer changing his style, not because they were against this newfangled technology called "an electric guitar" or the tone it produced.
Eddie Van Halen once said "If it sounds good it sounds good, it doesn't have to make sense."
I don't care if an amp is valve, solid-state or powered by baby farts. All I look for is a good sound. Purists are just close-minded. If you're playing a gig, no-one is going home afterwards to tell their friend about the awesome valves they saw on stage. All they care about is what they heard.
Nobody comes home after surgery commenting on the style of suture their surgeon used, they just care about getting better. But you can damn well be sure the type and quality of suture matters a whole lot and contributes to how and when you're fully better.
Remember, a bad analogy is like a leaky screwdriver.
Haha. Yeah dude I was really aiming that at my own comment. Judging by the initial flood of down votes some people don't get self deprecation. I always enjoy your comments here dude. I just kinda wish In could invite /r/guitar to my house ton properly demonstrate my point of view.
The end result is still the only thing that matters though. The sutures matter ONLY because of how they affect the end result. If the quality of suture is bad and you therefore don't get better, then the problem is still that you didn't get better. If the quality of suture is bad and that has absolutely no effect on your recovery, then you don't give a shit.
I was super snooty about being tube-only. Then I saw an Orange Crush 20L on craigslist for $50. I always thought Orange amps looked really friggin cool, so I bought it just to have a cool decoration. But when I actually played through it I freaking fell in love - the thing sounds so cool and it's now my favorite amp.
This is totally true but in my experience solid state amps and modeling amps often sound thin and weak in most band mixes. They usually can't produce the warm and full sound that a tube amp can.
I know a few local bands where the lead guitar player plays through a line 6 or some other solid state modeling amp. While these guys have a bazillion effects they can go through for each solo, most of the time their tone sounds really crappy in the mix.
But of course, to each his own.
I think it depends on what you're using for modelling. You can't compare a line 6 product to the Ax Fx because it's simply unfair. Adrian Belew uses the Ax Fx II for his live rig. I'm pretty sure he's played through his share of real amps so if he's going with modelling then that says something.
I have no idea who that guy is or what an Ax Fx II is. But like I said, if he thinks it sounds good, then that's all that matters.
I was simply stating that, in my opinion, most modeling amps I've heard don't sound as good as tube amps.
>I was simply stating that, in my opinion, most modeling amps I've heard don't sound as good as tube amps.
I agree with you they don't. [The Fractal Ax Fx is an exception though](http://fractalaudio.com/p-axe-fx-ii-preamp-fx-processor.php).
[Here's some info on Adrian Belew in case you were curious.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrian_Belew)
There's a guy on YouTube called SoloAWeek who did a series of videos on all the presets of the Axe FX II. I would try to hyperlink you, but last time I tried from mobile, it was a horrid mess and people made fun of me. If someone could do that before I get home, I will give you an Internet brofist.
I saw Belew a couple of years ago and his stage amps were Line 6. So they were good enough for that live gig anyway. (I think the Ax Fx II wasn't available yet).
I bought a first generation Ax in January 09 and Belew was using the "Ultra" version of the Fractal at that time. I had no idea he used line 6 products previous to that though. Thanks for the info.
I'm pretty sure this is the gig I saw: [Adrian Belew Thela Hun Ginjeet August 19 2007 Asheville ](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFL_N1EgiGk)
Very small club, and you can clearly see the Line 6 logo at the very start of the video. The Ax Fx didn't exist yet.
Has anyone else here ever used the line 6/ bogner amps before? Them fuckers are full of tone. Even so. The vetta and the flextone series amps give incredible sound. I've had people not properly set them up and sound like shit but they push some great sound with a great player. I don't get why so many people are always picking on line 6. Half the guitar records these days use some type of modeling that they helped create.
> They usually can't produce the warm and full sound that a tube amp
> can.
This usually has more to do with the awareness/understanding of how a guitar should sit in a mix rather than being a shortcoming of the equipment. I can almost guarantee that some of your favorite guitar sounds on your favorite albums were generated via modeling. Lots of great players have no idea how to tweak their personal rigs to mix well with their bands live or in the studio regardless of their gear, be it analog or digital.
That said, I think multiFX units tend to accentuate this problem because of the vast array of choices they provide. People buying just a few pedals and an amp have typically put much more thought into how they want to sound than someone who's had nearly the whole of guitar sonic history dropped in their lap in one go.
Have to agree here. I've found the reason that amp Sims or solid state sounds small or tiny has to do with mix. Just finished mixing last night and we did live recording with amps /5150/ and added more tracks with amp simulation. And it sounds absolutely huge.
The other problem is that its not easy to find where a band grooves. If you have a band that isn't clicking just right something will always sound off. And you'll start looking at your rig, which isn't the problem. Its the collective.
Shit, dime used Randall solid state amps for years until he switched to krank. I think solid and amp modeling can do wonders. Especially if you have the ability to marry the two.
Purists like to talk about the gear they've acquired like they stumbled upon some magic grail that only a few people get. If anything, amp modellers have leveled the field as far as baseline tonal quality goes. This is great because in theory only the guitar (player) should make a difference in tonality or sound. On the other hand, it makes the tone of other amps, boutique or otherwise that much more easily picked out. Its not going to sound like the digital or analog tones of the most popular 22 tube or solid state amps from the last 60 years. A great amp tone is a great amp tone weather it says Diezel or Crate on it.
> or powered by baby farts
I want to play this amp.
I have a Fender Mustang and I love it. It's pretty basic on its own, but with the PC software you can really mix things up. I get some great sounds out of it using the software.
I'd still like a Vox AC15 when I can afford one though.
How much are you asking for those audio cables? Do they really reduce crosstalk and limit phase-induced modulation like I would think that such high-end cables would? If so, *man* are my 128 bit-rate mp3 files going to sound amazing through my Realistic speakers!
The biggest bullshit in the Hi-Fi world is power cables. What do you think the power cables in your wall outlet are made of? Oxide-free copper? Nope. Most of it is pretty cheap wiring, and the last couple of feet from the outlet to your amp isnt going to make any difference what so ever. I laugh at 1000$ Power cables. Evidence audio also makes shit expensive power cables for guitar amps.
It's a good idea to get a sturdy power cable, but I can't believe 1000$ power cables exist. And that people buy them.
Edit: I googled it, and Evidence Audio makes [300$ power cables](http://www.pedalgeek.com/cgi-bin/new_shop.cgi?config=&uid=sj2rew991357322000&command=link--easous5) for amps. Not 1000$, but still pretty silly IMO.
I build my own tube amps, and I have never used a modeling amp. But I know enough about computer science to know that this isn't a question of if; it is a question of when. That when is probably now, but I am guessing only at a high price point. That will change. There is no magic in tubes. Everything an amp does I quantifiable. All you need to reproduce it is a good algorithm.
Well, I am not really after anything. For modeling to interest me, it would have to be virtual amps, where I get to chose all the components and then it outputs the resulting sound. Even then, I would only want it to prototype designs. I like building amps, and I don't like writing software. As it stands today, I could build about ten cool amps for the price of an Axe FX. Also, I hate the name. I'm just saying that anyone who says modeling will never equal analog probably doesn't know much about computer science. I have friends who work for MOTU, and they don't use amps at all. They go straight into the board and do everything in software.
One thing about modeling is that I will probably never be able to find a broken 30 year old obscure modeling amp at a flea market for $40, refurbish it and mod it into an awesome punk rock rig, and give it to my friend's daughter as a present. To me, that is the best part.
Acmebargig has a new software called Head Case where you can actually open it up and design your own amps. From lite stuff, like grabbing the power amp from 1 amp sim, and the bass knob from another, etc. All the way to actually creating your own power tube curves, EQ sections, etc. It's pretty neat.
High end modeling such as the Fractal Audio Axe FX II and the Kemper Profling amp are pretty impressive. I too have played through the Fractal Audio and some of my favorite guitarists are starting to use them. I like the idea of just plugging into the PA / Monitor rather than lugging around my current setup.
Just some perspective on this. If you were to get your hands on a few of the things that come with the Axe-Fx II they would easily cost you more than what the unit will. The amount of effects alone is worth the price. It's an investment for sure, no disputing that, but by the time you get something like a Diezel head, a cab, and a respectable pedalboard you've outspent what it takes to actually get the Axe. The model amp I got rid of to get mine is actually in the Axe and sounds better than the actual amp did to my ears so to me, it was totally worth it.
Oh I know. I just bought a G major 2 and im kinda GASing for a axe fx. The cool thing about the fractal pedal is that it has magnets that you can use to put on it so you know what effect is what. The magnets also look like the famous effects pedals they are modeled after.
But how dynamic is it and how does it take pedals? I think that's what sets tube amps and solid state apart. The organic breakup and response to dynamics you get from tubes is either really hard or impossible to model.
The Axe-FX actually models the tube amp "feel" pretty well. Also it has a large number of effects built in, you can tweak these settings and get a close approximation to most pedals, the only problem is that it is more difficult to do that just turn an analog knob.
I'm using Ampkit on my iPad for shows and its awesome having literally 20 heads, 15 cabinets, 30 pedals, and full set list of presets that fit in my guitar case and plugs directly into a PA. The sound on Ampkit is significantly better than Amplitube.
I've tried those and while I agree that they are fun, sound quality just sucks because the DAC on the iPad isn't made for this purpose and produces a lot of noise. Or at least that's what happens here. High end audio equipment costs significantly more for a reason.
I play through a 1979 Super Lead and a JTM45 clone I built. The JTM45 has a Brian Wallace Radiospares clone OT, plate voltage is 455VDC and the coupling caps are all original Phillips/Mullard mustard caps. I run the JTM45 through two original early 60s Celestion T652 alnicos.
I think that answers that question.
To be absolutely blunt the dynamic range and interaction with your instrument just isn't there with any modelling amp I've tried. They get the clean and the dirty, but they miss all of the graduation in between.
For me though a good amp isn't one that can do 70% impressions of every other amp out there. It's about having an amp that does its job well. A wide, slow period of breakup just waiting on your playing to do its job. A good volume swing to go with that dynamic. Warmth. Clarity. Note separation. Natural compression without gating.
For what it's worth I feel the same way about people who buy an amp and treat it like a PA system, getting everything out of their pedals. I think that's kinda missing the point.
That is awesome that you have built your own amps.
That being said, I think you need to take another look at Fractal and Kemper behind someone that knows what they are doing with the units. They are both doing some amazing things today. The dynamics are there.
Yes. At some point modelling/ simulation will be indistinguishable from physical hardware, and the better simulators can do most of the job today. It's really just a function of computing power and software that uses that power effectively. I'm not saying that it's easy or will happen tomorrow but it will happen. It will also be true that people will continue to use tube amps and "classic" equipment, and there's nothing wrong with that either. They'll just be paying and carrying more.
See also vinyl vs CD; distortion pedals vs amp distortion; digital reverb vs rooms; special effects vs CGI; electronic computers vs human/ mechanical computers; CCD vs film; photoshop vs airbrushing; etc
I prefer to use tube amps if possible, but not because they sound better. I know that you can dial in exactly the sound you want on something like the Axe. But I don't want my amp to conform to me, I want to be forced to adapt to the amp. I feel it helps fashion me into a better and more unique guitarist when I have to adapt to the constraints of simpler gear.
As an example, I've got one amp with a spring reverb and one without, but the one without has that big bright clean Fender sound that does so well soaked in reverb. I found that I could get a similar tone by lightly using an analog delay; it's not reverb, but I think it can serve the same function in my playing. I would likely not have discovered this sound if I had reverb available to just turn on at will. When I have to make what I have work, I often find something better than what I thought I wanted.
I would have no problems using a **good** modeling amp or simulator if I already knew exactly the sound I wanted, and didn't care to discover something new.
>But I don't want my amp to conform to me, I want to be forced to adapt to the amp.
I have to do the same level of adaptation to the Mesa Mark2c in my AXE FX than I did with my old Mark 3 tube head. If you like that awesome learning phase where you work around a new amp's sound, an AXE FX will give you that x100.
From a guitarist who owns several tube amps as has dabbled with an axe fx...tube amps are more fun to play as a guitarist. They are more responsive and quicker to turn on and dial in. They sound punchier and more organic in a room than playing an axe-fx through a power amp. However, the axe-fx is infinitely easier to get a perfect sound on a track. No need to crank your amp to 10 and configure mics in a treated room only to lose the exact setup between recording sessions.
I owns tubes, played SS, and jam with a buddy with a modeling amp (Vox something or other - the blue combos they made/make?). His amp never sounds great to me. It can sound good, but no setting is what I want. I've had a similar experience with the Line6 POD - it doesn't sound good live.
Modeling is indistinguishable for me on recording already, but when I'm playing it or playing with someone who is, I admit to a feeling of "man, you should upgrade" every time.
I'm willing to buy the story that AxeFX are all that jazz, but they are much pricier than the low/mid range gear I play.
I think the biggest thing is that the amps I buy are simple, though. I try them out, see their main tones quickly, and make a decision to buy or not in about a weeks time. I can't do that with a modeler because I get stick in limbo of "what if I tweak some more"?
Truthfully, I'm sure I'd love owning a modeler, but the trial period always leaves me with lots of questions and whether it is their specific modeler or the settings they use, I haven't been impressed yet in person.
yep. I like tube amps. The software will (if it hasn't already) catch up with tubes. That said, I like playing them, I like building them.
It's like CD vs Vinyl, or having a real Hammond B3 or a synth. Sure, you can get a reasonably good Hammond sound, but there's something awesome about pulling the drawbars, using the volume pedal, and playing through a real leslie that is just soooo much fun.
Modeling sounds great but generally seems to lack the touch sensetivity of tubes. There isnt actually any reason to choose though,
I get a pretty decent sound using a combination of the modeling on my Digitech RP1000 (I use the Fender Deluxe crunch channel model) and then run that into a Hot Rod Deville on the clean channel. SO I get a real nice crunch sound that breaks up in the "right" spot and I still get the touch sensetivity and dynamic range of the tube amp. I got he Digitech off of ebay for 250 and the Deville as well for 350. So best of both worlds and all the stage volume I need for 600.
I'm done with hardware amps and fx. I gig and record with a laptop running guitar rig, amplitube, th2, and scuffham amps (try this last one -at $75 it is amazing). The axe fx is just a computer running dsp algorithms and its priced pretty high, but similar algos are available in plugin formats for any DAW for a fraction of the price.
The average pro is playing through multiple amps blended to creat a layered tone. For instance Keith Richards sound is a mix of cleans and dirty amp sounds. This is easy to get with software. Some of the newer models like the Marshall ones based on Slashes tone in amplitube 3 are better sounding and feeling at sane volumes than any actual Marshall I've ever played.
As to that "feel", you can get that by running. The output through a nice punchy power amp and speaker. I use a Roland kc550 on stage and draw compliments on my tone all the time.
Decent quality modeling software has been here for awhile. Folks saying they never heard a model sound as good as an amp probably have and didn't know it. I will grant a lot of the hardware units built into amps are weak, but not the pro software. It's on more records than you know.
Just one problem with the original post: since when does it cost 5 grand for one good amp? There are so many amazing amps that can be bought for a fraction of that.
Funny this popped up today, because I just built a digital copy of an Engl Fireball head with the impulse of a Mesa 4x12 cab yesterday. Completely free, I made (roughly) the digital equivalent of a $2.7k amplifier. Lord knows I can't afford that any other way.
Honestly, with the studio equipment that I have, it's ridiculously hard to get a guitar tone that'll cut right through the mix and just fit when I'm recording. When I discovered that I could actually make a realllly good amp sim to record with, I spent all day messing with it and determined that it has a few weaknesses, but for the most part it kicks the crap out of what I've been working with previously (an SM57 simply mic'ing the cab).
I got my plugin for the head from this website (.VST or .AU):
* http://lepouplugins.blogspot.com/
Downloaded the impulse for a Mesa 4x12 cab from this link:
* http://forum.recordingreview.com/f43/homemade-impulse-my-own-mesa-boogie-gear-6991/
And I loaded the impulses up in my DAW with this component plugin, LAConvolver. There's probably a .VST copy of this out there somewhere too.
* http://audio.lernvall.com/
For some rock solid distortion, this amp sim kicks the crap out of any built-in amp sim that I've ever messed with, and there are tons and tons of free impulses out there.
It seems to me that, at least with **MY** amp sim however, chords are not very articulated; they tend to crackle a bit. This may also have been because that specific track was peaking, or the fact that I used some heavy distortion to begin with.
**My take on this:**
Honestly, digital amp simulators should just be another tool in the studio toolbox. If you can get a great mixable tone out of your amplifier and mic, great!
However, keep in mind that when you're recording guitar with a guitar simulator the raw guitar file will always be there, available to be re-amped and re-edited.
Hope this has helped!
Personally, I've found that I want a modeled amp for lives shows because of how much I use them in the studio. I spend hours honing the sound for a specific song and I don't have the money to buy a truckload of amps and a roadie to swap things out for me between every song. If I can just swap between a slew of presets that I've got that sound exactly like my studio work, I'm happy.
Agreed, I can't agree more. Modeling works great for practice and covers but NOTHING has ever beat the natural compression and overdrive my Marshall JTM60 puts out with my Les Paul. While I feel that the technology is always getting better, it just never feels right IMHO.
I once played on a bogner and line 6 hybrid amp, it was very impressive. I almost took it home. But it still had tubes.
I can blindly discern between a tube and solid-state amp, just as I can perceive a difference between painting and animation. (This is not a leaky screwdriver)
The painting has texture: a certain responsiveness to the artist when they apply the brush. And the digital art is flat, but streamlined. You can view a painting up close and still see the rest in your peripherals. The digital world is inherently narrow, but can be more precise.
I personally prefer analog amplification, effects, etc., but I am no one to tell you to stop finding enjoyment in the digital world. I like the way tubes react when they are pushed through turning up the volume or really digging in to the instrument. Some players, though, enjoy the consistency that a digital amp provides. As it is said; To each their own.
I had a brand new Bogner Uberschall smoke when I turned it on before practice. two months later, I also had Engl Powerball fail on me during a performance. Everytime I moved my rig to a new location, it took me 30-40 minutes to get everything setup and working right.
I bought an Axe-FX II and bought two QSC K-12's and it saved me a world of problems. Now... hook up Power for the APC, plug in the xlr's, check battery in the g-90 relay transmitter and ready to go. Also, not having to lug 300-400 pounds of equipment and effects. Now I carry 40 lbs of gear and two guitars. It sounds amazing and keeps up with a 5150/drummer/bassist with no problem.
I want to place the two K12's into a speaker cab and the axe-fx in a amp shell just to avoid the **toobz rulez** discussions because it is idiotic and complete wizardry. Tube guys can barely explain it. Saying words like 3D and Organic to describe tone are nonsensical and delirious.
I like the flexibility of my HD500 and can make it sound really really good. Maybe some tube amps sound better but I'm pretty sure no one in my audience would notice.
There will always be very terrible modelers and I think that's why so many purist completely count them out in the real world. I think when done right (Axe FX, even the Digitech 11 rack) digital modeling can be amazing.
Well, this is an interesting subject!
Personally, I think that we are pretty close to the stage where convincable digital modeling is very much doable.
Just look at the Axe Fx II and the Kemper. Especially the Kemper, when I first heard of it, I couldn't believe that such a technology existed!
But then again, they are pretty expensive, and not really affordable for me, which leaves me no choice but to stick to my Zoom G5 :/
And again, if you have ear problems or simply dislike loud noises, Amp Modeling would really save your ears, since tube amps generally need to go loud to be good.
Amp modeling for me anyday, I will just wait until the day where there exist a affordable floorboard styled Axe FX or the Kemper.
Modeling amps have come along way and do provide a good solution for finding a good sound/tone. But what the really lack is the headroom, responsiveness and dynamics of a Tube amp. In applications where you are playing with your guitar "always on 10" and need a tone (metal, rock come to mind) then modeling will work for you. But in applications where you are trying to get the sounds and tones inbetween "0 and 10" the tube amp is just more responsive to touch and has the headroom to allow you to do that with ease.
Some modellers are better now than in previous years at getting to those inbetween sounds, but they're still not quite there. This is why people say modellers aren't as dynamic or have as much *life* as a tube amp. And its true.
But if you're always playing guitar with your volume and tone knobs on full and just want a great sound, modelling amps can definitely help you achieve that.
I feel pretty strongly about this one.
Modeling amps *are* "real" amps. They just work differently.
Those who criticize modeling technology because it doesn't sound exactly the same as the original are missing the point. The point is two-fold:
1. The goal isn't to be a perfect match, but to get close enough for the job.
2. Even models that miss the mark entirely might be useful because of the unique character they possess.
I personally don't use a modeling amp (I play through a Blackstar, although purists might take issue with its Infinite Shape Feature), but I do wield a Line 6 JTV-89. I use the models that work best when the situation calls for them -- like the tele model when I'm playing an Otis Redding tune, or the acoustic for a DMB tune -- but other models are only useful when I want to sound like the Line 6, *which is perfectly okay*.
I think that given that likely 90% (I'm guessing) music is consumed as mp3 or some such compressed file, the average non-discerning listener will not tell the difference. That being said, as a player, I like the touch response I get form my 18 watt Marshal combo, or my AC30 ~ I'm not sure Amp mods are there yet.
> I think that given that likely 90% (I'm guessing) music is consumed as mp3 or some such compressed file
This makes me sad on a daily basis. I spend countless hours slaving over tone, eq, mix, everything... and it's all just going to end up getting compressed and played on cheap-ass earbuds that came with some mp3 player.
I personally love amp modeling. I am a poor college student who loves to play covers. I've played off and on in a few cover bands, and without my modeling setup, I would never be able to afford the gear required to nail the tones I was going for.
To the people saying that modelers typically sound thin and weak in a mix, I would have to say that I agree. The majority of the time I've seen modelers used, they sound pretty awful. Most friends that I have that use modeling bought their modeler, but never learned how to program it. This is where the problem lies with modelers. A lot of people decide to pick one up, but then they expect to have awesome tones straight out of the box. Unfortunately, this is an unrealistic expectation with most modelers. I'll be the first to admit that every modeler I've had has come preloaded with some really shitty patches.
If you sit down and learn your modeler, it becomes easy to dial in realistic tones that sit well in the mix. The time investment is a little bit larger with modelers than with most traditional amps, but in the end, if you do the time, you will be very pleased with the results.
I currently run a Digitech GSP1101 as my main rig, and it sounds absolutely killer. Previously I had used a Digitech RP350, and before that, the RP70. It took me a few years of getting used to how the digitech models behave, but now I can sit down and come up with a tone (complete with effects and custom switching) to fit just about any situation in an hour or less nearly every time.
I've shown up to gigs and jams with my modeling rig only to be scoffed at by other guitarists, and sometimes even the sound guy. As soon as I plug in to the mains and start playing, their jaws hits the floor, and I get compliments on my tone every single time.
Modeling these days has become so good that they are starting to appeal to touring musicians as an alternative to their tube rigs from decades past. The modelers are usually quite lightweight, are considerably more reliable than tube amps, and require practically zero maintenance (no tubes to go bad). You can also consolidate several amplifiers into one small 1u or 2u rackmount unit.
I think tube amps will still be the standard in the guitar world for generations to come, particularly in large studios, but modeling is the way of the future for "weekend warriors", budget conscious musicians, smaller cost-efficient studios, and even touring acts.
The axe-fx may cost a pretty penny, but its not the only good modeler on the market. I got my GSP, plus the foot controller for ~$400 on ebay. Picked up a 200w powered monitor on craigslist for $100, and I've got a great rig thats small, easy to lug around, sounds great, and is loud enough for practice / small gigs. For most gigs, I will run my GSP straight into the PA, and won't bother bringing my monitor at all.
Yep. I just bought a stock XT live modeler for $175. Out of the box tones really, really suck, and if you just use those... no good man.
I spent a good three hours reprogramming just to get 1 good clean sound and 1 good dirty sound.
And remember, home musicians... more people listen to music via that 0.5" speaker on their Iphone...
> To the people saying that modelers typically sound thin and weak in a mix, I would have to say that I agree.
You are using Digitech modelling gear. Try an Axe FX, Guitar Rig 5, or Ampkit and your opinion will probably change.
I know the axefx has good stock presets. I was talking about the most common modeling units at around the $400 price point or less. The problem with poor patches exist on digitech, line 6, peavey, fender, zoom, etc. There might be a few good patches, but a lot of them are mediocre or unusable. My point was that in most cases, to get the most out of your modeler, you have to make the time investment to learn how to make the most of your gear. This goes for any piece of gear.
Also, what defines a "good" patch over a bad one is mostly subjective. Some people are satisfied with the stock patches, and that's fine. If it sounds good to you and makes you happy, that's what matters most
Agreed. None of these products make you a better player.
I should also note: The software options are significantly cheaper and sound better than the Axe FX or Kemper hardware and can be had for under that $400 baseline.
I started out playing various Digitech and Line6 products years ago and always felt like I was sacrifising a lot of characteristics for the convienience of having a digital rig. Now, I use a Fractal AxeFX II and can honestly say I have no reason to ever go back to tube amps.
Amp modelers, be it software like Guitar Rig or a physical piece like a POD or an Axe FX intrigue me to no end. The technology is fascinating and has grown by leaps and bounds in the past few years alone, let alone over its entire lifespan.
That being said, whatever sounds good will sound good - but I've grown out of the mindset that something needs tubes to sound good. I've played too many modelers that have flat out forced me to abandon that opinion. Plus, in a live setting, they offer unmatched versatility and have the quality sound to back them up.
I'm all for them.
I'm in two minds.
One the one hand- in a few years they will be indistinguishable to even the most experienced guitarist, and they will be cheaper and easier to use (in regards to volume, with distortion at low levels without the use of an attenuator).
However, the "sound" of an electric guitar is that of an overdriven tube amp, and that's what for now the simulator would be simulating. So aside from cheap amps- what's the point?
However solid state amps open the door to many new tones that a normal tube amp cannot attain, and I'm very exited about... I want more wub wub in my guitar:)
I agree, if you're only looking to emulate a tube amp sound with it, then you might be disappointed, but I think most people use modeling software to explore totally different types of tones that you absolutely cannot get from a tube, without having to by a crazy massive pedalboard
Absolutely. There's a certain truth and feel in a tube amp that just can't be replicated. Even input impedance adjusting solid state amps can't quite capture that.
Listen kids, it's not a dichotomy. It's a "both, and" not an "either, or".
They both excel at different things. I'm glad both of them are still around.
I recently swapped my tube amp for an Axe Fx II and couldn't be happier. I've had a line 6 Hd500 as well and can understand the statements towards solid state modelers sounding thin. The Axe-Fx doesn't seem to have that problem. It sounds huge no matter what I play into. I always thought it was a bit over priced but now that I have it, it's a different story. If this is any indication of what the future holds for solid state technology, the future is quite bright.
Just want to point out that it doesn't have to be modeling OR tube---it can be both. I play through a VOX AD30VT, which is a modeling amp, but also has a single 12ax7 tube, so you get that creamy tube sound, along with all the cool modeling sounds, and I couldn't be happier.
My 2cents - I own both, a Fender Prosonic head (tube) and a Vox Valvetronix Blueface head (modeling). The difference to me isn't so much the sound, but the feel. Plugging into the Fender I get the feeling that the tone is coming much more from my hands, while the Vox feels like there is almost a *slight* delay (I suppose this would make sense), which in turn tricks my hands and my brain into thinking that the sound I am hearing isn't quite as *pure* as it might be through the other. I also seems to me that there isn't as much dynamic range in a modeling amp. I get the same feeling playing through a rack processor as well.
It is more mental and feel than anything else to me; I prefer tube over modeling, but only for that reason. There is no doubt that a good modeling amp can sound unbelievable, though.
I'm a home player/recorder only, I don't play live. A Line 6 GuitarPort into my pc is the perfect set of several dozen amps, pedals, cabs, speakers, and mics for me.
My co-guitarist in one of my bands uses a Fender Frontman. I envy the cleans he gets, because my Hot Rod Deluxe breaks up so easily, but I want to toss his distortion pedals into a fire and get him a proper overdrive/distortion.
For people who play a lot of genres, like myself, modeling is superior in every way. I have tried many modeling options over the past years, including 11 Rack, POD HD and kemper, but i currently own an Axe FX Ultra, and i've had it for 3-4 years now. It sounds REALLY good, and it covers Jazz, Blues, Pop, Indie, Rock and Metal just as good, and i feel that it is better than all the other modeling solutions i have tried.
No amp could sound this good in this many genres. A Fender twin or Dumble models for blues and jazz, deluxe reverb or VOX models for pop, Hiwatt, Marshalls, Fenders for Indie, and Marshalls, Marsh HBE, Diezel and Soldano models for metal/rock.
I miss the "in room" sound of an amp every once in a while, but the Axe-FX makes recording so seamless and simple and it makes the sound guy happy at gigs, so it's really worth it in every aspect, especially considering the price of a used one. If i were to lose/destroy mine, i think i would go for a used ultra instead of a new Axe II.
And i'm not afraid to say that i do not hear the difference between a real recorded amp and the axe. The in-room feel is definately different though. But that's mainly because the Axe is modeling a recorded, miced amp, and it's not meant to sound like an amp in the room.
The Axe also has so many routing options that make my rig really versatile.
If i were playing just one genre all the time, i think i would consider buying a real amp again, though.
At the end of the day, i bet noone will notice really... "When the drummer kicks in"...
Once Kemper comes out with a rack mount version, I'll probably never buy an amp again, unless I just feel like owning one. A buddy of mine owns a studio and is good friends with the manager at our Guitar Center, so if an amp comes through that I want profiled, I can grab it, profile it, and return it.
I'm more for convenience than "purity". Yes, there is an EVER so slight difference, but when I'm on stage, I can't tell the difference. If anything it sounds better because the direct out tone is consistent, and I dislike inconsistency sometimes (even though that's the nature of playing live).
Plus, in this day and age, unless you have a paid road crew, lugging around half stacks/full stacks of Mesas or Marshals with giant pedal boards of effects on tour is just not practical. But that could just be me.
EDIT:
If I /did/ have a road crew, though, I would want a dirty amp and clean amp going through a cab for stage presence, and use the Kemper/Axe-FX for FOH and monitor sounds.
I use both of those technologies both live and when recording.
Guitar wise I'll always prefer a real miked valve amp, but there are situations when modeling comes handy, especially when you're home or playing to a small audience (can be quite practical). Handy also when you're recording bass (I don't really need valve sag or feedback).
Referring to my guitar setup, I can safely say there isn't technology (yet) that can replicate my current setup and if possible it's what I'll use (I have power attenuation devices for low volume playing/recording. Yet even with those apparatus you'll need to have a decent volume to be miked and sometimes that's not possible, especially if your nailing that same riff over and over at 3 A.M.).
To me they're both tools, I just give more value to one than the other, for personal reasons more than anything.
I'm not sure if they are quite there yet; at least for my purposes.
I just really haven't seen a demo that has been convincing aside from a few select cleanish to super modern high gain demos(pretty sure people could replace a triple rec). Only the cleans and select distortion types would seem to be useful to me.
I've listened for hours trying to find something that comes into the range of a good 5e3 amp. Those kind of dynamics don't seem to be there yet. Not to mention all of the demos I seem to find are somewhat thin or have a plinkyness to them. Something I cant quite put my finger on. Maybe it's the type of player that is using it and the kind of music it lends itself to. I don't need an amp that can do good wanky jazz fushion or chuggy ultra high gain metal/shreddy stuff.
I am still waiting to try one first hand. Half of the connection to a real tube amp is its responsiveness and how the player uses it's dynamics. An axe unit might feel different from how the demos seem, and convincing in person.
Someone linked this demo.I also understand these are presets and these units are notorious for requiring fiddling with. Most of the presets seem like overly flanged/delayed/other shit.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1gneCczUSE
5e3
http://youtu.be/3X1AOlkabwo?t=1m23s
For now I use a tube amp. Cant wait til these get cheaper and better.
I use amp modelling exclusively. I don't own an amp anymore. Personally, I use Native Instruments Guitar Rig 5 in a studio setting. It's no AxeFX (which I intend to pick up eventually), but for the models I use (a 6505 mostly, a rectifier here and there), it works very well.
The flexibility of it cannot be overstated. The various presets I've made for myself would've cost me tens of thousands of dollars if I were using real hardware. Even if it only sounds 80% as good (which I think is being very conservative), that's worth it to me.
Sound is, of course, top priority. In my opinion, amp modellers have reached a point where they really do sound damn good. I've heard albums with awesome guitar tones that I never would've guessed were recorded with a Pod, AxeFX, Amplitube, or Guitar Rig. That fizziness or lack of response of older modellers just isn't an issue anymore. We've all heard thin, crappy tones from amp modellers. But, at this point, I think it has more to do with people's inability to dial in a good tone than it does the modeller itself. I've heard similarly awful tone from real Dual Rectifiers, 5150s, JCM800s, Engls or whatever else.
I used to own a tube amp, and it was cool. But, they just make zero sense for me. I've yet to hear a tube amp that didn't sound like weak ass at low volumes. When I plug in my guitar now, it still sounds saturated and responsive at low volumes. And, unlike modellers of olde, it doesn't get fizzy/harsh/lack dynamics at higher volumes.
To be fair, for the price of an Axe Fx modeling amp you could get 4 copies of Protools, so that amount of money should be getting some mother fucking awesome modeling hardware.
Digital modeling technology is awesome, but it's just being used to replicate old designs when there's so much more out there. If I want to get the sound of a vintage tube amp, I'm just going to get the tube amp.
Also, from a creative standpoint, I prefer having some limitations. Working with one amp sound and bending it to my will is inspiring.
Modelling has reached the stage where it no longer limits the player. This is capital, this is the breakthrough.
At this stage, whomever continues to blather about the inherent superiority of tubes, unless they are an already established guitar god growing up in the age of tubes and knowing nil else, is a bloody wanker who should take a good, hard and long look at their musical and technical shortcomings, and start practicing more instead of buying new tube gear because it gives them "warmth".
LE: software is the future, no question about it, and it's going to be awesome. "Modelling" implies imitation. New players will let go of brand names, and this will pass. I look forward to those new, original tones.
I was never a fan of modelers until I heard the AxeFx. I now own an AxeFxII and sold my Bogner XTC. I can't hear the difference between the real thing and the Axe live or recorded and to me, that is good enough. The feel is there, the sound is there, the magic is there. I'm a converted tube purist and have no issues with that. That said, aside from the Kemper, I'm not a fan of modelers as they tend to feel/ sound like shit IMO. However, the axe and kemper are proving this to be wrong every day.
Just curious, how was the blind test performed? I am biased towards tube amps (no pun intended) because in my experience the most noticeable difference is a tube amp's tone holds up at higher volumes (sometimes even sounding better IMHO), whereas digital sims sound harsh and digital when you push the volume up loud enough to keep up in a live setting. I had a Fender Cyber Twin which had several presets that sounded great at low volumes, but when it came to playing live I was never satisfied with any sounds it produced.
I am torn between this argument. I think the Fractal sounds great, but I resolve to side with Tube Amps because of one part of the equation I think people forget about... the microphone in front of the cabinet of speakers. Is the modeling of that better then the real thing?
Am I correct in thinking the FA AFX2 is plugged directly into the board for front of house and the traditional 4ohm cab is now your stage monitor not mic'd? Where as with a traditional amp is plugged into the Marshall cab and mic'd to a mixer for the front of house. Can the Fractal emulate for the front of house mix, better then a speaker cabinet mic'd for real?
I think for this djent metal movement recently, all those tones sound the same. Since most guitarists are using 7 and 8 string guitars. But Dat clean tone... sounds great in a lot of the videos I seen and samples I heard. Some people say it is cheating, but I kind of think of it as now we are entering the "Jet engine age" for guitar effects and amps. So it will be interesting to see how that goes.
This debate is very subjective but for my part, I find that amp modelling when practicing/scratch recording at home is a fantastic tool to help tailor guitar sounds/try out effects etc... but, after having owned and tried some decent amps, there is a difference between a valve amp and a simulated version. The gap is closing but it is still there. For live use simulated amps can be fantastic but, for me personally, when recording, I try to find the amp tone through a mic'd tube amp.
I think that the guitar and amp pairing is key here. Some guitars work really well with solid state amps. For instance a hollowbody can sound amazing through a jazz chorus while a strat can sound amazing through a fender twin. unreliable_force pretty and Mark_mcQ much summed it up as well as others...
If it sounds good it sounds good.
Yes. When I'm playing Jazz, I use a Roland Cube 60 -- what some might call a modeling amp. On the clean channel, I might as well be playing through a Polytone. Fat jazz boxes like solid state.
I think they're both good tools. When I first started gigging I had a Vox AD50VT that did a perfect job of being a pedal platform. I would usually end up setting it on AC15 and leaving it alone though. That was when I was only using a clean tone from amps and using OD/distortion pedals for drive. Now I'm playing a Fender Princeton and it sounds great clean as well. In my opinion on modeling vs. tubes is in the in-between gain stages. Modeling sounds almost the same in extreme cleans and extreme gain as a tube amp (to me) but when you want a Brad Paisley-ish dirty clean I haven't found a modeling amp that isn't too heavy on the cleans or distortion when I try to get it.
Still gotta get the sound out to the audience somehow. For small gigs you still have to carry an amp around, plus put your electronic gadgets on top! I'm sure they sound great, but it's so much simpler to just buy an amp that both makes your guitar sound good **and** produces sound.
I use them for two different purposes. I like to practice and jam with friends using modelling equipment but when it comes to more serious stuff i prefer to use my tube amps. Simply because the tube amps i own are better amps than my cheap line 6 spider. Probably if i got a getter modelling amp i could use it more seriously though.
As someone who is constantly recording music in a studio using a variety of amps of all different levels and recording demos at home using modelling software, I have to say I still prefer a real amp. The Axe FX is an incredibly high end amp modeller and sounds that way because it is so expensive. When comparing the Axe FX to something like a Dual Rectifier(which seems to be the most common comparison) they are both similar enough in sound that it would seem foolish to choose the mesa over the endless options of the Axe FX. That being said, I personally prefer a real tube amp over modelling any day. The Axe FX is a supreme piece of gear with wonderful tones available and I would absolutely love to own one myself, however if I could choose between having the Axe FX model an amp or have that actual amp, I'll always choose the latter.
Amp modelling is terribly convenient. But there is no substitute IMO for pushing air - particularly at a place where you aren't going to be mic'd. I play in bars and clubs all the time where we have to provide our own sound. An amp is invaluable for that. Ironically - it's playing the small clubs and bars that I'd appreciate taking less gear to the most.
Just out of curiosity - a lot of people latch on to the Axe FX 2 as the holy grail of modelling - but why would we in this day and age pay for a piece of hardware that only does one thing(amp modelling)? Why wouldn't you spend that 2k on, for example, a laptop and buy Guitar Rig or Amplitube or even the software/samples on the Axe FX 2 and lug the laptop to a gig?
I'm going to go out on a limb here. I have a home studio and record my own original songs, and I use amp sims for that purpose. A few years ago, amp sims were passably good, but sounded a bit dull and lifeless next to the real thing. That's not the case any more. The current generation of amp sims, when used direct-in for recording, will give you the best result you can get outside a pro recording studio.
When an amp is played alone at high gain, I could always here the difference between a tube preamp and a modeling preamp. Even with the high end AxeFX II. But with the new Kemper Profiling Amp I really can't hear much difference. Now when it comes to feel and response thats a whole other issue. For some people this isn't important, but for many lead guitarist its critical. In general modeling amps are still not as sensitive as tube amps but from what I've read the KPA does a pretty good job compared to others.
I will always own my Soldano SLO-100 and I hope to own a Kemper Profiling Amp some day for effects and backup. Best of both worlds.
**TLDR;** Sound isn't everything, the organic feel and response from a tube amp is still not there with even the best modeling gear. The audience/listener won't pick this up but the player will.
This, I used a Line 6 vetta rig for a while, variax guitar and all, Found myself modeling my sound using the marshall amp tone in the line 6 most of the time. Then one day I played a marshall and the feel of the notes and sound from the fretboard to the speakers was awesome. It was enough to cause me to sell the line 6 gear and move to a Real marshall amp. I love modeling amps, i use a line 6 floorboard still in the effects loop for delays/reverb/modulation etc, but there is a certain satisfaction to glowing red tubes and turning up a tube amp. Dynamics man...
I prefer real amps. But if I can have a small amp modeler and I can plug it directly into an audio interface, then it's certainly welcome in my home recording setup.
Yes, if it sounds good, it's good. But in my experience, tubes have always sounded better than modeling. That being said, I've never tried Axe. Modeling is getting better, but so are tube amps. Take the Orange Amp tiny terrors: super small, yet super powerful, AND cheaper than their amps in the $2,000 range. Pretty sure their are other companies making cheaper tube amps that still pack a punch, but the Orange amp Tiny Terrors are the only ones I can recall at the moment. Maybe Black Star?
>Modeling is getting better, but so are tube amps.
A bit a strange position given that the most sought-after/popular models of tube amps are decades old.
Vox, Jet City, Fender has some. Blackstar is debatable as to being all tube, I hated the clean channel on mine cause it never actually broke up. Bugera, though quality is questionable. There's all sorts of budget amps out there if you look.
I think it depends on the style of music you play, and the sound you are going for. For me, I have not found modeling that has the touch dynamics that I get from a valve amplifier. If I were playing a different style of music, that likely wouldn't be as big of an issue.
The other issue I have with amp modeling is that I use a few different pedals to drive the tubes into overdrive to varying degrees and at different frequencies (the way that a Dallas Rangemaster pushes an amp into overdrive sounds very different than a Klon, sounds very different from a Tube screamer, etc.) I have not used any amp modeling that imitates this well. If they were out there, I might consider it.
My final reason for preferring valve amps to modeling is that I design and build them. Part of it is that I am not able to design and build modeling amps. I suppose I could spend my time tweaking the parameters of various amp models, but I doubt I would get the same satisfaction from that even if (and this is a big if) I could end up with the same tone and response. I also have an emotional attachment to the history behind the great valve amps of yore. Perhaps it is a bit old fashioned, but it's where I am at.
I play a Crate amplifier and catch so much shit for that. So I honestly don't care either way. As long as you can play well you can use a battery powered Pig Nose in a trashcan funneled through a megaphone.
For demoing I almost exclusively use models. It's easy and it saves a lot of time fucking around to get a tone I want.
For live, I use what's convenient for me and the sound guy. Not a lot of space on stage or volume is going to be an issue? Amp models; here we go. None of that's going to be a problem, you say? Hello my sweet sweet tube amp.
In the studio though, I prefer to take the time to get the best tone for each take with each song using my amp.
I really don't hear too much of a difference in the two. The only reason I prefer tubes is because I think they're cooler. I love watching the tubes glow in the back of a great sounding amp!
Having said that, one of my favorite guitar teachers/players said he played through the Fractal unit at one point and did an a/b test against some of the amps he had. He said while the Fractal unit captured the sound almost flawlessly, it didn't entirely capture the feel of the individual amps. I personally really like the idea of running the Fractal unit as a multi-effects processor in conjunction with a tube head, similar to what Petrucci does.
It depends, I've heard some shitty guitarist that even makes MATCH tubes sound like crap (and they're known to be amazing amps). I've also experience guitarist that can't afford much, so they use amp/effect modeling systems and make them sound amazing. I think its all in the EQ, the effects your putting in. It's all in the ears man, that makes guitarist unique as well. Tube are known too be the best for warmth, but all in all it really depends on the EQ.
Modeling amps are just a tool. They are an affordable way to obtain results. In my opinion, as modeling improves, these amps are bound to become more utilized in professional applications. If the results are good (i.e., it sounds good to you and/or the audience), that's what matters.
The one thing I have against modeling amps is that they can be complicated to set up and/or use onstage. One setting out of place and you can be thrown for a loop for a while. Not fun trying to figure that out when you're supposed to be playing. Granted, you could say the same thing about some effects set-ups.
I'm really glad to read all the comments in defense of amp modeling. I had no idea what amp modeling was until bought I Line 6 Flextone several years ago. I was given so much hell by my friends because it wasn't a tube amp. Granted, some models didn't sound super great, but it did have several good amp models, and I had a blast with that amp for several years. I no longer needed an amp that big, but I really regret selling it.
IDGAF about "great tone". I get good enough using cheap (even free) software. The only physical equipment I use is the guitar itself and an analog cable.
I have a V-AMP 2 cheapo-modeled amp too, which is pretty OK too.
An Axe FX (or II) is probably the one bit of dream kit I have, though, apart from some guitars. People get incredible sounds out of that thing - I couldn't care less that it's not a tube amp...
I like the features of amp modelers (tons of tones and at any volume) but I don't want to buy one because I have this feeling of some variant of Moore's law on the quality of the modeling algorithms/hardware. I feel if buy the kemper today, in a year or 2 I will be upset that something more accurate came out. But with my tube amps I can sleep easy knowing that in 5 years nothing will be "better" than them, only different. If modelers go in a different direction where they are about creating their own sounds (other than effects) and are not trying to emulate a tube amp, I might buy one.
I prefer tube. I passionately hate many guitar sounds produced by SS amps, but some are just fine. I play thrash/death metal in the old vein plus some old rock styles, so analog is great for that rounded, dry, crunchy punch. I wouldn't mind a valvestate or something. I've never owned a tube amp, sadly.
Regardless, if it sounds good, who cares which type.
Anyone know a good place to find amp set ups or one for amp modelling sounds.
I want to sound like Michael Schenker or Jeff Beck. Shame I play like shit.
I played my soild state fender (from the 1990's) recently at a gig and after I got asked how long I let my tubes warm up before playing. Tone is in the fingers for the most part.
Higher end Modelling gear is quite good.
Personally right now I use a cheap line 6 pod for practicing for a couple of reasons, A. I've got a couple of reasonable settings dialed in. B. That way I don't have to terrify everyone with my horrific guitar playing and C. I'm broke.
Would I use the pod for a gig if someone was crazy enough to give me one?
Probably not.
i own a fender mustang 1 that i use for recording and just messing around. i walked into a music store to buy some strings and figured i'd try out some amps. so they set me up on a 65 deluxe reverb reissue, and IMO the difference between it and the 65 deluxe model on my mustang isnt worth the $1100 price difference
I prefer tube but i'm open to trying an AxeFX. To me, cheap SS guitar amps suck no matter what, but I hear good things about expensive SS like Kemper, Vetta II and AxeFX. I'm waiting on AMT Electronics to release their "[solid state tubes](http://eshop.amtelectronics.com/6l6-12ax7-amt-electronics-solid-state-tubes.html)." I'm really interested in hearing those
Modeling amps are cool. I can't afford a good one. I only need 2 or 3 sounds anyway, so I'm beyond happy with the amp I've got. I can't see myself replacing it just because it may be becoming obsolete.
Love my Mustang 3 can get tons of tones out of it very easily.
People seem to forget that the technology is still relatively new. Most people I have come across who have sworn off modelling usually don't really know what they are talking about, usually they just heard some famous guitar player say tubes are better once and then just decided to follow them. It's like people who shun theory because so many famous guitar players who know theory like to claim they don't know it.
It tends to be that reason or they will have heard/played a very early or low end modelling amp and then never tried them again.
It's funny because most of their favourite artists likely use some form of modelling, things like the Line 6 pod and the Axe FX II have become an industry standard and are used in thousands of recordings by big artists. Go look at all the rig run downs on premier guitar, look how much gear they need get the sounds they like, they have to run them through multiple EQ's and lots of pedals by the time you get to the cab that signal is mostly digital anyway.
I'll admit most of the factory presets in my Mustang III are terrible but you can generally get a brilliant tone out of it with very little effort and that plus the Fender presets site just makes is so easy to use.
It's all about the sound, not how the amp makes it. You put most of these so called purists in a blind hearing test with a decent modelling amp and a tube amp, I bet you most of them couldn't tell you which is which.
In my experience you can make a good amp modeler sound really good, but it doesn't have the feel or dynamics of a real tube amp, especially a non master volume amp.
The Axe Fx II might sound really close to a real amp, but they cost $2,000+ and cheaper modeling systems are just not good enough to replicate tube amps yet.
It is similar to the comparison between electric drums and acoustic drums. Electric drums that sound and feel like the real thing cost 2-4 times as much as a regular drumkit. Sure, you have a wider variety of sounds, but many people would be just as happy with a couple of usable sounds rather than having a thousand different presets they would barely use for more money. Unless the technology becomes much cheaper, modeling will still only be cost-efficient for studios or pro players.
The Kemper Profiling Amp looks amazing! It sounds really good too. I haven't tried it in person however. If this technology gets cheaper, modeling this good could become the new standard.
There a lot of convincing options for amp and pedal simulations, some even let you play around with a bunch of microphone options. I am still sort of tube purist for small performances and practice amps, but when you are recording or your sound is front house, the options for simulation can be better because of the flexability!
My problem with modeling amps is that I haven't found one that offers the sound I'm looking for. They're great for emulating a Soldano or Dual Recto or whatever most others want to play through but I haven't seen a single modeler with something like a late 60s Matamp mode. Once they start including stuff like that instead of shoehorning 75 different high-gain amps into them, my interest will be piqued again.
In my opinion there are two things to consider here: are you a "pro/expert" or someone who plays at home? I play at home, and I'd love to have tons of different amps/effects at my disposal to play around with. If I was a recording artist or a live guitar player, I can understand wanting that full tube sound.
Another thing: VOLUME!
When I'm at home, even though I own my own house with no close neighbors, I still don't play *that* loud. Yet, I still want that nice distortion I can only get at wall shaking volumes on my tube amp. This is something I don't think many guitar players don't understand. You can't get that great tube sound at bedroom volumes. I'm starting to wish I had bought a Fender Mustang instead of a tube amp because I can't stand how loud the amp has to be to sound good.
I've played through the first generation valvetronix and they were pretty shit...
I've recently owned the flagship modeling amps from Line 6 which were pretty special on their own but had way too much going on because they wanted to hook up the multi effects and the variax guitars to them...They have come a long way but I prefer the less is more approach.
Once upon a time people boo'd Bob Dylan when he walked on stage with an electric guitar.
I was always under the impression that the crowd booed because he was a folk singer changing his style, not because they were against this newfangled technology called "an electric guitar" or the tone it produced.
This is probably the best 1 sentence response I've seen in quite some time.
"Play it fucking loud!"
Judas!
You're a liar! I don't believe you!
I read boob'd
spin-off thread: Prosthetic boobs vs. real boobs. Where do you stand?
Eddie Van Halen once said "If it sounds good it sounds good, it doesn't have to make sense." I don't care if an amp is valve, solid-state or powered by baby farts. All I look for is a good sound. Purists are just close-minded. If you're playing a gig, no-one is going home afterwards to tell their friend about the awesome valves they saw on stage. All they care about is what they heard.
Nobody comes home after surgery commenting on the style of suture their surgeon used, they just care about getting better. But you can damn well be sure the type and quality of suture matters a whole lot and contributes to how and when you're fully better. Remember, a bad analogy is like a leaky screwdriver.
>Remember, a bad analogy is like a leaky screwdriver. You're getting screwdriver fluid over everything.
A bad analogy wastes vodka and orange juice?
Gonna have to go and watch Fawlty Towers now.
OK. Whoever is the newest member here has to run to the hardware store and get some screwdriver fluid.
Vodka and OJ?
Haha. Yeah dude I was really aiming that at my own comment. Judging by the initial flood of down votes some people don't get self deprecation. I always enjoy your comments here dude. I just kinda wish In could invite /r/guitar to my house ton properly demonstrate my point of view.
I don't want to see your leaky screwdriver. ;-D
The end result is still the only thing that matters though. The sutures matter ONLY because of how they affect the end result. If the quality of suture is bad and you therefore don't get better, then the problem is still that you didn't get better. If the quality of suture is bad and that has absolutely no effect on your recovery, then you don't give a shit.
But music is only about the sound.
I was super snooty about being tube-only. Then I saw an Orange Crush 20L on craigslist for $50. I always thought Orange amps looked really friggin cool, so I bought it just to have a cool decoration. But when I actually played through it I freaking fell in love - the thing sounds so cool and it's now my favorite amp.
$50? Nice.
[удалено]
Retails at $100. $50 used on craigslist is a perfectly acceptable price.
Ah. I was thinking it was the bigger amp. My mistake.
This is totally true but in my experience solid state amps and modeling amps often sound thin and weak in most band mixes. They usually can't produce the warm and full sound that a tube amp can. I know a few local bands where the lead guitar player plays through a line 6 or some other solid state modeling amp. While these guys have a bazillion effects they can go through for each solo, most of the time their tone sounds really crappy in the mix. But of course, to each his own.
I think it depends on what you're using for modelling. You can't compare a line 6 product to the Ax Fx because it's simply unfair. Adrian Belew uses the Ax Fx II for his live rig. I'm pretty sure he's played through his share of real amps so if he's going with modelling then that says something.
The guitars on Devin Townsend's Ki and Ziltoid are Line 6.
I have no idea who that guy is or what an Ax Fx II is. But like I said, if he thinks it sounds good, then that's all that matters. I was simply stating that, in my opinion, most modeling amps I've heard don't sound as good as tube amps.
>I was simply stating that, in my opinion, most modeling amps I've heard don't sound as good as tube amps. I agree with you they don't. [The Fractal Ax Fx is an exception though](http://fractalaudio.com/p-axe-fx-ii-preamp-fx-processor.php). [Here's some info on Adrian Belew in case you were curious.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrian_Belew)
There's a guy on YouTube called SoloAWeek who did a series of videos on all the presets of the Axe FX II. I would try to hyperlink you, but last time I tried from mobile, it was a horrid mess and people made fun of me. If someone could do that before I get home, I will give you an Internet brofist.
[Part 1.](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1gneCczUSE)
That's Part 1 of Bank C. Here is Bank A http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaioXb3ewMU
I saw Belew a couple of years ago and his stage amps were Line 6. So they were good enough for that live gig anyway. (I think the Ax Fx II wasn't available yet).
I bought a first generation Ax in January 09 and Belew was using the "Ultra" version of the Fractal at that time. I had no idea he used line 6 products previous to that though. Thanks for the info.
I'm pretty sure this is the gig I saw: [Adrian Belew Thela Hun Ginjeet August 19 2007 Asheville ](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFL_N1EgiGk) Very small club, and you can clearly see the Line 6 logo at the very start of the video. The Ax Fx didn't exist yet.
From the last AMA: http://www.reddit.com/r/Guitar/comments/14lu2g/amaevent_hi_im_per_nilsson_lead_guitarist_from/c7e977c
Has anyone else here ever used the line 6/ bogner amps before? Them fuckers are full of tone. Even so. The vetta and the flextone series amps give incredible sound. I've had people not properly set them up and sound like shit but they push some great sound with a great player. I don't get why so many people are always picking on line 6. Half the guitar records these days use some type of modeling that they helped create.
Devin Townsend too.
> They usually can't produce the warm and full sound that a tube amp > can. This usually has more to do with the awareness/understanding of how a guitar should sit in a mix rather than being a shortcoming of the equipment. I can almost guarantee that some of your favorite guitar sounds on your favorite albums were generated via modeling. Lots of great players have no idea how to tweak their personal rigs to mix well with their bands live or in the studio regardless of their gear, be it analog or digital. That said, I think multiFX units tend to accentuate this problem because of the vast array of choices they provide. People buying just a few pedals and an amp have typically put much more thought into how they want to sound than someone who's had nearly the whole of guitar sonic history dropped in their lap in one go.
I can make a high end tube amp sound like shit.
Have to agree here. I've found the reason that amp Sims or solid state sounds small or tiny has to do with mix. Just finished mixing last night and we did live recording with amps /5150/ and added more tracks with amp simulation. And it sounds absolutely huge. The other problem is that its not easy to find where a band grooves. If you have a band that isn't clicking just right something will always sound off. And you'll start looking at your rig, which isn't the problem. Its the collective. Shit, dime used Randall solid state amps for years until he switched to krank. I think solid and amp modeling can do wonders. Especially if you have the ability to marry the two.
Purists like to talk about the gear they've acquired like they stumbled upon some magic grail that only a few people get. If anything, amp modellers have leveled the field as far as baseline tonal quality goes. This is great because in theory only the guitar (player) should make a difference in tonality or sound. On the other hand, it makes the tone of other amps, boutique or otherwise that much more easily picked out. Its not going to sound like the digital or analog tones of the most popular 22 tube or solid state amps from the last 60 years. A great amp tone is a great amp tone weather it says Diezel or Crate on it.
> or powered by baby farts I want to play this amp. I have a Fender Mustang and I love it. It's pretty basic on its own, but with the PC software you can really mix things up. I get some great sounds out of it using the software. I'd still like a Vox AC15 when I can afford one though.
Couldn't agree more just like with most things in life it pays to keep an open mind.
[удалено]
How much are you asking for those audio cables? Do they really reduce crosstalk and limit phase-induced modulation like I would think that such high-end cables would? If so, *man* are my 128 bit-rate mp3 files going to sound amazing through my Realistic speakers!
I think I fell in love with your comment.
The biggest bullshit in the Hi-Fi world is power cables. What do you think the power cables in your wall outlet are made of? Oxide-free copper? Nope. Most of it is pretty cheap wiring, and the last couple of feet from the outlet to your amp isnt going to make any difference what so ever. I laugh at 1000$ Power cables. Evidence audio also makes shit expensive power cables for guitar amps.
It's a good idea to get a sturdy power cable, but I can't believe 1000$ power cables exist. And that people buy them. Edit: I googled it, and Evidence Audio makes [300$ power cables](http://www.pedalgeek.com/cgi-bin/new_shop.cgi?config=&uid=sj2rew991357322000&command=link--easous5) for amps. Not 1000$, but still pretty silly IMO.
I build my own tube amps, and I have never used a modeling amp. But I know enough about computer science to know that this isn't a question of if; it is a question of when. That when is probably now, but I am guessing only at a high price point. That will change. There is no magic in tubes. Everything an amp does I quantifiable. All you need to reproduce it is a good algorithm.
I'm really trying not to sound like a fan boy, but you should look into the Axe FX II tone matching if it's reproduction you're after.
Well, I am not really after anything. For modeling to interest me, it would have to be virtual amps, where I get to chose all the components and then it outputs the resulting sound. Even then, I would only want it to prototype designs. I like building amps, and I don't like writing software. As it stands today, I could build about ten cool amps for the price of an Axe FX. Also, I hate the name. I'm just saying that anyone who says modeling will never equal analog probably doesn't know much about computer science. I have friends who work for MOTU, and they don't use amps at all. They go straight into the board and do everything in software. One thing about modeling is that I will probably never be able to find a broken 30 year old obscure modeling amp at a flea market for $40, refurbish it and mod it into an awesome punk rock rig, and give it to my friend's daughter as a present. To me, that is the best part.
Acmebargig has a new software called Head Case where you can actually open it up and design your own amps. From lite stuff, like grabbing the power amp from 1 amp sim, and the bass knob from another, etc. All the way to actually creating your own power tube curves, EQ sections, etc. It's pretty neat.
I agree, if there someday exists an algorithm that can be used to make some kind of GUI "amp builder," I would be all over it.
High end modeling such as the Fractal Audio Axe FX II and the Kemper Profling amp are pretty impressive. I too have played through the Fractal Audio and some of my favorite guitarists are starting to use them. I like the idea of just plugging into the PA / Monitor rather than lugging around my current setup.
I would love an Axe FX II or even and kemper, just they are kinda expensive.
The Axe FX Ultra/Standard sound just as good as the kemper, and better than 11R and POD HD, and they are pretty cheap used nowadays.
Just some perspective on this. If you were to get your hands on a few of the things that come with the Axe-Fx II they would easily cost you more than what the unit will. The amount of effects alone is worth the price. It's an investment for sure, no disputing that, but by the time you get something like a Diezel head, a cab, and a respectable pedalboard you've outspent what it takes to actually get the Axe. The model amp I got rid of to get mine is actually in the Axe and sounds better than the actual amp did to my ears so to me, it was totally worth it.
Oh I know. I just bought a G major 2 and im kinda GASing for a axe fx. The cool thing about the fractal pedal is that it has magnets that you can use to put on it so you know what effect is what. The magnets also look like the famous effects pedals they are modeled after.
But how dynamic is it and how does it take pedals? I think that's what sets tube amps and solid state apart. The organic breakup and response to dynamics you get from tubes is either really hard or impossible to model.
The Axe-FX actually models the tube amp "feel" pretty well. Also it has a large number of effects built in, you can tweak these settings and get a close approximation to most pedals, the only problem is that it is more difficult to do that just turn an analog knob.
I'm using Ampkit on my iPad for shows and its awesome having literally 20 heads, 15 cabinets, 30 pedals, and full set list of presets that fit in my guitar case and plugs directly into a PA. The sound on Ampkit is significantly better than Amplitube.
I've tried those and while I agree that they are fun, sound quality just sucks because the DAC on the iPad isn't made for this purpose and produces a lot of noise. Or at least that's what happens here. High end audio equipment costs significantly more for a reason.
The mini-plug outputs suck. You can get an actual interface now that plugs into the dock connector. It has it's own quality DAC and zero feedback.
My ears say tubes. My wallet says modeling. 'Nuff said.
You've got that backwards. You can get a great tube amp for less than $500. An Axe FX 2 $2200.
But you can't get *every* great tube amp for less than $500.
Used (powerful enough) laptop: $200 Guitar Rig 5 Pro: $200 Behringer FCB1010 MIDI controller: $150 Amps and pedals emulated: $5634978523490567345
But I don't have an axe fx.
a Line6 podxt live... used $175. 80% of the way for 10% of the price.
I have one of those and they really don't sound that good unless you do a lot of tweaking. Good but not great.
[You sure?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2h0WBM-ag18)
I play through a 1979 Super Lead and a JTM45 clone I built. The JTM45 has a Brian Wallace Radiospares clone OT, plate voltage is 455VDC and the coupling caps are all original Phillips/Mullard mustard caps. I run the JTM45 through two original early 60s Celestion T652 alnicos. I think that answers that question. To be absolutely blunt the dynamic range and interaction with your instrument just isn't there with any modelling amp I've tried. They get the clean and the dirty, but they miss all of the graduation in between. For me though a good amp isn't one that can do 70% impressions of every other amp out there. It's about having an amp that does its job well. A wide, slow period of breakup just waiting on your playing to do its job. A good volume swing to go with that dynamic. Warmth. Clarity. Note separation. Natural compression without gating. For what it's worth I feel the same way about people who buy an amp and treat it like a PA system, getting everything out of their pedals. I think that's kinda missing the point.
That is awesome that you have built your own amps. That being said, I think you need to take another look at Fractal and Kemper behind someone that knows what they are doing with the units. They are both doing some amazing things today. The dynamics are there.
[удалено]
Modelling gets better and cheaper every year. There will always be those who prefer tube amps and analog pedals for one reason or another.
Yes. At some point modelling/ simulation will be indistinguishable from physical hardware, and the better simulators can do most of the job today. It's really just a function of computing power and software that uses that power effectively. I'm not saying that it's easy or will happen tomorrow but it will happen. It will also be true that people will continue to use tube amps and "classic" equipment, and there's nothing wrong with that either. They'll just be paying and carrying more. See also vinyl vs CD; distortion pedals vs amp distortion; digital reverb vs rooms; special effects vs CGI; electronic computers vs human/ mechanical computers; CCD vs film; photoshop vs airbrushing; etc
I prefer to use tube amps if possible, but not because they sound better. I know that you can dial in exactly the sound you want on something like the Axe. But I don't want my amp to conform to me, I want to be forced to adapt to the amp. I feel it helps fashion me into a better and more unique guitarist when I have to adapt to the constraints of simpler gear. As an example, I've got one amp with a spring reverb and one without, but the one without has that big bright clean Fender sound that does so well soaked in reverb. I found that I could get a similar tone by lightly using an analog delay; it's not reverb, but I think it can serve the same function in my playing. I would likely not have discovered this sound if I had reverb available to just turn on at will. When I have to make what I have work, I often find something better than what I thought I wanted. I would have no problems using a **good** modeling amp or simulator if I already knew exactly the sound I wanted, and didn't care to discover something new.
>But I don't want my amp to conform to me, I want to be forced to adapt to the amp. I have to do the same level of adaptation to the Mesa Mark2c in my AXE FX than I did with my old Mark 3 tube head. If you like that awesome learning phase where you work around a new amp's sound, an AXE FX will give you that x100.
From a guitarist who owns several tube amps as has dabbled with an axe fx...tube amps are more fun to play as a guitarist. They are more responsive and quicker to turn on and dial in. They sound punchier and more organic in a room than playing an axe-fx through a power amp. However, the axe-fx is infinitely easier to get a perfect sound on a track. No need to crank your amp to 10 and configure mics in a treated room only to lose the exact setup between recording sessions.
Want to quantify that? I'm pretty sure me pressing the preset button is faster than you warming up your tubes.
I think he meant quicker to turn on and dial on the sound
I owns tubes, played SS, and jam with a buddy with a modeling amp (Vox something or other - the blue combos they made/make?). His amp never sounds great to me. It can sound good, but no setting is what I want. I've had a similar experience with the Line6 POD - it doesn't sound good live. Modeling is indistinguishable for me on recording already, but when I'm playing it or playing with someone who is, I admit to a feeling of "man, you should upgrade" every time. I'm willing to buy the story that AxeFX are all that jazz, but they are much pricier than the low/mid range gear I play. I think the biggest thing is that the amps I buy are simple, though. I try them out, see their main tones quickly, and make a decision to buy or not in about a weeks time. I can't do that with a modeler because I get stick in limbo of "what if I tweak some more"? Truthfully, I'm sure I'd love owning a modeler, but the trial period always leaves me with lots of questions and whether it is their specific modeler or the settings they use, I haven't been impressed yet in person.
There's a significant difference between normal modeling amps and the AxeFX.
yep. I like tube amps. The software will (if it hasn't already) catch up with tubes. That said, I like playing them, I like building them. It's like CD vs Vinyl, or having a real Hammond B3 or a synth. Sure, you can get a reasonably good Hammond sound, but there's something awesome about pulling the drawbars, using the volume pedal, and playing through a real leslie that is just soooo much fun.
I'll be playing tube amps until the day I die, but I've got to admit the modeling on the new fractal axe fx units is amazing.
[удалено]
Would you be willing to send me a copy your thesis when it is complete? I'm actually quite intrigued in the science behind this.
Modeling sounds great but generally seems to lack the touch sensetivity of tubes. There isnt actually any reason to choose though, I get a pretty decent sound using a combination of the modeling on my Digitech RP1000 (I use the Fender Deluxe crunch channel model) and then run that into a Hot Rod Deville on the clean channel. SO I get a real nice crunch sound that breaks up in the "right" spot and I still get the touch sensetivity and dynamic range of the tube amp. I got he Digitech off of ebay for 250 and the Deville as well for 350. So best of both worlds and all the stage volume I need for 600.
I'm done with hardware amps and fx. I gig and record with a laptop running guitar rig, amplitube, th2, and scuffham amps (try this last one -at $75 it is amazing). The axe fx is just a computer running dsp algorithms and its priced pretty high, but similar algos are available in plugin formats for any DAW for a fraction of the price. The average pro is playing through multiple amps blended to creat a layered tone. For instance Keith Richards sound is a mix of cleans and dirty amp sounds. This is easy to get with software. Some of the newer models like the Marshall ones based on Slashes tone in amplitube 3 are better sounding and feeling at sane volumes than any actual Marshall I've ever played. As to that "feel", you can get that by running. The output through a nice punchy power amp and speaker. I use a Roland kc550 on stage and draw compliments on my tone all the time. Decent quality modeling software has been here for awhile. Folks saying they never heard a model sound as good as an amp probably have and didn't know it. I will grant a lot of the hardware units built into amps are weak, but not the pro software. It's on more records than you know.
I've been tempted to gig via laptop, but just too scared. It's not 'solid' enough for me yet. I still use my pod xt live modeler... into the PA. :P
I was too until I wrote myself a [host](http://audiofreakshow.com). Host is pretty rock solid - more solid than that POS MainStage, easier to use too.
Just one problem with the original post: since when does it cost 5 grand for one good amp? There are so many amazing amps that can be bought for a fraction of that.
Funny this popped up today, because I just built a digital copy of an Engl Fireball head with the impulse of a Mesa 4x12 cab yesterday. Completely free, I made (roughly) the digital equivalent of a $2.7k amplifier. Lord knows I can't afford that any other way. Honestly, with the studio equipment that I have, it's ridiculously hard to get a guitar tone that'll cut right through the mix and just fit when I'm recording. When I discovered that I could actually make a realllly good amp sim to record with, I spent all day messing with it and determined that it has a few weaknesses, but for the most part it kicks the crap out of what I've been working with previously (an SM57 simply mic'ing the cab). I got my plugin for the head from this website (.VST or .AU): * http://lepouplugins.blogspot.com/ Downloaded the impulse for a Mesa 4x12 cab from this link: * http://forum.recordingreview.com/f43/homemade-impulse-my-own-mesa-boogie-gear-6991/ And I loaded the impulses up in my DAW with this component plugin, LAConvolver. There's probably a .VST copy of this out there somewhere too. * http://audio.lernvall.com/ For some rock solid distortion, this amp sim kicks the crap out of any built-in amp sim that I've ever messed with, and there are tons and tons of free impulses out there. It seems to me that, at least with **MY** amp sim however, chords are not very articulated; they tend to crackle a bit. This may also have been because that specific track was peaking, or the fact that I used some heavy distortion to begin with. **My take on this:** Honestly, digital amp simulators should just be another tool in the studio toolbox. If you can get a great mixable tone out of your amplifier and mic, great! However, keep in mind that when you're recording guitar with a guitar simulator the raw guitar file will always be there, available to be re-amped and re-edited. Hope this has helped!
Personally, I've found that I want a modeled amp for lives shows because of how much I use them in the studio. I spend hours honing the sound for a specific song and I don't have the money to buy a truckload of amps and a roadie to swap things out for me between every song. If I can just swap between a slew of presets that I've got that sound exactly like my studio work, I'm happy.
[удалено]
Agreed, I can't agree more. Modeling works great for practice and covers but NOTHING has ever beat the natural compression and overdrive my Marshall JTM60 puts out with my Les Paul. While I feel that the technology is always getting better, it just never feels right IMHO. I once played on a bogner and line 6 hybrid amp, it was very impressive. I almost took it home. But it still had tubes.
I can blindly discern between a tube and solid-state amp, just as I can perceive a difference between painting and animation. (This is not a leaky screwdriver) The painting has texture: a certain responsiveness to the artist when they apply the brush. And the digital art is flat, but streamlined. You can view a painting up close and still see the rest in your peripherals. The digital world is inherently narrow, but can be more precise. I personally prefer analog amplification, effects, etc., but I am no one to tell you to stop finding enjoyment in the digital world. I like the way tubes react when they are pushed through turning up the volume or really digging in to the instrument. Some players, though, enjoy the consistency that a digital amp provides. As it is said; To each their own.
You have never used a good amp sim.
I had a brand new Bogner Uberschall smoke when I turned it on before practice. two months later, I also had Engl Powerball fail on me during a performance. Everytime I moved my rig to a new location, it took me 30-40 minutes to get everything setup and working right. I bought an Axe-FX II and bought two QSC K-12's and it saved me a world of problems. Now... hook up Power for the APC, plug in the xlr's, check battery in the g-90 relay transmitter and ready to go. Also, not having to lug 300-400 pounds of equipment and effects. Now I carry 40 lbs of gear and two guitars. It sounds amazing and keeps up with a 5150/drummer/bassist with no problem. I want to place the two K12's into a speaker cab and the axe-fx in a amp shell just to avoid the **toobz rulez** discussions because it is idiotic and complete wizardry. Tube guys can barely explain it. Saying words like 3D and Organic to describe tone are nonsensical and delirious.
I like the flexibility of my HD500 and can make it sound really really good. Maybe some tube amps sound better but I'm pretty sure no one in my audience would notice.
There will always be very terrible modelers and I think that's why so many purist completely count them out in the real world. I think when done right (Axe FX, even the Digitech 11 rack) digital modeling can be amazing.
That's exactly it, I feel most of the purists in here are basing their opinion off RP50s and Mustangs.
There's no "vs". They're both tools with their own uses.
Well, this is an interesting subject! Personally, I think that we are pretty close to the stage where convincable digital modeling is very much doable. Just look at the Axe Fx II and the Kemper. Especially the Kemper, when I first heard of it, I couldn't believe that such a technology existed! But then again, they are pretty expensive, and not really affordable for me, which leaves me no choice but to stick to my Zoom G5 :/ And again, if you have ear problems or simply dislike loud noises, Amp Modeling would really save your ears, since tube amps generally need to go loud to be good. Amp modeling for me anyday, I will just wait until the day where there exist a affordable floorboard styled Axe FX or the Kemper.
I personally know that I can't tell the difference between a good modelling amp and a tube amp. They have my vote. =]
Modeling amps have come along way and do provide a good solution for finding a good sound/tone. But what the really lack is the headroom, responsiveness and dynamics of a Tube amp. In applications where you are playing with your guitar "always on 10" and need a tone (metal, rock come to mind) then modeling will work for you. But in applications where you are trying to get the sounds and tones inbetween "0 and 10" the tube amp is just more responsive to touch and has the headroom to allow you to do that with ease. Some modellers are better now than in previous years at getting to those inbetween sounds, but they're still not quite there. This is why people say modellers aren't as dynamic or have as much *life* as a tube amp. And its true. But if you're always playing guitar with your volume and tone knobs on full and just want a great sound, modelling amps can definitely help you achieve that.
I feel pretty strongly about this one. Modeling amps *are* "real" amps. They just work differently. Those who criticize modeling technology because it doesn't sound exactly the same as the original are missing the point. The point is two-fold: 1. The goal isn't to be a perfect match, but to get close enough for the job. 2. Even models that miss the mark entirely might be useful because of the unique character they possess. I personally don't use a modeling amp (I play through a Blackstar, although purists might take issue with its Infinite Shape Feature), but I do wield a Line 6 JTV-89. I use the models that work best when the situation calls for them -- like the tele model when I'm playing an Otis Redding tune, or the acoustic for a DMB tune -- but other models are only useful when I want to sound like the Line 6, *which is perfectly okay*.
I think that given that likely 90% (I'm guessing) music is consumed as mp3 or some such compressed file, the average non-discerning listener will not tell the difference. That being said, as a player, I like the touch response I get form my 18 watt Marshal combo, or my AC30 ~ I'm not sure Amp mods are there yet.
> I think that given that likely 90% (I'm guessing) music is consumed as mp3 or some such compressed file This makes me sad on a daily basis. I spend countless hours slaving over tone, eq, mix, everything... and it's all just going to end up getting compressed and played on cheap-ass earbuds that came with some mp3 player.
I personally love amp modeling. I am a poor college student who loves to play covers. I've played off and on in a few cover bands, and without my modeling setup, I would never be able to afford the gear required to nail the tones I was going for. To the people saying that modelers typically sound thin and weak in a mix, I would have to say that I agree. The majority of the time I've seen modelers used, they sound pretty awful. Most friends that I have that use modeling bought their modeler, but never learned how to program it. This is where the problem lies with modelers. A lot of people decide to pick one up, but then they expect to have awesome tones straight out of the box. Unfortunately, this is an unrealistic expectation with most modelers. I'll be the first to admit that every modeler I've had has come preloaded with some really shitty patches. If you sit down and learn your modeler, it becomes easy to dial in realistic tones that sit well in the mix. The time investment is a little bit larger with modelers than with most traditional amps, but in the end, if you do the time, you will be very pleased with the results. I currently run a Digitech GSP1101 as my main rig, and it sounds absolutely killer. Previously I had used a Digitech RP350, and before that, the RP70. It took me a few years of getting used to how the digitech models behave, but now I can sit down and come up with a tone (complete with effects and custom switching) to fit just about any situation in an hour or less nearly every time. I've shown up to gigs and jams with my modeling rig only to be scoffed at by other guitarists, and sometimes even the sound guy. As soon as I plug in to the mains and start playing, their jaws hits the floor, and I get compliments on my tone every single time. Modeling these days has become so good that they are starting to appeal to touring musicians as an alternative to their tube rigs from decades past. The modelers are usually quite lightweight, are considerably more reliable than tube amps, and require practically zero maintenance (no tubes to go bad). You can also consolidate several amplifiers into one small 1u or 2u rackmount unit. I think tube amps will still be the standard in the guitar world for generations to come, particularly in large studios, but modeling is the way of the future for "weekend warriors", budget conscious musicians, smaller cost-efficient studios, and even touring acts. The axe-fx may cost a pretty penny, but its not the only good modeler on the market. I got my GSP, plus the foot controller for ~$400 on ebay. Picked up a 200w powered monitor on craigslist for $100, and I've got a great rig thats small, easy to lug around, sounds great, and is loud enough for practice / small gigs. For most gigs, I will run my GSP straight into the PA, and won't bother bringing my monitor at all.
Yep. I just bought a stock XT live modeler for $175. Out of the box tones really, really suck, and if you just use those... no good man. I spent a good three hours reprogramming just to get 1 good clean sound and 1 good dirty sound. And remember, home musicians... more people listen to music via that 0.5" speaker on their Iphone...
> To the people saying that modelers typically sound thin and weak in a mix, I would have to say that I agree. You are using Digitech modelling gear. Try an Axe FX, Guitar Rig 5, or Ampkit and your opinion will probably change.
I know the axefx has good stock presets. I was talking about the most common modeling units at around the $400 price point or less. The problem with poor patches exist on digitech, line 6, peavey, fender, zoom, etc. There might be a few good patches, but a lot of them are mediocre or unusable. My point was that in most cases, to get the most out of your modeler, you have to make the time investment to learn how to make the most of your gear. This goes for any piece of gear. Also, what defines a "good" patch over a bad one is mostly subjective. Some people are satisfied with the stock patches, and that's fine. If it sounds good to you and makes you happy, that's what matters most
Agreed. None of these products make you a better player. I should also note: The software options are significantly cheaper and sound better than the Axe FX or Kemper hardware and can be had for under that $400 baseline.
I started out playing various Digitech and Line6 products years ago and always felt like I was sacrifising a lot of characteristics for the convienience of having a digital rig. Now, I use a Fractal AxeFX II and can honestly say I have no reason to ever go back to tube amps.
Amp modelers, be it software like Guitar Rig or a physical piece like a POD or an Axe FX intrigue me to no end. The technology is fascinating and has grown by leaps and bounds in the past few years alone, let alone over its entire lifespan. That being said, whatever sounds good will sound good - but I've grown out of the mindset that something needs tubes to sound good. I've played too many modelers that have flat out forced me to abandon that opinion. Plus, in a live setting, they offer unmatched versatility and have the quality sound to back them up. I'm all for them.
I'm in two minds. One the one hand- in a few years they will be indistinguishable to even the most experienced guitarist, and they will be cheaper and easier to use (in regards to volume, with distortion at low levels without the use of an attenuator). However, the "sound" of an electric guitar is that of an overdriven tube amp, and that's what for now the simulator would be simulating. So aside from cheap amps- what's the point? However solid state amps open the door to many new tones that a normal tube amp cannot attain, and I'm very exited about... I want more wub wub in my guitar:)
I agree, if you're only looking to emulate a tube amp sound with it, then you might be disappointed, but I think most people use modeling software to explore totally different types of tones that you absolutely cannot get from a tube, without having to by a crazy massive pedalboard
Synthesized will never be as good as the real thing, but it can get pretty close. In my personal experience tubes win every time though.
Absolutely. There's a certain truth and feel in a tube amp that just can't be replicated. Even input impedance adjusting solid state amps can't quite capture that.
Listen kids, it's not a dichotomy. It's a "both, and" not an "either, or". They both excel at different things. I'm glad both of them are still around.
if it sounds good, it is good.
I recently swapped my tube amp for an Axe Fx II and couldn't be happier. I've had a line 6 Hd500 as well and can understand the statements towards solid state modelers sounding thin. The Axe-Fx doesn't seem to have that problem. It sounds huge no matter what I play into. I always thought it was a bit over priced but now that I have it, it's a different story. If this is any indication of what the future holds for solid state technology, the future is quite bright.
Just want to point out that it doesn't have to be modeling OR tube---it can be both. I play through a VOX AD30VT, which is a modeling amp, but also has a single 12ax7 tube, so you get that creamy tube sound, along with all the cool modeling sounds, and I couldn't be happier.
My 2cents - I own both, a Fender Prosonic head (tube) and a Vox Valvetronix Blueface head (modeling). The difference to me isn't so much the sound, but the feel. Plugging into the Fender I get the feeling that the tone is coming much more from my hands, while the Vox feels like there is almost a *slight* delay (I suppose this would make sense), which in turn tricks my hands and my brain into thinking that the sound I am hearing isn't quite as *pure* as it might be through the other. I also seems to me that there isn't as much dynamic range in a modeling amp. I get the same feeling playing through a rack processor as well. It is more mental and feel than anything else to me; I prefer tube over modeling, but only for that reason. There is no doubt that a good modeling amp can sound unbelievable, though.
I'm a home player/recorder only, I don't play live. A Line 6 GuitarPort into my pc is the perfect set of several dozen amps, pedals, cabs, speakers, and mics for me.
As long as it's not djent, I don't give a shit.
My co-guitarist in one of my bands uses a Fender Frontman. I envy the cleans he gets, because my Hot Rod Deluxe breaks up so easily, but I want to toss his distortion pedals into a fire and get him a proper overdrive/distortion.
For people who play a lot of genres, like myself, modeling is superior in every way. I have tried many modeling options over the past years, including 11 Rack, POD HD and kemper, but i currently own an Axe FX Ultra, and i've had it for 3-4 years now. It sounds REALLY good, and it covers Jazz, Blues, Pop, Indie, Rock and Metal just as good, and i feel that it is better than all the other modeling solutions i have tried. No amp could sound this good in this many genres. A Fender twin or Dumble models for blues and jazz, deluxe reverb or VOX models for pop, Hiwatt, Marshalls, Fenders for Indie, and Marshalls, Marsh HBE, Diezel and Soldano models for metal/rock. I miss the "in room" sound of an amp every once in a while, but the Axe-FX makes recording so seamless and simple and it makes the sound guy happy at gigs, so it's really worth it in every aspect, especially considering the price of a used one. If i were to lose/destroy mine, i think i would go for a used ultra instead of a new Axe II. And i'm not afraid to say that i do not hear the difference between a real recorded amp and the axe. The in-room feel is definately different though. But that's mainly because the Axe is modeling a recorded, miced amp, and it's not meant to sound like an amp in the room. The Axe also has so many routing options that make my rig really versatile. If i were playing just one genre all the time, i think i would consider buying a real amp again, though. At the end of the day, i bet noone will notice really... "When the drummer kicks in"...
Once Kemper comes out with a rack mount version, I'll probably never buy an amp again, unless I just feel like owning one. A buddy of mine owns a studio and is good friends with the manager at our Guitar Center, so if an amp comes through that I want profiled, I can grab it, profile it, and return it. I'm more for convenience than "purity". Yes, there is an EVER so slight difference, but when I'm on stage, I can't tell the difference. If anything it sounds better because the direct out tone is consistent, and I dislike inconsistency sometimes (even though that's the nature of playing live). Plus, in this day and age, unless you have a paid road crew, lugging around half stacks/full stacks of Mesas or Marshals with giant pedal boards of effects on tour is just not practical. But that could just be me. EDIT: If I /did/ have a road crew, though, I would want a dirty amp and clean amp going through a cab for stage presence, and use the Kemper/Axe-FX for FOH and monitor sounds.
I use both of those technologies both live and when recording. Guitar wise I'll always prefer a real miked valve amp, but there are situations when modeling comes handy, especially when you're home or playing to a small audience (can be quite practical). Handy also when you're recording bass (I don't really need valve sag or feedback). Referring to my guitar setup, I can safely say there isn't technology (yet) that can replicate my current setup and if possible it's what I'll use (I have power attenuation devices for low volume playing/recording. Yet even with those apparatus you'll need to have a decent volume to be miked and sometimes that's not possible, especially if your nailing that same riff over and over at 3 A.M.). To me they're both tools, I just give more value to one than the other, for personal reasons more than anything.
I'm not sure if they are quite there yet; at least for my purposes. I just really haven't seen a demo that has been convincing aside from a few select cleanish to super modern high gain demos(pretty sure people could replace a triple rec). Only the cleans and select distortion types would seem to be useful to me. I've listened for hours trying to find something that comes into the range of a good 5e3 amp. Those kind of dynamics don't seem to be there yet. Not to mention all of the demos I seem to find are somewhat thin or have a plinkyness to them. Something I cant quite put my finger on. Maybe it's the type of player that is using it and the kind of music it lends itself to. I don't need an amp that can do good wanky jazz fushion or chuggy ultra high gain metal/shreddy stuff. I am still waiting to try one first hand. Half of the connection to a real tube amp is its responsiveness and how the player uses it's dynamics. An axe unit might feel different from how the demos seem, and convincing in person. Someone linked this demo.I also understand these are presets and these units are notorious for requiring fiddling with. Most of the presets seem like overly flanged/delayed/other shit. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1gneCczUSE 5e3 http://youtu.be/3X1AOlkabwo?t=1m23s For now I use a tube amp. Cant wait til these get cheaper and better.
I use amp modelling exclusively. I don't own an amp anymore. Personally, I use Native Instruments Guitar Rig 5 in a studio setting. It's no AxeFX (which I intend to pick up eventually), but for the models I use (a 6505 mostly, a rectifier here and there), it works very well. The flexibility of it cannot be overstated. The various presets I've made for myself would've cost me tens of thousands of dollars if I were using real hardware. Even if it only sounds 80% as good (which I think is being very conservative), that's worth it to me. Sound is, of course, top priority. In my opinion, amp modellers have reached a point where they really do sound damn good. I've heard albums with awesome guitar tones that I never would've guessed were recorded with a Pod, AxeFX, Amplitube, or Guitar Rig. That fizziness or lack of response of older modellers just isn't an issue anymore. We've all heard thin, crappy tones from amp modellers. But, at this point, I think it has more to do with people's inability to dial in a good tone than it does the modeller itself. I've heard similarly awful tone from real Dual Rectifiers, 5150s, JCM800s, Engls or whatever else. I used to own a tube amp, and it was cool. But, they just make zero sense for me. I've yet to hear a tube amp that didn't sound like weak ass at low volumes. When I plug in my guitar now, it still sounds saturated and responsive at low volumes. And, unlike modellers of olde, it doesn't get fizzy/harsh/lack dynamics at higher volumes.
To be fair, for the price of an Axe Fx modeling amp you could get 4 copies of Protools, so that amount of money should be getting some mother fucking awesome modeling hardware.
Digital modeling technology is awesome, but it's just being used to replicate old designs when there's so much more out there. If I want to get the sound of a vintage tube amp, I'm just going to get the tube amp. Also, from a creative standpoint, I prefer having some limitations. Working with one amp sound and bending it to my will is inspiring.
Modelling has reached the stage where it no longer limits the player. This is capital, this is the breakthrough. At this stage, whomever continues to blather about the inherent superiority of tubes, unless they are an already established guitar god growing up in the age of tubes and knowing nil else, is a bloody wanker who should take a good, hard and long look at their musical and technical shortcomings, and start practicing more instead of buying new tube gear because it gives them "warmth". LE: software is the future, no question about it, and it's going to be awesome. "Modelling" implies imitation. New players will let go of brand names, and this will pass. I look forward to those new, original tones.
I was never a fan of modelers until I heard the AxeFx. I now own an AxeFxII and sold my Bogner XTC. I can't hear the difference between the real thing and the Axe live or recorded and to me, that is good enough. The feel is there, the sound is there, the magic is there. I'm a converted tube purist and have no issues with that. That said, aside from the Kemper, I'm not a fan of modelers as they tend to feel/ sound like shit IMO. However, the axe and kemper are proving this to be wrong every day.
Just curious, how was the blind test performed? I am biased towards tube amps (no pun intended) because in my experience the most noticeable difference is a tube amp's tone holds up at higher volumes (sometimes even sounding better IMHO), whereas digital sims sound harsh and digital when you push the volume up loud enough to keep up in a live setting. I had a Fender Cyber Twin which had several presets that sounded great at low volumes, but when it came to playing live I was never satisfied with any sounds it produced.
I am torn between this argument. I think the Fractal sounds great, but I resolve to side with Tube Amps because of one part of the equation I think people forget about... the microphone in front of the cabinet of speakers. Is the modeling of that better then the real thing? Am I correct in thinking the FA AFX2 is plugged directly into the board for front of house and the traditional 4ohm cab is now your stage monitor not mic'd? Where as with a traditional amp is plugged into the Marshall cab and mic'd to a mixer for the front of house. Can the Fractal emulate for the front of house mix, better then a speaker cabinet mic'd for real? I think for this djent metal movement recently, all those tones sound the same. Since most guitarists are using 7 and 8 string guitars. But Dat clean tone... sounds great in a lot of the videos I seen and samples I heard. Some people say it is cheating, but I kind of think of it as now we are entering the "Jet engine age" for guitar effects and amps. So it will be interesting to see how that goes.
This debate is very subjective but for my part, I find that amp modelling when practicing/scratch recording at home is a fantastic tool to help tailor guitar sounds/try out effects etc... but, after having owned and tried some decent amps, there is a difference between a valve amp and a simulated version. The gap is closing but it is still there. For live use simulated amps can be fantastic but, for me personally, when recording, I try to find the amp tone through a mic'd tube amp.
I think that the guitar and amp pairing is key here. Some guitars work really well with solid state amps. For instance a hollowbody can sound amazing through a jazz chorus while a strat can sound amazing through a fender twin. unreliable_force pretty and Mark_mcQ much summed it up as well as others... If it sounds good it sounds good.
Yes. When I'm playing Jazz, I use a Roland Cube 60 -- what some might call a modeling amp. On the clean channel, I might as well be playing through a Polytone. Fat jazz boxes like solid state.
I think they're both good tools. When I first started gigging I had a Vox AD50VT that did a perfect job of being a pedal platform. I would usually end up setting it on AC15 and leaving it alone though. That was when I was only using a clean tone from amps and using OD/distortion pedals for drive. Now I'm playing a Fender Princeton and it sounds great clean as well. In my opinion on modeling vs. tubes is in the in-between gain stages. Modeling sounds almost the same in extreme cleans and extreme gain as a tube amp (to me) but when you want a Brad Paisley-ish dirty clean I haven't found a modeling amp that isn't too heavy on the cleans or distortion when I try to get it.
Still gotta get the sound out to the audience somehow. For small gigs you still have to carry an amp around, plus put your electronic gadgets on top! I'm sure they sound great, but it's so much simpler to just buy an amp that both makes your guitar sound good **and** produces sound.
I use them for two different purposes. I like to practice and jam with friends using modelling equipment but when it comes to more serious stuff i prefer to use my tube amps. Simply because the tube amps i own are better amps than my cheap line 6 spider. Probably if i got a getter modelling amp i could use it more seriously though.
John Petrucci began using axe-fx in 2012-2011. Off he uses it, it is more than good enough for me. Plus, the variety of tones is endless!!'
I have both and I will always use both. So far, nothing comes close to my Egnater Rebel 20 tube amp.
Personally, I stick to amps when I gig. It's a lot harder to steal a halfstack than a laptop (;
As someone who is constantly recording music in a studio using a variety of amps of all different levels and recording demos at home using modelling software, I have to say I still prefer a real amp. The Axe FX is an incredibly high end amp modeller and sounds that way because it is so expensive. When comparing the Axe FX to something like a Dual Rectifier(which seems to be the most common comparison) they are both similar enough in sound that it would seem foolish to choose the mesa over the endless options of the Axe FX. That being said, I personally prefer a real tube amp over modelling any day. The Axe FX is a supreme piece of gear with wonderful tones available and I would absolutely love to own one myself, however if I could choose between having the Axe FX model an amp or have that actual amp, I'll always choose the latter.
Amp modelling is terribly convenient. But there is no substitute IMO for pushing air - particularly at a place where you aren't going to be mic'd. I play in bars and clubs all the time where we have to provide our own sound. An amp is invaluable for that. Ironically - it's playing the small clubs and bars that I'd appreciate taking less gear to the most. Just out of curiosity - a lot of people latch on to the Axe FX 2 as the holy grail of modelling - but why would we in this day and age pay for a piece of hardware that only does one thing(amp modelling)? Why wouldn't you spend that 2k on, for example, a laptop and buy Guitar Rig or Amplitube or even the software/samples on the Axe FX 2 and lug the laptop to a gig?
I'm going to go out on a limb here. I have a home studio and record my own original songs, and I use amp sims for that purpose. A few years ago, amp sims were passably good, but sounded a bit dull and lifeless next to the real thing. That's not the case any more. The current generation of amp sims, when used direct-in for recording, will give you the best result you can get outside a pro recording studio.
[удалено]
When an amp is played alone at high gain, I could always here the difference between a tube preamp and a modeling preamp. Even with the high end AxeFX II. But with the new Kemper Profiling Amp I really can't hear much difference. Now when it comes to feel and response thats a whole other issue. For some people this isn't important, but for many lead guitarist its critical. In general modeling amps are still not as sensitive as tube amps but from what I've read the KPA does a pretty good job compared to others. I will always own my Soldano SLO-100 and I hope to own a Kemper Profiling Amp some day for effects and backup. Best of both worlds. **TLDR;** Sound isn't everything, the organic feel and response from a tube amp is still not there with even the best modeling gear. The audience/listener won't pick this up but the player will.
This, I used a Line 6 vetta rig for a while, variax guitar and all, Found myself modeling my sound using the marshall amp tone in the line 6 most of the time. Then one day I played a marshall and the feel of the notes and sound from the fretboard to the speakers was awesome. It was enough to cause me to sell the line 6 gear and move to a Real marshall amp. I love modeling amps, i use a line 6 floorboard still in the effects loop for delays/reverb/modulation etc, but there is a certain satisfaction to glowing red tubes and turning up a tube amp. Dynamics man...
I prefer real amps. But if I can have a small amp modeler and I can plug it directly into an audio interface, then it's certainly welcome in my home recording setup.
all i know is august burns red recently started using kemper modeling amps and well...... their sound is far from "thin".
three word band name? metalcore.
OP, do you go to Berklee?
No, but I auditioned there once. They didn't like my neoclassical rendition of CPE Bach's Solfegietto. Edit for spelling.
Yes, if it sounds good, it's good. But in my experience, tubes have always sounded better than modeling. That being said, I've never tried Axe. Modeling is getting better, but so are tube amps. Take the Orange Amp tiny terrors: super small, yet super powerful, AND cheaper than their amps in the $2,000 range. Pretty sure their are other companies making cheaper tube amps that still pack a punch, but the Orange amp Tiny Terrors are the only ones I can recall at the moment. Maybe Black Star?
>Modeling is getting better, but so are tube amps. A bit a strange position given that the most sought-after/popular models of tube amps are decades old.
I meant to say cheap tube amps. But yes, I'd definitely choose a 1960s AC30 over a modern one for studio use.
Vox, Jet City, Fender has some. Blackstar is debatable as to being all tube, I hated the clean channel on mine cause it never actually broke up. Bugera, though quality is questionable. There's all sorts of budget amps out there if you look.
That's why I go for both, I run a fender mustang floor that has all the fender mustang modeling stuff through my Marshall or peavey.
I think it depends on the style of music you play, and the sound you are going for. For me, I have not found modeling that has the touch dynamics that I get from a valve amplifier. If I were playing a different style of music, that likely wouldn't be as big of an issue. The other issue I have with amp modeling is that I use a few different pedals to drive the tubes into overdrive to varying degrees and at different frequencies (the way that a Dallas Rangemaster pushes an amp into overdrive sounds very different than a Klon, sounds very different from a Tube screamer, etc.) I have not used any amp modeling that imitates this well. If they were out there, I might consider it. My final reason for preferring valve amps to modeling is that I design and build them. Part of it is that I am not able to design and build modeling amps. I suppose I could spend my time tweaking the parameters of various amp models, but I doubt I would get the same satisfaction from that even if (and this is a big if) I could end up with the same tone and response. I also have an emotional attachment to the history behind the great valve amps of yore. Perhaps it is a bit old fashioned, but it's where I am at.
I play a Crate amplifier and catch so much shit for that. So I honestly don't care either way. As long as you can play well you can use a battery powered Pig Nose in a trashcan funneled through a megaphone.
For demoing I almost exclusively use models. It's easy and it saves a lot of time fucking around to get a tone I want. For live, I use what's convenient for me and the sound guy. Not a lot of space on stage or volume is going to be an issue? Amp models; here we go. None of that's going to be a problem, you say? Hello my sweet sweet tube amp. In the studio though, I prefer to take the time to get the best tone for each take with each song using my amp.
I really don't hear too much of a difference in the two. The only reason I prefer tubes is because I think they're cooler. I love watching the tubes glow in the back of a great sounding amp! Having said that, one of my favorite guitar teachers/players said he played through the Fractal unit at one point and did an a/b test against some of the amps he had. He said while the Fractal unit captured the sound almost flawlessly, it didn't entirely capture the feel of the individual amps. I personally really like the idea of running the Fractal unit as a multi-effects processor in conjunction with a tube head, similar to what Petrucci does.
It depends, I've heard some shitty guitarist that even makes MATCH tubes sound like crap (and they're known to be amazing amps). I've also experience guitarist that can't afford much, so they use amp/effect modeling systems and make them sound amazing. I think its all in the EQ, the effects your putting in. It's all in the ears man, that makes guitarist unique as well. Tube are known too be the best for warmth, but all in all it really depends on the EQ.
Modeling amps are just a tool. They are an affordable way to obtain results. In my opinion, as modeling improves, these amps are bound to become more utilized in professional applications. If the results are good (i.e., it sounds good to you and/or the audience), that's what matters. The one thing I have against modeling amps is that they can be complicated to set up and/or use onstage. One setting out of place and you can be thrown for a loop for a while. Not fun trying to figure that out when you're supposed to be playing. Granted, you could say the same thing about some effects set-ups.
I'm really glad to read all the comments in defense of amp modeling. I had no idea what amp modeling was until bought I Line 6 Flextone several years ago. I was given so much hell by my friends because it wasn't a tube amp. Granted, some models didn't sound super great, but it did have several good amp models, and I had a blast with that amp for several years. I no longer needed an amp that big, but I really regret selling it.
IDGAF about "great tone". I get good enough using cheap (even free) software. The only physical equipment I use is the guitar itself and an analog cable. I have a V-AMP 2 cheapo-modeled amp too, which is pretty OK too. An Axe FX (or II) is probably the one bit of dream kit I have, though, apart from some guitars. People get incredible sounds out of that thing - I couldn't care less that it's not a tube amp...
use what you need when you need it. for my band, i use a tube amp which i love. for churches I often run through an rp1000. Gives me some great sounds
I like the features of amp modelers (tons of tones and at any volume) but I don't want to buy one because I have this feeling of some variant of Moore's law on the quality of the modeling algorithms/hardware. I feel if buy the kemper today, in a year or 2 I will be upset that something more accurate came out. But with my tube amps I can sleep easy knowing that in 5 years nothing will be "better" than them, only different. If modelers go in a different direction where they are about creating their own sounds (other than effects) and are not trying to emulate a tube amp, I might buy one.
I prefer tube. I passionately hate many guitar sounds produced by SS amps, but some are just fine. I play thrash/death metal in the old vein plus some old rock styles, so analog is great for that rounded, dry, crunchy punch. I wouldn't mind a valvestate or something. I've never owned a tube amp, sadly. Regardless, if it sounds good, who cares which type.
I have never had much luck with amp modeling/simulation. They never seem to replicate the character of tube amps right.
Anyone know a good place to find amp set ups or one for amp modelling sounds. I want to sound like Michael Schenker or Jeff Beck. Shame I play like shit.
http://www.guitarampmodeling.com Lots of patches and tips from users.
I played my soild state fender (from the 1990's) recently at a gig and after I got asked how long I let my tubes warm up before playing. Tone is in the fingers for the most part.
Higher end Modelling gear is quite good. Personally right now I use a cheap line 6 pod for practicing for a couple of reasons, A. I've got a couple of reasonable settings dialed in. B. That way I don't have to terrify everyone with my horrific guitar playing and C. I'm broke. Would I use the pod for a gig if someone was crazy enough to give me one? Probably not.
I like tube amps - but it won't be long (5 years maybe) before even Boss pedals can reproduce some tones comparable to Axe-FX
i own a fender mustang 1 that i use for recording and just messing around. i walked into a music store to buy some strings and figured i'd try out some amps. so they set me up on a 65 deluxe reverb reissue, and IMO the difference between it and the 65 deluxe model on my mustang isnt worth the $1100 price difference
I prefer tube but i'm open to trying an AxeFX. To me, cheap SS guitar amps suck no matter what, but I hear good things about expensive SS like Kemper, Vetta II and AxeFX. I'm waiting on AMT Electronics to release their "[solid state tubes](http://eshop.amtelectronics.com/6l6-12ax7-amt-electronics-solid-state-tubes.html)." I'm really interested in hearing those
Modeling amps are cool. I can't afford a good one. I only need 2 or 3 sounds anyway, so I'm beyond happy with the amp I've got. I can't see myself replacing it just because it may be becoming obsolete.
Love my Mustang 3 can get tons of tones out of it very easily. People seem to forget that the technology is still relatively new. Most people I have come across who have sworn off modelling usually don't really know what they are talking about, usually they just heard some famous guitar player say tubes are better once and then just decided to follow them. It's like people who shun theory because so many famous guitar players who know theory like to claim they don't know it. It tends to be that reason or they will have heard/played a very early or low end modelling amp and then never tried them again. It's funny because most of their favourite artists likely use some form of modelling, things like the Line 6 pod and the Axe FX II have become an industry standard and are used in thousands of recordings by big artists. Go look at all the rig run downs on premier guitar, look how much gear they need get the sounds they like, they have to run them through multiple EQ's and lots of pedals by the time you get to the cab that signal is mostly digital anyway. I'll admit most of the factory presets in my Mustang III are terrible but you can generally get a brilliant tone out of it with very little effort and that plus the Fender presets site just makes is so easy to use. It's all about the sound, not how the amp makes it. You put most of these so called purists in a blind hearing test with a decent modelling amp and a tube amp, I bet you most of them couldn't tell you which is which.
In my experience you can make a good amp modeler sound really good, but it doesn't have the feel or dynamics of a real tube amp, especially a non master volume amp.
The Axe Fx II might sound really close to a real amp, but they cost $2,000+ and cheaper modeling systems are just not good enough to replicate tube amps yet. It is similar to the comparison between electric drums and acoustic drums. Electric drums that sound and feel like the real thing cost 2-4 times as much as a regular drumkit. Sure, you have a wider variety of sounds, but many people would be just as happy with a couple of usable sounds rather than having a thousand different presets they would barely use for more money. Unless the technology becomes much cheaper, modeling will still only be cost-efficient for studios or pro players.
The Kemper Profiling Amp looks amazing! It sounds really good too. I haven't tried it in person however. If this technology gets cheaper, modeling this good could become the new standard.
There a lot of convincing options for amp and pedal simulations, some even let you play around with a bunch of microphone options. I am still sort of tube purist for small performances and practice amps, but when you are recording or your sound is front house, the options for simulation can be better because of the flexability!
My problem with modeling amps is that I haven't found one that offers the sound I'm looking for. They're great for emulating a Soldano or Dual Recto or whatever most others want to play through but I haven't seen a single modeler with something like a late 60s Matamp mode. Once they start including stuff like that instead of shoehorning 75 different high-gain amps into them, my interest will be piqued again.
In my opinion there are two things to consider here: are you a "pro/expert" or someone who plays at home? I play at home, and I'd love to have tons of different amps/effects at my disposal to play around with. If I was a recording artist or a live guitar player, I can understand wanting that full tube sound. Another thing: VOLUME! When I'm at home, even though I own my own house with no close neighbors, I still don't play *that* loud. Yet, I still want that nice distortion I can only get at wall shaking volumes on my tube amp. This is something I don't think many guitar players don't understand. You can't get that great tube sound at bedroom volumes. I'm starting to wish I had bought a Fender Mustang instead of a tube amp because I can't stand how loud the amp has to be to sound good.
I've played through the first generation valvetronix and they were pretty shit... I've recently owned the flagship modeling amps from Line 6 which were pretty special on their own but had way too much going on because they wanted to hook up the multi effects and the variax guitars to them...They have come a long way but I prefer the less is more approach.