Quote:
Originally Posted by Agreed  Proper sound reinforcement is quite important to the recording process when using a modeler, in my opinion. You need to have the same elements of moving air and sympathetic vibration and resonance as you would get with a real amp, or the whole process feels dead. The first step is to reduce your latency by using appropriate supporting hardware. Step two is to ensure that your preamp/DI is well capturing your guitar's output for processing. Step three is that the software you're using models what goes on in a guitar amp's physical environment with as much accuracy as possible, and that you know how to take advantage of the program's capabilities. Step four is to ensure that for your end of the bargain you're giving the whole system the right space to work in, and that means ensuring that you have moving air and you know how to take advantage of it in relation to non-traditional means of amplifying the guitar signal. Good studio monitors ought to be able to handle it just fine, though it means getting closer to 90-95db program, minimum, if you're looking to start getting into natural-feeling feedback territory. If all of these conditions hold and you still don't like the results, modelers might not be for you, or you might be using the wrong one. However, as a split analog/digital guitarist I can say with whatever minor authority that gives me that I am as satisfied with my computer-based modeling rig as I am with my wonderful pedals&s physical setup. |
What's so hard about using an amp? Personally I have learned that modelers are just a PITA to deal with. The so-called advantages vs. a real amp are backfiring because of the additional time needed for fiddling with the setup, reducing the latency and all that jazz. Yes, it might be less gear to schlepp around but is that the main factor?
And call me old-fashioned but I just DON'T want to see a laptop on stage used as a 'guitar amp', it's unsexy!!