Login / Register
 
Is Digital Amp modeling the future of guitar tone?
Closed
Subscribe
#91
5th October 2011
Old 5th October 2011
  #91
Gear maniac
 
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 299

kendog is offline
Honestly, I am not trying be difficult or come across as a know it all.. but let me present some facts from a few angles. If you willing to really spend a lot of time tweaking a Digital modeling device and run it thru some good outboard gear, it can be amazing. 99% of the world doesn't play guitar, doesn't care, and can't tell the difference. Most people listen to MP3s from their phones, etc.. We all know this. So that is why modeling devices can cut the mustard. If they were the only digital device that existed in the 1970s and they were used in recordings with everything else being analog, would they stand out more..Yes. Is a modeling device better then a great amp set-up that is miked properly..NO WAY. Are all tube amplifiers going to be removed from planet earth one day..NO WAY. Is modeling technology going to expand. YES. Modeling devices are way more flexible, save time, easy to use, require no maintenance, etc.. Many people make great music and make a living using them. Some people prefer real amps. I like both. If someone hates a modeling device, am I offended. NO. We all know pure analog sounds more natural to the human ear. But we don't live in that world anymore. We live in a time where music is digitally processed and people's ears have become use to that. Most people under the age of 30 have never been exposed to an analog world like those of us who are 40 and up. The way people consume music is also very very different. I just don't see the ultimate goal of continuing to have these debates. Just sayin. Gotta run.. I have some music to work on.
__________________
Ken Volpe
Guitar Sessions, Producer, & Amp Consultant
Ultrasound Amp Sales, NYC
Ultrasoundampsales.com
(203)966-2096
Deleted User
#92
5th October 2011
Old 5th October 2011
  #92
Deleted User
Guest
 
Posts: n/a

I don´t know about the future, but to some extend it´s certainly shaping the presence of modern music already.
Emulated ampsounds found their way into modern productions and therefore became part of the general, accepted sound of what a contemporary hitrecord can sound like.
I think it´s totally irrelevant how close an emulation is to the real thing. To the listener that comparison does´nt matter. I´m sure a handwoven carpet has deeper beauty than a machined one, but Ikea seems to rule that market.

Axe FX with a brilliant player certainly is mind boggling.
#93
5th October 2011
Old 5th October 2011
  #93
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Dec 2008
Location: NYC
Posts: 682

sailor is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by VenVile View Post
20 or 50 years from now, do you really think if they put a sampled/physical modelled piano processor into a grand and closed the lid, you'd be able to tell without lifting up the lid? By that time, you won't even need sampling! Have you heard physical modelling lately? Can you imagine the precision and dimension of it in the next 50 years? Really...think about what you're saying. I doubt ANYONE would be able to tell difference when that time comes. Most people (especially people who aren't very familiar with pianos) won't even be able to tell the difference today!...

...You know why you'd carry a mock around? Because it will be cheaper and lighter than tugging around a real piano, with real strings, hammers and pounds of hand crafted wood and mechanics inside of it. You'd carry it around for novelty.
Perhaps in 20 or 50 years, they not only will have accurately modeled the mechanics of a grand piano's sound, but they also will have created some sort of speaker system to put inside the "mock piano" that can radiate that modeled sound exactly as a huge wooden soundboard does, and can transmit subtle vibrations exactly as the huge wooden case does. Then perhaps truly nobody will be able to tell the difference -- maybe not even the player.

But for me at least, that whole scenario raises the question "what's the point?" You could already HAVE a piano. What net gain has been achieved? Does nobody see a little irony here?

Same thing with guitars & amps, or woodwind instruments or whatever. Is plugging into an amp THAT onerous? Has your Pod, playing, as it must, through some sort of speaker device, saved you THAT much hassle over your Blues Junior?

Everyone agrees that digital instruments are here to stay -- they definitely have their place, and they have enabled lots of imaginative musicians to make music of the sort that could never be produced without the technology. But what puzzles many people is the weird suggestion that real flesh-and-blood instruments, solely by reason of cost or convenience (as nobody seems to have offered any other compelling reasons), are destined to become a quaint and laughable redundancy. If that really IS going to be the case, I'd argue that it's kind of sad.
__________________
Joe Just
1
#94
5th October 2011
Old 5th October 2011
  #94
Gear addict
 
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 376

Alrod is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enlightened Hand View Post
As far as the Alicia Keys reference goes,...

She's not the greatest pianist first of all and she is selling a product so who knows what she really does.

But she is a great songwriter.
Not to mention she gets payed to endorse the product.
#95
5th October 2011
Old 5th October 2011
  #95
Gear addict
 
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 376

Alrod is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinnieRice View Post
So you can't tell the difference between an Axe FX II and PODx3? Jesus. Your opinion has no credibility.
Your comment is petty. Let's not take this debate to an immature grade school level.

The main difference between the two products is that the Axe FX has better effects built in as well as better routing options. The unaffected sound is basically the same. If you feel the extra $1800 over the POD x3 was worth it, well more power to you. Many will disagree.

Software such as Amp Farm, Revalver Mk ll, Guitar Rig, and Eleven, are actually on par with the Axe FX ll. All have 1 or 2 great presets, and all can be had for a fraction of the price. $3.3k for something that is not much better if at all? I am sorry, but no way. I have better things to spend my money on.


I would go as far a saying given the option, if actual guitarists had a choice between the amps the Axe FX claims to model versus the real deal (for free), they would choose the real deal. Given the option in the studio, again, the real deal. And lets look at real life. Most guitarists are not yet ready to sell their real amps for modelers. The technology just isn't there yet. The worlds top guitarists still use real amps. That says a lot. I mean really, that speaks volumes.
#96
5th October 2011
Old 5th October 2011
  #96
Lives for gear
 
Kiwi's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,934

Kiwi is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike P View Post
You're insane. And uninformed. Nice try.
Proud of it. No. Thank you.

You have asserted your right to be an ass, but not given any reasons for your statements.

Do you not know that component modeling is available right now? It's actually used to design analog circuits - the software can model the voltages and characteristics of each component. It has been used in plugins that model VERY simple tube circuits, but the processing power required makes it only suitable for offline rendering - but the results are amazing.

Example (just to prove i'm not 100% uninformed):

Wave Arts | Plugins | Tube Saturator

This kind of algorithm is not going to appear in hardware guitar modelers until there are cheap chips with enough power. But it should be obvious that is one direction that will be pushed ...

I seemed to have pushed an emotional button for you ... oops. When you cool down, any chance of some rational debate?
#97
6th October 2011
Old 6th October 2011
  #97
Gear maniac
 
Joined: Sep 2011
Location: Trinidad
Posts: 150

VenVile is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by sailor View Post
If that really IS going to be the case, I'd argue that it's kind of sad.
I agree, it is sad. But I think that will be the reality in time. So many emulation software is churning out, and every few years they get closer and closer to the "real deal". It has come to the point where people who can't sing, can actually sound fairly decent without the time consuming and detailed pitch correction of yesteryear. So many movie scores that have come out written and played entirely on software sometimes. It's a reality that is coming more to life the more the years and technology progresses. You have East West's word builder for symphonic choirs which can actually make some pretty convincing phrases sometimes. And here's the interesting part, the human voice is hands down the hardest, most difficult thing to model, as it's so complex. Our voices can model any sound we want it to, and now they're modelling the human voice...and are coming closer and closer to "authentic."







This one isn't as authentic sounding, but it's still very interesting what they've done with this technology.


And lastly... This one is just amazing!


One can only imagine what the future will hold.
#98
6th October 2011
Old 6th October 2011
  #98
Gear interested
 
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 4

Mattjrw is offline
VenVile if those examples are what you're using to back up the argument for going 100% ones-and-zeroes I fear the future of music is ****ing grim. Maybe some people will use this shit but to me it contravenes what music is about (human expression). Sure someone's programming those awful sounding fake voices but they are completely devoid of emotion. I can't imagine why anyone would be excited about these technologies even if they become indistinguishable from real voices? Maybe if they want to create a laptop opus of completely computerised digirubbish with no actual human sounds on it that they can throw up on myspace?

I think many on this board are underestimating the fact that to alot of people using computer technology to make music simply isn't appealing in the slightest. If these things do start taking root there will always be a backlash movement of people making music with real instruments. You can't replace a human tradition dating back 1000s of years just because there's a convenient alternative.

For some artists convenience is irrelevant. The process is as much a part of the piece as the result. I would flatly refute anyone that claims results are all that matters! How you make a record is half the story.

See: thousands of bands that still record on tape or using antiquated techniques, jack white etc
#99
6th October 2011
Old 6th October 2011
  #99
Gear addict
 
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 376

Alrod is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by VenVile View Post

And lastly... This one is just amazing!


One can only imagine what the future will hold.
Very cool indeed!
#100
6th October 2011
Old 6th October 2011
  #100
Lives for gear
 
Yuri Kogan's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 714

Yuri Kogan is offline
#101
6th October 2011
Old 6th October 2011
  #101
Gear addict
 
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 376

Alrod is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mattjrw View Post
VenVile if those examples are what you're using to back up the argument for going 100% ones-and-zeroes I fear the future of music is ****ing grim. Maybe some people will use this shit but to me it contravenes what music is about (human expression). Sure someone's programming those awful sounding fake voices but they are completely devoid of emotion. I can't imagine why anyone would be excited about these technologies even if they become indistinguishable from real voices? Maybe if they want to create a laptop opus of completely computerised digirubbish with no actual human sounds on it that they can throw up on myspace?

I think many on this board are underestimating the fact that to alot of people using computer technology to make music simply isn't appealing in the slightest. If these things do start taking root there will always be a backlash movement of people making music with real instruments. You can't replace a human tradition dating back 1000s of years just because there's a convenient alternative.

For some artists convenience is irrelevant. The process is as much a part of the piece as the result. I would flatly refute anyone that claims results are all that matters! How you make a record is half the story.

See: thousands of bands that still record on tape or using antiquated techniques, jack white etc
Very well stated. I agree with you 100%. I think the technology behind the robots is awesome though! But like you said, if that quality is the future (see my previous comments about amp modeling), then tear my ear drums out now!
#102
6th October 2011
Old 6th October 2011
  #102
Lives for gear
 
Enlightened Hand's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2009
Location: United States
Posts: 1,828

Enlightened Hand is offline
What I don't understand is why we always argue from the position of abandoning something completely as though it was the plague or opposing something new just because it's different than what we've been raised on.

I love the real thing. I also love the convenience and passable sound of the simulators. I use what works for the occasion. If I could always dictate the terms of the situation I'd probably always use the real thing. But that's not always practical, nor does it always fit the vision of the moment. In any case, what is the problem with people using what they want and the "end result" being to make music that sounds cool to be the focus?

Making music used to have nothing to do with recording gear or even electricity at all. It was practice, group rehearsal and live performance on acoustic instruments. I'm sure people from 200 years ago would see the recording technology of the 1950s as something novel and convenient but not as good as the "real thing", that would include the relatively new (in historical terms) practice of using electrically amplified instruments. How strange it is to see hardware lovers convinced that they are somehow representing the true soul of something. Electric instruments and recording technology period is all artifice. The question is what sound are you comfortable working with at the moment. Ultimately the answer is about the situation at hand.

It's no tragedy to see technology move on. It's a tragedy to see artistry lost. But artistry didn't die with the advent of electric instruments and recording technology. Why would we assume that artistry is in danger due to a further evolution of artifice? It's all a form of technological conservatism. At it's heart there are so many nostalgic justifications and plain old fear. But I'm pretty sure in the end music will be music and cool sounding stuff will have just as much soul and vibe as it always has, so long as the people making it have soul and vibe. All this concern about slipping into the future and thereby losing the specialness of the past is silly to me. Because the gear didn't make the art special. The art made the gear special.
__________________
Liz - recordist, mixing dragon lady
thoughts

https://soundcloud.com/audio-wisdom/sets/demo-reel
#103
6th October 2011
Old 6th October 2011
  #103
Lives for gear
 
Kiwi's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,934

Kiwi is offline
Eloquently put.
#104
6th October 2011
Old 6th October 2011
  #104
Gear interested
 
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 4

Mattjrw is offline
Enlightened Hand you make some interesting points, and I think on a basic level we agree that given the choice we'd use the real thing over digital imitators, which are passable at best. I love the convenience of mp3s for example and I still download them, but if I really feel like listening to something I'll break out the vinyl.

It's true that electric instruments and the recording process are "artificial" in their nature, but whether it's amps or outboard processing or whatever it's still taking place in the physical world by directly transforming acoustic energy into voltage and back into acoustic energy. I would argue that there's a difference between this physical process and the process of interpretation that goes on in an AD converter (or amp sim), where the infinite variation inherent in acoustic energy and voltage is squeezed into a limited number of bits at a pre-defined sample rate. As soon as you put sound through a digital conversion it's become a digital representation and it's no longer simply converted energy it's 0101010111 10 1000 100 on/off on/off on/off

It ceases to be real and becomes an abstract concept that is only interpretable by machines, and only machines of this generation that use pulse code modulation conversion at that.

This doesn't scare me really it's just a question of whether you care about retaining the physicality and "realness" of the process. My argument is simply that me and many, many others think that it's important to the artistry and instills the sense of realness, soul and vibe into the recording or performance if you do it analog. I don't know about you guys but the idea of having an AD converter in my guitar pickups with a bluetooth wireless connection to a digital amp is just ****ed!

I do agree that it would be possible to create music with vibe and soul by just sitting there programming or using 100% digital instruments. I guess it's just something that will appeal to some people, and others will hate the whole concept. It's subjective art we're talking about after all... I mean, I don't see photoshop replacing painting any time soon?
#105
6th October 2011
Old 6th October 2011
  #105
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Feb 2007
Location: Hollywood, CA
Posts: 758

Mike P is online now
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kiwi View Post
I seemed to have pushed an emotional button for you ... oops. When you cool down, any chance of some rational debate?
There is no debate.

Anyone that choose software over the choice of true tube amplifiers is insane.

I've owned every type of modeling software and hardware available and it's all been either returned or sold immediately. There is no software that matches the tone and feel of a '77 JMP, early Mesa/Boogie Rectifier, AC30, Orange Rockerverb, Friedman Brown Eye and Hairy Brown Eye, etc.

I don't know what you do for a living but I compose and produce tracks for TV and just finished a feature film score. The idea of using emulator software to me in either situation is laughable.
__________________
www.mikeplas.com
#106
6th October 2011
Old 6th October 2011
  #106
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Feb 2007
Location: Hollywood, CA
Posts: 758

Mike P is online now
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enlightened Hand View Post
Because the gear didn't make the art special. The art made the gear special.
In regards to tube guitar amps, I'd fully disagree.

Without a Strat and a Marshall stack, Jimi Hendrix wouldn't have the impact he's had to this day. Same goes for Clapton and the Blues Breakers, Duane Eddy, Eddie Cochrane and any number of signature guitarists and tones.

Have you ever tried to play Funk 49 with a Tele and a POD? If so, you'll completely understand what I'm talking about.

The problem with emulators is that they remove both the fingers and the mind because they are stale and lifeless. They don't react like tube amps and don't feel like tube amps. In all honestly, they feel like crap. And of course, they sound like crap, too.
#107
6th October 2011
Old 6th October 2011
  #107
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Feb 2007
Location: Hollywood, CA
Posts: 758

Mike P is online now
Quote:
Originally Posted by mattvdh View Post
How can you say it's mere speculation when every 10th or so guitarist (usually the better ones) on youtube is using some form of a pod or another to connect their guitars to their computers?
This is the HIGH END forum. Do you seriously consider YouTube videos and POD's to be HIGH END?

Quote:
Originally Posted by mattvdh View Post
Maybe they aren't common to the super rich folks here at gearslutz, but the kids these days are eating these pods up. Kids are used to having instant record and decent tones at one touch, and then they grow up and dive in to the technical aspect of it and thus (I hate that word!) it becomes a standard.
The standard? Ha! Not at this point in time. And most likely, not anytime soon.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mattvdh View Post
If you were to give a kid these days a vintage amp, they'd probably think it was crap because it's so one dimensional and impractical. "where's the distortion?? where's the metronome? tuner at least? how am I supposed to play this thing late at night and record?? ...I have to buy a mic and a 'preamp' to record a riff?"
A kid? Who cares?

I absolutely guarantee that any recording professional worth their salt would choose a tube amp every single time over a digital emulation. Period.
#108
6th October 2011
Old 6th October 2011
  #108
Gear maniac
 
Jayrawk's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2011
Location: In a world.
Posts: 258

Jayrawk is offline
#109
6th October 2011
Old 6th October 2011
  #109
Gear Head
 
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 67

Snap is offline
Quote:
What pisses me off is some egomanic sound mixer telling everyone on stage to be quiet as a mouse while they, the all important "man behind the curtain" will make it all sound beautiful. First thing they do is push the kick drum 6 db hotter than anything else. Then they start adding all sorts of weird EQ and effects when we are never asked if we want it.

I have to agree. And this is a major problem specially in small clubs. Many sound techs want to have everything controlled under their feet. That cannot be done in small clubs. I just let the guys play and then "fill the gaps". Many times I only feed Kick, toms and vocals through the PA and that's it. Perhaps I push guitar channels during solos and then off again. What I try to do is balancing the stage level if the guys allow me to do it. I stopped insisting or arguing about it a long time ago. It's their show after all, I'm around there to help them out but some folks don't want to listen to anyone but themselves, so who cares. Go and play guys, I have my earplugs.

This doesn't imply asking the players to turn down their amps. More often than not I ask guitar players to get louder to match the snare drum played strong. Many of them get actually reluctant and scared of it in advance but they use to finish the show with a big smile. Sort of: "Man, I've never played so comfortable. I've heard everything".

I use to ask the bands about how many people they are expecting to come around. if under 100 people, I try to tell them not going beyond 103 dB at the FOH console In an almost empty room (PA and stage levels summing together. The PA might be throwing only vocals. No concern about it at all). Pushing it beyond 103 - 104 dB always means that the crowd will be at least 6 meters away from the stage, and when pushing things further, many people will walk away before ending the show complaining about the crazy loudness. I always warn the bands about this. If they chose to listen to me it usually works great. If not they will be killing their own audience. Their fault. Not mine. When we are packed or expect to be packed, then everything is fine I can go to 110 dB and nobody complains. The crowd soaks up the power.

Some times I get riders of bands asking for constant actual 120 dB or even more at the FOH desk all along the show. Not asking for a capable rig to deliver such a pressure, just a band playing that loud as part of their musical concept. No problem. At a small club I place some mics (for the pictures actually) get my earplugs and go to the bar and have some beers during the show. If anybody complains about not being at the console or about the absence of vocals I just reply, bring me three times this rig or try to convince the guitar players that the singer is part of the band too. Then I can do something.

In the end all it's needed is some common sense. It's not only a matter of amp power.
#110
6th October 2011
Old 6th October 2011
  #110
Lives for gear
 
T'Mershi Duween's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2010
Location: worldwide
Posts: 695

T'Mershi Duween is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike P View Post
Has this site become completely overrun by amateurs?
Unfortunately, so has the music industry!!!
#111
6th October 2011
Old 6th October 2011
  #111
Lives for gear
 
Enlightened Hand's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2009
Location: United States
Posts: 1,828

Enlightened Hand is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike P View Post
In regards to tube guitar amps, I'd fully disagree.

Without a Strat and a Marshall stack, Jimi Hendrix wouldn't have the impact he's had to this day. Same goes for Clapton and the Blues Breakers, Duane Eddy, Eddie Cochrane and any number of signature guitarists and tones.

Have you ever tried to play Funk 49 with a Tele and a POD? If so, you'll completely understand what I'm talking about.

The problem with emulators is that they remove both the fingers and the mind because they are stale and lifeless. They don't react like tube amps and don't feel like tube amps. In all honestly, they feel like crap. And of course, they sound like crap, too.
If that technology didn't exist then their sound would be different and we'd appreciate them for their different sound. There's something that doesn't exist today that will one day exist and then a brilliant user of that thing will come about and people years later will argue that it was totally necessary to have that technology exist and you're arguing against that happening right now.

Imagine if you were Nicolo Paganini hearing electric guitar. You might argue that it's ruining the soul of the instrument and it's natural acoustic tone. Someone else might argue that when you convert sound waves that happen in the air into electric voltage that it's not real anymore because it's going on in all of those circuits and wires and it sounds nothing like the real vibration of wood and strings and air. The whole idea is stupid.

Music fills the vessel of whatever shape is available. If that's acoustic instruments then music fills that vessel and art happens. If that's electric instruments then music fills that vessel and art happens. If that's digitally derived instruments then music fills that vessel and art happens. Such conservatism in art to regard change as ruining something or making it worse is among the most closed minded stuff I've ever heard. It's also typical human fear of change and clinging to the familiar as though it's the only thing that's "real".
#112
6th October 2011
Old 6th October 2011
  #112
Gear interested
 
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 4

Mattjrw is offline
Well nicolo paganini would be right wouldn't he? It's not like the acoustic guitar has been phased out since the advent of the electric. Acoustic guitars will always sound more natural and organic and open than electric guitars, they just have a completely different sound and people will probably still be using them in 100 years for that reason. I dont think it's fear of the future that makes people hate amp sims, its just a subjective choice. What do you prefer? What tools do you want to use to create your art?

No one is saying "STOP INVENTING NEW MUSIC TECHNOLOGY". Some stuff just sounds better, has a tactile, satisfying interface and feels more real than clicking and dragging a mouse. Doesn't mean the people who prefer this are "scared of the future" or "stupid". It's not technological conservatism to prefer something that exists in the real world that you can physically touch, not to mention sounds far better.
1
#113
6th October 2011
Old 6th October 2011
  #113
Gear maniac
 
Joined: Sep 2011
Location: Trinidad
Posts: 150

VenVile is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mattjrw View Post
VenVile if those examples are what you're using to back up the argument for going 100% ones-and-zeroes I fear the future of music is ****ing grim.
Address me when you get the point, because it's clear you missed it.

Enlightened Hand, your words resonate with me! Use whatever you feel you have to, or want to use to get your sound.

At the end of the day, music still has to be played, regardless of what form its in. It is that artistic nature that defines the "authenticity" of the music!
#114
6th October 2011
Old 6th October 2011
  #114
Gear Head
 
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 70

axeman_uk is offline
i think people are focusing too much on the NOW this post started about the future pod's axefx's and computer software amps technology will get to a point where the end user wont be able to tell the difference be it 10 years or 50 years it will get there.
but rest assured when it does get there we wont matter the next generation of kids will be the ones playing it,or their kids ,kids........
#115
6th October 2011
Old 6th October 2011
  #115
Lives for gear
 
oceantracks's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2004
Location: Boca Raton FL
Posts: 5,333

oceantracks is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by axeman_uk View Post
i think people are focusing too much on the NOW this post started about the future pod's axefx's and computer software amps technology will get to a point where the end user wont be able to tell the difference be it 10 years or 50 years it will get there.
but rest assured when it does get there we wont matter the next generation of kids will be the ones playing it,or their kids ,kids........
Easily half the people can't tell the difference now, as proven over and over by online "Which one is real?" shootouts

TH
#116
6th October 2011
Old 6th October 2011
  #116
Gear maniac
 
Joined: Sep 2011
Location: Trinidad
Posts: 150

VenVile is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by axeman_uk View Post
i think people are focusing too much on the NOW this post started about the future pod's axefx's and computer software amps technology will get to a point where the end user wont be able to tell the difference be it 10 years or 50 years it will get there.
but rest assured when it does get there we wont matter the next generation of kids will be the ones playing it,or their kids ,kids........
Thank you!
#117
6th October 2011
Old 6th October 2011
  #117
Gear nut
 
Joined: Feb 2010
Location: SLC
Posts: 112

Pavement Charmer is offline
Do you think a "laptops internal mic" will replace a ELAM 251? Even if in the future you can't tell the difference I'n a control room?

Beyond technical specs and "dead on" emulations exists a tactile relationship to an artist and their instrument...

I've seen vintage amps awaken and inspire artists, real piano performances trump "locked I'n" midi keys. Their is more to a sound than being "spot-on".

I will say that for allot of songs i hear, it just doesn't matter, it depends on what your after...


Peace
#118
6th October 2011
Old 6th October 2011
  #118
Lives for gear
 
rogerbrain's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2009
Location: atlanta
Posts: 1,998

rogerbrain is online now
too late its here.. I have the vintage amps.. last few years i go out with an adrenalinn III and now have a controller for it... takes a little time to get it set up but with 200 presets I can put together 'gig groups'

sat in with Mike Zito ( and his Savage amp and pedal board ) I walked up with the adrenalinn and a red box III brought it up thru the monitors and 5 seconds later we were wailin' ... with a much better tone than I could have gotten out of an amp without a sound check...

now if the sound sucked I'd still be taking my marshall and pedal board but the modeled sounds are great.. I got a second one to do studio duty... I still use reall amps for things that REALLY matter on a recording.. but it takes sooo long and is soooo loud ..

I take a 15 watt velocette to gigs that don't have enough PA or monitor mixes to support a direct sound

the future you speak of is here ..
__________________
Good Reverb Takes Time

Roger Brainard
www.rogerbrainard.com
mattvdh
Thread Starter
#119
6th October 2011
Old 6th October 2011
  #119
Gear maniac
 
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 190

Thread Starter
mattvdh is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike P View Post
This is the HIGH END forum. Do you seriously consider YouTube videos and POD's to be HIGH END?



The standard? Ha! Not at this point in time. And most likely, not anytime soon.



A kid? Who cares?

I absolutely guarantee that any recording professional worth their salt would choose a tube amp every single time over a digital emulation. Period.

I just picked high end because the topic is related to high-end tube amps, it was either that or the computer section where nobody looks.

Not any time soon eh? The interesting thing about this thread is that I'm basing in a future tense, but it's been happening for years. Bassists have been going DI for a long time and using amp modeling and most metal demos I hear on the internets for guitars are coming from a line6 pod. My band used pods for jamming on riffs and what not, and the quality is almost as good in some ways.

The reason why modern musicians prefer it for home recordings is because it's very integrated, portable/small, controls are at your finger tips, and you can get a pretty decent tone out of it and lay down a demo in no time. So if you're using that pod 90% of the time you play guitar, then eventually your regular stage amp won't be able to create the sort of sounds you're now interested in, that are now exclusive to the PC/software world.

If you had a line 6 vetta 2 then I suppose you could perfect your tone on your pod and then plug in your head and slap in some new tones, but you're still not really getting the full effect because you PC has the ability to run multiple VSTs/plugins etc whereas the head would only run your customization's with their software.

The only real real prediction I've made in the original post is that guitars will have internal computers that will process your preloaded settings and any other enhancements you desire. That could also be the standard one day as well because it would basically eliminate the need for a metronome, tuner, fx boxes and enhancements like compression etc. you would just need a footswitch, bluetooth again.

If you think about what the audience hears in a large club or stadium it's not the warmth of the tube amps, it's the clarity of the mix coming through the PA system. Most guitarists only play on 2 or 3 to avoid feed back any way so the tubes aren't even close to being fired up.

So if you replaced your amps with PA speakers the audience could care less. Instead of a wall of cabs, you have a wall of speakers. it's that simple. Instead of cables and a cluttered stage, you have zero wires and one pedal board. A really great PA system can sound a million times better than any tube amp on the planet...You could mic/lineout a decent practice amp through a nice PA and a nice room and the crowd would assume you had a wall of amps.

So if the guitars and basses were all going DI to the PA via bluetooth at full quality (24bit/96khz), you've basically just eliminated feedback and all kinds of natural amp noise and the sound quality from the audiences perspective would be very clean and clear, and what matters more: you looking cool beside your hot rod tube amp, or sounding like the largest string section ever assembled or an alien space craft taking off.

If the pod manufacturers can just figure out a way of giving the guitar tone the same sort of feel and life that good tube amp has, then it's all over. The sound quality of the live mixes and sheer amount of options players will have at their disposal will easily overshadow the appeal to own a vintage tube amp and it's one dimensional sound. Think 8.1 or x.1 channel output on your guitar at bluray quality.

Analog will take a back seat eventually, oh yes, there's no other way but forward.
#120
6th October 2011
Old 6th October 2011
  #120
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Feb 2007
Location: Hollywood, CA
Posts: 758

Mike P is online now
Quote:
Originally Posted by mattvdh View Post
Bassists have been going DI
A D.I. bass guitar is NOT an emulation and in no way does it equate modeling for a guitars.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mattvdh View Post
for a long time and using amp modeling and most metal demos I hear on the internets for guitars are coming from a line6 pod. My band used pods for jamming on riffs and what not, and the quality is almost as good in some ways.
And Line 6 POD's do NOT sound like the amps they claim to emulate. They're not even close in most cases and given the choice between a POD's Marshall Plexi and an actual Marshall Super Lead, the choice is a Super Lead 999,999 times out of 1,000,000, if not every time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mattvdh View Post
The reason why modern musicians prefer it for home recordings is because it's very integrated, portable/small, controls are at your finger tips, and you can get a pretty decent tone out of it and lay down a demo in no time. So if you're using that pod 90% of the time you play guitar, then eventually your regular stage amp won't be able to create the sort of sounds you're now interested in, that are now exclusive to the PC/software world.
Modern musicians? WTF? Are you talking about cover band players? Who cares?

And again, given the ideal circumstances, ANYONE would choose a real amp over an emulation, especially in a critical situation. If you're talking about playing out in clubs with emulations, then we're not even talking about the same topic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mattvdh View Post
If you think about what the audience hears in a large club or stadium it's not the warmth of the tube amps, it's the clarity of the mix coming through the PA system. Most guitarists only play on 2 or 3 to avoid feed back any way so the tubes aren't even close to being fired up.


Unbelievable. I'm stunned. And of course, you're dead wrong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mattvdh View Post
If the pod manufacturers can just figure out a way of giving the guitar tone the same sort of feel and life that good tube amp has, then it's all over.


The "POD manufacturers" have been programming digital emulations for more than 15 years and they're no closer to sounding like a real amp mic'd in a room. It may be another 15 years before they get it but even then, there will be differences, just as their are in emulations of other analog gear.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mattvdh View Post
Analog will take a back seat eventually, oh yes, there's no other way but forward.
No, it won't. Anyone with the money and the means will always choose a real tube amplifier over a digital emulation if given the choice. It's clear that you aren't a guitarist or you're someone that isn't into amplifiers, as there are thousands of boutique amp manufacturers in this world that aren't going away anytime soon.

Either way, you're wrong. And you're probably too naive and young to know it.
Closed Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook  Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter  Submit Thread to LinkedIn LinkedIn  Submit Thread to Google+ Google+ 
 
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump

SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.