The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 All  This Thread  Reviews  Gear Database  Guitars for sale     Latest  Trending
Digital Challenge - Recreate This Simple Dynamic Tone
Old 1 week ago
  #61
Gear Addict
 
grannis's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orson Maxwell View Post
I thought this whole thread was a joke. At least it appears to be a collection of posts that are off-topic made by people who cannot agree on what the topic actually means
Sorry if you took it seriously.
very nice clips, irrespective of whether, in the opinions of the self-appointed judges, it met the objective. As I suspected, the reactions proved that the goalposts were not just movable, but ephemeral.

Maybe try thicker strings next time?
Old 1 week ago
  #62
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Orson Maxwell View Post
I'm sure I'll regret it, but here's what I whipped up in half an hour just so there is at least one "provided example". Just so I never see this kind of "conclusions" again
Sounds really good!

As long as it sounds good, who cares how you achived the recording.

I think we should focus on results more, who cares how we get them as long as we get them.
Old 1 week ago
  #63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orson Maxwell View Post
I'm sure I'll regret it, but here's what I whipped up in half an hour just so there is at least one "provided example". Just so I never see this kind of "conclusions" again
Assuming that was via sim, I'm going to put to rest my previous notion that such pinch/squeals don't survive digital amp sim well.

I'm still not convinced I can get the overall tone/responsiveness I look for in my sound from a sim (certainly not the sims/sim box at my current disposal), but that example would seem to sink the notion that pinches don't work in amp simulation.
Old 1 week ago
  #64
Yes, that was a digital amp (I'm not calling them simulators on purpose). The best of them are getting pretty good actually. Not that I'm able to show them off in the proper way though - I'm not that good of a player. But overall, the problem with digital amp implementations seems to be threefold:
1) Poor converters;
2) Poor algorithms;
3) Poor latency.

Most of them combine all three to different extents. I went for a nice converter which I trust (but will upgrade soon for latency resons), I'm running a realtime linux kernel powered box with select few nice DSP algos. The only problem remaining would be latency (which is always opposed to algorithm quality), but it cannot usually be percieved by anyone except the player.
At least that's my current vision. The psycological effect of poor latency is not studied well (at least such studies are not open), but it is definitely there. I think a more structured understanding of the matter would benefit us all in getting digital to guitar, but most guitar players prefer to dwell on what they think they know.
Old 1 week ago
  #65
Lives for gear
 
RicTone's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikhael View Post
A third point of view: I don't care. I don't try to reproduce someone else's tone, I just to make it sound the best I can for me.

Oh, and my rig uses an analogue amp.
A fourth point of view: I not only don't care about reproducing someone else's tone, I hate and detest the song "Spooky" (post 1) with such passion that even thinking about the title of that song puts it on replay in my brain, where it's now starting to play... Dammit I hate that song! LOL.

I enjoyed Orson's playing very much, which definitely helps clearing my head.
Old 1 week ago
  #66
Gear Addict
 



Digital Amps
Old 1 week ago
  #67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orson Maxwell View Post
Yes, that was a digital amp (I'm not calling them simulators on purpose). The best of them are getting pretty good actually. Not that I'm able to show them off in the proper way though - I'm not that good of a player. But overall, the problem with digital amp implementations seems to be threefold:
1) Poor converters;
2) Poor algorithms;
3) Poor latency.

Most of them combine all three to different extents. I went for a nice converter which I trust (but will upgrade soon for latency resons), I'm running a realtime linux kernel powered box with select few nice DSP algos. The only problem remaining would be latency (which is always opposed to algorithm quality), but it cannot usually be percieved by anyone except the player.
At least that's my current vision. The psycological effect of poor latency is not studied well (at least such studies are not open), but it is definitely there. I think a more structured understanding of the matter would benefit us all in getting digital to guitar, but most guitar players prefer to dwell on what they think they know.
Thanks for the added info!

So... it's a 'digital amp' -- as in one of those new class D, featherweight combo or head amps? Or is it a more conventional transistor (or tube) amp fronted by a preamp section with DSP FX?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lethem View Post


Digital Amps
I don't have any problems believing that's a sim!

(That's not a slag on the sound in the demo; it's a big sound and the kind a lot of folks obviously like. But from my own experience with sims and the POD XT someone parked here a while back, I don't have any problems believing it's from a plugin.)
Old 1 week ago
  #68
Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 View Post
Thanks for the added info!

So... it's a 'digital amp' -- as in one of those new class D, featherweight combo or head amps? Or is it a more conventional transistor (or tube) amp fronted by a preamp section with DSP FX?
Oh no-no. Those are class-D amplifiers. The term has nothing to do with digital - they are switched mode PWM devices.

My chain was:
1. Greco LP Ace Frehley '82 (OMG sig guit! ), a Japanese copy of Super Distortion in the bridge position.
2. TC Impact Twin interface instrument input. Firewire straight to PCI controller.
3. Linux operated LV2 plugin host loaded with: Peavey Revalver4's JCM900 into a convolution engine with a cab impulse, and some hall reverb.

That's it. Monitored via headphones. All processing on the guitar is digital.

A quick note about digital amps vs simulators since it raises confusion: it is more of a structural question. Peavey's stuff is amplifiers "built" virtually from carefully constructed mathematical models of real-life gain stages.
Things like Kemper, on the other hand, use some clever techniques to capture the sonic footprint of an already existing device and then try to mimic and replicate it superficially without any knowledge of internal workings of an amplifier. I'm sure their algos operate on some premises based in classic designs but in the end its the same as with the neural networks: they get you 90% of the way there quickly but then just bottom out. The first approach is more tedious and research-heavy, but it is the deepest understanding of actual schematic design which gets it right virtually.
Old 1 week ago
  #69
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yuri Kogan View Post
Interesting.
If you cannot follow enobert's rules - just change the rules. Hmmm
I guess a good digital emulator, like Kemper, should be able to replicate the tone of a marshall with a decent suitable cab with reasonable accuracy? If you don't have a mini humbucker you should at least get close with a low output PAF, or a split humbucker? The fact that there is a range of sounds, from early breakup to clean should not matter?
For a Kemper to properly emulate the tone in Enorbet's example it would have to have profiled the same amps and setup that was used in the recording with the same amp settings.

Somehow I don't think that's gonna happen.
Old 1 week ago
  #70
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orson Maxwell View Post
If you want an honest opinion about tone - don't tell or show the person you ask what this tone is produced by.
This statement is confirmed time and time again: people hear with their ears, but listen with their brains - you can't unmix the information back once it has been poured in from all the directions at once. Blind testing and isolation is the way to test aural characteristics.
Maybe that's why this thread isn't being taken seriously? It's just bias incarnate.
You can't use blind testing on something like this. Blind tests impose their own bias and cause listeners to second guess their initial impressions.

I don't take anybody who believes in the religion of blind testing for everything seriously - to begin with they don't understand what is and isn't an appropriate subject for a blind test. Furthermore they hardly ever take all variables into account.
Old 1 week ago
  #71
Care to elaborate? What are those biases remaining in a double blind experiment for example?

Second-guessing is not a bias, it is noise. If you second-guess your impressions, then either the test procedure was flawed, or the effect is so small it is almost insignificant. Noise is taken care of by larger sampling and replication studies.

I don't take anybody who talks about every single subject on Earth like he is an expert without backing any of his claims under scrutiny seriously as well.
Old 1 week ago
  #72
Lives for gear
 
Yuri Kogan's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Orson Maxwell View Post
I thought this whole thread was a joke. At least it appears to be a collection of posts that are off-topic made by people who cannot agree on what the topic actually means
Sorry if you took it seriously.
Well the OP hoped it would be serious. Instead it turned into an arbitrary plugin clip, playing unrelated piece of noodle ( :-) )
Fair enough, that proves the OP's point. But as a noodle its fine. And the sound , in the right context may be suitable too. Kinda misses the point though. But I guess plenty of "digital proponents" will applaud the effort.
Old 1 week ago
  #73
Lives for gear
 
Moonwhistle's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Eppstein View Post
You can't use blind testing on something like this. Blind tests impose their own bias and cause listeners to second guess their initial impressions.

I don't take anybody who believes in the religion of blind testing for everything seriously - to begin with they don't understand what is and isn't an appropriate subject for a blind test. Furthermore they hardly ever take all variables into account.
Agreed, blind testing for audio is rather pointless.
Old 1 week ago
  #74
Lives for gear
 
enorbet2's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by enorbet2 View Post
@ mdme_sadie -

Apparently I need to make a minor but sincere apology to you for jumping to the conclusion that you were "a shredder". I hadn't connected the link in your signature to sound clips then and just now I followed your link and I spent a rather enjoyable half hour listening to roughly half of your tracks from that link. I think it is good, creative Music with a fairly wide variety of moods. I hope you understand my initial assessment was a result of the Line 6 example you chose to post, whose intro is decidedly Shred, so right from the jump that's what I expected.

Please note however, that initial impression did not stop me from an objective listen nor acknowledging that I can detect improvement in dynamic tracking. In fact I really don't understand at all where you get "negative and insulting" from any of my responses to you.

Now having said all that let me try to be perfectly clear even though I think I've covered this already. I find your guitar playing, while quite enjoyable and in some cases even quite emotionally moving, to be somewhat like what I described above as The Cobain Style, where you either play "Night" or play "Day" when what I am describing is "Dusk" and "Dawn" with a gradual smooth progression between Day and Night.

That is the nuanced dynamics I am referring to, not merely the total range from Clean to Distorted. It's the In- Betweens that matter most to me, and while I recognize that style is not applicable to all forms of Music, it is in fact something that AFAIK is not done at all well by digital amps.
I hate to have to quote myself but how else can I explain my confusion as to why so many don't get what I'm after in this thread?.

Orson, your clip is fine but it does nowhere near have the transition from clean to overdrive, the above mentioned "in betweens" that I'm seeking and naturally so since Compression REDUCES dynamics.

The digital amps clip provided by Lethem is some very sweet playing but it is compressed AF! It has zero dynamic range between clean and overdriven, just a very sweet overdriven tone. This is especially noticeable with the two-hand tapping bits. I'm sure everyone here realizes that EVH didn't invent that method but he surely did elevate it and accomplished that largely through dropped voltages via a Variac to increase "sponginess" or in other words, compression.

Limiting can get close but compression most definitely cannot. Do you guys just not hear this?

Here is another example from just one guy, no other instruments than an ersatz drum beat, but please FFWD to around 5:30 since earlier he employs a number of effect making it more difficult to distinguish, but for a fairly prolonged period of time after 5:30 it should be clearly evident.


Last edited by enorbet2; 1 week ago at 02:21 AM..
Old 1 week ago
  #75
Lives for gear
 
enorbet2's Avatar
So far this page has 13 posts and 4/13 are from audioforce and half of those are quoted (the only ones I can see) and none of those are even remotely constructive. Is it any wonder I have him on Ignore?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirriam Webster - "contribute"

Definition of contribute

transitive verb
1 : to give or supply in common with others eg: contribute money to a cause

intransitive verb
1a : to give a part to a common fund or store contribute to a fund-raising campaign
..b : to play a significant part in bringing about an end or result - eg:Many players have contributed to the team's success.
Old 1 week ago
  #76
Goodness know's why I'm doing this. Anyhow : To me that particular signal sounds like what happens when you starve a solid state circuit, so most likely a fuzz pedal is doing that, not the amp. Even a cheap pignose isn't quite as bad sounding as that.

Try making your tube amp do that without a pedal (and without using active pickups and a near dead battery) and it'll give you much less dynamic range.

Distortion in terms of guitar amps is basically one thing - clipping. That's why amp sims and amps clean up basically the same way. For real tube amps using multiple gain stages (the inovation of Mesa amps) and improvements in rectification has lead us to having an even rich saturated sound from tube amps with the slight negative of them not really having much dynamic range. They really don't clean up all that well. Digital sims have the advantage of being an algorithm, which means they can have as much or as little clean-up as you desire, and at whatever point the programmer desires.

I knocked out a quick noodle followed by me wandering through five random Michael Britt profiles on the Kemper, mostly just using light and hard picking, but here and there also altering the volume pot on the guitar (should be self evident where as i hold a note while adjusting) I didn't adjust the profiles settings in any way from factory, so the first one for instance has this delay effect going on too. The guitar is a Les Paul standard, as you can hear the amount of "dynamics" is down to the profile, i.e. the source amp, some have more some less. In the noodle section the parts are hard panned to make it easier to hear, left and right are single takes, left is just pick attack, right I do a single volume pot swell at the beginning and switch pickups halfway through.


https://soundcloud.com/per-anders/dynamics-demo

This was knocked out before your latest example which if I have more time I'll have an attempt at with a pedal.

Last edited by mdme_sadie; 1 week ago at 03:49 AM..
Old 1 week ago
  #77
For whatever reason because it's a thread about amps vs sims again - here's some more videos demonstrating the fact that first when it comes to sound and feel digital is just as valid and capable a choice as real tube amps at this point.

A few sims including dirt cheap ones vs a real amp.



And more interesting from the perspective of feel, also the players preconceptions.



Really though you shouldn't need to be convinced of anything at this point though. If you don't like the workflow that's fine, or if you don't like amp in a control room sound that's also fine. If you're trying to convince other people that they're not capable though then IMO it's as much hogwash as trying to convince a bass player not to use a solid state amp.
Old 1 week ago
  #78
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdme_sadie View Post
@ enorbert2 - Stop putting words in my mouth, geez. You really keep on assuming how I or others feel, and now what sort of music I grew up with and insults, it’s constant ad hominem from you isn’t it when you don’t get your own way. If you want to know my influences then listen to the music I make for my own pleasure in the link on my signature in every post I have. Reciprocate.

As for those guitarists, sorry no I’m not into shred. I do appreciate the technique and historical context, but outside of Paul Gilbert it’s an extremely patchy genre with far too much unlistenable dross where quantity matters more than quality. I also don’t like the muso fret******y of those dumble artists you posted, you missed out Eric Johnson if you wanted to include a shred artist. Anyhow could any of them have a more generic tone? Sorry, If you don’t understand that what matters comes from the fingers then perhaps you might think the amp is actually the biggest factor. The players that matter to me could play through anything and sound the same.

All I’ve been asking for from you is some clarification of exactly what the rules are, and pointing out the logical fallacy in trying to deliver what you’ve asked for so far when the playing field isn’t level.

You just demonstrated that with your responses to a video that shows just as much dynamic range as the video you posted which to be honest doesn’t really show what you think it does, pssst... it’s not very dynamic, good feel yes, dynamic? Not really. Even so you want people who have the time (i.e. amateurs like me) to do it to go up against a classic and hugely successful commercial recording made by a whole team of talented people, which of course they will only be found wanting at for deviating even slightly from.

At the same time you claim you want to know where digital sims are now, but rather than doing a basic google search, or even making a thread to have people post examples you set up some doomed to failure competition for the people on this forum to participate in, which seems based around a prejudice in its purest definition, I.e, pre-judgement. It seems clear that anything will be judged on their own tonal preferences and technique rather than the ostensible criteria of “dynamic tone”.

Why in earth would anyone want to submit to that? You really haven't sold this well. You haven’t tried to build people up or make a learning experience, just cut people down and be negative. What’s the value to others?

Let’s get back to basics : What is dynamics to you? A video isn’t enough because it contains many different forms of dynamics because it’s a non-technical term when used in isolation. Dynamic means so many different things to different people, whether loud to quiet (not demonstrated in Spooky), clean to dirty (also not demonstrated in Spooky), range of speeds of riffs, timing and nuanced playing demonstrating player range and technique, arrangement sparcity, a prevalence of finger and fret noise even, what? What exactly do you need a demo of? Spit it out. It’s confusing when you post an example that doesn’t match the expectation of your words. Most technical things can be demonstrated with only a couple of notes, you don’t need a full production. Knowing what you want could save everyone who may still be inclined to add anything to your thread a lot of time.


@ Yuri - you’re as bad as enorbert on this. Pot kettle on rule changing. It doesn’t matter what I would post, because you cannot be satisfied as long as you have a preconception.

Orson is 100% right on this one.
The rules were made clear in the first post. Can you or can you not achieve with your digital system what was entailed in the original post?

Yes or no? I'm guessing no, unless you have a Kemper profile of the original amp(s) with the settings used for the recording. Which don't exist.

Orson, as usual, is dead wrong.

I have no preconceptions. Don R and William W have convinced be as to the value of the Kemper. Both are consummate musicians, far beyond the artistry of mere "shredders".

And they are both people whose word is INFINITELY more valuable than yours, since I know who they are and have shared several tours with Don.

As you yourself have stated, the K is not a conventional sim.
Old 1 week ago
  #79
Lives for gear
 
Moonwhistle's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mdme_sadie View Post
Goodness know's why I'm doing this. Anyhow : To me that particular signal sounds like what happens when you starve a solid state circuit, so most likely a fuzz pedal is doing that, not the amp. Even a cheap pignose isn't quite as bad sounding as that.
Yeah lol.

Speaking of Pignose, the old germanium ones absolutely nail what people would think is a great rock n roll overdrive tone. It's literally the sound of Overnite Sensation. Sadly the newer silicon Pignose amps aren't great and it's about 1 in 10 chance of getting one that has a fizz you cannot get rid of without replacing almost all components.
Old 1 week ago
  #80
Quote:
Originally Posted by traumerei1838 View Post
Is this thread a bunch of past-their-prime guitarists afraid of technology?
Been there, done that, the T-shirt shrank and the colors ran.

Quote:

No one is posting their tones. No one is posting their clips.
Why should they? After being subjected to the hamfisted processing of any of the online sites there would be no point.

Quote:
I offered to post my sound after the OP posts his amazing, face-melting, all-analog guitar chain rendition of Spooky.
Who cares? Can you judge the Mona Lisa from a cartoon drawing?

Quote:

More paragraphs in your response doesn't = better guitar tone.
Neither does idiotic trolling.

If you can't make a constructive contribution, please butt out.

Last edited by John Eppstein; 1 week ago at 05:54 AM..
Old 1 week ago
  #81
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orson Maxwell View Post
If you click the link below my name, you'll find a bunch of guitar tracks there and I can wager you won't know digitally processed tracks from analog ones.

I just don't know why I should have posted anything here. If I say that a particular track is digital (which is implied by the OP), then everyone would immediately find a dozen different flaws in it. I love heavy metal, why should I post recordings to a thread where people are yet to agree upon what "dynamic" is?

Chill out, mate - we have plenty of people attacking someone in this thread already.

By the way, where's your clip then?
Who cares?

Nobody, that's who.

The topic was can you reproduce the tonality of a specific track.

It wasn't what your personal effluent sounds like.

Judging by your posts, you can't.

Fine - you're done.
Old 1 week ago
  #82
Quote:
Originally Posted by enorbet2 View Post
Thank you Anthony even though I'm a bit surprised. I suppose that surprise comes from what all artists/craftsmen suffer which is, being the creator, we know intimately every tiny little flaw and often assume everyone else can as well. Those clips, that night as a recording was deeply flawed right from the start. Just being last minute whim with zero preparation already doomed the quality. Add to that a horrible mismatch between a mono semi pro mixer line output and the commercial/home stereo input levels and the most fundamental elements are trashed. With so few mic's the mixer output is more of a mirror image of what it sounded like in the room and in this case much of what I had to work with was just bleed to try to get any semblance of band balance and separation.

Actually I was a bit hesitant in posting those clips here because I worried that what makes me consider it at all good was the digital part, that I was able to salvage anything usable from a 20 year old mono cassette tape to the extent that it may have eclipsed any quality that could demonstrate anything, and especially touch dynamics, like what I know was there "in the flesh".

However, that appreciation of what digital can do is what made me want to start this thread in the first place. I want to believe that digital at some point can do what I'm reasonably certain it cannot do... yet. Until then, or maybe even after that, analog does have something special and valuable that I think we shouldn't "throw out with the bath water".
The reason that digial "amps" cannot and never will be able to do the same things as analog amps is that digital simulations are, at best, approximations. They're all what somebody in the corporate chain deems to be "good enough". It's not that doing a truly accurate digital simulation is impossible - it probably is possible. However doing a truly accurate digital simulation is not "cost effective" for the corporate POV. All those little details that "aren't as important" as the cost to analyze and reproduce them add up, and the people running the corporations are absolutely right from their viewpoint - the people who buy their product can't tell the difference. Because they lack the experience and ear training. It's a self-reinforcing problem as the legions of "kids" who grew up with sims and don't know any better grow and grow.

What suffers is the music.
Old 1 week ago
  #83
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orson Maxwell View Post

P.S. In my understanding, touch sensitivity is the palette of usable overdriven tones that the amplifier goes through when you go from pianissimo to fortissimo. There is no touch sensitivity on clean tones - its just called volume.
No, it's not.

If anything there is MORE touch sensitivity on clean and borderline tones than on overdriven distortion.

If you don't understand that you don't understand the point of the thread.

IMO overdriven sounds are about as sensitive as hitting a raw egg with a sledgehammer.

EDIT: I thjink the problem with this thread is that the kiddies around here have become stone deaf from too much distortion.
Old 1 week ago
  #84
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yuri Kogan View Post
I don't understand - is that supposed to be a joke? What point are you trying to prove? That you are unable to replicate or even come close to the tone OP posted? I would have thought a digital die-hard would pile on tones showing off what their toys are capable off. Instead we have sore-grapes jokes. Fair enough. Looks like i can stay away from the kemper for another 5 years. Thanks for saving me some $$$.
It's because they all know they can't do it.

It's not that the K isn't up to it, it's that you have to be a real musician, not a monkey to be able to get good results. These guys all thing it's a simulator and that using canned profiles will get them there.

It won't.
Old 1 week ago
  #85
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orson Maxwell View Post
I thought this whole thread was a joke. At least it appears to be a collection of posts that are off-topic made by people who cannot agree on what the topic actually means
Sorry if you took it seriously.
Wrong again.

So if you don't take it seriously, please butt out.
Old 1 week ago
  #86
Lives for gear
 
Yuri Kogan's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Eppstein View Post
It's because they all know they can't do it.

It's not that the K isn't up to it, it's that you have to be a real musician, not a monkey to be able to get good results. These guys all thing it's a simulator and that using canned profiles will get them there.

It won't.
Well, Kemper is a snapshot. dynamic changes on analogue amps change the tone in somewhat less predictable way. Digital amps are programmed to do a certain thing but not in an unpredictable way. They do sound like a different beast, whether it is whats required is up to the artist
I have an all tube Aguilar bass amp, its stellar. I also have its later incarnation, where the tube power amp has been replaced with a class D as I understand. Not many people like it after a direct comparison. Its just not as vibrant and musical
Old 1 week ago
  #87
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Eppstein View Post
The rules were made clear in the first post. Can you or can you not achieve with your digital system what was entailed in the original post?

Yes or no? I'm guessing no, unless you have a Kemper profile of the original amp(s) with the settings used for the recording. Which don't exist.

Orson, as usual, is dead wrong.

I have no preconceptions. Don R and William W have convinced be as to the value of the Kemper. Both are consummate musicians, far beyond the artistry of mere "shredders".

And they are both people whose word is INFINITELY more valuable than yours, since I know who they are and have shared several tours with Don.

As you yourself have stated, the K is not a conventional sim.
John, for gods sake. Why do you have to be such an ass?

Really the way you talk to people is uncalled for. Don R and William W are only infinitely more valuable to you, thank goodness I don't estimate my value based on you. However if only answers from people you or the OP consider to be "valuable" or "important" matter then go beg for Mark Knopfler's opinion, I gather he has some sort of reputation in the music world, something about some people consider his tones to be quite decent. He's a Kemper user by the way. And don't bother reading any further.

In response - Firstly no, the rules are not clear. The thread and original post talked about dynamics, the example example posted contained literally zero dynamics. There was no clean to dirty, no digging in vs pulled back, no anything but a series of well played and nuanced notes but a complete lack of any form of demonstration of amplifier dynamics.

Can I replicate that specific amp and studio setup with an amp sim? Probably not. I can get close but as you say I don't have the specific amp, signal chain and room in question as a profile. But that's what makes this whole thing a farce, you couldn't replicate it with a real amp either... for exactly the same reasons. In fact it's a lot harder to match with a real amp, at least with a sim you have a lot more tonal sculpting options and many more amps to pick from.

So with that being the case - what is the purpose of this thread? To demonstrate absolutely bugger all? Or just to demonstrate ignorance?

If you took the time to follow the thread you'd see that the actual criteria has shifted continuously but seems to currently be - demonstrate dynamics in amp sims, doesn't have to be a cover of any song or tone.

You'd also find out that I've already submitted to that criteria. I've already posted, both pointing out that I have a link to my music under my avatar in every single post I have here (unlike every single person trying to flame bait the sim users). I even went to the effort to play along just prior to your post, creating something new just for this thread. In addition to posting a couple of examples from other people. In each case there's more "dynamics" than displayed in the original example based on every sane criteria for what amp dynamics are.

The response I got was that in essence it was too dynamic, not nuanced enough, too "Kurt Cobain" too all on, all off. Which is especially laughable given the latest example they posted. Evidently the OP didn't bother to actually listen to what I've posted because they're confusing compositional dynamics with playing dynamics. There's plenty of examples of both.

IMO - There's too much talking and not enough doing. I've already done... multiple times. You guys though... well, as far as I'm concerned you've got something to prove now. It's ok if you're all only talkers, but respect comes from doing.

See I don't think you're taking this thread seriously at all. But prove me wrong. I want for you John, Enorbert, and Yuri - you guys now need to step up and demonstrate your skills. Submit to the same "rules". No fakery. No more words. Specifically make a new example for this thread. No old stuff. Demo an amp straight, no pedals, just an LP or equivalent humbucker based guitar straight into the amp, no FX loop. You all have the gear. You're all pro's. Should be trivial for you. Lets see how you guys fare.
Old 1 week ago
  #88
Lives for gear
 
Moonwhistle's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Eppstein View Post
It's because they all know they can't do it.
Well no that's bull.

I would happily participate if I knew what the goal of the exercise was. I'm not going to waste my time figuring out music I have no interest in to then play it on technology I'm not particularly interested in.

If the question is simply can playing dynamics translate on a modelled amp the same as a real amp then the answer is a pretty obvious yes.

If you can stop being children and crying about Audioforce we can maybe start to understand what the point of this thread is.
Old 1 week ago
  #89
Lives for gear
 
bash's Avatar
 

FWIW, my understanding is the Kemper is more than a snapshot; it is a collection of snapshots of amp response at different gain levels. Therefore it should "mimic" the non-linear dynamic behavior of a profiled amp reasonably well assuming the instrument's input gain is in the "sweet spot" of the profile.

Different tube amp circuits vary in how dramatically they respond to gain changes. I'm sure one could compare a particularly unresponsive tube amp to a well-profiled Kemper "amp" and listeners could argue that a Kemper is actually more dynamically responsive.
Old 1 week ago
  #90
Lives for gear
 
enorbet2's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdme_sadie View Post
Goodness know's why I'm doing this. Anyhow : To me that particular signal sounds like what happens when you starve a solid state circuit, so most likely a fuzz pedal is doing that, not the amp. Even a cheap pignose isn't quite as bad sounding as that.
To which clip are you referring? I don't think it sounds like a starved SS device at all. Did you check out the two Larry Carlton clips a few posts back? I grant you that one of the reasons some people love germanium fuzzes is because of their threshhold which backing off of the drive signal can clean up rather nicely, but this still isn't as "transitional" as a tube amp to my ears and fingers..

Quote:
Originally Posted by mdme_sadie View Post
Try making your tube amp do that without a pedal (and without using active pickups and a near dead battery) and it'll give you much less dynamic range.
OK you must not be referring to either of my clips 'cuz that is guitar into Flanger into amp and I despise active pups... never did never will own any.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mdme_sadie View Post
Distortion in terms of guitar amps is basically one thing - clipping. That's why amp sims and amps clean up basically the same way. For real tube amps using multiple gain stages (the inovation of Mesa amps) and improvements in rectification has lead us to having an even rich saturated sound from tube amps with the slight negative of them not really having much dynamic range. They really don't clean up all that well. Digital sims have the advantage of being an algorithm, which means they can have as much or as little clean-up as you desire, and at whatever point the programmer desires.
Here I think you are referring to the difference between preamp gain staging and power amp headroom. I can make a Mesa clean up very nicely just by reducing preamp gain and increasing the Master. It also helps if negative feedback is reduced but that's not stock.


Quote:
Originally Posted by mdme_sadie View Post
I knocked out a quick noodle followed by me wandering through five random Michael Britt profiles on the Kemper, mostly just using light and hard picking, but here and there also altering the volume pot on the guitar (should be self evident where as i hold a note while adjusting) I didn't adjust the profiles settings in any way from factory, so the first one for instance has this delay effect going on too. The guitar is a Les Paul standard, as you can hear the amount of "dynamics" is down to the profile, i.e. the source amp, some have more some less. In the noodle section the parts are hard panned to make it easier to hear, left and right are single takes, left is just pick attack, right I do a single volume pot swell at the beginning and switch pickups halfway through.


https://soundcloud.com/per-anders/dynamics-demo

This was knocked out before your latest example which if I have more time I'll have an attempt at with a pedal.
That clip sounds really good, even better than your previous ones but that's because it's all guitar where it is possible to pick out nuance much more clearly. However, I'm still hearing a rather hard "knee" threshold below which is clean and above which is overdriven. I'm not hearing that gradual change even to the degree of the very short Larry Carlton clip I posted.

The very first clip I posted of me playing about 5 minutes in, because it is longer than Larry's demo with a wider range of pick attack, I think demonstrates considerable of that "in-betweens" gradual rise into distortion. I'd love to hear your views on any of those. You're obviously both skilled and schooled.

Thanks for your contributions. Cheers.
Topic:
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Forum Jump
Forum Jump