Page 1 of 3
#1
So it seems that everyone has their opinion. Mostly and obviously people will say that Tube amps are the best.
I agree, nothing can really beat a Tube amp, but then when it comes to quality, it depends on what the amp really is.

So there's pretty much 3 types of amps out there.
Tube, Solid State, and Digitally Pogrammed/Computer Amp Modeling.

Which one do you think are the best in order?
For me it's Tube > Digital > Solid State.

I'll explain why.

Tube is and always will be the classic and the best. It a standard for an amplifier. The tubes get you a great warm sound from you guitar and amp. You really can't get anything else like it. Not really hard to defend so there's not much to say besides the obvious.

Digital comes next in line for a reason. It's because I believe you can PROGRAM a signal much easier and much better than doing it via hardware with a bunch of transistors.
Tube, Digital, and Solid State all effect the signal mathematically, and computers are based on math. With people who know how to program, they can simulate the way tubes work via math programming, while Solid States are basically just using transistors to replace the Tube.
Also Digital is cheap for it's great sound. People are obviously using it to record more since it's easier and doesn't cost as much as buying a 2000 dollar amp, then getting the equipment to record it.

Solid State comes last. There are some seriously great sounding solid state amps and pedals out there, but usually when it comes to metal distortion, well, they sound like crap. I honestly never really heard something as strong as a valve or digital amp, so I don't really like Solid State.
However, Solid State has some really great overdrive pedals. Really amazing overdrive stuff. It's just those Metal distortions are terrible to me, there are a couple of good ones but not much.
You also have something like a Big Muff Pi, which is legendary so that's great.
But what about the amps? I never really heard any good Metal SS amps.


So what do you think? What order do you go in? Please, no audiophile stuff, just tone talk.
#2
I would´nt bother with a ss amp ever, except where I work and thats just for testing guitars. Tube amps are the best and always will be, I use line6 for live applications running thru a mixer and those sounds are better then any ss amp I´ve ever heard. So tube, digital and no ss.
#3
Tube, SS, then digital.

Tube, sounds natural, amazing tones easily pulled, you can coax and play with it more than SS or digital amp by abusing the tubes with the master volume.

SS, I've heard some great SS amps that would rival even the best of tube amps, one being the Randall Warhead, awesome SS amp. But most are just shit, since SS is really the cheap way of going about things.

Digital is at the bottom because computers can not replicate actual physics of electricity going through a physical resistor or cap. They just can't do it with the proper accuracy. That doesn't mean you can't get a good tone with them, it's just a tube or SS amp will naturally sound better.
#4
Quote by Clay-man
I never really heard any good Metal SS amps.


First the Ampeg VH140H is considered one of the best metal amps and is SS

Second the Roland JC120C is considered one of the best clean amps and is SS.

It can be done.

When it comes to overdrive however, really nothing seems to match that of a tube.
#5
Quote by Clay-man

Solid State comes last. There are some seriously great sounding solid state amps and pedals out there, but usually when it comes to metal distortion, well, they sound like crap.

So what do you think? What order do you go in? Please, no audiophile stuff, just tone talk.

Audiophile stuff is tone talk, but good luck with that

Ampeg VH140C, better than any modeler I've herd and a number of tube amps too. There are a large number of ss pedals and amps that sound good for metal. Not near as good as a Baron or a Splawn but better than most modelers. In fact most affordable modeling amps sound really poor with high gain settings with the exception of the Vypyr which doesn't use digital modeling for it's distortion; it's analog. Digital technology just can replicate a current moving through electrical components like the subtle differences between different types of caps or between the germanium and silicon diodes in my fuzz pedal.


I'd order them:
Tube
SS
digital
Warning: The above post may contain lethal levels of radiation, sharp objects and sexiness.
Proceed with extreme caution!
Last edited by justinb904 at Sep 28, 2010,
#6
Quote by justinb904
Audiophile stuff is tone talk, but good luck with that


By audiophile, I mean talking about things like you have a golden ear, as if you could honestly hear over 44khz or some crap like that. Something completely minor blown out of proportion.

Talking about tone is different, because every amp sounds different unless you're honestly that tone deaf.


Quote by ethan_hanus
Tube, SS, then digital.

Tube, sounds natural, amazing tones easily pulled, you can coax and play with it more than SS or digital amp by abusing the tubes with the master volume.

SS, I've heard some great SS amps that would rival even the best of tube amps, one being the Randall Warhead, awesome SS amp. But most are just shit, since SS is really the cheap way of going about things.

Digital is at the bottom because computers can not replicate actual physics of electricity going through a physical resistor or cap. They just can't do it with the proper accuracy. That doesn't mean you can't get a good tone with them, it's just a tube or SS amp will naturally sound better.



I'll check some of that stuff out, but I thought most solid states sound harsher than a valve amp because of it using transistors.

With digital I imagine you could just program it to make it sound that way, but with a solid state you'd need to build a new circuit.


In the end I think our arguments are leading to the fact that it depends on WHO is doing it. I like Peavey Revalver a lot for instance. They simulated right down to inside of a valve tube. That's why I think if you really really did something you probably couldn't go wrong with digital.

And like you said, there are some great solid states, and it all depends on who's making it, because when I think of something like Boss, it gives a bad name to solid states.
Last edited by Clay-man at Sep 28, 2010,
#7
Quote by Clay-man
But what about the amps? I never really heard any good Metal SS amps.


Hurrdurrdurr. Ampeg VH-140C.

Seriously, never heard a good SS amp for metal?

Good, beaten to be first to mention it. I can still have faith in UG.
No gods, no countries, no masters.
More guitar, less Ultimate-Guitar.
Be Serious.
Shorties represent!
Ibanez SZ520/Ibanez ORM-1/Ibanez RG7321/Pocket POD/Crate GX/Boss HM-2
#8
Quote by ethan_hanus
computers can not replicate actual physics of electricity going through a physical resistor or cap. They just can't do it with the proper accuracy.
Sorry, that's just not true. There's no reason whatsoever that a computer could not model physics. There are many computers out there modeling FAR more complex stuff than modeling electricity going through a resistor (that's REALLY simple).
Gear:
- Bugera 333
- VJ & VJ cab
- Jackson JS30
- TS9

Bugera Users Militia. We are horrible people. With a sprinkler fetish.
~ BUM: For all things extinguishing

Rackmount Tube Amp Project <<< Updates!
#9
Some of us just use what sounds best for the task at hand.

I am not always looking for the same sound. I use straight digital tracks that are MIDI controlled, mic'd tube amps, DI outs from amps, DI's straight to mixer, etc, whatever works for what I want to produce.

Each type and method has its place and use.
#10
Quote by Kanthras
Sorry, that's just not true. There's no reason whatsoever that a computer could not model physics. There are many computers out there modeling FAR more complex stuff than modeling electricity going through a resistor (that's REALLY simple).


With a solid state, the transistors make a different sound, and in order to make it sound like a valve you'd need to add a whole bunch of other components, while computer programming you can just enter command lines to do it and it's very easy to tweak, allowing you to get to the root of the sound easier.
#11
Quote by Kanthras
Sorry, that's just not true. There's no reason whatsoever that a computer could not model physics. There are many computers out there modeling FAR more complex stuff than modeling electricity going through a resistor (that's REALLY simple).

+1 most true statement
all physics is is just a load of variables dependent on other variables etc if you spend long enough you can get an equation that will recreate the exact sounds that a tube does

i think its a case of you get what you pay for really.
a cheap tube/ss and digital amp will all sound pretty bad but high end ones will all sound pretty good theres obviously a few exceptions of massively overpriced amps that sound awful
Amps:
Orange Rocker 30
Marshall JCM 800 1960 4x12
Guitars:
Ibanez SAS32EXFM White
Epiphone SG G400
Pedals:
Boss SD-1
Boss GE-7
Behringer TU-300

www.myspace.com/oceansatealaska
#12
Quote by Kanthras
Sorry, that's just not true. There's no reason whatsoever that a computer could not model physics. There are many computers out there modeling FAR more complex stuff than modeling electricity going through a resistor (that's REALLY simple).


lol.
you don't know how computers work.


Quote by josh_salty
+1 most true statement
all physics is is just a load of variables dependent on other variables etc if you spend long enough you can get an equation that will recreate the exact sounds that a tube does

i think its a case of you get what you pay for really.
a cheap tube/ss and digital amp will all sound pretty bad but high end ones will all sound pretty good theres obviously a few exceptions of massively overpriced amps that sound awful


lol neither do you.


lol this whole thread is premised on not actually understanding how anything works.
Prs se Holcomb is the answer
#13
Quote by AcousticMirror
lol.
you don't know how computers work.
lol right back at you. Yes, I do.
Gear:
- Bugera 333
- VJ & VJ cab
- Jackson JS30
- TS9

Bugera Users Militia. We are horrible people. With a sprinkler fetish.
~ BUM: For all things extinguishing

Rackmount Tube Amp Project <<< Updates!
#14
Quote by Kanthras
lol right back at you. Yes, I do.


lol explain to me the difference between a mips processor the the risc technology it's based on.
why is the move from 32bit to 64 bit advantageous.
What are the benefits and deficiencies of a superscalar long pipeline processing flow.
what are the benefits and deficiencies of multiple core - shor pipeline processing flows.

What structural problems does Apple's grand central station attempt to resolve in the implementation of multi-core processing systems?
Prs se Holcomb is the answer
#15
Quote by AcousticMirror
lol explain to me the difference between a mips processor the the risc technology it's based on.
why is the move from 32bit to 64 bit advantageous.
What are the benefits and deficiencies of a superscalar long pipeline processing flow.
what are the benefits and deficiencies of multiple core - shor pipeline processing flows.

What structural problems does Apple's grand central station attempt to resolve in the implementation of multi-core processing systems?
Look it up, I'm not gonna explain this stuff to you. Suffice to say, this has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
Gear:
- Bugera 333
- VJ & VJ cab
- Jackson JS30
- TS9

Bugera Users Militia. We are horrible people. With a sprinkler fetish.
~ BUM: For all things extinguishing

Rackmount Tube Amp Project <<< Updates!
#17
Tube-Amp Modelling-SS

but honestly it doesnt matter, you can get a decent tone from all 3, and...well! your audience most likely wont be able to tell a difference between the 3!

even though i own tube amps, sometimes i prefere Modelling! because i can lift a POD X3 Live and a small powered monitor without hurting myself!

i pulled a fricken groin muscle lfiting my Bassman 4x10! usually it doesnt hurt, but after that mess im considering the Axe Fx!!!
#18
Quote by Kanthras
Look it up, I'm not gonna explain this stuff to you. Suffice to say, this has nothing to do with the topic at hand.


really? the limitations of simple physics modeling pipelined at millions or trillions instructions per second in a linear workflow versus being able to separate processes into 4 or more independent segments has nothing to do with with modeling real world process that take place both independent and dependently of each other?

Have you ever seen how a render farm begins to construct a 3d model? you think that's how real life works? you think your brain makes wireframe models?

look just admit you don't know anything.
Prs se Holcomb is the answer
#19
Quote by Kanthras
Sorry, that's just not true. There's no reason whatsoever that a computer could not model physics. There are many computers out there modeling FAR more complex stuff than modeling electricity going through a resistor (that's REALLY simple).

If this was actually true, tube amp companies would not still be in business. FACT.
There is no further discussion necessary, because the truth will be where the money is.
Quote by 311ZOSOVHJH
Riffhog for President


Quote by Cathbard
There's no point apologising for your feet smelling when there's a 300lb gorilla in the room taking a crap on the couch.


Recognised by the Official EG/GG&A Who To Listen To List 2011
#20
Quote by AcousticMirror
really? the limitations of simple physics modeling pipelined at millions or trillions instructions per second in a linear workflow versus being able to separate processes into 4 or more independent segments has nothing to do with with modeling real world process that take place both independent and dependently of each other?

Have you ever seen how a render farm begins to construct a 3d model? you think that's how real life works? you think your brain makes wireframe models?

look just admit you don't know anything.


I meant that these details are not relevant to the discussion at hand. Now do you disagree with me that it is possible to accurately model resistors with computers or not?
Quote by riffhog
If this was actually true, tube amp companies would not still be in business. FACT.
There is no further discussion necessary, because the truth will be where the money is.
Notice I didn't say it's possible today at a reasonable budget. Also, you act as if people aren't stubborn, never resist change and always trust new technology.
Gear:
- Bugera 333
- VJ & VJ cab
- Jackson JS30
- TS9

Bugera Users Militia. We are horrible people. With a sprinkler fetish.
~ BUM: For all things extinguishing

Rackmount Tube Amp Project <<< Updates!
#21
Quote by Kanthras


I meant that these details are not relevant to the discussion at hand. Now do you disagree with me that it is possible to accurately model resistors with computers or not?Notice I didn't say it's possible today at a reasonable budget. Also, you act as if people aren't stubborn, never resist change and always trust new technology.


i know that accurately modeling 1 component of a real system has nothing whatsoever to do with a. how accurate the modeling is and b. how realistic and effective that modeling is when applied to large complex real time systems.
Prs se Holcomb is the answer
#22
Quote by AcousticMirror
i know that accurately modeling 1 component of a real system has nothing whatsoever to do with a. how accurate the modeling is and b. how realistic and effective that modeling is when applied to large complex real time systems.
If you can accurately model 1 component in real time, then given enough computational power, you can model a large complex system in real time. I'm not saying it can be done today with nigh-perfect accuracy with a reasonably budget, but it most certainly is possible.

I'm going to bed now, perhaps I shall address your rebuttal in the morning.
Gear:
- Bugera 333
- VJ & VJ cab
- Jackson JS30
- TS9

Bugera Users Militia. We are horrible people. With a sprinkler fetish.
~ BUM: For all things extinguishing

Rackmount Tube Amp Project <<< Updates!
#24
Quote by Kanthras
If you can accurately model 1 component in real time, then given enough computational power, you can model a large complex system in real time. I'm not saying it can be done today with nigh-perfect accuracy with a reasonably budget, but it most certainly is possible.


i just asked you this. does your brain see by constructing wire frame models?
do your eyes work by rendering polygons on things?

stop coming back to me with computational analysis that's over 10 years old. There are books and books written about the the deficiency of superscalar pipelines. There's a reason why multi-coring was ignored for a long time then unilaterally embraced by the industry. There's a reason why intel has an 8 core processor with 16 possible threads as its flagship and not a 20ghz single pipe chip. I'm saying your wrong and what your talking about can't be done because you don't understand how computer works.

It can be done. However, you wouldn't even begin to be able to describe how it could be done, because you don't have a clue.
Prs se Holcomb is the answer
#25
Quote by AcousticMirror
really? the limitations of simple physics modeling pipelined at millions or trillions instructions per second in a linear workflow versus being able to separate processes into 4 or more independent segments has nothing to do with with modeling real world process that take place both independent and dependently of each other?

Have you ever seen how a render farm begins to construct a 3d model? you think that's how real life works? you think your brain makes wireframe models?

look just admit you don't know anything.



Ok, I consider myself somewhat smart, but I have no clue what you just said there

And no, computers can't replicate the exact physics of electricity flowing through a resistor, why, because most resistors have a 5% value difference than the listed value. Two, the physics of it is hardly understood, we just have a very tiny grasp on how it actually works, but its enough to do all sorts of cool things with it. All we know is what works and what doesn't really. When you have hardware, you can get unpredicted events that can alter the tone you get, computers can't model these unpredicted events, since there are prolly billions of these unpredicted events happening every second as the electricity travels through the resistor, and at that, each one is different from the other, which again, all a computer does is do what it is told, it creates something based on the data it's given. With hardware, it's created out of thin air pretty much. Those unpredictable events is what makes tube and good SS amps stand out among the crowd of modeling amps.

At least, that's how I understand it, I could be completely wrong.
#26
Quote by AcousticMirror
lol.
you don't know how computers work.


lol neither do you.


lol this whole thread is premised on not actually understanding how anything works.


Computers use math, that's how they work. EXACTLY how they work. In the end they are 0's and 1's, binary, aka digital. In the end you can get any sound you want off a computer, as good as anything on your mp3s and CDs. It's just how you do it, but replicating the physics of a tube via programming and math, you would need to know exactly what is happening in the tube mathematically, then you can reproduce it with programming.

A solid state isn't doing that. It's basically a tube amp with all the tubes replaced with transistors that replicate the function, but they don't sound the same obviously.
In order to make it warm like a tube valve you need to make a new circuit to adjust the signal even further. That takes a lot of work and money.

With computers, you can edit the sound if you program hard enough. Virtually you can make ANY sound with a computer by editing the wave.

This is why I think Valve > Digital > SS.

In reality our hearts go into the fact that we love Valve/Tube, because it's the original thing.

But the reason Digital beats SS is because in the end you can make a computer processed signal sound more like a valve than SS.
Last edited by Clay-man at Sep 28, 2010,
#28
Quote by Clay-man
Computers use math, that's how they work. EXACTLY how they work. In the end they are 0's and 1's, binary, aka digital. In the end you can get any sound you want off a computer, as good as anything on your mp3s and CDs. It's just how you do it, but replicating the physics of a tube via programming and math, you would need to know exactly what is happening in the tube mathematically, then you can reproduce it with programming.

A solid state isn't doing that. It's basically a tube amp with all the tubes replaced with transistors that replicate the function, but they don't sound the same obviously.
In order to make it warm like a tube valve you need to make a new circuit to adjust the signal even further. That takes a lot of work and money.

With computers, you can edit the sound if you program hard enough. Virtually you can make ANY sound with a computer by editing the wave.

This is why I think Valve > Digital > SS.

In reality our hearts go into the fact that we love Valve/Tube, because it's the original thing.


i lol'd. so there's nothing complicated in a computer other then math huh.

so in your opinion it's better to go through an adda then use a solid state chip? even if that chip is a true analog component?


Quote by WaltTheWerewolf
wow a pointless argument in a tube vs Solidstate vs digital thread!

didnt see this coming!


reported for spam.
Prs se Holcomb is the answer
Last edited by AcousticMirror at Sep 28, 2010,
#29
Now you're using an audiophile defense. "Oh I can hear above 44khz!"
Don't start.

If you're not too thickheaded you'd realize the term computer is because of the fact it computes things via math.

In the end, all the programming gui and sound is done by calculations in the processor of the computer.

If you're going to use an audiophile defense then don't reply in my topic please since I stated no audiophile garbage. This is about tone, not about how you can imagine a difference between analog and digital.
Last edited by Clay-man at Sep 28, 2010,
#30
Quote by Clay-man
It's just how you do it, but replicating the physics of a tube via programming and math, you would need to know exactly what is happening in the tube mathematically, then you can reproduce it with programming.

Yeeeeeaaaaaaaah, if we'd use the Earth Simulator or something to run modelling programs, maybe. Dream on.
#31
Quote by TheQuailman
Yeeeeeaaaaaaaah, if we'd use the Earth Simulator or something to run modelling programs, maybe. Dream on.


Yeah and do you think you could simulate a valve with a solid state that easy as well?
#32
Quote by Clay-man
Now you're using an audiophile defense. "Oh I can hear above 44khz!"
Don't start.

If you're not too thickheaded you'd realize the term computer is because of the fact it computes things via math.

In the end, all the programming gui and sound is done by calculations in the processor of the computer.

If you're going to use an audiophile defense then don't reply in my topic please since I stated no audiophile garbage. This is about tone, not about how you can imagine a difference between analog and digital.


no i'm just wondering because in your world you don't know what an adda does.

also you don't know what a computer is. So in your fantasy land there's only one type of processor? and all it does is math? and it's done it in the same way forever and ever and ever? intels been rimming us man.

hang on i'm gonna go tell the science police.
Prs se Holcomb is the answer
#33
Quote by Clay-man
Yeah and do you think you could simulate a valve with a solid state that easy as well?

I don't understand how this is related to what I said.
#34
dude op do you even understand the difference between an analog and a digital signal?
you understand that both ss and valve are analog signals right.
Prs se Holcomb is the answer
#35
Quote by TheQuailman
Yeeeeeaaaaaaaah, if we'd use the Earth Simulator or something to run modelling programs, maybe. Dream on.


That reminds me of something my dad was talking about while back, my dad has been a programmer and a mainframe guy for the past 30 years, and he was talking about something that IBM created, a single processor that used this weird type of code that made it about 100 times faster than any quad core processor that we have today. Don't quote me on this cause it was a while ago and I don't remember details. But I think that it was stopped by the government, something to do with the commerce clause and being unfair to other businesses.
#36
Quote by ethan_hanus
Ok, I consider myself somewhat smart, but I have no clue what you just said there
In a nutshell he said clock speeds are hitting a brick wall because of the time it takes for electrical signals to propagate down a circuit trace. So the switch to parallel processing has become popular in order to increase processing power.
#37
Quote by fly135
In a nutshell he said clock speeds are hitting a brick wall because of the time it takes for electrical signals to propagate down a circuit trace. So the switch to parallel processing has become popular in order to increase processing power.


oh shit speed of an electrical signal. fu. you got the real world all up in mah math.

also clay-man...how many analog pedals have you played. a big muff pi is your grail pedal? seriously?
Prs se Holcomb is the answer
Last edited by AcousticMirror at Sep 28, 2010,
#38
Quote by AcousticMirror
no i'm just wondering because in your world you don't know what an adda does.

also you don't know what a computer is. So in your fantasy land there's only one type of processor? and all it does is math? and it's done it in the same way forever and ever and ever? intels been rimming us man.

hang on i'm gonna go tell the science police.


Oh then tell me what the hell it does? Last time I checked I'm the one who does the programming and use a hex editor here. Derp derp, why are all the files in hex and binary?

It's all processed in binary, there is no other way you can do it, or else IT WOULDN'T BE DIGITAL WOULD IT?

I know what an analog to digital/digital to analog is for, since you can't feed a computer analog sound, which also defends the fact that I AM CORRECT, because if computers weren't binary then WHY WOULD YOU NEED A DIGITAL CONVERTER?
What the flaming shit else would you do with a bunch of numeric data? The binary is what the computer reads and understands and nothing else.

This text we're typing is virtually 1's and 0's processed to display as letters by the system.

Oh and TheQuailman, if you noticed I've always said Valve > Digital, so I don't know why you're making a fuss. It's impossible to exactly replicate physics, but it's sound so it's not that hard to get as close as possible, especially when with computers you can do anything you want to the sound.
Last edited by Clay-man at Sep 28, 2010,
#39
Quote by AcousticMirror
lol explain to me the difference between a mips processor the the risc technology it's based on.
why is the move from 32bit to 64 bit advantageous.
What are the benefits and deficiencies of a superscalar long pipeline processing flow.
what are the benefits and deficiencies of multiple core - shor pipeline processing flows.

What structural problems does Apple's grand central station attempt to resolve in the implementation of multi-core processing systems?
I'm curious why you are asking all these questions instead of clearly refuting the claims. I also believe that computers are capable of modeling tubes given enough cleverness on the part of the programmers.

There are no figures carved in stone as to why this can't be done. There are plenty of admirable attempts and they keep getting better all the time.
#40
Quote by fly135
I'm curious why you are asking all these questions instead of clearly refuting the claims. I also believe that computers are capable of modeling tubes given enough cleverness on the part of the programmers.

There are no figures carved in stone as to why this can't be done. There are plenty of admirable attempts and they keep getting better all the time.


Exactly.

Apparently once you support some facts that hurts somebody's feelings they start getting all pissy and put up irrelevant information.

Also if you have your panties in a knot about analog to digital and vise versa, then you must also hate CDs and MP3s correct AcousticMirror?

Writing programming lines is 100 times easier then building a function via expensive solid state equipment which is why I think Digital > Solid State because no one tries very much with Solid States.
Last edited by Clay-man at Sep 28, 2010,
Page 1 of 3