Hey, I've recently been conducting research into how close amp modelling software can get to replicate real guitar amps. From this I've created a quick blind test to see if you can tell the difference! All the clips use the exact same settings on the ampfliers and modelling software, the same microphone (SM57) and the same microphone placement, no other effects are added as this would distort the signal from the amp. The test isn't to identify the best quality tone, but rather to see if their is a noticeable different between the two approaches.

I would really appreciate it if any of the guitarists on here spare a few minutes to complete my short test on Amps Vs. Amp Modelling Software for my university dissertation


Thanks a lot!!
Last edited by amassivewhale at Mar 27, 2014,
Go to the pit, you'll get a lot more people there
Anyway, 2, 1, 2, 2.

Can you send me the actual results as a pm or something please?

Though mind that you're comparing badly recorded, mostly bad sounding amps with bad sounding amp sims, and you're not good with sound shaping, so you may wanna get the sound quality a bit better before doing something like that again.
Name's Luca.

Quote by OliOsbourne
I don't know anything about this topic, but I just clicked on this thread because of your username :O
Quote by Cajundaddy
Clue: amplifiers amplify so don't turn it on if you need quiet.
Quote by chrismendiola
I guess spambots are now capable of reading minds.
Last edited by Spambot_2 at Mar 26, 2014,
The difference between what and what, exactly? A poorly recorded Marshall MG and a poorly processed fake MG? And then a modeled Frontman? Are you telling me someone actually bothered to model a Frontman 212?

Sorry, I don't know at all what this survey is going to prove. This is not at all representative of the difference between "real" amps and modeling software. This is like getting kicked in the nuts in a dark room and then asking if it was a right or a left foot.
I guessed 2 on all of them.

1. Not sure how comparing a Marshall MG to any kind of Marshall simulation online is really going to show anything. If any company has bothered to model an MG, then I'd be really surprised. Both clips sound buzzy, the only reason I chose 2 is because it sounds really distant, as if someone were utilizing very poor micing techniques.

2. Chose 2 because it's much less harsh. Could very well be the amp sim here, though. Good clean simulations are pretty hard to tell from a good mic'd amp. I just chose the one that sounded best, but I wouldn't be surprised if the simulation is better than a Frontman...

3. Not even sure how this is a comparison. The first half of the video has gain cranked with a super loose low end and the second half of the video has half the gain and is more distant. Could've easily been the same amp, just recorded once with the gain cranked and bass all the way up and a second time with the gain low

4. I chose 2 because it's far more clear sounding. Again, not necessarily because it sounds like the real amp, but because it just sounds better...
Quote by Dave_Mc
I've had tube amps for a while now, but never actually had any go down on me
Quote by jj1565
maybe you're not saying the right things? an amp likes to know you care.

I wasted my time to listen to the clips. Didn't waste more time comparing shit tone vs shit tone.
Ibanez SIR27
Pod HD500x

Mesa Boogie Roadster 2x12 combo
Cmatmods analog chorus, phaser, tremoglo, signa drive, butah, and deeelay
walrus Audio Descent
I stopped paying attention the moment 'MG100' flashed up.

Marshall MG amps are solid state. Analogue, yes, but solid state. Amp modelling is almost always going to be trying to copy famous valve amplifiers. I've happily used modelling for years and I have never heard of anybody trying to model an MG. Even Marshall themselves have been trying to move the new MG models away from the old MG sound. It's not popular enough to warrent modelling.

I guarantee that whatever Marshall model you select in software will actually be trying to emulate a JCM800, Plexi, 45, JCM900 or Silver Jubilee. Line 6 once tried to model the JCM2000 and they made an arse of it and haven't bothered trying again.

An MG sounds nothing like those amplifiers. So no matter how close or far the software is, it's not going to sound like an MG. In fact, chances are it sounds more like the Marshall tone people like than the MG does...

I'll say this: I once played a show using a Line 6 HD147 set to 'spinal puppet', which is Line 6's own original sound vaguely based off a few modified Marshalls which they 'averaged out'. A local said I needed to get a "real amp", so, having a Marshall DSL100 at home, for the next gig I conducted a small experiment. I stuck the DSL100 on the top of the cab but had the HD147 running hidden behind it, which was the only amp I actually used. Same guy commented on how much better I sounded now that I'd gotten the Marshall. Then I pointed out the Marshall wasn't plugged in and that I was still running through the Line 6.

People hear what they want to hear. In a direct comparison, no, a model rarely sounds exactly like the thing it's copying and you can always tell the difference when playing them side-by-side. But on their own merits? If people hear it and you don't tell them it's digital, nine times out of ten they're not going to tell, especially at gig volumes.
Yes, I know everything. No, I can't play worth a damn.
A child is trafficked and sold for sex slavery every 30 seconds. Support Love146.
I've got my head stuck in a cupboard and my brain hurts.
Gilchrist custom
Yamaha SBG500
Randall RM100 & RM20
Marshall JTM45 clone
Marshall JCM900 4102 (modded)
Marshall 18W clone
Fender 5F1 Champ clone
Atomic Amplifire
Marshall 1960A
Boss GT-100

Cathbard Amplification
My band