Page 1 of 2
#1
So this is from a discussion in a recent thread. I thought it was worth a discussion of its own. Plus Roc told me that in GG&A it's frowned upon to go off of the original topic, even if the discussion naturally heads that way.

So... here we are.

For starters, I will provide you with an overview of the hypothetical modeler in question:

This hypothetical digital amp modeler that will exist in the future with almost 100% certainty (unless the world ends, the Nazis win World War 3, or people stop caring about electric guitars altogether) will be completely identical in every conceivable way to every tube amp you could want while being 10% of the size and weight and a quarter of the cost.

Keep in mind this isn't your high quality modeler of today (Axe-FX, Kemper, Helix) but something that is far ahead of that and many years down the line. Maybe 20 years from now.

I mean its models will be exactly the same as tube amps. Same feel, same sound, same "edge of breakup" whatever, etc. Literally the only difference between this and the genuine article would be that this looks different and the control scheme is different to accommodate the fact that you have hundreds of your favorite tube amps that all have different control schemes.

But that's not all... it does them with increased flexibility. Extra gain on your Bassman? You got it. Two of the second channel on your Power Ball? Sure. A second mid control with adjustable mid frequency on your Triple Rec? Hell, you can have three mid controls.

We are talking something that is 100% subjectively the same in terms of sound and 200% objectively superior in terms of features for a fraction of the cost (of a single high average high end tube amp, mind you). This is a piece of equipment that would make all other guitar amps (tube or SS) obsolete. We're talking the biggest game changer since the advent of modelling and perhaps since the greatest innovation since the invention of amplification.

So now that that has been established, let's talk about you. Would you use it? If you wouldn't, why not?

The reason why I ask is because a couple of people said that they wouldn't use this (in fact one lad said that he would "NEVER" (in all caps) use a digital modeler as his main amp) and they would continue to use their own tube amps and they seemed pretty convinced that many guitarists would likely agree with them.

I wanted to find out for myself if this is indeed the case.
There's no such thing; there never was. Where I am going you cannot follow me now.
#2
Not sure... The fact of the matter is that even if it's perfectly identical to any tube amp you care to mention, a lot, possibly even most, of us would still "hear" a difference. No matter how perfect the properties, there would be infinite dispute on whether it really nails such-and-such tone or "sounds lifeless" or whatever. So yeah, I'm not sure I'd be able to bring myself to see the objective side of things.
Quote by H4T3BR33D3R
Youre officially uber shit now.

Quote by StewieSwan
3d9310rd is far more upset than i 

Quote by Bladez22
I'm a moron tho apparently and everyone should listen to you oh wise pretentious one
#3
yeah why not. I have been a fan of L6 since they introduced the Axis and POD in the late 90's. by todays standards they were not the best, but in their time they were top dogs and they gave you a huge amount of variety in a compact package
2002 PRS CE22
2013 G&L ASAT Deluxe
2009 Epiphone G-400 (SH-4)
Marshall JCM2000 DSL100
Krank 1980 Jr 20watt
Krank Rev 4x12 (eminence V12)
GFS Greenie/Digitech Bad Monkey
Morley Bad Horsie 2
MXR Smart Gate
#4
I think digital amp modele is the future and I am all for it as long as it sounds nearly good as tube I would be happy . . I have tired a few effects boards and the hd500 pod was good but I only really like the sound with head phones in .
#5
sure why not. if the amp could indeed produce tones identical to those amps and have far more flexibility then you'd have to be dumb not to. of course there are always retro folks and that's there thing, which is fine to each his own. of course not everyone defines great tone by some venerable old tube amp. i use a POD for recording my own stuff and it sounds fairly decent but can't duplicate my live tube amp tone. i can get some acceptable tones from it and it is way easier for home recording. if i was trying to record something for commercial purposes then i'd be more inclined to go with my tube amps at this point.

of course this thread assumes a great deal which isn't reality currently. the debate is going by current standards and so far modellers while having come a long way still aren't there yet for certain tones and aspects of playing. this is the current debate so not really a fair comparison.
#6
If such a hypothetical amp existed, sure, I'd give it a go. I'd be interested in an Axe FX already, but the price is way out of my range, and I'm still not convinced their high-gain sounds are as good as some of the tube amps they model.

There's also the factor (and I'm sure I'm not alone in this) that when I have too many options available, all I would do is tweak my tone endlessly and never really sit down and play the guitar for the sake of making new music.
Atmospheric dark metal w/ black and death metal influences:
(My Soundcloud page):

Pestilential Flood
#7
I'd definitely use one in the studio or to see how a particular amp would sound with my setup, but would I own one? Probably not.

There are a few of reason for this:
The tube amps I own are a part of history (already), they are interesting to have around.
I can service, modify and fix them myself and have learnt in the process.
I like how my current amps sound I do not need 100s of presets and immediate tweakability.
This is a weird one but I like to understand exactly how my signal is being processed wherever possible.

And that is assuming the modeler would be exactly the same, I personally don't think you could ever get the same feel and response of each amp from the modeller.

It would be much more interesting if digital amps were being designed to do something different to tube amps rather than just copy them. Something along the lines of what was done with introducing digital VCOs to the modular world. More people would probably buy them if they did something new.
#8
1. It's not 20 years away. Maybe five.

2. Would I use it? Of course. I have half a dozen tube amps in my den and another nine in storage. I've been to Line 6 in Calabasas and seen (and touched) the actual vintage amps they model, but there's no way I want to store and maintain (to say nothing of purchase) all those amps, nor could I haul them around on gigs.

3. Will there still be differences? Maybe. This is like the debate photographers had between film and digital in 1995. At the time, photographers I knew swore they'd always tell the difference between film and digital, and made up all kinds of reasons for it. In about 2005, the crossover happened in a rush for pros. The price of a very good digital camera capable of doing reasonably good pro work was within the reach of pretty much every pro. Whammo, it was a done deal. At that time, there was still a valid case to be made for film being "better" in some respects than "digital." But the practicalities far outweighed any quality differences, and those quality differences weren't apparent to clients and customers. By 2015, "digital" has more range, more detail and far more capabilities than film ever had, and the companies that led the film industry are largely dust.

We've gone well past that 2005/film/digital marker point with modelers at this point. Modelers /modeling amps own the "amateur/beginner" market and command a far higher market share than tube amps. Line 6 has been the largest amp manufacturer for a couple of years now. Within the next five years or so, we'll be at the same point with modelers that we're currently at with digital cameras; it'll be difficult to consider using anything else except as a sort of curiosity or a hipster project.
#9
Theoretically if this all-powerful modeller exists then the only reason not to use it would be ignorance, in a kind of "I prefer my older tech because I just do" way. That or nostalgia, clinging to the "ways of old".

If this hypothetical modeller is objectively better in every conceivable way then I can't think of any other reason not to use it.
#11
Depends on how happy you are because 50% of tone depends on your mood.
Purple string dampener scrunchy.
#12
I'd use it, wouldn't bother me a bit. I'm not nostalgia driven, I like what works. I also don't have magic ears...
“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.”
Charles Darwin
#13
the one thing rarely mentioned is how well will modellers do with original sounds. modelling preexisting amps is great and all but in able to truly move forward their needs to be original tones. no more new tube amps means no more models so this would have to be the course. this may end up to be the one weak point they have but we'll have to see.
#14
There already are amp/distortion pedal models on many multi-fx units that claim to not be based on any real amp, though I don't know how true that is.
There's no such thing; there never was. Where I am going you cannot follow me now.
#15
Quote by theogonia777
There already are amp/distortion pedal models on many multi-fx units that claim to not be based on any real amp, though I don't know how true that is.


but how do they sound is the ?. a generic tone that doesn't sound like any particular amp isn't going to sell many units or change people's mind. granted it would be pretty tough to come up with a distictive model at this point that would induce players to ditch the tried and true favs in favour of the new all digital amp. i'm only talking about amps not fx.
#16
Yes.

"Never would" reminds me of a couple of pro photographers I know who back in '95 or so told me digital cameras would "never" match the quality of film. It didn't take too many more years for Canon to come out with a model that had higher resolution than the best film of the time--with a full 35mm sensor. One of those guys back in the 80s had said that computers would "never" be able to create less pixelated images than NTSC television.

Eventually you'll be able to model anything with more fidelity than possible with the real thing, which ultimately allows you to make it better than the real thing, and certainly cheaper. In the audio world we've been there for a while now...it's just getting more and more mainstream.
#17
Quote by SpeedSterHR
Yes.

"Never would" reminds me of a couple of pro photographers I know who back in '95 or so told me digital cameras would "never" match the quality of film. It didn't take too many more years for Canon to come out with a model that had higher resolution than the best film of the time--with a full 35mm sensor. One of those guys back in the 80s had said that computers would "never" be able to create less pixelated images than NTSC television.

Eventually you'll be able to model anything with more fidelity than possible with the real thing, which ultimately allows you to make it better than the real thing, and certainly cheaper. In the audio world we've been there for a while now...it's just getting more and more mainstream.


good points but not totally accurate. film doesn't have a definitive resolution and digital audio has the same issue as guitar ap modeling in that it can't seem to quite duplicate the warmth of analog.
Last edited by monwobobbo at Oct 3, 2015,
#18
Quote by monwobobbo
good points but not totally accurate. film doesn't have a definitive resolution and digital audio has the same issue as guitar ap modeling in that it can't seem to quite duplicate the warthm of analog.

Yet.
#19
Quote by slapsymcdougal
Yet.


well yeah but that is kinda the point of the thread. perhaps coming soon but not there yet.
#20
Quote by monwobobbo
but how do they sound is the ?. a generic tone that doesn't sound like any particular amp isn't going to sell many units or change people's mind. granted it would be pretty tough to come up with a distictive model at this point that would induce players to ditch the tried and true favs in favour of the new all digital amp. i'm only talking about amps not fx.


Well I don't think that the "new" amps would be the selling point. It would be more the ability to duplicate existing amps with greater flexibility in turns of gain, equalization, etc at a cheaper price and smaller size, thus eliminating the need to buy or transport the real thing. You wouldn't have to decide between amps in either of those situations. You can not only have your cake and eat, but you can have all of the different cakes.

Multi-fx and modelers are popular now due for those reasons. They essentially have almost every advantage over an actual amp with the arguable exception of sound and feel. People are still using their fancy, expensive tube amps because they are not satisfied with the sound and feel of a modeler, which is certainly a viable reason.

But as that gap continues to close and the benefits of a real amp become less significant, there is an ever-increasing shift towards modeling, and this will only continue. Eventually that gap will diminish to the point of being indiscernable and therefore there wouldn't be any practical advantage of rest amps.

Quote by monwobobbo
well yeah but that is kinda the point of the thread. perhaps coming soon but not there yet.


The whole point of this is when it does happen rather than now. A couple of people made claims about not switching to this hypothetical perfect model and continuing to stick with "real" amps and I wanted to see if others would say the same thing or not.

So far the majority seem to be at least open to the idea.
There's no such thing; there never was. Where I am going you cannot follow me now.
Last edited by theogonia777 at Oct 3, 2015,
#21
I don't see a lot of people that have tube amps that are happy with them going out to spend big bucks on a model amp, even if it sounds just as good as a tube amp, many people are already invested in tube amps - pedals that they happy with - . I also think one thing that will push model amps is new bands that use them people will always want to re crate there sound of there favour bands , But I can see a lot of older guys just not bothering and why when your music your playing was played original on tube amps
#22
Quote by monwobobbo
good points but not totally accurate. film doesn't have a definitive resolution and digital audio has the same issue as guitar ap modeling in that it can't seem to quite duplicate the warmth of analog.


Sorry, anyone that claims that lossless digital audio isn't as good as analog is a cork sniffer. The human ear can't tell the difference.
“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.”
Charles Darwin
#23
It's like my older DJ friends. A few still swear by turntables, a mixer, and a huge crate of records. But the rest of them have switched to digital DJ controller setups. There are no records or turntables to transport and the technology is much more flexible. They can do more with less equipment.
There's no such thing; there never was. Where I am going you cannot follow me now.
#24
Quote by Arby911
Sorry, anyone that claims that lossless digital audio isn't as good as analog is a cork sniffer. The human ear can't tell the difference.

How do we know that? When (lossy) digital audio first came out, the exact same argument was used when people complained that it didn't sound like a record. It was sworn up and down that those people were corksniffers and were just fooling themselves into hearing things, but now it's pretty well accepted that it wasn't a perfect reproduction method.

I can't tell a difference personally between lossless and analog, but claims about what we can and can't perceive are often very difficult to prove positively, and seem to imply evidence that doesn't really exist. I don't really disagree with you, I'd just like to know if we have proof...this time.

Quote by theogonia777
So this is from a discussion in a recent thread. I thought it was worth a discussion of its own. Plus Roc told me that in GG&A it's frowned upon to go off of the original topic, even if the discussion naturally heads that way.

Unilaterally derailing a thread with joke or troll posts isn't the same as a discussion changing direction organically.
#25
Quote by monwobobbo
good points but not totally accurate. film doesn't have a definitive resolution and digital audio has the same issue as guitar ap modeling in that it can't seem to quite duplicate the warmth of analog.


Actually, film has a resolution too--there is a finite amount of grains per inch and that directly correlates to digital pixels. Canon's sensors had more dpi than the best films, and that's how they surpassed sharpness of film about a decade ago.

The same goes for audio too. Axe FX, Kemper, and Helix are already high enough fidelity that most people can't hear the difference thru a loud PA or an MP3 recording. Same goes for some of the better VSTs.

Every aspect of a circuit to include the "randomness" you get from tubes can be measured and modeled at higher resolution (sample rates) than the human ear can differentiate from the real thing. Once we achieved high enough sample rates, then the fidelity of the model is only limited by the amount of aspects tested and built into the model to reproduce (temperatures, dynamic responses, tube construction/age/components, etc.)

Don't get me wrong; I still love playing my 100% tube Marshall and none of my modelers give quite the same experience, but my cheap Zoom stuff is close enough that I was able to skip buying a more portable tube amp for travel, and with less than $200 in fx/amplification still get an involuntary smile forced on my face from the rig's response to picking dynamics, harmonics, and feedback at the bleeding edge of controllability.

As far as I know, no one has done blind tests with 30+ guitarists to see if they can tell the difference between playing thru the actual amp used to build models and the models in Axe FX, Kemper, and Helix. It would be interesting to see how many were able to correctly ID what they were playing thru with a statistically significant sample size.

It would also be cool to view HD spectral analysis of the different amps/modelers with a uniform input and recording setup (like if they were all re-amping a dry track through the same cab.)
Last edited by SpeedSterHR at Oct 3, 2015,
#26
I don't know about modelers, but I read about Peavey doing blind tests with the Transtube amps and several (as Peavey put it) "golden eared" producers couldn't tell the difference. I can't say what tube amps they were tested against and can't really say anything else about the validity, but it does mean that people with "golden ears" can be fooled by non-tube amps, and so modelers would likely follow suit.

Quote by Roc8995
Unilaterally derailing a thread with joke replies isn't the same as a discussion changing direction organically.


I rarely make joke posts a d never troll posts and certainly none in that thread. I also have a hard time taking any statement containing the word "unilaterally" seriously, but that's a different story.
There's no such thing; there never was. Where I am going you cannot follow me now.
#27
Quote by dazzzer30
I don't see a lot of people that have tube amps that are happy with them going out to spend big bucks on a model amp, even if it sounds just as good as a tube amp, many people are already invested in tube amps - pedals that they happy with - . I also think one thing that will push model amps is new bands that use them people will always want to re crate there sound of there favour bands , But I can see a lot of older guys just not bothering and why when your music your playing was played original on tube amps


That's anecdotal. Go to the next NAMM show here in Anaheim and pick up the sales numbers for the industry. Also, understand that there aren't very many modeling amps available at the mid or high end yet. Mostly modeling amps are at the low end; beginner stuff.

The modelers themselves are available as "beans" (desk models), rack-mount and floor pedals.

Manufacturers of tube amps aren't producing speaker cabinets appropriate for modelers yet (they don't know how to, honestly). Those are mostly coming from pro audio (PA) and bass cabinet manufacturers (many of whom are building full-range systems for modern bass players).

A whole lot of folks aren't using modelers the way they used to use tube amps anyway. These are going direct into recording computers, direct to earphones, direct into PA mixers and even direct to recording monitors and other powered speakers. The increased versatility and *portability* of a modeler means that a band's guitarist (or bass player) can show up with a modeler, plug it into their PA system at the practice location and go to work. They can then carry it with them (including on public transportation) back home and plug it into their recording monitors. Carting a 50-100W tube head and a speaker cabinet limits you in a lot of ways.

I don't know what bands you've been seeing, but here in LA, a whole LOT of bands are showing up with modelers and running them direct to the board. If you're trying to copy your favorite band's sound, you can't simply run out and buy whatever one-trick-pony amp they're using in their backline and assume you're going to be able to duplicate it. The whole marketing business has shifted.

Ignore whatever 4x12s are stacked behind the band at your favorite club. Those things are there every week as stage decoration. The sound is often being created (and monitored) by the guitarist's buddy on the side of the stage, who's making sure that the proper bank and user preset have been selected, and in fact, he may be doing the selecting, several times per song, so that the guitarist just plays. Journey's guitarist always has about five 4x12s arrayed across the stage (and they're all on, but at relatively low volume), but there are a pair of Axe-FX's running into the PA that are providing his sound to the audience. Orianthi has a guy at the side of the stage poking buttons that change sounds as well. Ignore whatever appears to be cabinets behind her; they're probably holding the drum riser up <G>.

Age really doesn't have much to do with whether someone has a tube amp or a modeler; look how many newbs we have on here who announce that they've finally upgraded to a "real tube amp," because that's what they've read from the other newbs on the forum is "the best to have." Peer acceptance is a big thing with millennials. Facebook likes, Yelp ratings, etc., supplant independent thinking. Every day these forums are replete with people looking to buy whatever the consensus decrees acceptable. Buncha sheep.

If you play pretty much one thing all the time (doesn't matter -- Cahuntry Twang or Death Excrement metal), one amp sound with a pedal or two is likely to do you. Hell, even the logos for metal groups are identically illegible. ONE of these is not like the other:



Same boring scritchy logos, same boring sounds? Being "locked into" a genre *has* to get boring. I love that Party Cannon is completely on its own...

At least a modeler gives you choices. LOTS of choices.
Last edited by dspellman at Oct 3, 2015,
#28
Quote by SpeedSterHR
Actually, film has a resolution too--there is a finite amount of grains per inch and that directly correlates to digital pixels. Canon's sensors had more dpi than the best films, and that's how they surpassed sharpness of film about a decade ago.

The same goes for audio too. Axe FX, Kemper, and Helix are already high enough fidelity that most people can't hear the difference thru a loud PA or an MP3 recording. Same goes for some of the better VSTs.

Every aspect of a circuit to include the "randomness" you get from tubes can be measured and modeled at higher resolution (sample rates) than the human ear can differentiate from the real thing. Once we achieved high enough sample rates, then the fidelity of the model is only limited by the amount of aspects tested and built into the model to reproduce (temperatures, dynamic responses, tube construction/age/components, etc.)

Don't get me wrong; I still love playing my 100% tube Marshall and none of my modelers give quite the same experience, but my cheap Zoom stuff is close enough that I was able to skip buying a more portable tube amp for travel, and with less than $200 in fx/amplification still get an involuntary smile forced on my face from the rig's response to picking dynamics, harmonics, and feedback at the bleeding edge of controllability.

As far as I know, no one has done blind tests with 30+ guitarists to see if they can tell the difference between playing thru the actual amp used to build models and the models in Axe FX, Kemper, and Helix. It would be interesting to see how many were able to correctly ID what they were playing thru with a statistically significant sample size.

It would also be cool to view HD spectral analysis of the different amps/modelers with a uniform input and recording setup (like if they were all re-amping a dry track through the same cab.)


got a number as all of my research has suggested that while film has a theoretical resolution of around 7k that hasn't been proven as definitive.

not sure how the random thing would work for modellers. that is one of the wierd things about tubes is that one day your amp sounds awesome and the next without touching a thing it just sounds kinda meh.

ARBY i was reffering to the warmth associated with analog not actual sound quality. i'll freely admit to not having a sound system that can take advantage to the full quality lossless provides. to me a CD on a good system sound great and way better than the records of my youth.
#29
Quote by Roc8995
How do we know that? When (lossy) digital audio first came out, the exact same argument was used when people complained that it didn't sound like a record. It was sworn up and down that those people were corksniffers and were just fooling themselves into hearing things, but now it's pretty well accepted that it wasn't a perfect reproduction method.


Maybe more to the point, when CDs came out many people stated they preferred records because they sounded "better". Now we know it's the aural imperfections inherent in record players that some people preferred. Kind of like how most electric guitarists prefer some distortion rather than being limited to pure clean amplification. Tubes do that nicely. And it is physically possible to model anything in your signal chain. The only limits are how much time and money you want to put into it.

It's similar for analog tape recording in studios verses digital recording. That's why professional tape emulator VSTs exist.

I haven't seen record player emulators, but it wouldn't be difficult to model any record player and every needle ever made, model the damage each play creates, and even model the effects materials and thickness of the records itself have on the sound. Then you could have fun fooling the cork sniffing vinyl enthusiasts. I'd be a little surprised if no one has already published a record player modeler app for people forced to listen to music thru their iPhones.

We also have the science to prove all this with experiments. Unfortunately, these questions don't seem to matter enough to justify funding the research.
#30
Quote by SpeedSterHR


As far as I know, no one has done blind tests with 30+ guitarists to see if they can tell the difference between playing thru the actual amp used to build models and the models in Axe FX, Kemper, and Helix. It would be interesting to see how many were able to correctly ID what they were playing thru with a statistically significant sample size.


We've done *small* samples on a very informal basis, sometimes after hours at guitar shows and amp shows. Nothing very grandiose. We figured out that some were detecting what was what by figuring out where the sound was coming from. So we miked everything tube and ran everything through the same set of pro audio speakers. At that point, the "golden ears" folks dropped right into statistical probability with the rest. Again, however, a very small sample size, so I can't really claim anything one way or the other.
#31
Quote by SpeedSterHR
Maybe more to the point, when CDs came out many people stated they preferred records because they sounded "better". Now we know it's the aural imperfections inherent in record players that some people preferred. Kind of like how most electric guitarists prefer some distortion rather than being limited to pure clean amplification. Tubes do that nicely. And it is physically possible to model anything in your signal chain. The only limits are how much time and money you want to put into it.

It's similar for analog tape recording in studios verses digital recording. That's why professional tape emulator VSTs exist.

I haven't seen record player emulators, but it wouldn't be difficult to model any record player and every needle ever made, model the damage each play creates, and even model the effects materials and thickness of the records itself have on the sound. Then you could have fun fooling the cork sniffing vinyl enthusiasts. I'd be a little surprised if no one has already published a record player modeler app for people forced to listen to music thru their iPhones.

We also have the science to prove all this with experiments. Unfortunately, these questions don't seem to matter enough to justify funding the research.

I think this is very important - it is technologically possible to model those imperfections, but the entire difficulty is doing it well enough to be convincing. 10 years ago we were wondering when computing power would make it feasible to model with high enough resolution, and we seem to be there. The actual modeling, on the other hand, is a lot harder. I don't agree that it "wouldn't be difficult" to model all of those things, given how hard it seems to be to model amps. It turns out that adding imperfections is harder than increasing resolution. We're very good at hi-fidelity digital, reproducing lower fidelity systems appears tricky. I think we're getting there but it's harder than just "add in more imperfections."


Quote by theogonia777
I rarely make joke posts a d never troll posts and certainly none in that thread. I also have a hard time taking any statement containing the word "unilaterally" seriously, but that's a different story.

Your posts are frequently shitty or vaguely confrontational and not in line with the tone of the rest of this forum, and tend to start arguments because of it. You may not want to post any more in GG&A if you can't tell why you're causing issues, and if you want to keep using the rest of the site.
#32
Quote by dspellman
I love that Party Cannon is completely on its own...


I know that it is a Toys'R'Us thing, but it reminds me how much i hate faux Cyrillic shit. That actually should be pronounced Rajatu Saiioi (although they used N instead of И, but it's more fun to pretend they did use И.
There's no such thing; there never was. Where I am going you cannot follow me now.
#33
Quote by monwobobbo
got a number as all of my research has suggested that while film has a theoretical resolution of around 7k that hasn't been proven as definitive.

not sure how the random thing would work for modellers. that is one of the wierd things about tubes is that one day your amp sounds awesome and the next without touching a thing it just sounds kinda meh.

ARBY i was reffering to the warmth associated with analog not actual sound quality. i'll freely admit to not having a sound system that can take advantage to the full quality lossless provides. to me a CD on a good system sound great and way better than the records of my youth.


I don't have a number; your 7k figure sounds about right. I'm not going to split hairs about "theoretical resolution"...the point is film lost the war by a large margin a long time ago. IIRC, the second generation of 35mm sensors were the first to beat film. Of course, that is just resolution (which was all both those photographers were talking about). Color reproduction is impacted by Beyer filters, but clearly in the last decade the industry has found ways to compensate for that too. And now that we have resolution beat so bad, we can reproduce any of the artsy limitations of film and traditional development and printing techniques and technologies with digital processing.

Similar principles apply to all modeling and simulation. Once you have the capability to reproduce resolution exceeding the audience's ability to discern (pixels, sample rates, frames per second, g-forces, mass, viscosity, drag, etc.) then it's just a matter of how many variables you want to include, what range of testing for each variable, and their relationships to each other and to external variables, that drives the fidelity of your model.

It can be more difficult to make the real thing consistent enough for humans to perceive the item as high quality than it is to make a model capable of fooling humans that it's the real thing.

If you have the resolution to reproduce audio processing accurately, then you can reproduce "warmth". Warmth can feel magical, but it's not actual magic--it is measurable and accurately emulatable. It's an important part of the accuracy that had not previously been given enough attention.
#34
Quote by monwobobbo
got a number as all of my research has suggested that while film has a theoretical resolution of around 7k that hasn't been proven as definitive.


I have everything from 35mm cameras through Hasseys and Pentax67s and Sinar 4x5 and 8x10s and even a DearDorff 11x14 Commercial (pull up a truck, I'll be happy to unload some of this stuff).

The finest grain films still have grain, and at around 25 MP (for, say a 35mm PanX B&W film), a digital scanner can image the grain itself. The larger the film, the thicker the substrate, and you actually have less resolving power (lines per millimeter) with the same film in a larger size (though you have more millimeters to work with). The real problem with film and larger formats is that the lenses themselves don't have (nor did they need) the resolving power. New lenses have been developed (and are in the works) for digital sensors. Put an old, sharp Nikon film lens on a current 36MP Nikon D810 and then swap it out for one of the new ones specially designed for digital, and the difference is instantly apparent. Put that shiny new lens on an old film camera and shoot film? Almost no difference. Film can't image what that lens is layin' down.

All that said, you can easily duplicate film results at around 25MP for 35mm film, 75 MP (or so) for 2 1/4 square and about 150MP for 4x5. I was shooting double-page spreads on a single-shot Dicomed Bigshot 4000 in 1997 -- it was a 4K x 4K (16 MP) back. Shooting 4-shot and 16-shot stills (nothing moves) on an older Phase/Hassey 16MP back produces stunning resolution, and we've gone WAY past film resolution using scanbacks on 4x5 cameras. They've had to develop new lenses to accommodate them; they were never necessary for film.
#35
Quote by Roc8995
It turns out that adding imperfections is harder than increasing resolution. We're very good at hi-fidelity digital, reproducing lower fidelity systems appears tricky. I think we're getting there but it's harder than just "add in more imperfections."


Huge amounts of money were spent getting computer animation to have a film look. More importantly, to be able to match the film on which the rest of live action was being shot. The film chain for CG was stamping out pristine imagery, but film had all these quirks that needed to be incorporated. As with most things computer, once a thing is done expensively, it eventually becomes cheap and even commonplace, and that's the case now. But you would NOT believe the screaming and hairpulling arguments that went on that digital would NEVER be indistinguishable from film. Now it's a mouseclick.

Modeling is on its way; it's mostly just a pricepoint and demand thing. Keyboards now do entire orchestras and soundtracks; guitar has lagged only because manufacturers haven't felt the kick in the pants yet.
#36
Quote by SpeedSterHR
If you have the resolution to reproduce audio processing accurately, then you can reproduce "warmth". Warmth can feel magical, but it's not actual magic--it is measurable and accurately emulatable. It's an important part of the accuracy that had not previously been given enough attention.

It certainly hasn't been given enough attention. How do you measure warmth? The emulation I can mostly understand, but I wonder how we go about measuring and quantifying imperfections in multiple dimensions. I also wonder, if it can be accurately emulated, why one of the biggest complaints about modeling is that it lacks the warmth of a good analog amp.
#37
Quote by dspellman
I have everything from 35mm cameras through Hasseys and Pentax67s and Sinar 4x5 and 8x10s and even a DearDorff 11x14 Commercial (pull up a truck, I'll be happy to unload some of this stuff)...


I knew the cavalry had arrived when I saw "dspellman" on the left side of the screen a few posts ago!

And yeah, LA venues definitely don't appreciate 100w tube amps and 4x12s. Even if you have a master volume and a direct out on the back of the amp. They still prefer MFX direct to PA.
#38
Quote by Roc8995
It certainly hasn't been given enough attention. How do you measure warmth? The emulation I can mostly understand, but I wonder how we go about measuring and quantifying imperfections in multiple dimensions. I also wonder, if it can be accurately emulated, why one of the biggest complaints about modeling is that it lacks the warmth of a good analog amp.

Because the tubes give off more heat than transistors?


*rimshot*
#39
Mathematically, a perfect digital emulation of a tube amp is impossible. But we can get infinitely closer. We will always be able to make it more accurate, all the time, but by constantly shrinking degrees, so that we can never, ever emulate it perfectly. And when we have a digital emulator that nails any tube amp tone 99.999999999% accurate, people will insist it sounds lifeless and just can't emulate that real tube tone. Guitarists are really a stubborn lot. Anyway, I would totally use it. I've gone full digital myself. Line 6 is shit, and I can't possibly afford Axe FX, but the Blackstar ID series is a serious game changer. It sounds, and feels, like a fucking tube amp. Like many, many tube amps, actually.
#40
Quote by dspellman
I have everything from 35mm cameras through Hasseys and Pentax67s and Sinar 4x5 and 8x10s and even a DearDorff 11x14 Commercial (pull up a truck, I'll be happy to unload some of this stuff).

The finest grain films still have grain, and at around 25 MP (for, say a 35mm PanX B&W film), a digital scanner can image the grain itself. The larger the film, the thicker the substrate, and you actually have less resolving power (lines per millimeter) with the same film in a larger size (though you have more millimeters to work with). The real problem with film and larger formats is that the lenses themselves don't have (nor did they need) the resolving power. New lenses have been developed (and are in the works) for digital sensors. Put an old, sharp Nikon film lens on a current 36MP Nikon D810 and then swap it out for one of the new ones specially designed for digital, and the difference is instantly apparent. Put that shiny new lens on an old film camera and shoot film? Almost no difference. Film can't image what that lens is layin' down.

All that said, you can easily duplicate film results at around 25MP for 35mm film, 75 MP (or so) for 2 1/4 square and about 150MP for 4x5. I was shooting double-page spreads on a single-shot Dicomed Bigshot 4000 in 1997 -- it was a 4K x 4K (16 MP) back. Shooting 4-shot and 16-shot stills (nothing moves) on an older Phase/Hassey 16MP back produces stunning resolution, and we've gone WAY past film resolution using scanbacks on 4x5 cameras. They've had to develop new lenses to accommodate them; they were never necessary for film.


nice old school photo gear i had some of that stuff years ago as well. not disputing any of this as i said i do research into this due to interest in blu-ray and tvs mostly at this point. camera on my phone gets used more than actual phto equipment these days . i'm sure with my crappy eyes we're way past the point where it matters to me. i've looked at 4k tvs and honestly unless its a way huge screen i don't see much difference (no way my wife is gonna allow a 90" tv ). all the imperfections of the old godzilla movies i love are more than appearent in 1080p as it is .

all for modeling once it gets to the point where i can afford it and it can give my tube amps a run for their money.
Page 1 of 2