Page 1 of 3
#1
Maybe kind of a part two to my "Would the guitar sound different if tubes were not invented" thread.

Going closer to modern times in history, solid state amps were invented to give us freedom from tube amplification, yeah? As in, not having to replace tubes, avoiding compression, boosted reliability, etc. Not specifically for guitarists but for amplification in general.

But SS amps were made for guitarists for those same reasons. Except I think, at the time, the sound of an electric guitar was already solidified in our ears by tube amps. So for the most guitarists that sounded good used tube amps. But of course SS still had a presence in the market and did not die out. And now SS amps are just as common, or even more common, among guitar players then tube amps are. And I use the term "guitar players" as including at-home youngin's who do not know any better. I would say a professional sound comes from what a tube amp (or nice modeling) does, but that at-home players do not need that kind of sound.

Yes, then comes modeling. It seems (to me at least) that most companies are done trying to make pure SS sound good and trying to produce modeling amps. Of course the SS nature still shines through the amp, but it is SS modeling tube. Except Marshall, they need to give up their MG game. I guess they are "modeling" their flagship amps but do not do too great a job at it for a keen ear.

So I am curious if, in regards to guitar amps, Solid State is really going to become just the term for how modeling amps are amplified. In that case, Solid State amps will cease to be considered almost always garbage and the amp will be judged by its modeling capabilities. Amp companies will stop producing SS amps with their own relatively shoddy voicing, it will be a tube-simulated voicing in a SS package.

Of course I think there will still be the low-low end practice amps that will stay somewhat the same. But higher-up models will have some sort of modeling. And it is apparently not very expensive to get reasonably good modeling technology. The VOX VX series is silly cheap, and from what I understand they are reasonably good for the money. So now at-home youngin's who do not know any better can have a tube-emulating SS amp and have a reasonably nice sound, avoiding the real "SS sound"

tl;dr will modeling be mostly replacing how we know the "SS sound" to sound?
Last edited by Will Lane at Nov 17, 2015,
#2
What's wrong with avoiding the "SS sound"? It was never good enough to be worth defending, nor was it designed to sound good in the first place. You use the best amp you can afford. I'm not sure I understand the question.
#3
Quote by Will Lane

Going closer to modern times in history, solid state amps were invented to give us freedom from tube amplification, yeah? As in, not having to replace tubes, avoiding compression, boosted reliability, etc. Not specifically for guitarists but for amplification in general.


You're missing a sense of history. Solid state allows much more amplification in a much lighter, smaller, lower distortion, lower heat output, reduced delicacy and much less expensive package. For example, I have a 9 lb 1500W amp that has 15X the power and 1/10th the THD of a 100W tube amp. Costs a bit over $300.


Quote by Will Lane

But SS amps were made for guitarists for those same reasons. Except I think, at the time, the sound of an electric guitar was already solidified in our ears by tube amps. So for the most guitarists that sounded good used tube amps.


Nah, not so much. I have a 1971 Carvin amp that offers 275W into a pair of 15" Altec Lansings in a ported cabinet alongside a mids/HF tweeter. Guitarists that sounded good were already using solid state amps, including from Kustom, Acoustic, Standel, Vox and others, and special effects were already being incorporated into them (the Vox Super Beatle was solid state, had built-in fuzz and three different levels of mid boost (as I dimly recall)). Cheap tubes from the Soviet Bloc saved tube amp manufacturers, who marketed the bejeesus out of them.

Quote by Will Lane
Yes, then comes modeling. It seems (to me at least) that most companies are done trying to make pure SS sound good and trying to produce modeling amps. Of course the SS nature still shines through the amp, but it is SS modeling tube. Except Marshall, they need to give up their MG game. I guess they are "modeling" their flagship amps but do not do too great a job at it for a keen ear.


That's a bunch of happy horseshit. There are circuits that will make dedicated solid state guitar amps sound good in the distortion phase of things, and that would mean "at least as good as a tube amp" in that department. And they're not modeling at all. There's nothing about an "SS nature" that "still shines through the amp." Buffalo dung.

Quote by Will Lane
So I am curious if, in regards to guitar amps, Solid State is really going to become just the term for how modeling amps are amplified. In that case, Solid State amps will cease to be considered almost always garbage and the amp will be judged by its modeling capabilities. Amp companies will stop producing SS amps with their own relatively shoddy voicing, it will be a tube-simulated voicing in a SS package.


That's a clueless rendering of things.
Solid state amplification doesn't have a specific sound. It's merely amplification, and that's as it should be. And it's been that way since the '60's. Every concert you've ever heard live has been delivered via solid state components designed to produce NO change and to offer NO coloration and to amplify to very high levels without imparting its own sound.
The same was true of tube amplification as well (and still is, if you're an audiophile with dedicated tube amps). There are lots of tube amps out there that were designed to NOT impart distortion within their operating parameters. By and large, it's not the power sections of these amplifiers that change the sound, but the preamp sections.

And here's where the "clueless" part comes in.

I have several preamps. One is a Mesa Triaxis, a tube preamp (five 12 AX7s) that's designed to produce the sounds of several different designs of Mesa guitar amps. Another is a borrowed Egnater M4, which has modules (Bruce also licensed this technology to Randall), each of which mimics a different amp tone stack (Marshall, Fender, etc.). A third preamp is a Carvin Quad-X, a preamp with four channels, active controls, nine 12AX7 tubes and different levels of gain structure (up to eleven gain stages). Each of these preamps can be run into either tube or solid state power amps or direct to recording gear. And they will sound pretty much the same at the other end. These are what "modeling" was 20-25 years ago.

Here's the reverse of that situation: I have three Atomic Reactor tube-powered (EL84s and 6L6's) speakers. I can run any of those previous three preamps into these cabinets to have one complete 18W or 50W setup. But these were designed to adapt Line 6 Pod "beans," and.or desktop modelers from M-Audio, Behringer and Vox via a hot-swappable bay that makes all electrical connections, to produce the equivalent of a combo amp that can be carried into a gig, plugged in, a guitar connected, the ON switch thrown and played. The original thought was that the tube power amp would "warm up" the modelers. What changed both the tube preamps and the modelers wasn't the tube amp component, but the speakers and the cabinet. I tested that. I have full range speaker cabinets and a Carvin TS100 rack-mount tube power amp. Plugged both tube preamps and modelers into that rig and listened critically. Then I switched to a 1500W solid state power amp. Same preamps, modelers, speaker cabinets. No significant differences. Neither the tube power amp nor the solid state power amp influenced the sound. And that's as it should be.

I hear all the comments about the differences in "feel" and all that, between some modelers and some tube amps. Honestly, if there's a very critical component of either one that you can't live without, then you've found your nirvana and go that direction. I remember the arguments (still ongoing, but at a much lower noise level) between CD proponents and vinyl devotees.

Quote by Will Lane
will modeling be mostly replacing how we know the "SS sound" to sound?


There is, ideally, no "SS sound." Modeling, sampling, synthesis and simulation are replacing a wide variety of analog components including tubes. This is an evolution that happened long ago with keyboard players, some of whom whined that an electronic keyboard could never EVER replace a Wurlitzer or a Hammond or a Steinway or a high-end Yamaha, Bosendorfer Bechsteins, etc. and of course it's a long-since-done deal.

Modeling is just a beginning -- it's the key that unlocks the guitar from the tight little box that it's been in. There are those who think that tube distortion and relatively low-fidelity 12" speakers in clunky wooden cabinets define guitar sound. Hell, even an acoustic guitar needs better quality than that to reproduce it's native sound. What we use now was invented nearly 70 years ago and popularized by a generation that's moving into retirement at a rate of 10,000 people per day. It's not as good as it gets. But it's not going to get good until we get OVER it.

"SS Sound" is just a buzzword, not a thing.
#4
Quote by dspellman

I hear all the comments about the differences in "feel" and all that, between some modelers and some tube amps. Honestly, if there's a very critical component of either one that you can't live without, then you've found your nirvana and go that direction. I remember the arguments (still ongoing, but at a much lower noise level) between CD proponents and vinyl devotees.


I'm still wondering when you might take up the challenge offered so long ago?
“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.”
Charles Darwin
#5
Dspellman is right. When you go to a huge concert what do you think is driving the array of speakers hanging overhead or the monitors on stage or the side fill cabinets? Here's a hint, it isn't a couple racks of tube amps. Solid state components are very good at processing high output signals without coloring the sound (leave that up to the room acoustics and the sound engineer). Tube amps tend to color the sound somewhat and that's why players like one particular amp more than another because that amps circuit colors the sound in way that suits the style of music they play.

If you are a fan of tube amps and it fits the style of music you play great. I suspect you are basing your opinion on a particular genre of music and not considering that a clean solid state amp might be better for someone playing another style. Personally I use two VOX VT amps and I'm very happy with the sound because I often need to have a very clean sound and it works for me. While my amps contain lots of modeling technology I often leave it loud and clean and use a few pedals and compressor to dirty it up.
Yes I am guitarded also, nice to meet you.
Last edited by Rickholly74 at Nov 17, 2015,
#6
Quote by Rickholly74
Dspellman is right. When you go to a huge concert what do you think is driving the array of speakers hanging overhead or the monitors on stage or the side fill cabinets? Here's a hint, it isn't a couple racks of tube amps.


Was this ever actually a question?
“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.”
Charles Darwin
#7
No. I think it was a bit of an off target rant about solid state amps not being as good as tube amps. I think that's what it was all about. I could be wrong. It happens.
Yes I am guitarded also, nice to meet you.
#8
The thing with modeling is that you can cram a lot of solid state components in computer sized control boards.

You could have all analog solid state modeling, Sansamp did it with the PSA-1, but it is expensive. So the preferred method is to cram everything in a small circuit board that is much easier to produce.

The quality usually suffers as the signal path is miniscule and there are a lot of filter levels and A/D and D/A conversions, but it is all matter of design, thus some manufacturers have fared better.

BTW, SS amplification continues, now they are on Class D SS amps:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class-D_amplifier
#9
Quote by diabolical
The thing with modeling is that you can cram a lot of solid state components in computer sized control boards.

You could have all analog solid state modeling, Sansamp did it with the PSA-1, but it is expensive. So the preferred method is to cram everything in a small circuit board that is much easier to produce.

The quality usually suffers as the signal path is miniscule and there are a lot of filter levels and A/D and D/A conversions, but it is all matter of design, thus some manufacturers have fared better.

BTW, SS amplification continues, now they are on Class D SS amps:


They have existed since the 60's.
“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.”
Charles Darwin
#10
Seriously, if you can't get over it - just get something like a Tech 21 Trademark 60 - an all-analog solid state 'modelling' amp and replace the speakers. The speakers in ss are usually crap and contribute to the little headroom they already have. The Tech 21 had Celestion 70/80 - probably one of the worst speakers on the market. I replaced mine with an Eminence Tonker and the headroom is fantastic - I no longer have to crank up the amp to get distortion and for it to start clipping.
Or get a really high watt solid state for even more headroom - I think Tech 21 used to do 300w head.
You can stick something like a Tube Grant Fidelity tube processor in the fx loop if you want the tube sound.
Can't really complain the sound on this - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEtOzvK9CCs
#11
Quote by Rickholly74
Dspellman is right. When you go to a huge concert what do you think is driving the array of speakers hanging overhead or the monitors on stage or the side fill cabinets? Here's a hint, it isn't a couple racks of tube amps.
Quote by Arby911
Was this ever actually a question?
No, it was not ever part of my question, which was more like a thought anyway. I was not pitting all SS amps against all tube amps. But my thought was directed at guitar amps, SS or Tube, with modeling in the mix. The future of SS amps vs. Tube in terms of amplification in most modern systems is already here. SS amps win.
Quote by Rickholly74
No. I think it was a bit of an off target rant about solid state amps not being as good as tube amps. I think that's what it was all about. I could be wrong. It happens.
Quote by sashki
What's wrong with avoiding the "SS sound"? It was never good enough to be worth defending, nor was it designed to sound good in the first place. You use the best amp you can afford. I'm not sure I understand the question.
I do not think you understand it, no. I am wondering if companies are going to stop trying to make SS amps sound good on their own as a contender against tube amps and go down the path of modeling.
Quote by dspellman
That's a bunch of happy horseshit. There are circuits that will make dedicated solid state guitar amps sound good in the distortion phase of things, and that would mean "at least as good as a tube amp" in that department. And they're not modeling at all. There's nothing about an "SS nature" that "still shines through the amp." Buffalo dung.
I said that SS amps are almost always garbage. But maybe I should not say garbage. Maybe a better term is "not as good", relative to tube amps which most experienced guitar players prefer in sound. There are good SS amps, but most of the ones are not good. Again, relatively not good. But this is not a SS vs. Tube thread. Really it is a SS vs. Modeling thread. And from there, Modeling VS. Tube.
Quote by dspellman
There is, ideally, no "SS sound.""SS Sound" is just a buzzword, not a thing.
You are right. For guitars, SS amps are really up to the designer for what they will sound like. And of course tube amps have a lot to do with sound outside of just the tubes. But keep in mind I am talking generally here. I am just asking if modeling will take over the competitive, alternative nature to tube amps as SS amps once did.

Here is another way of looking at it, and lets go with modeling devices as well, not just amps: Modeling devices are SS equipment just as much as SS amps are. By that I mean both are not tube amps. Of course Modeling amps and devices might have a tube in but most of what happens is in the modeling programs. And the way the SS circuitry is laid out can vary. But both are not tube amps.

So modeling devices model good sounding amps, mostly tube amps. SS amps (at least the ones I am talking about, the ones that do not model) try to sound good in their own respect. And often those SS amps do not sound good in their own respect, again that is relative. But modeling is getting progressively more advanced and is relatively cheap/around the same price point compared to those SS amps. So I am suggesting that those SS guitar amps might would be replaced with modeling, for the same reasons that SS sound system amps were to replace tube sound system amps. Those reasons worked for sound systems and the like, but guitarists were not happy because they felt like they lost their tone. But now modeling is giving guitarists their tone, all with the benefits of a SS amp compared to tube.
Last edited by Will Lane at Nov 17, 2015,
#12
Most solid state aren't up to par with tube amps - for guitar. Solid state PA's at shows are irrelevant to this discussion as they aren't guitar amps. There are some noteworthy solid state amps that have been used over the years - BB King used a Lab Series some for a while, Dimebag Darrell used Randalls, a lot of jazz players used Polytone's quite a bit. However, they are really exceptions - most professionals use tube amps, and they use them for a reason - the tone.

That being said, Digital amps on the lower end of the spectrum are vastly superior to the lower end solid state amps we had to deal with in the 80's and 90's, which were atrocious - I'm looking at you Peavey! You can get a decent modelling amp at cheap prices today that smokes what we had access to within our budgets back then.

I think modelling or some version of that ( i.e. Kemper) is eventually going to overtake tube amps in tone, at least I'm hoping. We aren't there yet however.

I would generally agree with the basic premise of the OP - Solid State guitar amps are being rendered obsolete by modelling amps.
#13
interesting thread. when you get down to it modellers are (with some exceptions of course) really solid state amps. the path to better reproducing tube amp sounds is done with the modeling instead of other circuits that have proven less effective (for the most part). SS was a result of adapting current tech to guitar amps and modelling is the same. it appears that this time it will be more successful that previous attempts. while some SS amps were able to get fairly decent results in terms of distortion and warmth they weren't successful enough to topple tubes. modelling may well be the tube killer. if nothing else it does give acess to way better sounds on the lower end of the price range.
#14
Quote by monwobobbo
interesting thread. when you get down to it modellers are (with some exceptions of course) really solid state amps. the path to better reproducing tube amp sounds is done with the modeling instead of other circuits that have proven less effective (for the most part). SS was a result of adapting current tech to guitar amps and modelling is the same. it appears that this time it will be more successful that previous attempts. while some SS amps were able to get fairly decent results in terms of distortion and warmth they weren't successful enough to topple tubes. modelling may well be the tube killer. if nothing else it does give acess to way better sounds on the lower end of the price range.


I suspect modeling will get "there" eventually, and it's very close now, although it's not as close as some here would have you believe.

I'm supportive though, anything that makes great tone more available to more people is bound to result in more great music (although perhaps correspondingly more crap as well).
“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.”
Charles Darwin
#15
Quote by Arby911
I suspect modeling will get "there" eventually, and it's very close now, although it's not as close as some here would have you believe.

I'm supportive though, anything that makes great tone more available to more people is bound to result in more great music (although perhaps correspondingly more crap as well).


oh yeah i totally agree. modelling has improved and even my POD XT gets pretty decent results at least for recording purposes. it doesn't match my tube amps but still decent. in a few more years i'm sure that it will be close enough for all but the most die hard tube devotees. and yes affordable good tone will result in more music that at least doesn't suck due to tone.
#16
I think modelling is at about the same stage as say, sax on a synth. You can play sax on a synth well enough to fool most people but an actual sax can be played in a way that leaves no doubt that it wasn't a synth.
So yeah, a decent modeler will be good enough in some cases but thy still can't do this:
http://cathbard.com/files/sibly.mp3

Prove me wrong. Really, I'd like to be proven wrong. Talk is cheap, I need evidence, not rhetoric.

As for modelling vs SS. You guys do realise that the Peavey Vyper does all its modeling is pure analog SS tech don't you?
Gilchrist custom
Yamaha SBG500
Telecasters
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
#17
Quote by Cathbard
I think modelling is at about the same stage as say, sax on a synth. You can play sax on a synth well enough to fool most people but an actual sax can be played in a way that leaves no doubt that it wasn't a synth.
So yeah, a decent modeler will be good enough in some cases but thy still can't do this:
http://cathbard.com/files/sibly.mp3

Prove me wrong. Really, I'd like to be proven wrong. Talk is cheap, I need evidence, not rhetoric.

As for modelling vs SS. You guys do realise that the Peavey Vyper does all its modeling is pure analog SS tech don't you?


+1. i also want to see somebody prove cath wrong.

i don't think you can find a modeler that will sound close to my 18w or 5f1 builds.
WTLT 2014 GG&A

Quote by andersondb7
alright "king of the guitar forum"


Quote by trashedlostfdup
nope i am "GOD of the guitar forum" i think that fits me better.


Quote by andersondb7
youre just being a jerk man.



****** NEW NEW NEW!
2017-07-07 2017-07-07 Update and a Chat On Noise Constraints *** NEW FRIDAY 7/7
2017-04-13 RUN AWAY from COMPUTERS!!! TCE? RANT ALERT!!!
2017-03-02 - Guitar Philosophy 1001- Be Prepared For the Situation (Thursday 2017-03-02)
2017-02-21 How to Hot-Rod the Hell of your Stratocaster for $50! (Tuesday 2017-2-21)
Resentments and Rambling from a Guitar Junkie
---> http://trashedengineering.blogspot.com/
#18
That was done on one of my 18W'ers but my JTM45 can produce the same sorts of results, just at higher volume.
Gilchrist custom
Yamaha SBG500
Telecasters
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
#19
Quote by Cathbard
That was done on one of my 18W'ers but my JTM45 can produce the same sorts of results, just at higher volume.


My JTM45 is down at the moment.
WTLT 2014 GG&A

Quote by andersondb7
alright "king of the guitar forum"


Quote by trashedlostfdup
nope i am "GOD of the guitar forum" i think that fits me better.


Quote by andersondb7
youre just being a jerk man.



****** NEW NEW NEW!
2017-07-07 2017-07-07 Update and a Chat On Noise Constraints *** NEW FRIDAY 7/7
2017-04-13 RUN AWAY from COMPUTERS!!! TCE? RANT ALERT!!!
2017-03-02 - Guitar Philosophy 1001- Be Prepared For the Situation (Thursday 2017-03-02)
2017-02-21 How to Hot-Rod the Hell of your Stratocaster for $50! (Tuesday 2017-2-21)
Resentments and Rambling from a Guitar Junkie
---> http://trashedengineering.blogspot.com/
#20
Quote by Cathbard
I think modelling is at about the same stage as say, sax on a synth. You can play sax on a synth well enough to fool most people but an actual sax can be played in a way that leaves no doubt that it wasn't a synth.
So yeah, a decent modeler will be good enough in some cases but thy still can't do this:
http://cathbard.com/files/sibly.mp3

Prove me wrong. Really, I'd like to be proven wrong. Talk is cheap, I need evidence, not rhetoric.

As for modelling vs SS. You guys do realise that the Peavey Vyper does all its modeling is pure analog SS tech don't you?


nice playing, excellent tone. i'm thinking that maybe Axe-Fx may be able to get close enough but most of us don't have the cash for one. i'm prety happy with using the POD for easy recording but there are times when i grumble a little cuz i know my amps respond better and have that little extra natural breakup that so far has eluded models.
#21
The only AxeFX's I've heard were far less than impressive - but it could have been operator error. But I didn't mind at all because it made my RM100 sound so much better in comparison.
Gilchrist custom
Yamaha SBG500
Telecasters
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
#22
In terms of getting as close as possible to the "tube sound" I think the Kemper may have it. The Axe is awesome and it has some advantages over the Kemper, but I'm thinking the Kemper is the one to be able to meet Caths challenge.

As far modeling being the new SS or whatever, I see it going further than that, to the point that analog amplifiers are eventually a niche market and all practical applications will be done with digital modeling tech.
I'm just a kickin' and a gougin' in the mud and the blood and the beer.
#23
That challenge was first posted three years ago. Nobody's posted anything that even comes close yet.
Come on you modeling fanbois - it's time to step up.
Gilchrist custom
Yamaha SBG500
Telecasters
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
#24
To be honest, I don't think that the vast majority of folks are overly concern with getting that degree of response. Hell, I've had many TUBE amps that can't be that responsive. I'd like to give it a whack if I get my hands on one of the better modellers, but only to see if I can, not really because I need that.
I'm just a kickin' and a gougin' in the mud and the blood and the beer.
#25
True but let's face it, if you can't model a tube amp with a single preamp tube then you're missing the mark aren't you? "I can model tube amps that have no dynamics" is no claim to fame IMO.
Gilchrist custom
Yamaha SBG500
Telecasters
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
#26
I think there is some space between "no dynamics at all" and "most dynamic amp of all time"

I get what you're saying, I do, and it may be that modellers and digital amps NEVER get to that degree of replication. Still, if there is a device that will let me have almost all of the tube tone with just the most subtle points missing, I imagine that most people won't think twice about buying it if it's better in most every way (lighter, cheaper, practically no maintenance, etc.)

We aren't to the point where digital is all those things necessarily (mostly the cheaper in the case of the good ones) but it's coming I think.

Not that tube amps are going to all be abandoned. There will always be folks like you that won't settle for anything but the absolute most responsive equipment, the "real deal." Still others will want them because, well, tube amps are cool and badass. It's hard for a modeller to feel sexy the same way a tube amp can
I'm just a kickin' and a gougin' in the mud and the blood and the beer.
#27
Quote by Arby911
I'm still wondering when you might take up the challenge offered so long ago?


Unlikely, even if I get bored. It's pointless, after all, because matching a particular tube amp exactly isn't anything I care about. It's like the guys standing next to their bosendorfers and challenging electronic keyboards to match some tiny aspect of it that they think is the defining element. Further, it's even more pointless to match a recorded, compressed and modified youtube or MP3 -- any test would have to be against the thing itself. And then it would still depend on how it was presented in the room, etc.
#28
Quote by dspellman
Unlikely, even if I get bored. It's pointless, after all, because matching a particular tube amp exactly isn't anything I care about. It's like the guys standing next to their bosendorfers and challenging electronic keyboards to match some tiny aspect of it that they think is the defining element. Further, it's even more pointless to match a recorded, compressed and modified youtube or MP3 -- any test would have to be against the thing itself. And then it would still depend on how it was presented in the room, etc.



Uh huh.

So you can say, repeatedly, that it's equal, but when pressed to show it it suddenly becomes pointless. Responsiveness is hardly a "tiny element" of an amp.

Sorry, but that's pretty weak sauce.
“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.”
Charles Darwin
#29
It isn't about fully replicating the tone, that's not the challenge. It's about replicating the picking dynamics.
There's nothing tricky about my clip apart from when I kick in an OD at the end of the intro. It's just a mike in front of the amp. Come on, you are always saying that it's easy. either put up or shut up.
Gilchrist custom
Yamaha SBG500
Telecasters
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
#30
Quote by dspellman
Unlikely, even if I get bored. It's pointless, after all, because matching a particular tube amp exactly isn't anything I care about. It's like the guys standing next to their bosendorfers and challenging electronic keyboards to match some tiny aspect of it that they think is the defining element. Further, it's even more pointless to match a recorded, compressed and modified youtube or MP3 -- any test would have to be against the thing itself. And then it would still depend on how it was presented in the room, etc.


pussy.

(just say you can't do it)
WTLT 2014 GG&A

Quote by andersondb7
alright "king of the guitar forum"


Quote by trashedlostfdup
nope i am "GOD of the guitar forum" i think that fits me better.


Quote by andersondb7
youre just being a jerk man.



****** NEW NEW NEW!
2017-07-07 2017-07-07 Update and a Chat On Noise Constraints *** NEW FRIDAY 7/7
2017-04-13 RUN AWAY from COMPUTERS!!! TCE? RANT ALERT!!!
2017-03-02 - Guitar Philosophy 1001- Be Prepared For the Situation (Thursday 2017-03-02)
2017-02-21 How to Hot-Rod the Hell of your Stratocaster for $50! (Tuesday 2017-2-21)
Resentments and Rambling from a Guitar Junkie
---> http://trashedengineering.blogspot.com/
#31
Quote by Cathbard
It isn't about fully replicating the tone, that's not the challenge. It's about replicating the picking dynamics.
There's nothing tricky about my clip apart from when I kick in an OD at the end of the intro. It's just a mike in front of the amp. Come on, you are always saying that it's easy. either put up or shut up.


go Cath!

dspellman - DO it!
WTLT 2014 GG&A

Quote by andersondb7
alright "king of the guitar forum"


Quote by trashedlostfdup
nope i am "GOD of the guitar forum" i think that fits me better.


Quote by andersondb7
youre just being a jerk man.



****** NEW NEW NEW!
2017-07-07 2017-07-07 Update and a Chat On Noise Constraints *** NEW FRIDAY 7/7
2017-04-13 RUN AWAY from COMPUTERS!!! TCE? RANT ALERT!!!
2017-03-02 - Guitar Philosophy 1001- Be Prepared For the Situation (Thursday 2017-03-02)
2017-02-21 How to Hot-Rod the Hell of your Stratocaster for $50! (Tuesday 2017-2-21)
Resentments and Rambling from a Guitar Junkie
---> http://trashedengineering.blogspot.com/
#32
i have an 18w i built, and a 5f1 i built (also have a JTM45 i built but it is down), they are irreplicateable when it comes to dynamics.

the 18w has heyboer tansformers, vishay electrolytics, a mix of orange drops, a couple of sozo's, and a few NOS caps i found cheap online sprinkled about. Carling switches, bournes pots, switchraft jacks, belton sockets, ALL with my favorite nice 'boutique' cloth wire (wire... lol).


only thing i cheaped out on were the tubes ;. i have JJ's for power and rectifier, BUT, i have a nice USA 12AX7 tube in v2, AND! even a RCA in V1.


there is NO way that the dynamics could be replicated by a modeler.

HOWEVER. i am not anti-modeling. there are tons of good uses, and tons of good tones. modeling is better at doing some things than others, from my experience, dynamics is NOT one. CLEAN cleans can be nice, crunch can be nice, and properly dialed in metal tones are often QUITE sweet, BUT it won't do edge of breakup.

personally, i don't have the need for an amp modeler i have a fleet of amps, effects, and guitars, and drums, etc, and that is what I need. however i wouldn't mind the delays and modulation effects being switchable in patches though, but once i lay out my new pedalbosrd i am going to make some loop selector boxes so switching is easier.

i will keep my loud-heavy-hot-ugly-assed tube amps, and ugly-big-fucking-cabs until i die. THAT is what i like.
WTLT 2014 GG&A

Quote by andersondb7
alright "king of the guitar forum"


Quote by trashedlostfdup
nope i am "GOD of the guitar forum" i think that fits me better.


Quote by andersondb7
youre just being a jerk man.



****** NEW NEW NEW!
2017-07-07 2017-07-07 Update and a Chat On Noise Constraints *** NEW FRIDAY 7/7
2017-04-13 RUN AWAY from COMPUTERS!!! TCE? RANT ALERT!!!
2017-03-02 - Guitar Philosophy 1001- Be Prepared For the Situation (Thursday 2017-03-02)
2017-02-21 How to Hot-Rod the Hell of your Stratocaster for $50! (Tuesday 2017-2-21)
Resentments and Rambling from a Guitar Junkie
---> http://trashedengineering.blogspot.com/
#33
What you need is a MIDI switchable amp - like an RM100 for example.
Are any of your amps MIDIed?

My GT-100 can switch one amp footswitch. I thought that was a bit sad really. How much harder would it be to make it a stereo jack and switch two?
Gilchrist custom
Yamaha SBG500
Telecasters
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
#34
Quote by Cathbard
What you need is a MIDI switchable amp - like an RM100 for example.
Are any of your amps MIDIed?

My GT-100 can switch one amp footswitch. I thought that was a bit sad really. How much harder would it be to make it a stereo jack and switch two?


i think my sig x is midi capable, but i haven't played it for a bit... maybe it isnt'

i really don't need much though. i haven't gigged in over six months (not happy about that, but thats not the topic here), but most of the time i gig (or even go to an open mic), i run a simple setup, usually an OD or two and a delay. thats about it. i either play blues (which is typically on the 5f1, the 18w or the dual terror) and don't need a whole lot. if i am playing metal, i most often go for one of my mesas or an orange. and with those its just a TS and a delay. thats it. i don't even need a footswitch with metal, i don't play clean... haha.

most of the time i am playing with people these days are friends on weekends and we play and drink. its fun that way. i probably won't be in a band for a while though, there is SO much BULLSHIT out there. open mics are nice because you can walk right in, without needing to bring much gear, without needing to manage anybody, it doesn't matter if the drummer (or even me) is too drunk... lol. also we have some cool people around here, and a lot of the bars (if they see you regularly) will give you a free beer (two if you are lucky and they are busy... lol). money from gigging is nice, but i don't need it to live. its not worth making $100 on one night for going through the frustrations of bandmates and practices. for a while i was anchoring an open mic, and i was getting $40, which was the best... lol. i didn't even have to supply any gear other than my guitar and an amp. anyways... blah blah blah.
WTLT 2014 GG&A

Quote by andersondb7
alright "king of the guitar forum"


Quote by trashedlostfdup
nope i am "GOD of the guitar forum" i think that fits me better.


Quote by andersondb7
youre just being a jerk man.



****** NEW NEW NEW!
2017-07-07 2017-07-07 Update and a Chat On Noise Constraints *** NEW FRIDAY 7/7
2017-04-13 RUN AWAY from COMPUTERS!!! TCE? RANT ALERT!!!
2017-03-02 - Guitar Philosophy 1001- Be Prepared For the Situation (Thursday 2017-03-02)
2017-02-21 How to Hot-Rod the Hell of your Stratocaster for $50! (Tuesday 2017-2-21)
Resentments and Rambling from a Guitar Junkie
---> http://trashedengineering.blogspot.com/
#35
Quote by Cathbard
True but let's face it, if you can't model a tube amp with a single preamp tube then you're missing the mark aren't you? "I can model tube amps that have no dynamics" is no claim to fame IMO.

The problem with modern tube amps people usually see is that they aren't like the one you recorded that clip with. They are mostly multi-channel and high gain amps that really don't have those dynamics. They certainly sound better than SS amps, and they do respond to your playing better, but most people graduating to a 5150 from a SS amp probably won't even notice an improvement in the way their playing dynamics can be heard through the amplifier.

Honestly, I've played modeling amps than clean up with your volume knob and behave in a way that isn't so inferior to most tube amps I've played. Compared to the single channel amps I've played, there's no comparison, but I think many modern tube amps lack one of the greatest qualities you get from tubes-the dynamics.
#36
Trashed, I run the GT-100 when I'm using the RM100 mostly as its channel select. I run a Timmy in its effects loop. I'm not 4CM'ing it because ... well punk.
I run a simple board when I use my RM20, it's just a footswitch for the boost but otherwise it's single channel. My Morley is better than the GT-100, and I've got Tim's OD1+ on that board.


PP90. Absolutely. Which is why things like the AxeFX are so popular in metal. It will take something much better before blues guys come on board.
Gilchrist custom
Yamaha SBG500
Telecasters
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
#37
Quote by patriotplayer90
The problem with modern tube amps people usually see is that they aren't like the one you recorded that clip with. They are mostly multi-channel and high gain amps that really don't have those dynamics. They certainly sound better than SS amps, and they do respond to your playing better, but most people graduating to a 5150 from a SS amp probably won't even notice an improvement in the way their playing dynamics can be heard through the amplifier.

Honestly, I've played modeling amps than clean up with your volume knob and behave in a way that isn't so inferior to most tube amps I've played. Compared to the single channel amps I've played, there's no comparison, but I think many modern tube amps lack one of the greatest qualities you get from tubes-the dynamics.


i am missing a lot of things here.

he used an 18w (1974x clone), of course its not a modern amp, its totally different. there are tons of clones/reworks of classic amps that get used for a LOT of things.

i don't think that most amp made now are multi-channel and high gain either. good high gain amps can have dynamics. i had a 6505 a long time ago, long before that i had a SS amp, and there IS a difference. however, i don't really care for 6505's a whole lot. 6505's are a one trick pony. they do the whole droptuned>EMG>metalcore/deathcore thing and thats about it (i am not necessarily saying that its bad, its fine sometimes). 6505's are very unique amps, nothing sounds like them. they have their sound and they have their use, and there really aren't any extremely similar amps out there. they are not a large representation of most of the amps today (referring to models, not popularity). at least that is what i see.

what modeling amp are you referring to? or are you referring to processors/axe/kenper?

i agree that amps are changing, tone has always changed, but you gotta keep in mind that not everybody always plays metal.
WTLT 2014 GG&A

Quote by andersondb7
alright "king of the guitar forum"


Quote by trashedlostfdup
nope i am "GOD of the guitar forum" i think that fits me better.


Quote by andersondb7
youre just being a jerk man.



****** NEW NEW NEW!
2017-07-07 2017-07-07 Update and a Chat On Noise Constraints *** NEW FRIDAY 7/7
2017-04-13 RUN AWAY from COMPUTERS!!! TCE? RANT ALERT!!!
2017-03-02 - Guitar Philosophy 1001- Be Prepared For the Situation (Thursday 2017-03-02)
2017-02-21 How to Hot-Rod the Hell of your Stratocaster for $50! (Tuesday 2017-2-21)
Resentments and Rambling from a Guitar Junkie
---> http://trashedengineering.blogspot.com/
#38
Quote by Cathbard
Trashed, I run the GT-100 when I'm using the RM100 mostly as its channel select. I run a Timmy in its effects loop. I'm not 4CM'ing it because ... well punk.
I run a simple board when I use my RM20, it's just a footswitch for the boost but otherwise it's single channel. My Morley is better than the GT-100, and I've got Tim's OD1+ on that board.


PP90. Absolutely. Which is why things like the AxeFX are so popular in metal. It will take something much better before blues guys come on board.

I don't understand how people can be fooled by the lower-gain capabilities of that. Even the JCM800 sounds I've heard are total turds. Maybe if you took the original amp, modded it so that it sounded sterile instead of warm, blanketed the speakers, compressed the signal, and castrated it so that the balls were nowhere in existence, they would sound Similar. It sounds very digital, you can practically hear the 1s and 0s popping out at you.
#39
Quote by patriotplayer90
It sounds very digital, you can practically hear the 1s and 0s popping out at you.


This has always been one of the most ignorant statements I hear.
There's a difference between something sounding poorly replicated and something sounding digital.

When you hear an music file of a valve amp, do you go "It sounds digital, the 1's and 0's are hitting my ears guys"?


Any product's quality depends on how well it was developed. You can have a good solid state. You can have a shit solid state. You can have a good modeler. You can have a shit modeler.

It all depends on the work put into it.

A few solid state capacitors isn't going to replicate a tube amp, and a few lines of code isn't going to replicate a tube amp, it takes crucial analysis of what they're replicating and choosing the right methods to recreate the sound to make it sound right.
Guitars:
Davison SG
Line 6 Variax 600
Line 6 JTV 69s
Squier Classic Bibe Telecaster Thinline
#40
Quote by Clay-man
This has always been one of the most ignorant statements I hear.
There's a difference between something sounding poorly replicated and something sounding digital.

When you hear an music file of a valve amp, do you go "It sounds digital, the 1's and 0's are hitting my ears guys"?


Any product's quality depends on how well it was developed. You can have a good solid state. You can have a shit solid state. You can have a good modeler. You can have a shit modeler.

It all depends on the work put into it.

A few solid state capacitors isn't going to replicate a tube amp, and a few lines of code isn't going to replicate a tube amp, it takes crucial analysis of what they're replicating and choosing the right methods to recreate the sound to make it sound right.

I can absolutely hear the digital artifacts. I only make the correlation of the sound and "digital" because it reminds me of the guitar plugins I've used on the computer.
Page 1 of 3