Page 1 of 2
#1
What are your opinions of amp simulators vs. real, physical gear? Some of the YouTube videos I have seen of amp simulators are very impressive, but I have never been able to download and use a free amp simulator yet. It seems like you have to pay for most of the software. I saw one video of a kid who used simulators to get James Hetfield's tone. He was very successful. He just used free software. Hetfield's rigs has thousands or tens of thousands of dollars of gear. It seems software is the way to go if you just want to get a recorded tone.
#2
Yeah I would agree it's good for recording but if I am out gigging I would much rather prefer an actual Amp, Personal preference. Software can sometimes be on the pricey side of the spectrum. They are more versatile but nothing beats old school.
#3
I mean my band's last song was recorded all with plugins and it sounded pretty good.
I don't personally have the patience to get most sims dialed in.
My Soundcloud dudes
Recording gear:
Yahama Hs8
Saffire Pro 40
Shure Sm57
Shure Sm7b

Guitar gear :
Ebmm BFR7
Axe fx XL+
Walrus audio Janus
Ibanez Ergodyne
Black Market Custom cab
#4
IMHO modelers and sim SW can't truly emulate tube distortion for rock type gain. It always sounds flat, harsh, or synthetic.
www.facebook.com/yourbadinfluence
#5
Best of both worlds for me, the Kemper. Hardware that models. Amplitube and the likes don't cut it anymore for me either, compared to the Kemper. High gain, it's pretty good, but the cleans and mid-gain sounds aren't up to par on the software in my opinion.

The Kemper is the ideal midway between software and a regular amp, in my opinion. It gives you all the flexibility of a modeller, but it's simple enough once you have a good profile set up that it acts like an amp in the sense that you just have gain, bass, mid, treble and volume. It gives you a lot of options should you want, but you don't have to.
#6
If you're just recording direct tones, 7/10 times you probably won't notice a difference IMO. I think the bigger difference is in the feel and how the plugins react to your playing vs a real amp.


If your main intention is just recording, I think VSTs are a great way to do it and there are some very compelling modellers out there now, even for lower gain tones for a picky blues hack like me.
Quote by zgr0826
My culture is worthless and absolutely inferior to the almighty Leaf.


Quote by JustRooster
I incurred the wrath of the Association of White Knights. Specifically the Parent's Basement branch of service.
#7
The expensive modeling stuff is close enough to real amps for many professionals to be using them. Kemper, Axe FX, Helix, Amplifire, etc. But you are looking at real money for that tier. Cheaper/free modeling can get usable results but, as with physical amps, quality is often worse and worse the cheaper you have.
Last edited by Will Lane at Sep 13, 2016,
#8
Will Lane
I wouldn't say an Amplifire costs as much as a good tube amp, however. The Kemper, Axe Fx and Helix do, but they're more complete and better in my opinion than the Amplifire anyway.
#9
Quote by I K0nijn I
Will Lane
I wouldn't say an Amplifire costs as much as a good tube amp, however. The Kemper, Axe Fx and Helix do, but they're more complete and better in my opinion than the Amplifire anyway.


I would say amplifire is closer to the axe than you think quality wise. It doesnt have as many features but its not a slouch.

I mean Amplifire and Axe are using similar DSPs and models for the most part.
Quote by zgr0826
My culture is worthless and absolutely inferior to the almighty Leaf.


Quote by JustRooster
I incurred the wrath of the Association of White Knights. Specifically the Parent's Basement branch of service.
#10
I've played all four I mentioned. I think the Amplifire is nice in the price range and can work really well for loads of people, but I wouldn't even consider getting rid of my Kemper in favour of it.

I think the Kemper & Axe FX edge it out both on features and sound and the Helix & Axe FX outdo it on effects and routing flexibility.

The Axe and Kemper are clear front-runners for me. That doesn't mean they're the only option that can work for people. Heck, there have been albums recorded with a Pod X3 that sounded awesome. I'm sure the right engineer can make BIAS or whatever other VST you'd want sound as good as your favourite record.
#11
Quote by I K0nijn I
I've played all four I mentioned. I think the Amplifire is nice in the price range and can work really well for loads of people, but I wouldn't even consider getting rid of my Kemper in favour of it.

I think the Kemper & Axe FX edge it out both on features and sound and the Helix & Axe FX outdo it on effects and routing flexibility.

The Axe and Kemper are clear front-runners for me. That doesn't mean they're the only option that can work for people. Heck, there have been albums recorded with a Pod X3 that sounded awesome. I'm sure the right engineer can make BIAS or whatever other VST you'd want sound as good as your favourite record.


The amplifire isn't an axe replacement or a kemper replacement so why would you? The Axe and kemper are also 3 times the price.


I wasn't comparing how many features they had. I was strictly comparing the modelling capabilities of each and I think Axe and the Amplifire are close. Specs wise they use similiar DSPs and while the Amplifire doesn't have quite as many models, its still a VERY powerful unit and more powerful than a POD I would say. I even said in my post that Amplifire didn't have as many options. I mean I agree that the Axe and Kemper are better in the sense that they offer more (and I would probably argue that the Kemper sounds better than the Axe) but all I'm saying is the Amplifire is probably closer to the Axe than a POD or VST shit.


But yeah I'm not saying the Kemper and the Axe aren't top units cause they are.
Quote by zgr0826
My culture is worthless and absolutely inferior to the almighty Leaf.


Quote by JustRooster
I incurred the wrath of the Association of White Knights. Specifically the Parent's Basement branch of service.
Last edited by H4T3BR33D3R at Sep 13, 2016,
#12
Quote by NostraHistoria
What are your opinions of amp simulators vs. real, physical gear?


There are actually three levels -- amps, amp modelers, and software sims that use an existing computer.

Keyboards have gone through this over the years as well. A real keyboard (grand piano, Hammond B3, pipe organ, clavichord), like a stack of amps, can be difficult or impossible to cart around, especially if you want to present on more than one. There are complete software simulations (the piano sims in GarageBand, etc.), and there are keyboards like my Korg Kronos/PA4X that contain both the performance characteristics of an original keyboard (weighted keys, much more) and the computer (the interior of these keyboards is, essentially, a computer).

Guitars include real guitars, computer sims, and modeling guitars (Variax guitars, for example).
Amp setups include real amps, amp modelers that can be carted around and computerized setups.

Real amps (and FX and cabinets) are often cumbersome to cart around (particularly in multiples) and one-trick ponies. Even if you've got multiples in place, it's often a real PIA to switch from one to another, to change the order of FX ("I want the delay in FRONT of the wah for this one"), plug and unplug cabinets.

Computer setups usually involve...well...a computer. You want to figure the cost of a computer, the interfaces and more into the *real* cost of your rig, and honestly, computers can be quite delicate on stage and are sometimes a pain to set up each time and to trouble shoot when something goes wrong. You still need foot pedal control if you're going to work with them live.

Modelers offer the wide variety of amps/cabs/FX in a single "brick" that offers most of what a set of computer sims does. They offer greater portability than physical amps/cabs/FX, fewer points of failure (less interconnection, fewer connectors and cables) and simpler operation during performance.

If I have to make a single choice, I'll pick the modeler, just as I'll pick the versatile keyboard.
#13
H4T3BR33D3R
If the Amplifire sounded better than the Kemper, why wouldn't I? It's a lot cheaper and even more compact. The point is that it doesn't sound as good in my opinion.

I'd agree with the Amplifire being better than a Pod HD, but that doesn't make it close to an Axe FX for me. It's closer to it than a Pod or VST indeed, but the difference is still very noticeable in my opinion. I've considered buying one as a backup to my Kemper, but I wouldn't consider it more than a backup.
#14
Quote by I K0nijn I
If the Amplifire sounded better than the Kemper, why wouldn't I? It's a lot cheaper and even more compact. The point is that it doesn't sound as good in my opinion, so I wouldn't even consider it.

I'd agree with the Amplifire being better than a Pod HD, but that doesn't make it close to an Axe FX for me. It's closer to it than a Pod or VST indeed, but the difference is still very noticeable in my opinion. I've considered buying one as a backup to my Kemper, but I wouldn't consider it more than a backup.


I literally never said the Amplifire sounded better than the Kemper so I don't even get your point anymore.


You seem to be missing my point as well (I.E: the actual hardware inside both the Axe and Amplifire are from the same company and pretty close in specs and even though the Axe offers more via routing, effects etc... the actual core amp emulation is pretty similar in both units IMO not that the Amplifire is better than an Axe or a Kemper). I never disagreed with what you said (Kemper and Axe are a better unit), I was merely pointing out that specs wise etc... the Amplifire is closer to something like an Axe compared to a POD from a technical standpoint.
Quote by zgr0826
My culture is worthless and absolutely inferior to the almighty Leaf.


Quote by JustRooster
I incurred the wrath of the Association of White Knights. Specifically the Parent's Basement branch of service.
#15
Quote by H4T3BR33D3R
I

I mean Amplifire and Axe are using similar DSPs and models for the most part.


Um...no. "Similar" here seems to be meant to cover a LOT of ground between the two and that's quite a stretch. While Tom King (Atomic Amps) and Cliff at Fractal have long had a relationship, the Amplifire was NOT developed by the Fractal folks (the models were developed by Studio Devil), nor are the models "similar" or are the DSPs TigerSharcs. DSPs are digital signal processors and are simply general processors that can be programmed to do a huge variety of computer tasks. They may run modems, they may run office software, or they could run sound systems. "Similar" DSPs means nothing whatever.

We have a couple of Amplifier zealots on UG, and while I've got nothing particularly bad to say about the Amplifire product, you want to be careful not to be too heavily swayed by the guy standing in the middle of the room shouting the loudest.

But there are a lot of considerations.

With a computer based setup, you need to cart a frequently delicate computer system wherever you want to play guitar. Factor in the replacement cost of that computer (and the loss of use of whatever else you use that computer for) in the cost of your rig and the cost of loading everything up on a new computer and reconfiguring it all should it break. Figure the cost of a backup. Figure the cost of foot pedal control should you ever wish to play live.

With an expensive rackmount processor like the Axe (I have an Ultra), you need to add the cost of foot pedal control ($700 for the Axe-recommended piece) and a portable rack-mount case/bag to move out of the room with it. Now add all that together and double it if you want to have a same-setup backup. That says $6,000 to me. These modelers offer depths and details to editing the various models ("how red should we say that plate will look on the third tube from the left?") that very few guitarists will ever touch.

The Amplifire is a usable and nice-sounding piece that offers models, a tiny screen that doesn't give you a lot of information, a single FX loop, no expression pedal. All editing takes place on a computer and your options are limited (there are only three foot switches). It is available from a single source run by, essentially, Tom King. Tom is the good news; he's offered clever products that find niches, over the years. I have three of his original Atomic Amps, which were designed to take desktop modelers from Vox, Behringer, M-Audio and Line 6 and add them to a tube-amp-based powered speaker cabinet (18 or 50W) to produce a modeling combo amplifier using the desktop modeler as a preamp. His CLR monitors, designed by Jay Mitchell, are among the best available for modelers for home-based and some live use.

A traditional modeler, such as an old Pod XT Live or an HD500, offers what the Amplifire does (without, arguably, the ability to use IRs,), but adds more foot pedal flexibility, advanced onboard routing, expression pedals, etc. Essentially, you can pack it and a guitar and play anywhere, either through headphones or a FOH type system. The Amplifire is really designed to be added to an existing pedalboard setup that already has expression pedals, good tuner, etc. The real benefit is the ability to import and use IRs, and that's a serious benefit.

There's another price point with all of this, however, and the usability factor is much enhanced. The pricing area between a $500 HD500/Amplfire at $599 and an Atomic or Kemper in the $2000-3000 range is at around $1500.

The Line 6 Helix currently owns this range and offers quality of sims and IRs easily within striking distance of the expensive spread, but with far more usablility. There are four (!) stereo FX loops. There's all the switching you'll ever need, a huge LED screen (you'll understand when you have to bend over or kneel down and squint at other modelers), more routing options than you can imagine, TWO complete rig chains available with each user preset, a solid expression pedal included, every kind of output you'll need, color coded LED-lit switch surrounds, context-sensitive LED "scribble strips" for each swich (until you use this live, you won't understand) and a whole lot more. But you need to have $1500 in your pocket.

*ALL* are good choices depending on your budget and how much fuckwithage you want to do with things.

I love the Axe sitting in one spot, never moving and hooked into everything else in my den. OTOH, I haul a Pod Live or one of the Atomic Amp setups to bars, along with a couple of Agile AL2000Floyds. If someone totally obliterates a Pod XT Live, I can pick up another on Craigs the next day for $125. The Helix I use now is borrowed (I'll be buying one soon enough), but Glen Delaune's presets and Ownhammer's (and others') IRs convince me I can do pretty much anything I can conceive of with this rig. And if I lose or destroy this one (you've never seen what a Hammond B3 can do if it gets loose on a truck?), I can walk into pretty much any GC and buy a replacement, or have a new one Fedexed to me the next morning. Not the case with the Axe/Amplifire, but maybe the case with the Kemper.
Last edited by dspellman at Sep 13, 2016,
#16
Quote by dspellman
Um...no. "Similar" here seems to be meant to cover a LOT of ground between the two and that's quite a stretch. While Tom King (Atomic Amps) and Cliff at Fractal have long had a relationship, the Amplifire was NOT developed by the Fractal folks (the models were developed by Studio Devil), nor are the models "similar" or are the DSPs TigerSharcs. DSPs are digital signal processors and are simply general processors that can be programmed to do a huge variety of computer tasks. They may run modems, they may run office software, or they could run sound systems. "Similar" DSPs means nothing whatever.

We have a couple of Amplifier zealots on UG, and while I've got nothing particularly bad to say about the Amplifire product, you want to be careful not to be too heavily swayed by the guy standing in the middle of the room shouting the loudest.

But there are a lot of considerations.

With a computer based setup, you need to cart a frequently delicate computer system wherever you want to play guitar. Factor in the replacement cost of that computer (and the loss of use of whatever else you use that computer for) in the cost of your rig and the cost of loading everything up on a new computer and reconfiguring it all should it break. Figure the cost of a backup. Figure the cost of foot pedal control should you ever wish to play live.

With an expensive rackmount processor like the Axe (I have an Ultra), you need to add the cost of foot pedal control ($700 for the Axe-recommended piece) and a portable rack-mount case/bag to move out of the room with it. Now add all that together and double it if you want to have a same-setup backup. That says $6,000 to me. These modelers offer depths and details to editing the various models ("how red should we say that plate will look on the third tube from the left?") that very few guitarists will ever touch.

The Amplifire is a usable and nice-sounding piece that offers models, a tiny screen that doesn't give you a lot of information, a single FX loop, no expression pedal. All editing takes place on a computer and your options are limited (there are only three foot switches). It is available from a single source run by, essentially, Tom King. Tom is the good news; he's offered clever products that find niches, over the years. I have three of his original Atomic Amps, which were designed to take desktop modelers from Vox, Behringer, M-Audio and Line 6 and add them to a tube-amp-based powered speaker cabinet (18 or 50W) to produce a modeling combo amplifier using the desktop modeler as a preamp. His CLR monitors are among the best available for modelers for home-based and some live use.

A traditional modeler, such as an old Pod XT Live or an HD500, offers what the Amplifire does (without, arguably, the ability to use IRs,), but adds more foot pedal flexibility, advanced onboard routing, expression pedals, etc. Essentially, you can pack it and a guitar and play anywhere, either through headphones or a FOH type system. The Amplifire is really designed to be added to an existing pedalboard setup that already has expression pedals, good tuner, etc. The real benefit is the ability to import and use IRs, and that's a serious benefit.

There's another price point with all of this, however, and the usability factor is much enhanced. The pricing area between a $500 HD500/Amplfire at $599 and an Atomic or Kemper in the $2000-3000 range is at around $1500.

The Line 6 Helix currently owns this range and offers quality of sims and IRs easily within striking distance of the expensive spread, but with far more usablility. There are four (!) stereo FX loops. There's all the switching you'll ever need, a huge LED screen (you'll understand when you have to bend over or kneel down and squint at other modelers), more routing options than you can imagine, TWO complete rig chains available with each user preset, a solid expression pedal included, every kind of output you'll need, color coded LED-lit switch surrounds, context-sensitive LED "scribble strips" for each swich (until you use this live, you won't understand) and a whole lot more. But you need to have $1500 in your pocket.

*ALL* are good choices depending on your budget and how much fuckwithage you want to do with things.

I love the Axe sitting in one spot, never moving and hooked into everything else in my den. OTOH, I haul a Pod Live or one of the Atomic Amp setups to bars, along with a couple of Agile AL2000Floyds. If someone totally obliterates a Pod XT Live, I can pick up another on Craigs the next day for $125. The Helix I use now is borrowed (I'll be buying one soon enough), but Glen Delaune's presets and Ownhammer's (and others') IRs convince me I can do pretty much anything I can conceive of with this rig. And if I lose or destroy this one (you've never seen what a Hammond B3 can do if it gets loose on a truck?), I can walk into pretty much any GC and buy a replacement, or have a new one Fedexed to me the next morning. Not the case with the Axe/Amplifire, but maybe the case with the Kemper.


Thanks for clearing that up. I was under the impression they were running the Tigersharcs and had Fractal models as well but I guess that was off.


So you're liking the Helix better than the Axe I take it or are they good for their own things kind of deal?
Quote by zgr0826
My culture is worthless and absolutely inferior to the almighty Leaf.


Quote by JustRooster
I incurred the wrath of the Association of White Knights. Specifically the Parent's Basement branch of service.
#17
Well, that you meant technically completely got lost for me.
In that sense, you're certainly right. They're not the exact same chips as far as I know as in the Axe FX, but it's the same principle. It's interesting that the chips for the Axe FX are being discontinued if I recall correctly. I'm curious to see what effect that will have. The AX8 is running the same chip(s) as the Amplifire (and Helix as well, actually), if memory serves me right.

From a technical standpoint, they're pretty similar indeed. I actually think we agree on most points then, to be honest and misinterpreted each others posts.
#18
Quote by I K0nijn I
Well, that you meant technically completely got lost for me.
In that sense, you're certainly right. They're not the exact same chips as far as I know as in the Axe FX, but it's the same principle. It's interesting that the chips for the Axe FX are being discontinued if I recall correctly. I'm curious to see what effect that will have. The AX8 is running the same chip(s) as the Amplifire (and Helix as well, actually), if memory serves me right.

From a technical standpoint, they're pretty similar indeed. I actually think we agree on most points then, to be honest and misinterpreted each others posts.


I still cocked some of it up anyway so don't worry about it
Quote by zgr0826
My culture is worthless and absolutely inferior to the almighty Leaf.


Quote by JustRooster
I incurred the wrath of the Association of White Knights. Specifically the Parent's Basement branch of service.
#19
Quote by 8Len8
IMHO modelers and sim SW can't truly emulate tube distortion for rock type gain. It always sounds flat, harsh, or synthetic.


I am pretty much with 8Len8 on this. I use modelers and sims but on my finished project I for the most part always end up with a real amp.
#20
Quote by H4T3BR33D3R


So you're liking the Helix better than the Axe I take it or are they good for their own things kind of deal?


I'd say "Good for their own things" is probably accurate.
It's likely that 95% of Axe owners are using 5% of what the Axe can do, but that probably applies to Ferraris as well. Knowing that doesn't temper the "want."
Last edited by dspellman at Sep 13, 2016,
#21
Quote by 8Len8
IMHO modelers and sim SW can't truly emulate tube distortion for rock type gain. It always sounds flat, harsh, or synthetic.
Quote by diabolical
I am pretty much with 8Len8 on this. I use modelers and sims but on my finished project I for the most part always end up with a real amp.


EITHER your ears are way better than mine (likely) or you haven't worked with modelers in depth (no telling) enough to deal with that. My raggedy-ass ears don't hear what you're hearing, and that's probably from listening to loud tube amps for way too long.

Keyboardists went back and forth like this for years as well. "Nothing like a real pipe organ." "Nothing like a real Hammond B3." "Nothing like a real 9' grand piano." My Korg Kronos lets me choose between a German grand and a Japanese grand (for example), allows tweaking to the mike placements and (this killed me) allowed me to select the degree to which the lid was open in eighths (could be quarters on one of them but seriously?)

It's hard to find anyone making those arguments today when you have enough amazing stuff on them to do entire movie scores, including 16-track sequencers and MIDI playback that will change the lighting during the performance if that's what you want to do with it. The PA4X has TC-Helicon Voicelive technology built in for multi-level harmonies, etc.
#22
Quote by I K0nijn I

In that sense, you're certainly right. They're not the exact same chips as far as I know as in the Axe FX, but it's the same principle. It's interesting that the chips for the Axe FX are being discontinued if I recall correctly. I'm curious to see what effect that will have.


The DSP chips used really don't make all that much difference (as long as they're powerful and fast enough). I think there's some talk of Axe possibly using Yamaha chips (which would certainly be ironic given their ownership of Line 6), but there's always a new DSP chip design coming down the road. I think Jobs was among the first to make widespread use of them in the NeXt computers (which have a long list of "firsts" that later appeared in all computers).
#23
All of these are simply different tools for making music. They all work if they produce the tone you are looking for. I don't think there is a clear winner that will satisfy every player which is why we have lots of choices. I like to keep things pretty simple live so I prefer tube amp or modeling amp for most gigs and only run a few different voices. For recording, the sky is the limit and software plugins open a lot of possibilities. Choose the tool you like.
"Your sound is in your hands as much as anything. It's the way you pick, and the way you hold the guitar, more than it is the amp or the guitar you use." -- Stevie Ray Vaughan

"Anybody can play. The note is only 20 percent. The attitude of the motherfucker who plays it is 80 percent." -- Miles Davis

Guthrie on tone: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmohdG9lLqY
#24
i use everything, it all has it's purposes for different situations.

i have a variety of amps, a variety of sims and i even have load boxes to plug my real amps into to simulate cabinets. i think the important part is picking the best sounding option for what you can afford and using it effectively. in my experience a knowledge of recording and skill dialing in a tone is more important than having the best equipment.

i take a bit of pride in my ability to get results that i like with just about any piece of equipment.
punk isn't dead, it's always smelled that way.

"A perfection of means, and confusion of aims, seems to be our main problem."
-ae
#25
I've toyed with both, from every price point. I've had Mesas, Kempers, Peaveys and PODs.

I'm with Gumbi, the ability to work with what you have matters a lot more than the tech. Given, if all I ever do is fiddle around with old blues tunes in my farm house, fuck it, I'll go for a Bassman.

If I'm onstage every night in a cover band, the modeller is probably the best choice.

I recently have fallen in love with BIAS FX and BIAS Amp. Very easy to tweak, the sound is pretty great, and I can go to practice and grab everything I need in one trip (iPad, guitar with cords/adapters in case, powered monitor).
I'm just a kickin' and a gougin' in the mud and the blood and the beer.
#26
Much software can be better than digital hardware. Ive found the free vst plugins from LePou to be way better than the line6 podhd500x I was using at the time. The noticable difference is responsiveness to pick attack. The LePou Hybrit marshall sim gave a different response to every pick stroke making me feel like I was "playing the amp" the line 6 was much more like listening to someone else play. I dont own an axefx or kemper but hear great things about them, and some bands take them in tour. I think the best modelers are basically indistinguishable from the real thing even by tube amp snobs.
#27
I would never get rid of my physical rig, but I love being able to put a DI signal in Cubase, then decide what tone to use later, tweaking to my heart's content. But then I can also add another track using my physical rig, and tweak the DI track to complement it.
#28
Software and modelling excel at quiet playing/recording/practice and infinite tonal options. A physical rig, i.e. a great tube amp and pedals, excels at loud volumes - so gigs, jamming etc. The physical rig can actually be easier and simpler to use in a live setting, which is why it's still the default for performing musicians.

I use a physical rig for performing and jamming with my bands. I use Bias amp sim and my audio interface for practicing and demoing ideas almost all of the time at home, because you can get decent sounds at quiet levels or even use the headphones. At lower volume levels there is very little difference between a tube amp and the newer software and modelers - it's at very loud levels ( i.e. jamming with a drummer or playing a gig) where the differences start to show.
#29
I trust my Bias FX, Bluetooth foot controllers and my Nano 600 to give me all the sounds I need on a gig. Ultimately the the sound on stage is often not what the audience hears. Having amp sims means that what I hear on stage is going to be closer to what the audience gets.
#30
dementiacaptain Is there anything in particular you have found to be important or different in setting up or using Bias? I ask because Ive never really gotten a satisfactory tone from the Bias and many others seem to be into it. So I assume Im doing something wrong. Ive tried an ipad version and wonder if theres an issue with the converter (apogee Jam) because Ive never really gotten my guitar to sound good going into the ipad. That's not analog snobbery. It sounds good going into my macbook.
#31
Quote by ioscommuter
dementiacaptain Is there anything in particular you have found to be important or different in setting up or using Bias? I ask because Ive never really gotten a satisfactory tone from the Bias and many others seem to be into it. So I assume Im doing something wrong. Ive tried an ipad version and wonder if theres an issue with the converter (apogee Jam) because Ive never really gotten my guitar to sound good going into the ipad. That's not analog snobbery. It sounds good going into my macbook.


The biggest thing for me: mic position on the models, and REALLY utilizing the pre and post EQs in the BIAS amp app. Really I've never messed around a ton with the finer adjustments like tube bias and all that. I may tweak those ever so slightly to adjust feel, but most of the sound can be achieved with those EQs.

I ALWAYS run a low-pass filter after the amp chain, and sometimes after the cab. This cuts down on the digital fizziness.

I can't speak for the interface. I use iRig HD, and I've never had an issue (though sometimes I wish they had provided a pad, my guitars have high output pickups and if I'm really digging into the strings I sometimes clip the input ever so slightly).

Remember, start with something that is almost there, and make minor tweaks. If you go to crazy you end up with some really strange sounding patches
I'm just a kickin' and a gougin' in the mud and the blood and the beer.
#32
I use Bias in Reaper and I add a Compressor ( MJUC) and a Reverb ( Waves H-Reveb) in the chain, which I find helps enormously. I don't play very high gain tones, so the reverb is crucial to getting a good tone.
#33
Quote by reverb66
I use Bias in Reaper and I add a Compressor ( MJUC) and a Reverb ( Waves H-Reveb) in the chain, which I find helps enormously. I don't play very high gain tones, so the reverb is crucial to getting a good tone.


Light reverb definitely helps get some of the room feel back. I'm surprised you say compressor, if anything I'd think that would make it sound more digital? I haven't tried it but it's an interesting thought...
I'm just a kickin' and a gougin' in the mud and the blood and the beer.
#34
Quote by 8Len8
IMHO modelers and sim SW can't truly emulate tube distortion for rock type gain. It always sounds flat, harsh, or synthetic.


Try an Axe FX or a Kemper Profiling Amplifier. The Kemper in particular is nigh indistinguishable from the real thing.
Current Gear:
LTD MH-400 with Gotoh GE1996T (EMG 85/60)
PRS SE Custom 24 (Suhr SSH+/SSV)
Ibanez RG3120 Prestige (Dimarzio Titans)
Squier Vintage Modified 70s Jazz V
Audient iD22 interface
Peavey Revalver 4, UAD Friedman BE100/DS40
Adam S3A monitors
Quote by Anonden
You CAN play anything with anything....but some guitars sound right for some things, and not for others. Single coils sound retarded for metal, though those who are apeshit about harpsichord probably beg to differ.
#35
Quote by oneblackened
Try an Axe FX or a Kemper Profiling Amplifier. The Kemper in particular is nigh indistinguishable from the real thing.


I would go so far as to say that depending on the configuration, you can remove the nigh.

What's more, I think it becomes even harder to tell if you aren't going back-to-back.

Besides, even if you CAN tell a difference between a good profile and the real thing, it's unlikely you could say which was a tube amp and which was the Kemper in a blind test. You could hear that they weren't exactly the same, but being able to say what was what is pretty much up to guessing.
I'm just a kickin' and a gougin' in the mud and the blood and the beer.
#36
I'm sure people think the Kemper or Axe FX sound digital when they test it through studio monitors or a PA, just because they're used to a cab. In my experience, the Kemper through a cab is just like a regular amp, except that it's way more versatile.
#37
If you set it right I honestly don't think it's really "digital" sounding through a monitor. It may have the tendency to sound like a recording, but I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing.

The biggest difference is that in a lot of cases guitar players are hearing frequencies come through that normally would be absent.

I suppose my argument would be that people focus so much on getting models to sound exactly like their namesakes, and that's important, but I'm more concerned with it sounding good than like a particular thing.
I'm just a kickin' and a gougin' in the mud and the blood and the beer.
#38
I took my laptop to band practice and played the lepou sims trough the pa. It sounded good, and with the other instruments in the mix, there was no telling it was a sim. It does feel different than my amp tho, so its not as nice to play. And i would never use it live, because the software is way more prone to crashing than the amp is to dying on me.
I would however use modelers like kemper live without question. I honestly think they will replace real amps in the future.
Joža je kul. On ma sirove z dodatki pa hambije.
#39
Quote by dementiacaptain
I would go so far as to say that depending on the configuration, you can remove the nigh.

What's more, I think it becomes even harder to tell if you aren't going back-to-back.

Besides, even if you CAN tell a difference between a good profile and the real thing, it's unlikely you could say which was a tube amp and which was the Kemper in a blind test. You could hear that they weren't exactly the same, but being able to say what was what is pretty much up to guessing.


Chappers & The Captain's recent Kemper vs real amp videos really will show this.
Fleet of MiJ Ibanez
Couple of Balls
Peavey & EVH Wolfgangs
Eclipse
Fender HM Strat
Kemper KPA
5150 III 50w & cabs
#40
Quote by DarthV
Chappers & The Captain's recent Kemper vs real amp videos really will show this.


Yeah, I saw that. That's really a great example. I did a similar thing with my friends when I had my Kemper. I made a profile of my Rectoverb and then did an A/B through the same cab. No one except me knew the difference, and that was only because I had played them thoroughly beforehand to TRY and pick out any change. Even given that, I would say that the Kemper sounded every bit as good as the Rectoverb.
I'm just a kickin' and a gougin' in the mud and the blood and the beer.
Page 1 of 2