The Truth Behind Amp Modelers

[lfm]

Do they offer hardware upgrades at reasonable cost when they shift to a new hardware generation?

Thanks.

Do tube amp manufacturers?

They don't need to, as I see it - since every part is replaceable by standard parts.
You can go to any repair shop and have it fixed.

If a module breaks inside a Kemper or AxeFx - and that generation hardware is not manufactured anymore - what do you do?
And new product generation - they may have some old stock for while - but if not - do they trade in the old broken one?

The units from Line6 or the Avid ElevenRack and similar are so cheap in comparison - that it's not that major. Ironheart Studio you can get 6 of those for a single AxeFx II Mk2.

Read a range of reviews for AxeFx today, from 2011-2013. Waiting lists had been from 4 month up to 9 months to get one. Then they tested, and they loved everything about it - but still something missing - and they sold off and went back to ordinary amps again. I think it's safe to say that guitarplayers search is endless - one of the guys listed at least three other amps he was thinking about.

Axe has a european distributor now G66.com at least, but not in Thomann among products yet. Kemper they got the lot of the models.

But it was said John Petrucci bought two Axe for his rig, as I found.

Read that both Kemper and Axe now allow making your own IR's from the unit directly. Waves has this Q-Clone plugin that also does that. But an IR cannot translate other than linear - so how is the dynamic feel of it capturing an guitar amp in one state only - if you just touch the string or a full pick, would give about the same sound. Is this what those that trade units away are missing?

Perfect for cover bands, just wanting a particular sound for a song, but maybe not for artistic expressions, or?


Just trying to figure out pros and cons while writing - sorry if I stepped on somebodys toes...

[Dominus]

They don't need to, as I see it - since every part is replaceable by standard parts.
You can go to any repair shop and have it fixed.

Newer tube amps use circuit boards. Good luck getting those replaced.

If a module breaks inside a Kemper or AxeFx - and that generation hardware is not manufactured anymore - what do you do?
And new product generation - they may have some old stock for while - but if not - do they trade in the old broken one?

I'm sure there's people that have $2000 TVs that had them turn into very large, very expensive paperweights. That's the nature of the beast with electronics.

The units from Line6 or the Avid ElevenRack and similar are so cheap in comparison - that it's not that major. Ironheart Studio you can get 6 of those for a single AxeFx II Mk2.

Build quality, country of origin, mass production, and quality of sound all come into play. Some people like their Ironhearts, some people don't. There's *lots* of multi platinum bands (that play real instruments) using Kempers and Axe FX units live now.

Read a range of reviews for AxeFx today, from 2011-2013. Waiting lists had been from 4 month up to 9 months to get one. Then they tested, and they loved everything about it - but still something missing - and they sold off and went back to ordinary amps again. I think it's safe to say that guitarplayers search is endless - one of the guys listed at least three other amps he was thinking about.

Those would be mostly hobbyists doing that. Real guitar players use the gear they buy, and they don't have time to write reviews. Tonechasers never will be satisfied.

Axe has a european distributor now G66.com at least, but not in Thomann among products yet. Kemper they got the lot of the models.

But it was said John Petrucci bought two Axe for his rig, as I found.

Read that both Kemper and Axe now allow making your own IR's from the unit directly. Waves has this Q-Clone plugin that also does that. But an IR cannot translate other than linear - so how is the dynamic feel of it capturing an guitar amp in one state only - if you just touch the string or a full pick, would give about the same sound. Is this what those that trade units away are missing?

It's what everyone is missing. They've convinced themselves that standing in front of a full stack feels different than playing a modeler. Of course it does. Volume is everything.

Perfect for cover bands, just wanting a particular sound for a song, but maybe not for artistic expressions, or?
Just trying to figure out pros and cons while writing - sorry if I stepped on somebodys toes...

Like I said before, tons of popular guitar based bands are using them live. If a band has been around for 20-30 years, it's pretty convenient to dial in the tones they used on older albums if their sound has evolved.

[lfm]

They don't need to, as I see it - since every part is replaceable by standard parts.
You can go to any repair shop and have it fixed.

Newer tube amps use circuit boards. Good luck getting those replaced.

Still, the components on the board are standard and can be replaced. One that is often own make is power amp transformer and might still be a problem to get exact replacement. I had my Koch modified because power amp did not clip nicely, created unwanted artifacts - and thought about replacing it but had to change too much inside - so amp guru moved resonance a bit instead.

The ones like my SuperChamp have digital chips as preamp+emulation - those are really hard to find if Fender does not have them.

Everything digital - is what I am sceptical to - when pricetags are really high. They will grow unmodern really quick, in my view.

And don't agree that tonechasers are just amateurs - it's a general decease among guitarplayers. Even if John Petrucci and the likes are not spending time on public forums, possibly their own site for fans.

The guitar is fantastic instrument in how you can control strings and sound and expression - what you can do with it. The emulators are to an degree limiting that to a sound - which is fine to go for a cover song.

You can make good hybrids that have full analog paths - and digital paths are just used to store presets which control gain on certain stages in circuit - a DA converter giving a fixed analog level like a pot would. I like that about Marshall JMP1 rackunit preamp. If I were to go on tour my rack would consist of Marshall JMP1 + Ironheart poweramp and also switchable to all Ironheart signal path.

I don't know which brands today that keep analog signal path - and only use digital for preset control of parameters - are there any?

The most interesting one I ever saw is Hammond XK3 and XK3C models - and how you also control bias for the tube amp stage, for every preset can be different. One normal gain stage 12AX7 and one low gain 12AU7 can be combined with variable crossover frequency and bias is controllable on each separately, and even switch for crossover which one goes on top - or just go with one stage. So you can adjust to clip on positive half wave more than negative by setting bias - the sound is different depending on how you clip - different harmonics from saturation. And drive determine gain of course.

I wonder when we will see this in a guitar amp - or is there one already?

Is Mesa among the more versatile maybe - with preEQ and post EQ?

[Daimonicon]

Everything digital - is what I am sceptical to - when pricetags are really high. They will grow unmodern really quick, in my view. [/quote]
So why are they still around? This is the future. Period.

The emulators are to an degree limiting that to a sound - which is fine to go for a cover song.

[/quote][/quote]
Oh, really? Is it the emulators that limit the guitarplayer? So now you blame the tools instead of the guitarplayer? You can be as happy as you want with your Ironheart. I personally dislike their sound. I'm satisfied with my Kemper.

[lfm]

Oh, really? Is it the emulators that limit the guitarplayer? So now you blame the tools instead of the guitarplayer?

Sure they do, if just pinching a string and full blown stroke give the same sound, but just different level.

It's vast difference in how a tube stage react to that - you can go all the way from clean to crunch with how you strike a string.

It's like samplers and single layer libraries - different velocity give the same timbre, and just different volume of the note played.

So, yes, I blame the tools in this respect.

[Burillo]

Sure they do, if just pinching a string and full blown stroke give the same sound, but just different level.

um, yeah, except they don't.

It's vast difference in how a tube stage react to that - you can go all the way from clean to crunch with how you strike a string.

same with modern amp simulations. add in the volume knob, and you can go all the way from clean to hi gain pretty easily.

So, yes, I blame the tools in this respect.

yes, the tools that existed 10 years ago. digital has made progress since then, you know. it always does. today's freeware made by hobbyists beats commercial modelers of yesteryear hands down. the things that you're describing, they're not inherent to digital - they're just byproducts of imperfect modeling, which improves over time.

[lfm]

Sure they do, if just pinching a string and full blown stroke give the same sound, but just different level.

um, yeah, except they don't.

That's pretty much what IR implies - if we talk about those for a minute.
One IR can represent on level of tone through whatever system.
You can get a crunch or blues type of breaking up - but not both with two different strokes.

Unless doing this like Nebula plugins which use some kind of morph between IR to allow that - but cpu use is humongous doing that.

Some sims emulate some of that touch - but I think what most that have played guitar enough find out is that is not the same feel to it.

It's vast difference in how a tube stage react to that - you can go all the way from clean to crunch with how you strike a string.

same with modern amp simulations. add in the volume knob, and you can go all the way from clean to hi gain pretty easily.

But timbre does not change in the same way changing from a light stroke to a hard one like a tube amp do. You can lightly squeeze a note and still get that amp sizzle through with anticipation of power.

So, yes, I blame the tools in this respect.

yes, the tools that existed 10 years ago. digital has made progress since then, you know. it always does. today's freeware made by hobbyists beats commercial modelers of yesteryear hands down. the things that you're describing, they're not inherent to digital - they're just byproducts of imperfect modeling, which improves over time.

You hang on to that I wrote I did not use amp sims the last 10 years for recording - and also explained, maybe in too many words, that I have the SuperChamp that I played with doing the Fender FUSE software alterations to models in there - as well as running Rocksmith. So I'm not all lost on modern emulations. Fiddled with setting different stomp boxes in the models and altered the set I had on amp panel.

I'm a bit curious though on Magix Vandal, that I almost bought on a bundle they had with Samplitude Music Studio some time ago. Vandal is supposed to emulate the components to a high degree within a tube circuit and heard good things about it.
Best I heard from a plugin was Twin emulation from SimulAnalog that really made something of that clean phat fender tone - also emulated electronic components as I understand. I keep forgetting the tip I got from an KVRist on where those guys work today - was it on "TH" something? Whatever they did after that I'm also curious about.

I appreciate your input though. But as many nowadays think that music should sound like mp3 do, many think that guitar amps should sound like amp sims. They may resemble something of what they heard - but just hope they will discover what a real amp do too.

[Burillo]

Sure they do, if just pinching a string and full blown stroke give the same sound, but just different level.

um, yeah, except they don't.

That's pretty much what IR implies - if we talk about those for a minute.
One IR can represent on level of tone through whatever system.
You can get a crunch or blues type of breaking up - but not both with two different strokes.

Unless doing this like Nebula plugins which use some kind of morph between IR to allow that - but cpu use is humongous doing that.

...except that's not true. a lot of sims nowadays employ some kind of cabinet distortion emulation. not to mention a lot of what you mentioned (difference of sound with different pick attack) depends on preamp-poweramp emulation, not so much on cabinet distortion.

Some sims emulate some of that touch - but I think what most that have played guitar enough find out is that is not the same feel to it.

well, if it's "the same feel" is debatable, but it's no simple IR's nevertheless. hence my point.

It's vast difference in how a tube stage react to that - you can go all the way from clean to crunch with how you strike a string.

same with modern amp simulations. add in the volume knob, and you can go all the way from clean to hi gain pretty easily.

But timbre does not change in the same way changing from a light stroke to a hard one like a tube amp do. You can lightly squeeze a note and still get that amp sizzle through with anticipation of power.

again, whether it changes "the same way" is up for debate, but the point is, it does change. so, your original post to which i replied, by your own admission, is wrong. hence my point.

So, yes, I blame the tools in this respect.

yes, the tools that existed 10 years ago. digital has made progress since then, you know. it always does. today's freeware made by hobbyists beats commercial modelers of yesteryear hands down. the things that you're describing, they're not inherent to digital - they're just byproducts of imperfect modeling, which improves over time.

You hang on to that I wrote I did not use amp sims the last 10 years for recording - and also explained, maybe in too many words, that I have the SuperChamp that I played with doing the Fender FUSE software alterations to models in there - as well as running Rocksmith. So I'm not all lost on modern emulations. Fiddled with setting different stomp boxes in the models and altered the set I had on amp panel.

I'm a bit curious though on Magix Vandal, that I almost bought on a bundle they had with Samplitude Music Studio some time ago. Vandal is supposed to emulate the components to a high degree within a tube circuit and heard good things about it.
Best I heard from a plugin was Twin emulation from SimulAnalog that really made something of that clean phat fender tone - also emulated electronic components as I understand. I keep forgetting the tip I got from an KVRist on where those guys work today - was it on "TH" something? Whatever they did after that I'm also curious about.

it's TH2. and while you're at it, you should probably check out latest Amplitube models (the whole thing is a bit of a hit and miss, but some models are gorgeous), Revalver 4, Recabinet 4, S-Gear 2 and Torpedo WoS (which isn't an amp simulation, but a cabinet simulation that you can use with other amp sims if you don't like the cabinets). there's more of them, but you get the idea - there are a lot of great amp sims out there - some of which will for sure put the hardware based sims (i.e. older PODs, older digital amps) to shame.

I appreciate your input though. But as many nowadays think that music should sound like mp3 do, many think that guitar amps should sound like amp sims. They may resemble something of what they heard - but just hope they will discover what a real amp do too.

um, that's actually the case - a recorded amp should sound pretty much like what you hear through an amp sim (or rather the other way around - amp sim tries to emulate recorded amp sound). if you want to compare live amp sound with an amp sim, you'd either have to monitor your amp through a control room, or bypass ampsim's cabinet and patch it into a real cabinet. comparing these things directly makes no sense, they're different kinds of animals.

[Teksonik]

I have always felt there is a "disconnect" when playing an in the box amp sim. At least all the ones I've tried here on my system with my setup.

There is a lack of "feel" and "response". Again with the disclaimers...to me...on my system....etc.

For the record I use a hardware Johnson J Station which is of course an Amp Sim as well. But there is an attachment and feel when playing my guitar through it I have never gotten when playing an in the box sim.

I'm a software guy so trust me if there was an in the box solution that I liked better than the sound I get from the J Station I would use it in a heartbeat. I've just never found that solution.

[lfm]

That's pretty much what IR implies - if we talk about those for a minute.
One IR can represent on level of tone through whatever system.
You can get a crunch or blues type of breaking up - but not both with two different strokes.

Unless doing this like Nebula plugins which use some kind of morph between IR to allow that - but cpu use is humongous doing that.

...except that's not true. a lot of sims nowadays employ some kind of cabinet distortion emulation. not to mention a lot of what you mentioned (difference of sound with different pick attack) depends on preamp-poweramp emulation, not so much on cabinet distortion.

The ability new added to AxeFx(if I remember right) and long been in Kemper - is to record your own IR. So that give the impressions that the modelling is based on that.

So unless they record, let's say, a dozen IR while the string is klinging off - and then in dynamic way use this dozen of IR while playing - it will produce a single level of sound through system.

System may be a full preamp+poweramp+miked cabinet - there is not limitation there what an IR represent.

Some sims emulate some of that touch - but I think what most that have played guitar enough find out is that is not the same feel to it.

well, if it's "the same feel" is debatable, but it's no simple IR's nevertheless. hence my point.

One of makers, don't remember, looking yesterday - made a point that now you can even implement your own gear into the unit by recording an IR.

Seems to me they just do what Waves Q-Clone do.

But timbre does not change in the same way changing from a light stroke to a hard one like a tube amp do. You can lightly squeeze a note and still get that amp sizzle through with anticipation of power.

again, whether it changes "the same way" is up for debate, but the point is, it does change. so, your original post to which i replied, by your own admission, is wrong. hence my point.

I'm not so sure it's wrong - one IR cannot represent full dynamic range.

I saw one demo of Axe a few years back - where they recorded and took a snapshot of a guitarpart in a song by some artist and took that to make a sound you could play.
- Hey, you heard this cool guitarsound on a recording

This tells me - it's all about picking a sound and using that - not emulating anything.
And IR has it's limitations.

it's TH2. and while you're at it, you should probably check out latest Amplitube models (the whole thing is a bit of a hit and miss, but some models are gorgeous), Revalver 4, Recabinet 4, S-Gear 2 and Torpedo WoS (which isn't an amp simulation, but a cabinet simulation that you can use with other amp sims if you don't like the cabinets). there's more of them, but you get the idea - there are a lot of great amp sims out there - some of which will for sure put the hardware based sims (i.e. older PODs, older digital amps) to shame.

Thanks - also read someone stated that one guy from SimulAnalog went to Softube.
Heard a lot of good stuff about S-Gear, I've been curious for while.
Torpedo I tested, but inflict on my system trying to do network connections for their built in shop - even not doing that.
I have a long time boycot on IK how their support handled me, so that is not an option.

um, that's actually the case - a recorded amp should sound pretty much like what you hear through an amp sim (or rather the other way around - amp sim tries to emulate recorded amp sound). if you want to compare live amp sound with an amp sim, you'd either have to monitor your amp through a control room, or bypass ampsim's cabinet and patch it into a real cabinet. comparing these things directly makes no sense, they're different kinds of animals.

I'm not comparing with live playing in a room. I use a reactive speaker load, Radial JDX di box(some speaker emul in there) and then an IR with envelope to create feel of miked up - and run in headphones during playing. And a pedalboard with the usual stuff to that.

That is what I compare to using amp sims in computer, or SuperChamp emulations.
I've had my amp setup now two years - and still have to experiment some on all types of guitars Gibson LP, 335, 175, Fender jazzmaster. Some sounds nice just clean through mixer, other sound takes more.

[Burillo]

The ability new added to AxeFx(if I remember right) and long been in Kemper - is to record your own IR. So that give the impressions that the modelling is based on that.

So unless they record, let's say, a dozen IR while the string is klinging off - and then in dynamic way use this dozen of IR while playing - it will produce a single level of sound through system.

System may be a full preamp+poweramp+miked cabinet - there is not limitation there what an IR represent.

...

One of makers, don't remember, looking yesterday - made a point that now you can even implement your own gear into the unit by recording an IR.

Seems to me they just do what Waves Q-Clone do.

i'm unfamiliar with Axe FX, so can't comment on what they do and how they do it, but just because Axe FX does it doesn't mean all amp sims do the same thing. creating IR's of cabinets is a common way of getting new cabinets, but that's only a cabinet - not the whole chain. and even then, that doesn't mean all you end up with is an IR - for example, Torpedo provides software to measure your own cabinets, which actually does measure distortion along with frequency response, and will let you dial it in whenever you like (and it reacts dynamically - so it's a technology resembling Nebula, only less hassle and less CPU usage).

I'm not so sure it's wrong - one IR cannot represent full dynamic range.

you're not wrong in saying an IR is static, but you're wrong in assuming that all they use is "one IR" and nothing else. it's not the case for TSE, not the case for Revalver 4, not the case for TH2, not the case for Torpedo, not the case for Recabinet since version 3.5, not the case for Nebula, not the case for Vandal. there are various approaches, IR being but one of them. usually it's a combination of IR and something else - IR gives a pretty good picture of the frequency response, and "something else" compensates for its static-ness.

I saw one demo of Axe a few years back - where they recorded and took a snapshot of a guitarpart in a song by some artist and took that to make a sound you could play.
- Hey, you heard this cool guitarsound on a recording

This tells me - it's all about picking a sound and using that - not emulating anything.
And IR has it's limitations.

again, that's but one approach. Revalver 4, for example, is based on in-depth component modelling, with IR's being used only for cabinets (and even then, they're augmented by electrical simulation of poweramp-cabinet interation).

[wasi]

I've come to dislike the axe fx witout even using it myself because it suddenly struck me how similar several artists I knew used it sounded.

Tonally, to my ears, for example 'Intervals' and 'Animals as Leaders' sound way closer than would ever be the case with physical gear. And its funny because I noticed the similarity before I knew they both used the axeFx.

It made me completely reconsider my gear lust for the axeFx. I love modellers but it seems that two guys looking for a similar sound are more likely to arrive at points that are close together when they use modellers than if they go out and buy some amps and cabs.

It may be coincidence of course, who knows. But also, I'd be more interested in their tonal tools if it wasn't a modeller. But I couldn't be without them.

[Dominus]

I've come to dislike the axe fx witout even using it myself because it suddenly struck me how similar several artists I knew used it sounded.

Tonally, to my ears, for example 'Intervals' and 'Animals as Leaders' sound way closer than would ever be the case with physical gear. And its funny because I noticed the similarity before I knew they both used the axeFx.

It made me completely reconsider my gear lust for the axeFx. I love modellers but it seems that two guys looking for a similar sound are more likely to arrive at points that are close together when they use modellers than if they go out and buy some amps and cabs.

It may be coincidence of course, who knows. But also, I'd be more interested in their tonal tools if it wasn't a modeller. But I couldn't be without them.

So they chose similar presets? The AxeFX does a lot more than screamo metal.

I saw Brit Floyd (A Pink Floyd cover band) and they were using Axe FXs to nail the sounds from the 60s-80s perfectly. It was quite impressive. (And this from someone that prefers speed and death metal tones. )

[SadPuppyBlues]

I was hoping for an empirical truth, myself.

"This is how close we are to accurate modelling, by this measure."
"It seems to make a perceptible difference in this context, but when used for this purpose, the differences seem to be below the human threshold."

Would have been incredibly useful.
Aw well. Nice insight. Music is in the heart.

[wasi]

I've come to dislike the axe fx witout even using it myself because it suddenly struck me how similar several artists I knew used it sounded.

Tonally, to my ears, for example 'Intervals' and 'Animals as Leaders' sound way closer than would ever be the case with physical gear. And its funny because I noticed the similarity before I knew they both used the axeFx.

It made me completely reconsider my gear lust for the axeFx. I love modellers but it seems that two guys looking for a similar sound are more likely to arrive at points that are close together when they use modellers than if they go out and buy some amps and cabs.

It may be coincidence of course, who knows. But also, I'd be more interested in their tonal tools if it wasn't a modeller. But I couldn't be without them.

So they chose similar presets? The AxeFX does a lot more than screamo metal.

No, I think they were facing the same djent/prog tone challenge and then chose the same building blocks. Like two guys choosing the exact same tuxedo for a wedding after visiting the same rental.

I don't think that's a reason to avoid modelers or anything, but it's a pitfall you don't have nearly as pronounced with real gear.