Amp simulator vs “the real thing” argument

I find particularly weird the "feel" argument. I own a JVM410, a YJM100, a JCM800 from the eighties and a JMP1, and none feels the same than the others so how can those analog connoisseurs argue what any given amp "feels" like without intensively trying it? even in multichannel amps like the JVM Crunch Channel does not "feel" like Clean Green or OD1, many of these discussions are totally out of point IMHO, and a lot of people is buying snake oil when purchasing analog and/or boutique stuff.

Tone wise I think we have reached a point of no return with the Axe Fx III, the only one I know. I own a LB2 as well and after receiving the Axe FX used it to compare amps with sims, don't do it anymore, the Axe Fx stuff is just impressive and delivers me everything I need just by turning on the unit and at the same cost, if not cheaper, than a more limited set of "real thing" gear.


"feel" is kind of an internet guitar forum buzzword of the past few years. I also belong to photographer forums and terms like "drawing style" and "character" of a lens suddenly have gotten really popular too. Same thing as "mouth feel" etc in wine circles...

It's really all just talk to stroke one's ego more than anything, IMO. Sure lots of people play guitar, but I'm such an advanced guitar player I can perceive these little differences in "feel" between amps, because each note I hit is simply more important than the note a lesser guitarist plays...

I spouted off with the same BS on golf club forums in my younger days. I bought a set of forged irons, really hard to hit and unforgiving compared to most clubs targeted more towards weekend golfers, but while I sucked and barely broke 100, I was into the hobby hardcore, so naturally I needed the "best" clubs, wore the fancy logo polo's etc. Waxed poet on forums about how my clubs had a sweet feel and workability that "game improvement" clubs couldn't match. It was me being a dick basically, and trying to show how I was better than someone else, because of my purchase choice.

In reality, the clubs were fine and good, but because I kind of sucked as a golfer, I had so many mis-hits that I didn't get any "feel". Instead of got stingers, and lost a lot of balls. I'd probably been better to get clubs targeted to my skill level, and enjoyed playing more, but... then how would I talk the talk on the internet right ?

Same old thing plays out with guitar players. Guys who can't really play that well buy up fancy equipment, sit around hitting the "perfect" note in their living rooms, and talking about it on gear forums. If you can play, you can play. You can sound great on most any amp. If you can't play, well, you can spend a lot of time getting good, OR, you can simply buy yet another amp, maybe even a pricier amp, and sit around trying to make that perfect note, with "feel".


I don't know how we even 'enjoyed' our hobbies before the internet got popular.... There was nothing to do but play your guitar, ride your bike, take pictures etc. Now we can buy a fancy road bicycle, hang in on the wall, and spend our time talking about riding, or golf, or guitars etc.

Fun stuff
 
"feel" is kind of an internet guitar forum buzzword of the past few years. I also belong to photographer forums and terms like "drawing style" and "character" of a lens suddenly have gotten really popular too. Same thing as "mouth feel" etc in wine circles...

It's really all just talk to stroke one's ego more than anything, IMO. Sure lots of people play guitar, but I'm such an advanced guitar player I can perceive these little differences in "feel" between amps, because each note I hit is simply more important than the note a lesser guitarist plays...

I spouted off with the same BS on golf club forums in my younger days. I bought a set of forged irons, really hard to hit and unforgiving compared to most clubs targeted more towards weekend golfers, but while I sucked and barely broke 100, I was into the hobby hardcore, so naturally I needed the "best" clubs, wore the fancy logo polo's etc. Waxed poet on forums about how my clubs had a sweet feel and workability that "game improvement" clubs couldn't match. It was me being a dick basically, and trying to show how I was better than someone else, because of my purchase choice.

In reality, the clubs were fine and good, but because I kind of sucked as a golfer, I had so many mis-hits that I didn't get any "feel". Instead of got stingers, and lost a lot of balls. I'd probably been better to get clubs targeted to my skill level, and enjoyed playing more, but... then how would I talk the talk on the internet right ?

Same old thing plays out with guitar players. Guys who can't really play that well buy up fancy equipment, sit around hitting the "perfect" note in their living rooms, and talking about it on gear forums. If you can play, you can play. You can sound great on most any amp. If you can't play, well, you can spend a lot of time getting good, OR, you can simply buy yet another amp, maybe even a pricier amp, and sit around trying to make that perfect note, with "feel".


I don't know how we even 'enjoyed' our hobbies before the internet got popular.... There was nothing to do but play your guitar, ride your bike, take pictures etc. Now we can buy a fancy road bicycle, hang in on the wall, and spend our time talking about riding, or golf, or guitars etc.

Fun stuff
You can label me any way you like, but I disagree. Tube amps definitely do have a feel. See my previous post...
 
You can label me any way you like, but I disagree. Tube amps definitely do have a feel. See my previous post...

The point of my post was clearly missed...

I’m not saying there isn’t a difference, and I’m not singling anyone out. What I’m saying is that there are variables that exist within gear forums, regardless of the hobby, that don’t exactly translate to real world usage.

If someone based their musical pursuits solely off gear forums, they’d consider it impossible to play anything halfway decent sounding without a mojo filled, true bypass, NOS cap equipped, hand soldered, thin skin nitro finished, directional cabled, etc rig, because so many people on gear forums preach it as an absolute truth or gospel.

Internet forums are a niche subset of a small market, and simply don’t really reflect reality or overall majority opinion. They aren’t “wrong” mind you, but what is considered significant on a forum doesn’t automatically mean the masses feel the same.

Of the tens of thousands of users who bought a modeler, a small percent frequent gear forums, of that percent, an even smaller percentage is “regulars”

We are 1% of 1% of 1% of guitars players who care enough about this type of stuff to spend hours and thousands of posts talking about it.

We aren’t wrong, but at the same time, I don’t have a single friend who wouldn’t think I was a bit crazy if they knew how many hundreds of hours I’ve spent talking about a guitar processor with other like minded individuals.

If I ask a buddy how he likes his amp, he will probably say it sounds great. If I ask him how many posts he has made on gear forums obsessing over that amp, championing it, defending it, comparing it, etc he will probably say “0” lol.

I’ve known I’m a bit ocd like that for my whole life. I’m fine with it, but I’ve always had ex’s think it a bit strange that whenever I bought a new pedal I’d have to spend the whole weekend comparing it against my other pedals, for hours on end, trying to figure out what was “better” lol. I think many here have been there, done that, right ?

We aren’t wrong, there are indeed differences, but most people simply can’t hear it, don’t care, and sure aren’t going to waste time figuring out if they can
 
Electric guitar world is plagued with clichés and myths that will remain forever, partially because they make it more interesting, kind of ease space for discussions, and also many times work as excellent arguments to justifiy either next gear purchases or the ones already done. And for me it is somehow part of the charm of it.

Yes, tube amps have a feel, some you may dig it some not, but IMHO those nuances are many times totally overrated as arguments comparing one gear to another. When the truth is, all gear is, or can be, cool :)
 
Yes, tube amps have a feel, some you may dig it some not, but IMHO those nuances are many times totally overrated as arguments comparing one gear to another. When the truth is, all gear is, or can be, cool :)

Agreed... But IMO those nuances are critically important when comparing a modeling device to a tube amp circuit. Otherwise, we'd all be playing thru a POD or a J-Station or similar device ;)
 
Well I sold my HD500 not because of the feel, but because I was unable of getting a decent sound out of it (probably it was my fault). I also had other amps that felt not to "tubbey" like others (IRT Studio vs Plexi for instance).

Anyway, luckily enough the offering is overwhelming so we can get products to satisfy every individual.
 
it's beyond the point of being an amp simulator, Axe-Fx III is a digital amp, it's not simulating, it's a digital copy, whatever the components do to the signal in the hardware, that's being done now to the signal with digital DSP at the component level.

A calculator app isn't simulating a calculator because it's digital, it's calculating. Axe-Fx III isn't simulating an amp because it's digital, it's a digital amplifier, component by component in the digital realm, using DSP to process signal in place of hardware components.
 
I wonder how it goes on keyboard forums: "Well, your $5000 Korg is ok, but it just doesn't have the same feel as my Bosendorfer..." ;-)

Or did that ship sail long ago when they just accepted they couldn't play the local pub with a baby grand, a Rhodes, a Moog, a Roland, and a Hammond. (and yes, I know about the arguments on weighted keys, the best samples, etc.).

But I wonder if people get trolled for using a synth instead of a B3, the way some people try to troll us for our AFX, Helix, or Kemper...
 
On 'The feel' of an amp:
The feel is the difference between the dynamic range of your pick or finger(s), and the lesser dynamic range of the amp, imo, it might be that simple, and empirical. It might not be the only factor but I think it's a big one. When you actually play you are getting this information that is not available except to the one playing.

There are probably silent sources of dynamic range modification in an amp, along with the obvious sources like clipping saturation, and that may account for different clean amps having different feels.
 
Real is essentially what one gets used to hearing.

I’m play my III 99.9% of the time and it’s how I’m used to hearing my guitar tone. When I plug into some hardware amps at buddies houses, they don’t sound “real” to me, In that they don’t sound “better”. Volume can be an issue, the sound can be a bit too harsh, etc.
I don’t play their amp and think “I need to buy this”, instead I appreciate my Axe even more.

Now if they are used to their amp, they might not like my Axe as much, different than what they are used to.

Bottom line is that I don’t compare my Axe tone to anything these days, it’s simply what I consider my guitar sound, and that is as real as it gets.
I've played guitar all my life, and played through many amp brands trying to get the tone I have in my Head... solid state and tube amps as well; however, after I got my AXE III, I no longer play my MARSHAL JS410, JS120 and Huge pedal Board with the latest effect pedals, and some gorgeous vintage ones such as the Zen drive tube drive. Not that I don't like them any more, but it is so pleasing to hear what comes out of my studio monitors and the tone I can get without so many pedals and heavy equipment to carry to rehearsal or jigs. Thanks Fractal way to go with the AXE III
 
That's it, I'm going full retro. Here's my new "PC":


17fqnl91x3l5qjpg.jpg
Please remove the rubber bands from your card deck before inserting you deck in the card reader. Thank you!
 
All I know - is that I saw Metallica a few days ago - and they are 100% axe fx - and they sounded amazing. And the 16000 other non-guitar players in the audience thought they sounded amazing too.
 
I wonder how it goes on keyboard forums: "Well, your $5000 Korg is ok, but it just doesn't have the same feel as my Bosendorfer..." ;-)

Or did that ship sail long ago when they just accepted they couldn't play the local pub with a baby grand, a Rhodes, a Moog, a Roland, and a Hammond. (and yes, I know about the arguments on weighted keys, the best samples, etc.).

But I wonder if people get trolled for using a synth instead of a B3, the way some people try to troll us for our AFX, Helix, or Kemper...

That's an interesting comparison. I see amazing pianists like Jordan Rudess play a stadium with just a Korg Kronos and maybe a keytar (because why not?!) and absolutely amaze me. I think electric guitar is just catching up to where keyboards have been for a while now. The difference is that I think keyboard technology was easier to adapt to the digital world since in many ways, keyboards are much closer to binary devices than guitars are (the key is either on or off). Certainly there are varying pressures with which one can hit a key, but the dynamic range, I think, isn't anywhere near where a distorted electric guitar can go (especially using a very dynamic amp, like a Trainwreck, Bogner Ecstasy, Plexi, etc). Because a guitar string vibrates, rather than a hammer hitting a cable in a piano, guitarists are one movement closer to the actual generator of the acoustic sound (pick + string = sound vs. finger + key + hammer action + piano wire = sound). This is one of the reasons I have mad respect for those gifted pianists who can actually create dynamic range on a piano... I think it takes a lot more skill given the extra components that are necessary to make a sound.

And because the human ear can't as easily distinguish the nuance of a piano's dynamic range, digital keyboards can get away with using MIDI velocity values from 0-127 to cover the full dynamic range. Can you image guitar players finding out they were limited to 0-127 in a modeled amp? "It sounds digital!"

Digital keyboards can also get away with sampled sounds rather than relying on algorithms, and just play those sampled sounds louder or softer (or different samples altogether) depending on the velocity. There's so much going on in a guitar and a tube amp that there's no way to get to where we are in the Axe 3 without some seriously powerful hardware and seriously genius algorithms (thanks Cliff!).

All that said, there is something really special about plugging into a stellar tube amp that I have yet to replicate in my Axe3. It's hard to quantify, but the harmonics, feel, and interactivity of my Ecstasy Classic are something I've tried to replicate with the Euro models recently, without as much luck as I'd like. It may be the differences between the 20th Anniversary Ecstasy models vs. the Classic (which do sound different IRL), but I've yet to find an amp model in the Axe that breathes in the way the Classic does. I also own a Mesa Lonestar Classic, and I've not succeeded in getting the Texas Star models to quite match complexity I hear in the real Lonestar. This might just be me, of course.
 
I think electric guitar is just catching up.

I think since the coming of Fractal Audio, guitar is ahead. I say this because physical modeling is still rare in keyboards, which rely mostly on decades old sample-based methods. The exception would be virtual analog, where synths like U-He Diva really shine, and the AAS family (Lounge Lizard, et al) which are good modeling "keyboards".
 
I think since the coming of Fractal Audio, guitar is ahead. I say this because physical modeling is still rare in keyboards, which rely mostly on decades old sample-based methods. The exception would be virtual analog, where synths like U-He Diva really shine, and the AAS family (Lounge Lizard, et al) which are good modeling "keyboards".

The means really don't matter do they? Academically it's interesting, but in the end it's what comes out the speakers that matters.
 
Back
Top Bottom