Are new amps really needed?

Short answer to the OP question…. No.

The thing I notice is… Now that we guitarists have a great sounding all in one cutting edge box like the Fractal, which has basically everything… we always want more and more. It’s not a need… but an individual want, and us being spoiled with free updates.
Decades ago this wasn’t the case, because it just didn't exist... and when it first did they were awful compared to the real deal. But now with all the pro level sounds one unit can offer, there’s still always this ‘need’ for more. Cliff is a rare breed, because he's restless to constantly push forward... and he's generous. We're lucky. Be happy and make music... your tone is fine... if not, it's you.

Since I come from the end of the old school 'boomer' crowd (Marshall 50W, Gibson or Fender, few effects) what amps or effects do we 'need' to get our holy grail tone... that's not already there in some form or other? Another Fender / Marshall variation? Maybe I'm missing something.

I'll end with this... IMO, to much emphasis is put on chasing tones resulting in option paralysis, instead of working with what you have (I always did) and concentrate on your playing, letting your hands and heart project your music... not going "oh... my tone still isn't right, I need this and that". If that were the case, we'd have no music.
 
Do I think that we need more amps?
Definitely not.
Do I want that we get more amps?
Definitely yes.
But that’s more of a sentimental thing.
I wish that we get a Steavens Poundcake at some point because my own amp is lost in the flooding in Germany one and a half years ago.

But I’m completely satisfied with what we already in the Axe.
 
I would surmise that from a creative point of view (for Fractal), there's a value in keeping one's hand in and skills up by modeling a new amp from time to time, even if there isn't a pressing need. There's more gold dust, even if the big nuggets have been found. From a user perspective; I haven't failed to find or tweak an amp to come up with whatever tone I imagine: So, while I personally am challenged and fulfilled by hanging out at base camp, I 100% support the efforts of those scaling the highest peaks.
 
Last edited:
artzeal said:
I would surmise that from a creative point of view (for Fractal), there's a value in keeping one's hand in and skills up by modeling a new amp from time to time, even if there isn't a pressing need. There's more gold dust, even if the big nuggets have been found. From a user perspective; I haven't failed to find or tweak an amp to come up with whatever tone I imagine: So, while I personally am challenged and fulfilled by hanging out at base camp, I 100% support the efforts of those scaling the highest peaks.
Click to expand...
That and to avoid stagnation in the offerings.
 
fcs101 said:
That and to avoid stagnation in the offerings.
Click to expand...
+1 - no-one "needs" 300 amp models, but every rw amp has a following, so modelling it brings in Axfx customers - ie: there is a gang of Revv fanatics out there who will gravitate to Axfx if they know Revv is modelled therein - telling those folks that another amp model can "maybe kinda" be shaped to nail Revv tones is not quite the same to them. I'd bet modelling new amps translates directly to more sales - and the side benefit is that current users have more canned sounds. I wonder sometimes though, what the overhead is to maintaing an amp model year after year - I guess they've done that math though, and determined a positive business case more or less for each amp modelled.
 
sprint said:
really? From what I've seen, businesses don't tend to spend significant time/$ developing / enhancing products just to keep their skills up - but anything's possible I guess.
Click to expand...
Most don't, but FAS is a little atypical, so it wouldn't surprise me if that was at least a partial motivation for much of the improvements, along with "because it makes our stuff better"....
 
Last edited:
I'm going to come at this from a different angle just for fun (because I'm able to get what I need with what is already available).

Yes, there are 300 models in inside, but how many fit my needs/wants?

If only 10 do, then it seems a bit more "justified" to ask for something else because 10 isn't very many. The other 290 mean nothing to me if don't like them.

In my case, I'm not a fan of the Marshall sound for what I do. How many models does that wipe from the list (especially if you count the Friedman and Cameron and other derivative models)?

But for a Marshall guy, adding another one is probably great... :)

My request would be for amps that truly bring something different to the table...
 
Need is the wrong word. The better question is, do the original set of amps keep up with constant development and product release of amp and pedal builders? It's not really about what you need to play guitar, it's about what you feel fits you as a player. Most of us do identify to some extent with our gear choices and specific aspects of how they sound. Do we need so many 5150 and EVH models or so many similar marshall or recto models to get effectively the same sound? Highly unlikely.

Conversely IRL, that many amps can be made to sound the same to the average listener doesn't really negate the fact that so many people prefer different amps for different reasons. Fractal should keep adding new content to some extent, whether it's models of real amps or completely fractal designed in order to drive creativity and interest. Additionally, adding a block for ML capture to let users include their own unique pedals/gear that's never likely to be modeled or represented would be a really good thing.
 
northern_fox said:
Need is the wrong word. The better question is, do the original set of amps keep up with constant development and product release of amp and pedal builders? It's not really about what you need to play guitar, it's about what you feel fits you as a player. Most of us do identify to some extent with our gear choices and specific aspects of how they sound. Do we need so many 5150 and EVH models or so many similar marshall or recto models to get effectively the same sound? Highly unlikely.

Conversely IRL, that many amps can be made to sound the same to the average listener doesn't really negate the fact that so many people prefer different amps for different reasons. Fractal should keep adding new content to some extent, whether it's models of real amps or completely fractal designed in order to drive creativity and interest. Additionally, adding a block for ML capture to let users include their own unique pedals/gear that's never likely to be modeled or represented would be a really good thing.
Click to expand...
There's a lot of real world reasons to pick a particular amp. Let's say we want a Marshall voiced amp. Our options could lead us to very different paths:
  • Something reasonably priced, "my first Marshall" -> Marshall DSL40 combo
  • Something with a lot of features and easy to get, not super pricy -> Marshall JVM
  • Something more upscale - better built, sounds better at low volume, a more modern voicing -> Bogner or Friedman
  • Something built "like the old days" -> Germino, Metropoulos, Marshall's own handwired series
None of these things are a factor in the virtual world where you can crank a vintage Plexi model all day long without blowing the roof off. You don't need fx loops, master volumes, power scaling or have to choose between specific voicings when you can do a ton to shape the sound to your liking.

But I can understand your point. If people are looking at modern pedals and amps and see the Fractal stuff only modeling old classics then they might be disappointed it doesn't model "the pedal/amp du jour."
 
laxu said:
There's a lot of real world reasons to pick a particular amp. Let's say we want a Marshall voiced amp. Our options could lead us to very different paths:
  • Something reasonably priced, "my first Marshall" -> Marshall DSL40 combo
  • Something with a lot of features and easy to get, not super pricy -> Marshall JVM
  • Something more upscale - better built, sounds better at low volume, a more modern voicing -> Bogner or Friedman
  • Something built "like the old days" -> Germino, Metropoulos, Marshall's own handwired series
None of these things are a factor in the virtual world where you can crank a vintage Plexi model all day long without blowing the roof off. You don't need fx loops, master volumes, power scaling or have to choose between specific voicings when you can do a ton to shape the sound to your liking.

But I can understand your point. If people are looking at modern pedals and amps and see the Fractal stuff only modeling old classics then they might be disappointed it doesn't model "the pedal/amp du jour."
Click to expand...
agree with this and agree with your previous post about parameters and EQ matching (which I do a lot of). The thing that can be "hard" to get right is the transient response of an amp that doesn't exist. It's relatively easy to precisely copy the tone of any amp using a nearish base model inside the axe fx and some EQ/tweaking, but doing controlled A/B tests (same performance, same IR, etc) vs the real amp you will still often find characteristics in time domain interaction that don't quite line up.

Is that a problem? No, not really. I think part of the power of digital is washed aside by the defacto standard that digital must be indistinguishable, or it's worse - something we need to train ourselves out of believing. But still, I admit that when I can't get it quite right it does leave me feeling like I'm missing something. Or it's just something about that sound I personally really like and can't nail. Maybe that's a personal issue, and maybe it doesn't really matter in the grand scheme (it doesn't), but are we aiming for "good enough to cover all the bases" or something more as time moves forward and amp building becomes less centralized on original designs? I have no idea how much work it is to model new amps for fractal or what the investment is in doing so. I just think it would be cool to flow with new things on top of what's already there, even if it might be similar. Or go crazy like they used to with the FAS models and create things that have never been done

At the very least, I think more bass related content IS needed. What's there is good, but there is more to the bass world than a few pedals, an SVT and a 400+. GK, darkglass, etc please!
 
Last edited:
northern_fox said:
agree with this and agree with your previous post about parameters and EQ matching (which I do a lot of). The thing that can be "hard" to get right is the transient response of an amp that doesn't exist. It's relatively easy to precisely copy the tone of any amp using a nearish base model inside the axe fx and some EQ/tweaking, but doing controlled A/B tests (same performance, same IR, etc) vs the real amp you will still often find characteristics in time domain interaction that don't quite line up.

Is that a problem? No, not really. I think part of the power of digital is washed aside by the defacto standard that digital must be indistinguishable, or it's worse - something we need to train ourselves out of believing. But still, I admit that when I can't get it quite right it does leave me feeling like I'm missing something. Or it's just something about that sound I personally really like and can't nail. Maybe that's a personal issue, and maybe it doesn't really matter in the grand scheme (it doesn't), but are we aiming for "good enough to cover all the bases" or something more as time moves forward and amp building becomes less centralized on original designs? I have no idea how much work it is to model new amps for fractal or what the investment is in doing so. I just think it would be cool to flow with new things on top of what's already there, even if it might be similar. Or go crazy like they used to with the FAS models and create things that have never been done

At the very least, I think more bass related content IS needed. What's there is good, but there is more to the bass world than a few pedals, an SVT and a 400+. GK, darkglass, etc please!
Click to expand...
I'm starting to treat digital as its own thing. The technology is already proven to be close to real tube amps, I've been able to make my Axe-Fx sound and feel identical to the point that I have sold my tube amps - none of which were modeled in the unit.

As an example, my favorite drive pedal is the Strymon Riverside. Clean boost, low gain, high gain, preamp replacement...it can do it all. It can be setup to behave similar to a Tube Screamer, ODR-1 and various other pedals just by varying its active EQ and presence switch. Or even be a fairly tube-ish preamp. But it's still not the same thing as say a Marshall Superlead preamp or your favorite overdrive pedal. Compared to the Marshall-based Fractal Marshall models it's "cleaner" - less sizzle and the EQ doesn't put it in the same places. But the Riverside is certainly not worse, just different. It's more of "that's a good sound, that's a good sound too, that's another good sound" wins across the board. And that's just with a single drive pedal (but one that is arguably far more flexible than its analog brethren) rather than the vast array of tools Fractal offers.

I can leave obsessing over amp model accuracy to the fine people at Fractal while I enjoy the stellar tones I've been getting for a decade now from various gen Axe-Fx units. If people were less obsessed with having a digital replica of some specific real amp, they'd find that great tones are everywhere in the unit and achievable in multiple ways.

I do agree it would be nice to have more bass model options. Mere 6 bass amp models is pretty weak compared to hundreds of guitar amps. Similarly I'd like to see bass-focused drive pedals etc.
 
I would like to see more complete representations of what’s already present i.e. a Mesa Rectifier properly modeled in SS rectification. I know my dual recs internal voltages all change pretty drastically when switching to tube rectification, regardless of sag.
 
fcs101 said:
I'll follow up to my previous post to state that I believe most of our obsession is for purely personal fulfillment. I have to laugh sometimes because, guess what? 90% or more of folks will never care about your awesome guitar tone...they don't even notice. Most people when listening to a song perceive it in it's totality; they're not honed in to any one instrument.

That doesn't mean tone doesn't matter. It can do wonders for inspiration, motivation, and making a connection to your guitar.
Click to expand...
Interesting and funny comment.
 
skydog said:
Click to expand...

Ironically (?) this is incorrect, and NOT logical.

By the way when someone READS something when speaking, it does not effectively transmit the information.

If someone SAID this instead of reading it, it would actually be able to be absorbed.

Godd on that spock actor for being able to read though!
 
This thread and the Game of Tones series made me realize I don't need more amp models. I want them but I don't need them.

What I do actually really truly need is more presets built by Steve Vai, Tim Pierce, Dweezil Zappa, and the rest of the amazing contributors, and also those artists who didn't participate. Not because I am greedy or want to copy their tones, I couldn't care less about stealing others signature tones, but because they are super-useful for many things as is and also teach me a lot. I study them like a good student would.

I also dream of having factory preset for each and every amp in the box, every drive, etc., showing all it's best features and combinations in number of scenes, with different selection of IRs, effects, etc. Kinda like what AustinBuddy already did. Or what Leon and Carter are doing each week. I don't have time, place and skill to do this on my own, researching every bit of the info about them and tuning them "gig ready", so this would make my life complete.
Right now it takes too much effort for someone like me to build a preset for each amp and be able to find what it does best, which artists use it, when and why, etc. I love doing so but it takes time from work, family and practice, that's the reason behind this wish :)

So new amps - would be great, but not super-useful TBH. New factory or GoT presets would be much more valuable for me.
 
It's often said that audience members won't generally notice tonal differences. I guess I'm weird cuz I've always been sensitive to it, and I didn't even pick up an instrument till my mid 40s. In my concert going days, if the band's gutar tone was "different" from what I expected from previous shows or live tracks I'd heard, i'd be quite dissappointed. I could tell it was off though I could not explain any mechanics of why. Maybe there's more than a few weirdos like me out there. Just becasuse someone does not play guitar doesn't mean they necessarily do not have an acute ear for guitar tones.
 
Xcdchdchjjf said:
Ironically (?) this is incorrect, and NOT logical.

By the way when someone READS something when speaking, it does not effectively transmit the information.

If someone SAID this instead of reading it, it would actually be able to be absorbed.

Godd on that spock actor for being able to read though!
Click to expand...
Xcdchdcjjf,
Spock specifically says that it is not logical. He additionally counters, that it is often true.

In this case, people want more modeled amps. Once they have them, they still want others. What he says makes perfect sense. Further in the longer quote, he notes that the alternative, is in fact not a better choice. I suspect the original-circuit classic amps would feel the same about some of the lesser-known modified clones.

Regardless, injecting Spock’s quote into the discussion had context. Further, he had just recovered from the “Pon Farr”. Considering he had just emerged from an episode of extreme physical and psychological imbalance requiring a mating ritual or facing death, his statement is fairly lucid. At the least and on-average, much more than most people that post on Internet forums.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom