Got a request that will make the tube die-hards think....can you do a demo video?

Brewce said:
Click to expand...

For me, the takeaway was:

Satriani, "When we did the last G4 I watched a lot of shows by the different performers in the back of the room to see if I could tell that there was modeling going on and I realized I couldn't at all. As you said, once it's mixed in with the instruments and the sounds are complimenting each other, suddenly I'm just a fan enjoying the music and liking the guitar playing. It's really about the performer, isn't it?"
 
I hate this stupid topic. From both the "THERE TAKEN OR AMBS!" rhetoric blathered out by people who haven't tried a modeler since 1985 POV as well as the silent stage type who has never set foot in front of a half stack yet claims that the experience is 1:1 from a Mooer turd through a pair of garbage headphones to a full stack blasting your face at 130db.







Of course; I could have just not replied but where would the "fun" be in that? :oops:
 
If a tube amp is better for you, then keep playing it. Flexibility is the reason I even considered a modeller. The Axe was the right move for me and I haven't looked back.

Around 2016 or so I sat down with a pad of paper and mapped out what sounds I needed and what this would cost, including maintenance, weight of all items and cases (and the size of the pedalboard).

If I was playing in a blues band, a small combo and a couple of pedals would have sufficed. In the end, it turned out to be FAR more inexpensive to go the Axe route than to beef-up my analog rig. ...and more flexible.

Besides, even w an analog amp, your sound is only as good as the mic placement as far as FOH is concerned.
 
Brewce said:
Click to expand...


Funny thing about what Joe is saying here - The last tube amp I bought years ago was the JSX combo. It was the most lifeless and uninspiring tube amp I have ever played (and I do love tube amps). I tried different things, but it just missed the liveliness he's talking about. It did have some serious volume.
 
Cooper Carter said:
Refer any haters to the ticket purchase link for this summer's Journey/Def Lepp stadium show.
Click to expand...
Where (AFAIK) they can see Neal still using amps on stage for his own enjoyment and maybe feedback purposes?

OTOH, everyone seems to agree that for the public and/or in a mix it doesn't matter anymore.

Yet if a player loves to use the easier feedback benefits a lot, I would say it does matter for the public too.
 
NeoSound said:
Funny thing about what Joe is saying here - The last tube amp I bought years ago was the JSX combo. It was the most lifeless and uninspiring tube amp I have ever played (and I do love tube amps). I tried different things, but it just missed the liveliness he's talking about. It did have some serious volume.
Click to expand...
I relate more to his first point, how all dynamics are translated live, and (acc. to him) esp. on the higher strings.

In Ultra days I visited a pal with many of the classic vintage amps and guitars. Compared to that in the room experience the Axe got blown out of the water as if "a total piece of crap." It was of course an unfair comparison in itself, and it was also early days and the guy had better amps, guitars, drives, ... Yet from my lack of experience and forum hype I thought the Ultra would be 80% there... :sweatsmile:

I also played the incredible Matchless DC-30 which was yet another level (at the time Cliff hadn't cracked the code of it yet).

The thing that that I found most remarkable is, I think, what Satriani is saying. There was this feeling that however hard I might be able to dig into the strings, the amp would translate that more "organically." ("live dynamics" and connectedness)

I'm not even saying I could detect this now in a blind test -- it's just what stuck out to me at the time.

Then, of course, on the AFX II even many presets still sound and feel ridiculously good, so I am plenty happy with that, with more to come as I explore the FM9 further this year.

So I'm not an amp purist, but I've had a taste of it and still see many potential benefits (esp. if you need just a few sounds). I also see the drawbacks, so I would always use both.

Also, AFAIK, many experienced players and/or amp builders can still detect the difference and it may be important to them or not.

To be clear: consider me very, very happy with Fractal tech, but also looking forward to have some favorite sounds as (tube) amp in the room again someday.
 
Last edited:
People compare the tube amp in the room against the axe with studio monitors at tv Volume

Most of the people don’t get that the axe is a miced tone when you don’t use it with a cab and power amp ….

Me too I prefer the tone of the tube amp in front of me, that’s why I still own my JP2c stack … 🤷

But I am finishing a new record and this is 100% axe fx. Because when I mic my amp that’s not “better”
 
axifist said:
Can we agree, that the critical component for this is the power amp?
Click to expand...

I don't agree with that. I think the power amp sims in the fractal are, for lack of a better word, perfect. If I wanted a cab in the room sound, I'd leave PA modeling on and run a hifi-style class-D amp with a high damping factor into a cab. I even know the cab and amp I would use.

Thanks to both things that Cliff has posted and my own research figuring out, among other things, how to run my passive "mastering" speakers well, I feel like I've got a pretty good handle on this.

I've also played a variety of vintage and boutique amps and heard a lot of concerts with every conceivable mix of guitar gear from small rooms to stadiums....when I'm in the crowd, I flat-out can't tell and literally do not care (the Bonamassa concerts are still cool just seeing all that gear being used, plus I'm a Bonanmassa fan...going to see him again in a few weeks).

I'm absolutely convinced that "amp feel" and "amp in the room" is 100% about acoustics and volume. And you only get that when you're on stage.

But, to the OP, I've done something close to that, though I didn't record it.

The second to last time I went to try out an FRFR (it was the Line6 2x12), they just happened to have a 1987 Silver Jubilee sitting next to it, so obviously I played it too. The guys in the shop were curious, so I replicated the setup (including a fractal model of the same cab, which sadly wasn't the SJ one with v30s) in my FM3 and we set up a switcher (it was a GigRig QMX that I had sold them a few weeks ago) and matched volumes as close as we could, loud but not stupid (it was around 100dB according to my phone). And we all played it. They weren't exactly the same, but the Silver Jubilee in the Fractal was a Lerxst at the time anyway....and IIRC there was an SM57 and a preamp "in the way" of the Line6 on the fractal side (I prefer IRs to the Line6 speaker modeling). So, still not at all perfect.

And we all came to the conclusion that the Marshall was cool because of what it was but that either sound would work just fine if you wanted that sound. Once I started playing with my normal wet effects after the amp...literally everyone including a couple tube die-hards admitted that practicality would mean that the Fractal would win if you didn't have a team of roadies and techs.

They still didn't want to change, and I still think it's fun to play fancy/cool amps. But, the decision for me comes down to the fact that a Fractal fits into my life better. I love the sound, and I'm inspired to play. And I don't have to fight with the volume required for the vintage-y non-MV amps I prefer.

Oh yeah, the last mix project I did came with only guitar DIs, several of them. Honestly....I couldn't bother re-recording all the guitar sounds one at a time. So, I bought one of the Neural plugins to do it (the Tone King one). It was fine too....sounded great in the mix. I've played it a bit as well, and it sounds and feels good. It doesn't have the flexibility of my FM3, and I don't want to be forced to play through my computer....and the effects are mostly junk compared to the Fractal effects. But, that works too. I'm no longer opposed to plugins, but I'll only voluntarily use them when I'm mixing DI tracks.
 
Modelling you have a speaker impulse being played through speakers.

Guitar -> Amp -> Cab -> Mic -> Power Amp -> Speaker

Analogue you have only one speaker, the cab. It’s obviously a purer signal.

Guitar -> Amp -> Cab

Modelling is exactly what the audience hears, live or on a recording.
Analogue is what a guitarist hears when they play at home.

I decided to go all in on modelling, each to their own, go play some guitar.
 
discondition said:
It’s obviously a purer signal.
Click to expand...
I doubt it... Or it depends on what you mean.

The whole chain you're mentioning is largely digital. Losses and noise can be kept at a minimum by great code, despite having many blocks.

The same thing in hardware would potentially sound (much) less pure, no?

I would also include the A/D conversions/latency in the comparison though. Avoiding these would in a sense make the signal "purer / organic," but may be noisier.
 
Brewce said:
I doubt it... Or it depends on what you mean.
Click to expand...

I’m not talking about digital vs analogue, I’m talking about the impact of the signal chain.

If you record a real amp and then play the recording through your speakers of choice, it’s going to have the same effect as using a modeller with an IR. You are adding a mic, a cab, and an additional power amp into the signal chain.
 
Last edited:
This works the other way around too, if you plug your modeller into a power amp and then into a real cab (IR and power amp simulation turned off).

You will get the sound of an amp plugged into a cab, rather than the sound of a mic’d up guitar amp.

Getting feedback from your guitar is all about volume.
 
Last edited:
discondition said:
This works the other way around too, if you plug your modeller into a power amp and then into a real cab (IR turned off).

You will get the sound of an amp plugged into a cab, rather than the sound of a mic’d up guitar amp.

Getting feedback from your guitar is all about volume.
Click to expand...
I admit I don't have the experience of some on the forum, but this doesn't compute to me.

I can tap the wood on my guitar and it's going to feedback depending on the preset regardless of the volume.

Guitar > Axe > Mission Engineering Gemini 2x12.
 
Calibix said:
I admit I don't have the experience of some on the forum, but this doesn't compute to me.

I can tap the wood on my guitar and it's going to feedback depending on the preset regardless of the volume.

Guitar > Axe > Mission Engineering Gemini 2x12.
Click to expand...
Try it with headphones on :)
 
discondition said:
Getting feedback from your guitar is all about volume.
Click to expand...
AFAIK, most know/agree that it tends to be hard to get musical feedback with FRFR (I always forget why). Lotsa squealing potential with FRFR. Whether tubes enhance musical feedback even more, I don't know (I would guess yes), but this seems to preferably need a cab (or a speaker nearby, or a clever device). I did hear the Laney FRFR is supposed to work better than general for it -- and the RedSound ones, IIRC.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom