What do people mean when they say modelers "lack the amp feel"?

As stated above, for me, latency remains one of the biggest issues. Depending on the quality of the digital conversion the subtle nuance of transient and attack change slightly which manifests for me as a tactile disconnect under my fingers.

Fractal has, hands down, the best converters of any modeling device I have ever played.

Latency is highly important for "feel" I think. Listening to an A/B playback, two things can sound 100% identical, but what might be different is the perceived difference in response to touch/picking caused by latency.

Also the way in which a signal is re-amplified to the same volume as a tube stack next to it is really important. Most people don't quite seem to get that part and can't stop saying "it doesn't matter what power amp I use as long as it's "flat" because that speaker response effect is modeled". But it does matter, because there's still a strong relationship between the cab in the room and the power amp driving it, regardless of what was modeled ahead of that in the chain. It can take a lot of care to account for that factor properly I think. 'flatness' isn't the only important characteristic of a power amp.
 
Once saw an interview with Eddie Van Halen and he said the real secret to his sound was "volume". It definitely brings the guitar alive and the feeling of that volume while playing is like a drug once you get used to it. It can scare you at first :eek:.
Definitely it is scary. Knowing that it’s going to reveal every mistake, loudly, is worrisome. And then, rolling up the volume too close to the speaker and having it jump into feedback is like having grabbing a pissed-off tiger by the tail. Once it’s under control though, it’s so fun. :)
 
Latency is highly important for "feel" I think. Listening to an A/B playback, two things can sound 100% identical, but what might be different is the perceived difference in response to touch/picking caused by latency.

Also the way in which a signal is re-amplified to the same volume as a tube stack next to it is really important. Most people don't quite seem to get that part and can't stop saying "it doesn't matter what power amp I use as long as it's "flat" because that speaker response effect is modeled". But it does matter, because there's still a strong relationship between the cab in the room and the power amp driving it, regardless of what was modeled ahead of that in the chain. It can take a lot of care to account for that factor properly I think. 'flatness' isn't the only important characteristic of a power amp.
The latency thing with modern higher end modeling is a non issue unless you have a signal chain that compounds it enough to make it an issue.
If you stand away from your amp 10 feet or more there is more latency produced by the distance than the fractal device has.
It's not 1995 folks.
 
I think there are a lot of subtle things that contribute to it....most of them to do with how the volume in the room interacts with the guitar and the fact that guitar cabs are actually really terrible speakers, at least in terms of accurately playing what's fed into them.

The biggest things, to me, are how the guitar responds to the volume in the room (which Fractal can "fake" very well), some of the electrical interactions (damping factor, OT loading, pickup loading, etc., which fractal does the same or better than other modelers), and how you hear a loud cab in the room compared to however you listen to the modeler.

The first "big" eureka moment for me was when I spent some time setting up the amp output compression and played the fractal into a studio monitor that I put on the floor behind me. It wasn't perfect (because the studio monitor still interacts with the room very differently from a cab...it's directivity is made for fidelity as opposed to the guitar cab's directivity being more a matter of "whatever you get when you build a cab like they've always done"), but it was a lot closer than anything else I'd heard. And in many ways, it was flat-out better than every other way I'd try to play electric at reasonable volumes.

The output compressor, IMHO, fixes all the feel things once you tune it to the volume in the room.

The next big one was after I realized that everything I was experiencing was different from what anyone else ever experienced. Which actually came from buying my first acoustic guitar, years and years after I started playing electric. I'd played acoustics before but never owned one.

Every single acoustic I played, from $80 to $8,000, sounded substantially better when someone else was playing it. I thought that maybe I just sucked. The employees said I sounded fine, which I didn't trust because they were trying to make money (can't blame them). I did some stupid, low-quality iPhone recordings (in the store) of an employee playing a couple guitars and me playing the same guitars...and despite the crappy recordings, each sounded much more like what I was hearing when someone else played each one....not exactly the same, we were different players with different hands and different minds, and I didn't have my good IEMs with me, just the super bright wireless ones I used for podcasts. But, it was still closer.

I came to the conclusion that no acoustic was ever going to sound "right" to me when I was playing it because all acoustics sound better to me from in front of the guitar than above it. No one ever mics an acoustic guitar with a mic where the player's head is.

Which lead to two big ideas....

First, since I just have the acoustic to tick a box and don't feel inspired to focus on them anyway, what I hear doesn't matter that much as long as I can tell what I'm playing.

Second....as dumb as it sounds....the "right way" for me to be inspired to play my acoustic is to set up microphones and monitor what's coming out of the front of the guitar through IEMs.

And then I realized that the same thing happens with electrics. Whether it's going to FOH or a recording, what I'm experiencing when I play in front of an amp is fundamentally different from what everyone else experiences after the engineer puts a mic in one place, high-passes the crap out of it, and makes it sound good in the context of the rest of the song....or when anyone else stands not exactly where I am in the room. If I want to inspire other people with my music, I need to hear what they're hearing and have that inspire me....which a lot of people do a lot of different ways.

Now...guitar is just a hobby for me. I'm describing it in more general performance-y terms because it's easier, but that isn't my life. Really...I just want to be inspired and enjoy what I'm doing without blowing out my ears.

And as dumb as it sounds, after all this....the easiest way for me to do that doesn't involve a speaker. I make it sound good in IEMs that I really like, set up the output compression to work with a "silent stage", and route whatever I'm playing with through the fractal to minimize latency.

It doesn't bother anyone, I can play whenever I want, and it's easy to bypass an EQ block to get an inspiring sound by myself or turn it on so it fits with whatever/whoever I'm playing with, and I get an inspiring sound from the song. It makes casually playing with other musicians a lot harder....but it's worth jumping through the hoops. And, frankly...it happens a lot more often with the acoustic anyway because of who my friends are and how we play together. And I don't like my sound that much when we do it...but everyone else is fine with it, and I can play with them and be inspired by the experience.

So...yeah...a year or two of experimentation took me from "there's something missing" to "I only want to play on IEMs" and when I don't get to...then I really don't care that much about exactly what I'm hearing as long as I can hear well enough to play, and I can get inspiration from listening intently to everyone else at least as well as I can from listening to myself.

Sorry...big ramble. Basically, I think it's a non-issue.
 
The latency thing with modern higher end modeling is a non issue unless you have a signal chain that compounds it enough to make it an issue.
If you stand away from your amp 10 feet or more there is more latency produced by the distance than the fractal device has.
It's not 1995 folks.

Okay but it doesn't discount the point that latency contributes to what people call "feel". And this applies to more than just fractal. Many people also play through plugins which have overall a substantially higher latency than hardware modelers.
 
So, is the the solution for those of us who spend a lot of time using headphones out of necessity to build a filter block that reverses the FM curve?
 
My opinion as a long time tube amp player, and for the last 12 years a Fractal user, is that for recording NOTHING currently beats the AXE FX iii. As far as playing "live" is concerned it's not quite the same but its close. Increasingly close with each big update in firmware.

I'm a big Bogner Ecstasy fan and the AXE doesnt quite hit it for me, even with an LXii, but for every album I've recorded on I've used the Fractal.
 
There's something about standing right next to a tube amp and getting that immediate attack that modellers don't to the same way.
Probably something to do about the latency as others has mentioned.

But hearing the same tube amp through a mic or even standing further away from it will also reduce that immediacy.

I notice it when i have played through my Fm3 for a while and then use a tube amp.
 
That's not it.
Sure his amps sounded better cranked up. Especially the old plexi because he needed to get the power amp distorting to get his tone out if it.
But there are lots of modern amps that "feel under you fingers" like that at much lower volumes. Cliff has stated it before it's the amp speaker damping factor that's doing it.

No... when you are standing beside a cranked amp, the guitar becomes a completely different thing. It's lively, tries to feedback and reacts differently. Touch, feel and dynamics are different. It's like being tapped on the shoulder or being slugged with a baseball bat. A recording of that and a recording of the axe fx with similar gain staging, eq etc will sound almost identical. Remember we are talking about amp in the room, not minor differences in tone. Cliff himself said volume above. Back up and read the thread. What I posted may not have been clear enough, but what Eddie said backs up what Cliff posted.

It means they haven't played Fractal. :cool:

Seriously though, earlier generation modelers didn't capture the complex dynamics.

Another issue though, is people tend to listen to modelers at far lower volumes than tube amps. This gives the illusion that things are not as "dynamic" due to Fletcher-Munson, the lack of tactile sensation and the lack of acoustic feedback into the guitar.
 
Latency is highly important for "feel" I think. Listening to an A/B playback, two things can sound 100% identical, but what might be different is the perceived difference in response to touch/picking caused by latency.

Also the way in which a signal is re-amplified to the same volume as a tube stack next to it is really important. Most people don't quite seem to get that part and can't stop saying "it doesn't matter what power amp I use as long as it's "flat" because that speaker response effect is modeled". But it does matter, because there's still a strong relationship between the cab in the room and the power amp driving it, regardless of what was modeled ahead of that in the chain. It can take a lot of care to account for that factor properly I think. 'flatness' isn't the only important characteristic of a power amp.



A good experiment would be to take a tube stack cranked, then the axe fx with a good (flat :)) power amp, speaker modeling off into that same speaker cab and match the volume to the tube amp. Seems most everyone does the opposite when experimenting. They run the tube head into a load box and then into the modeler.
 
A good experiment would be to take a tube stack cranked, then the axe fx with a good (flat :)) power amp, speaker modeling off into that same speaker cab and match the volume to the tube amp. Seems most everyone does the opposite when experimenting. They run the tube head into a load box and then into the modeler.
Either of these are fine but neither are perfect. Even the best reactive loadbox is not 100% the same thing as straight into the cab. Likewise the model might not be perfectly matched to the cab and the poweramp has an effect to. But these two scenarios are still far closer together and IMO good enough to compare.
 
A good experiment would be to take a tube stack cranked, then the axe fx with a good (flat :)) power amp, speaker modeling off into that same speaker cab and match the volume to the tube amp. Seems most everyone does the opposite when experimenting. They run the tube head into a load box and then into the modeler.

yep. It's partially because it can be annoyingly difficult to do it with the real cab because you have to switch everything around in between and putting amp in standby. You can't easily do a direct A/B back to back while playing. However, with solution such as KHE or by splitting a stereo cab, it should be possible to do. I haven't had a minute yet but I'm going to use the stereo split on my OS 412 to do this later on for QC capture comparison as well as axe FX.
 
And yet the Axe Fx is still the most accurate in that area. Two of the same model amps can have more difference than that.
Agreed, Axe FX is definitely the best. Preamp tubes, power amp tubes, filters caps, etc etc can all have a huge impact on feel but even comparing my twin to the Axe FX twin I hear the same difference, slightly less compression and chunk.
 
Another issue though, is people tend to listen to modelers at far lower volumes than tube amps. This gives the illusion that things are not as "dynamic" due to Fletcher-Munson, the lack of tactile sensation and the lack of acoustic feedback into the guitar.
I had the pleasure of getting to play at my buddy's practice space last weekend through a wall shakingly loud PA system......it was the most amazing my axe 3 has ever sounded. One guitarist was using a Helix and another was using a computer with neuro DSP plugin.

Everyone was fighting over getting to use my axe fx as we traded around gear for fun :D
 
Okay but it doesn't discount the point that latency contributes to what people call "feel". And this applies to more than just fractal. Many people also play through plugins which have overall a substantially higher latency than hardware modelers.
My point is that people complain about latency with a high end modeller when they are sitting next to it. Yet they don’t complain about latency when they sit 10 feet from a tube amp. Yet the actual latency is more with the tube amp at a distance.
 
My point is that people complain about latency with a high end modeller when they are sitting next to it. Yet they don’t complain about latency when they sit 10 feet from a tube amp. Yet the actual latency is more with the tube amp at a distance.
I think your brain is naturally attuned to compensate for delays due to distance vs processing. Most people probably don’t notice distance related latency at all.
 
Back
Top Bottom