Helix LT is now available for order. Cut down version - ish.

stratman3142

NelsonP said:

A good valve amp is still better than a modeller. No doubt about it. It's really not cork sniffery or not being open minded.

Valve amps just 'feel' better than a modeller when playing them. Feel being a combination of things (tone, responsiveness, mental difference of seeing / feeling a big amp etc).

I'm currently liking my Roland Blues Cube more than various valve amps I've used over the years.

Plus I also prefer ampsims such as S-Gear 2, Kazrog and Amplitube Fender 2 over many valve amps I've used.

welshboyo

NelsonP said:

A good valve amp is still better than a modeller. No doubt about it. It's really not cork sniffery or not being open minded.

Valve amps just 'feel' better than a modeller when playing them. Feel being a combination of things (tone, responsiveness, mental difference of seeing / feeling a big amp etc).

Having said that, a high end modeller does a pretty damn good impression, is ultimately much cheaper and is so much more convenient for everyday use - you can use headphones, portable, contains all the effects you need, much easier for recording etc.

I am open minded, love modelling and what it brings. But a good valve amp is still king in terms of ultimate tone / feel.

So how have you come to this conclusion? Have you compared both side by side and what modelling did you use?

Teetonetal

NelsonP said:

A good valve amp is still better than a modeller. No doubt about it. It's really not cork sniffery or not being open minded.

Valve amps just 'feel' better than a modeller when playing them. Feel being a combination of things (tone, responsiveness, mental difference of seeing / feeling a big amp etc).

Having said that, a high end modeller does a pretty damn good impression, is ultimately much cheaper and is so much more convenient for everyday use - you can use headphones, portable, contains all the effects you need, much easier for recording etc.

I am open minded, love modelling and what it brings. But a good valve amp is still king in terms of ultimate tone / feel.

There is doubt. Like many others, I don't agree anymore.

Not saying digital is perfect but it can be damn good. Just like any amp can be piss poor.

Set a modeller up perfectly and an amp up perfectly and blind test. I bet you'd have a great time with both.

Of course it's also very eas set up anything to be awful too.

I'm just thankful I don't need to choose.

Sporky

dindude said:

You digital lot are more defensive (and closed minded) that us analog purists at times!

I have digital, valve and solid state setups; whenever someone says something silly about any of them I'm happy to correct it.

I'm not sure I understand the motivation of coming into a thread about a particular unit just to suggest it (and/or its users) are inferior though. What's that about?

John_A

NelsonP said:

A good valve amp is still better than a modeller. No doubt about it. It's really not cork sniffery or not being open minded........

There's plenty of doubt.  As a 'valve snob' of 20 year+ I've made the change and sound better than ever.  Have you actually owned/gigged a high-end  modeller?

Or refer to my previous answer, 'bollocks'

Yes, it's different, and possibly not quite as fun, to the days I had 2 4x12's and a 100W Marshall behind me, but there is no doubt at all that my Helix sounds better

mellowsun

i must admit that I don't get the point of putting a modeller into the power amp input of a valve amp.

Still, I'm looking forward to one day trying a Helix (or similar) into the stereo fx loop of my JC chorus.

I'm happier with my JC than any valve amp I've ever had tbh 

dindude

Sporky said:

dindude said:

You digital lot are more defensive (and closed minded) that us analog purists at times!

I have digital, valve and solid state setups; whenever someone says something silly about any of them I'm happy to correct it.

I'm not sure I understand the motivation of coming into a thread about a particular unit just to suggest it (and/or its users) are inferior though. What's that about?

You see, I'm in this thread because I'm seriously considering an LT when they come out. So I guess check in in 6 months to see if I became an evangelist. What I can't quite square in my logical mind, is that a modeller IS modelling (I.e. Simulating) a valve amp (most of the time). So declaring that it's better (sounding that is, not flexibility wise) seems a little perverse to me.

Sporky

dindude said:

What I can't quite square in my logical mind, is that a modeller IS modelling (I.e. Simulating) a valve amp (most of the time). So declaring that it's better (sounding that is, not flexibility wise) seems a little perverse to me.

Well, the theory (and opinions vary, of course) is that a modeller ought to sound just like the thing it's modelling, only it can do it at different volume levels, and it most likely doesn't reproduce all the hissing or the microphony in the valves.

It's also possible for a model to sound better if it cops the character but removes (for example) that weird thing that particular amp does if you have the presence control higher than the treble, because the circuit needs another wotsit to stop the instability. Obviously making something up there.

Drew_TNBD

Sporky said:

dindude said:

What I can't quite square in my logical mind, is that a modeller IS modelling (I.e. Simulating) a valve amp (most of the time). So declaring that it's better (sounding that is, not flexibility wise) seems a little perverse to me.

Well, the theory (and opinions vary, of course) is that a modeller ought to sound just like the thing it's modelling, only it can do it at different volume levels, and it most likely doesn't reproduce all the hissing or the microphony in the valves.

It's also possible for a model to sound better if it cops the character but removes (for example) that weird thing that particular amp does if you have the presence control higher than the treble, because the circuit needs another wotsit to stop the instability. Obviously making something up there.

The thing is, there is a bit of a disconnect. Take a 100watt Marshall beasty and turn it up to bedroom level... probably sounds thin and weedy... so you crank the fuck outta it to get it to sound good, and it sounds massive and Satanic.

Now the model is designed to replicate the massive and Satanic, but at a lower volume level... which isn't physically possible. I think that has a lot to do with our perception of modellers - they sound full and demonic, but at a comfortable volume level and our brain isn't expecting to hear that.

And when you turn the modeller up to the same level as you did the amp... the amp model already sounds big and beastly... but then fletcher munson becomes your enemy and the extreme lows and extreme highs become much more pronounced and it all starts to sound a bit gash.

Maybe.

John_A

Also, better for me at least relates to the sounds I hear coming out of my monitor / PA, it's the sound of a really good JCM800 through a great cab that's been carefully set-up and carefully mic'd, not my old JCM800 combo that is running too quiet to be at it's best with a SM58 copy dangling from the handle

guitarfishbay

Drew_TNBD said:

Sporky said:

dindude said:

What I can't quite square in my logical mind, is that a modeller IS modelling (I.e. Simulating) a valve amp (most of the time). So declaring that it's better (sounding that is, not flexibility wise) seems a little perverse to me.

Well, the theory (and opinions vary, of course) is that a modeller ought to sound just like the thing it's modelling, only it can do it at different volume levels, and it most likely doesn't reproduce all the hissing or the microphony in the valves.

It's also possible for a model to sound better if it cops the character but removes (for example) that weird thing that particular amp does if you have the presence control higher than the treble, because the circuit needs another wotsit to stop the instability. Obviously making something up there.

The thing is, there is a bit of a disconnect. Take a 100watt Marshall beasty and turn it up to bedroom level... probably sounds thin and weedy... so you crank the fuck outta it to get it to sound good, and it sounds massive and Satanic.

Now the model is designed to replicate the massive and Satanic, but at a lower volume level... which isn't physically possible. I think that has a lot to do with our perception of modellers - they sound full and demonic, but at a comfortable volume level and our brain isn't expecting to hear that.

And when you turn the modeller up to the same level as you did the amp... the amp model already sounds big and beastly... but then fletcher munson becomes your enemy and the extreme lows and extreme highs become much more pronounced and it all starts to sound a bit gash.

Maybe.

But you can compare a recording of a loud valve amp with a modeller at the same listening volume.

This thread is full of people talking about different scenarios BTW, making it quite confusing. There are people talking about recording, gigging through a PA, gigging through a power amp and guitar cab etc

Digital_Igloo

NelsonP said:

A good valve amp is still better than a modeller. No doubt about it. It's really not cork sniffery or not being open minded.

Valve amps just 'feel' better than a modeller when playing them. Feel being a combination of things (tone, responsiveness, mental difference of seeing / feeling a big amp etc).

Having said that, a high end modeller does a pretty damn good impression, is ultimately much cheaper and is so much more convenient for everyday use - you can use headphones, portable, contains all the effects you need, much easier for recording etc.

I am open minded, love modelling and what it brings. But a good valve amp is still king in terms of ultimate tone / feel.

Perhaps, but nine times out of ten, anyone who prefers the sound or feel of a tube amp isn't even talking about the tube amp; they're talking about the playback system—that is, the cab, speakers, and their location in relation to your ears. Through an identical playback system, modeled amps can fool all but the corksnifferiest of corksniffers in double-blind A/B/X tests. Luckily, most modelers work great with power amps and real cabs, so you don't have to lose anything.

Clarky

Cabicular said:

This is phone footage obviously but I don't think it's obvious there is no Guitar Amp
onstage?

4:22 if you want to hear the lead tone and an embarrassing lack of appreciation for my stellar guitar playing

cool as fk...

Clarky

fretmeister said:

Clarky said:

Sporky said:

I should point out that I don't mean to criticise the people making the detailed comparisons - nor to suggest that they don't also play (probably more and better than I do). And I do get the appeal of a trouser-flapping level of volume (not sure if trouser-flapping has much to do with valves).

It's simply that I've always gone both-feet into whatever setup I'm going to use. I spend a bit of time comparing options (mostly on paper) and then get on with what I've got.

I am a bit curious how much two amps of the same model sound alike - my suspicion is that component tolerances, valve age, how the speaker's been treated and so on probably create differences.

I still get the trouser flapping..
a pair of 4x12 cabs and 500W per channel of power amp takes care of all that..

like you, I dive in with both feet.. and when making kit choices, tone quality is a big part of the equation but not all of it..
lack of flexibility and control capabilities will make me walk away from a piece of kit that sounds absolutely stellar

Amateur.

my Rig of Doom V2 was 2600W per side.

Every day I'm tempted to rebuild it, using the Helix as the primary preamp, with the Ampeg SVP-BSP as the parallel one. Then I remember how heavy the Yamaha P series power amps I was using were, and that's before we get to the cabs (the cabs were 110 lb each).

And then to cap it all, I remember I had an estate car then.

Never mind.

2.6KW per deserves a wis without question

Clarky

guitarfishbay said:

Drew_TNBD said:

Sporky said:

dindude said:

What I can't quite square in my logical mind, is that a modeller IS modelling (I.e. Simulating) a valve amp (most of the time). So declaring that it's better (sounding that is, not flexibility wise) seems a little perverse to me.

Well, the theory (and opinions vary, of course) is that a modeller ought to sound just like the thing it's modelling, only it can do it at different volume levels, and it most likely doesn't reproduce all the hissing or the microphony in the valves.

It's also possible for a model to sound better if it cops the character but removes (for example) that weird thing that particular amp does if you have the presence control higher than the treble, because the circuit needs another wotsit to stop the instability. Obviously making something up there.

The thing is, there is a bit of a disconnect. Take a 100watt Marshall beasty and turn it up to bedroom level... probably sounds thin and weedy... so you crank the fuck outta it to get it to sound good, and it sounds massive and Satanic.

Now the model is designed to replicate the massive and Satanic, but at a lower volume level... which isn't physically possible. I think that has a lot to do with our perception of modellers - they sound full and demonic, but at a comfortable volume level and our brain isn't expecting to hear that.

And when you turn the modeller up to the same level as you did the amp... the amp model already sounds big and beastly... but then fletcher munson becomes your enemy and the extreme lows and extreme highs become much more pronounced and it all starts to sound a bit gash.

Maybe.

But you can compare a recording of a loud valve amp with a modeller at the same listening volume.

This thread is full of people talking about different scenarios BTW, making it quite confusing. There are people talking about recording, gigging through a PA, gigging through a power amp and guitar cab etc

of all of us in this lil' chat…
I reckon Drew is likely one of the more qualified from an "deep experience with both rig types" standpoint..
certainly more so than me...

guitarfishbay

With 5.2kw you won't even be able to hear a typical pub singer through the PA... 




Genius

professorben

digitalscream said:

NelsonP said:

A good valve amp is still better than a modeller. No doubt about it. 

Define "better". The only think that a valve amp can possibly have going for it is the way it sounds; for flexibility, ease of use (in a gig context, not necessarily in a setting-up context), reliability, consistency, maintenance, portability...modellers win every time.

So yep - if you only care about sound, and you absolutely have to have every last bit of that particular sound 100% spot-on...yes, a good valve amp is probably better. In all other situations, modellers are at least a coin-flip from being better.

dindude said:

You digital lot are more defensive (and closed minded) that us analog purists at times!

Funny you should say that...I currently use neither a modeller nor glass bottles in my signal path 

Burn the witch!!!!!

Drew_TNBD

Clarky said:

guitarfishbay said:

Drew_TNBD said:

Sporky said:

dindude said:

What I can't quite square in my logical mind, is that a modeller IS modelling (I.e. Simulating) a valve amp (most of the time). So declaring that it's better (sounding that is, not flexibility wise) seems a little perverse to me.

Well, the theory (and opinions vary, of course) is that a modeller ought to sound just like the thing it's modelling, only it can do it at different volume levels, and it most likely doesn't reproduce all the hissing or the microphony in the valves.

It's also possible for a model to sound better if it cops the character but removes (for example) that weird thing that particular amp does if you have the presence control higher than the treble, because the circuit needs another wotsit to stop the instability. Obviously making something up there.

The thing is, there is a bit of a disconnect. Take a 100watt Marshall beasty and turn it up to bedroom level... probably sounds thin and weedy... so you crank the fuck outta it to get it to sound good, and it sounds massive and Satanic.

Now the model is designed to replicate the massive and Satanic, but at a lower volume level... which isn't physically possible. I think that has a lot to do with our perception of modellers - they sound full and demonic, but at a comfortable volume level and our brain isn't expecting to hear that.

And when you turn the modeller up to the same level as you did the amp... the amp model already sounds big and beastly... but then fletcher munson becomes your enemy and the extreme lows and extreme highs become much more pronounced and it all starts to sound a bit gash.

Maybe.

But you can compare a recording of a loud valve amp with a modeller at the same listening volume.

This thread is full of people talking about different scenarios BTW, making it quite confusing. There are people talking about recording, gigging through a PA, gigging through a power amp and guitar cab etc

of all of us in this lil' chat…
I reckon Drew is likely one of the more qualified from an "deep experience with both rig types" standpoint..
certainly more so than me...

Y'know that day we had in the studio, I still think about it. And not just coz of @Handsome_Chris and his technicolour schlong. The tones you were getting from your Axe FX plus one of those Matrix amps and the Marshall 8080 and two bog standard 1960 cabs... it was just monstrous. It sold me on the Axe completely.

When I got mine though, I couldn't get that feeling or tone, and at band practice I'd get harsh feedback and very unmusical distortion. I couldn't ever really solve it, and I couldn't get loud enough to be heard in the band. So I gave up trying to use it in a band context and stuck with it just for home use, at which point I started getting pissed off that my real Diezel at the time sounded so much better and I could use it for both home and practice. So I flogged the Axe FX.

I tried a Kemper Powerhead too, not at practice but at home... and didn't like the tones. To be honest with that one, I went all in and bought the full bundle, so ended up spending a pretty penny. I regretted it, and so didn't stick with it for long enough.

But it gets me thinking - are certain speakers or cabs better than others for bringing modellers up to a loud rehearsal and gig level? Like @Digital_Igloo says, the playback system is what we're most often responding to in terms of feel. Maybe my cab works great for valve amps, but sucks for modellers?

I dunno. Just thinking aloud. If an Axe FX owner and a Kemper powerhead owner wanted to head into the studio one day with me, I could bring my Helix and we could spend the day chatting shit and comparing each setup. Might be fun.

Drew_TNBD

guitarfishbay said:

Drew_TNBD said:

Sporky said:

dindude said:

What I can't quite square in my logical mind, is that a modeller IS modelling (I.e. Simulating) a valve amp (most of the time). So declaring that it's better (sounding that is, not flexibility wise) seems a little perverse to me.

Well, the theory (and opinions vary, of course) is that a modeller ought to sound just like the thing it's modelling, only it can do it at different volume levels, and it most likely doesn't reproduce all the hissing or the microphony in the valves.

It's also possible for a model to sound better if it cops the character but removes (for example) that weird thing that particular amp does if you have the presence control higher than the treble, because the circuit needs another wotsit to stop the instability. Obviously making something up there.

The thing is, there is a bit of a disconnect. Take a 100watt Marshall beasty and turn it up to bedroom level... probably sounds thin and weedy... so you crank the fuck outta it to get it to sound good, and it sounds massive and Satanic.

Now the model is designed to replicate the massive and Satanic, but at a lower volume level... which isn't physically possible. I think that has a lot to do with our perception of modellers - they sound full and demonic, but at a comfortable volume level and our brain isn't expecting to hear that.

And when you turn the modeller up to the same level as you did the amp... the amp model already sounds big and beastly... but then fletcher munson becomes your enemy and the extreme lows and extreme highs become much more pronounced and it all starts to sound a bit gash.

Maybe.

But you can compare a recording of a loud valve amp with a modeller at the same listening volume.

Yeah agreed. Which is where I find it difficult to spot the differences, which kinda builds into my theory. I think the differences are only really apparent at volume, and with real time playback. As soon as it's recorded, your brain switches into a different mode and you start to lose objectivity and perception very quickly.

Sporky

Drew_TNBD said:

Now the model is designed to replicate the massive and Satanic, but at a lower volume level... which isn't physically possible. I think that has a lot to do with our perception of modellers - they sound full and demonic, but at a comfortable volume level and our brain isn't expecting to hear that.

That sounds very plausible. I've managed, on a couple of snippet-recordings, to make them sound really loud, at quite low levels. Not sure how, or what it is, but it's quite odd Almost a flutteriness.