Will real amps devalue more if the 'next generation' of modelling gear sounds closer?

Clarky

thecolourbox said:

But if you'd had one maybe two of those amps in the room instead, you would have made them sound good for what you were doing rather thinking...i wonder how that might sound through a diesel Herbert.

Don't have to eat all the sweets in the shop if you're happy with fizzy cola bottles. But all modelling options tempt you with that and there will always be a market for people that just want one amp (or fizzy cola bottles)

I see your point, and when I used the 2120 I on'y had one of each clean, riff and soloing tones [cos it's not a modeller]

the thing though that gets the big wall of sound is blending tones that are similar but not the same

If I had a real amp in my studio I know without doubt that I could never get close to the recorded sound I get now. I simply don't have the environment. And valve amps tend to have a sweet spot which is usually as the 'piss off the house / street' end of the volume scale. With a rack unit you don't have to worry about that. So I have have my 65 Bassman with the master volume where it should be to get it cooking, and whilst I hear Hammersmith Odean in the cans the rest of the street have no idea of what I'm doing.

Too much choice can be a pain in that ass if you don't know what you're looking for.

Right now I'm recording an album with the DC Band, and it's my first with the Axe-FX. That means I have not tones dialled in for this band. And as I'm working on the very first song, I'm searching for the best combinations right now.

That said, what I do know [and knew before I started because they are my stock choices] is:

my clean tone will be either a JCM800 or a 59 Bassman [probably both]

my principle riffing tones will be a Herbert channel2 and a 5153mkIII channel 2

my soloing tone will be a 5150mkIII channel 3

not too many amps..

I do have additional supporting riffing tones in the studio that are lower gain and these I'll have to go and find. Once I've found the two of them, the presets will get saved and they'll remain this way throughout the rest of the album to keep the tone consistent.

In fact, when I work on the next DC Band album, I'll be using all the same presets so I'll not go looking for the tones again.

so yes you can go look for things beyond your stock tones if you feel the need to, but this only happens the first time you work on something.. and that only needs to happen if you think your stock tones are not 100% hitting the spot.

for example, right now I'm in 3 bands. I have a bunch of tones for my own band which are too heavy for DC, and a bunch of tones for Civilians [a funk band] which are too light. And so DC requires something a little in between.

I think of it like having a full tool kit. You wouldn't fix a car with one spanner.

And yes someone pointed out that you have lots of variations of the same three basic tones.

When you layer these variations, that's where the magic is. You're layering tones that are close, but not too close.

 

Clarky

Evilmags said:

The advantage of the Axe FX is really touring as well. If you think of the costs of carrying around a load of amps and cabs, as well as somebody to service them, or the invariable crappy hire amp (80s Fender Twin in shit state is fairly normal), then the ability to basically put all your sound in one bag and go straight into the desk with no risk of shite sound is very valuable. It also makes smaller tours more financially viable.  

this is a big deal.. size, weight, consistent tone and functionality

when I tour I just take my fx unit and power amp… my tech rider specifies a pair or Marshall 4x12 cabs [which are easy to source]..

my live presets are dialled-in to the Marshalls.. so when I play, everything is nice and familiar.. no bad surprises..

that just leaves me to the task of playing as best I can and having fun..

guitarfishbay

thecolourbox said:

But if you'd had one maybe two of those amps in the room instead, you would have made them sound good for what you were doing rather thinking...i wonder how that might sound through a diesel Herbert.

Don't have to eat all the sweets in the shop if you're happy with fizzy cola bottles. But all modelling options tempt you with that and there will always be a market for people that just want one amp (or fizzy cola bottles)

Honestly, I think I might be past that stage.

I have loads of amp sim options available to me on my computer.  I have most of Amplitube (got them in the big sale earlier this year) I have all of Pod Farm, I have all the Le Pou stuff, all the stuff that comes with Logic X, Waves GTR3, loads of downloaded IRs plus I have Recabinet 3.  That probably equates to more choice of potential starting points than even an Axe FX.

I've come to realise that I like a fairly narrow range of tones for my own playing and that it isn't too hard for me to get 'ballpark' with sims I know how to use.  I mostly just use Lecto through Recabinet for distorted tones and it is a toss up between a Logic sim or Amplitube for cleans.

I agree that what @Clarky did on his R&D mission would have been easier by doing it digitally than with real amps.  Not to mention you could easily go back to sound A if you didn't like sound B.  The decision making process doesn't have to take forever once you find something that works.

Clarky

monquixote said:

I just don't want to get involved with something with all those buttons on the front. 

this is something people seriously get wrong…

when I played with real amps [way back] I was constantly dialling it in.. turn up at rehearsals, different volume, so the tone changes, so I have to twiddle knobs.. then gig.. same again.. then home.. more knob twiddling..

yes the Axe-FX has lots of detailed parms to play with.. but it's not mandatory to dive into the advanced parms and start screwing with Bias and B+ whatever and triode settings…

every amp in the Axe has a 'basic' page.. it contains that stuff you'll find on a regular amp

when you call up an amp type, the advanced parms are already in the right place for that amp..

personally, I never touch them… and never feel the need to customise my amps via the advanced stuff..

what happens now though is that I create my tones for studio and for live, and once they're done, I never touch them again..

once I've created my presets, of all those buttons on the front, I only use the power one and possibly the global eq during the sound check if the room sounds a bit odd [but this is rare]

so once you've set up your tones, you actually spend less time fiddling about and more time playing..

think on it this way… if you have 10 stomps on the floor, do you spend hours at every session playing with all the knobs and buttons??

and it's the same with an fx-unit.. once you're set up, you leave well alone..

HAL9000

midlifecrisis;225465" said:

my only bugbear is overcomplicated controls and submenus etc, give me a simple volume, gain and tone and im happy.

^this. Give me a Telecaster and a straightforward amp and I'm grinning like a Cheshire cat.

AlanP

monquixote said:

Valve amps will eventually move to the same status as vinyl records, horses and (soon) petrol cars. 

I disagree.  I think that happened years ago.  The last bastion of the evacuated tube was guitar amps and TVs - now it is only guitar amps.  We *are* the cork-sniffing vinyl, speaker-cable only works if it is the right way round, elite...

monquixote said:

They will no longer be the obvious, best bang for buck, most convenient option, 

>>> The're not that now, and haven't been for a long time...

monquixote said:

but people who love them for what they are will continue to use them indefinitely. 

>>> This (hopefully).

Clarky

@guitarfishbay that's the beauty of reamping [no matter what sort of amps / fx units you use]

sometimes a tone in isolation sounds wonderful, and then when placed in the mix it either vanishes or dominates.. or just don't work..

when you reamp you can work on the tone whilst the DAW is playing the song.. so you can setup the tone "in context".. once you have it sounding wonderful, you tend to be quite shocked at how nasty it sounds in isolation.. lmao..

timmysoft

I think there have been modelling amps out for years that do the job as well as a valve amp but the modeller stigma will always be attached. I'm a big fan of the line 6 flextone 3, I've used one a lot and at volume I could dial in recto and boosted 800 tones that were 95% there! to most audiences they wouldn't care as long as it's not painful to listen to. I also had the duo verb which was an incredible amp. I'm excited to see what the next steps are but I think we still have another 15-20 years of the valve amps ruling the roost

guitarfishbay

Clarky said:

@guitarfishbay that's the beauty of reamping [no matter what sort of amps / fx units you use]

sometimes a tone in isolation sounds wonderful, and then when placed in the mix it either vanishes or dominates.. or just don't work..

when you reamp you can work on the tone whilst the DAW is playing the song.. so you can setup the tone "in context".. once you have it sounding wonderful, you tend to be quite shocked at how nasty it sounds in isolation.. lmao..

My problem is that I have to reamp in the same room that I'm doing everything else, so it isn't quite as easy as tweaking while the song is playing.  I usually place the mic wearing some closed back headphones and try and get a sound quality close to what I expect will work, then reamp a section and review what is working/what isn't.  It usually takes me a few attempts and I still think I have a lot to learn.  

I honestly wonder if I could actually be achieving better results with digital in my scenario.

Clarky

I hope [and think] there will always be traditional valve amps.. modelling is not the best way or the only way.. and the same is true for valve amps too.. it's 'one way' amongst many..

one size never fits all.. and I think that's a big part of the whole beauty of music in general.. different guitars, amps, cabs, fx, fx units, pups, playing styles etc.. the final tone is the sum of the all the components [including the person playing].. and I think that this is what keeps music fresh and exciting..

I think that the day everyone uses the same kit will never come.. and that's just how it should be..

that said, I think a day will come when modelling will dominate, if for no other reason than ease, convenience and cost..

my Axe rig including the power amp and cabs cost something like £3k.. I once worked out that if I had the amps and fx that I use live and studio in real hardware that it'd cost around £17k.. and that don't take into account the Transit van I'd need to cart it all around or the fact that I'd end up owing money after a tour cos the shipping costs.. kinda cheap all things considered

so for me, the lil' black box that does it all makes a pile of sense

Drew_TNBD

Amp-wise I like to have 4 tones. Effects are a different thing. If I could (and will be soon able to) I'd have a different reverb for different sections of songs, different delay times, feedback, etc.. etc...

That's before I even think about the proper textural stuff.

crunchman

It depends on the quality of the PA etc. but I've heard better front of house sounds from a Kemper than when I heard the same band a year earlier with the guitarist using a Marshall half stack.

Someone who works in the industry also told me that the tone I got in church with a POD direct to the PA was the best he'd heard from me.  The problem I had with that was hearing myself on stage so I went back to my amp the next week.

Clarky

Drew - for that basic "in the room" reverb, I get that from the cab block.. it's on with all my presets..

for the extras, I use a reverb block for the longer ambient reverb.. I use a thing called a "scene controller" to alter some of the reverb's settings on a per scene basis... essentially altering the length and strength of it..

tones wise, I have 4.. the usual clean, crunch, hi-gain riff, solo.. so on stage I effectively have the following amps with me

Diezel Herbert

5150 mkIII

JCM800

70's Hiwatt

I think I'll be adding either a 59 or 65 Bassman cos with the DC Band there are moments that require a "clean with attitude" tone that's a little thicker than my regular choice in this area [the JCM800]

guitarfishbay

crunchman said:

It depends on the quality of the PA etc. but I've heard better front of house sounds from a Kemper than when I heard the same band a year earlier with the guitarist using a Marshall half stack.

Someone who works in the industry also told me that the tone I got in church with a POD direct to the PA was the best he'd heard from me.  The problem I had with that was hearing myself on stage so I went back to my amp the next week.

I think the answer is a setup which would satisfy both the player and the FOH needs.

Ideally you want a setup that does this:

- Sounds and feels good to the player

- Can consistently sound good going FOH

- Can still sound good as the main guitar volume source if going through FOH is not the best solution (i.e. low powered 'vocals only' PA at small originaks gigs)

You can achieve it different ways.

Traditional:

Real amp and cab, but add a speaker sim/load box to give the option of sending something to FOH.  The guitarist has the exact same setup as normal but FOH sound is consistent.  Joe Bonamassa and Mark Tremonti both use Palmer speaker sims to do this.  Another choice is something like a Two Notes Torpedo which can load IR so you have more choice over the sound.

Digital:

You either need to have a suitable poweramp and traditional cab so the rig can function as a traditional rig (for either monitoring or providing the main sound if the PA is not suitable) or you need to have your own FRFR speaker setup that can achieve the same.  If you are going to use both traditional cabinets and go to the PA you need to be able to have different monitoring outs which allow settings for cab off (to poweramp and cab) and cab on (to PA), which is something a few of the current modellers fall down on.

Drew_TNBD

Clarky said:

Drew - for that basic "in the room" reverb, I get that from the cab block.. it's on with all my presets..

for the extras, I use a reverb block for the longer ambient reverb.. I use a thing called a "scene controller" to alter some of the reverb's settings on a per scene basis... essentially altering the length and strength of it..

tones wise, I have 4.. the usual clean, crunch, hi-gain riff, solo.. so on stage I effectively have the following amps with me

Diezel Herbert

5150 mkIII

JCM800

70's Hiwatt

I think I'll be adding either a 59 or 65 Bassman cos with the DC Band there are moments that require a "clean with attitude" tone that's a little thicker than my regular choice in this area [the JCM800]

Sounds similar to what I plan.

I'm planning on trying to make a 4th channel out of my real world Diezel D-Moll. Set the gain high on channel 2 and use the Axe's volume for output 2 (which will go to the front of the amp) to roll the volume back on a per-preset basis. Giving me my 4th channel.

Clarky

sounds very interesting

Clarky

guitarfishbay said:

crunchman said:

It depends on the quality of the PA etc. but I've heard better front of house sounds from a Kemper than when I heard the same band a year earlier with the guitarist using a Marshall half stack.

Someone who works in the industry also told me that the tone I got in church with a POD direct to the PA was the best he'd heard from me.  The problem I had with that was hearing myself on stage so I went back to my amp the next week.

I think the answer is a setup which would satisfy both the player and the FOH needs.

Ideally you want a setup that does this:

- Sounds and feels good to the player

- Can consistently sound good going FOH

- Can still sound good as the main guitar volume source if going through FOH is not the best solution (i.e. low powered 'vocals only' PA at small originaks gigs)

You can achieve it different ways.

Traditional:

Real amp and cab, but add a speaker sim/load box to give the option of sending something to FOH.  The guitarist has the exact same setup as normal but FOH sound is consistent.  Joe Bonamassa and Mark Tremonti both use Palmer speaker sims to do this.  Another choice is something like a Two Notes Torpedo which can load IR so you have more choice over the sound.

Digital:

You either need to have a suitable poweramp and traditional cab so the rig can function as a traditional rig (for either monitoring or providing the main sound if the PA is not suitable) or you need to have your own FRFR speaker setup that can achieve the same.  If you are going to use both traditional cabinets and go to the PA you need to be able to have different monitoring outs which allow settings for cab off (to poweramp and cab) and cab on (to PA), which is something a few of the current modellers fall down on.

I run this

 

Axe-FX -> Matrix poweramp -> Marshall cabs

and my cabs are mic'd old skool.. easy.. bread and butter stuff for the sound guy..

the killer difference being... my tone don't change at different volumes. it's the same loud  as it is really loud

downbytheriver

My take on this is:

Back in the day, when I cared about Hifi, I had a very high end system (Linn, Naim etc etc) - sounded fantastic with vinyl records, in some respects sounded even better off the radio (Radio 3 in particular).

Then along comes digital. CDs never sounded better than vinyl, still don't. But boy are they more convenient - use them in the car, much less storage space. And a lot people were convinced they did sound better - no scratches etc). Same sort of time BBC starts recording in digital for broadcast, much more compression etc.

Then along came MP3. Didn't even sound as good as CD... but now I can take my entire record collection with me, in the car, anywhere. Convenient? Incomparably.

All along, analogue vinyl sounded better. Still does.

I think the same with digital guitar gear - so convenient, flexible, cheap.... but it doesn't sound as good, does it?

And actually, given that I don't want a vast number of different sounds, a Strat, my Lazy J and a small pedalboard is not that much of a bugger to cart about, the convenience factor rarely comes into it. I also fail to see how a model of the real thing will EVER sound better than the real thing....

PolarityMan

downbytheriver said:

 I also fail to see how a model of the real thing will EVER sound better than the real thing....

Better is subjective. I'm sure we'll hit the point soon where the perceptible difference between the real thing and a model is undetectable to the human ear however.

At that point digital wins because if you don't like the model you can change it for another one trivially whereas with a valve amp your stuck with that sound.

Drew_TNBD

I may do a comparison between the Axe FX VH4 model and my D-Moll. See how they feel next to each other.