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

57Deluxe

...no! - Real Men play with valves...

monquixote

Clarky said:

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..

I take your point, but I really don't fiddle at all. 

The EQ on my amp stays flat and the only tweaking I do live is to account for the room, or knock a bit of bass off if I'm using a mohog guitar so taking any time at all to set things up is too long for me. Everyone is different, but for me one of the worst things about multi FX is that the default presets sound shit and you have to take time to make them sound good. I can do it, but I find it a tedious process that I really don't enjoy. If I was a famous player I'd happily get someone else to tweak things for me and never touch anything other than the guitar. 

Once it was set up I'd be more than happy to use an Axe live provided it had 3 really obvious knobs on the front for me to tweak the EQ if I needed to. 

I'm not a luddite (I've gigged a Tech21 amp) and I'll ditch valves as soon as something better comes my way, but I don't see anything as easy, cheap and decent sounding as a single channel valve combo for someone like me yet.

I think the closest thing I've seen is the Stonehead, but it isn't digital and still has too many knobs!

digitalscream

Clarky said:

Eleven Rack: know nothing about them, but users of them speak quite highly of them.. so from what I gather they seem to sit at the better end of the scale.

I love mine, but I'll be totally honest - it'd drive you up the wall. It's incredibly limited in terms of what you can do. No dual signal paths, no simultaneous outputs with and without cab emulation (this one annoys me, but I can live with it), very little in the way of tweakability and a not-particularly-good noise gate. MIDI implementation isn't particularly flexible either.

It's really a does-what-it-says-on-the-tin unit - you get the controls from the amp/effect that's being modelled, and that's it. You can't make it any simpler without getting into dumbing-it-down territory.

That said, I prefer the basic tones I get from it to anything I've heard from the AxeFX range. Personal preference, I guess

Just took delivery of a Marshall 20/20. Sadly, I can't do anything with it at volume until next week

Clarky

Drew_fx said:

A hell of a lot of them are using basic waveshaping DSP and stacked IIR filtering, and they end up sounding very little like the actual amp. You have to model down to the component level like we do in our DCAM modelling for it to be anywhere near the real thing.

do you work for FXpansion? [I have BFD2 and the DCAM Synth Squad - which is fkn awesome btw]

Drew_TNBD

Clarky said:

Drew_fx said:

A hell of a lot of them are using basic waveshaping DSP and stacked IIR filtering, and they end up sounding very little like the actual amp. You have to model down to the component level like we do in our DCAM modelling for it to be anywhere near the real thing.

do you work for FXpansion? [I have BFD2 and the DCAM Synth Squad - which is fkn awesome btw]

Yes boss! I'm the QA manager. Thanks

Drew_TNBD

Clarky said: 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??

For me, I bend down to change pedal settings probably 2-3 times a gig and a rehearsal. I would do it more if I had the time. So an Axe is going to come in handy for that stuff!

Lew

I found that the axefx lacked mostly in the high frequency in regards to dynamics and sound a little flat and compressed. Maybe that's been improved in the axefx2. It really is nitpicking but that's the name of the game.

I think it's fair to say most people using the axe go for a high gain tone? Or perhaps they're just the most vocal and savvy with uploading.

I'd be REALLY interested to see how the unit deals with fuzz sounds and low/medium gain tones as that's where my interest lies.

I've tried looking for examples but with the exception of some Pete Thorn videos which do sound good (but lacking the high end detail I mentioned) it's just uber djent 5150 tones.

I saw Dweezil Zappa use one live and it sounded total shite where as I've seen Devin Townsend use one live and it sounded massive confirming my thoughts on it excelling at doing the modern high gain thing.

Fusionista

monquixote said:

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

They will no longer be the obvious, best bang for buck, most convenient option, but people who love them for what they are will continue to use them indefinitely. 

As ICBM points out the days of the mega multi channel valve amp might be numbered. I think many of the people who are buying AxeFX were probably the people Mesa were hoping would buy a MKV.

The limiting factor for widespread acceptance isn't price, or sound quality it's usability. I was lucky enough to spend some time with an AxeFX at the guitar show and in all honesty the thing repelled me. I work as a software developer at an audio technology company so it's not that I couldn't program one if I wanted to (I could probably design one given the time and inclination) and yes it probably sounds as good as any given valve amp, but I just don't want to get involved with something with all those buttons on the front. 

When it comes down to it I don't really care about 100 parameters I just want an amp with a volume knob on it (and nothing else) that sounds good. I don't want 500 variations of the same sound, ultimately I'll still sound like me anyway and I don't really give a shit if I'm playing a Twin Reverb or a Pro Reverb as long as it sounds like a vaguely spanky clean amp. 

I think it's the paradox of choice thing. If you just give me "clean", "gritty", "facemelter" I'll be much happier than if you let me see all the crap under the hood. 

http://www.ted.com/talks/barry_schwartz_on_the_paradox_of_choice

It's like those stupid rally edition cars that they have on Top Gear with 5 suspension settings, 3 engine maps, 4 traction control modes, and 6 diff settings. In reality wouldn't you rather just have a car that was just fast when you put your foot down and economical when you didn't.

I appreciate for studio bods and those that get enjoyment from tinkering the story is very different, but for someone who needs the most basic clean amp and a couple of OD pedals it's stripping the features down that would make me go digital.

Wisdom for that.  

Even my twin-channel amps are really too much. If it was good enough for Rory Gallagher and Ritchie Blackmore it's good enough for me.

I would like to have a day with an expert trying out an ElevenRack in the band context, but until then the investment in time getting understand how it works daunts.

Clarky

Drew_fx said:

Clarky said:

Drew_fx said:

A hell of a lot of them are using basic waveshaping DSP and stacked IIR filtering, and they end up sounding very little like the actual amp. You have to model down to the component level like we do in our DCAM modelling for it to be anywhere near the real thing.

do you work for FXpansion? [I have BFD2 and the DCAM Synth Squad - which is fkn awesome btw]

Yes boss! I'm the QA manager. Thanks

awesomely cool...

I am in the process right now of adding new AU's to my collection [cos I have got involved with a team of guys that are writing movie / game trailers].. so over the coming months I'm adding a pile of stuff [orchestral, hits / strikes, cinematic percussion etc]..

a BFD3 upgrade [from BFD2] is on my list

 

Clarky

Drew_fx said:

Clarky said: 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??

For me, I bend down to change pedal settings probably 2-3 times a gig and a rehearsal. I would do it more if I had the time. So an Axe is going to come in handy for that stuff!

the "scenes" feature will prove highly valuable to you.. if you need help / ideas with it, just shout..

Drew_TNBD

Aye boss, I will! Expect some nagging on my part!

EdGrip

Clarky said:

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

I often wondered who the other person who bought a Matrix poweramp was. I had a little 1U jobbie, I think it was... 150w per channel....? Really can't remember. Not much. Sold it to a mate. It was REALLY solidly built.

Drew_TNBD

EdGrip said:

Clarky said:

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

I often wondered who the other person who bought a Matrix poweramp was.

Are you kidding Ed? They're probably the number one go to amp for Axe FX and Kemper users!

Clarky

@Lew yes there are a lot of hi-gainers that use the Axe.. I'm one of them…

but you'd be surprised, most of the amps in there are mid gain and there's a ton of cleans too..

in fact, I think the largest group of Axe users are the classic rock / blues rocker types..

if they're not they'll come a close 2nd to the metal heads..

clips wise though, the metallers are younger and noisier about what they do from an on-line perspective..

Cliff [the designer] is himself a classic rock / blues rock type..

and I reckon there's a good amount of the chef cooking for himself at times.. lol..

AC15 / AC30, Hiwatt, Bassmans 59 and 65, MkIIC, Dumble, CarolAnne, jeez I can't name them all..

here's the amp list [from a crunchy tone angle this will mean more to you than me

http://wiki.fractalaudio.com/axefx2/index.php?title=Amp:_all_models

and here's the cab list

http://wiki.fractalaudio.com/axefx2/index.php?title=Cab:_all_models

also remember that all audio on web videos sound band in the high freq areas…

it's just how the CODEC works..

and although I don't know this from personal experience, the folk I know that have / had an Axe Standard or Ultra said those units were very very good.. but the Axe-II is a major leap forward…

funnily enough… recently I've been kinda getting into some of the lower gain amps.. they're fun..

I've been enjoying the 65 Bassman and the the CarolAnne TripTik Classic in particular..

EdGrip

Hmm. I think it might have been a different Matrix. It was a 1U rack unit, made in England, with a black and white glossy manual.

Clarky

before Matrix made guitar power amps they made PA power amps [and still do]

their 'thing' is being light weight and powerful

actually they're made in Wales

all the guitar power amps have the GT prefix in the model number

I have the 2U GT1000FX

the GTxxx power amps are 'voiceless' so they do not alter the tone of the FX unit..

but they do have some of the valve power amp characteristics in the way that they react..

the designer told me that they are 'slower' than PA amps and have things like 'sag' designed in..

so essentially, you don't have valve tone but you have valve behaviour [if that makes sense]

the actual power amp 'voice' comes from the Axe-FX

iirc, the GT series were built specifically to work with the Axe-FX

the GT will drive passive FRFR monitors / cabs and traditional cabs too [I like to use a pair of 1960b cabs with it]

live, it sounds like it'll start wars… and finish em..

I know from personal experience that they are a very good match..

p90fool

Clarky;227825" said:

before Matrix made guitar power amps they made PA power amps [and still do]their 'thing' is being light weight and powerfulactually they're made in Wales

Wish I'd known that when mine died during a gig - I could've dumped the piece of crap on their doorstep...

Clarky

wow.. that really surprises me.. their reliability stats are superb..

their failure rates in the first year [which is all I saw] are well over 90%

Marshall and Fender don't get close to that..

they're real fussy about quality and take great pride in their products..

the Matrix after sales services is superb [I've never needed it myself].. 

you should have given them a call, they're a friendly bunch..

Fusionista

Clarky said:
the GTxxx power amps are 'voiceless' so they do not alter the tone of the FX unit..but they do have some of the valve power amp characteristics in the way that they react..the designer told me that they are 'slower' than PA amps and have things like 'sag' designed in..so essentially, you don't have valve tone but you have valve behaviour [if that makes sense]



The whole point about valve behaviour (IMO) is that it changes depending on picking and guitar settings (pickup signal) and amp settings, that depending on volume you move from accurate tone reproduction (clean) to distortion and finally that you get more - and more variable - harmonic complexity.  Granted, that matters less with hi-gain, but it suggests to me - in answer to the OP's question - that for lower-gain applications valve amps will always have their place.  (That said, I listened to a jazzer the other night who seemed to have missed the whole point, with his clean tone treble rolled back so far that his virtuosity was lost in the mush.)

It is likely I think that the market becomes more specialised and expensive, like hi-fi, as inevitably it becomes smaller, with the evolution of musical tastes. That would suggest to me that boutique manufacture will continue to make ground in the segment.  As to valves themselves, we may find that the number of manufacturers reduce, meaning that the remaining ones have less competition, and can charge more. Ultimately there may be scope for specialists to take over, eg as robot manufacture grows.

It is quite clear to this old boy anyway that for classic bluesrock the valve amp remains unsurpassed.  I never know from one gig to the next exactly how my guitar will sound, and I love that.

Drew_TNBD

Hate to be nit-picky, but valve behaviour does not change based on any of those things. Valve behaviour is a constant. They react non-linearly to input voltage. That's their behaviour.

How that actually ends up sounding is subject to a wide gammut of other things, not just the valves.

I had a bash on my Axe FX II this morning. I was blown away at how good the Double Verb amp model sounded. Very nice cleans, reacts to your picking intensity and your volume knob like a real amp does.