Are modellers as good as amps?

professorben

WiresDreamDisasters said:

When we release this next album and hopefully fly out to play some EU dates here and there, I will be thinking heavily about Kemper Stage and Seymour Duncan Powerstage 170 as a combo. Run some profiles that can go direct to FOH at the same time as going to whatever cabs are being provided.

Modellers are great. They solve a problem. I've been playing modellers longer than I've been playing valve amps, all the way back to being 18 years old with a PodXTLive.

But I'm not giving up my amps. Not because of any Valve VS modeller battles, and not because of "valve" mystique. But the particular amps I've settled on over the years (settled in air quotes!) really do it for me ergonomically, tonally, flexibility-wise, and aesthetically. All of these things are valid.

At the end of the day it's whether your music is any good or not. I've heard great music made with modellers, and I've heard shit music made with the most expensive valve amps known to man.

They're all tools, yet they all have their own character and points of interest that make you want to use them.

You are welcome to borrow my PS170 for that if you want dude.....

maybe I can borrow your VHT 

professorben

Clarky said:

I think it's worth pointing out here that on more than one occasion I've have the sound guy compliment me on my tone when I've been the only guy at a festival with a modeller [through a pair of 4x12 cabs]..

I'm not suggesting that one thing is better than another..
just that a high end modeller is not a dreadful thing to walk on stage with..

In a firm believer that real cabs onstage is the part of the equation that modelling is yet to replicate. 

Possibly because it’s the interaction betwixt speaker and human, something not as easily modelled as circuitry. 

Roland

professorben said:

In a firm believer that real cabs onstage is the part of the equation that modelling is yet to replicate. 

Possibly because it’s the interaction betwixt speaker and human, something not as easily modelled as circuitry. 

There’s an interaction between your guitar and stage volume. Feedback is an extreme example, but it affects which frequencies decay and which linger. The difference between a “real” cab and FRFR in this would be a secondary factor, ie not very much. I suspect that the effect on the player could be larger.

WiresDreamDisasters

Something to add to the discussion...

Four years ago or so, we had the opportunity to go and play a festival in Latvia. It would've been a one-off fly date. I tried asking the promoter if they could cover some of our flights because we'd have a fair amount of gear to transport.

The conversation fizzled out round about this point, because I think I was being too demanding. But I basically didn't want to pay £400+ to fly the entire band and our equipment out to play a single date. The fee for the show would've been something along the lines of 150EUR, so not the most profitable plan ever!

It never happened. Kinda sucks.

Anyway... a small modelling rig that could go into the overhead would've made that entire thing much easier to get together.

That's partly my current motivation to get a Kemper Stage and PS170. So I've got a light and portable option for touring and/or doing the odd fly-in dates here and there.

The thing that really makes me want the Kemper as opposed to any of the other units is how close you can get to "your rig" as it were.

So... something to think about when it comes to what you play through. I was a bit too proud back then to even really contemplate a digital rig.

professorben

WiresDreamDisasters said:

Something to add to the discussion...

Four years ago or so, we had the opportunity to go and play a festival in Latvia. It would've been a one-off fly date. I tried asking the promoter if they could cover some of our flights because we'd have a fair amount of gear to transport.

The conversation fizzled out round about this point, because I think I was being too demanding. But I basically didn't want to pay £400+ to fly the entire band and our equipment out to play a single date. The fee for the show would've been something along the lines of 150EUR, so not the most profitable plan ever!

It never happened. Kinda sucks.

Anyway... a small modelling rig that could go into the overhead would've made that entire thing much easier to get together.

That's partly my current motivation to get a Kemper Stage and PS170. So I've got a light and portable option for touring and/or doing the odd fly-in dates here and there.

The thing that really makes me want the Kemper as opposed to any of the other units is how close you can get to "your rig" as it were.

So... something to think about when it comes to what you play through. I was a bit too proud back then to even really contemplate a digital rig.

Tbf things have come a fair way in four years.

Rich210

+1 for hybrid. I'm liking my setup which uses a power tube output and high quality solid state pre. Best of both worlds in my opinion. Great tube sound on it's own, but then has the added bonus of putting through any decent emulator. 

I don't attenuate, in the long run it's gonna limit the life of your amp and put strain on the transformer.  Emulators are great for home use. Maybe buy a tube amp that has great cleans, some punch to get that tube response, and accompany with your effects. 

paulmapp8306

professorben said:

Clarky said:

I think it's worth pointing out here that on more than one occasion I've have the sound guy compliment me on my tone when I've been the only guy at a festival with a modeller [through a pair of 4x12 cabs]..

I'm not suggesting that one thing is better than another..
just that a high end modeller is not a dreadful thing to walk on stage with..

In a firm believer that real cabs onstage is the part of the equation that modelling is yet to replicate. 

Possibly because it’s the interaction betwixt speaker and human, something not as easily modelled as circuitry. 

Which is why i use a Fryette Power Station with my AFX and a Zilla 2x12 cab.....

paulmapp8306

The whole Kemper v AFX v Real amp debate is fascinating.  No one solution is correct, as they are suit different things.

If a real amp can create the sound you want, you dont mind the weight, you dont mind the maintenance, you dont mind the risk of it not working, you dont mind the expense of carriage AND you can drive it at the required stage volume to make it purr.... well that still the best.

If you cant live or cant achieve any one of those, then a modeller is where now the best place to be - it may not be as great as when all those boxes are ticked, but is more practical and can sound better if one isnt.  Also if you want a variety of studio tones OR if you want easy recording - again a modelling solution is best, though software solutions also work in that context rather than a hardware unit.

If you want to "capture" your real rig to play on fly dates, or you want to capture your studio amp tone for live work, or you want a copy of someone elses tone - then the Kemper is the best way to achieve that.

If you want to create your own tone, get the tone in your head, or tinker with that tone so it sits better in the mix once you go live/to record without drastically changing it - be that live or in the studio,. then the AFX is the best weapon.  Id also say if you need complex FX routing, and world class FX in the same box then the AFX is also the way to go.

If you want a modelling solution, but cant justify or dont want to spend AFX/Kemper money - then the Helix is a decent cheaper option, though not quite in the same league as the other two.

After 20 years with valve amps, 11 with an AFX, and several long term (but not permanent) trials of the kemper, helix (and others) - that is my considered opinion. Of course that doesnt make it fact, and you are all free to have your own thoughts on the subject.

 




 

sweepy

With the recent failure rate of Kemper units I think valve amps get a bad rep for reliability

digitalscream

paulmapp8306 said:

If you want a modelling solution, but cant justify or dont want to spend AFX/Kemper money - then the Helix is a decent cheaper option, though not quite in the same league as the other two.

Honestly, I don't see the Helix as the poor cousin here. Personally, I prefer the sound of the Helix to the Fractal stuff, but even with that aside...there are things you can do with the Helix that just aren't possible with either of the others thanks to the four signal paths.

I've come to the conclusion that most of the decision between the three is down to features and what you need, rather than sound; anybody reasonably competent at setting up patches is going to be able to get their sound out of all of them. Where you go from there is down to workflow more than anything else.

paulmapp8306

As I say - feel free to have your own thoughts.

I tried the Helix extensively recently -  thinking of replacing my MFC and AFX2 with a single, cheaper unit (as Im playing more keys than guitar at present anyway) - especially given the price of an AFX3 and the required FC12.

Ultimately I couldnt make the helix do what I wanted.  It just didnt sound right.  It was easier to get a couple of sounds types, but everything I tried seem to have the same underlying "something".  I could see if thats what you want (and iir the sounds it suits are EXACTLY the ones you prefer) then your onto a winner. 

 For me it was very merrr.  I reminded me of co many real amps lol - instant "yeyness" but couldnt dial some slightly annoying things out - and couldnt get other usable sounds.


Oh - AFX3 has 4 signal paths.

Roland

AFX II has four paths too.

professorben

paulmapp8306 said:

As I say - feel free to have your own thoughts.

I tried the Helix extensively recently -  thinking of replacing my MFC and AFX2 with a single, cheaper unit (as Im playing more keys than guitar at present anyway) - especially given the price of an AFX3 and the required FC12.

Ultimately I couldnt make the helix do what I wanted.  It just didnt sound right.  It was easier to get a couple of sounds types, but everything I tried seem to have the same underlying "something".  I could see if thats what you want (and iir the sounds it suits are EXACTLY the ones you prefer) then your onto a winner. 

 For me it was very merrr.  I reminded me of co many real amps lol - instant "yeyness" but couldnt dial some slightly annoying things out - and couldnt get other usable sounds.


Oh - AFX3 has 4 signal paths.

I recall the ‘Clarky tries a Helix’ thread a while back, and I think his conclusion was that he liked the sound but couldn’t get the Helix to mimic his AFX work flow, it totally depends on whose ears are being used at any one time.
 I think it’s fair to say that the AFX sounds as good as a Helix, and pretty equal to a Kemper (fx aside) 

In much the same way that a Vox sounds as good as a Fender. 

kennedydream1980

digitalscream said:

paulmapp8306 said:

If you want a modelling solution, but cant justify or dont want to spend AFX/Kemper money - then the Helix is a decent cheaper option, though not quite in the same league as the other two.

Honestly, I don't see the Helix as the poor cousin here. Personally, I prefer the sound of the Helix to the Fractal stuff, but even with that aside...there are things you can do with the Helix that just aren't possible with either of the others thanks to the four signal paths.

I've come to the conclusion that most of the decision between the three is down to features and what you need, rather than sound; anybody reasonably competent at setting up patches is going to be able to get their sound out of all of them. Where you go from there is down to workflow more than anything else.

I was having this discussion with the lads in my band last night. I’ve owned an AX8 and a Helix and now I’ve got a Boss GT-1000. The drummer asked me why I never tried a Kemper as these are meant to be the ‘ultimate’. My response was I never felt I needed to try a Kemper. We are at a point now where you can pretty much get all of them to sound as good as each other. They do all have their own ‘sound’ so I guess it comes down to the individual and how they hear things and how they get on with the UI.

I’ve gotten killer sounds out of all 3 I’ve owned. Did the first gig with the GT-1000 last night. The singer sound checked my guitar while I mixed out front and it sounded awesome.

professorben

kennedydream1980 said:

digitalscream said:

paulmapp8306 said:

If you want a modelling solution, but cant justify or dont want to spend AFX/Kemper money - then the Helix is a decent cheaper option, though not quite in the same league as the other two.

Honestly, I don't see the Helix as the poor cousin here. Personally, I prefer the sound of the Helix to the Fractal stuff, but even with that aside...there are things you can do with the Helix that just aren't possible with either of the others thanks to the four signal paths.

I've come to the conclusion that most of the decision between the three is down to features and what you need, rather than sound; anybody reasonably competent at setting up patches is going to be able to get their sound out of all of them. Where you go from there is down to workflow more than anything else.

I was having this discussion with the lads in my band last night. I’ve owned an AX8 and a Helix and now I’ve got a Boss GT-1000. The drummer asked me why I never tried a Kemper as these are meant to be the ‘ultimate’. My response was I never felt I needed to try a Kemper. We are at a point now where you can pretty much get all of them to sound as good as each other. They do all have their own ‘sound’ so I guess it comes down to the individual and how they hear things and how they get on with the UI.

I’ve gotten killer sounds out of all 3 I’ve owned. Did the first gig with the GT-1000 last night. The singer sound checked my guitar while I mixed out front and it sounded awesome.

Uff, I hate it when drummers try to join in the conversation. 

You did well there mate.