Amp modellers vs real amps in studio settings

guitarfishbay

PolarityMan said:

They never show the 8 million times doing stuff like that doesnt work though. 

Sometimes I feel some of the interesting ‘tricks’ are as much about the story as they are the sound. It’s certainly a cool and unique way to get sounds, I guess it also depends on the genre too

octatonic

monquixote said:

Barnezy said:

WiresDreamDisasters said:

Barnezy said:

A modeler will never be as "real" as the real thing. 

If the modeller in question uses component based modelling, then it's as real as the real thing. It just processes audio in a different domain.

How can it be as real as the real thing? Digital is limited by its bit rate, am amp is full sound. Are we saying digital is now the full sound spectrum. 

It reminds me of the move to CD's and then back to vinyl. Why, when we're told there is no audible difference... humans don't hear those frequencies, etc? CD's are 16bit, as is a Helix, but vinyl is full frequency. Are we sure there is no audible difference or is it that we've got use to hearing lower quality sound, since digital music was introduced? 



Not saying digital is not great and we all know it's very convenient and cheap, but how can it be as real as a real amp?

My point wasn't for either or, just why wouldn't you us the real thing, if you can? 

That's not how digital signals look!

Stair step signals don't exist. It would look like A.

Vinyl is pretty terrible quality in terms of audio. It's cool though so it's all good.

Exactly,

The stepped signal is a good way of explaining what the fundamental idea of digitised audio is but it isn't the complete picture.
You have to consider anti-aliasing filters and dither when considering how an ADA stage works.

This is a good primer: https://productionadvice.co.uk/no-stair-steps-in-digital-audio/

If you want something more comprehensive have a look at the 'Science of Sound', p482 onwards.
Here is an excerpt:



I can demonstrate this here in the studio, because I have my digital gear on analogue patch bays.

I can take a microphone signal in front of an amp and patch it directly to the monitors via an analogue monitor controller without any ADA stage.
Or I can pass it through one of the interfaces and then to the monitors.
You cannot tell the difference between the two signals- they are audibly indistinguishable from one another.

p90fool

mudslide73 said:

siremoon said:

There always seems to be an implicit assumption in these kind of debates that a conventional amp can never sound awful.  Just slap in any old settings, stick any kind of mic anywhere in the vicinity of the cab and it'll sound amazing.  That may be how it is for everybody else but it isn't my experience.  My experience is that recording a guitar well the old way requires a certain amount of understanding and nous.  I think the same applies with modellers.  I accept modellers may not be 100% there yet but they are substantially closer than they were, the remaining gap is only going to close and knowledge and experience of how to extract the best from them is only going to grow.  The other point is that when listening to a track most people don't think in terms of tone comparison with something else, they think does it sound good or bad. So for me it's not whether the modeller AC30 or whatever sounds like a real one or not, it's whether it sounds right on a given track.

There's no way I could record a physical amp as well as Helix Native. I think it gives beginners like myself a fighting chance of getting a decent sound - being able to go back in to edit the sounds gives you time to save it (not always a good thing, I know). I recently redid some demos of ours from 2011 in this way replacing Amplitube with Helix Native - 2011 performances with new amps, IRs etc.

This is how I feel too as a relative beginner - I can get a far more polished sound from a modeller quickly and easily, though that often isn't what I'm after.

It's worth remembering though, that modellers are quite often modelling sounds which were arrived at by recording electric guitars "incorrectly" decades ago, and it would be a shame to lose that potential for happy accidents, like slashed speakers, overdriven desk channels and even distorted amps themselves. 

UnclePsychosis

Cirrus said:

The basic point is... those stair-stepped graphs aren't how digital audio works.

The stair steps... are the wrong way of understanding digital.

  

They're generally drawn by people who have a vested interest in "proving" that analogue sound is better than digital, rather than by people who want to explain how digital works. 

Digital audio is a solved problem. If a recording sounds "bad", its because of choices made by humans, not because it was recorded to a hard drive or played back on a CD. 

(note: this is a separate argument to whether or not digitally modelled amps are as pleasing as 'analogue' amps. That's a subjective question). 

UnclePsychosis

Barnezy said:

It reminds me of the move to CD's and then back to vinyl. Why, when we're told there is no audible difference... 

The move "back" to vinyl has little to do with technology and everything to do with the behaviour of collectors. Vinyl records are "cool", and (some) people like to own them---owning vinyl gives you more of an "experience", if you like. Its a fun experience, don't get me wrong, but the idea that its technologically better is deeply flawed. 

Fretwired

UnclePsychosis said:

Barnezy said:

It reminds me of the move to CD's and then back to vinyl. Why, when we're told there is no audible difference... 

The move "back" to vinyl has little to do with technology and everything to do with the behaviour of collectors. Vinyl records are "cool", and (some) people like to own them---owning vinyl gives you more of an "experience", if you like. Its a fun experience, don't get me wrong, but the idea that its technologically better is deeply flawed. 

It had more to do with record companies cutting corners when it came to re-releasing vinyl albums onto CD. EMI were major culprits as they often didn't even use the original master tapes or found they were worn and missing. I have some shocking CDs .. many have since been remastered and restored and are good. The first Dark Side of the Moon CD I bought wasn't very good. Too bright and too different from the vinyl - people also slagged off the early Beatles CDs even though they were remixed by George Martin ...

Interesting SOS article ...

https://www.soundonsound.com/techniques/remastering-beatles

UnclePsychosis

Yeah, unfortunately people confused "record companies do shit job of reissuing on cd" for "cd is rubbish". 

Plus, all the stuff about vinyl being "back" is wrong anyway. An 8000% increase on sales of naff all is still naff all, unfortunately. 

Fretwired

UnclePsychosis said:

Yeah, unfortunately people confused "record companies do shit job of reissuing on cd" for "cd is rubbish". 

Plus, all the stuff about vinyl being "back" is wrong anyway. An 8000% increase on sales of naff all is still naff all, unfortunately. 

You are right ... I also think in the early days they opted to remix too many albums that made them sound different from the vinyl versions. CD remasters these days are very good.