Why I went back to real amps.

DefaultM

Axe FX 2 set up like a head in to a 2x12 cab is the best live sound I've ever had. People would come up to me after every gig and give me compliments.
As long as you stick to amps that suit your cab it's like having a traditional set up and every effect you could think of.
 The only reason I stopped was I got fed up constantly taking it back and forth out of the studio.

dazzer22

I think the simple answer is that they all do the same job,  tube valve amp modelling  IR ,  Its just what you prefer and how you get the best out of what your using , personally there is know difference in sound, know one i know can tell the difference , if it  sounds good then it sound good ,  I started off with SS amps tried a few tube amps , and settled for the  helix  now-   I wouldn't go back to valve but might be tempted with a  SS amp . 

NelsonP

Amps have a dynamic range that in my experience modellers cannot match. I have both and use both regularly. Valve amps more regularly.

Danny1969

NelsonP said:

Amps have a dynamic range that in my experience modellers cannot match. I have both and use both regularly. Valve amps more regularly.

That's one of  the main things I notice too ... like I can get a part to pop out louder in a band mix just by playing a little harder on a valve amp and it seems to be in a linear relationship, like touch sensitive with loads of headroom.  On the modeller I can kind of jerk it into a louder sound but not in the same linear touch sensitive way, it kind of hits a ceiling and that's it. 

So on a modeller I tend to use boosts more rather than just using my own dynamics to make fills and solo's pop out in the mix. 

GrahamG

Great thread, i play in an old farts GG pub band & we have just started to experiment (practice) with modelers & a borrowed E-Kit.
This is brought about mainly by "needing" to cut down on the amount & weight of our gear, plus(i've not read this mentioned in the thread) by the time the drummer gets excited with his accoustic kit & i get my Modded ORI50C in it's sweet spot, we're getting loud (& of course the Bass player is to loud to start with), we're getting away with the volume some of the time, but not all of the time.
Oh we always except for one regular gig use our own PA, which we also intend to go lighter with,if we start getting somewhere with the "experiment.
I'll report back on our "progress" or lack of it

grappagreen

Danny1969 said:

NelsonP said:

Amps have a dynamic range that in my experience modellers cannot match. I have both and use both regularly. Valve amps more regularly.

That's one of  the main things I notice too ... like I can get a part to pop out louder in a band mix just by playing a little harder on a valve amp and it seems to be in a linear relationship, like touch sensitive with loads of headroom.  On the modeller I can kind of jerk it into a louder sound but not in the same linear touch sensitive way, it kind of hits a ceiling and that's it. 

So on a modeller I tend to use boosts more rather than just using my own dynamics to make fills and solo's pop out in the mix. 

This is the thing that is different - although for me it's not such an issue. I have a Mesa based stereo rack for fun and a Kemper Stage with 2 powered Kemper Kabinets for more stereo fun! The biggest difference between the two is that the Mesa rig will rip your head off if you hit it hard..the Kemper rig far less so.. especially when you get to the cleaner side of things..

I haven't however messed with the some of the various 'compression' aspects of the Kemper to try and mimic the behaviour as for me a bit more compression is fine. I'm probably a worse player now as a consequence however and I do get caught out and have to play with a bit more care with a trad setup. 

I don't use valve amps live any more though as the benefits outweigh the disadvantages..

Lewy

The dynamic range thing is interesting. I wonder how often people are comparing apples with apples when it comes to the amp volume (real or modelled) and the ensuing natural compression....in other words if you've got a modelled amp set to crunch, but then your real amp is set cleaner with a pedal giving you your crunch, is that really a fair comparison? There'd be less compression coming from the real amp in that scenario (depending on the pedal and amount of gain I suppose). What would happen if you set your modeller similarly so it wasn't modelling any power stage compression, and used a pedal for your crunch...I wonder of you'd see more similar dynamic ranges (not that you'd ever really bother with doing that).

I'd be interested to hear the experiences of people who have closely compared modellers with attenuated valve amps, that would seem like a more realistic comparison when it comes to this "gets louder when you dig in" point. Similarly, do any regular non-stadium playing punters use modellers at the loudness levels you'd need to get a plexi or similar to start breaking up to know how they behave in comparison? 

Roland

Lewy said:

… do any regular non-stadium playing punters use modellers at the loudness levels you'd need to get a plexi or similar to start breaking up to know how they behave in comparison? 

One of the reasons for using modellers is to avoid such volumes.

grappagreen

Lewy said:

The dynamic range thing is interesting. I wonder how often people are comparing apples with apples when it comes to the amp volume (real or modelled) and the ensuing natural compression....in other words if you've got a modelled amp set to crunch, but then your real amp is set cleaner with a pedal giving you your crunch, is that really a fair comparison? There'd be less compression coming from the real amp in that scenario (depending on the pedal and amount of gain I suppose). What would happen if you set your modeller similarly so it wasn't modelling any power stage compression, and used a pedal for your crunch...I wonder of you'd see more similar dynamic ranges (not that you'd ever really bother with doing that).

I'd be interested to hear the experiences of people who have closely compared modellers with attenuated valve amps, that would seem like a more realistic comparison when it comes to this "gets louder when you dig in" point. Similarly, do any regular non-stadium playing punters use modellers at the loudness levels you'd need to get a plexi or similar to start breaking up to know how they behave in comparison? 

It's a really good point actually and when I posted above I actually thought that it would be fun to grab the Kemper and dial out some of the compression that is applied and see how it compares on a like-for-like profile. I may even profile the Mesa..

I'll have a go and feedback (if the volume is too high )

Si

Danny1969

What I find with the Pod is just having in in-line with my amp reduces headroom. I'm not even using amp modelling or cabs now .. I'm only using it for effects. Yet just having it in line takes something away from what it is with just the guitar stuck straight into the amp or through my pedal board into the amp. 

It's strange really as the pedals on my board can only swing 4V at best and yet there's no lack of dynamics and headroom. The Pod Go on the other head just doesn't respond in the same way. Maybe it's the convertors, maybe it's just something with the DPS code. 
I'm not anti digital, I was probably one of the first on the forum to go over to a digital desk back in 2008 when they were big money and I mix on digital desks all the time on a freelance basis. 

Voxman

ICBM said:

Roland said:

I’ve hated valve amps since the 70s. A stream of failures, not so much valves (that’s fixable within minutes), but sockets, capacitors, resistors … In consequence I like the reliability of digital

Once again, I cannot for the life of me understand why "not digital" must mean "valve".

*Analogue* solid-state is the best of both worlds. Lighter and more reliable than valve, more immediate and 'real' than digital.

I own, and like, all three types of technology, but if I'm going to be carrying my own gear to gigs I'll be taking the analogue solid-state amp every time.

Absolutely. My hybrid Mk1 Marshall 1x12 Valvestate 80v '8080' is still a really good sounding amp and it's probably the lightest of all my amps. It's still the best selling amp Marshall ever made.  Had it serviced earlier this year, so should be good for another 20 yrs. 

grappagreen

Danny1969 said:

What I find with the Pod is just having in in-line with my amp reduces headroom. I'm not even using amp modelling or cabs now .. I'm only using it for effects. Yet just having it in line takes something away from what it is with just the guitar stuck straight into the amp or through my pedal board into the amp. 

It's strange really as the pedals on my board can only swing 4V at best and yet there's no lack of dynamics and headroom. The Pod Go on the other head just doesn't respond in the same way. Maybe it's the convertors, maybe it's just something with the DPS code. 
I'm not anti digital, I was probably one of the first on the forum to go over to a digital desk back in 2008 when they were big money and I mix on digital desks all the time on a freelance basis. 

I was thinking about this after my post above and wonder if all of this digital gear has some sort of limiter on the front to avoid ADC clipping and hence the difference..

TTBZ

Interesting to read all of this as I've been thinking about going digital if I end up joining a new cover band in the new year. Definitely for the convenience over anything else, but depends what their PA/monitoring setup is too as like you say if you still have to carry an FRFR then might as well just bring a proper cab instead. I do enjoy the feedback you get from a real amp though and I tend to be a single channel amp player, cleaning up from the guitar. Never found a digital model that gets this right and always feels a bit flat and uninspiring.

I've had 2 HX Stomps and sold them both as I was tweaking too much. My plan was to try the Boss IR-2 as at least you're limiting what you can mess with, and no menus. The Two Notes system is crazy to me, just so many options to mess up and over-engineer your sound. I tend to just use 1 of 3 York Audio mix IRs (depending on the amp model) as I know they sound good and have been mixed by someone who knows what they're doing

Nerine

JohnCordy said:

@Nerine I did a video on this today (well filmed it a few days back). I think it's true that by the time you factor in having some stage volume, it's not that different in terms of size/weight.....I gigged a two rock classic reverb signature for the first time last night though, and it is a bit weird to say but I feel like the gig the week previous which was digital into the fender tone master fr12 wasn't much different all things considered.....

I watched your video on it, mate. Found most of it to mirror my experiences to be fair. Especially things sounding a bit shonky if they are solely out of FOH. Having some reinforcement from the stage and some coupling behind you (and hence some interaction between the guitar, amp and speaker) is key, I reckon. It’s an ecosystem that for it to work at its best requires all elements, imo. Very symbiotic. 

I’ve been using a CRS lately, too, albeit mine is a 50w head and 1x12 cabinet and I’ve found the opposite in that it’s been a visceral thing that seems to dominate a band mix in a way my FM9 could never achieve. Pretty sure I’d dial them similarly, given I’m the same person twisting the knobs. Was gonna sell it, but I’m not sure. I’m finding it to be particularly good at being a rock amp and it’s surprising me. Need a shove in the front end to be at its best, though. 

Stinkfoot

Really interesting to hear everyone's experience with this.

Having been all valve/analogue until the first of the Helixes came out, I then dipped my toe into the modelling world.
I think I've been through the Real Amp>Digital>Real Amp>Digital merry-go-round several times and always have given each approach a lot of gigs to make my mind up.

As of a few months ago I sold my most recent amp and now my current set-up is the HX Stomp XL direct to FOH, with a Fender FR10 for my monitoring. Although, as rightly pointed out in this thread, that's not much different size/weight-wise to having a smallish valve amp and a pedalboard, for me I reverted back to this set-up purely becasue I just prefer the sound.

I tried a big variation of different pedals to pair with my last amp and just never hit on anything that pleased my ears that much. I actually found I was doing more constant tweaking and chopping/changing in this scenario, whereas many seem to find they have that experience more with digital gear and its myriad available options.

A bit of a win for me has been to basically ignore most of the deeply-technical chatter and ultra-complex signal chains you read that people are using. My signal path is about as simple as it gets and I barely have to go menu-surfing at all. If it were any different I would have given up on the digital journey ages ago.

It may be sacrilege to say it but I think I've adjusted to preferring the sound of the digital models of a mic'd-up amp through an FRFR over the more 'raw' sound of a cooking amp on stage. It seems a little more refined, more controlled and seems to blend better on stage to my ears. But then I did think that same thing 2 merry-go-rounds ago, so what do I know?!

I think the current state of modelling gear is so good now that for me it's not just about achieving some downsizing project.
For me, comparing a modeller to a valve amp is pretty much the same exercise as comparing one valve amp to another. You always end up with a preference based on whatever your ears tell you.

By the way......discount on my modelling gear to anyone in this thread when I decide to sell it and buy a Marshall stack.