Andertons video became an FRFR critique

prowla

What's fru-fru?

Lewy

flying_pie said:

Lewy said:

TimmyO said:

tekbow said:

Whats coming through the FRFR is the equivalent of a mic'd up cab heard in the control room through monitors, surely?

Whereas theyre hearing the 412 or whatever cab the rockerverb was using in the room.

So, theyre comparing apples and oranges, no?

Nothing wrong with doing that if your conclusion is going to be “i conclude that I prefer the taste of oranges” and not “this apple is not an orange! Oh noes “

I got the impression that the conclusion of the andertons video was more the latter.

That reminds me of the TPS episode where they were using ampless setups and Dan spent the whole episode repeatedly whining "yeah it sounds good... but it's just not the same"

while wearing headphones

And the one where they compared a Tonemaster Deluxe Reverb to a 65 DRRI - set all the knobs exactly the same and went "oh they sound different" - as if doing that with two vintage DRs wouldn't have exactly the same result. To be fair to the TPS boys though, at least they declare their biases up front. They pretty much say "we won't like this because its digital"

DiscoStu

For some of us, this digital lark is necessary, so it's all about getting the best from it.
The technology has come so far in the last 10-20 years and I reckon we're lucky to have it. 
Think how many Helix/Tonex/etc. users there are on here and out there.

LionAquaLooper

DiscoStu said:

For some of us, this digital lark is necessary, so it's all about getting the best from it.
The technology has come so far in the last 10-20 years and I reckon we're lucky to have it. 
Think how many Helix/Tonex/etc. users there are on here and out there.

I'm one of them.  Unfortunately I've never played through a real Tweed Bassman, Vox AC30, Marshall Blues Breaker, Twin Reverb and all these other popular amps that are so expensive nowadays, so yes that does suck.  But maybe it is a fortunate thing because I don't have any historic references and emotional attachments when I play through a digital replication of them.  And yes - this same scenario probably now applies to a vast majority of guitarists in the world and will only keep growing.    

willo

LionAquaLooper said:

DiscoStu said:

For some of us, this digital lark is necessary

I'm one of them.

And yes - this same scenario probably now applies to a vast majority of guitarists in the world and will only keep growing.    

I'm fortunate to bridge both 'eras' but having a family means quiet practice is essential. It's also amazing that I can record so quickly and easily over USB.

Obviously the guitar has had many false dawns with technology - keytars, midi and the like. But this is more fundamental - great sounds that are setting their own reference tone for a generation of guitarists who can't afford a wall of amps and purple lighting for their YouTube videos.

The amp brands own the IP but no one owns the tone. I wonder where we get to, as generations get progressively more "unmoored" from heritage amp brand names. 

Nerine

I see “consistency” is mentioned a lot. 

I don’t find my amp to be different sounding from one place to the next (room accounted for) so why is a modelling rig more consistent? 

If I don’t mess with the controls on my amp it just sounds the same night after night. 

And since I’m using a Suhr RLIR to take care of FOH duties, where is my amp any less consistent? 

The valves themselves?

LionAquaLooper

Nerine said:

I see “consistency” is mentioned a lot. 

I don’t find my amp to be different sounding from one place to the next (room accounted for) so why is a modelling rig more consistent? 

If I don’t mess with the controls on my amp it just sounds the same night after night. 

And since I’m using a Suhr RLIR to take care of FOH duties, where is my amp any less consistent? 

The valves themselves?

I think it's when you can't lug a heavy amp everywhere and they have different amps at different venues - you bring a lighter FRFR + modeller instead. Consistent tones wherever you go and a lighter load.

That's how I understood it anyway. 

welshboyo

Nerine said:

I see “consistency” is mentioned a lot. 

I don’t find my amp to be different sounding from one place to the next (room accounted for) so why is a modelling rig more consistent? 

If I don’t mess with the controls on my amp it just sounds the same night after night. 

And since I’m using a Suhr RLIR to take care of FOH duties, where is my amp any less consistent? 

The valves themselves?

The MK series (that I used for years and years) are notorious for sounding different in different venues/scenarios, volumes etc and it used to really piss me off at times as a great sound one night couldn’t be replicated next night without re tweaking everything.

A lot of the consistency to me is due to the wider frequency range FRFR provides which smooths it all out. Again, the IR negates all of the speaker/cabinet placement stuff as well.

Voxman

Nerine said:

I see “consistency” is mentioned a lot. 

I don’t find my amp to be different sounding from one place to the next (room accounted for) so why is a modelling rig more consistent? 

If I don’t mess with the controls on my amp it just sounds the same night after night. 

And since I’m using a Suhr RLIR to take care of FOH duties, where is my amp any less consistent? 

The valves themselves?

I can definitely see where you're coming from. However I've found that sometimes the same amp with the same settings can sound a bit different in different venues. It could be down to different acoustics (as you eluded too), ar as simple as where the amp is positioned (inc height) which might be different eg depending on stage space/layout. 

Arguably the same could I suppose be said of FRFR, but for whatever reason I've found there seems to be less tonal variation in different venues. This might simply be because I put my FRFR on a tripod, and thus its always at the same height, which might help. 

I'd also suggest consistency possibly covers situations when for example someone might not use the same amp. This might be if an amp is in repair and you have to use another, or whether someone uses one amp rig for full gigs but due to size and weight they use a smaller one for  rehearsals or mic nights, or small club gigs.  

And if someone uses a modelling mfx unit as opposed to a conventional pedal board, consistency might relate to when they might not take an amp because of size and weight, and use the amp in the rehearsal room, or the venue amps, whereas using a more portable FRFR rig gives them greater tonal consistency.  

At the end of the day I appreciate theres likely to be some subjectivity and personal preference to all this, so ultimately all that matters is what solution works best for each of us. 

Lewy

Nerine said:

I see “consistency” is mentioned a lot. 

I don’t find my amp to be different sounding from one place to the next (room accounted for) so why is a modelling rig more consistent? 

If I don’t mess with the controls on my amp it just sounds the same night after night. 

And since I’m using a Suhr RLIR to take care of FOH duties, where is my amp any less consistent? 

The valves themselves?

Consistency for me is consistency across very different playing scenarios - recording, practicing, and all the different permutations of gigging, not just one scenario in different rooms.

borntohang

Nerine said:

I see “consistency” is mentioned a lot. 

I don’t find my amp to be different sounding from one place to the next (room accounted for) so why is a modelling rig more consistent? 

If I don’t mess with the controls on my amp it just sounds the same night after night. 

And since I’m using a Suhr RLIR to take care of FOH duties, where is my amp any less consistent? 

The valves themselves?

Two points:

First one is you generally want to maintain consistent volume in different sized rooms while keeping the same saturation, compression etc. With a modeller you can just tweak the master volume up or down and you're there. (Saying 'room accounted for' is sidestepping the main issue, which is that the room is never accounted for. Of course your amp will sound the same when played with identical settings in ten totally dead identically-sized black boxes). 

Second is if you're using an IR to FoH then you're already eliminating different mics, crap mic positions, dodgy engineer EQing, whatever else might affect the signal on a given night and loosely fall under 'consistency'. You're getting the same benefits as a modeller; most people just don't fancy lugging an entire tube head out solely to play into a reactive load. You're already digitising the signal, why not go all the way and just carry a board in one hand? 

newi123

Well I watched the video and agree with their conclusions sound wise for those amps in that room ....  

Inspired by that spent an afternoon trying my digital rig through guitar cabs with different speakers, with both class d amp and also into fx return of valve head.

To my ears, it still sounds better into an fr12. So that's what Ill be gigging again this weekend. 

Whatever works for the individual I guess. 

TimmyO

You probably out some actual effort in to it - I’m still amazed that nobody on that Andertons video took 2 steps over and turned a knob 

bloodandtears

TimmyO said:

You probably out some actual effort in to it - I’m still amazed that nobody on that Andertons video took 2 steps over and turned a knob 

They have zero interest in them.. as was made very clear... they just box shift them..   totally the wrong people to demonstrate the units...   just a click bait video really, to justify Chappers being in the UK no doubt..

Danny1969

borntohang said:

Nerine said:

I see “consistency” is mentioned a lot. 

I don’t find my amp to be different sounding from one place to the next (room accounted for) so why is a modelling rig more consistent? 

If I don’t mess with the controls on my amp it just sounds the same night after night. 

And since I’m using a Suhr RLIR to take care of FOH duties, where is my amp any less consistent? 

The valves themselves?

Two points:

First one is you generally want to maintain consistent volume in different sized rooms while keeping the same saturation, compression etc. With a modeller you can just tweak the master volume up or down and you're there. (Saying 'room accounted for' is sidestepping the main issue, which is that the room is never accounted for. Of course your amp will sound the same when played with identical settings in ten totally dead identically-sized black boxes). 

Second is if you're using an IR to FoH then you're already eliminating different mics, crap mic positions, dodgy engineer EQing, whatever else might affect the signal on a given night and loosely fall under 'consistency'. You're getting the same benefits as a modeller; most people just don't fancy lugging an entire tube head out solely to play into a reactive load. You're already digitising the signal, why not go all the way and just carry a board in one hand? 

Speaking as someone who mixes FOH professionally and is a partner in a PA company hire company.

One of the main advantages of direct from amp to PA is the lack of spill from the drum kit and other sources. People always ask "which is the best sounding mic for a guitar amp live ?" and my answer is always that it is the mic that picks up the least amount of spill on small stages. On large stages you have a bit more latitude. A direct feed rather than a mic on a small stage certainly helps with that. 

I don't find any consistency problems with amps over modellers. If a room has a problem then having a modeller won't help the situation as it's an acoustic problem. Everything will be affected including your modeller through the PA . 

The main things we are up against FOH wise are standing waves at low frequencies causing peaks and nulls, too many reflective surfaces causing havoc with everything else, poor positioning of FOH speakers due to room constraints and various other issues. There are a lot of venues where you will never get a good mix in the whole space because of this. Whether the guitarist is using a modeller or an amp wouldn't really come into it. Guitars are all mid, the easiest of frequencies to amplify. 

As a punter just listening to other bands I still prefer a normal backline of real drums, amps etc with the PA amplifying the vocals and reinforcing the backline. It sounds like a live band and everyone sounds like they are in the same room, which they are.

tekbow

On the consistency argument, i feel i remember this stemming from a Metallica Rig Run Down, where it was one of the first times their live use of Fractal was mrntioned, and their tech went through how it was more consistent for them.

Points mentioned were amps performing in different environmental conditions, in different acoustic environments (I suppose an element of mic'ing cabs up were involved), maintenance of amps, consistency of tubes etc etc etc.

Whereas with an Axe-Fx and the backups, a lot of that was eliminated, including differing performance between backup amps should one fail.

Even the settings could be transferred via USB from one unit to the next.

I get that. Whether that scales down to pub gigs, I dont know, but I get why it makes sense at that scale.

Imagine if every music venue had an Axe-FX as part of the backline. Bring your guitar and your USB with you.

exocet

tekbow said:

On the consistency argument, i feel i remember this stemming from a Metallica Rig Run Down, where it was one of the first times their live use of Fractal was mrntioned, and their tech went through how it was more consistent for them.

Points mentioned were amps performing in different environmental conditions, in different acoustic environments (I suppose an element of mic'ing cabs up were involved), maintenance of amps, consistency of tubes etc etc etc.

Whereas with an Axe-Fx and the backups, a lot of that was eliminated, including differing performance between backup amps should one fail.

Even the settings could be transferred via USB from one unit to the next.

I get that. Whether that scales down to pub gigs, I dont know, but I get why it makes sense at that scale.

Imagine if every music venue had an Axe-FX as part of the backline. Bring your guitar and your USB with you.

I'd say that "consistency" in that context had more to do with the impact of voltage levels and temperature changes on the valve gear. That and the inevitable "wear and tear" factor from transporting heavy valve heards around (even though they are well protected in cases). For touring acts, modelling gear is a no brainer.

tekbow

exocet said:

tekbow said:

On the consistency argument, i feel i remember this stemming from a Metallica Rig Run Down, where it was one of the first times their live use of Fractal was mrntioned, and their tech went through how it was more consistent for them.

Points mentioned were amps performing in different environmental conditions, in different acoustic environments (I suppose an element of mic'ing cabs up were involved), maintenance of amps, consistency of tubes etc etc etc.

Whereas with an Axe-Fx and the backups, a lot of that was eliminated, including differing performance between backup amps should one fail.

Even the settings could be transferred via USB from one unit to the next.

I get that. Whether that scales down to pub gigs, I dont know, but I get why it makes sense at that scale.

Imagine if every music venue had an Axe-FX as part of the backline. Bring your guitar and your USB with you.

I'd say that "consistency" in that context had more to do with the impact of voltage levels and temperature changes on the valve gear. That and the inevitable "wear and tear" factor from transporting heavy valve heards around (even though they are well protected in cases). For touring acts, modelling gear is a no brainer.

I entirely agree

StefB

tekbow said:

On the consistency argument, i feel i remember this stemming from a Metallica Rig Run Down, where it was one of the first times their live use of Fractal was mrntioned, and their tech went through how it was more consistent for them.

Points mentioned were amps performing in different environmental conditions, in different acoustic environments (I suppose an element of mic'ing cabs up were involved), maintenance of amps, consistency of tubes etc etc etc.

Whereas with an Axe-Fx and the backups, a lot of that was eliminated, including differing performance between backup amps should one fail.

Even the settings could be transferred via USB from one unit to the next.

I get that. Whether that scales down to pub gigs, I dont know, but I get why it makes sense at that scale.

Imagine if every music venue had an Axe-FX as part of the backline. Bring your guitar and your USB with you.

This topical article from Guitar World released yesterday offers a timely counterview from a pro-touring perspective - https://www.guitarworld.com/artists/guitarists/why-stephen-carpenter-has-returned-to-tube-amps-for-deftones-latest-record

tekbow

StefB said:

tekbow said:

On the consistency argument, i feel i remember this stemming from a Metallica Rig Run Down, where it was one of the first times their live use of Fractal was mrntioned, and their tech went through how it was more consistent for them.

Points mentioned were amps performing in different environmental conditions, in different acoustic environments (I suppose an element of mic'ing cabs up were involved), maintenance of amps, consistency of tubes etc etc etc.

Whereas with an Axe-Fx and the backups, a lot of that was eliminated, including differing performance between backup amps should one fail.

Even the settings could be transferred via USB from one unit to the next.

I get that. Whether that scales down to pub gigs, I dont know, but I get why it makes sense at that scale.

Imagine if every music venue had an Axe-FX as part of the backline. Bring your guitar and your USB with you.

This topical article from Guitar World released yesterday offers a timely counterview from a pro-touring perspective - https://www.guitarworld.com/artists/guitarists/why-stephen-carpenter-has-returned-to-tube-amps-for-deftones-latest-record

Its a fair perspective but the main objective issue here seems to have is "its a pain to do backups and I forgot"?