Andertons video became an FRFR critique

Axe_meister

They also said the Tonemaster sounded great through the Studio monitors, what are they if not an FRFR. Had they spent a bit more time tone matching, high cut/low cut and EQ or two. They beauty of an FRFR setup if you put in the work is that you can have one patch into an open back 2x12 and another into a closed back 4x12. 
Yes if you are Aerosmith you can have every conceivable cab and amp on stage us mortals can't but a bit of work a modeler and an FRFR can get close.
I've certainly found in the past when I had an analog modeler (Sansamp PSA1), a helix into a power amp into two Marshal 2x12s, every patch sounded like a Marshall 2x12. 

exocet

tekbow said:

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"?

There's that and then there's the never ending "I'm bored with this sound and fancy a change" - moving back to analogue (valve) is the most dramatic change you can make....before moving back again a few months / years later. For as long as valve amps exist, I think guitarists will always flit between the two worlds just because they fancy a change / want to reaquaint themselves with what they used previously.

NelsonP

For me:

Valve amps sound better than modellers - Marshall DSL, Mesa .50 caliber vs Atomic Amplifire are my reference points.

20 watt combo + pedalboard just as easy to 'grab and go' with vs modeller and frfr.

Modeller much easier to record with.

Modeller offers one touch switching. Go from a nice clean with a bit of reverb to high gain lead tone with delay at the touch of a button. The same can be achieved with a pedalboard and switcher but that's a faff.

Frfr gives flexibility that going into the fx return of an amp can't. You can easily switch from a Fender Deluxe 1 x 12 to a Friedman HBE with a 4 x 12 to a Vox AC30.

Using a modeller into the fx return if an amp has always seemed a compromise. Neither fish nor fowl.

PLOP

I love my helix. Absolutely the best bit of kit I’ve ever bought. I run it into a 200w poweramp and then into a Marshall 2x12, which works great for home use, rehearsals and live if needed, but usually I leave it at home and use whatever cab the venue has. 

For me this is the perfect set up; I get all the versatility of effects and amps, the convenience of what the helix can do with one button press changing literally every parameter in my chain should I want that. It’s endlessly versatile and I know that my guitars will sound basically the same everywhere I go. I would never swap it for a pedal board, one because it would cost me thousands to replicate what I use now, but two because it adds so much more complexity and margin for error I don’t have the patience for. 

I don’t have a ton of experience in using monitors and cab simulation with it outside of recording parts, ie, not in a live band setting, but in my experience I can see what a lot of people say about them sounding “off”. A lot of people also seem to forget that it’s not meant to sound like a cab, it’s meant to sound like a recording of a cab in a room. It is jarring to hear. 

With my method, the cab puts out all the punch/air/girth whatever you want to call it. It behaves, sounds and responds like a real amp and cab, but I think it’s better because it’s infinitely tweakable. 

I may also be considered a heretic, because I don’t care what cab I’m using. They’re all the same in a band mix. In isolation they have big differences, but when you’ve got drums, bass, vocals and a second guitar all dripping in distortion, it’s absolutely negligible. 

I would never buy a valve amp again. Good riddance as far as I can see! 

LuisP_Rawrawk

We have tried quite a few digital options through our cabs. In our opinion digital stuff sound way better with a real cabinet than through headphones or FRFR speakers.

MartinB

So far in small to medium sized local venues, I've not been entirely convinced by the bands I've seen who have gone FRFR or fully ampless on stage, for anything at least a little rock-ish. It works, but I've never had a moment where I'm struck with how good the guitar and bass are sounding. Though that's in small venues where you'd usually be hearing a mix of backline and FOH, maybe it hits differently in stadiums or wherever. 

bloodandtears

.. after all the comments about a power amp and regular guitar cab,,,, along comes the Line 6 PowerCab CL !!

normula1

I watched the Andertons video, and for me the modeller sounded nothing like the valve amp at all until it was plugged into the real amp's output section and speakers (whether it's a good or bad sound is entirely subjective).That's not a surprise though as the problem with the "just making it louder" FRFR is that you are typically amplifying a model where the speaker has a specific microphone placed in front of it so you don't actually get the sound of what the real speaker sounded like (with all its foibles) "in the room"  and then they were doubling that up with another set of microphones.
I also think that they missed a trick of sending the solid state amp into the large speaker cab as I'll bet that would have been a damn sight closer as well.

When using in-ears or headphones, assuming the source is good enough (whether real amp into a load box or a modelled equivalent) IRs can sound superb as they can feeding proper studio monitors but I've yet to hear a FRFR "just make it louder" cab sound as it would "in the room", I feel the amplifier modelling part can sound pretty close (I've A-B'd my real Marshall into a reactive load into my Helix aginst a similar model into the same Impulse response and and it get's pretty close... never going to be the same as my Marshall isn't the physical device they modelled. 
I wish there could be an IR (or similar) with a completely transparent "microphone" so that would take it out of the equation and just leave the speaker element..

For that "in the room", I find sending the modeller into a power amp and real guitar speakers to be more satisfying but and I'm prepared to be shot down in flames, ignoring the lovely punch in the gut playing loudly through speakers gives, a good set of in-ears are far more consistently pleasing... lots of others will disagree though

Musicwolf

My FR10 was delivered on Saturday althou yesterday (Tuesday) was my first chance to try it out.

I use either a Helix Floor or a Kemper profiler depending upon the band.  Two of my bands use backing tracks with live vocals / 2 guitars (both through modellers), so everything is direct to PA with stage monitors / in-ears.  Band number three has a real drummer and bass player so I've been using an Alto TS210 (pole mounted) for vol.  It was this band for which I would use the FR10.

Sod's law, we found ourselves without a drummer last night so I threw together some drum tracks but went direct to PA.  The other plan was to try the FR10 as a stage monitor for my main band at a gig this Friday - cancelled 

Anyway, home impressions.

It's loud, but backgound noise isn't an issue

The sound is quite 'in your face' for want of a better description.

The EQ is far more powerfull than is required.

The cut function is very useful and is probably going to be sufficient for most situations.

I'm happy enough so far, but I could have managed with the Alto.  But where's the fun in that?

Nerine

Everything is useable, but digital will always be a compromise in my view (even though it sounds good)

Why? 

Because given the choice, if my band were playing in a huge venue or stadium or something, I’d have 2-3 SLO 100s sat atop 4x12s behind me. 

And it’d be fucking cool. 

EricTheWeary

That came up on my YouTube feed and I had it on over breakfast. FRFR mentioned only really in passing. Rob uses two Bareface FRFR cabs with Jamiroquai and he likes them. His Quad Cortex set up is based around a capture of a single (Divided by 13) amp so as the cabs are only for his monitoring I didn't really understand what value FRFR was giving him.
If you are using violin IRs like Guthrie (having watched a video of him talking about this I think it's more an idea than something he actually uses on gigs) or trying to sound like 12 different amps okay but if just trying to replicate a single nice valve amp in the digital realm they seem unnecessary. Maybe. 

digitalscream

Nerine said:

Everything is useable, but digital will always be a compromise in my view (even though it sounds good)

Why? 

Because given the choice, if my band were playing in a huge venue or stadium or something, I’d have 2-3 SLO 100s sat atop 4x12s behind me. 

And it’d be fucking cool. 

See, coolness aside, I've always found the complete opposite. With digital, I can make the exact sounds I want, and they're going to be instantly available with a single stomp.

With amps, particularly the ones I tend to use, there's always a compromise - shared EQ is usually the killer (one channel or the other will always be the compromise, sometimes both), and if using stompboxes there's the issue of multiple sequential stomps edging closer to the final sound. Or you can have a crazy-convoluted signal path with switchers and the like, which compromises reliability by multiplying the points of failure.

Now, obviously, that could be solved by having multiple amps, but...that's where it gets beyond practicality (even for big touring bands).

With amps and pedals, I always find I'm compromising on some of the sounds and all of the usability. With digital, I get perfect usability and the exact sound I'm after - or, more to the point, closer to it on all counts than the average with hot glass bottles.

Should be noted that I've only gigged with FRFR a couple of times, and it turned out to be awful. Modeller -> solid state power amp -> guitar cab is the way.

Brow

I've been gigging a Helix and Fender FR10 since March this year, before that it was all valve amps of various sizes and power levels etc.

I made the switch because in my band our drummer is registered blind and unable to drive, and as I live nearest I take him and his gear to and from gigs. After 6 years I just grew tired of getting home half hour or more later than everyone else having taken him home n then lugging my 28kg 1x12 out the car etc so I tried it mainly for convenience tbh......

I have the FRFR cab for onstage sound and controlled feedback etc and I feed FOH direct from the Helix. I'm also our bands sound man, and this makes it easier than miking up my amp or using a Redbox to the desk. Our other guitarist uses a Quad Cortex and also goes direct to FOH.

When I'm outfront doing the sound I don't notice a huge difference between the tone I have now and what I had before, so it's a bonus to me that it's easier to move about and quicker to setup.

Finding the right IRs has definitely helped with the tone from my FRFR cab, as has Low and High cuts to put it more in line with the response of a guitar cab.

It probably also helps that I've done a lot of Home and Studio recording so I'm used to hearing my amps via a microphone through monitors,  which is essentially what a Modeller and FRFR cab is emulating. But I get how some people may not like it.

exocet

EricTheWeary said:

That came up on my YouTube feed and I had it on over breakfast. FRFR mentioned only really in passing. Rob uses two Bareface FRFR cabs with Jamiroquai and he likes them. His Quad Cortex set up is based around a capture of a single (Divided by 13) amp so as the cabs are only for his monitoring I didn't really understand what value FRFR was giving him.
If you are using violin IRs like Guthrie (having watched a video of him talking about this I think it's more an idea than something he actually uses on gigs) or trying to sound like 12 different amps okay but if just trying to replicate a single nice valve amp in the digital realm they seem unnecessary. Maybe. 

In this example I'd say:

1. He hasn't used Barefaced cabs with Jamiroquai (yet), he's been using the Laney FRFR cabs for a few years. I saw him use Laney last year whilst playing with another band - Brother Strut. His sound at that gig was immense but I have no idea what I was hearing I suspect more FOH than on stage cabs. 

2. My guess would be that he's moving to Barefaced because they are very light (compared to the Laneys) and as he runs stereo on stage, that's probably more practical to move around. Whilst a Jamiroquai tour would have roadies to hump stuff around, most of his other stuff is all "load in / load out yourself" so weight is everything.

3. Barefaced cabs do provide a very good "spread" due to the port arrangement on the back. I've got one mainly because I like the sound of an open back cab - I can hear it clearly no matter where I stand in relation to cab.

He has a spare Quad Cortex which is ligher than taking 2 x FTR37 plus cabs.

That's my guess anyway. But your point about "why bother with FRFR" still stands, there's a lot to be said for using a standard guitar cab that you are comfortable with. A standard cab will still give a range of tones should you choose to flip between different amp models in different presets etc.

Danny1969

I was looking at some really old photos a few days ago (moving house but getting distracted ) 

I was actually using a solid state amplifier into juke box speakers  in 1994. Due to being incredibly skint at the time and having young kids I sold all my equipment. Only problem was I played in a band that did 150 gigs a year. So I borrowed a guitar, a Kramer and got a cab that looked like a Marshall but actually contained jukebox speakers ... because I sold the guitar speakers. I had a little Marshall pre amp and modified a Rotel Hi Fi amp to power the cab. It didn't sound like a Valve Marshall but it wasn't unusable ... did well over 100 gigs with that. Then I upgraded the Marshall pre amp to a Kitty Hawk pre amp but still used the Rotel and the jukebox speaker equipped cab. 

In the noughties I got a Vox AD120 ... which is essentially digital modelling into a tiny valve amp stage which then feeds a normal MOSFET output stage .... that sounded very good but was prone to going wrong in the amp section. The modelling bit was fine because it was made by Korg. To counter this I placed a Marshall 8000 solid state rack amp on top of this and gigged it. That was just as good but the real improvement came when I replaced the 8000 with an EL84 20\20 Marshall power amp. Now it sounded awesome. 
That's when I realised it's the valve output stage that does so much that I like. Being non linear in regards to frequency it just adds an organic warmth and seems to filter out a lot of nastiness that SS amps don't. 

So what you really need is modeller - into a amplifier - in a power transformer running a reactive load ... then tap the signal voltage from that and run that into whatever amp you want.

normula1

Interesting that they use the Celestion F12-X200 speakers. I have a couple of those and have struggled with them. I half suspect it's due to my power amps not having enough headroom and clipping which then comes through as a nasty "buzz" in the tweaters... to the point where I disconnected them.
I really want them to work as I also have my guitar synth playing through them and really want the full-range for that.

exocet

normula1 said:

Interesting that they use the Celestion F12-X200 speakers. I have a couple of those and have struggled with them. I half suspect it's due to my power amps not having enough headroom and clipping which then comes through as a nasty "buzz" in the tweaters... to the point where I disconnected them.
I really want them to work as I also have my guitar synth playing through them and really want the full-range for that.

I don't think that they are the easiest speaker to drive - especially with the vaguries of what is the actual RMS Power delivered by "Class D Power amps".
If you clip the output stage of your power amp, the end results would indeed sound horrible via the F12-X200 tweeter.

Hertsfield

I only play at home so "amp in room" type realism is much more important to me than consistency across different stages, but FWIW I have found that a Red Sound cab provides a better experience than the Laney that I had previously. More importantly, through the magic of Google I have come across the brilliantly named Dr Bonkers Soundlabs, based in the US (https://www.drbonkerssoundlab.com/) who produces IRs using a technique that also involves also using a Crown PZM mike on the speaker cab to capture its resonance, along with the usual range of mics and placements for the speaker. To my ears it makes a pretty massive difference and really does help to add in the bits missing from a normal IR. Dr Bonkers has 2 packs currently to try out at a tiny $1 and $1.99 respectively so there is not a great deal of risk. His other packs are currently on sale at $9.99. I was very impressed....

funkyfraz

Surely they're also missing a key point of FRFR and modelling? Within a click of a footswitch you could be playing through an ENGL, or a jtm45. If you turn up with an Orange rig, you will sound like an orange rig the whole gig.  OK, as a direct comparison, each indivudal amp would win, but the model is close enough for 90% of applications, and the fact you have all the options literally at your big toe, you get alot more for the weight, cost, practicality and so on.

aconitethrill

Genuine question which is not really in line with what the video was going for… how do those PS170 into a real 1x12 rigs fare at low volumes? I mean actual bedroom level volumes, not ‘I hate my neighbours’ volumes?

Recognise there are all kinds of options that are actually designed for that use case, but as someone who was weighing up a bigger FRFR setup, it’s an intriguing alternative that I hadn’t really been considering!