Digital Amps a Warning From History

Cirrus

Drew_fx;628923" said:

When I saw Monuments and Karnivool a few months back, it was ridiculous how much better Karnivool sounded.

You seem to keep coming back to this gig. Surely a man of your experience and intellectual rigour (I reference your constant demands for proof and evidence in political threads), you should be aware just how variable live sound quality can be, band to band and night to night. I think the differences between an amp and a good modeller at pretty subtle in a like-for-like listening situation, to the point where I doubt I'd be able to tell them apart reliably in a blind test. But you've seen a gig where anything could have happened, from a shit soundman to problems with the venue acoustics to Monuments just using shit patches and the impression you're giving is that you think the problem is some inherent issue with modelling?

I guess I just find it curious how often people arguing in both camps come to strange conclusions like that. Personally, I like valve amps - they tend to sound, if not good at least robust, and I like the limitations imposed by having a couple of amps with their own sounds. But I know that even ten years ago my Line 6 flextone 2x12 combo was, set right, capable of producing tones that were at least good enough to not have people wrinkling their noses in disgust.

crunchman

I've said this before in other threads but the thing that really turned me on to the Kemper was seeing it at a gig.  I'd seen the same band a year before and the guitarist had used a Marshall half stack.  The FOH sound was a lot better with the Kemper.

Drew_TNBD

Cirrus;631204" said:

Drew_fx;628923" said:When I saw Monuments and Karnivool a few months back, it was ridiculous how much better Karnivool sounded.



You seem to keep coming back to this gig. Surely a man of your experience and intellectual rigour (I reference your constant demands for proof and evidence in political threads), you should be aware just how variable live sound quality can be, band to band and night to night. I think the differences between an amp and a good modeller at pretty subtle in a like-for-like listening situation, to the point where I doubt I'd be able to tell them apart reliably in a blind test. But you've seen a gig where anything could have happened, from a shit soundman to problems with the venue acoustics to Monuments just using shit patches and the impression you're giving is that you think the problem is some inherent issue with modelling?

I guess I just find it curious how often people arguing in both camps come to strange conclusions like that. Personally, I like valve amps - they tend to sound, if not good at least robust, and I like the limitations imposed by having a couple of amps with their own sounds. But I know that even ten years ago my Line 6 flextone 2x12 combo was, set right, capable of producing tones that were at least good enough to not have people wrinkling their noses in disgust.

Different gigs. Tesseract and animals as leaders is one gig. Monuments and karnivool is another. Months apart. Different venues, etc....

Not against modelling at all, just said I wasn't 100% convinced.

Also there is no need to bring your passive aggressiveness into this.

Fiftyshadesofjay

Not sure if this is viewable but here's a video of my very old band when we did a one off reunion the other month.

I'm on the left with the Kemper, other guitarist using a JCM 800. I've got hardly any sound coming out the cab, the reason I'm so loud is the PA speaker is just out of shot to the right.

Only phone quality but gives you an idea how strong and punchy a modeller can sound against a valve amp.

https://www.facebook.com/shaun.wicklow/videos/10153188971401153/

Drew_TNBD

Fiftyshadesofjay said:

Not sure if this is viewable but here's a video of my very old band when we did a one off reunion the other month.

I'm on the left with the Kemper, other guitarist using a JCM 800. I've got hardly any sound coming out the cab, the reason I'm so loud is the PA speaker is just out of shot to the right.

Only phone quality but gives you an idea how strong and punchy a modeller can sound against a valve amp.

https://www.facebook.com/shaun.wicklow/videos/10153188971401153/

This content is currently unavailable

guitarfishbay

Ok scratch my assumption that POD were using modellers.  I was stood to the left of the stage, just found a video from the right side and there is clearly a second Rectifier stack I couldn't see from my angle, and it is switched on.  Ironically I just checked the photo I uploaded from the night and you can see the very edge of the POD Mesa halfstack, I just didn't clock it... lol.  Guess it is because I'm right handed and held the phone out to my right to get a better shot.

Anyway I stand by what I thought of the sound, Hoobastank sounded best, I didn't really rate the tone of AAF compared to the other bands that night from what I caught of their set.  

Fiftyshadesofjay

Drew_fx;631317" said:

Fiftyshadesofjay said:



https://www.facebook.com/shaun.wicklow/videos/10153188971401153/

This content is currently unavailable

Lame! You may need to be friends with the person who posted to view it. You'll just have to take my word for it.

Danny1969

With live sound anything can happen. With todays desk's we are using all kinds of plugins. You could give me the feed from your AXE FX and I could run it through Digidesigns 11 or my Sanamps plugins. I could put my own cab sims on your channel, set some strange EQ etc. 

Also live sound is always a compromise. Due to physics you can's get a good sound all round the room, high frequencies lose their energy quicker in air than low frequencies, bass frequencies will be attenuated or amplified as they cross in or out of phase with themselves ....  so what you hear will vary with where you stand  

Cirrus

This is why when I do sound I go outside, then drive home. There's no point.

jeztone2

I have a different view of modelling amps. I bought a Fender Cyber Deluxe used a while ago & to my ears it was a multi FX unit coupled to a cheap transistor power amp. The amp was noisy & prone to interference. So I couldn't see how anyone could use it in a performance or recording situation.

I just get the impression that guitar amp makers were telling us this was the future because it was cheaper to build.

The Kemper & Axe FX are different. As they are built with a pro end user in mind. But with a lot of these modelling amps. It just seemed like an exercise in cost cutting.

ToneControl

Revive this thread? Just looking at the cost of the new AxeFx 3 today

Same as with buying valve amps, it's all about buying the right one
Buying a combo amp with first (or early) generation Digital FX built in is an obvious short term investment, it's clear the value will drop since the tech will improve much more

Whereas, I bought my AxeFx2 in 2011, direct from the EU distributor (the only way in the EU), for £1931
They are quite a lot more expensive than in the USA 

Second hand price today?
ebay sales recently are £1000 to £1290, and that is AFTER the new model has come out
so that means it's held its value better than almost any valve amp, 

ICBM

When looking at whether something will hold its value, it's worth remembering that there are two main types of valve amps and two main types of digital amps (bear with me, it will makes sense ) and that this is likely to have a large effect on residual values.

Valve amps: simple, and complex.

Simple valve amps can be either non-master volume or master volume, but have no non-valve switching circuitry, low-voltage-driven FX loops, solid-state or digital reverb etc. These will be maintainable for the foreseeable future - even if they're PCB-built, the boards tend to be simpler and more robust - and also tend to be less music-genre-specific. So... hold value long term.

Complex valve amps are usually channel switchers, have lots of non-valve circuitry, and are usually built on densely-packed PCBs. These become a real problem to maintain when (ironically) the *non*-valve components become obsolete, or they suffer board damage. They also do seem to be more genre-specific for some reason - possibly the tone balance between the channels - although some are more adaptable than you may think. But... probably won't hold value long term.

Digital amps: fixed technology, and upgradable technology.

Fixed technology ones become obsolete very quickly as more powerful processing and new software with better sounds comes out. While you will find some people who just like the sounds of the old models, they will be in a minority. These amps also generally can't be repaired if something serious fails. So... no long-term value.

Upgradable - speaks for itself really. As long as the physical circuitry doesn't fail - which it still can, although it's getting very reliable - then you can improve the sounds with software updates. Although there's probably going to be a point where the processing power is no longer enough, nowadays that may be a fair way off. So... probably hold value at least medium-term.

Sorry if that's a bit of a ramble .

ToneControl

ICBM said:

When looking at whether something will hold its value, it's worth remembering that there are two main types of valve amps and two main types of digital amps (bear with me, it will makes sense ) and that this is likely to have a large effect on residual values.

Valve amps: simple, and complex.

Simple valve amps can be either non-master volume or master volume, but have no non-valve switching circuitry, low-voltage-driven FX loops, solid-state or digital reverb etc. These will be maintainable for the foreseeable future - even if they're PCB-built, the boards tend to be simpler and more robust - and also tend to be less music-genre-specific. So... hold value long term.

Complex valve amps are usually channel switchers, have lots of non-valve circuitry, and are usually built on densely-packed PCBs. These become a real problem to maintain when (ironically) the *non*-valve components become obsolete, or they suffer board damage. They also do seem to be more genre-specific for some reason - possibly the tone balance between the channels - although some are more adaptable than you may think. But... probably won't hold value long term.

Digital amps: fixed technology, and upgradable technology.

Fixed technology ones become obsolete very quickly as more powerful processing and new software with better sounds comes out. While you will find some people who just like the sounds of the old models, they will be in a minority. These amps also generally can't be repaired if something serious fails. So... no long-term value.

Upgradable - speaks for itself really. As long as the physical circuitry doesn't fail - which it still can, although it's getting very reliable - then you can improve the sounds with software updates. Although there's probably going to be a point where the processing power is no longer enough, nowadays that may be a fair way off. So... probably hold value at least medium-term.

Sorry if that's a bit of a ramble .

did you type all that with one hand?

ICBM

ToneControl said:

did you type all that with one hand?

Yes .

(For anyone unfamiliar with the reason, check Off Topic .)