Amp Modelling Sucks

Cabicular

Tone is subjective etc
One of the only amps I've ever sold is the DSL100
Horrible fizzy buzzy thing with a disturbing tendency to combust
I replaced it with a tiny terror
That's how bad it was

Drew_TNBD

YIKES!

hugbot

When I used to work in a rock bar every band that came in had DSLs and they all sounded exactly the same.

Not because of the DSLs mind, because they were all godawful motley crue ripoffs, but the DSL gives me pavlovian terror now.

Cabicular

I know
Maybe mine was a bad example but they use them in the rehearsal studio I use as well and when they are working (which is about 50 % of the time) they are hateful
I'd much rather have almost anything
But I know a lot of guys who love them
(Btw I don't like Mesa Amps either apart from the Lonestar or the Stilleto) so it might just be me

Drew_TNBD

It wouldn't be my go-to amp. But a few years ago I had the chance to compare a modded JCM900, DSL100, and my Sig X, all side by side through the same cab.

If all I needed was a clean and a high-gain tone, I could've got by with any of them. The JCM900 slightly edged it out of the two Marshalls though imho.

Cabicular

The problem with the DSLs for me was that if you EQd for a nice clean the gain tone was awful and vice versa
The crunch channel was amazing to be fair
Also the tone shift and deep buttons were completely superfluous
They did nothing but make it sound worse. I don't why they were even there
You crank a DSL to reasonable level and switch on the deep switch
It simulates dropping the cab down a well ...

Drew_TNBD

Cabicular said:

The problem with the DSLs for me was that if you EQd for a nice clean the gain tone was awful and vice versa
The crunch channel was amazing to be fair
Also the tone shift and deep buttons were completely superfluous
They did nothing but make it sound worse. I don't why they were even there
You crank a DSL to reasonable level and switch on the deep switch
It simulates dropping the cab down a well ...

I agree with a lot of that actually! You're totally right about the EQ. For me it really comes down to the number of channels - 2 isn't enough!!

John_A

Well I've spent most of today trying to settle on a rig for the covers band I play in, I've got an AMT Stonehead all wired up with midi control, an AMT 3 channel preamp which I normally use in to the FX loop of a valve amp, a Jet City JC22H, a JTM45, a Marshall 18 watt head, a bunch of cabs and pedals and a EHX Magnum 44 as backup

After playing just about every combination of the above, I came to the following conclusion.......

I like all of them for different reasons and would be happy gigging with just about anything

Clarky

Drew_fx said:

Currently don't have a valve amp at home since last night - the amps are staying at the practice room. Which is annoying me. I need a new amp for home!

at the guitar show I got to spend a little quality time with a VH4 and a Triple X

both are super sexy…

as well as being wonderful at everything you'd expect it to be, I got an awesome funk tone out of the VH4

my god I love those amps..

paulmapp8306

I remember trying a VH4 for a couple of hours a few years back and not liking it at all - except channel 3.  I much preferred the Engl SE.  However, I loved the Herbert so its not the Deizel sound as such. 

Drew_TNBD

I'd love to try a VH4. I liked the D-Moll I had, but did find it a tiny bit muddy. It definitely needed a boost of some kind to tighten it up.

Clarky

Drew_fx said:

I'd love to try a VH4. I liked the D-Moll I had, but did find it a tiny bit muddy. It definitely needed a boost of some kind to tighten it up.

maybe a parametric stomp to  shape the low end coming from the guitar could have tightened it a bit??

Fiftyshadesofjay

@Drew_FX have you ever tried a Herbert? There's a guy on Facebook selling one for £1000.

Clarky

Fiftyshadesofjay said:

@Drew_FX have you ever tried a Herbert? There's a guy on Facebook selling one for £1000.

I've tried a Herbert.. they are stunning.. a bit of a different animal to the VH4

to my ears they sound smoother..

Drew_TNBD

I don't have an amp at home at present, so I'm stuck using Amplitube 4. Getting some reasonable enough results, but nothing like playing through a properly cooking valve amp.

p90fool

I've no idea where you're based, but you're welcome to borrow my JCA100HDM for a while, it's a great home amp, despite its size.

Drew_TNBD

It's okay dude, I'm gonna be picking up another Laney VH from @suhrtone soon, but I appreciate the offer. I did actually consider getting a JCA100HDM coz I like the tone of those Jet City amps.

Van_Hayden

Last chance for modelling for me now the AxeFX has gone - going to try a Kemper.

And today at Matamp I've got a GT150, GT2 and a vintage OR to give a thrashing, which is why u get reminded how much digital actually sucks. It never does that sensation of strings reacting to speakers and the sound hitting you between the eyes.

Having said that, it's very convenient and also much easier to play/flattering. Which is often a good thing.

Drew_TNBD

Van_Hayden said:

Last chance for modelling for me now the AxeFX has gone - going to try a Kemper.

And today at Matamp I've got a GT150, GT2 and a vintage OR to give a thrashing, which is why u get reminded how much digital actually sucks. It never does that sensation of strings reacting to speakers and the sound hitting you between the eyes.

Having said that, it's very convenient and also much easier to play/flattering. Which is often a good thing.

Our new guitarist is considering a GT1. I'm a bit unconvinced tbh, but that's because I like multi-channel amps. I guess it could work in theory, with a few boost and distortion pedals perhaps.

Van_Hayden

Perhaps - could just get a GT2, then you've got the extra channel and boost on a foot switch. It's a touch gainier too.