Amp Modelling vs Real Guitar amps Listening test

fretmeister

digitalscream said:

Rowby1 said:

Can I ask where you're studying?

Given that this is the centrepiece of his project and he hasn't been back to respond to any of the questions since he posted it, I'm guessing this is just going to be a driveby and you're not going to get an answer...

If he is one of "them" then he shouldn't be surprised if people do his survey without listening to the samples.

And giving rubbish answers in the "why" bits.

Rowby1

digitalscream said:

Rowby1 said:

Can I ask where you're studying?

Given that this is the centrepiece of his project and he hasn't been back to respond to any of the questions since he posted it, I'm guessing this is just going to be a driveby and you're not going to get an answer...

Yes, looking like a time waster so, probably a music student, probably get a first.

digitalscream

Arkless_Electronics said:

Another issue with this sort of gear is that, for reasons beyond the scope of this thread, even the most reliable of this technology is unlikely to last longer than 10 years and sometimes only 5... This is it's design lifetime. (look up electron migration effect for a start if you're curious enough!)
Communications satellites still use valves BTW... yes really, even the latest ones, in the form of a travelling wave tube for the transmitter back to earth...

Equally, though, it doesn't make sense for digital modelling gear to last longer than that, because there are exponential leaps in the technology itself every 3 or 4 years...and that's taking into account the fact that the technology involved in modelling stuff is years behind mainstream computing tech. 

It's essentially assumed that people will want to upgrade every 5 or 6 years anyway to take advantage of the functional improvements, and the market bears that out.

By comparison, valve amps are a technology which is totally mature and unlikely to show any kind of change between now and its eventual death.

On top of all this, there's the fact that modelling gear is generally several orders of magnitude more capable (functionally) than valve amps.

Cirrus

digitalscream said:

Equally, though, it doesn't make sense for digital modelling gear to last longer than that, because there are exponential leaps in the technology itself every 3 or 4 years...and that's taking into account the fact that the technology involved in modelling stuff is years behind mainstream computing tech. 

See, the problem I have with this line of thinking (and I don't really put loads of thought into it, so maybe you can demolish my argument in seconds) is the question of how much the technology is a limiting factor. I mean, I think the old Yamaha modelling head one of the guitarists used on the Roger Waters tour in 2000 sounded fantastic, same with The Music's debut album, and there's first generation Pod all over A Perfect Circle's first album IIRC - and I love that record. On the other hand, I've heard pretty terrible tones from an Axe FX (and fantastic ones too).

There comes a point where the speed of the processor, the amount of ram or the converters used doesn't really matter, and I think it's quite early on because that stuff is swamped by the perennial question of "can the user dial in a good tone to save his life". If the answer's yes, they'll sound good on almost anything. If it's no, things are going to be bad. And there's plenty of shitty demos of valve amps on youtube too that prove the point from the other direction.

So I don't really go along with the idea that these great leaps forward in modelling technology really matter if the goal is just to sound good and make good music. Though I also admit there is a certain fun to be derived from getting excited about the new technology as it arrives. 

Fatfingers

TTony said:

Having re-read the opening post, I'd be wary.

It's full of grammatical errors which always alerts my fake-filter 

It's a sad fact that university students very often have extremely poor levels of literacy. We used to have a guy contribute to our magazine who had a PHD from Edinburgh. His written English was almost unreadable. Personally, I don't think people should be allowed to go to university if their written English is so poor, let alone graduate.

digitalscream

Cirrus said:

digitalscream said:

Equally, though, it doesn't make sense for digital modelling gear to last longer than that, because there are exponential leaps in the technology itself every 3 or 4 years...and that's taking into account the fact that the technology involved in modelling stuff is years behind mainstream computing tech. 

See, the problem I have with this line of thinking (and I don't really put loads of thought into it, so maybe you can demolish my argument in seconds) is the question of how much the technology is a limiting factor. I mean, I think the old Yamaha modelling head one of the guitarists used on the Roger Waters tour in 2000 sounded fantastic, same with The Music's debut album, and there's first generation Pod all over A Perfect Circle's first album IIRC - and I love that record. On the other hand, I've heard pretty terrible tones from an Axe FX (and fantastic ones too).

There comes a point where the speed of the processor, the amount of ram or the converters used doesn't really matter, and I think it's quite early on because that stuff is swamped by the perennial question of "can the user dial in a good tone to save his life". If the answer's yes, they'll sound good on almost anything. If it's no, things are going to be bad. And there's plenty of shitty demos of valve amps on youtube too that prove the point from the other direction.

So I don't really go along with the idea that these great leaps forward in modelling technology really matter if the goal is just to sound good and make good music. Though I also admit there is a certain fun to be derived from getting excited about the new technology as it arrives. 

No, you're not wrong - however, what digital modelling takes out of the equation is often the very skill you're talking about; getting a good live or recorded tone by sticking a mic in front of a cab is actually something relatively few people seem to be able to manage. Modellers tend to take the guesswork out of it, thus making the job easier.

While certain aspects of modelling have pretty much been sorted for years, there's still a lot to work on before they can faithfully reproduce old amps, and they often really do come down to processing power.

With that said...I wish people would stop trying to do that altogether. I really couldn't give a rat's ass whether I can get an accurate representation of a SLO, JCM800 or whatever; I want to be able to quickly and easily get the tone in my head into an audible form. I really don't care how that happens.

The maintenance aspect doesn't really cause me an issue, mind you. It's extremely rare for the digital aspect of digital gear to go wrong; usually, the problem is more in terms of the power supply, jack sockets or the "make louder" bit from what I can tell. Those are usually the bits that are made right down to as low a cost as possible because they're afterthoughts relative to the R&D going into the programming.

Mkjackary

All of the medium to high gain tones are naff imo. Light od has one good tone and a couple of nice cleans. But almost every tone is ruined by crappy effects and/or the inability to dial in a nice sound, regardless of whether it is digital or valve.

ToneControl

Guitarist magazine did this experiment a couple of years ago

outcome was that you could tell when you were playing the (Pro level) modeller,

but most couldn't reliably tell when someone else was playing

Also - if we're comparing "in the room", a valve amp with a cab will have a different sound and feel to a mic'd up or a sim sound - there'll be very different interference patterns in the room for a start

Arkless_Electronics

Going a bit off topic but has anyone else had the same thought that if maybe transistor amps had come out first everyone would want to get that "tinny screechy sound just like Hendrix/Clapton" ? :-)

professorben

What is 'industry standard' guitar playing? Where can I get accredited and by whom?

paulmapp8306

Arkless_Electronics said:

Another issue with this sort of gear is that, for reasons beyond the scope of this thread, even the most reliable of this technology is unlikely to last longer than 10 years and sometimes only 5... This is it's design lifetime. (look up electron migration effect for a start if you're curious enough!)
Communications satellites still use valves BTW... yes really, even the latest ones, in the form of a travelling wave tube for the transmitter back to earth...

Sorry, I cant agree with that.    For "consumer" level electronics I take your point to an extent - but at a more pro level, sorry.  I have a keyboard thats 15 years old and never blinked, and my last one was 20 years old and sold in full working order..  I have used - and know others who have used - pro level digital rack gear thats still going strong after 20 years (Clarky's 2120s are still working I believe).   Hell I have a PS1  from 1996 thats still working - my son uses it (though thats probably an exception as it it consumer level)

AS an ex military electronics engineers, Ive worked with digital electronics older than that that works like a charm.  The odd bit that does need repairing can be done so relatively easily and relatively cheaply in most cases. 

Ive had discussions with a few in the industry of design.  Basically it comes down to what (in general) the consumer wants (in most cases). They want cheap affordable stuff - so thats whats made.  The down side is it isnt built for repair, or longevity,  If people wanted that it could be made with that in mind - but would cost a lot more (which is on par with the consumer v pro level scenario). Manufacturers/designers make the same kind of money either way - small margin but cheap throw away stuff v large margin, long term but expensive stuff.

 

thecolourbox

In the same way that mobile phones allow everybody to be more unreliable, the ability to "upgrade" firmware to what it should have been in the first place gives developers the ability to ship out a flawed product knowing they can sort it out afterwards. Its a but like drawing in pen rather than pencil, how it makes you get it right first time rather than being able to erase or smudge stuff out

Arkless_Electronics

paulmapp8306 said:

Arkless_Electronics said:

Another issue with this sort of gear is that, for reasons beyond the scope of this thread, even the most reliable of this technology is unlikely to last longer than 10 years and sometimes only 5... This is it's design lifetime. (look up electron migration effect for a start if you're curious enough!)
Communications satellites still use valves BTW... yes really, even the latest ones, in the form of a travelling wave tube for the transmitter back to earth...

Sorry, I cant agree with that.    For "consumer" level electronics I take your point to an extent - but at a more pro level, sorry.  I have a keyboard thats 15 years old and never blinked, and my last one was 20 years old and sold in full working order..  I have used - and know others who have used - pro level digital rack gear thats still going strong after 20 years (Clarky's 2120s are still working I believe).   Hell I have a PS1  from 1996 thats still working - my son uses it (though thats probably an exception as it it consumer level)

AS an ex military electronics engineers, Ive worked with digital electronics older than that that works like a charm.  The odd bit that does need repairing can be done so relatively easily and relatively cheaply in most cases. 

Ive had discussions with a few in the industry of design.  Basically it comes down to what (in general) the consumer wants (in most cases). They want cheap affordable stuff - so thats whats made.  The down side is it isnt built for repair, or longevity,  If people wanted that it could be made with that in mind - but would cost a lot more (which is on par with the consumer v pro level scenario). Manufacturers/designers make the same kind of money either way - small margin but cheap throw away stuff v large margin, long term but expensive stuff.

 

Obviously I'm talking about consumer level equipment!! And for equipment built at prices musos will pay that is what we are talking here. I've been an EE for military contractors as well and it's a totally different ball game! The higher the level of VLSI and smaller the geometry of the IC processing though the less the reliability. We are now at a point where for very advanced VLSI in smart phones, tablets etc a life of about 5 years is all the IC's have.... I am not talking 7400 TTL here!

digitalscream

thecolourbox said:

In the same way that mobile phones allow everybody to be more unreliable, the ability to "upgrade" firmware to what it should have been in the first place gives developers the ability to ship out a flawed product knowing they can sort it out afterwards. Its a but like drawing in pen rather than pencil, how it makes you get it right first time rather than being able to erase or smudge stuff out

It also allows them to legitimately upgrade the capability of the unit based on what customers want. See the AxeFX at the high-end, for example, or the Digitech GSP1101 at the low end. The latter is a great example, because the current state of it with the latest firmware is waaaaaay beyond the original design, which wasn't flawed at all when it came out.

Teetonetal

Isn't the problem with this kind of test that you are comparing a recorded valve amp tone to a model of the recorded valve amp?

For me the noise a valve amp makes live and the way it feels is different to any amp + cab + mic model.

What you hear recorded is very similar these days.

normula1

I listened to all the wavs in the survey and TBH given the shocking difference in levels tonal content and to be a bit brutal tuning and crap playing I couldn't confidently say which was modelled and which was real although I could make a guess at some.

But then again I still occasionally plug in my first generation POD ( it does have updated firmware) and enjoy some of its tones.

thecolourbox

So glad that the OP has so gratefully took part in this discussion, I'm sure it will all help wonderfully in researching why he has an opinion

paulmapp8306

Arkless_Electronics said:

paulmapp8306 said:

Arkless_Electronics said:

Another issue with this sort of gear is that, for reasons beyond the scope of this thread, even the most reliable of this technology is unlikely to last longer than 10 years and sometimes only 5... This is it's design lifetime. (look up electron migration effect for a start if you're curious enough!)
Communications satellites still use valves BTW... yes really, even the latest ones, in the form of a travelling wave tube for the transmitter back to earth...

Sorry, I cant agree with that.    For "consumer" level electronics I take your point to an extent - but at a more pro level, sorry.  I have a keyboard thats 15 years old and never blinked, and my last one was 20 years old and sold in full working order..  I have used - and know others who have used - pro level digital rack gear thats still going strong after 20 years (Clarky's 2120s are still working I believe).   Hell I have a PS1  from 1996 thats still working - my son uses it (though thats probably an exception as it it consumer level)

AS an ex military electronics engineers, Ive worked with digital electronics older than that that works like a charm.  The odd bit that does need repairing can be done so relatively easily and relatively cheaply in most cases. 

Ive had discussions with a few in the industry of design.  Basically it comes down to what (in general) the consumer wants (in most cases). They want cheap affordable stuff - so thats whats made.  The down side is it isnt built for repair, or longevity,  If people wanted that it could be made with that in mind - but would cost a lot more (which is on par with the consumer v pro level scenario). Manufacturers/designers make the same kind of money either way - small margin but cheap throw away stuff v large margin, long term but expensive stuff.

 

Obviously I'm talking about consumer level equipment!! And for equipment built at prices musos will pay that is what we are talking here. I've been an EE for military contractors as well and it's a totally different ball game! The higher the level of VLSI and smaller the geometry of the IC processing though the less the reliability. We are now at a point where for very advanced VLSI in smart phones, tablets etc a life of about 5 years is all the IC's have.... I am not talking 7400 TTL here!

Fair enough.

Still there is a level of digital equipment for muso's that will last.  A I previously mentioned, Digitechs 2120's are still going strong, the AFX is quality and I dont know of many original standards still going strong, and now 10 years old.  I have an Intelliflex far older than that thats still working - as well as the aforementioned Roland Synth.

If your talking L6 PODs and the like - yes I totally agree, but pro level kit like AFX's, Eventides etc (and presumably Kempers - though we wont know for sure till they get old) will last.

As for the "upgrade in x years" - ultimatley if a box sounds good when now - it will still sound good when old.  Sure Tech might make more possible, but if something is good enough when new it will always be good enough.

digitalscream

Just FYI, the OP has been banned for spamming the same thread in multiple sections two days running, without having the decency to come back and actually interact with the threads.