All digital modelling awful? Just me?

mike_l

digitalscream said:

mike_l said:

Having seen Queensryche (Both Michael Wilton and Parker Lundgren) using Kempers I've changed my mind on them. Having seen them using amps, and (obviously) their recording made with amps, the tones are right on for them. I had previously thought modelling was a bit of a compromise, and sounded digital (might still do with some units, IDK), but seeing that did enlighten me.

Taking the time to get the tones spot on and being able to compare directly to a real amp does help with getting the right sounds.

Wilton's obviously gone up in the world; when they first started gigging with the new lineup, he was using a Zoom G5. Times were hard, I guess

I guess the legal case with Geoff Tate took it's toll on finances.

Mind his new band are shite. Maybe that'll learn him to be a self important cockend.

Voxman

Danny1969 said:

My modelling amp is old tech, a 2003 AD120VTX Valvetronix, and it doesn't have the sophistication of a Kemper or AxFx or Helix.  I've done tons of gigs with it and even when performing in front of tube purists, they thought it was a Vox AC30 or Marshall.  Its even been mistaken for an Orange amp based on tone...which is intetesting as it doesn't have an Orange model! Lol

Agreed they are great sounding amps but feck me, inside my was some of the worse soldering I've ever seen on a mass produced product. The Korg made bit at the top was fine but the PCB with the valves on it and the SS output stage was terrible, I ended up modding mine and put my own power stage in there

All I can say (without tempting fate) is that I've had mine from new since January 2004 & it's been absolutely perfect & 100% reliable with never any problem.  That's 13 years on - its had loads of gigs and is still my go-to amp at home.  It is the single most reliable amp I've ever owned - every other amp has had to have repairs, servicing or other work done to it.  But not my AD120VTX!  

Of course, now I've said that & put the mockers on it, it will probably blow up next time I switch it on! 

monquixote

I got more compliments on my tone when using an Amplifire into the pa than with any of my other rigs.

ICBM

As far as I know I've never seen a single AD120VTX or AD60VTX for repair. I have seen several of the previous VT series - I initially mixed them up, but they aren't the same. Apart from being closed-back instead of open like the VT, the VTX series has ply cabinets not MDF and the Neodog speakers.

Danny1969

Voxman said:

Danny1969 said:

My modelling amp is old tech, a 2003 AD120VTX Valvetronix, and it doesn't have the sophistication of a Kemper or AxFx or Helix.  I've done tons of gigs with it and even when performing in front of tube purists, they thought it was a Vox AC30 or Marshall.  Its even been mistaken for an Orange amp based on tone...which is intetesting as it doesn't have an Orange model! Lol

Agreed they are great sounding amps but feck me, inside my was some of the worse soldering I've ever seen on a mass produced product. The Korg made bit at the top was fine but the PCB with the valves on it and the SS output stage was terrible, I ended up modding mine and put my own power stage in there

All I can say (without tempting fate) is that I've had mine from new since January 2004 & it's been absolutely perfect & 100% reliable with never any problem.  That's 13 years on - its had loads of gigs and is still my go-to amp at home.  It is the single most reliable amp I've ever owned - every other amp has had to have repairs, servicing or other work done to it.  But not my AD120VTX!  

Of course, now I've said that & put the mockers on it, it will probably blow up next time I switch it on! 

Fingers crossed .... to be honest if it does go wrong it will easily be fixed as all the components are huge compared to modern PCB's and it's a simple circuit

I've actually just noticed you said AD12OVTX ... I'm wondering if the VTX is a redesign of the VT I had ..... maybe yours is a different design hence the better reliability. 

Voxman

Danny1969 said:

Voxman said:

Danny1969 said:

My modelling amp is old tech, a 2003 AD120VTX Valvetronix, and it doesn't have the sophistication of a Kemper or AxFx or Helix.  I've done tons of gigs with it and even when performing in front of tube purists, they thought it was a Vox AC30 or Marshall.  Its even been mistaken for an Orange amp based on tone...which is intetesting as it doesn't have an Orange model! Lol

Agreed they are great sounding amps but feck me, inside my was some of the worse soldering I've ever seen on a mass produced product. The Korg made bit at the top was fine but the PCB with the valves on it and the SS output stage was terrible, I ended up modding mine and put my own power stage in there

All I can say (without tempting fate) is that I've had mine from new since January 2004 & it's been absolutely perfect & 100% reliable with never any problem.  That's 13 years on - its had loads of gigs and is still my go-to amp at home.  It is the single most reliable amp I've ever owned - every other amp has had to have repairs, servicing or other work done to it.  But not my AD120VTX!  

Of course, now I've said that & put the mockers on it, it will probably blow up next time I switch it on! 

Fingers crossed .... to be honest if it does go wrong it will easily be fixed as all the components are huge compared to modern PCB's and it's a simple circuit

I've actually just noticed you said AD12OVTX ... I'm wondering if the VTX is a redesign of the VT I had ..... maybe yours is a different design hence the better reliability. 

The AD120VT was launched in 2001 to wide acclaim, but Vox started to receive feedback that the amps lacked a little bottom end and punch and could be a little muddy in the mix.  So they upgraded it and in 2003 they released the VTX version.  These were virtually identical electronically save for two minor changes, but there were also structural and speaker changes to specifically address the feedback received.  

An 8/16 Ohm impedance selector was added to make adding extension cabs easier, and the power amp section was 'retuned' to better suit the characteristics of the new Celestion 'Neodog' speakers that replaced the Celestion 'Voiced' speakers  (a version of the Celestion Seventy Eighty with a slightly flattened frequency response curve) in the AD60/120VT.  These new 'Neodogs' were 80w versions of the (normally 60w) Celestion G12 Century Vintage 'Neodymium' speakers with a very slightly flattened response curve to better suit the amps modelling characteristics.

(BTW, all this business about flattened frequency response for modelling amps is snake-oil rubbish.  I've had my AD212 extn cab side by side with the same cab with the actual Celestion badged G12CV's and the only difference was that my cab seemed very fractionally louder with arguably just a tad more headroom - but tonally, there was no difference!)    

The other change was cabinet build.  The AD60/120VT had MDF cabinets and were open backed. The VTX cabinets were upgraded to Marine grade Birch Ply and were closed back.  

Everything else was identical. 

exocet

I bought a Helix recently, I was hoping that it would replace my messy pedal board and perhaps allow me to shift on a few amps and cabs.
I tried it direct into a Yamaha DXR12, into the return of my Mesa Lonestar and into the front of the Mesa.
Out of the 3 methods, I found the FRFR to be the worst. The sound had no "weight" or impact to it. I dabbled around a bit with the IR settings but didn't find anything that convinced me that I would achieve a sound that I liked very quickly. After a few days, I "panicked" and took it back.
As plenty of users here have had success with it I'm quite prepared to accept that I would have got there in the end but at the time it felt like I was going to have to buy more gear to achieve the desired results. 
What did shock me was the rather poor quality of the presets....the Marshall Plexi default state had Bass and Mids maxed out and the Presence cranked high. It just produced a bright and mushy mess. It's easy to tweak but why would you do this on a released product?
The sound from the headphone output reminded me of my old POD!

RandallFlagg

exocet said:

I bought a Helix recently, I was hoping that it would replace my messy pedal board and perhaps allow me to shift on a few amps and cabs.
I tried it direct into a Yamaha DXR12, into the return of my Mesa Lonestar and into the front of the Mesa.
Out of the 3 methods, I found the FRFR to be the worst. The sound had no "weight" or impact to it. I dabbled around a bit with the IR settings but didn't find anything that convinced me that I would achieve a sound that I liked very quickly. After a few days, I "panicked" and took it back.
As plenty of users here have had success with it I'm quite prepared to accept that I would have got there in the end but at the time it felt like I was going to have to buy more gear to achieve the desired results. 
What did shock me was the rather poor quality of the presets....the Marshall Plexi default state had Bass and Mids maxed out and the Presence cranked high. It just produced a bright and mushy mess. It's easy to tweak but why would you do this on a released product?
The sound from the headphone output reminded me of my old POD!

The presets are awful. The Helix can sound great, you need to build your own patches. Also, while some of the stock cabs are good, the Ownhammer IRs can really add another level of realism and are well worth exploring.

As you found out modelling and FRFR isn't for everybody.

gearaddict

ICBM said:

As far as I know I've never seen a single AD120VTX or AD60VTX for repair. I have seen several of the previous VT series - I initially mixed them up, but they aren't the same. Apart from being closed-back instead of open like the VT, the VTX series has ply cabinets not MDF and the Neodog speakers.

Vox seems to be oddly absent from the latest wave of modelling gear. My first gigging amp was a AD60VT - not as nice as the 120VTX but still sounded pretty convincing and had loads of nice sounds. I frequently read that the Tonelab modelling is some of the best for valve-like sounds too.

Danny1969

ICBM said:

As far as I know I've never seen a single AD120VTX or AD60VTX for repair. I have seen several of the previous VT series - I initially mixed them up, but they aren't the same. Apart from being closed-back instead of open like the VT, the VTX series has ply cabinets not MDF and the Neodog speakers.

I've repaired 4 of them, one of them was my own. All were bad joints and one also had a bad RJ45 socket which I converted into the more gig proof Ethercon 
In all 3 the standard of soldering was appalling, I mean lead free never looks great on some PCB's but I could literally slide some component legs through the solder where it has taken to the PCB but  not the leg

It's a large PCB that flexs too much where it's not adequately supported, this leads to more bad joints. 

The VT's aren't great either, done about 4 of the input PCB where the headphone jack pads crack which causes the sound to cut out. The last VT I done also had bad joints all round the power amp chip  ... that was a pretty bad PCB as well. 

@gearaddict  I think the Tonelab modelling is some of the most convincing and very underrated. 

ElectroDan

I got asked once to stand in for a mate with no time to get my gear, so took my VT15 practice amp and a mic.
It sounded fine. I had to put a bit through the monitors but more than good enough in a pinch.
Of the current top end modelers the only one I cannot fault (through my PC via headphones) is the Fractal AFX2. I love the Helix. In almost every way it seems like the perfect guitar processor. It's just not quite there tonally to my ears. Likewise with the Kempers.
I'm sure I could use a Kemper or a Helix live with no worries whatsoever mind. It's just that some of the tones the guys post over at Fractal's website are out of this world.

sweepy

Having owned both a Helix and Axe-Fx, the biggest issue imho, is people's reliance on presets. Find one that's close and mess around with it, you can't break the damned things . In all seriousness I find nearly all the presets on the Axe-Fx and the Helix are pretty naff when used in an FRFR setup, this led to a lot of experimenting and tweaking to get the tones that felt right to me. Of the two you most definitely need the editor for the Axe-Fx but it's so powerful and intuitive you soon get the hang of it. Modelling has come a long way but it doesn't help that nearly all the YT demos are compressed rock and metal tones that really give no idea of the units capabilities, so persevere and experiment 

cbellanga

I think one problem with modellers is that we (myself initially) are always so focused on getting them to replicate pedals that ear fatigue kicks in pretty fast. I spent a lot of time replicating my analog settings and at some point both pedals and multi-fx were sounding a bit bland. Maybe I was too clinical reg the settings playing in isolation. Not that worried anymore as I'm happy with the settings on the fx8 (+ the differences are hardly noticeable at gigging / rehearsals)

Voxman

sweepy said:

Having owned both a Helix and Axe-Fx, the biggest issue imho, is people's reliance on presets. Find one that's close and mess around with it, you can't break the damned things . In all seriousness I find nearly all the presets on the Axe-Fx and the Helix are pretty naff when used in an FRFR setup, this led to a lot of experimenting and tweaking to get the tones that felt right to me. Of the two you most definitely need the editor for the Axe-Fx but it's so powerful and intuitive you soon get the hang of it. Modelling has come a long way but it doesn't help that nearly all the YT demos are compressed rock and metal tones that really give no idea of the units capabilities, so persevere and experiment 

For some reason factory presets (which I know is what you mean) are nearly always perceived as pretty naff on any modelling amp or MFX unit.  I think there are several reasons for this.

• Sometimes these are over-processed to 'emphasise' particular effects and/or characteristics
• The patch is designed to sound 'good' as a first impression in the store or room at home (but are not set for gigging volume - eg too much reverb, delay, gain etc) OR the other way round - set for gigging volumes, but the pre-set patch sounds 'weak' at home.
• Designed by someone who's idea of a good tone or a good patch is simply different to ours ('different ears')
• Designed by someone who is hearing and setting the patch through a different sound system than we are using
• Designed to sound best using a particular guitar and/or pick-up type/position that is different to our guitar (e.g. a patch set specifically for a Strat that sounds over-processed with a Les Paul)
• Designed for a particular style of playing and/or music that might be different to ours
• The patch designer has a different playing touch/feel to us (as is often said, tone is in the fingers)
• The patch is being assessed on its own out of context, whereas it may have been designed to fit a particular 'musical background mix' (see below)
• The patch has not been put together by an experienced guitarist - but even if it was, it doesn't necessarily mean we'll like it.  An example are custom made pre-sets offered by Zoom for its G5n unit, designed by specific professional musicians - along with these patch downloads are vids/soundbites of the patch 'in action' (other modelling manufacturers may do something similar).  Scroll down this website page to 'Media' for examples of what I mean: https://www.zoom.co.jp/products/guitar-bass-effects/guitar/g5n-multi-effects-processor

So, with all these variables, is it any wonder that these don't sound right for most of us, and it would be more of a surprise if we actually all liked the factory presets!

sweepy

Very true, unfortunately many people rifle through the presets and judge a unit on those, not really giving the unit a chance 

ToneControl

The cheaper stuff used to be  good enough for recording, but didn't feel & sound great on its own. Latency was an issue.
I hated the Boss multi-FX in particular, even on the VG99 the  amp modelling was embarassing. The GT -10  was a tone-destroyer

The AxeFx2 and Kemper  are both  good enough, but the factory presets are lame on both
In common with others,  I sold most of my boutique amps after buying an AxeFx2
The top  2%  or 3% of best-ever amp designs do still sound better and more inspiring "in the room" than the modelled versions: DC30s,  Tweed Twin, etc, JTM45 , and are tweakable on the  fly as Oct says.

John_A

I have a Helix and the first thing I did when I got it was build one pre-set that covered my existing rig and sounded like me, I've tweaked that for the past few months, and I'm tweaking less and less, it sounds fantastic!  I know another guitarist that bought one and downloaded pre-sets for every song in the set he could find and it sounded shit!

No-one buys an amp and pedals and sets the controls just like player X (or do they?) the more common approach is you use your ears and set it so it sounds good, the same applies to complex devices like the Helix, only there's a load more things to tweak so it's easier to make it sound awful.  That doesn't make it bad just because it can sound awful, set up with a bit of LC it sounds amazing.

I see people say 3rd party IR's, use a valve power amp, use the global EQ, etc, and that isn't the answer, the answer is use what you have and use your ears.

Teetonetal

John_A said:

I have a Helix and the first thing I did when I got it was build one pre-set that covered my existing rig and sounded like me, I've tweaked that for the past few months, and I'm tweaking less and less, it sounds fantastic!  I know another guitarist that bought one and downloaded pre-sets for every song in the set he could find and it sounded shit!

No-one buys an amp and pedals and sets the controls just like player X (or do they?) the more common approach is you use your ears and set it so it sounds good, the same applies to complex devices like the Helix, only there's a load more things to tweak so it's easier to make it sound awful.  That doesn't make it bad just because it can sound awful, set up with a bit of LC it sounds amazing.

I see people say 3rd party IR's, use a valve power amp, use the global EQ, etc, and that isn't the answer, the answer is use what you have and use your ears.

So much wisdom. I see so little value in using other people's presets, except for getting an idea of what the unit can do. I spent about a week coming up with 2 basic amp patches that sounded really, really good, without using IR's etc. Then I copied them a few times and added pedals around them. Tweaking is easy, but these days the only settings I really touch are the virtual pedals. 

Roland

John_A said:

I have a Helix and the first thing I did when I got it was build one pre-set that covered my existing rig and sounded like me, I've tweaked that for the past few months, and I'm tweaking less and less, it sounds fantastic!  I know another guitarist that bought one and downloaded pre-sets for every song in the set he could find and it sounded shit!

No-one buys an amp and pedals and sets the controls just like player X (or do they?) the more common approach is you use your ears and set it so it sounds good, the same applies to complex devices like the Helix, only there's a load more things to tweak so it's easier to make it sound awful.  That doesn't make it bad just because it can sound awful, set up with a bit of LC it sounds amazing.

I see people say 3rd party IR's, use a valve power amp, use the global EQ, etc, and that isn't the answer, the answer is use what you have and use your ears.

Yep, that's how I've worked with everything I've had: ME-6, GT-8, and then Fractal. Start with what you know, and then learn from there. When it got the GT-8 the first thing I did was see how close I could get to my Cry Baby and TS-9. With the Ultra @paulmapp8306 recommended putting it through the power stage and speakers of my 2x12 combo while I learned about pre-amp modelling, before moving on the replacing the power amp and speakers.

cbellanga said: I think one problem with modellers is that we (myself initially) are always so focused on getting them to replicate pedals that ear fatigue kicks in pretty fast. I spent a lot of time replicating my analog settings and at some point both pedals and multi-fx were sounding a bit bland. Maybe I was too clinical reg the settings playing in isolation. Not that worried anymore as I'm happy with the settings on the fx8 (+ the differences are hardly noticeable at gigging / rehearsals)

 My ears can get fatigued after as little as 15 minutes. Also there's a great danger in creating a sound at home which just doesn't work at rehearsal volume, or under gig conditions.

A lot of recent developments in modelling have been about improving the clarity of the sound, so less is more. I don't do things in clinical isolation, but I do focus on one effect at a time.

TTBZ

I've never really got on with the modelling software but S-Gear 2 sounds pretty good to me, much better than amplitube etc. Doesn't feel the same though.  I'd like to try a Helix, Axe FX and Yamaha THR100HD though. I think modelling will get it cracked soon and when it does I'd be happy to get rid of my valve amp.