It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Subscribe to our Patreon, and get image uploads with no ads on the site!
Base theme by DesignModo & ported to Powered by Vanilla by Chris Ireland, modified by the "theFB" team.
Comments
The very punters in question there would probably prefer the sound of digital because it will nail the sound they hear on the record. Its what they want, its what I want. It's the future. Your man in the Dog 'n' Duck is likely to prefer your Kemper Slash tone than you rocking up with a 100w Marshall and either under-using it at low volume or making everyone's ears bleed.
My point is this: while digital is pitching itself as 'like a JCM800', the very nature of this mindset and language connotes that the real JCM800 is superior. Every modeller is striving to model it - why? It must be the holy grail. The natural effect this has on the consumer is to revere these amps as something greater than the imitation, and thus the real amp is, by the very definition that that 'modelling' creates, superior to the digital version that is trying to copy it. In reality we are both on the same page. I get a better JCM800 tone on my Kemper than I ever got with my JCM800 because of the limitations you mentioned, but the connotations surrounding the modelling process are very much like when you get something from Aldi - 'these are the Aldi knock-off of Jaffa Cakes' - that very sentence suggests the superiority of the Jaffa Cake when in reality the Aldi version might be nicer, and for me in the case of digital, gimme some aldi jaffa cakes.
Poor example, I hate Jaffa Cakes. But we have seen this in countless 'Andertons' video where they try to catch Dick and Dom out by blindfolding them with a real amp vs the Kemper. They usually get it wrong but that's not the point. There is a snobbery and an assumption that the real deal is better because it has to be by definition. They look for nuances that 'only a real amp' can produce when in reality the Kemper is just awesome in its own right. But that snobbish mentality contributes to the problem of digital vs real amp which is ultimately the general assumption that the real amp must be better because its the 'real' one. This just isn't true IMO.
@ICBM thats great but you must accept that the majority of players expect a certain spectrum of tones on a digital/modelling unit that usually cover the same famous amps. People want 'Fender like cleans', a good Marshall rock tone and a 'recto' metal sound. There's not much out there that doesn't adhere to this. The Blackstar IDTVP that was mentioned is unique and I do like that amp.
Also...
Had an interesting experience while recording our currently-unreleased album. Once we got to the mixing stage, the engineer we hired (the guy who owns/runs The Nave in Leeds, with the associated ludicrous collection of amps, both vintage and modern) was quite impressed with the tones I got from the Helix for my parts (Soldano and Friedman), but didn't like the other guitarist's tones.
He suggested a combination of a JCM800 and something Twin-esque, but with the latter ragged to death. Because I was using Helix Native, putting that together was relatively trivial, so I re-exported the stems, and it turns out that the result was exactly what he wanted to work with.
The critical part is that he'd never used or heard a Helix before, and he had no idea what those models were like, yet the result was what he was hoping to get.
Recording-wise, that's the best indication I've seen that modelling works. Needless to say, he'd rather have done it with real amps in a real room, but that doesn't really matter to me because the end result (the album) sounds exactly as it did in my head.
For my part, I don't care how accurate the models are. I just want to my rig to sound good, and like @chrishill901 my tone has never been as good with valve amps and pedals as it is with the Helix.
I also like the Blackstar ID approach - although not the typically Blackstar voicing. I also think they made a mistake by emulating particular valve types, since they reinforced the myth that it makes that much difference - the models are very exaggerated - and that valves are still the be-all and end-all. Yamaha did it with the THR100 as well.
"Take these three items, some WD-40, a vise grip, and a roll of duct tape. Any man worth his salt can fix almost any problem with this stuff alone." - Walt Kowalski
"Only two things are infinite - the universe, and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
I took a long time to convert but it has nothing to do with the quality of modelling. It wasn't until I changed the outdated mindset in my head that I could embrace it. I thought valves gave me something that couldn't be replicated. I bought a Kemper in 2015 and didn't get on with it, had a Helix a while back and that was the same. I was totally sold on the notion that I could have any amp at my fingertips that when I got them I was just hopping from one to another, never really dialling in one sound well. I was overwhelmed by the level of tweaking you could do on a Helix and that put me off too. So I had loads of average sounding patches and was left feeling underwhelmed. This time round I decided I wanted a hot rodded Marshall tone and not much else so I got a Kemper, tried a lot of profiles, found a few great ones, tweaked them slightly and now I'm the happiest I've been in a long time.
I'd love to revisit a Helix now my mindset has changed...
I'm entirely agreeing with you, they don't have to be accurate copies at all (for me and you) but the market largely expects accurate copies which perpetuates the problem.
I think its all in peoples heads too - everyone loved the Katana (and still do) while they thought the 4 amp models were original. It was refreshing, it wasn't 'modelling' it was a kick ass sounding new digital amp. The fact that they're models off the GT100 (I think lead is the 5150 and brown is the Soldano?) wasn't immediately noticed and shows you can create likenesses to these amps without having to say 'hey check out our 5150 emulation'. But as a modelling amp I think the Katana for me now stands out - there are amps that do a way better 5150 out there. But while it was 'original' it was great. I think it shows there is a definite trust for digital in the market and shows that it doesn't have to be tied down to emulation and mimicking. If someone created a truly original sounding digital amp now then it would perhaps be well received. There will always be the 'British/American' distinction and tone will always be in the ballpark of a predecessor but it doesn't necessarily have to ride on it's coattails. I for one would like to see more THRs etc.
That got me to thinking that of course he's always making that conscious decision because he started recording with a V30 mic'ed but we've def got generations coming up now who make entire records in the box and I think they wont have the same kind of inherent bias'es built in through their experiences.
So I think the point that people are starting from a position of trying to detect the "difference" etween a model and a real tube amp is probably only true for a certain demographic and that demographic is going to be overtaken by people who dont have those preconceptions.
As I quoted before there are definitely products on the market that don't emulate a specific model.
got a link ? couldn't see it on his channel
The new That Pedal Show compares a Boss Nextone in EL84 mode next to an actual AC15. The Boss sounded naff in comparison. I suspect in isolation it would have sounded fine, but because they've gone with actual valve names for the settings, it begs comparison, and I doubt the Boss will win any of those.
The point about the name is, if the sound wasn’t named after EL84s it wouldn’t be so tempting to plonk an AC15 next to it as a comparison. If you say your amp is emulating certain classic tones, but it doesn’t sound as good as the original, then what’s the point?