Guess the amp vs digital

jeremyb · Post by **jeremyb** » Wed Dec 03, 2014 2:50 pm

It's nice having hardware, but if you have a laptop, what about bias desktop? seems to be getting decent reviews....

Kloppsta · Post by **Kloppsta** » Wed Dec 03, 2014 2:56 pm

jeremyb wrote:It's nice having hardware, but if you have a laptop, what about bias desktop? seems to be getting decent reviews....

I took advantage of the recent Black Friday discounts on the Positive Grid stuff. Got BIAS and Jam Up Pro plus a couple of effects packs and extra amps. I wanted to be able to jam easily and silently (headphones) when we go down to Welly to see the in-laws or up north for a break and i dont / cant take my "rig" with me.

First impressions - wasn't blown away tbh. The tones i was getting were decent to be fair....certainly usable for my purpose, but i wouldn't gig or record with them. Def not up to the same standards as the modelling in the Axe Fx, but hey.....its a $12 app that runs on an iPad! Considering that, pretty good. Interested to see what they come up with in the future, especially as phones and tablets get even more powerful.

jeremyb · Post by **jeremyb** » Wed Dec 03, 2014 3:00 pm

Phones have pretty average analog to digital converters tho', it's never going to sound anything like as good as a laptop with a decent interface

Kloppsta · Post by **Kloppsta** » Wed Dec 03, 2014 3:07 pm

jeremyb wrote:Phones have pretty average analog to digital converters tho', it's never going to sound anything like as good as a laptop with a decent interface

i dunno....the iRig HD and Apogee Jam 96K for example do a pretty convincing job of A/D conversion on mobile devices, in my experience easily on par in 'sound quality' with my TC Impact Twin interface on the PC. In comparison the standard "iRig" is noisy as heck! (stay away!)

Lawrence · Post by **Lawrence** » Wed Dec 03, 2014 3:14 pm

Sustainz wrote:
Kloppsta wrote: As for my statement about "can't be replicated in anything other than a valve" it has to do with the way the input signal is clipped in a vacuum tube (soft or asymmetrically) vs a chip or a transistor (hard or "all or nothing"). They physically don't respond the same way and it has to do with even order harmonics vs odd order harmonics and attack transients. The only subjective thing about that phenomenon is whether an individual player in their own particular playing situation can feel it or whether he or she simply doesn't care.

again not to stir an individual or argue with personal opinions....

But its worth clearing up a possible misconception in this post - Digital Modelling does not use any "chip or transistor" clipping to create tones. In fact, one should avoid clipping the hardware at all cost. What the software does is create a mathematical model of a valve that creates the input/output characteristics of a valve (or the tone stack, or the transformer, or the speaker...etc).

In my own experience, the difference is that one normally experiences say, a Plexi style Marshall, at 100+dB spl through a quad that radiates not just from the front but also from each panel of the cab, while most modelling experience is at lower volume though a monitor or PA cab.

On those occassions Ive been able to A/B between an amp, miced and played back through monitors, and a good model of that amp, speaker and microphone played through the same monitors...well I cant hear any difference in quality if any difference at all - of course my ears are old and tired....I think its the fault of Tony's wah, p90s, and AC30 ...........

Polar Bear · Post by **Polar Bear** » Wed Dec 03, 2014 3:40 pm

Lawrence, not a fan of treble since ages ago.

TmcB · Post by **TmcB** » Wed Dec 03, 2014 3:52 pm

Lawrence wrote: On those occassions Ive been able to A/B between an amp, miced and played back through monitors, and a good model of that amp, speaker and microphone played through the same monitors...well I cant hear any difference in quality if any difference at all - of course my ears are old and tired....I think its the fault of Tony's wah, p90s, and AC30 ...........

You'll notice that I generally keep clear of the treble blast zone when playing that setup

I blame my jandals for poor wah usage.

Polar Bear · Post by **Polar Bear** » Wed Dec 03, 2014 4:16 pm

You sure were wearing the hell out of those shorts though.

TmcB · Post by **TmcB** » Wed Dec 03, 2014 4:24 pm

Everyone loves it when I show them my pearly whites

Eruera · Post by **Eruera** » Wed Dec 03, 2014 5:43 pm

Lawrence wrote:
Sustainz wrote:
Kloppsta wrote: As for my statement about "can't be replicated in anything other than a valve" it has to do with the way the input signal is clipped in a vacuum tube (soft or asymmetrically) vs a chip or a transistor (hard or "all or nothing"). They physically don't respond the same way and it has to do with even order harmonics vs odd order harmonics and attack transients. The only subjective thing about that phenomenon is whether an individual player in their own particular playing situation can feel it or whether he or she simply doesn't care.
again not to stir an individual or argue with personal opinions....

But its worth clearing up a possible misconception in this post - Digital Modelling does not use any "chip or transistor" clipping to create tones. In fact, one should avoid clipping the hardware at all cost. What the software does is create a mathematical model of a valve that creates the input/output characteristics of a valve (or the tone stack, or the transformer, or the speaker...etc).

In my own experience, the difference is that one normally experiences say, a Plexi style Marshall, at 100+dB spl through a quad that radiates not just from the front but also from each panel of the cab, while most modelling experience is at lower volume though a monitor or PA cab.

On those occassions Ive been able to A/B between an amp, miced and played back through monitors, and a good model of that amp, speaker and microphone played through the same monitors...well I cant hear any difference in quality if any difference at all - of course my ears are old and tired....I think its the fault of Tony's wah, p90s, and AC30 ...........

Glad someone brought the distinction between SS and modelling up. Also worth noting that a lot of amp modelling is really only trying to model the transfer function of the whole amp (a black box approach), which is probably why have historically sounded/felt awful. Fractal (and some others, I'm sure) are using the physical modelling approach that you refer to (parametric modelling of each gain stage and filter rather than the sum of the parts) while Kemper seem to be taking the black box approach to a higher quality standard and using some surprisingly good approximations to 'break apart' the model so you can change cabs etc.

Gonzbull · Post by **Gonzbull** » Fri Dec 05, 2014 8:17 am

Lots of valid opinions. For me it a matter of the experience. Digital makes me lazy and takes the fun out of the process. Much rather be playing with amps, tubes, speakers, mics, placement etc. Same with synths. Analogue synths, modulars are a whole lot more fun that the soft synths. With skill anything can be made to sound great.

jeremyb · Post by **jeremyb** » Fri Dec 05, 2014 8:40 am

I guess the reason I left digital modelling was the complete overload of options and tweaks available, at the end of the day I much prefer an amp with just a volume knob

Danger Mouse · Post by **Danger Mouse** » Fri Dec 05, 2014 9:03 am

jeremyb wrote:I guess the reason I left digital modelling was the complete overload of options and tweaks available, at the end of the day I much prefer an amp with just a volume knob

This is why I always gravitate towards simple, valve or even solid state amps. I'm not a tweaker and I'm really, really not interested in investing the time required to really nail the perfect tone I'm after. If a valve amp can do what I want with a pre-amp drive knob and a tone stack, I'll buy it.

But on the subject of modelling, I still find even AxeFX levels of modelling too 'clean'. Not clean tone, but there is something organic missing. That isn't pick attack, how the sustain dies out, the dynamics between playing lightly or hammering the strings, but the 'wrong' factor. In creating the Greenstone with Rob, we spent a lot of time tweaking and perfecting the tone (all modern high-gain stuff) and trying to remove the unwanted noises and elements of the tone. After a while I realised that, actually, those little elements of the tone I was trying to remove were adding to the character to the amp and removing them was just sterilising it. We could overcome some issues, but some were best left there, even though if you isolated the specific issue, it was due to something in the amp not operating in the amp 100% as it should. In fact the best it sounded was when it would kill a pre-amp valve every couple of weeks. Sounded glorious, but obviously not practical and definitely something was wrong.

Something like the Kemper, which is taking the voice of the captured amp, warts and all, should get around that issue, but I've not played one with a model of my amp, so can't be sure.

Sustainz · Post by **Sustainz** » Fri Dec 05, 2014 9:58 am

Lawrence wrote:...But its worth clearing up a possible misconception in this post - Digital Modelling does not use any "chip or transistor" clipping to create tones....

Yeah, I shouldn't have included SS and modelling in the same breath. Still, I can't get a modeller to respond the same way as I can with a valve amp. I played a Kemper, got a great sound, no doubt, but it was the same sound no matter how hard or soft I hit the strings; the only thing that changed was the actual level or volume. Doing the same thing with a tube amp (mine at least) I can get a near pristine clean using a light touch, and get it to growl if I dig in, and varying degrees of those two extremes in between. Not having spent a great deal of time with it, it's possibly/probably operator error on my part.

Lawrence · Post by **Lawrence** » Fri Dec 05, 2014 10:19 am

Sustainz wrote:
Lawrence wrote:...But its worth clearing up a possible misconception in this post - Digital Modelling does not use any "chip or transistor" clipping to create tones....
Yeah, I shouldn't have included SS and modelling in the same breath. Still, I can't get a modeller to respond the same way as I can with a valve amp. I played a Kemper, got a great sound, no doubt, but it was the same sound no matter how hard or soft I hit the strings; the only thing that changed was the actual level or volume. Doing the same thing with a tube amp (mine at least) I can get a near pristine clean using a light touch, and get it to growl if I dig in, and varying degrees of those two extremes in between. Not having spent a great deal of time with it, it's possibly/probably operator error on my part.

interesting...I havent played a Kemper yet....but what you say does make sense given its reproducing a single "sound". While I acknowledge that the HD500x is not quite in the same class as the AxeFX it does respond well to playing dynamics etc.
As I noted to someone at the Gearfest I have no interest in the duplicating of other peoples tones...or in specifc amps etc - I just want to be able to craft tones that I like. If my sound thats based on a Marshall model doesnt quite sound like a Marshall I really dont care.

I read an old SixStringSamurai post from someone (not Ed) that criticised people who use modelers and change amp models during songs....I thought that was very odd. Any opinions out there on that?

NZGuitars.com : Filling you with GAS since 2003