|
Post by ashcatlt on Dec 10, 2013 18:13:36 GMT -5
So, this thread over on the Home Recording forum has gone all over the place on the topic of "real" tube amps versus simulations. It's not a new argument, and it's not likely to be resolved any time soon. To a certain extent, I think it's a false argument. But I do find it troubling that so many people seem to think that there is something special about the tone, dynamics, touch sensitivity, or whatever of a real tube amp which cannot be reproduced by a simulation without ever actually comparing in an apples-to-apples kind of test. So I devised one. I know it's not super scientific, but here it is. I recorded the exact same performance through both my Vox AC4 with an SM58 in front of it and the AC30 model from PodFarm2. I put some time into tweaking the "amp controls" on the sim in order to get them to sound pretty similar. The AC4 has two knobs. The AC30 has 5. They're not calibrated the same, so there was necessarily some tweaking to match the sounds. You'd have to do the same thing with the real amps. I did add a recording of the amp/room noise to the sim track, cause otherwise it would be too obvious which one was recorded with a mic in my living room with the furnace blowing. I also put a bit of a high-pass on the sim track only because the cabinet model was the 2x12, which had a bit more bass than the 1x10 of the little Vox, and I felt that lent the sim an unfair advantage. The Stereo Sample has the tube amp on one side and the sim on the other. Use your balance knob or whatever to listen to one and then the other. Can you tell me which is which? The Mono A/B Sample switches back and forth between the two. Can you tell where it switches? Edit - For those not aware, a warning before you jump over to HR - That place is a bit less polite in general, and not nearly as family friendly. We try to keep language and things clean around the NutzHouse, but HR is a bit more like a barroom. 'Nuf said?
|
|
|
Post by 0wnyourtone on Dec 10, 2013 21:22:25 GMT -5
I don't currently have the proper speakers to judge where the switches are, so I can't comment there. I will say, IMO it has much to do with the ability of the player or engineer to first, know what is happening to the sound and second, how to manipulate it. After moving into an apartment when I got married, I was forced to play on modelers and had to work very hard to get the sounds I wanted, but a learned a ton along the way. You can get bad sounds out of tube amps or modelers. You can get good sounds too.
|
|
|
Post by JohnH on Dec 11, 2013 14:23:06 GMT -5
I had a good listen to it, and I couldn't tell any differences or swaps at all!
But, I was enjoying the playing, so may have been distracted.
By late 2013, these kind of emulations should be very close. An amp is only producing a single one-dimensional electrical signal that goes up and down in response to inputs and component parameters that are fairly well understood and measurable. Therefore the better types of emulation software and hardware should be doing a good job, after 20-30 years development.
Some say that emulation can do a good job with reproducing a recorded signal, but reveals something lacking when heard live. If so that could be due to the irregular non-linear performance of guitar speakers, particularly when pushed hard by a tube amp, creating a sound spread that is more complex than can be captured by a single signal.
Going back to the samples, I think I heard a slight stereo spread in the stereo sample. If I was not mistaken, that would mean that the two versions have at least some slight phase differences between them. So, if I was being a forensic pain-in-the-@ss and trying to work out where you made the switches in the mono signal, I might try super-imposing the two tracks, out of phase, at which point left or right should cancel out, leaving some signal in the other channel. This would swap when you made the changes. Do you think that might work? Im not going to do it though! (its unlikely to get onto the 2do list)
cheers John
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Dec 11, 2013 14:59:45 GMT -5
I should add that back in April, asmith came to visit with me for a couple of days. On the first night, we went to an Open Mic whereupon he borrowed a guitar from one of the house band members - I hadn't yet had time to break out my Strat and stuff, we just went almost straight from the train station to the gig. The following day, we spent more than an hour playing with guitars, modelers, and a flat-frequency-response amp. Ask him, he'll tell you that to his ears, in a quiet environment, the simulation was very close. Perhaps with time he/we could've made it even closer, but for a stock off-the-shelf preset, Roland pretty much nailed the Strat Tone (Neck or Bridge pups, but not both at the same time). We then took that setup up to see JFrankParnell for the evening, and JFrank couldn't tell the difference either. Admittedly though, the general atmosphere was not as conducive to "scientific" A/B testing. My older unit, the VG-88, was not drug out of the closet for inspection/testing/playing during asmith's visit, but rest assured, I spent a lot of time on tweaking that unit, back before I mothballed everything. No one I encountered could tell the difference, regardless of what amp was used, not even when they could see me pushing the magic switch... kinda cool, that. Let me speak further to simulations.... (since ash brought it up, and since I'm stuck in Purgatory for the rest of the morning...) There being no, repeat NO, way to determine at one remove just how a sound will be interpreted by a listener (one remove means "not live" - it's a recording, or live but over a radio, or some such), all such testing must be done live, for the best results. Again, best is subjective, and compromises certainly must be tolerated in some degree, but the basic idea is to clear as many obstacles out of the path as we can - we want the same conditions surrounding the devices under test, so the A/B comparisons are truly just that, and not comparisions of A plus a microphone (of what quality?), plus a computer, plus an internet connection, then another computer, some crappy speakers (and trust me, if you're using speakers designed for a computer instead of a home stereo system, then you're already a step behind the curve), and finally, the room itself... all of this to be compared to B, plus the listed paraphenelia, which might not be the same as A's conditions. Such are not tests, merely snapshots in time of acooustical phenomena. Not useful, though perhaps entertaining. Now, what about "live" interpretations of what one hears? Well, yes, each person hears and interprets slighly differently, and that's just the physical capabilities portion. Prior experience, training (if any), modal environment, taste, and even mood all play an important part in determining what sounds "best". At least under this scenario, we can eliminate all the physical variables listed above, and understand that the only two (or more) devices being compared can account for any tonal differences. When more than one person participates in such a test (at the same time, side by side), then we can get conflicting results... Person Alpha likes the B component, but Person Beta likes the A component. This is OK, given the personal variables already listed, but it points out why testing in a lab with only one or a small handful of "audio engineers with golden ears" is very misleading. The bottom line is not to get a bigger sample (thousands for starters), but to realize that everyone is different in some degree. What really should happen, what you (as a person about to make a purchasing decision) should do, is to find a Tester/Reviewer that interprets what he/she hears in pretty much the same way as you do. If said person repeatedly expresses the opinion that Amp Company A consistantly makes amps with too much bass and not enough treble, and you fell the same way, then you should pay attention to this person. If they make that statement, and you think Company A's products sound great, then obviously you should ignore this particular tester/reviewer. And that's how come there are so many testing labs and reviewers out there. If we all heard any given sound in the same way, then we'd need only one testing lab, and only one reviewer writing articles, eh? And my especial pet peeve, for which I hold one my very few emotions of disdain - people who "feel" that if it's not real, then it can't be real. For them, if it sounds like an acoustic (another trick Roland pulls off quite well), then the axe "must" be an acoustic guitar, because it has to feel like an acoustic in order to sound like one. That's a circuitous argument, and not worthy of even trying to open that other person's eyes - their mind is already made up, and I'd only confuse them with the facts.... presuming I wanted to waste my time on the project. By way of example: One of my favorite local bands has a very talented front-man who is constantly switching out guitars between a Strat and a Takamine acoustic. When I first pointed out the above to him, he said that he needed to "feel" the acoustic vibrating against his body in order to properly hear what the final sound was - to him they were part and parcel of the overall sound. 'OK', I said, 'what about the fact that the Tak is electrified with a piezo, and you run it throught PA?' 'No problem' he replies, 'the sound is a faithful copy of what I hear.' At this point I decided not to point out that he can't "feel" the PA speakers, and left him fat, dumb and happy. Which really brings us to the bottom line - it's up to you what you think of some particular sound or Tone. If it strikes you as "cool", "good", or "Gawd-almighty I got to have that tone", then by all means, don't let anyone pee in your Cheerios, go out and procure it for yourself. But that's presuming you have first hand experience with how to obtain the desired Tone (you heard a player on stage, right in front of you). Spending money on someone else's say-so... That's just asking for P.T. Barnum to bless your soul. All the foregoing is proof-positive of why they call me The Old Curmudgeon. I should probably change that to The Judgmental Curmudgeon, or sumpin..... HTH, and have a Happy! sumgai
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Dec 11, 2013 15:37:55 GMT -5
Another concern I'd like to express.... Above, John says that (real) amps and speakers might contribute to a tonal difference, leading one to think that sim's can't cut anything at all, let alone mustard. I submit, respectfully of course, that this only means that a model hasn't been taken far enough. By that I mean one of two things: either the model-maker hasn't undertaken all of the parameters needed to faithfully obtain the desired results, or the user simply hasn't taken the time to figure out all the tweaks necessary to get that final "Wahla!". In point of fact, for all I aapostatize Roland, they can't do everything, there's only so much time and so much budget, and at some point,they have to say "it's good enough to ship". In my two units (VG-88 and GR-55), they have several models of Strat - Classic, Modern, with or without Humbucker in the Bridge, etc. But by no means have they captured/reproduced even a moderate majority of what various Strats have sounded like over the years. (And that's just stock Fender - what about when a set of Duncan or Kinman pups have been dropped in?) That part about what's good enough to ship means that they selected some very widely known examples of a Strat, took them into an acoustially-dead room, and recorded them into mathematical models. One thing you can be sure of - Line 6, Roland, and anyone else in the modelling business, none of them can afford to hire as many players, reviewers with 'golden ears', etc. as it would take to arrive at a consensus of what defines the "Classic" Strat sound. The market Return On Investment would not play out in the Credit column, trust me. Thus, we get "good" examples for modelling, and we the users live with the results. Not to mention, that's why there are literally dozens of adjustable parameters under the hood. Don't like something? Change it! Tune it to your specifications, you're not required to use a stock present as if it were a Gift From Gawd. And to bring this back to John's point.... Roland in particular has gone out of their way to incorporate many amp models in the above two units. Even several bo-teek amps can be found therein, and absolutely every control available to the real amp's user is present in the sim. As well as the ability to tune the speakers, as if you were to change cabinets in real life (but without the need for several Doan's Pills afterwards!). Anyone who can't be arsed to figure out how to simulate this aspect in their playing doesn't earn my respect, sad to have to say. Pay yer dues, man, then tell me that it can't be done! And of course, being the perverse person that I am, I have to administer the coup-d'-gras: What about that old saw that goes "Tone is in one's fingers, not in the instrument". sumgai * EDIT for a mispoken word, giving an unintended and confusing result
|
|
|
Post by ashcatlt on Dec 11, 2013 19:15:49 GMT -5
Thanks for checking it out guys. I guess everybody hates a poll... John - There are real spectral differences between the two, more than just phase related. As I was dialing it in I was watching on Voxengo SPAN and no matter what cabinet model I swapped in or how I tweaked the amp controls I couldn't get it exactly the same. The biggest difference (aside from the extra bass in 2x12 model) was in the upper mids and what passes for treble in a guitar amp. The little wiggles just wouldn't all line up together. Some of that might have been a difference in the overall amount of overdrive, though I feel like I dialed that in pretty close. Part of me thinks, though, that I might have been able to get it closer by physically moving the mic in front of the speaker. But I wasn't really trying to match the sounds any closer than to make sure that you didn't get a preference for one signal or other because it was audibly brighter or louder or more distorted. I tried to be fair and honest with this, and not deliberately do anything that might hide any differences that come up. I intend to play around with some null tests like you suggest just for fun, but... I can't tell where the mono thing switches, and while I can "feel" the difference in the stereo field, I definitely can't say that left or right is better, and if I didn't actually know which was which I don't think I could tell you. But of course this thing didn't actually "prove" anything or change any minds on the subject. It did help to confirm what I've said for a long time which is that the difference between the real amp and the sim are very subtle and not much more than could be attributed to the difference between two different amps. And I understand the idea that hearing it in a recording may be a little different from how it responds in a live situation. I'm not sure I buy that argument, though. There really isn't a thing that that amp is putting out that wouldn't be captured by an SM58. It doesn't put out any subsonic frequencies that the mic can't handle, and it just doesn't come close in the "high end" to the 58's limit. Especially with this amp, in anything but a very small, intimate club, this is pretty much exactly what you would hear because it's only 4W. It will end up with either a 58 or a 57 in front of it... Anyway, the big argument always being that there is something in the "feel" of a sim that just doesn't live up to a guitar amp. Something about "dynamics" or "touch sensitivity" or something that supposedly is lacking and impacts the interaction between player and amplifier. I simply reject the notion that there is anything to that which is not part of the actual sound of the amplifier. The amp doesn't put out anything but sound, and whatever these folks are talking about must have something to do with how what they play on the strings is translated by the amp into actual sound. And like I said, I don't believe that there's much of anything coming out of that amp that wasn't captured by that microphone. It has better frequency response and better transient response than the amp it's capturing. So maybe there's something about the way those sound waves behave in the room. But you're playing the recorded sound back into the room too, right? If you're using any sort of decent playback system it will also have a wider and flatter frequency and transient response than it is being requested to reproduce. So, with maybe a couple little hairs of difference, there is no difference between what the actual speaker in the amp did and what comes out of your speakers, except... Sheer SPL! And, frankly, I've confirmed this in my own experience. Yes, there is a bit left to be desired in the "feel" of an amp model when you're playing through a set of little speakers at reasonable listening levels. Crank it up through a flat clean amp, PA, or whatever that can actually move all of the air that the amp would, and you'll never know the difference. As you may recall, I constantly had Dave complaining of these types of things during the CN days, but really only when he was not loud enough in the monitors. Perhaps he wasn't getting the body buzz, but he definitely couldn't hear himself well enough for his own tastes. So he felt the need to hit the guitar harder than necessary, and then complained that there weren't any dynamics...or something... Course, I did concede a few times to let him bring an actual amp. Aside from the fact that he always seemed to turn the knobs so that not only he, but everybody else in the room could hear more of himself than anybody else, it really sounded the same. Just as ham-fisted and drunken and farty and buzzy as through the amp sim, only louder. I pick up his guitar - through amp or sim - and it feels and sounds exactly the way I expect. Don't change anything, hand it to him, and... But plenty of people will claim that they have tried it. Supposedly, they put the amp sim through a PA and cranked it up and just didn't feel right. But, of course, they knew what they were plugging into, and were expecting... Confirmation bias is, after all. The first time I plugged my V-Amp into my PA I was expecting it to be the "good enough" approximation that I was used to hearing through studio monitors and headphones, and I was very pleasantly surprised that it just plain works, and works well. Now, it occurs to me that I'm doing this with Class A amplifiers. Is there a difference with an A/B amp? But Dave was running Fenders - his Super vs the "American Blues" model on the V-Amp, and it's about the same results. Is there something about a Marshall which would be different? IDK, but it seems like an actual stack would be even easier to do at least a single-blind A/B test with. Put the cabinet in the room with the player, put the head and the sim into some power amp big enough to match the balls out amp into another room. Tell the player to play something, then tell them to wait a minute while you "review" and in the meantime switch the source, and then ask them to give it one more run through. I'd imagine that if there is any real noticeable difference, to the point where it would impact the "interaction between amp and player" you'd get an immediate response. "Hey, did you change something?" You might interview them afterwards. I don't have a Marshall, though... Anywho, I'm just babbling, venting a bit, maybe even preaching to the choir. I'm honestly not interested in changing anybody's mind, really. I am a bit sick, though, of folks implying that I am somehow "faking" it, or not actually serious about my tone and "feel", that I'm somehow compromising some important aspect in the name of convenience or laziness. There are a lot of reasons I prefer to play through amp modelers, but if they really were holding me back from getting the sound and feel that I need, I would be forced to look elsewhere. Ah well...
|
|
|
Post by newey on Dec 11, 2013 21:59:46 GMT -5
And well that you should be sick of that sort of thing. Lots of blather out there on this topic, and I put most of it up there with "Only vintage cloth-covered wire has that tone . . " and similar nonsense. I hate polls and didn't vote, but I heard no difference when I listened. Of course, I went into it thinking "What am I gonna hear, crappy soundcard, crap speakers and all?". Confirmation bias, indeed. But I think John has a point about room dynamics, and about the peculiar inefficiencies of guitar speakers. The assumption here is that, real world, the sim gets patched into a house PA while the tube amp is pumped through a guitar cab. The dynamics of player/guitar>>>tube head>>>>Guitar speaker>>>Room acoustics>>>>Listener's ear may differ from player/guitar>>>modeller>>>PA amp/mixer>>>>PA speakers>>>room acoustics>>>>listener's ear That could well be true even if the two outputs, recorded, are indistinguishable. And while the frequency response of the mike may be wider than that of the tube amp, it's still getting a directional input largely unaffected by room acoustics. I find myself wondering if the models, given their ability to be tweaked, might not perform better in some environments than the real deal. If one found oneself playing in a room that was very "dead" acoustically, might the model not be tweaked to provide a bit of "boominess" to give a bit of a livlier sound? Where the tube amp would just sound dull and lifeless, like if it was placed on a shag carpeted floor? So that, in certain environments, the models might perform better? Just thinking out loud, mind you.
|
|
|
Post by JohnH on Dec 11, 2013 23:04:47 GMT -5
Newey – I’m very glad you are thinking out loud!, instead of using a modeller to simulate the sound of your thinking!
Ash – your sims are spot on, the best demos I have heard to show what is now possible.
The kind of situation where I was speculating that simulation via a PA may have most difficulty could be, for example, where a rattly old 2x12 Vox or Fender amp, is sending some of its sound bouncing out the back of a semi-open case, the speakers are on the point of break up/melt down and the cab and baffle are rattling in sympathy. Such a device will be radiating differently from many surfaces in variable directions, and can only be recorded/miced/simulated in one dimension if converted to a single signal. It is acting not so much as a neutral reproducer of an electrical signal, but more as the business end of an acoustic instrument. But once it is being heard just through a PA, then it would be modellable.
|
|
|
Post by 4real on Dec 12, 2013 2:15:00 GMT -5
That HR thread and contributions are pretty crappy I got to say, that kind of thing bothers me too, but there is no point trying to have a discussion with people like that.
The project I am working on is to look and address some of the issues and problems ~
I think one of the things is, that to be able to hear theres things, one needs effectively a PA and how many of us have that or are so willing. House PA's even if they have one can be a bit hit and miss down here and no matter how well modelled, surely everything is vriable to the rooms and speakers and such.
That's why I've been moving towards a small home PA and instead of that old 'rock and roll' blast the sound out of cabs in corners have the sound surround you. It's coming along. I do get the feeling that the need to play loud is in part due to this effect, you have to play loud to overcome this directional distance from where the sound is, to bounce things off the walls.
That HR thread is full of logical fallacies and hardly worth the time ~ I can see exactly why you would seek to go in this direction for consistency and control.
Internet is running a little slow to stream stuff, perhaps tomorrow I will get a bit more of a listen though of course, a recording is never going to be convincing to many and not quite giving the 'experience' one might desire.
Continuing to think about it a bit more ~
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Dec 12, 2013 21:10:28 GMT -5
ash, I need to directly address you and your reasons for posting this thread, not to mention the link to the discussion on HR. First, thanks for starting this up in such a both neutral and positive manner. Not whining, not venting an opinion (sustainable or otherwise...) and with a pretty rigorous starting point in experimenting to find out just what's what. Good show! Next, have you considered inserting a link to this NutzHouse thread into that 27-pages-over-2-weeks-and-running thread on HR? Might liven the place up to have some of them jump in here..... Now for the meat-and-potatoes: You've long known how I feel about opinions and feelings, but for the newcomers here, I'll recap a bit.... First, no one is "right" in the moral sense of the word. We're all individuals, and we all have different tastes. Whenever someone forgets that little factoid during a "discussion" such as seen on that HR link, I don't get antsy, I just assign the label "Moron" to the speaker, and move on. The School Of Life has enlightened me that such people are not going to change their minds one bit, even if you offer to pay them to at least listen to you... just ain't gonna happen, sorry to have to say from personal experience. I don't care if the guy is able to tell me off the top of his head what the grid transconductance of a 6BE7 is, or how to center a VOM.... if he's that opinionated (he'd call it 'passionate', but I know the difference), then he's still a jerk and not worth the sweat off my nonnies. Next, whether or not you do invite them over for some Dutch Uncle conversation, NutzHouse-style, you can still steal a page out of my personal book: Ask any "my way is best" thinkers (tube-fanatics or sims-forever-lovers) to come up to your place and take a little Double-Blindfold Test. Offer to pay their way up and back if they can prove to you they can discern the difference every time, without fail. Of course, if they can't pass the test even reasonably well, then they're gonna have to pay for the return trip too. Hell, I'll even put the airline ticket money in Escrow for them, should I be proven wrong after administering the test myself! How fair is that? Only in this way can such people be made to put up or shut up. Either they participate in the test to prove they aren't full of crap, or they suddenly come up with any number of reasons to not participate - either way, the rest of the world is shown what a big-mouthed, little-minded bully they are, and most/all of their credibility is lost forever after. OK, enough nonsense, back to the topic at hand: John and Pete are correct, most venues are leaning toward smaller performance stages, so a reduced footprint is highly desirable. While House PA setups range in fidelity, they usually are a good starting point. In my estimation, they can be tuned/tweaked via either the House's control board settings, or right from within one's personal rig, most often starting at the modeller itself. Both of my aforementioned units (and all of my other Roland gear) have "global" controls for Volume, simple Tone controls, and Reverb. Makes tuning to a room just about as simple as it can get: all you need is another (trustworthy!) set of ears located towards the back of the room, and you're good to go. Of course, if the House PA is too crappy, there's not much chance of making it sound righteous, so one really should be fully self-contained, even if it means a bigger cash outlay in the beginning. The upside is, not only are you ready to go into any venue, it means that you can spend time in advance, and at your leisure, doing all the "dialing in" you could wish for, seeking that ultimate Tone from a rig over which you have complete and total control. The only variable left to adjust for would then be the room itself, and like I said, that's child's play, after all the other work you've done. Have I blathered enough? HTH sumgai
|
|
|
Post by ashcatlt on Dec 13, 2013 13:16:00 GMT -5
Oh heck no! I'm not inviting those folks to my house for the same reason I'm not inviting them over here. The first page over the includes a link to my post in our "Computer..." section. It raises a couple questions though:
1) Why have I participated in that thread for so long? (BTW - It's only 7 pages long for members. IDK if guests get less posts per page, but they definitely get more incline ads)
I guess I'm a bit of a masochist. Honestly, though, I'd like for there to be one voice of sanity in the discussion. I really hate the mindless idolatry and macho posturing and I'd like for a noob that might come along to see that modeling is, in fact, a decent option.
B) Why did I post this thread? Did I come crying to my friends for sympathy and support? Well, I have always appreciated this community mostly because we have so little of that mojo mentality flying around. Honestly, though, I just thought that it was the kind of experiment which would be appreciated over here. It fits with a number of conversations we've had over the years.
Anywho, I have implemented this in a few different configurations over the years and played through a number of different systems ranging from some dude's living room stereo system to the loudest stage in town. Heck, we had a plan to run the rack off of an inverter in Luke's Bronco and use one of those iPod radio transmitters to blast it through his car stereo. And it will do absolutely silent through headphones, too. That, in fact, is the very part that I like most about this system - its flexibility. Differences in playback systems and room acoustics taken as a given, but otherwise it sounds pretty much the same wherever we play. It's exactly the same thing as if you took a CD and played it in different rooms. I find that consistency comforting. I don't have to compromise my tone by changing out bigger amps for smaller if I want to play a small cafe.
But then, I have been doing this for a long time, and I'm pretty used to playing my guitar at reasonable SPL. I can see where somebody who's only ever played through amps which rattle the windows (and even a 5W practice amp is unreasonably loud compared to any other thing we do in our lives) would need an adjustment period to get used to hearing himself and everyone else coming in around 85dbSPL. It's pretty easy for me. Of course, I much prefer when it's REALLY LOUD, but I can live with less. LT practices through a 150W Peavey PA (one of those where the speakers and powered mixer fold together into a suitcase with wheels) and it is plenty loud for the guitars to feedback and for my ears to ring after. CN used that same PA for monitors at our Monday night gig, but it was loud enough that we didn't usually bother to turn on the FOH. Course that was because the only other people there were the bar owner Beg and Luke's wife, who wanted to be able to talk to each other...
Back in New Orleans, I used to run a late night/all night open stage type event every saturday after work. I brought my blue V-Amp, my Bass V-Amp, a mic and pre, and sometimes my drum triggers. Mixed through a Digitech Quad effects processor and run through a smallish PA. It wasn't particularly popular because it was in the CBD and not really advertised and so late at night that it was actually early in the morning, but the folks that did come by really seemed to appreciate the fact that they could pretty much nail any sound they wanted to shoot for. We had '80s hair metal dudes rocking out, hot shot blues guys, trip hop, and whatever the Fantastic Ooze used to do...
I have a friend who runs a very nice music oriented coffee house here in Duluth, and I've been talking to him about implementing my idea for a virtual backline. I figure a good multichannel interface and a license for PodFarm (maybe a couple of the expansions...) and ideally a drum trigger kit and EZDrummer license. They do a very popular open mic on Wednesdays. How cool would it be if any high school student or old rocker could just get up on stage and play through their dream amp without having to save lunch money or justify the expense to the wife and without having to drag a bunch of gear into a crowded coffee house? Just get on the stage, point to the amp you want, turn the knobs till it sounds good, and rock! I would go so far as to offer it to "actual bands" doing "actual shows" also. Their stage isn't particularly big, and it gets pretty uncomfortable with four guys, amps, and that pile of crap the gorilla brought to bang on. "Hey, we don't have to carry our amps or spend a half hour setting up and dialing in and checking sound?" It would probably be slow to catch on, and some bands would insist on their own analog gear. Fine. I can see where a lot of the younger metal dudes would be down. It's about exactly what they do at home and in their recordings, right?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 13, 2013 14:25:32 GMT -5
Ash, admittedly i have no great idea of amps, tube amps, SS amps, simulation amps, in fact i only have a SS amp, a boss me-25 modeling multi-effect device, and i have played a little bit with Linux recording using JACK, Guitarix, Rakarrack, Ardour, etc.. Now, from your recording, i could not tell which is the real Vox and which is the modeling one. But then again, this clean sound, IMHO is somewhat generic, in the sense that it might not be the best way to demonstrate the power of digital processing. I have a friend who runs a very nice music oriented coffee house here in Duluth, and I've been talking to him about implementing my idea for a virtual backline. I figure a good multichannel interface and a license for PodFarm (maybe a couple of the expansions...) and ideally a drum trigger kit and EZDrummer license. They do a very popular open mic on Wednesdays. How cool would it be if any high school student or old rocker could just get up on stage and play through their dream amp without having to save lunch money or justify the expense to the wife and without having to drag a bunch of gear into a crowded coffee house? Just get on the stage, point to the amp you want, turn the knobs till it sounds good, and rock! I would go so far as to offer it to "actual bands" doing "actual shows" also. Their stage isn't particularly big, and it gets pretty uncomfortable with four guys, amps, and that pile of crap the gorilla brought to bang on. "Hey, we don't have to carry our amps or spend a half hour setting up and dialing in and checking sound?" It would probably be slow to catch on, and some bands would insist on their own analog gear. Fine. I can see where a lot of the younger metal dudes would be down. It's about exactly what they do at home and in their recordings, right? That's a fine idea. My ideal place would smth like guitara-oke, or generic banda-oke, a place where people can sing and play music in a semi-virtual, semi-controlled, semi-automated environment. I think it's fantastic as an idea. Granted, there's a mojo. Especially in the drums dept.... I admit, as a kid i was blown away by the thrash metal drummers. To be frank. Still am. So while guitar for me is smth demistified, in drums, there is still some magic.... There are people out there who can cover drums parts of whole Slipknot albums with their Yamaha keybord, but i think there is some mojo in drums...
|
|
|
Post by 4real on Dec 15, 2013 16:18:29 GMT -5
The biggest problem with this kind of thing, unless I am missing something, is as good a 'model' or sound you might be getting, it has to come out of something to be audible.
Is it so you are running an entire multichannel rig through a 5w gutiar amp, or considering things like a cars HiFi couuse i seriously doubt the quality of the result once the 'perfect model' has been transmitte through something like that.
In the rig I am developing, I've had to get a good mixer and am currently using 2x 40+30 biamped near field monitors to get a distortion free and clear sound at a reasonable (small room volume) level. Any reasonable sized venue or what to push things to 'rock' levels are going to require a lot more power that what my present rig can produce with the necessary fidelity and low noise.
I added tweeters recently to a clean SS amp to get anything like the frequecy range required. Sure you can pump recorded music through it loud but, it's not giving the effect of a PA, but at least it could ahndle cymbals to vocals and such, but to pump them all through that would be pushing it. Guitar amps and such just dont have that kind of frequecy range, especially a 5watt practice amp kind of thing surely?
ButI completely agree in that kind of 'direction' and moving that way myself with a small room compact PA kind of thing with room for expansion or chaining the rig into a house PA perhaps or aubmenting it in various ways depending what one is going to put through it.
And, there's even more one might do, with a computer rig or additions to mine, I am working on adding things like one touch recording and MP3 input for things like backing tracks potentially. My guitar runs in stereo, but room for epansion for a range of instruments should I choose.
The entire thing is still a bit all over at present, but I can see it becomeing a lot neater and more portable and quick to rig up, little more than carrying a guitar amp for the whole "PA" and less intrusive and better sound, and for less really, but how many are going to ahve this kind of system to reprouce the kinds of sounds from instruments appropriately or own a PA?
|
|
|
Post by ux4484 on Dec 16, 2013 11:52:34 GMT -5
I was waiting until I had the proper time to attend to this since ash had spent so much time doing it.
I listened to it three ways: 1: On my phone, with earbuds (and more) at 70% volume (iPhone, not very loud) 2: Played through my phone via a cable into my Pioneer receiver with Venturi speakers. 3: Played through my PC via a cable into my Pioneer receiver with Venturi speakers.
1st off: there was no discernible difference between #2 and #3 once I got the volume levels set properly (same volume level with the stereo's volume control set 1/3 of max) I used my old iPod touch's tuning app to measure the level. This says something about the audio quality of phones more than anything, as it's virtually identical (to my ear) to my Dell desktop with a Sound Blaster Audigy card in it. So I'm leaving off #3 for the rest of the post.
In Stereo: 1: On the phone: The left channel was discernibly louder than the right channel I thought it was my aging ears,or the earbuds... but I switched the buds to opposite ears, and also listened with my daughters AKG studio headphones. The left channel has a lounder "wall of sound" level to it the right channel did not. This became very noticeable at the end with the decrescendo-ing riff. The right channel was less distorted and the playing dynamics (finger usage) was more noticeable.
2: On the receiver: I really thought with more amplification (and "air movement") things would become clearer... maybe a smidge, but mostly I noticed the above mentioned playing dynamics in the left channel at the end at bit more than with headphones. The "wall of sound" effect was also a tad more noticeable in the left.
Mono A/B: I'm not going to separate these two as my results were almost identical. I pretty much couldn't tell. I was listening for the differences I heard above, but only heard it m a y b e three times, and even then, it's a shot in the dark. I ran the timer on my iPod while listening (I didn't want the soundcloud waveform to color my findings). I noticed some slight differences around .27 (right to left?), again around 1.25 (left to right?) and around 1.41 (right to left?). I also tried using just one channel, it became even harder to tell any difference.
Even Having played for years with a tube rig (with bass and guitar), I'm hard pressed to tell which was which. For both my Digitech (RP255) and Mustang III, the biggest difference I notice is there is clearly a pattern to the sims and HOW they respond OH so consistently compared to a tube rig (something you would only notice if you used them all the time). A few years back, I would have said confidently the right channel was the tube rig (as the range of playing dynamics is more noticeable), but I have a few custom settings on my Mustang III that respond in just such a range (My Mustang "starts" with one called Dan's '67 that when playing my Strat I rarely move from). My previous Digitech (RP-300) was noticeable for it's lack of dynamic response... again, if it was a few years back, I would have said the left was the sim.
Having rebuilt and spent a lot of time working on and testing an AC30 back in 1979-80, the major thing I recall from it was it's playing dynamic response, It was good, but I recall the roll off to clean with lighter playing was not as smooth as a Fender Twin or even my own Knight Tube rig. That said, my shot in the dark is Left channel: Vox Right channel Sim. I do NOT stand by that guess.
Great planning and execution Ash!
|
|
|
Post by 0wnyourtone on Dec 16, 2013 15:37:03 GMT -5
As you guys bring up different possibilities as to the differences between modeling and amps, I am reminded of a huge lesson I learned during an assignment for one of my audio recording engineering classes.
Our assignment was to emulate, not just a guitar sound, but an entire track from an album that won an academy award for best audio engineering - it was a Steve Windwood tune from the early 90's. HARDEST thing I've ever tried to do, but it also produced the most personal growth, not only in my engineering chops, but my artistic rationale and balance.
The first thing I learned - which may seem obvious to a normal person, but was quite profound for an OCD, perfectionist audiophile - was "I am not going to cop this sound perfectly!" I had spent years and years trying to do just that with the albums of my guitar heroes, like Hendrix and SRV... and I could get very, very close. But, there was also that emptiness at the end of the day that something wasn't quite there.
I think this is an epidemic disease among guitarists, whose symptoms include GAS, perpetual obsession with gear and tweaking, general unhappiness with one's own sound, constant insecurity and the need for affirmation from other guitarists in regard to sound quality and potential gear purchases etc.
Because we swallow the pill that a particular sound is IT, we can essentially stop believing in and listening to our inner artist, which is a kind of zombie-state of living creatively, not to mention quite "cookie-cutter."
At any rate, the healthier question I've learned to ask, rather than delving only into technical analysis of sound is, "does this sound give me the feeling I want?" For my personality, I have to balance technical analysis with feeling analysis, to give me room to both imitate AND innovate.
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Dec 16, 2013 21:54:11 GMT -5
0wny, "[D]oes this sound give me the feeling I want?" And that's it in a nutshell. What you've hit upon is exactly what those bleepin' &$@($!'s over at HR have forgotten - it's a personal thing, and the more you strive to cop someone else's personal sound, the less you sound like yourself. The underlying reason for all that ill will (personal disatisfaction) is the very fact that the player knows he is not playing himself, he's attempting to play someone else.... as if "hero worship" will somehow rub off onto him, miraculously of course. I've told this story several times here in The NutzHouse, but yer new, as are quite a few others, so it's time to dust off the old tale: A friend of mine, a very good player in his own right, once told me that it's not the sound you produce, nor is it the notes you play (or sing), it's "The Vibe". Nail that vibe, and the audience will follow you anywhere. As some of us have said at various moments of introspection, "life's too short to waste time on this". Ditto for playing music - if it ain't got no feeling, why waste time on it? End of today's lesson on how to enjoy what yer doin', and not sweat the small stuff. Yer welcome. sumgai
|
|
|
Post by 0wnyourtone on Dec 24, 2013 16:04:18 GMT -5
Thanks Sumgai,
This thread inspired me to get my POD XT back from a friend's house the other day. Just for fun, I then used it at rehearsal and after a bit of work, was as happy with it as I've ever been with anything else! Hmmm...
I particularly loved the ability to make bold changes to speaker cabs and mics quickly and easily. So much bang for your buck doing that over tweaking knobs. Anyhow, just thought I'd share how much I'm geeking out over it now!
|
|
|
Post by geo on Mar 7, 2014 17:14:58 GMT -5
Left channel was the tube amp, yeah?
|
|
|
Post by ashcatlt on Mar 7, 2014 21:06:53 GMT -5
Left channel was the tube amp, yeah? Oh hell, I don't remember for sure! I think you're correct only because I remember that ux had it right in the end.
|
|
|
Post by geo on Mar 7, 2014 21:48:59 GMT -5
Cool! On the topic of real tube vs. solid-state emulation, it seems pretty possible to get tube-like warmth from solid-state gear, but the compression/breakup characteristics of tube equipment from playing harder/louder aren't replicated by any solid-state gear that I've tried.
Specifically, the sort of John Frusciante tone where you put the amp just at the edge of breakup so that playing harder doesn't increase the volume much, but instead distorts/compresses would be cool to see in tube emulation. (I've been playing around with my friend's Vox VT-20+ trying to pull it off, so far no luck.)
|
|
|
Post by 0wnyourtone on Mar 7, 2014 23:11:45 GMT -5
Yeah, I've since gone back to my old Gibson Discover Tremolo for that reason. I'm such a wish-washy flip-flopper!
|
|
|
Post by geo on Mar 8, 2014 5:06:35 GMT -5
I feel like it's way more of a difference playing than it is listening. (Which raises all sorts of philosophical questions about music that I'm not ready to answer.)
Certainly should be possible to write software to emulate the breakup point of a tube amp for solid-state gear. Is it not done, or is it just done poorly so we haven't noticed and appreciated it? (Or is it seen as a drawback, not a feature? Originally, that was a flaw in tube amps. We're like a society that's lived with a software bug for so long that we're treating it as a necessary feature.)
|
|
|
Post by ashcatlt on Mar 8, 2014 12:28:46 GMT -5
IDK guys. I live on that edge. Most of what I do with a guitar depends on the ability to clean up when I play softly and then get crunchy when I dig in and then distort more heavily when I step on my booster, all without too much actual volume change. Maybe I should listen back to this, but I thought that was what I tried to show here. I suppose it's more likely that I've just gotten used to the way my sims do it. I don't feel like I have to play any differently when I do plug into a tube amp, though, once the knobs are set appropriately. I still think that most of the "feel" issues have a lot to do with the actual acoustic volume in the room.
What I have trouble getting is that edgy blues tone where it seems to be clean and overdriven at the same time with a little glassy zing on the top. Frusciante hits it, Stevie Ray used it a lot. Part of me thinks that most of that is in the fingers, some in the pickups (specific models in specific combinations) and control settings on the guitar. Some of it is either a TubeScreamer and/or two or more amps mixed together. I haven't found that tone in a tube amp or a sim, so...
|
|
|
Post by 0wnyourtone on Mar 8, 2014 21:42:31 GMT -5
I think the bottom line is perhaps: knowing when you've got it! It seems some players could care less about those subtle magic nuances that appear seemingly on their own will sometimes. It's nice to logically understand what makes a sound's makeup, but perhaps the more important thing is knowing when that sound is occurring!
|
|