The future of amplification

[simes]

Prompted by my own recent experience and by comments by Sumgai in another thread, I too have been wondering whether amplification as we know it, particularly the whole valve amp thing, will not become a museum piece in the not-too-distant future.

This summer I made a recording as background music for the menu of a DVD series I've been making. I did it at a friend's home studio, using a Zoom R8 digital mini-mixer/recorder, a Zoom drum machine straight into the mixer, two guitars through a Roland cube amp also line into the mixer, and a bass into the mixer via a compressor.

The guitars particularly, a G&L Tele and a Gibson LP, sounded great in the final recording. We used a "Twin" simulation on the Tele and a "British Combo" simulation on the LP. Now, ours was a relatively low-tech effort with zero "production", but I am absolutely sure the casual (guitar-playing) listener would be unable to tell the difference between these guitar sounds and miked amps, particularly if the matter was never brought up in the first place.

We guitarists love our valve amps, and rightly so, I think. But I think it has more to do with how, in certain styles of music, it makes us feel while we're playing ... you know, the responsiveness, the warmth (which may be our imagination), the particular quality of power valve overdrive that we convince ourselves cannot be obtained by other means ... and that inspires us to play "better", or with more "soul" or whatever.

Looking at it realistically, though, it's a bit like the whole tone wood or nitro finish thing. In a high decibel gig situation or on a recording that has passed through multiple levels of processing and recording to be reproduced on who-knows-what sound system, can we, with our ears ravaged from decades of rock, really say that we can hear the difference between a miked valve amp and a line-in digital simulation?

Cheers,

Simes

[ux4484]

Well, there would be no digital simulations without those analog sources .

That said, I'm converted. The Mustang III modeling is good enough for me, but I went through a Digitech, a Pod xt, a ux1 (pod farm) into a computer ( into a clean amp), to get something that convinced me. The thing that Fender did was to fairly well simulate that mid-gain breakup distortion, and it's playing style responsive (hit it harder, breaks up more... Convincingly). While it is almost spot-on for the Fender simulations, it does lag in the Vox and Marshall ones (though tweaking via Fender Fuse helps). The Fender sparkely cleans iare nice but of lower volume than most of the other simulations, so the Master has to come up a bit.

Effects, I like most of them except for Whammy. I still have a Digitech to do that (and be a drum machine).

[newey]

In a high decibel gig situation or on a recording that has passed through multiple levels of processing and recording to be reproduced on who-knows-what sound system, can we, with our ears ravaged from decades of rock, really say that we can hear the difference between a miked valve amp and a line-in digital simulation?

I would say we probably cannot, given those conditions. But in a gig, played clean, at lower levels, not miked into a PA? The sims are getting better all the time, but I'm not sure they're quite there yet.

[ashcatlt]

I switched in 1995 and haven't looked back yet.

I think the biggest issue trying to get a "real amp" feel while playing is in the actual SPL in the room. Even my little Vox AC4, when pushed into overdrive, is pretty fricking loud. It takes significantly more power from a clean PA to get a line level sim signal up to that same point. If a guitarist can't get the "body buzz" and actual volume that he expects, he'll play harder than he otherwise might, and then he'll complain that the sim doesn't respond to dynmaics. If it's loud enough that playing hard actually hurts, he'll play more normally, and find that the sim really does respond just about the way you'd expect a tube amp to do.

[4real]

I think part of the 'thing' is, how many players have the opportunity to play through a really good PA...especially in their house??

If one is, as is increasingly the case, playing directly into a computer and making some kind of recorded production, something that radically alters whatever the amp or tools the gutiar player is going to use, well sure, there are so many advantages to layering on the 'production values' at the source and in some respect in the players hands. Even live, the sound out the front is going to be radically different 'in the mix' to whatever a player might use on stage.

But recording, for sure. An example is the BAFTA award winning soundtrack Jeff Beck did for the film "Frankie's House" where the guitar tones were all simulations...it just makes sense to use that kind of control for recording, even though JB has and can afford any ampount of amps and recording...



At the moment I am working towards a different amplification solution that is more like a mini PA and contains room modelling and limiting and the kind of EQ control one might expect on a recording. One thing I tend not to like so much in a guitar amp is that it comes out of a 'box' in the corner, rather than the instrument itself or filling a room as a PA might. People are also used to a lot of 'compression' and limiting of dynamics and such and if that is the sound you are creating then a simulation will as likely get a lot closer to that. Not sure if it is quite as 'good' or a good thing' myself, but that is the nature of audience expectations and consumption.

This leads also to the fact that many who advocate and big fans of simulators, have not experienced the 'real thing' and any recording that they may have heard, are highly processed simulations of the real thing so, the opinions are hard to compare really.

One of the big problems with most simulations, at least the presets and such, is that they lose the individual character of teh instrument itself and smothered in NR and compression and do not respond as an amp does really...but if one does not want or need that, certainly for most if not all lay audiences, the simulations may well sound superior and makes a lot, a lot easier.

A lot of people using simulators also, are not hearing them through the idea of a fully range and loud responsive PA, most seem to put pedals in front of or incorporated into the old 'box in the corner'...

For my future project, I'm heading off towards a miniture PA as an amplification system, rather than towards the old and far more expensive, bigger and fragile...box in a corner wall of marshalls that most seem to aspire to.

There are some really great sims out there in the software world if 'recording' is your medium and by doing it this way, you have tremendous scope for post production. You can change the plugin or settings later, something you cant do without the clean recorded signal of the instrument itself. Potentially reason enough to take advantage of the sims and would not at all be surprised if people recording these days don't record a 'clean direct' take from the instrument and process or even replace the amplified sound that the player themselves might have recorded with.

But, there is a certain generic-ness to all these sounds, or so it seems and they do lack the 'character' that one can hear on the stripped back 'isolated tracks' that one can hear of classic rock or other sounds. A large part of the 'lack' in a lot of music is that since digital recording and such, things are just way tooo 'perfect' and because one can splice and dice anyting in recording these days, there is a tendency to do so. It's pretty common these days to take a vocal or any instrument and get one chorus and literally 'copy and paste' for every repeat of the song and that is a huge difference from the kinds of things people like the 'beatles' had to do in one take...so there is that too..

I dont think a lay person will know, because like most modern players, they simply have not heard the 'raw sounds' of the amp sims that they are comparing things too...at best the processed recordings, not the amps or performances themselves.

[lunaalta]

This is an interesting thread.........

Re Jeff Beck using simulators, I'm sure he knew exactly what he was looking for, sound wise. I'm also sure he could reproduce the sound using his live rig, tubes and all.... He has spent a lot of time perfecting his sound(s).

I've often run my guitar straight into my DAW and added the effects later. Sometimes it comes out how I want. Other times, I've put a mic in front of my 'box in the corner', or taken a line from it. I prefer doing that, but it's not always the right time of day (night).

[ashcatlt]

Sept 16, 2013 21:26:55 GMT -5 4real said:

This leads also to the fact that many who advocate and big fans of simulators, have not experienced the 'real thing' and any recording that they may have heard, are highly processed simulations of the real thing so, the opinions are hard to compare really.

One of the big problems with most simulations, at least the presets and such, is that they lose the individual character of teh instrument itself and smothered in NR and compression and do not respond as an amp does really...but if one does not want or need that, certainly for most if not all lay audiences, the simulations may well sound superior and makes a lot, a lot easier.

A lot of people using simulators also, are not hearing them through the idea of a fully range and loud responsive PA, most seem to put pedals in front of or incorporated into the old 'box in the corner'...

I know that no personal offense was meant, but I got a little defensively when I read that first sentence. It is true that since I switched to amp simulators I haven't really played much through "real" amps, but I do have some experience. In fact, I've had oppurtunity to play through a number of nice vintage tube amps, as well as some really crappy, and some more modern. I would never really go so far as to say that the sim sounds exactly like any given amp, but I don't find the ones that I use (V-Amps and now PodFarm) to be actually lacking anything by comparison. Since I got my first V-Amp in 2001, I've played through the Vox AC30 simulation by default - like always unless I specifically "need" something different in a recording context. A couple of years ago I picked up my AC4 because it is in fact a bit easier to drag around and set up for open mics or living room jams. I switch between the sim and the amp and it just feels natural. The sounds are not the same, but close enough to be like the difference between two amps of the same model. The tube amp basically doesn't do anything that the sim doesn't, or stand out as some noticeably better playing experience.

But like we both said, the way the simulation gets into the room is sometimes drastically different, and can be off-putting to some. In Circadian Nations, the other guitarists was always chafing against my enforced rule of only sims, complaining that he didn't get the feel or "dynamics" that he could get from his tube amps. I'm still convinced that the real issue was that he couldn't hear himself the way he was used to. He didn't have the ability to crank himself up and stand in front of his amp and ignore the rest of the mix. Playing with them in a small bar where the monitors weren't really up to the task, I also was kind of painted into a corner as far as dynamics, being tempted to play as hard as possible, and not getting the chance to play around in the "subtle zone" between clean and crunch. Doesn't mean that zone doesn't exist, we just kind of couldn't use it in that context. When we had the oppurtunity to patch it through a PA with power enough to nearly match the SPL of two decent sized amps on a stage, though, the experience was much more positive for everybody.

As for "presets" and overdone effects... well, this is true in general of all multi-effects units. I'm pretty sure that everybody knows by now that they tend to come programmed for really slick, overproduced crap. I never used the effects on the V-Amps. I do sometimes use the pedal sims in PodFarm in recording context, but I use my actual pedals when playing live.

[ux4484]

Sept 17, 2013 11:56:10 GMT -5 ashcatlt said:

Sept 16, 2013 21:26:55 GMT -5 4real said:

This leads also to the fact that many who advocate and big fans of simulators, have not experienced the 'real thing'

I know that no personal offense was meant, but I got a little defensively when I read that first sentence.

I thought so as well, but 4real knows the majority of us here HAVE heard those boxes.

[4real]

Sept 17, 2013 15:22:01 GMT -5 ux4484 said:

Sept 17, 2013 11:56:10 GMT -5 ashcatlt said:

I know that no personal offense was meant, but I got a little defensively when I read that first sentence.

I thought so as well, but 4real knows the majority of us here HAVE heard those boxes.

No personal offense was intended nor any person named, but 'the majority' it seems to me hear sounds from CDs and MP3s through hifis and earbuds these days and the sims will sound a lot more like that than a big rig.

I have the feeling that a lot of the experience of playing 'loud' is that it overcomes the sense of remoteness of the sound coming from a 'remote source' and 'surrounds' the player to some degree too...and of course, it sems to me, the player wants to hear themselves louder in the mix for them to play their part...

I can't say that the majority HERE have played extensively, I actually advocate for these kinds of alternatives if you read the post, however the technology is young and I was speaking to the issue not to this particular audience but in the wider context of the guitar world of players and consumers and the general comments and experiences I've had. That is not to say that many, perhaps the majority here, have more experience and inclination to tinker and sculpt tones than perhaps others, but I was speaking to the issue generally and not in anyway 'personally'...I did not read the original post that I was discussing from said much different or was in anyway 'personal' either...

Looking at it realistically, though, it's a bit like the whole tone wood or nitro finish thing. In a high decibel gig situation or on a recording that has passed through multiple levels of processing and recording to be reproduced on who-knows-what sound system, can we, with our ears ravaged from decades of rock, really say that we can hear the difference between a miked valve amp and a line-in digital simulation?

But as I say, no 'personal offense' was intended nor implied...

[ux4484]

By "Those boxes" I'm talking about the old stuff. I was a very late CD adopter ('90's). I still have a receiver with a dedicated turntable input (Tecnics linear tracking), and until just a few years ago, still used and had my tube rig from back in the day. My point was most of the guys here HAVE heard the old stuff (recordings as well). Some of us have worked on tube equipment. I'm guessing everyone who's responded knows the sound (or has memory of the sound) they fell for decades ago. How your comment "reads" is that anyone who'd posted in affirming modeling/simulation is the type who might not know the difference.

You DO correct it later in the post, but when I started reading it I thought: WTF!
I think both ash's any my post indicate we understand where you were going (and got to), no reason to sweat it.

.... But that first step was a DOOZY!

BTW, a bud of mine only plays through a PA at home, he has it in his basement with sound absorbing panels over the opposite wall. He always says: "Don't bring an amp, just your pedals or processor". I still take my Mustang III, and use the line out.
After the fist time, he didn't complain anymore.
It takes me back to my Band days (we mic'd our cabs live).

[simes]

I started gigging in my youth through a really old valve amp without a master volume (don't recall what it was) with a TS in front, and was complimented on my tone. Fool that I was, I sold that for a pittance.

I then went on to a little transistor Peavey chorus amp that sounded terrible.

Then I spent many years gigging with a solid state Laney 50W amp, sometimes with an early Zoom digital box in front, more often without. I was always complimented on my tone.

Same when I "adopted" a friend's Laney 15W valve amp.

Same for another friend who plays through two Danelectro Pastrami pedals (ever heard one of those?) and a Roland Cube.

When I say "complimented", I don't mean lay people saying "cool guitar playing, man", but guitarists consistently singling me out and making a point of saying my sound was pleasing to them.

The point is, I suppose, that more than the gear itself, and with the exception of really sh*tty gear, it's often a case of putting in the time to get the settings just right, and the will and experience to adjust them when you arrive at a venue and realise that it sounds totally different in that room, at that volume, in that mix, etc. That's not a variation of the "it's all in the fingers" line. It's more about "dedication to the cause".

I tend to operate in the "dig in and it just breaks up" region for much of the time, and I've always been able to get a satisfactory result, with all those rigs (except the Peavey). It was just easier to get with some than others, and I FELT more satisfied MYSELF while playing with some more than others even though the sound coming out of the PA was much the same from one rig to the next.

Cheers,

Simes

[ux4484]

Arthur Neilson (Shemekia Copeland's guitarist) is a traditionalist concerning amps ('70's Twin reverb Pro with a horn in the cab I believe), his riffs are clear but lacking something in tone on her albums, but we saw her live at a small venue a while back and his sound was scathing live (same model amp, un-mic'd as the place is THAT small) only vocals were going through the house PA. He had no pedals, and only tweaked his amp's controls two or three times for the whole show (about 70 minutes). Ronnie Baker Brooks came out for a couple songs and played Arthur's rig (even his guitar), all he did was turn up the Master a little.

Living in Chicago has its advantages.

[ashcatlt]

Like I said: "I got defensive..." That's nobody's fault but my own.

It is completely true in just about every case that default settings and presents suck. I've been in this game for twenty years and I can't tell you how many times I've seen some cocky dude plug a shiny, brand name guitar into a collectible vintage tube amp and then sound like complete butt for an hour. Honestly probably not as many times as I've seen the prck crank up an amp which was designed to fill stadiums in a medium sized bar so that all anybody can here is "CKKZZTTKKCCC!!!!"

Killer tone, dude!

I love Dave. He's family. But man... He would complain of one problem or another with the tone he was getting from the V-Amp. I'd pick up his guitar and play for a few minutes with no problems, and even he admitted that it sounded good when I played it. (!) Dude, I've heard you play through the Fender Super that you had "wired to blackface specs." It sounds the same only louder.

I used to run an overnight open stage in a bar in New Orleans. I brought a V-Amp, a Bass V-Amp, a couple of mics, some drum triggers, and a PA. Just bring a guitar, plug in, pick an amp and then turn the knobs till it sounds good. I'm doing essentially the same thing now on a laptop for my band and for the "Friday Night Noise Ritual" jams that I've been hosting at my studio. Been trying to sell the idea to the local music coffee shop. They have a very popular open mic, and a computer at the mix desk...

There is one thing that my tube amp does that I have a hard time getting in software, and that's the particular way that it falls apart, buckles, and carts out when I cram square waves into the input which are greater than about 2V peak-to-peak (the output from a high gain distorter) . If I try to do that to the computer I ended up clipping either the opamp input or getting digital clipping at the ADC. If I avoid that and instead use software gain before the software amp it seems like the sim takes it more gracefully. I have plenty of other ways to make horrible noises. If I ever find that I actually need that one specifically...

But that kind of brings up a question that has been hugging me for a while. Its the question of nominal level going into the amp sim. Like, what voltage does a given dbfs level represent?

[JohnH]

I sort of watch the digital developments with interest, but only partly embrace them at this point. I have a recent Zoom processor, a G2nu, which offers to do various amp sims and many effects, with outputs either to go to an amp, or 'cab simulated' to go to a desk/PA. Its by no means a state of the art device, but it is several generations into the development. I find it excellent for all types of effects and eq, most of which would be digital-based in stomp boxes these days anyway. I just cant get on with most of the amp sims once they go out of clean range. I use them and tweak them, and sometimes go straight to a desk if Im travelling to a jam by train with no amp. But the end result just lacks something. I get a better result from a DI out of my amp. Also, a nice overdrive pedal into a clean amp sim sounds better, but none as good as cranking up my proper amp.

But other machines are improving. On the Marshall forum, which has som every conservative views on it, the Marshall JMD series is very highly regarded. These have a software sim of various clssic Marshall preamp stages, with a real valve output stage. Discontinued now, but no doubt a new variant will come soon.

It should be possible to do this very well. An amplified signal is just a single voltage going up and down as affected by a string of electronic components, all of which are reasonably well understood.

On signal levels, Ive tried to measure guitar outputs. On a heavy strum, with a nutzoid series wiring, Ive seen transients of 3V, though 1 to 1.5 is more likley. General playing i think is in the 0.2 to 0.5V range peak to peak.

[ashcatlt]

Sept 18, 2013 15:33:07 GMT -5 JohnH said:

On signal levels, Ive tried to measure guitar outputs. On a heavy strum, with a nutzoid series wiring, Ive seen transients of 3V, though 1 to 1.5 is more likley. General playing i think is in the 0.2 to 0.5V range peak to peak.

Thanks John, but that's not really the question I was asking. Once inside the computer, what level corresponds to this type of voltage going into the amp sim?

I haven't done too much in the way of "scientific" testing, but it seems like PodFarm wants gain on the way in. If I plug my guitar with the relatively hot L'il Killer HB into my PodStudio UX1's Instrument input, it will hit or (try to) exceed 0dbfs on strong strums, and PodFarm seems to respond the way I would expect if I just plugged it into my AC4 with similar amp settings. If, OTOH, I buffer that same guitar and run it into a Line Input running unity gain, it comes out down around -20dbfs, and needs a bunch of ITB gain in order to get the same amount of crunch. Obviously the Instrument input has some gain going on, and it seems at least that PodFarm is "calibrated" around that amount of gain, but it's all ambiguous.

Of course, the right answer is to get the guitar into the computer without clipping and then turn the knobs on the sim till it sounds good, and that's what I generally do. This question is more of a curiosity for me, though it would seem to be relatively important if one wanted to try to replicate settings between a "real" and "virtual" amplifier.

[Deleted]

What should be more alarming to traditionalists, is that we have new virtual amps, new designs, new sounds, which exist only as ... software, or as parameters fed into a modeling system (like Roland's COSM technology) and have never been manufactured in plain "iron". Being an old programmer, i have controversial feelings, the "old" part wants to stay on the "vacuum tube" camp, while the "programmer" part wants to go full digital.

[ux4484]

Yes, I have a couple custom presets that would be difficult to reproduce in meatspace. I wanted to see if I could do it... though i must admit, ashcatlt's album was an inspiration for me to do so.

[ashcatlt]

Sept 19, 2013 7:54:20 GMT -5 ux4484 said:

though i must admit, ashcatlt's album was an inspiration for me to do so.

Awww shucks! Where's the blushing smiley?

TBH - most of what I do with the amp sims themselves is just pretend I'm playing through an amplifier. I do sometimes use other VST plugs to accomplish things which would be difficult or cost-prohibitive if not completely impossible IRL, but that's kind of a separate issue...

[4real]

The direction I'm going in with amplification, also using modeling effects ~

This mixer handles the stereo guitar signal into seperate channels, with space for other instruments or mics. Each channel has compression to handle any big spikes should they occur. There is a very good digital effects secion for 'reverb' and such, plus the mag pickup runs through a digital effects box for changing of patches behind the piezo sound.

The speakers are 40 watts each, bi-amped, near field monitors and the stands can raise them to about 5'. Working towards a small compact system that is transportable and loud enough for small rooms and does not require excessive volume to reach the audience and a very 'true' clean sound.

Will be adding MP3 player and possibly recording or can be routed via the inbuilt USB connection directly to a computer to record the stereo result if desired.

Still experiementing with various effect options and tuning the sound ~

[68injunhed]

I'm new here, but I wanted to throw my .02 in on this topic.

I've been playing at various levels of working and dedication for over 25 years now. I was always a diehard "if it's not tubes, it's crap" guy. I've owned or played through a bunch of different gear, from Marshalls to Mesas, Fenders to Laneys. And up til recently the digital stuff just couldn't get me to look that way.

The newer high end modelling stuff is simply better, for me. I haven't had a chance to play though the Kemper or Fractal units, as they are cost prohibitive at this time, but I do now own an Eleven Rack, and I can honestly say I most likely have owned my last tube amp. The versatility is there in spades, complete with all the effects I could ever need and more. But most importantly, the FEEL is there. I'm not exactly sure how they have done this digitally, but my rigs respond to pick dynamics, clean up with the volume knob, respond to every little touch, if not exactly like real amps, then certainly close enough for 99% of players. I have a set of rigs EQ'd for each guitar, and can go from a convincing Fender Blackface Twin, to a Matchless, to a JCM800, to a Mesa, to a AC30, each complete with effects tuned specifically for them, with one toe touch on a MIDI controller. That's what kills me about this thing...it's not like changing up effects to get a difference with the same core tone, I get to change EVERYTHING.

I run my Eleven Rack virtual rigs into 2 Alto TS112a full range flat response powered speakers, in stereo, and it is every bit as loud cranked as a 100w head into a 4x12 cab. So the feedback of the sound blowing through you is there, yet it still sounds great at bedroom volume. The best part is, I can leave those speakers, which are kinda heavy, right where they are, and just take my 3-space rack case home with me, and my Eleven plugs right onto the XLR's of my studio monitors, and I can get the same sounds at home. My rigs sound the same every time I turn it on, and I don't have to rely on if the sound guy knows how to mic or EQ a guitar signal. I just plug an XLR(or 2 if I run stereo) into the Eleven, and tell him to defeat the EQ's on my channel(s).

If it sounds like I'm a fan, I am. I just can't see me going back to buying a head, a cab, a pedalboard and all the headaches that go with those, and lugging all that stuff around anymore, when I can get close enough, not just for me, but for other guitar players that hear my stuff, with that magic little orange box.

[4real]

Welcome 68injunhed

An interesting set up and highlights what I see as a crucial part of the equation, in order to work 'live' or even at a respectable volume at home, one needs the kind of amplification set up that can reproduce things accurately, such as a small PA or fairly accurate clean powered speakers.

As you can see above, I am working on such a project using a stereo pair of studio monitors suitable for small rooms ~ but something more powerful such as you use are likely to be required for most ~

[68injunhed]

Jan 6, 2014 4:04:35 GMT -5 4real said:

Welcome 68injunhed

An interesting set up and highlights what I see as a crucial part of the equation, in order to work 'live' or even at a respectable volume at home, one needs the kind of amplification set up that can reproduce things accurately, such as a small PA or fairly accurate clean powered speakers.

As you can see above, I am working on such a project using a stereo pair of studio monitors suitable for small rooms ~ but something more powerful such as you sue are likely to be required for most ~

Thanks. I went with the Alto unit as a result of searching for a FRFR(Full Range, Flat Response) setup for both self monitoring/stage volume, but without breaking the bank in the process. Some, actually most, of the offerings that are popular with modelling use, are quite pricey(QSC and Atomic come to mind). The Alto unit was reviewed well for not coloring the input in ways that many of the mid/lower end offerings do. And yes, they will get silly loud, which is still just as much fun as it used to be.

There seems to be a camp within the modelling community that likes to use them purely as a preamp, with no cab/mic simulation, and feed that signal into the effects return on a tube head and use traditional guitar cabs. That negates what I personally see as a big draw to these units, the portability and simplicity advantage they have over a traditional amplifier.

[ashcatlt]

TBH - For most models the playback system doesn't really need to be "full range". We really don't need it to do anything above maybe 8KHz, and it might be argued that we don't really need a lot of true bass either. In fact, some modelers get kinda yucky in the range above where the cabinet they're emulating rolls off and benefit greatly from a lowpass to cut out the "digital hash". Just google that Harmonic Converger thing that was so popular... But it does need to be reasonably flat in the region that matters so that the particular resonances of whatever cab you're modeling will actually come through.

And if you're looking for that body buzz, it needs to have a lot of clean power behind it. A cranked Marshall stack is really putting out quite a bit more than it's 100W rating would suggest, and if you really want the same kind of SPL you'll need an amp that can give that same kind of RMS level without adding its own distortion. I recall having seen some ballpark figures on this, but not the actual numbers or where. Maybe sumgai has a hint?

I don't really get too precious about it myself. Ive gotten perfectly useable (for live work/practices) results through keyboard and even bass amps, and even the little Peavey "suitcase PA" does a pretty good job for stage volume with two guitars and a bass, though the bass might have benefitted from some help in the sub region. We usually got enough of that from the FOH, but I started supplementing it with a Peavey TNT...until it stopped working...gotta get around to fixing that...except with no more regular gigs there's not so much motivation...

[68injunhed]

Oh, I agree, the full range aspect wasn't nearly as important to me as the flat response was. The "knock" of a modeled 4x12 translates nicely, and with proper application of para EQ block(s) within the modeler, highs are not at all harsh or fizzy. Looking at the published response curve of the Altos, it is quite flat from about 100 to around 10k at between 95 and 100 dB.

I'll try to get a dB reading from the one speaker I use as a self monitor at church, I know the sound guys have a meter. If I had to guess based on the advertised max SPL ratings(125 peak/122dB continuous @1m) versus real world usable volume control range, that one of them would be somewhere around 110. They can get pretty loud without really changing tone in any significant way. Continuous power is rated at 400w. My statement about 100w heads and 4x12 cabinets relative to what I use was more of an experience, "seat of the pants" thing, not actual measured volume. Once you get to a certain point, loud is loud.

But really, like you, I was more looking for something flat in response that would have plenty of headroom, to serve as my self monitor. And at just over 35lbs. it's not too bad to lug around.

[haydukej]

As we all remember, Doc was a fan of SPLs. Stupid fun fact, Marty was shown plugging into a Gibson Skylark amp.

[Deleted]

Jan 5, 2014 7:23:43 GMT -5 68injunhed said:

I'm new here, but I wanted to throw my .02 in on this topic.

I've been playing at various levels of working and dedication for over 25 years now. I was always a diehard "if it's not tubes, it's crap" guy. I've owned or played through a bunch of different gear, from Marshalls to Mesas, Fenders to Laneys. And up til recently the digital stuff just couldn't get me to look that way.

The newer high end modelling stuff is simply better, for me. I haven't had a chance to play though the Kemper or Fractal units, as they are cost prohibitive at this time, but I do now own an Eleven Rack, and I can honestly say I most likely have owned my last tube amp. The versatility is there in spades, complete with all the effects I could ever need and more. But most importantly, the FEEL is there. I'm not exactly sure how they have done this digitally, but my rigs respond to pick dynamics, clean up with the volume knob, respond to every little touch, if not exactly like real amps, then certainly close enough for 99% of players. I have a set of rigs EQ'd for each guitar, and can go from a convincing Fender Blackface Twin, to a Matchless, to a JCM800, to a Mesa, to a AC30, each complete with effects tuned specifically for them, with one toe touch on a MIDI controller. That's what kills me about this thing...it's not like changing up effects to get a difference with the same core tone, I get to change EVERYTHING.

I run my Eleven Rack virtual rigs into 2 Alto TS112a full range flat response powered speakers, in stereo, and it is every bit as loud cranked as a 100w head into a 4x12 cab. So the feedback of the sound blowing through you is there, yet it still sounds great at bedroom volume. The best part is, I can leave those speakers, which are kinda heavy, right where they are, and just take my 3-space rack case home with me, and my Eleven plugs right onto the XLR's of my studio monitors, and I can get the same sounds at home. My rigs sound the same every time I turn it on, and I don't have to rely on if the sound guy knows how to mic or EQ a guitar signal. I just plug an XLR(or 2 if I run stereo) into the Eleven, and tell him to defeat the EQ's on my channel(s).

If it sounds like I'm a fan, I am. I just can't see me going back to buying a head, a cab, a pedalboard and all the headaches that go with those, and lugging all that stuff around anymore, when I can get close enough, not just for me, but for other guitar players that hear my stuff, with that magic little orange box.

really helpful man, thanx! the key part from what you said, is the ability to have a consistent and concrete result, independent from side-secondary parameters, like volume, space, location etc....

[68injunhed]

I've been meaning to update my results in this thread, but just haven't done so.

I turned the speaker up to about half its sweep, which is the top end of the line level input volume range(11r outs are line level), which I figured would give a nice level that would be sustainable and clean. You go up from there into the bottom of the instrument level input range, but I would imagine distortion would start in pretty quickly. I had the output volume of the Eleven Rack set at 8 out of 10.



Reading about 5 feet from the speaker was ~111-113 depending on what I was playing. So I was about right. A pair of these, with the volume pushed a bit more, will easily equal a 4x12 cab. At the volume I tested at, the sound was excellent, very cabinet like.