esch Posted April 14, 2009 Share Posted April 14, 2009 Technology has finally reached a point where it's truly usable for Tone freaks. This comment in a different thread referring to digital amp simulation, inspired a few thoughts of my own. I'd be interested in what you other guys think. Over the years I've tried all manner of amps, tube and solid state, as well as simulators etc. from vox to line 6 and I check out the new technology as it comes available. I was a line 6 whore for quite some time actually...AX212, pod, then podxt, and regretfully I finally sold my beloved old Mesa 50 Cal to buy a Vetta because I was convinced it was the silver bullet. It was great for a while as I experimented with all kinds of different amp models and effects, and even a/b'd them with the real amps. It was a great learning experience as the models are fairly close to the real thing but in the end, tweak as I might, I found them a bit flat and harsh, and lacking in really good harmonic content or something - it was easier to get a thick sound in general and the really pleasing note bloom and controlled feedback from the real tube amps. The new Vetta software still fell short, as did new speaker sims I bought online, and sticking a 12AX7 tube preamp in the signal chain didn't help either. I'm not saying it sounded bad...just not as full sounding. What I did get out of the experience was that I was able to narrow down the basic tones I liked the best, then I went out and bought my two favorites - a mesa dual rectifier and a Soldano! I think digital modeling is great for someone on a budget, for bedroom use, who does a lot of cover songs, or who wants a multitude of sounds and effects without all the cables and power sources and junk, or to easily record into their computer without having to mic an amp for example. As for the argument that tube amps require new tubes periodically and stuff...ooh no, that's so hard...if you can change guitar strings then changing tubes is a piece of cake. The obvious disadvantage with tube amps though is potential degradation of the signal as it travels. Too many effects hooked together can muddy the sound or cause certain frequencies to be lost. But for guys who use little or no effects this isn't an issue. On the other hand, the difficult fact that the digital modeling companies don't broadcast, is that no matter how much the technology improves and how finely the analog signal is chopped up and converted, digital can never be an replica of the original (a physical fact - analog is a continuous waveform and digital is a discrete waveform). Your Les Paul will sound its best through a great tube amp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swmcv2007 Posted April 14, 2009 Share Posted April 14, 2009 In a high school production I did a guitar duel with another kid on a simple blues riff. He was using a Jackson V thing through a Fender Chorus amp which was like 400 something watts and solid state. I was using my American Standard Strat through a Fender Blues Deluxe tube amp. I ended up "winning" because you could barely hear the kid. He was a pretty good player but you couldn't hear half of what he was playing. I, however, sounded great and people said my guitar sounded "like a guitar should." At the time we were on a level playing field skill-wise but it was the tube amp that sealed my victory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vagabond Posted April 14, 2009 Share Posted April 14, 2009 When I went amp shopping in January I looked at quite a few digital modeling amps. Apart from having a bajillion controls to navigate to find the tone you want, I was generally not pleased with tones available. They all seemed very metallic and cold, at least to me. I don't remember which ones I played, but I remember being fairly displeased with them. IMO if you're on a budget a good Epiphone valve amp will do wonders for you if you spend the time to get to know it. Much more natural and warm sounding. But like you said... if you want to really kick the **** out of your Les Paul and get THAT TONE... go tube, and learn how to use it. I've spent three months with this Hot Rod Deluxe and I feel like, not only has my understanding of the way amps work improved, but I feel like my understanding of tone, and how the guitar interacts with the amp to make tones, has drastically improved. An example: 5 or 6 months ago I would have never touched my EQ. Now I can play a chord and figure out exactly how to set the EQ to give the balance I want for the room and song I'm playing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rocketman Posted April 14, 2009 Share Posted April 14, 2009 For my last amp purchase I was just about ready to buy a Fender Super-Sonic tube amp. Then I tried out the Line 6 Vetta II. I certainly agree that a tube is the best, but for me the versatility of the Vetta II blew me away. Yeah it doesn't sound exactly like a tube but it's darn close, plus it's got every possible effect in one box. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thundergod Posted April 14, 2009 Share Posted April 14, 2009 I love all amps, from solid state to tube to digital amps to hybrid and all the possible mixtures of the basic 3... but I have to admit the tone you get from a tube amp is un beatable, specially for clean tones (as strange as it sounds, as most people love tube crunch). There's 2 things I hate about tube amps (and I'm using the word HATE here) and they are the insane weight, and the fact that you have to play them really loud to get that incredible tone (unless you have a 1 watt tube amp, and even then it can be a little too much for home use). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichCI Posted April 14, 2009 Share Posted April 14, 2009 I bought a Line 6 Guitar Port about a month ago... It was a great learning experience as the models are fairly close to the real thing but in the end' date=' tweak as I might, I found them a bit flat and harsh, and lacking in really good harmonic content or something - it was easier to get a thick sound in general and the really pleasing note bloom and controlled feedback from the real tube amps.[/quote'] It is very cool for getting a taste of different amps but I find that, aside from how the EQ controls are voiced and how much gain is available in the amp model, they all sound very similar when you get right down to it. What I found particularly odd is that when you turn up the volume on the amp models, they don't compress, you have to use a compressor model after the amp for that. That bugs me a bit but, then again, it was probably done that way on purpose to make the system more flexible - why not have compression as a separate variable? I think digital modeling is great for someone on a budget' date=' for bedroom use, who does a lot of cover songs, or who wants a multitude of sounds and effects without all the cables and power sources and junk, or to easily record into their computer without having to mic an amp for example.[/quote'] +1 I bought Guitar Port for the specific purpose of easily recording song ideas that I could share with the rest of the guys in my band and, for that application, it can't be beat. I got as an open box clearance special for $70 - dirt for something that sounds good and requires no fuss to get going. The obvious disadvantage with tube amps though is potential degradation of the signal as it travels. Too many effects hooked together can muddy the sound or cause certain frequencies to be lost. But for guys who use little or no effects this isn't an issue. With decent cables used in short lengths, that becomes issue becomes negligible. A couple of weeks ago, I grabbed a different patch cable (one from a package of really cheap ones I bought as I was in a pinch at the time and that's all I could get) and noticed my tone was muddy. The cable was only 6 inches so I didn't think it was the issue but I swapped it out with a better one (either a Whirlwind or George L's, don't remember which) and my tone was back. Guys will spend thousands of dollars on a Les Paul then cheap out when it comes to cables - I don't get it. If you're a gigging musician just making some extra money on the side, it doesn't make a lot of sense to spend a bundle on them either as all cables break after a while; sure, you can repair them but there's plenty of times that they get pinched somewhere in the middle which means they get cut up for patch cables. In my experience, Whirlwind cables are about the best bang for the buck; George L's retain high frequencies a little better but they don't seem to hold up all that well. Modeling definitely has it's place and purpose but, for me, it doesn't really cut it for my meat and potatoes sound. I can get a good sound out of the Guitar Port or, at least, good enough for what I bought it for and I'm very satisfied with the purchase. As an aside, that tone locker or whatever it is where you can download tones of what are supposed to sound like those of famous guitar players... man, the vast majority of the ones I tried sound terrible! Some were decent but most were... ugh! Better off starting from scratch and making up your own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichCI Posted April 14, 2009 Share Posted April 14, 2009 There's 2 things I hate about tube amps (and I'm using the word HATE here) and they are the insane weight' date=' and the fact that you have to play them really loud to get that incredible tone (unless you have a 1 watt tube amp, and even then it can be a little too much for home use).[/quote'] +1 to that, especially the weight. I've been eyeballing a Vox AC30CC2X ever since you started talking about them months ago as I think 30 watts would be about right for what I do. Funny enough, the Vox AC30 model on the Guitar Port is my absolute favorite one by a wide margin out of them all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
project Posted April 14, 2009 Share Posted April 14, 2009 I've owned both tube amps and solid state amps. I'm a big fan of both. I think my POD X3 Live sounds awesome plugged straight into the PA. I love the kind of character that tubes give to your sound. I don't believe one is better than the other, but I really love playing my Les Pauls through my Carvin V3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mick Posted April 14, 2009 Share Posted April 14, 2009 you bet nothing I have beats my JMP MKII . I'll also say that the Vox ToneLab LE kick's the crap out of ant of the Line 6 stuff. Of course you have to play with it a while. The pre sets are pretty weak. Live Tube all the way. Recording You'll never know the difference. I never thought I would ever get anything digital ever again I lived through the trial and error's of the 80's & 90's As well I don't play out Live anymore and I can still get all the tone I need at home with out pissing off the wife or others. I'm now living in an apartment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mick Posted April 14, 2009 Share Posted April 14, 2009 And the ToneLab LE uses a 12ax7 tube as an output tube. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigKahune Posted April 14, 2009 Share Posted April 14, 2009 It should be about tone... not kicking the crap out of some poor Line 6 or someone's auditory senses for that matter, unless you want to join Pete Townsend and the rest of those with hearing loss. I can understand why SS has devotees - price, effects, weight. I've owned some SS rigs and some tube rigs, when you get right down to it, it's tone. IMHO, even with the current level of SS technology, SS still can't match the tone from a tube amp. It's hard to put your finger on a description, but for me, the crunch from a tube rig is warm with bite, but the crunch from SS rigs are for the most part harsh - not anywhere near the warm tone of a tube. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chongo Posted April 14, 2009 Share Posted April 14, 2009 I think digital modeling is great for someone on a budget' date=' for bedroom use, who does a lot of cover songs, or who wants a multitude of sounds and effects without all the cables and power sources and junk, or to easily record into their computer without having to mic an amp for example. [/quote'] All true. But certainly not limited to that. I've got traditional tube amps and modelers, both. Like 'em both. I've had no problem getting sounds I like from a Pod XT. And that includes for live use. But that aside, it seems you haven't tried combining modelers (as a digital preamp) and tube power amps yet. I've got a couple of setups; one is an Atomic Research 112-18 (I have two of these, actually), which is an 18 watt EL84 tube power amp stuffed into a large closed-back cabinet with a single 200W 12" speaker. The power amp and cabinet are specially designed to "have no opinion" regarding the sound -- in other words, they color the sound as little as possible. The amplifier is designed with a bay that accepts the Pod and essentially turns it into the preamp of a really nice combo amp. The result is an amplifier that will produce the proper power tube breakup noises with a preamplifier that will produce some great amp, cabinet and effects sources. The same company makes 50W 6L6 versions and others with 2x12's in a cabinet about 2/3rds the size of a 4x12 for those that need more air moving capabilities. In addition, I've got a Carvin TS-100 stereo 100W (50W/50W) tube amplifier that feeds a pair of 2x12 speaker cabinets. Each of the 2x12's is a stereo cabinet on its own, with a pair of Eminence Delta ProA 12" speakers (99 dB efficiency, 400W capacity each speaker) in a large, ported closed back cabinet and a pair of 1165N piezo tweeters (also capable of handling up to 400W each). The power amplifier can be populated with either EL34s or 6L6s and is dead nuts neutral. The speaker cabinets will produce a wider (more bass, more treble) range of frequencies than most guitar-specific cabs, and I have yet to find anyone who can tell whether someone is playing through the Carvin Quad-X preamp (nine 12 AX7 tubes and cascading tube gain stages), the Mesa Triaxis or the Pod XT as a preamp. The Pod provides stereo effects, and putting one of these cabinets on either side of a drummer provides a really nice, wide sound field. In short, you can get tube sounds out of the PodXT, particularly in a hybrid environment. If you've located the only two or three sounds that you're ever going to need with your current tube amp, then you're set. If you have a wider range of musical interests, the Pod setup is darned near perfect. If you haven't tried this, then perhaps you need to do so before making further pronouncements. One more thing: Let's not make the mistake of talking about solid state amps and digital modeling as if they were the same thing and the old SS vs tube amp tone argument were sufficient to handle this. Digital modeling has nothing to do with solid state amps and their tone. Old BigKahune wandered completely off the range arguing about whether his old SS rigs or his tube rigs got nicer tone. This has absolutely nothing to do with digital modeling whatsoever. You can run digital modeling through tube power amplification (note, NOT through a "tube guitar amplifier") and get great tone and all the touchie feelie things you associate with tubes and tube power saturation, while still retaining the characteristics of digital models. On the other hand' date=' the difficult fact that the digital modeling companies don't broadcast, is that no matter how much the technology improves and how finely the analog signal is chopped up and converted, digital can never be an replica of the original (a physical fact - analog is a continuous waveform and digital is a discrete waveform).[/quote'] This is just silliness. I thought this kind of goofy argument was long gone 20 or more years ago, back when audiophiles argued that digital sound (CD) would never catch up to the sound of a piece of vinyl. It's not a "difficult fact" at all, given that it's likely that every bit of recorded sound you've heard for most of your life has been digitally produced. Back then they did blind listening tests and audiophiles were finally forced to admit they couldn't tell the difference. CD's have improved *since* then, and almost all of us are listening to CD quality sound and are happy with it -- and it's DIGITAL. Who doesn't know that analog and digital are different, for cripe's sake? You "reveal" this to us as though there were a giant conspiracy among digital modeling companies to not make that information available. That's goofy. It's just that most of us are just fine with digital musical reproduction. Most of us are just amazed how well samplers and synths duplicate grand pianos and such, for example. I really missed the point of your statement. Both digital and analog signals produce great music. Your Les Paul will sound its best through a great tube amp. My Les Paul will probably sound its best if someone more talented than me is playing it. But it'll sound just fine through a Pod XT or any of my other digital gear, thank you very much. There are artists of unimpeachable stature out there who are using the heck out of digital modeling, both in live performance and in recording. Simply because you couldn't find what you were looking for out of it doesn't mean that others can't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crossroadsnyc Posted April 14, 2009 Share Posted April 14, 2009 Digital modeling is great for recording (like at home alone when you can't mic your amp and need to lay something down), or for when you are playing late at night w/headphones ... but to compare digital modeling to the performance of a tube amp (meaning saying they are on par w/each other and capable of the same things) is beyond ludicrous. Seriously, there is no comparison. Speaking of artists of unimpeachable stature using even a hybrid system ... could you please point out someone who has switched from using tube amps to digital modelers and in doing so improved their tone? I'm not talking about "getting by", but really improved upon their famous/well known/staple tones? I'm sorry, but if you cite Glenn Tipton & KK Downing then I'm afraid I'll have to flag your response for profanity (they are obvious examples of ruining a good thing w/a hybrid system) Btw., I'm not calling you out here ... I'm honest go God curious. Like I said, I've had good luck w/modeling for certain applications, but have never seen them outperform a good tube amp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
project Posted April 14, 2009 Share Posted April 14, 2009 you bet nothing I have beats my JMP MKII . I'll also say that the Vox ToneLab LE kick's the crap out of ant of the Line 6 stuff. Of course you have to play with it a while. The pre sets are pretty weak. Live Tube all the way. Recording You'll never know the difference. I never thought I would ever get anything digital ever again I lived through the trial and error's of the 80's & 90's As well I don't play out Live anymore and I can still get all the tone I need at home with out pissing off the wife or others. I'm now living in an apartment. That's so immature man. That's like saying, "Mine is better than yours!". lol I get some great sounds when I play my Les Paul through my Line 6 gear. Whether it's direct line in to a recorder, plugged straight into the PA, or going through the tube power amp section on my Carvin, I've gotten some great tones with the combination of Les Paul and Line 6. I've never used any Vox modelers. So I can't comment on that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mick Posted April 14, 2009 Share Posted April 14, 2009 The ToneLab LE gets such a better tonal quality and dynamic. It truly responds to you guitar volume. I couldn't get anything close out of a Line 6 Here from Vox. The power amp section on the ToneLab LE features our patented VOX Valve Reactor circuitry. This unique technology enables these units to provide the sound, feel and dynamic range that, until now, were only possible with amultitude of all-tube amplifiers. The Valve Reactor circuit uses a 12AX7 dual triode vacuum tube, a virtual output transformer and a dummy speaker circuit that simulates the reactive load of a real speaker. It reconfigures itself so that its characteristics are the same as the amps it’s modeling (class A, class AB, negative feedback circuit, etc.). This means that all of the nuances of the original amp model including sound, feel, distortion and presence are reproduced. And It works. Is that a bit more mature for you ? :- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deepblue Posted April 15, 2009 Share Posted April 15, 2009 There is only one thing I hate about tubes amps.... The price of tubes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
80LPC Posted April 15, 2009 Share Posted April 15, 2009 Digital can't reproduce great guitar tone. It's handicapped in so may ways - sampling loses information, the bandwidth is limited and latency is introduced. Try turning down the guitar volume to clean up the sound on Line 6 and Korg modelers and you just get 'quiet mud' as the processing still tries to distort the lower level signal. My old Zoom 9030 from '94 with its analog front end can do it... And talking of FX, digital pedals are a disgrace. Put analog and digital modulation pedals side by side, and difference is huge. As for Line 6 FX... I don't know how they get away with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sliptrip Posted April 15, 2009 Share Posted April 15, 2009 I recently scored an awesome deal on a JCM 2000 TSL 60 head. Before this I had been using an OLD Line6 flextone II XL 212 combo that I turned into a head. I was pretty happy with the versatility of the line6. I was using it for about 10 years and went through 2 floorboards. I never owned a tube ANYTHING before the JCM. After playing the JCM, I was sold. The only effects I use are a wah and a talkbox. Nothing else. My Les Paul sounds AMAZING and now I can see why modeling were created in the first place. I'm wondering what my SG will sound like. I can't agree with the whole weight argument. The Line6 was heavier than my JCM. That's why I converted it into a head and ran it out of 2 1965 Marshall Cabinets. I cut the speakers off and ran out the back. Yeah, I miss my delay and chorus, but I always liked a simple sound and don't need all the effects. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sliptrip Posted April 15, 2009 Share Posted April 15, 2009 I recently scored an awesome deal on a JCM 2000 TSL 60 head. Before this I had been using an OLD Line6 flextone II XL 212 combo that I turned into a head. I was pretty happy with the versatility of the line6. I was using it for about 10 years and went through 2 floorboards. I never owned a tube ANYTHING before the JCM. After playing the JCM, I was sold. The only effects I use are a wah and a talkbox. Nothing else. My Les Paul sounds AMAZING and now I can see why modeling were created in the first place. I'm wondering what my SG will sound like. I can't agree with the whole weight argument. The Line6 was heavier than my JCM. That's why I converted it into a head and ran it out of 2 1965 Marshall Cabinets. I cut the speakers off and ran out the back. Yeah, I miss my delay and chorus, but I always liked a simple sound and don't need all the effects. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichCI Posted April 15, 2009 Share Posted April 15, 2009 Going with tubes as opposed to modeling doesn't mean you have to give up effects like delay and chorus. There are some great analog and digital effects out there that can be used with any type of setup. Some guys aren't into effects at all, some use a few here and there and others are heavily into effects. Some go back and forth with effects struggling with some sort of weird guilt complex or feeling that not using any is some how more noble or pure; not picking on you here, just stating what I've seen plenty of times over the years. For me, effects are great if you use them to spice things up here and there to make a song or a part of a song more interesting and it works within the context of the composition. Then, you have guys like The Edge who have built an entire sound and style around effects and I think that's cool too - not my thing, but still very cool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mick Posted April 15, 2009 Share Posted April 15, 2009 Digital can't reproduce great guitar tone. It's handicapped in so may ways - sampling loses information' date=' the bandwidth is limited and latency is introduced. Try turning down the guitar volume to clean up the sound on Line 6 and Korg modelers and you just get 'quiet mud' as the processing still tries to distort the lower level signal.[/quote'] Try the ToneLab LE this is not an issue Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AXE® Posted April 15, 2009 Share Posted April 15, 2009 mmmm ToneLab.... Ordered today Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mick Posted April 15, 2009 Share Posted April 15, 2009 have you tried one out in person ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AXE® Posted April 15, 2009 Share Posted April 15, 2009 Nope . If I don't like it I can return it ... I've been considering one for some time now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mick Posted April 15, 2009 Share Posted April 15, 2009 You'll like it. Your smart enough to understand it's practicality's unlike some of the "supposed" upper crust here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.