Amp modellers

[MadStrum]

Yes Virtual Jim I would like to know too... thanks!

 

Pier.

[Virtual Jim]

The biggest difference between tube amps and the modellers is the high end. The modellers really hype it, while on a tube amp, it's really smooth. One could easily use EQ to get rid of this, but digital still sounds like this. It's why I don't think they'll ever sound completely alike.

 

I think it's done this way to make it easier to sell. A hyped top end makes it a lot easier to hear what you're playing on a music store floor over the din of 5 kids hacking away at "Come As You Are". Another is people seem to be drawn to really bright sounds--go to any mastering forum and you'll see at least one thread bitching about how bright CDs are today.

 

Another reason modellers aren't there yet is, at least of the ones I've tried, their input stage is kinda weird. One symptom of this is they don't respond as well to your volume knob as a tube amp does. They have come a long way since the mid/late90s in this, but it's still not the same. I can easily see this gap closed within five years. Another symptom is if you use the actual effects some of the model in front of the modeller and A/B the difference in sound. Sometimes it's subtle (like a POD's Phase90 and the real deal), or massive (a POD's tubescreamer vs. an Ibanez). But then again, these amps and processors market themselves as a replacement for your complete rig... not just your amp.

 

Then there's the physical aspect of standing in front of a screaming 4x12 tube half stack that a simply 1x12 can't replicate because it can't produce the physical volume (no, not sound level) of air.

 

And the actual quality of the simulation is still kind of a like a square versus a cube to me. Look at it one way, and it's a dead on clone. Look at a slightly different angle and you notice it's off.

 

Lastly, this might be a comment on my skill as a guitarist, but I've found it infinitely easier to work with feedback using tube amps than using digital amps.

[Gruupi]

All very good points Virtual Jim. The PoD is very bright sounding and does take some tweaking to correct for this. I spend alot more time tweaking patches than I did with an amp, of course with my amp I would slowly make adjustments over months and years and didn't radically change my setup, just a new piece here and here or a tweak there.

 

It does seem that the volume knob on the guitar reacts a bit less than with a tube amp, but I haven't noticed that playing dynamics suffer. The effects and the amps do not always model there prototypes, some do much better than others. I guess you just have to experiment alot to find ones you can work with. You will not immediatly plug in and be able to match your favorite amplifiers sound. If you work at it though, you will find several sounds that are just as musically inspiring. You have to use all the parameters from virtual mike placement to speaker emulation to EQ and compression to coax these sounds to respond to your playing.

 

The biggest concern or question on the Line 6 forums is how to get the best sound through some type of amplifier. Its pretty easy to get good headphone/ recording sounds but once you start moving air everything changes. I am still in the process of discovering the best way to do this but some kind of power amp/ PA speaker setup or a keyboard amp is the recommended way to go. I don't have a Vetta or Flextone and might try that option. I ended up with a 1x12 Roland keyboard amp and I think it is going to work out ok, at first I was really put off by the cabinet sound as I am used to moving more air with multiple speaker combo amps (my favorite is 4x10). It would be really easy to add a second keyboard amp for a stereo sound, they are light and fairly inexpensive and if I get back into extensive gigging I will investigate all options. And I too have yet to get feedback with my POD/ amp setup, I really haven't had a chance to try it much. I tend to play at as low a volume level as I can get away with.

 

I guess its a matter of pureism and adaptation. If you have a great array of amps and the roadies to carry them, I would see less of a reason to go with amp modellers. But the versatlility and practicality of them just makes it a no brainer for me. Walking to a jam or practice with one light load (guitar, gig bag, and a light keyboard amp) sure is a welcome relief. Having at the tap of a foot several very well thought out tones that can be blended well to switch between at the volumes you need is just awesome. Even if you have multiple amp setups or complicated rack gear, I bet it is much harder to tweak and balance between the sounds than with a single unit with all the parameters right there.

 

I think as the technology grows, the engineers will make it so you can't tell the difference between the real thing and the sample. It will probably be possible to buy the tools to model your own amp. I am sure it would take a good ear and a learnng curve, but if the engineers can do it, most people could learn it to some degree. Maybe there will be a few specialists who charge a nominal fee to model an amp for you. There are alot of neat things that could be done. The technology is already to a level where professional musicians can use it, and it is only going to get better.

[S. Yeti Bigfoot, Esq.]

Does it really make a lot of difference whether a modeller "nails" exactly the sound of a particular amp? Considering the variables, not the least which is the guitar, is it even possible to reproduce the sound of a particular amp? Is the audience going to know the difference? Will they even care at all?

[Gruupi]

Even though I agree with you Sasquatch, I am sure that to many people here that it does matter, maybe not to the audience, but to themselves. Playing is as much about pleasing yourself as it is pleasing others. Current modeling is a compromise, but if your open minded its not necessarliy a negative compromise. You may giving up one sound you really like to get several other sounds that you like as much. But if your ear is telling you that it is not right rather than your eyes, then you shouldn't be forced into the technolgy.

[Museeip]

Originally posted by ellwood:

Originally posted by MadStrum:

I've gotta agree with this. Lots of times I think to myself, it sounds just like it.. but somehow it's not there. I have realised that some modelled sounds do not react very well to picking dynamics.. guess I'm just nitpicking.

 

Pier.

 

Originally posted by Gabriel E.:

So they may almost sound the same but they don't feel the same.

NO no your NOT nitpicky at all! they dont react at all to picking dynamics the same as a tube amp or even a SS amp with no modeling. The higher in volume you use them the less they display the model of the amp they are modeling. I think that is why the guys say they are better used in studio situations.

I have to disagree here. The thing that impresses me most about th PODXT is the amount of picking dynamics you do get. I use the JTM-45 patch and the DC-30 patch and both of those "clean up" great when you pick softer. Much more than any tube amp I've owned. I do feel that modelers still struggle with harmonics though.

[d.r.e.a.m.i.s.t]

Has anyone heard of (or used) V-Stack Classic (http://www.v-stack.com)? The sound clips there sound very promising (to my ears) as a direct recording tool.

[Kramer Ferrington III.]

Originally posted by caprae:

How about the VOX AD15VT, 30, 50 and now 100 line of amps. Are they any closer to the originals? These have a tube in them that is split with one side for the preamp and the other for the amp (if I remember the explanation correctly).

Oh, i have one of those. The 30W.

 

Except for the fact that the input jack tends to fall inside the amp every now and then, it's a pretty good amp. And that one problem can be fixed in a number of different ways.

 

How realistic the sounds are is anybody's guess.

 

Except for its own AC30 and AC15 amps, Vox doesn't actually name the amps it's supposed to be emulating. You just get descriptions such as "tweed 4x10" or "nu metal" and so on, so they've left themselves some wriggle room in the realism area.

 

Having said that, whether the amp emulations are accurate or not, I find them pretty nice to play. I don't know if the Vox sounds exactly like a Marshall, but it sounds a lot like a Marshall and the sound is pleasant enough so that'll do me fine.

 

Also, I'm forever changing my mind as to what sounds good, and I tend to switch guitars a lot even at home so having an amp that gives me a lot of different sounds is fantastic. It keeps me interested.

[MILLO]

Originally posted by Gabriel E.:

So they may almost sound the same but they don't feel the same.

Sounds is one thing, but amps are actually musical instruments, given the fact that an electric guitar is not much of musical instrument by itself. It needs the amp. It's silly to get a guitar that feels right w/ an amp that doesn't. I'm assuming the good ones do respond well, but I've never tried "good" modelers.

[MILLO]

Originally posted by d.r.e.a.m.i.s.t:

Has anyone heard of (or used) V-Stack Classic (http://www.v-stack.com)? The sound clips there sound very promising (to my ears) as a direct recording tool.

I was just re-reading a review of those, and it's on my list of pedals to try out in the next few months.

[Tone Taster]

I have the Sans Amp PSA-1 rack which is awesome for recording when I slap some lexicon reverb on it

 

I think it comes down to other factors as well

 

If there is a gig or band you don't like, or find it to be not economically feasible ; use the modeler direct into the board so you at least eliminate the "schlep factor".

 

If you are doing music that is redeemable on a gig or with a band your psyched about, then use he best tube amp suitable for your sound

[BlueZet]

as far as I know, no non-musician or even non-guitarist gives a #### whether it faithfully mimics an amp, the listening audience wants to have fun, not analyse your gear, so I guess we (yes, me too ) worry too much about tone. maybe the time worrying about that would be better spent practicing our playing (I know MY performance would benefit )

[The Bear Jew]

I've used Pods extensively in the past few years.

 

They're very useful for guerilla recordings--you can record a full band almost anywhere without worrying about amp bleed into drum tracks. I think I have recorded at least four albums' worth of tracks in "non-studio" locations due to budgetary limitations.

 

Pods are excellent for this application--you can get damn close to achieving your usual sound (whatever that may be) and have a pretty decent tone going to tape. And I think we all know how important it is to have something close to our usual sound in order to be inspired to play our best on recordings.

 

Sure, the Pod doesn't sound exactly like any particular amp... but it sounds pretty frickin' good in emulating most of them! It's fine for scratch tracks... and definitely more then fine for silent practice with headphones.

 

My usual method for recording with Pods is to tweak in a nice tone, and get the best basic track I can... if the take is working, I layer on top of it with my amp tone. If it's not working, I record over it with my amp tone. Either way, I wind up with my primary tone coming from my amp. The Pod is there as a tracking tool or as support for my usual sound.

 

Works for me...

[Mincer]

I have been using the new GT-Pro, and it has that picking and volume dynamics thing pretty well covered.

[fanoftheliving]

I stopped using the PODxt.... Actually considering selling it. The reason is mostly because there is a minute amount of latency involved in these things. When I first started playing it I was hooked on the ease of programming involved to set up a reasonable sounding sound chain. Hook it up to the computer and bang! Simply Awesome, no mesy wires etc. I played a few gigs with it, and something was terribly wrong, I couldn;t put my finger on it exactly. Finally I set it up in a room with an amp, and after very carefully listening to what was coming out I figured out that it has just enough latency in it to be useless. At least for live playing.

I do use it for recording and other odds and ends. And even in a recording situation I usually record two tracks, one is the amp miked directly, second going thru the POD for a clean sound. Then I mix the two. Even if you have a crappy recording set up, if you use a blend of a signal thru an amp AND the POD - you will notice a difference.

So. No PODxt for playing live - no good. At least for me.

[Dr. Ellwood]

I have a Flextone2 Line6 amp ...2X12 modeling amp and the pod technology is part of the front end of this amp. I have never noticed any latency in the amp. I wonder if it is just the POD used externally that demonstrates these problems?

[Darklava]

I have no comment....well no good ones

[fanoftheliving]

Originally posted by ellwood:

I have a Flextone2 Line6 amp ...2X12 modeling amp and the pod technology is part of the front end of this amp. I have never noticed any latency in the amp. I wonder if it is just the POD used externally that demonstrates these problems?

Not sure... What I think is happening is that if you play dirty you are less likely to notice if you play clean. If you play extremely clean, like say you wanted to get a very good authentic jazz sound, I can tell you that PODxt was not the answer for me.

Don't laugh. What I wanted to do was play jazz thru one of those BOSE pole amps. I was hoping to get rid of some feedback from the 175... Didn't work (for me), although it seemed like a good idea at the time. The sound wasn't right, and the latency issue was killing me. Well, experiment, live and learn, right?

[webe123]

Well I WISH when this topic came up people would recognise the VETTA! The Line 6 vetta is a whole different animal from a pod, a pod xt or a flextone or spider! The vetta is line 6's "flagship" amp and does a WHOLE lot more than the other lines. I know, because I have owned a Pod xt, a flex 2 and a flex 3!

 

The vetta carries a hefty pricetag also, but it does a whole lot more than the other line 6 products.

 

What is different? Well for starters, you can have two seperate amps going at the same time and switch out which one you want on or have them both on. This is called the "two amps at once" feature and is found only on the line 6 vetta and it makes a WORLD of difference. Now, I would feel somethings missing without having that sound, becuase it sounds much richer to me.

 

Secondly, the vetta software can be upgraded as well as the flex 3, but the vetta software is also made to accomidate the variax guitar, which can be directly plugged into a vetta II model. (You can buy a seperate board for the original vetta and upgrade the software making the original vetta the EXACT copy of a vetta II)

 

Third, the vetta modeling is MUCH closer to the originals than even the flextone models.

 

You can even choose between a Modeled Neuman U87 or a shure sm-57 mic and choose between two settings of how they are angled to the speaker.

As well as have a great array of stompboxes on the vetta you can have up to three at a time going. But they say that the amps they model are VERY accurate. NOT perfect, but very good.

 

So the vetta is a totally different animal, it is much more costly than the other line 6 products, but I think it is worth it, if you are in a cover band for example and do a lot of switching out different sounds. To me, it is not even in the same ballpark with the other products at all.

 

But if you are the kind that HAS to have a certian amp sound or just has to have a tube sound, then the vetta is NOT for you. If you are the kind that does not mind tweaking and wants a array of amps and stompboxes that sound decent, then the vetta may be your answer. There is no right or wrong when it comes to choosing an amp. You simply have to find one that suits your needs. The vetta was my answer to a lot of things I needed to have.