real or model?

[antichef]

The only difference between these two MP3s:

1) http://recursor.net/realornot/1.mp3

2) http://recursor.net/realornot/2.mp3

is that the lead guitar in one of them is going through a "real" amp (reamped) -- in the other, the lead guitar is going through a software based amp model.

Can you tell which is which? Which one sounds better?

I'll post some more details in the next post in this thread -- for now, I'm trying to figure out how to make the poll work.

I made the poll multiple choice so that you could indicate both which you thought was real and which sounded better, but there's nothing to stop you, except your own conscience, from checking all the boxes, I guess.

[antichef]

OK - this is my 18 month old and me improvising around with the home recording studio equipment - she calls out to our cat Pete (depicted in my avatar) and I ad lib to poorly grafted loops that we created. Anyway, the point is the treatment of the leads, so here's more more background:

The model is from Logic Express 8's preset channel strip "Custom Stack", which uses "Guitar Amp Pro" for the amp model - which is the "US Combo 40W" with "British EQ" and the "UK 4x12 closed" cab with a "condenser" mic.

I ran the dry guitar signal using a nifty clever device I got from Naiant into an Epiphone model 101 from the mid 1960's with the original 10 inch speaker, which has been worked over recently by a very good amp tech, and has this tube complement: 12AT7 preamp, 6X4 rectifier, and EL84 power -- the preamp and power tubes are both GE JAN. I miced the amp with my now-trusty ACM-2, which has an Edcor transformer.

The guitar is a vietnamese-built SG style made from alder wood, using Gibson P-94 pickups.

[COOLCAT]

I liked #2.

not reading your post, until later, it was a very bizarre surprise to hear the baby googoo stuff.

#1 sounded fuzzy and goo-gah, while #2 had more of a geegggeeeegagaga sound.

in your favor of music style, I will admit I thought bottled water was ridiculous and Rap would only be a comedy-music with Funky KoMadina....

so maybe baby goo-goo music will take over the entire world?


What do you call this type of music?

[Ladnar]

#1. hands down and kill that baby for God's sake!

[antichef]

sorry -- I work for the baby, not the other way around (this is "home recording" after all...)

this is "baby bottle blues"

thanks for the listens -- keep'em coming!

[Roguetitan]

1 and 1

[Roguetitan]

Hey I got approved rep points from the OP this must mean I got it right

OH BTW I was just wondering... antichef, is that anything like antipasta?

[antichef]

antipoints?

[NL5]

So, what's the answer?

[antichef]

1 is the model, 2 is the amp

[Roguetitan]

Originally Posted by antichef

1 is the model, 2 is the amp

you are kidding... Right

[COOLCAT]

Interesting... IMO

I think once again this poll is just re-emphasizing the fact some people like different tones than others.

Black Sabbath when I hear Sample #1.

Sample 2, Montrose or Ted Nugent (Fender Twin's wide open sound)

[drossfile]

i went for 2 and 2.

i thought it sounded warmer and more rounded, which could be indicative of a dynamic mic and some ambience.

then again, i've heard some nasty-ass miked amps that i'd take modeling over any day. not that #1 sounded nasty. i just thought #2 was more natural.

that's my story, and i'm stickin' to it.

when will you reveal the true answer?

[eyema_believer]

#1 certainly sounds better to me...

[antichef]

I'm not kidding -- #1 really is the model, and #2 really is the amp

[eyema_believer]

Originally Posted by antichef

I'm not kidding -- #1 really is the model, and #2 really is the amp

I believe you! You won't find me ever saying that a model can't beat an amp and a mic, because it can. This proves it!

[guitar junkie]

I happened to like the second sample the best myself, though I must admit to listening to it on iBook speakers.....

I own that same software and happen to think it sounds pretty good as well, but when doing anything really dynamic it just falls apart, unless I just play track and then automate the knobs to change the sound as the dynamics adapt to the song...

[Roguetitan]

Originally Posted by eyema_believer

I believe you! You won't find me ever saying that a model can't beat an amp and a mic, because it can. This proves it!

Yep....eyemabeliever

[antichef]

personally, I prefer #2, but I didn't vote

I can be perfectly happy with modeling for a lot of lead lines like this one (which don't rely on feedback through the guitar). By splitting the signal and playing through a real amp as well as recording to digital, I bet I could get around that limitation, too, but doing that would tend to defeat a lot of the benefits of models.

I have more trouble with using models for rhythm guitar, and it's here that I can sometimes hear digital artifacts at low sampling rates. At 24/96 (like the sample here), I don't hear any artifacts, but still can't always get the sound right.

[ZoSo58LP]

2 definitely...sounded more full and fat as opposed to a bit tinnier from the model

[antichef]

I should have said that I didn't make a huge effort to get them to sound the same. Part of the difficulty there is that the modeling software doesn't have a model that's "supposed" to sound like that particular amp.

Next time, I'll do a comparison between a Marshall JCM 800 half stack that I have and the corresponding model. The difference will be that the software models generally try to emulate the 100 watt (2203) amp, and I have the 50 watt (2204) amp, but it sounds pretty similar. I guess it's also worth noting that I used to play in a band with another guy who had a 2204, and we always thought they sounded pretty different from one another. I'll have to crank the amp to get up into the characteristic timbre, so I'll have to wait for when the neighbors are gone

[drossfile]

Originally Posted by antichef

I'm not kidding -- #1 really is the model, and #2 really is the amp

woohoo! does this mean that i now have the right to parade around the site bragging about possessing the goldenest ears you peons ever seen???

[e-man]

i thought #1 had a clearer, "rounder" tone. after listening to #2 again, i think it's not as loud in the mix as #1 is, and that might be part of it.

i have a theory that as time goes on and we hear more and more commercial releases using software simulations of amps many will grow to prefer them. they're all just tools.

i like the idea of using the child's voice like you did. tighten up the drum loops and you have a cool track there.

[antichef]

thanks -- I might pick at the track some more.

With regard to the volume, I faced a dilemma -- #2 (the "real" one) is much more compressed than #1, and so when I mixed with an equal RMS on both, they were way out of whack on a perception basis -- so I tried to compromise and this is where I wound up.

[reddavid]

Originally Posted by antichef

1 is the model, 2 is the amp

Awesome - my ears serve me well.

I voted 2 as the real amp on the grounds that, if you listen closely, within the first few seconds of the lead part it exposes itself as being real by falling out of distortion. There's just not enough heat to the signal, so the amp cleans up. Compare that to the first track, where the virtual amp applies the same tone more or less consistently through all volume levels, which tends to be a trait of modelling software.

That said though, I put 1 as my preferred tone. Much nicer.


I'm a big fan of amp modelling. Guitar Rig 3 has made my Marshall redundant, at least as a a recording instrument. I just think it's amazing. The sound reproduction can be even better than my real amp, and that I only need to record the clean tone by connecting the guitar to the preamp to the PC makes life so much easier than when I used to have to mic the amp or rely on the line-out and hope for the best when it came to EQ'ing it. 'Tis awesome technology. And, I know this is sort-of dirty for a musician to amdit, but I'm quite in love wth my Variax too. Digitally modelled guitar into digitally modelled amp - it's an absurdly versatile and powerful combination. And all for so little money, it's unreal.