Guitar amp modelers

[bongolation]

The old and discontinued J-Station's the fav of many old-school guitarists, especially those (like me) who grew up with a Fender Twin. The good news is that it's often available for under $100 at ebay.

I've seen 'em for $25 on CraigsList here.

The J-Station is pretty much obsolete for a lot of reasons. It was my first modeler, and I still have it. What it had was unsurpassed computer editing software (J-Edit) which is essential for organized and rational modeler programming. It could do cleans OK, but its distortion wasn't that hot. The only guitar amp models in it that I found useful were the clean AC30 and the Twin (as you mention). I doubt that it had the computational power to really do much better -- especially in that it also had to support the unlimited MFX function on any profile.

I think that at ten years old, its day is pretty much over.

I had a friend who was a music producer and soundtrack composer for Sony and MGM in LA for over twenty years. He had a J-Station in his little tabletop DAW rig that he used for scratch recording his bright ideas in the middle of the night at home. As it happened, a bunch of his home guitar tracks with the J-Station wound up in major-release movies and TV series.

He, being a real recording pro, could get sound out of that thing that no one else seemed to be able to, but even he didn't mess with anything but those two clean models.

What's funny to me is that the revered J-Station models were absorbed into the DigiTech line -- and everyone hates DigiTech models.

 

[Goldilox]

Noting that the OP is limited to analog (why?), I won't go into great detail about why the future for recording is software, not hardware, modeling other than to point out the obvious advantage that it is infinitely flexible after tracking and the programs can develop/upgrade just about in real-time.

I thought the dude was just limited to a stand-alone box (ie was recording to some kind of analogue portastudio as opposed to a PC)? It was me who started talking about analogue modellers.. hope I haven't confused the issue.

Actually, it's not that close and leaves out some crucial ingredients, such as the TLC2262 OpAmp used in the SansAmp. The *DI21 series are too inexpensive to be made with the higher-quality OpAmps. Both are pretty much nothing but glorified dirtboxes in any case.

I couldn't comment on the physical hardware but I have tested mine against my dad's GT2 on identical settings. Although I could recognise some differences, I'm not sure I could tell which is which with a blindfold on....

I've got one of those also. When running direct it sounds like any other distortion pedal and does not resemble the tone of an actual mic'd amp [tube or solid state] in any way.

I'm no expert in studio matters but using my home set up I can get a more convincing tone from this than by micing up the solid state Peavey favoured by the lead guitarist in my band. Micing up my 5W valve amp is a different league altogether tone-wise, but I stand by my statement that it's easier to get a usable tone (note I said usable rather than 100% authentic) from this than from a lot of the more horrible solid state amps I've had to deal with.

Strange that I find myself defending these little plastic boxes, when I'm usually the person trying to persuade everyone else they need real valve amps.

 

[darrin_h2000]

Actually, it's not that close and leaves out some crucial ingredients, such as the TLC2262 OpAmp used in the SansAmp. The *DI21 series are too inexpensive to be made with the higher-quality OpAmps. Both are pretty much nothing but glorified dirtboxes in any case.

While I agree with most people who *love* the BDI21, I find the GDI21 to be far too noisy to be of the slightest use for recording, plus it just sounds nasty to me except on the most conservative settings.

Ive allways wondered about that...like the price difference between one or the other op amps is fairly low...like you can get the best for arround $.75 and the cheap ones for $.50...its not like its that big of an upcharge.

 

[bongolation]

I couldn't comment on the physical hardware but I have tested mine against my dad's GT2 on identical settings. Although I could recognise some differences, I'm not sure I could tell which is which with a blindfold on....

I would be surprised if the Tech21 wasn't much quieter.

Even at unity gain the GDI21 has a pretty dreadful hiss level, though I suspect that this may vary a bit from one unit to the next as the components aren't really high grade and would be subject to a lot of inconsistency. That said, the GDI21 and BDI21 are a lot of effect for $25 or so street. I just wish Behringer could have sprung for better components and raised the price $5 or so.

The high distortion settings (I can't really bring myself to call them "models" as they really aren't) can be pretty similar, but neither device is all that hot in that it's not doing any real cabinet/impulse simulation worthy of the name. These are just highly-evolved dirtboxes, whether Tech21 or Behringer is making them.

I'm no expert in studio matters but using my home set up I can get a more convincing tone from this than by micing up the solid state Peavey favoured by the lead guitarist in my band. Micing up my 5W valve amp is a different league altogether tone-wise, but I stand by my statement that it's easier to get a usable tone (note I said usable rather than 100% authentic) from this than from a lot of the more horrible solid state amps I've had to deal with.

That may be, depending on what you call usable. I can see the BDI21 for clean sound-shaping of bass DI, but the GTI21 for distorted guitar sounded nearly as dreadful as the board-out "recording" jack on a Bad Monkey, which was surprisingly awful BTW.

I think if I had a gun to my head and had to record this way, I'd run the device through an amp set clean and EQ flat and put a microphone on that.

 

[darrin_h2000]

Well the last thing you want to do is run direct with them...you run them through a low watt tube amp and mic the speaker...no wonder you arent getting usable results

 

[Goldilox]

I would be surprised if the Tech21 wasn't much quieter.

Actually it was the other way around, but I suspect that's related to the fact the the Behringer was new out the box and the SansAmp must be getting on for ten years old.

 

[Paj]

Speaking of miking amps (check out the second posting):

http://acapella.harmony-central.com/showthread.php?t=2397456

Paj
8^)

 

[miroslav]

That's called "way off axis" technique...for when you need that dull, lifeless sounding guitar in you mix.

 

[bongolation]

Well the last thing you want to do is run direct with them...:

Well, they are DI boxes and that's the specific purpose for which both Tech21 and Behringer market them.

If they're no good for that, well...

Actually, the BDI21 works very well as a tone-shaping DI for bass and does an excellent job of putting some upper-mids life into flatwound-strung basses. For noticeable distortion (why?) it's ridiculous, though.

Why DigiTech has decided that their dirtboxes are now DI boxes is the real comedy question.

In any case, I usually record via the instrument-Z input on my frontend, go straight and let software do the rest. I've got all of it, I think.

What I'm going to do when I have the time is build a 1x12" isolation cab that Bill Fitzmaurice advised me on and just plug real amps into that when I feel the need. Reamping modelers through such a rig might be interesting, but the goal in my life at the moment is to reduce all external hardware and cabling to the minimum. Small studio claustrophobia is starting to get to me.

 

[Paj]

That's called "way off axis" technique...for when you need that dull, lifeless sounding guitar in you mix.

Now, now---he IS miking the amplifier . . .

Paj
8^)

 

[jeffree]

Just to add to the discussion...

http://emusician.com/tutorials/showdown-clubhouse-amp-software/index.html

I always enjoy equipment shoot-outs since previous biases play less of a role. In this shoot-out, the panel of pros was able to correctly identify the real amp or sim about 38% of the time. Food for thought.

 

[miroslav]

...the panel of pros was able to correctly identify the real amp or sim about 38% of the time. Food for thought.

Well...38% of the time is enough to make a difference for some people...IMO.

But there is more to it than just being able to hear the differences (which is all the panel was doing in the shootout). The part that is a BIG difference between real tube amps and modelers/sims (especially digital ones)...is how they react and interact with the player.
All that a digital modeler does is spit out a pre-programmed algorithm...but a tube amp will react much more organically to the signal coming from pickups, so that if you play the exact same lines twice in a row, there will be tonal nuances that will not be repeated.
I digital sim just spits out an algorithm.

Granted, in a busy mix, the listener may have a hard time discerning a sim from a tube amp...but for the player the difference can be more noticeable...and you really won't notice it unless you are playing a decedent tube amp. There are some tube amps that sound worse than sims...very grainy/fizzy when you go for a crunch sound, but a Hi-Q tube amp can seem like it's breathing as you play...and that's not easy to program into a digital sim.

As a recording engineer...I can use a sim and mask it well enough in the mix that few will notice it’s a sim, like I'm sure many of the folks here can do. Their somewhat plug-n-play-ability and small size (or none if they are software based) makes inexpensive sims VS. $2k-$3k tube amps an easy choice for some.
But being also a player, I would much rather play through a tube amp than a sim…100% of the time.

So it's a personal thing...no real right/wrong here…you go with what works for you and what your ears are happy with.

 

[Talldog]

OP here. Been off the grid again. Vacation this time though......To answer the why analog question: I have always used it and like it. I have Pro (for 1985 or so) gear (two Otari mx70s, Sony/mci 1/4 inch, Amek board, yadda yadda) and I am not really interested in learning a whole new process since I've been doing it this way since 1979. That's just me though, I have no problem with computer recording if someone else is recording.

As far as atenuators (SP?) go none that I have found are rated for High output amps like I have. They are usually for around 50 watts. I have a Mesa triple rec and a 5150.

I AM one of those artist engineer guys so having something in the control room would be nice.

I'm just wieghing my options. This has been an educational discussion. Thanks again and please continue.

 

[Ronan]

As far as atenuators (SP?) go none that I have found are rated for High output amps like I have. They are usually for around 50 watts. I have a Mesa triple rec and a 5150. .

On these style amps, a lot of the tone comes from the pre amp stage. Have you tried recording with the master volume down?

 

[darrin_h2000]

What if our amps were made before master volumes...like I have an old sunn model T from the 70s and a 200s from the 60s...you will drown out tornado sirens before they start to break up and give you a dirty tone.