Guitar amp Vs PA?

  • Thread starter Thread starter tigerflystudio
  • Start date Start date
You know whom I like better than Albert King? Albert Collins.

Two comments (I missed this earlier).

One, That's nice, but King is the guy who Stevie Ray Vaughan based his entire style upon, not Collins. ;)

Two, 'whom' should be used as the object of a prepositional phrase and not as a subject or a noun - 'of whom,' 'to whom," not "do you know whom?"

/grammar nazi. ;)
 
Two comments (I missed this earlier).

One, That's nice, but King is the guy who Stevie Ray Vaughan based his entire style upon, not Collins. ;)

Two, 'whom' should be used as the object of a prepositional phrase and not as a subject or a noun - 'of whom,' 'to whom," not "do you know whom?"

/grammar nazi. ;)

Congrats on the grammar and your rhetorical point (although I think is it hardly sustainable that SRV was not influenced by Hendrix, you're the first person I think who has ever claimed that), but you're still completely missing the point. SRV based his style on guitarists slightly older than he was, about one generation or less (hope that's grammatically correct). King's career was essentially '60s after debuting in the 1950s, a few short years before Hendrix. SRV started off big-time in 1983, after a mid-1970s debut. So about a 20 year difference.

Most guitarists now copy (not base) their styles on guitarists two, three, four times further removed in time, and the degree of difference between a modern guitarist and their influences and SRV or Hendrix and their influences is much, much smaller. The only seriously influential guitarist of the last twenty years I think is Cobain, and he's mostly known as an anti-guitarist. And he broke nearly twenty years ago!

Do you reject the hypothesis that innovation in modern blues, rock, and even jazz music has ground to a halt? Where is new ground being broken? How can it possibly occur given the attitudes of modern guitarists?

I mean, again, Nirvana. Twenty years ago. I don't care what you think about Nirvana, they were massively influential. Nirvana to 2010, basically nothing new. Metal gets more metal-y, but in ways that were entirely predictable in 1990. Blues guitarists continue rehashing the same tones and same licks ad nauseum. Jazz guitarists still act like it's 1949. Mainstream rock bands are more interested in their mug shots.

Twenty years before Nirvana was 1970. Quite a lot a change from 1970 to 1990, but still much less than 1950 to 1970, wouldn't you say?

At the rate we are going, absolutely nothing will change by 2030. Enjoy the worst two decades of music in rock history, you thought the last decade was bad, you ain't heard nothing yet.

Actually you have. You've heard everything. There is nothing else.

Back to OP. PA gear is changing. The way live sound is done is changing, and the way concerts are performed is changing. Clinging to methods of the past by slavish devotion to vintage gear or modeling are both paths to artistic failure.
 
But I would add, instead of using modelers to emulate "real tube amps", just use a real amp! :cool:
Personally, I don't think modelers will do much to help guitarists come up with "entirely new music"...but his comments certainly point out the irony of using modelers when the real thing is available.

Well early on I said use a small tube amp and mic it, but I'm not opposed to the modeler approach. It's just easier for me to build a tube amp than a modeler. There are nifty tools that let lamebrains like me code their own VSTs, but porting that code over to a hardware DSP chip is a very nontrivial task. I'd have to have some programming talent to do that, and I don't have any.

But I break down modeling into its constituent components, just like you'd break down a tube amp into its components. To model a tube amp, you'd need to consider at least the following:

- input impedance
- small-signal tube transfer curves
- power tube topology and transfer curves
- rectifier tube "sag"
- tone circuit
- transformer saturation
- speaker impedance curve
- speaker frequency response
- cabinet design

And probably a few others. Modeling most of that isn't very difficult, but it's tempting to take shortcuts I would think because it's less expensive from a DSP standpoint to not repeat calculations.

If we look at the techniques use in the DSP for each of those functions, we find there's only about three or four different types of calculations required. From there, we can start "circuit bending" in DSP if we are so inclined. A real amp has to have the output transformer after the power tubes, but not a virtual amp. That's just a simple example. There really is no limit to the type of maths we can play with. And it's a lot more interesting to use the math to create something that's not possible with an analog circuit.
 
You know, I just read something at GS, I don't know why I do that, morbid curiousity I guess, and I just wanted to say that I'm sorry if anybody felt I was trying to put them down here, I'm not, I am trying to encourage you to reach your full potential. You are all brilliant, talented people, and you will all be very successful. Seriously, I mean that.

Friends don't let friends post at GS . . . :(
 
Yeah, even I record my bass through a Sansamp pre, because the thing fucking rules. But, calling a "modeler" kind of misses the point - it may be designed to sound like a number of other amps, but it's a pure analog signal, no AD/DA conversion.

Since when did an analog modeler not count as a modeler?...Ive used a Tech21 GT2 for years and I have alot of love for the thing...but a modeler is all it really is.
And Ive read that bass goes in direct 95% of the time in a studio...and Eddie Kramer wrote it so we can believe it..
A Pod X3 is a sweet set-up though...I know that most of you guys would say you hate them...but how many of you travel arround with the 16 amps it would take to replace one.

And dont give me that "I dont want to go through a-d to d-a conversion" and then tell me that you do computer based recording because that is the very same thing.
 
You know, I just read something at GS, I don't know why I do that, morbid curiousity I guess, and I just wanted to say that I'm sorry if anybody felt I was trying to put them down here, I'm not, I am trying to encourage you to reach your full potential. You are all brilliant, talented people, and you will all be very successful. Seriously, I mean that.

Friends don't let friends post at GS . . . :(

I had a few lurkings there...I saw there was too many there who review gear that they never even used...If I had a comment on anything here...at least I tried it in a store or have owned the things.
 
I'm cogitating a four-channel amp. I guess I don't get why at that point the channels wouldn't be unlimited, digital switching of analog controls. Otherwise you get an amp with 400 knobs on it :confused: Two channels I get, three channel is borderline, but four channels there is no way a microcontroller isn't cheaper and far more flexible than all of those electromechanicals . . .
 
I'm cogitating a four-channel amp. I guess I don't get why at that point the channels wouldn't be unlimited, digital switching of analog controls. Otherwise you get an amp with 400 knobs on it :confused: Two channels I get, three channel is borderline, but four channels there is no way a microcontroller isn't cheaper and far more flexible than all of those electromechanicals . . .

I have been keeping my eyes open for just that...remember the seymore Duncan Convertable?...it had 4 swappable channels and several modules to model the sounds of different amps.
2gydm3p.jpg
 
A real amp has to have the output transformer after the power tubes, but not a virtual amp. That's just a simple example. There really is no limit to the type of maths we can play with. And it's a lot more interesting to use the math to create something that's not possible with an analog circuit.

Yeah...but the problem I have with the math, is that once you write it...it NEVER changes...
…and that to me is a rather sterile way to get tone. :(

That tranny and them tubes and all those electrons...breathe, pump and churn...and that's what makes a tube amp sound so special...and never sterile. :cool:
 
Yeah...but the problem I have with the math, is that once you write it...it NEVER changes...
…and that to me is a rather sterile way to get tone. :(

That tranny and them tubes and all those electrons...breathe, pump and churn...and that's what makes a tube amp sound so special...and never sterile. :cool:

So...how do you switch from the sound of a Mesa to a twin...and then to a marshall or Vox when you need to without all those amps onstage?...or do you only do one kind of sound?
 
I don't have a need to switch across a dozen different sounds in a flash, but you know, one good tube amp and a couple of nice pedals can cover a lot of tones! :cool:

Besides...like I said earlier...most name guitarists play with one tone...their tone. :)
Of course...that assumes you are going for your own sound...but even if you are in a note-by-note type of cover band where everyone is anal about sounding EXACTLY like the record for each song they do in a set...bands were managing to cover a lot of tones long before modelers existed, and without needing a pedal board from hell to do it! :D

If you convince yourself you need a dozen pedals and 3 dozen modeled amp choices in order to play your guitar…then…you will end up needing a dozen pedals and 3 dozen modeled amps. ;)

And since everyone keeps saying no one in the audience will ever notice that you are using a modeler…
…then why the hell would they notice how identical your tones are to the original recordings you are covering? :p

It's so ironic...one the one hand, a simulation from a modeler is "good enough"...but with a real tube amp, there is a concern it won't always sound like the real thing! :laughings:
 
Yeah...but the problem I have with the math, is that once you write it...it NEVER changes...
…and that to me is a rather sterile way to get tone. :(

That tranny and them tubes and all those electrons...breathe, pump and churn...and that's what makes a tube amp sound so special...and never sterile. :cool:

I'm fairly certain that amplifier circuits are generally time invariant. My terminology may be off a bit, but in other words, every time you play a note the same way on your guitar, you will get the same sound from your amplifier when at the same setting. Stated another way, at least with respect to the amplifier tubes themselves, we don't have to be overly concerned with an impulse response, because the notes that are played earlier in time than the note in question do not affect the transfer function of the system.

That's not strictly true for rectifier tubes; tube power supplies are often purposely designed to 'sag', and transformers can have an impulse response too.

So at least with respect to those two aspects of the system, we need an envelope to model them (not unlike a compressor, for example). If we have done that successfully, it should perform in a similar time variant or invariant manner as an analog circuit.
 
It's so ironic...one the one hand, a simulation from a modeler is "good enough"...but with a real tube amp, there is a concern it won't always sound like the real thing! :laughings:

I wonder what people in '80s pop cover bands do . . . other than kill themselves!

I mean, if I had to use a modeler to get that Rockman sound, I would end it right there :D
 
Here is a good explanation where the math isn't too hard:

https://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jos/pasp/Nonlinear_Distortion.html

I have written a bit on the use of offset to generate even-order distortion in UAD plugs, which shockingly almost none of them natively do. Even in their amp sims, only like two of ten amp models generate ANY even-order distortion. That was just puzzling to me. I don't use a Pod, but I do use my offset-modified UAD plug, and a harmonic distortion generator I wrote as well, subsequently fed into the UAD plug. And then I usually follow it with the 1176 model for compression and the Plate 140 for reverb, and the Space Echo for effects. Those kill the Nigel equivalents of the same functions, who wouldn't want the real hardware boxes for a guitar rig?

That makes me wonder what is going on in the world of modelers, what I have written in this thread is so basic to circuit modeling but if one of the best-regarded DSP shops in the world ignored these things, it makes me wonder.

I'd love to code my own full-blown VST amp; I wouldn't do any "models" but with fully parametric controls you should be able to dial anything in. No presets! And I'd love to do it as an "amp construction set", where you arrange circuit components in any manner you desire. Anybody remember "Pinball Construction Set"? Like that, for an amp.

Problem is VSTs don't pay, hardware does. So I do hardware.
 
Yeah but tube amps can have small changes just from AC voltage fluctuations, and then also the tubes are constantly "shedding" away as they age.
Granted, these are imperfections in the tube amp design...but THAT is what gives tube amps the organic quality.
People always comment about amps, cabs, speakers, tubes..."breaking in" and getting that sweet "used" tone.

About the only thing that will break in on a modeler...is the footswitch! ;)

But I don’t want to rain on anyone’s parade. I totally understand the appeal of modelers…their convenience and ability to at least come close to a lot of different amps, and they CAN “cover” basic working needs. I mean…I wouldn’t want to bring a $2-3k tube amp to play at some dive.
I just get a bit annoyed when some people start arguing that they see no reason to own a dozen top-of-the-line tube amps when they can “get them” all inside a $100 digital modeler.


Yeah…right! :laughings:
 
I just get a bit annoyed when some people start arguing that they see no reason to own a dozen top-of-the-line tube amps when they can “get them” all inside a $100 digital modeler.


Yeah…right! :laughings:

I dont know where you shop...but the POD X3 is $500...I wouldnt vouch for the tones of earlier models...the original pods werent very good.
 
Yeah but tube amps can have small changes just from AC voltage fluctuations, and then also the tubes are constantly "shedding" away as they age.

Long-term variations in components aren't generally considered in algorithms, but they could be, a system clock is perfectly adequate to feed a function that changes tube model parameters. Same thing with AC line fluctuations--but that is almost totally dependent upon purposely improper power supply design. Again, here is an area where all other electronics, even other tube designs, moved away from long long ago--it's a flaw in a system that lacks adequate regulation and capacitance that a very short term fluctuation in AC supply affects circuit operation.

Even so, it's not a problem at all to program in a LFO or random number generator that feeds the algorithm. Has anybody done that? I dunno, but it's not hard.

People always comment about amps, cabs, speakers, tubes..."breaking in" and getting that sweet "used" tone.

Often those people are wrong. You should look up what Harvey Gerst has said about:

https://homerecording.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=154115

So there shouldn't be variation after a day or so, a few days at most. Although it seems a lot of guitar speakers are paper surround, I don't know . . .

I just get a bit annoyed when some people start arguing that they see no reason to own a dozen top-of-the-line tube amps when they can “get them” all inside a $100 digital modeler.

I don't argue that. But honestly, they can get close enough at a live show to fool most people. I'd be interested to see a study of guitarists in an audience where the performing guitarist was using a modeler into a solid-state PA amp into a guitar cab vs. the real tube head into the same cab. Obviously I've removed the cabinet modeling from the equation, but we have to test our guitarists in a blind manner.

I suspect that in either case, 100% of guitarists in the audience would say the performing guitarist's tone sucked :D
 
So...how do you switch from the sound of a Mesa to a twin...and then to a marshall or Vox when you need to without all those amps onstage?...or do you only do one kind of sound?

Actually, with Mesa's multiple discrete power amps and preamps in some of their fancier models (ie. RoadKing, Mark V), you can switch between completely different pathways through your amplifier. Sure they're all made and designed by Mesa, but that doesn't mean that they all sound identical. I know that on the Mark V, you have a pretty damn good selection of a very wide range of amp characteristics all at the stomp of a footswitch, all in 1 combo or head.

So you can probably set up a Vox-ish sound, a Mesa sound, a Marshall-ish sound, and a Fender-ish sound and switch between them at the touch of a button from the same amp. I'm sure that they come at least as close to the originals as a modeller does, and they not only use good ol' fashioned tubes, but they get to use an enclosure and speakers that were desgined specifically for guitars. Unlike a straight-to-PA setup, where you're using the full-range speakers that are designed for full-spectrum reproduction of sound.
 
But honestly, they can get close enough at a live show to fool most people. I'd be interested to see a study of guitarists in an audience where the performing guitarist was using a modeler into a solid-state PA amp into a guitar cab vs. the real tube head into the same cab. Obviously I've removed the cabinet modeling from the equation, but we have to test our guitarists in a blind manner.

I suspect that in either case, 100% of guitarists in the audience would say the performing guitarist's tone sucked :D

It isn't so much about fooling the audience...it's about the player playing/interacting with the amp.
You can't play a modeler, it's simply a signal generator following an algorithm.
Granted, you may not care about it for some cheap gig...but I think in the studio and even for more "refined" gigs ;) .....nothin' like a sweet tube amp to play and to hear. :)
 
Look, ultimately I don't give a crap about the audience.
They don't even know if you're playing in the right key, much less whether you're using a modeler or not.
I get good sound regardless of what I use so they're gonna be happy either way.
I use the amp for ME!
I play music for a living, that's true And I've done it for 40+ years. But that doesn't mean I've lost my love of playing.
Every gig for me is a chance to push my boundaries more .... trying to see how far I can go ..... what are my limits ...... and then there's the pure rush of playing well.
I play at fairly high levels and that requires a high level of response from my amp.
If I can't get the last little bit from my amp, then I can't stretch quite as far and I don't have quite as much fun.
Plus I'm a hired gun and that means I'm always trying to impress other musicians to get work so I have to stand out whenever I play.

I'm 58 but I'll be too lazy to carry my amp in when I'm unable to carry it in anymore.
In the meantime ..... I need my weight bearing exercise to keep my bone density up.

:)
 
Back
Top