darrin_h2000
Banned
I dont get it...are you saying it sucks as well...I tried it a long time ago (like 1985) and thought it was the best combo Id ever tried?
I dont get it...are you saying it sucks as well...I tried it a long time ago (like 1985) and thought it was the best combo Id ever tried?
mshilarious
Banned
Well I don't mean to tar all solid state amps, I was really picking on the cheapies. Like the amps most people start with, those are often Not Good. Lt. Bob listed a couple of SSs he liked, the old Roland JC-whatever is popular and I've stared at that schematic a bit. So they are out there.
Boutique amps. Hmmm. Tubes are expensive, but what is really expensive are the power and output transformers. Even so, I figure a gonzo tube amp, assuming you're using new parts and not NOS tubes, is maybe $500 in parts in relatively small quantities (that is, in the quantities I can buy from my wholesalers).
That would justify the retail price of the amp up to ~$2K. So if a head costs more than that, it's not because it's a tube amp. Maybe it has 57 relays and a very complicated switching mechanism. Maybe it just has really pretty tolex
It isn't really much harder to wire up tubes than power transistors (with their accompanying heatsinks). So it's not labor, at least just because of the tubes.
Moral of that story is that at some point even the tubes don't justify the cost, there has to be some other factor. But is it really possible to design a solid state amp where the same parts only cost $100 and charge the same price? Probably not.
I took a look at what I thought I could do a solid-state amp my way, and I wanted to use an output transformer just for grins. I came up with $800 for a 2x12, plus shipping which would be not cheap. Maybe there is a market, but I'm going to start with a passive 2x8 cab--I want to make the fancy hi-fi looking guitar cabinet for stricly home use in a high-end decor room, I haven't seen anybody else try that.
If that concept works, I might work on the amp itself. But it's more likely I'll just publish a schematic.
cephus
Slow Children Playing
i read alot of these replies. I will say that if you can play out with an emulator pod thing, you're obviously alot better than me. I can't deal. A friend of mine is a great player going back years and years. He has some kind of floor unit that he plays through. It's not even a good one. It's a korg or some shitpiece and he gets a great sound. Lots of great sounds.
But if I sit in and try to use it? Forget it. I need the amp clanging in my ear or I have no rhythm. I use his acoustic (which is also direct) when offered these days.
i never once gave a shit about what the stage looked like when he didn't use an amp and I am completely superficial.
But if I sit in and try to use it? Forget it. I need the amp clanging in my ear or I have no rhythm. I use his acoustic (which is also direct) when offered these days.
i never once gave a shit about what the stage looked like when he didn't use an amp and I am completely superficial.
darrin_h2000
Banned
I know Bass players that love that AX1B...and Ive been in a few places that has stages that count barely as a drum riser...putting a couple of amps up there as well...forget about it.
tigerflystudio
New member
WOW! Just read all the replies since opening this, er, debate. Of course, it was always bound to slip into the 'tube v's solid-state' territory, but I guess it needs to, because what I'm proposing is ditching my Mesa, Marshall and my Fender Twin for the POD - which, for various technical reasons pointed out in some great replies earlier, is basically going to radically transform my 'tone'.
Now, then, it's Monday morning and I'm just starting the week off by adding a few more thoughts and questions here.
Firstly, would adding a (small and manageable) tube pre-amp either before or after the POD have any effect (positive) on the guitar tone coming out the PA?
Second, what about a tube-powered PA amp and running the POD into that? Is there even such a thing as a tube power-amp that could be used for PA?
Third, I'm not attempting to 'copy' or 'clone' a tube guitar amp sound, but instead to create interesting guitar sounds / tone, with pretty wild stereo effects - isn't it better to use full frequency (good quality!) PA speakers, rather than the usual 'voiced' guitar speaker?
Now, then, it's Monday morning and I'm just starting the week off by adding a few more thoughts and questions here.
Firstly, would adding a (small and manageable) tube pre-amp either before or after the POD have any effect (positive) on the guitar tone coming out the PA?
Second, what about a tube-powered PA amp and running the POD into that? Is there even such a thing as a tube power-amp that could be used for PA?
Third, I'm not attempting to 'copy' or 'clone' a tube guitar amp sound, but instead to create interesting guitar sounds / tone, with pretty wild stereo effects - isn't it better to use full frequency (good quality!) PA speakers, rather than the usual 'voiced' guitar speaker?
cephus
Slow Children Playing
This is where we part. I know that a pod will sound fine through the PA and no one who listens to a bar band can tell a good sound from a great sound.
It just doesn't do shit for me. Maybe if I had a really good guitar monitor that sounded great to me. Or headphones or something. It would be different. But if my guitar sounds semi-flaccid, then I won't play worth a shit. I like that warm and wet feel in the ears that you get from an amp that's probably a tidge too loud for anyone but the guitar pilot.
We're back to that psycho-acoustic factor. What's coming out of the PA doesn't matter that much because the crowd doesn't have enough discernment to appreciate it. The main goal is getting a good sound to my ears so that I can play to my potential. They might notice that. They certainly can tell if I am liking my sound. I put on a better show.
This reminds me of a drummer that I used to know. He had this kick ass set of drums and they sounded decent acoustically. But rather than go through the trouble of micing everything up, the soundman just put triggers on all the pieces and ran them through some alesis drum machine. The drummer was happy because he got to play his drums. The soundman was happy because he didn't have to deal with 6 extra mics onstage. The crowd didn't even notice.
SO maybe you could give me a decent amp just for me, then run another channel through some nice emulator and let the guy at the board make me sound like mark knopfler one second and slash the next.
mshilarious
Banned
I would highly doubt there is a tube power amp intended for PA use in current production. You'd probably be looking at '60s or '70s gear.
That said, there is nothing about a guitar amp configuration (other than maybe the tone stack) that is not a full-range amplifier, you'd just need to plug it into a full-range cab. That won't sound like a typical guitar amp though.
But if you're intending to run the whole PA off tube amps, that will be incredibly expensive for the amount of power you need, at least in a reasonable size venue.
tigerflystudio
New member
I get to do a direct sound comparison in 2 weeks time - the Mesa V's the POD (DI'd to PA). Shall I do a room recording and post up? I have a portable HD recorder (Edirol R09 - 24bit WAV recorder). I could easily position it centrally in the room, match the Mesa and PA volume, then do a direct head-to-head, if anyone's interested? (Probably not, huh?)
Lt. Bob
Spread the Daf!
Plus ..... the very thing that guitarists like about tubes is when they distort.
The main goal of a PA is to NOT distort.
I'd LOVE to hear that.
darrin_h2000
Banned
Thats kinda the reason why its best to run the POD X3 through a tube slave amp with a speaker that would break up...the main reason to have it in the first place is tones and being able to switch sounds easilly.
Zaphod B
Raccoons-Be-Gone, Inc.
I've done that with my POD XTL. I configured it appropriately and ran it into my Randall RT2/50 tube power amp and 2 X 12 cab (Celestion G12K-85s) and it still fails to convince. If anything, it sounded less convincing than running it through a full-range monitoring setup. Brittle and harsh, unpleasant to my ears.
I didn't spend a lot of time trying to dial it in so I might have been able to smooth it out some.
But nothing was going to get rid of the more obvious digital artifacts - for example, the loss of touch dynamics and the inaccurate signal decay.
cavedog101
Well-known member
Yeah. It must suck . Thats why I bought FOUR of em. (As I already said)
There are five modules. One as the driver/splitter and two per channel. Much like most two channel tube amps.
(sorry for the invasion of this thread.....I just cant stand mis-information on the net....it makes for really stoopid people) Carry-on.
cavedog101
Well-known member
I bought one for the studio a couple of years back thinking it would be a good way to replace some guitar tracks or to be able to dial up a quick guitar setting for clients on a budget. After a couple of weeks of dinking with it, I sold it for these very reasons mentioned here.
The signal decay was horrid. Or is it horrific?? Yeah, I probably needed to go deeper into its tiny little brain and sort that out, but when simply plugging a pedal board into a DI with a transformer on the output sounded twice as good immediately, it became a piece that had no value to my needs.
I have heard these used live in lounge situations and ALWAYS, at first listen, I think that the guys have the tones of the material dialed, but after an hour of listening to this type of usage I find myself being struck by the fact that theres no dynamic range to the playing and the relative level doesnt seem to matter.
To the OP. Yeah, this will work, but if you're used to the amps you list as your sound, you'll eventually go back to them. There may be a lot better stuff than the Pod as far as digital processing goes. I think I'd research this. One of my guitarists went this route a few years back with the Johnson digital modeling amp. It was okay, but prone to breaking down. It did sound much better than the Line6....a little more natural, but unreliable isnt something that stays on our stage for any length of time.
Last edited:
Roguetitan
New member
Right us sound engineers call that clipping and it is not a good thing.
M
moresound
Loud Sun Studios
ho ho ho
G
ggunn
Crystal Flavolian
Well, there's clipping and then there's clipping; tube amp distortion comes from clipping. But to the OP, you do not want to clip the PA.
mshilarious
Banned
Well the whole point about tubes is they don't hard clip unless they are REALLY pushed. But there is always going to be some distortion. "Hard clip" is typically thought of as the point where high-order distortion increases dramatically, it results in a large increase in high-frequency energy which is very bad for tweeters.
When you have a push-pull output, you cancel the worst clipping behavior that occurs when one device shuts off. So to clip, you have to go the other direction to max plate current. I suppose since tube watts are so much more expensive than solid-state watts, it's more likely you'd clip the tube amp.
However, if you had a tube and SS amp both equally capable of 1000W, you'd be equally likely to clip either amp, but the tube amp would arguably give you more warning since it would be audibly distorted long before hard clipping.
1000W would be a bigggg tube amp though, I wouldn't want to lift it!
When you have a push-pull output, you cancel the worst clipping behavior that occurs when one device shuts off. So to clip, you have to go the other direction to max plate current. I suppose since tube watts are so much more expensive than solid-state watts, it's more likely you'd clip the tube amp.
However, if you had a tube and SS amp both equally capable of 1000W, you'd be equally likely to clip either amp, but the tube amp would arguably give you more warning since it would be audibly distorted long before hard clipping.
1000W would be a bigggg tube amp though, I wouldn't want to lift it!
DrewPeterson7
Sage of the Order
MS - snarkiness about grammar aside, I certainly won't deny that Jimi was something of an influence on SRV. What I WILL deny is that he was his primary influence, or anything even close to it - SRV himself was quick to admit how much of his tone and his playing was trying to emulate Albert King. He was just a little flashier about it. The man clearly loved his Jimi, and it was especially pronounced in his clean chordal work, but more often than not it wasn't a large part of his blues playing.
Darrin - Tech-21 is in the business of making analog preamps, generally that can approach three broad "styles" of tone and gain staging, with analog speaker simulation (which can be bypassed, and frankly isn't very good). Line6 is in the business of making a small, portable computer that uses DSP chips to try to replicate the tone of a stated (large) number of amps. Part of it is how they present their products (Tech21 has the sense not so say this os the "Rectifier" patch or the "AC30" patch), but part of it too is just the difference between a solid state preamp and a digital simulation.
None of that would matter, of course, if I was happy with the sound of a Pod. So far, I haven't been.
Richie - great post.
1.) I don't think so, for two reasons. One, I own and LOVE a small Tech-21 Trademark 30 practice amp. The thing smokes. The touch sensitivity isn't QUITE as good as my Mesa, but it's about 90% there and admittedly Mesas are about as touch-responsive as anything I've ever played. Long story short, I HAVE played solid state amps I really enjoy, and the Roland Jazz Chorus is popular enough for clean work that you have to at least consider that for some sounds/styles, solid state may have advantages over tube (for extreme levels of gain, solid state amps start to become popular again). So, it's a question of application, taste in tone, and the quality of the specific amp.
That brings me to point 2, though. There's a definite bias in the marketplace towards high-end tube amps and low-end solid state amps. How many $2k solid state amps can you name? How many $2k tube amps? I can't think of one, of the former, yet I could go on for, well, if not hours then I bet at least a solid half hour on the later. For whatever reason (probably based on player expectations) you're just not going to find many high end, feature-laden, well built solid state amps. I'll admit the possibility it's possible to build a really good botique solid state amp - it's just, no one's trying.
2.) I don't think so, again with broad disclaimers about genre-appropriateness (Meshuggah, for example, has been recording and touring with modelers direct for quite some time, but their super low tuned percussive guitar sound actually in my experience works BETTER with speaker modeling than through a real amp. Likewise, electronica/metal fusion stuff lends itself well to the "fakeness" that comes from speaker sims - an organic tone is the last thing you want for that sound). I haven't had much experience here, but I did a bit of recording with a buddy's Line6 while my amp was in the shop once, just to get a demo down. Surprisingly, while I was pretty underwhelmed with the sound and feel of the thing - it felt stiff and unresponsive, and sounded a little exaggerated and unnatural - it took a mic pretty well, and as long as I was careful with the gain the sounds I was getting weren't half bad. Playing it wasn't nearly as inspiring as the Mesa combo I had at the time, but in a pinch I got some tones on disc I was happy enough with.
Again, let me also say that in general I've found Line6 to over-gain their models, and all the FX and patch-tailoring capabilities are the sort of temptation that most players don't need, so more often than not the guys I see using this stuff are also using way more FX than I personally find prudent. Finally, that I don't think the Line6 speaker simulation is really there yet - blurred midrange, grainy highs is what my ear usually latches onto. That said, I've heard some guys get great results from this stuff, so in the hands of a good tweaker anything's possible.
I think my biggest issue with modeling stuff, personally, is the feel. Hell, I think the Tech-21 "Brit" mode sounds better, hands down, than any Marshall I've ever played, and if it was just a HAIR more touch sensitive, spongy, and responsive, I'd contemplate selling my Roadster for a Sansamp preamp and a power amp of sorts, because it's a great tone and it records really well. The feel just isn't quite there, though, and in the feel department I think Tech-21 is way above Line6.
Interesting experiment - spin Porcupine Tree's "In Absentia" and "Deadwing" back to back. The former was recorded with a Bad Cat tube rig, the later was almost all Pod through a 4x12. Both were written and produced by Steve Wilson, who's brilliant, and both are pretty stylistically similar. The later is a great sounding album, but I think the guitar sounds on the former are quite a bit better, and I thought so before I knew he used a modeler for the whole thing.
Darrin - Tech-21 is in the business of making analog preamps, generally that can approach three broad "styles" of tone and gain staging, with analog speaker simulation (which can be bypassed, and frankly isn't very good). Line6 is in the business of making a small, portable computer that uses DSP chips to try to replicate the tone of a stated (large) number of amps. Part of it is how they present their products (Tech21 has the sense not so say this os the "Rectifier" patch or the "AC30" patch), but part of it too is just the difference between a solid state preamp and a digital simulation.
None of that would matter, of course, if I was happy with the sound of a Pod. So far, I haven't been.
Richie - great post.
1.) I don't think so, for two reasons. One, I own and LOVE a small Tech-21 Trademark 30 practice amp. The thing smokes. The touch sensitivity isn't QUITE as good as my Mesa, but it's about 90% there and admittedly Mesas are about as touch-responsive as anything I've ever played. Long story short, I HAVE played solid state amps I really enjoy, and the Roland Jazz Chorus is popular enough for clean work that you have to at least consider that for some sounds/styles, solid state may have advantages over tube (for extreme levels of gain, solid state amps start to become popular again). So, it's a question of application, taste in tone, and the quality of the specific amp.
That brings me to point 2, though. There's a definite bias in the marketplace towards high-end tube amps and low-end solid state amps. How many $2k solid state amps can you name? How many $2k tube amps? I can't think of one, of the former, yet I could go on for, well, if not hours then I bet at least a solid half hour on the later. For whatever reason (probably based on player expectations) you're just not going to find many high end, feature-laden, well built solid state amps. I'll admit the possibility it's possible to build a really good botique solid state amp - it's just, no one's trying.
2.) I don't think so, again with broad disclaimers about genre-appropriateness (Meshuggah, for example, has been recording and touring with modelers direct for quite some time, but their super low tuned percussive guitar sound actually in my experience works BETTER with speaker modeling than through a real amp. Likewise, electronica/metal fusion stuff lends itself well to the "fakeness" that comes from speaker sims - an organic tone is the last thing you want for that sound). I haven't had much experience here, but I did a bit of recording with a buddy's Line6 while my amp was in the shop once, just to get a demo down. Surprisingly, while I was pretty underwhelmed with the sound and feel of the thing - it felt stiff and unresponsive, and sounded a little exaggerated and unnatural - it took a mic pretty well, and as long as I was careful with the gain the sounds I was getting weren't half bad. Playing it wasn't nearly as inspiring as the Mesa combo I had at the time, but in a pinch I got some tones on disc I was happy enough with.
Again, let me also say that in general I've found Line6 to over-gain their models, and all the FX and patch-tailoring capabilities are the sort of temptation that most players don't need, so more often than not the guys I see using this stuff are also using way more FX than I personally find prudent. Finally, that I don't think the Line6 speaker simulation is really there yet - blurred midrange, grainy highs is what my ear usually latches onto. That said, I've heard some guys get great results from this stuff, so in the hands of a good tweaker anything's possible.
I think my biggest issue with modeling stuff, personally, is the feel. Hell, I think the Tech-21 "Brit" mode sounds better, hands down, than any Marshall I've ever played, and if it was just a HAIR more touch sensitive, spongy, and responsive, I'd contemplate selling my Roadster for a Sansamp preamp and a power amp of sorts, because it's a great tone and it records really well. The feel just isn't quite there, though, and in the feel department I think Tech-21 is way above Line6.
Interesting experiment - spin Porcupine Tree's "In Absentia" and "Deadwing" back to back. The former was recorded with a Bad Cat tube rig, the later was almost all Pod through a 4x12. Both were written and produced by Steve Wilson, who's brilliant, and both are pretty stylistically similar. The later is a great sounding album, but I think the guitar sounds on the former are quite a bit better, and I thought so before I knew he used a modeler for the whole thing.
Lt. Bob
Spread the Daf!
man I dunno ..... I'm a big Hendrix fan and one of the reasons I've never been able to get into SRV (aside from being sick of the blues) is that when I hear him I just hear nothing but Jimi licks. Yes, he absolutely played them cleaner and with more finesse than Jimi but I still hear Jimi lick after Jimi lick.
And SRV definitely acknowledged Hendrix as a big influence.
DrewPeterson7
Sage of the Order
Ever gotten a chance to hear the SRV/Albert King duet album? It's fucking incredible, for one, but you also get to hear Stevie more-or-less being himself (he holds back a little at first) playing with King for about half of the album, and then they start playing "Blues Before Sunrise," and after telling a story about how he once played that live with Jimi and Janis Joplin at the Filmore, he asks SRV to give him his best Jimi impression.
It REALLY drives home just how different the two guys played - they both played amped up blues, but Jimi was much more Delta/Chicago and SRV was almost pure Texas with a smattering of Jimi here and there. Vaughan drops Jimi-ism after Jimi-ism into the couple choruses he takes there, and it really sounds strikingly different from everything he's played on that record before.