real or 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]

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]

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.

 

[CoolCat]

and the modelers have just gotten better over the years, just like sampling in digital and all that stuff. it doesn't really surprise me these things have improved....

 

[heatmiser]

I voted for #1 even though I already read which was which. I really wanted #2 to sound better to reinforce my traditionalist tendancies, but for this particular track, I think #1 works.

Isn't this kind of an apples and oranges thing though? #2 seems much more overdriven therefore I don't hear the two versions as being similar enough to pass judgement based on fidelity alone.

 

[Mish]

The second track had a better sounding guitar IMO, but there's no reason why the modeler can't sound just as good.

BTW I really liked the baby-fronted vocals

 

[tdukex]

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...

What clever device? Does it convert line level to Hi Z? I'm looking for something like that on the cheap.

Oh, I liked #2 better but on MP3 it's hard to really tell.

 

[CoolCat]

this thread had me getting my L6 Bean POD out.

today, I played a Marshall all tube and my Peavy Discrete...the Marshall made the old 1980 Peavy sound shrill and thin and pretty frkn bad.
(the Peavey is 1980 and still plays like new. not one repair required and its been used and abused...built like a tank.. US quality built.)

The Marshall all Tube just hands down smoked this PV thing in sound though. A $100 amp versus a $1200 amp BTW...so it better have smoked it!.

then the dust was wiped off the pawn shop Line 6 POD 2.0 Kidney bean thing, and it was able to create very very good tones. excellent tones...and as an extra has all the effects and ease of use etc.

the Marshall tubster, is simple, user friendly, requires nothing but new tubes now and then......its hard to make it sound bad. Beautiful and is why the simulators try to simulate the tube tones I guess.

but now that I have a decent tube amp, the comparison to the POD was really dissected and the POD has some very very nice "realistic" tones. IMO.
It was able to get so close and more. So in a way, its humbling to admit price wise it probably is a better deal than the Marshal for the poor HR setup.
It really did have great abilities to match the Marshal tones.

granted I had the luxury of a tube amp too compare to, but anyway...thats that.

good thread AntiChef! actually got me off my lazy ass, out of the cave, and messed around some...

 

[antichef]

What clever device? Does it convert line level to Hi Z? I'm looking for something like that on the cheap.

BTA -22db line/instrument -- as predicted by MSH, I had to "attenuate" some more by turning down the output from my DAW -- it sounded amazingly good and quiet overall.

Previously, I had been running the line into the "return" effects jack in my Vox Tonelab SE (not used for any part of this exercise, btw, but maybe the next one), and then bypassing all models/effects, and sending the "amp" output to the amp. That worked, but was a pain to set up.

 

[soldierone]

I liked number 1 better... I use a lot of amp modeling myself, so maybe that's it? hmm...