I had an LH500 and felt it was the perfect platform for pedals as a great basic sound. Let me guess: mid cranked to 11?
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Bass amp modeling?
- Thread starter Warwick Qc418
- Start date
I used modelling from the very first rackmount Line 6 Bass Pod Pro, a few years later moved on to the XT live pedalboard format. Then a few years later, when that broke, I got a Zoom B3 as a ‘temporary’ alternative then the B3N. None of these are top dollar modellers and none are ‘state-of-the-art’, but they sounded OK for live use. I used to use them (from the XT onwards) into an ART ProChannel pre, then into a bridged Crown 1000 XLS into a Barefaced Big One.
I used to set up a patch for each song taking into account the bass I was using, the effects the song needed, the amp model, the EQ and put them all into setlist order so I could stomp through the patches to get the sound I needed for each song. The ART did the gain matching and master volume and I used its powerful parametric EQ as a ‘global EQ’ for the venue.
That became too much of a fiddle, so I took an alternative approach of setting up a bank of patches for each bass instead of a patch per song.
After a while I realised that I was doing a lot of sound chasing. Whichever amp model I started from, I’d tweak it until I got a sound I liked, then tweak it to refine it, and tweak and tweak...until I didn’t know whether I’d really improved on the original. I would then find that my patches based upon whatever amp model, all ended up sounding virtually identical...just zeroing in, inexorably, on the sound I hear in my head.
Coincidentally, I’d sought out an old EBS amp for a number of reasons...plugged straight into that and hey presto - the sound I’d been seeking for years jumped out, so goodbye modelling.
I used to set up a patch for each song taking into account the bass I was using, the effects the song needed, the amp model, the EQ and put them all into setlist order so I could stomp through the patches to get the sound I needed for each song. The ART did the gain matching and master volume and I used its powerful parametric EQ as a ‘global EQ’ for the venue.
That became too much of a fiddle, so I took an alternative approach of setting up a bank of patches for each bass instead of a patch per song.
After a while I realised that I was doing a lot of sound chasing. Whichever amp model I started from, I’d tweak it until I got a sound I liked, then tweak it to refine it, and tweak and tweak...until I didn’t know whether I’d really improved on the original. I would then find that my patches based upon whatever amp model, all ended up sounding virtually identical...just zeroing in, inexorably, on the sound I hear in my head.
Coincidentally, I’d sought out an old EBS amp for a number of reasons...plugged straight into that and hey presto - the sound I’d been seeking for years jumped out, so goodbye modelling.
If you’re plugged into a pa I’d think you could use the channel strip for basic EQ and the graphic EQ on the PA mains.
Got any EQ curves to share?
- Feb 12, 2006
- 60,972
- 5
- 220,711
- Disclosures
- Development Engineer-Mesa Boogie, Development Engineer-Genzler (pedals), Product Support-Genz Benz
I see a lot of comments about how the tone of modelers is not identical to the tone of "the amp model itself".
Let's look a little deeper into this and you might discover that this might simply be impossible, but for a number of very good and practical reasons.
1. Taking an amp like say a vintage Fender, Ampeg, Mesa, or such (doesn't matter if it's a guitar or bass amp) and compare various units of the same model of the actual amps and you might be surprised to find that they do not all sound identical. In fact they can be quite different depending on the tolerances and aging of the parts used, and any major or minor changes to the design may have occurred.
2. When a speaker model is being used, there can be a wide range of tolerances in the initial driver build, then there are the various aging effects that happen, especially if the drivers have been driven hard. This is especially important for bass speakers where lack of good common sense can result in driver damage to the suspension components which result in a large deviation from the original spec.
3. With acoustic models of speakers being generated by using a mic, the mic itself (including the polar pattern combined with boundary reflections) as well as the position of the mic can greatly alter the perceived sound. If the mic is placed 1M away from the cabinet, that's the position that you might want to listen to in order to determine the accuracy of the model.
4. When comparing 2 sounds, position can play a huge roll in acoustic differences. Just moving your head 6" can result in a big difference in a single sound source, especially where hard boundaries come into play. This happens with the original source so is not tied to the modeling process. It's unlikely that comparing 2 sources would result in identical listening positions in the real world.
It might be surprising to learn that many (not all) perceived differences have nothing to do with the modeling itself, but external factors that lead to such conclusions.
Let's look a little deeper into this and you might discover that this might simply be impossible, but for a number of very good and practical reasons.
1. Taking an amp like say a vintage Fender, Ampeg, Mesa, or such (doesn't matter if it's a guitar or bass amp) and compare various units of the same model of the actual amps and you might be surprised to find that they do not all sound identical. In fact they can be quite different depending on the tolerances and aging of the parts used, and any major or minor changes to the design may have occurred.
2. When a speaker model is being used, there can be a wide range of tolerances in the initial driver build, then there are the various aging effects that happen, especially if the drivers have been driven hard. This is especially important for bass speakers where lack of good common sense can result in driver damage to the suspension components which result in a large deviation from the original spec.
3. With acoustic models of speakers being generated by using a mic, the mic itself (including the polar pattern combined with boundary reflections) as well as the position of the mic can greatly alter the perceived sound. If the mic is placed 1M away from the cabinet, that's the position that you might want to listen to in order to determine the accuracy of the model.
4. When comparing 2 sounds, position can play a huge roll in acoustic differences. Just moving your head 6" can result in a big difference in a single sound source, especially where hard boundaries come into play. This happens with the original source so is not tied to the modeling process. It's unlikely that comparing 2 sources would result in identical listening positions in the real world.
It might be surprising to learn that many (not all) perceived differences have nothing to do with the modeling itself, but external factors that lead to such conclusions.
Do the models give you the same controls as the modeled amp? At least the same preamp controls?
The user interfaces are quite sophisticated. Here is one example: Invalid Link Removed. The interfce looks exactly like the amp, the knobs move just like on the real thing.
The problem with any model is that assumptions are made to derive the final result. They deliver a compromise based on samples that they take and what the sound designer chooses to include. The result may not be the real thing, that doesn't mean that it isn't a good tool. in fact, it can be a very useful tool. Listen to the song samples on the UA site.
SirMjac28
Patiently Waiting For The Next British Invasion
I agree and I have the newest guitar version and it's unreal it's a shame the bass versions didn't sell.
SirMjac28
Patiently Waiting For The Next British Invasion
After watching this I went to the Kemper site looking for info on frfr cabs and found this;
Low End Connectivity Guide
Bass players are free to use any kind of bass cabinet for monitoring the Profiler on stage or in the rehearsal room. Modern bass cabinets typically have a neutral sound character like PA cabinets do, while classic bass cabinets, e.g. the famous Ampeg 8 x 10” cabinet, tend to color the sound. When monitoring through a bass cabinet that colors the sound, to avoid a double coloration the Cabdriver should be engaged by setting “Monitor Cab Off” in the OUTPUT menu.
I wonder if Subway cabs fall under this claim as they are a fairly new design. This is fascinating and I want to hear one in person.
One program I've used in the past (I do not know the name) let you move the mic around to different locations on the cab. It was pretty cool plus it didn't sound bad either. Also let you choose between a bunch of different microphones too.
- Feb 12, 2006
- 60,972
- 5
- 220,711
- Disclosures
- Development Engineer-Mesa Boogie, Development Engineer-Genzler (pedals), Product Support-Genz Benz
The Subway cabinet would fall into the more neutral voiced cabinets, more similar to higher end pro audio cabinets than MI specialty cabinets.
Nice!
From what I’ve seen and heard, it looks good. If I didn’t have a ‘63, I’d want the plugin.
I like the UA Fairchild plugin. I use the Waves Puigchild plugin, it costs a lot less but I don’t think that it is as good as the UA one. The accelerator allows you to run some incredible stuff.
The Two Notes Torpedo Live and Studio are both very good at that. It comes down to sophicated EQ adjustments. Knowing how to refine the EQ to suit the model and make it sound good is the hard part.
OmniCab Sim! Analog "cabinet modelling" through selective EQ parameters.
Would you say the same thing about the Genz Benz Focus and Neox line, especially Focus 115 + 210? I have a feeling the 2 together are very well balanced but wanted to ask.
Thanks
Modeling is just a starting point. Model, simulate, emulate an existing head, cab, pedal and then move onto other combinations for "new" sounds. It is not always about trying to clone some tone of the past.
There are many highly accurate modeling packages. They are certified by the original amp makers. Reviewed and tweaked by the actual amp design engineers. The OEM puts their name and reputation on the line when they certify a modeler as giving their named brand tone. Take a certified model, try it and if you want to buy hardware that sounds the same, go by it. But if you continue to use the model, you'll have more choices and chances to come up with new sounds. Maybe invent your own "signature sound".
The modelers are for both SS and tube amps. And there is quite a few software cloning/profiling options out now, with more coming. Take all the heads and cabs in your studio, and play them all live.
It's not just guitars that lead here. Many keyboard instruments are also modeling many aspects of their sound.
There are many highly accurate modeling packages. They are certified by the original amp makers. Reviewed and tweaked by the actual amp design engineers. The OEM puts their name and reputation on the line when they certify a modeler as giving their named brand tone. Take a certified model, try it and if you want to buy hardware that sounds the same, go by it. But if you continue to use the model, you'll have more choices and chances to come up with new sounds. Maybe invent your own "signature sound".
The modelers are for both SS and tube amps. And there is quite a few software cloning/profiling options out now, with more coming. Take all the heads and cabs in your studio, and play them all live.
It's not just guitars that lead here. Many keyboard instruments are also modeling many aspects of their sound.
Yep. That's why I just rather pay for the know how. Haha
How could you not trust this face
If you have a couple of bread and butter tones that you love and use 90% of the time, yeah, probably no point in modeling.
But some of us want endless tonal possibilities for various reasons. Personally I don't even use the amp modeling much on my Helix, but the routing options (both internal dsp and external effects loops) make things possible that before would have required tons of rack gear and/or dozens of pedals. It can actually simplify things for tone tweakers.
Neither way is right or wrong though. Honestly sometimes I wish I had the plug and play mindset; it would probably save me lots of money and time.
