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.
How accurate is amp modeling, and....
- Thread starter Btbp
- Start date
One thing I know is I can try many models of real and imaginary amps/cabs/rooms with modeling.
If I find a model of a real amp and cab that I like I have the option to go out and buy the hardware version. Some band leaders, or situations are adverse to technology and at least I'd know which hard amp is close to giving me a sound I'm after.
However, I don't have a single sound now, it changes between sets, songs, and song sections. Tap a pedal and it switches over. I can have a few amps I like now.
More and more those adverse to tech are more accepting of it.
While this is true, I have had people come to me and ask why my sound is better when I'm using a tube amp. And not just musicians, either. I've had civilians who used to come and see my old band a lot say it, too.
But at the end of the day, you are correct that all that matters is if it sounds good to the player. I have never walked out on any band because their bassist didn't use a tube amp
Do many hear use modeling amps through their normal bass rigs?
I totally get the advantage for in ears, DI feed for various applications, pit orchestra for plays, and studio work.
Just curious how a modeler would work with a reasonably neutral bass amp and cabinet with the idea being able to go from and SVT, to Acoustic 360 to SWR to GK, etc. with the flick of a switch.
I totally get the advantage for in ears, DI feed for various applications, pit orchestra for plays, and studio work.
Just curious how a modeler would work with a reasonably neutral bass amp and cabinet with the idea being able to go from and SVT, to Acoustic 360 to SWR to GK, etc. with the flick of a switch.
I run my Zoom B-2 through my rig...but the Zoom IS the preamp in my rig. Downstream of the Zoom is just an old Peavey M3000 mono power amp and a AudioKinesis bass cab with four 8s in it. Never tried the Zoom into the instrument input of a complete amplifier.
Also, I only use one patch with bass 99% of the time so haven’t tried making multiple amp models play nice together across multiple patches.
I can say that my settings that work best through my cab are a little different than what I use if I record direct with the Zoom. Direct I tend to up the gain about 10% for slightly more dirt and bump the compression up for a little more squash. Sometimes I use one of the more mid-forward cab sims too...not always.
Through the cab, I don’t use cab sims and lower the compression because I feel a bit of squash already from the DDT limiting in my power amp.
Also, I only use one patch with bass 99% of the time so haven’t tried making multiple amp models play nice together across multiple patches.
I can say that my settings that work best through my cab are a little different than what I use if I record direct with the Zoom. Direct I tend to up the gain about 10% for slightly more dirt and bump the compression up for a little more squash. Sometimes I use one of the more mid-forward cab sims too...not always.
Through the cab, I don’t use cab sims and lower the compression because I feel a bit of squash already from the DDT limiting in my power amp.
LOL !!!
This nails it exactly
Instead of hearing Clapton covers with the same poopy bass player. We get to hear 25 different poopy versions of it
But I'd say
Software based plugins are surperior
And give great recording or FOH signal.
Emulation is pretty much spot on.
I find this conversation a little obsolete. As if modeling was invented by Kemper. I've been using modeling for 20 years with great results. Thing is it took Kemper charging you thousands for it to make snobs (specially guitarists) believe. Sad. I make a living out of software so my usual stance is there's hardly anything that can't be done thru' algorithms.
Yep, but one thing that changed with Kemper and other modelers than profile the user's own amp is that the user can now A/B their own amp against the model.
Before it was always:
"Doesn't sound like my amp"
and now it is:
"Sounds just like my amp".
It never sounded like their own amp for many reasons, A golden reference amp was used, for some amps no two of the same model sound the same in hardware version, ...
Copying one's own amp sure helps them to believe the modeling is working. That's all.
The hope is that they'll move past this and accept the provided models based on golden reference amps, and signature amps, as good alternatives to what they already have.
Kemper really ought to come out with a player only model. Where users can purchased developed models from Kempers and their active community. Not everyone needs to profile their own amps and I think all the buttons and knobs scare off some users.
Digital modeling used to sound very false when it was going for a couple hundred. Nowadays the expensive units sound way less false. I'm convinced that it's because of more processing power. I noticed that when I'd use programs on my computer like Guitar Rig and Amplitube that they sounded better than the previous digital stuff I used. First-gen Line 6 and Roland stuff doesn't sound as good as Helix or Fractal. Not only that, the gains in how quickly you can switch from preset to preset can't be ignored, either. It was always a little glitchy with older stuff, but now that has gotten much more invisible...at least if you aren't switching out your main program setting. Kemper didn't invent it, and neither did Fractal. One could argue that Line 6 had a big hand in inventing it, though
Some modeling companies get the golden amps from the original manufacturers. The original manufacturer engineers are involved in creating and certifying the models.
IK Multimedia for example models from schematics (other do too) and they have this on their site about Ampeg:
"So accurate it even shut down
Actually, this is true. Funny story… during the first phase of testing with the Engineers at Ampeg, one particular software model was being driven so hard that it "shut down." Completely stopped working. Nada, nothing. Oh crap — we thought we were in trouble. But the lead engineer at Ampeg approved the model on the spot. You see, there was a slight design flaw in the actual amplifier being modeled that would cause a power fault shutdown if the amp was driven too hard for too long. The software model was in fact so accurate that it even replicated this design flaw… that's how accurate it is. If you think about it, it's the software engineer's equivalent of the "no brown M&Ms" rider clause in a performance contract — so it looks like we're playing tonight. But don't worry. We took took the "shutdown" feature out of our models so you can rock all night. Really."
This kind of cooperation is not just going on with amps, it is going on with synths, and even sample sets for violins and pianos.
Sounds are being Archived. People who don't have to originals have access to the sound originally created. This isn't molecular science, but still if a molecule is the same it is the same compound, synthesized or not.
Wow turned out to be a pretty useful to others, constructive and educational thread.
I still don't get why the other thread I started at the same time isn't more interesting to other people What effect was used to get that sound?, I have so much to ask and thought others would too.
I still don't get why the other thread I started at the same time isn't more interesting to other people What effect was used to get that sound?, I have so much to ask and thought others would too.
Positive Grid has tools reverse engineer a sound and recommend what effects to try to re-create it. People can do this too with critical listening.
Sometimes though the same sound can be reproduced/modeled/simulated/clone/duplicated/... by other means. An example is ripple intermodulation distortion can be duplicated by some slight ring modulation. Some modelers include 'ripple' adjustments.
Change is hard for some people so I expect these threads to be a controversial topic for some (read my sig by Planck)
Planck's constant was used to redefine the SI Kilogram for 2019, 70 years after his death. A kilogram is no longer a golden reference chunk of metal sitting in isolated lab. Now and in the future anytime you hear "Quantum" think of Planck.
The guy from Carol-Ann Amplification uses a Fractal to bread board new amp designs. He says it saves a lot of time and money experimenting with ideas virtually before he builds a physical prototype, but that the prototype is still neccissary to fine tune the final design.
That said, he detailed some of the limitations. The biggest (that I remember) was the DA converters. They’re analogue, and thus they impart their own sound that can’t be removed from the final product. It’s why some people complain of a certain “sameness” to all the models. Every model is being run through the same filter. It’s also one of the many reasons why it can’t obtain 100% accuracy.
That’s not to say the technology is bad because it’s obviously killer, but some people seem to have blinders on and don’t like to acknowledge that it’s imperfect. If I had two identical tube amps in front of me and I said I think the one on the left a little bit better people wouldn’t bat and eye, but if I had an amp and a modeller and I said I thought the one on the left a little bit better people would freak out, start telling me why I’m wrong and insist I conduct a double blind test to eliminate bias.
But, with knowledge comes understanding. Some of the best sounds in music are a result of someone learning something’s limitations, then pushing it past those limitations and finding entirely new sounds.
Tru dat. And in addition, there's a lot to be said for using a piece of gear's limitations to get a unique sound you can't get in the "improved" versions.
That’s one of the reasons I generally stopped buying boutique pedals. Sometimes flaws are a good thing.
