No problem at all. Please, if you have any other questions at all, feel free to post or message me directly. Also, keep in mind, there is the AX8 out now as well! I have one of those in addition to my Axe-Fx II, and love it just as much!
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.
I agree with what Hennings said.
A profiler is a great tool when you want to leave your amps at the studio.
Buying one should not entitle somebody to create/consume profiles of any amp they choose. This is equivalent to sampling drum loops out of records and using it in your "original" music without compensating or crediting the original artist. In my opinion, that is -- there is not a law in existence to my knowledge for such a modern issue.
This can quickly dry up R&D funding for amp designers -- big and small. Less cool tools with higher prices (for paying customers).
The best approach would probably be to offer manufacturer authorized profiles for sale. I.e. to license the design from the amp designer for use in a profiler/modeler.
I work in software, where intellectual property is much easier to protect.
History has a way of repeating itself. This hit big with synthesizers decades ago when sampling and ROMplers became affordable. There are still people that use keyboards and synths today, but the age of hardware synthesizers has passed. The cost and demand for software synths is part of this, but a big reason hardware synths died was because people had approximations in the form of sample libraries and they felt they didn't need the real thing. Ironically, the sample content creators received legal protection for their work while the synth designers did not. IMO, the synthesizer developer should have more protection than the content creators who created samples of the synth. Sample content creators used existing laws for sound recordings to license their samples/libraries using terms they found acceptable. Because of this, it was not legal to copy a sample library and re-package it for sale. However, nothing existed to protect the synth designers and that market was hit very hard. While sample content creators profited and had protection, the synth designers went under. Content creators for samplers and guitar amp profilers make it obvious (enough) what the sample/profile/model came from -- and they are profiting from the ability to sell (an approximation of) the sound produced by that synth/amp's design without compensating the designer.
Guitar amp modelers which model classic designs are in the same class as profilers in this regard -- in my opinion. Briefly, a modeler is like copying/approximating a function while sampling/profiling is copying the function's results. Also note that modeler implementations are not necessarily purely modeled. They may use profiling/sampling/impulse responses for certain parts and modeling in other parts. Proper tube amp circuit emulation has a ways to go before it's available in real time. Simple (real time) circuit modeling has been available for years, but the complexity of guitar amps' circuits puts full modeling out of reach. And I'm not saying that profiling or modeling is a bad thing. I'm just saying that amp designs which are profiled/modeled should result in compensation getting back to the original circuit designers -- right, easier said than done. I.e. a manufacturer's amp model/profile should be licensed from the developer, not copied/profiled and sold. Axe-Fx boasts over 180 amp models included. How many of these amp models did Fractal Audio design? Of the ones they did not design (if any), how were the original designers compensated and did they approve of this usage of their design? I don't mean to pick on Axe-Fx; Most models/simulations are not licensed. Some are, as the video points out.
Like sample content creators' works/copies, software is quite easy to protect. Modelers and profilers could be the end for many of your favorite amp builders. Support the amp designers for making awesome stuff for you to use! Designing, testing, and refining a product takes a lot of time and effort.
A profiler is a great tool when you want to leave your amps at the studio.
Buying one should not entitle somebody to create/consume profiles of any amp they choose. This is equivalent to sampling drum loops out of records and using it in your "original" music without compensating or crediting the original artist. In my opinion, that is -- there is not a law in existence to my knowledge for such a modern issue.
This can quickly dry up R&D funding for amp designers -- big and small. Less cool tools with higher prices (for paying customers).
The best approach would probably be to offer manufacturer authorized profiles for sale. I.e. to license the design from the amp designer for use in a profiler/modeler.
I work in software, where intellectual property is much easier to protect.
History has a way of repeating itself. This hit big with synthesizers decades ago when sampling and ROMplers became affordable. There are still people that use keyboards and synths today, but the age of hardware synthesizers has passed. The cost and demand for software synths is part of this, but a big reason hardware synths died was because people had approximations in the form of sample libraries and they felt they didn't need the real thing. Ironically, the sample content creators received legal protection for their work while the synth designers did not. IMO, the synthesizer developer should have more protection than the content creators who created samples of the synth. Sample content creators used existing laws for sound recordings to license their samples/libraries using terms they found acceptable. Because of this, it was not legal to copy a sample library and re-package it for sale. However, nothing existed to protect the synth designers and that market was hit very hard. While sample content creators profited and had protection, the synth designers went under. Content creators for samplers and guitar amp profilers make it obvious (enough) what the sample/profile/model came from -- and they are profiting from the ability to sell (an approximation of) the sound produced by that synth/amp's design without compensating the designer.
Guitar amp modelers which model classic designs are in the same class as profilers in this regard -- in my opinion. Briefly, a modeler is like copying/approximating a function while sampling/profiling is copying the function's results. Also note that modeler implementations are not necessarily purely modeled. They may use profiling/sampling/impulse responses for certain parts and modeling in other parts. Proper tube amp circuit emulation has a ways to go before it's available in real time. Simple (real time) circuit modeling has been available for years, but the complexity of guitar amps' circuits puts full modeling out of reach. And I'm not saying that profiling or modeling is a bad thing. I'm just saying that amp designs which are profiled/modeled should result in compensation getting back to the original circuit designers -- right, easier said than done. I.e. a manufacturer's amp model/profile should be licensed from the developer, not copied/profiled and sold. Axe-Fx boasts over 180 amp models included. How many of these amp models did Fractal Audio design? Of the ones they did not design (if any), how were the original designers compensated and did they approve of this usage of their design? I don't mean to pick on Axe-Fx; Most models/simulations are not licensed. Some are, as the video points out.
Like sample content creators' works/copies, software is quite easy to protect. Modelers and profilers could be the end for many of your favorite amp builders. Support the amp designers for making awesome stuff for you to use! Designing, testing, and refining a product takes a lot of time and effort.
Last edited:
A Fender Deluxe is a blank great sounding canvas. If you need to flick to another setting to get your sound.....
Let's just say a lot of excellent musicians have been tied down by the Fenders, Marshalls, SVTs, Mesas, Vox, Sunn, Hiwatts etc. Those poor upright players tied down by a box with no tone controls!
While we want non resonant cabinets for bass, guitarists want that resonance. A cheap speaker in a sawdust & glue wishwood cabinet is limited no matter how many models it has.
Roland GR 88
Commercial User
To hell with ethics.....where's the Vocal Profiler ?? Hope it ships with the Freddie Mercury patch.......
+1000 that the big problem is abusing the retailer.
Also others have pointed out that classic amp companies have been doing this to each other for years. It keeps the companies from resting on yesterday's tech.
Line 6 and Axe profile all sorts of great amps, and sell it as their own.
It would be paid a royalty but that's life. They out innovated the classic amp companies. Now Kemper stepped it up.
Squelching innovation through innovation through protecting old tech would be the real crime.
Also others have pointed out that classic amp companies have been doing this to each other for years. It keeps the companies from resting on yesterday's tech.
Line 6 and Axe profile all sorts of great amps, and sell it as their own.
It would be paid a royalty but that's life. They out innovated the classic amp companies. Now Kemper stepped it up.
Squelching innovation through innovation through protecting old tech would be the real crime.
Nobody really wants the "retail" amps that anyone can buy anyhow. Everybody wants the golden amp from the past, Used by someone famous, on a highly familiar album or song. A one off of production. Custom modified for the artist.
No, they want a digital reproduction of a recording of it. BWAHAHAHA!!!
You become sterile.
Not in all of them, no. The Axe-Fx, for example, is all algorithms on the modeling. You can take what is called a "tone match" as a supplement to the algorithm, but that's it.
You could, but approaching it component-by-component offers the greatest flexibility.
Modeling/profiling an amp is often one step, while creating Impulse Responses of cabs and spaces is often a distinct step. By separating the two, your virtual amp may be used with one or more virtual cabs in any virtual room etc…
Of course, the level flexibility offered by a modeler/profiler is up to the software developers and content creators.
Well I hate to sound discouraging when these folks who make this new wave of digital are really trying hard to push it past the early days of Line 6 and similar. But I was just looking up how Kemper comes up with their profiles and you stick a mic in front of the cab. But I will reserve judgment until I can actually get my hands on it. Did hear a Line 6 rep demo the Helix last week and it sounded pretty good, but there's not a doubt in my mind that if he had compared it to the Marshall rig that the Helix was emulating, the Marshall would have blown it off the map 
Jimmy, what you're talking about is the difference between profiling (mic'ing a setup) and modeling (using math and complex programming). I wasn't sure if all Kempers did only profiling so didn't want to speak for them. All Fractal Audio stuff is modeling, though (for amps/fx anyway; cabs are still mic'd, usually with mutliple mics and speakers, but depends on who's doing the work).
I know you won't, but someday it'd be great if you pulled up Fractal's SVT and 8x10 and see what you thought. Better yet would be to do it in true double-blind fashion, as I did when I first got my Axe-Fx.
I know you won't, but someday it'd be great if you pulled up Fractal's SVT and 8x10 and see what you thought. Better yet would be to do it in true double-blind fashion, as I did when I first got my Axe-Fx.
Hey, if anyone around the Central Fla area has an Axe-FX and wants to do a direct comparo with my Heritage rig, I'm game.
He's in! It would be great to A/B the Heritage with its Tone Match profile.
I don't know which SVT Fractal did their analysis and algorithms on (note: the "tone match" is not the amp). I believe it was a 70s SVT at least.
For the cab (which would be tone matched), I can't even begin to guess which iteration of 8x10 they used.
Edit to add: when I did my blind testing, the modeled SVT sounded very dang close to the 2004ish SVT-CL I had, and a wee bit different than the 69 SVT I had (tube relay and all), but it could sound like the 69 with a bit of know twisting.
For the cab (which would be tone matched), I can't even begin to guess which iteration of 8x10 they used.
Edit to add: when I did my blind testing, the modeled SVT sounded very dang close to the 2004ish SVT-CL I had, and a wee bit different than the 69 SVT I had (tube relay and all), but it could sound like the 69 with a bit of know twisting.
Oh, the Tone Match function just creates an IR? Whoops. I read that as though it created a more complex profile, similar to the process used by the Kemper. Of course, a profile is not a complete amp model; more like a snapshot of a static state.
Slightly off topic but remember back in the 80's when nearly every amp manufacturer advertised a SS amp that "sounded exactly like tubes"?
Of course most sounded and responded nothing like tubes and the obvious answer was. "if you wanted to sound like a brand X tube amp, just buy one".
The way I see it is the modeling amps may be able to make a really good copycat tone
Can you modify a modeled sound into a new original sound?
IMO, even the biggest bands use one or maybe two different amps to generate tone
Other than studio or plays, would one really want to have 5 different amp tones for live use?
Seems like a band would no longer have their own unique, signature sound
.02
Of course most sounded and responded nothing like tubes and the obvious answer was. "if you wanted to sound like a brand X tube amp, just buy one".
The way I see it is the modeling amps may be able to make a really good copycat tone
Can you modify a modeled sound into a new original sound?
IMO, even the biggest bands use one or maybe two different amps to generate tone
Other than studio or plays, would one really want to have 5 different amp tones for live use?
Seems like a band would no longer have their own unique, signature sound
.02
Passinwind
I know nothing.
- Dec 3, 2003
- 23,083
- 46,054
- Disclosures
- Designer/Toaster Tech @ Passinwind Electronics
Absolutely. That's one of the big attractions of the V-Bass system, at least for some of us. Modeling things that can't even be physically realized (or at least not conveniently or economically) is kind of where it's at though IMHO.
People in cover bands that do a wide variety of styles?
