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.
The Tube Challenge (Volume Two)
- Thread starter JimmyM
- Start date
Correct a second time. Again, the slight distortion i thought i heard on the peaks of the slap give it away.
I haven't played with a SWR so i couldn't pick it out, but i do have an English Muff'n, which i assume works the same way tubes do.
I haven't played with a SWR so i couldn't pick it out, but i do have an English Muff'n, which i assume works the same way tubes do.
I don't know what moddelers you've been using, but with the Line 6 stuff (X3 in particular, and from what I gather the rest of their stuff too), the cab modelling sucks. As soon as I stick the 810 model on ANYTHING it sounds dull and blanketed. Not what I'd consider the "Ampeg tone" heard on many an album. The funny part is the SVT head model (which I believe has the power amp included in the model, based on experience) sounds really good and "pushy".
The one problem with the cab modeling tho, is that you cant disable JUST the mic moddeling. The cab/mic stuff is linked. Personally I'd love to try out an SVT/810 IRL.
I missed the poll. I just now listened to the clips, but thought I would share some comments with Jimmy about his shootout process. First, NONE of your files were clipped in the digital domain, nor did I hear any significant distortion on your slap peaks, so that means that your MONITOR system, not your recorder, is clipping.
Second, there was actual low end this time, and suprisingly, that was about the ONLY major difference between these and your SM58 clips of the B15 and LMII, even on the frequency response plots. What does that mean? IMO, the Heil sounds like an SM58 with a more accurate bottom. There was a mild proximity effect which manifested itself a broadband boost on the low end and peaking aound 108 Hz with a sharp rolloff above 180 Hz, BUT since the instrument in question is bass, that also happens to be exactly where electric bass tends to get "mix slotted," so I don't think your using the Heil was unreasonable.
All you guys who keep calling proximity effect a problem exclusive to dynamic mics don't know what you're talking about. Proximity effect is a by-product of cardioid pickup patterns. While diaphragm mass does contribute to proximity effect, the biggest culprit is pattern, not transducer type. An SM81 would have the same problem. That's why measurement mics are omni.
Third, it would have been dishonest and misleading to adjust the amps for similar sound. The B15 had the 'flattest' response followed by the SWR , which had a slight upper mid scoop and some small peaks, and then the LMII which has pretty significant upper mid and high band notches. That represents how the amps sound. People who want "sound matching" are trying to stack the deck, exactly the same way CBS Fender did in an oft-trolled "IEEE Paper" that was little more than an ad for Fender s/s amps. (to see exactly HOW that's cheating, I recommend a search on that particular "study." )
Second, there was actual low end this time, and suprisingly, that was about the ONLY major difference between these and your SM58 clips of the B15 and LMII, even on the frequency response plots. What does that mean? IMO, the Heil sounds like an SM58 with a more accurate bottom. There was a mild proximity effect which manifested itself a broadband boost on the low end and peaking aound 108 Hz with a sharp rolloff above 180 Hz, BUT since the instrument in question is bass, that also happens to be exactly where electric bass tends to get "mix slotted," so I don't think your using the Heil was unreasonable.
All you guys who keep calling proximity effect a problem exclusive to dynamic mics don't know what you're talking about. Proximity effect is a by-product of cardioid pickup patterns. While diaphragm mass does contribute to proximity effect, the biggest culprit is pattern, not transducer type. An SM81 would have the same problem. That's why measurement mics are omni.
Third, it would have been dishonest and misleading to adjust the amps for similar sound. The B15 had the 'flattest' response followed by the SWR , which had a slight upper mid scoop and some small peaks, and then the LMII which has pretty significant upper mid and high band notches. That represents how the amps sound. People who want "sound matching" are trying to stack the deck, exactly the same way CBS Fender did in an oft-trolled "IEEE Paper" that was little more than an ad for Fender s/s amps. (to see exactly HOW that's cheating, I recommend a search on that particular "study." )
What monitor system? Oh, you mean the front headphone input of my computer? 
My studio is pathetic, it really is. It's not even a studio...it's a computer with a slightly advanced soundcard. But somehow I manage to get really good sounds out of it, though I have no idea how, other than just trying to play my best.
Re the prox effect, I take it from your comments that the tonal advantage from backing it up a couple inches farther from the grill isn't worth the increased gain needed and the increased feedback risk?
My studio is pathetic, it really is. It's not even a studio...it's a computer with a slightly advanced soundcard. But somehow I manage to get really good sounds out of it, though I have no idea how, other than just trying to play my best.Re the prox effect, I take it from your comments that the tonal advantage from backing it up a couple inches farther from the grill isn't worth the increased gain needed and the increased feedback risk?
Your soundcard doesn't have enough juice to keep your headphones clean. You need a better headphone amp or a more efficient/higher impedance set of cans. What headphones are you using right now?
Your sound recorder is the same as most any digital based system. You just don't have all the expensive peripherals.
Yep, although a couple of inches shouldn't significantly increase the need for gain or help with proximity effect much.
AKG K141's are my headphones. But yeah, I totally agree with you. My system is bollocksed up by the lack of a good monitoring system. But I think I will go ahead and live with it for a while since recording isn't making me any money. At least I can justify the new amps because they do make me money. All I do with my recording system is send parody songs to Howard Stern
Amusingly, making amps even more indistinguishable would not have altered the results of Jimmy's test.
As for the "IEEE Paper," the reason why it is still cited is simply that nobody has had the guts to do a better study and publish the results. It would not require a peer reviewed paper, but merely a series of modern measurements that clearly show the differences between tube and solid state power amps. And it doesn't require elaborate equipment. Just a PC with sound card.
Agreed. I take issue with the sentiment behind the "advice" more than the result of taking it, which in this case wouldn't have made much difference. It is interesting to note that the MB has a big chunk of its mid and high frequency response cut out and still is the brightest sounding and would require a BOOST from its controls to get a "flat" tone.
I disagree. The reason it has never been "refuted" by a similar study is that there is no reason to consider it as any kind of serious or honest. CBS Fender comissioned it to try and legitimize their financially motivated decision to substitute transistors in their popular amp models, but the buying public didn't care. They used infinitely more honest and accurate equipment, their ears.
I know that idea is pooh-poohed here. Matter of fact, the troll who loves to trot out that "study" has often stated that ears are not reliable and that observation is secondary to measurement. It kills me that nobody ever gets that: in doing so, he's saying that it's ok to tell people that their tastes are WRONG.
As much as I get flamed and blamed for doing that, I never have, but evidently it's ok for others to flagrantly violate rule #1, which is to respect other posters, if you have some sort hypertext link to an article that is barely germane to whatever topic of discussion is going on.
While there are legitimate questions that could benefit from objective study, the constant call to confirm that the wheel is round gets old.Allow me to quote myself from a post that predates said troll:
There's no contest. Transistors won decades ago. They're cheaper, simple as that. Tubes are, at best, an esoteric interest that hold value with the audio community and a select few industrial applications. That's why there's no need to spread false information against an already cottage industry. You can be sure that when they can be emulated accurately and cheaply, they will become extinct. So far, neither has happened.
I have thought about what will happen when tubes can be emulated by SS. I don't know if it will actually make tube amps extinct. I think there are a lot of people who will use them just because they like the "bigger is better" aspect. I can't see selling off my B-15's or my Super Reverb over a SS amp that can emulate tubes to the letter. At one time I might have, but now, after rediscovering how much I missed tubes recently, I don't think I would ever get rid of them entirely. I would, however, leave them at home most of the time
Considering that there are quite a few emulators/emulations out there now, I think we might be on the brink:
Tech 21 SansAmps (Bass/Para Driver, VT Bass, etc... [unfortunatly most include some form of cab modelling])
EBS MicroBass II
Line 6 PODs, etc... (tho they're cab/mic modeling make it sound like ****)
Just my 2 cents.
I will admit tho that power amp emulation is still in its infantcy, afaik.
Tech 21 SansAmps (Bass/Para Driver, VT Bass, etc... [unfortunatly most include some form of cab modelling])
EBS MicroBass II
Line 6 PODs, etc... (tho they're cab/mic modeling make it sound like ****)
Just my 2 cents.
I will admit tho that power amp emulation is still in its infantcy, afaik.
You are right on all counts, although modeling is getting better and better every year.
I think there are two possible goals of modeling. The first is to reproduce the tone of a tube amp well enough to fool the most critical listener. That's a laudable goal, but it's an uphill battle to assess whether and when that goal has been met, simply due to the many biases affecting the evaluation.
A more modest goal might be to assess what I call the "practical" or "functional" aspects of a tube power amp, such as how it behaves at the clipping threshold. To me, it seems that someone could simply sneak a model of tube power amp behavior into a SS design, but not make a big deal of it, and see if people notice the benefits.
The second goal is why I would be interested in seeing the clipping waveforms from a respected tube power amp. It would seem to be more straightforward to model, if the goal were mere functionality rather than absolute tone.
A more modest goal might be to assess what I call the "practical" or "functional" aspects of a tube power amp, such as how it behaves at the clipping threshold. To me, it seems that someone could simply sneak a model of tube power amp behavior into a SS design, but not make a big deal of it, and see if people notice the benefits.
The second goal is why I would be interested in seeing the clipping waveforms from a respected tube power amp. It would seem to be more straightforward to model, if the goal were mere functionality rather than absolute tone.
As I see it, The main goal of modeling is evolution.
To me it seems this whole challenge was really about what "sounds familiar". It's good to see new technolgy that can sound familiar, at the same time it's versatile enough to take sound/tone to other levels.
A modeling challenge, analysis, abx test - whatever - set to sound identical would end up with the same results as this challenge and the CBS double blind tests done in 1981. Is that many alternatives sound as good and familiar as something some would think can only produced by some traditional technology.
Software modelers are good. New dsp hardware modelers are getting new software/firmware and have that plug and go ease... With the same familiar sound and the ability to switch from familiar to something new in an instance.
If this were true, guitarists would adopt it as more than a supplement to their tube amps. But the amount of guitarists who do it is tiny compared to the ones who still use tube amps.
True. Most of the guitarist I know use all-real-tube amps. I know one that loves digital emulation (which for guitars, line 6 does really well, including the cab/mic stuff
).Just from personal experience its prolly 10% that "exclusivly" use tube emulation. I know the overall % is prolly way less.
Its enough to keep Line 6 from chapter 11 tho
I for one find I like SS amps over tube. I can't really put my finger on why, but I do. Go figure...
It's different for bass. As a cleaner instrument (generally), tubes aren't quite as important to bassists as guitarists.
But thing are changing.
Take a look at all the products in this space.
All the hardware modelers, including acoustic guitar modeling. (which you need a good amp and cab for)
Keep an eye on Tech-21 - new stuff looks good.
And tons of software in this space:
all include bass amps.
Guitar Rig 3 - Native Instruments
GTR3 - Waves
Amplitude - IK
Revalver MK III - Peavey (A company that actually makes Amps)
Eleven - Digidesign - these guys will probably do and publish blind tests.
Plenty of low cost, startups, shareware, ...
Who's using HW and/or SW probably depends on what circles you run in.
Things ARE changing, but not in the way that you imply. ALL of the products you mention are emulations of tube sound, which ten years ago, NONE of those companies, with the sole exception of Tech 21, had at all. They were focused on reverb and compressor emulations. Obviously they feel that having a 'tube sound' is important more now than in the past.
Further, there are more different models of tube bass amps being made NOW than at any time in history, so it's HIGHLY inaccurate to say that the MI industry is abandoning tubes for bass amplification.
Really? What makes you say that. I have never seen any blind test published by Digi on ANYTHING. Why would they start now?
