[ApparentlyNothing]

Originally Posted by PacerX

And you're entitled to that opinion, no matter how wrong it is!



Pssst... Amp Farm is everywhere, and you'll never know the difference...

http://www.digidesign.com/products/d...roduct_id=1001


Can't forget Amplitube...

http://www.amplitube.com/Main.html?prod_AT


That's right kiddies, it might not be a tube amp, it might not be a solid state amp... heck... it might not be an amp at all!

I'd still say you're wrong. Amplitube is not used as often as you think for that sort of application. You just can't replicate all of the interactions between the preamp tubes, poweramp tubes, speaker cab, mic (or mics), mic positions, room size, room build quality, etc etc etc etc.... There are so many different factors it can't take in to account.

And you think that no one can tell the difference between a digital amp and an all tube amp? Well, I guess I'm no one, cause I can tell 9 times out of 10. I dont want to get in a huge argument, but I just don't think you realize the consensus is not with you.

[PianoMan]

Originally Posted by ApparentlyNothing

I'd still say you're wrong. Amplitube is not used as often as you think for that sort of application. You just can't replicate all of the interactions between the preamp tubes, poweramp tubes, speaker cab, mic (or mics), mic positions, room size, room build quality, etc etc etc etc.... There are so many different factors it can't take in to account.

And you think that no one can tell the difference between a digital amp and an all tube amp? Well, I guess I'm no one, cause I can tell 9 times out of 10. I dont want to get in a huge argument, but I just don't think you realize the consensus is not with you.

I agree. There just simply isn't a way to completely and accurately reproduce a real tube amp in a real studio, using real recording equipment. At least at this point in time.

[PacerX]

Originally Posted by ApparentlyNothing

I'd still say you're wrong. Amplitube is not used as often as you think for that sort of application. You just can't replicate all of the interactions between the preamp tubes, poweramp tubes, speaker cab, mic (or mics), mic positions, room size, room build quality, etc etc etc etc.... There are so many different factors it can't take in to account.

And you think that no one can tell the difference between a digital amp and an all tube amp? Well, I guess I'm no one, cause I can tell 9 times out of 10. I dont want to get in a huge argument, but I just don't think you realize the consensus is not with you.

First, this doesn't have to be a huge argument, you and I (and anyone else) can disagree on genial terms.

Second, you have to realize what ProTools has done to professional recording studios. Nobody really has to cut anything right the first time. Parts can (and are) pieced together out of multiple cuts by producers from takes that would have had nothing salvaged from them just a few years ago.

By name bands, with name producers, many many many guitar parts are being recorded for the most part dry - no processing, no amp, no nothing, straight into ProTools. Then, in post, the amp and effects are being added in after the fact using software. This allows the producer or engineer to have more control on the mix (since he's no longer trying to eq a guitar sound that's already been processed by an amplifier).

Make no mistake, ALL (tube or solid state) guitar amplifiers ARE signal processors, and they CAN be reproduced digitally. If you know what's going in (the dry guitar signal) and you know how it changes when it comes out (to a mic or an ear), then you can model it digitally and reproduce it.

For commercials, you can pretty much forget hooking an amplifier up. It's going to be recorded dry and sent through ProTools with an amp plug-in. No one will waste the studio time waiting for you to set up.

To the last point above, neither you or anyone else can tell the difference after production. Once it hits the digital realm (where pretty much everything is done now), you don't have a prayer of knowing the difference.

The engine that drives Amp Farm is an older version of the engine now used in the Vettas. My AX2 is even older than that. If you've never played and really sat down to tweak around with a Vetta, you're missing out.

Now, I've owned tube amps - lots of them... have you ever owned a state of the art modeling amplifier??? If so, which one? Any answer other than the top Line 6 products (AX2, Amp Farm, Vetta) means you're messing with the low end of the modeling spectrum and I'd suggest spending some quality time with one and learning what it really can do.

I used to haul around a tube amp stack and a rack... no more. I've got a nearly limitless array of possibilities available at a touch, in a combo amplifier. If someone wants to be stuck with one tone... maybe two... or deal with the hassle of a rack or pedal board (which are pretty much ALWAYS solid-state devices)... more power to ya.

I believe that we can reasonably discuss this issue, but I'd really like to hear people's frame of reference for the bold statements that are being made about top tube amps vs. top end modeling amps.

In the end, with this issue, there is no right or wrong - it's all personal taste... but out of all the folks here who have posted about tubes being the end-all, how many of them have sat down for a few hours with a Vetta and found out what it can really do? Or are folks giving their opinions based on 5 minutes of plinking with one at Guitar Center... or even worse... just parroting the tube amp party line? Do these very same folks realize that a huge percentage of the recent recorded music they hear day in and day out, all around them, has a modeling system providing the tone???

Whether the consensus is with me is honestly irrelevant. I have no illusions about being able to convince you or anyone else to replace the amp they know and love with something else... BUT, for the newbies I'd like to add the perspective a LOT of years of playing have given me and implore the veterans to broaden their horizons a bit - because if you ever go in for a studio gig at a first-class facility, you're in for a shock.

Honestly, what does anyone have to lose by giving a different type of amp a shot?

[tht00]

Originally Posted by PacerX

Make no mistake, ALL (tube or solid state) guitar amplifiers ARE signal processors, and they CAN be reproduced digitally. If you know what's going in (the dry guitar signal) and you know how it changes when it comes out (to a mic or an ear), then you can model it digitally and reproduce it.

tube amps are incredibly complicated... its not a 'put in x, and get out y' type of modeling. can it be done? sure. are there differences? at this point, yes.

Originally Posted by PacerX

Now, I've owned tube amps - lots of them... have you ever owned a state of the art modeling amplifier??? If so, which one? Any answer other than the top Line 6 products (AX2, Amp Farm, Vetta) means you're messing with the low end of the modeling spectrum and I'd suggest spending some quality time with one and learning what it really can do.

yes. i have a vox valvetronix AD30VT. and don't dare say that valvetronix is 'low end' when it comes to modeling.

Originally Posted by PacerX

I believe that we can reasonably discuss this issue, but I'd really like to hear people's frame of reference for the bold statements that are being made about top tube amps vs. top end modeling amps.

i use my vox nearly 100% of the time. i love it, but i realize that it isn't a tube amp. it never will be. it comes pretty dang close in some of its tones though.

right now, i can't think of a better amp to fit my needs. it has the versatility i need, and its got a sweet sound to it... very warm and tube-like. i make recommendations of this amp from time to time... but i don't try to shove it down their thoat. if they disagree, then fine. not everyone wants a modeling amp.

the thing is, if you get a tube amp, then its pretty much a sure-fire way to get good tone. if you get a modeling amp, then you may get crap in a box. as long as you do your research when buying a modeling amp, then you'd be fine.

so, it is just preference. i'd prefer an all tube amp, if it were capable of what i needed (flexability wise), and if it were $240, like my valvetronix was. since there wasn't, then i've got my valvetronix, and i still have my 5watter, class A kalamazoo .

[PacerX]

Originally Posted by tht00

tube amps are incredibly complicated... its not a 'put in x, and get out y' type of modeling. can it be done? sure. are there differences? at this point, yes.

I think we can reasonably agree to disagree there. I'm of the opinion that when the music finally hits the CD after mastering, nobody on the planet could tell the difference. Matter of fact... a test may be in order here. We could see if folks could name the model and amplifier used on some arcane recordings or whether or not it was tube, solid state, modeling or software. Maybe that is a worthwhile exercise.

Originally Posted by tht00

yes. i have a vox valvetronix AD30VT. and don't dare say that valvetronix is 'low end' when it comes to modeling.

i use my vox nearly 100% of the time. i love it, but i realize that it isn't a tube amp. it never will be. it comes pretty dang close in some of its tones though.

right now, i can't think of a better amp to fit my needs. it has the versatility i need, and its got a sweet sound to it... very warm and tube-like. i make recommendations of this amp from time to time... but i don't try to shove it down their thoat. if they disagree, then fine. not everyone wants a modeling amp.

I had no intent to snub the Vox, and have never heard it up close and personal. The "lower-end" I was referring to would be the less expensive Line 6 (Spyder), Digitech, Crate, Fender and old ART offerings which really didn't/don't have the mind-bending power and features of Line 6's or Roland's (the VG-88 is amazingly powerful) top offerings.

Originally Posted by tht00

the thing is, if you get a tube amp, then its pretty much a sure-fire way to get good tone.

I don't know about that... I've heard some truly rotten tube amps in my time.

The Peavey a guitarist was playing on Saturday at the gig I went to and played in was horrifically shrill. It was all tube, tweed covered, about 50 watts, I forget the model. I checked out the back of it and his settings as it was THAT BAD. Alternately, the other guitarist in the band was playing an all tube Fender Deluxe that sounded great.

I've owned a couple myself that would have been better as doorstops than working amps, and I've owned and played some excellent tube amps too. Like everything else on the planet, there are 10% that are horrendous, 80% in varying stages from bad to OK to good and 10% that are just jaw-droppingly wonderful.

Originally Posted by tht00

if you get a modeling amp, then you may get crap in a box. as long as you do your research when buying a modeling amp, then you'd be fine.

Sage advice.

[Only Alive]

As a user of both protools and amplitube, I have to agree with several of Pacerx's points. It's so easy to "cheat" it's not even funny. I can record an imperfect guitar solo direct with my guitar, pitch-correct the bends, cut out the bit that didn't sound so good and paste in a line from a different take, then pop it into amplitube and emulate a marshall stack.
Now, Amplitube and similar items will never truely replace tube amps / equipment, I don't think, but it can come so close. In a professional studio, they can make it so close that I'm sure these are very, very, very few people who could ever tell it's emulation.

Originally Posted by PacerX

Now, I've owned tube amps - lots of them... have you ever owned a state of the art modeling amplifier??? If so, which one? Any answer other than the top Line 6 products (AX2, Amp Farm, Vetta) means you're messing with the low end of the modeling spectrum and I'd suggest spending some quality time with one and learning what it really can do.

I've had considerable experience with Line 6's modeling technology (I own a POD), and I played with it for about a week, running it direct into the computer. It sounded lifeless. It sounded like a computer.

Modeling technology is great, and if you like the sound of it, use it.

-Nick

[ApparentlyNothing]

I too have had a bit of Pro Tools experience, and I know exactly what you mean by cutting and pasting different takes together, pitch shifting imperfect notes, or using auto tune on a take thats just not quite perfect. But please, name bands that are professional that have taken a lot of time to make an awesome album with great guitar tone that has used Amplitube for 100% of their guitar parts? To be honest, if you've got the money, bands will still prefer to use all the real tube amps in the studio rather than modelling them all. There are certain nuances that cannot be reproduced, and I think that once digital recordings start to move towards 24bit processing instead of 16bit, those subtle nuances might come out even more. And I think that eventually the music industry will move towards that.

As for my experience using digital amps, I'll admit I have not played a Vetta. But I will actually not argue with you when you say that it is a quality amp. The Vetta is killer, and probably one of the best digital amps available. Given a user that really knows what they're doing to get good tone, they could probably get a guitar sound that 90% of the population couldn't really tell the difference. But I have one questions for you, how much does a Vetta cost? $1700? You could get a killer boutique tube amp for that price, that would blow the Line 6 away in quality and tone, and I don't really care how many different tones it has. Unless you're in a cover band, no one needs that many different sounds.

The real problem with the statements that were being made (in your last post you clarified though), is that someone will come in here and read your post think digital is just as good and go out and get a Line 6 Spyder. Now, you know as well as I do, the Spyders suck. The only digital amp I would touch would be the Vetta, and even then, I wouldn't spend that much money on it. There are a ton more smaller, cheaper tube amps that, although not as versatile, can still give the Vetta a run for its money, and they don't cost an arm and a leg.

And another thing, with Line 6 amps, there's always something better coming out. It's like you're buying a computer, not an amp. As soon as you get the top end model, something else comes out that is supposed to get even more closer to a real amp's sound. Your amp just lost resale value. Tube amps, on the other hand, never lose quality in relation to another model released. That's why Vox AC30 reissues aren't as good as the real ones. That's why a vintage Fender tube amp is still heavily desired. But who wants the POD 1.0 anymore? What you really want is the XT. The Vetta may have a little better lasting value, but eventally in the future they're gonna release the Vetta 8 and everyone will forget the Vetta 1 and 2.

[PacerX]

Originally Posted by ApparentlyNothing

I too have had a bit of Pro Tools experience, and I know exactly what you mean by cutting and pasting different takes together, pitch shifting imperfect notes, or using auto tune on a take thats just not quite perfect. But please, name bands that are professional that have taken a lot of time to make an awesome album with great guitar tone that has used Amplitube for 100% of their guitar parts?

How about a couple of producers and bands:

Nine Inch Nails and Trent Reznor have done complete albums with Amp Farm and nothing else whatsoever. Good tone? Well, that's kinda like arguing which color is the best color - tone is in the ear of the beholder. SRV used Fender SS amps on many, many occasions and he liked 'em.

Metallica has used Line 6 modeling amps on a number of occasions, and I have seen studio shots with them using them.

Motley Crue were ProTools fanatics, and used amp plug-in's also.

A large percentage of other studio projects such as soundtracks and commercials are also using plug-ins and ProTools.

Nashville... well don't get me started on Nashville since I know about the time when EVERYONE was forced to rip their standard pickups out of classic Fender Telecasters and Strats and replace them with EMG's a few years back. You can bet your bottom dollar that everything coming out of that sinkhole is being recorded dry.

Do you know of Dan Huff?

That's a pretty good cross section there... full on metal to industrial to country, all using modeling or plug-ins based on modeling technology.

Originally Posted by ApparentlyNothing

To be honest, if you've got the money, bands will still prefer to use all the real tube amps in the studio rather than modelling them all.

Well, I'd disagree, and you have to remember that any studio project has two other folks (at minimum) involved:

The producer and the engineer.

Originally Posted by ApparentlyNothing

There are certain nuances that cannot be reproduced, and I think that once digital recordings start to move towards 24bit processing instead of 16bit, those subtle nuances might come out even more. And I think that eventually the music industry will move towards that.

Higher fidelity in recordings will be an interesting occurance and as the move occurs we'll have to see what happens. That being said, I firmly believe that no one, regardless of experience can accurately identify what is being used off a recording. Pick any 10 experienced players and have them listen to a particular track and name the make and model of the amp being used... I'll bet dollars to doughnuts you'll get 10 different answers, and that ALL of them would be thrown completely for the loop if it was actually a modeling amp or plug-in.

Originally Posted by ApparentlyNothing

But I have one questions for you, how much does a Vetta cost? $1700? You could get a killer boutique tube amp for that price...

Yep. $1700 for the 150 watt combo and another $300 or so for the floorboard (which is pretty much a required item for gigging).

Now, the true price comparison is not Vetta vs. a single amp. It's Vetta vs. one or two amps (many folks use completely different rigs for clean and dirty tones), a pedalboard or rack and the various sundries... meaning a midi switching system if you're inclined towards a rack.

In that comparison the Vetta just up and blows away the alternative, especially if you have to carry all that stuff around.

I know this since I used to use a tube amp based based rig. Half stack... rack... switching... pass the $$$$.

Now, here's the funny part...

People go out an blow a couple of grand on a half stack because they gotta have "tube tone", and then run the signal through the effects loop using a set of digital processors and front load a bunch of solid-state stompbox effects... Everyone here knows that a Crybaby wah pedal is solid-state, right?

Erm...

The only "tube tone" you're getting out of that is the power amp section since if you're running through the effects loop for delay or reverb it's being converted to digital anyway!

And here's the other mind blowing thing... the only distortion anyone really ought to be looking for in a tube amp is the POWER AMP SECTION, and how many people really have power brakes??? Preamp distortion can be 100% reproduced accurately by using an off board tube preamp! Heck, there are switching tube preamps that let you switch from 12AX7's to 12AT7's to whatever...

Adding insult to injury, driving a 50-100w tube amp to the point that the power amp starts to really break up is IMPOSSIBLE in a worship service in any church I've been in, and most clubs will not ask you back if you turn up that loud. Unless you have a power brake... so add the cost of that in since the modeling amp sounds the same regardless of volume level - a HUGE plus when playing live or practicing.

Originally Posted by ApparentlyNothing

that would blow the Line 6 away in quality and tone,

I disagree. I like my tones! Note the plural! The true reason for the Vetta upgrade from the AX2 has more to do with age (the AX2 is getting pretty old and has seen some hard service), and the fact that the Vetta is just infinitely more powerful and has even more flexibility.

Originally Posted by ApparentlyNothing

and I don't really care how many different tones it has. Unless you're in a cover band, no one needs that many different sounds.

I use mine. Two or three good tones just ain't enough for me.

Originally Posted by ApparentlyNothing

The real problem with the statements that were being made (in your last post you clarified though), is that someone will come in here and read your post think digital is just as good and go out and get a Line 6 Spyder. Now, you know as well as I do, the Spyders suck.

Do the Spyders stink? At that price point I don't think there's a whole lot out there that's much better... Cripes... a 15w Spyder II goes for $160 on the street new! Is it awful compared to the other $160 amps out there??? That's an honest question, I haven't messed around with a less expensive amp in years.

Now, a Spyder has no chance of ending up in my rig as anything other than a practice amp, but honestly we're not talking about that price point anyway.

Originally Posted by ApparentlyNothing

The only digital amp I would touch would be the Vetta, and even then, I wouldn't spend that much money on it. There are a ton more smaller, cheaper tube amps that, although not as versatile, can still give the Vetta a run for its money, and they don't cost an arm and a leg.

If one or two tones are all you're after, you sure can spend less than the Vetta, but I know of no modeling amplifier that has anywhere near the power for creating sounds the Vetta has, and no amplifier on the planet can match the versatility. The Fender Cyber-Twin is roadkill by comparison... although the moving knobs are kinda neat...

Originally Posted by ApparentlyNothing

And another thing, with Line 6 amps, there's always something better coming out. It's like you're buying a computer, not an amp. As soon as you get the top end model, something else comes out that is supposed to get even more closer to a real amp's sound. Your amp just lost resale value.

I don't generally consider amps in light of resale... First, if they're awesome, why sell it? Second, how good are any of us at predicting what will be a classic in 10 years? If someone is that good at it, I could use your advice in buying cars as investments. Musical equipment is a horrific investment monetarily. Pretty much everything you buy loses 50% of it's value the moment you walk out of the store with it. If resale were that big of consideration, no one would buy anything but the absolute top of the line in guitars... how many of us own a Paul Reed Smith Dragon???



PS - I hope that my tone is coming off as conversational here. I think this is a good and worthwhile issue and am attempting to discuss it without any sarcasm or general nastiness. Were we in person having the same discussion, I think we'd be having a nice hot chocolate and telling war stories.

[smashing guitar]

Ooooh.


Anyways....

Just give me a good distortoin tone and im good. I dont care what it is(soild state/tube/digital/ect.) Heck alot of awsome bands just use their amps distortoin channel and it sounds great.

[BlessedNinja]

The real difference(from the audible stance) between modeling and tube amps is the "feel" and subtle nuances that exist outside of any possible algorythem. This(along with harmonic interferance) is what makes a tube amp so pleasing to the ear, and by nature cannot be reproduced digitaly.

Now I'm not going to tell you what sounds good to you, but I can tell you that 9 times out of 10 I can tell you wether or not an amp is tube or modeling in a live setting, albeit much more difficult when listening to a CD which was digitaly produced. If we broke down the music to sine waves we could easily tell the difference between the two.

My $0.02

[Only Alive]

Originally Posted by ApparentlyNothing

I too have had a bit of Pro Tools experience, and I know exactly what you mean by cutting and pasting different takes together, pitch shifting imperfect notes, or using auto tune on a take thats just not quite perfect. But please, name bands that are professional that have taken a lot of time to make an awesome album with great guitar tone that has used Amplitube for 100% of their guitar parts? To be honest, if you've got the money, bands will still prefer to use all the real tube amps in the studio rather than modelling them all. There are certain nuances that cannot be reproduced, and I think that once digital recordings start to move towards 24bit processing instead of 16bit, those subtle nuances might come out even more. And I think that eventually the music industry will move towards that.

I agree with you. Most pro musicians still prefer tubes, and there's a good reason for that.

-Nick

[ApparentlyNothing]

Originally Posted by PacerX

How about a couple of producers and bands:

Nine Inch Nails and Trent Reznor have done complete albums with Amp Farm and nothing else whatsoever. Good tone? Well, that's kinda like arguing which color is the best color - tone is in the ear of the beholder. SRV used Fender SS amps on many, many occasions and he liked 'em.

Metallica has used Line 6 modeling amps on a number of occasions, and I have seen studio shots with them using them.

Motley Crue were ProTools fanatics, and used amp plug-in's also.

A large percentage of other studio projects such as soundtracks and commercials are also using plug-ins and ProTools.

Nashville... well don't get me started on Nashville since I know about the time when EVERYONE was forced to rip their standard pickups out of classic Fender Telecasters and Strats and replace them with EMG's a few years back. You can bet your bottom dollar that everything coming out of that sinkhole is being recorded dry.

Do you know of Dan Huff?

That's a pretty good cross section there... full on metal to industrial to country, all using modeling or plug-ins based on modeling technology.

I wouldn't say I like any of those bands' tone that much. I mean, it's alright, but let's think about it. NIN sound is very digital anyways with all the samples, synth, etc. Metallica's new sound sucks, and tone wise, although I know he used an awesome amp in the past, the Mesa Mark IIC+ (a tube amp, mind you), even that wasn't exactly great tone IMO (maybe for that era in 80's metal, but now it just sucks). The only thing I would give you in great tone would be SRV, a guitar hero of mine. But his main amps were the Fender Super Reverb 4x10 and the Fender Vibroverb 1x15, both being great tubeamps! If Stevie were alive today, do you think he'd be using digital? I highly doubt it. Maybe some solid state amps (not ALL solid state amps are bad), but digital? Heck no.

Bottom line, in LIVE application, tube amps will always win. In STUDIO, unless you're using high quality digital converters and the producer/engineer is highly experienced with mixing guitar sounds and using the digital plugins, then it will be very noticible to anyone with an ear for guitar tone that you're using digital. And, I'd argue that almost any engineer that is good enough (i.e. professional level) can make almost any guitar sound decent. Recordings aren't the best gauge for judging guitar tone. You have to hear an amp live to really know it.

Well, I'd disagree, and you have to remember that any studio project has two other folks (at minimum) involved:

The producer and the engineer.

What is the real use of digital amp plug ins for 100% of the guitar tracks other than convenience? I'd argue that any producer or engineer would rather use them for their convenience, not having to do 95% of the work in tracking a guitar. I think if you asked any producer/engineer what would get you the most top quality sound possible, with convenience not being a factor, and I bet that most of them will say miking a tube amp. Those that advocate using digital amp plugins for 100% of the guitar tracks are really only using it to save time and/or money, because they are simply trying to recreate what is already done best with tube amps and miking. No digital modelling amp sounds better than a tube amp. The best they can do is sound equal to them because that's all they try to do: emulate what has already been successfully produced.

Higher fidelity in recordings will be an interesting occurance and as the move occurs we'll have to see what happens. That being said, I firmly believe that no one, regardless of experience can accurately identify what is being used off a recording. Pick any 10 experienced players and have them listen to a particular track and name the make and model of the amp being used... I'll bet dollars to doughnuts you'll get 10 different answers, and that ALL of them would be thrown completely for the loop if it was actually a modeling amp or plug-in.

I probably couldn't tell you what exact make and model of an amp someone is using, and I don't think its common for anyone to be able to guess that right all the time. But, if you put me in a room blindfolded, played one guitar amp that was all tube and another that was all digital, both with the same guitar setup and everything, I could tell which one was digital and which was tube.

People go out an blow a couple of grand on a half stack because they gotta have "tube tone", and then run the signal through the effects loop using a set of digital processors and front load a bunch of solid-state stompbox effects... Everyone here knows that a Crybaby wah pedal is solid-state, right?

Well, if you wanna talk about keeping tone pure, I use a Rocktron Intellifex, which keeps the signal analog. I'm a tone purist. I don't use stompbox distortions or overdrives and believe that the best distortion is from a tube preamp and poweramp. Not that all distortion pedals are bad, some sound good used in conjuction with amp drive. But you're thinking that as soon as I run a pedal that isn't tube powered in my signal, all of the sudden it's not really tube tone. That's pretty much absurd. Your tone will only become digital sounding if the effects unit is digital and it does not pass the dry signal through analog. If the effects unit has to convert the dry tone to digital and then back to analog, some tone will be lost, obviously. But thats why I don't use any units like that, and most tone purists don't. Even if solid state pedals make your tone solid state as you stated, like putting a wah pedal in my signal somehow makes my signal solid state, well to be honest, that makes absolutely no sense at all. For one, if the pedals are run in front of the amp, the guitar's signal hasn't even hit the tubes yet. And two, even if it were run in the effects loop (which would still be before the power amp section) solid state circuitry is not bad in it of itself. If an amp is all solid state or digital, then yes. But a "solid state" effect would be like saying it's analog, and analog effects are actually desired more.

The only "tube tone" you're getting out of that is the power amp section since if you're running through the effects loop for delay or reverb it's being converted to digital anyway!

If the effect unit converts the DRY signal to digital and back to analog, then yes. But if you get a quality delay or reverb that keeps the dry signal analog all the way throughout, then you have no problem. If your unit has only digital, then there's a way to set it up so you get your dry signal to go through analog by, I think, using it in parallel instead of in series. You can also find loopers to take certain effects out of your signal flow while not using them.

And here's the other mind blowing thing... the only distortion anyone really ought to be looking for in a tube amp is the POWER AMP SECTION, and how many people really have power brakes??? Preamp distortion can be 100% reproduced accurately by using an off board tube preamp! Heck, there are switching tube preamps that let you switch from 12AX7's to 12AT7's to whatever...

Adding insult to injury, driving a 50-100w tube amp to the point that the power amp starts to really break up is IMPOSSIBLE in a worship service in any church I've been in, and most clubs will not ask you back if you turn up that loud. Unless you have a power brake... so add the cost of that in since the modeling amp sounds the same regardless of volume level - a HUGE plus when playing live or practicing.

Poweramp tube distortion is desired, yes, but preamp tube distortion can be good as well, and I think almost all amps with a distortion channel use it. You can't get by with using 100% power tube distortion, because most often, it is not enough for modern, heavier rock. And just because you don't own a power brake does not give an excuse for not having one.

And, despite what you may think, not everyone here plays happy praise and worship music at low volume levels. I play in an industrial influenced, experimental hard rock band, and we play loud. If a sound guy tells me to turn it down, I turn it down. But a lot of times, they don't even hassle me. Rock music is supposed to be loud.

If one or two tones are all you're after, you sure can spend less than the Vetta, but I know of no modeling amplifier that has anywhere near the power for creating sounds the Vetta has, and no amplifier on the planet can match the versatility. The Fender Cyber-Twin is roadkill by comparison... although the moving knobs are kinda neat...

I'll restate it, no one really needs that many different tones. I would suggest that, with a good knowledge of EQ'ing and any good overdrive pedals to add if there's not good enough distortion, any amp can be versatile enough to fit your needs. But no one, unless you are in a cover band that plays a bunch of different styles, needs 20 different amp tones.

I don't generally consider amps in light of resale... First, if they're awesome, why sell it? Second, how good are any of us at predicting what will be a classic in 10 years? If someone is that good at it, I could use your advice in buying cars as investments. Musical equipment is a horrific investment monetarily. Pretty much everything you buy loses 50% of it's value the moment you walk out of the store with it. If resale were that big of consideration, no one would buy anything but the absolute top of the line in guitars... how many of us own a Paul Reed Smith Dragon???

It's not so much a matter or resale value as it is lasting quality. When a new Vetta comes out, it will be "better" than the last one. People will look at the new one, and want that more. The tone the old amp has will suddenly be considered not as good when compared to the newer model. Like I said, it's like buying a computer. Who wants to use a computer from 1990? No one. Because there are newer models that are way better.

[thesteve]

blah blah blah...tone...blah blah blah...versatile...blah blah blah...digital...blah blah blah tube...blah blah blah...better...blah blah blah...worse

haha, sorry.

let's be realistic here...yeah some guys use digital in the sound studio, some bands dont' even have amps in their studio, it's just all computers sure...but for every one of those bands there's the band that goes into the studio with three guitars and two amps because for them the simple old fashioned way is the best way.

and sure there's some major "loud" bands that use digital amps live. Line6 ran an entire ad campaign around Evanescence and Ben Moody's Spider II/HD147 usage. the big reason digital doesn't get alot of respect is because people don't want to take the time to really set up their presets and mess around...they, like me, just want to plug in, turn up, and start playing.

Here's the other thing...what if you don't need versatility, or don't mind the minimal signal loss incurred with throwing a wah and a delay in your setup and the A/D/A conversions associated with them? Using PacerX's prices, it's going to cost me $2000 for a Vetta II rig suitable for live use. first, what guitarist starting to gig is going to have that much money just lying around...it doesn't happen often. second, if i don't need the options is it not more cost effective to just go get a Peavey Classic 50 410 for $400-500? Wow...I just saved at least $1500. and don't begin trying to say that power tube distortion can't be acheived in a "club" setting with a 50W tube amp because I listen to that Classic 50 410 achieve amazing power section overdrive and speaker overdrive on a regular basis...and let me tell you it sounds great. it cuts through...and the guys at the local venues haven't told my guitarist to turn down yet.

[nate95366]

Just to add my piece to this:

Generally speaking, I don't record. I play live - usually a couple times per week. I'm not a guitarist who likes to have a phone book of gear settings memorized (uhhh...let's see, for song 4, I need the gain at 5.4, drive at 6.0, reverb 3.4 with decay of ....) I like to turn it on and play for a few minutes and adjust until it sounds good. On my Boogie Studio .22, that doesn't take very long. It's a loud little amp for 22 watts, but I don't think I'd run into sound techs telling me to turn down. Occasionally, the singer(s) on stage will ask me to turn down, but usually I'll try to point the amp so that the singers are not on-axis with the sound.

Anyway, the modelling amps I've played just don't have that same feel to my ears. When I'm using my tube amp, it just seems that every nuance of my playing is responded to in kind, where the modelling amp responds, but with too much precision, which makes the sound (IMO) seem thinner.

The only thing I don't like about my tube amp is that it seems like I'm always working on it! (in fact, it's in my shop right now...) That, IMO, is the huge benefit of a modelling amp - it's going to work the same every time.

Nate

[PacerX]

Originally Posted by ApparentlyNothing

Bottom line, in LIVE application, tube amps will always win. In STUDIO, unless you're using high quality digital converters and the producer/engineer is highly experienced with mixing guitar sounds and using the digital plugins, then it will be very noticible to anyone with an ear for guitar tone that you're using digital.

Really? Are you really meaning to say that live, with all the interaction that occurs between an amp and a room that compared to a dead flat studio environment with state-of-the-art recording equipment the live application is the most stringent??? Sorry, I played this weekend in a place where the room had a HUGE effect on tone and tended to muffle highs. Not a chance. The whole intent of a modern studio is to reproduce sound as accurately as possible and get it out of a set of speakers. Last I checked, many folks were still playing concerts in basketball stadiums...

Originally Posted by ApparentlyNothing

And, I'd argue that almost any engineer that is good enough (i.e. professional level) can make almost any guitar sound decent. Recordings aren't the best gauge for judging guitar tone.

See above. The whole intent of a studio is to reproduce sound with the best possible accuracy. If you're claiming that the fact that no one can tell from a first-class recording the difference between tubes and modeled, then I think I've made my point.

Originally Posted by ApparentlyNothing

What is the real use of digital amp plug ins for 100% of the guitar tracks other than convenience? I'd argue that any producer or engineer would rather use them for their convenience, not having to do 95% of the work in tracking a guitar. I think if you asked any producer/engineer what would get you the most top quality sound possible, with convenience not being a factor, and I bet that most of them will say miking a tube amp.

Unfortunately, apparently much of the recording industry disagrees with you.

Originally Posted by ApparentlyNothing

No digital modelling amp sounds better than a tube amp.

Ummm... says who? I've heard some really rotten tube amps in my time.

Originally Posted by ApparentlyNothing

I probably couldn't tell you what exact make and model of an amp someone is using, and I don't think its common for anyone to be able to guess that right all the time.

My statement wasn't "get it right every time", my statement was "get it right at all." I can pick an obscure band at random, and take a poll here as to what amp they are using. Let's see how many folks get it right. Think you will? Name and model. Oh, and the era if there were significant changes (since a modern Fender Twin, for example, is significantly different than an old one).

Originally Posted by ApparentlyNothing

But, if you put me in a room blindfolded, played one guitar amp that was all tube and another that was all digital, both with the same guitar setup and everything, I could tell which one was digital and which was tube.

Betcha can't.

Originally Posted by ApparentlyNothing

Well, if you wanna talk about keeping tone pure, I use a Rocktron Intellifex, which keeps the signal analog. I'm a tone purist.

Purist or not, it's still processed digitally.

From Rocktron's Intellifex information on their own site:

"* High purity sound due to the use of a 64X oversampling A/D converter, which samples the signal 64 times as often as a conventional converter, and also due to the use of a separate dual D/A converter. Most "bargain" digital effects units use a single converter multiplexed 3 ways, for decidedly higher distortion and lower dynamic range."

Sorry, the entire effects section of that piece converts analog to digital and back. Check the block diagram in Section 6:

http://www.rocktron.com/support/manu...if/manltd.html

You can MIX with a direct signal, but any effected signal has been converted... so... ummm... how do your like your analog converted to digital and then back to analog input into your power amp????

BTW, even the dry signal runs through the solid-state input section, and please note that there's a input level attenutation (your clip indicator is tied to it).

Originally Posted by ApparentlyNothing

If the effect unit converts the DRY signal to digital and back to analog, then yes. But if you get a quality delay or reverb that keeps the dry signal analog all the way throughout, then you have no problem. If your unit has only digital, then there's a way to set it up so you get your dry signal to go through analog by, I think, using it in parallel instead of in series. You can also find loopers to take certain effects out of your signal flow while not using them.

Exactly how do you think digital units do that? Here, I'll help:

The dry signal isn't actually passed all the way through unchanged. First, the entire signal is multiplied, split, and then one half is converted to digital, then the effect algorithm is applied to the 1/2 of the signal while what's going through dry is passed along and split again. One half of that is passed while the other half is inverted and summed with the signal coming out of the D/A converter and then the whole shebang that's left over is sent to the output. What you are failing to realize is that the process of removing the dry signal from the processing section REQUIRES a summing operation that brings the two signal paths back together, and when it does the dry signal is BY DEFINITION MODIFIED DIGITALLY. Without it, you'd end up having the dry signal multiplied by a factor of 2 (waves are additive, be they sound or electrical).

So... ummm... how do you like that digital signal you're hearing every time you kick an effect in from that Intellifex? From what I understand, you're a purist and pretty pleased with it.

Which then begs the next question...

If Rocktron can make you happy with 10 year old digital technology, and you're a purist, is it that outlandish to believe that Line 6 could make you happy with state-of-the-art gear possessing VASTLY more processing power???

Let's face it... in the contest of computational power, a Vetta II makes an Intellifex look like a Corvette Z06 next to a chariot. Now, the Intellifex is a way-cool piece of hardware and has enjoyed considerable studio usage... as has the Line 6.

Originally Posted by ApparentlyNothing

Poweramp tube distortion is desired, yes, but preamp tube distortion can be good as well, and I think almost all amps with a distortion channel use it. You can't get by with using 100% power tube distortion, because most often, it is not enough for modern, heavier rock.

Which then indicates something else... ever notice that some of the REALLY HEAVY, high-gain guitar based groups are using Valvestate Marshalls or Line 6 or that Dimebag Darrell amp?

Now, I tend to play with lots of gain at times, and I'll tell you this for sure:

At really high gain settings, the difference between tubes and solid state (let alone digital modelling) are negligible. If you want to hear what an amp really sounds like, a much lower gain or even clean setting is the ticket. Why? Because of what distortion really is... it's lopping off the top of the waveform... also called "clipping". Now, digital and analog and tube setups don't all clip quite the same way, but at it's core, "clipping" is hacking off part of the signal. When you do that, you minimized the differences, not accentuate them.

Originally Posted by ApparentlyNothing

And, despite what you may think, not everyone here plays happy praise and worship music at low volume levels. I play in an industrial influenced, experimental hard rock band, and we play loud. If a sound guy tells me to turn it down, I turn it down. But a lot of times, they don't even hassle me. Rock music is supposed to be loud.

And precisely what type of music do you think I play?

Originally Posted by ApparentlyNothing

I'll restate it, no one really needs that many different tones.

I do, and I use them.

Originally Posted by ApparentlyNothing

But no one, unless you are in a cover band that plays a bunch of different styles, needs 20 different amp tones.

Well, I have 128 different patches available (32 banks, 4 per bank - all can be completely different), and literally nail down every tone in every song in every set using the Line 6. Going through 4 different tones in one song is no out-of-the-ordinary event for me. More than 4 causes problems with switching banks, but I've done it before, and was a "Rack of Doom" user before using modeling amps... which meant multiple changes in multiple pieces of gear using one processor as a "master" midi controller through a floorboard.

It's not uncommon for me to run through 5 presets in an original piece. If in the studio, I'll often run different guitars in the same piece too.

Originally Posted by ApparentlyNothing

It's not so much a matter or resale value as it is lasting quality. When a new Vetta comes out, it will be "better" than the last one.

Sure will. Right now they're good enough that you yourself admit you can't tell the difference on a recording. And let's just say, for the sake of argument, that you actually can tell the difference between a top flight modeling amp and an amplifier it's modeling in a live setting blindfolded... If they're improving so fast that they make it impossible to tell the difference from a recording and they keep improving, how long do you think you'll be able to continue to tell the difference? Will it end in the next generation? The one after?

There will always be folks who swear that there's no replacement for a tube amp, but sooner or later the march of technology demands that in the end the modelling technology with reach such a level of sophistication that the human ear could never tell the difference.

A strong possiblity says that there's no way to tell NOW, I believe that's the current situation... and many, many bands and producers are betting on it with ProTools plug-ins and modeling amps.