Since the author is presumably a young person (current PhD student), I'm surprised he didn't continue the story into the era of software modeling.
Kids and pro recording artists are plugging guitars into USB adapters and the software on the laptop has digital models of Marshall, Fender, Roland, etc.
Some digital models are embedded into FPGA chips in dedicated rack boxes such as Fractal Axe-Fx.[1]
I saw a gadget that let you plug your electric into your iPhone and play with amp simulators written in iOS.[2] Distortion, chorus, fx, etc all in the palm of your hand.
It's amazing the encyclopedia of guitar sounds that's easily available to this generation. It's all made possible by computers, software, and DSP mathematics research.
That stuff has come a long way - but it's still no replacement for valves driven to within an inch of their lives.
Is it great for live use? Sure. Better than 'real' amps for some cases since it can lead to more manageable stage volume.
But in a studio the difference is pretty obvious still.
Where the modeling stuff still has a long way to go is in the transition region. They have no problem doing buzzsaw distortion or crystal clean - but those magic tones that occur just as you're getting into overdrive.
Here's one of the masters, Gov't Mules Warren Haynes showing off the kind of sounds I'm talking about.
I actually find the software more problematic live than in the studio. I hate fighting some computer interface when I just want to turn a knob.
In one of my bands, we were using an iPad for keyboard sounds, mostly organs. The sounds were terrific, but the physical experience was terrible. The iPad got replaced with a vintage Yamaha analog organ from around 1980 (with string synth and poly synth), and a couple of guitar pedals. It's not as flexible, but it's a lot more fun to play and practical onstage.
The acts that's I've seen use it seriously aren't touching a computer. They're using foot switches to drive GuitarRig (or whatever) via MIDI.
The really nice thing about this (besides not having to tote a ton of pedals aroudn) is that you can dial stuff in in advance and forget it. Especially useful for multiple settings on the same pedal - like several different delay settings on different songs - and get the one you want every single time.
I've found that "set and forget" approach really problematic myself, and complex midi footswitching not much friendlier than a mouse. Then again, I've never gone on a big tour. What works best for me is convenient knobs right there where I can tweak sound as needed.
The difference is the big guys likely never touch anything. They just get told by their tech to "hit the blue switch for the solo", or the tech just triggers everything themselves from the wings.
But those are interface problems. Nothing really to do the internals being software driven. I think many modern synth companies have reverted back to one knob - one function design.
Do you install updates on the computer? Do you browse the internet with it? Would you expect a ten year old computer to work?
Many everyday interfaces that have previously worked fine for decades, nowadays have computers and sampling inputs. Large multi billion dollar industry giants have managed to create unresponsive elevator interfaces where if you press a button, sometimes something happens, sometimes nothing happens. It's a expletive elevator. How hard can it be?
Perhaps I can trust technology like a Boss multi effects pedal - it's been engineered for a very narrow amount of inputs and doesn't need software updates. It can be made to basically always just work. The company has a long history of actually creating quality products.
But a laptop on stage, or off stage and interfaced with some pedals. That's just a disaster waiting to happen. Maybe if you can pay for one person to just babysit the computer and route around it if / when there are problems, then it's probably great.
I don't know, the Ax FX is insane. I would bet good money that 99.99% of people couldn't tell the difference between it and an amp in ideal situations.
Not only people who think themselves picky when it comes to tubes vs modeling could not tell the difference, but they also failed to even recognize the amp types.
Not really a great test (as admitted in the commentary). There's no way to know how many people that entered weren't familiar with all of the amps that were used (according to the author, "a couple of contestants realized that 1, 3, 5, and 8 were the models, but got all the amp types wrong"). Swap two models and your score is a maximum of 50% regardless of how well you can identify tubes vs. digital.
"Not only people who think themselves picky when it comes to tubes vs modeling could not tell the difference, but they also failed to even recognize the amp types." It was a contest with a giveaway. The only thing we can infer about the entrants is that they wanted free stuff.
I'm with the author as far as conclusions go: "Sometimes models sound great, and sometimes they sound crappy, much like amps."
Perhaps a more important reason to dislike it is that he ran the guitar output into a DAW, and then into an amp. Guitar pickups are very sensitive to impedance loading.
At $2200+ to emulate tube sounds, with significant resale risk, it's a pricey option for non-professional players. I've got a few small-ish tube amps and a limited pedal board that covers most of the styles I'm interested in at acceptable volume levels. If I ever decide that I don't like one of my amps, or I want something different, I can sell it and recoup most of what I paid for it - there's not really any chance that Fender will release a new amp that will cause my Princeton RI to suddenly drop in price drastically. The same can't be said for digital gear.
I've tried some less expensive digital gear (Line6) and, while it's nice enough, I feel it leaves much to be desired compared to a well maintained tube amp, so at my gear budget (and since I don't really have any space constraints) I think tubes are a better choice for me - and I don't think I'm terribly atypical. In the long run, if gear that provides the quality of Axe FX drops in price significantly, I might change my mind.
I can definitely tell the difference. A friend of mine has the AXE-FX. We tried testing its Mesa Boogie model against my actual Mesa Boogie amp -- and the difference was night and day.
Like one of the comments from above, part of the magic of tube guitar amplification is that it is much more responsive dynamically to inputs. You can turn the volume up a tick, or hit the strings harder or softer, or change your picking style, and the results are drastically different on a tube amp.
This gives the artist more space to express themselves -- which is why tube amps are still favoured amongst guitar players today -- decades after transistor's have taken over the rest of the electronic industry. You can't get the nuanced expressiveness in a crystal lattice that you can in the free space of a vacuum. [1]
[1] I'm paraphrasing from H. Alexander Dumble, one of the gurus of guitar amplification.
Sure. Interesting how confident you are in this assumption - there are plenty of audiophiles who claim they can definitely night and day hear the difference in 2 brands of speaker cable. So presumably you've blind tested yourself and are definitely sure it's not bias, or wishful thinking, or feeling special because you've got the real deal.
The AXE FX II models the differences with tube amplification that you're talking about.
I also don't like that quote any - by the logic of that quote MP3s and CDs are equally rubbish recordings that have no room for expression? Or are we only extending it to what suits your view?
There are a vast number of ways to customise a real tube amp (I've owned a Mesa Boogie Mark IV) and an Axe FX II (which I currently own.) A poorly setup mesa vs. one that's been carefully configured will be night and day as well. Did you factor that in? Was there a tone match? Actually the Axe FX doesn't claim to emulate particular models precisely in many cases (see http://wiki.fractalaudio.com/axefx2/index.php?title=Amp:_all...)
My point is you dismiss it as if you can know for sure - go do some blind testing where these factors are taken into account (you can start with a skeptic's view at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EtxHlJ2FPo) and then see if your certainty is affected.
Finally, Metallica have chosen to do all live shows using only Axe FX's. So obviously you know better than this small band who barely tour.
I know HN is basically turning into the new reddit, but comments like these where you just make a statement and then act as if it's established then go on to quote some guy really make me wonder whether reading the comments section is going to continue to depress me forever at this point.
Are you hoping that I just... made up that point? I find it interesting the degree of denial audio guys have with this stuff. The Axe FX is a really amazing and inspiring piece of machinery that allows for a huge artistic freedoms and is basically the product of one guy's dedication to accuracy (many amps are modelled to the extent of their entire circuitry being simulated as well as precise physical models of the valve sets which you can change, etc. etc.) - when I wonder why the Axe hasn't got the love it deserves (though there's growing love for it) the reaction of 'not the same as analogue' guys reminds me why :)
>You can't get the nuanced expressiveness in a crystal lattice that you can in the free space of a vacuum.
Cute, but at the end of the day it's just different nonlinearities in the transfer function. If you like how ancient technology sounds, that's fine, no need to ascribe mystical properties to it.
There is a difference, like you say (I owned an Axe-Fx). It sounded very good, especially the Plexi, but at the end of the day it sounds like a mic'd amp. You can't make it sound like an unmic'd cabinet, leading to lots of [1] discussion [2] about getting that 'in the room' sound [3]. It sounds pretty much exactly like what you would hear on a CD; it's definitely good at getting that studio mix sound.
From what I understand and what I've read on Axe-Fx II emulation, it emulated the circuit components of the amps, including analogue ones, to emulate the signal processing. If that is true, I can see how some aspects of emulation could be worse, but a drastic difference in dynamics doesn't seem possible. I also own Axe-FX II, and can't tell the difference between it and the real amps, in any regard.
I've used two amp/cab modelers, GuitarRig, and whatever used to come with the Line6 USB interfaces. I never got sound I liked from GuitarRig and got sounds that were not unreasonable for demo/tinkering purposes from Line6, but I would never put those guitar sounds on an actual release.
GuitarRig's modeling of the recording of an AC30, an amp I'm very familiar with, does not come anywhere close to the sounds I can get sticking a microphone in front of my actual AC30.
I dunno, it's getting really good these days. I recently bought AmpliTube 3, and the tube modelling is way better than I had expected.
The thing about modelling that drives it into uncanny valley for me is the lack of harmonic feedback, which is part of the symbiosis between a guitar and a amp being driven hot.
Still, it's a useful tool, and I'm happy to have it in my toolbox.
I actually got pretty cool tones on one recording by tracking direct into software (not even an amp model - a distortion modeler and a modulator), and blasting the monitors loud enough to get feedback. You're absolutely right about the importance of a little feedback on the tone (even if feedback isn't the goal), but there's more than one way to get it.
Frank Zappa used to record with little Pignose practice amps in an echo chamber, and got his feedback off the studio monitors as well.
Modern thinking also gives us valves at low volumes, like a Hughes & Kettner Tubemeister, which I ended up getting the 18W model of. Possible to run at 1W and still sound great. (or direct to DI, I.e quiet).
Many of the giants of rock, like Led Zeppelin, did their classics (like Stairway to Heaven, the loud part) with low-wattage (like 1W or 5W) tube amps. You don't need a big amp to sound loud when recording; what you need is that the power amp is turned up to get that sweet distortion. You don't get it with pre-amps or stomp boxes alone.
Personally, I have an old 25-watt Mesa/Boogie and it is infinitely nicer than the 100-watt transistor monster or 60-watt Fender tube amp that I had earlier. It is still a bit loud for training room, but just okay for live gigs with PA where it's miked.
There seems to be a bit of a low power tube renaissance happening lately. When I started playing no non-boutique manufacturers made anything analogue with less than 50w.
The Marshall DSL5C can toggle between 5 or 1w - you can use headphones in low power mode, although I ended up getting an inline volume control because the cans were getting hit too hard.
I've heard good things about the VHT 6w stuff too...is it payday yet?
I like it a lot, and the power soak is killer. It's great being able to crank it up (moderately) and not have my neighbors want to kill me, or put it up at wall shaking volumes when I'm at a house.
I have considered trading it for something with a bit different sound though.
Their are other parts of the signal chain that have a part to play. Compression is provided by power supply voltage sag, grid bias current and back EMF from the speaker interacting with the damping factor of the power amp.
The transformer used to match the high impedance tube output to the low impedance speaker is also a factor. When that transformer reaches the magnetic saturation point, the bandwidth of the transformer will narrow, depending on the degree of magnetic saturation.
The speaker is a factor as well. It can be driven into breakup, though I've never tried it.
As a physicist and a musician, I know that many of those things can be "modeled", which is a some weird term somebody started using to denote simulation.
The accuracy of your simulation depends on how far down you want to go into the simulation process. On the fundamental level, it's actually pretty easy to simulate the physical processes of thermionic emission, circuit simulation, dynamic impedances, EMF fields, magnetic saturation, etc... and then just build up from there.
The problem is, it's not yet practical to do all that in real-time.
The good news is you can measure and parameterize many of those things and get reasonably close.
The bad news is that it's impossible to do that for every amp combination.
The other bad news (for modeling amps) is that you can still buy a Traynor for $400 and it won't take a shit on you halfway through tour.
> some weird term somebody started using to denote simulation.
The OED lists the following definition with examples going back almost 60 years:
"model, v. 10. trans a. To devise a (usually mathematical) model or simplified description of (a phenomenon, system, etc.)."
(The use of "simulate" to mean a similar thing dates from <70 years ago, so neither usage is hugely older than the other.)
This is not "weird"; it's a standard term in applied mathematics and other fields. There's even a monthly journal Applied Mathematical Modelling: Simulation and Computation for Engineering and Environmental Systems.
Maybe people here remember, but a few years ago, I saw some virtual instrument emulating Knopfler's sound, to the point they were proudly playing a MIDI score of Money for nothing and it actually wasn't shitty.
ps: I'm tempted to say Guitar Pro, but I can't back this up searching the web.
Sure, four 100W Marshal stacks might sound great but are completely impractical for stage use, but I have yet to find a modeling amp that "cuts through" the mix as well as a good tube amp. Am I the only one who thinks that?
I switched from a Line6 PodXT to a Fender DeVille. I actually prefer less options, since I'm now no longer paralyzed by choice. The tube amp sounds much better than anything I got out of my Pod.
Having said that, the amp wants to be loud in order to hit the sweet spot, but it's already screaming with the volume at 3. I can't really get it to the optimal place without blowing everyone else off stage. Also, I never thought I was going to hurt my back hauling the Pod up a flight of stairs. I wouldn't go back, though.
I used a marshall tsl-100 with no pedals forever but had the exact same problems with levels and it murdered my back. I tried using a power brake attenuator but wound up buying a Reason amp that weighs like 20 lbs and can switch between 10-20 watts. It is amazing.
Two tricks I've seen used by various pro acts are to either aim the amp about 70-80 degrees upward, where most of the sound hits the ceiling, or use one of those clear plastic sound isolation panels in front of it.
>That stuff has come a long way - but it's still no replacement for valves driven to within an inch of their lives.
Yep. I had to sell my tube amp when I moved to New York City and the modeling pedal I have comes nowhere close to the warmth and feel of the tube amp. I'm a horrible audiophile and I only played guitar for fun and even I could tell a massive difference. It's like trying to describe a person with presence - words never seem to work and you're always left with "you just feel it"
The opportunity to spin through a fairly complete history of electric guitar amps and effects was compelling, but nowhere near as compelling as the simple, reliable combination of a '72 Twin Reverb, RAT, and Tube Screamer. Sometimes, a multiplicity of choices can be paralyzing.
Of course, analog or digital, what's most important is the input :-)
The Mustang series I'd say is close enough that especially when you factor in price, volume control, portability, and flexibility, it makes a ton of sense for home use vs. a tube amp.
I felt the same way, I got to the end of this very detailed article and then was left scrolling for the transition to digital technology. Though there is still an analog vs. digital debate. And after all the advancements we have made in digital signal processing for music. It seems it's time to set the record straight on digital sound and continue that wild creative streak with software.
Good point. Software amps and stompboxes like those in Garageband that simulate classic guitar gear are worlds cheaper, more mobile, and much easier to manage your presets than the actual classic gear. A Fender '68 reverb stompbox is about $150, and Fender amps from the 60's are $1000 and up. Garageband is $5. Gear has already gone digital.
It amaze me how the app ecosystem drove down) (maybe too much) the price of those effects. We used to pay (back in 2005) big bucks for the same quality AND less practical controls (mouse vs touch screen).
I counted seventy one (!) factual errors by the time I got to the section on the Leslie Speaker, where "rotating motors" become "horns" that are "picked up" by speakers. That makes two PhD students today on the front page of Hacker News who are talking straight out their asses.
This entire article bums me out. If you see a scathing editorial printed in The Atlantic (you won't -- editors NEVER correct the really bad articles like this one) that's me.
"... motors (essentially two electromechanical horns) that had been rotated
to create a Doppler-effect-based vibrato. These horns were, in turn,
picked up by the dual speaker units."
Electric guitars were first sold in the 1930s. At first all they wanted was a louder guitar to compete with the big bands of the time (after having repeatedly made them physically larger. Larger guitars were louder, but harder to play for smaller folks). They really wanted to make them sound just like (what we now call) acoustic guitars but it was pretty obvious that between the early pickups and early amplifiers, electric guitars had their own distinctive sound. By the time this article picks up the story electric guitars were on their own evolutionary path. Cranking amps and adding effects were inevitable as guitarists sought to create new and interesting sounds.
Having played electric guitar for 30 years and recorded about ten albums, I've learned a thing or two on the subject...
First, when you're playing, you can hear incredibly tiny details that no one else can hear. The other day, I spent a half hour choosing which of four different variants of Dunlop Jazz III picks I liked best. (I'm a pick nerd and I'm always fussing over them. My drummer can hear when I change picks, but no one else can.)
Second, those differences are lost in the big picture. I have recordings of my own playing I love, where I couldn't tell you what guitar or amp I was using without looking at my notes.
Third, playing in a full band is a fundamentally different tonal experience than playing by yourself. Again with the subtleties. A lot of the subtleties that make gear nerding fun actually make for poor tone in a band context. More importantly, gear that sounds bad by itself can be magical in a band context.
Fourth, guitar playing is an incredibly physical and sensual experience. You feel it in your bones. Part of the fun of big tube amps is "getting your hair blown back", feeling the vibration literally shaking your body. It's a blast (motorcycles have the same physical presence). For me at least, it means I don't like guitars that are too easy to play - I want it to fight back and make me work for my tone.
On the subject of tube amps versus solid state modeling (Sansamp, etc) versus digital modeling... remember, not only is the guitar a physical thing, it's a very sensitive and responsive thing. The real problem with digital modeling imho is getting the response right, that precious moment when the pick leaves the string. This gets worse when the subtleties of harmonic distortion come into play - clean and mildly overdriven sounds (there's no such thing as really "clean" electric guitar).
What's worked for me in recording situations is to rely on analog pedals for the attack, and track into really neutral digital models. It's less hassle than miking amps, for sure, and the results can be very good.
Tubes are great for power more than drive. Transistors and op-amps have been part of the overdriven sound for almost as long as electric guitars have been around - starting with 1960s fuzz. Solid state amps tend to fall down delivering live power in a band context, although modern Class H switching amp technology (basically digital amps heterodyning the signal several octaves outside the range of hearing, so digital distortion artifacts are inaudible) is getting brilliant.
Me, I've more or less quit using tube amps, due to reliability issues. My beautiful Mesa Mark I and my monstrous VHT Pittbull 45 are both sitting with blown power transformers. I use a vintage Yamaha solid-state jazz amp and pedals, and I'm happy.
Oh, and studio recording? Anyone who demands "realism" from their hi-fi gear has no idea how recording is done!
Your last comment is great! I have an uncle who is a hifi fanatic. Ive done enough recording over the last 15 years, along with knowing how a lot of his "holy grail" albums were recorded to know that they are completely at odds. I think I have really just come to the conclusion that if a mix engineer can separate the soundstage and create a mix that sounds like there are several people playing in separate spaces then it is "reproducing live" music. The nit picking about turntable tone arms, different preamp stages, and all the other audiophile stuff is just silly when you think that most music is being recorded on mediocre quality IC based transistor gear and processed with DSP based effects and nary a tube has touched much of the audio signal.
> First, when you're playing, you can hear incredibly tiny details that no one else can hear.
I wish people would learn music. it's such a weird thing. the amount of unheard details that comes to you, tone, rhythm, harmony, texture, syncopation... And even playing. I never played on live amps pushing back at me, but just driving a few guys sitting behind the drums is like voodoo. Owning time is mystical, as is losing it; seems like our mammalian brains have a direct feed.
Drums are HARD, man! Drums are the second hardest instrument I've ever learned (the hardest was pedal steel, which kicked my ass. I gave up on it after realizing I'd need to spend three years or so as my primary instrument in order to gain real competence).
I love the pull back and forth to set the feel of a band, too. One band I'm in has an odd effect... in most bands, one person tends to be the timekeeper (usually but not always the drummer), and the rest of the band follows her. But in this particular band I'm in, time-leading rotates - three of the four members can be the timekeeper, depending on the song.
I don't know many instruments, I wouldn't say drums are especially hard, but they sure are deceptively simple looking. Even though, advanced stick control is akin to learning skateboard tricks, quite subtle. With the skin loudness, the tiniest variation become a catastrophe.
I think drums are hard because its more than just keeping time. Different styles are completely different vocabularies that require different dexterity to be effective. That said, I can pretty much play "rhythm everything"- meaning drums, bass, guitar, piano. Im not particularly good at any one instrument nor do I feel Im an expert to speak on any instrument but if I had to rank the instruments I can play in order of difficulty I would say:
1) piano - playing chords in a rhythm is not hard, separating your hands can be tough and playing classical can be infinitely difficult.
2) drums - I am not a natural drummer, so staying on rhythm and fills and different styles was a hard won battle for me. I think that some people are born with this ability so drums may seem simple to them.
3) guitar - probably the easiest instrument to compose a full song with, and its somewhat easy to vary from chords to leads and back. I think that anyone with 6 months and some determination can be a "competent" guitarist or at least get over the learning curve.
4) bass - I think this is easiest because you have the choice to relegate yourself to the rhythm section and just play a groove.
Im sure that others may feel differently, and I don't think there is a right answer. Being a virtuoso at any of these instruments is truly difficult, but getting over the learning curve and playing for fun definitely varies.
I dont see these running power amp sections. I was initially excited by this development as well, but I am hoping KORG doesnt just throw these "tubes" in every DSP synth, drum machine and prosumer piece of gear they make and say "NOW WITH MOAR TUBES!!!!"
I would be interested to see analog gear built front to back with this stuff however...
> For me at least, it means I don't like guitars that are too easy to play - I want it to fight back and make me work for my tone.
Interesting perspective. I'm the polar opposite. I have a love/hate relationship with Strat-type guitars. I love the huge dynamic range they have, but I feel the design of the guitar is fighting me all the way. I always end up back at my Les Paul, which sounds great no matter what I do.
I'm mostly a Telecaster player. One thing I don't like about the Strat is the smooth, comfy curves. I can't feel where the guitar is relative to my torso or my forearm, which costs me control and accuracy. The squared edges of a Telecaster dig into my ribs and arm, and I have a better sense of what I'm doing.
Les Pauls drive me nuts due to the lack of dynamics. Marshall amps, too. My favorite combination is a Telecaster into a vintage Mesa. The thing about Teles and Mesas is "all the way up" == "too much". They're happier with the control knobs backed off some. And picking? A little dynamic slip and it sounds like a gun going off by your ear. Forces you to be controlled!
+1 for telecaster "shape" -- I grew up on Strats, but play a thin line Tele most of the time now. I concur with your assessment of being able to "feel" where it is.
Some of you may find this fun to read. (from the textbook for Music 420 at Stanford... I guess they've now split it into two classes since I took it...)
Kids and pro recording artists are plugging guitars into USB adapters and the software on the laptop has digital models of Marshall, Fender, Roland, etc.
Some digital models are embedded into FPGA chips in dedicated rack boxes such as Fractal Axe-Fx.[1]
I saw a gadget that let you plug your electric into your iPhone and play with amp simulators written in iOS.[2] Distortion, chorus, fx, etc all in the palm of your hand.
It's amazing the encyclopedia of guitar sounds that's easily available to this generation. It's all made possible by computers, software, and DSP mathematics research.
[1]http://www.fractalaudio.com/p-axe-fx-ii-preamp-fx-processor....
[2]https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/ampkit-guitar-amps-effects/i...