Digital Modelling vs The Real Thing

[cheddatom]

[quote name='ThomBassmonkey' timestamp='1334326099' post='1614616']
All of the manipulation that happens inside modelling units is manipulation[/quote]

As opposed to the manipulation happening inside non-modelling units?!

[quote name='ThomBassmonkey' timestamp='1334326099' post='1614616']
The biggest problem for me is that live, high gain sounds never fit in the mix properly, they seem to behave like scooped tones where they can sound great on their own but when they go into a mix they disappear.
[/quote]

If your scooped tone dissapears, you remove the scoop. If your tone's not cutting through, you change it until it does. I don't understand why you wouldn't be able to turn down the gain and up the mids on a POD

[thodrik]

A good guitarist/bassist is a good guitarist irrespective of whether they are playing through vintage valve gear or digital models.

Can you tell the difference? Depends on the person using the gear. Generally though I think its easier to tell a triggered digital drum kit than a digital guitar/bass rig.

Being old fashioned in mindset I always prefer the sound of a properly miked rig/drum kit/non-autotuned vocals. Digital amps can sound great and are generally really flexible, but I always love the 'band in a room vibe' you get with miked up set up: the hum of the amps/end of song chatter between the band/general ambiance of the room picked up by microphones etc. I don't think digital amps or effects capture that, even if they capture the actual playing of the amp. As a result they can sometimes sound a bit clinical to my tastes.

Though I appreciate that those looking for a really clean recording don't really care about those things anyway.

[ThomBassmonkey]

[quote name='silddx' timestamp='1334327230' post='1614653']
And a guitar with a transducer and circuitry, going via a cable into a bunch of effect pedals, more cable to a pre-amplifier full of circuitry and valves connected to a power-amplifier full of circuitry and valves connected to a wooden cabinet with some loudspeakers, with a microphone in front of them relaying the sound from those speakers (and your feet tapping, trousers flapping, and all the other racket on a stage) via another long cable into a channel strip full of circuitry and out through another amp via a bunch of outboard, into more even bigger loudspeakers, IS NATURAL?
[/quote]

That is a series of components doing what they naturally do in order to create an output. That's different to a programme in a system where the components are versatile telling something how it should behave. Natural sounds wasn't quite the right wording, I can't think of a better one though.

The manipulation that happens inside non-digital units is manipulation of the sound (and there's no way of avoiding that, everything you do affects the sound from the way you pick a string to the hat you're wearing when you listen to it). The manipulation that happens in digital units is manipulation of components to make them manipulate the sound.

I don't find that the tone of a digital unit gets lost because of the scoop, I honestly can't tell you why it does because I'm basing this on my experience (both of using and listening) rather than any knowledge of how the innards work. The scoop was just an example of what I mean by the sound can be ok on it's own and still get lost in a mix.

I don't hate modelling and my band's new album has a lot of modelling on it (I think 3 of the 4 guitar tracks were modelled rather than using the guitarist's Mesa) so I'm definitely not saying that it sucks and you'll never get a good tone blabla, but I prefer the sound of a proper amp. Like I said, the convenience of a modelling unit like a POD or plugins in the studio are obvious to anyone with half a brain. I'm not trying to state my opinion is fact either, I know some people find they can get the tone they want from a modeller when no amps have been able to provide it. It's all just my opinion. In the studio, postFX can be used and a modelled amp can sound fantastic! It's just live, I've never seen or heard a modelling amp that sounds right in a mix (though mostly that's guitarist's modelling amps and I'm a fan of valve amps on guitar and I've not heard your band Nigel so nothing personal )

I agree with Charic's post above. I'm sure it's within the laws of physics for a program to make speakers move in the exact same way that a normal amp would, I just don't think we're quite there yet. When we are, I'll be happy to jump on the bandwagon, I think the convenience and versatility of modelling units is undeniably far superior to actual amps.

[Mr. Foxen]

[quote name='silddx' timestamp='1334327230' post='1614653']
And a guitar with a transducer and circuitry, going via a cable into a bunch of effect pedals, more cable to a pre-amplifier full of circuitry and valves connected to a power-amplifier full of circuitry and valves connected to a wooden cabinet with some loudspeakers, with a microphone in front of them relaying the sound from those speakers (and your feet tapping, trousers flapping, and all the other racket on a stage) via another long cable into a channel strip full of circuitry and out through another amp via a bunch of outboard, into more even bigger loudspeakers, IS NATURAL?
[/quote]

Yes it is, because it isn't going via being data. Tangible substance and force throughout, no analogue to theoretical data and back step.

[cheddatom]

If you were to say: "The majority of guitarists using Line6 modelling amps for high gain tones sound crap and don't cut through, but they manage a decent tone on recordings" I would have to agree. According to my experience, almost all players of modelling amps don't set them up very well. That it's so difficult for so many is a massive draw-back, and so i'd never argue that modelling amps are better than the alternative. In the studio they'll generally get a hand from the engineer, if not before tracking then after.

but, it deffinitely can be done

[Mr. Foxen]

Anything for guitarists needs to be idiot proofed. A million adjustable parameters is not an example of this. Yesterday a band came round to collect an amp for their bassist. The guitarist stood next to two head high stacks of amps, and asks 'do you have any guitar amps?'

[xilddx]

[quote name='Mr. Foxen' timestamp='1334330169' post='1614734']
Anything for guitarists needs to be idiot proofed. A million adjustable parameters is not an example of this. Yesterday a band came round to collect an amp for their bassist. The guitarist stood next to two head high stacks of amps, and asks 'do you have any guitar amps?'
[/quote]

But also how many bassists (or guitarists) have no idea what a standby does for a valve amp. and how to use it, or understand the resistance of cabinets to heads, or that resistance is needed to stop a valve amp self destructing ?

Give almost all musicians a 4 way parametric with Q to play with and they will look at you like you've just asked them to sh*t in their grandma's eye.

[cheddatom]

[quote name='Mr. Foxen' timestamp='1334330169' post='1614734']
Yesterday a band came round to collect an amp for their bassist. The guitarist stood next to two head high stacks of amps, and asks 'do you have any guitar amps?'
[/quote]

LOL

[musophilr]

FWIW here's my take.

I've heard some impressive modelled sounds, and I've also heard some that have that "nasty digital" sound referred to by the OP. I am also the proud owner of amplifiers which are often "modelled" so I know what these things are supposed to sound like.

Some of the modelled sounds are at best a good approximation, and are only intended to satisfy the undiscerning/untrained/inexperienced punter's ear. They're good enough for the purpose. This set includes the sounds that are "nasty" and "digital".

Then there's the serious attempts to sound like the real thing. A blind A/B test may fool all but the most experienced listener, and such sounds may well be taken as the real thing when mixed up with all the other tracks in a recording (and lets face it most recordings are digital anyway so will include their own contribution to the digital hash).

The former may well be straight-out-of-the-box and relatively cheap, the latter may be the result of some expensive engineer's time in the tweaking thereof.

I have to say that my opinion of the Line6 backline for live work is not high, from what I've heard of other people using it. While I've got the real thing I'll play through it.

[Mr. Foxen]

[quote name='silddx' timestamp='1334330738' post='1614743']
But also how many bassists (or guitarists) have no idea what a standby does for a valve amp. and how to use it, or understand the resistance of cabinets to heads, or that resistance is needed to stop a valve amp self destructing ?

Give almost all musicians a 4 way parametric with Q to play with and they will look at you like you've just asked them to sh*t in their grandma's eye.
[/quote]

Or the difference between resistance and impedance and which is relevant to matching. And no-one knows what the standby is for, fairly good position for it being pretty pointless except for a mute. Although they make working on amps easier.

[Wil]

As far as I can work out the standby switch on the AC30 is there so you can mute your guitar and cook eggs on the amp at the same time.

[Mr. Foxen]

[quote name='Wil' timestamp='1334332034' post='1614770']
As far as I can work out the standby switch on the AC30 is there so you can mute your guitar and cook eggs on the amp at the same time.
[/quote]

I warmed pasties on my head. Tastes better than microwaving them.

[cheddatom]

[quote name='Mr. Foxen' timestamp='1334332419' post='1614781']
I warmed pasties on my head. Tastes better than microwaving them.
[/quote]

it's because of the slower more gentle heating process. Mmmmm analogue pasties. this new digital stuff tastes crap - it's just not REAL

[quote name='musophilr' timestamp='1334331344' post='1614755']
I have to say that my opinion of the Line6 backline for live work is not high, from what I've heard of other people using it.
[/quote]

I think most people who go to plenty of gigs would probably agree, but as I said I think that's because they've been badly set.

[musophilr]

[quote name='cheddatom' timestamp='1334332926' post='1614792']
I think most people who go to plenty of gigs would probably agree, but as I said I think that's because they've been badly set.
[/quote]

I'm sure that what sounds good at home won't sound good live. But that is also true of real analogue and "proper" valve amps. So what's the big deal with getting a good live sound out of a modelling amplifier?

[xilddx]

[quote name='musophilr' timestamp='1334334454' post='1614828']
I'm sure that what sounds good at home won't sound good live. But that is also true of real analogue and "proper" valve amps. So what's the big deal with getting a good live sound out of a modelling amplifier?
[/quote]
I have no idea, because I've never had that problem.

Unless it's that they sort their sounds in isolation and they sound sh*t with a band, but again, amp users do that too.

Edited April 13, 2012 by silddx

[51m0n]

[quote name='silddx' timestamp='1334313815' post='1614244']
We did some live studio recording with Ash Evans at his studio a couple of weeks ago [i](He was first to record Noah & the Whale, and Mumford & Sons, and has since worked with Emmy the Great, Sparkadia, and ASH to name a few. He is 1/3 of the band [url="http://http//soundcloud.com/emperoryes"]Emperor Yes[/url], does live sound for Three Trapped Tigers and CLARK and was responsible for setting up the [url="http://houseofstrange.wordpress.com/"]House of Strange[/url].). [/i]His approach is very quick and dirty. Hardly gives a sh*t about equipment (he has so good stuff though) and mic placement (as long as everything is phased properly). His philosphy is that the performance is everything, and that sound is a bit of an illusion, you can make a good performance sound great with reasonable sound quality, but the best sound quality can't make up for a poor or under-energised performance.

On his desk he had an original Roland Space Echo. I said 'WOW! Those are very sought after' He said it's a piece of sh*t that takes 15 minutes after powering up to make remotely usable, and thinks free digital plug ins for delays are way better.

He didn't care what amps our guitarist used as long as they were reasonably quiet - tried an old Vox (too noisy) went with a little Fender combo that was newish and just threw a mic in front of it. No pissing about. Told the four violinists to use their pickups, the mics only recording was poor, the pickups and a mic sounded so much better. He really liked the POD sounds I had so he just got me a big monitor and a tiny 4 channel mixer to play through in the room but the signal went strainght to the desk from the POD. Dums miced very simply (bass and snare miced with two Coles for overheads. Set them up and left them, no messing.)

All this straight onto Logic Pro.

I've heard the recording completely unmixed and the sounds are lovely. We are all delighted. Can't wait for the mixed versions.


[/quote]

Nice looking vibey studio mate, bet it went swimmingly!

Assuming the chap knows his beens regarding his kit and setup, and used his ears to check the sounds he was printing to disc then I bet its going to be perfectly possible to produce a fantastic sounding end result.

To be honest the less mics you use on a kit the better, if you want a natural sound to it. Unfortunately we tend to be conditioned to hearing ultra processed drums these days.

[quote name='silddx' timestamp='1334314479' post='1614267']
One funny thing was he put this large mic in front of Kit but she was having problems seeing her keys properly, it was also very heavy and the mic stand couldn't handle the weight and it started drooping a little bit. Kit asked if there were any alternatives, he said yeah, we can sling a SM58 in front of you. She asked if there would be a difference and he replied that her voice might not sound as lovely, but what the f***, if the great mic is inhibiting her performance, we'll use the Shure, and that's what we did. Still sounds lovely.
[/quote]

Not a problem, especially with Kit's voice, a large diaphram condensor is going to tend to get very spikey with the strident upper mid range on her voice, an SM58 may well be exactly the right tool to dial a little of that out. Good call again IMO. Shame he didnt have a third ribbon to try on her voice

[quote name='peteb' timestamp='1334317393' post='1614363']
But I assume that you were not playing in a large room thru a PA with an audience present?? The music you produced went straight to disk where it could be manipulated by the engineer.

I recognise the playing the rancid, foetid note bit - I used to hate recording studios!
[/quote]

I dont get your points about this.

I mixed the last Kit Richardson EP, and the raw bass sounds were excellent to work from, there was absolutely nothing missing or in any way lacking that I would expect to have been there had they been the result of mic'ing an amp.

I did nothing to the bass that I wouldnt normally do to an amped or DI'ed bass track.

The results speak for themselves IMO.

If you know how to program digital kit well and its decent quality stuff you have a very high chance of making a decent sounding result.

Live is if anything a better environment to use digital modelling than in the studio.

In the studio you have absolute acoustic control, and can therefore do wonderful micing experiments like the one you suggested, if you feel it will make you happier. Or you can keep it really simple and use a single mic, or you can use modelling, whatever works best.

Live you are giving Mr FOH a hard time the more onstage volume you have, so digital modelling makes even more sense.

[Mr. Foxen]

[quote name='musophilr' timestamp='1334334454' post='1614828']
I'm sure that what sounds good at home won't sound good live. But that is also true of real analogue and "proper" valve amps. So what's the big deal with getting a good live sound out of a modelling amplifier?
[/quote]

You have massively greater range of adjustment with the modelling amp. Valve amp eq is hugely unresponsive, and whole compression thing they get as you turn up means there is an extent to which they adjust themselves to greater volumes, whereas the digital amp will tend toward the same but louder, depending on how smart the program is, but the mere fact there has to be a conscious decision to do that is the killer. With modelling, it should be as a preamp, feed it to the hosue an let the volume be done there, if you are using one of those modelling combos, that's where the trouble is. Bit like people deciding SS is crap because their first practice amp was SS and sounded much worse than the proper valve amp they got later.

[51m0n]

[quote name='ThomBassmonkey' timestamp='1334329175' post='1614710']
[i]That is a series of components doing what they naturally do in order to create an output. That's different to a programme in a system where the components are versatile telling something how it should behave. Natural sounds wasn't quite the right wording, I can't think of a better one though.

The manipulation that happens inside non-digital units is manipulation of the sound (and there's no way of avoiding that, everything you do affects the sound from the way you pick a string to the hat you're wearing when you listen to it). The manipulation that happens in digital units is manipulation of components to make them manipulate the sound.[/i]

I don't find that the tone of a digital unit gets lost because of the scoop, I honestly can't tell you why it does because I'm basing this on my experience (both of using and listening) rather than any knowledge of how the innards work. The scoop was just an example of what I mean by the sound can be ok on it's own and still get lost in a mix.

I don't hate modelling and my band's new album has a lot of modelling on it (I think 3 of the 4 guitar tracks were modelled rather than using the guitarist's Mesa) so I'm definitely not saying that it sucks and you'll never get a good tone blabla, but I prefer the sound of a proper amp. Like I said, the convenience of a modelling unit like a POD or plugins in the studio are obvious to anyone with half a brain. I'm not trying to state my opinion is fact either, I know some people find they can get the tone they want from a modeller when no amps have been able to provide it. It's all just my opinion. In the studio, postFX can be used and a modelled amp can sound fantastic! It's just live, I've never seen or heard a modelling amp that sounds right in a mix (though mostly that's guitarist's modelling amps and I'm a fan of valve amps on guitar and I've not heard your band Nigel so nothing personal )

I agree with Charic's post above. I'm sure it's within the laws of physics for a program to make speakers move in the exact same way that a normal amp would, I just don't think we're quite there yet. When we are, I'll be happy to jump on the bandwagon, I think the convenience and versatility of modelling units is undeniably far superior to actual amps.
[/quote]

This is utter nonsense.

I suppose you can hear the ones and noughts going past your speakers in a hifi with a decent CD player then?

The DAC turns the ones and noughts from the samples back into analogue waves, they arent spikey, they are smooth. Some very clever software goes into doing this.

Same applies equally to digital modelling devices, digital fx, DAC's in mastering studios, DAC's in studios that interface the output of the DAW to the actual speakers in the room.

By the time you hear it its the same stuff, its sound.

The way its generated is irrelevant. Whether you use resistors and capacitors to filter sound, or apply maths to digital representations of that sound to achieve the same thing is utterly irrelevant. You still just hear the sound.

Digital stateful saturation modelling is getting incredibly cool now, and sounds lovely. Check out the Thrillseeker LA compressor by Bootsy, has some really brilliant filtered stateful saturation that can enhance the signal in sublte colourful ways. Love his stuff!

You either like the resultant sound of the processing or not.

There is no reason on earth for it to be harder to get a good sound from a digital modelling device than an actual amp.

What is 'missing' (and good riddance from a sound engineers POV) is stage volume from cabs being turned up to 11 by guitarists and bassists.

Edited April 13, 2012 by 51m0n

[Mr. Foxen]

sound a bit like you are defending listening to a CD rather than seeing a band live. More to it than waveforms.

Also I don't know where this 'all sound engineers hate volume' thing comes from. I've only been asked to turn up, and I'm far from Mr. Subtle with volume. I think you only get that if your sound basically sucks and has too much bottom to the point where it interferes with things, part of the source of sealed 8x10s being nice for sound engineers.

[51m0n]

Not at all.

If its a digital device then it becomes analogue via a DAC. Its the same regardless of what goes into the DAC, the output from reading a CD, the output form a digital delay, the output from a modelling device. The DAC doesnt care.

At the source there is nothing more to it than waveforms, whether you then amplify them to mind crushing ear compressing levels or not is irrelevant. At the source all you have is a waveform, that is all that sound is.

Anytime you produce too much low to low mid on stage you make life hard for Mr FOH. Every mic on the stage will pick up the bleed, and that can cause him a hard time to control. Anything below 200Hz is omnidirectional and every mic can pick up those frequencies.

I'm not saying it always causes immense issues, I'm saying if it werent there it would be easier for Mr FOH.

There are all sorts of cab configurations that can cause more issues down there, we both know it has nothing to do with the speaker diameter, or even sealed vs unsealed (granted sealed tends to less low bass), a fridge chucks out plenty of energy at 80Hz for instance.

[Marvin]

[quote name='BigRedX' timestamp='1334326590' post='1614630']
I don't understand. A modelling amp/re-amp is just like any other amp/pre-amp. You turn the knobs until it sounds good in the band mix. What exactly is the problem?
[/quote]

This.

I personally think most people hear what they want to hear. They see a modelling amp and they hear sh*t, they see a half stack and it sounds great...when in fact they both sound the same near as hell.

Charic's hit on the head though, most of the crap you hear from a modelling amp is because people don't know how to 'set them up'. I had this problem with a Line6 Lowdown 300. Only when Charic provided me with a few pointers (thanks ) did I start to feel comfortable with the sound I was getting. What did it sound like? Much like my own combo when playing in a band context.

I recently saw a band playing live twice, a couple of months apart. In those 2 months they, unknown to me, changed their bass player - I'll be honest I just thought the guy had had a shave...dear o dear . The first time I saw them the bass player had a full stack, a 410 on top a 115, a full sound blah, blah, blah. The second time I saw them, with a new bass player, I spent the first 10 minutes trying to figure out where the bass players rig was. He didn't have one, he was playing through a Line6 Pod, into the desk, straight to the PA and using in ear monitoring. He sounded the same as the previous guy and has the same tone as on the CD I bought that night...which he doesn't play on.

[xilddx]

[quote name='Marvin' timestamp='1334344677' post='1615039']
This.

I personally think most people hear what they want to hear. They see a modelling amp and they hear sh*t, they see a half stack and it sounds great...when in fact they both sound the same near as hell.

Charic's hit on the head though, most of the crap you hear from a modelling amp is because people don't know how to 'set them up'. I had this problem with a Line6 Lowdown 300. Only when Charic provided me with a few pointers (thanks ) did I start to feel comfortable with the sound I was getting. What did it sound like? Much like my own combo when playing in a band context.

I recently saw a band playing live twice, a couple of months apart. In those 2 months they, unknown to me, changed their bass player - I'll be honest I just thought the guy had had a shave...dear o dear . The first time I saw them the bass player had a full stack, a 410 on top a 115, a full sound blah, blah, blah. The second time I saw them, with a new bass player, I spent the first 10 minutes trying to figure out where the bass players rig was. He didn't have one, he was playing through a Line6 Pod, into the desk, straight to the PA and using in ear monitoring. He sounded the same as the previous guy and has the same tone as on the CD I bought that night...which he doesn't play on.
[/quote]

An excellent example, thanks for this post mate

[Mr. Foxen]

If there is nothing to a gig except sound, then it is an utter failure as a live performance.

[51m0n]

[quote name='Mr. Foxen' timestamp='1334360569' post='1615329']
If there is nothing to a gig except sound, then it is an utter failure as a live performance.
[/quote]
None of which has anything to do with whether the sound was manipulated by pastie warming kit or not......

It has absolutely no relevance at all to the OP or any of the posts I made either. You could have the finest all tube gear in the world in the best acoustic space ever, with an absolutely up for it audience and be the worst communicator on an instrument ever, the result would be a very poor gig experience for the punters.

Or you could be down the Dog and Merkin with a POD device and rock like a God, and totally blow the punters away with your brilliant live gigging skills.

The punters wouldnt give a ,monkeys what you used if it sounds good and you can get them into it.

Edited April 14, 2012 by 51m0n

[Mr. Foxen]

Gear is a pretty big deal at my gigs. Not all gigs are the same. There is more to gear choice than the relationship between input waveform and output waveform. Some of that is entirely relevant to their use for gigging equipment.

Edited April 14, 2012 by Mr. Foxen