Modeling vs Tube amps live

[xenophobe]

I wonder how many people have officially complained about some weird springy noise coming from their amp if they bump it. I know there has to be quite a few people like that. Adding a chip also gets rid of those annoying people too. lol

[javert]

Haha, yeah...

[jgcable]

I'll say it again but in a different way... it's up to the user to make settings gig-worthy. Both tube and modeling amps can be a disaster in the wrong hands. As has been said Line 6 is geared and marketed towards new users, which means a lot of beginners who don't know how to keep their eq in the proper frequencies. Most beginners want that chugga chugga sound from their favorite NU Metal band and steal far more dynamic range than they should have. Either that or the bassist completely compensates and goes mid-range. I had to do that in a band, and fortunately it somewhat worked. I would have rather just kept the low end like I should have but I had issues stealing that from the guitarist. His mids were scooped so badly that once I adjusted literally everything, it sounded pretty good. I had to completely work around a bad eq because the guitarist loved his tone too much. Oh, and my bass rig is pretty badass. I'd usually steal the show.

I disagree to a point. For instance.. taking a stock Marshall DSL100 for instance. Without having any idea how to dial in an amp you can get great tones by just leaving all the EQ knobs on 5. Also, most tube amps come with suggested amp settings in their instruction manuals. Just by following the very basic guidelines you can generally get a great sound from a good tube amp live. Most players know how to eq their stereo systems. IMHO.. same thing with a tube amp. My point is this.. even with the latest modeling amp technology, to my ears they still don't cut it live. I heard 2 bands with a a guitar playing the newest Axe FX. I also saw a band with the guitar player using the newest Line 6 Bogner powered half stack. In every instance the other guitar player in the band with a tube amp had much more presence and full body sound live. The modeling rigs sounded like a recording of a real guitar amp piped through a PA system.
BTW... one of the Axe FX users was using a FRFR powered system. It didn't sound like a guitar amp to me. It sounded like another one of the PA speakers. I was standing directly in front of it so I could only hear the amp and not the PA mains or monitors.

I think thats the reason 99% of all the pro's who play live use traditional tube amp rigs.

[javert]

The whole FRFR thing is marketing hype, IMHO. The purpose of any reproduction system, and thus also PA systems, is to reproduce the sound without altering it, i.e., exactly what FRFR is supposed to do.

[javert]

By the way, there might be an important difference between what you would hear on-stage from a guitar amp versus a modeler set up in that way. The modeler would/could also model the mic (the Kemper does), so you'd conclude different things depending on whether you're listining to the output of the stage monitors or the guitar speaker cab. In the context of recording, you'd want to model the mic as well, but that might not be the case live, depending on how you set i up.

[VitaminG]

Let me put this another way. Just as not all modelers are equal neither are all tube amps. Just as an Axe Fx is a much higher quality piece than a Line 6, something like a Bogner or Soldano etc... is in a much different category than a B52 although both are tube amps. There are varying degrees of both.

come on, man. I spent 5 minutes messing with a Pocket POD through a 4" speaker at a pawnbrokers once. That's how I KNOW that digital modelling just doesn't compare to the BROOTALZ of an all tube rig. Krankenstein for teh WIN! (wish I could afford one, but I've watched enough YouTube videos to know it is beyond awesome!)

[roodyrocker]

It's no hype when it comes to the Axe Fx/QSC HPR route. I have a Mesa Dual Recto and as well as a Mesa 2:90 power amp and 4x12 Recto cab. I compared the real amp vs. the Axe Fx/2:90/4x12 cab vs. the Axe Fx/QSC rig. I was expecting the Axe Fx/2:90//4x12 setup to sound the best but I got a real surprise! The Axe Fx/QSC setup sounded best. I also was not using it the way most people do traditionally. That is, most turn off the cab and power amp sims but I thought it sounded better with some of those on even when running through a traditional cab. At any rate, the Axe Fx/QSC setup sounded so good that I remarked to my friend who is a tech that had I bought the Axe Fx before I bought the Dual Recto I probably wouldn't have bought the amp. As far as "moving air" goes, if I recall that QSC powered box is 450w. How much air do you want to move? The first time I used the Axe Fx live my drummer commented that it's the best guitar tone he's heard. This came from a drummer not a guitar gear head like ourselves.
I still love my tube amps too. They are much simpler to dial in. I've used everything from non-master 100w Marshalls to option laden Bogner Ecstasys and everything in between. In fact the next gig I'm hoping to try out my Cameron CCV. I love 'em all

[javert]

Roodyrocker, don't get me wrong. A good reproduction system means a lot in this context, I don't doubt that for a second. What I meant was that FRFR is hype in that it servers the same purpose as any reproduction system, and, hence, there's really no need for a FRFR label. Kind of like the true bypass thing. Bypass is supposed to be bypass even though it's not been implemented well in the past!

[jgcable]

It's no hype when it comes to the Axe Fx/QSC HPR route. I have a Mesa Dual Recto and as well as a Mesa 2:90 power amp and 4x12 Recto cab. I compared the real amp vs. the Axe Fx/2:90/4x12 cab vs. the Axe Fx/QSC rig. I was expecting the Axe Fx/2:90//4x12 setup to sound the best but I got a real surprise! The Axe Fx/QSC setup sounded best. I also was not using it the way most people do traditionally. That is, most turn off the cab and power amp sims but I thought it sounded better with some of those on even when running through a traditional cab. At any rate, the Axe Fx/QSC setup sounded so good that I remarked to my friend who is a tech that had I bought the Axe Fx before I bought the Dual Recto I probably wouldn't have bought the amp. As far as "moving air" goes, if I recall that QSC powered box is 450w. How much air do you want to move? The first time I used the Axe Fx live my drummer commented that it's the best guitar tone he's heard. This came from a drummer not a guitar gear head like ourselves.
I still love my tube amps too. They are much simpler to dial in. I've used everything from non-master 100w Marshalls to option laden Bogner Ecstasys and everything in between. In fact the next gig I'm hoping to try out my Cameron CCV. I love 'em all

I guess I am going to have to keep my ears open for other players using modeling successfully live. The amp that surprised me the most though was the Bogner powered Line 6 half stack. I tried one at GC. I had it cranked. It sounded like GOD. It was amazing. So amazing in fact that I bought one. My current rigs at the time was a Randall RM100 1/2 stack and a 5150-II 1/2 stack. I thought the Bogner/Line 6 sounded better and it was REALLY pushing air when I demo'd it. I took it home, dialed in some killer tones, took it to band rehearsal and it disappeared once the band got going. I was fiddling with that thing for an hour. I just found it extremely hard to hear. The other guitar player was using a Carvin Belair which is a 1 x 12 tube combo. I was using a 4 x 12. He crapped all over me. I did have the better clean channel but for those midgain Marshall type crunch tones, the Line 6 sucked. No presence live. Just noise. Funny thing is when the band stopped playing, my amp sounded amazing so bottom line is I had amazing tone the entire time. I just couldn't hear it live. Thats why I use a Mesa Single Rectifier half stack or my trusty 5150-II half stack live. Never a tone issue, never a presence issue. Just plug in and let it rip.

[xenophobe]

I disagree to a point. For instance.. taking a stock Marshall DSL100 for instance. Without having any idea how to dial in an amp you can get great tones by just leaving all the EQ knobs on 5. Also, most tube amps come with suggested amp settings in their instruction manuals. Just by following the very basic guidelines you can generally get a great sound from a good tube amp live. Most players know how to eq their stereo systems. IMHO.. same thing with a tube amp. My point is this.. even with the latest modeling amp technology, to my ears they still don't cut it live. I heard 2 bands with a a guitar playing the newest Axe FX. I also saw a band with the guitar player using the newest Line 6 Bogner powered half stack. In every instance the other guitar player in the band with a tube amp had much more presence and full body sound live. The modeling rigs sounded like a recording of a real guitar amp piped through a PA system.
BTW... one of the Axe FX users was using a FRFR powered system. It didn't sound like a guitar amp to me. It sounded like another one of the PA speakers. I was standing directly in front of it so I could only hear the amp and not the PA mains or monitors.

I think thats the reason 99% of all the pro's who play live use traditional tube amp rigs.

And we could cite personal experiences all day. I've seen bands where the Vetta sounded better than the Mesa, more than a few times. Of course, I've usually seen Mesa, VHT, *insert your favorite boutique amp* crush Line 6, it usually does.

However, I disagree. I could never get a sound out of my Bogner Fish or my Dual Rectifier just leaving knobs at 5'oclock, hell I spent many weeks, adjusting both to realize they weren't for me. Likewise, I need to tweak my Line 6 for hours before it sounds decent. 99% of the pro players have something digital in their source signal before amplification. Once a signal passes through a single DAC, it's no longer analog.

And this argument is like Canon vs Nikon. If you can't see the gear they're using, you probably wouldn't know. You certainly wouldn't be able to spot specific brands, especially not after post production recordings.

So, in the end it's just boiled down to another typical JCF "digital sucks, tubes rule" thread... which really isn't typical, because I don't remember seeing this argument for a while. It used to be quite common, like the senseless ESP bashing that used to be so prevalent a decade ago.

[Axegrinder87]

like the senseless ESP bashing that used to be so prevalent a decade ago.

We don't bash ESP anymore? I did not get that memo...

[xenophobe]

We don't bash ESP anymore? I did not get that memo...

Not like JCF used to. There used to be long rants about how ESP sucks so badly. I haven't seen one of those in a long while...

[roodyrocker]

Keep in mind that with modelers like the Axe Fx you have no idea of any internal settings when you go see a band live. So while you see the Axe Fx and decide it just doesn't cut it live, you don't know if cab sims were on or off, power amp sims on or off, etc... These things make a big difference. Also, even if you play a real tube amp live chances are you're still hearing an altered tone out front. Thats because your cab is most likely mic'd. My band's PA system is a Presonus digital board into powered QSC subs and tops. Guitar cabs get mic'd either with an SM-57 or Sennheiser E609 mic. So you're hearing lots of digital processing no matter what you do. Anyone who thinks they have a purely analog guitar tone playing live is mistaken.

[roodyrocker]

Oh yeah, forgot to add that I never bashed ESPs even on the old JCF I do prefer my Jacksons to ESP but I've had a few ESPs for several years now and like them.

[Cygnus X1]

Traitor!

Burn him!!!