Ken

In my mind, the future of modeling amps isn't to replicate a Marshall, Fender etc. sound but to come up with new sounds. How about an amp that's crystal clean with a soft pick attack and gets deadly overdriven as you play harder, all at the same volume. Or as you go up the neck on a solo, the dynamics of the tone changes. With mucho computing power, a modeling amp could theoretically be made that opens vast doors for a player to enhance his sound and solos from the way he plays. The computer will enhance the sound accordingly.

Naturally they also have to sound good! But my point is the future of these amps I think is to be a new tool, with new features that analog amps cannot do, and not be an attempt to copy what we already have.

Ken

Marshall Amps

__________________
This advertising will not be shown in this way to registered members.
Register your free account today and become a member on Marshall Amp Forum

Mike_j

I think the guy makes some valid points, especially about the niche market thing. There will be a lot of players that do or will go the digital/modeling way.

However, I think that tube amps will always have a dominant position in the market place and there will always be a large number of us quite happy to put up with carting around heavy fucking valve amps and cabs.

__________________
"...the world is your oyster but your future's a clam..."

tarznamps

This is a big topic.

I've been into recording for over 15 years. Old guys would laugh at my ADAT's and then ProTools. "Analog tape will never go away - it sounds too good - ProTools sounds like crap, etc".

Not gonna say that anyone won that battle but ProTools and digital recording is probably 90% of the high-end market although a few still want to play with 2" tape. Digital is 100% of the consumer market.

Tube amps may be different becuase the player expeirences the feel of the tubes when playing. But a lot of new and younger players don't know about tube amps - tubes are just a setting in ProTools or a Pod. It's good enough for the MP3 generation. Ever think about what an MP3 is? They SUCK but they are good enough for the new generation.

I believe that tube amps and tubes will not go away. The sound too good and they are getting cheaper and cheaper. Price was one of the big reasons I never had a tube amp when I played in college. Now - you can get a 20-50 watt tube amp for $400-$600 brand new. Hopefully this will keep all the new players interested.

Quiz:
What current song on the radio use amp modeling? Probably can't tell because it sounds so good.
Which song has a JTM 45?
Which song has a Fender Super?
Which song has Gibson Burstbucker 2's?
Which song has Celestion G12M's?

My point is that "probably" none of us can tell which Marshall, which Les Paul, which Pick Ups, etc. are being used - yet we debate endlessly which of these things are the best.

Ultimately there is more than one way to obtain GREAT TONE.

__________________
Tarz-N-Amps

Marshall Heads - JVM 210, JTM 45, JCM 2000 DSL 100, JCM 800 2203, JCM 800 2205, JCM 900 4100, Vintage Modern 2466, 1987x Plexi, Haze 15
Marshall Cabs - 1960AX/BX, 1960A, 1960AV, 1965B, 425A/B, 1936, Haze A/B
Marshall Combos - Class 5, JMP 4140 Club & Country, DSL 401, JTM 615

www.TarzNAmps.com/pix

aussiebluesville

take a look at the fender super champ xd and the marshall haze amps,i think digital modelling will be here to stay,especially for the younger players,which like to experiment with their sound,personally you can't beat a full on tube amp for quality of tone,that's my say anyway

__________________
jcm900 2 X 12 Combo 4102
jcm800 1 x 12 Combo 4010
Fender 71 usa strat
Fender tele custom shop
www.myspace.com/ourcreationsjamband
www.soundclick.ourcreationsjamband

bloosman1

+1 aussie!!! It took (in 1969) a room full of tape recorders and engineers, not to mention 'slaved' amplifiers to get the effects that Jimi got on "Electric Lady Land". And think about how much work it took to produce Pink Floyd! Fast foward to the late '90s early 2k's, now a 17 year old kid has almost the same power in a computer and amp modeler! Yes, Tube amps are great, Yes, they are historical, but, they are only a part of the palat as it were. I say, Adapt and over come!=-}

__________________
Amps:
JCM 2000 DSL 100
1960 A Cab.
Fender Hot Rod Deville
Fender Pro Jr.
Pignose
Axes:
Fender 2009 American Standard Strat
Fender 81 modified strat
Fender 98 mim modified strat
Fender 04 Highway 1 strat
Gibson Swamp Ash Les Paul Studio
Gibson Black Les Paul Studio
Gibson SG Gothic
Taylor Accoustic
Washburn Accoustic
Dobro 'M' Series
Effects:
Everything from a PODxt
to analog...too darn many

janarn

Some high-gain guitar sounds, (could be modelling sounds) doesn't sound
like a guitar to me. It's hard for me to hear if it's played on a guitar or
a synth.
The way modelling sounds is used on drums and bass, can easily
be used the same way with guitars.
That means that guitarsounds can be made by computer musicians,
instead of guitarplayers.

javier pintos

i play in a cover band and i guess having to replicate the sound of different bands works good on a SS with a multieffect pedals, its a bit harder for us on the tube amps to do that, on the SS amp we have we just use the clean channel and call the ME patches, on the tube amps we use the clean, very little gain and call patches too, but we very seldom use the tube amps straight form the guitar, at home i play my DSL straight from the guitar and i´m confortable with my sound, on my SS i use my multieffect and i´m also comfortable with the sound

i guess when i´m 60 i would like to carry an ipod size device that i just plug into a PA and have the tone i like, i don´t think i´ll be carrying my Head and 4x12 anywere

digital is here to stay we like it or not, just go ur own way on what you enjoy

zslane

Much of the pro-tube sentiment seems grounded in the argument that "you just can't get that lovely warm tube sound any other way." But that is just a transitory observation of the tone landscape as it exists today.

Eventually, digital amp modeling will reproduce tube amp tone to 95-98% fidelity and then virtually nobody will care that the signal is traveling through semiconductors rather than vacuum tubes. We're very close to that already, IMO.

VHS and Microsoft Windows succeeded over superior rivals because they were "good enough" and cheaper than the competition. I suspect that solid-state digital amp technology is on the same road to mass acceptance. I can envision a time when there's just no point in using tube technology anymore, except perhaps as a novelty.

__________________
JCM2000 DSL-100 head + 1960A 4x12 cab
30th Anniversary 6100 head
JCM2000 DSL-401 combo
Les Paul Standards ('96 Goldtop, '99 Ebony, '03 Honeyburst)
Les Paul Custom ('04 Alpine White w/ gold hardware)
Les Paul Supreme ('07 Trans Black w/ black hardware)

ts31966

Hi all,

I hope you are all doing great! I find these discussions interesting. I used to read the same discussions on the vettaville forum. I own a line 6 vetta. I didn't like the pods when they came out but the vetta was a huge improvement.

Line 6 is the main company involved in guitar amp modeling. The AxeFx is a better unit though. Guess what line 6 did with their modeling amps? They had Bogner build a tube power section for them. Have you tried them? They sound great.

So you have the main force in guitar amp modeling using tubes for the power section. What does that tell you?

I spent alot of time getting my vetta to sound great. I like it because it is very quiet compared to a tube amp, plus built in effects and alot of flexibility.

So why am I on this forum? It should be obvious, tube amps still sound better. I love the advantages of solid state modelers but they don't sound the same. People try to come up with all kinds of reasons and descriptions but I think the best way to put it is they don't sound real. They sound fake.

Now these new line 6 amps with the tube power section sound great. Try them they are at guitar center. I wish they would have just combined the two things. The advantages of both.

But of course it is always about money. Thats why it didn't happen to begin with. But it looks like it might still happen.

I have done alot of research into why tubes sound better. In a nutshell it is the way they work. From what I have read, it is possible to build solid state circuits that sound as good as tube circuits. So why don't they? Because it costs more to do that than to just build a tube circuit.

Go try a spider valve. Then go try a pod. Then come back and tell me which one is better. I have done it.

janarn

I started a thread at another forum asking people how many different basic sounds they used from their amps. The answers were all between one and three.
One said he used four different sounds on his JMV. No-one used more sounds.

And you can easily get three different sounds from a single channel amp
if you have a boost.

The world of digital modelling can give you 999 different sounds,
but the question is how many basic sounds do you need.

I think it's better with one good organic tube amp sound,
that 999 OK sounds from a modelling unit.

zslane

This argument fails due to the fallacy of False Assumption. To wit, that an amp modeler's sounds will all be mediocre. Suppose we pretend for a moment that all the sounds, however many that may be, are excellent. How many sounds should a device offer?

Three basic tones from four different amp manufacturers equals twelve different amp "sounds". But then, which four amps do you simulate? The "obvious" choices might be Marshall, Vox, Fender, and Mesa Boogie to one guy, but not to someone else. And, then, which Marshall? Just one? Or do you offer four "key" variants for each manufacturer being simulated (e.g., JTM-45, Plexi, JCM-800, JCM-2000)? Now you're up to 48 amp "sounds".

It all comes down to having choices. Digital amp technology allows us to have lots to choose from, even if we are only going to make use of 3 out of 100, because it all comes down to which three you are going to want, which could be very different than the three someone else will want to use.

How is this not obvious?

__________________
JCM2000 DSL-100 head + 1960A 4x12 cab
30th Anniversary 6100 head
JCM2000 DSL-401 combo
Les Paul Standards ('96 Goldtop, '99 Ebony, '03 Honeyburst)
Les Paul Custom ('04 Alpine White w/ gold hardware)
Les Paul Supreme ('07 Trans Black w/ black hardware)

grim

guitars are analogue. valve amps are analogue. our ears are analogue.

zslane

So are our eyes.

And yet, we have the wild success of digital technologies like CD and DVD to demonstrate just how much our eyes and ears don't really care how a signal is produced as long as it looks and sounds "good".

__________________
JCM2000 DSL-100 head + 1960A 4x12 cab
30th Anniversary 6100 head
JCM2000 DSL-401 combo
Les Paul Standards ('96 Goldtop, '99 Ebony, '03 Honeyburst)
Les Paul Custom ('04 Alpine White w/ gold hardware)
Les Paul Supreme ('07 Trans Black w/ black hardware)

grim

true. still images in the cinema are percieved as motion and cd v vinyl will never be settled
most people can't hear the difference between an original cd and a highly compressed mp3 either.

but transistors don't glow

and valves win on component count too, a basic valve amp? 30 components, ish? a tranny amp designed to sound like a valve amp?

I am sure one day someone will design a valve on a chip, and it will be brilliant on the entry level amps, or as a 'feature' on tranny amps - but it won't be a valve amp.

Puffer Fish

It sounds like I am a good ten to 20 years younger than some of you guys--my guitar influences happened during the 1980s for the most part. That was electronic/ solid state mania. Everyone I knew had a solid state amplifier. It was actually difficult to find a tube amp in my circles--think Roland JC120 and all the solid state Fenders that were on the market. Now fast forward to the time we are in now and I find it amazing how many tube amplifiers are hitting the market. I am pretty certain there are more tube guitar amps made now than there were 20 years ago.

If the tube sound has been made or will be made obsolete, I find it very interesting that Line 6 has their 6L6 power tube amplifier that came onto the market over the past 12 months.

The tube amplifier has evolved--there is the above mentioned Line 6 highbred, we have the Marshall Valvestate amps, the Vox amps with a preamp tube, and of course circuit boards are in tube amps and now we have our own Marshall JVM amps that have some very complex electronics inside. All of these additions to the guitar amplifier market have made it a richer and better market place for us to find tools to create and play music. I for one love it. The fact that I choose to use Marshall amps that have tubes in them is my choice based upon years of playing through many different amplifiers--Musicman, Fender, Vox, Peavey, Marshall, Legend,...

One more thing--tube/ valve manufacturing has not ended. JJ/ Tesla decided to increase production and indeed have been working hard to bring new tubes to the marketplace like the KT77, the long plate 12AX7 and the gold pin preamp tubes. I know these items were manufactured in the past, but they are all newer products to the JJ line and I am very pleased they decided to make more choices for us. But it is all due to consumers buying more tube amps--JJ is simply meeting the needs of the buying public.

Hopefully our world of choices will continue to be as wide and varied as it is now. Hopefully the tube amp will continue to exist for a very long time--as long as electric guitar is an instrument of choice in popular music.

MartyStrat54

Great stuff Puffer. Glad you could chime in.

Marty

jchan

To say guys who use tube amps and like them due to some closed minded bias is ridiculous and a cop out. Its simply about tone. I don't understand the need to convince people or call them biased. I believe modeling technology may one day supersede the tone of a tube amp. Some say it already exists. I don't doubt it, I just haven't heard it. I haven't heard all the modelers out there, but, the ones I have heard live did not sound good, they actually sounding annoyingly bad.

Now, modelers sound pretty good recorded. For the typical user, its much easier to get a good recorded tone with a modeler than mic'ing a tube amp. I actually use a modeler exclusively at home into my PC for practice. It works great, is convenient and sounds acceptable. When I have tried them live, they sounded fake and lousy IMO. The many different players I have heard use them live sounded absolutely horrible IMO. And, I have heard many different people use them live.

Before you get excited, this is MY OPINION and my experience to date. If I could find a little box that sounds great for LIVE PERFORMANCES, I will be sold. I continue to try new gear and hope someday someone will make a modeler that sounds better than a tube amp. When I hear it, I'll use it. Its not about any hype, psychology, philosophy, need for acceptance, allegiance to any brand, dedication to what some other musician plays, world view, refusal to change/adapt or any other silly suggestion. Its about TONE! There is a big difference between playing at home into your PC, recording and using one live.

MartyStrat54

Wow! Great post. Thanks for reviving my old thread. I thought this one was in the freezer.

__________________
MARTY

2009 Gibson Explorer-Hell Raising Machine
1989 Fender Strat Plus USA
2008 Fender Tele USA
2004 Schecter Elite w/DiMarzio's

TSL100
TSL122
TSL602 #1
TSL602 #2
DSL401 #1
DSL401 #2

wkcchampion

I don't see why top tube amps and digital modelelrs can't coexist.
They aim to different tasks.
Modellers are excellent for quick recordings, home practice, or for plug-and-play excellent sounds.
Tube amps are for the top quality and feel, and for volume - digital modellers tends to sound worse at high volumes

jchan

Exactly. Agreed.

PaoloJM

I've done some experimenting with modelling software, Amplitube 2, ReValver III, etc. and I will say that the model of the JCM 800 sounds better that the real JCM 800 at bedroom volumes. The same applies to the 5150 in ReValver. It's also second to nothing for recording late at night in your house. They're a great advancement and I welcome it.
However for gigging volumes nothing has hit me like a real valve stack. The raw power of standing in front of a cranked JCM 800 is amazing and I'm not convinced (yet) that that can ever be modeled. I say that because it's not the tone (I'm already convinced that that can be modelled), but it's the feeling or raw power and adrenalin as you pound out your favourite riff.
It's just like no motorbike simulation equipment will ever feel like a Harley on the open road.

__________________
www.youtube.com/paolojm

V-man

Actually, what will happen is that SS will overtake solid state. Then some dude will make these Micro Nukes that will fit into valve sockets and the sound will destroy the world

__________________
Gibson: '88' Explorer 90, Flying Vs - '02' V-Factor, '06' RI, '07' RI
Jackson: '92' Rhoads Tribute, '92' Rhoads PCS, '02' KV2
'92' ESP/Hill King V
'04' Epiphone Goth V

'84' Marshall 1992
'93' Marshall 4100
'97' Crate Blue Voodoo BV-60 Combo

D.Dailey

http://video.msn.com/?mkt=en-us&vid=...3950&GT1=42007
Someday we will be programing them to play guitar for us..

Josh

I think a lot of the problem with modern solid state amps is that they are digital modelers trying to emulate a tube sound, rather than just being desigined as a good sounding and capable amp on their own merit. How often do you see a NEW well built, analog solid state amp that isn't beginner equipment or trying to emulate another amp? Each type of amp operates differently and has its strong and weak points.

For example, my main metal amp is a late 80's Ampeg SS-140c solid state head. It has two separate channels, a crystal clean channel, and a dirty channel thats perfect for extreme metal. I like solid states for this stuff because where tube amps have tube sag and aren't generally as tight, the solid state is tight and very precise. It also has a great amount of distortion that I don't need pedals to achieve. It doesn't have the pick dynamics my Marshall 2204s does for mild overdrive (although when the Marshall boosted to extreme levels of gain it starts to lose them anyway) but the tone itself is warm and sweet on both channels at any volume, and its a reliable and versatile amp. I think a lot of the difference is that it's analog, not a modeling amp and built much better than some of todays amps (it's just as heavy as my Marshall). Plus, it has its own sound, and its a good sound.

On the other side of the coin, while not the best amp IMO in the extreme metal department, my '86 2204s is far superior for vintage rock/metal/blues stuff that I don't need extreme and tight distortion or a completely clear clean sound. The Marshall has the dynamics and cleans up with my picking when I need it to, and has that nice thick mild distortion tone when the tubes breakup, which you just dont get with the solid state due to how the amps differ in operation. I don't need to elaborate any more because I'm sure most of you know what I'm talking about.

I think comparing solid states to tube is like apples and oranges, they both are good but better in different areas. Also, when you try to make solid state amps act like tube amps, well thats like trying to make an apple into an orange and it's never quite the same. Although I'm sure someday technology will change that..just not sure when

BrotherJ

This is an interesting discussion!

My personal view is that tube will never go away completely, there will always be at least one plant who will prepared to manufacture tubes / valves for us consumers.

There was a product on the market that is essentially a plug in item that can be used in place of 12ax7 preamp tube, but I can't remember the name of it

Not that I shun digital gear, i'm an avid user of some items like my POD X3 & even some behringer gabage that still hasn't died on me yet - however I still feel that it will be some time before these modern pieces of equipment can provide satisfaction to the high end tube amp market.

__________________
Mesa Stiletto Deuce II - Mesa Traditional quad
Marshall DSL50 - 1960AV Quad

thrawn86

+1 on valves 'never going away completely'.

Look at the store. You'll still find cassete tapes and VHS tapes. Vinyl is still available if you want it. Why-for this and other things that seem dated-? Some of the greatest inventions retain their value despite advancing technology. Others are kept alive for nostalgic reasons. Valves will be around, because, if nothing else, someone out there who is a lover of valves will become the next Howard Hughes....either monetarily or mentally, and keep them alive.

__________________
See me 'n the boys mean business, bustin' out dead or alive.
2002 DSL 401-NOS Mullards & Martimus Maximus High Gain Pack....WOW!
2001 Gibson LP Studio Pewter 2003 PRS Santana SE 2002 1960B

carnada

theres a very easy answer.

BUY like 50 pairs of tubes, and you will be fine for the rest of your life

nofearfactor

Its time for the other side of the story.

For starters,I started out with a JMP-50 and a beat-to-hell Les Paul Standard as my first gear at 16. I'm now 40. I went from the JMP to a JCM-800 in the late 80s. The mid 90s I went off track to the new Peavey 5150s,2 of them ABYd. 99' I changed to 2 Mesa MKIVs AByd; 06' it was back to a couple of JCM 800s. And Ive always used Marshall cabs.

Today,my rig is a rack rig. I use Digitech GSP1101 and Fractal AX-FX Ultra preamp/effects processors,digital modelers, powered by Marshall 9200 Dual MonoBloc 100/100 and 9100 50/50 tube power amps into Marshall 1960 cabs. Since I first went all rack rig Ive went thru Peavey,Mesa and then back to Marshall tube power amps. I love the 9200 and 9100 models. I like them alot better than the EL34 100/100 and 50/50 models too because I like to use 6L6s.

So. Why a tube power amp with a digital modeler and not a solidstate power amp? Sag. Not the wide headroom,even though that is nice,but sag. And,yes,it is detectable even if your tone is being generated by a digital modeler if you have experienced it before in a head or a power amp. And I have had many fine tube heads. A solidstate power amp can not simulate that. Period. Solidstate or digital modeling never will. I want the versatility and mobility and ease of use of a rack rig but I still want that tube power amp feel. And I can feel it with my 9200 and 9100. I didnt feel it with the Alesis RS-300 and RA-100 solidstate power amps I tried to use at the beginning of building my rig.

In my tone generation stage,I usually try to use the modeled amps that I have personally owned. Plus,in both of my processors, I have the capability to also integrate an exterior preamp from one of my tube heads and use either the interior digital preamp/model or the exterior preamp on any patch that I build. And go back and forth between the two. When I build a patch,I will pick out an amp model and cab model,and then start looking for distortion and effects pedal models for my tones. Basically as if I was using a pedal,solidstate,with a dimed tube head on the clean or distorted channel. I dont use but about a 1/4 of the available patch spots I have to use when playing live. I use maybe 5 of 10 clean patches Ive built w/effects(reverb,2 delays,chorus,flanger) and maybe 5 of about 10 distortion patches Ive built w/effects during a show. Thats it. I have my basic tones that I like and have all of the high quality effects that I used to use in pedals and rack units at the flick of switch. 3/4s of the patch slots at my disposal go completely unused. And I have never used any of the factory presets,the noise gates,or the EQs. Most of the time they suck pretty bad anyways-even in the $2000 AX-FX Ultra.

What am I gaining by using a digital modeler with a tube power amp that I cant get out of a head/cab/pedal setup? A really quiet,clean,versatile, and well organized rig. Loadins and loadouts are a breeze and easy on my body- my entire rig rolls every where. I play in 2 different bands playing 2 different kinds of music. My old head/cab/pedals rigs just didnt have the versatility I needed to do a mix of more modern styles. I play modern metal in one band and techno/industrial/metal/fusion in another band. Digital sterile sounds are the requirement for those styles of music. It also spills out into my other gear. My guitars all have the more sterile sounding EMG active pickups. If I was playing classic heavy metal or the blues I would certainly be using a head/cab/pedals rig and guitars with passive more organic and warm sounding pickups.

I'm not forgoeing tube technology for digital technology at all. I actually hope the 2 can get along with each other better in the coming years. For however long I will be playing music I hope to be able to progress in not only my playing but in my gear technology and use of technology. If anything I'm embracing modern technology and at the same time trying to bridge the gap and figure out a way to integrate the two technologies.

__________________
myspace- http://www.myspace.com/nofearfactor
some gear pics- http://community.webshots.com/album/...ecurity=QbSaeN

Richman1

AMEN my brother... You get it...I agree 100 percent.

__________________
DSL-50
DSL-50
1960AC
1960BV
1960A
1984 Jackson RR Custom
2006 Les Paul Classic

http://www.youtube.com/justonechristianband

80's Rocker

Thats what I did and I am 15.


I hope that never happens, I just dont think tube tone will ever be matched. But if they ever do stop making tube........I am going to buy a crap load of tubes now and be prepared for it! ......

__________________
80's Rocker
Epiphone Les Paul Stantard
Marshall JCM 800 2204
1960 Cab
Ibanez TS9 Tube Screamer
Charvel Model 1
'87 Kramer Baretta




Rock On!