ilovefuzz.com

iamthesnow wrote::picard:

Who are you facepalming? It better be the guy pushing creationist-level pseudoscience as to how "Digital" works. Otherwise I think I give up on this place... even HCFX is less Analog purist than here.

Roseweave wrote:Give me some science behind it or it's just cork sniffing.

"Cork-sniffing" is when someone tells you that oh no, only bumble-bee caps will give you that tone that you need. This is empiricism. And you can't claim that...

There's no difference in ability to cut between a well designed Solid State and well designed Modeler.

if you're insisting on mathematical theory, because "cut" is an entirely subjective term based on the individual's experience.

A modeler IS just a really complex SS amp, aside from the fact that it converts the signal to digital - which happens anyway if you press it to CD or even mic up at some live venues. Unless you have shit AD converts, it's not an issue.

...no it's not. It just isn't. It doesn't simply convert an analog signal to digital, it uses digital processing algorithms to shape the sound in the preamp. That is a substantial difference in the preamp stages of solid state and digital amps. There is no analogy to the digital conversion of a CD - that's an A/D conversion designed to preserve the entering signal with minimal fuckery, rather than a digital model of a preamp.

Additionally: Your digital amp does have a shit A/D converter. Studios drop hundreds on sophisticated and well-designed converters to preserve the sound quality coming through the microphones. What do you think your digital modeler is rocking?

Boosting the upper-midrange is not a solution;

Yes it is. What you're describing is the Fletcher Munson effect in action. That would be EXACTLY the solution. The upper mids, where the guitar gets it's definition(and what gets boosted when you crank a tube amp), are missing. If they were boosted using an EQ pedal or otherwise, this wouldn't have been an issue.

If one had the ability to magically and selectively tailor the EQ response of a given instrument with infinite precision, it would be a simple matter to make everything sit perfectly in the mix, assuming an infinitely sophisticated engineer. Meanwhile, beautiful women will leap into your arms from the backs of unicorns, because we are clearly not talking about reality.

An EQ is going to boost or cut a range of frequencies other than the one particularly desired. It is not necessarily possible, with a given EQ and a given signal source, to make it intelligible by simply kicking up the upper mids without it becoming irritating and overbearing. Boosting a signal that is already muddy, further, may only make it heard without making it intelligible - a complex chord reduced to a incoherent jumble by crappy digital distortion is going to sound shitty even when you brute force it by boosting the upper mids.

That's something shitty engineers do, by the by - crank 5khz range for clarity. It's great if you want it to really cut through that your recording sounds bad.

Ther are plenty of awful SS amps that won't cut either.

There are! I mentioned this already. Most analog SS amps in general suck balls, usually due to a combination of poor design and cheapskate production.

Being able to cut in a live situation is ALL down to EQ. And EQ can be altered. Really, whoever was at the mixing desk should have corrected this.

EQ can only be altered so much. The characteristics of a sound that let it cut through are more complex than simply boosting 5K.

Practice overwhelms theory in this case because the dominant theory does not have an adequate explanation of what it means to be audible, intelligible, and to cut, given the subjective nature of those criteria.

But beyond that, we're operating in the real world. Many shows, you won't get a mic on the amp, much less EQ. If you're relying on a soundguy to correct your muddy sound and make it audible, you've already lost.

Roseweave wrote:Also, the ZT Lunchbox is a "digital" amp and I've never heard anyone having problems with it cutting. Quite the opposite in fact.

The Lunchbox has an analog preamp and no digital modeling elements. Entirely different animal.

Y'all have to calm down about this issue.

I really like tube amps and I agree they are probably the way to go. But it isn't exactly like there is some perfect answer to this question.

Everyone likes different stuff, so why can't we all just get along?

royaltrux wrote:Y'all have to calm down about this issue.

I really like tube amps and I agree they are probably the way to go. But it isn't exactly like there is some perfect answer to this question.

Everyone likes different stuff, so why can't we all just get along?

No one is upset, he was just correcting some misconceptions. An informative thread is a good thread.

"Cork-sniffing" is when someone tells you that oh no, only bumble-bee caps will give you that tone that you need. This is empiricism. And you can't claim that...

The sound I'm looking for has nothing to do with it not being "Tube" enough.

if you're insisting on mathematical theory, because "cut" is an entirely subjective term based on the individual's experience.

Okay, now you're just being an ass. What people refer to as "Cut" isn't "entirely subjective" unless you're dealing with alien species or some shit, it's based on what frequencies we're most sensitive to, and the idea that having too much information in one spectrum can drown out others.

...no it's not. It just isn't. It doesn't simply convert an analog signal to digital, it uses digital processing algorithms to shape the sound in the preamp. That is a substantial difference in the preamp stages of solid state and digital amps. There is no analogy to the digital conversion of a CD - that's an A/D conversion designed to preserve the entering signal with minimal fuckery, rather than a digital model of a preamp.

Your claim was that Digital amps get "Muddy and unfocused" and were hard to fit(cut) into a mix.

You can very much tell, believe me. At stage volumes modeling amps get... problematic. Muddy, unfocused. I worked at a rehearsal/recording studio in LA that did a lot of industry showcases, and the head tech hated it when anyone tried to use a modeling amp in a showcase because it took massive effort to make it fit in the mix.

I explained the science as to why this might appear so, and that you merely need to boost the higher mids to compensate for the Fletcher Munson effect. You ignored this, completely.

A/D conversion has little or nothing to do with this if it's of any level of quality. If you accept that it's not A/D conversion, then it can't be the usual analog purist "frequencies in the high end lost" rubbish. So what is it?

You're just saying "it models a preamp, that's why it doesn't mix well". That makes absolutely no sense. It could be possible to model it in such a way that it cuts better for all you know. Unless you can give me some science here, you're talking shit.

Additionally: Your digital amp does have a shit A/D converter. Studios drop hundreds on sophisticated and well-designed converters to preserve the sound quality coming through the microphones. What do you think your digital modeler is rocking?

I doubt most people can know the difference. In fact I'm pretty sure they don't, given most people can't hear frequencies over 22000 hz or so, and that goes down with age(and most tube/analog purists tend to be older, so they're even more full of shit).

If one had the ability to magically and selectively tailor the EQ response of a given instrument with infinite precision, it would be a simple matter to make everything sit perfectly in the mix, assuming an infinitely sophisticated engineer. Meanwhile, beautiful women will leap into your arms from the backs of unicorns, because we are clearly not talking about reality.

You don't need to "magically and selectively tailor the EQ response of a given instrument". You just need to boost mids. THhat's it. Some tube amps have that problem too. To recreate the exact sound you had at lower volume levels, you would need to magically and seletively tailor, it yes. But you just need the amp to be easy to mix, and not be "muddy and unfocused". There are new Line 6 amps coming out that have Fletcher Munson compensation that may well do exactly that.

There's very little that's "Impossible" with digital technology.

Also, TUBE AMPS DO NOT COMEPNSATE FOR FLETCHER-MUNSON PRECISELY EITHER. That would be an amazing scientific coincidence on the level of finding a Babelfish.

That's something shitty engineers do, by the by - crank 5khz range for clarity. It's great if you want it to really cut through that your recording sounds bad.

You claimed "cut" was subjective earlier. I'm willing to say this is a hell of a lot more subjective.

Also, my amp has a tube in the power section so again, it should have a similar frequency response to a real tube amp.

And yes, you are a cork sniffer. Completely and utterly and irritatingly so to the core. The vast majority people won't notice what you mention, especially in a loud live situation. And it definitely won't affect ability to cut as extremely as you claim.

EQ can only be altered so much. The characteristics of a sound that let it cut through are more complex than simply boosting 5K.

But being easy to mix is based on EQ. The reason crappy modelers are hard to mix live is because of the FM effect. I explained it to you, but you're not listening.

Practice overwhelms theory in this case because the dominant theory does not have an adequate explanation of what it means to be audible, intelligible, and to cut, given the subjective nature of those criteria.

No it doesn't, because you could well be an arrogant prick who used a shitty modeler, or mixed it badly. If there's no theory to support it, I have no reason to believe you. I've heard from plenty of people who've gotten on just fine using modelers live.

But beyond that, we're operating in the real world. Many shows, you won't get a mic on the amp, much less EQ. If you're relying on a soundguy to correct your muddy sound and make it audible, you've already lost.

The wonderful thing about modelers is that they can go direct out. If the place doesn't have something like that, you wouldn't have been able to bring a synth either, so I wouldn't be playing there anyway. Also, again, you can just use an EQ. Even using an EQ up front would help alleviate the issue.

:?: No one is upset, he was just correcting some misconceptions. An informative thread is a good thread.

He's not "correcting" anything. He's an anti-science analogue supremist and exactly the kind of person we need less of in the gear business. He hasn't backed up anything he's said with real science/signal theory. Having done signal theory and knowing people that use modelers extensively I Have some basic idea what I'm talking about. How is it informative if he's not posting any science?

I was saying correcting loosely... as in he's trying to correct with what he knows in his own mind. Maybe royaltrux is right, just chill out.

IMHO the main difference between tube and SS/Modelers is the "feel" playing through tubes is different to SS and modelers, they dont react the same to pick attack etc
just my 2c

Science doesn't explain everything, especially something as subjecive as tone.
You can explain all the theory you want, but most will use their ears.

I won't go as far to say modelers can't get the job done. The axe-fx is a very tempting unit, and I'd love to get my hands on one. I think that one might be a game changer if the price comes down a bit.
But I will say in my opinion a tube amp is easier to dial in, with less fuss about getting your models right or understanding the science behind sound.
Us pedal geeks already fuss enough with stompboxes, I just wanna plug in and play.

I think this conversation is very engaging and informative, but I'd hate to see it closed for personal attacks.
Please try and comment in a thread without insulting the intelligence or character of others who disagree.

One question-
Did he even say what amp he had?

Blurillaz wrote:One question-
Did he even say what amp he had?

Vox AD30. I may be missing some letters.

From the vox valvetronix line, the AD30VT.

Ahh, my friend has the AD15vt. It's cool, you don't have to buy pedals though because it ahs everything built in and you can buy a huge footswitch.
Of course, it's kinda hard to tweak the effects...

Hmm. I really have nothing to contribute, but I've fiddled a little bit with a Vox AD30 and decided that it's not the amp for me.

Roseweave, if I were you, I'd just go to some gear shop on a day where I have nothing to do and pretty much just play around with mad gear. As it's been said before, when it comes to tone, you gotta follow yer ear.

morningstaru wrote:Science doesn't explain everything, especially something as subjecive as tone.
You can explain all the theory you want, but most will use their ears.

But it's not subjective in terms of how it stands in a mix, etc. people tend to respond in the same way. Some people may focus more on mid frequencies, or lower frequencies, but generally it's more or less the same. The science behind it is the same. Higher mids tend to cut in mixes, lower mids do not. Digital amps are only "muddy and unfocused" in a mix, generally, because of the Fletcher Munson effect, or the amp itself being poorly equalised to sound impressive in the store but not on stage. This is remedied by using a Modeler that's not shit, and EQing it either at the desk or with a decent EQ pedal.

A lot of the "subjective" element of tone isn't people focusing in on different frequencies, but kind of like a placebo effect. That's what really bothers me. I agree it's coolest to have a proper tube amp, it generally responds a bit better and is a nice piece of almost steampunk kind of kit. But it's not necessary for everyone, and I don't like the insistance that my tone issues will be solved with a REAL ANALOGUE AMP.

His basic argument is that tubes are "muddy and unfocused" in a mix, and this is an inherent property of "Modeled preamps". This is, however, untrue. It's not a matter of him having different taste, he just hasn't brought any real evidence to the table to suggest what's going on and has ignored the science that's been suggested to him.

But I will say in my opinion a tube amp is easier to dial in, with less fuss about getting your models right or understanding the science behind sound.
Us pedal geeks already fuss enough with stompboxes, I just wanna plug in and play.

My problem with the AD30VT I have is that you have more limited controls than a real Tube amp - I can't adjust the presence, and the controls don't always interact quite the way they would. But as a trade off, I also get some drastically different sounds, and nearly all of them are usable.

I think this conversation is very engaging and informative, but I'd hate to see it closed for personal attacks.
Please try and comment in a thread without insulting the intelligence or character of others who disagree.

But it's not all about agreement, and disagreement. I can't argue with a guy, maturely, who's pushing an argument that's really on the same level as "creation science". Differing opinions are great and I don't have a problem arguing a real argument regarding tone.

I have a very low tolerance for corksniffers because I've run into a lot of trouble with them before and have found them to get very cocky and unrealistic.

I don't mind arguing things like "What kind of tone is best", but "Modelers can't cut a mix" just isn't true and I don't see how you expect me to have a mature argument with one that falls back on the good old conservative "experience and common sense" when there's reason to think otherwise.