Ibanez JEM Forum banner

Finally, someone tests out Modellers Vs their real world counterparts! MUST READ

2K views 29 replies 17 participants last post by  eviltwin 
#1 ·
With the help of Tozzoli and Antonell, I was able to locate a number of producer-engineer-guitarists with excellent credits who agreed to be on the listening panel (see Fig. 1).

The panelists were D. James Goodwin (Thursday, Parliament-Funkadelic, Motion Picture Demise), John Holbrook (B.B. King, the Brian Setzer Orchestra, the Isley Brothers, Fountains of Wayne), Pete Moshay (Hall and Oates, Daryl Hall, Paula Abdul, B.B. King, Barbra Streisand, Fishbone), Paul Orofino (John Petrucci, Blue Oyster Cult, Anthrax), and Tozzoli (Al Di Meola, the Marsalis Family, David Bowie).

All of the panelists had lots of experience recording guitars through vintage amps in commercial-studio environments. Most also had experience with amp modelers, especially the tried-and-true Digidesign Pro Tools HD standby, Line 6 Amp Farm.
Now, you may be asking yourself 'What are these people a panel for?'

They were a panel set up to determine once and for all whether modelling amps can really sound like the real thing.

Results here: http://emusician.com/tutorials/showdown-clubhouse-amp-software/

Personally, I'm of the hope this puts to rest any of the 'tube tone purist' arguments that come up here so often. When industry pros can't tell the difference, I'm impressed with the software. I also become much LESS impressed by 'golden ears' *******s who insist on putting down modellers based on price and assumptions alone.
 
#3 ·
That was fun to do the test, I only managed to pick one Live amp, and that was the only real one I was confident in... Yeah I find that live amp only sounds better when you roll off the volume or want to let out long extended rings of a chord etc... Sound is subjective, so there will never be a definitive answer, by experts or novices, everyone has different levels of hearing, due to ear damage, genetics etc...
 
#4 ·
This is great, I got half of em right(woo hoo!)

Twin Example 1 Correct
Twin Example 2 Correct
AC30 Example 1 Incorrect
AC30 Example 2 Incorrect
Marshall Example 1 Correct
Marshall Example 2 Incorrect

I wasn't familiar with what the live amps sounded like recorded, it's just subtle things that gave the digital versions away. The basic tone is there but little "in between" things like string slides, note "bloom", and note decay are what I listened for.

Then again, if I wasn't listening specifically for real vs digital, I highly doubt I'd be able to tell at all!
 
#5 ·
I wasn't familiar with what the live amps sounded like recorded, it's just subtle things that gave the digital versions away. The basic tone is there but little "in between" things like string slides, note "bloom", and note decay are what I listened for.

Then again, if I wasn't listening specifically for real vs digital, I highly doubt I'd be able to tell at all!
I agree, for most of these examples it was the nuances that gave it away. For example, the pinch harmonics in Marshall example 1 were a dead give away for me. However, there was at least one digital recording in each example that sounded very convincing and made me think pretty damn hard to figure out which one was real. The only one that had me totally confused was the second Vox clip. I think I chose the "eleven" example as the real one.
 
#6 ·
Well, I got the two Marshalls right, but that proves very little.
I'll have to do the test again with a bit more time and see if I had a favorite out of the modellers!
Trouble is, even though I know it should be possible to simulate a great amp, and even though I couldn't really identify the live amps in the test, I'd still go for a big heavy hot noisy box of bottes anyday!
Jim
 
#7 ·
What surprised me the most was that it wasn't just one modeler that had me fooled or came close to fooling me. I wasn't paying real close attention to what modelers they were but I don't remember seeing any of them more than once.

I wish that there was one that stood out above the rest because it would make picking one to purchase very easy.
 
#8 ·
Impressive modelling, so far I've only done three tests, got one Marshall correct, but misidentifid the Guitar Rig3 as a real Twin.

I had high hopes for the Eleven, but could easily identify it as fake twice: too thinny. Second Marshall sample was nice.

The Amp farm emulating Marshall#1 sounded a bit like a stomp box, but was ok as a Twin. I incorrectly said Amp Farm was the real deal in Marshall#2.
This suprised me, as I hadn't been impressed by Line6 stuff before.

Guitar Rig isn't half bad either, but all three of these samples are far removed from the type of tones I usually go for.
 
#9 ·
I dunno - I just took the test - and got all but one right. I missed the second Twin clip. Mind you - these are amps I've never heard before. And I was listening through ****ty computer speakers. I'm not convinced. I mean some of them sounded good - but meh. I don't really know how I knew - I expected to get them all wrong.
 
#10 ·
Mind you - these are amps I've never heard before.
Impressive that you could pick out the modellers so easily, but surely you must've listened to some music featuring a Marshall, Fender or Vox at some point? I mean, that's like 99,9% of all non-metal guitar, even if guitarists aren't actually using one of those, but something based upon those classic sounds.
 
#13 ·
It's so hard to tell simply by listening to recorded clips of someone else playing. To really tell, it's something you have to play and experience. Technology has progressed so far that there are lots of nearly dead on models of all the tube amps we're all familiar with.

When you play a solid state or digital modeling amp, you hear the sound. When you play a tube amp, you FEEL the sound.

I've done tests side by side. I used to be a big proponent of the digital modeling amps. Then I bought my first high gain tube amp. My first rehearsal with the tube amp, I couldn't stop laughing, because I couldn't believe the punch and powerful "feel" of tubes. I wanted to like the new stuff, simply to be different from the majority of other players.

I am now a tube snob.
 
#14 ·
I did the test and wrote down my response, and my second choice -- in every case but Marshall 1, I had it as either.

My issue was with how one would listen --the playback over the web gave them all a bit of a digitized cast. Normally I can hear solid state a mile away (there is a frequency that they all seem to hit that just grates on my ears), and the digitized versions all had alittle -- I just listen to which ones had the most, and the sounds in transitions.
 
#19 ·
I've never read a truly bad review of the Axe stuff. Everyone who gives them a chance is always very pleased although there are still those who prefer a traditional rig. It's likely more to do with the type of person you are than it is an inadequacy in the equipment.
 
#21 ·
I've never read a truly bad review of the Axe stuff. Everyone who gives them a chance is always very pleased although there are still those who prefer a traditional rig. It's likely more to do with the type of person you are than it is an inadequacy in the equipment.
That last statement rings true more than you can imagine.

The Axe-FX is great but it is not for everyone. Folks that really like the simplicity of an amp with a few pedals may not like the Axe-FX but for those of us that have been using rack based amp rigs for years, it's business as usual.

The other thing that some folks are intimidated by is the complexity it is capable of. You can do crazy things like use the tone circuit from a Fender on a Marshall Plexi or adjust the capacitor value on the bright switch but you do not have to do any of that to get a good sound. Those advanced features give you the ability to fine tune your sound beyond your wildest dreams but you don't have to go that deep. If you don't bother with the advanced options, it's just like using a regular amp (control wise).
 
#26 · (Edited)
Just for clarification and to those mentioning stuff like the 11rack or AxeFX:

This test uses software modellers (IE stuff you run on your computer) not dedicated rack mounted modellers.

So while in theory running the same or similar modelling software on a powerful PC shouldn't be all that different from running it on a dedicated audio processor, in reality the small differences might be perceptible.

I would be interested in such a shootout as well (say AxeFX vs Pod X3 vs GSP2101 vs Prophecy2 vs 11rack) but that's not what this is.

and not simply if it sounds good or not.
I agree, the main thing about these particular things is that you can record music without anything like a studio, an 80lbs tube combo, a dozen stompboxes, rack gear, microphones etc.etc...
just your guitar and laptop and possibly a guitar to USB input device.
As such they are in a class of their own.
 
#27 ·
This test uses software modellers (IE stuff you run on your computer) not dedicated rack mounted modellers.

So while in theory running the same or similar modelling software on a powerful PC shouldn't be all that different from running it on a dedicated audio processor, in reality the small differences might be perceptible.
The difference between software vs. hardware modeling, at least in the case of the Axe-FX, is in the hardware itself.
 
#28 ·
The hardware in the AxeFX isn't all that special, especially not when compared to a typical PC or laptop.
It uses two 32bit, 500MHz TigerSHARC processors in parallel, each about as powerful as a decent smartphone or a guided missile.
Note that other modellers, such as the PodX3, also use similar chips, with similar power.
http://www.analog.com/en/embedded-p...bles/sharc_selection_table/resources/fca.html

But this thread isn't about the AxeFX, it's about software modelling.
If the Fractal guys were to make their software available for us to run on a PC it would be relevant.
The effectiveness and quality of those rack units depends wholly of the software and programming.
Running this software on a PC (even on top of a heavy OS like Win7) would always lead to better performance.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top