What Makes an Electric Guitar Sound Like an Electric Guitar
theatlantic.com
theatlantic.com
Kids and pro recording artists are plugging guitars into USB adapters and the software on the laptop has digital models of Marshall, Fender, Roland, etc.
Some digital models are embedded into FPGA chips in dedicated rack boxes such as Fractal Axe-Fx.[1]
I saw a gadget that let you plug your electric into your iPhone and play with amp simulators written in iOS.[2] Distortion, chorus, fx, etc all in the palm of your hand.
It's amazing the encyclopedia of guitar sounds that's easily available to this generation. It's all made possible by computers, software, and DSP mathematics research.
[1]http://www.fractalaudio.com/p-axe-fx-ii-preamp-fx-processor....
[2]https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/ampkit-guitar-amps-effects/i...
Is it great for live use? Sure. Better than 'real' amps for some cases since it can lead to more manageable stage volume.
But in a studio the difference is pretty obvious still.
Where the modeling stuff still has a long way to go is in the transition region. They have no problem doing buzzsaw distortion or crystal clean - but those magic tones that occur just as you're getting into overdrive.
Here's one of the masters, Gov't Mules Warren Haynes showing off the kind of sounds I'm talking about.
I've got one of the little Orange Tiny Terrors sitting next to me. That's 7w on the setting I normally use.
Personally, I have an old 25-watt Mesa/Boogie and it is infinitely nicer than the 100-watt transistor monster or 60-watt Fender tube amp that I had earlier. It is still a bit loud for training room, but just okay for live gigs with PA where it's miked.
The Marshall DSL5C can toggle between 5 or 1w - you can use headphones in low power mode, although I ended up getting an inline volume control because the cans were getting hit too hard.
I've heard good things about the VHT 6w stuff too...is it payday yet?
Got my eye on the special 6 ultra combo. Too bad there's no headphone socket though
I like it a lot, and the power soak is killer. It's great being able to crank it up (moderately) and not have my neighbors want to kill me, or put it up at wall shaking volumes when I'm at a house.
I have considered trading it for something with a bit different sound though.
The transformer used to match the high impedance tube output to the low impedance speaker is also a factor. When that transformer reaches the magnetic saturation point, the bandwidth of the transformer will narrow, depending on the degree of magnetic saturation.
The speaker is a factor as well. It can be driven into breakup, though I've never tried it.
The accuracy of your simulation depends on how far down you want to go into the simulation process. On the fundamental level, it's actually pretty easy to simulate the physical processes of thermionic emission, circuit simulation, dynamic impedances, EMF fields, magnetic saturation, etc... and then just build up from there.
The problem is, it's not yet practical to do all that in real-time.
The good news is you can measure and parameterize many of those things and get reasonably close.
The bad news is that it's impossible to do that for every amp combination.
The other bad news (for modeling amps) is that you can still buy a Traynor for $400 and it won't take a shit on you halfway through tour.
The OED lists the following definition with examples going back almost 60 years:
"model, v. 10. trans a. To devise a (usually mathematical) model or simplified description of (a phenomenon, system, etc.)."
(The use of "simulate" to mean a similar thing dates from <70 years ago, so neither usage is hugely older than the other.)
This is not "weird"; it's a standard term in applied mathematics and other fields. There's even a monthly journal Applied Mathematical Modelling: Simulation and Computation for Engineering and Environmental Systems.
GuitarRig's modeling of the recording of an AC30, an amp I'm very familiar with, does not come anywhere close to the sounds I can get sticking a microphone in front of my actual AC30.
Having said that, the amp wants to be loud in order to hit the sweet spot, but it's already screaming with the volume at 3. I can't really get it to the optimal place without blowing everyone else off stage. Also, I never thought I was going to hurt my back hauling the Pod up a flight of stairs. I wouldn't go back, though.
Like one of the comments from above, part of the magic of tube guitar amplification is that it is much more responsive dynamically to inputs. You can turn the volume up a tick, or hit the strings harder or softer, or change your picking style, and the results are drastically different on a tube amp.
This gives the artist more space to express themselves -- which is why tube amps are still favoured amongst guitar players today -- decades after transistor's have taken over the rest of the electronic industry. You can't get the nuanced expressiveness in a crystal lattice that you can in the free space of a vacuum. [1]
[1] I'm paraphrasing from H. Alexander Dumble, one of the gurus of guitar amplification.
The AXE FX II models the differences with tube amplification that you're talking about.
I also don't like that quote any - by the logic of that quote MP3s and CDs are equally rubbish recordings that have no room for expression? Or are we only extending it to what suits your view?
There are a vast number of ways to customise a real tube amp (I've owned a Mesa Boogie Mark IV) and an Axe FX II (which I currently own.) A poorly setup mesa vs. one that's been carefully configured will be night and day as well. Did you factor that in? Was there a tone match? Actually the Axe FX doesn't claim to emulate particular models precisely in many cases (see http://wiki.fractalaudio.com/axefx2/index.php?title=Amp:_all...)
My point is you dismiss it as if you can know for sure - go do some blind testing where these factors are taken into account (you can start with a skeptic's view at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EtxHlJ2FPo) and then see if your certainty is affected.
Finally, Metallica have chosen to do all live shows using only Axe FX's. So obviously you know better than this small band who barely tour.
I know HN is basically turning into the new reddit, but comments like these where you just make a statement and then act as if it's established then go on to quote some guy really make me wonder whether reading the comments section is going to continue to depress me forever at this point.
Actually, Metallica uses Mesa Boogie amps...[1]
[0]:http://www.g66.eu/articles/890-metallica-backstage [1]:http://forum.fractalaudio.com/axe-fx-ii-discussion/87016-met... [2]:http://thefretboard.co.uk/discussion/13217/metallica-confirm...
That's some really lazy google'ing there btw...!! Look at the top 3 results for https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1....
Are you hoping that I just... made up that point? I find it interesting the degree of denial audio guys have with this stuff. The Axe FX is a really amazing and inspiring piece of machinery that allows for a huge artistic freedoms and is basically the product of one guy's dedication to accuracy (many amps are modelled to the extent of their entire circuitry being simulated as well as precise physical models of the valve sets which you can change, etc. etc.) - when I wonder why the Axe hasn't got the love it deserves (though there's growing love for it) the reaction of 'not the same as analogue' guys reminds me why :)
Cute, but at the end of the day it's just different nonlinearities in the transfer function. If you like how ancient technology sounds, that's fine, no need to ascribe mystical properties to it.
[1] http://forum.fractalaudio.com/axe-fx-ii-discussion/75301-roo...
[2] http://forum.fractalaudio.com/amps-cabs/79963-clrs-amp-room-...
[3] http://forum.fractalaudio.com/amps-cabs/70327-frfr-amp-room-...
http://www.seymourduncan.com/tonefiend/recording/can-you-tel...
Not only people who think themselves picky when it comes to tubes vs modeling could not tell the difference, but they also failed to even recognize the amp types.
(It reminds me of red-wine)
"Not only people who think themselves picky when it comes to tubes vs modeling could not tell the difference, but they also failed to even recognize the amp types." It was a contest with a giveaway. The only thing we can infer about the entrants is that they wanted free stuff.
I'm with the author as far as conclusions go: "Sometimes models sound great, and sometimes they sound crappy, much like amps."
I've tried some less expensive digital gear (Line6) and, while it's nice enough, I feel it leaves much to be desired compared to a well maintained tube amp, so at my gear budget (and since I don't really have any space constraints) I think tubes are a better choice for me - and I don't think I'm terribly atypical. In the long run, if gear that provides the quality of Axe FX drops in price significantly, I might change my mind.
Yep. I had to sell my tube amp when I moved to New York City and the modeling pedal I have comes nowhere close to the warmth and feel of the tube amp. I'm a horrible audiophile and I only played guitar for fun and even I could tell a massive difference. It's like trying to describe a person with presence - words never seem to work and you're always left with "you just feel it"
In one of my bands, we were using an iPad for keyboard sounds, mostly organs. The sounds were terrific, but the physical experience was terrible. The iPad got replaced with a vintage Yamaha analog organ from around 1980 (with string synth and poly synth), and a couple of guitar pedals. It's not as flexible, but it's a lot more fun to play and practical onstage.
The really nice thing about this (besides not having to tote a ton of pedals aroudn) is that you can dial stuff in in advance and forget it. Especially useful for multiple settings on the same pedal - like several different delay settings on different songs - and get the one you want every single time.
Do you install updates on the computer? Do you browse the internet with it? Would you expect a ten year old computer to work?
Many everyday interfaces that have previously worked fine for decades, nowadays have computers and sampling inputs. Large multi billion dollar industry giants have managed to create unresponsive elevator interfaces where if you press a button, sometimes something happens, sometimes nothing happens. It's a expletive elevator. How hard can it be?
Perhaps I can trust technology like a Boss multi effects pedal - it's been engineered for a very narrow amount of inputs and doesn't need software updates. It can be made to basically always just work. The company has a long history of actually creating quality products.
But a laptop on stage, or off stage and interfaced with some pedals. That's just a disaster waiting to happen. Maybe if you can pay for one person to just babysit the computer and route around it if / when there are problems, then it's probably great.
This sin't some sort of jerry-rigged VST host - it's a dedicated DSP. There is no OS to crash other than the built-in firmware.
It's really no different than your old Boss, just hundreds of times more DSP muscle.
The thing about modelling that drives it into uncanny valley for me is the lack of harmonic feedback, which is part of the symbiosis between a guitar and a amp being driven hot.
Still, it's a useful tool, and I'm happy to have it in my toolbox.
Frank Zappa used to record with little Pignose practice amps in an echo chamber, and got his feedback off the studio monitors as well.
ps: I'm tempted to say Guitar Pro, but I can't back this up searching the web.
http://line6.com/mobilein/ http://line6.com/sonicport-audio-interface/
The opportunity to spin through a fairly complete history of electric guitar amps and effects was compelling, but nowhere near as compelling as the simple, reliable combination of a '72 Twin Reverb, RAT, and Tube Screamer. Sometimes, a multiplicity of choices can be paralyzing.
Of course, analog or digital, what's most important is the input :-)
Of course it was also 5-6 times the price, which might have abit to do with it.
This entire article bums me out. If you see a scathing editorial printed in The Atlantic (you won't -- editors NEVER correct the really bad articles like this one) that's me.
"... motors (essentially two electromechanical horns) that had been rotated
to create a Doppler-effect-based vibrato. These horns were, in turn,
picked up by the dual speaker units."First, when you're playing, you can hear incredibly tiny details that no one else can hear. The other day, I spent a half hour choosing which of four different variants of Dunlop Jazz III picks I liked best. (I'm a pick nerd and I'm always fussing over them. My drummer can hear when I change picks, but no one else can.)
Second, those differences are lost in the big picture. I have recordings of my own playing I love, where I couldn't tell you what guitar or amp I was using without looking at my notes.
Third, playing in a full band is a fundamentally different tonal experience than playing by yourself. Again with the subtleties. A lot of the subtleties that make gear nerding fun actually make for poor tone in a band context. More importantly, gear that sounds bad by itself can be magical in a band context.
Fourth, guitar playing is an incredibly physical and sensual experience. You feel it in your bones. Part of the fun of big tube amps is "getting your hair blown back", feeling the vibration literally shaking your body. It's a blast (motorcycles have the same physical presence). For me at least, it means I don't like guitars that are too easy to play - I want it to fight back and make me work for my tone.
On the subject of tube amps versus solid state modeling (Sansamp, etc) versus digital modeling... remember, not only is the guitar a physical thing, it's a very sensitive and responsive thing. The real problem with digital modeling imho is getting the response right, that precious moment when the pick leaves the string. This gets worse when the subtleties of harmonic distortion come into play - clean and mildly overdriven sounds (there's no such thing as really "clean" electric guitar).
What's worked for me in recording situations is to rely on analog pedals for the attack, and track into really neutral digital models. It's less hassle than miking amps, for sure, and the results can be very good.
Tubes are great for power more than drive. Transistors and op-amps have been part of the overdriven sound for almost as long as electric guitars have been around - starting with 1960s fuzz. Solid state amps tend to fall down delivering live power in a band context, although modern Class H switching amp technology (basically digital amps heterodyning the signal several octaves outside the range of hearing, so digital distortion artifacts are inaudible) is getting brilliant.
Me, I've more or less quit using tube amps, due to reliability issues. My beautiful Mesa Mark I and my monstrous VHT Pittbull 45 are both sitting with blown power transformers. I use a vintage Yamaha solid-state jazz amp and pedals, and I'm happy.
Oh, and studio recording? Anyone who demands "realism" from their hi-fi gear has no idea how recording is done!
You may be interested in this then, the latest development in vacuum tube technology...
http://www.synthtopia.com/content/2015/01/29/korg-noritake-i...
A mini-revolution in guitar amp technology could be on the horizon.
I would be interested to see analog gear built front to back with this stuff however...
Interesting perspective. I'm the polar opposite. I have a love/hate relationship with Strat-type guitars. I love the huge dynamic range they have, but I feel the design of the guitar is fighting me all the way. I always end up back at my Les Paul, which sounds great no matter what I do.
Les Pauls drive me nuts due to the lack of dynamics. Marshall amps, too. My favorite combination is a Telecaster into a vintage Mesa. The thing about Teles and Mesas is "all the way up" == "too much". They're happier with the control knobs backed off some. And picking? A little dynamic slip and it sounds like a gun going off by your ear. Forces you to be controlled!
I wish people would learn music. it's such a weird thing. the amount of unheard details that comes to you, tone, rhythm, harmony, texture, syncopation... And even playing. I never played on live amps pushing back at me, but just driving a few guys sitting behind the drums is like voodoo. Owning time is mystical, as is losing it; seems like our mammalian brains have a direct feed.
I love the pull back and forth to set the feel of a band, too. One band I'm in has an odd effect... in most bands, one person tends to be the timekeeper (usually but not always the drummer), and the rest of the band follows her. But in this particular band I'm in, time-leading rotates - three of the four members can be the timekeeper, depending on the song.
1) piano - playing chords in a rhythm is not hard, separating your hands can be tough and playing classical can be infinitely difficult. 2) drums - I am not a natural drummer, so staying on rhythm and fills and different styles was a hard won battle for me. I think that some people are born with this ability so drums may seem simple to them. 3) guitar - probably the easiest instrument to compose a full song with, and its somewhat easy to vary from chords to leads and back. I think that anyone with 6 months and some determination can be a "competent" guitarist or at least get over the learning curve. 4) bass - I think this is easiest because you have the choice to relegate yourself to the rhythm section and just play a groove.
Im sure that others may feel differently, and I don't think there is a right answer. Being a virtuoso at any of these instruments is truly difficult, but getting over the learning curve and playing for fun definitely varies.
Some of you may find this fun to read. (from the textbook for Music 420 at Stanford... I guess they've now split it into two classes since I took it...)