The thing with a profile is, you're getting an amp on one specific setting and it might sound completely indistinguishable from the real amp on that setting - but the moment you try to tweak something, I find that they generally don't respond to EQ settings in the same way the amp does and it severely hampers the realism. With a model, generally it's more encompassing and less "one setting forever", but at the expense of basically being at the mercy of the manufacturer for the quality of the model. Some are *scarily* good, some are a bit less accurate or more oldie-fashioned-digital sounding. YMMV depending on the modeler you have. And of course, some amps simply aren't *available* as a model, so a profile/capture is the only way to replicate them. For example, you can capture the sound of an amp with a distortion pedal in front of it as one "unit", or with a studio EQ over the top.
You asked the question modelling vs Profiling and Christophe Kemper answered, both at the same time. Liquid Profiling. You have a Profile with modelled Gain and EQ tone stack of the Profiled amp. Watch the Leo Gibson video comparing a QC Capture and Liquid Profile of the same amp. When using the Gain and EQ controls on both units the Liquid Profile is 18% more accurate than the QC.
It's critical to see the dB Meter during such comparisons, as we know that louder typically sounds better, and bassier tends to sound more like a real/analog Amp. Both modeling and capturing tech can sound great. Last week, Nvidia released a $249 Mini Supercomputer to the public, with the ability to perform 117 TOPS - Trillion Operations Per Second. It will be interesting to see how/if this technology will be used in audio Modeling, Capturing, and Profiling.
In my opinion, the capturing and profiling only really makes sense for huge artists that want to take the exact tones of the studio recording on the road. For anything else it is probably worse than modeling, because the quality of the sound depends on the quality of the capture. And since most people don't make their own captures, they will get some online, which 90% of the time will be worse than an amp in a modeling unit.
The *actual* answer is it doesn't matter anymore because everything sounds great nowadays, and no audience member/listener cares what gear someone uses!
@ Marshall. Specifically the silver jubilee. I’ve tried everything. Victory v4. Quad cortex. Friedman irx. In the end I just bought the 20w mini jubilee for gigs so I don’t have to lug the 100w I also have. It’s epic
Modelers are great; profilers are great. Everything is a compromise on some level. Real amps can be heavy, difficult to integrate into complex rigs, and less reliable. Digital gear doesn’t sound the same but is easier to handle complex routing. They are all tools. Pick the tools that work best for you
I have some real tube amps, pedals, a solid state GTX100 and a Tonex One...all relatively cheap. I have fun with them all. I can great tones all the time. Some of the tonex downloads are perfection. No need to decide! They can both be great! You can still get a cheap EQ pedal with either and the world is your oyster!
You've already basically said it, but I also think of it like in modeling, each knob has the full range of 1-10. And profiling/capturing, etc., each knob effectively might have a range of 4-6, and everything changed is post-processing a single pre-determined sound. I originally thought that when profiling/capturing, the full dynamic response would be captured and editable, but it really seems like those aren't tweakable very far from the original. At least that how it seems here.
The best use case for captures is that you can capture YOUR OWN equipment, allowing you to take your specific and unique tone into projects and out to gigs in a more convenient format. For example, I have captured the preamps AND the full amp outputs of both my BadCat Lynx and Jet Black amps, at my preferred settings. So now I can: - Use them for recording, true to how things feel and sound in writing sessions - Put the preamps through the FX return of the actual amp, giving me super easy channel switching and infinite EQ/gain settings with scenes - I can do stereo setups using only 3 cables into the FX return of both amps - I can utilise the full amp captures to go into any clean power amp, mono or stereo, using real cabs - I can whack an IR on and put these sounds out to the PA or FRFR I'm not interested in other people's captures because they never sound the same as they did to other people. If I want sounds of gear I didn't or don't own them I go to modelling.
Always great information from you guys! Even after 30 something years of playing guitar, maybe my ears just suck. It’s all honestly so great that I can’t personally tell a difference. I would’ve gone gaga for even the worst of this new stuff in the early 2000s, so I’m just enjoying it for the sake of having it and not having to break my back carrying that twin everywhere that I go. Anyway, happy holidays and be well!
In every A/B comparison you can hear the mic and cab and room in the capture. I prefer the way that sounds in most cases, as it’s a little more natural. But for the high gain stuff, in my experience, models are almost always more clear and defined.
The thing to do with captures is have several all through the spectrum from sparkly clean to full distortion. Then you have them as presets that can act almost like you added dirt pedals to it with a step of the button
Sounds like models are theoretically far superior, but much harder to get to even the same level. I'm saying that on the basis that it could eventually be possible to model all the components of a signal chain and not just the amp, so you get everything from a profile/capture. Profiles will always have one big advantage though, which is that simplicity of dialling in a tone. Even if you did what I said above and modelled the amp, the cab, a mic, cable types/lengths, a desk, everything about a room and so on, you've got to be a qualified sound engineer to have any hope of getting a good sound out of that. As a qualified sound engineer, I'm going to be fantasising about all that for a while, but for most people we're still only just reaching a point where models are really better. All that said, I've got a Line6 Spider IV 75 and my guitar has a broken mount on one of the pickups (and an 11 gauge E string, it's trying to bend an undersea cable), so I'm not really in a strong position to comment on anything sounding good 🤣
My understanding is that a capture is a digital recreation of a specific amp with specific settings, whereas a model attempts to recreate the entire possible settings of the amp. For example, if you want to capture a clean channel of an amp and a dirty channel, you will need 2 captures for the same amp. However, you can do the exact same thing with one model just by changing the gain setting. Sonically, I don't think anyone can tell the difference between a capture and a model with similar settings. However, if you're trying to coax out different settings of an amp, you won't be able to recreate the range of sounds with a capture that you can with a model.
I have a QuadCortex and somehow I managed to have very good sound with Vox AC30 modeler and one captured pedal and one modeled. But the best sound I got was to capture my amp, so I guess I will have more fun with capturing different sounds :) Maybe the key is, that you take a capture with your guitar, your mic, your whole chain and you just make it sound the best accordingly.
Traditionally I have preferred models because of the adjustability. The older I get, though, the more I seem to be leaning towards gear that has fewer settings. So maybe I ought to revisit captures. But I also feel that-for me-amp simulations may not even be necessary. I tend to gravitate towards either very clean sounds or "distortion pedal" levels of gain. I feel like I'm often happy with just a cab IR at the end of the chain without an amp sim in front of it.
It is also possible to profile an amp without any cab or mics if you use a Two Notes Torpedo or the like. Then you can add any impulse response you like. That’s what I’ve done with my amps in my quad cortex and loved them enough to just sell my amps
As someone whos used Fractal units since 2007, owned Kempers and Tonex.... both have strengths and weaknesses. I could go WAY deep - but a quick summation is its down to workflow. Profiles are great if you want to copy your amp, or a borrowed amp to take live when you dont want to take the amp - copy what you have already. They are however a PITA to find 3rd party captures that are what you want - we all have different ideals AND the further you tweek form the profiled settings - the worse they get. MODELLERS are far better at creating a sound in your head, or a tone to suit a track perfectly - you have the tools to tweek to make it just right where profilers dont.... I prefer modelling BUT I use captures to audition real amps, and for specific iconic tones that have been captured.
Just bought a used Tonex from eBay for 140 quid with a load of profiles and the license number transferred from the old owner. It’s epic… genuinely blew me away.
I actually just had the reverse issue, I traded one to a local shop, and they just called me a week later saying the guy could not register it to his computer, because it was attached to mine. Luckily I was able to transfer the serial number, but if they wernt able to get ahold of me, or I was not willing to work with him they would have been screwed. I am never buying anything from IK again.
@@Riley880 yeah admittedly the set up was a massive ballache, but for what I paid, now it’s set up you can’t beat it. 140 quid?! The sounds and feel are fantastic.
The model imo clearly sounded better on that first demo- it was clearer, brighter, more open- the second one had a muffled feel to it. And the model was clearly better on the second demo-it had more depth and weight to it, the capture felt thin. And the final demo- the model wins again- it has more depth and bottom end. I'm going with the model 100% of the time. That said- I guess if you knew already exactly what you needed and you could capture that and not need to change it in anyway- a capture would be fine. So, I can see why professionals would use them to capture their amps and stuff- the song is written, they already know precisely what they need, and they capture that and don't change it. Makes sense.
I feel like somewhere in the beginning they both took kind of a wrong turn with their arguments by saying a capture always contains cab and mic. Which is wrong. You can capture an amp and an amp only. Meaning you can connect a (reactive) load box to your amp and only capture the DI signal of the amp and it’ll reflect how the amp’s pre and power amp sections react without cab and mic. They only talk about that later in the video.
Yeah, there are some fundamental misunderstandings and a lot of misinformation in this video. It doesn’t appear that either of these guys has a particularly deep understanding of profiling, component-based modeling or signal-driven, machine-learning based modeling. A deep understanding isn’t necessary for a guitarist to make good use of digital equipment, but it does help to understand the difference in control or tweak-ability that different kinds of captures and models give, and how much to expect can be changed while retaining fidelity to an actual amp.
I don't know why but I found all the captures sounded more "roomy" and all the models sounded more "direct"....no idea what that means. Apart form going 4 for 4.
Fractal the only one but there’s no UK retailers, the FM3 can’t do dual amp, it has no expression pedal, no powered version, no Axe Edit for iPad or iPhone and it’s too expensive. I also think whatever you use. These modeller’s and profilers compliment players where as a full valve amp you’re on your own.
I deleted what I said. I just downloaded these fenders and I thought the 1st one was neural’s capture. I’ll just stick with that. Because when you turn it up it gets a bit fuzzy.
When they bake in the cabinet the IR I can’t use it. I’m using my own guitar cab. It’s no big deal but I’d like to utilize the IR’s but it would probably take up more time tweaking and then I typically stay with the same one.
I got to my studio a soldano slo-100, a Marshall 1959, a vox ac30, an old peavey and some others amps. An axefx 3, helix and also countless of pedals. After more than thirty years playing I think the best sounding gear I have ever heard is my Ducati Diavel with the full titanium acrapovic exhaust system!!! 😂😂😂
Any chance you could buy DIGITAL JOHN!! a copy of SHUT UP AND PLAY YOUR GUITAR by Frank Zappa for his Xmas stocking? The case for analog artistry in the vain hope that the DIGITAL KID will evolve into the ANALOG KID in the near future. Needless to say love everyone at Andertons. You got me through those despairing lonely years recently for which I am eternally grateful. Merry Christmas!
In terms of usability, the model obviously wins. You're not limited by the specific cab and mic sound, which makes it of course way more versatile. I also think it's a pretty natural progression. We started out with valve amps, BECAUSE THAT WAS THE ONLY STUFF AVAILABLE. Then we went to transistor amps, because that was the current technology, and now were at digital. There will always be a following of the old stuff, if not only for nostalgia reasons, but for usability and as gear for creating music, technology has advanced and going from analog to digital is a natural progression that works perfectly fine.
Just use whatever you like is the moral of the story. The only captures to me to use are something that's not in there. I think going nuts because what's included is viewed as inferior is just the wrong way to think about it.
First, sorry Digital John, you are just wrong. EVERY modeller worth a damn, models the output section of the amp. And if ran to FOH, or a mostly colorless amp and FRFR speaker(s) that is what you get. ONLY when you disable the output and CAB to use a guitar amp or similar, is that gone. But he is correct that the BIG difference is a profile/capture is a snapshot of the amp at that setting,, mic placement etc. WHEREAS a model, is the complete amp, cab etc. Gain acts like the modeled amp, etc. LAST Unless you head to head ALL profilers for winner, then put them against the same winner from modelling (and if it doesn't include Fractal, the test id bs from the get go). All YOR test shows is potentially which doe the Quad Cortex do better.
Very cool comparison. But did I misunderstand or is it not the case that NDSP also does their modeling based on captures? If so, that would not be a comparison of “real modeling” and captures.
NDSP models are not captures. Rather, they use automated tweaking of amplifier controls, measurement of input and output signals, and machine-learning technology to determine values within their models. The end result is an amplifier model, not a captured profile or combination and interpolation of multiple captures.
PSA do not buy a used Tonex pedal if it has been registered on another computer it will be a brick. IK attaches the serial number to your computer so if you try to sell one you have to transfer it first. I traded one to a local shop and did not transfer the serial number first, and someone bought it, and could not use it on their computer. Incredibly shady from IK Multimedia.
I have bought the big tonex and was able to transfer the serrial, and bought the tonex one and was able to transfer the serial tot he new owner. Not shady at all as it was quite easy to do both times and the guy who bought my tonex's were more than happy with it
I have and use modelers (currently Helix Floor, FM9 MkII Turbo, GX-100), tube amps and software plugins. I find the concept of captures somewhat limiting in comparison as I like flexibility. To get that flexibility with tube amps, I own several (Marshall, Fender, Diezel, Mesa, Engl, Bogner). There are two - three plugins I use more than anything; the support an approach I call tone sculpting / shaping vs trying to recreate, model or capture an existing thing. The approach of tone sculpting allows me to focus on what I'm hearing, and getting to a usable sound without being influenced on the accuracy comparison to an existing thing (i.e., amp, cab, speaker, mic, mic placement). FWIW, the software plugins I use are PolyChrome DSP McRocklin Suite (modern, clean, crunch, high gain), Nunchuck (more classic vintage tones), and BlueCat Audio's Axiom which provides "models of existing things" and a full set of tone sculpting tools.
I currently have an axe3 kemper boss gx100. blackstar amped 1-2-3. mooer ge 300. have had helix. quad cortex and most recently a fender tone master. They all sound great into a computer. Imo the capture devices sound best through a trad. cab. but the modelers sound better thru an frfr or PA system setup. But in the end at band practice i just cant get any one of them to sound like a real tube amp. Not any tube amp. a good quality one. i use an engl steve morse or a 5150-combo 50 watt.( thru a cab) or a mesa dual rec 2001 model. non multi watt. I have captured them all and i have modeled the same thing. they are all between 95-97% close. But the main difference is the feel while playing and the cut in the mix. That said. The cheapest option imo that sounds great is the blackstar amped 3 for metal 2 for plexi/800 type tones. And the 1 is great with any preamp pedal. ie boss 0d-200 or the like. I have many. just my 2 cents after at least 6 years trying everything i can get my hands on. Believe me i really want to replace tube heads. But its just not there thru a trad. 4x12 setup. frfr is getting close.
Obviously both can be incredible, but as a nerd, modelers rock. Especially when done well
The thing with a profile is, you're getting an amp on one specific setting and it might sound completely indistinguishable from the real amp on that setting - but the moment you try to tweak something, I find that they generally don't respond to EQ settings in the same way the amp does and it severely hampers the realism.
With a model, generally it's more encompassing and less "one setting forever", but at the expense of basically being at the mercy of the manufacturer for the quality of the model. Some are *scarily* good, some are a bit less accurate or more oldie-fashioned-digital sounding. YMMV depending on the modeler you have.
And of course, some amps simply aren't *available* as a model, so a profile/capture is the only way to replicate them. For example, you can capture the sound of an amp with a distortion pedal in front of it as one "unit", or with a studio EQ over the top.
wrong,Kemper LP,Tonex and QC can tweak the amp without any issues
You asked the question modelling vs Profiling and Christophe Kemper answered, both at the same time.
Liquid Profiling.
You have a Profile with modelled Gain and EQ tone stack of the Profiled amp.
Watch the Leo Gibson video comparing a QC Capture and Liquid Profile of the same amp.
When using the Gain and EQ controls on both units the Liquid Profile is 18% more accurate than the QC.
Merry christmas to all of you guys.
I think it's not which is better, it's more how well was it captured or how well was it modeled
It's critical to see the dB Meter during such comparisons, as we know that louder typically sounds better, and bassier tends to sound more like a real/analog Amp.
Both modeling and capturing tech can sound great. Last week, Nvidia released a $249 Mini Supercomputer to the public, with the ability to perform 117 TOPS - Trillion Operations Per Second. It will be interesting to see how/if this technology will be used in audio Modeling, Capturing, and Profiling.
In my opinion, the capturing and profiling only really makes sense for huge artists that want to take the exact tones of the studio recording on the road. For anything else it is probably worse than modeling, because the quality of the sound depends on the quality of the capture. And since most people don't make their own captures, they will get some online, which 90% of the time will be worse than an amp in a modeling unit.
The *actual* answer is it doesn't matter anymore because everything sounds great nowadays, and no audience member/listener cares what gear someone uses!
Speak for yourself, I've learned that lesson everybody has their preferences and that's okay
I’ve got a quad cortex. Recently gone back to valve amps. It’s so much better feel wise
@@truthfactreality6814 what brand of amps do you prefer?
@ Marshall. Specifically the silver jubilee. I’ve tried everything. Victory v4. Quad cortex. Friedman irx. In the end I just bought the 20w mini jubilee for gigs so I don’t have to lug the 100w I also have. It’s epic
@truthfactreality6814 thanks for letting me know I'll have to check that out. I love valve amps
Marry Christmas to all of you at Andertones.
I used to feel models were better until I discovered Amalgam and their captures. Now I prefer captures. From a happy Quad Cortex user since launch.
Thanks for covering this topic.
Modelers are great; profilers are great. Everything is a compromise on some level. Real amps can be heavy, difficult to integrate into complex rigs, and less reliable. Digital gear doesn’t sound the same but is easier to handle complex routing.
They are all tools. Pick the tools that work best for you
I have some real tube amps, pedals, a solid state GTX100 and a Tonex One...all relatively cheap. I have fun with them all. I can great tones all the time. Some of the tonex downloads are perfection. No need to decide! They can both be great! You can still get a cheap EQ pedal with either and the world is your oyster!
You've already basically said it, but I also think of it like in modeling, each knob has the full range of 1-10. And profiling/capturing, etc., each knob effectively might have a range of 4-6, and everything changed is post-processing a single pre-determined sound. I originally thought that when profiling/capturing, the full dynamic response would be captured and editable, but it really seems like those aren't tweakable very far from the original. At least that how it seems here.
The best use case for captures is that you can capture YOUR OWN equipment, allowing you to take your specific and unique tone into projects and out to gigs in a more convenient format.
For example, I have captured the preamps AND the full amp outputs of both my BadCat Lynx and Jet Black amps, at my preferred settings. So now I can:
- Use them for recording, true to how things feel and sound in writing sessions
- Put the preamps through the FX return of the actual amp, giving me super easy channel switching and infinite EQ/gain settings with scenes
- I can do stereo setups using only 3 cables into the FX return of both amps
- I can utilise the full amp captures to go into any clean power amp, mono or stereo, using real cabs
- I can whack an IR on and put these sounds out to the PA or FRFR
I'm not interested in other people's captures because they never sound the same as they did to other people. If I want sounds of gear I didn't or don't own them I go to modelling.
nope,you can use any free or paid capture
Always great information from you guys! Even after 30 something years of playing guitar, maybe my ears just suck. It’s all honestly so great that I can’t personally tell a difference. I would’ve gone gaga for even the worst of this new stuff in the early 2000s, so I’m just enjoying it for the sake of having it and not having to break my back carrying that twin everywhere that I go. Anyway, happy holidays and be well!
In every A/B comparison you can hear the mic and cab and room in the capture. I prefer the way that sounds in most cases, as it’s a little more natural. But for the high gain stuff, in my experience, models are almost always more clear and defined.
The thing to do with captures is have several all through the spectrum from sparkly clean to full distortion. Then you have them as presets that can act almost like you added dirt pedals to it with a step of the button
Sounds like models are theoretically far superior, but much harder to get to even the same level. I'm saying that on the basis that it could eventually be possible to model all the components of a signal chain and not just the amp, so you get everything from a profile/capture.
Profiles will always have one big advantage though, which is that simplicity of dialling in a tone. Even if you did what I said above and modelled the amp, the cab, a mic, cable types/lengths, a desk, everything about a room and so on, you've got to be a qualified sound engineer to have any hope of getting a good sound out of that. As a qualified sound engineer, I'm going to be fantasising about all that for a while, but for most people we're still only just reaching a point where models are really better.
All that said, I've got a Line6 Spider IV 75 and my guitar has a broken mount on one of the pickups (and an 11 gauge E string, it's trying to bend an undersea cable), so I'm not really in a strong position to comment on anything sounding good 🤣
My understanding is that a capture is a digital recreation of a specific amp with specific settings, whereas a model attempts to recreate the entire possible settings of the amp. For example, if you want to capture a clean channel of an amp and a dirty channel, you will need 2 captures for the same amp. However, you can do the exact same thing with one model just by changing the gain setting.
Sonically, I don't think anyone can tell the difference between a capture and a model with similar settings. However, if you're trying to coax out different settings of an amp, you won't be able to recreate the range of sounds with a capture that you can with a model.
I have a QuadCortex and somehow I managed to have very good sound with Vox AC30 modeler and one captured pedal and one modeled. But the best sound I got was to capture my amp, so I guess I will have more fun with capturing different sounds :) Maybe the key is, that you take a capture with your guitar, your mic, your whole chain and you just make it sound the best accordingly.
I prefer modelling for the most part.
Traditionally I have preferred models because of the adjustability. The older I get, though, the more I seem to be leaning towards gear that has fewer settings. So maybe I ought to revisit captures. But I also feel that-for me-amp simulations may not even be necessary. I tend to gravitate towards either very clean sounds or "distortion pedal" levels of gain. I feel like I'm often happy with just a cab IR at the end of the chain without an amp sim in front of it.
It is also possible to profile an amp without any cab or mics if you use a Two Notes Torpedo or the like. Then you can add any impulse response you like. That’s what I’ve done with my amps in my quad cortex and loved them enough to just sell my amps
As someone whos used Fractal units since 2007, owned Kempers and Tonex.... both have strengths and weaknesses. I could go WAY deep - but a quick summation is its down to workflow. Profiles are great if you want to copy your amp, or a borrowed amp to take live when you dont want to take the amp - copy what you have already. They are however a PITA to find 3rd party captures that are what you want - we all have different ideals AND the further you tweek form the profiled settings - the worse they get. MODELLERS are far better at creating a sound in your head, or a tone to suit a track perfectly - you have the tools to tweek to make it just right where profilers dont.... I prefer modelling BUT I use captures to audition real amps, and for specific iconic tones that have been captured.
Would be great if PRS offered an SE edition of that Studio!
Digital John!!!
The way digital John sounded “which one is this” sounded similar to “Who this in a house like this David it’s over to you”
Just bought a used Tonex from eBay for 140 quid with a load of profiles and the license number transferred from the old owner. It’s epic… genuinely blew me away.
I've been using mine for about 2 ½ years now, nearly daily. Absolutely killer.
yeah i sold my gear and now i use tonex with amplitube on a notebook. PS: i am not a professional.
I actually just had the reverse issue, I traded one to a local shop, and they just called me a week later saying the guy could not register it to his computer, because it was attached to mine. Luckily I was able to transfer the serial number, but if they wernt able to get ahold of me, or I was not willing to work with him they would have been screwed. I am never buying anything from IK again.
@@Riley880 yeah admittedly the set up was a massive ballache, but for what I paid, now it’s set up you can’t beat it. 140 quid?! The sounds and feel are fantastic.
@@Riley880 Again not true, emailing support at IK they will with no fee transfer the serial number over or give buddy a new one.
The model imo clearly sounded better on that first demo- it was clearer, brighter, more open- the second one had a muffled feel to it. And the model was clearly better on the second demo-it had more depth and weight to it, the capture felt thin. And the final demo- the model wins again- it has more depth and bottom end. I'm going with the model 100% of the time. That said- I guess if you knew already exactly what you needed and you could capture that and not need to change it in anyway- a capture would be fine. So, I can see why professionals would use them to capture their amps and stuff- the song is written, they already know precisely what they need, and they capture that and don't change it. Makes sense.
i like both modelling and profiling
I wonder what a capture of a modelled tone would sound like, would it be exactly the same?
johns playing my guitar! nice
It’s nice to see him playing the PRS guitars.
I feel like somewhere in the beginning they both took kind of a wrong turn with their arguments by saying a capture always contains cab and mic. Which is wrong. You can capture an amp and an amp only. Meaning you can connect a (reactive) load box to your amp and only capture the DI signal of the amp and it’ll reflect how the amp’s pre and power amp sections react without cab and mic. They only talk about that later in the video.
Yeah, there are some fundamental misunderstandings and a lot of misinformation in this video. It doesn’t appear that either of these guys has a particularly deep understanding of profiling, component-based modeling or signal-driven, machine-learning based modeling.
A deep understanding isn’t necessary for a guitarist to make good use of digital equipment, but it does help to understand the difference in control or tweak-ability that different kinds of captures and models give, and how much to expect can be changed while retaining fidelity to an actual amp.
I really like my fender tone master pro, but the quad cortex is still in the back of my head for sure
I don't know why but I found all the captures sounded more "roomy" and all the models sounded more "direct"....no idea what that means. Apart form going 4 for 4.
DIGITAL JOHN
Fractal the only one but there’s no UK retailers, the FM3 can’t do dual amp, it has no expression pedal, no powered version, no Axe Edit for iPad or iPhone and it’s too expensive.
I also think whatever you use. These modeller’s and profilers compliment players where as a full valve amp you’re on your own.
I deleted what I said. I just downloaded these fenders and I thought the 1st one was neural’s capture. I’ll just stick with that. Because when you turn it up it gets a bit fuzzy.
Do a test between real Amp, model and capture of the amp.
please put modelling into nano cortex, then I would buy one
I prefer modelling as I prefer more control rather than having the complete sound baked in.
When they bake in the cabinet the IR I can’t use it. I’m using my own guitar cab. It’s no big deal but I’d like to utilize the IR’s but it would probably take up more time tweaking and then I typically stay with the same one.
What PRS is it that John has there?
PRS Studio 10 Top Maple Top Rosewood Fretboard in Faded Whale Blue £3999
an extremely nice one
I like the idea of modeling better. Being able to make adjustments seems too valuable to me.
I got to my studio a soldano slo-100, a Marshall 1959, a vox ac30, an old peavey and some others amps. An axefx 3, helix and also countless of pedals.
After more than thirty years playing I think the best sounding gear I have ever heard is my Ducati Diavel with the full titanium acrapovic exhaust system!!! 😂😂😂
Guess:
A is the model, B is the profile.
I always profile
A "model" should technically be more advanced and tweakable than a capture.
Any chance you could buy DIGITAL JOHN!! a copy of SHUT UP AND PLAY YOUR GUITAR by Frank Zappa for his Xmas stocking? The case for analog artistry in the vain hope that the DIGITAL KID will evolve into the ANALOG KID in the near future. Needless to say love everyone at Andertons. You got me through those despairing lonely years recently for which I am eternally grateful. Merry Christmas!
Fender Tonemaster Pro, all day 😍
B was way better on the JCM, it has that open top-end that you associated with a Marshall.
Modelling. That way you don't just get a snapshot. Better value for money!
In terms of usability, the model obviously wins. You're not limited by the specific cab and mic sound, which makes it of course way more versatile. I also think it's a pretty natural progression. We started out with valve amps, BECAUSE THAT WAS THE ONLY STUFF AVAILABLE. Then we went to transistor amps, because that was the current technology, and now were at digital. There will always be a following of the old stuff, if not only for nostalgia reasons, but for usability and as gear for creating music, technology has advanced and going from analog to digital is a natural progression that works perfectly fine.
You aren’t limited to one mic and cab sound, you can profile an amp direct and use any ir with it.
The answer is subjective, next question.
Just use whatever you like is the moral of the story. The only captures to me to use are something that's not in there. I think going nuts because what's included is viewed as inferior is just the wrong way to think about it.
First, sorry Digital John, you are just wrong. EVERY modeller worth a damn, models the output section of the amp. And if ran to FOH, or a mostly colorless amp and FRFR speaker(s) that is what you get. ONLY when you disable the output and CAB to use a guitar amp or similar, is that gone. But he is correct that the BIG difference is a profile/capture is a snapshot of the amp at that setting,, mic placement etc. WHEREAS a model, is the complete amp, cab etc. Gain acts like the modeled amp, etc. LAST Unless you head to head ALL profilers for winner, then put them against the same winner from modelling (and if it doesn't include Fractal, the test id bs from the get go). All YOR test shows is potentially which doe the Quad Cortex do better.
Very cool comparison. But did I misunderstand or is it not the case that NDSP also does their modeling based on captures? If so, that would not be a comparison of “real modeling” and captures.
NDSP models are not captures. Rather, they use automated tweaking of amplifier controls, measurement of input and output signals, and machine-learning technology to determine values within their models. The end result is an amplifier model, not a captured profile or combination and interpolation of multiple captures.
d i g i t a l j o h n
I can't tell is my answer.
There are sub $500 modellers and are $500 and up modellers. I promise you anything under $500 bucks cant touch capture tech.
Or you can just get a hot rod deluxe for 3-400 bucks on the used market and call it a day…
The Quad sounds amazing
Amps are better
PSA do not buy a used Tonex pedal if it has been registered on another computer it will be a brick. IK attaches the serial number to your computer so if you try to sell one you have to transfer it first. I traded one to a local shop and did not transfer the serial number first, and someone bought it, and could not use it on their computer. Incredibly shady from IK Multimedia.
I have bought the big tonex and was able to transfer the serrial, and bought the tonex one and was able to transfer the serial tot he new owner. Not shady at all as it was quite easy to do both times and the guy who bought my tonex's were more than happy with it
If from a pawn shop etc, you just need to email IK multimedia and show proof of purchase and they will transfer over a new serial number for you
@@suffersystemstudios You missed the point you knew to transfer it first, if someone sells one that has not been transferred first your screwed.
@@suffersystemstudios Yea, and I am pretty sure they charge you for it
@@Riley880 Nope you email them and they will set it up for you
If you can’t make music with one or the other, you ain’t a musician.
This is old video
I have and use modelers (currently Helix Floor, FM9 MkII Turbo, GX-100), tube amps and software plugins. I find the concept of captures somewhat limiting in comparison as I like flexibility. To get that flexibility with tube amps, I own several (Marshall, Fender, Diezel, Mesa, Engl, Bogner).
There are two - three plugins I use more than anything; the support an approach I call tone sculpting / shaping vs trying to recreate, model or capture an existing thing. The approach of tone sculpting allows me to focus on what I'm hearing, and getting to a usable sound without being influenced on the accuracy comparison to an existing thing (i.e., amp, cab, speaker, mic, mic placement).
FWIW, the software plugins I use are PolyChrome DSP McRocklin Suite (modern, clean, crunch, high gain), Nunchuck (more classic vintage tones), and BlueCat Audio's Axiom which provides "models of existing things" and a full set of tone sculpting tools.
To me the captures sounded muffled
Captures are better … The best captures >> The best models …
I got 4/4, btw
Who cares just get a real valve amp!
I currently have an axe3 kemper boss gx100. blackstar amped 1-2-3. mooer ge 300. have had helix. quad cortex and most recently a fender tone master. They all sound great into a computer. Imo the capture devices sound best through a trad. cab. but the modelers sound better thru an frfr or PA system setup. But in the end at band practice i just cant get any one of them to sound like a real tube amp. Not any tube amp. a good quality one. i use an engl steve morse or a 5150-combo 50 watt.( thru a cab) or a mesa dual rec 2001 model. non multi watt. I have captured them all and i have modeled the same thing. they are all between 95-97% close. But the main difference is the feel while playing and the cut in the mix. That said. The cheapest option imo that sounds great is the blackstar amped 3 for metal 2 for plexi/800 type tones. And the 1 is great with any preamp pedal. ie boss 0d-200 or the like. I have many. just my 2 cents after at least 6 years trying everything i can get my hands on. Believe me i really want to replace tube heads. But its just not there thru a trad. 4x12 setup. frfr is getting close.
DIGITAL JOHN