Tube Amps Versus Digital in the Real World - On the Road w/Elevation Worship
Вставка
- Опубліковано 19 тра 2024
- On the road with Elevation Worship who recently went back to using tube amps live. I take a quick real world look at some of the pros and cons of the analog versus digital debate. It's not always as simple as one might think!
Big thanks to E Edwards (@EEdwardsMusic ), Cory Edwards (no relation) and OK Guitar and Amp Repair! (www.okguitarandamp.com)
Ways to support the channel:
New IR’s here: www.michaelwwestbrook.com/pre...
Buy Impulse Responses, HX Stomp and Helix Presets: www.michaelwwestbrook.com/pre...
Buy Kemper Profiles: www.michaelwwestbrook.com/kem...
GEAR! (amazon affiliate links)
Strymon Iridium: amzn.to/3t7ALOS
Line 6 HX Stomp: amzn.to/2RpDXUT
Line 6 Helix: amzn.to/2UTwwYg
Radial JDI Direct Box: amzn.to/39WaRmL
My Interface: amzn.to/39RIPZz
Strings:
amzn.to/2uscs4x
Picks:
amzn.to/3aAzYge
Best small Gear Bag (for picks and etc):
amzn.to/36scBlU
Straps: amzn.to/2TQWKdY
Glass Slide: amzn.to/3aFp4py
Brass Slide: amzn.to/36jHKYE
Tuner: amzn.to/2Rowdmw
Small Guitar Stand: amzn.to/3aGBCNj
The best iPad stand I’ve found: amzn.to/2RtZo7X
The absolute best way to secure pedals:
250 Dual Lock: amzn.to/2veUUsW
400/170 Dual Lock: amzn.to/38FgDsB
Headphones: amzn.to/2tDR1gZ
Direct Amp Recording: amzn.to/2tT9mGT
Studio Monitors: amzn.to/3c5qV6S
Vocal Shield: amzn.to/39QHe61
Studio Acoustic Panels: amzn.to/2y4sLpP
Must Have Pedals:
Looper and A/B box: amzn.to/2tPvBxo
Compressor: amzn.to/2veWbjI
Reverb under $150: amzn.to/36piUGR
Delay: amzn.to/3aDZWiV
My Camera: amzn.to/2RrYUPg
Required Reading:
“Listen Up!”: amzn.to/3aI6lty
“Let’s Go (So We Can Get Back)”: amzn.to/2sV3xYU
“Chronicles”: amzn.to/2RT0h8O
“How Music Works”: amzn.to/3c0rkY3
What i like most about this video that separates it from most, is that you not only give your thoughts on what you're observing, but you asked the band member and the FOH engineer for their thoughts too. That gives a much more complete perspective.
such a great video, michael! we're so grateful for you
Thank you!
The high fidelity of Modelers is really "high frequency" fidelity, and is something you don't typically find in guitar Speakers/Cabs which top out at around 5kHz. This is why Modelers are praised for the clarity and criticized for their harshness, lack of nice mids, no bottom end, not moving air, and lacking width. If you want your Modeler to sound like a "Real" Amp, you need to learn how to EQ it. Start with matching its Cab High Cut to the real Speaker "frequency response," and you'll be surprised how much better and realistic it sounds.
YES YES YES!
Makes sense
This. I got a QC and thought it sounded a little “flat” for my liking. Slapped on some high and low pass, problem solved.
Adding an EQ pedal to the mix most definitely helps..
I’m with you. I think the overall EQ can be tweaked, captures can be improved but that doesn’t necessarily make up for some of the things mentioned here - feel/responsiveness to to effects and stereo imaging. It’s well proven that the general sound can be practically the same.
This is the perfect scenario to test this. They are running their amps backstage (so there’s no interaction or stage volume) and they are on IEMs. This is when amp molders should shine, so it’s interesting to hear their thoughts
Definitely pro's and con's to both. Been playing my captured amps (JMJ-30, Matchless, Marshall) on a QC for the last couple of years, and for simplicity and short set lists, it's perfect. Easy to setup, consistent sound to board/FOH, etc. My actual amps are going nowhere, however. For recording, projects, or a larger venue (like Elevation plays), then I bring the real thing. Some artists only want to hear my amps, and ask for specific models they have heard/played. I can preach to them all day about how hard I've worked on QC patches, tweaking, EQ'ing, etc, and how accurate they are. In the end, the real thing is going to be hard to beat 100% of the time.
I seen Interpol recently and Daniel Kessler had his twin reverb on stage, cranked and it was glorious!
I've seen people complaining on the Line 6 forum that they hear artifacts that they can't dial out, but then go back to their tube amp and notice the same thing for the first time. E described it well regarding the openness. There is a 3D quality to real amps that modelers just can't replicate. I've always said for years that modelers sound like the sound is pressed up against a plate of glass. It's like they do the 2D (x + y axis) really well, but there's a depth, or z axis component in real amps (not a lows, mids, and highs thing) with all of the layered artifacts that modelers can't replicate and as a result, just end up compressing those artifacts into the 2D spectrum. It actually has nothing to do with tubes vs solid state. It's the interaction between how the output transformer throws the notes and the interplay with the mechanical action of the speaker cone. That's where all the feel and openness comes from, not from EQ. Modelers will never replicate that.
What an excellent and descriptive post.
Yeah, I agree it’s not an EQ thing. I’ve also heard some engineers say whatever the digital lack’s actually makes it easier to sit in a mix sometimes. It’s to the point now where maybe it’s a conversation of different and maybe not “better”.
@@MichaelWWestbrook I've heard the opposite. I've heard well known Nashville engineers say there's something with modelers where you can't stack guitars in a mix. The explanation being they always sound too loud once you get them to sit right, like they eat up more of the frequency space. As a result, many session players have Kempers, but use them as more of an effect or overdub on maybe a key part, but not as the core guitar tone for stacking and doubling. It seems to be more of an issue with distorted tones. Cleaner tones (in say a pop song), like textural parts (bubble picking, shuck rhythms, arpeggiated chordal parts) seem alright.
In high end hifi it is called soundstage.
Great explanation
Such a good video. What's most interesting to me is that these amps are off-stage, so it's not about air being pushed. Yet real amps made a difference.
Its still about pushing air. With the amps backstage, the stage volume is still low. Back in the 80's even though the stacks were on stage alot of guys had a miced twin reverbs backstage and the stacks were merely props.
This was pretty cool to see. I live in their area and have played with many of their musicians in the past. Cool to see behind the curtain of what they do.
I tried all digital for 3 years. The tone was good! I'm back to a full halfstack on stage. But it's purely for my performance pleasure, this way the performance is much more inspired. I still think the amp should be on stage interacting with the guitar. I use feedback a lot to sustain notes and I can feel the amp's response to pick attack and that changes and inspires my performance.
Also, I've tried the silent stage solution, also for 3 years, with digital emulation and IEM. The FOH sound is definitely more controled. But the performance is not as inspired and I feel disconnected from the crowd and the whole live experience. I prefer a slightly messier FOH sound of it means the musicians can feel the live vibe and the crowd, delivery a much more inspired performance.
Having said that, in certain styles the silent stage works great! Pop, soul, Jazz, etc... I just don't feel its a solution that fits together with the rock/metal vibe
ASI IEM's!
@@funfreq9282 very expensive! And it's a solution for a problem I don't have if I go amp and wedge monitoring...
@@AntonioRockGP A good pro wedge EAW, Meyer will cost an easy 2K. If your just talking prosumer stuff then yeah the ASI solution would be a little more by comparison. I was referring more to the flexibility of the ASI and how it allows you to hear and control ambient sound and not cut the musician off from the rest of the group in a silent stage environment which you mentioned.
@@funfreq9282 normally the wedge is the sound crew or venue property. I don't even think about it. Besides, I don't need much on it, it's usually just a little bass keys and vocals, low volume
Absolutely, I'm totally uninspired with digital, I want my amp and a wedge on stage. I can feel the whole band and the audience feedback
I have used amps and digital. All great tools. I’m back to a Princeton and a few pedals. Just enjoy more
Fascinating! I love production discussions like this. Thanks, Michael, and congrats on the great tech'ing gig with Elevation.
Thanks!
On our worship service I'm using a analog speaker simulator , sansamp or
JHS CLOVER preamp (for acoustic)
And splitting it into a 20 watt tube amp and celestian 10 inch closed speaker cab.loved this video,keepem coming.
Great video! One of your best put together and flows I've seen!
Great insights! E is a great player and I think his analysis was spot on. There’s definitely something present with amps.
Great video. Can’t beat the feeling of moving air with a loud valve amp and a couple of 12” speakers. I do now however use a helix and over a period of time stopped even taking an amp as a back up. Playing small venues here in the uk it really helps. We’re all on stereo iems and the pros outweigh the cons every time. Global EQ of the mids helps.
Incredible Video Michael, it's so cool to watch you progress in your career!
Played an ACS1 and HX Stomp and real amps. I noticed that speaker compression is a huge component. Modelers are close but can't quite recreate the weirdness of moving air out of a cone.
hi, great video. i work on live gigs, in the last ten years ive seen many guitar players go to the dark side mainly with kempers but some quads as well, they totally disappear through a dense mix but since they make life so much easier for the guitar player and the sound engineer they stick with it.
This was great! I’d like to see more on these amps in a box, such as what UA is making, Victory, Strymon, the Blackstar Amped series, etc. and how those compare to real amps.
And is it the actual amps (digital vs tube) or is it more of the cabinet simulation vs real cabinet? Just some cool things to consider and talk about.
All that said, I think the only folks that care are us musicians. The audience just wants to hear great songs with a great sound.
I struggle to see the point of going with real amps if they’re not on stage. One of the things I love most about having a real amp on stage is the interaction you get between what comes out of the speaker and the guitar. It becomes greater than the sum of its parts. If I couldn’t have the amps on stage, I’d be happy with modelers since they can be dialed in so well, and are easier to travel with.
Excellent point. Having them shoved down a lonely cinder block hallway felt wrong
Really cool setup! It's kind of ingenious to have the amps captured into the QC that way you can easily switch into those captures if an amp were to go down at any moment!
I've tried all the digital alternatives with the QC being the latest... And I'm back to my Real amp. Every single time. It's a pain in the butt but I guess I'm old school. I know the crowd doesn't care. Personally, I find the lower the gain the better digital amps do. It's always the high gain tones that just don't do it for me.
Oh yea, some part of the crowd always cares!
Thanks for another great video. It's refreshing to hear a professional acknowledge out loud that real amps still can't be beat.
I originally ran a stereo wet/dry/wet rig with a Fender Deluxe and a Roland JC-40. Upgraded later to a Mesa Boogie Mark V:25. I had a huge issue with dirty power playing shows in the PNW, stopped using my Mesa Boogie, switched to an iridium, and have only had issues with inexperienced sound engineers (wherein a band we were playing a show with saved my bacon by allowing me to use their Traynor amp.)
I'm using my Iridium (first Vertex nyle pre/comp + Wampler Tumnus deluxe & 1981 DRV) for dreampop (cleanliness for stereo delay, mod, and verb) and portability, while using a Mesa to track and jam at home. I would love to have a stereo rig again, thanks for showcasing how you're pulling it off on the road.
For me it has always been back and forth. Started out on a Marshall JCM 900 stack, which I would later use with a POD 2.0 via its return input. Great tones either way. Then back to tube amps for a long time, after that for a Metal band a Tech21 GT2 into the return of said JCM. Ferocious sound! Later came a Kemper, which saved me headaches on countless gigs, then a Princeton Reverb Blackface, then I added an Iridium as an ampless option, which I later switched to a UAFX Dream and Ruby. And both can be enhanced/flavored with some analog preamp pedals from Origin Effects (Magma57 and Deluxe61, both amazing!).
So these days I would use whatever the gig calls for and get great tones either way. I'm going to check out the Simplifier MK2 as well, just to see if there's an improvement in feel with an all analog solution vs a digital one. Really, these days it's just up to your preference. Most of the audience doesn't care whether you're playing the cheapest modeler or a miked up Dumble ;)
Great to touch base on this topic again. I like and use both modellers and amps for studio recording. Especially for pop and cleaner tones, modellers are doing great. And they are less noisy, which is required for some productions. I also like to do hybrid, with a pedalboard. And the analog amps still has a place when the guitars are the stars. I concur with what's stated in the video, guitars seem to come more up front and sound bigger with the analog amps. It's not always needed across genres, but for guitar centric music, sure.
Been hoping for a rundown since the behind-the-scenes short Elevation put out of the amp cart in the hallway!
I agree with all those points, especially for live. For me, personally, a hybrid setup is the perfect thing. I have a main unit (ampero stomp 2) acting as my main recording interface and routing matrix. I have my real pedals routed in the fx loop of the ampero (nordland odr, dispatch master delay/reverb, & MXR badass variac fuzz) which I can route into an fx loop any way I want thanks to the flexibility of the ampero. I then use NAM (neural amp modeler) or Tonex for the base amp sound since those captures are so amazing. Really love the convenience and simplicity of that setup to not worry about micing anything up or worrying about loud volumes during late hours, and the most important part is it plays and sounds like a real amp so in the mix the listener couldn’t tell the other .001% difference or whatever it is
Went back to real amps but with the combination of modern tech…like IR. Takes the stage volume down. But feels much better than any profiler. Great video!!!! Thank you for the inspiration
I’m 61 and played venues since I was 17. I love the girth I used to get from my various amps, especially my Laney and Marshall’s with quads, but only played maybe 20 arena shows where volume etc wasn’t an issue, but thousands of other venues and for front of house, effort was always put into combating volume. Sound guys love me for my Quad cortex now. I love I can and do use a variety of amps in the Q C, and fits every venue size, but I do very much understand that certain presence that is “kinda” not there.
Wow! Such a great video! Very informative. Thanks!
This was a great video Michael. This morning I was literally scrolling through my UA-cam feed thinking maybe I need to move back to an amp and poof there was your video! I moved to modelers five plus years ago because my band was trying to control stage volume. Hard hitting drummer + loud bass player really drove up the overall mix of the guitars on stage. That being said, recently I’ve noticed something lacking on stage for me, the interaction between guitar and amp. I have at times added an FRFR cabinet which does help quite a bit. But here I am still struggling with a decision amp or Helix. Probably depends on venue, small enclosed bars and clubs probably Helix, outdoor larger spaces maybe amp. Decisions Decisions. Truly first world country problems.
It's not just amps that crash. I had a modeler go down live during worship. Brought in a backup rig the following practice (20 watt head, 1x12 cab and pedalboard) and used it for the next service. Our worship leader was adamantly against bringing back the modeler after that. Haven't used digital since, haven't missed it.
Which modeler were you using?
Using an HX Stomp, I've had success running a hybrid setup with one side real and one side modeled. Sometimes if FOH is mono, that modeled side is just for me. The Stomp allows all combinations of amps, all modeled, or hybrid
Interesting video. I’m Chris Brown’s (lead singer for E.W.) uncle and have been in electronics for over 55 years, since my brother, his dad, got me interested in it. I much prefer tube amps and I enjoy my tube radio receivers. I’m not sure tube amps will ever be replaced.
I think modelers are still the answer more often than real amps for most people and situations. Real amps are now and will be a LUXURY, that I believe to enjoy their advantages, you have to have the capability to take care of their downside effectively. Maintenance, repairs, consistent mic'ing, ability to isolate and maintain tone at desired master volume, consistent clean power, less portable for travel, etc. Obviously a large scale team like Elevation or Bethel will be able to travel and maintain these multi-thousand dollar amp setups (and even then still have issues), but that's not the case for most people.
It's tough for the average person, especially gigging musician, to justify all the extra hassle it takes to enjoy the small sound/feel advantages in real amps in live scenarios. Even as an audio engineer alongside being a guitarist/drummer, I couldn't see myself spending thousands on a nice stereo amp setup, when I can get 95% of the sound from my $500 HX Stomp that lives in a few inches of my pedalboard, where one day I can feel like using a VOX and Hiwatt through matching cabs, and another a Dumble and a Fender going through V30 loaded Mesa cabs.
I think it comes down to if you are willing and able to take on the responsibility of tube amps, then go for it!
This is a very interesting video. Thank you for doing it. Undoubtedly a great topic for guitarists today.
Very insightful. Appreciate the info. Keep up the good work!
The mid range on digital, I've found, is typically scooped because of how users dial them in and forget to account for Fletcher-Munson. Amps are almost always dialed in pretty loud, if not at stage volume. Modelers usually get dialed in for studio monitors and headphones at comfortable listening volumes. You put that tone at stage volumes and suddenly you sound scooped.
Stereo width ... you might be able to get something close by running dual cabs with a micro delay.
Feel ... yeah that takes a lot more doing.
I currently run a modeler into the FX Return of a solid state amp and I learned that it typically sounds better with my cab-IR still engaged. John Nathan Cordy has mentioned this on his channel so I gave it a shot and found I liked it. I'm guessing it's the Fletcher-Munson thing I was talking about, where the extra cab-IR on top of the real cabinet emphasizes the mid range more and gets me closer to what things sounded like at low volumes.
Awesome vid! Really appreciate the real life look into these rigs. When it comes to volume, I feel getting lower wattage 1x12 amps could really help. You know, something like a Deluxe Reverb or Princeton instead of the Bandmaster, as just one example. Still get amazing amp tones, but potentially be able to drop the volume a decent amount. What do you think?
One of your best vids on this channel, thanks!
Thanks!
Very cool real world experience! Does make me wonder if they should create captures using the tweaked foh and backstage amp signal chain that might include wireless pack preamps, bleed from other amps, hallway reflections, etc into the profiler sound. Of course, this is the science nerd in me wondering if you can hear the difference, why can't you compensate for it? Or is it really a limitation of the modeling tech and how it doesn't breakup the same? Thanks for sharing!
I'm playing through a Peavey Delta Blues 115 at church. We recently started using IEM's. It's taking some getting used to. I love the amp, but can see the day coming when I have to use a modeler. Thanks so much for the info you share.
That peavey delta blues is such a great amp. I love it.
@@misterknightowlandco It's a great amp. The downside for me is I can't run it at the volume I need for that edge of breakup. That said, it still is so noticeably warm sounding compared to using a solid state amp.
@@drmcneilly yeah it is a pretty loud amp
This is priceless, thank you!
As a worship guitarist myself, I'm thankful for the convenience of profilers, but I love a real tube amp. We've used amps at my church in isolation boxes, which saved me one day when my in-ears stopped working and I could hear nothing but the drummer and my muffled amp. I shot you an IG message, but would you ever be able to do a video on how you find gigs as a hired gun guitarist one day? I've been getting more and more of that world, but it'd be great to have more insight!
I've got a 25yo Dr Z Carmen Ghia with Weber 10s in matching cabs, and a Helix Floor, and the comments on videos like this always deliver - the numpty golden ears all convincing themselves that their tube amps are "VASTLY" better due to the "air" being moved, despite the air being in a corridor, and listening through IEMs anyway. Keep it up lads, it's comedy gold.
I love the sound of the real and I love the portability of the modeller
This was a great a video! One thing I've found is you want to really tweak your global EQ on the modelers to get the most of out them. I got some tips on that from a major act touring guitarist / MD friend who is 100% on fractal (which is what I use now, FM3 + additional switcher). There are a lot of tweaks but probably most important is to bump the low mids up a bit. I am getting better sounds than I did with my Matchless. Consistency has been so much better now because I don't think my church has very clean power so the voltage wasn't consistent to the amp. Not having pro FOH engineers I think it's also easier for them to work with and eliminates questions of volume. We're on IEMs and clarity just seems better. I also have a more compact rig that I could travel on an airplane with if needed.
I’m old, so I’ve only played live through real amps. These days when I jam with others, my soundscape is pretty limited. I’m not using sculpted tones for individual parts. Keep it simple. My guitar textures are uncomplicated. Overdrive, reverb, echo, Tremelo, and Fuzz. My biggest tool for sound is my volume control!
It is exciting how much great gear is out there. If i were in a band. I would definitely take advantage of the sounds you can make.
We set up real amps (silent) on stage with a separate micced cab room at our midsized church. Long speaker cables work so much better than long instrument cables for us, too much treble loss and no control of the amps for the musicians. Initial amp dialing in and sound check go so much better this way (in ears). We have tried Ox Box, Tonemaster, Kemper and HX Stomp amp sims with guest musicians and can definitely notice the negative differences in certain areas. Namely the better clarity and depth of the micced tube amps which is most noticeable in the decays of overdriven sounds and trails of the wet effects. There seem to be more of these types/styles of sounds in worship music along with the constant dynamic changes in bridges and verses. The other benefit is that this clarity is mostly in the midrange frequencies that are so crowded on a church stage with keys and vocals, so it can really clean up a live mix.
This is a really great video & insight, thank you!
I do use the Iridium and I have a new victory amp which uses two notes IR's and it's very practical, especially for small gigs! But I think there is something really lacking in the midrange and i don't enjoy it so much! I feel like I'm just putting up with it for convenience! Love your videos by the way!
I highly recommend checking out kemper, quad cortex, or the UAFX amp pedals. All 3 are definitely a huge step up from the Iridium in terms of how close they get to real amps. Real amps are still the very best though.
Can’t explain what it is. I saw Symphony X live with Haken and Trope as openers. Both openers used modelers and they all sounded great. Symphony X comes out with an ENGL and it was up and away the best sound.
My personal experience as a FOH Mixing Engineer is that the "stereo width" and the "low-end" feeling between an amp and an amp sim are negligible. The perceived differences between the two can mainly be isolated at how the two sources interact with the environment they inhabit. While an amp vibrates the space and the floor adjacent to the player (Which in turn responds with its own sympathetic frequencies), an Amp Sim isolates that sound to the IEMs and the FOH. But TLDR, there is no scientific difference between the recreation of a modeler and the response of the Amp, Cab and Mic used to model the setup in the modeler. The real difference is the room you play it in and the current biological health of the player's ears.
Was using the UAD OX box for the last year for recording, which sound great by themselves. But I went back to real amps recently, like the tone better, find they sit so much better in the mix, I can hear each guitar more distinctly, no build up of mid range yuk. And maybe its just in my head, but they just sound more "real" to me. Yes, it's more work, and I can't play at night. But the end result is definitely worth it. Now I just have to work on my mic technique...
I have found using the 2 outputs (#1/2 XLR) from quad cortex as my main (post time based efx) outputs but then taking output 3 (1/4in) output as a post OD signal to a amp (dry signal) is the mother load!! Gets you the best of all worlds and is super simple (as long as FOH has 3 channels for you :-)). This is the bomb!!
Great video! Is this difference focused more on digital amp models or cab/IR simulations? I have incorporated a modeler in my setup for quite some time but primarily as an effects only unit in 4CM with my tube amp and cab. Recently I moved away from my tube amps and I now switch between a Fractal FM9 or a Quad Cortex into a solid state amp and still into a real cab. I do notice a difference between this current setup and my tube amp but I’ve been happy with it and it certainly reduces what I need to carry.
Next I’ll try going direct to FOH with an IR and either still keep a cab behind or move to IEMs. It’s a fun time to be a musician with all these toys but it does lead to option paralysis in my opinion.
i tried to go modeler, headrush in particular. I kept my amp just incase as back up. i had the headrush need re-starting a couple of times due to a glitch. for me, was easy, and acceptable tones for worship, but my cover band gigs left me feeling disappointed. i used it like a single amp, got one good base tone and didn't spend too much time programming for different songs, rather choice of guitar, and attack on strings, neck/middle/bridge pick up, volume on guitar etc for variations. i have sold it and gone back to using my amp for worship and cover band stuff, however, about to try a captor x for worship and small gigs. i have been using a single rec mesa for everything for about 15 years, and it never disappoints me. yes., even as my worship gig amp, Christmas carols etc as well as cover gigs. never had a complaint and know how to manipulate it to do it all. long live the valve amp... it's so inspiring compared to digital copies.
Used amps for years. Then switched to modelers. For years. In a band mix with another guitar player using a traditional amp; there was a lack of presence and instrumental weight comparatively. Not volume so much as just representation throughout the frequency spectrum. Grabbed an amp and found myself fitting into the mix MUCH better. I am still using some digital tools in my rig but the amp is doing most of the heavy lifting and I like the experience a lot more because of that fact.
Definitely a touchy subject. I’ve been running digital, lately. Mostly out of convenience in my living situation. Id prefer to be running a tube amp but, have found digital to be so much more versatile. If I were out on stage & the amp fit the situation, I’d go amp, 100%. But, often, you have an amp the world for rehearsal, you need another for a small stage & another to play at home, just because of volume requirements for each situation.
An amp with a master volume control should take care of the volume problem. A lot of newer tube amps have selectable power output levels as well. There are attenuators and IRs you can use for older amps. You could also get a real amp head and have different cabinets for different stage situations.
For me personally, the convenience and ease of setup and breakdown alone are why I’ve gone from using amps to modelers. Do you compromise on tone a little bit? Ehhhh maybe. I think that’s pretty subjective, especially considering there are many pro players out there who say they can’t really tell a huge difference. As long as you know what you’re doing, I think modelers can get 98% there in terms of tone and feel. However, if that extra 2% is worth it to you and inspires you as a player, that’s what matters in the end.
i agree, but i still play with an amp on stage behind me, worship or cover band pub gigs. i just couldn't get that response and inspiration from frfr cabnets or FB wedges as i do from a valve amp behind me. i do like simple no tweaking rigs, and it's too easy to get lost in the digital world of constantly being unhappy, uninspired and editing.
My 42 year old body likes lugging no amp 😅
Laziness. There is a huge difference.
Not 2% 40%!!!!!!!
es uno de los videos mas interesantes del tema que he podido ver y solo puedo felicitarlos y que sigan creciendo con la bendición de Dios. saludos desde Chile
I use both. The amp/pedal approach is better sounding and feeling to me but the are scenarios (such as silent stage) where it is impossible. I think the modeler gets you 85% of live amps but it is more convenient for short sets and is silent.
I use the QC with my Matchless DC30… I send a QC DC30 capture to FOH and we also mic the amp so FOH gets both. In my IEMs I prefer the QC capture…. On stage, I still need some stage volume, even thoe the IEMs block the majority of stage volume, the amp behind me still fills the sound out, without it it can feel / sound a little thinner.
I think it all depends on the situation. For our church, we are set up and tear down. And to be honest I got tired of setting up my amp and miking it. So I made the switch to the Line6 pod go. It’s been great and easy to use. I mean it’ll never sound like my analog pedals and and amp but it’s reliable and sounds great.
I play both, my Axe FX for recording and practising at home, my ENGL Savage Mk. II for live. I still love the response and the fullness of my tube amp. And I'll never switch to a digital solution for live situations!
Thanks for sharing this with us.
I toured with a Kemper. It sounded fine, but I never felt connected to it which affected my performance. I was bored on stage. After the tour I got a Rocker 15 Terror and PPC112 cab. Stuck the cab in the closet, put an SM58 on it, ran it through my in-ears, and after just one note I immediately decided to sell the Kemper. There was more "harmonic content" or whatever to the real amp. Not just a "feel" thing, but more...real. As if my ears heard what my brain expected with the way I played the note. The Kemper technically sounded "better," but something about the real tube amp even turned down pretty low made me say, "Yeah, that's what I want!" Whatever makes you say "That's what I want," go with it! I do have a QC and I do connect with it better than the Kemper. So maybe one day, if I ever play live again, the QC might be good enough.
Very interesting. You covered the dual amps, cabs and mics for the analog setup. Are the digital setups similar? Are they using capture or models of similar amps, cabs and mics? Are they panned similarly? Are there any differences in whats preceived on the stage or IEMs? There are lots of things that could account for the differences. Maybe some additional information on the digital setup would identify potential sources of the differences.
Hello, Thanks for the great video. I am always impressed by a great sound tech. This means that using a modeling amp can be a wonderful thing for performances. I'm in the Detroit area. Unfortunately, in Detroit we have an army of 'Helen Kellers' here when it comes to sound techs. Yes, there are a handfull of techs that are superb, and in high demand. Getting a good one at a medium to small size venue is somewhat of a challenge. (nightmare) I do happen to have a Positive Grid Bias Amp 2. It's great. Unfortunately, there aren't many techs in town that I could trust with bringing out the proper sound at Front of House. Personally, I think that great sound techs need more recognition for the great sound you bring to audiences around the world. Keep up the great work.
Thanks! Yeah, a great engineer will make or break it - especially when running direct.
Nuanced is definitely the key word.
I'm predominantly a clean player and have only recently started to explore drive, distortion and the whole 'tone' thing.
I've definitely been happy with the budget end of Zoom's modellers😅 for many years and continue to do so. The G3n is great. They added an effect called geminos which creates a faux double tracking effect. It opens up the sound on headphones in a way similar to what Cory describes.
I USE ALL AMPS BUT LATELY HAVE BEEN USING 2X80 W ROLAND CUBES WITH 2X 1X12 CABS WITH SAME SPEAKERS. SUPER FLEXABLE,GREAT SOUND.
A simple idea poped-up in my mind when you said that QC or Kemper capture very well an amp (6:54/6:55) and in my head I've heard "but they're not rending/respond the captures like a real amp would". Greetings from France ; )
I have both for hybrid setup. I have a Marshall Origin 50 Head and a HX Stomp in my pedalboard. I use the Stomp for time based effects and a preamp block to drive the power amp of the Marshall for some chug, if needed.
What song was that at 3:10? It’s sounds angelic!
great video! i love using a combination of analog and digital. i've been using the clean channels of my bogner or friedman with a two notes captor x and pedalboard. sounds great. i also use my pedalboard straight into my interface into the clean amp of nueral dsp plini. sounds great. the common denominator is my pedalboard and me. which is why i think my pedalboard and me are more important than anything. as far as the guitar goes, if it's playable and half way decent sounding i can get it to work.
If i'm being honest though... if i had the choice... ide be playing through a loud clean channel (marshall, friedman, bogner, fender, hiwatt, orange) and a 4x12 with my pedalboard going into the front. using my pedals. lol.
Excellent presentation. Personally I strongly prefer the organic sound & tone of great tube amps. In my experience using low wattage high quality Carr amps such as the Mercury V or Super Bee that achieve Rich sustain & OD tones at low volumes & mic them is the ideal solution. The sound engineers appreciate the low volumes too.
Great content as always
i don't mean to speak like i'm schooling anyone on this subject, but about the 6:07 portion:
surely delay and reverb will add to the overall gain and volume hitting the front end of an amp, but this "crackling" comes from the amps themselves. it's quite common for the amps to be set at a certain breakup level for this genre (and they will drive up even more when they see compressors, drives and so on) so the delay and reverb trails are hitting an already distorted preamp section, which makes them break up as well - similar to placing an overdrive after delay and verb. besides that, the effects will be EQ'd with the pre amps, power amps and speakers characteristics, which makes it quite worthwhile using real amps, as it sounds so unique.
and that's probably why E. feels the wider image from the amps versus the quad. each (real) amp will react differently to what is being fed to them, thus creating a discrepancy between the L side and the R side.
and yes, real amps are far better at this than modelers or profilers.
Great stuff... especially hearing from people out in the field (as opposed to in at the keyboard). Using both here... not 'either/or' but 'both/and'... Thanks MW... no need to respond
wow this is such an amazing video--love it.
My favorite way to setup (granted, small bar gigs) is to have a modeler, but split the signal so a modeled sound goes to the PA, but a non-modeled sound goes to a small amp on stage for monitoring (usually a 5 watt tube amp). That way I get the feel of the tubes and can get feedback when I want it, but the FOH gets a clear signal with no mic bleed.
Curiosity, what were you using when recording @3:15? That was a ton of volume and whatever you were using seemed to handle it pretty well. Really neat video thanks for sharing.
Love this! Thank you for doing this vid. Question:
I love using QC drive captures within the ecosystem of the QC, but have not had good results when running QC drive captures into real amps. I lost a lot of level and the captures seemed to lose their character and sound homogeneous. Do you know if these guys are doing anything special to get the drive captures to behave well into their tube amps?
Why not just use the real analog drives?
I have been using real amps and modelers on and off for a few years. As a guitar player I love the way real amps feel and sound. I actually have found the tones that I love through a modeler.
I also work a a audio engineer. I totally agree with Cory’s thoughts on how you can ironically push real amps in a mix harder. For whatever reason real amps sit in mix better to my ear. but if I wasn’t a guitarist, I wouldn’t be able to tell the difference between the two tonality wise in a mix.
When I'm not playing guitar for my church I run sound a lot and we use amps with ox boxs and even then I noticed that when we use Mics the guitars cut through even more and is always in the mix.
My theory , using both myseld and as a tech on bands tours is this, A tube amps eq range of output changes across the length of the note played, and is affected by your picking dynamics, where as a modeller has less reactive parts inside so always sound like a fixed eq output., eg if you look on a RTA a tube amps read out fluctuates but a modeller seems to hit all the pre programmed EQ points then just fades in unusion. there's something ina. way a tube charges and discharges as it does its job that makes the amps sound more lively in a certain way, but modellers are more of a snapshot in time, well that's my theory. I have a few tube amps a JC120 and been through the axefx2 , headrush and kemper and now settled on the tonex which I find almost a perfect amp modeller but still not good enough to sell my tube amps
It would be interesting to test only using the cabs vs amp + cab, so you’d have the amp coming from the modeler and plugged to a 2x12 or 4x12… I’d love to see what that does… in my experience, great IR’s can make or break your tone and overall experience with modelers
I play praise and worship music in Greece but the sounds that I use are hardly ever overdriven. Like, clean most of the time and then sweet overdrive for a lead solo. I find that in situations like mine the amplifiers are not an overkill because I don't have to run them crazy loud to get a nice tone. I believe the volume problem with amplifiers is there mainly when you have to use distortion. That being said, I find that for clean guitar tone, maybe even using tube amplifiers is an overkill, because for most settings I can get a very usable clean tone out of a Boss Katana.
Since the venues I play vary, I prefer an amp. For the live gigs my go to amp is a Dr Z Max 18, but I do have a few 65 Amps, and a Shaw too. I think the MAZ 18 with a compact 1x12 with a Celestion Greenback works in most situations without issue. I will use a Brake Lite to pull the volume down a few DB so I can be always in the amp's sweet spot. No knowing what the PA situation is, I prefer a real amp, and I think the setup time would be the same.
Yea, ive been using an FM3 for a while and i recently got a two notes torpedo live for my mt-15 and 6505. One thing to keep in mind with modelers is that modelers replicate the signal chain of a mic, cab, and amp. Its not the in the room sound. That being said, the fractal fm3 gets farty when im doing palm mutes so i started looking for alternatives. I recently got 2 neural dsp plugins, the granophyre and abasi. I also got ggd zilla cabs for my torpedo live. The plugins are ok but for me the best tones i get are from a real amp into my two notes into zilla cabs
Interestingly, I spoke to the manager of my local guitar store UK chain who said they hardly sold any guitar amps despite selling PRS and Custom Shop Fender/Gibson and high end gear/pedals. They sell more PA gear and acoustic amps. The older players already have a few amps and the young ones are using lap tops/modellers. I've been playing 40 years + and use a Sansamp Blonde and a few other modellers. Another point is that we are living in a cost of living crisis, who can afford a £2/3k amp set up? When I look back to what we had to use in the 70's, badly serviced and dangerous amps and little choice, a cheap modeller and FRFR cab is from another world. I'll happily play through anything.
Thanks for being The best Channel on youtube ✌🏻
While I love my tube amp tone,,,we are a ampless stage and no where to put em except isolation boxes then still no room. I've tried different solutions and just got a two notes revolt, So far I'm digging it and does give me the analog sound I want with the tube saturation. We'll see Sunday how it fits in the mix.
I used to play a real amp in a very live room with in-ear monitors. I didn’t know what I was doing and had a hard time getting good tones while controlling the amp. I switched to a POD and really thrived with that. After a couple years without playing regularly I went back to my amp and pedalboard and am so happy with it. I just can’t get my POD to sound right. I think it has to do with my increased understanding of gear over the years
AFAIK, POD algorithms didn't emulate the speaker/OT/tube impedance reactance associated with real tube amp sound and feel. Most modelers now have it. There's also speaker cab dynamics to consider, but that can be somewhat covered with a post cab saturation/compression effect.
as a musician, your ear is always maturing and learning how to process sound and how to get the best from your gear. one thing to consider is the angle of a mic to a speaker should be the same as your ear to that speaker to get the best tone to your ear. tilt back combo, or use a slanted quad to get the angle right if using a head. you can run the amps quieter on stage when angle is right. I'm old school and still have head and box on stage with me for worship or cover gigs etc. but, as a sound engineer, respect stage volume.
i am using the quad cortex, with a couple of analog drive in front of it. But only because i play mostly at home and i can't play with tube amps. One thing that i like about digital stuff, is the possibility to put delay and reverb in parallel.
I used to hump two Marshall half stacks around the country. Not anymore but I haven’t entered the digital realm either. I’m old and old school. Something about the feel of a perfectly loud amp on stage or off stage. Nothing can replace that without extra complications involved. I try to keep things simple and easy. That usually works out the best for everybody, so far anyway.
I've only dipped my toes into modeling - I'm old so always been an amp guy ;). In practice I've tried both and in fairness at volume after awhile I don't notice as much what I'm using that night. The one thing my current modeling solution does (Walrus ACS1, Mooer Baby Bomb into a 112 cab) is the transients are faster ... I haven't been able to dial in the natural compression/squish and perhaps won't ... it does change my playing just a little but two little boxes are certainly more portable. Still haven't used modeling for any of the handful of live gigs we've had however but won't say I never would.
Im trying to go to real amps from my hx stomp. Pretty challenging so far, but sounds amazing
There is lots of debate about modelers vs tube amps, but I think the real differens is if you are useing a real cab or not. I have a tube amp and a modeler and like both, but I like to run a poweramp and a real guitar cab with my modeler. In that scenario you can probably not tell the differens. The modeler rig has the advantege of being able to have almost the same sound at any volume though. But i still like my tubeamp also :)
So true! When people debate over tubeamps or modelers, the are realy talking about using a guitar-cab or not. Thats really the key differens! The "amp in the room" experience can be had with a modeler if you are using a cab!