Digital Igloo (Eric Klein, YGG)

ian_dissonance said:
Four blocks in each location, 8 plus an amp model per “channel”.
Click to expand...
So let's take HX Stomp.

And remove:
  • LCD
  • 3x switches
But add:
  • More DSP to accommodate 8 effects plus an Amp (and Cab/IR for the direct out)
  • Dedicated tonestack and effects knobs (metal topped? Plastic?)
  • Model select encoder(s)
  • Indicator LEDs
  • Much larger (sheet metal?) UI | I/O chassis
  • XLR(s) for direct out
  • Power amp worthy of HX modeling
  • 212 cabinet worthy of HX modeling
  • 2x speakers worthy of HX modeling (are we expecting stereo?)
  • Tolex
  • Badge(s)
  • Protective corners (metal? Plastic?)
  • Bluetooth for editing/audio streaming? Presumably that's expected in 2025, given that way cheaper amps have it?
  • Considerably higher shipping and warehouse costs
For the record, the two most expensive parts of a digital amplifier are the cabinet and speaker(s). All for a grand total of $750, which is... $50 more than HX Stomp. Not trying to be dismissive here, only pragmatic.

This is why digital amps are tricky, especially in the market perceived above "practice amps." (Fender ToneMaster amps notwithstanding.)
 
Last edited:
I totally understand. I don’t think there’s a big enough market for something that’s too far above the Catalyst price-wise. I would really like to see some of these types of amps in closed-back cabs, though. Hard to get tight brutalz at band volumes out of an open-back.
 
ian_dissonance said:
I do think you tend to get a little caught up on the “worthy of HX modeling” thing though considering what most people are plugging their $2k modelers into.
Click to expand...
Maybe. We harp on the importance of playback systems so much, it'd be stupid of us to skimp on the parts that have such a huge impact on sonics and feel. Then there's the whole thing about what happens when you load a Fender Champ 5F1 model into a closed-back 212 Helix Amp: "What?! It sounds nothing like a Champ!" Or loading the Revv Generator Red into an open-backed 112 Helix Amp: "What?! It sounds nothing like a Revv!"

So... yeah. :confused:

I'd be fascinated to hear Fender's take on tackling a ToneMaster Pro amp with all sorts of different models, but my buddy @stilwel 's not gonna tell me (nor should he!). As it stands today, ToneMaster amps do exactly what they set out to do and there aren't many other companies that have the legacy and familiarity to pull off a $1000+ digital amp, much less multiple $1000+ digital amps. Marshall, maybe Vox? Certainly not the <gasp!> SPIDER AMP INSANE MODEL COMPANY®.
 
Last edited:
Honestly the Catalyst is already pretty close. Power amp seems good, speaker is decent.

I think 4 fx blocks that can be moved pre and post as needed would be pretty solid. 3 channels per bank (currently we get two fx and 2 channels per bank, though I guess it is 4 fx if you include noise gate and boost).

1x12 is fine. Or (gasp) head. I’m torn on the closed back thing - Mesa combos are open back too right? Maybe include a regular speaker out so you can connect an external cab more easily.

Allow the 6 preferred amps to be loaded in via editor.

Use the POD Express style FX knob where you get “more” of the selected effect when turning. Use editor for deep editing. Button to cycle through selected effects.

DSP allocation seems to be the tricky part - making sure you can use any HX model or any HX effect seems like a tall order - you either need a pricy DSP or have to limit the selection to stuff that will stay under the limit, which will be tough with the number of possible combinations.

I’d pay ~$1200 for something in this ballpark…
 
Digital Igloo said:
Maybe. We harp on the importance of playback systems so much, it'd be stupid of us to skimp on the parts that have such a huge impact on sonics and feel. Then there's the whole thing about what happens when you load a Fender Champ 5F1 model into a closed-back 212 Helix Amp: "What?! It sounds nothing like a Champ!" Or loading the Revv Generator Red into an open-backed 112 Helix Amp: "What?! It sounds nothing like a Revv!"

So... yeah. :confused:

I'd be fascinated to hear Fender's take on tackling a ToneMaster Pro amp with all sorts of different models, but my buddy @stilwel 's not gonna tell me (nor should he!). As it stands today, ToneMaster amps do exactly what they set out to do and there aren't many other companies that have the legacy and familiarity to pull off a $1000+ digital amp, much less multiple $1000+ digital amps. Marshall, maybe Vox? Certainly not the <gasp!> SPIDER AMP INSANE MODEL COMPANY®.
Click to expand...
I’m probably not the sort of person who’d buy one anyway, but IMO the way to do a modelling amp would be to try and bite off less than something that tries to cover EVERYTHING. More like Metallurgy than Helix.

If it’s a 2x12 combo, put amp models in that are originally in a 2x12 Combo. Maybe Matchless, Vox, Fender, 2204, JC120. Include speakers that make sense JUST for these amps, design the cabinet to behave similarly to how these are constructed. Work to the constraints of the cabinet+speakers.

If it’s high gain, do it in a head. A head would need to compete with something flagship and modern like a Diezel VHX or Marshall JVM. Not sure how easy that would be - think how many controls a JVM has. Imagine setting up modes and channels and presets on either. Try and make it feel like a real amp to use, 1:1 knobs, instant gratification, hands on, distinct channels, no menus or jarring changes in sound.

I personally don’t vibe with the idea of too wide of a range of sounds in an amp, but then a very limited speaker+cab to play them through. It just won’t sound like what users expect. I’d rather work around the constraints of the speaker+cab and design back for that. Pick amp models and sounds that make sense for a particular speaker or cab. If it’s an amp that’s typically used in a head (a la Revv) put it in a head. Maybe the Marshall JMD:1 got a lot of these aspects right.

Things that put me off the catalyst:

- trying to cover too many tones
- speaker+cabinet isn’t something I’d go for normally
- comes across as slightly “budget” or aimed at convenience/low cost/flexibility/portability
- I prefer Line 6’s models to be 1:1 of amps. The original models are just OK to me but less appealing.
- Do they really feel modern and cutting edge? Seems more like a sensible product rather than something ambitious.

Is what i’m describing a feasible product? I’m not sure, but I’d lean towards probably not. But I think there’s reasons in there that help Fender sell Tonemasters and I guess Marshall’s digital amps will be similar. Harder for Line 6 to market, but honestly if Line 6 made an amp that’s looked and felt as boutique as a Friedman etc, and you could sit it side by side without it looking out of place, then I’d have no issue. Part of what makes Line 6 amps off putting is they (in the past) have had a tendency to look a bit cheap/digital/complex/cartoony.
 
Digital Igloo said:
Maybe. We harp on the importance of playback systems so much, it'd be stupid of us to skimp on the parts that have such a huge impact on sonics and feel. Then there's the whole thing about what happens when you load a Fender Champ 5F1 model into a closed-back 212 Helix Amp: "What?! It sounds nothing like a Champ!" Or loading the Revv Generator Red into an open-backed 112 Helix Amp: "What?! It sounds nothing like a Revv!"

So... yeah. :confused:

I'd be fascinated to hear Fender's take on tackling a ToneMaster Pro amp with all sorts of different models, but my buddy @stilwel 's not gonna tell me (nor should he!). As it stands today, ToneMaster amps do exactly what they set out to do and there aren't many other companies that have the legacy and familiarity to pull off a $1000+ digital amp, much less multiple $1000+ digital amps. Marshall, maybe Vox? Certainly not the <gasp!> SPIDER AMP INSANE MODEL COMPANY®.
Click to expand...
You're completely right. Marshall and Vox could do what Fender did, but right now at least, Line 6 would have a hard time.

I have no ill will against Line 6, but I did have some experiences 10-15 years ago with their gear that probably biased me against it. It would take some time and probably some changes in design choices (which are perfectly legitimate and well liked by many, but just not for me) before I would even get a Helix successor, never mind a $1k+ amp from Line 6.

I will note that Roland did pretty well with the Blues Cubes, though that's not strictly the same thing as the Tone Master line (and they were mostly cheaper). A few models were indeed over $1K.

You're also right that trying to do a multi-model Tone Master amp would be a losing battle. It would never sound right if it tried to render amps with different speaker configurations. Flipping a switch to move from tweed to blonde to black panel to silver, or between amp models that all have 4x10s? Maybe. But you'll never get accurate Champ, tweed Bassman, Vibrolux Reverb, and Twin Reverb out of a 1x12.
 
dbagchee said:
Shoot forgot the 4 button footswitch with color coded leds. Switch between preset/channel mode and fx mode.
Click to expand...
Included for your $1200 target, or optional?
BahamaDada said:
You know what to do: FW 3.9 has to have an amazing Spider V Insane Channel model. Full redemption arc.
Click to expand...
Actually mentioned this a few times to the team—maybe even as an April Fools update, but for real—and it was largely met with a polite "yeah, I dunno, DI."
MirrorProfiles said:
If it’s high gain, do it in a head.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, head sales across MI are in the toilet right now. If they weren't I'd totally advocate for this.
Harder for Line 6 to market, but honestly if Line 6 made an amp that’s looked and felt as boutique as a Friedman etc, and you could sit it side by side without it looking out of place, then I’d have no issue. Part of what makes Line 6 amps off putting is they (in the past) have had a tendency to look a bit cheap/digital/complex/cartoony.
Click to expand...
My obvious bias aside, DT50 was an amazing sounding (and IMO, looking) amp. Its feature set—especially when paired with HD500X—was ridiculous and alone, it wasn't more difficult to use than any other dual-channel amp. Unfortunately, it didn't sell all that well, even though it was surprisingly affordable for that level of construction with a relay-controlled, configurable tube power section designed by Reinhold Bogner.

1744386566917.png
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top