Please clarify. You said, "I will say this: when I’m using digital I tend to need more “gain stages” to get the different shades of drive I need." If you really do need fewer switching options for your tube amp, that would have to be due to cleaning up in response to playing dynamics and/or guitar controls. Are you saying you can't get your modeler to do that? It's never been a problem for me.
I do it all the time. I’ve even gone through an entire two hour rehearsal using just one scene in one preset, using the guitar volume to clean it up.
I see the problem here
Slew rate has nothing to do with an input stage. Slew rate is a large signal parameter that is typically associated with power stages.
I have to bring up Tom's "my $1600 tube reverb sounds so much better than a Strymon Flint. Here's the tube reverb at a louder volume recorded through a smartphone" video that was floating around.
The compensation capacitor - aka "pole-splitting capacitor" - is in the gain stage that immediately follows the differential pair at the input, not the output stage.
I have to bring up Tom's "my $1600 tube reverb sounds so much better than a Strymon Flint. Here's the tube reverb at a louder volume recorded through a smartphone" video that was floating around.
I'd rather trust the oscilloscopes. They don't hear differently due to mood or weather, don't have inherent biases etc. Obviously the person doing the testing has to set it up right too.
Correct, but the ability to charge/discharge this capacitor is the primary mechanism for slew-rate limiting in compensated op-amps.
It isn't true at all. Once amp-sim modelling surpassed the basic initial waveshaping couple with filtering techniques, and progressed into component modelling, all of the circuitry of a valve amp has been able to be modelled within the digital realm.
From a product development perspective, Tom Bukkake's opinion is irrelevant. Does the model of the real thing match to the real thing under certain test conditions? If yes, advance to go and collection a gajillion pesto bucks or whatever. If no, then go back to the modelling stage and get it right.
I have to bring up Tom's "my $1600 tube reverb sounds so much better than a Strymon Flint. Here's the tube reverb at a louder volume recorded through a smartphone" video that was floating around.
I'd rather trust the oscilloscopes. They don't hear differently due to mood or weather, don't have inherent biases etc. Obviously the person doing the testing has to set it up right too.
Well if we’re done getting bogged down about my non scientific terminology mess up…
In "certain" conditions is a pretty broad term. On the Worship Tutorials video with L6 the A/B they Friedman Model vs the real one... But the A/B is done where the amp in Helix's loop. That taints the results IMO. The HX Stomp colors the tone of my pedals, I could pick which is which in a blind A/B, have done that ad nauseam. With tweaks I could get to a point I'm no longer annoyed by it, but that's as far as it goes.
To an extent. @Fractal Audio and @James Freeman can probably butt heads over bright cap values all day, and whether certain Marshalls from the 70's should have them or not.
Sorry, I mean development test conditions - ie; what Cliff does to confirm that his model of the amp matches the real one. I don't know what those are, which is why I genericized it.
Definitely least. Definitely. At least, I think so. Actually... huh... not quite so sure now you've made me think about it. Ho hum. :)
No. Nobody said that.
It would be helpful to clarify exactly what you mean by "slow it down or speed it up," as well as exactly which filtering you're referring to.
Slew rate is an electronic thing right? When a component goes from minimum to maximum resistance or capicitance, or something like that??
