Has profiling replaced amp switching/channels?

Shredder777

Shredder777

Roadie
Messages
106
Getting excited for the ToneX pedal I ordered. I've never fully bridged the gap between my modelers and the amps I've owned. Most of my amps have had three or more channels plus boost and other switchable effects, which has made integration challenging.

What I have usually ended up doing is just running my modelers direct to the power amp (because there are usually models that are "close" to what I want), or using said modeler, run direct to my PC for recording. But there is usually the issue of coloration, that the models have imitation tube saturation that makes playing through a tube amp not idea. It just has always felt like a hack and in general, just plugging in direct with a noise gate, boost, and delay pedal is the best tone and feel.

When I set up the modeler with the amp, I have patches with boost and wah, other patches without, and I try to sync them with the real amp, the best I can with just one AB switching solenoid. It has always been a hassle or labor of love depending on the mood I'm in. I was concerned about adding ToneX to my rig because three rounds of conversion (input/output, loop, profiler) conversion adds up and can be felt.

Yesterday a lightbulb went off that changed my thinking. What if I make profiles of all my boost/amp settings? Then I won't really need any integration between my amp and FX processor.

All I need is a toneX pedal synced via midi with whatever post FX I am using. Even just having profiles of boost/amp together means not having to switch boost pedal and amp channel together. And those sounds will always be together as a block.

Basically, the ToneX profiles totally replace complicated switching and setup between the boost/amp/eq settings. I know I'm late to the party, but this is a game changer.
 
i feel like a lot people have yet to try a cranked up amp with the vol knob on their guitar hahaha. there are a lot of sounds in there.


personally i dont really care if im changing between amp channels or different sounds on a modeler. ive found i really dont need 8 different gain sounds. a lot can be accomplished with the guitars vol knob and picking dynamics.
 
sleewell said:
i feel like a lot people have yet to try a cranked up amp with the vol knob on their guitar hahaha. there are a lot of sounds in there.


personally i dont really care if im changing between amp channels or different sounds on a modeler. ive found i really dont need 8 different gain sounds. a lot can be accomplished with the guitars vol knob and picking dynamics.
Click to expand...
Thats true. My issue is that for a recording chain, I have pedals in front of the amp, the actual amp, FX after the amp, IR etc. Which is fun to set up but takes a bunch of setup and integration.

What if I just "shoot a profile" of the front half of the chain? Should make things alot easier.
 
sashimi said:
But aren’t all of those profiles just developed from the internet "click algorithm" anyway?
Click to expand...
Happy Gilmore Win GIF
 
sashimi said:
But aren’t all of those profiles just developed from the internet "click algorithm" anyway?
Click to expand...
Partly! My tastes are at least partly informed by what I've heard. In fact I will often try to match tones I've heard on line.

But the particular profiles I'm talking about would come from my pedals and preamp, played back through the power section of the amp.
 
Shredder777 said:
One channel amps can now have n number of profiles with whatever EQ/gain settings are available. Seems like a game changer to me.

Or you could buy a separate amp for each setting.
Click to expand...
One channel amps generally don't need that though. Usually for those kind of amps my approach is "set this up for your guitar, cab and venue, then pair it with pedals for more things". When the amp is set up, you turn your guitar volume/tone controls to make it do different things and that's usually plenty.

With the captured versions you are stuck using whatever EQ tools you have to try to make it sound right for the situation, or you trawl through your pile of captures to find the capture that sounds right. A lot less intuitive than "turn a few knobs on the amp".

With white box modelers it's also easy to do things like "I will change my amp settings a bit for my lead sound on scene 3" where you take what you have, alter it and get a sound that works better than throwing e.g a drive pedal on top of your scene 1 base sound. I think that's a lot more valuable than having an endless supply of snapshots of the same amp.

My favorite use for capture tech is to use it to turn something that is a bit impractical to hook up, like an amp through a loadbox, into a nice little digital model you can load and play on a track. That's the situation where I don't mind scrolling through a few captures to find something that works.
 
laxu said:
One channel amps generally don't need that though. Usually for those kind of amps my approach is "set this up for your guitar, cab and venue, then pair it with pedals for more things". When the amp is set up, you turn your guitar volume/tone controls to make it do different things and that's usually plenty.

With the captured versions you are stuck using whatever EQ tools you have to try to make it sound right for the situation, or you trawl through your pile of captures to find the capture that sounds right. A lot less intuitive than "turn a few knobs on the amp".

With white box modelers it's also easy to do things like "I will change my amp settings a bit for my lead sound on scene 3" where you take what you have, alter it and get a sound that works better than throwing e.g a drive pedal on top of your scene 1 base sound. I think that's a lot more valuable than having an endless supply of snapshots of the same amp.

My favorite use for capture tech is to use it to turn something that is a bit impractical to hook up, like an amp through a loadbox, into a nice little digital model you can load and play on a track. That's the situation where I don't mind scrolling through a few captures to find something that works.
Click to expand...
One of the issues with multi channel amps is multiple EQ sections which is probably why most amps have global presence and resonance.

If I show up somewhere and I need to change my lead sound, chances are that every other sound needs the same thing.

So for instance, having a profiling box followed by a MFX with a global EQ is probably the best way to deal with this.

I still don't have it, but I'm looking forward to what it can do to simplify my rig. I don't envision more than a handful of profiles. Depending on how well it responds to physical boost pedals, probably very few.

Ultimately though, from a practical standpoint (if I was gigging) the most "mercenary" solution is to just program some patches into a good modeler that respond to your guitars volume/tone and call it a day.
 
I don’t think what OP is suggesting is outlandish. Captures can be used creatively.

Mesa Studio Preamp and similar early mark series amps are famously hard to balance between channels because of the shared controls.

I’ve used NAM and Tonex to create direct captures of the studio preamp’s various channels at their own respective sweet spots. That into the FX return of my Mark III gives any number of Mark II/III sounds with no real compromises, as many channels as I want. It sounds shockingly authentic too. Sort of like a Triaxis on steroids.

I’d like to do the same with my Recto and JCM 800. Any amp with an FX loop opens up all kinds of options - especially if your amp has physical limitations, like shared knobs. My 800 can become a 3 channel amp if I want clean, crunch, and boosted lead.

YMMV but I find capture technology to be tons of fun when mixed with the analog realm.
 
EOengineer said:
I don’t think what OP is suggesting is outlandish. Captures can be used creatively.

Mesa Studio Preamp and similar early mark series amps are famously hard to balance between channels because of the shared controls.

I’ve used NAM and Tonex to create direct captures of the studio preamp’s various channels at their own respective sweet spots. That into the FX return of my Mark III gives any number of Mark II/III sounds with no real compromises, as many channels as I want. It sounds shockingly authentic too. Sort of like a Triaxis on steroids.

I’d like to do the same with my Recto and JCM 800. Any amp with an FX loop opens up all kinds of options - especially if your amp has physical limitations, like shared knobs. My 800 can become a 3 channel amp if I want clean, crunch, and boosted lead.

YMMV but I find capture technology to be tons of fun when mixed with the analog realm.
Click to expand...
Great minds think alike!

There is always going to be compromise between channels, and many settings can't be modified with switching. Mesa is a great example, you can dial in different sounds with the GEQ and switch between them live.

Its great to hear that the ToneX sound credible. Triaxis on steroids.
 
Shredder777 said:
One of the issues with multi channel amps is multiple EQ sections which is probably why most amps have global presence and resonance.
Click to expand...
No… the reason presence and resonance are global is because they are a function of the power amp; they affect the filtering of the negative feedback in the power amp and that in turn affects power amp response. The power amp behavior affects all channels at once which makes the effect of those controls apply to all amp channels, globally.

Those controls are not part of the preamp tone stack which is where most amplifiers’ BMT controls live.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

HomespunEffects
Where to place the Tonex?
Replies
9
Views
472
JiveTurkey
JiveTurkey
E
Tube Power Amp IRs and Captures
Replies
3
Views
288
EOengineer
E
B
Is the Poly Ample Undergained?
Replies
9
Views
349
Antipodes
A
metropolis_4
I might not need an fc6
Replies
14
Views
356
laxu
laxu
sleewell
Would this be an ok way to run my helix?
Replies
4
Views
204
sleewell
sleewell
Back
Top