I’m not sure the Tonemaster amps have the reverb quite “inside the model” and part of the amp design? Sure it’s shown together, but I was under the impression it’s just in series like you’d get with any other modeler if you put a spring reverb block and an amp block in series…?
The point for me is being able to adjust them at at the same time is closer to the experience of using the real amp, vs having them separate. Of course, eventually it would be cool if the model totaly included the entire circuit with absolute accuracy. At some point I'm sure this will be the case but at the moment there is still probably DSP and other considerations to take into account.
You can't find out anything about the master volume based on where it's on the front panel. I don't think I have ever seen a MV before a tone stack either. Channel volume, maybe. Channel vs master volume is irrelevant on a digital modeler though as different channels are their own model. We have master and block output level.
You can't deduce anything with any certainty, but for instance, the Marshall Vintage Modern, Origin, 2150 etc have PPIMV's. These are situated on the far end of the control layout rather than next to the gain control (like a 2203 or DSL or Jubilee etc). That alone gives me a clue that its a PPIMV and that (if possible), I should try and run the MV as high as possible. It also means that the presence will have more influence if the master is up higher. Some Jose modded Marshalls have a pre tone stack master, its certainly not the most common topology but it does exist (and influence the sound).
I'd rather group gain, master and output together and then T/M/B, presence and depth as an EQ section, mainly because you need plenty of paging to edit all that on the front panel.
My main concern here is how fast it is to operate for controls that are typically operated together.
This is looking at HX Edit and Native through the lens of copying the layout of the HW 1:1. My point generally is that there are opportunities to improve the experience by using the benefits of external controllers that have different limitations to the HW. You obviously don't want to deviate too far, but even in its current state, neither HX Edit or Native have anywhere close to the same paging constraints of the HW, and yet they don't take full advantage either. With SW editors, you have WAY more controls visible and fully accessible at any one moment.
The issue I have with grouping like this, is on some amps the master volume has a very big tonal influence, on another it could affect the gain more, on another it might be less fussy. How the MV is set may influence the preamp level, but it may also influence the midrange or presence or bass. Regardless, on a SW editor everything would be visible at the same time and IMO it should mostly follow the original amplifier as it was designed.
Even if the pre-EQ knobs are more like "character" settings, you do tend to adjust them together with the graphic EQ - less bass in pre-EQ, compensate with more bass in graphic EQ and so on.
Not sure I agree with this, but everyone uses them their own way. I think of the Pre EQ controls almost more like gain controls, in that they are pushing those frequencies into the next gain stage. The graphic EQ is purely for shaping the tone. I'd actually rather have the master volume accessible with the graphic EQ because if you crank the presence or bass you notice the headroom decreasing and it may influence how you set those.
Yeah putting any regularly adjusted control in the back is just terrible. Mesa is particularly guilty of this even on amps where the front panel had room.
I've seen Dave Friedman say recently the only reason the C45 / Fat / Sat switches are on the back panel is to keep the noise lower. Maybe a better PCB design would allow them to be placed more sensibly but maybe the Friedman customer base would get suspicious of leaning on a more PCB oriented design. Its still typical to see the bright cap switches near the gain control , diode clipping near the master volume, depth and presence with the power amp. FX return volume/global master near the end.
If I'm familiar with a particular real world amp, and the software version has a full GUI, the closer that resembles the real deal, the more familiar and quick I'll be using it. If the controls are shuffled around after the fact it would (mostly) just throw me off, and would essentially make as many problems as it solves.
I think the general point is that any visual feedback that gets thrown away needs to be very heavily considered - removing some visual "distractions" may seem innocuous or even beneficial but it needs to be done very carefully IMO. As technology advances and tools get used in different ways, what makes sense for one set of circumstances may be less of an issue 10 years later. There's definitely more of an opportunity now to have more visual information - bigger higher resolution colour screens, scribble strips, phone/tablet apps, plugins, bluetooth etc. These things aren't going anywhere, and are only getting smaller, cheaper, and more familiar with customers.
