Helix (with IR) vs tube amp with real cab

[norminal]

What if I told you I've been impossibly busy since September of 2017, a full year before HX Stomp was even announced?

I’d believe you.

 

[paisleywookiee]

but Ben, Sam, and Ryan are impossibly busy right now.

HX Stomp 2 AWD GT-R TURBO COMIN'!!!

 

[laxu]

What if I told you I've been impossibly busy since September of 2017, a full year before HX Stomp was even announced?

Well obviously. You've been working on the Helix II!

 

[Digital Igloo]

Well obviously. You've been working on the Helix II!

 

[AFKAEjay(retired)]

Every bit this!

On another sidenote: Add to this that people are constantly claiming latency would be no issue with their analog rigs. But especially on larger outdoor stages, it might even become *more* of an issue with an analog rig.

Scenario #1: You have your amp/cab several meters behind you, no additional monitoring. Not even getting into the fact that sounds coming from behind aren't perceived as directly due to the shape of our ears, but even if it's not all that big of a stage, you may very well end up with, say, anything from 3-5 meters of a distance between you and your amp, resulting in 9-15ms of latency. And as its an outdoor event, there's likely no or very little reflections happening, so there's no audible "clues" to help you get along with that additional latency (one of the biggest differences between real life and digital latency, fwiw). And until now we didn't even factor the latency your digital pedals may add in.

Scenario #2: You have your amp/cab several meters behind you, this time there's additional monitoring, say, through a typical wedge at your place. If you ever have the opportunity, just move around between your cab and the monitor while playing. It's extremely likely (almost for certain), that at some spots you will perceive your sound as out-of-phase-y, even kinda modulating (as you're not a statue, hence moving) and what not.

Scenario #3: You bring your modeling rig kicking in with, say, 4ms of latency and run it through your wedge monitor only. We need to add around another 6ms for any average sized human being. But that's about it. In addition to have less latency, given quality monitors, your sound will likely be a lot closer to what you've dialed in at home or in a rehearsal space - because in neither of these places would you stand 3-5 meters away from your real cab to dial things in, whereas you'd likely monitor yourself through a wedge exactly the same in a rehearsal room and on stage.

Pick your poison. I certainly know what I'm going for. And fwiw, while plenty of folks were like "Nah, your lowly 10" wedge will never be able to supply enough of the goods on a sort of big open air stage!", the opposite is the case as the close monitoring provides a most excellent direct feel. Add to this that no bandmates will complain about that too loud idiot playing guitar. Or FOH folks getting angry about stage bleed.
Win-win on absolutely all accounts.

Scenario 4 to mitigate downsides from scenarios 1 and 2: move your amp closer to your spot .

Issues that come with distance to soundsource, or phaseissues coming from having multiple ones, are independent from cab/"FRFR" choice, and the solutions are generic: move people, soundsources, or aim soundsources differently….or use iem.

Guitars being too loud on stage…sure…a 4x12 is a perfect murder weapon in the hands of an idiot, but if handled right, it can also be the perfect personal monitor…or depending on stage and where you aim it…a tool to give everyone on stage a good and “in the mix” guitarsound…without all the other idiots in the band cranking guitar on their personal wedge introducing phase issues all over the place

I prefer the sound the sound of a cab, and never run into situations where having a cab bites me in the heal.

A stage of a size that makes my amp look like a poststamp AND no option to put it close to me AND is not a silent stage to begin with…sure, that’s a scenario where id also rather rely on wedges…but these are rare exceptions right?..they sure are for me. 9/10, for me, a cab works just fine, there is always the option to blend wedges in.

To me, the perfect guitar rig can handle both, cab/"FRFR"…and blended versions of that.

 

[AFKAEjay(retired)]

If a matching power amp and cab is 100%, a high quality """FRFR""" is... for long-time tube amp players, let's say... in an ideal scenario, maybe 60-70%? Is it worth losing 30-40% of that cab-in-the-room sound/feel for the ability to switch cabs at a whim? If one loves a particular wooden cab with a particular set of drivers, they should absolutely use it; best of both worlds at that point. And in 4-Cable Method, they can swap out their favorite amp's preamp with any modeled preamp with a single footswitch press. Modeling is not, and never has been, an all or nothing scenario.

I think it’s fascinating how “traditional setup players” keep blaming the missing 40/30% on the digital component instead of the playback, and how some of the digital adapters keep twisting their own arm to get the missing part while the solution is simple..find a cab you like.

Also interesting, the products that force a marriage between amp modeling and traditional driver(katana/catalyst/tonemaster)…are super succesfull amongst traditional amp users…yet very few people seem to take that same concept, and apply it to the high end segments of modelers/poweramps/speakers.

Just yesterday I captured the preamp of a great amp, with putting that in 4cm/return of my “middle of the road gigging amp”…I have added a great sound to that amp, with zero compromise as a result of it having a digital component. No way anyone used to 100% analog rigs is gonna hear or feel that the preamp is digital..not gonna happen.

Maybe the marketing angel of digital stuff doesn’t help this application. Thats mostly the promise of “we give you every amp and every speaker”, and not so much “we give you a tool to expand what you get from your efx loop fitted tube rig”.

 

[Sascha Franck]

Scenario 4 to mitigate downsides from scenarios 1 and 2: move your amp closer to your spot .

Sure. A 4x12 placed next to you, slanted back directly at your pedalboard's place, has always been en vogue.

 

[Sedaxel]

I feel the same as DI explains about a real cab or "FRFR" options.

My preference for gigging (and several buddies' too) is to have the real amp feeling, blowing air from behind, as our stage monitoring method (not for the audience). Once tried all possibilities, We liked the real amp first, but a capture with a real cab as pretty close second. "FRFR" is OK in this scenario too... So not saying it's bad at all. It's just that We feel somehow slightly disconnected, hollow, distant (for the lack of better words). It's not the same. There's a clear difference.

I absolutely understand guys who prefer to hear what the audience hears. And the ones who need much more versatility. For me, the versatility of having the modeller for everything except the cab, is more than enough.

And in the studio, yeah, modellers and cab IRs are just up to the task while being much much much more convenient than real amps (at least for small studios).

 

[ragingplatypi]

Fwiw, I've been a long-time tube amp player.
And I never switch cabs during a gig.
And yet, I vastly prefer a modeling (ok, somewhat hybrid) setup through a ""FRFR"" monitor for a whole variety of reasons.

The first time I A/B’d delay and reverb pre and post cab (which is when I got the HX Stomp) was a revelation that made things much more complex. Since then I chose amp or "FRFR" based on the gig.

 

[ragingplatypi]

What if I told you I've been impossibly busy since September of 2017, a full year before HX Stomp was even announced?

Helix III confirmed!

 

[Jarick]

I think it’s fascinating how “traditional setup players” keep blaming the missing 40/30% on the digital component instead of the playback, and how some of the digital adapters keep twisting their own arm to get the missing part while the solution is simple..find a cab you like.

Also interesting, the products that force a marriage between amp modeling and traditional driver(katana/catalyst/tonemasterpro)…are super succesfull amongst traditional amp users…yet very few people seem to take that same concept, and apply it to the high end segments of modelers/poweramps/speakers.

Just yesterday I captured the preamp of a great amp, with putting that in 4cm/return of my “middle of the road gigging amp”…I have added a great sound to that amp, with zero compromise as a result of it having a digital component. No way anyone used to 100% analog rigs is gonna hear or feel that the preamp is digital..not gonna happen.

Maybe the marketing angel of digital stuff doesn’t help this application. Thats mostly the promise of “we give you every amp and every speaker”, and not so much “we give you a tool to expand what you get from your efx loop fitted tube rig”.

Love this post, you nailed a lot of great observations IMO.

Most of the time people talk about modelers vs analog gear in terms of sound...how similar do two devices sound? This is pretty easy to test with blind A/B clips and Line 6 did this early on and almost nobody could really tell them apart consistently. Or JHS secretly using a Kemper for a year and nobody noticing. Note that I'm not talking about modeler through "FRFR" vs tube amp through cab, they need the same playback.

When they sound so close you can't pick them apart, the next thing is feel...some type of feedback that can only be experienced while you're actively playing the device. This is much harder to test and you have to be playing the devices to do so. The only potentially measurable things here would be related to latency or some kind of gating/noise. But here's where a lot of bias will really come into play.

I'd say there's a third difference which is experience...how you interact with the device while not playing, or what does the device make you feel? I'm not talking about the pants flapping at high volumes thing because that can happen with either unit. But this could be UX like having five knobs vs having a screen with menus. A battle scarred vintage amp vs a shiny new multi-effect box. The smell of tubes, etc. Part of this is going to be workflow and preference based, but a lot of this is going to be psychological and bias will heavily play a factor.

I think a lot of people who don't like modelers either completely botch the playback, or they just don't like the experience, and they blame it on the sound and feel.

Another thing that makes a bigger difference than people think, reverb. Having a small amount of reverb really changes the sound quite a bit. When comparing modelers using the same amp model and impulse response, if you use the native reverb on each it will make them sound a lot more different, but if you run everything through the same reverb then it sounds way more similar.

Last thing that comes to mind, the "FRFR" vs cab piece, the Fender FR-12 was an eye opener for me. I kept trying different studio monitors because they are supposed to be better at low volumes, and sonically some days it was awesome others I struggled. Then I got a power amp and 1x12 cab and there's some real benefits but it also wasn't the best cab for my tastes so the sounds weren't as good as I hoped. Finally trying the FR-12, it's supposed to be "FRFR" just like studio monitors but the experience is way different. The response is way closer to an actual cab once you dial in the bass and cut knobs. You can shape the sound with the IR somewhat but the differences are smaller compared to on studio monitors or headphones.

That's why I think it's something anyone who struggles with modelers should try, either the Fender version, the Friedman, Laney, new IK cab, whatever. To me the sound, feel, and experience is closer to the amp and cab with one of these units. Maybe a good 12" PA speaker does the same thing too, I haven't had one in forever.

 

[Sascha Franck]

The first time I A/B’d delay and reverb pre and post cab (which is when I got the HX Stomp) was a revelation

How so? It really shouldn't matter.

 

[laxu]

Also interesting, the products that force a marriage between amp modeling and traditional driver(katana/catalyst/tonemasterpro)…are super succesfull amongst traditional amp users…yet very few people seem to take that same concept, and apply it to the high end segments of modelers/poweramps/speakers.

The issue is that a single cab with specific speakers is always the big limiting factor for modeling. It works fine for the Tone Master because those are intended to be exactly one Fender amp and nothing more. But the Katana and Catalyst already have to compromise with a "works well enough for all models" speaker, vs "sounds the best with one of the models" choice.

I tried running NAM captures from my laptop through a Focusrite audio interface into the Fryette PS-100 + Bluetone 4x10 10" Greenback cab. They all sounded fantastic...but the cab imposed a Marshallish flavor. Even things like a Fryette Deliverance, or Mesa Mark series amps, which paired with e.g Fanes/Eminence P50E/Mesa V30s tend to sound more distinctly different.

So if you have a modeler with 100+ unique amps like Fractal, using a single cab you are going to find that they start to sound a lot less unique. Then some users will complain how they "all sound almost the same, modeling sucks!"

This is unlikely to change until someone reinvents the cab sim, and even then it's not like a 4x12 will turn into a 1x12 combo and vice versa.

 

[ragingplatypi]

How so? It really shouldn't matter.

If I’m at home in cork-sniffing/recording mode I love going stereo and the high end complexity of fancy delays and reverbs after the cab. When I’m playing out it depends on the situation. Most of the time all that’s called for is mono and a ton of the high end complexity is lost. However, sometimes so do get the chance to play stereo and indulge in some ambiance. So now I’m thinking through all of that ahead of time.

 

[AFKAEjay(retired)]

The issue is that a single cab with specific speakers is always the big limiting factor for modeling. It works fine for the Tone Master because those are intended to be exactly one Fender amp and nothing more. But the Katana and Catalyst already have to compromise with a "works well enough for all models" speaker, vs "sounds the best with one of the models" choice.

I tried running NAM captures from my laptop through a Focusrite audio interface into the Fryette PS-100 + Bluetone 4x10 10" Greenback cab. They all sounded fantastic...but the cab imposed a Marshallish flavor. Even things like a Fryette Deliverance, or Mesa Mark series amps, which paired with e.g Fanes/Eminence P50E/Mesa V30s tend to sound more distinctly different.

So if you have a modeler with 100+ unique amps like Fractal, using a single cab you are going to find that they start to sound a lot less unique. Then some users will complain how they "all sound almost the same, modeling sucks!"

This is unlikely to change until someone reinvents the cab sim, and even then it's not like a 4x12 will turn into a 1x12 combo and vice versa.

Sure, the spectrum of variation narrows when you take IRs out of the game. But that’s next level compared to only taking different speakers out. IRs are made with different mics…and moving a mic an inch has high impact…in my mind..that’s where most of the differences are made.

Ime…use of different speakers result in me dailing the tonestack/Global eq different, and I get into the same zone as I always do in the end. Marshall will still sound like Marshall, vox like vox.

In my mind amps actually sound more alike then the extremes that got them their “Fame” we all have in our heads. And they are alike for good reason…that’s what works!

I can imagine that the choice for using cab/IRs also depends on what you are trying to accomplish. If you want variaty, and maybe want to replicate sounds you hear on your fav tracks… would make sense to include IRs and use full range. (With the open question, does all that variaty work in a live setting, where the rest of the band sticks to 1 sound all night) Or like me, I just want the best possible versions of the 1 to 3 amp sounds I use, in the most convinient way. To me variaty is rather an enemy then a friend, and finding a cab/speaker that narrows it down, not a compromise, but an asset!

Different perspectives!

 

[laxu]

Sure, the spectrum of variation narrows when you take IRs out of the game. But that’s next level compared to only taking different speakers out. IRs are made with different mics…and moving a mic an inch has high impact…in my mind..that’s where most of the differences are made.

Even if you have e.g Fractal where you can leave the virtual mic in the same position, swapping the cabs will generally make a bigger difference than swapping the amps into the same cab.

Ime…use of different speakers result in me dailing the tonestack/Global eq different, and I get into the same zone as I always do in the end. Marshall will still sound like Marshall, vox like vox.

I actually found that the Victory VC35 (Vox based) amp I had sounded too "Marshall" through my Bluetone 4x10 cab. Only when I paired it with a 1x12 Alnico Gold it started to sound like what I think Vox amps should be. Doesn't mean it wasn't different from my actually Marshall based amps even through the 4x10, but it ended up squeezed into a similar ballpark sound that meant that it was kinda pointless to have the amp.

I can imagine that the choice for using cab/IRs also depends on what you are trying to accomplish. If you want variaty, and maybe want to replicate sounds you hear on your fav tracks… would make sense to include IRs and use full range. (With the open question, does all that variaty work in a live setting, where the rest of the band sticks to 1 sound all night) Or like me, I just want the best possible versions of the 1 to 3 amp sounds I use, in the most convinient way. To me variaty is rather an enemy then a friend, and finding a cab/speaker that narrows it down, not a compromise, but an asset!

Different perspectives!

Which kinda brings us back around to "do you even need a modeler, if you only need a handful of amp sounds, and want to keep the cab cosistent?" For stage use consistency can be a big benefit too.

My BluGuitar can do a nice Fender clean, and several variations of Marshall/Soldano style overdrive and that's honestly more than enough for anything.

 

[Sascha Franck]

If I’m at home in cork-sniffing/recording mode I love going stereo and the high end complexity of fancy delays and reverbs after the cab. When I’m playing out it depends on the situation. Most of the time all that’s called for is mono and a ton of the high end complexity is lost. However, sometimes so do get the chance to play stereo and indulge in some ambiance. So now I’m thinking through all of that ahead of time.

OK, stereo vs. mono does of course matter.

 

[AFKAEjay(retired)]

I'd say there's a third difference which is experience...how you interact with the device while not playing, or what does the device make you feel? I'm not talking about the pants flapping at high volumes thing because that can happen with either unit. But this could be UX like having five knobs vs having a screen with menus. A battle scarred vintage amp vs a shiny new multi-effect box. The smell of tubes, etc. Part of this is going to be workflow and preference based, but a lot of this is going to be psychological and bias will heavily play a factor.

This is a real thing, Also for me, even though I’m 100% convinced on digital.The looks, smell, knobs right there, the limitations, the lack of distractions.
Part of the reason I use amps with loops to make my modeler louder, and my digital stuff only uses digital versions of stuff i actually own…so i can always add 2 cables and a few pedals and switch to analog

 

[AFKAEjay(retired)]

Which kinda brings us back around to "do you even need a modeler, if you only need a handful of amp sounds, and want to keep the cab cosistent?" For stage use consistency can be a big benefit too.

Need, no. Handy, yes.
My sounds in a box to use into other amps, 1 device to record, occasional silent stages, preset/scène based switching, double duty as a mixer for acoustic guitar/vocals, headphone device on the couch, efx unit in the analog rig, cabsim feed for analog rig…plenty of reasons to own one without using the versatility it also offers.

 

[Digital Igloo]

I think it’s fascinating how “traditional setup players” keep blaming the missing 40/30% on the digital component instead of the playback, and how some of the digital adapters keep twisting their own arm to get the missing part while the solution is simple..find a cab you like.

Dude, 100%. Sometimes it feels like playing whack-a-mole against an army of flat earthers.

Also interesting, the products that force a marriage between amp modeling and traditional driver(katana/catalyst/tonemaster)…are super successful amongst traditional amp users…yet very few people seem to take that same concept, and apply it to the high end segments of modelers/poweramps/speakers.

Amp sales are slipping across the board. Not sure how ToneMaster is doing, but I will say that whenever we float the idea of a higher end modeling amp, we're met with "Yeah, but Fender is selling the *idea* of a single real tube amp with the Tone Masters; you can't really pull off a flexible modeling amp at the same price." For the record, I don't agree—there's a path forward; I just gotta convince the right people.

No way anyone used to 100% analog rigs is gonna hear or feel that the preamp is digital..not gonna happen.

Absolutely. Except then the next guy in the YouTube comment section responds with "lol digital sux." With again, zero mention of playback system or expectations.

Maybe the marketing angel of digital stuff doesn’t help this application. Thats mostly the promise of “we give you every amp and every speaker”, and not so much “we give you a tool to expand what you get from your efx loop fitted tube rig”.

For years we were pushing the narrative that Helix wasn't designed to replace your rig; it's meant to be the centerpiece of your rig. But then competitors (and their followers) popped off with their "Don't need amps and pedalboards anymore!" nonsense and we were forced to pivot.