Maths

Sascha Franck

Rock Star
Messages
6,061
In, say, the Helix ecosystem, we have:

- 61 dirt pedals (legacy included)
- 88 amps (just guitar amps)
- 42 cabs (guitar and bass singles, no legacy)
- 12 mics per each cab

If we wanted to try out each of these combinations, that'd be 61 x 88 x 42 x 12 = 2705472 combinations.
If we wanted to spend just one minute with each combination in average (some are certainly good to be ditched after 1 second, others might be good for an entire day of banging hard), that'd come down to 1878,8 days. Of just testing these combinations 24/7. And you wouldn't even have touched a single tone/gain control, moved a mic or what else.

Food for thought?
 
Last edited:
This is why the Gear Gods created the 808 and a 5150, because

aint nobody got time for that GIF
 
"I know the <Helix> (feel free to replace with pretty much any other modeler) inside out, sounds like @ss!"
Yeah, sure.
 
Options overload: It's already exhausted in my view..
I think the next focus with modellers going forward is going to be fidelity. Higher bit depth and sample rates..
Nux are already at 32 bit 48k...
Parallel routing will become the standard as well, perhaps multiple instances..
 
All valid points, Sascha! If viewed this way, many modelers could be considered overwhelming.

Imho, it's best to treat them like you'd have access to a huge stash of gear, or have found an abandoned store with all the gear left in the shelves.

Sometimes you can go straight for what you already know works for you, maybe throw in some new "twist" that's been smiling back at you, or change the amp models around, go for a specific sound, etc.

Mathematically, it borders on impossible to sit down and try every combination, even if you'd make it a year-long project.
 
many modelers could be considered overwhelming.

They are. And pretty much all of them - by now, even all those cheap things from the far east come with a truckload of at least pretty decent sounding amps and pedals.

Thing is also, my stupid little calculation didn't even include adding any FX but just the core sounds. It also didn't include balancing more than one sound so they'll work well together in, say, a live context. And most of all, it didn't include to touch a single control yet. While there might certainly be some sort of "set and forget" amps (with their ideal settings probably being loaded by default already), there's others offering such a broad palette of tones that it'd take hours and days to just explore those more or less thoroughly.
All these multiply the amount of options so much that even an entire human life dedicated to tone chasing wouldn't be sufficient to explore just a fraction of them (let alone trying them out in whatever actual musical contexts, even if it's just jamming over a backing track).

Imho, it's best to treat them like you'd have access to a huge stash of gear, or have found an abandoned store with all the gear left in the shelves.

While this would very likely describe a wet dream for most of us (myself included), I'm not sure whether it'd do us good. Could you resist the urge to try out as much of that stuff as possible?

Fwiw, while I didn't start this thread with any dedicated purposes in mind, I think one takeaway should be clear: While less isn't necessarily more, if we want to actually make music with all that stuff, at one point in time we will have to start limiting ourselves to less than what is available.
Add to this that almost sort unfortunately, these days money isn't much of an issue for anyone anymore (something like an HX Stomp is an affordable item for pretty much any person living in the western world), with modelers space and volume are no issues anymore, either, so there's pretty much no natural limits anymore.

Being a sort of an old fart, I remember the days when this was very, very different (in fact, it's barely 20 years ago). Back then, you simply were limited. In case you couldn't use your glorious pedalboard or rack and that cranked amp most of the time (but on rehearsals and gigs), you were happy when you found anything that'd sort of give you a kind of acceptable home practice tone. Or two. So once you had these two tones, the tone chasing ended and you just had to see what you could be doing with them.
And it didn't end at home. Us mere mortals usually didn't have the financial means to afford a big ass rack or whatever. Until not too long ago, the most common thing has been one (1!) amp with maybe 2 channels and a handful (or maybe 2 handfuls) of stomp boxes in front. Sure, all that changed with the first half-decent programmable units on the market (such as the GP-8), but those were usually just used by some outliers.

What I'm saying is that until not too long ago, if we wanted to get the most mileage out of our gear, we had to do this by exploring the limited options very thoroughly.
Back then: So, your amp for 500 bucks with your two 50 bucks pedals in front don't sound like a kitchen sink rack? Well, let's see what else this might be good for.
Today: <Laughs in 27 HX series delays> (all of which you could even use multiple times in one patch)

Long story made somewhat shorter: When I re-organized my pedalboard somewhen early last year, which included quite some reduction of tonal options (basically down to two pedalsized modelers always running the same patches, serving as a clean and dirt platform, plus a handful of dirt pedals), I found myself playing a whole lot more pretty much all of a sudden. My live sound improved, too, a big part of that improvement being familiarity with the sounds and their readily available shaping options.
And then the last HX update came along. Soundwise, it's a fantastic update, really. Some of the new amps IMO are just glorious.
So, what did I do? Right, exploring all these new amps, combining them with whatever how many stompboxes and cabs, etc. And I've been playing considerably less - even if some of the sounds I explored are worth being played all day long. But uh-oh, there's all these other goodies to explore, I possibly couldn't miss out on them, could I?
And that (plus another thread on Gearspace) has been pretty much the main reason for me to start this thread...
 
The future of modelling will include some interactive AI thingamajiggy to relieve the user of learning the gear.
Some kind of questions what players and tones you like or aim for with this particular patch and some robot "listening" to your playing and adjusting gain and compression to your input.
"So Dave, what do you feel like today? Clapton in Butterfield? ... How does this sound to you? ... Is this better?"

And yeah, my guitar life is a constant ebb and flow of exploring and playing as well. Is this a bad thing?
I have learned to "nail down" the part of my gear that I need to create and play, to get out of option paralysis. Real amps, a pedal board and a cab and a mic, or Michael Nielsen's DynIRs via a CaptorX, because they are not too many and they sound great in context.
Around that there's space to explore and get lost and get weird.
The hobby part of it.
And from time to time, something weird and wonderful seeps into my "playing" area, which is fun, too.
 
The future of modelling will include some interactive AI thingamajiggy to relieve the user of learning the gear.

That's what I think as well. At least sort of. At one point in time you'll be able to record a reference track, have the guitar(s) extracted (works pretty well these days already), then record something of your own and have the AI match things as closely as possible. Most of it is doable today already, but so far it takes time, experience and pretty clean recordings. But it will obviously only get better and much more accessible over time.

And yeah, my guitar life is a constant ebb and flow of exploring and playing as well. Is this a bad thing?

It's not a bad thing at all - but, as the rather simple mathematic "facts" show in a pretty obvious way, there's one point in time (which is entirely up to you) when you just *have* to call it a day in terms of sound quests, unless you want to spend all your time with it and never play again.
 
I do think looking to synths will give us look at the future. Our current top tier modelers are workstations. I think the next step will be something like “performance synths” - a narrower focus of top tier sounds with a streamlined workflow.

Think something like the Nord Lead or Nord Electro.
 
Last edited:
Fwiw, on the GT-10, there's been an easy edit mode. You'd click on a bunch of different things (style, effects-laden yes/no, whatever) and the thing would create a patch for you. Apart from the general modeling quality not being up to date, that feature wasn't all *that* bad, even if it was pretty limited.
However, I could easily see something along these lines to become reality, especially once it's AI-driven. All you'd do is to click categories. And in case you're not happy with it, there'd be refinement options. This could be taken pretty far, from very rudimentary ("Hey, FractalGPT, create a typical 70s rock riff sound for me") to extremely detailed ("I wish this could have a bit more bite in the upper midrange"). Obviously, you could as well tell it "please route a leadboost containing a TS-style pre-boost, an overall level jump of 4dB and a delay onto switch #3".
 
Back
Top