Pick the real amp out from the emulations

[paisleywookiee]

frog spunk IR's

Link?!

 

[Sascha Franck]

Can we hear some more hackeneyed blues licks through frog spunk IR's please????

Very happily so.

 

[Sascha Franck]

Link?!

Used those as a reverb IR once. Mr. Cranium apparently has been amazed.

 

[Sascha Franck]

Oh, fwiw, here's the "hackeneyed blues" I used to play through that IR:



But I moved on ever since, by now I'm rather playing comp core (licks courtesy of Giacomo Turra) through wasp IRs. Keep wa†ching this space.

 

[Eagle]

This one ;

This is what gigs are supposed to look like.
But don’t ask me to carry it.

 

[prog n roll]

About the last video with Hyper Accuracy NAM models. I can definitely hear the differences between the sounds, but I have a hard time consistently telling which is which. I think the only thing I can consistently tell is that sample A has less bass than the real amp.

I'm really curious to see what the results reveal.

 

[Mikael Dez]

This one ;
View attachment 43388
This is what gigs are supposed to look like.
But don’t ask me to carry it.

I care more about how it sounds than looks, but I guess since folks love seeing stacks they'll keep putting empty shells up on stages to make the fans feel better haha

 

[Eagle]

I care more about how it sounds than looks, but I guess since folks love seeing stacks they'll keep putting empty shells up on stages to make the fans feel better haha

Those are not empty.

 

[Chocol8]

Those are not empty.

Then the sound dispersion must be awful!

 

[Mikael Dez]

Then the sound dispersion must be awful!

Yeah I don't feel like listening to 8 guitar amp heads lol

 

[ian_dissonance]

Yeah I don't feel like listening to 8 guitar amp heads lol

If that’s Malmsteen’s rig I don’t want to listen to one amp head.

 

[deadpool_25]

I posted the results to mine in the YouTube comments but if you CBA to click:

Spoiler: RESULTS

A Helix
B Amp
C NAM xSTD
D ToneX
E NAM STD
F Amphub

I found it interesting that not a single person identified the real amp, but almost everyone who took guesses could identify Helix (and to a lesser extent STL). I was a little disappointed by the test in some ways - Helix and STL got some characteristics of the amp correct that IMO the ML models couldn't quite get right, but with some trade offs that sound a bit digital (for want of a better word). The ML models all sound fine to me, but ToneX almost sounds like another amp (the character of the gain and the low end response doesn't have what I'd think of as a definitive part of the uber tone). NAM STD was slightly better but still not quite right. xSTD got closer still but when going between the real amp and the xSTD model the low end and upper mids still have some small differences.

Slammin Mofo kindly trained some Hyper Accuracy models for me, so I'm going to do one more video just comparing those against the real amp (and NAM STD, xSTD, and ToneX). This time I'll label the real amp, so there is a frame of reference to compare the captures to. It'll be interesting to see whether HA models close the gap further.

Latest here:

I think they all have the same general tone (like "yeah that's the same kind of amp with the same basic settings and setup") and would probably be perfectly acceptable on their own merits whether live or recording.

This is why these comparisons have become basically academic to me at this point. The options we have are so good I could pretty much pick any of them and get a great tone.

 

[Sascha Franck]

This is why these comparisons have become basically academic to me at this point. The options we have are so good I could pretty much pick any of them and get a great tone.

Yeah, this. At least for me as well.

 

[MirrorProfiles]

I think they all have the same general tone (like "yeah that's the same kind of amp with the same basic settings and setup") and would probably be perfectly acceptable on their own merits whether live or recording.

This is why these comparisons have become basically academic to me at this point. The options we have are so good I could pretty much pick any of them and get a great tone.

On one hand I agree with you, whereas on the other, I’d say the one distinct character that I associate with an Uberschall isn’t really captured by any of them. I think some tonal variations don’t bother me much, because they can sound like setting the eq controls slightly different. But when it’s a fundamental part of the amps character, I think the differences can matter more.

Doesn’t really matter from a “do I like the sound of it?” perspective but if you want a particular sound captured then I think it’s helpful to be aware of the nuances.

 

[Mikael Dez]

The only time I care if it's a real amp is if I'm actually playing it - i.e. my captures of my amp come DAMN close but there's .2% of something not there even if it's in my head (which it very well could be). It's something I wouldn't miss if I didn't have my amp to A/B and remind myself of why I have it in the first place.

 

[deadpool_25]

On one hand I agree with you, whereas on the other, I’d say the one distinct character that I associate with an Uberschall isn’t really captured by any of them. I think some tonal variations don’t bother me much, because they can sound like setting the eq controls slightly different. But when it’s a fundamental part of the amps character, I think the differences can matter more.

Doesn’t really matter from a “do I like the sound of it?” perspective but if you want a particular sound captured then I think it’s helpful to be aware of the nuances.

That's where it gets interesting. It's very much perspective driven. I've never played through a real Uberschall. I've played the models on the Axe and I've played through captures on the QC but those are my only points of reference.

There have only been a few points where I've been able to really a/b in a meaningful way. As an example I was using a Tremoverb vs the FM3 model of the Recto 1. I was running the FM3 through the ToV power section and got the the point where I couldn't tell a significant difference (if any). I did that with a few different amps like the 5150, 6505, and 5153. Over time, I did it a few different ways as well. Used a Duncan Powerstage and used the FM3 (maybe FM9 at that point) through 5153 (50w) power amp vs a different amp. I was using both amps through separate inputs on a Mesa 4x12 that time and swapping the inputs every now and then.

Those are what convinced me that modeling was not just good enough, but it could be at least equally great (for me). I thought it was equally great even when I could hear slight differences. There were points when I even preferred the model .

 

[EOengineer]

On one hand I agree with you, whereas on the other, I’d say the one distinct character that I associate with an Uberschall isn’t really captured by any of them. I think some tonal variations don’t bother me much, because they can sound like setting the eq controls slightly different. But when it’s a fundamental part of the amps character, I think the differences can matter more.

Doesn’t really matter from a “do I like the sound of it?” perspective but if you want a particular sound captured then I think it’s helpful to be aware of the nuances.

For the most part we seem to have entered an era where modeling differences are subtle enough to be chalked up to natural variability in the source, but to your point, there are fundamental identifiers that have to be represented or people are going to notice.

L6’s Marshall situation comes to mind prior to the addition of their VERY good 2203 model. No kerrang, no Marshall, and people not only called it out but literally walked L6 to the problem and solution. Kudos to L6 for caring enough to listen.

 

[Sascha Franck]

prior to the addition of their VERY good 2203 model.

I gotta say I find myself using their own take on a Marshall, namely the Voltage model, most of the time. Maybe it's also got to do with it having less controls and hence being easier to adjust on the HX Stomp, but I also somehow seem to prefer it in general. The 2203 is absolutely great, though.

 

[Eagle]

Then the sound dispersion must be awful!

Have you ever played though something like that? It was an experience that every rock player should have at least once. It’s not just volume. I think modern quiet stages are definitely easier to work with but it’s not the same. Probably nostalgia mostly but it was fun.

 

[Sascha Franck]

Then the sound dispersion must be awful!

Well, can't tell how things would be with that many stacks, but in one summer way back we were doing some open air festivals along with another band and we had two full stacks available on some gigs which I was allowed to use as well. All I can say is that it was glorious. I mean, ok, kind of, because a "controlled sound environment" might be something else. However, my side of the stage was just filled with guitar and that was quite something (bass was using an 8x10 plus a 15" sub which was great, too).
I would not care about it anymore today (especially as monitoring in most places has become sooo much better), but back then it was an experience that I was very happy about being able to at least check it out.