Ten billion profiles/captures = one amp

[nicolasrivera]

It doesn't need to know in order to reproduce the sound though. If it nulls it nulls, whether there are 50 pedals or none - the sound is the sound. That's both the blessing and the curse of it. You only get what you get, but you definitely get it

thats right.

 

[Orvillain]

thats right.

 

[Lysander]

How many `sounds` does a jcm800, uber, fender have? Just thinking about the amp here ( IR`s will do more to the sound )

Um, a whole lot? Amps come with knobs and switches for a reason.

 

[Jarick]

IMO it's extremely unlikely the amp models in Neural are pure captures of every permutation. I think it's more likely they have a way to capture the effects/interaction of all the knobs and transfer that to some kind of model. Or maybe there's a profile similar to Kemper with a tone stack modeled. That's basically what liquid profiling is right?

 

[nicolasrivera]

Or maybe there's a profile similar to Kemper with a tone stack modeled. That's basically what liquid profiling is right?

What Fractal Audio has done since the first Axe Fx came out

 

[TSJMajesty]

but even the modes on a Mark amp `sounds the same` to my ears,

WHAT??
Seriously??

 

[metropolis_4]

The advancing thing strikes me as weird, look around here the majority of guys here want tones from 3-4 decades ago...period.

I mean how long did it take for guys to get used to Line6 or Fractal originals.

And while I'm at it the frontend whether hardware or plugins is constant irregardless of model with the only change on stuff like Fractal orUA Apollo being the input impedance.

Just as having an impedance curve for the power amp and speaker interaction is all fine and we'll except it's frequency dependant rather than a consistent curve.

I don’t disagree, philosophically it’s an interesting distinction though

 

[Sascha Franck]

There are a variety of reasons I'm opposed to all this profiling/ML/AI/etc. stuff: [things I 100% agree with snipped]

As I'm not into "authentic" sounding amps and their respective models (even if I don't mind great sounding authentic models), I have to agree with each and every of your points.

However, if technology was there already (which it apparently isn't yet), I'd love profiling to capture some rather obscure stuff. Think about, say, a split up signal, divided into frequency bands, each feeding individual amps with rather completely different gain structurs, tone stacks, additional drives, EQs and compressors, etc. If you created something like that in whatever modeler allowing for it, it'd be a tremendously different task to keep track of the entire shebang, so I'd rather just consolidate everything in one handy capture.
Not sure when we will see capturing tech to cover all these possibilities as well...
However, until that moment, I will continue to chose my modeling devices based on usability (I'm getting plenty of great tones out of pretty much all of them).

 

[Ed DeGenaro]

As I'm not into "authentic" sounding amps and their respective models (even if I don't mind great sounding authentic models), I have to agree with each and every of your points.

However, if technology was there already (which it apparently isn't yet), I'd love profiling to capture some rather obscure stuff. Think about, say, a split up signal, divided into frequency bands, each feeding individual amps with rather completely different gain structurs, tone stacks, additional drives, EQs and compressors, etc. If you created something like that in whatever modeler allowing for it, it'd be a tremendously different task to keep track of the entire shebang, so I'd rather just consolidate everything in one handy capture.
Not sure when we will see capturing tech to cover all these possibilities as well...
However, until that moment, I will continue to chose my modeling devices based on usability (I'm getting plenty of great tones out of pretty much all of them).

Can’t you do that already with a crossover?

 

[Sascha Franck]

look around here the majority of guys here want tones from 3-4 decades ago...period.

Amen!

I've always been saying that guitarists are the most conservative bunch of them all. I mean, people are drooling over guitars that haven't been improved since over half a century, the epitome of guitar amplification has apparently been reached mid 70s already (ok, add hair metal and low tuned chuggachugga to it - but that's as far as it gets).
At the same time, absolutely marvelleous technology is never really taking off at all. Look at Roland's/Boss' attempts at the VG or SY systems. When you really think about it, that very technology should be pretty much a kind of standard by now, at least comparable to amp modelers, so that you're regularly running into folks using that stuff. But you hardly ever see anyone.
One of the reasons likely being that things are still not standardized, so you gotta "ugly up" your precious guitars with that abhorrent GK stuff. Another reason being that there's pretty much just one player (Roland/Boss). Oh yes, there's also Line 6, but they tried to reinvent the wheel and came up with a triangle.
But the main reason would still be that guitarists are just uber conservative w***ers. All you need to do is to look into whatever "modeler feature request" thread. "Can we please have this iconic amp and that legendary stomp box?" all over the place. There's hardly ever people asking for synth-alike features (decent filters, modulators, etc.) or things such as Frippertronic playground kinda things.

The industry loves all that as they can continue to sell you the same stuff over and over again.

 

[Sascha Franck]

Can’t you do that already with a crossover?

Well, yes. But I may need several. And it'd get very tricky to control all the involved stuff already. Even just finetuning dual amps is a lot more of a business than using a single one (and it's actually more than double the work, simply because in addition to tune two amps you also need to balance them). Further, that was just one example - you could as well design weird acting creatures (such as featuring upside down dynamics, which, for instance, is possibly within guitar rig). For all these kinda obscure things, capturing would be fantastic.

 

[SeeD]

WHAT??
Seriously??

Ballpark ?
I would maybe say that a Triaxis is more different, with the modes/models ?

 

[BenIfin]

Rant incoming ......

Putting aside the "quirks" of how C.K runs Kemper .......ie:- its their way .... and well .. thats it !!! .... they clearly think they know what's best for their [current and potential] consumers !!!! ...... they're not fully explicit in how best to do certain things .... hunting down specific correct answers and processes via their forums does work but its f%cking frustratingly tedious and difficult ..... having said all that .....

It seems to have become very "trendy" and "open season" to utterly f%cking sh%t bag Kemper in the last 6 - 12 months for persisting with what is [relatively] simple hardware power and limited hardware designs etc....

I don't get it ... I. Just. Don't. Get. It ......its become almost a mob-mentality in some places / threads / forums !!!

And yes .... NAM and Tonex *are* more accurate for static profiling ... of this there is no doubt

Even allowing for all the above ..... I think C.K's move to combine profiling with [limited] component modelling [ L.P'] was/is sheer genius ..... at least to my ears and fingers ..... its just superb sounding and feeling ... <- one mans opinion ...who sold everything else and went back to a L.P-only loaded Stage.

As soon a he announced it, to me, it was one of those .... why the f%ck hasn't this been done before already moments ... it just innately feels like a natural evolution.

The only other unit I've had and played - modeler or capturer - that had [pretty-much] the same feel and dynamics is the Boss GT ...... yep .... thats not a typo.

I totally get the Kemper hardware is not (a) everyone's cup of tea *and/or* (b) doesn't have enough features for some people ..... %100 cool / ok / understood.

I am *not* saying a Kemper and/or Kemper OS10 and LP's is anyone else's holy grail .. or for anyone else here .. we all hear and like things differently.

But to not at least acknowledge that a 12+ year old "box" can now produce raw Amp tones that are now [L.P] "amp'ly" tweakable** and be as good as anything else out there ... and i.m.h.o ... better .... is a disservice to any fair discussion on this sort of topic.

Rant over :)

Ben
** - only for the current list of 44 Amp Channels

 

[Ed DeGenaro]

Rant incoming ......

Putting aside the "quirks" of how C.K runs Kemper .......ie:- its their way .... and well .. thats it !!! .... they clearly think they know what's best for their [current and potential] consumers !!!! ...... they're not fully explicit in how best to do certain things .... hunting down specific correct answers and processes via their forums does work but its f%cking frustratingly tedious and difficult ..... having said all that .....

It seems to have become very "trendy" and "open season" to utterly f%cking sh%t bag Kemper in the last 6 - 12 months for persisting with what is [relatively] simple hardware power and limited hardware designs etc....

I don't get it ... I. Just. Don't. Get. It ......its become almost a mob-mentality in some places / threads / forums !!!

And yes .... NAM and Tonex *are* more accurate for static profiling ... of this there is no doubt

Even allowing for all the above ..... I think C.K's move to combine profiling with [limited] component modelling [ L.P'] was/is sheer genius ..... at least to my ears and fingers ..... its just superb sounding and feeling ... <- one mans opinion ...who sold everything else and went back to a L.P-only loaded Stage.

As soon a he announced it, to me, it was one of those .... why the f%ck hasn't this been done before already moments ... it just innately feels like a natural evolution.

The only other unit I've had and played - modeler or capturer - that had [pretty-much] the same feel and dynamics is the Boss GT ...... yep .... thats not a typo.

I totally get the Kemper hardware is not (a) everyone's cup of tea *and/or* (b) doesn't have enough features for some people ..... %100 cool / ok / understood.

I am *not* saying a Kemper and/or Kemper OS10 and LP's is anyone else's holy grail .. or for anyone else here .. we all hear and like things differently.

But to not at least acknowledge that a 12+ year old "box" can now produce raw Amp tones that are now [L.P] "amp'ly" tweakable** and be as good as anything else out there ... and i.m.h.o ... better .... is a disservice to any fair discussion on this sort of topic.

Rant over :)

Ben
** - only for the current list of 44 Amp Channels

Im still curious enough to want to check the liquid profiles.

But im fairly certain letting tmb settings changes more like a conventional amp has zero to do with how the amp responds to playing dynamics
Nor does it change the profiles base character.

 

[laxu]

But the main reason would still be that guitarists are just uber conservative w***ers. All you need to do is to look into whatever "modeler feature request" thread. "Can we please have this iconic amp and that legendary stomp box?" all over the place. There's hardly ever people asking for synth-alike features (decent filters, modulators, etc.) or things such as Frippertronic playground kinda things.

I'd say there's a certain sweetspot for many guitarists on how much they are willing to mess with their gear.

Pedals are a good place to look at this phenomenon. The scale looks something like this:

• "I sometimes put a one knob fuzz in front of my edge of breakup amp". Barely willing to do anything.
• "I love tinkering with a Meris LVX and getting weirdo sounds out of a Chase Bliss Lossy." Extreme deep-diving.

Most land somewhere between those extremes, but the deep diving end is a much smaller number of people. I find that if something has way too many parameters (that you'd have to use rather than ones already set to a good spot), or requires way too much menu diving to operate, I don't want to engage with it. Synth-style features are often like that, or they are foreign enough that most players just don't want to learn them. I don't know if that's being conservative, or just not immediately seeing the value of something because you have a hard time wrapping your head around its capabilities.

Electric guitar is also in that phase where a lot of the core tones are established and a lot of it dates back to the pioneering work of 1950s-1990s. I recently installed pickups based on early Fender Broadcaster pickups and am loving the tones I'm getting from those. Electric guitar is basically a whole world of "happy accidents".

Meanwhile many guitarists themselves are at an age where they grew up with music from say 1970s-2000s. As people tend to get nostalgic over the music of their youth, it's no wonder people are also looking at the guitar tones from those eras.

 

[BenIfin]

Im still curious enough to want to check the liquid profiles.

But im fairly certain letting tmb settings changes more like a conventional amp has zero to do with how the amp responds to playing dynamics
Nor does it change the profiles base character.

Hey Ed !

Its actually the Gain as well as the Tone stack plus the Cap .... and yep it does ... I posted some clips at "the other place" comparing the same L.P vs the same Legacy Profile at the same varying settings .... and the differences are very, very stark ... a clip obviously though cant convey feel and dynamics

Not totally sure what you mean about the "base character" but each LP now does not use the old legacy generic "amp base" ..... you *can* if you want re-insert the old "generic" stack .. but then you lose all the new benefits .... this is no doubt why the so-called Kemper Amp signature that many of us all knew and loved/hated .... is now also gone ... although there is one poster here on TGF that swears its still there :) .. it isn't :)

Again, anyone one may love or hate or think L.P is total horse-sh%t ... its all good :) .... that's kind of not really my actual point though.

If we are talking about fantastic great authentically tweakable raw Amp tones ... which I *think* we are, to leave out the new KPA approach for the current [and growing] list of 44 Amp Channels .... is just ignoring the current 2023 reality with the KPA.

Ben

 

[Sascha Franck]

Synth-style features are often like that, or they are foreign enough that most players just don't want to learn them. I don't know if that's being conservative, or just not immediately seeing the value of something because you have a hard time wrapping your head around its capabilities.

Pretty much a matter of how things are presented I think. If you really need to roll your own all the way from the ground, I could perfectly understand why most people wouldn't be attracted.
To get past that, device makers should come up with nice solutions to allow for instant gratification, even if you don't know much about the details. An IMO very good example would be Native Instruments' FM7 (and partially still the FM8), pretty much a 1:1 clone of a Yamaha DX7. Programming the latter qualifies as pure horrorshow all throughout (FM synthesis in general isn't for the faint hearted, even less so on the grand daddy of FM synths...). But it's got an easy edit page with just a bunch of sliders labeled so everybody could easily understand what's going on, such as "brightness", "harmonic" or "attack". Excellent. With a bunch of well programmed core sounds, this can take you quite far already.

FAS' editor is designed along similar lines, you can get away fine just using the easy edit page (name escapes me right now), plus there's block presets. With any such features, even complexed things become way more accessible. Just that very little programmers seem to care.

 

[dronerstone]

Programming the latter qualifies as pure horrorshow all throughout (FM synthesis in general isn't for the faint hearted, even less so on the grand daddy of FM synths...).

Yes, that's true.

I owned a first-run DX7 for some years. Bought it dirt cheap, it even came with a bunch of stock and aftermarket cartridges.

Programming it was a PITA. At some point I decided to switch to a Midi keyboard to use with Hexter, and sold the DX7 on for a good price. I made some money, and the buyer was happy just as well. All good.

A very weird device, by current standards.

 

[laxu]

Pretty much a matter of how things are presented I think. If you really need to roll your own all the way from the ground, I could perfectly understand why most people wouldn't be attracted.
To get past that, device makers should come up with nice solutions to allow for instant gratification, even if you don't know much about the details. An IMO very good example would be Native Instruments' FM7 (and partially still the FM8), pretty much a 1:1 clone of a Yamaha DX7. Programming the latter qualifies as pure horrorshow all throughout (FM synthesis in general isn't for the faint hearted, even less so on the grand daddy of FM synths...). But it's got an easy edit page with just a bunch of sliders labeled so everybody could easily understand what's going on, such as "brightness", "harmonic" or "attack". Excellent. With a bunch of well programmed core sounds, this can take you quite far already.

FAS' editor is designed along similar lines, you can get away fine just using the easy edit page (name escapes me right now), plus there's block presets. With any such features, even complexed things become way more accessible. Just that very little programmers seem to care.

I actually wanted to use the DX7 as an example but didn't want to make the post too long. That synth is on tons of records - using its stock presets because it's hellish to program.

Fractal is kinda halfway there. The "Authentic" view for amps helps a lot of people get familiar results out of them. But there's nothing like that for cabs and effects. At best for fx you get presets that sound pretty great out of the box.

Line6 effects aren't any better in this regard, I'd say their default settings are worse than Fractal's. On Fractal you have a good sound that might need some mix adjustment but you can otherwise live with the defaults.

Strymon and Source Audio are in that sweet spot where they have plenty of controls depending on the pedal, but not so many that it gets confusing for most users. I'd say that is part of their success.

Strymon Zelzah's Voice control is genius because it answers "phaser, flanger, chorus or something in between?" in one knob. Similarly Deco's Lag Time is "flanger, chorus, slapback or longer delay?" That sort of things can turn the complex into simple to understand. This stuff is more in line with the "let the eggheads who make these things figure out the hard stuff" that most people want.

But it's hard to find that sweet spot where the power users who want to tweak everything are happy, but also those who "just want a great sound and play" are satisfied. Like I'd love to have Fractal's "Bright cap value" knob on my BluGuitar Amp 1 since its bright cap is "old school Marshall" stuff, which can be harsh if you don't know how to work around it by running higher gain and lower guitar vol/tone to compensate.

 

[metropolis_4]

Amen!

I've always been saying that guitarists are the most conservative bunch of them all. I mean, people are drooling over guitars that haven't been improved since over half a century, the epitome of guitar amplification has apparently been reached mid 70s already (ok, add hair metal and low tuned chuggachugga to it - but that's as far as it gets).
At the same time, absolutely marvelleous technology is never really taking off at all. Look at Roland's/Boss' attempts at the VG or SY systems. When you really think about it, that very technology should be pretty much a kind of standard by now, at least comparable to amp modelers, so that you're regularly running into folks using that stuff. But you hardly ever see anyone.
One of the reasons likely being that things are still not standardized, so you gotta "ugly up" your precious guitars with that abhorrent GK stuff. Another reason being that there's pretty much just one player (Roland/Boss). Oh yes, there's also Line 6, but they tried to reinvent the wheel and came up with a triangle.
But the main reason would still be that guitarists are just uber conservative w***ers. All you need to do is to look into whatever "modeler feature request" thread. "Can we please have this iconic amp and that legendary stomp box?" all over the place. There's hardly ever people asking for synth-alike features (decent filters, modulators, etc.) or things such as Frippertronic playground kinda things.

The industry loves all that as they can continue to sell you the same stuff over and over again.

I don’t think it has anything to do with guitarists being conservative. Is the goal of every guitarist to achieve synth tones? Is “progress” of an instrument to move closer to digital synthesizing?

What about other instruments? Do drums sound the same way they did 50 years ago because drummers are too conservative? How about the clarinet?

We’re chasing the sounds that lend themselves to the music we wish to create. 99.99999% of the time I’m asked to play it’s because they want the sound of an electric guitar to suit the music they are creating. Not because they want weird innovative synth sounds