The Digital Doubt

[Eagle]

Broad generalizations are always false. If somebody tells me that I can't make "a digital version of an amp or pedal" sound the same, they are speaking from abject ignorance, of which they are probably completely unaware.

Sound the same yes, feel the same no. Model every interaction in anything analog? No because it is everything that makes a difference.

 

[Sascha Franck]

Digital amps are more compressed feeling even when they don’t sound that way

Graphs don't lie. Graphs where?

 

[mercifulfuzziness]

Digital amps are more compressed feeling even when they don’t sound that way . Far more generic feel across similar but subtly different amp models, less touch sensitive. They sound smaller in the room and you can feel the latency in some platforms sufficiently to feel detached .
These things are lessening the fine nuances in your playing for good and bad. These are small differences but they matter to some people.
Most of this is only apparent to the player.

If this is true (and I don’t know) why was there a lot of people saying in the “dynamics” thread that there isn’t any difference?

This is the difference I was wondering about.

And no, for me it doesn’t really matter, I think. But it might be better for beginner - intermediate to experience all this so if you ever go over to “the real deal” you won’t have to come to the conclusion you have learned some techniques “wrong”.

This probably al doesn’t make any sense if that’s the case, let me ramble.

It won’t change my set up for now

 

[FuzzyAce]

To my ears, that's a bug, not a feature. If I'm looking for uncompressed ("peaky"), I want it to be there at any volume I need to play. Ditto more compressed ('smoother"). Tube amps have issues with both of those.

That's not at all a necessary result of using a modeler.

Then your modeler is dialed to match the sound of a louder amp, but you're playing it at a lower volume. If you really want your modeler to sound like the tube amp at low volume, try decreasing master volume and sag and increasing "damping" (i.e., negative feedback) in the modeler's amp block.

If you really want that but can't make your modeler do exactly the same thing, then there's a deficiency in your modeler, the preset you're using, and/or your monitoring solution.

It sounds like you are trying to say they can be equal. The pre amp, PI, output tubes/transformer/speaker relationship have a real -- in the moment energy. A modeler is just aiming to recreate the best qualities of that relationship. You can't tell me they will feel the same, it's not really possible. But that's completely OK. They don't have to be the same.

 

[Boudoir Guitar]

It sounds like you are trying to say they can be equal. The pre amp, PI, output tubes/transformer/speaker relationship have a real -- in the moment energy. A modeler is just aiming to recreate the best qualities of that relationship. You can't tell me they will feel the same, it's not really possible. But that's completely OK. They don't have to be the same.

The relationship is super predictable though? Its not like trying to predict weather patterns, or even a projectile's path in a moderately windy environment.

If you are running the modeler through something other than the same speaker cabinet you are running the amp through, then of course you're always going to fail - though Jay might come very very close given the very unique IRs that he has captured of some of his cabinets. And of course you need a power amp that is up to the task.

If you are playing the amp and the modeler at different volumes, of course its going to feel and sound different.

Assuming you are doing the above, and the amp you are using is one that is modeled in your modeler, you still have two hurdles left: (1). how close to the amp that was modeled is the amp you are playing, really? (2). On a non-master volume amp you've got a volume knob. On a model of that amp you have a master volume knob and a volume knob and then an output level from the amp block (and likely at least one more master output knob for the modeler) -- so gain staging the "modeled amp" the same way the amp itself is gain staged so that its accurately modeling what the amp is doing while also volume matching is...hard.

All of this is to say: if the exercise is to get a modeler to sound exactly like an amp you own and enjoy playing...that is a whole lot of work. You SHOULD be able to get really, really close...close enough for plenty of people not to notice a difference, even when playing. But...what's the point? "Hey, I'm playing a different thing at the same volume as this other thing that I already own and they sound the same!!!"

However, someone making super broad blanket statements that every digital model of every amp is inherently more compressed than the amp even if you can't hear it when that same person somehow thinks that a modeler should be run through an "FRFR" speaker in an attempt to sound like a guitar amp that is playing in the same room through a guitar cab is equally dumb. And not because digital fanboys are butt hurt, but because it leads people like merciful who has little to no experience playing through amps to start endless threads gnashing teeth over whether their at-home playing experience is somehow compromised by anything other than monitor, volume and skill limitations.

 

[Eagle]

Both good but not the same . Nothing controversial here. In fact you can only talk about digital shortcomings in their reproduction of an analog device. No two real amps made of all the “same” components sound exactly the same so digital is not getting all the data needed to replicate ALL of what is happening.

 

[Eagle]

The relationship is super predictable though? Its not like trying to predict weather patterns, or even a projectile's path in a moderately windy environment.

If you are running the modeler through something other than the same speaker cabinet you are running the amp through, then of course you're always going to fail - though Jay might come very very close given the very unique IRs that he has captured of some of his cabinets. And of course you need a power amp that is up to the task.

If you are playing the amp and the modeler at different volumes, of course its going to feel and sound different.

Assuming you are doing the above, and the amp you are using is one that is modeled in your modeler, you still have two hurdles left: (1). how close to the amp that was modeled is the amp you are playing, really? (2). On a non-master volume amp you've got a volume knob. On a model of that amp you have a master volume knob and a volume knob and then an output level from the amp block (and likely at least one more master output knob for the modeler) -- so gain staging the "modeled amp" the same way the amp itself is gain staged so that its accurately modeling what the amp is doing while also volume matching is...hard.

All of this is to say: if the exercise is to get a modeler to sound exactly like an amp you own and enjoy playing...that is a whole lot of work. You SHOULD be able to get really, really close...close enough for plenty of people not to notice a difference, even when playing. But...what's the point? "Hey, I'm playing a different thing at the same volume as this other thing that I already own and they sound the same!!!"

However, someone making super broad blanket statements that every digital model of every amp is inherently more compressed than the amp even if you can't hear it when that same person somehow thinks that a modeler should be run through an ""FRFR"" speaker in an attempt to sound like a guitar amp that is playing in the same room through a guitar cab is equally dumb. And not because digital fanboys are butt hurt, but because it leads people like merciful who has little to no experience playing through amps to start endless threads gnashing teeth over whether their at-home playing experience is somehow compromised by anything other than monitor, volume and skill limitations.

I’ve said in the past the closest to the same is a Kemper profile played back through the same cab in the same spot you made it. The compression comes from missing nuances in the amp model that affect the feel , this is apparent in every model of amp I have ever AB tested with a digital version. The clips are near perfect these days but the player experience is still easily identified when switching between the two sat in the control room.

 

[mercifulfuzziness]

I’ve said in the past the closest to the same is a Kemper profile played back through the same cab in the same spot you made it. The compression comes from missing nuances in the amp model that affect the feel , this is apparent in every model of amp I have ever AB tested with a digital version. The clips are near perfect these days but the player experience is still easily identified when switching between the two sat in the control room.

At this point with all that work I would just buy a tube amp

 

[Boudoir Guitar]

I’ve said in the past the closest to the same is a Kemper profile played back through the same cab in the same spot you made it. The compression comes from missing nuances in the amp model that affect the feel , this is apparent in every model of amp I have ever AB tested with a digital version. The clips are near perfect these days but the player experience is still easily identified when switching between the two sat in the control room.

Interesting. I love the powered Kemper. In large part because my experience with it (which included profiling amps and playing back through the same cab used as a load in the profiling process) was that it always feels falsely compressed. I've never had a rig that gives more useable range on "volume knob cleanup" -- the Kemper rig cleans up and the volume drops a little, but not so much that I feel lost.

 

[Boudoir Guitar]

The compression comes from missing nuances in the amp model that affect the feel

We are to believe that of the many many people that are making digital models of analog systems these days, that in every instance, they are missing nuances that ADD compression and in no instances they miss a nuance that leads to LESS compression?

 

[FuzzyAce]

The relationship is super predictable though? Its not like trying to predict weather patterns, or even a projectile's path in a moderately windy environment.

If you are running the modeler through something other than the same speaker cabinet you are running the amp through, then of course you're always going to fail - though Jay might come very very close given the very unique IRs that he has captured of some of his cabinets. And of course you need a power amp that is up to the task.

If you are playing the amp and the modeler at different volumes, of course its going to feel and sound different.

Assuming you are doing the above, and the amp you are using is one that is modeled in your modeler, you still have two hurdles left: (1). how close to the amp that was modeled is the amp you are playing, really? (2). On a non-master volume amp you've got a volume knob. On a model of that amp you have a master volume knob and a volume knob and then an output level from the amp block (and likely at least one more master output knob for the modeler) -- so gain staging the "modeled amp" the same way the amp itself is gain staged so that its accurately modeling what the amp is doing while also volume matching is...hard.

All of this is to say: if the exercise is to get a modeler to sound exactly like an amp you own and enjoy playing...that is a whole lot of work. You SHOULD be able to get really, really close...close enough for plenty of people not to notice a difference, even when playing. But...what's the point? "Hey, I'm playing a different thing at the same volume as this other thing that I already own and they sound the same!!!"

However, someone making super broad blanket statements that every digital model of every amp is inherently more compressed than the amp even if you can't hear it when that same person somehow thinks that a modeler should be run through an ""FRFR"" speaker in an attempt to sound like a guitar amp that is playing in the same room through a guitar cab is equally dumb. And not because digital fanboys are butt hurt, but because it leads people like merciful who has little to no experience playing through amps to start endless threads gnashing teeth over whether their at-home playing experience is somehow compromised by anything other than monitor, volume and skill limitations.

I'm not really talking about a model replicating the same tube amp equivalent. I'm talking more of the feel and response, that relationship that tubes and transformers provide into my hands and ears. They are not the same and never will be. Granted, if you run your modeler into a tube power amp and traditional guitar speaker, things will be closer. But again, I don't really care to match them up perfectly, they are different and that's completely fine and even great -- because they both can sound fantastic in the right scenario.

 

[Eagle]

We are to believe that of the many many people that are making digital models of analog systems these days, that in every instance, they are missing nuances that ADD compression and in no instances they miss a nuance that leads to LESS compression?

I don’t know. This just my personal observations from using both and getting the experience to test them against the real amps . My work gives me way disproportionate access to a LOT of high end and rare gear.

 

[Eagle]

I'm not really talking about a model replicating the same tube amp equivalent. I'm talking more of the feel and response, that relationship that tubes and transformers provide into my hands and ears. They are not the same and never will be. Granted, if you run your modeler into a tube power amp and traditional guitar speaker, things will be closer. But again, I don't really care to match them up perfectly, they are different and that's completely fine and even great -- because they both can sound fantastic in the right scenario.

This is the answer.

 

[Sascha Franck]

t sounds like you are trying to say they can be equal. The pre amp, PI, output tubes/transformer/speaker relationship have a real -- in the moment energy. A modeler is just aiming to recreate the best qualities of that relationship. You can't tell me they will feel the same, it's not really possible.

Why not? A physical model is a physical model. Which, by definition, would allow them to be exactly the same. Whether that will actually happen one day, that's quite another thing.

 

[mercifulfuzziness]

I'm not really talking about a model replicating the same tube amp equivalent. I'm talking more of the feel and response, that relationship that tubes and transformers provide into my hands and ears. They are not the same and never will be. Granted, if you run your modeler into a tube power amp and traditional guitar speaker, things will be closer. But again, I don't really care to match them up perfectly, they are different and that's completely fine and even great -- because they both can sound fantastic in the right scenario.

So… the dynamics??

 

[Sascha Franck]

The compression comes from missing nuances in the amp model that affect the feel

That just doesn't make *any* sense. Missing nuances? Ok, maybe. Maybe even likely. But missing nuances *causing* compression? Sorry, that's just bogus. If at all, you'd need to pinpoint the exact nuances you are refering to. And also, in case they caused compression, you'd be able to measure it.
Graphs. Don't. Lie.

 

[FuzzyAce]

Why not? A physical model is a physical model. Which, by definition, would allow them to be exactly the same. Whether that will actually happen one day, that's quite another thing.

Because they're not the same?
Maybe a bad comparison, but imagine a replica painting on a wall next to an original. From a distance they may look the same, but the closer you get you start to see the color blends are not the same. Then you touch each "painting" and realize one has irregular texture and the other is smoother.

 

[Eagle]

Interesting. I love the powered Kemper. In large part because my experience with it (which included profiling amps and playing back through the same cab used as a load in the profiling process) was that it always feels falsely compressed. I've never had a rig that gives more useable range on "volume knob cleanup" -- the Kemper rig cleans up and the volume drops a little, but not so much that I feel lost.

I have and use Axe3 and a Kemper power rack. And I play through a QC regularly. I’m not remotely interested in Helix and got rid of it years ago. I only post on the basis of personal experience and direct information. I still like Kemper and bought one back after years because of Mark Knopfler.

 

[AFKAEjay(retired)]

Untill I see vids of people consequently identifying digital version from real ones (never seen one, and a bazillion showing the opposite)…and I’m diagnosed with earloss so my own observations no longer count (I can’t tell the difference between most captures and real through the same “make it louder gear”)…I’ll be navigating on the prefect that digital delivers on its promise.

Btw…workings of “placebo” are a proven thing nevertheless

 

[Eagle]

That just doesn't make *any* sense. Missing nuances? Ok, maybe. Maybe even likely. But missing nuances *causing* compression? Sorry, that's just bogus. If at all, you'd need to pinpoint the exact nuances you are refering to. And also, in case they caused compression, you'd be able to measure it.
Graphs. Don't. Lie.

This is how it feels to me from experience. There will be a perfectly logical explanation for it but you would need to know exactly how each company deals with exactly what to model and in what degree of resolution.