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.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.
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.
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'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.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 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.
This is the answer.
Because they're not the same?
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.
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.
You tell easily only if you’re the player. Literally the only time I ever had even a doubt was a power kemper with models made by me through the same cab without moving it. Volume matched and switched by a third party out of my sight.
I don't understand this. It is a digital model of an analog system and by definition a model is not the thing it is a model of -- that would be a copy, not a model.
I think it's more than dynamics, that term could be taken different ways too I suppose. I think of dynamics maybe more as headroom thing, where there's room in an amp (or model) to fluctuate based on things like pick attack.
