The Digital Doubt

[laxu]

Data management is an issue on all modelers atm so I am not surprised people feel overwhelmed. Henning Paul had a right idea when he proposed "why can't I just have some favorites that show 'my stuff'?" in the recent FM3 video. I think that would go a long way in hiding the stuff you are not interested in, but no modeler does this.

People thinking captures will solve it are not going to be happy though, when those have the worst data management of all. They just move the hunt from the "perfect" amp model and settings" to the "perfect" capture. The people happiest with captures will be those who make them from their own amps...and they probably are already good with using regular amp modeling to get what they want.

Then you still have all the complication of options in the rest of the effects, which can mean your board is more complex than the average multifx unit (especially for switching), unless you are doing it all in one box with the QC, Kemper or Ampero 2.

Modelers are good at teaching you that you probably only like a subset of what they can do. I ended up selling my Axe-Fx 3 last year because I kept using such a fraction of what it can do, and the UI inconvenience was the drawback of having those features just sit there unused. If I go through my presets on the A2 Stomp, I can find that I have subconsciously dialed all of them to sound pretty similar, something resembling a modded Marshall.

By comparison my BluGuitar does that sound with minimal effort and all my complication is in the effects department where I can be a bit more interested in more options.

 

[mercifulfuzziness]

A speaker, cabinet, mic and it’s position have such a huge effect on the tone that I don’t really want the most critical aspect of a guitar tone dialled in by someone else who has no idea what I’m trying to achieve.

Okay, but our goals are different :) Are you recording? I am just using it as a home practice amp. So for me it would be the same as buying a Fender Princeton and put it my room to practice. I really don't think I would change the cab even.

I think I am starting to use the HX Stomp as a "amp sim" ? I have taken my presets down to 2: The Deluxe Reverb and the Princeton Reverb. I got myself two IRs for both.

 

[MirrorProfiles]

Okay, but our goals are different :) Are you recording? I am just using it as a home practice amp. So for me it would be the same as buying a Fender Princeton and put it my room to practice. I really don't think I would change the cab even.

I think I am starting to use the HX Stomp as a "amp sim" ? I have taken my presets down to 2: The Deluxe Reverb and the Princeton Reverb. I got myself two IRs for both.

Right, but an IR is always mic’d up. It’s not just a speaker.

I agree that in a lot of situations it doesn’t matter, but I don’t think you lose anything by having the ability to adjust the mic. You can just leave it wherever you like. It’s also not very hard to dial a sound in, so it’s no wonder it’s no the standard approach used by Line 6, Fractal, Neural DSP and most plugins to have movable mics

 

[mercifulfuzziness]

Data management is an issue on all modelers atm so I am not surprised people feel overwhelmed. Henning Paul had a right idea when he proposed "why can't I just have some favorites that show 'my stuff'?" in the recent FM3 video. I think that would go a long way in hiding the stuff you are not interested in, but no modeler does this.

People thinking captures will solve it are not going to be happy though, when those have the worst data management of all. They just move the hunt from the "perfect" amp model and settings" to the "perfect" capture. The people happiest with captures will be those who make them from their own amps...and they probably are already good with using regular amp modeling to get what they want.

Then you still have all the complication of options in the rest of the effects, which can mean your board is more complex than the average multifx unit (especially for switching), unless you are doing it all in one box with the QC or Ampero 2.

Modelers are good at teaching you that you probably only like a subset of what they can do. I ended up selling my Axe-Fx 3 last year because I kept using such a fraction of what it can do, and the UI inconvenience was the drawback of having those features just sit there unused. If I go through my presets on the A2 Stomp, I can find that I have subconsciously dialed all of them to sound pretty similar, something resembling a modded Marshall.

By comparison my BluGuitar does that sound with minimal effort and all my complication is in the effects department where I can be a bit more interested in more options.

Not sure where I read it, but it was smart: Just because you have a device with thousand and one options, doesnt mean you need to use thousand and one options.

But it's tempting.. My latest trap is: Oh wow, I finally got it that i have this Fender amp sounding GOOD. Maybe.. I could now do the same with the Line 6 Clarity!

 

[Sascha Franck]

Anyone else seeing stuff like this or can relate to it?

Very defenitely. "Option paralysis and how to deal with it (or not)".
Add to this the brutal amount of, say, YT gear demo channels where there's most excellent players blasting away with "perfect" sounds.
Results in what you described as well: "I rather not trust my own ears".

And then there's also:

But when I have a DD3, DD8, RV5, and MXR Reverb... right there on the floor in front of me... alongside the actual Mark V footswitch unit... there's just no fucking about, nothing goes wrong, and I get speed, I get reliability, and I get ease of use.

This!
When even someone as you is sort of "struggling" with some aspects of modeling (or rather the way multi-FX units work), how would this work out any better for a beginner?

And to this very day, there's no single modeler allowing you to work that way, at least not by default. Not even remotely even. Just to note some of the things lacking (I know, I'm partially repeating myself, but hey...):

- Lack of WYSIWYG. Results in menu diving, parameter jumps, need to resave things and what not. JFTR: Some of that could be adressed in case more companies would do it the Zoom MS/G-unit way. The most relevant parameters of any given effect are exposed instantly, there's readouts and endless pots. In addition, there's an autosave feature (that you need to be careful with in order not to destroy precious patches, but for the most part I love it). Really, this is possibly getting the closest to an analog interface.

- Related but still worth mentioning: Lack of exposed parameters. Taking your example, the Boss and MXR pedals are exposing 15 parameters already. There's not a single actual unit exposing these many parameters (the Boss ME-90 doesn't qualify as you can't have, say, multiple delays mapped to the physical knobs). And there's no even remotely easy, affordable and reliable ways to add that to whatever modeling/FX hardware.

I'd add to this that there's no option to deal with a modeler as you would deal with a loopswitcher based setup. Yeah, you can control the on/off status of whatever blocks but you might even be running out of switches quickly. For instance, in my last setup I had 6 drives placed in my dirt loop. I would preselect (and combine) them to suit the situation. On a modeling unit, that'd require 6 switches already, plus another one to possibly engage the split path. Similar things go for how I'm still using my MS-50. I either have a patch in which its loop is activated or a switch to do so - but either way, I can preselect an MS-50 patch beforehand. Which is excellent. For gigs, I usually have 2-3 patches that I cycle through, ready to roll whenever I feel like. Again impossible with modelers (I know there's channels on the FAS blocks, but they're still a pretty different thing).

In the end, option paralysis, uncertainty and lack of easy access create quite a dilemma, especially for those not familiar with many things.
When all you have is a single amp (maybe featuring 2-3 channels), a bunch of pedals and a single cab, you just don't have any options to quickly use another amp, another bunch of pedals and another cab (having said that: there's enough hoarders with analog option paralysis to be sure...).
As a result, you just use what you have.
Which also kills a lot of the uncertainty. There's simply no Sadites-post-compressing-tricks you could apply. Let alone a bunch of parallel cabs all mic'ed up 2 times.
It also pretty much *forces* you to get the most out of what you have.
And finally, it's easy to do because, well, things are exposed, ready to be grabbed and adjusted.

 

[mercifulfuzziness]

Right, but an IR is always mic’d up. It’s not just a speaker.

I agree that in a lot of situations it doesn’t matter, but I don’t think you lose anything by having the ability to adjust the mic. You can just leave it wherever you like. It’s also not very hard to dial a sound in, so it’s no wonder it’s no the standard approach used by Line 6, Fractal, Neural DSP and most plugins to have movable mics

The point I was trying to make is that I don't mind using an IR where the Mix 1 is based on a typical 57 + 121, based on a vintage 1966 Fender™ “Blackface” Deluxe Reverb with the original 12’ Oxford speaker. The same as I wouldn't worry about what speaker is in the "real life" amp.

It's probably not that hard for most on this forum, but I find it utterly complicated to have an EQ block, an AMP block with all kinds of variables I never heard before in my life before Helix (so, Sag, Bias, Bias X, Hum and ripple)... And then also have the variables in a cab which I never heard of (all these "dynamic" and "condensor" mics, the position, the distance, angle.. low cut, hi cut.. ) .........and all these variables need to work together to make it sound good (too me).

I saw an Uncle Larry video where he said that his EQ pedal is the most important pedal he owns. He also mentioned that in his early years, he had no idea what it did until he saw it on somebody else his pedalboard. It took him some time to get used to it. And here I am trying to learn an EQ block, an AMP with all weird ass parameters andddd also mic placement on cabs

 

[Sascha Franck]

I don’t think it has anything to do with modelers. I think the same stuff happens with pedals and amps. Mod this, swap that, what if I did this instead, etc. Guitarists that are gear heads constantly wring their hands over idiosyncratic tone stuff and second guess themselves.

D

Can't confirm for myself. At least not exactly. I use to use the things I have extensively. Likely has its origins in me being sort of poor-ish for the larger part of my playing life (in fact, it's not all that much about being poor but very often I'd rather spend my money on something more fun). Also, once you went through all of that (which I also did extensively, in those times when I was rather rich-ish, at least given my standards), you will notice it's not getting you closer to whatever it might be.

Let's face it, there's a truckload of killer players who stick to pretty much simple stuff all throughout their careers. Sure, they might've swapped things quite a bit in their formative years, too, but for many of them, it did come to an end sort of soon.
Do you read much about, say, Robben Ford swapping amps all the time? Not even the most brutal collector of all times, namely Joe Bonamassa, is changing his live setup all that much. Even some of the guys delivering a whole lot of flexibility (let's say John Petrucci), while obviously being in a position to use pretty much anything, stick to a given setup for a longer period of time.
I'm sure we could look up pretty much any wellknown player and observe exactly the same for the most part.

 

[woody]

If you search for "overcome option paralysis" on youtube, you'll get an lifetime supply of videos with yoga bunnies with thigh gaps and dude-bros with morning routines telling you which detox pose or which cold plunge is gonna help you.
This is not only a guitar gear thing.

And marketing is playing into that confusion.
Like, you never get to buy one IR.
It's always a "library".
Always "options".


Regarding the price of an Axe FX:
Think what one really great discrete signal chain is gonna cost you.
Say, the aforementioned 5150, OS Mesa cab, boost, delay, verb, mics (57 and 121), cabling, power supply, pedal board...
This is not even really exotic stuff.
Add it up. The Axe is really not that far out price wise, imo, and it comes with a free ring modulator...

 

[Sascha Franck]

If you search for "overcome option paralysis" on youtube, you'll get an lifetime supply of videos with yoga bunnies with thigh gaps and dude-bros with morning routines telling you which detox pose or which cold plunge is gonna help you.

Oh, so that'd be option paralysis of which option-paralysis-fighting video to watch then?

 

[woody]

Can't confirm for myself. At least not exactly. I use to use the things I have extensively. Likely has its origins in me being sort of poor-ish for the larger part of my playing life (in fact, it's not all that much about being poor but very often I'd rather spend my money on something more fun). Also, once you went through all of that (which I also did extensively, in those times when I was rather rich-ish, at least given my standards), you will notice it's not getting you closer to whatever it might be.

Let's face it, there's a truckload of killer players who stick to pretty much simple stuff all throughout their careers. Sure, they might've swapped things quite a bit in their formative years, too, but for many of them, it did come to an end sort of soon.
Do you read much about, say, Robben Ford swapping amps all the time? Not even the most brutal collector of all times, namely Joe Bonamassa, is changing his live setup all that much. Even some of the guys delivering a whole lot of flexibility (let's say John Petrucci), while obviously being in a position to use pretty much anything, stick to a given setup for a longer period of time.
I'm sure we could look up pretty much any wellknown player and observe exactly the same for the most part.

Right, but look at John Mayer and his ridiculous gear arc.
Or Vernon Reid.
There have always been players bringing e-ve-ry-thing to each gig.
But yeah, there's a bunch of players making their career with pretty constant rigs.

 

[Sascha Franck]

Right, but look at John Mayer and his ridiculous gear arc.
Or Vernon Reid.

Sure. But I think they're more like an exception. And I'm sure at least Mayer would get along fine with a much more simple setup easily.

 

[woody]

Oh, so that'd be option paralysis of which option-paralysis-fighting video to watch then?

Precisely.

 

[Stone]

The Options are there, use them for what you need, Option paralysis is the user not the Modeler or whatever else gear one is using.
One also has to have a basic understanding or learn what each device does IE: Amp settings Cabs/Speakers, microphones, delay and modulation,
Etc etc

 

[mercifulfuzziness]

The Options are there, use them for what you need, Option paralysis is the user not the Modeler or whatever else gear one is using.
One also has to have a basic understanding or learn what each device does IE: Amp settings Cabs/Speakers, microphones, delay and modulation,
Etc etc

This is also true of course. People who are prone to do this, even if they would go the tube route, time would then be spend every month in guitar stores looking for pedals or looking for different amps.

I am lucky enough to have found this forum, really, because I see very experienced players saying they went the shopping route.. and they always went back to a simplistic set up focusing on the playing. That saves me a lot of money hopefully along the way

 

[jellodog]

It has nothing to do with instant gratification. It has to do with wanting to play guitar. I am not a recording artist. I am a guitar player as a hobby and I don’t want to precious time I have dialing in cabs and become a hobbyist sound engineer.

It’s actually discipline to not tweak and dabble.

Generally I agree with this.

BUT! I should caution with the following anecdotal information...

I spent countless weeks of time over many years buying and selling speakers, inserting and removing speakers; swapping them again and again to compare... then giving up and buying an entirely different cab... then different amp heads and so on. Not to mention the thousands of $ spent doing it.

In the real analogue world, you can end up fiddling around too. It's just way less convenient, expensive and time consuming; and it's feckin' loud to boot!

 

[laxu]

But when I have a DD3, DD8, RV5, and MXR Reverb... right there on the floor in front of me... alongside the actual Mark V footswitch unit... there's just no fucking about, nothing goes wrong, and I get speed, I get reliability, and I get ease of use.

With the flipside that if you want to switch all that together, save things...it gets complicated compared to a modeler.

The QC or Hotone are a pretty good compromise for having the next best thing to that pedal experience for adjusting stuff, while still retaining the options and switching convenience. I'm surprised how well the mere 4" touchscreen + 3 knobs on the A2 Stomp works. If the 5" touchscreen on the A2 Stage came with a 4th encoder knob, I'd go for that.

But it's hard to compromise on the fx quality when coming from Fractal, Strymon etc.

 

[laxu]

I spent countless weeks of time over many years buying and selling speakers, inserting and removing speakers; swapping them again and again to compare... then giving up and buying an entirely different cab... then different amp heads and so on. Not to mention the thousands of $ spent doing it.

In the real analogue world, you can end up fiddling around too. It's just way less convenient, expensive and time consuming; and it's feckin' loud to boot!

Amen. At least modeling makes it easier to try a lot of that stuff, like I can run a tube amp through a loadbox and try it with various IRs to figure out what speakers or mics I might like. Or you can run the preamp of a modeled amp into your tube amp's poweramp etc.

For example I was heavily considering picking up a cheap JVM410 head, but trying some NAM captures and comparing them to NAM captures of my BluGuitar...I already had those tones.

 

[Sascha Franck]

With the flipside that if you want to switch all that together, save things...it gets complicated compared to a modeler.

Nah, not really, in case you have a loop switcher (ok, reverb/delay spillover will cause issues, but they can be solved, too...).

 

[mercifulfuzziness]

Generally I agree with this.

BUT! I should caution with the following anecdotal information...

I spent countless weeks of time over many years buying and selling speakers, inserting and removing speakers; swapping them again and again to compare... then giving up and buying an entirely different cab... then different amp heads and so on. Not to mention the thousands of $ spent doing it.

In the real analogue world, you can end up fiddling around too. It's just way less convenient, expensive and time consuming; and it's feckin' loud to boot!

Yep. It’s the nature of the beast and maybe the nature of guitar world from what I am reading.

Is it inevitable? Otherwise I will go on my spending spree tomorrow so I can go through it

 

[Sascha Franck]

Is it inevitable?

Of course not. Modeling has made things a lot easier - in case you can stick to a certain discipline. Even if some folks may end up using the real deal, today's modeling will give you a more than decent impression of the things you might want to settle with.