Tube Power Amp IRs and Captures

[KingsXJJ]

Alright, here’s a cheap option with a lot of versatility that might be worth considering. I know a lot of folks are not going to like the idea but aside from captures, I have used it with great results. Consider what you want from “power amp” captures or modeling. If it’s added tube color, compression, some give and feel and flexibility from crystal clear to a nice warmth with a bunch of options in between this might do it. I’ve ran dirt pedals feeding this and then on to effects into a fairly high rez stereo IR unit into headphones and this item adds that missing element. If you are looking for specific amp labels and not really cool just using your ears this probably isn’t it. But for under $150 and being all analog with no additional AD/DA converters and latency like my Ampero II Stage which also offers power amp models… this might be of use. Everyone can laugh now and tell me how wrong I am. And I might be, but that’s not what I hear. It’s why I bought another OD-200 to stack with the first… I think there’s something here and if tweaked right it can be much more than stacking. Amazon $139 but you might find it cheaper. I’d read the manual and feature list before rendering judgement. Motive? I have one and it’s not for sale. So do what you will and I’m open to folks telling me I’m batty. The “Voicing” knob and input versus output knobs are key.

 

[MirrorProfiles]

Hmmm, are you sure you weren't crushing the tube power amp so it was rolling off the top end?

Are you the only one experiencing this problem, i.e. are any others reporting the same thing as you?

Is this true even while capturing a clean tube power amp or solid state amp?

How can a 7K roll-off not destroy full amp captures (it can't), though nobody I've heard of is complaining of this issue?

Regardless, though I didn't create my tube power amp captures they certainly don't roll off steeply starting at 7K?

NAM is better no doubt, but is it different enough that you can hear differences playing guitar through guitar speakers or IR's? I certainly doubt it with regards to total freq response.

That said, prove me wrong, show me something...

This has been the case with ToneX from the very beginning, FWIW. With a full amp signal, 7k and up wouldn’t need as much training to achieve an accurate result as something with a wider bandwidth. Preamps are full of filtering to shape the tone and avoid oscillations and feedback etc.

I think even on regular ToneX amp models, there is a slight roll off on the top end. I remember mentioning it at TOP on the very first ToneX demonstration IK posted using a Triple Rectifier and an Orange. It’s quite subtle on full rigs but it can be noticeable if you know what to listen for (and it’s basically always more rolled off and never too bright).

 

[KingsXJJ]

This has been the case with ToneX from the very beginning, FWIW. With a full amp signal, 7k and up wouldn’t need as much training to achieve an accurate result as something with a wider bandwidth. Preamps are full of filtering to shape the tone and avoid oscillations and feedback etc.

I think even on regular ToneX amp models, there is a slight roll off on the top end. I remember mentioning it at TOP on the very first ToneX demonstration IK posted using a Triple Rectifier and an Orange. It’s quite subtle on full rigs but it can be noticeable if you know what to listen for (and it’s basically always more rolled off and never too bright).

If this is the case, and I’m not entirely sure it is, an easy solution would be to offer a “I’m in no hurry” capture mode that takes longer but avoids this. Call it “high resolution” and call it a day.

 

[MirrorProfiles]

If this is the case, and I’m not entirely sure it is, an easy solution would be to offer a “I’m in no hurry” capture mode that takes longer but avoids this. Call it “high resolution” and call it a day.

Yeah, they already have advanced which IMO shouldn’t have these kinds of limitations. I guess they could call it Advanced+ and charge extra for it.

NAM doesn’t have this limitation and I can train several models that are more accurate in a fraction of the time it takes me to do one advanced ToneX model. It’s a hard sell to make ToneX models when they take so much longer and aren’t as accurate.

But yeah, unfortunately it is the case. There’s been tons of comparisons and graphs etc made. That doesn’t mean it always matters though, most of the time ToneX sounds pretty much indistinguishable and aside from fringe use cases you’ll only notice if you really look for it.

 

[djd100]

If this is the case, and I’m not entirely sure it is, an easy solution would be to offer a “I’m in no hurry” capture mode that takes longer but avoids this. Call it “high resolution” and call it a day.

Sure, if it's the case that would be a fix, but for electric guitar, played through speakers or IR's of guitar speakers that roll off steeply after 5k - 6k, why would it matter LOL?

Sure, it would matter when running sweeps, for direct captures, but not playing music through guitar cabs or IR's.

I haven't tested this and I'm not going to waste my time testing it as it shouldn't matter for real world used with electric guitars.

 

[KingsXJJ]

On a different note altogether, this conversation reminded me how much fun this guy was. I’ve been staying at Dear Old Mom’s recovering from 8 surgeries on my ankle ( @JiveTurkey may remember ) so I don’t have access to my amps, a bunch of pedals modelers and other stuff right now. I’m about 90% mended though and am trying to make the most of it.

Long story short there are new ones for $118 plus tax on Reverb. I just ordered another and will add it to my MIAB comparison and perhaps even the loop of my Ampero II Stage which as @laxu rightfully pointed out, lack power amp distortion scaling with master volume. I’ve no doubt Hotone will address this one way or another… F/W or next gen. Until then, I can fool around. Might sound great with the Marshall JCM-900 pedal arriving tomorrow.

https://reverb.com/item/78040988-art-tubempstv3u-tube-mp-studio-v3-mic-preamp-and-limiter-with-presets

 

[MirrorProfiles]

Sure, if it's the case that would be a fix, but for electric guitar, played through speakers or IR's of guitar speakers that roll off steeply after 5k - 6k, why would it matter LOL?

Sure, it would matter when running sweeps, for direct captures, but not playing music through guitar cabs or IR's.

I haven't tested this and I'm not going to waste my time testing it as it shouldn't matter for real world used with electric guitars.

Guitar tones have important information well above 5 or 6k. If people filter at 12k, that means there is information above that is being removed.

No one is going to make you test it but thankfully some people do care about making sure the models they make react closely to what the source gear does. Slammin makes great models precisely because he does care about the accuracy of this stuff.

 

[[Nathan]]

Alright, here’s a cheap option with a lot of versatility that might be worth considering. I know a lot of folks are not going to like the idea but aside from captures, I have used it with great results. Consider what you want from “power amp” captures or modeling. If it’s added tube color, compression, some give and feel and flexibility from crystal clear to a nice warmth with a bunch of options in between this might do it. I’ve ran dirt pedals feeding this and then on to effects into a fairly high rez stereo IR unit into headphones and this item adds that missing element. If you are looking for specific amp labels and not really cool just using your ears this probably isn’t it. But for under $150 and being all analog with no additional AD/DA converters and latency like my Ampero II Stage which offers power amp models… this might be of use. Everyone can laugh now and tell me how wrong I am. And I might be, but that’s not what I hear. It’s why I bought another OD-200 to stack with the first… I think there’s something here and if tweaked right it can be much more than stacking. Amazon $139 but you might find it cheaper. I’d read the manual and feature list before rendering judgement. Motive? I have one and it’s not for sale. So do what you will and I’m open to folks telling me I’m batty. The “Voicing” knob and input versus output knobs are key.

View attachment 38905

Honestly at this level of just chucking some kind of poweramp processing into a chain, I dont think something like this is that batty at all. As long as there's no tone suck or degradation then its all just flavour. There's no reason something like this is less good than a random digital capture imo. Haven't used this unit but it would be something worth trying if I was looking for that specific piece of the puzzle.

 

[la szum]

I'm not talking about theoretical values or the AD/DA specifications of the Tonex pedal. The hicut I'm refering to occurs during the Tonex training of the poweramp model. My guess is that Tonex, in order to save training time, constrains the frequency response so that the focus is primarily placed on guitar-relevant frequencies (60Hz-7kHz).

I've measured and compared quite a few poweramp settings of my Powerstation and Mesa 2:90 poweramps and the Tonex models do not sound accurate compared to a real poweramp. The difference is very noticeable, much darker tone and less dynamic response on the Tonex model compared to the NAM model, which is very close to the real thing, and the real poweramps.

As I said before, I would advise anyone against Tonex poweramp captures, based on empirical evidence. NAM is a much better solution for this type of application.

Save me $$$$ up in here.

 

[KingsXJJ]

Guitar tones have important information well above 5 or 6k. If people filter at 12k, that means there is information above that is being removed.

No one is going to make you test it but thankfully some people do care about making sure the models they make react closely to what the source gear does. Slammin makes great models precisely because he does care about the accuracy of this stuff.

I’d consider 14k-15k to be the upper most limit of what most guitars, dirt, harmonics and effects actually deliver. In only certain situations, that I probably no longer detect.

Saying that, I recall my old audiophile days when Harmon Kardon offered killer “wideband” cassette recording units that went beyond typical hearing to 22k or I think even 24k on the top of the line init. Very expensive. I think they used DolbyHX which was ground level a variable bias that worked to include this added range on tape. Their reasoning was that if a unit can reach as far as 24k, then the results at 20k, 15k, etc… should be “effortless and transparent” with little distortion. Might be applicable here.

Meanwhile, I’m happy to know the advanced mode of capture is possible. Sounds like something connoisseurs can use to their advantage.

 

[KingsXJJ]

I’d consider 14k-15k to be the upper most limit of what most guitars, dirt, harmonics and effects actually deliver. In only certain situations, that I probably no longer detect.

Saying that, I recall my old audiophile days when Harmon Kardon offered killer “wideband” cassette recording units that went beyond typical hearing to 22k or I think even 24k on the top of the line init. Very expensive. I think they used DolbyHX which was ground level a variable bias that worked to include this added range on tape. Their reasoning was that if a unit can reach as far as 24k, then the results at 20k, 15k, etc… should be “effortless and transparent” with little distortion. Might be applicable here.

Meanwhile, I’m happy to know the advanced mode of capture is possible. Sounds like something connoisseurs can use to their advantage.

Throw a Tung-Sol in it and win.

 

[djd100]

A typical 10" guitar speaker is 25db down by 8k (12" and 15" guitar speakers down that much at even lower freqs), and then add the masking effects happening by whatever you're playing with, keys, guitars, drums etc, i.e. you're never going to hear that alleged missing top end from a Tonex tube power amp capture, assuming it's actually missing when it's correctly captured to begin with.

Please post the freq plots showing both the amp and it's capture through the same load with the same input if anyone has any?

I don't think this is a big deal, prove me wrong if you can...

 

[[Nathan]]

A typical 10" guitar speaker is 25db down by 8k (12" and 15" speakers down that much at even lower freqs), and then add the masking effects happening by whatever you're playing with, keys, guitars, drums etc, i.e. you're never going to hear that alleged missing top end from a Tonex tube power amp capture, assuming it's actually missing when it's correctly captured to begin with.

Please post the freq plots showing both the amp and it's capture through the same load with the same input if anyone has any?

I don't think this is a big deal, prove me wrong if you can...

I dunno if youre purposefully or accidentally coming off as arrogant with this kind of wording but with all the stuff SlamminMofo has done over the years on capturing with ToneX/NAM/Tonocracy as well as his custom training methods, I'll take his word with pretty high regard when it comes to capturing accuracy. It's also no surprise that ToneX is less good than NAM (it's been a recurring topic over and over, we all know it to be true by now).

I think at this point its kind of on you to try NAM vs ToneX and just observe the difference (if you can hear or feel anything). Maybe you can try it and prove him wrong? Don't think he really needs to come in and defend his observations/findings.

 

[MirrorProfiles]

A typical 10" guitar speaker is 25db down by 8k (12" and 15" speakers down that much at even lower freqs), and then add the masking effects happening by whatever you're playing with, keys, guitars, drums etc, i.e. you're never going to hear that alleged missing top end from a Tonex tube power amp capture, assuming it's actually missing when it's correctly captured to begin with.

If you’re implying that anything above 8k doesn’t matter because it can’t be heard, then I flatly disagree. I’m often eq-ing that area on guitars and even subtle amounts can be noticeable.

Please post the freq plots showing both the amp and it's capture through the same load with the same input if anyone has any?

I don't think this is a big deal, prove me wrong if you

AS YOU WISH:

Others have demonstrated this and it’s also audible. I’m not saying it is an issue but it’s easy to demonstrate that it goes on.

 

[EOengineer]

Ok, @EOengineer what’s your budget?

I ended up just shooting my own PA captures. I have a couple of my Mark III. My 2204 has an fx loop so I’m going to snag a capture of that one too. They work really well for adding life to direct preamps. I bet distortion pedals would also sound cool pushing those captures. Same for the Tube MP.

Alright, here’s a cheap option with a lot of versatility that might be worth considering. I know a lot of folks are not going to like the idea but aside from captures, I have used it with great results. Consider what you want from “power amp” captures or modeling. If it’s added tube color, compression, some give and feel and flexibility from crystal clear to a nice warmth with a bunch of options in between this might do it. I’ve ran dirt pedals feeding this and then on to effects into a fairly high rez stereo IR unit into headphones and this item adds that missing element. If you are looking for specific amp labels and not really cool just using your ears this probably isn’t it. But for under $150 and being all analog with no additional AD/DA converters and latency like my Ampero II Stage which also offers power amp models… this might be of use. Everyone can laugh now and tell me how wrong I am. And I might be, but that’s not what I hear. It’s why I bought another OD-200 to stack with the first… I think there’s something here and if tweaked right it can be much more than stacking. Amazon $139 but you might find it cheaper. I’d read the manual and feature list before rendering judgement. Motive? I have one and it’s not for sale. So do what you will and I’m open to folks telling me I’m batty. The “Voicing” knob and input versus output knobs are key.

View attachment 38905

I’m all for outside the box thinking. I use to abuse an old ART Tube MP V1 back in the 2000s and it was great for color. Pretty sure they were $100 then.

How are you using this? As strictly a saturation/color piece or are you saying this can actually cop a reasonable power amp simulation? Are you leaning towards any specific voicings?

 

[KingsXJJ]

I dunno if youre purposefully or accidentally coming off as arrogant with this kind of wording but with all the stuff SlamminMofo has done over the years on capturing with ToneX/NAM/Tonocracy as well as his custom training methods, I'll take his word with pretty high regard when it comes to capturing accuracy. It's also no surprise that ToneX is less good than NAM (it's been a recurring topic over and over, we all know it to be true by now).

I think at this point its kind of on you to try NAM vs ToneX and just observe the difference (if you can hear or feel anything). Maybe you can try it and prove him wrong? Don't think he really needs to come in and defend his observations/findings.

Well, we just took a left at Albuquerque. I can dig zigs and zags as well as the next @Whizzinby

 

[KingsXJJ]

If you’re implying that anything above 8k doesn’t matter because it can’t be heard, then I flatly disagree. I’m often eq-ing that area on guitars and even subtle amounts can be noticeable.



AS YOU WISH:

View attachment 38915View attachment 38916

Others have demonstrated this and it’s also audible. I’m not saying it is an issue but it’s easy to demonstrate that it goes on.

From what I gather at first pass, this may largely due to level. Often ignored. Items that compress inherently as very susceptible to volume and gain.

Off hand, it looks like ToneX has a few things to iron out…. But totally doable IMO. I might be wrong but the current hardware would support such an upgrade. We are witnessing the evolution of the revolution my friends.

 

[KingsXJJ]

I ended up just shooting my own PA captures. I have a couple of my Mark III. My 2204 has an fx loop so I’m going to snag a capture of that one too. They work really well for adding life to direct preamps. I bet distortion pedals would also sound cool pushing those captures. Same for the Tube MP.


I’m all for outside the box thinking. I use to abuse an old ART Tube MP V1 back in the 2000s and it was great for color. Pretty sure they were $100 then.

How are you using this? As strictly a saturation/color piece or are you saying this can actually cop a reasonable power amp simulation? Are you leaning towards any specific voicings?

I’m using it to make a (made up full scope signal chain) to sound like pedals->amp->cab->effects->studio mic sound or pedals->amp->fx loop->amp->cab “in the room”. Pedals and effects can be whatever you want where you want.

 

[MirrorProfiles]

From what I gather at first pass, this may largely due to level. Often ignored. Items that compress inherently as very susceptible to volume and gain.

Off hand, it looks like ToneX has a few things to iron out…. But totally doable IMO. I might be wrong but the current hardware would support such an upgrade. We are witnessing the evolution of the revolution my friends.

Yeah nothing IK can’t fix in an update, if they want to. I’m sure at some point they’ll give things a little tweak as it’s fairly new tech still and people are finding all kinds of optimisations and improvements as time goes on.

 

[KingsXJJ]

I’ll be comparing it side by side with the Axiom PA-2. I will find “my” direct sound. Oh, so close.