Load/IR box with Tube Amps Vs. Modeler

D

drumdude

Member
Hey Fellas , so for a while , I've been using a Quad C. And a TMP for recording (sometimes I'll miss it up with the Friedman's or UA pedal offerings) I can't say I'm unhappy with the results, it's come a long long way...I had a very large impressive 'wall of amps' years ago when I owned a commercial studio , (I had every Bogner , Diezel , Wizards , Cameron's , you name it ) , but I sold them off when I closed the studio and I don't produce nearly as much 'guitar centric' music as a used to but I digress) I DO miss having amps around but I no longer have a space to mic up cabs so that's out (I live in NYC now) ..Has anyone gone from Modelers to a load box running IR's with real amps ?
Is sonic difference huge or just 'a different way of doing things' ? ...Trying to decide if I should go down the rabbit hole or if the end results would be 'somewhat' similar .
Any feedback ? Thanks in advance :) !!
 
I've played modelers but I never relied on them fully like you do. I'm using real amps with real mics in an amp closet, but also through a Suhr Reactive Load and IRs and the IRs have been a life changer. Not just a game changer, but a literal life changer. The tones I've been able to get are the best I've gotten in my career. Like you, my guitar centric music dwindled down to a sadly small amount over the years, but I've had a rebirth with real guitars going through real pedals and real amps and real tubes and I'm super happy I went this route. I highly recommend it and you can PM with questions if you go this way. It's simpler than you might think.
 
I have both, the loadbox route can offer some improvements but there are tradeoffs. Each modeler or LB will color the tone in its own unique way, for better or worse. Depending on the music you play you may be really happy with it.

I ran the amp through a driftwood LB to record and practice for a while before trying the tonex vst in my DAW. The LB did a little better on the low end but the difference wasn't so great to justify it. Tonex won out in the end for practice and recording, I went through a lot of tubes practicing everyday through the LB (just because of more time spent playing the head because I could do it silently).

Mic'd amp still sounds best, but I don't know if the LB will sound that much better (than tonex at least). The best signal path for using a LB would be including a high quality di > amp + LB > good preamp > good interface with good converters.

I think the Suhr RL, RED7, XLoad, & reactIR sound best but you can get good tones out of the driftwood and two notes. However, I can always tell which LB is used due to their flavor in recordings and amp demos, so take that for what its worth.

Try out tonex, neural dsp, or other amp sims first for free then see if you want to go with a LB. Either way - good interface + good di first.
 
tjnx said:
I have both, the loadbox route can offer some improvements but there are tradeoffs. Each modeler or LB will color the tone in its own unique way, for better or worse. Depending on the music you play you may be really happy with it.

I ran the amp through a driftwood LB to record and practice for a while before trying the tonex vst in my DAW. The LB did a little better on the low end but the difference wasn't so great to justify it. Tonex won out in the end for practice and recording, I went through a lot of tubes practicing everyday through the LB (just because of more time spent playing the head because I could do it silently).

Mic'd amp still sounds best, but I don't know if the LB will sound that much better (than tonex at least). The best signal path for using a LB would be including a high quality di > amp + LB > good preamp > good interface with good converters.

I think the Suhr RL, RED7, XLoad, & reactIR sound best but you can get good tones out of the driftwood and two notes. However, I can always tell which LB is used due to their flavor in recordings and amp demos, so take that for what its worth.

Try out tonex, neural dsp, or other amp sims first for free then see if you want to go with a LB. Either way - good interface + good di first.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the reply , I actually DO have a few modelers (QC , TMP, Tonex, Friedman IR) I'm not unhappy with the result , but have been wondering if an actual amp with a Load Box running Ir's would be a big sonic improvement or just a 'lateral move' lol.
In all my years producing/mixing records , I've never actually tried it , so figured I'd see if any of you fellas had any feedback on that.
Sounds like an amp with LD is kinda even with a tonex (or similar) solution.
 
rushcentrale said:
I've played modelers but I never relied on them fully like you do. I'm using real amps with real mics in an amp closet, but also through a Suhr Reactive Load and IRs and the IRs have been a life changer. Not just a game changer, but a literal life changer. The tones I've been able to get are the best I've gotten in my career. Like you, my guitar centric music dwindled down to a sadly small amount over the years, but I've had a rebirth with real guitars going through real pedals and real amps and real tubes and I'm super happy I went this route. I highly recommend it and you can PM with questions if you go this way. It's simpler than you might think.
Click to expand...
For years, I had a dedicated tracking room that was completely treated sonically and had all the high-end mics and mic pres. Get better tones via load boxes and IRs.
 
drumdude said:
Thanks for the reply , I actually DO have a few modelers (QC , TMP, Tonex, Friedman IR) I'm not unhappy with the result , but have been wondering if an actual amp with a Load Box running Ir's would be a big sonic improvement or just a 'lateral move' lol.
In all my years producing/mixing records , I've never actually tried it , so figured I'd see if any of you fellas had any feedback on that.
Sounds like an amp with LD is kinda even with a tonex (or similar) solution.
Click to expand...
If you're unhappy with your results with modelers, you are hearing something that some people can't and that's a good thing. You will absolutely benefit from a good amp and a load box. with good IRs. I 100% guarantee people could not distinguish the difference in results from real mic'ing and good Load Box/IR in some consistent way. Load box and IRs are YOUR amps through someone else's cabs (in a snapshot of time). It's not digital weirdness. If you've used convolution reverbs, you already know this.

Does it beat the real thing? Sometimes yes. Sometimes no. Depends on how good your mic techniques and amp room situation is.
 
disclaimer: I only have real experience with Fractal's modeling, so that's all I can confidently speak about.

But yeah, I've done exactly what you're talking about, OP. For a long while I used a Fractal exclusively, but now I have kind of moved to tube amps and either a Suhr RL or Fractal X-Load routed into the Fractal's built in loops. I still use the Fractal for pre and post effects, as well as Cab IR processing. I love it and feel like I'm getting the best of all worlds with this setup.

Honestly though, to make a kind of general "modeling vs amps" statement, I believe the Fractal sounds and feels just as good as tube amps. However, I like the workflow of using real amps that have real knobs I can just reach over and instantly adjust with no menu diving at all, and I also just like the vibe of real tube heads, tolex, cool designs, glowing tubes you can see, heat and all, etc.

But to answer your question, for me personally it's entirely just "a different way of doing things" as opposed to a quality difference thing. There's not much real tonal difference at all. I mean I have some amps I love that Fractal doesn't model, but I have several amps Fractal does model and if I spend any real time at all trying to match the Fractal to the real amp, I can't really tell a difference between the amp and its model, even in feel, in a blind test. There's plenty of times where I'll turn on the modeler and use just that, and it's just as inspiring and good sounding as the tube amps.

So yeah it's basically 100% a workflow preference thing for me.
 
drumdude said:
Thanks for the reply , I actually DO have a few modelers (QC , TMP, Tonex, Friedman IR) I'm not unhappy with the result , but have been wondering if an actual amp with a Load Box running Ir's would be a big sonic improvement or just a 'lateral move' lol.
In all my years producing/mixing records , I've never actually tried it , so figured I'd see if any of you fellas had any feedback on that.
Sounds like an amp with LD is kinda even with a tonex (or similar) solution.
Click to expand...
Eh may be worth a shot.. It could be interesting on our end at least to hear what you think. :D I thought about getting a bray line out and still running the load as other line outs may sound better than the internal one.

The pros of the load box were mostly better latency and chuggs. I think the SurhRLIR is a good bet as it mostly sounds mix-ready, wont have to wait on shipping, us support, and you could use it live.

I was using it more often for practice vs recording so the replacing tubes thing was the majority of the issue. Not that the LB caused it in some way, its just that when the amp went out and I was waiting for tubes I used modelers and they were good enough. I figured it wasn't blowing me away using it and I could use the $$ for tubes on something else.
 
TheGreatGreen said:
disclaimer: I only have real experience with Fractal's modeling, so that's all I can confidently speak about.

But yeah, I've done exactly what you're talking about, OP. For a long while I used a Fractal exclusively, but now I have kind of moved to tube amps and either a Suhr RL or Fractal X-Load routed into the Fractal's built in loops. I still use the Fractal for pre and post effects, as well as Cab IR processing. I love it and feel like I'm getting the best of all worlds with this setup.

Honestly though, to make a kind of general "modeling vs amps" statement, I believe the Fractal sounds and feels just as good as tube amps. However, I like the workflow of using real amps that have real knobs I can just reach over and instantly adjust with no menu diving at all, and I also just like the vibe of real tube heads, tolex, cool designs, glowing tubes you can see, heat and all, etc.

But to answer your question, for me personally it's entirely just "a different way of doing things" as opposed to a quality difference thing. There's not much real tonal difference at all. I mean I have some amps I love that Fractal doesn't model, but I have several amps Fractal does model and if I spend any real time at all trying to match the Fractal to the real amp, I can't really tell a difference between the amp and its model, even in feel, in a blind test. There's plenty of times where I'll turn on the modeler and use just that, and it's just as inspiring and good sounding as the tube amps.

So yeah it's basically 100% a workflow preference thing for me.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the detailed reply ...yeah I guess in the I'll just have to try it from myself , but in the end , if the sonic benefit's are 'marginal' I'll just stay in digital land, the results are pretty darn good..I guess I kinda miss having real amps around lol...(I had 30 heads at one point lol)
 
drumdude said:
Thanks for the detailed reply ...yeah I guess in the I'll just have to try it from myself , but in the end , if the sonic benefit's are 'marginal' I'll just stay in digital land, the results are pretty darn good..I guess I kinda miss having real amps around lol...(I had 30 heads at one point lol)
Click to expand...

Sonic benefits are always marginal. But you saying you're missing amps means you're looking for something. What real amps give me is the inspiration to want to play guitar more and make music more. Modelers get the job done, but if it's not giving you that itch to play, get the amp. You used to have 30, now you can have fun really appreciating 1.
 
Yep, real amps with load boxes and IRs are the way to go for me. I've done the whole modeling thing back to front. Not to say it can't be good, but for the best sound quality and feel you can't beat an amp into a great load box with well-recorded IRs. It's very close if not identical to micing a real cab.
 
I've had a Line6 HX stomp and currently have a QC. I much prefer the responsive nature of a real amp and feel digital is still missing 'something'. It could be user error as I see lots of people getting great sounds from digital devices, but an amp with a cab and load box with IRs to FOH is my preferred route.
 
I like the way you fellas think 👍🏻 .
SO not to throw a curveball into the discussion , but , which load box ? , Suhr IR , UA Ox ? (Which is double the price )
Seems UA hasn't updated the OX in a long time and are focused on their pedals (don't really wanna invest in an abandoned platform) ...any suggestions ?
 
drumdude said:
I like the way you fellas think 👍🏻 .
SO not to throw a curveball into the discussion , but , which load box ? , Suhr IR , UA Ox ? (Which is double the price )
Seems UA hasn't updated the OX in a long time and are focused on their pedals (don't really wanna invest in an abandoned platform) ...any suggestions ?
Click to expand...

I’ve found the Suhr RL and Fractal X-Load to have the most accurate impedance curves and best sound.
 
I like the Suhr because the impedance curve is based on a G12M in a 4x12, but I haven't used any other RLs.
 
Last edited:
Having tried a few of them I think the most you can hope for is one that you didn't mind the sound. They all color to some degree. Same with noise gates. But as for the OP, I think amps plus IR sound better, but not worth the hassle, depending on what you're trying to do I guess.
 
rushcentrale said:
I like the Suhr because the impedance curve is based on a G12M in a 4x12, but I haven't used any RLs.
Click to expand...

The Suhr RL is just the name of their reactive load. The Suhr RLIR is their reactive load with a built-in IR processor. If you bypass the IR's on the RLIR, the two devices are identical. I go the standard RL because I had the IR's covered with the Fractal stuff.

acceptance said:
Having tried a few of them I think the most you can hope for is one that you didn't mind the sound. They all color to some degree. Same with noise gates. But as for the OP, I think amps plus IR sound better, but not worth the hassle, depending on what you're trying to do I guess.
Click to expand...

Real cabs impact the sound of an amp in the exact same way, that's the whole point of a reactive load, to impact the sound of the amp in the same way a real cab does. There are definitely some reactive loads that don't have anything close to a realistic impedance curve though.
 
TheGreatGreen said:
The Suhr RL is just the name of their reactive load. The Suhr RLIR is their reactive load with a built-in IR processor. If you bypass the IR's on the RLIR, the two devices are identical. I go the standard RL because I had the IR's covered with the Fractal stuff.



Real cabs impact the sound of an amp in the exact same way, that's the whole point of a reactive load, to impact the sound of the amp in the same way a real cab does. There are definitely some reactive loads that don't have anything close to a realistic impedance curve though.
Click to expand...

Typo. I meant to say I haven't used any other RLs. I use the regular Suhr RL also.
 
TheGreatGreen said:
Real cabs impact the sound of an amp in the exact same way, that's the whole point of a reactive load, to impact the sound of the amp in the same way a real cab does. There are definitely some reactive loads that don't have anything close to a realistic impedance curve though.
Click to expand...
I don't know the technical stuff, but it would seem that if the suhr for example matches the impedance curve of a greenback, it will color a v30 IR. Either way, all I can say is that my own experience (Suhr, Rivera, two notes), they all color the sound in some way. I'm also one of the few that dislikes the Suhr for that matter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top