Do you think modelers will get there in the next 10 years?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tone Monster
  • Start date Start date
Maybe it all boils down to why each inidividual plays an instrument?
If it's for personal enjoyment, and nitpicking about the details different setting on the EQ translates to what you hear. People's ears are also different. Many old rockers have no high end left.

If it's as a creative outlet, I'd say it's a challenge if the tools make you write lesser songs. Many good songs were written on an old acoustic, or an out of tune piano.

If you're a sideman for an artist, you're often considering cost/usefulness. Hauling the favorite modded Mesa around the globe, might put a dent in your pay at the end of the tour. And you're still not playing your own cab. Dragging the cab as well would probably cost what you earn :D

If you have a soundproof room, and lots of spare time, I totally get why you would, either alone, or with some jamming buddies, only use what sounds best to your ears. Many professionals, unless they're in a major international act, play house backline. They make compromises, because they have to eat. And that's why the pros either have a dongle they plug into the house Kemper, or pack a pedalboard and make the house DSL sound good :)

And that is why tube amps most likely will be in the same category as antique coffee makers in 50-70 years :) It's just not practical. The owner of Spotify and Tidal are the ones with mansions now. Artists have to cut costs.
 
No one on this forum is doing world tours but maybe two players....

Realistically play what sounds good to your ears and doesn’t cause you to lose sight to the end goal of why the gear exists in the first place. So often so many eccentricate on the gear and not what the gear is used for.
 
BatmansRigTalk said:
Do you want an argument from authority?

https://www.kemper-amps.com/artist-gallery
https://www.kemper-amps.com/hall-of-fame

Paul Gilbert, Racer X, Mr. Big​

Paul Gilbert is an American guitarist, best known for being the co-founder of the band Mr. Big.



Hey, I guess I mustn't be serious about supporting my supposition unless I compare who has the bigger dad right?

Valve purists really are a funny bunch when they get called out on it.

The idea I haven't had enough experience with valves means I am wrong about it being subjective and not objective is just as fallacious as any argument can be.

Look forward to who in this group has more experience than that list.
Click to expand...
Paul Gilbert’s hearing is so shot that he’s forced to wear comically gigantic noise canceling headphones at every gig. This is the only artist you bother to reference lol? Feel free to answer my question raised in post #194 if it’s not too inconvenient.
 
thegame said:
Paul Gilbert’s hearing is so shot that he’s forced to wear comically gigantic noise canceling headphones at every gig. This is the only artist you bother to reference lol? Feel free to answer my question raised in post #194 if it’s not too inconvenient.
Click to expand...
No, it wasn't the only artist. I linked tons of them. You just ignored the rest. I suppose you also wrote them off as all partially deaf just because they agree with me on profilers have gotten there long ago. Paul Gilbert sounds fine to me when he plays live or his recordings.

The answer to #194 is yes they can and not only that but you can add plugins to your DAW to enforce all sorts of different harmonics live. For example, have you done them on an overloaded cab that is near the point of destruction for as long as you want without smoke coming out? :geek:
 
Rock Bodom said:
No. I asked you. Very specifically.
Click to expand...
You argued from authority by referencing the high experience of some others here. Do you know what an argument from authority is or why you are trying it? Do you know it's also a fallacious argument? I just used your own line of reasoning to point to authorities who agree with me. I doubt many big names would claim profilers aren't there yet.

I don't have to give you an inventory of my gear to make a point. Is that what you do when you make a point on here? List your gear? Plenty of people with GAS who aren't all that.
 
BatmansRigTalk said:
You argued from authority by referencing the high experience of some others here. Do you know what an argument from authority is or why you are trying it? Do you know it's also a fallacious argument? I just used your own line of reasoning to point to authorities who agree with me. I doubt many big names would claim profilers aren't there yet.

I don't have to give you an inventory of my gear to make a point. Is that what you do when you make a point on here? List your gear? Plenty of people with GAS who aren't all that.
Click to expand...
If you are less experienced relative to some seasoned gear folks here, that's OK. You should still post stuff about what you've learned along the way with the gear you have. And if that's made you very pro modeler, share why.

I say this not to be mean-spirited at all (genuinely), but you're coming across very heavy-handed, and seem frustrated with a lot of people. If you're here just to make snarky remarks about "tube snobs", that's not very cool. But if you've had great experiences with say your Helix and want to spread the word, that would be great to read.

Also, if you would like an answer to if I know what an argument from authority is or fallacious reasoning in general, the answer is yes. In my math and philosophy program in college I took extensive coursework in formal and informal logic. I don't usually find reason to pepper it into gear discussions, it comes off pretty condescending when you try to play that angle with people.
 
harddriver said:
Ty Tabor got some killer tones out of those Lab 5's.:2thumbsup:
Click to expand...

B.B. King too, which shows its versatility.
Funny, after Gretchen Goes to Nebraska broke big Ty would hide his L5 behind
a Marshall on stage cause he didn't want everyone knowing his tone secret.
 
Rock Bodom said:
I say this not to be mean-spirited at all (genuinely), but you're coming across very heavy-handed, and seem frustrated with a lot of people. If you're here just to make snarky remarks about "tube snobs", that's not very cool. But if you've had great experiences with say your Helix and want to spread the word, that would be great to read.
Click to expand...
Quote me where I said "tube snobs" since you have it in brackets. I am going to call you out on that. It's dishonest to claim someone said something they didn't just because you aren't able to actually come up with objective factual reasons why profilers can't replicate tube amps.

I use the term 'valve purists'. Meaning those who reject profilers can replicate tubes. Simple as that.
 
IMO, people will always say we're not 'there' yet because modeling is trying to recreate the sounds of known amps. As long as there exists a 'real thing' and a 'clone', people will say it's not the same thing because, well, people like to do that sort of thing... It happens all the time with actual analog tube amp clones.

If you really want to talk about whether people will accept modeling technology, you need to talk about a 'new' sound--amps designed and built solely in the digital world. If people can accept those as good as a 'real' tube amp, then we're 'there'. AFAIK, most of the big players in the modeling world have been mostly focused on recreating sounds (with a few custom ones thrown in). Will be interesting to see if a fully digital novel amp company can break through and stand among the analog giants.
 
I own a Kemper but I don't think they're 100% there. Saw Metallica for the 5th time a couple years ago. Holy cow they sounded like complete shit tone/mix wise. Boomy mush. Coulda been the venue I guess (was outside).
 
Tone Monster said:
I own a Kemper but I don't think they're 100% there. Saw Metallica for the 5th time a couple years ago. Holy cow they sounded like complete shit tone/mix wise. Boomy mush. Coulda been the venue I guess (was outside).
Click to expand...
It's totally possible to sound very bad on a profiler or a tube amp or a solid-state. The best of players can end up sounding very off. Everyone has an off day.

However, that is not really what this thread is about. The thread is about modelers not being there yet and if they will by 2031.

After several pages of reading nothing but empty rhetoric about how the profiling gear is missing something that tube amps have, I decided to just go ahead and point out the elephant in the room. That there is zero objective evidence profiling gear didn't overcome the final hurdles it needed to replicate tube tones ten years ago because the algorithms reached that point and so did the processing power.

We have had an additional ten years of profiles being made since then.

Claims such as a cranked Plexi can't be profiled to confound someone with golden ears have been debunked with blind tests.

The only person who might feel a physical difference because of air hitting their body are those standing in the path of a 4x12. However, at festivals, you have monitors (FRFR) doing that also among people who don't need to be in the direct path. FRFR has a wider angle of dispersal.

Tube amps are applied science. Applied engineering. It's all scientific.

There is no magic circuit that can't be modeled digitally because the applied physics behind those circuits can be objectively quantified captured and recreated digitally.

If not, can anyone state specifically the components that can't be replicated, and why not? Be specific.

That will go unanswered because the claim the profiling gear is lacking something is a myth.

The differences are now in the ears of the beholder. It's subjective.

The constraints there were (past tense) software development and processing power. That barrier was well broken by 2010.

Now let's do another reality check and address claims about cranking, especially say a Plexi.



Do you think Plexi owners can usually do this? There we have some very well-known guitar personalities with huge collections of analog and tube gear who have probably cranked a Plexi for the first time in their lives.



This guy decided to profile a Marshall JVM and followed some instructions. 20 min later and he is playing a JVM through his Kemper like there is no difference.

And for those claiming EvH can't be replicated on a Kemper this video has the sound split between both so you can hear those 'differences' right?



Apparently, some people are disappointed with this profiling made example of EvH tones.

I got over that my tube gear doesn't have magic qualities that can't be profiled along time ago. I simply don't go around making claims that profiling hardware isn't there yet or else I could get called out on it and be unable to actually back that up objectively. It doesn't matter if I prefer this amp or that amp or tube over profiling or profiling over tube. If I make objective claims about the gear lacking then I need to back that up with objective facts. This won't happen here because it isn't happening anywhere. If it was then the world of sound engineering would have a revolutionary journal paper to read which would be covered by any number of magazines shortly after. It doesn't exist because no one has proven that modelers can't profile gear accurately. Simple as that.
 
Tone Monster said:
I own a Kemper but I don't think they're 100% there. Saw Metallica for the 5th time a couple years ago. Holy cow they sounded like complete shit tone/mix wise. Boomy mush. Coulda been the venue I guess (was outside).
Click to expand...
You're not allowed to reach that conclusion!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You sir must be doing it all wrong to have reached your very own conclusion derived from your actual real world user experience with Kemper and tube amplifiers. Absolutely not possible................................................................:ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:

Oh, I forgot... you are a tube snob with non-golden ears and can't accept that digital modeling is equal in all ways to tube amps and has surpassed and relegated tube amps to the ashheap of history.:p I apologize for using the term golden ears...:hys:

Batman's pre-scripted diatribe coming in 3,2,1................
 
Last edited:
BatmansRigTalk said:
I got over that my tube gear doesn't have magic qualities that can't be profiled along time ago.
Click to expand...
I know others have repeatedly asked you this, but I will ask once again for posterity's sake.

This was asked in the poll thread: Fordman65 asked...

Batman - one question: if modelers do infact = tubes, why do you own both? Do your tube amps have any benefits that lead you to keep them? If there are no benefits, seems quite illogical to keep the tube amp. Parts wear, could require tech work, may also be inconsistent based on wall voltage. So many negatives of tubes. If both units are truly equal, a high qualty modeler is all you need.


If the digital modeling is 100% spot on in every way identical to all characteristics that tube amps possess... WHY do you own tube amps?

You must feel foolish wasting your money on such archaic technology when digital modeling does it 1000 times better and gives you studio quality time based and modulation effects to boot.
 
Last edited:
harddriver said:
I know others have repeatedly asked you this, but I will ask once again for posterity's sake.

If the digital modeling is 100% spot on in every way identical to all characteristics that tube amps possess... WHY do you own tube amps?

You must feel foolish wasting your money on such archaic technology when digital modeling does it 1000 times better and gives you studio quality time based and modulation effects to boot.
Click to expand...

Quote where others asked me this. Nobody asked me this. Others have made the spurious statement that a profiler means we should abandon everything that isn't a profiler. I don't know who is saying a digital modeler does it 1000 times better either. Not I.

Is there something really difficult about understanding my very simple point that is calling out claims profilers don't have the capacity to replicate tube amps? That claim is unsupported by any objective evidence not to mention such claims fail blind tests. If you want to make that claim then you need to actually support it with evidence. There happens to be none BTW. It's subjective. So we can dismiss claims the hardware isn't there. That is all I have ever said. Meaning the OP's question is misguided. It was there 10 years ago.

I can think of loads of reasons why I hang onto tubes.
  • Because some places might not have monitors or the power scaling you need (in which case you need a power stage in addition to the digital gear).
  • Because profilers were more expensive and the tube gear cheaper.
  • Because I already owned tube gear.
  • Because I can run a dual setup, just like a dual tube rig setup.
  • Because I have lots of guitar cabs. I have custom cabs also.
  • Because I want to make a new profile.
  • Because I have lots of microphones and can record all of them in one track if I want. Many profilers max out with how many mics you can use per unit in one take.
  • Because some profilers haven't got all the pedal fx I want, especially boutique pedals.
  • Because I have load boxes that can run IRs.
  • Because I might prefer to bias my amp differently to what the profiler offers.
  • Because I have some tubes I like and want to use instead. I can profile it after but I have to use it first.
Take the Marshall SC20H I am looking at. It is half the price of my profiler. I just want to use a JCM800 tone for some things. So it might be better for me to just take that head along to play outdoors with than the profiler. All it needs is one of the cheapest pedals on the market. A Boss SD-1. Places have cabs. So I can make use of that. A profiler, power stage and decent monitor system is not a cheap rig by any means and can be even more expensive than tube gear. Also not everyone is just happy with one profiler. They may decide on another model for various reasons such as ease of use with the software.

Some tube gear though is ridiculously expensive. So if people are turning to profiles instead then I say get the costs down of the tube gear instead of those kidney selling prices for them. Which is part of the reason why profiling research went into overdrive the past 15 years. People just didn't want to spend hundreds of thousands over their lifetime for a collection of rigs.

Furthermore, when it comes to this discussion about valves and profilers because it is a subjective thing, anyone could use the subjective argument and just claim subjectively profilers are a way better and would be justified by the same line of reasoning. Subjective taste.

I have been to enough music festivals over the past decade to know all too well that no one is complaining if 50% of the bands going up on stage are using profilers. If they were complaining about the lack of quality of the live sound then they would be complaining. They just aren't.
 
No real dog in this fight here, but fwiw the PG quote that Batman quoted, was that the TONE was indistinguishable...it didnt mention anything about the feel. I thought that was part of the main question at hand.
 
BatmansRigTalk said:
It's totally possible to sound very bad on a profiler or a tube amp or a solid-state. The best of players can end up sounding very off. Everyone has an off day.

However, that is not really what this thread is about. The thread is about modelers not being there yet and if they will by 2031.

After several pages of reading nothing but empty rhetoric about how the profiling gear is missing something that tube amps have, I decided to just go ahead and point out the elephant in the room. That there is zero objective evidence profiling gear didn't overcome the final hurdles it needed to replicate tube tones ten years ago because the algorithms reached that point and so did the processing power.

We have had an additional ten years of profiles being made since then.

Claims such as a cranked Plexi can't be profiled to confound someone with golden ears have been debunked with blind tests.

The only person who might feel a physical difference because of air hitting their body are those standing in the path of a 4x12. However, at festivals, you have monitors (FRFR) doing that also among people who don't need to be in the direct path. FRFR has a wider angle of dispersal.

Tube amps are applied science. Applied engineering. It's all scientific.

There is no magic circuit that can't be modeled digitally because the applied physics behind those circuits can be objectively quantified captured and recreated digitally.

If not, can anyone state specifically the components that can't be replicated, and why not? Be specific.

That will go unanswered because the claim the profiling gear is lacking something is a myth.

The differences are now in the ears of the beholder. It's subjective.

The constraints there were (past tense) software development and processing power. That barrier was well broken by 2010.

Now let's do another reality check and address claims about cranking, especially say a Plexi.



Do you think Plexi owners can usually do this? There we have some very well-known guitar personalities with huge collections of analog and tube gear who have probably cranked a Plexi for the first time in their lives.



This guy decided to profile a Marshall JVM and followed some instructions. 20 min later and he is playing a JVM through his Kemper like there is no difference.

And for those claiming EvH can't be replicated on a Kemper this video has the sound split between both so you can hear those 'differences' right?



Apparently, some people are disappointed with this profiling made example of EvH tones.

I got over that my tube gear doesn't have magic qualities that can't be profiled along time ago. I simply don't go around making claims that profiling hardware isn't there yet or else I could get called out on it and be unable to actually back that up objectively. It doesn't matter if I prefer this amp or that amp or tube over profiling or profiling over tube. If I make objective claims about the gear lacking then I need to back that up with objective facts. This won't happen here because it isn't happening anywhere. If it was then the world of sound engineering would have a revolutionary journal paper to read which would be covered by any number of magazines shortly after. It doesn't exist because no one has proven that modelers can't profile gear accurately. Simple as that.
Click to expand...

I find it amazing that these people have never played through a cranked Marshall. Guess I’ve been lucky to get my first Marshall, a 1971 SL, at age 19 and a few months later a 1967 Marshall Plexi. I’d play in my fathers basement cranked through two 4x12’s. I’d slam the fron with a DOD preamp 250 and echoplex. I’d play for hours. I would also go out to a local warehouse on weekends...where they had outside outlets and bring all of my amps and play on 10 for hours. I’d have people coming over to hear me play. It was great. I played so much I was blowing 30 watt Celestions quite often.

All of that said, and backing up my comments based on that video of 16 players who never played through a cranked Plexi... that most guitar players don’t know how to play with loud volumes. Kinda sad.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top