Question for the high wattage amp guys here about playing at home

[TheToneDig]

IT ISNT ABOUT THE FREQUENCY FOR THE LOVE OF GOD

How can this not be about frequencies? That is how to measure your bottom-end and quantify it. It is what the sound engineer will be looking at on the EQ monitor. Anyway if you think bottom-end won't get lost in a mix or that heavy metal isn't usually a mid-range overdriven tone, then fine. Not for me.

White chapel uses Kemper’s live. Profiled tones from the records my closest friend in the world produces, and has produced for over a decade. Including my own personal amps on their records. So please, let’s go there if you want to.

Well then, that end's Dan's point about the need for 100W amps then doesn't it?

 

[VESmedic]

How can this not be about frequencies? That is how to measure your bottom-end and quantify it. Anyway if you think bottom-end won't get lost in a mix or that heavy metal isn't usually a mid-range overdriven tone, then fine. Not for me.

Well then, that end's Dan's point about the need for 100W amps then doesn't it?

Jesus dude.. they use Kemper’s LIVE. Not IN THE STUDIO. You are infuriating to communicate with. I put up this video in regards to your myth about low end and placement in a mix. Not about Kemper’s, or IR’s, or anything else. Yet once again, you’ve twisted the point here. This doesn’t negate dans point, at all. In fact I can assure you the recording chain on this record specifically was what it was, to enhance the very things that make 100 watt tube heads stand out and the things dan said are extremely important as have i: transient response/attack and low end. Even if this was a Kemper, in regards to your comment about low end, my response would still apply: you can have massive low end on your guitars if you want to and if an engineer knows what he’s doing, as evidenced by the chapel mix.

 

[TheToneDig]

Jesus dude.. they use Kemper’s LIVE. Not IN THE STUDIO. You are infuriating to communicate with. I put up this video in regards to your myth about low end and placement in a mix. Not about Kemper’s, or IR’s, or anything else. Yet once again, you’ve twisted the point here. This doesn’t negate dans point, at all. In fact I can assure you the recording chain on this record specifically was what it was, to enhance the very things that make 100 watt tube heads stand out: transient response/attack and low end. Even if this was a Kemper, in regards to your comment about low end, my response would still apply: you can have massive low end on your guitars if you want to and if an engineer knows what he’s doing, as evidenced by the chapel mix.

Okay, well fine, so you are saying this tone can't be achieved with a sub 100W tube head and an IR rig?

BTW, did they use EVH 5150s? Like my Gojira example?

 

[DanTravis62]

How can this not be about frequencies? That is how to measure your bottom-end and quantify it. It is what the sound engineer will be looking at on the EQ monitor. Anyway if you think bottom-end won't get lost in a mix or that heavy metal isn't usually a mid-range overdriven tone, then fine. Not for me.

When I am talking about headroom, and it's relation to recording modern heavy guitar, I am not talking about frequency response.

I am talking about the low end transient response. How the low end of the guitar interacts with the amplifier when gain is applied.

Have you never heard the difference between how the low end responds in a twin and a deluxe, set to the same relative volume and gain level? "Squish" versus "piano"?

Not everything is as simple as an eq curve; remember we are dealing with EQ curves over time.

 

[VESmedic]

Okay, well fine, so you are saying this tone can't be achieved with a sub 100W tube head and an IR rig?

BTW, did they use EVH 5150s? Like my Gojira example?

Yea… I am 100 percent saying that. But before you twist what I’m saying, it’s not because the IR couldn’t replicate the speaker/mic combination: it most certainly could. But no, the 20 watt Mesa rectifier would not sound anything like this tone, nor would it have been possible with anything other than what they used: which was a ref F dual rec and a rev F triple rec on the quad sections of this song specifically. And even more critical: the cab choice. Which was a 74 Marshall cabinet ( I believe) with 2005 era Marshall vintage G12 speakers.

If you don’t know what it takes to make a record and get the tones these guys get, that’s totally fine and completely understandable. But if you do, ask yourself this: do you really think a producer and engineer would go through the painstaking process of getting these tones on record and the amount of effort it takes, if he could just plug his 20 watt recto mini head into a two notes torpedo and get the same tone? Does that make any sense?

 

[TheToneDig]

, to enhance the very things that make 100 watt tube heads stand out and the things dan said are extremely important as have i: transient response/attack and low end.

When I am talking about headroom, and it's relation to recording modern heavy guitar, I am not talking about frequency response.

I am talking about the low end transient response. How the low end of the guitar interacts with the amplifier when gain is applied.

Have you never heard the difference between how the low end responds in a twin and a deluxe, set to the same relative volume and gain level? "Squish" versus "piano"?

Not everything is as simple as an eq curve; remember we are dealing with EQ curves over time.

So this seems to be the focal point of everything you are saying.

That a 100W amp has a unique transient response/attack that a small wattage amp won't have and so you need the 100W.

In addition, this transient response is low-end so you need to find a way to get it to sit in the mix with a sound engineer.

This is basically your argument for why apparently I am wildly out of line for suggesting at home recording with a 20W and good IRs can't be differentiated from a 100W by the listener in most cases. That I am somehow completely missing the mark for not including the need for a 100W transient response to get good high-gain tone.

Sorry but...

 

[VESmedic]

So this seems to be the focal point of everything you are saying.

That a 100W amp has a unique transient response/attack that a small wattage amp won't have and so you need the 100W.

In addition, this transient response is low-end so you need to find a way to get it to sit in the mix with a sound engineer.

This is basically your argument for why apparently I am wildly out of line for suggesting at home recording with a 20W and good IRs can't be differentiated from a 100W by the listener in most cases. That I am somehow completely missing the mark for not including the need for a 100W transient response to get good high-gain tone.

Sorry but...

Then prove it bob rock… let’s hear your Grammy nominated guitar tones that challenge the best in the world with your mini head and load box … I’ll be waiting.

 

[Bardagh]

I can also speak on the subject of amp sims and small wattage amps and load boxes etc because I’ve tried/use all the above. They all have their place IMO but for me I came full circle because nothing really replaces an amp into a cab.

I actually have liked some small wattage amps but ultimately I just don’t see the point if you’re just trying to play quietly because, with some exceptions, they’re not usually that much more usable or better sounding at puny volumes than a bigger amp.

Years ago I bought a Kemper and sold my amps. I was in a position at home where I just couldn’t run loud amps very often and wanted to get going with some recording and songwriting. At first it seemed awesome, and maybe if I had kept some amps and profiled my own tones it could have worked better, but the appeal of the Kemper is that hey, there are all these profiles of cool and rare amps done by guys with better gear than me and everyone claims they’re great. It’ll be like having access to a recording studio with a full stable of amps and cabs, etc.

I just couldn’t ever be satisfied with anything I did with it. I spent too much time auditioning profiles. Nothing ever sounded like it would have if I had actually had the amp and cab and mics. You can make adjustments to profiles but its not like turning knobs on an amp, because it’s all been baked in to the profile.

Eventually I bought a couple NeuralDSP amp sims and thought “this is actually a little better” because at least I could turn the virtual knobs and get some kind of expected response, and it wasn’t all “baked in” like a Kemper profile. But there are a lot of weird noise issues with amp sims and I found myself spending too much time auditioning IRs and fiddling with cab sims again without being happy with the result.

So what did I end up doing? I sold the Kemper and started buying amps and cabs again. I didn’t have a good place to turn it up yet so I got a Suhr Reactive Load and for me this was better than any amp sim or the Kemper by far.

But as you might guess, I still am not happy enough with the RL to just use that. I run a real cab whenever possible. IR’s can color the tone in a weird way. If they have any processing on them (and a lot of them do) it can really screw with how you expect the amp to sound.

I like some of the ML Soundlab IR’s but they all seem to have some kind of low pass filtering built in and its real weird to have an amp like a 5150 sound dark and muffled even if you crank the treble and presence. In general, there’s just something lost in the feel and response of IR’s, but still something like the RL is the best truly quiet option IMO.

For me, the Suhr RL is a good quiet jamming/songwriting tool. But If I didn’t have the ability to crank up amps, I would be much more able to be satisfied with running real amps into it and use IR’s than with any modelers or amp sims.

 

[TheToneDig]

Yea… I am 100 percent saying that. But before you twist what I’m saying, it’s not because the IR couldn’t replicate the speaker/mic combination: it most certainly could. But no, the 20 watt Mesa rectifier would not sound anything like this tone, nor would it have been possible with anything other than what they used: which was a ref F dual rec and a rev F triple rec on the quad sections of this song specifically. And even more critical: the cab choice. Which was a 74 Marshall cabinet ( I believe) with 2005 era Marshall vintage G12 speakers.

If you don’t know what it takes to make a record and get the tones these guys get, that’s totally fine and completely understandable. But if you do, ask yourself this: do you really think a producer and engineer would go through the painstaking process of getting these tones on record and the amount of effort it takes, if he could just plug his 20 watt recto mini head into a two notes torpedo and get the same tone? Does that make any sense?

What you are describing is so extremely specialized in tone that this is not a very good reason to be claiming I am wrong about everything I said about what high-gain metal players are doing at home. 99.9% of them aren't doing that

What you are talking about is how bands go about creating new tones to profile. Like even master and slaving units to get tones. Fine. Yes that happens but how long will it be before the same engineers figure out how to do that in 50W or 20W? Mesa just hasn't done it right yet with the Rec but obviously, the Mesa MKV has.

 

[VESmedic]

I can also speak on the subject of amp sims and small wattage amps and load boxes etc because I’ve tried/use all the above. They all have their place IMO but for me I came full circle because nothing really replaces an amp into a cab.

I actually have liked some small wattage amps but ultimately I just don’t see the point if you’re just trying to play quietly because, with some exceptions, they’re not usually that much more usable or better sounding at puny volumes than a bigger amp.

Years ago I bought a Kemper and sold my amps. I was in a position at home where I just couldn’t run loud amps very often and wanted to get going with some recording and songwriting. At first it seemed awesome, and maybe if I had kept some amps and profiled my own tones it could have worked better, but the appeal of the Kemper is that hey, there are all these profiles of cool and rare amps done by guys with better gear than me and everyone claims they’re great. It’ll be like having access to a recording studio with a full stable of amps and cabs, etc.

I just couldn’t ever be satisfied with anything I did with it. I spent too much time auditioning profiles. Nothing ever sounded like it would have if I had actually had the amp and cab and mics. You can make adjustments to profiles but its not like turning knobs on an amp, because it’s all been baked in to the profile.

Eventually I bought a couple NeuralDSP amp sims and thought “this is actually a little better” because at least I could turn the virtual knobs and get some kind of expected response, and it wasn’t all “baked in” like a Kemper profile. But there are a lot of weird noise issues with amp sims and I found myself spending too much time auditioning IRs and fiddling with cab sims again without being happy with the result.

So what did I end up doing? I sold the Kemper and started buying amps and cabs again. I didn’t have a good place to turn it up yet so I got a Suhr Reactive Load and for me this was better than any amp sim or the Kemper by far.

But as you might guess, I still am not happy enough with the RL to just use that. I run a real cab whenever possible. IR’s can color the tone in a weird way. If they have any processing on them (and a lot of them do) it can really screw with how you expect the amp to sound.

I like some of the ML Soundlab IR’s but they all seem to have some kind of low pass filtering built in and its real weird to have an amp like a 5150 sound dark and muffled even if you crank the treble and presence. In general, there’s just something lost in the feel and response of IR’s, but still something like the RL is the best truly quiet option IMO.

For me, the Suhr RL is a good quiet jamming/songwriting tool. But If I didn’t have the ability to crank up amps, I would be much more able to be satisfied with running real amps into it and use IR’s than with any modelers or amp sims.

I just wanna say my “tone circle” has been eerily similar to yours over the last 20 years… however on the IR comment: don’t assume all IR’s have that issue. Quite frankly, ML sound labs are just not that good, and he’s got some shady ness going on in how he represents his IR’s especially in his mikko plugin. I can’t prove it, but I have my guesses on that. But just because his are dark and murky, doesn’t mean all of them all. An IR, like a Kemper, is only as good as the guy who made it, and if you have similar tastes in tones. I would suggest shooting your own IR’s, much the same as you felt at home using your own real amp again.

 

[TheToneDig]

I use both amp/cab rigs and modelers. I think wet/dry combinations are the way forward for modern home high wattage gear playing.

 

[DanTravis62]

So this seems to be the focal point of everything you are saying.

That a 100W amp has a unique transient response/attack that a small wattage amp won't have and so you need the 100W.

In addition, this transient response is low-end so you need to find a way to get it to sit in the mix with a sound engineer.

This is basically your argument for why apparently I am wildly out of line for suggesting at home recording with a 20W and good IRs can't be differentiated from a 100W by the listener in most cases. That I am somehow completely missing the mark for not including the need for a 100W transient response to get good high-gain tone.

Sorry but...

No, the argument is that you need an amp that provides the headroom necessary to do this specific sound; because without it, you won't have the low-end transient response for those type of modern, "tight," high gain sounds.

Lower wattage amps are great for all sorts of reasons and use-cases, take up less room, and are generally less expensive. They have many advantages for lots of players.

The fact that you don't even understand what were talking about, when we say "low end transient response" means you know exactly fuck-all about playing and recording these type of tones.

 

[DanTravis62]

@TheToneDig and the reason it's important is because lots of people desire these types of tones, whether you find it "too specific" is completely irrelevant.

And if they try to achieve these tones using small amps, they are going to waste a bunch of time and money and wish they hadn't taken your over-generalized, one-size-fits-all advice.

 

[rstites]

Years ago I bought a Kemper and sold my amps. I was in a position at home where I just couldn’t run loud amps very often and wanted to get going with some recording and songwriting. At first it seemed awesome, and maybe if I had kept some amps and profiled my own tones it could have worked better, but the appeal of the Kemper is that hey, there are all these profiles of cool and rare amps done by guys with better gear than me and everyone claims they’re great. It’ll be like having access to a recording studio with a full stable of amps and cabs, etc.

I just couldn’t ever be satisfied with anything I did with it. I spent too much time auditioning profiles. Nothing ever sounded like it would have if I had actually had the amp and cab and mics. You can make adjustments to profiles but its not like turning knobs on an amp, because it’s all been baked in to the profile.

Eventually I bought a couple NeuralDSP amp sims and thought “this is actually a little better” because at least I could turn the virtual knobs and get some kind of expected response, and it wasn’t all “baked in” like a Kemper profile. But there are a lot of weird noise issues with amp sims and I found myself spending too much time auditioning IRs and fiddling with cab sims again without being happy with the result.

This is a bit like me and fancy effects units, etc. I always end up tweaking them constantly, and in the end return to playing (pretty much) straight and just ignoring them. I keep thinking about something to play around with at home to record some things direct at night, and I keep kicking it down the road because I'll probably end up spending most of the time tweaking, before I just unplug and go back to my amps.

It's an irony, as I used to build rigs for people and did well with it. (I'm a EE by day now, so the technical end of things comes very easy to me, but there's a switch where I just want to plug in and play when I'm home, and not deal with technical things.)

 

[VESmedic]

What you are describing is so extremely specialized in tone that this is not a very good reason to be claiming I am wrong about everything I said about what high-gain metal players are doing at home. 99.9% of them aren't doing that

What you are talking about is how bands go about creating new tones to profile. Like even master and slaving units to get tones. Fine. Yes that happens but how long will it be before the same engineers figure out how to do that in 50W or 20W? Mesa just hasn't done it right yet with the Rec but obviously, the Mesa MKV has.

99.9 percent of at home players aren’t doing that, yes, but at the end of the day what is your point here? From the very beginning, you made some quite asinine assumptions and generalizations that you could not back up in the least, and when you were confronted you kept deflecting and jumping around what I or others were actually saying. And it’s evolved into the conversation we are having now.

What you are saying is that at the end of the day you can get great tones at home. And that’s totally true, I don’t think anyone is going to debate that, myself included. It should’ve stopped there, but instead you talked about your book you wrote on this topic, all the while not understanding what any of us were actually telling you, or just deflecting against it. You don’t really seem to understand amps and how a load effects them, or the interaction between the amp and speaker in regards to headroom, or how a power amp plays into all of this. You also regurgitated complete myths in the guitar world that I myself try hard to point out are just that, myths, with nothing to back up your claims once again. All the while, literally registering here within the last 12 hours seemingly to pimp out your book on home recording. I’m just sayin, people are gonna come down on you hard, especially guys that are passionate about this stuff..

I’ll go even farther and say it’s a complete disservice and borderline disrespectful to an engineer to think that all these little nuances and little things don’t matter and that you can just “ get the same tone in your bedroom with an IR”. Technology has come a long way, to the point that I couldn’t tell what’s a tube amp or an amp sim( a sim with a 4x12 cabinet impulse of course before you go down that argument again), many times, but it’s not at that level where you are gonna sound like bob rock in your basement yet. And quite frankly, that’s not even a technology issue, that’s a skill level issue. I find it incredibly ironic all the time, that on boards like this, the things hobbyist think “ don’t matter in the least” or pay no attention to, are the very things engineers and producers often pay most attention to. But hey, let’s just keep on believing everything we hear from Glenn fricker and other YouTube idiots. We are a hard headed bunch, to put it lightly.

 

[TheToneDig]

@TheToneDig and the reason it's important is because lots of people desire these types of tones, whether you find it "too specific" is completely irrelevant.

And if they try to achieve these tones using small amps, they are going to waste a bunch of time and money and wish they hadn't taken your over-generalized, one-size-fits-all advice.

How exactly is any tube amp head + loadbox an over-generalized, one-size-fits-all-advice?

It's your advice that is the most constraining. Your 100W head low-end unique transient response that is apparently necessary for good high gain tones at home.

One tone dude.

You took great pains to remark how I don't know anything because of that point.

My advice was that a 20W Marshall Studio head would sound the same as a 100W JCM800 in a recording. That in general, you can do things like that at home for a high gain tone. I recommend loadboxes. IRs.

If you think that was reason to complain I don't know anything several times over, then have it at, but I strongly doubt you will be speaking to most high gain home users there. Good luck teaching them all about your tone.

I prefer talking about what most people are generally doing.

 

[Smash]

You're going to find a lot of people who don't agree with this here.

The main reason is headroom; for certain styles of music, it doesn't fucking matter what IR you slap on a 20 watt amp, it isn't going to work for many styles. Mine in particular.

I thinkk a lot of it too, is that we don't juust record. In the room a 20 watt has no balls. I need punch. 100 watt

 

[DanTravis62]

How exactly is any tube amp head + loadbox an over-generalized, one-size-fits-all-advice?

It's your advice that is the most constraining. Your 100W head low-end unique transient response that is apparently necessary for a tone.

One tone dude.

You took great pains to remark how I don't know anything because of that point.

My advice was that a 20W Marshall Studio head would sound the same as a 100W JCM800 in a recording. That in general, you can do things like that at home for a high gain tone. I recommend loadboxes. IRs.

If you think that was reason to complain I don't know anything several times over, then have it at, but I strongly doubt you will be speaking to most high gain home users there. Good luck teaching them all about your tone.

I prefer talking about what most people are generally doing.

So, "I KNOW YOU ARE BUT WHAT AM I"

That's your big rejoinder? LMFAO

And it isn't "any tube amp" - you are specifically saying low wattage tube amps, which doesn't work for modern high gain tones.

It's bad advice, because it won't work for those tones.

Listen, good luck shilling your book; I just hope no one buys it who's trying to get those sounds, because your advice is going to waste their time and money.

 

[DanTravis62]

I thinkk a lot of it too, is that we don't juust record. In the room a 20 watt has no balls. I need punch. 100 watt

Yes. But don't worry, no one needs that - in the room, or recording. You just need the user who joined today's ebook.

 

[TheToneDig]

I thinkk a lot of it too, is that we don't juust record. In the room a 20 watt has no balls. I need punch. 100 watt

+6db difference. +3b between a 50W and 100W.

20W is 115db. That just under a fire engine siren.

So, "I KNOW YOU ARE BUT WHAT AM I"

That's your big rejoinder? LMFAO

And it isn't "any tube amp" - you are specifically saying low wattage tube amps, which doesn't work for modern high gain tones.

It's bad advice, because it won't work for those tones.

Listen, good luck shilling your book; I just hope no one buys it who's trying to get those sounds, because your advice is going to waste their time and money.

This idea you need 100W for a good high-gain tone at home is something I will absolutely have no problem dismissing as a myth. 100W was designed for stadiums with no monitors. Even amp manufacturers started making 50W versions for the studios. They have since figured out (read market pressures) to get into smaller wattage like 30 or 20, more suitable for... well everybody not playing in a stadium. Hence the OP.

There are loads of low-wattage high-gain tube amps on the market with people achieving exactly what you say they can't.

I know about your bottom-end argument and I disagree with it for the reasons I gave. The guitar is a mid-range instrument and high-gain metal happens to be mid-range. So this low-end point is moot.

So what's this mythic 100W rig we should all have then?

Sounds to me like you are conflating engineers who haven't been pressured into delivering sub 50W amps with the same tone with a need for 100W to get some sort of tone.