Digital has made rig rundown vids suck

[VonBonfire]

While I enjoy my tube amps, I think my computer plugin rig sounds great, better than most digital modelers I've owned. To get the same sounds with my tube amps would take so many signal processors and pedals it's just not practical for me.

dig what you dig.

An old knife kept sharp cuts better and is less hassle than your laser. I don't cook brisket in the microwave. I still hang out with my friends in person. I still play music that doesn't require digital gear to create. Why would I waste time with a digital rig when I can forego guitar altogether and let the AI make the music?

Is running a od pedal into a Marshall that more exciting to talk about?

Rhetorical.

 

[rsm]

An old knife kept sharp cuts better and is less hassle than your laser. I don't cook brisket in the microwave. I still hang out with my friends in person. I still play music that doesn't require digital gear to create. Why would I waste time with a digital rig when I can forego guitar altogether and let the AI make the music?


Rhetorical.

 

[RevDrucifer]

Even being a modeling fan, I agree the RR's with modelers are boring. At least show the signal chain. They're uninformative without that aspect and there's a lot of useful information in there in the context of bands looking to integrate those kinds of rigs into a touring setup, how the audio splits off and all that shit. Just showing the AxeEdit screen will show all that shit.

I find the regular rig rundowns most appealing because part of the charm and hassle of individual effects/amps is how the work together....or sometimes don't. My favorite part of RR's are hearing those specific things because I'm a gear dork.

As for the crybabies about GearTubers and modelers, ya'll know if you actually write your own music, you don't have to whine about a "lack" of it, right?

 

[VonBonfire]

View attachment 275427

Well it's a thread about whether digital rigs are interesting on rig rundown or whether they are boring so crapping on them here shouldn't trigger anyone but people with a TGP membership.

All digital rigs suck and are boring. My kid insisted I try his computer guitar rig. Our relationship hasn't been the same since but he also thinks cooking a brisket in the microwave is acceptable. I told him forking over some analog cash for the grocery bill sounded better to me than his rig or his brisket. If you want to be one of those "embrace technology" guys then start driving a Tesla to your shows. That's your business.

 

[rsm]

Well it's a thread about whether digital rigs are interesting on rig rundown or whether they are boring so crapping on them here shouldn't trigger anyone but people with a TGP membership.

All digital rigs suck and are boring. My kid insisted I try his computer guitar rig. Our relationship hasn't been the same since but he also thinks cooking a brisket in the microwave is acceptable. I told him forking over some analog cash for the grocery bill sounded better to me than his rig or his brisket. If you want to be one of those "embrace technology" guys then start driving a Tesla to your shows. That's your business.

 

[Spaceboy]

I love modeling and all the digital stuff, but the Rig Rundowns with them definitely are boring. I don’t need to see two dudes yapping about their patches or whatever. I also hate when they ask about strings and picks though, so w/e. I usually skip the ones that are any metal dudes under 40 because I know it’s going to be Kempers. The best rundowns are the dudes who pretty clearly don’t know shit about their gear, or the ones that do and it’s the simplest setup possible (ie Tardy from Obituary with his Rats/800s, dude from The Hives, etc). Those make me laugh honestly.

 

[napalmdeath]

I watched this earlier. I'm not a guy who has ever chased Eddie's tone but this was really cool. It was interesting and I actually learned a few things.

I'm using an FM3 at the moment and I really enjoy it but I've said it before and I still stand by the statement that tones were more interesting when people had to fight for them a bit more.

A funny thing about guys hiding their gear, I was listening to a vid about EVH and Randy Rhoads and why they didn't care for each other and they said that Randy liked EVH but got pissed off cause he asked him how he kept his guitars in tune with a trem with no looking nut and EVH wouldn't tell him. It's kinda funny. I don't know much but I like to help when I can but then again these guys were competing against each other for a bit.

EVH likes to think Randy stole licks from him, and copied him in many ways as well. They were at odds on who was the best around for years..

 

[tallcoolone]

If gear is the endgame then sure digital is boring. If tone is the endgame digital provides amazing tools.

 

[ClintN667]

Lol, I'm not seeing what the big deal is. Is running a od pedal into a Marshall that more exciting to talk about? How about if the digital rig talks about what capacitors and resistors are in his axefx.

Well basically they have to spend more time on stuff like strings or pics that were mentioned earlier. I mean take someone like Gary Holt(when he is using amps) or Matt Pike and you will see some interesting stuff and sometimes gear you never heard about.

And I also agree if you go through a patch it would also be way more interesting. I've had a Kemper, a couple line 6 hx stomps, the Quad Cortex and I'm now using the FM3 so I enjoy someone showing patches and how they built theirs. I actually dialed in my bass preset based on a post that someone had posted on bass talk and I had a lot of fun trying it and making it a starting point for mine. But talking to someone who says "I'm using a Kemper to front of house..." doesn't merit a 30 minute video imho.

 

[Ben Waylin]

If gear is the endgame then sure digital is boring. If tone is the endgame digital provides amazing tools.

I don't think flipping software modeling amps is ever gonna out-perform flipping actual gear on the Internets.

 

[rsm]

I don't think flipping software modeling amps is ever gonna out-perform flipping actual gear on the Internets.

someday, fragile electrons will survive the digital crystal lettuce. you'll see.

only a matter of time.








tubes and digital already work great for me.

 

[VonBonfire]

someday, fragile electrons will survive the digital crystal lettuce. you'll see.

only a matter of time.

They've been saying "so close" since the Johnson Millenium. I don't hear anyone singing the praises of that hunk of shit nowadays unless you need to improvise a good boat anchor or need a heavy duty paperweight. Better when used as analog gear!!!

*cue Johnson Millenium owner rage post.

 

[thegame]

Never thought I’d be in total agreement with Von BonJovi on any topic. I guess digital has it’s uses.

 

[tallcoolone]

In a true blind test, no one here can discern an AXE from the amp it is modeling. And no, a true blind test is not a half stack on one side and an AXE through a BT speaker on the other.

Sure, old plywood boxes are cooler than SHARC audio processors. No one is forcing anyone to “convert” to modeling (I sure haven’t). It’s all good. Move along if you aren’t interested.

 

[vultures]

In a true blind test, no one here can discern an AXE from the amp it is modeling. And no, a true blind test is not a half stack on one side and an AXE through a BT speaker on the other.

Sure, old plywood boxes are cooler than SHARC audio processors. No one is forcing anyone to “convert” to modeling (I sure haven’t). It’s all good. Move along if you aren’t interested.

When I capture amps on my Quad Cortex I run both out through a 4x12 and you can A/B them at the end of the process. If you put something over the screen and hit the A/B switch multiple times you'd never know which one you're on. They're just about indistinguishable. I've stolen many tube amp tones and hurt many tube boys feelings when their precious amp sounds exactly the same on my modeler. Either running through the Quad Cortex's A/B or just A/B'ing them through a KHE amp switcher, it's all the same.

 

[GreatRedDragon]

I love modeling and all the digital stuff, but the Rig Rundowns with them definitely are boring. I don’t need to see two dudes yapping about their patches or whatever. I also hate when they ask about strings and picks though, so w/e. I usually skip the ones that are any metal dudes under 40 because I know it’s going to be Kempers. The best rundowns are the dudes who pretty clearly don’t know shit about their gear, or the ones that do and it’s the simplest setup possible (ie Tardy from Obituary with his Rats/800s, dude from The Hives, etc). Those make me laugh honestly.

My favorite rundown is the GNR one, because Slash's rig is essentially "Guitar into effects switcher into amp" yet the actual setup looks like an airliner cockpit due to the amount of rack gear tying it all together, plus backups.

 

[flimz]

When I capture amps on my Quad Cortex I run both out through a 4x12 and you can A/B them at the end of the process. If you put something over the screen and hit the A/B switch multiple times you'd never know which one you're on. They're just about indistinguishable. I've stolen many tube amp tones and hurt many tube boys feelings when their precious amp sounds exactly the same on my modeler. Either running through the Quad Cortex's A/B or just A/B'ing them through a KHE amp switcher, it's all the same.

When you compare into a 4x12, are you running the Quad through a tube amp's FX loop? Or through some kind of power amp like the Seymour Duncan?

 

[rsm]

They've been saying "so close" since the Johnson Millenium. I don't hear anyone singing the praises of that hunk of shit nowadays unless you need to improvise a good boat anchor or need a heavy duty paperweight. Better when used as analog gear!!!

*cue Johnson Millenium owner rage post.

That was one of my biggest issues with digital - trying to replicate real gear, instead of being something new. It would be like Moog or Buchla developing their synth technology and trying to sound like a grand piano.

when the goal of technology is to replicate, not innovate, the comparisons with real will always be a challenge.

I had an email exchange with a software plugin maker about this, and he said if they didn't have models of real amps, cabs, mics, speakers, etc. no one would buy the plugin. Even now with Helix and Fractal, it's often about the newest models of whatever real gear, and how much realer it sounds to the real thing.

Several years ago, I found Blue Cat Audio's Destructor. Originally it wasn't focused on recreating real gear, but a tool to create (what I called sculpting) a guitar sound. Fast forward, that Destructor tone sculpting tool is still there, but now it includes many presets designed to sound like real gear.

One of the many reasons my favorite guitar plugin is PolyChrome DSP McRocklin Suite is they take the sound sculpting approach, with a logical signal chain. You won't find models of real amps, cabs, speakers, mics, etc., only descriptions of the tone / sound / purpose of the components. It's digital guitar processing that embraces the capabilities of digital rather than trying to mimic recreate analog.

Wish there were more of these plugins (Destructor and PolyChrome DSP are the only one's I've found so far).

IMO

 

[VonBonfire]

That was one of my biggest issues with digital - trying to replicate real gear, instead of being something new. It would be like Moog or Buchla developing their synth technology and trying to sound like a grand piano.

when the goal of technology is to replicate, not innovate, the comparisons with real will always be a challenge.

I had an email exchange with a software plugin maker about this, and he said if they didn't have models of real amps, cabs, mics, speakers, etc. no one would buy the plugin. Even now with Helix and Fractal, it's often about the newest models of whatever real gear, and how much realer it sounds to the real thing.

Several years ago, I found Blue Cat Audio's Destructor. Originally it wasn't focused on recreating real gear, but a tool to create (what I called sculpting) a guitar sound. Fast forward, that Destructor tone sculpting tool is still there, but now it includes many presets designed to sound like real gear.

One of the many reasons my favorite guitar plugin is PolyChrome DSP McRocklin Suite is they take the sound sculpting approach, with a logical signal chain. You won't find models of real amps, cabs, speakers, mics, etc., only descriptions of the tone / sound / purpose of the components. It's digital guitar processing that embraces the capabilities of digital rather than trying to mimic recreate analog.

Wish there were more of these plugins (Destructor and PolyChrome DSP are the only one's I've found so far).

IMO

So lemme ask you. Are you gigging with this or are you just playing at home and making home recordings with it?

 

[rsm]

So lemme ask you. Are you gigging with this or are you just playing at home and making home recordings with it?

I played my first paying gig and 14, my last at 32. I'm done gigging, so this is at home use only now, just like all my gear including tube amps.

If I was to play live again (no plans), I'd have to test each of my rigs at practice to see what works and what doesn't. Same as I always did in the past.

My choice for a live rig would be based on the type of music. If I was doing classic rock / metal, no need for my computer rig, I'd take my Marshall Origin 50C and HX-FX.

If it worked in the band setting, and I see no reason why it wouldn't, it's no different than digital modelers except the formfactor; my first choice would be a computer plugin rig; I have FRFR and powered PA with subs, so it can certainly get loud enough, and could easily be connected to an in-ear system.