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

midnightlaundry

Well-known member
Never say never, but the older I get, the simpler my setup is.. I just need less. If I was 17, I would think a Modelor was the end all, but I started at the ground level and know it's not.. LOL

I had the Monster Rack and it was great, but a single Amp Head into a 2 or 4x12 Cab will always be king for me.
You can't hide behind a breathing analog tube amp that moves with you. All that fake sampled, processed, fussy compressed gain is a crutch..

In the futre there will be 2 camps of players.. Real and Fake.. Players that strap on a guitar, and other that wear it like a chin strap.. LOL
 
Last edited:

stratjacket

Well-known member
Interesting thoughts throughout. Good discussion. I’ve been doing both for at least ~15 years or so, from early Line 6 stuff through all Fractal models (Ultra, Axe II & now the III).

I think it really depends on your definition of “there”. For me, it’s there already. What I feel is “there” is that I have my AxeFxIII and still have 7 amps and my AxeFx sounds just as good as any of my amps. Does it match the exact sounds replicated from my SLO, KSR or JCM800? Maybe, maybe not. But I don’t care if it matches exactly, it sounds just as good even if different. I play the AxeFx 90% of the time because it’s easy to just turn it on and play and have a great sound. I don’t feel anything lacking. That doesn’t take anything away from my amps.

I really just look at my AxeFxIII as another amp, a flavor. It’s not a replacement for my amps no more or less than you’d buy a Marshall to replace your Mesa.
 

harddriver

Well-known member
1s and 0s is just a system called binary for computer engineering. Computers were valve systems in the early days. Electrons move in computers as well. They aren't running on magic. Can they model quantum computations? Absolutely. Same math. In fact amplifiers aren't that hard to replicate in comparison to say modelling atomic collisions in a particle generator. Amplifiers are definitely not as complex as a biological system either.
I never said there was magic involved in the flow of electrons. I would say amplifiers are about as simple of a circuit as there is.

I also never said the digitized replicated sound waveforms can't sound good or even close to the average listening human ear. I specifically stated it is the very discerning intricacies and idiosyncrasies of how the vaccum tubes interact with the physical tact and sensitivity of human inputs and feel of the player in how the vaccum tube translates those inputs through the circuit and then reproduced by the audio speaker. It is the player that notices the difference of the feel and response of the analog vaccum tube and amplified circuit system versus the digital representation not just the audible portion of the emulation for the average listener. That's why different circuits, speakers, tubes, guitars, guitar woods, guitar pickups, speaker cabinet woods all affect the final audio reproduction that we call electric guitar music that the guitar player emotes and interacts within.

Technically a good sounding PAF pickup should be extremely easy to replicate, but it is not easy, it not simply 1 and 0's. It either takes an artist to have exponential knowledge to set up the parameters wherein the final product should be 100% identical or it it strictly up to chance and the entropy of universal laws but they never are identical there are always slight variations and differences. Ask anyone who has actually built an amplifier and then tried to 100% replicate it with all it special nuances, it can be quite maddening at times.

You also keep throwing around quantum computations, Geordie Rose is one the few builders of quantum computers. He states he can only speculate and theorize on how the quantum processors actually attain their information during their computations. That speculation is quite interesting.


There is a difference in thinking you have an understanding of the universe within ones personal scope of knowledge and experience and actually having true knowledge and the morality to wield it responsibly.

“We were so busy thinking whether or not we could, we never stopped to question if we should” -Ian Malcolm
 
Last edited:

Donnie B.

Well-known member
Kemper hasn't updated. It got it right.

It's so close it's scary. It's not the same though.
These are the two I sold after using them full time for over 2 years.
kmp.jpg


One important note is that it works amazingly well with some amp circuits, but not all. I never
found Fender Twin or Vox AC30 profiles I was satisfied with - and I tried hundreds of them.
 
Last edited:

Tone Monster

Well-known member
Interesting thoughts throughout. Good discussion. I’ve been doing both for at least ~15 years or so, from early Line 6 stuff through all Fractal models (Ultra, Axe II & now the III).

I think it really depends on your definition of “there”. For me, it’s there already. What I feel is “there” is that I have my AxeFxIII and still have 7 amps and my AxeFx sounds just as good as any of my amps. Does it match the exact sounds replicated from my SLO, KSR or JCM800? Maybe, maybe not. But I don’t care if it matches exactly, it sounds just as good even if different. I play the AxeFx 90% of the time because it’s easy to just turn it on and play and have a great sound. I don’t feel anything lacking. That doesn’t take anything away from my amps.

I really just look at my AxeFxIII as another amp, a flavor. It’s not a replacement for my amps no more or less than you’d buy a Marshall to replace your Mesa.
If it was 100% there, wouldn’t owning those amps be redundant and tied up capital?
 

BatmansRigTalk

Active member
I never said there was magic involved in the flow of electrons. I would say amplifiers are about as simple of a circuit as there is.

I also never said the digitized replicated sound waveforms can't sound good or even close to the average listening human ear. I specifically stated it is the very discerning intricacies and idiosyncrasies of how the vaccum tubes interact with the physical tact and sensitivity of human inputs and feel of the player in how the vaccum tube translates those inputs through the circuit and then reproduced by the audio speaker. It is the player that notices the difference of the feel and response of the analog vaccum tube and amplified circuit system versus the digital representation not just the audible portion of the emulation for the average listener. That's why different circuits, speakers, tubes, guitars, guitar woods, guitar pickups, speaker cabinet woods all affect the final audio reproduction that we call electric guitar music that the guitar player emotes and interacts within.

Technically a good sounding PAF pickup should be extremely easy to replicate, but it is not easy, it not simply 1 and 0's. It either takes an artist to have exponential knowledge to set up the parameters wherein the final product should be 100% identical or it it strictly up to chance and the entropy of universal laws but they never are identical there are always slight variations and differences. Ask anyone who has actually built an amplifier and then tried to 100% replicate it with all it special nuances, it can be quite maddening at times.

You also keep throwing around quantum computations, Geordie Rose is one the few builders of quantum computers. He states he can only speculate and theorize on how the quantum processors actually attain their information during their computations. That speculation is quite interesting.


There is a difference in thinking you have an understanding of the universe within ones personal scope of knowledge and experience and actually having true knowledge and the morality to wield it responsibly.

“We were so busy thinking whether or not we could, we never stopped to question if we should” -Ian Malcolm
What I mentioned has nothing to do with quantum computers. It has to do with vacuum physics which is quantum mechanics. It is just math that is then applied to engineering systems with vacuums in them like tube systems which tube amplifiers can be. All the variations you are talking about can be expressed in terms of physics equations. All of it. Kemper profiles the amp. The wood. It's flaws. It's perfections. Whatever. If it's physics it can be replicated which is demonstrated by the fact golden ears don't need 100% imitation to be deceived just enough that they are. Anyway your premise that entropy can't be quantified is just plain wrong and has been for centuries with something called statistical mechanics. Look up Boltzmann. Probability amplitude math have been around also for nearly a hundred years. Electric circuits and vacuum tubes themselves involve this math and physics or we wouldn't have them in the first place. Our limits were broken when processing power thresholds to perform these calculations in realtime were met and sound engineering brought profiling replication to new heights. You can have dozens of variations of the same amp model now. All with their subtle variations because profiles can capture those by recording the frequencies those amps achieve. A frequency is a frequency. If it wasn't you would be hearing playback being outrageously variable all the time.
 

Racerxrated

Well-known member
Yes they can and have. It's called a Kemper profiler and people claiming Golden ears fail the blind tests which is why they won't do them anymore.

There is no mathematical or scientific reason why digital can't replicate analogue. The math behind analogue systems involves computations. That is what computers are. Computational devices. It's just a matter of engineering and software development.
I agree with the Kemper when used to record or direct to PA when gigging...AXE also does a great job. But playing either one through a FX return of a tube amp, or direct to a tube or HH Solid state power amp, or a decent FRFR it does NOT sound or feel realistic. And, until they can get to that point they just don't measure up to the real deal. Believe me, I would love to be able to sell my 20K or so in vintage amps and go with just a Kemper, or an AXE, or another new product.....
Just the facts.
 

BatmansRigTalk

Active member
I agree with the Kemper when used to record or direct to PA when gigging...AXE also does a great job. But playing either one through a FX return of a tube amp, or direct to a tube or HH Solid state power amp, or a decent FRFR it does NOT sound or feel realistic. And, until they can get to that point they just don't measure up to the real deal.
Just the facts.
Again golden ears fail these double blind tests and have been failing them for a decade now.
 

japetus

Well-known member
If I am playing a small shitshow with a horrible PA, I want the self monitoring a 50-100 watt and 4x12 brings. Otherwise, if I am playing a good club with a good PA I am going direct and I just don't fucking care anymore. The hassle of not carrying shit in, worrying about tube problems, bad mics, bad signal shit, bad power. I am done with it. I don't require as much as most though. I just need a decent clean, with a good crunch and then a small boost. Modeling has amazed me in the past 5 years. Will it get to the level of an amazing handwired amp? Maybe not but I just don't need that.
 

Racerxrated

Well-known member
Again golden ears fail these double blind tests and have been failing them for a decade now.
Whose "Golden Ears"? That's a little subjective methinks. All I know is MY ears can tell. I guess those golden ears aren't so golden, are they? And are they paid/compensated to say these things to help sell a product? Lots of factors in what you say that are unknown. Are these recorded tones? If so, I've said multiple times that these profilers DO sound spot on for recording, FOH....but in the room, through a power amp/cab or FRFR...
They
Fall
Short.
Sorry Charlie but that's how I and many others on this forum see/hear it. And you won't be changing anyones' opinion. Modelers are not at the point where they can fully replace tube amps, because they just don't sound as good in the room.
 

midnightlaundry

Well-known member
Has anyone brought up the fact that Modeller are trying to clone tones established by real amps?
When has anyone ever said I'm in the Modelor X camp like someone would say I'm a HiWatt guy??
Nothing original form these things..
 

Donnie B.

Well-known member
Again golden ears fail these double blind tests and have been failing them for a decade now.

Which is a single point of reference. Doesn't qualify anything other than in a perfectly set-up test they are close
enough to fool some people.
In a small quiet room I've done extensive A-B testing between the Kemper and tube amps.
And I WANTED the Kemper to be just as good because I had so much invested in my digital setup.

Made extensive profiles of a Friedman Pink Taco and Bogner Atma. Then using every possible monitoring solution, I compared
the profiles with the real amps over the course of many hours. Close enough for any audience or casual listener for sure.
But not the same, and not as good to me as the player in the room.

YMMV.
 

japetus

Well-known member
Bros it's so simple. It's not one is good or the other. Some days you want to bathe in high db, sonic luxury. Let the thump and waves wash over you. Some days, you might want a cool compressed delay/reverb or an easy punchy midgain tone to overdub.Everything is a tool for the artist. Other than italoops stuff.
 

harddriver

Well-known member
What I mentioned has nothing to do with quantum computers. It has to do with vacuum physics which is quantum mechanics. It is just math that is then applied to engineering systems with vacuums in them like tube systems which tube amplifiers can be. All the variations you are talking about can be expressed in terms of physics equations. All of it. Kemper profiles the amp. The wood. It's flaws. It's perfections. Whatever. If it's physics it can be replicated which is demonstrated by the fact golden ears don't need 100% imitation to be deceived just enough that they are. Anyway your premise that entropy can't be quantified is just plain wrong and has been for centuries with something called statistical mechanics. Look up Boltzmann. Probability amplitude math have been around also for nearly a hundred years. Electric circuits and vacuum tubes themselves involve this math and physics or we wouldn't have them in the first place. Our limits were broken when processing power thresholds to perform these calculations in realtime were met and sound engineering brought profiling replication to new heights. You can have dozens of variations of the same amp model now. All with their subtle variations because profiles can capture those by recording the frequencies those amps achieve. A frequency is a frequency. If it wasn't you would be hearing playback being outrageously variable all the time.
You're hung up on the semantics of the mathematical certitude and physics that you can 100% replicate all variables of nature and universal laws that are still not fully understood by science today. You can record and reproduce all the digitized models and emulations of modal frequencies all you want...and while it might be extremely close or 100% to the average listener it does not and so far cannot 100% fully replicate the interaction that takes place when a guitar player becomes part of the electrical circuit and imposes his personal inputs into the guitar and amplifier then reproduces and colors those inputs into outputs.

My point is there is a difference in how the actual guitar player is the intermediary between the guitar, amplifier and speaker systems and the experience the player has in the process. For the actual guitar player the experience playing a cranked plexi in that moment of time and space versus standing in front of a Kemper emulation. I'm not saying the frequencies aren't probably digitally replicated 100% to the best of the processor abilities but to most guitar players there will be enough a difference in feel and interactive response like an amplifier going into feedback and odd and even harmonics as well as other nuances that distinguish a real experience of the user/guitar player and digital emulation.

I can acknowledge that Kemper AxeFXIII sounds great but I can guarantee you the intangible experiences would be noticeably different. Next you will say that virtual sex within a computer program is the same experience as one with real emotions and feelings with a real woman. She might be a digitized 100% representation of a real woman but she is not a real woman you're only fooling your experiential senses. I don't know why this concept is so challenging it's like you're taking things personally.

There may be some that don't or can't feel a difference but the fact that vaccum tubes and some analog technologies are still being used today because of what they impart on the nuances are undeniable or they would have been abandoned years ago.

I guess ask victim5150 who gets a killer direct AXEFX tone live it he notices a difference in his actual playing experience between a live tube amp and his digital model. I would be curious as to what his answer is. For me it's a feel thing and the experience... not just the frequencies it is how those frequencies are generated and the variables within.
 
Last edited:

BatmansRigTalk

Active member
You're hung up on the semantics of the mathematical certitude and physics that you can 100% replicate all variables of nature and universal laws that are still not fully understood by science today. You can record and reproduce all the digitized models and emulations of modal frequencies all you want...and while it might be extremely close or 100% to the average listener it does not and so far cannot 100% fully replicate the interaction that takes place when a guitar player becomes part of the electrical circuit and imposes his personal inputs into the guitar and amplifier then reproduces and colors those inputs into outputs.

My point is there is a difference in how the actual guitar player is the intermediary between the guitar, amplifier and speaker systems and the experience the player has in the process. For the actual guitar player the experience playing a cranked plexi in that moment of time and space versus standing in front of a Kemper emulation. I'm not saying the frequencies aren't probably digitally replicated 100% to the best of the processor abilities but to most guitar players there will be enough a difference in feel and interactive response like an amplifier going into feedback and odd and even harmonics as well as other nuances that distinguish a real experience of the user/guitar player and digital emulation.

I can acknowledge that Kemper AxeFXIII sounds great but I can guarantee you the intangible experiences would be noticeably different. Next you will say that virtual sex within a computer program is the same experience as one with real emotions and feelings with a real woman. She might be a digitized 100% representation of a real woman but she is not a real woman you're only fooling your experiential senses. I don't know why this concept is so challenging it's like you're taking things personally.

There may be some that don't or can't feel a difference but the fact that vaccum tubes and some analog technologies are still being used today because of what they impart on the nuances are undeniable or they would have been abandoned years ago.

I guess ask victim5150 who gets a killer direct AXEFX tone live it he notices a difference in his actual playing experience between a live tube amp and his digital model. I would be curious as to what his answer is. For me it's a feel thing and the experience... not just the frequencies it is how those frequencies are generated and the variables within.
You wouldn't have a functional analogue amplifier unless we understood the physics behind every step of it. It's why they exist because of applied physics. There is no magical components we don't understand or can't quantify with physics.

Biological complexity is far more complex than an amplifier. We can recreate amplifiers by following schematics for example. Every element of each part of those schematics can be modelled by a computer system to carry out the extract same process because the physics of how the amplifier works is less complex than the physics behind how a computer works. 😉 Again original computers were valve systems! Google Collosus valve computer.

The main barrier to replicating an amplifier by a computer was in realtime processing of all those components without lag. When processing power got good enough it was then up to sound engineers to program systems to deep fake the real deal.

Why do you think profilers can not do feedback? You can squel with profilers no problem also.

In 2010 the golden ear claims were demonstrably shown to be placebo. There is no one who can tell the difference with a degree of success that isn't explained by random luck in large sample sizes.

Which youtube personality can do this? Who is the person beating all the challenges pitting the real deal against the profile? Who are they? We seem to have people in forums claiming they can do it but when it comes down to demonstrating it, where the rubber meets the road, it stops right there. The fact this person doesn't exist tells you everything you need to know about the current state of emulating electric guitar. It can be done if you are willing to put in the effort. In fact it is being done.

Also people who claim the feeling of a 4x12 can't be achieved by monitors have obviously never been to festival with a sizable PA system. Even a sizeable concert indoors has that ability and more given the thousands of Watts being used.
 

stratjacket

Well-known member
If it was 100% there, wouldn’t owning those amps be redundant and tied up capital?
No, not at all. I don’t think it has to be one or the other. If it sounds good, it’s good. I’m not worried if the AxeFx exactly models ampX or not.
No such thing as redundant or too much gear
 
Top