I remember reading/hearing that Amplitube 3 did enhance/upgrade some aspects of the older models. Or was that just Amplitube 2's models? I do recall Ampeg SVX sounding better when running it through Amplitube 3 for the first time.

All I know is that I am completely satisfied with my guitar tone setup now. Amplitube 3, Ampeg SVX, AT Fender, the ANGER custom shop model and the complete Slash-Marshall collection. With this setup I am good to go.

Yes, the AmpliTube 2 era models were updated with the 3rd generation of DSM technology, which gave made them more dynamic and responsive.

But the new Slash Marshall models built from the ground up are in a whole other ballpark!

Heya Brian!

I have a question actually. How come with the newest amps, we're no long able to mix and match the preamp and poweramp sections? IE: I'd really love to be able to take the Rockerverb preamp and put it with the Thunderverb power amp, to get a quasi-Rockerverb 100watt.

Is that some sort of licensing agreement with the amp companies, or does the latest incarnation of your DSM tech preclude this ability?

+1 (though I think you answer it with your licensing agreement observation). I routinely swap out tubes.

Some concessions to digital and the idea of a whole model - if they want to make a model of a particular amp, the measurements made to adjust it would have to be made with a given set of tubes, would they not? Happy "all the Orange stuff" owner here, the 50W vs. the 200W power sections have waaaay different sounds, much like the stock configuration of the real amps, I think.

There are a lot of things that change when you swap tubes out. If an engine is built with that idea in place to begin with, maybe that's one thing, but ever since, what, Ampeg SVX? Their approach to complex models with non-standard functions (or, for that matter, simpler models, even, the Fender Champ 600 model is simple but sounds dead on like a reissue Fender Champ 600, it's uncanny)... You kind of have to pick "sounds as close as technologically possible with their modeling" or, if you'd prefer, "mix n' match functionality."

I'll take complete amps that sound authentic for the time being. If they work out a way to do the complex changes that happen when swapping out power tubes and biasing them, I'd be delighted, but for the time being I'm kinda glad we've got the ones that you can mess with (which tend to be lower in fidelity to the genuine article) and the ones you can't (which usually nail it, or much more closely, anyway).

Not sure if it is an old one or a new one, but the non-Fender blackface Twin Reverb sounds an awful lot the one I own, and i love being able to swap out 6L6 variants.

Yes, basically we found that the best quality and consistency with making ANY amp model (not just the official models) was retained by modeling it as it is and not swapping out components in-program. Just like recapping an amp (or guitar for that matter) interacts with much more than simply one component, like Agreed says this would be a very complex setup just to make it react realistically. We take pride in the authenticity and feel, and that's a good part of why we have the newer amps set up this way.

Basically, as DSM evolves (more on DSM here: http://www.ikmultimedia.com/products/tech-info/dsm.php) we are getting a handle on the variations and randomness of the interactions that are going on in analog circuitry but we do have to have some level of grabbing the tiger by the tail and making sure there is SOME consistency. Otherwise, we'd end up evolving it right out of the specs of typical computer systems available.

I see. Urs shared a similar information in an old thread regarding Diva. That keeping the parts sound authentic is a much much harder task if we want to have modularity. They need to constantly adapt to each other regarding the situation, adjusting the gain levels, etc... Understood

So what about the legacy amps? Are you going to switch them for 4.0?

OK that makes sense to me from my basic programming knowledge. The measurements weren't exactly changed/redone but the way everything works together was, from a signal processing standpoint--right? Which I think also explains why the newer AT 3 models like the MKIII, Orange, GK and AC30 sound more authentic/realistic.

Hats off to Fender for pushing your crew to nail the sounds before they gave approval. I bet it was frustrating at the time but it made for a better product/made your guys smarter for future releases, which is now the present.

SHHHH!!! The people who prefer to switch components around would like you to not ask this question

Seriously, I actually do not know precisely yet if there's a plan for that. With the Custom Shop setup now, I'm not sure what will happen with "4.0" as far as the type of release. We just keep adding and adding so far - maybe we'll just make 4.0 the "Custom Shop to rule them all" across the plugin line? Sorry, that was wishful thinking. Not sure that's the intended route. It would be cool, though.

Just like I wish they would do with cable channels, I like the new ala carte approach. If you want to spend the big bucks you get more CS points...makes sense to me. If you only need one model you can save money vs. buying the whole enchilada.

I've always felt this is the way to go with the obvious fail being Revalver's ability to get in and tweak amps down to a circuit level. Sure, you end up giving the user a large amount of customization but at the cost of a basic good tone. Of course many Revalver fans will disagree but I wasn't able to dial in a great tone out of that software no matter what I did. Give me a something that's simple and great sounding any day over something that offers the possibility of infinite combinations of mediocre sound.

Think about most instruments that become "classics." Are they ever things that offer a ton of tweakability? I'm not counting customization as there will always be that, I'm talking stock instruments. Even in instruments like an ARP 2600 you are stuck with it's stock components. I've never heard someone say, "The Fender Deluxe is awesome because of how I can swap power sections."

That said, I do like how Line6 is building amps like the DT25 that let you choose between several types of power amp types. I don't know if that'll earn it the title of "classic" but it's probably a nice option for the gigging musician who wants variety in small venues.

Hehe, I don't want them raging around

As far as I'm concerned, I think that customizable parts could be unified into one panel, so a head specially designed for this interchangable nature would get the tweakers satisfied; and save everyone from duplicate models back from the stone age.

There is a rising tendency that you overshadow legacy models with certified gear, making these older amps kind of a redundant B-team.

I would definitely do it like this, if you ask me (or you don't)
But I'm just an AT-Free user

It's a little unfair to say outright that the new models are stuck in one mode... Since the first Powered By Amplitube, those models had all kinds of features, the comps and limiters and whatnot, which the modular ones don't have. More recent models let you switch channels or switch something integral to the amp structure (e.g. the Orange 200W'er, the two modes on it are REALLY different sounding, and even make use of different knobs, like the real amp; it's obviously a sophisticated model - it just doesn't have the older conventional appearance of "preamp model here" --> "EQ model here" --> "Power amp model here"). Earlier, Amplitube Metal had the Randall model which had a few switchable features of note like the EQ setup and all that jazz. It was MAD flexible, in retrospect, compared to "Swap these three components." It was just a different kind of flexibility, and a different idea of model integrity. I like it.

For the most contemporary example, the Slash amp with its #34 vs. AFD switch. Talk about a big difference.

I don't think they've lost flexibility, so much as made it so that you get flexibility in accordance with the amp model you're using. And of course there are a ton of models from AT3 (the AT2 models, Jimi Hendrix models, and the non-Randall AT:Metal models... I can't remember off-hand if the new Amplitube 3 models were modular or not!!) which you can mix and match if you want to create combinations like that. But overall I have to say I really like the direction of "new models are self-contained rather than modular, but as close as possible to feature-complete." For fidelity going forward, I have to imagine that's the ticket. Well, my ears sure tell me that's the case, anyway!!

This was pretty much the idea I was trying to pitch a bit ago. Use the newer techniques to make 'complete' amps of the older stuff, add that single panel 'custom amp' section, throw in a bunch more new options for it, and booya. Since it would be designed for messing around, nobody should complain that it doesn't sound like 'so and so amp model'. Although I do bet that there's bound to be a few people who would try to make a custom amp of something like the Fender Deluxe Reverb... then bitching about how it doesn't sound like the real thing, unwilling to use the accurately modeled version there