KVR Audio

Lunch Money · Post by **Lunch Money** » Tue Jan 17, 2006 5:40 pm

finnbio wrote:Well, if you ask

- Dumble Overdrive

- Mesa Boogie Mark I

- Jim Kelley

- Cornford Harlequin

I'll echo 4 of finnbio's requests, plus add:

- Fender Dual Showman

... and those will make my 5 votes.

** I don't know all that much about all the amps on my list, but reading reviews and so forth, I'm happy aligning myself with these ones so that maybe there will be a hope in hell of a nice clean/drive tone somewhere on there.

championrabbit · Post by **championrabbit** » Tue Jan 17, 2006 7:31 pm

Let's get this straight.

The 'sims' are being 'engineered' withoutaccess to the real amps?

Just MP3s?

How exactly is the ampsim going to replicate the interaction twixt the pre-amp and master? Or the EQ section? Or the reaction of the amp to differing inputs at different gain levels?

Let me guess!

The sims are all based on exactly the same distortion model, but EQed to 'match' the MP3s that have been sent? Am I right?

Same for the cab sims, yes?

The MP3s of the different amps that have been sent to you will sound the way they do because of the way they were recorded, the room they were in and the mic that was used...

Thus (unless I'm wrong about your technique) the 'simulation' part is nonsense; even more bogus than AT (for example) which (while it has a flashy GUI, as keeps being ridiculed here) at least was modelled with unlimited access to the real amps/various mics/commercial studio environment...

More honest to quit the 'I've already modelled 5 amps' thing, and just release the ampsim with 5 tonal presets then

Odd.

darcyb62 · Post by **darcyb62** » Tue Jan 17, 2006 7:40 pm

I agree with Championrabbit on this...

This whole topic kind of reminds me of "...the song that never ends..." It bugs the hell out of you, but you just can't get it out of your head... Have to see where it will go next... but nothing seems to change... kinda like the AT2 thread...

Lunch Money · Post by **Lunch Money** » Tue Jan 17, 2006 7:42 pm

In all fairness, there are many valid approaches to a problem, CR. If I had an amp, I could say, "Ahah, look at this nice big fat (insert value here) Ohm capacitor that's inline with the (insert technical terminology here) send!" But that wouldn't necessarily tell you how it affected the tone unless you were doing component-based modelling. And with that many components, all modelled, the end result could be dodgy at best.

On the other hand, if someone has a sound clip and they say, "I want an amp that sounds like this," the programmer might have a different approach to it. "Hrm....", he thinks, "one of the distortion algorithms I was working with seems to have a smooth clipping like this. That might be a good jumping off point" and "Wow, what a great, lush reverb that's really contributing to the tone. I'm going to have to make sure that the tone and reverb are separate things, and my current reverb isn't the right kind for the job."

Subjective ears that understand tone could have completely different approaches than simply trying to cobble together emulations of components. As long as the sound is achieved, it really doesn't matter whether a real amp was copied or not, does it?

Back to an earlier point in the thread-- while we're all saying, "Dumble" or "5150" or "Uberschall", that's just shorthand. A way of instantly describing the kinds of tones being sought-after without relying on figurative language and poor written communication. If someone says, "you know, that Fender Twin sound," I know what they mean. But the actual models themselves should still be original. They should be Soundspectral sounds that happen to have the character of (or not! I'd like some true originals, too!) other amps so that our mental "shorthand" for tone selection can be used.

I'm trying my best to make a guitar, though it's super-slow going because I'm never at my pop's shop, and I never seem to make the time. But at the end of it all, I'll be able to plug it in and say, "Yup, that sounds kind of like a Les Paul" or "That sounds a bit like a PRS, but darker". I don't need to own the LP or the PRS to identify those sounds, and I don't need to own them to buy the right kinds of wood and electronics in order to make a guitar that will (hopefully) sound similar to them.

Ya know?

Greg

edit: and you can't say that absolutely NOTHING has changed. We have a playable plug-in (Xmas tube) that has produced good tone. We have other clips that are promising. And we have discussions on techniques and genres as well! Very productive thread, if you ask me.

That doesn't mean I don't at least partly agree-- I think it's better to get the product out there than to keep improving and sitting on it. Improvements and whole new engines are what V2.0's are for.

audiojunkie · Post by **audiojunkie** » Tue Jan 17, 2006 7:53 pm

Midiworks,

My question for you is twofold:

How much will this ampsim cost?

and

What kind of protection will it have?

I have to ask the second one, because I hate challenge and response or Pace based or dongle based protection. I am much less likely to buy something (read: not likely at all) if it has protection like these. Not because I'm against protection, but because it hinders me as the consumer.

Thanks in advance for your responses,

--Sean

darcyb62 · Post by **darcyb62** » Tue Jan 17, 2006 7:57 pm

Lunch Money wrote: edit: and you can't say that absolutely NOTHING has changed. We have a playable plug-in (Xmas tube) that has produced good tone. We have other clips that are promising. And we have discussions on techniques and genres as well! Very productive thread, if you ask me.

That doesn't mean I don't at least partly agree-- I think it's better to get the product out there than to keep improving and sitting on it. Improvements and whole new engines are what V2.0's are for.

I was being a bit facetious on this and in all honesty there has been progress and insight. It brings to mind building a deck several years ago. We had just bought a new house and I was planning on build the best deck I could. I started drafting it out in the fall with pen and paper, then I found a cool cad package for the PC and drew it on there, and then I found a 3d cad package and redid it on there. Spring came and I kept on fiddling with plan. Fall came and my wife finally said "when you gonna build that damn deck". It took a weekend to get the deck up and we kept updating over the next few years. The bottom line is that we could have been enjoying the deck right through the summer, if I had just sat down and put it up.

Lunch Money · Post by **Lunch Money** » Tue Jan 17, 2006 8:44 pm

I can only agree.

Midiworks · Post by **Midiworks** » Tue Jan 17, 2006 9:01 pm

Thanks Greg !

Let me add this, if it would be that simple like some here seam to think,
why does not even ONE other amp sim,
can match the tone and feel of our Soundspectral XmasTube ?

@audiojunkie
Price will be between 200-250 Euros.

Copy protection will be a simple serial number.
-----------------------------------------------

The count so far:

- Engl Powerball 6
- JCM 800 5
- Carvin Legacy 4
- Matchless 4
- Soldano SLO 4
- Bogner Uberschall 3
- Marshall Plexi 3
- Plexi 3
- Boogie Mark I/II 3
- Boogie Mark IV 2
- AC30 2

Please keep the votes comming !

MrTom · Post by **MrTom** » Tue Jan 17, 2006 9:04 pm

Just one request...release it...
and release the new models as updates

I would like to start using your software because I really like the xmas present (I think the final product can beat my Damage Control, which I think is pretty cool for direct recording)...

and...MAN !..Since this thread started, i got f* older and I still hope to record just a single riff with your software before Lucifer invites me for a final dinner...and it would be great to show him my new ChuggahChuggah riffs using a good amp simulation...

So, take care of your future customers...
Tom

Lunch Money · Post by **Lunch Money** » Tue Jan 17, 2006 9:10 pm

Midiworks, you need to check the votes! There's also 2 for Fender Dual Showman and 2 for Dumble Overdrive.

chrishurley · Post by **chrishurley** » Tue Jan 17, 2006 9:18 pm

and one vote for AX84 Hi-Octane. :) I wish you the best of luck selling it for $300 US. I won't personally be able to enjoy it, I fear.

championrabbit · Post by **championrabbit** » Tue Jan 17, 2006 9:26 pm

Lunch Money wrote:In all fairness, there are many valid approaches to a problem, CR. If I had an amp, I could say, "Ahah, look at this nice big fat (insert value here) Ohm capacitor that's inline with the (insert technical terminology here) send!" But that wouldn't necessarily tell you how it affected the tone unless you were doing component-based modelling. And with that many components, all modelled, the end result could be dodgy at best.

The point is that if I say "you know the sound of a JCM800?", you'll say "yes!" but we're talking about a range of sounds rather than a sound. We're talking about everything from a JCM800's raspy breaking-up, to a JCM800's flat-out roar. We're talking about what a JCM800 sounds like with the middle cut, or the treble boosted, or the bass trimmed.

We're talking about how a 1x12 JCM800 combo sounds and what a JCM800 head and 4x12 sounds like.

We're talking about how the pre-amp and master gain interact, and the way that backing-off the guitar's output makes the JMC800 sound.

We're talking about what a JCM800 sounds like miked with an sm57/8, or a large diaphragm condenser, or a ribbon mike. Close miked, distance miked. Off or on axis.

Master at 10 and pre-amp gain at 1.

Pre-amp at 10 and master at 5.

Does the amp sound different when the master is at 3 to it's sound at 7?

This Midi-fella doesn't even play the guitar, let alone have access to these amps, and thus his 'modelling' is nothing of the sort. He's emulating the few sounds that are being sent to him, assuming that they are absolutely indicative of the sound of an amp and engineering the sims under the misapprehension that all amps interact and behave the same way in terms of the above.

In short, if he's claiming to be 'simulating' or 'modelling' then I call bullshit.

As I said, the very most that should be being claimed it a range of tonal sound-alike presets in the 80s Zoom mould.

How is anybody even going to know how good this guy's Dumble (for example) simulation is going to be? Anybody play a Dumble amp? Anybody even know why they want a Dumble simulation?

I heard the Mesa simulation, and to my ears it wasn't particularly representative of a typical, commercial Mesa sound...yet that's the precise sound that's going to be 'modelled'.

The other guy was right; this thread is addictive like car crashes are addictive!!

cheul · Post by **cheul** » Tue Jan 17, 2006 9:32 pm

1 more vote for Dumble Overdrive here.

chrishurley · Post by **chrishurley** » Tue Jan 17, 2006 9:35 pm

Is this any different than what any of the other people are doing when they say modelling? There's no magical machine that Line 6 or anyone else puts a great amp in that turns all the knobs and pokes it in the butt while recording every possible noise it can make. Its really more of "hey, this is sort of the trademark sound of this amp- the controls act sorta like the real amp, we hope".

Even if you physically built a copy of a JCM800, it wouldn't necessarily sound the same. Even one off-the-line JCM800 wouldn't necessarily sound exactly the same as another one.

As a sidebar, I wonder to what degree the software developers that make amp sims are utilizing random numbers in their simulations. People always talk about tubes doing random things (within a range of behavior), and I wonder if the simulation/modelling developers have thought to utilize this concept.

Rene?

dimitar · Post by **dimitar** » Tue Jan 17, 2006 9:45 pm

Poeple want right, correct, true sound...
it doesn't matter how is achieved

Guitar players, The soundclick MP3 demo page got updated !