Overloud TH1 Guitar System released!

[electro]

if the opportunity to use Cab/Mic IR's was to be/were implemented i think you would for sure be onto a winner and the ability to host 3rd party VST plug-ins would be the icing on the proverbial cake and make this one a no brainer for me personally but:

True. Are stomps rearrangeable by click and drag?

[Simone Coen]

yes, Stomps and any other module (amp, cab, rack) in the signal path... in any position, order and number... total freedom in the 'limit' of the signal path 'shape'...

Regarding Mic/Cab IR's: I'd like to feature it... let's see if and when... and how, especially...

3rd party hosting: I am afraid it won't happen as of now and not anytime soon. The number of potential problems arising from such a choice are virtually infinite... I managed to crash the only other amp sim capable of hosting 3rd party VSTs at least 15 times with 15 different very widely used pluings when I tested it.
If we're featuring something, we want it to be rock solid.

[Compyfox]

Q beforehand regarding possible "upgrades".

Native Instruments GR and Line6 GearBox/POD Farm both use so called Model Packs, while other firms with their ampsims create new VST plugins over and over.

Let's say Overloud TH-1 will someday feature more amps, or stompboxes, cabinets - you name it. Will there be a new VST Plugin for as much as the original plugin in terms of cost, or is this system opened up for "model packs"?


Oh and I read the manual, but no sign of the "true" names of the featured cabs, amps, stomps and mics. Any chance that this will be available "knowledge" someday? I can work with Americal57 D = Shure SM57, AustralianGold414 C = AKG C414, Square 421 D = Sennheiser MD421 (though I do miss the AKG D112, an ElectroVoice EV20 and maybe even an U87, though there is a Brauner 47 in there if I saw that right). But other than maybe Rock 900 (Marshall JCM900?) and Moden US (Besa Boogie?), or the Vintage 4x12 cab (Marshall cabin with 4x12" speakers?), I'm pretty much lost to be honest.


And seeing this is an evolution of the old SimulAnalog Plugins, are the previously known amps included (maybe even with the old known sound)? Looking at the listing on the homepage, I'd only spot one of the emps for sure (the JCM). The amps in question are the Soldano Slo X88 preamp (Computer Music Exclusive, SloDrive in TH-1?), Fender Twin 1969 (I can only think of the DarkFace 65 in TH-1, but it's "younger") and the Marshall JCM900 (Rock 900 would nail it).


Thanks in advance.

[Sascha Franck]

Native Instruments GR and Line6 GearBox/POD Farm both use so called Model Packs, while other firms with their ampsims create new VST plugins over and over.

Which "firms" beside IKMM? I'm not aware of any others.
Apart from that, NI doesn't release any model packs. All they're offering is stripped down versions of GR. There's not a single model pack for GR.
In fact, it's *only* Line 6 releasing model packs. I'm not aware of any other company doing so.

Oh and I read the manual, but no sign of the "true" names of the featured cabs, amps, stomps and mics.

Why do you need that? Why?
For me, there's no need to be reminded of any "famous" recording setup at all. If it sounds good, it is good.
In fact, I even hate it that almost each and every amp sim company tries to get you into existing "famous" models. Usually that doesn't work anyways, so why go for that way from the start?

I want amps with a certain character. Clean, crunch, drive. Or mellow vs. bright. Or Class A vs. modern hybrid. I don't give a flying f**k whether the amp sim looks like a Marhall or a Twin. They won't sound like it anyways.
Give me something to start shaping my own sound.

If I was developing an amp sim, it might offer some basic models. And I might even explain that this or that amp sim would sort of sound like a Twin (ok, let's make that "californian clean" or so). But it wouldn't look like a Twin and it also wouldn't feature presets with names close to it. All my presets for GR are named like "warm clean". Or "phaser crunch". Not a single of my own presets is named after an amp, after a famous person, after some esoteric things (aka "windy clouds") or anything. All of them "describe" the sound and that's about it.

And if I were designing amp sims, the used amps would be basic. All the advanced stuff would be available as addons.
Let's face it, the ever so sought after Dumble amps are nothing else but hotrodded Fenders. So for me it'd be fine to get a basic Fender amp with an additionally available hotrodding option. The first lines of Boogies (Mk I and II basically, but also Mk III) are hotrodded Fenders as well. Soldanos are hotrodded Marshalls. Etc.
So, why would I have to deal with tons of amp models? I'd prefer a fender-ish amp with some options instead of having to select an entirely new model. It's just not making sense.

- Sascha

[Sascha Franck]

Oh, I just noticed that Breverb needs an iLok (wasn't aware of that). Does TH1 require an iLok as well?

- Sascha

Edit: Forget about it. Overlooked it in the manual.

[AndrewSimon]

Oh, I just noticed that Breverb needs an iLok (wasn't aware of that). Does TH1 require an iLok as well?

- Sascha

Edit: Forget about it. Overlooked it in the manual.

TH1 will come with iLok or Challenge/Response... your choice!

[Simone Coen]

Q beforehand regarding possible "upgrades".
Let's say Overloud TH-1 will someday feature more amps, or stompboxes, cabinets - you name it. Will there be a new VST Plugin for as much as the original plugin in terms of cost, or is this system opened up for "model packs"?

I can't speak for the future of a company I don't own, but our policy for TH1 is to put in there all of the models we have and will build in the future.
We will have 'lighter' and feature-reduced (and easier on the wallet) versions of TH1, but TH1 is the 'mama-bear' of them all.
No 'lighter' or reduced version will ever have features that TH1 is missing, especially when talking about DSP models.

Oh and I read the manual, but no sign of the "true" names of the featured cabs, amps, stomps and mics. Any chance that this will be available "knowledge" someday? I can work with Americal57 D = Shure SM57, AustralianGold414 C = AKG C414, Square 421 D = Sennheiser MD421 (though I do miss the AKG D112, an ElectroVoice EV20 and maybe even an U87, though there is a Brauner 47 in there if I saw that right). But other than maybe Rock 900 (Marshall JCM900?) and Moden US (Besa Boogie?), or the Vintage 4x12 cab (Marshall cabin with 4x12" speakers?), I'm pretty much lost to be honest.

The German Tube 47 is not a Brauner at all... if you looked at the model names you would guess that German refers to THE German mic manufacturer... 47, 87 and 84 are all mainstay product names...

Anyway, I am working on a document where I describe the color and character of each model in words.
We will probably never reference the hardware we modeled for legal reasons: we're no Line6 (how can they make things look so much similar to the real stuff and not get taken to court), NI nor IK as of now.
Additionally, we feel it's much more important that YOU LEARN each single amp in TH1 rather than we 'making you believe' that amp is an exact replica of one particular model.
To give you an idea: the DarkFace model is clearly a model of a californian 60s very famous amp...
now... while we were refining this model I had the chance to play with my CS Strat on 3 of those amps from 65: all in very good working conditions... well... they sounded very different... VERY... yes... the F word was clearly in there in all three of them, but in a blind test they all sounded like different models rather than different serials from the same model and amp-revision.
Now... even if we took an amp and made the EXACT replica of that amp (that cannot happen with current CPUs... they're still VERY slow in order to model EACH single component to an exact degree in realtime), then it would be THAT amp... not the amp with the same serial + 1.
In analog words, this is called TOLERANCE: back in those days, electronics were build with components (not to speak about tubes!) with value tolerances exceeeding +/- 15%... this can mean A LOT in terms of the end result.
Got my point?
Even nowadays I hardly play 2 amps of the same model and find them to sound the same (well... some DSP based amps are almost exactly the same... but this is not the matter of discussion here).

And seeing this is an evolution of the old SimulAnalog Plugins, are the previously known amps included (maybe even with the old known sound)? Looking at the listing on the homepage, I'd only spot one of the emps for sure (the JCM). The amps in question are the Soldano Slo X88 preamp (Computer Music Exclusive, SloDrive in TH-1?), Fender Twin 1969 (I can only think of the DarkFace 65 in TH-1, but it's "younger") and the Marshall JCM900 (Rock 900 would nail it).

Hopefully Thomas S. will read this and answer himself...
Evolution also means: based on the same concepts, we 'built' modeled amps based on slightly different specs and measurements... and lots has changed in the modeling technology behind them, bettering the end-results quite much.

Hope this kinda fulfills your requests.

[Simone Coen]

Oh, I just noticed that Breverb needs an iLok (wasn't aware of that). Does TH1 require an iLok as well?

- Sascha

Edit: Forget about it. Overlooked it in the manual.

TH1 will come with iLok or Challenge/Response... your choice!

This is not fully exact.
You will be able to install TH1:
- on 3 different machines
AND
- have it on as many other machines you want, granted that an authorized iLok is plugged in when you want to use TH1 on that computer
So: 4 authorizations total - 3 linked to computers, 1 linked to the iLok.

[Compyfox]

Which "firms" beside IKMM? I'm not aware of any others.
Apart from that, NI doesn't release any model packs. All they're offering is stripped down versions of GR. There's not a single model pack for GR.
In fact, it's *only* Line 6 releasing model packs. I'm not aware of any other company doing so.

IKM, Waves; Digidesign. While the first firm has several "amp packs", the other only have one at the moment. NI does indeed sell "licenses" for further models that can be unlocked in GR. So I'd consider that a "model pack". But that's just me.

Why do you need that? Why?
For me, there's no need to be reminded of any "famous" recording setup at all. If it sounds good, it is good.
In fact, I even hate it that almost each and every amp sim company tries to get you into existing "famous" models. Usually that doesn't work anyways, so why go for that way from the start?

I want amps with a certain character. Clean, crunch, drive. Or mellow vs. bright. Or Class A vs. modern hybrid. I don't give a flying f**k whether the amp sim looks like a Marhall or a Twin. They won't sound like it anyways.
Give me something to start shaping my own sound.

For me personally: reference.
I want to know what this thing is built upon. Or find at least a relation to an existing amplifier/cabinet set. This way I can be like "okay... I want the sound from a 60ies Marshall" or "oh, this recording needs to be PowerMetal, let's take a Mesa Rectifier" or even "Jazz, now let's take a Fender"...

Of course those who don't need such a reminder and are always like "not another emulation that doesn't deliver" may say "why?!", and I accept their opinion. It's not a stab in your direction, Sascha. But for those who don't want a quick solution (and you have to admit, not everyone is a guitar guru), it's more simple and straightforward. At least IMO.

You're right, there doesn't need to be ANY GUI at all (heck I still use the JCM900 GUI-less version!), but at least names I can work with and not codes.

But it wouldn't look like a Twin and it also wouldn't feature presets with names close to it. All my presets for GR are named like "warm clean". Or "phaser crunch". Not a single of my own presets is named after an amp, after a famous person, after some esoteric things (aka "windy clouds") or anything. All of them "describe" the sound and that's about it.

For me it's the same with whatever ampsim I'm using. Still I see this as general starting point and I personally think it should be a part of the manual, "what" is actually behind "what" basic preset. A major thing I disliked on a certain firm I rather not talk about.

Let's face it, the ever so sought after Dumble amps are nothing else but hotrodded Fenders. So for me it'd be fine to get a basic Fender amp with an additionally available hotrodding option. The first lines of Boogies (Mk I and II basically, but also Mk III) are hotrodded Fenders as well. Soldanos are hotrodded Marshalls. Etc.

See, this for example is something I didn't know. Of course the basic circuity is the same for all types of amps, but I didn't know that the basic models were just were hotrodded (can we say... "customized"?) and turned into an own cult later.

You never learn enough I guess.

So, why would I have to deal with tons of amp models? I'd prefer a fender-ish amp with some options instead of having to select an entirely new model. It's just not making sense.

I guess this is where the cocept of (excuse my hijacking) from StudioDevil's "Virtual Guitar Amp" and AlienConnection's "ReValver" is taking place. You have basically one amp, and can customize it (in case of ReValver, change valves, the circuity, etc). Then it's understandable - BUT... you have to know all that first and need to know at least some basics in terms of amplifier and cabinet circuity. And you need to consider that the components used back in the day are what make each amp so unique. If I'd put new speaker cones into a 65' Fender, that thing would totally sound

I totally agree with you that you can do it, if you have such knowledge. But as somebody who counts to the rather "instant gratification" section, I really rather select an amp I know, dial in a tone, use whatever stompbox I like, the mics and cab I like, and be away with it.

Really, no disrespect to you, Sascha.


Personally I'd sometimes even prefer(!) to just one amp, but several cabins in parallel with like 2 mics each to do sound layering and proper EQ. Then I can also use only like 2-3 amps at max and still sound different every time around. A concept that TH-1 might be able to handle someday. So far, I do the routing myself.



Speaking of which, a Q to Simone:
Can TH-1 route each microphone to a seperate channelstrip for futher processing (maybe with an added EQ or reverb rack in row)?
Or what about a parallel cabinet setup (with 2 mics each again)?

I can't speak for the future of a company I don't own, but our policy for TH1 is to put in there all of the models we have and will build in the future.
We will have 'lighter' and feature-reduced (and easier on the wallet) versions of TH1, but TH1 is the 'mama-bear' of them all.
No 'lighter' or reduced version will ever have features that TH1 is missing, especially when talking about DSP models.

So I take it that there's some sort of "module based upgrade" system already in place, and just needs to be updated from time to time.

Sounds reasonable to me. This was indeed a major turnoff from other firms to release their amps seperately, rather than having "one system" at a set price, which can later be upgraded with like a .dtb file for a couple of bucks and you have more stomps or something.

The German Tube 47 is not a Brauner at all... if you looked at the model names you would guess that German refers to THE German mic manufacturer... 47, 87 and 84 are all mainstay product names...

Then it can only be Neumann. Tells me that I still need to learn some names and brands and I'm not that confident yet. :p

Then so far it's:
4038 Cool = my guess is Coles
American = Shure
Austria = AKG
California = my guess is Royal Labs
German = Neumann
Radio Electro = ElectroVoice
Square = Sennheiser
TechJapan = my guess is Audio Technica

Can't think of anything for Australian1 (C) and TubeMic D1 (C), other than Groove Tubes for the later. Could be totally wrong however.

Anyway, I am working on a document where I describe the color and character of each model in words.
We will probably never reference the hardware we modeled for legal reasons: we're no Line6 (how can they make things look so much similar to the real stuff and not get taken to court), NI nor IK as of now.

I guess they can because of paid licenses - but I'm not part of the company, so I can't tell. Still I'd at least "know" some names of what each model is based on. As long as it's not a 1:1 emulation, I guess there shouldn't be any legal issues. ROLAND Japan might be an exception however, if they spot a GUI on VSTi's that are rebuilts - then again, so many close to the original looking freeware out, and they're not even raising an eyebrow - but this is another topic.

Additionally, we feel it's much more important that YOU LEARN each single amp in TH1 rather than we 'making you believe' that amp is an exact replica of one particular model.

I point to my responses to Sascha Frank in this case from further up, same as for the circuity and different sounding amps. To me it's a quick guideline. Of course I will tweak it how I want it to be. But then again, SimulAnalog started as firm who was like "let's get as close as possible", this is how the GuitarSuite started. And I have to admit, as soon as somebody releases an ampsim (pack), my first Q is always "what popular amps are included?".

Now... even if we took an amp and made the EXACT replica of that amp (that cannot happen with current CPUs... they're still VERY slow in order to model EACH single component to an exact degree in realtime), then it would be THAT amp... not the amp with the same serial + 1.
In analog words, this is called TOLERANCE:

This is the main thing on debates regarding "emulation": "are they truthful" "is it the same as the hardware", "is it worth the price", etc. Personally I can live with a cheap soltion (not "any", but still) of, let's say, the 1176 Limiter. I get my use out of it and it's fine. Others might not think the same.

Emulating analog equipment is not 100% possible in the digital realm. I wpuldn't even say 90% is you count in fluctuations in the circuity, or different used components which make a unit "sound" how it sounds. You can get close, but that's about it and this is your limitation (like you said yourself). Like I earlier said, it doesn't need to be a 100% rebuilt or something, but at least a guideline would be nice.

Then again you work on a manual add-on already.

Hopefully Thomas S. will read this and answer himself...
Evolution also means: based on the same concepts, we 'built' modeled amps based on slightly different specs and measurements... and lots has changed in the modeling technology behind them, bettering the end-results quite much.

So I take it that these old critters "are" in TH-1, just enhanced (which is only logical)? This definitely makes me feel a bit more comfortable since I'm used to the old GuitarSuite. (was that one ever even updated to VST2.2 or even V2.3 at least?)

Hope this kinda fulfills your requests.

More than enough info for me. I guess I just wait for your guidebook of the models, cabs and stompboxes. And if everything fails, I can still ask in here, no?

You will be able to install TH1:
- on 3 different machines
AND
- have it on as many other machines you want, granted that an authorized iLok is plugged in when you want to use TH1 on that computer
So: 4 authorizations total - 3 linked to computers, 1 linked to the iLok.

Does that mean we can use up all 4 licenses, but if we reinstall our PCs/Macs and need to redo the C/R thing, the system says "eeek... busted"? Same as if we used up our 3 "C/R"'s after several PC crashes/reinstalls as very obscure example.



(hm... should ask IKM about that, since they also allow you to use up to 3 keys before they need to reset it... )

[Sascha Franck]

NI does indeed sell "licenses" for further models that can be unlocked in GR.

Dude, what drugs are you on? That's just nonsense. The same goes for Waves. There's no models that can be unlocked.

For me personally: reference.
I want to know what this thing is built upon. Or find at least a relation to an existing amplifier/cabinet set. This way I can be like "okay... I want the sound from a 60ies Marshall" or "oh, this recording needs to be PowerMetal, let's take a Mesa Rectifier" or even "Jazz, now let's take a Fender"...

Pointless. I've never seen any engineer worth their salt asking me anything like that. If they want a warm clean sound, they are telling me so. And all decent ones don't give a rat's ass what amp it comes out of.

But as somebody who counts to the rather "instant gratification" section, I really rather select an amp I know, dial in a tone, use whatever stompbox I like, the mics and cab I like, and be away with it.

You can easily do that without any "name reference". Warm clean is warm clean. No need to add a brand to it.
All that stuff is just made up for conservative guitar players (so, 99% of them) who seem to need a brand's name reference, otherwise they'll be unhappy.

- Sascha

[Hink]

+11

[sascha]

All that stuff is just made up for conservative guitar players (so, 99% of them) who seem to need a brand's name reference, otherwise they'll be unhappy.

Thing is, these 99% are so conservative, they don't even use a computer. Hence the popularity of stompbboards, Pods (even if it's a computer...) & co. Many brilliant guitarists I know personally won't ever use a PC for their axe. It's an emotional thing (and often prejudice). The love for guitar tone is something very different than the love for a synth tone. I know people keeping their guitars in their bedroom. But I know none that do such with synths.
For me, the whole 'real' labelling of mics, cabs, speakers etc. in terms of brand name on top of a computer UI is really pointless. It doesn't reach the target audience.
When you're so smart to give a computer the chance to amplify your guitar, you should also be so smart to transfer a sound ideal to a few twists of a virtual knob.

BTW: People insisting on 'real' names should be aware that they'd likely pay a great deal of money just for licence fees.

For me, +n>0 to everything from my namesake S. Franck.

[shogger]

For me, +n>0 to everything from my namesake S. Franck.

Hey Sascha,

do you talk like that to your wife, too?








Shogger

[sascha]

Hey Sascha,

do you talk like that to your wife, too?
Shogger

No, it's the other way round. She's into gene sequence typing with bacteria. So when I say sequencers are complicated, she just says 'you should see mine'...

[Sascha Franck]

Thing is, these 99% are so conservative, they don't even use a computer. Hence the popularity of stompbboards, Pods (even if it's a computer...) & co. Many brilliant guitarists I know personally won't ever use a PC for their axe. It's an emotional thing (and often prejudice). The love for guitar tone is something very different than the love for a synth tone. I know people keeping their guitars in their bedroom. But I know none that do such with synths.

As another example of the "namedropping effect": I bought a very cheap (€200) Tele-ish Yamaha Pacifica a while ago (made in Taiwan I think). All my guitar playing colleagues that have seen this axe (not only guitar players, to be honest, also some other musicians) were like "Ugh, you don't want to use THAT, do you?". And seriously, most likely they would NEVER use such a guitar indeed. Yet, it's absolutely fantastic. It's got the best neck I've ever had in my hands (and believe me, I owned QUITE some guitars during the last 2.5 decades), a super fine wood resonance and just a great overall feel - in fact, it's so nice that I replaced both PUs, added a third one (I'll post the details when it comes back from my favourite luthier in 1-2 days), including the woodwork, a new handmade pickguard, new Sperzel Trimlocks and what not. After all, I'm spending around 500 bucks for a cheap far east clone-ish guitar. Said colleages call me completely nuts. I think they're nuts because instead of buying great stuff they're buying names.

And uhm, yeah, recently I played a Fender custom shop Strat. It was shit. Well, not shit, but no better than average either. €5000. My guitar luthier will build you *the* Strat of your life (incidentally, his name is Thomas Stratmann) for 2800-3000 bucks, including handwired PUs, the best selection of swamp ash and maple you could ever think of, the greatest feeling neck and all that. All exactly following your specification wishes. Yet people continue to buy custom shop Fenders like mad.

For me, the whole 'real' labelling of mics, cabs, speakers etc. in terms of brand name on top of a computer UI is really pointless. It doesn't reach the target audience.

Add to this all the photo-realistic BS. In almost all cases it's a massive waste of screen estate. Why would I need to see a speaker grille at all? Give me two or three parameter knobs/faders to adjust the virtual mic and I'm fine.
I do understand a certain photo-realism in oder to attract folks that aren't familiar with computers already, but I *so* wish there'd be a sort of "expert" mode with all the graphic stuff stripped out.
Don't get me wrong, I'm getting along quite fine with NIs Guitar Rig, but look at this:


THAT much space for three parameters and a pulldown? Come on, gimme a break!

When you're so smart to give a computer the chance to amplify your guitar, you should also be so smart to transfer a sound ideal to a few twists of a virtual knob.

Exactly!

She's into gene sequence typing with bacteria. So when I say sequencers are complicated, she just says 'you should see mine'...

You should probably buy a license for Sonic Charge's Synplant. That might bring you even closer together

- Sascha