Overloud TH1 Guitar System released!

[Simone Coen]

...it does not simulate cabinet depth, drive, or other nuances of a real cab.

What do you mean exactly with depth?
drive?

in my experience (well... let's call it scientific research and not only an impression), once you emulate the effect of impedance loading of the cab on the power amp, a well captured IR is the closest thing to the real thing.

[Niksounds]

Recabinet is just a collection of impulses. Its not even a program..it does not simulate cabinet depth, drive, or other nuances of a real cab.

At east Th1 attempts to go the extra yard. Static Impulses may good for the death metal crowd who just use a distortion pedal sound layered 8 times but thats only because their is nothing distinct in their style. The tracks are all just mushed together.

only death metal ok

the future collection of recabinet is "vintage edition" in 2009

But for you it will be usable only for death metal ??

Irs are static?
yes , the walls know it =) but a good ir... reload of bobine..

but this is OT, i'm going really ot.

The point in this thread was TH1
and a request for th1

Sorry for divagation

[sascha]

once you emulate the effect of impedance loading of the cab on the power amp, a well captured IR is the closest thing to the real thing.

Sorry, but this is a thing no IR can capture, not even a multiple of these. The impedance curve of a speaker is nonlinear and varies with frequency applied. You'd have at least to measure the load at hundreds of frequencies, but alas, they're static. And then you're left with the problem that you've got a composition of frequencies. Not to forget that the whole transformer(primary/secondary coil)-speaker-thing is a feedback system.
It's one of the many approximations one can take, but there's no 'closest'.

[gchirag]

TH1 is still developing. According to my tests the amps and cabs sound as they should do. I know we all need the gain which i hope and pray that TH1 in the future will start to conquer the high gain world soon.

People use impulses to get more gain but sometimes all we need is a good parametric eq before the amps and cabs to get all the boost and gain trust me i know by experience.

Because a good parametric eq boost the pickups and after we switch on the amps and cabs wow we got the tone we wanted.

[Niksounds]

Sorry, but this is a thing no IR can capture, not even a multiple of these. The impedance curve of a speaker is nonlinear and varies with frequency applied. You'd have at least to measure the load at hundreds of frequencies, but alas, they're static. And then you're left with the problem that you've got a composition of frequencies. Not to forget that the whole transformer(primary/secondary coil)-speaker-thing is a feedback system.
It's one of the many approximations one can take, but there's no 'closest'.

i think that Simone intends with "today" tools for "closest"..

Or do you have a cabsim able to erase the ir method?

[Simone Coen]

once you emulate the effect of impedance loading of the cab on the power amp, a well captured IR is the closest thing to the real thing.

Sorry, but this is a thing no IR can capture, not even a multiple of these. The impedance curve of a speaker is nonlinear and varies with frequency applied. You'd have at least to measure the load at hundreds of frequencies, but alas, they're static. And then you're left with the problem that you've got a composition of frequencies. Not to forget that the whole transformer(primary/secondary coil)-speaker-thing is a feedback system.
It's one of the many approximations one can take, but there's no 'closest'.

I might have not expressed myself in the best way...
TH1 has that emulation (impedance loading...) already going on...
Once you take care of those non-linearities, the speaker emulated with an IR is pretty much close to the real thing.
At least: playing TH1 with its cab and playing TH1 with a power amp and THAT real cabinet (the one we IR'd) + mic and recording it, it feels very much in the same way...

The less we approximate, the closest is the emulation to the real thing.

Best,

[_niko_]

This is an answer we got from PACE:

To uninstall our drivers on Windows, use the "Add or Remove Program" feature found the Windows 'Control Panel' and select "InterLok Driver Kit". The Windows 'Control Panel' can be accessed from the "Start button > Settings".
Understand that on a Windows system, a reboot after the uninstall will be necessary to finalize the uninstall process.

If this option is not available, you may optionally download and run the latest version of the "InterLok driver installer" from our main site (via the following link) and choose the "uninstall" option.

<http://www.paceap.com/dldrvr.html>

To uninstall our extensions for Macintosh, visit the main PACE Anti-Piracy site (via the link above), download the extensions installer archive for the proper operating system version, open the archive, run the script titled "uninstall_extensions.command", and then proceed with the information that will be presented. You will be asked for your system's adminstrative password.
Note that for security purposes when a keystroke is entered when asked for a password, no keystroke will be shown as being entered on the screen. This behavior is as designed.

Hi, does this actually work for anyone on windows?

My demo just expired so I uninstalled TH1! Of course the pace files are still there and there's no entry for them in control panel->software. So I downloaded the driver installer from pace's site, but it doesn't give me an option to uninstall. Do I really have to search and delete this stuff manually?

I don't want to reopen the debate about the whole pace issue, as I think all has been said already, but would just like to get rid of this stuff as I have absolutely no use for it. Besides that, I do agree that an uninstaller for a demo should uninstall everything it installed plus it is a bit misleading that the installer asks you if you want to install drivers, but if you choose not to, it installs them anyway.

Niko

[Simone Coen]

The installer doesn't install drivers you choose not to install.
The reason why we ask that is explained on our download page.
What OS are you on? XP2,3... Vista?
Please tell me and I'll kick Pace ass again...
Don't do any action before I get an answer from them... or contact them directly if you don't trust me.

[_niko_]

Thanks for the very quick reply Simone!

I now, after reading this thread, understand "how the installer works", but when I installed the demo it wasn't that clear to me. But enough of that...

I am still on Win2k SP4. I don't see any reason not to trust you, I think you're doing a good job here and on other forums and are trying to respond to all questions and problems, which propably isn't always that much fun either.

So, if you can get an answer from Pace, it'd be nice and Your help is appreciated.

Thx,

Niko

[ccosta]

once you emulate the effect of impedance loading of the cab on the power amp, a well captured IR is the closest thing to the real thing.

Sorry, but this is a thing no IR can capture, not even a multiple of these. The impedance curve of a speaker is nonlinear and varies with frequency applied. You'd have at least to measure the load at hundreds of frequencies, but alas, they're static. And then you're left with the problem that you've got a composition of frequencies. Not to forget that the whole transformer(primary/secondary coil)-speaker-thing is a feedback system.
It's one of the many approximations one can take, but there's no 'closest'.

I might have not expressed myself in the best way...
TH1 has that emulation (impedance loading...) already going on...
Once you take care of those non-linearities, the speaker emulated with an IR is pretty much close to the real thing.
At least: playing TH1 with its cab and playing TH1 with a power amp and THAT real cabinet (the one we IR'd) + mic and recording it, it feels very much in the same way...

The less we approximate, the closest is the emulation to the real thing.

Best,

"it feels " but how it sounds ?

I liked the Boogie and Soldano, very smooth sounding, the cleans like most amp-sims lifeless etc.

Its a nice amp-sim for a amp-sim, but not a real amp "killer". Maybe in the future .

[Simone Coen]

Its a nice amp-sim for a amp-sim, but not a real amp "killer". Maybe in the future .

I would NEVER pretend to kill a real amp with an amp-sim (as you call it).

That has never been our goal.
Simulation says it all: you can't replicate a real hardware in software, not at least in these days.
I mentioned this somewhere (here or on another forum).
In order to exactly (99,999%) replicate ONE PARTICULAR serial of one kind of amplifier (let's make it real, real amps have a very high degree of tolerance from the same model and different serial numbers) these days we need to do it offline.
Each second of audio processing (just for the amplifier, no cabinet) requires minutes of off-line processing.
This is how far is current DSP and CPU technology from replicating things in reality with the most precise degree.

This said:
Amp-sim are the closest you can get to the real thing in real-time, without owning THAT thing.
If you consider TH1 for example...
We emulate 7 amps and some 50 other hardwares + 21 cabs and don't know how many mics...
having ALL that stuff in reality would cost you more than 20k or 30k euros, not to take into consideration all of the advantages of digital: need two identical amps? got them! Need to switch in realtime complex setups? got it! Need to tweak parameters in realtime for your playing experience: got it...
My view is:
I own some real amps which I love a lot.
Some amp-sim get damn close to the real amps once you consider that an amp-sim is not an amp-sim by itself, but a amp-cab-mic-preamp emulator, so when I make comparisons between amp-sim and the real thing I mic my amps and use them in the studio (not in the tracking room).
With these assumptions I feel that TH1 is very close to the real thing in many regards (and you could add some other amp-sims if you want) giving me much more than the real thing in other fields.
We might get better at what we do (hopefully) but one thing you'll and I will always miss in the amp-sims:
That sexy feeling of owning a heavy, glowing, loud piece of hardware gear.

[Simone Coen]

Thanks for the very quick reply Simone!

I now, after reading this thread, understand "how the installer works", but when I installed the demo it wasn't that clear to me. But enough of that...

I am still on Win2k SP4. I don't see any reason not to trust you, I think you're doing a good job here and on other forums and are trying to respond to all questions and problems, which propably isn't always that much fun either.

So, if you can get an answer from Pace, it'd be nice and Your help is appreciated.

Thx,

Niko

They're closed for the holidays in the US (thanksgiving).
But I mailed them anyway...

On XP and Vista we can see clearly those entries.


Click for full size - Uploaded with plasq's Skitch

[ccosta]

Its a nice amp-sim for a amp-sim, but not a real amp "killer". Maybe in the future .

I would NEVER pretend to kill a real amp with an amp-sim (as you call it).

That has never been our goal.
Simulation says it all: you can't replicate a real hardware in software, not at least in these days.
I mentioned this somewhere (here or on another forum).
In order to exactly (99,999%) replicate ONE PARTICULAR serial of one kind of amplifier (let's make it real, real amps have a very high degree of tolerance from the same model and different serial numbers) these days we need to do it offline.
Each second of audio processing (just for the amplifier, no cabinet) requires minutes of off-line processing.
This is how far is current DSP and CPU technology from replicating things in reality with the most precise degree.

This said:
Amp-sim are the closest you can get to the real thing in real-time, without owning THAT thing.
If you consider TH1 for example...
We emulate 7 amps and some 50 other hardwares + 21 cabs and don't know how many mics...
having ALL that stuff in reality would cost you more than 20k or 30k euros, not to take into consideration all of the advantages of digital: need two identical amps? got them! Need to switch in realtime complex setups? got it! Need to tweak parameters in realtime for your playing experience: got it...
My view is:
I own some real amps which I love a lot.
Some amp-sim get damn close to the real amps once you consider that an amp-sim is not an amp-sim by itself, but a amp-cab-mic-preamp emulator, so when I make comparisons between amp-sim and the real thing I mic my amps and use them in the studio (not in the tracking room).
With these assumptions I feel that TH1 is very close to the real thing in many regards (and you could add some other amp-sims if you want) giving me much more than the real thing in other fields.
We might get better at what we do (hopefully) but one thing you'll and I will always miss in the amp-sims:
That sexy feeling of owning a heavy, glowing, loud piece of hardware gear.

I dont want to start another "war" in the amp-sim / real amp camp.
I do recognise the work of the developers in this area, have respect for them.

Sometimes I just cant stand all the marketing bulls... behind most "big" amp-sims, but im not including TH1 in that.

Also its not fare the 20k or 30k comparison of real hardware versus 299€ emulations.

Its like: why spend lots of money with a real woman when you can have a doll for cheap ( lol ) ?

I would love to ear the off-line emulations

"That sexy feeling of owning a heavy, glowing, loud piece of hardware gear"

and the real knobs to mess around !

I hope TH1 sells well , its a good product in the amp-sim world.

The developers need the money for going on, improving.

[Simone Coen]

and the real knobs to mess around !

that can be done with an amp-sim
look at PODs...

[Sascha Franck]

Excellent points, Simone.

I'd like to add a few bits.

To me, using amp sims has really got a lot to do with comfort. I just got a Boss GT-10 (which, btw, I think beats a POD, which I own as well, by a fair mile in terms of dynamic reaction, something absolutely crucial for my way of playing and dealing with sounds) for that very reason: Comfort. It's one single box serving as both a controller and a sound generation unit. I could as well just use a laptop based setup (and I will be doing so for some occasions), the main reason would still be comfort - unfortunately slightly less comfort, with my current theatre jobs I wouldn't know where to place the laptop. But I will use it for future stuff.

In addition, these days, amp sims have gone a long way and defenitely have their place in a production environment. I bet that unless used in a truly guitar oriented rock production, amp sims would easily fool 99% of the non-guitar-playing listeners. Just recently I recorded some guitars for a friend of mine, we did it all exclusively online. He was absolutely pleased with the results of both the almost clean rhythm guitars and the few smooth leads I had to add, asking me which mic I used in front of my Boogie MkIV (which he knows I own) because he thought it'd sound quite great. He was really astonished when I told him it was just GR3 and two IRs (that was before TH1 has seen my machine, today I'd most likely go for that instead). And mind you, he's recording things for quite some time already, being a great bass player and a not too shabby guitar player, too, so he sort of knows the sound of amps.
In addition to him already being pleased, if there were some minor niggles with the guitar sound, we could always go ahead and re-amp the recorded guitars. Almost impossible with real amps, unless you split your signal first and record both the dry and amped signal.
Further, guess where I recorded those guitars? Right, in a hotelroom and backstage of a theatre, several hundred kilometers away from home. Recorded, cut up, tagged with some infos, uploaded to my webspace, link sent, done. All that in some free time before I had to go to the soundcheck. Isn't that just great? If there wasn't the option of using amp sims, I would've missed the job (ok, it was very little money I got, as said, it's a friend).

And that's not everything yet. Amp sims do give some hobby/home-studioists a perfect option to get at close as possible to what they have in mind when, say, producing a demo.
Unlike what other folks seem to think, I don't believe in "a rather cheap amp with some SM57 in front recorded in your bedroom at low levels will sound as good as any amp sim". This might've even been true just 1-2 years ago, but ever since the event of AT2, GR3 and now especially TH1, using a low latency soundcard with a proper hi-z input will defenitely give you a sound as good, usually better. And of course WAY more flexible.

Ok, let's assume I had one single band with our own rehearsal room and stuff. Let's further assume we'd be doing some sort of rock stuff, mainly using overdriven sounds. And let's finally assume that not much FX need to be used. Would I be using amp sims of whatever kind for that? Most likely not. It's just not necessary, things are usually easier to set up and you get a cool monitor sound instantly (something defenitely being a problem with amp sims, unless you run them through a real amp with the speaker sim switched off). And if I was to go into a studio with such a band, I'd also use the real deal - but I would most likely at least record the splitted guitar signal dry in addition.

And finally, what I love about all this stuff, completely beyond looking for "real" sounds (whatever that might mean), is that it's giving me sonic options that were only available for a few rich folks very little time ago.
Here's a little clip of an overdeiven guitar running through U-He's excellent MFM2 that I did during a Logic presentation/workshop. Listen to all that eerie, almost synth-alike stuff going on and tell me how you could do such things with hardware in case you're on a more or less tight budget:
http://home.arcor.de/s.franck/gittemp/MFM_Guitar.mp3

Cheers
Sascha