The Big Guitar Amp Sim Roundup + Review

[telecode]

can anyone comment, how does the internals of Amplitube differ from L6 Helix native?

[Anderton]

can anyone comment, how does the internals of Amplitube differ from L6 Helix native?

By "internals," do you mean the code itself/algorithms, or the routing?

[Anderton]

A comment about miking etc.: Rooms are essentially banks of filters and delays, so mics can emulate the effect of being in a room in only the most basic way (i.e., the position in relation to the speaker).

I've written often about what I add to amp sims to give more of the effect of playing in a room. When you play guitar, you move around (or at least, you probably do!). So you're being hit with a ton of cancellations, additive effects, resonances from the room, etc., and they change literally every second. This "motion" is part of the beauty of playing through an amp in an acoustic space, and it's something that no amp sim does naturally, unless you build it into a preset. Even then, it's an emulation.

I had mentioned previously about how I have to wrestle with amp sims to get the sound I like. In one song I did four years ago: on the rhythm guitars but not the slide, there were 24 stages of EQ in addition to the amp itself (some stages before, most of them after), as well as modulation to emulate the effect of moving around in the room. The EQ conditioned the signal going into the amp, and most of the post-EQ was about adding or subtracting resonances to be more like a room. Most of the time I don't use anywhere near that much EQ (and I know it seems excessive), but in this case, removing just one stage of EQ changed the sound in a way I didn't like. (BTW this was for a sim bundled with a program; the sim has since been updated, and I don't need to use more than a few stages of EQ with the latest version. I guess this goes to show that sims continue to improve.)

As to multi-miking on amps, with a two-cab situation something like a Royer ribbon is great because of the figure-8 polar pattern, but then you can augment it with another mic to pick up the overall sound. Another use for multi-miking is with bass amps that have a high-frequency driver. Although you can often get the sound you want by strategic placement of a single mic, two mics gives you a lot more flexibility on mixdown.

I think the reason for modules like Guitar Rig's miking section is partially to provide a "wow" factor ("hey, look at all those mics and panpots and stuff!") but also convenience. You can just bring up a fader to hear what a mic sounds like instead of going to a menu and selecting a mic.

Another reason for using more than one mic on an amp was to get a stereo image. Of course there are ways to create imaging electronically now, but back in the 60s and 70s, the only way to get a stereo image was with more than one mic on the amp - a mic on the amp and one in the room wasn't enough, although sometimes, you could use two room mics with a single amp mic and get a pretty good sound. But also back in those days, you had a limited number of tracks, so different instruments often played at the same time, and the amount of leakage precluded using multiple mics. If you put one at the outside of the cone angled in a couple feet away and another in the center, you could get an acceptable stereo image, although nowhere near as good as using two cabs.

[reggie1979]

I did not mean to cause alarm. I tried to mention this as not even a compromise but a best of both worlds. We can offer the best placement (or let us at least agree to call these "oft used" placements) to those that don't know or care much about infinite mic placement while still allowing for maximum flexibility for power users. Please don't worry! So sorry about that!!

I hope my comment about the miking section being like a flight simulator doesn't get lost in the discussion. This is something I've demoed a lot at seminars. Having miked many amps in my time, AmpliTube can really get across the basic variations that come from different mics and positions. If someone had never miked an amp in a studio before but practiced with AmpliTube for several hours, they could come into the studio with a reasonable degree of confidence about miking.

The cabinet modeling including the mics are fantastic in AT. My favorite cab is the red pig.

[telecode]

can anyone comment, how does the internals of Amplitube differ from L6 Helix native?

By "internals," do you mean the code itself/algorithms, or the routing?

Not really sure. I am more interested from a recording and "what it sounds like" perspective. I guess one question is, is one modelling other well known amps and the other is not? Does one output in a higher resolution than the the other?

I have been hearing for a while that Guitar Rig is older tech and behind the times compared to other products on the market. For me, I think I adjust my settings and expectations to the tools I have at my disposal. So if I have a dinky JDXI synth, I work with what it can do and don't expect it to do the sounds that much higher priced Moog synths can do.

I listened to some comparison videos between GR5 and Amplitube and BIAS FX. To my ears, I still like GR because it has more treble and highs and seems to me to fit in better in a mix that has lots of busy kicks, bass and synths occupying the low ends. But hard to tell, as you dont really know whether the fellows doing the comparison videos are doing anything with presents.

For example, in this one the JCM 800 of GR sounds much better to my ears than Amplitube, The JC 120s sound very similar. The Bassman and AC 30, the amplitube sounds better.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4YFERizFlRs&t=397s

[Anderton]

I have been hearing for a while that Guitar Rig is older tech and behind the times compared to other products on the market.

Not compared to a Fender Twin Reverb

For me, I think I adjust my settings and expectations to the tools I have at my disposal. So if I have a dinky JDXI synth, I work with what it can do and don't expect it to do the sounds that much higher priced Moog synths can do.

Several decades ago, a friend of mine said a real musician can make music with two spoons, but a Synclavier couldn't help someone who wasn't a musician. In all the music I've made with amp sims, no one has ever asked whether I used a sim or not. Adjusting your "settings and expectations to the tools you have at your disposal" is what it's all about.

To my ears, I still like GR because it has more treble and highs and seems to me to fit in better in a mix that has lots of busy kicks, bass and synths occupying the low ends. But hard to tell, as you dont really know whether the fellows doing the comparison videos are doing anything with presents.

For example, in this one the JCM 800 of GR sounds much better to my ears than Amplitube, The JC 120s sound very similar. The Bassman and AC 30, the amplitube sounds better.

Another point to consider is what amp companies used for modeling. Amps were analog, and changed over the years. I was talking to someone from Line 6 at a trade show, and IIRC they went through a dozen AC30s to find the one they liked.

If something sounds good to you, if you make music you like with it, then it's good. Music that creates an emotional response, either in the player or the listener, is 100 times more important than the gear used to create that music.

[Mats Eriksson]

I've written often about what I add to amp sims to give more of the effect of playing in a room. When you play guitar, you move around (or at least, you probably do!). So you're being hit with a ton of cancellations, additive effects, resonances from the room, etc.

In studio I sit quite still, mind you. Not even standing up. And... Robert Fripp might have some objections to that stance.

But as for, if you strutting, prancing around on stage, and do a lot of stage antics, especially with a wireless system hooked on (Yngwie, Angus, et al), sure there's a lot... provided you have one speaker system only, as for those ones they usually have a stack behind them to cover all spots. But you're right and here is the overkill long winded proof of what's happening when moving around. But hands to your heart: If you have that big a stage that you can move around so much that frequency changes so much it'll cancel out at spots, you probably have underdimensioned combo with just a 1x12 in.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtXhdVR84cI

Which if you go into the hovi side, is that one doesn't really move around a lot on stage either. I don't. I have a sweet spot. The speaker always sounds the best 3,5 meter in front of it, and 0,5-1 meter ether to the left or right and I stay there. So I am not at all stereo oriented neither live or in studio (live I couldn't care less for stereo). The reverb and afterward ambience in the mix one can sometimes dabble with stereo, but that can be made with any high quality reverb anyway.

Read up on the beam first, please. Here's always the best spot, live, studio... as mono as it comes:

Another reason for using more than one mic on an amp was to get a stereo image. Of course there are ways to create imaging electronically now, but back in the 60s and 70s, the only way to get a stereo image was with more than one mic on the amp

Seriously doubt that they used stereo - on anything - during the first half of the 60s. The late 60's it was all instruments in one speaker, and vocals in the other. Not until 70s they began to tone down the effect of stereo new fad gadget to real world situations. And the guitar amp came in, very very late. If there was any stereo mic of a guitar amp, it was to capture the total reverb (as in Pink Floyds case, they put mics in the other end of a hall "Shine On You crazy diamond" for example). Drums were stereo, and they didn't bother that much to mic up guitar amps in stereo. They mic up room ambience of any instrument (even bass first, before it finally dawned om them that it wasn't such a good idea). In classical music, they recorded with the Decca Triangle to cover all instrument of an orchestra, and that was lauded and sought after for a while. But just like with the bass, after a couple of years, they detected that that wasn't really that representative... either.

So there's a distinction between miking up any guitar cab for capturing the room ambience, which can be done in mono as well, depending on the summing in the later mix stage, and miking up to do all the same, but in STEREO, panned out hard left and right. 10 times out of 10 times when I switch on the mono switch for listening to total mix, there's always some comb filtering turning up and certain notes on the guitar, frequencies in the distortion, shows nasty comb filter effect and phase anomalies. Some notes doesn't get heard, note cancellaton occurs.The only time I haven't heard that is when using only PZM microphone stuck to the walls and floors, but frankly, I don't like that sound either, neither in mono nor stereo.

On guitar that is. On the drums however...

[Hewitt Huntwork]

I have lots of modelers and lots of thoughts on modelers. But my primary one is this: I want a piece of hardware that has a tube preamp, 3 band tone stack, and a simple compressor to plug my guitar into before it goes into my modeler. Those 3 things bring every modeler to life, and I can never seem to find one single unit that does it simply and well.

Have you looked at the Laney Iornheart Pulse? I have great success with this as I posted earlier in this thread.

Not too closely, but I will, thank you!

[Mats Eriksson]

I have been hearing for a while that Guitar Rig is older tech and behind the times compared to other products on the market.

Not compared to a Fender Twin Reverb

Completely agree with this. Always, when they speak about amp sims, it slowly dawns on them, that listening fatigue sets in, and each 5-6 years they come out with brand new technology, that "now, our fender twin sim is even better". But AFAIK a IRL Fender Twin hasn't been changed that much since when they arrived in 50s-60s. Still sells. Small mods here and there maybe, but no game changers anywhere.

It seems that all these software companies, just have to come up with something new, in order to stay afloat and they invent a new "sales pitch" on things (room mic just another thing, but really hasn't got a lot to do with the actual amp sim), just to make the customers buy the snake oil, and buy their latest. IRL amp makers are less prone to do that. If they do, they come up with something entirely different, and a different amp totally. Say Fender hasn't never ever replaced the Fender Twin with something else, that they thought was considerably better, and shoved upon us that "you don't need a Fender Twin , the new XXXX will do that and a lot of things too". Guitarists aren't too brainy you know. They're (we're) all game if something goes to eleven that didn't do it before...

[Anderton]

I've written often about what I add to amp sims to give more of the effect of playing in a room. When you play guitar, you move around (or at least, you probably do!). So you're being hit with a ton of cancellations, additive effects, resonances from the room, etc.

In studio I sit quite still, mind you. Not even standing up. And... Robert Fripp might have some objections to that stance.

I'm always shocked by how much the response changes even if you just move your head around a little bit naturally, in the course of playing. Generate something like a 5 kHz test tone, and you'll find places in a room where it almost cancels out. It may not sound like an "effect," but our ears are getting all these aural cues by the reflections in a room, whereas a modeler takes a static snapshot of the sound. Onstage in a hall it's different, because you don't have the same kind of tight reflections.

Seriously doubt that they used stereo - on anything - during the first half of the 60s.

Correct, they did not. 8-track recorders didn't become common until late in the 60s, and even then, there was a lot of bouncing. I was doing sessions at Record Plant at the time (Jimi Hendrix had the sessions booked before us, and Vanilla Fudge after us...those were the days...). Yes, stereo was indeed very rare (IIRC stereo mixer channels didn't even appear until much later), but engineers did experiment with using more than one mic on an amp, and sometimes that turned into a stereo image if it was premixed with something else happening at the time (e.g., organ with Leslie) so they didn't have to take up more tracks. It was a very experimental period in recording, people did crazy things like suspend a mic between two amps and swing it back and forth to see what it sounded like . But you're right for sure, two mics was almost always to get ambience as opposed to hard left/hard right sound. The first time I heard deliberate room sound on a guitar it really blew my mind - it was "Juicy John Pink" from Procol Harum's "Salty Dog" album back in 1969. That's how much of an impression it made on me, I remember it to this day! If you listen to it and switch between mono and stereo you'll hear there is some imaging going on, but I wasn't there...you're probably right that it was from something added during the mix, like reverb.

So there's a distinction between miking up any guitar cab for capturing the room ambience, which can be done in mono as well, depending on the summing in the later mix stage, and miking up to do all the same, but in STEREO, panned out hard left and right. 10 times out of 10 times when I switch on the mono switch for listening to total mix, there's always some comb filtering turning up and certain notes on the guitar, frequencies in the distortion, shows nasty comb filter effect and phase anomalies.

Yes, that's an issue and always a compromise. I do almost all my guitar recordings in stereo. These days I tend to use tapped delays with short delay times to emulate ambience, because it offers more control. When I switch to mono to see whether it affects the sound negatively, usually it doesn't make much difference because the ambience is mixed at such a low level. But sometimes, I do have to tweak the delay times so they don't "step on" each other, even when using prime number delay times.

[cptgone]

I have been hearing for a while that Guitar Rig is older tech and behind the times compared to other products on the market.

Not compared to a Fender Twin Reverb

I was under the impression that emulations from that era weren't exactly spot on.
From what I hear from people who are more knowledgeable, emulations still aren't there yet.
You obviously know way more than I ever will, but your statement above sounds like empty rhetoric to me. That Fender may be a rather simple machine, emulating every little thing that happens when you turn it on in software isn't.
(Just my 2 cents, please correct me if I'm wrong)

[guitarzan]

I have been hearing for a while that Guitar Rig is older tech and behind the times compared to other products on the market.

Not compared to a Fender Twin Reverb

I was under the impression that emulations from that era weren't exactly spot on.
From what I hear from people who are more knowledgeable, emulations still aren't there yet.
You obviously know way more than I ever will, but your statement above sounds like empty rhetoric to me. That Fender may be a rather simple machine, emulating every little thing that happens when you turn it on in software isn't.
(Just my 2 cents, please correct me if I'm wrong)

I don't think amp sims even come close to modeling the nonlinear stuff tube amps do when they are pushed well beyond their design limits — power amp sag and recovery, output transformer saturation, speaker motional impedance, cab & speaker compression/limiting/distortion, etc. Some amp simulations attempt to do sag or whatever, but it's usually pretty weak. Most stuff always sounded great on even the first generation modelers, but if you try to push into Neil Young or garage band territory the sims still don't even attempt to get you there IMHO. Those kind of dynamics are just not represented in any useful way yet.

[Forgotten]

I don't think amp sims even come close to modeling the nonlinear stuff tube amps do when they are pushed well beyond their design limits — power amp sag and recovery, output transformer saturation, speaker motional impedance, cab & speaker compression/limiting/distortion, etc. Some amp simulations attempt to do sag or whatever, but it's usually pretty weak. Most stuff always sounded great on even the first generation modelers, but if you try to push into Neil Young or garage band territory the sims still don't even attempt to get you there IMHO. Those kind of dynamics are just not represented in any useful way yet.

But on the flip side, there are things that amp sims can do that you simply can't do with a tube amp.

[reggie1979]

I guarantee you that most people can't tell the difference when it's in the mix.

What about IR's and the fact many people worship them and think that is kinda the holy grail. That's on topic, right?

[guitarzan]

But on the flip side, there are things that amp sims can do that you simply can't do with a tube amp.

I agree there, I'm just saying that while preamp modeling may be said to be mature and refined, there is still much to be learned and accomplished in modeling tube amp output dynamics. It really hasn't even begun in any detailed sense. What is there works really well for most music, but it falls apart when you try for a blown out tweed sound or anything outside the "normal" operating conditions — so amp simulation is not finished, there is still room for much more innovation.