The Big Guitar Amp Sim Roundup + Review

[Mats Eriksson]

oops! double post

[Mats Eriksson]

So many great reviews about it, but something about it is "too smooth" or something for my tastes...

This has bothered me too. But so it is with most ampsims. I think S-gear has smoothed it all out in order to obscure or get rid of that eerie and uncanny "fizz". Which isn't part of any real tube amp. And I think in order to buck fizz is to use EQ or filter before and after is not really reviewing the amp sim as such.

In order to a add a bit of teeth you need to insert a treble booster pedal, or perhaps a tube screamer in front, etc...and since it doesn't include any pedals that means futzing around in your host signal chain...and also means none of the presets are designed around that...

Agree. The trick and smokes and mirrors S-Gear does is not mimicking any real amp at all, in which they stay coy about things, since they can't compare to anything real. It's only inspired, influenced by:

1. Park amps (The Stealer)
2. Dumble (The Duke)
3. Soldano (The Jackal)
4. Twin (some settings in The Wayfarer)
5. Fender Tweed (Custom 57)

At least, very few of us can compare to IRL Dumble, or Park amps. Maybe the Twin and Fender tweed but that's a cunning way to escape IRL tube amps criticism. It's only "inspired" by and "a nod in direction towards..." or even "rather than stick to a vintage correct tone section, we've included..". I remember complaining on their own forum (just for fanbois btw) about Wayfarer that I want sharper treble transient attack at the beginning of the note. What happens after, like the decay sound, I am all game with, but the initial should be sharper and has higher frequency content, withouth any fizz. An Eric Johnson muddied "violin sound" is great to get in S-gear though, smooth and no treble, underwater sound...

The Custom 57' is great, but after a few hours, the listening fatigue starts to creep in, sooner or later, and way sooner that noodling around on the real thing.

[Soundwise]

Can you comment a bit more about the resonators? I was under the impression that the resonators merely tweak a resulting IR, which is still applied to the sound at runtime in a static nature. Do I have that wrong?

Think additive synthesis vs subtractive. Merely tweaking is the latter. Resonators add things that weren't there. It's hard to put in words. You'd better try it yourself.

Is Mcabinet actually doing some dynamic mojo with the resonators during playback? I just picked up mcabinet not long ago and haven’t had time to really test it out or read it’s manual.

I've no connection with the developers, so I have no idea if they implemented dynamic processing or not. That's why I said, that it adds a new dimension which feels like you're playing the amp through the cab in an acoustic space. And it's not your regular reverb. Not even close. You can hear that sound changes overtime and is controlled with picking dynamics. That is, something's changing dynamically but it's in no way an emulation of power amp sag, saturation and whatnot. More like acoustic space dynamics. Worth noting that one can go from subtle to realistic to totally out of this world.
HTH.

[Dewdman42]

Can you comment a bit more about the resonators? I was under the impression that the resonators merely tweak a resulting IR, which is still applied to the sound at runtime in a static nature. Do I have that wrong?

Think additive synthesis vs subtractive. Merely tweaking is the latter. Resonators add things that weren't there. It's hard to put in words. You'd better try it yourself.

That is what I thought. Static. Yes its adding or removing frequencies algorithmically from the IR curve in some kind of way that it feels may be beneficial for guitar cab emulation, but still at play time its a static application of the resulting IR curve yes?

That's why I said, that it adds a new dimension which feels like you're playing the amp through the cab in an acoustic space. And it's not your regular reverb. Not even close. You can hear that sound changes overtime and is controlled with picking dynamics. That is, something's changing dynamically but it's in no way an emulation of power amp sag, saturation and whatnot. More like acoustic space dynamics. Worth noting that one can go from subtle to realistic to totally out of this world.
HTH.

My impression of MCabinet is that it basically lets you load a lot of different IR's, can analyze them as you said to algorithmically construct a newly constructed IR, which you can tweak algorithmically into a fabricated IR which no longer resembles anything sampled from an actual space, but has been algorithmically generated, perhaps initially based on the analysis of an existing sampled IR. Applying resonance DSP to that IR curve is one of the things you can do... But ultimately when you play audio through it, its still just a normal IR processing I believe... Don't get me wrong, I am impressed with MCabinet, I just want to understand for sure what it does.

[Mats Eriksson]

You have a lot to digest here too:

https://honestampsimreviews.com/categor ... /amp-sims/

[Soundwise]

That is what I thought. Static. Yes its adding or removing frequencies algorithmically from the IR curve in some kind of way that it feels may be beneficial for guitar cab emulation, but still at play time its a static application of the resulting IR curve yes?

My room is static too. But it's difficult to capture its resonances with mics and traditional approach.That's what MCabinet does - it adds what the mics miss.

But ultimately when you play audio through it, its still just a normal IR processing I believe... Don't get me wrong, I am impressed with MCabinet, I just want to understand for sure what it does.

I'm not very proficient at reverse engineering sophisticated software algorithms, sorry. As a musician, I don't really care much what's under the hood of a software piece if it does what I want it to.

MCabinet, I just want to understand for sure what it does.

That's what I thought when I started using it. All those random 'throw dice' style dials bugged me quite a bit. Then I've made some presets and it dawned on me that I don't need or want to use anything else for cab sim. Still unsure how this thing works, though.

[Dewdman42]

care to share any of the presets you have come up with in MCabinet?

[Anderton]

The trick and smokes and mirrors S-Gear does is not mimicking any real amp at all, in which they stay coy about things, since they can't compare to anything real. [snip] At least, very few of us can compare to IRL Dumble, or Park amps. Maybe the Twin and Fender tweed but that's a cunning way to escape IRL tube amps criticism.

With respect to S-Gear, I think it's ill-informed at best to ascribe tricks, smoke and mirrors, coyness, cunning, and proposing they're following a particular design philosophy solely to "escape" criticism.

There's a simpler - and far more logical - explanation. There's no reason whatsoever for a (very) small, one-man company, that's trying to carve out its own space in a super-competitive market, to produce yet another set of copies of the same amps that everyone else is copying. Maybe the reason S-Gear has a lot of fans is because they offer something different. Some people prefer paintings to photographs, or synthesizers to samplers. Some people prefer impressionism over literal reproductions.

I just don't accept that a handful of amps designed decades ago nailed the perfect guitar sound forever, and the only worthwhile goal for DSP is to copy those amps. I also don't accept that the only good synth bass sound is a Minimoog, either .

Perhaps this constant recycling of what came before explains the results of a study by the Artificial Intelligence Research Institute of the Spanish National Research Council in Barcelona. They analyzed half a million pop music songs, and were able to quantify the decline in timbral innovation and homogenization of pitch content since the 60s.

Amp sims will continue to improve at a rate allowed by a) technology, and perhaps more importantly, b) what consumers are willing to spend. For a long time, virtual instruments were all about copying Minimoogs and Jupiter-8s. Now, new virtual instruments are coming out with no precedent. I can see a similar arc happening for amp sims, whose evolution is running about five years behind virtual instruments. In any event, there are enough choices today so that the limiting factor in anyone's music will always be their creativity and technique, not the tools they use.

[guitarzan]

Perhaps this constant recycling of what came before explains the results of a study by the Artificial Intelligence Research Institute of the Spanish National Research Council in Barcelona. They analyzed half a million pop music songs, and were able to quantify the decline in timbral innovation and homogenization of pitch content since the 60s.

Well, there would naturally be a spike in "timbral innovation" from the proliferation of electrified instruments starting in the earlier part of the 20th century and apparently peaking in the 60s, but how much timbral innovation was there in the preceeding, say, three or four hundred years? Pretty much zero.

Electric guitar now has a pretty well entrenched timbral range that established itself between around 1940 to 1970 or so, that's just the way it is — historical fact now. Sure, there's always room for innovation, but new electric guitar tones are not likely to supplant the now classic timbres, the same way that electric bassoons are unlikely to supplant the standard bassoon in an orchestra - no matter how cool they probably sound and look.... I wonder how much electric bassoons cost?
https://youtu.be/aeqVSv4O4_4

[mmann]

As an aside, the full version of Breverb 2 is an outstanding algorithmic reverb for studio use.

Breverb 2 is great and I also enjoy using SpringAge, but REmatrix doesn't get used as much as the other two Overloud reverbs.

[Anderton]

Well, there would naturally be a spike in "timbral innovation" from the proliferation of electrified instruments starting in the earlier part of the 20th century and apparently peaking in the 60s, but how much timbral innovation was there in the preceeding, say, three or four hundred years? Pretty much zero.

I get your point, and agree with your conclusions about classic tones not going away any time soon. But musical instrument evolution has been constant, including during the past several centuries. For example, the clarinet didn't just appear out of nowhere, but improved on the chalumeau. The harpsichord was the ancestor of the pianoforte. Many medieval instruments came from Asia, the portative organ was sort of like the Minimoog of its time because it was used mostly for single-note lines. Wagner wanted a baritone double-reed instrument, and thus the heckelphone was born. As with today's instruments, technological advances were constantly being incorporated, and this changed both playability and timbre, with major changes occurring particularly in the brass family.

Sure, there's always room for innovation, but new electric guitar tones are not likely to supplant the now classic timbres, the same way that electric bassoons are unlikely to supplant the standard bassoon in an orchestra

But your mention of the bassoon proves both our points - mine that there's more to life than just copying what came before, and yours that classic timbres will stick around. The bassoon was based on an instrument called the dulcian, but the baroque reworking of it created something more like the modern bassoon, which continued to evolve over time. However, people continued to play the "classic" dulcian until well into the 18th century.

I didn't intend for the takeaway of what I said that the classic tones will go away, but rather, that if we are to be true to the evolution of musical instruments, we'll keep looking for ways to innovate. I wouldn't keep tube amps around if I thought they were irrelevant! However, I do use them less and less...just like people used dulcians less and less when the modern bassoon came along

[Mats Eriksson]

There's a simpler - and far more logical - explanation. There's no reason whatsoever for a (very) small, one-man company, that's trying to carve out its own space in a super-competitive market, to produce yet another set of copies of the same amps that everyone else is copying.

There's absolutely no reason for any customer or any company to make and pass judgement on any product if it's made by thousands of factory workers, or one man. It's S-gear, whether it's a bunch of people, or one man. It's a commercial product. What if mr Scuffham passed away? Let's not hope this for a very long time. But mind you, Leo Fender passed away, I mean he even sold the lot earlier. Still around. Made by hundreds of people.

I just don't accept that a handful of amps designed decades ago nailed the perfect guitar sound forever, and the only worthwhile goal for DSP is to copy those amps.

Well, whether you like it or not, you can't deny those are still the yardsticks, was the yardsticks in the first place, that amp sims has to get better at, or even surpass, can you?

I am all for the time when amp sims DOES sounds better in all aspects than any of those vintage amps, and modern high gain Mesas, on all settings, all music genres. I don't think vintage amps are "perfect" guitar sound. There's too many of them. Marshall Plexi is one sound. It can't be reproduced by a Fender Twin. No matter what you do, even with pedals in front. I happen to be one of the few persons in the world that thinks guitar+amp makes ONE instrument. It's not complete without the other, and as such, does not make a perfect guitar sound, it makes a specific unique guitar sound, each. And even if we have a Fender Strat into a Marshall, it still doesn't sound exactly the same. Too many to mention didn't plug anything in front of it, and still RItchie Blackmore sounded way different that Hendrix, Rory Gallagher, Eric Johnson, Robin Trower, I could namedrop all day of famous guitarists that used the exact same gear, exact same gauge of strings, and yet they were instantly recognizable within a few notes... they played the same instrument: same electric guitar PLUS same amp.. They could even stand next to each other and hand over their gear in between them and they would still sound different without turning any knobs.

S-Gear will do much for me, still, since 2011, and is used mostly for recreational noodling around when one can't crank it up loud. Studio stuff. I have downloaded demos from others, but have stayed. I was NOT one of them who said "this is it, only amp sim I'll ever need". It seems that most have been bettering one small aspect of sound and prioritized this or that, while they have left other aspects of sound behind, or neglected it. With comes - again - down to the Seth Lover quote above: "You hear something and are annoyed by something I don't hear, and I hear something annoying you don't hear...so what shall we do?" Can't do anything about that.

By the way, I want to read your take on Sknote TwinR, and Deluxe1. One amp sim only. It has slowly dawned on certain manufacturers (Blue Cat Audio is one of the other, Sknote too) that IR's and speaker plug-ins may not be that ultimate solution to everything in the end. So Sknote has dodged the possibility to bypass it, and to run your own IR's. It's a closed electric circuit, speaker, amp and guitar.

[Mats Eriksson]

Amp sims will continue to improve at a rate allowed by a) technology, and perhaps more importantly, b) what consumers are willing to spend.

c) if there's any customers left. Remember one thing, electric guitar are mostly a Dad, granddad thing these days. Very few of the youngsters are wanting to learn electric guitar. Like dad. It's daft, square, and "yuck" by quite a lot. Rock, blues, music and even metal are starting to become music that really old guys plays. And likes. Sort of the fashion, lifestyle thing. It's past. It's not by any measure rebellic, or uproard anymore. Not even controversial. Look at Rammstein these days. Once controversial and stirred things quite up. Today, they have mainstream hits, and plays stadia, with families attending. I still like them... ha ha. As metal as it gets.

Consumers are not willing to spend anything these days, anymore. The other site I linked too, has made a judgement on that even the top free amp sims out there surpasses in professionality and sound (and then some), the most expensive and earlier "posh" amp sims. It's free these days. You can't claim development or warranty of a free product, but... so it is. So if they're not willing to pay anything, and the demographic of electric guitar playing people diminishes, there will be less development. Definitely in amp sims. IRL Fender Twin doesn't need to really, but those sales are going to come down too...

[Dewdman42]

It’s not that there is any perfect guitar sound per say but an awful lot of us are not looking to create something new, we want to sound like our guitar heros, play their licks and have their sound. Thats where the desire for tone authenticity comes from.

Beyond that there are certain aspects of tube amps which are lovely to play, which is more of a feel thing, but feel impacts performance. One thing I love about playing electric guitar over midi keyboards even though I am a much better player of the latter, is the connection of my fingers to the actual electrical circuit making the sound and the direct input I can make to the tone, which depends so much on touch, much more so then keyboard, including acoustic piano. So a real tube amp just seems to provide more of that aspect. As I said earlier my vox tonelab is still my favorite modeler even though it really can’t quite exactly nail the tone of a Marshall for example. Of all the modelers I have tried it’s the most organic with touch based response, like a real amp. It models the vox sound very well and goes beyond what a vox can do but doesn’t quite exactly nail the tone of say a Marshall or fender. Close but not close enough compared to other offerings if tone match is what you need most. But more to Craig’s point about there not being a particularly perfect end of story tone, that is not a ridiculous thing to say but it’s also clear to me that real guitar strings driving magnets into electrical signals that go all the way through various circuits and tubes at the speed of light all the way to the speaker, is simply a responsive system the inspires and has a certain organicness to it. This is the aspect that many modelers are still coming up short on imho, including very expensive ones capable of extremely close tone matching and exotic fx capability. Those are all valuable tools too don’t get me wrong.

For me, the vox tonelab comes the closest at bringing that all analog experience into the box, so far, even if it is simply not capable of tone matching every amp out there are precisely as some other modelers. It’s also 15 year old tech that vox has not continued developing unfortunately. I wish their tech could be combined with say the power and flexibility of what is in helix. I’d pay big bucks for helix+valvetronix.

Anyway, these are great reviews and great view points all around... truth is we have a lot of amazing toys to play with and modelers do bring into the hands of every kid (or dad and grandad) something amazing to play through and make cool music for a fraction the price of a single tube rig, which usually are one trick ponies too. The convenience factor of modelers cannot be overstated

[Anderton]

Amp sims will continue to improve at a rate allowed by a) technology, and perhaps more importantly, b) what consumers are willing to spend.

c) if there's any customers left. Remember one thing, electric guitar are mostly a Dad, granddad thing these days. Very few of the youngsters are wanting to learn electric guitar.

You keep stating your opinions as "facts," but they are not supported by facts based on numbers from real-world industry research and sales figures, instead of your I-have-no-idea-where-they-come-from opinions.

You may be confused because there are several, non-guitar-oriented genres that have come into being since the early 70s, like EDM and hip-hop. However they have simply created a "bigger pie." Sales of guitars, and the market share thereof, continues to grow year-over-year (part of this is fueled by the ascendancy of indie rock, which has nothing to do with your grandfather).

This is borne out by any industry study where people pay for the privilege of seeing exhaustively researched data, as opposed to being sucked in by click-bait headlines in free internet publications about "the death of the electric guitar." For example:

"A report from research firm IBISWorld, which tracks guitar manufacturing in the U.S., shows consecutive growth in the last five years and a projected upswing through at least 2022. Even if today’s music fans are more likely to worship pop stars and rappers than their parents’ guitar heroes, there’s little to indicate that the guitar’s reign is over – and there might actually be more to show the opposite."

Pay for some music industry reports if you want to educate yourself. All surveys done by reputable, industry research groups support the same conclusions as the IBISWorld data.

This is supposed to be a non-fiction thread...I'm doing the best I can to maintain that.

(BTW I didn't stop playing guitar when I started using Ableton Live and Traktor. Conversely, one of the best bass players I know started as a DJ, became frustrated he couldn't find good bass loops, and in 1999 decided to learn how to play bass. Not only is he now a fine bass player, but his experience as a DJ taught him what being part of a "rhythm section" is all about.)