UA's Ruby '63 (Vox AC30 in a Pedal) demo/review

[CoolGuitarGear]

After having UA’s Woodrow ’55 (Fender Tweed amp emulation) for only a few hours, I knew I had to review the Ruby ‘63 (Vox AC30) and Dream ’65 (Fender Reverb Twin), the latter of which I will be done soon. These are a true joy to use because they sound so authentic, which makes it fun to review.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erBV8k3zbYU

Now, the Ruby ’63 includes three amps, which is a lot of quality tones, and without considering the six speaker emulations included. The amp types are an AC30 Normal, which was a standard with Rory Gallagher, and then later Brian May. There also is the higher-gain Brilliant AC30, as well as a Vibrato amp selection (which is more of a Tremolo and not vibrato, as with the Dream ‘65). Both the Normal and Vibrato amps’ EQ are controlled by a single Cut knob, which allows you to ‘cut’ the degree of bass in the signal (Brian May has this set all the way left for maximum treble, since the tone of the Normal AC30 is dark with plenty of thick mid-range). The Brilliant amp’s EQ includes the Cut knob, but also the Bass and Treble functions –Treble knob becomes Tremolo Rate and the Boost knob becomes Tremolo Intensity when using the Vibrato amp. This may seem confusing, but the video included demonstrates how various knobs are shared and have different functions among amp types.

The six speaker emulations range considerably, from a brighter, thinner sound to a robust and heavier sound. I think there is something for nearly every taste out there, but you can bypass the built-in speakers and go direct to a preferred IR. What I like about the speaker variety is that some do not sound that good with a few of my guitars, yet they sound very usable or quite good with other guitars, much of which has to do with single-coil vs. humbucker, bright pickups vs. dark pickups, or style of playing/tone you are trying to achieve. UA knew this going in, that we all have different tastes, even if liking the same amp… and they sound great!

The video demo goes through several settings and functions, but I will address some of the other aspects. The EQ sections, including the Cut knob, all are sufficient, in that they range the bass, mids and treble very effectively without exaggeration – no heavy bottom end or boom, and no shrill top end (the Brilliant amp is brighter, but not harsh or brittle). There is a Room knob (which doubles as the Bass EQ knob) that provides studio or room ambience, and it is a nice feature for clean to slightly dirty sounds, particularly for that old Rock ‘n Roll or Rockabilly type comping; and it adds a slightly different dimension when coupled with a reverb or a slap-back echo. The Boost is very effective (which doubles as the Vibrato amp’s Tremolo Intensity) and it produces a very natural sounding gain as the amp responds accordingly. This sounds more like how an amp behaves, with that great break-up tone when cranked and digging in, as opposed to a saturated OD effect.

There are so many advantages to UA’s Ruby ’63, and this holds true of their other amp emulations. It is small and compact, which means bringing it to a gig and going direct to a mixer or powered amp. It can be integrated into an amp via the 4-cable method so that you can turn your Marshall, Fender, etc., into an AC30 at the click of a switch. You have access to three different AC30 models, along with various speakers/cabs, which would cost thousands of dollars to replicate with the real thing (particularly if you were to hunt down the vintage models, which these emulations were created upon). In that regard, the price of the Ruby ’63 may be considered a pricey boutique ‘pedal,’ but it is more than just a pedal – it is your amp and primary tone source that fits on a pedalboard. It is well constructed with a good heft and there this is obvious quality when you hold it or work the controls. And it certainly is eye-catching (sound should be the only thing that matters, but musicians still want attractive or cool-looking gear).

There are a few drawbacks, and price may restrict some buyers, particularly if they already have an amp (or amps) and may be content in that regard… others may bite at it due to curiosity or hopes of replacing a heavy, bulky amp combo. Still, other concerns from musicians tend to be “lack of MIDI,” or “lack of FX Loop,” etc. However, these were created to emulate classic amps and what functions they had available in their original format. Woodrow ’55 was an exception, as a ‘Mic Level’ knob was added, to give some heat/gain from that perspective. Regardless, some may be put off that only one preset can be saved, which you can toggle back-and-forth from the ’on’ settings you have dialed in, and this is how a two-channel amp would work anyway. The Preset could be clean (for example), whereas you set up the pedal for a crunch or something dirty. And if you wanted higher gain for lead or a heavier crunch, you step on an external boost/OD/fuzz/distortion. As well, you cannot add in the Tremolo to the Brilliant channel, nor can you add Boost to the Vibrato (since the Boost knob becomes Tremolo Intensity) – it is meant to be played clean. The only other drawback, which really is not as such, is that you require 400mA to power it. Most power supplies can handle this, but it depends what other power-hungry pedals are on your board. Regular combo amps have to be plugged in, and so, a wall-wart is a solution.

Overall, if you consider the Ruby ’63 to be a classic amp, and that you get three of them (plus the speakers) under one chassis, then it is easier to appreciate what the product is and what it is supposed to offer. You lose out on a few modern additions (tech that came about long after these amps), but are giving up those features for mind-blowing sound and likely the best AC30 emulation to date.

[Funkybot's Evil Twin]

Personally, I sold Ruby and The Dream. And I'm not one to sell a ton of gear. Neither just did it for me. I think UA's marketing department was better than their modeling department here. I've got lots of TONEX captures of AC-30's that just sound way better than anything I ever got out of Ruby. Same for the Dream with the Deluxe. Though, The Dream had a way better spring (although mono, even when running stereo amps within it) than TONEX does.

In my opinion, the UAFX just sound a bit harsh. I saw the whole video with the real amps and the pedals with Rick Beato and Rhett Shull in the studio, and I'm convinced [this is just a thoery] they were using the desk to EQ the amps to sound like the pedal. The Woodrow didn't sound close at all to me in that comparison, and they quickly moved on. Ruby and The Dream could get close in some examples so I bought them, but man do they need a lot of work to sound good and even then, as mentioned, I can get better in TONEX captures. Note: Woodrow didn't interest me because I have a 5E3 kit build here to cover Tweed Deluxe tones. Also note: Woodrow only models the jumpered channels, which is crazy. They could've done that via a toggle or knob. If you know anything about a Tweed Deluxe, a huge part of it, is being plugged into one channel only and using the second channel volume to tweak the tone and gain further. The same applies when jumpered. So you lose a lot of flexibility of a real Tweed Deluxe with Woodrow.

And they cost $399 per amp! That's insane. Save yourself money folks. Buy the TONEX pedal (or software) and get some third-party captures. You can get free AC-30 captures from Tone Junkie and Tone Factor (these sound better but are fairly low gain), not to mention Amalgam Audio. That's in addition to the Tweed Deluxe, AC-30, and Deluxe Reverbs it includes. Oh, and I've captured my own Tweed Deluxe at various settings.

My counter review.

[CoolGuitarGear]

They serve me well... and I own a bunch of modeling gear, including Fractal. Mine do not sound harsh, but it could be my guitar and pickups. Best wishes!

[pekbro]

I have the Dream and like it a lot, not overly interested in any more probably. Mostly its just a convenience thing over my hideously expensive tube amp. heh

Not intetested in anything from IK these days,
Tonex holds zero appeal for me currently.

[Funkybot's Evil Twin]

They serve me well... and I own a bunch of modeling gear, including Fractal. Mind do not sound harsh, but it could be my guitar and pickups. Best wishes!

We all like different things and hear differently, but my beefs (outside of the price) with the UAFX were (if I'm getting really specific):

1. There's like no bass on them. I think UA must have hipassed them to make them more "recording ready" or something, but that drives me nuts. Even a close mic'd 1x10 combo can sound big with some nice bottom end around 80-100hz. I did some TONEX captures of Princeton Reverb last night with an M160 and SM57 and it's got more bass than Dream or Ruby could produce and it's 1x10 (the bass knob was at 4.5). A 1x12, like the Dream, or 2x12 like the Ruby, will have way more bass than the pedals offer.

2. The high end feels a bit strident/harsh to me. Like, maybe they boosted 2.5k or something. Honestly, not sure, but these are not smooth, smooth highs to me. Can get harsh. For #1 and #2, it's like they're trying to anticipate what users will need in the mix and pre-EQ'd and hipassed them or something.

3. There are some weird choices. I already talked about the Woodrow's channel problem, but there's also the weird Bright Cap implementation on the Dream where you use the Boost knob to fade out the bright cap (versus it just being off entirely) but as you increase the removal of the bright cap, you also start boosting. Bizarre.

4. I heard someone else (Psionic Audio's YouTube vid I believe) describe them as "getting small, when they should get big" in response to picking dynamics. That's a good example of something I heard with them too. They definitely respond to pick dynamics, but not in a way I associate with good tube amps where the envelope changes and sustains more, and you get a chunkier frequency response (which may relate in part to #1).

I just don't hear these problems with good TONEX captures. You give up on the ability to turn sculpt the tones, as someone's already done a lot of that work for you, but it otherwise sounds and behaves like real amps to me whereas the UAFX don't. And I've captured my own TONEX amps and stomps and done the A/B's myself. It's like 99.5% the same, and the .5% may just be confirmation bias or gain staging.

[Funkybot's Evil Twin]

Not intetested in anything from IK these days,
Tonex holds zero appeal for me currently.

To me, they have about 4 great product lines: TONEX, MODO Bass, their Tape Collections (particularly the first one), and the Studio Rooms they do (Fame and Sunset). Everything else I could never use again and be fine with. And their constant marketing gimmicks are frequently off-putting. But TONEX is just an incredible sounding product. It's not perfect (the workflow is awkward with how they implement the different screens, how there's no stomp section before the amp so you need two instances), but sound-wise, it's incredible. It's basically the Kemper/Quad Cortex amp modeling tech for $100 in software form and sounds better as a raw amp modeler than either. You can do NAM for free and get the same, but fewer profiles, and even worse workflow.

I'm 100% ride or die on TONEX. I'll shut about it in this thread from now on, but it's truly a game-changing product tone-wise for me. And it's an insane value. Plus, as someone with a lot of gear, I love making my own captures of it and having these in the box that I can share.

[The Noodlist]

A Horse AC Tone into https://dibiquadroaudio.com/pwrcabs/



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rx9mqYpS-So

[Bombadil]

Tbf, IK has some good stuff out now. The Hammond, MODOthis/that, Sampletron 2, the Tapes, even something like Miro2 within Sampletank has its uses.
I got a lot of it for peanuts in 2021. But Tonex is a gamechanger for me, as well.

[traakon]

Had the Iridium, the Stomp and the ASC1, but the Ruby sounds much more natural. Wet effects tend to slam the input of the Ruby a bit too hard, though, so I have my wets after.

The Tonex looks intriguing, but I really want a smaller footprint for the amp in pedal spot on the board. The Ruby is the maximum size I will do.

[Bombadil]

Last night I was collecting Fenders. Next will be a few VOXes. It's nice just to move the pointer down on my keyboard to a completely different amp/setting. There is a lot of good stuff in TONEX. I looked at the UA pedals. No competition with TONEX, imo.

[lfm]

I read so much about TONEX that it would replace anything if going by Gear4music descriptions.

But does it really learn from softest touch to full attack on strings?
- or it is just a IR from the gear you throw the built in signals from

I think last minutes or so in this video 30:10 into and one minute
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwE3sw5KQhk

they mention how modellers usually has a wall and when you exceed that tone is the same all the way. Clean and crunch is easy, middle tone is difficult. And these are really experienced guitar players.

It would take numerous IR's to represent each level of attack on strings, and if that is automated and learned, seems really cool if so if morphed between those IR's or something. At least 5 or so.

Like good sample libraries of grand piano, that capture each timbre of a note played soft or fortissimo.

There is a really cpu hungry Nebula that do that kind or, as I understood it. Real cpu hog driving all those IR's needed, since each IR is one linear snapshot each level you put through gear.

Until this happends, my tube amps stay. You can squeeze string softly or anything up to full attack.

But would not be surprised if UA know this fully and spare no effort to reproduce that. A bit curious on Ruby and Dream to test.

[The Noodlist]

I read so much about TONEX that it would replace anything if going by Gear4music descriptions.

I think it's overhyped. I think hardware trumps code. Also, a 10"-12" physical speaker would be beneficial for "in the room" realism and player feedback. ToneX into a combo's power amp return might do it. I prefer the Roland Cube 20XL over any simulation, and a tube amp even more.

[lfm]

When it comes to cover bands I can understand the convenience of modeled stuff.

It was this thread with Jon Andersson here with the band he is touring doing all the things he did in his career. They used Helix to a large extent in that video with gear.

The live shows I have on DVD with Yes where Steve Howe is playing, he has real gear all the way.

I looked at gear tour of a lot of artists, brian may, John Mayer, Petrucci, Edge and what not. Loads of racks of pedals and stuff and sofisticated switchboards to get a setup for a specific song. But these are all original guitar artists and don't settle for half good.

[The Noodlist]

When it comes to cover bands I can understand the convenience of modeled stuff.

It was this thread with Jon Andersson here with the band he is touring doing all the things he did in his career. They used Helix to a large extent in that video with gear.

The live shows I have on DVD with Yes where Steve Howe is playing, he has real gear all the way.

I looked at gear tour of a lot of artists, brian may, John Mayer, Petrucci, Edge and what not. Loads of racks of pedals and stuff and sofisticated switchboards to get a setup for a specific song. But these are all original guitar artists and don't settle for half good.

The Band Geeks?
https://richiecastellano.com/bandgeek/