Real amps vs modelling and plugin amps

[YnJ]

Is it just me, after until a few months ago using only plugin amps and modelling amps for a couple of years, I think any amp, including cheap amps like my Marshall MG100HCFX I got years ago and only used once as I didn't think it sounded very good when I got it, sounds much better. Just to be clear, by better I primarily mean the way the amp reponse to how I play, also kind of how it sounds though

[tapper mike]

Your playing is affected by the response and vice versa.

While I disagree a lot with Frank Zappa... One time Steve Vai asked Zappa what he thought of Vai's tone.
Zappa's reply was
"Your tone sounds like an electric ham sandwich"

SRV sounds like SRV whether he's playing a 12 string acoustic or a fender stratocaster.

[glokraw]

Is it just me, after until a few months ago using only plugin amps and modelling amps for a couple of years, I think any amp, including cheap amps like my Marshall MG100HCFX I got years ago and only used once as I didn't think it sounded very good when I got it, sounds much better. Just to be clear, by better I primarily mean the way the amp reponse to how I play, also kind of how it sounds though

Compare hearing between
1. The guitar and 'real' amp played in a room
2. The guitar and modeling amp played in that room
3. Plugin output heard in headphones
4. Plugin output heard on studio monitor speakers
5. Modeling amp heard in headphones
6. Modeling amp output to external speakers/PA etc
A lot depends on ones budget, and expertise with rooms, headphones, and monitors.
Many variables exist. I suspect some people will have a bias one way or another that effects their playing. I use my modelers and plugins with the same headphones, and have never (purposefully) heard the amps via their speakers, or routed the plugin output to speakers. I suspect this uniformity simplifies my experience, and sounds created in the plugins and modeler amps will be in the same ballpark. There is likely a large difference between the responses of playing to tiny headphone speakers as compared to a full speaker cabinet. It's on the software designers of the plugins and modelers to compensate for such variables accurately.
Cheers

[YnJ]

I actually prefer plugins through the monitors to modelling amps, I would suspect that the modelling amps would actually sound better routed through the monitors as well. That's not the point of having a modeling amp, at least not for me though

[eltrone_pl]

When playing for fun I prefer to use a copy of Sans Amp than any plugin because of the responsiveness. A few years ago, while trying to find a software replacement, I found RS-MET Tool Chain. It is not a guitar processor, of course, but thanks to the good quality of the waveshaper and the EQ and limiter modules, you can create structures similar to real amplifiers with a bit of dynamic phenomena, e.g. by placing a limiter between the "amplifier" stages.

[SiliconDeath]

Is it just me, after until a few months ago using only plugin amps and modelling amps for a couple of years, I think any amp, including cheap amps like my Marshall MG100HCFX I got years ago and only used once as I didn't think it sounded very good when I got it, sounds much better. Just to be clear, by better I primarily mean the way the amp reponse to how I play, also kind of how it sounds though

I could be wrong, but it could be that setting up good IRs and EQing is what you're missing (when using plugins). Also another thing to note is most IRs are static, so there's no "speaker" response, but I think Celestion has dynamic IRs that might have different feel to them, more realistic? Generally speaking when researching in-the-box guitar tone, I've notice that big part of it is IR, EQ and having appropriate input-gain level on DAC input. At least these are the things I'm struggling with.

[CapnLockheed]

Dynmaic IRS were developed by Two-Notes not Celestion. They have licensed this tech to Celestion who have released some under thier own brand. BUT.....AFAIK.....DynIRS can only be loaded in Tw0-Notes plugins like Genome, Wall Of Sound and Torpedo.

DynIR Technology - Impulse Response for guitar players:

https://https://www.two-notes.com/en/dyn-ir/

[tapper mike]

When you are a performing musician you don't get to change the venue to suit your amp. Also your desire to place the amp in an optimal position for you to hear it may not help your audience. I used to have a Roland JC 120 a Traynor YBA and a Butler Tube Driver amp. Some Venus worked out better for some amps but after a while The YBA was the only one I'd take to a gig. (This was back in the 90's) I could have used that money for better things and my peers looked at me like I was nuts for having all three.

About 10 years ago I started going to the various summer concerts in the park. 60's/70's/80's rock cover bands an occassional blues act or a country act. Those guys were in it for the long haul and making more change that I did gigging. Guitarists always were running some variant of Helix. It sounded great.

If I were a truly loving and devoted one tone man. I'd get a Telecaster Professional II and a REVV amp. But I'm a slut who likes to mix it up with poser tones. Guitars never get jealous when they have to sit in the corner and my Line 6 Pod Go likes to play dress up pretending to play many roles.

[YnJ]

I can't remember the last time I had to place my amp in an optimal position for me to hear it properly, I got my guitar sound from a monitor at the front of the stage. Also, the venue is the territory of the sound guy

Also IRs are actually the only thing I find worthwhile when using plugins, apart from effects and things like EQs, at least they sound different from eachother. And if you use quality IRs they even sound almost like the cab they are captured from, unlike most of the amp plugins. And I almost always use dynamic IRs as well

[zerocrossing]

Is it just me, after until a few months ago using only plugin amps and modelling amps for a couple of years, I think any amp, including cheap amps like my Marshall MG100HCFX I got years ago and only used once as I didn't think it sounded very good when I got it, sounds much better. Just to be clear, by better I primarily mean the way the amp reponse to how I play, also kind of how it sounds though

I could be wrong, but it could be that setting up good IRs and EQing is what you're missing (when using plugins). Also another thing to note is most IRs are static, so there's no "speaker" response, but I think Celestion has dynamic IRs that might have different feel to them, more realistic? Generally speaking when researching in-the-box guitar tone, I've notice that big part of it is IR, EQ and having appropriate input-gain level on DAC input. At least these are the things I'm struggling with.

Over the years, I've found that the weak spot of almost all guitar amp modelers is in the cabinet modeling. Not that it's necessarily bad, but sometimes lacks the nuance of a good cabinet IR. That's the first place I'd look to if I want to improve the tone of an amp modeler.

[zerocrossing]

This topic has been done to death, but there are just so many on-line demos of real amps vs. amp modelers that it's safe to say that the verdict is that amp modelers can sound excellent and often nearly indistinguishable from the real deal. So, why are you unhappy with the results? Not to be mean, but you're most likely doing it wrong. I sure have done things wrong in the past, so don't feel bad. Amp modelers are not amps, so they require a different approach. Here are a few things I've discovered or learned along the way.

Plugging directly into an audio interface will often yield poor results. Even though my Apollo interface has "instrument" inputs, that are theoretically supposed to be optimal for a guitar, I get a better result if I go through a pedal first, even if they're in bypass mode. Currently I use a Blackstar HT-5 Dual Valve Distortion and a B.K. Butler Real Tube Overdrive. I get a noticable increase in tone quality. Not sure exactly why, but I suspect it has something to do with presenting the interface with impedance that is better.

As I said in a previous post, a lot of plugins have a cabinet modeling section that sounds a bit dead. For example, if I want an "amp in the room" vibe, I nearly always remove Amplitube's modeled cabinet and replace it with a stereo Ownhammer cabinet. Add a bit of Amplitube's room convolution and Bob's my uncle. (actually, my dad is named Bob and he's an only child. ) This can often be a night and day difference. I was playing with Amplitube's Brian May presets and I was sort of shocked at how bad they sounded. I tried messing with their EQ settings, but it wasn't getting me there. Swapped it out with an AC30 or similar IR, and all of the sudden I was smiling. Note: often a stereo IR sounds great for jamming, but too much in a mix, so I will often make two different presets for different situations.

Lastly, give up your preconceptions of how to get a good amp tone. I think it's easy for a lot of people who used traditional amps for years to move to a different type of technology, especially one that visually looks like it's going to mimic what you're used to. Even the amount of levels you use can make gigantic differences. I've personally found that getting a hot signal into my interface and cranking the input volume in the modeler down yields the best results in Amplitube, but is that true of all amp modelers? You just sort of have to experiment and use your ears. If I was looking at Amplitube's input level meter, it looks like I'm not giving it enough, but it sounds right. If I adjust it to look like I expect it should look, it's too much gain and the tone starts to suck. So, in my case healthy gain into my interface, pad it down at the plugin's input, then if I want the sound of a boosted amp, use a boost pedal. It's not really intuitive, but that's what I've learned over the years.

[tapper mike]

With my Enya nylon string it always sounds better going thru my board and then to my studio monitors back at me than coming directy out to my ears. But to those have listened in the room they really can't tell the difference. I think that it's simply a matter of the sound projecting away from me from a speaker. That being said. I'm all too happy to use the built in speakers and focusing less on the responsiveness of the sound and more on the act of performance.



It's become my Couch / Porch (well balcony) guitar.

I like many of you love chasing tone and dream of the next thing that's going to wow me. And still I take the time to enjoy the things I have which is more important. I'd rather play covers I know and love that I've been playing for years than endlessly crawling through the rabbit hole of sound design looking for the tone that will bring me happiness. It's not there and never will be.

[Loco666]

There ain't no difference

[SiliconDeath]

Plugging directly into an audio interface will often yield poor results. Even though my Apollo interface has "instrument" inputs, that are theoretically supposed to be optimal for a guitar, I get a better result if I go through a pedal first, even if their in bypass mode. Currently I use a Blackstar HT-5 Dual Valve Distortion and a B.K. Butler Real Tube Overdrive. I get a noticable increase in tone quality. Not sure exactly why, but I suspect it has something to do with presenting the interface with impedance that is better.

Interesting. This comment inspired me to try my tubescreamer before going to interface. If the amp modellers overdrive pedals are anything to go by, I guess it's doing "tone shaping", almost sort of a tilt-shift EQ, or something to that makes the frequency range "more focussed" (some kind of low shelf or high pass, and some treble boost.. gives nice clarity to extended range guitar low string notes). I got worse results with my boss DS-1 than I did with ibanez ts9dx (both keeley modded), I'm guessing the tubescreamer doesn't go into distortion quite as quickly as the DS-1, and I also much preferred TS's EQing/toneshaping, basically better headroom and level control. I wanna take it step further now, so I put an order on IKM Z-Tone Buffer Boost pedal, hoping it could do even better toneshaping and some other features, since it seems to be a more budget minded option to Cloudlifter CL-ZI (but also has some extra whistles and bells).

[Naillerz78]

Is it just me, after until a few months ago using only plugin amps and modelling amps for a couple of years, I think any amp, including cheap amps like my Marshall MG100HCFX I got years ago and only used once as I didn't think it sounded very good when I got it, sounds much better. Just to be clear, by better I primarily mean the way the amp reponse to how I play, also kind of how it sounds though

This thread is probably dead and discussion of the differences has indeed been done to death.
But yes I agree with you re using an actual amp.

For me I’d explain it as psychological/physical thing re the difference in experience.

I have a big bunch of standalone amp sims on my laptop and currently an old H&K edition blue 30R combo a 10” speaker. (a very chimey twangy amp with horrible built in overdrive)

Re the first part psychological / physical.
Let me explain in too much detail

The amp sim experience
I play the guitar through laptop +interface+ amp sims +headphones on the couch. There’s a bit of setup. I need to check the levels on interface. I need to pick a sim or try a few of my go-to patches in my usual favorite sims.
I have a big palette w tons of options and presets within each sim.

Physically im kinda cramped and hunched over as I need to be within arms reach of the laptop to click n tweak. I play a bit , then stop and click n tweak a bit. I may try a few different guitars. There is a bit of anxiety and unhappiness at the start. Try a few different sims. It takes a while to get into the flow.

After 15 mins or so I get happier and settled . I play and may record a few pieces w good tones once I get going .

It’s all quite a choppy, tweaky, start n stop experience and a lot of trialling of sounds and options . (There are so many!) it is fun for a bit but eventually physically I get cramped in that position over the laptop with my right hand flying all over the place , and eventually a bit tired and tbh a bit annoyed and have some tension in my body afterward.

There is a lack of dynamic range in the sound, as I’m using headphones. And quite a bit of digital sizzle in the high end of the tones that is tiring to my ears and brain after an hour or so.

So I’ve got brain fatigue, body fatigue and ear fatigue basically after 1-2 hours. I’m a bit exhausted tbh and it feels like a big “chase” experience. Phew!

The actual amp experience ;
When I compare this experience to Playing H&K combo .. I plug in. I play a bit. I tweak the EQ a bit .. i get an acceptable sound (there’s not many)

I am not hunched over a laptop anymore , I can relax back on my couch. I play on the clean channel and stop cycling through options and just enjoy the clean sound through the desired pickup. I’m reminded of certain songs and licks .. I play for longer, I chill out and get into a “flow” state. Into “ The Zone”. The music space. The 10” speaker has more dynamic range of soft and loud it reacts more and I enjoy the whole experience a lot more. Basically I get carried away more I get into a dreamy flow state .. I get imagery in my head (as I’m not staring at a GUI on a screen) and can focus more on the music and not the “tonez”.
I can fall into that state for 1-3 hours and on the other side I’m relaxed and happy.

It’s always just the “tonez” and “tone chasing “ w sims. The next hit of dopamine. It’s like eating a big bag of different coloured jelly beans or something.


I think that explains he difference for me. That’s all been talked about to death yes but Just wanted to get it on the record while it was in my head today so I can reread next time I get frustrated with the amp sim on laptop experience.

Ppl will say use monitors not headphones.
But that also has a different experience and still tethered to a laptop and the tweaking and clicking.
Never mind the rabbit hole of buying different types of monitors to try make it sound “better”.