Amplitube 2 Jimi Hendrix RELEASED this month!!!

[Squids]

So, let's hear a bit of that "vintage authentic sound".

I will post some audio examples myself at some point but the "official" ones are coming first. Although I think there will be a lot of examples because people will want to hear all kinds of things. So those will come over time. My personal examples would probably be more in the classic rock category. But, then that is one area where authentic vintage sound is important. SRV or Hendrix require a good Tube Screamer and Fuzzface.

The other thing is that the effects and amps ARE great for other instruments too. Some of my favorite keyboard players of the 70's ran their keyboards through stomp boxes like MXR phasers and fuzz boxes. So, really, I look at AmpliTube 2 as a massive effects suite as well as virtual amps. My old rig when I played with Kevin Gilbert was a Wurlitzer and a Clavinet D6 running through a Univibe, Vox Wah, Phase 90 and Dynacomp and also running through an AC30 sometimes. I still think those items in hardware are great to own! A lot of fun. I am not someone who is AGAINST hardware at all! I love it. But, I love my software too! Multiple instances is one particular advantage!!!! (as opposed to buying a bunch of Dynacomps and Fuzzfaces). Reliability is another (uhhhh my Fuzzface picks up radio stations and my stomps break!) oh and no need for batteries (PITA) plus all of the customization you can do mixing and matching (as I've said) and that killer compressing sound of the speaker cabinet. It's just a lot of fun to get such a variety of sounds for total recall.

But, you know, there will still be some people who are purists and only want to use real amps. There have been people who have rejected a lot of modern technology for their good old 62 Strat and 64 AC30. Unfortunately because that has become such a classic and desirable thing you see guitars and amps selling for THOUSANDS of dollars... even tens of thousands. But, if someone can afford that then more power to them! Each person has different priorities. To me, I don't see the hard in having something like AT2 on top of whatever hardware gear one has. Even just for the fact that it is a lot of fun to play with. But, that's me.

[Hink]

squids I agree with your last paragraph to some extenet...however I can do fine with a sansamp GT2 which costs 150 bux....some people who like their tone don't need to spend thousands to create it, they know what they want and how to get it. FWIW ask anyone here who knows me how many Les Pauls I will buy in my life...I don't buy names, I buy what I like and care less about the name...in fact my headstock has one name on it...an authentic John Hinckley signature...which brings me back to my question that got skipped over...How much does the consumer pay for you to use trademarks of amps that no one can validate the accuracy of the tone in the model vs the tone of the original? Like I say it's ompletely subjective...

[Squids]

The guitarists I admire aren't the ones who can fit 12000 notes into a 3 second trill. The guitarists I admire are those who play strings with dildo's or mobile phones, the ones who can play a single note and make it sound like a synthesised atmosphere.

Mattias IA Eklundh fan, ha? Well, that guy is a monster player and fun to watch/listen at the same time for sure. And I have nothing against his tone, really.

I agree with Sascha's post. Even just by using pure marketing logic: If there is a possibility to get "Messa at 11" type of sound out of Amplitube 2, they should sell it as separate plug, just simple head and few different boxes for 100 bucks and make some serious money. No one has achived that emulation or anything HiGain right, so there is a really big market. Same goes for some other specific sounds people know and love. So it automatically makes me think that
1) Amplitube 2 cannot do all stuff good enough still, or
2)IK Multimedia staff have no idea about their Market.

Having zillion combinations is nice, and may be good for a hype, but so many guitarists have got their unique, easily distinguishable sounds from just a few same combinations of amps and guitars. For me it is more of a problem than something positive, to have too much possibilities. I know a lot of people that just want to plug, choose an amp, customize it fast with just a few tweaks and have something excelent coming out of the speakers. I mean, how worse it can get than guitar rig, I have tried it once and just to make rhythm chugga chugga sound that is half decent I had to experiment with pedals and heads and diferent cab and mic combinations for more then an hour.
I think that this is where manufacturers of hardware sims got it better, you can just choose amp and box and you instantly hear something usable in most cases.

But, if the amp modeling is accurate to get the sound of a Mesa at 11 -AND- you can do mix and match of amp components to get other sounds as well is that not the best of both worlds? I don't know why anyone assumes that there is a sacrifice in the sound to be able to do the mix and matching aspect. If the delay in hearing the audio demos is what makes you wonder, I happen to know that this is not the reason for the delay. It is being worked on and like I said it will be posted soon. I don't know when because I am not in charge of it but I have heard some of them and they sound great! So, I hope that you'll be able to hear them soon as well.

Granted when they are up I am sure there will be people who every degree of opinion about them. I think IK should post some decoy clips of real amps to see if any of those opinions about THOSE are "oh it sounds NOTHING like a real amp!" That'd be funny when it really IS a real amp. Heh. I am willing to BET someone says that. Probably someone whose mission is to put down AT2 (whatever their personal intention). But, anyway, most people really want to hear it to see if it sounds good for their own potential use and for them I think it will be appreciated.

[Squids]

squids I agree with your last paragraph to some extenet...however I can do fine with a sansamp GT2 which costs 150 bux....some people who like their tone don't need to spend thousands to create it, they know what they want and how to get it. FWIW ask anyone here who knows me how many Les Pauls I will buy in my life...I don't buy names, I buy what I like and care less about the name...in fact my headstock has one name on it...an authentic John Hinckley signature...which brings me back to my question that got skipped over...How much does the consumer pay for you to use trademarks of amps that no one can validate the accuracy of the tone in the model vs the tone of the original? Like I say it's ompletely subjective...

I don't have a specific answer to your question. The only thing I know is that the years of work on the modeling authentic character is a part of the price tag for sure. All R&D is for any product really. However, I think that someone can justify the price either by the features alone (ie. what it does regardless of the particular model's accuracy emulating classics) and/or by the value of "virtual hardware gear" it represents. It is designed for people who appreciate both or either.

[Lunch Money]

I've been dicking around with my GDI21 the past few days (A SansAmp GT2 ripoff) and it's actually pretty good at certain things. It doesn't clean up to a 'pristine' level by rolling off the volume, but it DOES respond to playing style. Pretty fun, actually. And only $35.

BUT, at the end of the day I prefer the flexibility of software. Even getting a convincing Twin sound, I found it annoying to dick around with a lead sound and then have to physically tweak knobs to get back to that Twin sound again. Also, the SansAmp/GDI21 set of controls is not particularly extensive.

For the past while I've had this nagging annoying thought:

A lot of people, myself included, are looking for that elusive "in your face, but fizzy-sound-free" distortion from an amp sim. We want it to have the 'feel' of a relatively clean tone, but with the great distortion of, say, a Plexi.

I've been paying extremely close attention to almost all the rock songs I hear on the radio, and you know what? It's unbelievable how 'fizzy' most of their tones are. It's like me and other people (I know I'm not alone!) have forgotten how a real amp is NOT always about delivering power with purity. Some of those amps sound downright shitty and broken-up, and YES those are real amps for the most part! (though, I don't know for sure that "Freshmen" by Verve uses a real amp as opposed to a sim-- now THAT is a fizzy distortion!!!) Realistic emulation doesn't mean fizz-free.

A great example of hard-hitting tone and lack of fizz is Malcolm Young's (AC/DC) tone. But you know what? As hard-hitting as it is, it is very very close to being a clean tone. It's not getting 'fizzy' because the distortion is either from a gain stage which doesn't introduce a lot of distortion, or because he intentionally keeps the gain rolled back. Lots of mids doesn't hurt. I think a lot of people overestimate how much distortion is being applied to some of the tones we know and love.

With that thought in mind, and going back to the GDI21, I'm more willing to realize that some of its emulated sounds really ARE realistic. The fizziness that sometimes appears (especially with double- and triple-stop riffs) is fairly authentic.

I think we'd all be best to remember this as we audition patches in GR2, Simulanalog, AT2, or any other amp sim that we run across. I feel that a lot of the guitarists at KvR (myself included) have forgotten that a bit of fizz has always been a hallmark of classic tube distortion.

Greg

[Vervil]

But, if the amp modeling is accurate to get the sound of a Mesa at 11 -AND- you can do mix and match of amp components to get other sounds as well is that not the best of both worlds?

I absolutely agree, but this is something you need when you have basic components done VERY well, and this was not case up to now. I was ranting in a general way, insluding Amplitube 1. Cannot say anything about Amplitube 2, as I didn't heard it, and I am personaly probably not a potential customer because I need something that I can carry around very easy, but I know a lot of guitarists, and I know they share same opinion.

I don't know why anyone assumes that there is a sacrifice in the sound to be able to do the mix and matching aspect. If the delay in hearing the audio demos is what makes you wonder, I happen to know that this is not the reason for the delay. It is being worked on and like I said it will be posted soon. I don't know when because I am not in charge of it but I have heard some of them and they sound great! So, I hope that you'll be able to hear them soon as well.

I think bad reaction is partly based on facts that companies making sims are kind of intentionaly trying to make up for the overal quality with "features", Amplitube 1 looked a bit like that with preamp EQ poweramp combinations, Guitar Rig definitely looks like that etc. When you say there is many combinations, as a one of the most important facts, instead of going with the soundquality and audio clips first, it is natural to get the idea that Amplitube 2 will be more complicated and have even more combinations, and sound will be not up to the task again. Their girl picture tactics were telling t he same thing.
No one can tell until Amplitube 2 is out, naturally, but I am just pointing out obvious flow.

[SJ_Digriz]

Hey Squids, I don't disagree with anything you are saying at all. I think the point that people like myself and Sascha are trying to make is that all the marketing is about how "authentic" the amp model sounds, when in reality they don't sound or respond even remotely like the amps they are modeling.

That doesn't mean I think AT2 will sound bad. I have AT1 and should get my AT2 as soon as it is shipping. I love to play with the toys. I look forward to messing with it. However, I don't see how it would be something I would want to gig with. I HOPE TO HELL IT PROVES ME WRONG!!! I have a vintage strat and an old twin, so I can get "that" sound. However, I don't have a good modern humbucker or a decent marshall anymore, so I would kill to get that without having to throw a few thousand $$$ around.

[Aural Chaos]

I think some of you are kind of missing the point.

Have you seen the kind of things GR2 can do?
Step sequencers,triggering multistage envelopes,frequency crossovers that can split the signal chain into multiple paths.There is just mind-boggling potential there.

AT2 may well turn out to have better amp sims,dynamic response etc.But it cant even come close to the possibilties GR2 offers for designing the types of signal chains that could only exist with software.This goes WAY beyond hybrid amps...

[Sascha Franck]

But, if the amp modeling is accurate to get the sound of a Mesa at 11 -AND- you can do mix and match of amp components to get other sounds as well is that not the best of both worlds?

Yes, it is. For me it'd defenitely be.
But then, companies (both along the Line 6 lines and pure software companies) are claiming this since quite a while allready. They fail to deliver though.
And this is coming from someone owning and regularly using a VAmp, a POD, a GT-5 (still the best for live useage) and several other units. And I love them a freaking *lot*.
Just, when I plug into a properly miced up Marshall (so it's not the physical effect of standing in front of a cab) things are *entirely* different than anything I've heard coming from any simulation there is.
And as said, I'm not a purist at all.

So, if AT2 does the "Mesa on 11" job, it'd be the first to do so.
Btw, I rarely need such sounds. I'd rather prefer a proper Plexi Marshall, some Vox and probably a cranked up Bassman.

[SJ_Digriz]

I've been paying extremely close attention to almost all the rock songs I hear on the radio, and you know what? It's unbelievable how 'fizzy' most of their tones are. It's like me and other people (I know I'm not alone!) have forgotten how a real amp is NOT always about delivering power with purity. Some of those amps sound downright shitty and broken-up, and YES those are real amps for the most part! (though, I don't know for sure that "Freshmen" by Verve uses a real amp as opposed to a sim-- now THAT is a fizzy distortion!!!) Realistic emulation doesn't mean fizz-free.

This is back to the personal taste thing. I absolutely despise the guitar tones being used in rock music now. They are awful. There isn't really tone at all, just a compressed to shit mush of sonic garbage. That can work when used occassionally, but not when it is the only sound.

A great example of hard-hitting tone and lack of fizz is Malcolm Young's (AC/DC) tone. But you know what? As hard-hitting as it is, it is very very close to being a clean tone. It's not getting 'fizzy' because the distortion is either from a gain stage which doesn't introduce a lot of distortion, or because he intentionally keeps the gain rolled back. Lots of mids doesn't hurt. I think a lot of people overestimate how much distortion is being applied to some of the tones we know and love.

AC/DC is modern? hehehehehehe.....anyhow that tone and playing is EXACTLY what DOESN'T work in amp sims IMO. AC/DC isn't exactly a big fave of mine (with a few exception songs that are great), but the guitar tone is outstanding.

[Aural Chaos]

To go even further off-topic (afterall,we still have a ways to go to reach 100 pages),I just got a Roland GK-3 divided pickup and the GR-33 guitar synth,which has MIDI out.

So when Andrew taks about playing a single note and having it sound like a synthsized atmosphere,I've got that covered with softsynths. I'll leave the dildos to someone else...

[Lunch Money]

When did I say anything about modern?

Hendrix loved the fuzz. His distortion on some songs is utterly wrecked, but it's still lovely. Most of the "fizzy" distortion I'm talking about is NOT from modern rock. If anything, Mesa Rectifiers are better at delivering "fizz free" distortion at high gain settings than classic tones, though.

Still, not sure where you got this "modern" thing from. I made no claims about timeline whatsoever.

AC/DC was just an example of good tone, not of great music or modern rock. I think a lot of people, though, would be advised to dial down their distortion if they want to hit hard. Seems to be working for Queens of the Stone Age, if you want to talk about modern acts. Now THERE'S a band that understands tone.

Greg

[kilroy]

Bet this thread hits 100 pages by the end of this weekend.

[Hink]

squids I agree with your last paragraph to some extenet...however I can do fine with a sansamp GT2 which costs 150 bux....some people who like their tone don't need to spend thousands to create it, they know what they want and how to get it. FWIW ask anyone here who knows me how many Les Pauls I will buy in my life...I don't buy names, I buy what I like and care less about the name...in fact my headstock has one name on it...an authentic John Hinckley signature...which brings me back to my question that got skipped over...How much does the consumer pay for you to use trademarks of amps that no one can validate the accuracy of the tone in the model vs the tone of the original? Like I say it's ompletely subjective...

I don't have a specific answer to your question. The only thing I know is that the years of work on the modeling authentic character is a part of the price tag for sure. All R&D is for any product really. However, I think that someone can justify the price either by the features alone (ie. what it does regardless of the particular model's accuracy emulating classics) and/or by the value of "virtual hardware gear" it represents. It is designed for people who appreciate both or either.

please don't take offense...but some guitarists who are purists as you put it may not see that as good. Many of us really know every component of our sound, whether others like it or not.

I myself gave up my Marshall Plexi because it was outdated and quite limited. Back in the 70's and 80's Marshalls were known as one sound amps. I swithed to a mesa boogie, then to a rack system after my boogie grew legs. I have always evolved with my sound. In today's world with technology where it is at I know many would rather an amp sim they can tweak to their pleasure and that provided us with possibilities to control parameters otherwise impossible in the past. That's called progress, I know what's next so dont bother...now you can have any amp you want and the possibilities are limitless...which I'm beginning to think is mostly just hype.

Face it having a label on an amp pluggin doesn't give it more possibilities, you could have the same amp without the name "The Squids Special" if you will...it would have the same features, just not the name. But if it sounded good and the artist could do what he wanted with it wouldn't it catch on without the brand name anyhow?

So you did answer my question, the truth is those who purchase the amp are in fact paying a price for the names as well as the sound. I can see modeling cabs and listing them by structure (2x12, 4x12, 1x12, 4x10 open back, closed back...). But you still are marketting amps that are "vintage" to push up the price imo...amps that by today's standards are not all that good...it seems your intention is to move ahead with technology, but I wonder if with all that looking back over your shoulder perhaps you got turned around and the step forward is really a step backwards (not as in squids but as in your company).

So I still wonder why so many people will pay more for a name the performance but not to worry it's been going on forever...the catch phrase "sounds just like a Marshall" will out live me I'm sure...though back then many criticized Marshall...oops there's that step backwards again...

[cptgone]

I suggest this with the realdoll

http://liberator.com/

small furni-cation!