Amplitube 2 Jimi Hendrix RELEASED this month!!!

[Beardedone]

The guitarist and engineer will NEVER say, "Well, it sounds better, but it's not real. Let's use the real one just so that we can say we used the real thing." It makes no sense.

Great post Lunch Money.

I would disagree with the above, though. I may not be logical, but logic don't enter into it most of the time. I would bet that 99% of the time (read macho ~) guys in the studio would not choose a software emulation over a balls to wall amp/cab set up. I don't have the resources to test this but I would bet on it (if I had some cash, that is). Hardware still rules in the big boys' studio.

[Lunch Money]

[Beardedone]

I edited in the an important modifier

[Lunch Money]

I was wondering when you'd notice that.

We'll have to agree to disagree, then. In the interviews I've read, and in articles on production (in which a professional producer will say, "Well, for Song X, we ended up using the POD"), I've concluded that most of them understand that the song and sound is important, not the gear.

That's how they got to where they are, after all.

Of course there will ALWAYS be pros on the other side-- but often that's because, for example, they've worked with this specific set of amps and mics for so long that they know exactly to get the sound they want. For people like that, an 'unknown ingredient' might be a step backward in their way of working, and it's just coincidental that the 'unknown ingredient' could in some cases be an amp emulator. If it's literally quicker for them to pull out an amp they know, mic it in a way that's tried-and-true, and get down to the business of making the song, they'll still pull out the amp.

If they're not sure what they're looking for, though, or don't have a specific sound in their head, or don't have the gear on hand, then my previous statements all come into play.

Greg

[Lunch Money]

Or, to put it another way:

If I have a Fender twin and a telecaster, and I know the knobs' settings for my best tried-and-true "country sound", I'll just pull out the twin and the telecaster. I wouldn't bother trying to program a patch in AT2 to do it. Why would I?

So, I see a certain side of your point, but I don't think it invalidates mine, because it's still a case of serving the sound, not the gear. I pulled out the Twin because I know I can get what I need out of it. I didn't pull it out just to say, "Yeah, we used a Twin, GO TUBES!"

Greg

[Beardedone]

No it doesn't invalidate it at all. It makes perfect sense to use what sounds best in whatever context.

Btw for "Song X" Pat used hardware - Ok it was the early nineties

[Sascha Franck]

FWIW, when it comes to amp simulations, I don't even feel the need for a software solution as long as the hardware ones are sounding better (i.e. a POD XT) and be WAY more convenient (no latency issues on whatever system, no need for an optimized D.I. box plus preamp chain).

I never ever felt the need to re-amp any of my takes. I had a setup like that for a while (with the guitar being split so I could record both the amp and dry signal) but never made any use of it. So I really don't care whether the signal is "hardprinted" to my disk in the first place or not.
Of course, if you are into re-amping or into something like running other tracks through a guitar amp, a software solution excels. But as I hardly ever feel the need to do so, I'm just as happy with my hardware.

I'd still like to know about the "ultra low latency" of the Stomp I/O thing though.

[Hink]

Or, to put it another way:

If I have a Fender twin and a telecaster, and I know the knobs' settings for my best tried-and-true "country sound", I'll just pull out the twin and the telecaster. I wouldn't bother trying to program a patch in AT2 to do it. Why would I?

So, I see a certain side of your point, but I don't think it invalidates mine, because it's still a case of serving the sound, not the gear. I pulled out the Twin because I know I can get what I need out of it. I didn't pull it out just to say, "Yeah, we used a Twin, GO TUBES!"

Greg

let's see neck pick-ups on a tele (you stated you live for the neck pick-up), through a twin with a 2x12 and it's for a country sound?...big surprise... I bet the tone is thinner the Kate Moss...

[seamoss]

so which famous guitar players are endorsing any of these amp sims?


seems to me, and I could be totally wrong, that only a handful of "pros" are using them in the studio.


can anyone point out any good albums out there that were recorded with 100% amp sims? Pods included.


I am actually really curious about this.

[Sascha Franck]

It's been said that Limp Bizkit have been using quite a few Pod XTs on their latest album. I wouldn't happen to know.

[Lunch Money]

A whole album? Probably won't find many. When I've encountered these articles, it's more like, "We used the POD on this -song-", not often/ever "We did the whole album with a POD". [edit: cross-post, but yeah, Limp Bizkit is one of them... I wasn't going to mention it because they're so lame, but their guitar sound IS considered pretty 'tuff' I guess. Not my thing, but to each their own!]

You will also hear many musicians referring to Amp Farm, which is a TDM thing.

Just because it doesn't strike you as normal or natural doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

---

Hink: A neck pickup through a Twin is CLASSIC. Although, I WAS a bit confused-- the neck pickup is the "thicker-sounding" of the two provided you're not comparing a lipstick pickup in the neck to a high-output humbucker in the bridge. Yet, you're making it sound like the neck position is the thinner sound.... The bridge is the thin-sounding one. All that extra treble is what the metel-heads crave.

Even then, a tele, with BRIDGE position, through a Twin! Now we're talking the sound of country. I don't know why it strikes you as an odd combination!

Add to that the fact that it's mainly just an example. I could've said, "A Les Paul through a Marshall" for that balls-to-the-walls RAWK sound, but it seemed too obvious.

Greg

[Hink]

Gary Moore....

[Midiworks]

Just one example: Clean sound too low for a given live session? On a real amp I'd just turn up the clean channel and it'd affect all patches using that channel. Impossible with ANY simulation. You'd have to alter AND resave EACH and EVERY clean patch. Not practicable at all. The same goes for an overall reverb level, for an overall EQ adjustment etc.
The same also goes for a global noise gate threshold - we all know what it sometimes could be like playing at a venue where the light rigs haven't been properly lifted away from the main power circuits...

Not impossible with ANY simulation at all !

Its just a different idea, different aproace,
that, I must admid, never crossed my mind.

Thats why my project seams like a never ending story...
But it will end, before Christmas 2005 !

Thanks for the idea Sascha !

[A3ntar]

Gary Moore rox
He has a killer bluesy tone and some very nice skills.

A3ntar: Think outside the bun, man!

Which bun? Lunch Money, I know about "sympathetic vibration" ( I just didn't know the term used for such an effect ). That is why I specified the "unless you play live with the ampsinm on an external speaker" clause

"I've got the blues for you...."

[A3ntar]

Btw thanks for all the people participtaing in this thread. There is some awesome thoughts and views on the matter at hand and guitar matters in general.