Amplitube 2 Jimi Hendrix RELEASED this month!!!

[seamoss]

oh man Limp Bizkit...

that's every reason to NOT use an amp sim

no offense to anyone but that could be one of the WORSE bands in the last ten years IMO

if remembered at all, those guys will definitely not be remembered by their guitar tones in years to come.

[stag]

I can get feedback playing with phones, i just dial the I\0 to optimal values, i get it with VG-88, AT or guitar suite, here i´m defying the laws of physics, O and that´s a pretty musical effect.

You'll have to describe what you're doing better in order for me to get it. Are your guitar's strings vibrating in sympathy to the physical output of a speaker somewhere?

If not, then you've just proven that you don't know what you're talking about. Whatever effect you've achieved, I'm sure it's very musical and wonderful, but it's not sympathetic feedback. And since I know that AT and GS do not have simulated sympathetic feedback, I'm now quite curious about what the heck you're on about. Saying "Optimal I/O values" is a vague sort of semi-explanation that sounds like you're saying something; however, most of us recognize that you are not.

AT, POD, Guitar Rig, do it a lot better than i, it could be worst than a seasoned engineer with all kinds of gear to record and process a real amp, but AT and the likes, do it definitly a lot better than i and the engineers i know, being it a VST you can reamp things or process it latter on with AT3, which will come with a full 4x12 closed back.

I agree with this part. I've said time and time again that I'd rather use an amp sim because I simply don't have the gear, (amps and microphones) or the space (a reasonable room even... my space is a reverby echoey little sound-reflecting horror show). Some people DO have the space, but a lot of people when talking about "real amp sound" are just talking bullocks that they've never tried. You can spot'em a mile away.

Greg

Read my post again son, i said what i said, and that´s a fact, there is no physical feedback, impossible!!! but there is a musical feedback, my bitch squeels the hell out of my FireFace, then again it´s a VG-88, so when you talk amp sims, i´am little ahead with a fake amp\guitar.

Bye.

[Watto]

oh man Limp Bizkit...

that's every reason to NOT use an amp sim

no offense to anyone but that could be one of the WORSE bands in the last ten years IMO

if remembered at all, those guys will definitely not be remembered by their guitar tones in years to come.

Spoken like a TRUE old fart...

[mondo tormento]

Ahh, that's a 'mini bluesbreaker' amp in the picture above. If Gary cranked it that little iMac would fly across the room

[seamoss]

oh man Limp Bizkit...

that's every reason to NOT use an amp sim

no offense to anyone but that could be one of the WORSE bands in the last ten years IMO

if remembered at all, those guys will definitely not be remembered by their guitar tones in years to come.

Spoken like a TRUE old fart...

hey, I am only 31 !!!!


doesn't take an old fart to know that LB sucks.

[Sascha Franck]

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

If you implement it, come up with some "utility groups" that you can route patches to.
One "clean/rhythm" group, one for "crunch/rhythm", etc etc, you get the picture.
Each of those groups should have some global parameters, such as gain, brightness, depth and whatever.

However, this is only worth the effort for something aiming at live oriented stuff. In a studio situation it won't matter as you can allways tweak parameters.

[Vervil]

I guess some people will not like what I am saying

Well, before I get into it, at least consider that it might ALSO be the WAY you're saying it that some people won't like. An important distinction, though I often find that the two go hand in hand for some unimaginable reason.

Possible. Saying things like "A lot of people are dumb asses, so that is the reason movie X or band Y is popular is not welcomed, and I have a feeling that at K-V-R there is a specific situation, considering that people here are software oriented, and in lot of cases actually often don't have enough experience. Actually I was verz gentle in my post just thought that someone have to say that. Like there is some kind of collective hypnosis at work sometimes, like when Guitar Rig came out, and more than 50% of people thought it is great. It is not. It is far from good, and comparing it to real amp is laughable, but if someone says that, there will be 10 other people commenting that this guy is taking LSD, and that software simulations can easily replace miced amp. And this is simply a lie, a marketing. They can't really, thez can come close and emulate. They can be good in some situations, in home studios, for demo, or if you are recording commercial etc, thay can be usable, but there IS very obvious difference. You were recording, so you should know that, and I think You do know that, so I do not really understand what you were trying to say in this post. What is your point, that sims can replace amps?

Now, since I don't have any more "facts" than you do, the following is also subjective, but at least I'm not trying to pass myself off for something I'm not:

Professional is the one that makes a living thru his profession. Most of the money comes for me from being hired to work as a studio musician here. Stuff I record and mix in my very small studio is something different. As far as recording on other people records, actually I USE LINE 6 GEAR MOST OF THE TIMES. That is the very reason I think what I am talking about. Why am I using amp simulator? Because I can get away with it most of the times. So I am not against sims, actually they make my life easier, but when I need serious distorted guitars, we have to use mic and amp. Difference is there, and it does not have to be some kind of fancy expensive amp, usual Marshall will do most of the times.

- First point, since it's the quickest to get out of the way, is that not all 'professional' guitarists, musicians, or engineers are rich. Just because you make your living doing something doesn't mean that you're making enough money to throw at an entire line-up of boutique amps. So you've gotta rethink your definition of "professional".

I think I gave you answer about this. I was not talking about boutique amps being better than simulation. I was talking about real amp being better than simulation of amp. Some of the usually modelled amps are not expensive

- A REAL guitarist (well, in my opinion and that of many other people, but not a universal "truth") cares only about the song and what's right for it.

Than I am not REAL guitarist, because I do care about my sound too, actually, producer or recording engineer care about recorded sound too, in most of cases.

They couldn't give a crap if it comes from a real amp or a sim. Let's say for the sake of argument, they're using AT2 just as a way of quickly 'testing out' all kinds of different amps so that they can then go rent the "real thing" for the recording that will make it to the record. They settle on a JCM800, go and get one, and track the guitar part. Later on, they're doing an A/B compared to the AT2 "scratch" track and find that they really DO prefer the sound of the AT2. They will then use it. 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.

yes, it makes no sense, but that is your story, not mine, and made up one. Story as far as I know it goes like this:
"Well, we need simple chorused guitar here". Me and engineer know that simulation will do the job good enough, and that is it. In some cases, we record a guitar. And we are not satisfied. After some time, we try to mic an amp. We compare the results, and keep better result. In reality it depends on many things, for instance, sometimes we might keep POD track instead of real amp because we need boogie alike character, and if we don't have real Boogie but Marshall there, POD track stays. But this does not means that simulation of Boogie is real enough, don't you think. Also if that is important track, for instance layered riff in song, we will get real boogie, and record amp instead of amp sim.

You would be absolutely floored at the number of times a 'simmed' guitar has been used on a real, commercially released, multi-platinum-selling track. Ever since the release of the SansAmp (the first 'simulated' amp to really make people tilt their ears), it has been VERY popular to at least try it out.

I am not sure if this is really valid comparation, as sans amp does work better than Amplitube or Guitar Rig in my opinion, and second, popularity might mean nothing. Rockman stuff was very popular, even it was always sounding inferior to miced amp. It was in vogue, people get used to that sound, even if it is like it is, bad.

I have read a great many interviews, having been a Guitar Player subscriber since 1992. And while that doesn't give me a statistical "fact" that I can pull up, I can tell you with certainty that many of the artists have used the SansAmp. More recently, it has become quite popular for artists to list the POD XT as one of their main studio components, too.

In my opinion line 6 is still having edge over competition, and software simulations are not close to it. Again, as I have already said, I am using amp simulator too.

And guess what... they're all professionals....

This is simply not right logic. It is like claming that Roland Reverb is as Good as Lexicon because some famous Studio has both of them. That only means that Amp simulation is usable for somethings, not that it can replace miced amps.

Possibly because the simulated version is already often taking care of things-- meaning that they don't NEED to have ever miced a Vox AC30 with a ribbon mic in order to know by using their EARS that they're getting a specific sound that they like, by using their amp sim.

Maybe in some cases. In a some cases, that is because their ears are not accurate enough or because they have no taste, or enough experience with amps and studio work, etc. We can't prove our points, but fact that companies like Zoom with their guitar processors (or whatever that strange plastic things do to guitar tone) do exist at least partially proves my point.

So there is one truth no one likes: Not all people are informed enough, and not all people have a good taste and musicality, no pun intended.

I don't see a pun that COULD have been intended. I agree that it's a truth, but I wouldn't say it's a truth that no one likes. I meet people all the time that say, "Meh, I have no sense of musicality," or "You really listen to it on those levels? I'm just listening to the beat". I think people admit it all the time.

Yes, but we are talking about musicians and not consumers of music. And we are tolking about quality of amp simulation and does it compares to miced amp.

Yes, a lot of presets have a bizarre amount of delay and reverb on them. Luckily, as 'real' guitarists, we all get to design our presets from the ground-up, OR if we're truly happy with the presets, meh... I guess that's good enough, no?

Presets are something completely different. I am talking about something else. I got few of my guitar students to come to studio where I was recording some heavy guitar tracks one day. They extremely disliked sound of amp in room. Than they heard it thru studio monitors, and thought it is better, but still kind of ugly. Then they heard it in the mix, and thought guitar kick ass.
A lot of simulations, sim amps and guitar processors are made to sound flattering on their own, emulating sounds that we hear on finished, mastered record. Not much usable, and sometimes, tweakinghell out of amp, sim or guit processor does not helps.

Subjectively speaking, I would disagree, anyhow. I would say that most amp sims are still a little bit of a "giveaway" when you hear them individually (and you listen hard), but end up sounding just fine once they're in the mix. Perhaps your production and mixing technique just needs some work.

It is like saying that simulation of what your eye sees, picture on the monitor in some limited resolution is the same thing. My mixing skills do need improvement, but it is not my primary job, really. I don't get your point.

"Luddite"... a great word! I still disagree, though. I think it's the 'slightly overdriven' (ie. almost clean) sounds that are still lacking in any sim I've tried. The totally clean sounds are good, and the distorted sounds are decent enough.

Clean sounds are usable in sims, slightly distorted sounds are far from real but can work sometimes. Distorted sounds are even more far from good. Yes there are some bands that are playing heavy music and recording thru Line 6 gear, but their sound is not that good. In software sims domain, heavy sounds are even worse. Actually, only soft simulated sound that I kind of liked is one from mp3-s of Midiworks neverending work on amp simulator, but they were more in vain of 80's L.A. school guitars, not modern Boogie-VHT-5150 sound.

You can't just plug into such an amp sim and expect to sound like a recording. Now, I know that's not what YOU'RE saying because you've already agreed that making 'presets' to compensate for the lack of realism is a poor idea. But I'm sure there are people out there who DO just audition a Rectifier sound and say, "This just ain't right!" without understanding the production techniques needed, too

.You are right, but it is completely another problem, and does not means that if you tweak any amp sim enough you will get sound of mic in front of great amp, right?

Just so that I'm clear here... I have debated the points you've made that were spoken as fact but which are just opinion. I'm not saying you're absolutely wrong here--> BUT, there ARE good tones coming from sims, they ARE used by professionals, there ARE situations in which the sound of the sim (the sound-- I'm not only talking about convenience here!) beats out the 'real deal', and the technology IS believable, especially combined with good production technique.

All you say here is true except one thing: Amp simulations are SIMULATING real amps. It is kind of funny to say that amp simulation of one amp can beat that same real amp. If you want to say that sometimes because I can't get to recording real Boogie, I can getaway with simulation, and it will work better than miced fender amp, because it is far from track needs, than yes, you are right.

It's a mistake to think that having a 'real' amp and a microphone will make your tracks sound more 'alive' (another common misconception) or somehow 'better', because owning those 2 things isn't nearly enough. And a neophyte home studio recording guitarist who gets crappy results from a crappy room and mic (even if the amp itself is awesome!) will be sorely disappointed.

True. (but again, what does that have to do with amp-sims comparation?)

To properly mic any amp at all (keeping in mind that some 'crappy' amps are exactly right for the job!) you need: the right space, the right mic, and the right technique. I'd wager that many of us are lacking at least one of those things, in addition to the multitude of amps that we're lacking.

Yes, but then this means that amp simulators are better solution for people who don't have money or room, or equipment, not that amp sims are better or equal to amps they emulate. And reason for my post was my feeling like there is growing idea of sims coming up there, close to the real thing, based on ignorance, marketing hype and other things.

[Lunch Money]

I'll split this into two posts.

---

Hink: Gary Moore has king tone.

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

Sorry, I didn't see that clause I guess, or I misunderstood what you meant. Probably my mistake from reading too quickly. As for "thinking outside the bun", it was just an ultra-lame pop culture reference... some stupid fast food or other (Taco Bell?) was making a poor variation of the "think outside the box" cliche.

oh man Limp Bizkit...

that's every reason to NOT use an amp sim

no offense to anyone but that could be one of the WORSE bands in the last ten years IMO

if remembered at all, those guys will definitely not be remembered by their guitar tones in years to come.

No offence taken here, that's for sure. They really ARE the worst band in the last ten years. However, since Wes Borland's tone comes notoriously from actual Mesa Boogie Triple Rectifier amps, it's a moot point. I'm not going to say that Rectifiers are horrible amps just because that numpty uses them. I also disagree about the tone-- like it or hate it, that's the tone associated with "Nu Metal", and Limp Bizkit, whether they actually 'created' the tone or not are the ones who popularized it and made it legendary. I hate them, but I recognize that their tone WILL be remembered. I'll bet my Def Leppard t-shirt on it.

[Beardedone]

Remember: Tone is also in part due to players hands. Gary Moore being an excellent case of great hands and great musicality that would sound good on most anything.

[A3ntar]

Yes, I agree. But on really cheap equipment, even Gary Moore won't have the bluesy Gary Moore sound. You would probably still know it was him playing, but the tone won't be there. It is a combination of all factors, I guess.

[Lunch Money]

Yes, but then this means that amp simulators are better solution for people who don't have money or room, or equipment, not that amp sims are better or equal to amps they emulate. And reason for my post was my feeling like there is growing idea of sims coming up there, close to the real thing, based on ignorance, marketing hype and other things.

Hrm... you seem to have missed the point I was making, and I just spent the last 45 minutes typing a new response, when as it turns out, we agree all along.

You totally misinterpreted what I was trying to say, but that's the joy of internet. <laff>

I'd never say that a sim is better than a good amp, with a good speaker, in a good room, with the right technique. To be honest, I don't know how you would have thought that's what I was saying, unless you had pre-judged me as being that type of person, which I'm not.

I mean... surely you KNEW that the people in this thread are curious about AT2 because they don't necessarily have all 4 of those things, right? Otherwise, your post would have just been preaching to the converted. Most of us would love to have access to the real thing in a real studio instead.

Greg

[championrabbit]

Lots of opinions about something nobody has tried...

Opinions or speculation?

Both?

[championrabbit]

You would probably still know it was him playing, but the tone won't be there.

Well, that's a loaded way of describing the situation.

Assuming that Moore (for example...*shudders*) didn't stumble on his sound, but rather had a sound in his head which he wished to create, then his set-up is merely a combination of gadgets that create his desired sound.

Somebody else might find their desired sound by playing an amp-sim or by plugging direct into the desk (Bob Mould) or by using horrific transistor distortion (Albini) or by stabbing his speaker cones (various artists) or by using old strings (the guy from Orange Juice) or whatever.

There's nothing inherently good about one noise-maker or another; our ears are more used to miked-up valve-amps because they've been used on more recordings than, say, a miked-up domestic stereo with a guitar plugged into the CD input, but whether one is better than the other is entirely subjective.

Musicians (guitarists in particular) seem to want to endlessly repeat the past, which is why (IMO, and on two levels) these arguments run and run and run.

In the end though, what is unarguable true is this:

If you want the sound of a Marshall JCM800 miked-up with an SM58/9 then the best set-up is a Marshall JCM800 with a SM58/59.

All else will be second best.

If, on the other hand you want a particular sound that AT/AT2 makes then the best set-up is AT/AT2.

All else will be second best.

Those points are unarguable, and yet we (as lame guitarists) still argue...

[Plexi Head]

Wes from LB has great tone and is a very creative guitar player. I can think of many bands a whole lot worse than Limp Biscuit in the last ten years to be honest. It is currently trendy to slag Limp Biscuit because of their wanker frontman but I have seen them live and they are no doubt a very talented bunch of musicians.

Kinda reminds me of the joke about guitar players.

"How many guitar players does it take to change a light bulb?

100

1 to change the light bulb and 99 to stand around with arms folded saying " I could have changed that light bulb better than him."

[Watto]

blahblahblah

Holy shit - we've uncovered a longer poster than Lunch! Can I have an audio cassette version??!!