making your solid state amp sound like tubes

[jads57]

Thanks for the posts Jack Z!

[Mark Kleinhaut]

I had a black faced deluxe up until around 2005 which was really great. It was the only tube amp I ever really liked. Sold it when I got the clarus/re setup and never loads led back. Lucky thing now that my back is challenging

[jzucker]

I had a black faced deluxe up until around 2005 which was really great. It was the only tube amp I ever really liked. Sold it when I got the clarus/re setup and never loads led back. Lucky thing now that my back is challenging

there are light tube amps out now but more importantly (to me) the modelers have gotten close enough and they are now available in pedal sizes with built in reverb, delays, etc.

The one drawback about the clarus that I had was that the effect loop was parallel so you couldn't totally bypass the clarus preamp by plugging a modeler into the effect return.

[krusty]

Very nice, Jack.

One of these days I'm going to have to try an AxeFx. I have an old Oberheim GM1000 which is remarkably similar in control layout, menu options and function. It can give me some superb sounds, but I find I spend a lot of time tweaking. I also don't have it paired with a proper amp and speaker setup at the moment.

[jzucker]

Very nice, Jack.

One of these days I'm going to have to try an AxeFx. I have an old Oberheim GM1000 which is remarkably similar in control layout, menu options and function. It can give me some superb sounds, but I find I spend a lot of time tweaking. I also don't have it paired with a proper amp and speaker setup at the moment.

That's my big complaint about all the modelers. They do require tweaking for the clean tones. I think the vast majority of axefx users are not using clean tones and many do not even understand what true clean is. For example, SRV's Lenny is often used as an example of pristine clean. While I love that rendition, it's obviously slightly overdriven.

However, the actual modeling on the axefx, kemper and amplifire is quite good and finally at the point where you can get 90% (or higher) of the way there without actually using vacuum tubes IMO...

So, for me it's worth putting in the time but I definitely don't want to be an axefx nerd. I'd rather be playing.

BTW, There are rumors that fractal is coming out with an axefx ii plugin.

[jzucker]

I didn't realize Axefx had dedicated amp models as well in their units. I always thought that these were effects based units w/ amp models as a backup in case you didn't have access to your amp. Like a fly date and or direct only rig.

I'm not sure I am understanding your statement? The axefx amp models are similar to spice circuits in that they are emulating the actual circuits inside of the amp. This differs from the kemper modeler which uses recordings (samples) of the amps. They are not "effects". They are actual digital re-creations of the original circuits. When Cliff adds a new amp or new effect, he starts with the schematic.

Some feel that the kemper is more accurate because of this but when I had both, i found that the axefx sounds were better to my ears. Part of this is because with kemper you are limited to the "captures/profiles" that someone else has done which may or may not have been at the settings you would personally use and subject to speaker wear, etc. Of course, you can do your own sampling but you'd need to find a good source amp to use. I don't have any tube amps so this was not an option. Additionally, since jazz is such a niche thing, there were ZERO jazz amps that were captured. Some of the fender twins I bought profiles of for kemper were turned up too loud or had the mid range and bass too high, etc.

With the axefx, everything that's in the amp is available to you and you can use whatever speakers you want. There are great captures of a ton of different speakers. You are not limited to someone else's capture.

That's not to say that the kemper is not great. I love the kemper too. For me, the axefx was a better choice because other than the one dumble amp, i liked the axefx better for cleans and the effects were much better. I found that I wanted to use an external reverb, overdrive and delay pedal with the kemper whereas the axefx effects were as good as most of the boutique standalone pedals. Supposedly, in the last year (since I sold my kemper) they have released better reverbs and delays so maybe the situation has improved. IMO, they really need to release a dual processor version so that they have a separate processor just dedicated to effects.

[jads57]

I use to see ads in various guitar magazines for the Axefx featuring a bunch of famous endorsers. I guess I never read the literature and thought it was was mainly pedal and studio effects to use along with your main amp. Mainly because most of the Rock guitarists are associated with their particular amplifier so much (Steve Vai, etc.)

[christianm77]

Thanks for the posts Jack. I think it's really getting close between modelling and genuine amps now... I think any perceived difference would be largely

That said, I did very much enjoy this - that's not a sound we hear too much these days:

<br>

Not that it's much use to us jazzers but if the amp modelling can get this sound convincingly, then I truly am sold.

[JeanSut]

This is an interesting read! Some good tips for sound improvement!
Just for the record: Metheny uses the Kemper since at least a year. I saw him last week in Bremen(Germany).

. Metheny has long been a tube fan and has used a digitech 2101 tube preamp for years and recently switched to an axefx.

[jzucker]

This is an interesting read! Some good tips for sound improvement!
Just for the record: Metheny uses the Kemper since at least a year. I saw him last week in Bremen(Germany).

Thanks for the update. I know he recently (several months back) bought an axefx but based on your observation he either preferred the kemper or just hasn't learned the axefx well enough yet.

Good to have current info!

[jzucker]

i saw that on facebook but haven't listened yet. I'll give it a listen later today.

Thanks for the posts Jack. I think it's really getting close between modelling and genuine amps now... I think any perceived difference would be largely

That said, I did very much enjoy this - that's not a sound we hear too much these days:

<br>

Not that it's much use to us jazzers but if the amp modelling can get this sound convincingly, then I truly am sold.

[jzucker]

I use to see ads in various guitar magazines for the Axefx featuring a bunch of famous endorsers. I guess I never read the literature and thought it was was mainly pedal and studio effects to use along with your main amp. Mainly because most of the Rock guitarists are associated with their particular amplifier so much (Steve Vai, etc.)

They do make a device that does that called the FX8.

The axefx II and AX8 are amp modeling devices.

[JeanSut]

I wasn't too crazy about his sound. His new jazz guitar is a slaman archtop with a charlie christian pickup.
The guitar by itself sounds very nice, but Pat blends the sound with an internal microphone, and to me it
sounded too metallic.
The playing of course was fantastic!

best, chris

Thanks for the update. I know he recently (several months back) bought an axefx but based on your observation he either preferred the kemper or just hasn't learned the axefx well enough yet.

Good to have current info!

[jzucker]

I wasn't too crazy about his sound. His new jazz guitar is a slaman archtop with a charlie christian pickup.
The guitar by itself sounds very nice, but Pat blends the sound with an internal microphone, and to me it
sounded too metallic.
The playing of course was fantastic!

best, chris

he sometimes has funny taste in tone. For example, he preferred the tone of his pm2aa to the PM120/PM100 apparently and to me, that guitar sounds thinner and more metallic than the others...

[citizenk74]

Thanks for the posts Jack. I think it's really getting close between modelling and genuine amps now... I think any perceived difference would be largely

That said, I did very much enjoy this - that's not a sound we hear too much these days:

<br>

Not that it's much use to us jazzers but if the amp modelling can get this sound convincingly, then I truly am sold.

Not to get too pedantic, I hope, but I see that none of these kids know how to properly get those EL-34s glowing. Kids these days! (For the un-initiated, bridging chs 1 & 2 takes you from that godawful screech to, if you'll pardon the expression, Cream-y). Also, I always used a Scholz Power Soak to scale the roar to a mike-able purr. Stacks are too beamy to be practical as anything but a stage prop. They sure look good, though.

[John A.]

To me, it's indistinguishable from a real tube amp in terms of vibe and feel. And the whole "in the room" thing is overblown IMO. It sounds and feels just like having the real amp in the room to me with the exception that - and assuming you're using FRFR speakers - there is much less "directional pick in the eardrums" effect.

I agree that most folks are highly exaggerating the effects on all the demos. Also, almost every "clean" demo I've heard has some overdrive. Many rock players have no clue what clean sound is...

Here's what mine sounds like direct. The direct tone is brighter than the sound in the room through the FRFR speakers although I haven't fully been able to diagnose why. Maybe it would sound darker if I played back through my FRFR speakers or used my studio monitors to tweak-EQ the amps...

If you told me it was tubes, I'd believe you. But I'd also believe you if you told me it's solid state or modeling. I don't generally perceive a lot of differences between tubes and non-tubes with very clean tones. But I agree that modeling is getting better and better, even at the low end (or maybe especially). And for me, the low end stuff has the advantage of NOT being tweakable (amp-model tweaking is a rabbit hole I'm glad not to fall down).

John

[jads57]

Has anyone had experience with the Amplifire Firebox?

AmpliFirebox - Atomic Amps | AmpliFire Pedal | CLR Reference FRFR Monitors

[jzucker]

Has anyone had experience with the Amplifire Firebox?

AmpliFirebox - Atomic Amps | AmpliFire Pedal | CLR Reference FRFR Monitors

I'm thinking about ordering one. I had their original pedal which was the red one. It has way more power than a kemper but I wasn't crazy about any of the clean tones and unlike the kemper, you can't just upload any amp profiles to it that you want. The amp profiles on the amplifire are in firmware. However, I know they have done a ton of updates and I've heard some decent clips on youtube of it. The problem is that I have heard very few clean jazz clips. Most of the clean tones I've heard have been stevie rayesque.

But with their money back guarantee and the form factor of this, I'm very tempted. Plus, it runs on 200ma current which would allow me to power it from my pedalboard power supply.

[jzucker]

If you told me it was tubes, I'd believe you. But I'd also believe you if you told me it's solid state or modeling. I don't generally perceive a lot of differences between tubes and non-tubes with very clean tones. But I agree that modeling is getting better and better, even at the low end (or maybe especially). And for me, the low end stuff has the advantage of NOT being tweakable (amp-model tweaking is a rabbit hole I'm glad not to fall down).

John

I actually hear a big difference between the tones I get out of this system and the tones I get out of something like a mambo, acousticimg, evans, quilter, etc. The high end sheen is much more present so if you like - for example - early benson tone, you can get it. You can also get solid state tones by just using one of the preamp models. But once you get the guitar in the mix with a band, I agree - the differences are not all that big.

I mentioned the same thing recently on my blog regarding 175s. I recently got another gibson '88 175 which when I play it by itself sounds great but in a mix with a band, there's little difference between it and any of my other archtops.

[2bornot2bop]

I can't hear a difference. Probably because I'm seeing red, and pissed I woke up too late to rebut GW before that Gibson thread was closed!

[jorgemg1984]

Jack, I personally don't enjoy the AF cleans... let me know if you can make them work.

[jzucker]

Jack, I personally don't enjoy the AF cleans... let me know if you can make them work.

That's disappointing to know. I didn't like them in the original unit but I had heard they were improved. I think the problem on all these modelers is that the jazz audiences for them account to a fraction of 1% of the audience so they just don't care and probably don't know what a good clean sound is anyway.

How early a unit did you try?

[John A.]

I actually hear a big difference between the tones I get out of this system and the tones I get out of something like a mambo, acousticimg, evans, quilter, etc. The high end sheen is much more present so if you like - for example - early benson tone, you can get it. You can also get solid state tones by just using one of the preamp models. But once you get the guitar in the mix with a band, I agree - the differences are not all that big.

I mentioned the same thing recently on my blog regarding 175s. I recently got another gibson '88 175 which when I play it by itself sounds great but in a mix with a band, there's little difference between it and any of my other archtops.

Right, but there are multiple variables in play in those comparisons - tone stack, speaker type, form factor,.etc. It's not easy to determine how much weight to give each.

John

Sent from my SM-J700T using Tapatalk

[pingu]

For a clean sound ....

Technically it shouldn't matter much if the power amp is
Tube or solid state or class D or whatever else ...
ie the power amp should NOT have its own sound

ie What goes in is what comes out only louder ...

The speaker/enclosure will have a sound of its own

That is for a clean sound only
-----------
When you get into distortion , breakup or even 'hair'
on the sound , Tube and Transistors behave quite differently

[jorgemg1984]

That's disappointing to know. I didn't like them in the original unit but I had heard they were improved. I think the problem on all these modelers is that the jazz audiences for them account to a fraction of 1% of the audience so they just don't care and probably don't know what a good clean sound is anyway.

How early a unit did you try?

I still have an AF - but I use it just for fx and IRs and DI. I enjoy my Mambo Fender pedal a lot more than the AF modelling... Funny enough, Jay Mitchell designs stuff for the AF, he claims to know a good jazz sound.