View Poll Results: How do you feel about modelers?
- Voters
- 252. You may not vote on this poll
-
I own a modeler, and it is my main rig
78 30.95% -
I own a modeler, which is not my main rig
56 22.22% -
I have tried a modeler and liked it
21 8.33% -
I have tried a modeler and did not like it
42 16.67% -
I have not tried a modeler, but I am interested
25 9.92% -
I have not tried a modeler, and am not interested
30 11.90%
-
I love my fractal FM3 but it has no modern SS bass amp models. Since I'm mostly playing bass these days, I have begged them to add a markbass or aguilar SS modeled head but they don't really care. I think the biggest problem with modelers is that the biggest growth segment of their market are the low-tuned chugga-chugga guys who don't care about reverb or bass or archtop guitar sounds. With something like 300 guitar amps modeled, it's puzzling why they can't add a few modern SS bass amps.
I ended up using a Roland JC120 amp model for bass and it works ok but I have to use a graphic eq for tone shaping which is not very convenient. Also, it's hard to adjust on a gig.
Recently the USB port died on mine and I have to send it back to them for repair and I realized I needed a backup so I bought a line 6 HX Stomp which I have not received. Line 6 is much more friendly towards bassists so I may enjoy it better than the fractal. However, I have read that the biggest reliability those have are with the USB port.
For recording however, you can't beat a modeler IMO...
This clip uses the modeler for guitar and bass sounds...
-
08-24-2022 11:47 AM
-
It will certainly be good enough for 99% of your audience. My first eye-opening experience with a modeler was on an outdoor gig playing through the PA. Turns out my recording engineer was there, a golden-eared and very picky guy, and he was amazed at the sounds I was getting. Before he looked at the stage, he thought I had 4 different guitars, when in fact I had one.
Originally Posted by joebloggs13
Having said that, I ditched guitar amps over 25 years ago when the Bose L1 series came out, so I've been depending on digital technology for that long. I am used to my sound(s), and it seems that most of my audience and bandmates are fine with it, and it seems that it's much easier to control the overall sound stage than going through a "point source", although certainly a small amp miced into the system is a great sound.
-
Yes it's good enough and has been for several years. We're no longer at the point where processing power is holding us back. Does it sound as good as the best, hand-wired boutique tube amp ? It depends. Prior to getting my FM3, I had owned an axefx I, II, AX8. I compared them with a buddy's black face fender amps and the fender amps sounded WAY better. Not even close. I felt like it was the emperor's new clothes in some respects. However, a few years later and literally thousands of dollars later, I'm in my home studio, swapping tubes out fairly often because of oscillation or tube noise and realizing that the $4,000 Amplified Nation (50w) Wonderland amp - which sounds so great on a gig, sounds ABSOLUTELY HORRIBLE at bedroom volume. So, i bought a fractal FM3 and after a few weeks of learning to program it, did a series of A/B comparisons. Originally Posted by joebloggs13
Basically, what I found is that at normal practice levels, the FM3 actually sounded better than the real amp. I could get the virtual sound at any volume whereas the AN amp sounded pitiful at low volumes. At the point where picture frames were rattling off the walls, the AN sounded better than the FM3. Segue to playing in clubs...A lot has changed in 10-15 years. Volumes are way lower, many gigs don't even have a drummer and many places use a house system. In those cases, once again the FM3 sounded REALLY good. When playing with a loud drummer, the AN amp sounded better but it always had some distortion in it. Which sometimes I wanted but sometimes I didn't. The FM3 can get either sound and maintain it at any volume. So if I want the sound of a slightly gained up amp, I can get it at bedroom or gig volume but if I want the amp to be perfectly clean, it does that way better than the amplified nation amp, in fact, with my markbass head, better even than a twin.
I do miss the sound of real fender reverb. The sound of well tuned tube reverb in an old fender amp is glorious. It's not that the modelers can't do that. The physics of spring reverb are actually more complicated to model and that it required large amounts of memory and processing power to do so. And most of audience for these devices doesn't really care about that enough for them to invest the effort. Supposedly the axefx III has glorious spring reverb but the FM3 does not and the spring reverb in kemper is horrid...I've heard the spring reverb in the fender tonemaster and it's ok. Not as good as the fractal reverb.
So - is it good enough - YES. It's better than the real thing in many cases (as I mentioned above). However, playing an L5 or 175 through a really well tuned BF deluxe reverb is a beautiful thing if you're playing at a reasonable volume by yourself. So I would say, the modeling does not give you the real vibe of that '67 amplifier but at the end of the day, do you have to have that to be able to play?
In the end, my answer was no. The conveniences far outweigh the compromise.
-
Have any of you guys ever played through the Universal Audio Dream 65? It sounds pretty good to me in demo videos...
-
I have a Fractal AX8, and I basically use it (when I use it) for a single sound (Eric Johnson Clean). I have basically stopped using it because the learning curve is so high and the number of choices (which of the 400+ cabinets do you want to emulate today?) don't make it any easier. I used a Digitech RP-1 for about 25 years and that was perfect for me. I think as a pro musician a Fractal would be a great choice, as you could put your non-gigging hours to use getting your sounds setup. But with a full time job that is not music related I don't want to come home and spend hours coming up with the perfect "clean sound". As Jack noted a lot of the presets and free downloadable sounds available are all metal sounds, and frankly those don't appeal to me.
For me, I (originally) wanted something that did everything, and I didn't realize just how much everything really is until I had to try and get a handle on it!
At this point I think I'll probably switch to something simpler, like a Boss ME-80.
-
I just saw this, might be worth checking out as it seems the two boxes are similar. Originally Posted by Flat
-
i had 3 of their other pedals. I liked them but it does something weird to the tone that I really didn't dig... Originally Posted by Flat
-
I have the Dream 65 since early June. I love it, definitely worth the money. I use it with my tube and SS amps and directly into my interface. Also fabulous for recording. Highly recommended. Originally Posted by Flat
-
Here is another rather long comparison (25 minutes) between Strymon Iridium and UA Dream 65.
-
Too many saves a little and put the usb port on the pcb instead of a proper wire. Get a short extension cable and secure it so there is no stress on the jack in the device, and use that for plugging in and out. Originally Posted by jzucker
-
The reasons why these aren't popular among jazz players are obvious IMHO:
- Usually for a jazz tone you don't need all the bells and whistles, a nice amp you like maybe with a bit of reverb (mostly built in) and you're done. It's all about getting "your tone" rather than a variety of tones.
- Most "jazz" gigs we do are in small venues and we don't bother to use a PA. A small combo amp is the most practical and pragmatic solution for this. We "mix" our sound on stage, there is no sound person. There is no need to be louder than the unmiked drums. Personally I like this "unprocessed" tone of the drums, organ with leslie and guitar with a small amp sound.
I mostly walk in these venues with my guitar, cable and sheets in a gigbag on my back, a combo in one hand, music stand in the other. Setup and tuning the guitar takes like 2 minutes and I'm ready to play. Same after the gig – 2 minutes and I'm chatting with listeners, heading to the bar or home. Why bother with a lot of cables, power supplies etc. – all of them a potential source for problems?
Modellers come in handy in a different context, when you need more different sound, more fx, more ... and when there's a PA and (in-ear) monitoring and a sound person involved. If it's an in-ear gig with a silent stage a modeller is the most logic and pragmatic choice. I have a funk gig that is like that. I use guitar > wah > fly rig (analogue modeller with bread and butter efx) > FOH – and back to me via wedge or in-ear monitors. The sound is OK. The guitar is not the center of attention in this 8 piece band so it's more about getting the job done than tone nuances. Maybe I'll invest in digital modeller in the future. So far I tried these only with headphones in stores and wasn't impressed.
-
Yes, modellers with multi-fx are excellent for pop/rock gigging musicians who need to get a wide variety of sounds. If you are in a covers band they are probably essential. Originally Posted by guavajelly
For a traditional type Jazz guitar single sound, like Wes etc, a modeller really has too many functions.
For a sound experimenter, the modeller/fx is an excellent tool for creating new sounds.
-
who says they are not popular among jazz musicians?
Pat Metheny
Lionel Louke
Kurt Rosenwinkel
Corey Christiansen
many others.
Originally Posted by guavajelly
-
There are other kinds of modelers besides the full-featured ones like Kemper and Fractal. For instance, Fender makes a few different series of modeling amp in varying degrees of simplicity and size (Champion, Mustang, Tonemaster). So do other amp makers. I find the Champion 20 a perfect fit for the kinds of jazz gig you describe. No menus, small and light, plenty loud. I've done hundreds of gigs and jam sessions with mine. I know other jazz players who use one or another of these kinds of modelers. There are also many different computer-based modelers, including very good ones built into most DAWs. You say that modelers are not popular with jazz players, but a large portion of jazz recordings are done with these instead of a stand-alone amp, and this has been true for a long time. Originally Posted by guavajelly
I tend to agree that a device that can be used to capture I/R's and create amp and speaker models, has all kinds of effects and routing capabilities, computer interface, switching, presets, etc., is overkill for someone who just needs one sound in a compact package. But modeling itself is actually at least as good a technology for that use case as is traditional solid state amplification. The other thing to consider it that if you've been buying amps for a long time, and you already have a traditional amp that suits your needs, it's difficult to see the value of something different. But if you're just entering the market with a budget and a set of requirements for tone, size, weight, and simplicity/complexity, and no biases about technologies, modeling looks a lot different.
-
Also, the level of complexity on modellers can vary. Some are very complicated to use, with a lot of menus and submenus, while others are very simple and you can dial a good clean sound with reverb in a few minutes, if you know how to do it.
Trying one at a store can be misleading if you're not used to them - there's usually not a good stock preset for jazz clean tones and external IR's can make a big difference.
When you have your preset done and get used to using the technology, you can walk in a gig with a guitar and a pedal and begin to play in just a few minutes, just like with an amp.
Although a "real amp" still probably sounds better in the ideal conditions, I've found modelling a lot more tone consistent from room to room than amps.
-
Having used Multi-FX pedals from the late 80's on up - pretty much the complete evolution of the Boss series from the ME-5 up to the GT-10 model - I've then switched to the Line6 HELIX board, used that for about 3 years , also got their HELIX Stomp unit and sold both in mid 2022 to finance a slightly used Quad Cortex with which I can cover all of my pre-amp/FX needs for all of my gigs and projects, getting nothing but positive feedback from my band colleagues and the sound guys. So I'm used to programming, I have a basic understanding of the architecture of these units and I'm not too lazy to sit down and re-program some patches for a special sound/gig whatever, the QC is small and light weight, has a great user-friendly touch-pad "surface" for quick changes on-the-fly , the software will be upgraded continuously and on stage I DO NOT NOTICE OR FEEL a difference between the models in the QC and an analog amp with pedals in front. So there you have it - in a recording situation I'd add the FX later and might try an analog amp (I use both solid state and tube amps) but I do not have an explicit preference for one or the other I and keep an open ear for new stuff, digital or not.
Yes, it's true : I cannot hear the grass grow .... but that's ok, no complaints.
-
I have always been basically a guitar straight to amp player, but with my solid state amp, DV Mark jazz 12, I sometimes use a Tech21 Blonde character pedal. The Sans Amp stuff is analog instead of digital modeling. Digital doesn't appeal to me though I have used modeling amps like Roland Cubes successfully. I briefly thought I might go all modeling and got a Line6 Pod that had a Gibson EH185 model, and while it was kind of neat sounding something was missing. I concluded that was it's virtual and not "real" . I don't want my sound to be virtual, deconstructed, modified, and reassembled by a computer. Even if it sounds pretty good, and in that sense I am somewhat irrational, so I recognize there are situations where digital modeling might be for the best...but I avoid those. As for the EH185 modeling I got a Vintage47 Rik supreme octal based tube amp, changed a few tubes and I am happy. But of course sometimes 13-15 Watts isn't loud enough so I have the DV Mark which has more than adequate stage volume for the kind of gigs I play.
-
You can't really compare the Boss amps or fx-units with a Kemper, a Helix, AXE FX or a Quad Cortex - or with one of the dedicated units by UA : the converters in the higher-$ machines make a HUGE difference in the dynamics, the latency and the general feel of them.
-
The UA and Strymon are intentionally simple. Only have experience with the Strymon but there is no dynamic or latency difference. General feel? Only if you are at the edge of breaking up. Not usually a jazz tone concern. Originally Posted by gitman
The sound quality between a small pedal board with a quality reverb, modeler, EQ, and proper preamp going into a quality full range speaker is quite a bit different than the 'guitar in a can' tone of most small combos. Especially if someone is looking for a more modern acoustic tinged sound. Moving it about and setting it up isn't really an issue and there are both utility and ergonomic advantages to a pedal board.
The problem is how much it all costs. Small combos are cheap.
-
When I see the prices of the MANY different Boutique Fender amp clones I beg to differ : my Quad Cortex cost me $1600 and I plug that into my BUD amp - it’s a complete rig and didn’t cost as much as a mid-priced amp from Carr, Milkman etc. , not to mention the original vintage amps.
The Boss amps are cheap and sound accordingly….
-
Agreed but the Line 6 Helix Stomp can be found for $350 used. It and the bud are an amazing setup. Comparing any new modeling to a line 6 pod (tech from 30 years ago) is pretty laughable... Originally Posted by gitman
-
Jack, I believe you had Fractal and Kemper products in the past - how does the Helix Stomp compare to them, say for a clean Twin Reverb sound? It's signifcantly cheaper. Thanks! Originally Posted by jzucker
-
I've owned axefx I, Axefx II, AX-8, FM-3 and a kemper profiler as well as helix stomp, helix LT. Originally Posted by jorgemg1984
Overall, I like the Helix products better. They are extremely well engineered and the software and programming is *MUCH* better. Additionally, the helix mutes the outputs and phones when you turn it on. I actually blew a set of headphones on the fractal because it not do that. And even if your output volumes are all the way off, it pops loudly in the phones and other outputs. I don't understand how a product as mature as it is can still have such an obvious issue.
The overdrive effects in the fractal are better than helix but I like the reverbs and delays in the helix.
For a clean fender tone, I prefer the helix, particularly after the latest firmware release and using it with either a 12L IR or through a real cab.
The kemper was an odd beast. Because it relies on profiling / recording an actual amp it's heavily reliant on the speaker, micing, amp settings, etc. And the effects are horrid in the kemper. Reverbs are lousy, overdrives are too. And the fact that the speakers are captured during profiling is a major detraction of that device. They added on some software that attempts to allow you to swap speaker in and out but it's a hack and sounds awful IMO...
I never found a great fender clean tone with it. One twin profile I bought sounded horrible and when I wrote to the vender , he said all controls were on 7! I will say that I bought a few robben ford inspired dumble profiles on the kemper and found them to be superior to anything you can get out of fractal or line 6.
And one additional thing. If you dial in a great fender tone on the line 6, it will sound exactly the same on any of their devices. The fractal presets are not compatible between devices and even though there are software converters out there, the results don't sound the same from device to device. My $350 helix stomp sounds exactly the same as my $1200 helix Lt.
-
Great, Jack - very informative. I suspected what you say about the Kemper was true but I'm surprised to know the Helix cleans can beat the Fractal. Many thanks! Originally Posted by jzucker
-
I've really only fooled around with one fender amp. I'm not sure how the vox and marshall amps compare. When I first got the helix i struggled to get semi-distorted tones but now I love a jazz tone with a little edge. Sounds very natural to me. Originally Posted by jorgemg1984
Reply With Quote
“Shearing style”
Today, 05:26 PM in Comping, Chords & Chord Progressions