-
Perhaps that was your intent on your side of the screen; from this side of the screen the only knowledge you shared was "I'm right and the other guy is wrong." The difficulty with those kinds of declarations is that often people who are wrong believe that they are absolutely right (the Dunning-Kreuger effect is an example of this). You expressed the declarative, the onus is on you to back that up rather than just to tell other people to go do the work, which is just basically "fuck you." The essence of science is showing your work even more so in forums that are anonymized by most of us hiding behind handles rather than using our real names. It was reasonable of nevershouldhavesoldit to ask; your reply was not.
Originally Posted by InsufferableRhythm
-
07-14-2025 06:44 PM
-
Correct. That would be you. Originally Posted by InsufferableRhythm
Indeed, since your statements implicate that you broke copyright law and Fender's EULA, I can understand wanting to keep that hidden. Sharing it here would compound that infraction and make Fender's complaint against you that much stronger.My conclusions extend from having completed decompilations of the software/firmware of every distinct product in the Tone Master line, other than the recently released '59 Bassman. I have also re-implemented, with bit perfect accuracy, Fender's Tone Master Princeton Reverb amplifier model. I will not, under any circumstance, provide any artifact of this work as evidence. I hope the reasons are exceedingly obvious.
-
For the record, I bet you're right about the CNNs on tonemasters. But not because you defended your POV well or anything.
-
"might be very reliable and run for decades" Originally Posted by Cunamara
Speculation vs an actual track record.
Meanwhile a real Twin will outlive the owner, and will hold it's value. My older Twin is 56 years old this year, the other one is 53. Both can be rebuilt over and over again. I have into both of them about what you'd have into two brand new Tone Masters and I have about 800 gigs and 250 rehearsals plus studio time between the two of them. They have traveled tens of thousands of miles. The difference is no modeling amp will be worth fixing after a couple decades, let alone 50+ years. That's a consequence of digital tech and economics my man.
-
Is it emo to point out that most people buying new gear are buying junk and paying too much for it? It's an observation. Like the "your used gear is worth 60% of what you paid for it new", people seem very resigned to paying more and getting less. Originally Posted by omphalopsychos
I have a hard time believing someone would say "gee I'd love a Twin" and then go buy a $2200 TRRI. I could get a Twin with JBL's for less than that. If that makes me emo, ok.
-
- I thought about buying a tube Fender Twin. Before I did that tried to find someone to work on my Fender Concert. Not available closer than a 4 hours drive. So.. no tube amps for me. Just going to embrace the dark side (i.e. amp modeling).
- It's good we can have copies of traditional amps. Still, I would like to see some innovation. New sounds. New ideas on what an amp is.Last edited by Spook410; 07-15-2025 at 04:03 AM.
-
Whatever the amp design, if the amp sounds good to my ears, that's good enough for me. Originally Posted by Spook410
But, it's a complex mix of many factors: the room, the guitar, the pickup, the strings, the player, not forgetting the music.
-
A few comments have been removed (understandably, IMO) so the thread doesn't make linear sense towards the end, but I wanted to wrap up what I've learned so far. Big thanks and respect to previous posters for doing the work and sharing their knowledge.
To clarify, tone master amps mostly use clever and well implemented DSP to get their sound, not CNNs as I previously suggested. There are some smaller neural networks involved (an LSTM is a type of RNN (recurrent neural network) which is to CNNs as IIRs are to FIRs - got it? good) but these are possibly, asomphalopsychos suggested, replacing either a wavetable or some parameter controls. Basically anywhere where you'd historically have to reverse engineer some really gnarly and complex function (e.g. the wavetable shape of a complex component for example) you can usually swap in a small neural network trained on some example data to "fit" an approximation to within some tolerance. I think it's also easier with analysis tools nowdays to search for the right set of parameters for other DSP models too, and I'm fairly sure that Fender used this in their test cycle for the amp's development.
To clarify how we know this, I checked and it does indeed appear to be possible to decompile the exact DSP code from the firmware images that Fender publish for all the amps. These allow for updates to be made via USB. For the non-software engineers, this firmware is basically a complete copy of the file system for a small linux computer (an ARM Cortex-M7 in this case) which gets copied over and contains all of the programs needed for the amp to work. "Decompilation" is the process of extracting these programs from that firmware file - it's usually long and difficult work, but not impossible.
This does indeed negate some of my earlier points about CNNs, but as I said I'm happy to be proven wrong for the sake of scientific advancement (wouldn't be the first time...). Also, I appreciate the clarifications regarding "convolutions" vs. "convolutional neural networks" - I'm aware of the differences but I didn't articulate myself very well.
So there we have it - the tone master is not in fact magical technology based on some secret dataset or proprietary method, but is plain old quality engineering with a modern twist. I think the modelling tech is probably on par with what you'd find in some plugins and pedals already (e.g. UA Dream 65) but key point is that Fender have the manufacturing and marketing chops to ship a physical product that has everything in a complete package. Even as someone who owns a point-to-point replica of a 1950s Fender V-front Pro, I actually like what Fender have done with the tone masters in the sense that it's not a crappy version of 50 different amps but a very faithful, appealing recreation of one individual amp in a form factor thats very usable.
In terms of reliability, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that I think tone masters sold today will outlast the majority of tube amps. The ICEpower amp is a class D amp - nothing special - and you could probably swap in any number of $10 amp boards from amazon/ebay if you were sufficiently determined. Similarly, the ARM cortex M7 is as generic as a part gets. There will be hardware in that form factor which can run linux for decades to come. The only other PCB in the amp is the control plate holding the knobs and jack sockets. These aren't even exposed to extreme temperature changes so I'd expect them to last as long as any other solid state amp and still be moderately repairable at the end of it. Sadly, I'm not as optimistic about the continued existence of tube manufacturers - especially for the octal tubes in my amp - so we may as well try to digitally capture as much of the spirit of these beautiful valve amps while they're still around and working. I hope I'm wrong about tubes but the trend is quite worrying.
-
my comment as at the other guy but he deleted his posts. When are you ever emo lol Originally Posted by DawgBone
-
Longevity and durability of the guts of a Tonemaster are (as xavriley suggests) likely to be excellent. The ARM Cortex M7 is a simple device that’s far less sophisticated than the A76 in a $50 Raspberry Pi. I’ve had multiple Pis running 24/7/365 for years and never had a failure.
ICE class D chips are everywhere and have a very very low failure rate. They power many of our favorite little amps, and the high powered versions drive huge commercial sound systems like QSC (also a Quilter creation).
A 1200W ICE amp chip is $300 retail including a power supply. The 100 to 300W chips are about $150. Changing the amp board is not a big job. So replacing the entire amplifier section of a TM is less expensive than a cap job or a new set of tubes and a bias check for a Twin (and no more work).
The only question in this area is how well these parts will hold up when dragged and bounced around as gigging amps. My Raspberry Pis are sedentary - they haven’t been moved since I put them in place as music players and display controllers. But chips similar to the ARM in TMs survive quite nicely in phones, tablets, and video games. So I suspect that they’ll hold up just as well in our amps.
DB, the answer to your question of why anyone would buy a TM Twin instead of a tube Twin is that few of us are willing to schlep a howitzer around when a little drone will do the same thing. We all know you disagree and think we’re a bunch of old wusses. Many of us (including me, as you know) have Twins that we could take on gigs. We just don’t.
May we all live long enough to find out if TMs etc will pass the test of time - and may we all do it as friends who respectfully disagree about stuff
-
Only on a guitar forum do you have people arguing that Vacuum tubes are the most reliable option haha
But TBF that's not quite the point, I'm just having a dig.
There's an overlap here with 'right of repair'. Truth be told most modern non-boutique amps are a pain to maintain anyway. I appreciate people's misgivings over disposable consumer tech in the music world.
-
From an ecological/good steward of the Earth point of view, rebuildable things like a P2P tube amp or say, a Chevy Nova from the 60's makes sense. (Perhaps the emissions from that Nova negate any ecological gains?) But in today's world, there are three factors that stand in the way of rebuildable things being made. First, they cost more to make, and consumers are very driven by price. Second, manufacturers like things to be disposable so that they can sell you another one up the road and lastly, the price of labor in the developed world has gotten to the point where it is cheaper to buy a new item made in the less developed world than it is to repair an older item.
If you are willing to rebuild an old amplifier/car/motorcycle etc., go for it. If you have the skills to do the rebuild yourself or the disposable income to pay someone else to do it, that is great. But for most of us, the better choice will be to go with something newer. But there will always be a few who will cling to the technology of the past and why not? There is something cool about old tube amps, old cars and old motorcycles that defy logic.
-
If a repairperson replaces one of those hardware units, how does he install the original Fender software?
How does that work, if the question makes sense?
-
Following up off-topic: Originally Posted by Christian Miller
You could argue that the subminiature “premium quality” tubes are more reliable than any solid-state device. But then, they were designed to be used in missiles under extreme conditions. Not mentioned in the linked data sheet is the hammer test, in which samples were subjected to multiple strikes with a special automatic hammer, designed and built specifically for the task.
I built a tweed Harvard with 6112 triodes and 5902 pentodes, and it sounds like it should. One of these days I’ll build an even smaller single ended amp with them.
Just a curious little sidetrack.
http://frank.yueksel.org/sheets/079/6/6111.pdf
-
I wasn’t aware that missile systems continue to use vacuum tubes. Originally Posted by stevo58
Unless of course they don’t and they’ve been superseded by some other technology.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
If we are talking about replacing the ICEpower module (which is something you can order) there is no need to update any software. Same goes for most other analogue parts. Originally Posted by rpjazzguitar
If there is a failure in the digital portion of the amp, I think it is most likely that the entire board would be replaced with a new one supplied Fender. I am not sure if those are available to order for independent repairpeople. I also think most of us would guess that those will not be available for long after the series is discontinued.
In general a repairperson can repair digital boards, replace chips and other parts, and then install software through a programming port, if it is needed.
This is done in a similar way to how consumers can sometimes upgrade firmware on their products (like the Tone Master series).
You download software to your personal computer, connect a cable and run the software on your computer.
Whether this is possible depends on whether the manufacturer support it. Often manufacturers allow only certified repairpeople to do this, sometimes no one, and sometimes hackers find ways to do this without support.
-
Never said that the current generation does. Originally Posted by Christian Miller
But vacuum tubes were used in strategic bombers long into the solid-state era because, unlike solid-state, they are immune to strong EMF bursts.
-
Probably the same way the software is updated currently, via USB from a computer. Originally Posted by rpjazzguitar
-
Great post. Non-factory authorized techs are loathe to take on certain tube amps already so good luck with digital gear. It's like new ham radios, it's either gonna be a trip to the factory or a new radio or instead own an old boat anchor tube radio and have schematics and the know how, or a good tech, to keep it working forever. Originally Posted by orri
I can't get my tech to deal with an early 60's Gibson cause it's a mess inside and he sighs if it's a peavey classic with the folded boards or a heavily gigged blues deville with the ribbon wiring. So with these TM amps you're pretty much at the mercy of Fender's willingness to produce parts and service them. It's doubtful it'll be longer than 20 years but I guess there is a chance for upgrades to the guts itself since the cab quality and chassis looks to be of very good quality. If after a couple decades they are toast and they fit an SF chassis I'm sure they will get parted out for the cab if nothing else, lol.
-
I'm still wondering about the availability of the software if you have to reload it.
Fender would seem to have an interest in keeping it secret. They aren't going to want hobbyists buying the hardware from some other source and loading the Fender software.
So, is your neighborhood amp guy going to be able to do that? Or is it a factory repair only?
-
My friend with a Tone Master amp re-flashed it himself, Fender makes this available via your computer. There are a couple of versions of the firmware available (he installed the one with the bright cap clipped, a nice improvement for jazz).
-
I think there might be a bit of an understanding gap here regarding the complexity. This is not as straightforward as you make it sound. Originally Posted by rpjazzguitar
The ICEpower module is the analogue power amp part the Tone Master series uses. This is available to purchase for anyone, either to use for repairs or build any hobby or commercial project you want. This is not made by Fender and it is found in amps from other manufacturers (this part has no Fender software).
Same goes for some other parts of the amp. You can buy the switches, jacks, speakers, build a similar cab etc.
But then there is a digital board (maybe more than one?) that runs the digital signal processing.
In simple terms this board is basically a computer. I assume this is a custom board designed (or commissioned) by Fender. It probably (maybe not?) consists mostly of chips and other components that are available for anyone to purchase.
Even if all the chips and components are available to anyone, it is way more complex to reverse engineer and recreate this board, as well as diagnosing faults and making repairs.
In Western countries, neighbourhood repair people usually don't find it profitable to spend the amount of time needed to find faults and replace faulty chips or components on boards of this complexity, but it can be done. (it can also require quite the investment in equipment).
If you replace a chip, some of the chips have memory with loaded data, and if they are replaced they need to be reprogrammed with the correct data. Sometimes that is not needed. There might be a case (depending on what chip you replace) where it is as simple as doing the Fender firmware update procedure. But I assume that there's also a bootloader, and perhaps other chips with preprogrammed data that this procedure will not touch (but I am guessing).
In most cases the entire board would be replaced.
This digital board is not available to purchase for hobbyists or repair shops that aren't Fender authorised.
There are however similar boards available with a DSP system, that can take your guitar signal, do whatever signal processing you program, and give an output signal that becomes the input signal to an ICEpower module. A hacker might find a way to use the Fender firmware if they have a board with the same main processor, but it is likely quite the challenge.
It is possible to clone computer systems when they are built with off the shelf components. It was done with the IBM PC (by Compaq), and 8 bit and 16 bit video game consoles for grey markets abroad.
Whether cloning the Tone Master computer system is realistically achievable, I don't know. If a hobbyist manages to do that I doubt that Fender will care if they don't try to sell it to other people.
TL;DR
Fender definitely wants to protect its IP, but I don't think it is likely that hobbyists pose much of a threat in the way you describe.
Neighbourhood repair shops can replace some parts (knobs, switches, etc), but if there's a hardware failure in the digital part, you need to use Fender authorised service and they will most likely replace the entire board with one supplied from Fender.
-
There must be a reason why Behringer hasn't already started selling functionaly identical Tonemaster clones for 250 dollars.
-
Fender also have their own lower budget Champion and Mustang series in that price bracket. I am not sure to which extent they use the same technology, but they could also make a lower budget version themselves. Originally Posted by Tal_175
I am not sure what Behringer has, that Fender lacks, to manufacture a Tone Master quality amp at a much lower price?
I think a big part of the Tone Masters quality, is that they use quality cabinets, speakers etc. I am not sure if Behringer could market the same quality loaded speaker cabinet without any amp and sell for $250?
-
I don't know the facts for certain, but it stands to reason that the same engineering underlies both. It wouldn't make sense for Fender to go through the effort of modeling the same amps multiple times in order to build cheaper and more expensive digital versions. I have read on the internet (which of course is an impeccable citation Originally Posted by orri
) that the big differences (in addition to the cabinets, speakers, etc.) between the Champion and TM series are that the TM's have more powerful/faster processors, and they model spring reverbs (whereas the Champions have a generic reverb that don't sound at all like a real spring reverb). I will say that to my ears the TMDR I tried sounded like a real DR, and the DR model in my Champion 20 does not (though I think it sounds very good in its own way), but then again the C20 has a tiny square cabinet and an 8 inch speaker, so of course it doesn't.
To the question of why Behringer doesn't undercut the TM amps ... I agree that it's not because they can't do the software part. There is so much good modeling out there that costs next to nothing that I really don't think that's an obstacle to anyone developing a product.Last edited by John A.; 07-17-2025 at 12:13 PM.
Reply With Quote
“Shearing style”
Today, 05:26 PM in Comping, Chords & Chord Progressions