Tube vs Modeling

well... I saw Pure Prairie League last year in a small 171 seat theater. Good show, they can play very well. BUTT...The guitar players for some reason used Line 6 amps. I was a big fan of PPL back in the 70's, even had a few of the LP's(you know...the round vinyl things with the hole in the middle). The sound just was not right! Very pale sounding IMHO. I saw Savoy Brown in the same theater and they used Tube amps(a fender Twin and A 60's Vox I think). The sound was Awesome! Big difference :twisted: If you want to recreate a classic sound you got to use tubes!!

Although having said all that :oops: I can get some good tone with my Epi 335 and my Behringer GMX 212(Think Metal :twisted: ) In fact, Some metal sounds good with a solid state amp :twisted:

Everybody is different, I absolutely prefer the tone of tube amps over solid state. It's kinda like butter substitutes. The substitutes taste OK, but when I have some hot biscuits I want REAL BUTTER! :D

On the other hand, my younger brother who has been playing 35 years like me prefers solid state amps.

It all depends on the tones you are after. If you are after big warm clean tones, or super smooth thick overdrive, then tube amps are the amp. If you are after hard-edged tones like Metal then a solid state amp is better. Tubes amps clip soft, it is a round, rubbery tone. Solid state amps are more sharp and brittle sounding.

I was surprised lately to read that BB King uses a solid state amp. And he gets some very smooth tones. Part of that is his semi-hollow guitar. So the guitar and pickups you use make a big difference too. And as SmokinDog said, the JC-120 is a famous solid state amp loved by Jazz players especially. And they use very mellow tones generally.

As far as modeling, I personally do not use many effects or even want many various amp tones. To me all these multi-efx processors are toys. You just keep going through all the presets and playing with the hundreds of tones. But in the end, I usually only find 3 or 4 presets that actually sound good for performing. Recording would be different though, and I could see where a modeling amp or multi-efx would be great for recording.

As Sly Stone sang, "Different strokes, for different folks" :D

Yeah, effects are toys. Shame on Jimi Hendrix, David Gilmour and Mathew Bellamy for using so many effects, no wonder nobody cares about them.

My opinion: if you can't get a good sound out of a good tube setup you suck. And if you can't get a good sound out of a good digital setup you suck. The #1 problem I see with online opinions is that people give extremely generic comments based on not much at all. If I would drag a friend, who plays very well and uses digital gear exlusivelu, to a local store and force him to play a JCM800 he'll probably puke all over it in disgust. Is he a bad player? No. Is it a bad amp? No. The problem is that it takes TIME to learn how to use technology, and just because you know how technology A works dont mean you know much about technology B.

Same with digital: people go in a store, flip the presets and go home disgusted. Ofcourse presets suck, they're there to be overwritten. Nobody can make presets for anything that'll sound good to everyone so forget about them before you try it. Instead, start clean and learn how to use the darn device, and be prepared to spend some weeks or even months getting the basics down.

I think the comparison between modern guitar modeling and 70s stage piano is pretty, well, hopeless. I think a more valid and accurate comparison would be modern guitar modeling with modern digital piano sounds, and the comparison would be favourable for both. At the NS Jazz Festival some of the worlds greatest jazz pianists were there, all played digital. Same went for quite a bunch of guitarists. Needless to say, those people do NOT use 'hard-edged metal sounds'. These people ain't tonedeaf either: they know how to use the gear they've got.

Are there bad digital devices? Sure, loads of em. Most, actually. Are there bad tube amps. Sure, loads. Who cares, if you go for quality both technologies will easily do what you want, as long as you are prepared to learn and spend time on it.

Yeah, effects are toys. Shame on Jimi Hendrix, David Gilmour and Mathew Bellamy for using so many effects, no wonder nobody cares about them.

He said multi-fx, not effect in general. I'm sure Wes understands the power effects have even if he doesn't use (many) effects.

But I agree. You do have to learn to use the gear that you have. As a person who has been on both sides (I played through almost exclusively modeling gear for a while and now play with only standalone effects and tube amps) I believe that tube amps are better probably just because they've been around longer. Most digital effects units i've used suck, including the one that I learned how to use (PODxt). I could get usable tones and even good tone sometimes but all in all digital just doesn't match up.

In my opinion, modeling amps and gear don't cut it. You might be able to get great sounds out of them that work for you and whatever but for me, no way.

That said, as far a solid-state vs. tube, the best guitarist i've ever had the pleasure to play with used solid-state gear. He did do a lot of looping and such, but still it sounded fantastic.

cool.

He said multi-fx, not effect in general. I'm sure Wes understands the power effects have even if he doesn't use (many) effects.

And why exactly would a multi-effect be different? And please don't tell me you tried a Zoom 505 and didn't like it. 'But they share the same cpu so with each effect the quality gets less'. Sure. Like in 'my CC'ed ABS works less well when I turn the carradio on'. :roll: 'But multi-FX are generic and I need my own sound'. Uhuh, so that's why all those creative people use the same std. Fender strat through the same HRD, makes sense. Maybe even go totally wild and be super-creative with a TS9. Yay.

As for 'I couldn't find my taste in the POD', well, it happens. Same for me, actually. But can you honestly say you can find your sound in *every* tube amp? Fact is that both digital and tube amps offer 'quality' sounds, whether it's your taste or not. Check this clip:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=CY42F_5mgBE

Maybe it's your taste, maybe not. But you can't say it's not dynamic, unresponsive or whatever. It's quality blues sound, period.

Is SAD setting in over there, Ignar? You seem a bit cranky.
:)

Heh, good catch. Just unleashing the frustrations of another Dutch winter on you poor unsuspecting GN'ers. Then again, maybe this will encourage people to explore the new and long-awaited 'foe list' option in our profiles. Good thing the only casulties here are regulars who know they shouldn't take me too seriously anyway. :P

Apart from that, my sincere apologies to those who feel insulted.

Oh, I'm not insulted. I get cranky sometimes, too! :D

Wes- To me all these multi-efx processors are toys.

Ignar Hillstrøm- Yeah, effects are toys. Shame on Jimi Hendrix, David Gilmour and Mathew Bellamy for using so many effects, no wonder nobody cares about them.

I wasn't saying that multi-effects are useless or whatever. I was just saying that Wes was referring to multi-fx as being toys, not effects in general. I dont believe that Jimi Hendrix or Gilmour used PODs. Though they were on the forefront of using effects I don't believe that multi-fx processors are on the forefront of effects. They don't make a whole lot of cool new sounds and they don't emulate old sounds well... for me at least. They're all trying to be "analog" and whatever. I say go make something cool and then I'll look at it. Don't try to emulate tubes and analog circuits with digital, it's just not gonna be the same.

I agree, there are a lot of tube amps that just aren't that good or aren't what im looking for, but as a whole I believe that tube amps are better than digital. I think that tube amps have just been around longer and because of that are of greater quality than most digital setups.

I'm not saying that digital is terrible or anything. Just that tubes are usually better. If I had the option to play with a modeler or to not play at all, I would play through the modeler. For about 5 or 6 months I played through a crappy stereo. What I'm saying is, given the choice, I choose tubes.

Iz: that's what I meant with the Zoom 505 comment. People see multi-fx as some kind of cheap and convenient alternative to stand-alone fx. It's not. Check out this tune I did:
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/default.cfm?bandID=361288&content=songinfo&songID=5536786

Everything you hear is either vocals or guitar, no synths used. This is NOT possible with tube amps and pedals, no matter what you do. Multi-FX open a whole new world of possibilities and gives you, the artist, infinitely more control over aspects of sounds that you might not even knew exist. Sure, some people are happy with the old sounds, and they have all right to use old gear. No problem there. The problem, atleast IMHO, is that there is such a strong and dogmatic mentality in GuitarLand that new technology is not given a fair chance, which has resulted in guitar music being extremely boring and stale for atleast the past 10 years. I don't mind people going for the old stuff (heck, I'm not saving up for a resonator to play avant-garde :P) but please just accept that there are doors to new worlds that weren't there twenty years ago. If you don't want to go there, fine, it's a personal choice. But the 'old=better=pro' vibe that goes around is, again IMHO, not helping people to try new things.

You see, that's what I think is the beauty of music. Trying stuff. I don't think Jimi Hendrix or the Beatles were so good because they used tubes. They were good because they dared to do stuff nobody did before, and used technology in a way nobody thought of. And that's the key to it all: being creative, be it with tubes, chips or just plain accoustic. New technologies allow us way more then 'the same but cheaper'. And old technology does not have to be used in the old ways. So pick your poison but don't deny there are huge new lands to explore, even if you personally have no intention to go there.

BTW: Bellamy and Gilmour use multi-effects. Matthew also uses modelers, from Line6 actually. Gilmour or Hendrix didn't use modelers because they didn't exist in their peak-periods. Hendrix is dead now and Gilmour has no reason to change his entire setup.

You see, that's what I think is the beauty of music. Trying stuff. I don't think Jimi Hendrix or the Beatles were so good because they used tubes. They were good because they dared to do stuff nobody did before, and used technology in a way nobody thought of. And that's the key to it all: being creative, be it with tubes, chips or just plain accoustic. New technologies allow us way more then 'the same but cheaper'. And old technology does not have to be used in the old ways. So pick your poison but don't deny there are huge new lands to explore, even if you personally have no intention to go there.
Well said, Arjen!

And yeah, lots of the old stuff is cool, too. Most of the great old time blues was recorded with really cheap instruments and gear. Not because the players wanted it that way, they did the best they could with what they could get. We make too much ado about gear now, because we can. If we spent half the energy and money on learning and practicing new stuff that we do on GAS, we'd be better off for it. (That is, keep your old cheapo guitar and amp and buy some lessons instead of a new rig.) There's an old saying in the shooting field: "Beware of the man who only has one gun. He probably knows how to use it."
:P

Hey Arjen thanks for standing up for the techies. There's nothing wrong with modelling. I guarantee you've heard amp modelling in some of your favorite recordings. It really is in the hands of the carpenter not in the tool itself. Give me a Les Paul to play and you will still think it sounds better when Page plays it. In the end tools are tools. They are useless without someone applying them to a task. The end result will be different from person to person.

Vive Les Difference!

Indubitably.

Arjen

I think you might have misunderstood what I meant to say. I am not against effects at all, I use them sparingly. And I have owned a few multi-efx processors. They have pros and cons. I think they are especially good for singers, because you can change multiple effects with one simple step on a footswitch. So, if you wanted to go from a clean tone with chorus to a distorted tone with delay, you wouldn't have to quickly step on a distortion pedal, quickly step on chorus to turn it off, and then quickly step on delay to turn it own. It is very difficult to tap dance like this while you are singing. If you are simply playing guitar it is not such a problem. So I think multi-efx are excellent for this. And you get a tremendous variety of effects with multi-efx.

The cons of most multi-efx processors is that the effects do not usually sound anywhere as good as individual stomp boxes, and they are usually far more complicated to tweak.

And I know how to use effects. I also know how to paint, I could paint my house pink if I wanted, I simply choose not to do so. I simply do not enjoy the sound of music with heavy effects generally. That is just me, I realize that. I like good ol' clean guitar and old school overdrive crunch. Those are the tones that turn me on. I have tried effects many times, but usually I go back to simpler tones.

I like certain groups that use lots of effects, I liked Pink Floyd and the Smashing Pumpkins, two of my most favorite groups ever. Both groups used lots of effects.

But effects can be a crutch as well. Some people cover up lack of ability with effects. I consider The Edge from U2 as probably the Master of using effects. But take away all his effects and I think you would be shocked at his guitar playing. He is still very good, but he depends heavily on effects. Listen to him play lead guitar, it is very simple, almost beginner like. Not putting the guy down, nobody understands and uses effects better than him. But he is not really a great player without effects.

Here is The Edge without too many effects. His solos are really pretty good in this clip, I have heard much worse from him. But they are pretty simple because he really isn't that great of a lead player. Sorry, but he is not.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SCt1mNbE2o

Hendrix and Pink Floyd were a little different in my opinion. They actually had a purpose behind their effects. When Hendrix made the sounds of falling bombs, it was to actually paint a picture of war. Pink Floyd was very interested in topics like depression, insanity, drug-use, brain-washing and the like. They used effects to also paint a picture of the mind. This is fantastic, this is the way effects should be used. But just layering on effects to cover up poor playing ability is not good in my opinion.

When I said multi-efx are toys, I meant that you get 300-400 different presets on many of these units. Come on, how many do you really need? I bet nobody uses probably more than 10 presets. I always end up scrolling through all these differents sounds, some of them are completely goofy and useless. At best I usually find 4 or 5 presets that actually sound usable. But most of my playing is live. If I were to record, that would be different. The Beatles didn't play much live, but when they did it was very simple and straightforward. In the studio they used lots of effects. But there is no way they could ever play these songs live. So multi-efx are great for recording, not so good for live performance.

Just my 2 cents. If you like tons of effects, more power to you. I simply do not like them as much as you.