Tube vs Modeling

Can I just throw something else into the mix? Other than the sound, but I find it very satisfying to think I'm playing through something as "back to basics" as a simple tube amp. Somehow it feels better than playing through a bells and whistles modelling amp. Don't get me wrong, I have had some fabulous tones out of my Vox Valvetronix, but I'm aware that it's the myriad of computers in there that's making the sound really, the 12AX7 buried in there somewhere probably makes a token contribution to the sound.

I think it might be likened to using an old Hasselblad mechanical rollfilm medium format camera over a Canon digital SLR . . . the end results are both very good, and if you analysed them enough you'd probably come to the conclusion that the Hasselblad is better. But the Hasselblad is just nicer to use. :)

Just my thoughts. :)

I'm a fan of the old technology myself. I'd still use tube amps if the digital ones sounded better. I tinker with old time engines, cast my own bullets and shoot them, lots of old school tech stuff. Tubes and the devices they work in are just cool.

I'm with Ric. Not only do I think the tubes sound better, I like tinkering with stuff and overhauling my own gear when needed.

I wasn't always that way. It actually started with a piece of electronics - a VCR I bought in 1983 for $1100. It broke, and I returned it under warranty (after paying some $60 for sales tax, because I'd bought the original in TX, and the replacement was made in IL. Did you know they won't honor a warranty in a state unless you paid that state's sales tax on the purchase?). A year later the replacement broke - just out of warranty.

The price of new VCRs had dropped to about $700 by then, but I figured $700 every year or so was way outside my budget. That was the price of a couple of decent guitars! So I got a book from the local library, ripped the thing apart at the dining room table, and found the problem - a broken drive band. The replacement part cost me 35 cents. It took me about 3 days to do the whole repair, but that was my total cost. I fixed it several more times after that, finally replacing it just a couple years ago with a DVD player.

Since then I've become pretty fearless about fixing things - diswhashers, washing machines, cars, whatever. If I don't need it in the next 24 hours, it's worth my time to figure the darn thing out, and I have fun doing it - and pride when it's done. And a garage full of odd tools I've collected. And money to buy more guitars :)

My main amp is a 1976 Fender that I've rebuilt twice. I've laid out about $200 on tubes and capacitors, maybe another $80-100 on tools for the stuff it needed. Since it's easily worth $1500 today (vintage gear pricing - what a concept!), and I paid $75 bucks for the thing back in the day, it's pretty darn profitable to become a hobbyist.

But you really can't do that with solid state. Nobody sells parts for fixing boards.

Last year a Chinese girl living next-door to me in the student appartment building knocked on my door: a lightbulb needed to be replaced and she was kinda tall and didn't manage on her own. So me, being Mr. Handy, came to the rescue, turned the bulb around a few times and pulled it out. Or so I thought. On closer inspection I only pulled the glass bit out, leaving the metal part firmly in place. No problemo for me, give me a screwdriver and I'll wriggle it out. Note to self: take the electricity off next time I do that... :shock: :evil:

On the other hand I wrote my first program when I was five years old (MSX, basic, superlogo, pascal, Delphi etc), spend a fair time scripting in my teens for some computer games. The more menus the better. Analog devices confuse the heck out me, and even try to kill me if they can. :lol:

On a sidenote, one thing that many people seem to ignore (including the PR department of modeling companies!) is that the biggest thing about modeling should NOT be 'getting all tube amps for little money'. That's the same as George Lucas saying his special effects were created because it's cheaper to have Brad Pitt sit in a computerized car then a real one. The real point is that new technologies should be able to do things the old technologies can't: like Brad Pitt blowing up a planet with a spaceship in a movie. Getting a good simulation of the old technologies is only part of the route. And just like you don't need expensive visual effects to shoot a Kammerspiel you don't need HiFi modeling to make rock&roll music.

As with most arts, IMHO it's best to try to use the least possible to get everything you want. If a strat and small tube combo will do the trick, then keep the rest away.

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

Funny, here's one of the comments of a person who watched the video: "insane^^ especially edge's solo... oh my gosh i love it." Of the solos he did, the first was the worst. Seems like he didn't know where he was and was searching for notes particularly up the neck.

Dennis

I think Edge's solo was good, it fit the song well. But he has never really been a soloist, he is a chord player. And there is nothing wrong with that, he has his own distinct style and he is an expert with effects. All I was saying is that he would have a rough time without them. But playing chords is cool, Pete Townshend was another great chord player. If you go back to early Who like Live at Leeds he played absolutely horrible solos. A few years later he had gotton much better.

To me, this is the best Pete Townshend lead guitar ever, The Relay

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0uuMJ0AhyVo

Great footage because they are lip-sycning to the studio album. Outstanding footage of Keith Moon. :twisted: