TH2 - My short "rough" comparison

I wanted to keep this separate from the original "Wow TH2" thread because this is specific.
I recorded some tracks using TH2 and some tracks using a real amp.  Here are  the signal paths:
 
TH2:
LP -> Motu 828 MKII -> DAW
 
Real Amp:
LP -> Suhr Koko Boost -> Lonestar -> Marshall cab loaded with Alnico Golds -> SM57 and a Senn 421 -> Motu 828 MKII -> DAW.
 
Results:
The TH2 was a big surprise.  In fact, I kinda liked the rhythm crunch from the TH2 better than the Lonestar.  But, the Lonestar leads with the Koko Boost just killed the TH2.  The Lonestar sounds sweet and musical while the TH2 has a less musical quality and has a bit of harshness on the top end.
 
So, the tube amps aren't going anywhere, however, I may use the TH2 for some crunch rhythm stuff.

For you guys that have got the full version.

Are there more presets with the full version than the demo version? I read that they had 999 presets but the demo doesn't. Any other differences?

amiller


I wanted to keep this separate from the original "Wow TH2" thread because this is specific.
I recorded some tracks using TH2 and some tracks using a real amp.  Here are  the signal paths:
 
TH2:
LP -> Motu 828 MKII -> DAW
 
Real Amp:
LP -> Suhr Koko Boost -> Lonestar -> Marshall cab loaded with Alnico Golds -> SM57 and a Senn 421 -> Motu 828 MKII -> DAW.
 
Results:
The TH2 was a big surprise.  In fact, I kinda liked the rhythm crunch from the TH2 better than the Lonestar.  But, the Lonestar leads with the Koko Boost just killed the TH2.  The Lonestar sounds sweet and musical while the TH2 has a less musical quality and has a bit of harshness on the top end.
 
So, the tube amps aren't going anywhere, however, I may use the TH2 for some crunch rhythm stuff.

Thanks for posting your results. I would be interested in knowing what amp, cabinet and mic settings in TH2 you used to do your comparison. If you used a factory variation for your comparison, what is the name of the one you used?
 
Thanks

Pragi


Hi,
it´s  good news, that the TH 2 has a really good sound quality 
so that it can be compared to a "real micro-ed" amp.

But imo this would be the first time, that an amp simu 
sounds better .
The harshness, the not distinctive beat in the lower mids and the third dimension
(the room!) have till now been the flaw of amp-simu`s.  

I have great doubts that TH2 is the first simu, that beats 
a real good microphoned amp .
As far as the amp sound itself is meant, it´s possible
just to change the settings and the amp , so that there are a
whole lot of possibilities to make it sound "better".

So I´m really curious about the X2 release .
One of the first things t try is Th2.

Just my 2 cents.

I agree with all the above.  While I wrote that I liked the crunch sound of TH2 better than the Lonestar in this "test," in fairness, I had the Lonestar dialed in to have a thick lead tone...one which is not ideal for crunch rhythms.  I'm sure I could have easily dialed in a crunch tone on the Lonestar that would bested TH2.
 
In short, the TH2 may have some use for me on some recordings but a mic'ed tube amp will still sound better when "properly" set up for the job at hand.  I've never been able to get any useful tones out of other amp sims.  TH2 may be the first sim that I actually use on a song in certain situations.
 
 
There's one other point I'd like to make.  Look at the simplicity of the signal chain setup TH2 is using compared to a real mic'ed amp.  If someone ever develops an amp sim that indeed is as good as a real mic'ed amp I believe real amps will quickly become obsolete.  That day has not yet come and maybe never will...but man, it sure would be nice.  

I just tried the demo. Unfortunately it crashed right away when I tried entering a number in the preset box. 
I think it's Sonar though, similar to entering + saving presets in Slate's
software.

Psychobillybob


Anything that moves real air will have an advantage over something that moves digital air...this is just the nature of the planet we live in...

not to mention that $2000 of amps pedals and cabinets should sound better than a $99 plugin.
 
As far as i can determine, when it comes down to electronic simulations (and samples) of instruments the only folks who say instrument A sound totally like an authentic original are folks who do not play instrument A..so whether that is strings, piano, ac. or elec. guitar it applies.. however the point is that for cheap money we can make really really good reproductions of great sounding instruments such that they at least sound realistic in the construct of a mix.. and that is a good thing.
 
I am certainly looking forward to putting the strat through this... i tried GR4 & 5 and wasnt particularly impressed.
 
 

I firmly believe that no amp sim is ever going to quite match a well-mic'd, well-setup guitar amp with a great guitar, great pedals and a great player. But these plugs are damned handy for extra tracks, stuff with lots of FX on it and for saving a bad tone after the fact.

I understand the alure of digital guitar tones that cut through the mix in modern music. IMO this is the kind of tone that amp sim plugins have always done the best, whereas their tube tone is generally lacking. Why is this?

I tend to think of it a bit like brewing beer. If a brewer starts off making an IPA that is really bitter and then tries to move toward making other beers, I often find that their Stout really tastes like a Stout IPA. Their Amber tastes like an Amber IPA. They often have a hard time really moving away from what they first knew.

With Amp Sims I have found some tube tones that are ok, but they tend to feel similar to the beer- like a tube amp + some digital fuzz in the high end.

I've compared the actual frequency output of amplifiers to "similar" tones in Guitar Rig, for example, and there is a MASSIVE amount of information above 7kHz that Guitar Rig has, but that the amp doesn't. This makes me wonder... why, if you're trying to simulate an amp tone, would you produce frequencies in your emulation that a proper speaker cabinet can't reproduce? Sure, some acoustic guitar amps have tweaters added, but most of what we hear for classic HUGE guitar tone comes amps that feed cabinets like Marshall's models with four 10" or four 12" speakers. As such, I've had some success getting more pleasant tube tones out of amp sim software simply by rolling off the highs.

If you really want to get closer to a particular tone, you can "cheat" at this by getting it as close as you can with your amp sim, then taking a sample a recording of a guitar played through a real tube amp with a similar amount of drive/distortion, and capture the EQ curve in iZotope Ozone using the Infinite spectrum setting. Then, take a snapshot of your amp sim's output and use the matching EQ in Ozone (or a similar matching EQ) to move the amp sim plug more towards the overall tone of the real one. In Ozone there is a smoothing feature as well for this, and I find I generally get better results if I move the smoothing setting higher so that the matching EQ curve is more about broad strokes with tone than super small changes.

In the end I still always prefer the real amp sound, but this gets me closer if I don't have an amp (or a proper room) handy. Nonetheless I'm looking forward to TH2, as it will be another tool in my arsenal for at home. If nothing else, having added "playability" and realistic feedback should make it easier to record guitar using TH2 on location, then re-amp later when in a proper studio and get the proper tone.

Peace,

Tunes

Years back when I was studying A to D conversion I looked at a lot of sine waves etc...one of the things that struck me was the harmonic frequencies produced by tube/transformers vs. those produced by chips...the nature of the two realms is completely different and in terms of "musicality"...here's what I discovered...

A chip based frequency is normally a product of integers, math and therefore the general nature of it is to be "even" numbered...2,4,6,8,10 etc...

Whereas tubes and transformer generally are non-linear...the frequencies they produce end up being much more random and tend towards "odd" numbers...3, 5, 7 etc...

When you combine the frequencies with a root frequency an even numbered frequency sounds clinical/harsh/to linear and is not at all musical...

When you add the tube/tranX frequencies, because they were non-linear the odd number variation actually complemented the original frequency...much like adding a 3rd note to a root, or a 5th...if you add a second or fourth it is dissonant...etc...

So the tubes/transformers have always won out in sounding "musical" or pleasing, especially in a Western worldview where minors and thirds etc...are considered enjoyable...

Just a passing view...it made sense to me then...seems to make sense now...

tunekicker


I understand the alure of digital guitar tones that cut through the mix in modern music. IMO this is the kind of tone that amp sim plugins have always done the best, whereas their tube tone is generally lacking. Why is this?

I tend to think of it a bit like brewing beer. If a brewer starts off making an IPA that is really bitter and then tries to move toward making other beers, I often find that their Stout really tastes like a Stout IPA. Their Amber tastes like an Amber IPA. They often have a hard time really moving away from what they first knew.

With Amp Sims I have found some tube tones that are ok, but they tend to feel similar to the beer- like a tube amp + some digital fuzz in the high end.

I've compared the actual frequency output of amplifiers to "similar" tones in Guitar Rig, for example, and there is a MASSIVE amount of information above 7kHz that Guitar Rig has, but that the amp doesn't. This makes me wonder... why, if you're trying to simulate an amp tone, would you produce frequencies in your emulation that a proper speaker cabinet can't reproduce? Sure, some acoustic guitar amps have tweaters added, but most of what we hear for classic HUGE guitar tone comes amps that feed cabinets like Marshall's models with four 10" or four 12" speakers. As such, I've had some success getting more pleasant tube tones out of amp sim software simply by rolling off the highs.

If you really want to get closer to a particular tone, you can "cheat" at this by getting it as close as you can with your amp sim, then taking a sample a recording of a guitar played through a real tube amp with a similar amount of drive/distortion, and capture the EQ curve in iZotope Ozone using the Infinite spectrum setting. Then, take a snapshot of your amp sim's output and use the matching EQ in Ozone (or a similar matching EQ) to move the amp sim plug more towards the overall tone of the real one. In Ozone there is a smoothing feature as well for this, and I find I generally get better results if I move the smoothing setting higher so that the matching EQ curve is more about broad strokes with tone than super small changes.

In the end I still always prefer the real amp sound, but this gets me closer if I don't have an amp (or a proper room) handy. Nonetheless I'm looking forward to TH2, as it will be another tool in my arsenal for at home. If nothing else, having added "playability" and realistic feedback should make it easier to record guitar using TH2 on location, then re-amp later when in a proper studio and get the proper tone.

Peace,

Tunes

I have a kemper and it rocks as hard as any amp!
I am sure it would blow away TH2.

The e-guitar technology(tubes) is a relict of the last 20th of the last century,
not much has happened in the development of this technology.
Also some of the best mics for recording like the sm 57 or the md 421
were build in the 60th.
I guess that´s why often guitar-player are noticed as technological dinosaurs,
technical lay and at last special as DAW( sequencer) user.
The digital world has till now not delivered much to this technology,
except chip based effects and transistors ( don´t like ). 
Sure the time will come,when the digital world is bringing a revolution to this ,
hope not so soon............

Pragi


Hi,
it´s  good news, that the TH 2 has a really good sound quality 
so that it can be compared to a "real micro-ed" amp.

But imo this would be the first time, that an amp simu 
sounds better .
The harshness, the not distinctive beat in the lower mids and the third dimension
(the room!) have till now been the flaw of amp-simu`s.  

I have great doubts that TH2 is the first simu, that beats 
a real good microphoned amp .
As far as the amp sound itself is meant, it´s possible
just to change the settings and the amp , so that there are a
whole lot of possibilities to make it sound "better".

So I´m really curious about the X2 release .
One of the first things t try is Th2.

Just my 2 cents.

Guess you never played thru an AxeFXII?

Axe Fx / Fractal makes some nice sounding stuff Stratty, but many of us cant justify +2k for a guitar processor. And Im sure when the FX III comes out it will sound even better, but it wont be any cheaper... Thats the thing about the TH2. Its gets really nice sounds for $99 bucks... 

LJB


I firmly believe that no amp sim is ever going to quite match a well-mic'd, well-setup guitar amp with a great guitar, great pedals and a great player. But these plugs are damned handy for extra tracks, stuff with lots of FX on it and for saving a bad tone after the fact.

It's funny but I remember simular conversations about analog tape being far better then recording with a computer. Technology advances and things change. Don't get me wrong, I like real amps better too....for now. But I think there may be one day when an amp sim will give an amp a run for it's money.
 
 

Marcus Curtis

LJB


I firmly believe that no amp sim is ever going to quite match a well-mic'd, well-setup guitar amp with a great guitar, great pedals and a great player. But these plugs are damned handy for extra tracks, stuff with lots of FX on it and for saving a bad tone after the fact.

It's funny but I remember simular conversations about analog tape being far better then recording with a computer. Technology advances and things change. Don't get me wrong, I like real amps better too....for now. But I think there may be one day when an amp sim will give an amp a run for it's money. 
   

That day is here, but I'll leave the thread now.................................................Bye