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 the review. Anyone know if the included sounds in the demo are the same ones in the full version, or are there more? Sure looks like alot of empty spaces.

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?

clintmartin


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?

TH2 has 999 Factory banks, It also has 999 User banks, each bank features 13 Sounds The numbers go from 00 to 12. Each sound has 8 variations. Each variation can have it's own name like 70's amp or full metal. ect. A variation is considered a saved tone with combinations of amps, cabinet, mics, and effects.
 
A variation would be the same thing as a preset in Pod Farm, Gear box, and most other amp sim apps. So what TH2 calls variations are actually presets. Factory banks cannot be overwritten.
 
(from manual) "Factory memory locations are for factory installed Banks. This memory zone is not writable. TH2 can feature up to 103,896 factory installed Variations.
 
User memory locations are at the user‟s disposal. You have a total of up to 103,896 writable Variations; more than anyone can even think of."
 
Not every factory variation has something written on it. Total factory presets or variations are 634. Those are spread out on 16 banks
 
So to answer your question, TH2 has 634 presets in the full version.

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

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.
 

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.  

Amiller:
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.  

Hi,Amiller,
totally agree with your statement. This would be a large step
towards an easier workflow specially for guitar recording uses.

One basic question to me is if an amp simulation can be better then
the original or in other words,if the copy can be better then the original ?

But this is a nearly philosophical question.  

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.

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...