The mission here is to get killer guitar sound in our recordings. In this case we try to faithfully capture and reproduce the guitar tracks. Naturally, playing a track back through studio monitors is not going to sound the same as a Marshall JMP/1960A when it’s fully cranked. Likewise on other speakers…the 6X9s in your car, the 12 inch stereo speakers in your living room...

Modelers try to recreate the sound of professional valve amps. While they do a pretty good job of it, your tracks are only going to sound as good as your source. Some might be happy with that sound. I’m not.

I also own a Vox AD50VT which is great for everyday playing, but when I’m live or recording, I want a Marshall valve amp behind me. No modeling amp will sound as good as the real deal at creating the trademark wall of sound or incredible clean tone. It’s not about who you can fool.

So, while modeling and VST are great for tracking demos, for professional recordings I’d want the real deal. Think about it. Do you want the valve amp, or do you want the modeler/VST trying to recreate the valve amp sound?

As for signal processing, I have never seen the need for FX on the guitar. Just give me the unadulterated sound of a Strat and a Marshall.

Regards,
Joe

Me and you think alike . Must be because we have the same name .

whats strange is that in this talk of classic amps marshalls are even considered for clean tone. I can't think of a worse way to get clean tone to be honest but hey opinions are like a**holes.

ahh but learned opinions are less common.

While I am more of a Fender clean sound fan, a 100 watt Marshall can play clean with a pure piano like tone... but I doubt you can find that setting on a modeler.

Maybe it's labeled "not the Marshall stereotype Marshall emulation"?

Real Marshall fans know its the impedance and resulting dynamics of the speaker layout that makes a Marshall a Marshall.... otherwise it's just a well built '59 bassman.


It's funny to see a musician call another musician an audiophile... it's just funny :-). Call me a "sound lover" again and I'll smile some more.

What kind of guitarist with 20 years experience doesn't know the difference between "modeling" and Boston's use of lots of *gasp* analog effects, massive amounts of track layering, early digital effects using FM and Wavetable synthesis and I.C.?

Digital effects are effects... paint away... The term modeling was introduced to market emulator schemes purporting to provide authentic sounds of combinations of "real world" gear. YUK.

I know and have worked with/for many guitarists who had great experience and skill on the instrument yet were totally clueless about sound production, gain structure, tone shaping etc.

That's why many guitarists have techs... cause playing guitar is a craft that can entertain a lifetime of study and investigation.

Once you've fallen in love with real electric guitar sounds you are not gonna enjoy a modeler played back on Event speakers.

best regards,
mike

For clarification are we talking about:

A. getting a guitar tone that inspires us as we are playing the guitar
B. getting a guitar tone that sounds great played through studio monitors in recorded form in the mix of a song

They really are two different things. I see it kind of like comparing a digital piano to a baby grand. I'm not much of a pianist, but I play some keys. When I sit down to a grand and play, it is inspiring. You feel the sound through your fingers. The touch, the volume, vibrations, sustain, etc are not there with a digital keyboard. But can anyone tell the difference in a recording? I really doubt it.

From my experience (granted, probably not as much as some here), there's no way an amp sim through headphones or monitors is ever going to sound as good to the guitarist as he is playing (and this is the key) as a good amp cranked. It just isn't going to happen. The sheer volume coming through powerful 12" speakers and cabinets designed for that purpose and moving air is something most guitarists have come to know and love. And there is a lot to be said for how that can affect your playing and inspiration.

All that said, you simply cannot argue that recording a dry signal, then being able to shape that tone after the fact any way you can imagine provides much more flexibility for the recording. And in the mix, I do think the end result could fool anyone.

So to me, we are talking about two different things. If playing a cranked amp inspires some players, you'll mever convince them that an amp sim is "just as good". Even if the end recorded results are extremely convincing, it's apples and oranges. Without an inspired soulful performance, the recorded tone is irrelevant.

But is there some logic in a compromise for the sake of the project? And can we learn to play with inspiration without staring at our cranked amp? I think I can. And obviously some studio players have.

ORIGINAL: artsoul

whats strange is that in this talk of classic amps marshalls are even considered for clean tone. I can't think of a worse way to get clean tone to be honest but hey opinions are like a**holes.

Not a giant deep purple fan but I believe Richie Blackmore played a strat though marshalls and the clean tone in the beginning of Highway Star is rather epic. Not the verse but the very beginning where the bass is playing the galluping line. Fantastic tone. A 70's marshall can make a huge clean tone. The trouble is that after the jcm 800 everyone just left that sound behind.

maybe you are right I just have never ever used a marshall and managed to get a open airy BIG clean tone, though i have never properly used a plexi at full pelt. the jcm800 is probably the worst "good" amp i have ver tried

ORIGINAL: jweldinger

The mission here is to get killer guitar sound in our recordings. In this case we try to faithfully capture and reproduce the guitar tracks. Naturally, playing a track back through studio monitors is not going to sound the same as a Marshall JMP/1960A when it’s fully cranked. Likewise on other speakers…the 6X9s in your car, the 12 inch stereo speakers in your living room...

Modelers try to recreate the sound of professional valve amps. While they do a pretty good job of it, your tracks are only going to sound as good as your source. Some might be happy with that sound. I’m not.

I also own a Vox AD50VT which is great for everyday playing, but when I’m live or recording, I want a Marshall valve amp behind me. No modeling amp will sound as good as the real deal at creating the trademark wall of sound or incredible clean tone. It’s not about who you can fool.

So, while modeling and VST are great for tracking demos, for professional recordings I’d want the real deal. Think about it. Do you want the valve amp, or do you want the modeler/VST trying to recreate the valve amp sound?

As for signal processing, I have never seen the need for FX on the guitar. Just give me the unadulterated sound of a Strat and a Marshall.

Regards,
Joe

Well, we all have our biases, don't we? Even hockejx, who is touting the use of modelers, exposed some of his when he said that they could fool people.

IMO, some modelers in some applications are beyond that and have sounds that stand on their own merit, without apology, or without needing to fool anyone. I witnessed a 120W Valvetronix in an open 2X12 take on a cranked, well-tuned 50W JCM800 in a 4X12 at an amp shootout. As I recall, they sounded different from each other, but one wasn't clearly better than the other. That was five years ago and modelers have only gotten better since then.

This thread has crystallized my thinking on modelers vs. tube amps. I use my POD all the time, for guitar and bass, but it's nearly always layered with tube amp sounds. It's indispensible here.

On the other hand, I'd hate to see "LINE 6 AND THE ROLLING STONES ON TOUR!" SRV? Santana? David Gilmour? Please, no. As the stae of modlers is now, I'd not like to see or hear master players with beautiful signature tones using modelers. I guess I have very mixed and conflicting feelings about modelers vs. tube amps. It makes sense to me though.

Great thread that thankfully hasn't degenerated into flames and bashing. Nice work peeps!

Oh, BTW, my RI Marshall JTM45 has great clean tones. That's all I use it for.

It's interesting that this thread is so popular.

Let me ask a related question. Who has officially defined exactly what guitar tone is, and what is good guitar tone and what is bad guitar tone? Is there a law or a commandment or anything that says a guitar has to be amplified with tubes?

Another question. If I lined up the world's finest guitarists and plugged each into a POD and the recorded them straight to disk, would those recordings automatically suck? Satriani or Romeo would play and sound worse if they recorded with a POD? I really doubt it.

The OP wanted to learn how to get professional sounding guitar tones. I think there are 3 key ingredients that will deliver professional sound.

1. Have impressive talent. If someone sucks at the guitar, I doubt it can be fixed. It is still impossible to shine a turd.

2. Have decent equipment and know how to work with that equipment. This includes other key sound ingredients that havn't been touched on yet, like the guitar. A $50 made in china guitar with action in the centimeter range, inferior electronics and poor craftsmanship leading to poor tonality and intonation probably isn't going to give stellar recordings.

3. Good recording equipment. If one wants to record direct with a POD, Tonelab, V-AMP, GNX GT8 or even GR2 they will be good enough for a professional sound if the first two criteria are satisfied. If not, a good recording room, a good mic and a well maintained amp, solid state or tube, will be needed.

I must repeat something I said earlier. The listener really doesn't care if a CD is recorded with a POD or a boutique amp using the most expensive mics in the most expensive studio. They are judging your talent, not your guitar tone. If not, Malmsteen would never have been famous

whos romeo?

ORIGINAL: artsoul

whos romeo?

Michael Romeo from Symphony X. If you like guitar-focused music he's definitely worth a listen.