You are here

Kemper & OX hardware ...vs... VSTs?

For everything after the recording stage: hardware/software and how you use it.

Kemper & OX hardware ...vs... VSTs?

Postby Elephone » Sat Jun 08, 2019 11:04 pm

Hello. I'm just wondering why amp modeling hardware would be better than VSTs like BIAS, Line 6 Helix, S-Gear, etc... as so many people seem to say.

Surely it's just a computer doing the main work in there?

Could it be simply that the actual amp is designed to be as transparent as possible to convey the modeled behavior, rather than because the actual modeling techniques are better? Could it be some kind of control interface between the modeled sound and the basic amp settings?

I presume you'd have to play both the modeled amp and the Kemper amp through the same cab to hear how similar they are?

Also, how well do Kemper and OX model the more extreme sounds of say a Fender Bassman, with feedback and all the rest? Does everything really behave the same way?

Are any VST amps actually designed to be physically re-amp'd, I mean say for live performance, (with specific cabs in mind perhaps) or are they all intended to be cab'ed ITB to play through studio monitors?

Thanks.
Elephone
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1143
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 1:00 am

Re: Kemper & OX hardware ...vs... VSTs?

Postby Music Wolf » Sun Jun 09, 2019 9:13 am

OK, I have both the Kemper and the Helix. I've also owned modellers such as the Marshall JMP-1 pre amp, Sanamp, Vox ToneLab, Blackstar ID and of course 'real' amps with glowing glassware. In the box I've tried a few VST's including Helix Native.

If you put aside arguments about whether or not any of these modelling techniques are equal to a real amp / cab (in my opinion they are close enough for my needs) and focus on your question 'why the hardware would be better than VSTs?' then it all comes down to practicalities. Comparing the Helix with Helix Native - there is no difference in the sound.

Before purchasing the Helix I tried a demo version of Native. To do this I had to drop the buffer size on my music PC, I had problems with it locking up and I couldn't change patches whilst playing - but it sounded fine. What I needed was a PC optimised for low latency and some foot switches. Then I needed it all in a convenient package that I could take to practice / gigs and set up quickly, in other words - The Helix floor unit.

Of my modellers the Kemper is different because it 'profiles' rather than 'models'. For me it is the best of the lot it terms of getting closest to a real mic'd amp / cab but it lacks the flexibility, 'tweakability' and compactness of the Helix which is my justification for having both (and absolutely nothing to do with GAS :shh: ). I don't see any reason why this approach could not be adopted as a VST in the future since convolution reverbs have been using IRs for years but right now there is no Kemper Native available to make a comparison.
User avatar
Music Wolf
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1777
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2006 1:00 am
Location: Exiled to St Helens

Re: Kemper & OX hardware ...vs... VSTs?

Postby John Egan » Sun Jun 09, 2019 11:18 am

Elephone wrote:Hello. I'm just wondering why amp modeling hardware would be better than VSTs like BIAS, Line 6 Helix, S-Gear, etc... as so many people seem to say.

Surely it's just a computer doing the main work in there?


It's mainly a question of not having to worry about latency. However, it does also force me to commit to a sound early, which always works better for me. It also mimics the way I work if I mike up a cab.
Re-amping doesn't work for me. Using a substantially different sound would make me play differently and the result of re-amping rarely sounds right.
But whatever works for you is the right way to do it!
Regards, John
User avatar
John Egan
Regular
Posts: 320
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 1:00 am
Location: Staffordshire, England

Re: Kemper & OX hardware ...vs... VSTs?

Postby Dave B » Sun Jun 09, 2019 3:04 pm

Music Wolf wrote:OK, I have both the Kemper and the Helix. I've also owned modellers such as the Marshall JMP-1 pre amp, Sanamp, Vox ToneLab, Blackstar ID and of course 'real' amps with glowing glassware

Erm... I'm fairly sure that the JMP-1 was pre-modelling and had 4 discreet voicings (clean1,2, OD1,2). It had an emulated speaker output, but I wouldn't class that as modelling...

(I still have one somewhere along with a Boss GX700 for effects - great rig)
User avatar
Dave B
Jedi Poster
Posts: 5337
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2003 12:00 am
Location: Maidenhead
Veni, Vidi, Aesculi (I came, I saw, I conkered)

Re: Kemper & OX hardware ...vs... VSTs?

Postby Music Wolf » Sun Jun 09, 2019 4:12 pm

Dave B wrote:
Music Wolf wrote:OK, I have both the Kemper and the Helix. I've also owned modellers such as the Marshall JMP-1 pre amp, Sanamp, Vox ToneLab, Blackstar ID and of course 'real' amps with glowing glassware

Erm... I'm fairly sure that the JMP-1 was pre-modelling and had 4 discreet voicings (clean1,2, OD1,2). It had an emulated speaker output, but I wouldn't class that as modelling...

(I still have one somewhere along with a Boss GX700 for effects - great rig)

True. The JMP-1 was a digitally controlled analogue pre-amp with speaker emulated outputs. I think that the Sansamp was also an analogue device, so not possible to make a direct comparison with VSTs as you can with Helix / Helix Native (both the JMP-1 and the Sansamp are both excellent bits of kit by the way).
User avatar
Music Wolf
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1777
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2006 1:00 am
Location: Exiled to St Helens

Re: Kemper & OX hardware ...vs... VSTs?

Postby CS70 » Sun Jun 09, 2019 7:02 pm

Elephone wrote:Hello. I'm just wondering why amp modeling hardware would be better than VSTs like BIAS, Line 6 Helix, S-Gear, etc... as so many people seem to say.

I would hate if I had to monitor the guitar (or anything) thru the interface. The guitar's responsiveness is a lot the playing feel and without direct monitoring that's just a no go.

In hardware, the full chain is optimized for one thing and often the physical controls are as well. You have knobs and whatsnot which are dedicated to what the guitar does. You want more level, there's the volume knob. You want more trebles, there's the treble knob (well, apart the Axe Fx of course.

How much that's important is of course dependent on your previous experience (how much cutting tape is important for people grown up with DAWs? Nada..)

But many guitarists start the old way, a crappy guitar and a crappy amp and since that's what they learn with, that's what they prefer..

Otherwise, yeah - the only difference between the various emulations are the algorithms used, no more no less.
User avatar
CS70
Jedi Poster
Posts: 4367
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2012 1:00 am
Location: Oslo, Norway
Silver Spoon - Check out our latest video  and the FB page

Re: Kemper & OX hardware ...vs... VSTs?

Postby ore_terra » Mon Jun 10, 2019 8:38 am

Elephone wrote:Hello. I'm just wondering why amp modeling hardware would be better than VSTs like BIAS, Line 6 Helix, S-Gear, etc... as so many people seem to say.


As said, it’s more an interface (and experience) difference rather than purely sound or tone difference.

I presume you'd have to play both the modeled amp and the Kemper amp through the same cab to hear how similar they are?
Must say the when I’ve profiled my amps (I got the heads profiled and use it with cabs from other profiles) I could not tell any difference when comparing the “real” amps with the profiled one, as this comparison is part of the profiling thing.

Also, how well do Kemper and OX model the more extreme sounds of say a Fender Bassman, with feedback and all the rest? Does everything really behave the same way?

They do feedback if you have the monitors loud enough. In terms of “feeling”, if you’re use to the physical sensation of having a 4x12” pumping behind you, you will miss that. If you (like me) are used to the sound of a mic’ed amp (I never play too loud, I use IEM live so I am), you will enjoy playing these things. When I got the OX I spent 3 h playing with headphones, thing that I had not done in years :lol:
Are any VST amps actually designed to be physically re-amp'd, I mean say for live performance, (with specific cabs in mind perhaps) or are they all intended to be cab'ed ITB to play through studio monitors?

Thanks.
Didn’t get what you mean here. Sometimes I’ve done a recording session DI’ing the guitars and just placing a BIAS vst in an insert slot for the guitar players to record and I would re amp it later. I also know a couple of guys touring live with an iPAd with BIAS with no further reamping or anything.
User avatar
ore_terra
Frequent Poster
Posts: 619
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2016 1:56 pm
Location: Seville - Spain

Re: Kemper & OX hardware ...vs... VSTs?

Postby Elephone » Thu Jun 20, 2019 5:27 am

Can this profiling tech be used to emulate effects and processors, or valves and tape machines? Does that not require multiple snap-shots taken over milli-seconds? I presume everything is being done considering the demand. The number of tape plugins being developed, that get reviewed in 'shoot outs', etc.
Elephone
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1143
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 1:00 am

Re: Kemper & OX hardware ...vs... VSTs?

Postby Elephone » Thu Jun 20, 2019 6:02 am

John Egan wrote: Re-amping doesn't work for me. Using a substantially different sound would make me play differently and the result of re-amping rarely sounds right.
But whatever works for you is the right way to do it!
Regards, John

But... if you could use any VST pedals (via expression pedal) in the DAW with a virtual amp head, then re-cab it (through a suitably transparent amp) ...surely that would give you a lot of sonic options, while maintaining the standard live setup of a guitar and amp'd cab...? I'm not sure how well the guitar would feedback with that setup.

With the presence of the guitar in front of the amp, is there always some kind of feedback involved then? If so, does this only work while you're playing the guitar part or could the guitar be left in front of the speaker while re-amping, for instance?

Is there any evidence that it makes an actual difference, or are people assuming it must? I know the cab would vibrate the wood and cause the strings (& pickups) to vibrate, but some studios have the guitar amp'd in a separate room from the player anyway, so I presume that practice is no different than re-amping a recorded dry signal... except for how it influences the performance(?)

You see, I'm not particularly interested in what's 'convenient' or 'easier'. Money is the main limiting factor, so what interests me is buying minimal gear to make things sound 'living' and feel more interactive, while taking advantage of the free/demo DAW instruments and VSTs I can access.

I know virtual cabs are incredibly convenient, but I'm not sure they're all that convincing for the kind of nuances I'm looking for. It might actually be necessary that I buy all real gear, but I'd like to see if there is a viable compromise.

Many of the people happy with these in-the-box amps & cabs seem to be into metal (or making music where the guitar is just a stem part that rarely stands out enough to be judged) ...and I can see how someone who likes bit-crunch distortion on every track would be quite happy with the uniformity of virtual amps & cabs.

I suppose I'm looking for ultra convincing 50's, 60's & early 70's tones without having to have all the expensive amps and while taking advantage of all the VST pedals, etc. In that music, there are a lot of nuances, where the guitar tone distorts only at certain times rather than always this blanket distortion, which isn't my bag really.

If you were offered a £million by someone wanting to sound exactly like Booker 'T' and the MGs, would you even dream of involving virtual amps & cabs, assuming they can play?

Thanks
Elephone
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1143
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 1:00 am

Re: Kemper & OX hardware ...vs... VSTs?

Postby CS70 » Thu Jun 20, 2019 8:17 am

Elephone wrote:Is there any evidence that it makes an actual difference, or are people assuming it must?

That's one of the "if you have to ask" things. :)

What John is about is very real: there's a constant cycle between the physical choices you make when playing guitar and the equipment producing the corresponding sound. Pick attack, timing, latency (there's latency in a analog circuit as well), use of legato or individual picking, clarity, harmonic content, decay and dozens of other parameters are involved.. you play, you hear the result, in a millisecond you start adjusting. Depends on your skill level of course: if you know only one way of picking, you will always use it and with some kit it will sound good, with other it will sound crap. The more skill you have, the more stuff you hear and control (consciously or not) and thus the more you are impacted by the real differences in behavior of the kit you use.

A funny thing is that, even lacking the actual skill, everyone can try to "reason" themselves to think that there should be some differences and come up with imaginary differences between equipment that in practice do not exist - and perhaps miss hte ones that obviously are present once you actually start using the gear. The whole digital/analog debate, "supercable" debate, my-guitar-is-better-than-yours things are examples of that.

The only evidence is in the playing. Close your eyes and forget what you're playing- if you feel a difference, there's a difference. If not, there isn't - for you at least. And that's really all the evidence that's needed.

I know the cab would vibrate the wood and cause the strings (& pickups) to vibrate, but some studios have the guitar amp'd in a separate room from the player anyway, so I presume that practice is no different than re-amping a recorded dry signal... except for how it influences the performance(?)

Sure, and to a degree it does affect your playing. It's the same on stage, if you have your amp nearby or use the sound by monitor.

The feel of playing is a complex beast made by many components, one of which is the physical presence of the amp in the room. It's not all there is, but it's something.

You see, I'm not particularly interested in what's 'convenient' or 'easier'. Money is the main limiting factor, so what interests me is buying minimal gear to make things sound 'living' and feel more interactive, while taking advantage of the free/demo DAW instruments and VSTs I can access.

I know virtual cabs are incredibly convenient, but I'm not sure they're all that convincing for the kind of nuances I'm looking for. It might actually be necessary that I buy all real gear, but I'd like to see if there is a viable compromise.

Many of the people happy with these in-the-box amps & cabs seem to be into metal (or making music where the guitar is just a stem part that rarely stands out enough to be judged) ...and I can see how someone who likes bit-crunch distortion on every track would be quite happy with the uniformity of virtual amps & cabs.

I suppose I'm looking for ultra convincing 50's, 60's & early 70's tones without having to have all the expensive amps and while taking advantage of all the VST pedals, etc. In that music, there are a lot of nuances, where the guitar tone distorts only at certain times rather than always this blanket distortion, which isn't my bag really.

If you were offered a £million by someone wanting to sound exactly like Booker 'T' and the MGs, would you even dream of involving virtual amps & cabs, assuming they can play?

Thanks

I think you're trying to reason yourself to something that cannot be reasoned to. A little Aristotelian fallacy, if you want.

Take whatever kit you have, and see if you can play what inspires you to play. If it does, stop caring if it's VST, analog, digital or made in China, US or whatever.

If you find that there's something that you would like to play, but you can't.. ask yourself: it's my skills? Or my equipment? It can be either and even both, really. Then try to figure out how to get there. Most often skills are the biggest limiting factor for all of us - because even knowing how to get somewhere is a skill. The flip side is the most beautiful thing of music - that you can always, always get better, to the day you die! :D

A million dollar would not make you sound like Booker T. Being Booker T. would. Or spending countless hours try to figure out what made Booker T sound like himself...
User avatar
CS70
Jedi Poster
Posts: 4367
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2012 1:00 am
Location: Oslo, Norway
Silver Spoon - Check out our latest video  and the FB page

Re: Kemper & OX hardware ...vs... VSTs?

Postby Elephone » Thu Jun 20, 2019 9:46 am

CS70 wrote: That's one of the "if you have to ask" things. :)

Thanks. I was really talking about the purely technical aspect of the physical/electro-mechanical interaction of the equipment. Does it make a difference if the guitar isn't in the same room as the amp, in terms of the guitar interacting with the amp/cab. I've never completed a guitar track that uses re-amping and certainly never compared the two.

CS70 wrote: What John is about is very real: there's a constant cycle between the physical choices you make when playing guitar and the equipment producing the corresponding sound. Pick attack, timing, latency (there's latency in a analog circuit as well), use of legato or individual picking, clarity, harmonic content, decay and dozens of other parameters are involved.. you play, you hear the result, in a millisecond you start adjusting.

I understand this. The main reason I'm not so clued-up on electronics and technical stuff is because I actually trained as a musician, not an engineer except for the basic music technology, effects and processors.

CS70 wrote: The only evidence is in the playing. Close your eyes and forget what you're playing- if you feel a difference, there's a difference. If not, there isn't - for you at least. And that's really all the evidence that's needed.

This is true, but cognitive biases are extremely difficult to override, probably near impossible. So I really think there should be far more blind tests than there is. My problem is the cheap quality of (e.g.) metal guitar sounds or sample-based/soft synth-based music which really distracts me from critical, objective listening of example comparisons on Youtube. I could never be a music producer for money because I'd hate most of the stuff I'd been asked to work on that much.

CS70 wrote: I think you're trying to reason yourself to something that cannot be reasoned to. A little Aristotelian fallacy, if you want.

You mean, that it's something that seems like common sense but isn't true? But with the actual physical movement of a speaker within a cab, and with the all the electrical interaction, it would be more far-fetched to assume an IR or virtual simulation would necessarily offer the authenticity of real gear.

Similarly, I'm never that impressed by CGI either, except for the incredible technical achievement of it, I think it looks naff, overall. When they try to do smoke, it looks cartoony, like chalk powder. No actor is going to make it look real. And yet others are blown away by it, perhaps those with a higher threshold for fakeness. I suspect the same is true in the audio world, rather than it being 100% down to playing, some of it just doesn't sound authentic enough for more 'primitive' styles (which shows you how primitive it isn't by exposing this more obviously).

CS70 wrote: If you find that there's something that you would like to play, but you can't.. ask yourself: it's my skills? Or my equipment?

I actually got more desirable results in the 90s, using inexpensive keyboard presets through a real Fender Twin than I've ever got from today's far more advanced virtual organs played ITB. It's like there's something too tame about virtual instruments and amps.

If I prefer unconvincing-when-dry 90's keyboard presets over multisampled/expertly modeled virtual instruments, I should at least try them through a real amp. But is it the head or the cab or both? I also think it's something like being in a space suit when playing instruments entirely ITB, especially with headphones. I wouldn't even like to track a guitar through headphones with the amp in a booth.

I also prefer the stuff I've done using real gear, and it's quicker because the sound right for me from the beginning and I have nothing to blame in the later stages. These two factors might not be unrelated because of the likelihood of tweaking my way into a pit in a DAW.

But at the same time, I think the instruments are so very nearly 'there' that I suspect it might be an amp/cab thing that's quite not up to the real thing. A sort of impressive facsimile but ultimately ... a bit uncanny valley.
Elephone
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1143
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 1:00 am

Re: Kemper & OX hardware ...vs... VSTs?

Postby John Egan » Thu Jun 20, 2019 9:50 am

Elephone wrote:But... if you could use any VST pedals (via expression pedal) in the DAW with a virtual amp head, then re-cab it (through a suitably transparent amp) ...surely that would give you a lot of sonic options, while maintaining the standard live setup of a guitar and amp'd cab...? I'm not sure how well the guitar would feedback with that setup.
I'm old school (late 50s and 60s) so I don't naturally gravitate to the hi-tech solutions when they separate me from the immediacy of playing and creating the sound with my fingers. I did use feedback back in the day - in fact my only effect was obtained by marking where on stage the best feedback occurred and where the "no-go" areas were with a stick of chalk. But that's something I don't see as a practical possibility in the studio.
So I do find that DAWs are a godsend since they increase the immediacy of the whole recording process, but fiddling about with minor aspects of the guitar setup leaves me cold.
Since I write my own stuff, It's about playing for the song, accepting that I will sound like me whatever I do and getting on with trying to get a decent result., for the whole thing.
If I mange that, I'm delighted.
Regards, John.
User avatar
John Egan
Regular
Posts: 320
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 1:00 am
Location: Staffordshire, England

Re: Kemper & OX hardware ...vs... VSTs?

Postby The Elf » Thu Jun 20, 2019 11:40 am

Elephone wrote:With the presence of the guitar in front of the amp, is there always some kind of feedback involved then? If so, does this only work while you're playing the guitar part or could the guitar be left in front of the speaker while re-amping, for instance?
No need - and that approach probably wouldn't work very well anyway. Anything that was happening at the time the DI was recorded will already be there, including feedback (assuming it was played in proximity to an amp/cab).

Elephone wrote:I know virtual cabs are incredibly convenient, but I'm not sure they're all that convincing for the kind of nuances I'm looking for.
Hmmm... have you actually tried any of the newer modelling systems?! It's not all about saturated metal sounds now! The subtle stuff is extremely convincing - at least to the point where I doubt you would be able to tell if I played you some examples.

I can't help feeling that that you're suffering from 'analysis paralysis'. You seem to have some odd, pre-conceived ideas about digital technology. I can guarantee that you've heard virtual amp technology and been blissfully unaware, and I can guarantee that you've seen CGI and not even known it's been there - and that's the impressive stuff.
User avatar
The Elf
Jedi Poster
Posts: 12922
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2001 12:00 am
Location: Sheffield, UK
An Eagle for an Emperor, A Kestrel for a Knave.

Re: Kemper & OX hardware ...vs... VSTs?

Postby CS70 » Thu Jun 20, 2019 12:26 pm

Elephone wrote:
CS70 wrote: That's one of the "if you have to ask" things. :)

Thanks. I was really talking about the purely technical aspect of the physical/electro-mechanical interaction of the equipment. Does it make a difference if the guitar isn't in the same room as the amp, in terms of the guitar interacting with the amp/cab. I've never completed a guitar track that uses re-amping and certainly never compared the two.

Apologies. Yes it does. The amp moves air producing soundwaves, the soundwaves reach you and their reflection reach you, so you hear a different sound. Whether or not it makes a difference to your playing, depends on you.


I understand this. The main reason I'm not so clued-up on electronics and technical stuff is because I actually trained as a musician, not an engineer except for the basic music technology, effects and processors.

Well then you have it: if you are an instrumentalist, the myriad physical aspects of the instrument should be clear. The electronics are just a way to do things, but you can judge things without needing to know how they work.

CS70 wrote: The only evidence is in the playing. Close your eyes and forget what you're playing- if you feel a difference, there's a difference. If not, there isn't - for you at least. And that's really all the evidence that's needed.

This is true, but cognitive biases are extremely difficult to override, probably near impossible. So I really think there should be far more blind tests than there is.


That's what I meant by "close your eyes". Totally agree on blind tests (and if you have a friend you can set some up), but I think it misses the point a little: it's all good for research, but making music is not research, it's art. Say you have a VST and a physical amp, and one inspires you and the other doesn't. It's completely irrelevant whether or not it's bias, physics or whatever! For the art - it's just a non-issue. That's what I mean when I write that you might be overthinking it. Good music doesn't flow from equipment, good or bad, it flows by someone who is inspired by whatever equipment at hand.

Sure you can spend time questioning the whys but it's a little of a Quixotic endeavour. Even if you find a chain of reasoning, it will hold only for you and as you say, it may simple involve bias. There's no scientific truth.

And without going all Dr. Phil, there is a component of fear.. it's much easier to tinker and experiment with the gear (and occasionally blame it) than actually admit that no good music is coming out because, well, it's not coming out. Creation is like a muscle and the only way to get result is to train it, and accept that when you start training it again it'll take a while to respond well. No excuses. :) Ask writers...


My problem is the cheap quality of (e.g.) metal guitar sounds or sample-based/soft synth-based music which really distracts me from critical, objective listening of example comparisons on Youtube. I could never be a music producer for money because I'd hate most of the stuff I'd been asked to work on that much.

Well then, if your quest is to find something inspiring using the minimal budget and kit, you have already found an answer: these sounds aren't for you. :-) No reason of using more time. Other people may find these sounds very appealing and inspiring and there's absolutely no right or wrong.

If your question is "am I imagining things?" the answer is.. well, probably yes in some parts, no in others. Mind me, we all do. An IR cab played thru headphones doesn't give u the same feel as an actual cab - but it's not the IR, you wouldn't get the same feel even if you were micing a real cab in another room (air movement etc).

If you fixate yourself on the technical aspects, you are creating a bias for yourself: "I cannot make good music without having this guitar, this amp, this mic... " (down to "this preamp", "this cable", "this 24K golden plated connector fused during the sacrifice of a virgin at midnight").

The reality is that you can make good music with anything, and bad music with anything, and the key difference is you - much more than VST versus real amps.

You mean, that it's something that seems like common sense but isn't true? But with the actual physical movement of a speaker within a cab, and with the all the electrical interaction, it would be more far-fetched to assume an IR or virtual simulation would necessarily offer the authenticity of real gear.

Similarly, I'm never that impressed by CGI either, except for the incredible technical achievement of it, I think it looks naff, overall. When they try to do smoke, it looks cartoony, like chalk powder. No actor is going to make it look real. And yet others are blown away by it, perhaps those with a higher threshold for fakeness. I suspect the same is true in the audio world, rather than it being 100% down to playing, some of it just doesn't sound authentic enough for more 'primitive' styles (which shows you how primitive it isn't by exposing this more obviously).

You just said it earlier yourself: "common sense" is very often bias. We can talk and reason until the end of days here, but that won't move you (or me) a iota in finding an appealing sound.. 10 minutes of playing a specific system will tell you more.

With CGI is simple. Can you tell it's fake if you aren't trying? Can you tell it's fake if you are really trying? More importantly, can you tell without knowing in advance? We've gone past the first question way many years ago. Show "Titanic" to a kid and he will not see any CGI. The second.. well, depends a bit on your knowledge, but for many cases the only giveaway is that we know that, for example, Transformers do not really exist or can't physically work as they do in the movies. But a well made CGI of something mundane... I bet any money neither you nor anyone would be able to tell it's not real (as a viewer).

In audio, as a listener, is the same thing: no-freakin'-body will be able to tell in a mix how a sound was made, unless it's mixed colossally wrong. For guitar, that's true since POD times :-) For drums and bass guitar, way before!

As a player, well, you have way more information than a listener and certain physical aspects (such as the amp in the room and its volume, the amp response latency, how it reacts to the specific guitar) can be a giveaway.

I actually got more desirable results in the 90s, using inexpensive keyboard presets through a real Fender Twin than I've ever got from today's far more advanced virtual organs played ITB. It's like there's something too tame about virtual instruments and amps.

A lot of it I suspect it's sheer volume. We don't push monitors the same way we push an amp, and the sound feels weaker.. because it is. Less level, less distortion. :)
User avatar
CS70
Jedi Poster
Posts: 4367
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2012 1:00 am
Location: Oslo, Norway
Silver Spoon - Check out our latest video  and the FB page

Re: Kemper & OX hardware ...vs... VSTs?

Postby Sam Spoons » Thu Jun 20, 2019 2:25 pm

There's much that I agree with here but you've now mentioned 'latency' in relation to analogue amp/guitar rigs twice. AFAIK there is no latency in an analogue rig, I'm curious to know where you believe it comes from CS70?
User avatar
Sam Spoons
Jedi Poster
Posts: 10369
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2003 1:00 am
Location: Manchester UK
Finally taking this recording lark seriously (and recording my Gypsy Jazz CD)........

Re: Kemper & OX hardware ...vs... VSTs?

Postby CS70 » Thu Jun 20, 2019 3:34 pm

Hehe yeah I used the term on purpose. Part of the way an amp feel is the way it responds to picking, where certain amps feel more immediate and others have a certain slowness to them. Transistor amps feel faster to me than tune amps, and certain tube amps faster than others (my Mesa vs my AC30 for example).

Of course we aren’t talking of anything comparable with the latency due to digital sound processing, but it’s a property of the amp, actually to me one of the most important (since lot of the sound is actually in the speaker/cabinet).

Then there’s the physical time the reflections take to reach your ears, which in turn depend on the room size and where the amp is. Have you noticed how when you jam, a song tempo gets automatically a little faster or slower depending on the room? If we don’t stick to a pre-defined bpm, the rhythm will tend to respond to the room reverb so that it falls nicely with the bears. It’s something pretty automatic and we’re probably taking fractions of bpm but it’s the reason sometimes a metronomic tempo doesn’t feel ‘right’ in a specific room.

These things affect the player feel and they deal with time so I called them ‘latency’ for lack of a better word.
User avatar
CS70
Jedi Poster
Posts: 4367
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2012 1:00 am
Location: Oslo, Norway
Silver Spoon - Check out our latest video  and the FB page

Re: Kemper & OX hardware ...vs... VSTs?

Postby Sam Spoons » Thu Jun 20, 2019 4:06 pm

I getya CS :thumbup: I think I'd describe it as 'attack' rather than 'latency' though. I did wonder if you were referring to the delay caused by distance from the speaker but I wouldn't describe that as 'latency' either.

I haven't even thought about the tempo/room thing you mention but I will next time I play......

And loving the spell checker corrections, will look out for 'bears' at the next jam session :D
User avatar
Sam Spoons
Jedi Poster
Posts: 10369
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2003 1:00 am
Location: Manchester UK
Finally taking this recording lark seriously (and recording my Gypsy Jazz CD)........

Re: Kemper & OX hardware ...vs... VSTs?

Postby blinddrew » Thu Jun 20, 2019 4:08 pm

Sam Spoons wrote:And loving the spell checker corrections, will look out for 'bears' at the next jam session :D
Image
User avatar
blinddrew
Jedi Poster
Posts: 8299
Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2015 12:00 am
Location: York
Ignore the post count, I have no idea what I'm doing...

Re: Kemper & OX hardware ...vs... VSTs?

Postby Sam Spoons » Thu Jun 20, 2019 4:10 pm

:clap: :clap: :clap: :bouncy: :bouncy: :bouncy:
User avatar
Sam Spoons
Jedi Poster
Posts: 10369
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2003 1:00 am
Location: Manchester UK
Finally taking this recording lark seriously (and recording my Gypsy Jazz CD)........

Re: Kemper & OX hardware ...vs... VSTs?

Postby Elephone » Thu Jun 20, 2019 4:33 pm

CS70 wrote: Apologies. Yes it does. The amp moves air producing soundwaves, the soundwaves reach you and their reflection reach you, so you hear a different sound. Whether or not it makes a difference to your playing, depends on you.

I'm not talking about how it affects playing or how we hear it, only how the actual equipment reacts. I realise that one feeds into the other in practice, but I'm talking purely about the equipment, as though a robot was playing, if you like.

CS70 wrote:The reality is that you can make good music with anything, and bad music with anything, and the key difference is you - much more than VST versus real amps.

You can make good or bad music with anything, but not necessarily the same music or the sound you really want. So, if you have a strong liking for genuine Fender Rhodes and you only have a 90's Yamaha presets, you're not going to create the music you would have with a real one.

CS70 wrote: With CGI is simple. Can you tell it's fake if you aren't trying? Can you tell it's fake if you are really trying? More importantly, can you tell without knowing in advance?

I can tell, but how much it bothers me depends on the choices. Like, Lord of the Rings films look processed with those sickly green Photoshop-like filters, but people love them. Whenever I've been truly impressed by 'CGI' I've found out they've used actual models, for example in Star Wars VII: The Force Awakens.

CS70 wrote: In audio, as a listener, is the same thing: no-freakin'-body will be able to tell in a mix how a sound was made, unless it's mixed colossally wrong. For guitar, that's true since POD times :-) For drums and bass guitar, way before!

Personally, I don't care about what other people can distinguish. I know from following Dub music that no one can get anything close to the golden era of the early 70's without acquiring a lot of gear and abusing it!

If it's all (or even mostly) about the playing, are we going to say the music in Sergio Leone westerns was not heavily reliant on the recording/production methods? Just bring to mind that over-recorded jaw harp. How can we separate it from what is being played, as though it were dots on paper. Incidentally, I do think people think like this. When I said the new Dr Who music isn't as good, people replied "It's the same music!" as though Delia Derbyshire's arrangement had no influence.

CS70 wrote: A lot of it I suspect it's sheer volume. We don't push monitors the same way we push an amp, and the sound feels weaker.. because it is. Less level, less distortion. :)

But this is in recording also, not just live. I simply think you can hear the difference between physics of an amp and virtual reality (as would be expected, why wouldn't it be?) perhaps not so much with very uniform guitar amp tones like so many players seem to opt for, or droney playing, or heavily compressed/fuzzy amp sounds, but one thing seems to encourage the other.
Elephone
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1143
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 1:00 am

Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users