# Tube amps... Why?



## Hypno Toad (Aug 1, 2009)

*Before you don't read the post, and simply begin to criticize me, please note that I'm not saying one is better than the other. I consider tube amps and SS amps to be equal, what I'm wondering is why so many other people consider tube amps to be superior.*

I used to very skeptical about the differences between amps that use tubes, and about why they are considered superior to transistor amps by many people. Today I found myself window shopping for tube amps at L&Q and the first thing that popped into my head is "Why the heck am I doing this?" considering that tube amps are 2-3 times more expensive than a transistor amp and I don't know why they are sought after so much. 

When I went shopping for my first decent SS amp with my dad (whom knows next to nothing about music hardware), we started taking a look at the higher quality amps, he was simply flabbergasted at the prices. I mentioned that the main difference is the more expensive, larger models use vacuum tubes. Being the old timer he is, he looked at me and laughed, asked "who the hell still uses vacuum tubes?" as he remembers them being those volatile glass bulbs in his television set when he was a kid. It kind of makes you wonder, why do amps still use tubes? 

Now, I guess it'd be a fair argument that a lot of tube amps are better made than the mass produced solid state amps. If it's going to cost in the range of $1000+ it's hard to imagine it was put together in some wage slave factory in Malaysia. But that being said, why aren't there many _high end_ Solid State amps? For the price you save on hand labor and cheaper electronics, you could probably give it a monster of a cabinet and huge speaker and still keep the price lower than your average tube amp. But if anybody wants a high end amp, they're pretty much doomed to a tube amp.

Now before you give me a bunch of hate replies back, let me say that I'm not saying that SS is better than a tube amp (or visa versa), the point of this post is to try and get some answers as to why there are so few high end solid state rigs,a nd why exactly tubes are still used. I want a high end amp at some point, but the whole mechanical reliance that tube amps have makes them seem sort of needy and finicky, and I'm not one who really appreciates an electronic device that really needs a lot of care.

Aside from the reliability and care issues of a tube amp, what exactly is the difference in sound? From what I can tell from videos and reviews of both tube amps and SS amps, the sound of a tube amp, if anything has less potential audio fidelity than a SS amp. There's a bit of a noticeable difference in warmth. While the amp is in overdrive the tube amps seem to be a bit fuzzier and warmer, while the SS amps have a more clean overdrive. If you _really_ want that tube sound, I'm sure it could be replicated with a solid state amp, I have to laugh at people who say you can't; if SS amps ever get software into them, there is no sound they won't be able to replicate.


If I can make some assumptions for a moment, I think the idea that tube amps are superior gets sort of burned into peoples heads for various reasons:

A) Because almost all vintage amps use tubes. Don't get me wrong, I can see why people collect old amps, I love old technology too, but I think since people pay a lot for old stuff. So regular amp companies go out of their way to design their amps like vintage stuff because people pay a lot for vintage stuff. Makes sense, right?

B) The pricetag. Vintage amps are more difficult to produce (which is why SS amps are technologically superior to them) and that brings the pricetag up. I think we can all agree that a lot of people tend to make the assumption that something more expensive is always better, which a lot of the time, is not the case.

C) The "vibe" you'll get from using and owning one. I can agree that having a finely crafted piece of vintage style electronics certainly does have it's benefits. You've got your loud, warm tube amp, and you have your Modest, reliable, articulate solid state amp. When the two are side by side, you might feel more inclined to love the tube amp more just for the "oomph" it has. 

D) People aggressively convincing you they are better. There's almost an aspect of peer pressure (especially for people new to the music hardware field) where it's like "well, I've got a fender frontman, and I think it's a pretty nice amp for the stuff I do." _Then_ you've got some arrogant asswipe who comes out and basically tells them "**** you, your amp is bad and you should feel bad. Now buy this tube amp." (this happens everywhere on the internet, all the time) after a while that sort of thing just works away at you.


Through it all, I would love to own a tube amp one day (mostly for an interest I have in the old tech nature of vacuum tubes), and other than that I have absolutely no idea why. I just _want_ one. And that confuses me. If I'm going to be forced to irrationally like something, I'd at least try to make an attempt at figuring out why I should. Any ideas? There's a lot of older guys on this forums, and I can understand why you might like a tube amp over an SS, because that's what you grew up with, and are used to. Though, a lot of young guys seems to have it in their heads that all SS amps suck.


----------



## Scottone (Feb 10, 2006)

Hypno Toad said:


> While the amp is in overdrive the tube amps seem to be a bit fuzzier and warmer, while the SS amps have a more clean overdrive. If you _really_ want that tube sound, I'm sure it could be replicated with a solid state amp, I have to laugh at people who say you can't; if SS amps ever get software into them, there is no sound they won't be able to replicate.


Lots of smart engineers have tried over the years, but haven't quite nailed it yet IMO. I think its just a matter of time before they get there.

Personally, I prefer the overdrive characteristics of tube amps so use them pretty exclusively. I also think that some older transistor amps (the ones that don't pretend to be tube amps) can have a great nasty overdrive tone.

When someone nails the formula for a modeling amp, I'll make the switch...getting too old to haul around heavy tube amps


----------



## Hypno Toad (Aug 1, 2009)

Yeah I think EQ software implementation should/will be the future of the solid state at some point. The whole tube-sound mimicking thing is a bit weird to me. I find the niche area of guitar amplifiers to be sort of interesting, because most of the tech is something like 20 years behind the rest of the audio world, I'm very surprised so few (if any) amps have software in them.


----------



## Budda (May 29, 2007)

the axe-fx is as close as they've gotten - and that's digital, not solidstate. Solid state is lagging, digital is "where it's at" for some people. Why do people keep going tube? Some people are ditching $3K tube heads (or holding on to them if they can afford to) and getting into things like the digitech GSP1101 or the axe fx + midi + speakers.

You won't see too many high end digital/SS heads... because that's not the form they take. There's the H&K Switchblade and the Line 6 Vetta II - those are the only two I can think of, and I don't know how the switchblade sounds.

High end digital *preamps* come in rack form, such as the peavey rockmaster, digitech GSP2101/GSP1101, axe-fx.


----------



## Hypno Toad (Aug 1, 2009)

Budda said:


> High end digital *preamps* come in rack form, such as the peavey rockmaster, digitech GSP2101/GSP1101, axe-fx.


Those may be digital, but they still have the basic layout you'd get with something that is continuous.

I mean software, as in a partially computerized amp, giving you a small flatscreen with numerous preset tones, and a larger than average EQ selection. Possibly even an amp you could plug into your computer and modify from there.


----------



## keeperofthegood (Apr 30, 2008)

Hmmm


*Modern Technology:* is based on Silicon. Silicon takes a HUGE amount of electricity to manufacture. Then it takes HUGE amounts of electricity to laser cut. Then it takes HUGE amounts of very toxic chemicals to mask and etch. When it's life span is complete, it is non-recyclable mostly because it would take orders of magnitude to de-dirty silicon once used to make things than the energy it takes to pull it out of quarts in the first place.

Modern Technology has a life span of maybe 2 years, give or take. Computers usually go obsolete in 6 months, clock radios I have had last an average of 5 years before something unrepairable breaks on them. But that is OK with Silicon, because all of it is made to be thrown out when it breaks anyways. AND IF By some miracle you have the gumption to get something fixed, just try and find replacement chips after a few years @[email protected]

Modern Technology needs a mix of 1) a team of University Trained Specialists 2) A Super Computer and 3) Cheep labor to be able to bring you your computers and clocks and coffee makers.


VS

*Antique technology:* is based on the Vacuum Tube. Since the most energy needed is to melt glass, not pull the glass atomically apart, what is needed to manufacture a tube is pretty low (heck, I bet you can make tubes with a hand bellows). Since there are acids used in tube making, there are some dangerous compound, but these dangers can be mitigated by using functionally equivalent products that are more bio safe because the function of the acids are to create surfaces, not to chemically alter things. The other compounds, barium oxide, is a low level toxin to fish but then so is cow flop. When its life span is reached, it can be reconverted to base materials that can be recycled easily.

A tube has an operational lifespan of about 2000 to 3000 hours. I think this is a bit of a giggle really. A tube is a sealed environment, and I can buy traffic light bulbs with a lifespan of 20,000 to 50,000 hours. I think this was a design idea for making people have to change tubes so there was a built in factor of money making BUT I DIGRESS at 2000 to 3000 hours, that generally translates to about *2 years useful life*. Unlike most modern tech items though tubes don't really ever go obsolete, considering some of the oldest designs are still in active use today. When a tube device breaks we repair it, generating jobs for repair people. Anything that breaks on a tube amp, stereo, tv, radio, transmitter, can be easily fixed or repaired. Being large, and chunky, old farts like me with poor eyes can SEE things in and on tube equipment, the buttons are not 1mm squares.

Antique Technology can be used and understood by pre-teens.

So, the more I think about it, the less I like modern tech. I think society became poorer for it. We lost a lot in 1961 when the tube table top radio went to transistor, and I don't think it was necessarily a good thing. Don't get me wrong, I happen to like my computer. But I far prefer a tube radio, I far prefer my old B&W TV, and I far perfer knowing that what I have can be with me for decades of faithful service every bit as good as the day I bought it.


----------



## Greg Ellis (Oct 1, 2007)

I think the only way to really answer the question (for yourself) is to spend some significant time PLAYING both options, at band volume.

Tube amps react differently than SS. They "feel" different when I play them. More organic, somehow. More responsive to everything I do while I'm playing.

I thought it was mostly hype too, until I tried it. Maybe it *is* just hype, and it's all psychosomatic. Whatever.

I have no desire to go back to SS, or to modelling, now that I've played a real tube amp. None whatsoever.


----------



## ajcoholic (Feb 5, 2006)

I had three really pi$$ poor SS amps over the years I was learning to play. The first two were cheap, no-name 10 or 15 watt practice amps, and my last one was a Traynor BLOC 100GT, a 2x10 combo that was loud and sounded like crap. I got it in about 1986, and played it until 1995 when I was happy to sell it. I replaced it with a Marshall solid state amp, which tome, sounded WAY better.

I had always wanted a tube amp... and eventually bought a JCM900 combo. Then a Fender DRRI, and an Orange R30.

Now, I sold everything, and all I have is low wattage (15 to 36 watt) all tube amps. 7 of them, and all but 1 I built myself from kits or scratch.

The thing I love about these amps, is they are quite simple. All the parts are capacitors, resistors and tubes & transformers. I can service them myself. I love the sound, and that makes them appeal to me.

I have played some pretty nice sounding SS amps (some Fenders and Marshall's and a Crate) that to me, sounded just fine. I would play some of them, easily. 

I have no bias in terms of price or brand name, but I do believe for me, the tube amps I have make me happy with the way they perform and sound.

AJC


----------



## Bevo (Nov 24, 2006)

I do think there is some tube snobbery but who cares.

Bottom line is what sounds good to your ears and pocketbook.
My neice couold not tell the difference between any of my amps as do some people, they also think that all beers taste the same..not so.

Great topic..

One thing I do love about the tube amps is the smell after it gets good and hot..oh yeah!!


----------



## greco (Jul 15, 2007)

Bevo said:


> One thing I do love about the tube amps is the smell after it gets good and hot..oh yeah!!


One of the guys that came to our jams (he didn't play...just drank beer) used to sit on my Super Reverb to keep his a$$ warm. 
We used to tell him that all those tubes give off a lot of dangerous waves, emissions, etc and tease him that if he sat there long enough he would never be able to father any children.

Back to the discussion....apologies to the OP 

cheers

Dave


----------



## Peter (Mar 25, 2008)

Tube amps sound more juicy.

They do.

:rockon:


----------



## Gene Machine (Sep 22, 2007)

*I agree in part*

I think it really depends on what you play, how you play and what sound your looking for. 

If your looking for super clean, no distortion, lots of headroom, then a good SS amp will likely be your amp of choice. By 'good' I mean one that won't distort when turned up loud, i.e. lots of headroom. The problem is a lot of cheap SS amps do not fit this bill, and so they do distort when pushed. When transistors distort, or clip, they do so in a very harsh manner that leads to odd order harmonics. Our ears don't generally like this, and people characterize it as a crappy sound. Pat Metheny used an old Acoustic brand SS amp for years, and had great tone, but it was a very clean jazz tone. It wasn't Allman Brothers Live at Philmore East.

If your goal is mild overdrive, sensitive to touch and playing dynamics, it's really hard to beat a tube. They way they naturally distort is more musical to human ears. (even order harmonics) Digital modellers are getting very good, but if you want a JCM800 sound, no better way than a JCM800. Same for Deluxe Reverb.

My $.02 

Gene


----------



## rhh7 (Mar 14, 2008)

One of my goals for the next five years is to build a tube amp, AND a solid state amp.


----------



## J S Moore (Feb 18, 2006)

You will never hear solid state, digital or software do this:

The Supernatural


----------



## Lemmy Hangslong (May 11, 2006)

Both can sound great and both can sound bad... to my ears great sounding tube amps sound better than great sounding SS amps... this is why I use them exclusivly... heavy sure but so are the other ones... light sure and both can come in very portable designs... thats a silly argument really. Yes I know Tube amps are in general more heavy but really get a small 1x10 single ended class a if you want light.
Like I've said before a s long as I can lug around a half stack I will and I will never complain simply because nothing else sounds quite like it and this is my preffered format.
As for the volume thing and the old saying that tube amps sound best cranked... sure they do but these days you can crank the power tubes at lower volumes.
Last time I looked no one was forcing anyone to use Tube SS or Digital... it's all by choice or pocket book... cant afford a real vintage Marshall "Plexi" go get the SS, Digital, or Tube equivilant for way less money. Doesn't sound like a real "plexi" some little nuances are missing... 10 different Plexis all in a row... do they all sound exactly the same... no.

I like the comments that "keeperofthegood" made... I don't like Silicon as much anymore.


----------



## rhh7 (Mar 14, 2008)

Very good points made by all! I joined the solid state guitar amplifier forum, ssguitar.com. What is the best tube amp forum?


----------



## zontar (Oct 25, 2007)

I own both, although my only tube amp is currently not at home.

I like both.
I also have a digital amp. And I like it too.

I mostly have used SS though, and I like the clean I can get with them, and I like my distortion pedals as well.
I like the tones I can get with a good SS amp and a distortion pedal.

If I do ever buy another amp though, I'd probably get a small tube amp--for variety.


----------



## Lincoln (Jun 2, 2008)

I think a lot of it is what style of music you play too. SRV would notice the difference more than metal masters.
A tube amp is "touch". Sensitive both in dynamic range and overdrive just by how hard & what angle you attack the strings. I've never notced that on a SS amp.


----------



## nonreverb (Sep 19, 2006)

Interesting observations! There are a couple of things to point out...once upon a time it took huge amounts of energy to manufacture tubes too! When that's all there was, they consumed alot of energy. If the population back in the heyday of the tube was as big as it is today, it would most likely consume more energy than manufacturing similar equipment does today. Just think how many more people would want a tube television or radio...
As for tube equipment being better it's kind of subjective. IMO, I like the way my flat screen TV looks. When I was young we had a black and white TV and I won't feel nostalgic if i ever see one again. Really, the tube stuff still being produced today ows its existance to the fact that as pointed out, the alternatives just aren't the same...maybe smaller, lighter with more features but somehow missing that which only tube amps can deliver. 



keeperofthegood said:


> Hmmm
> 
> 
> *Modern Technology:* is based on Silicon. Silicon takes a HUGE amount of electricity to manufacture. Then it takes HUGE amounts of electricity to laser cut. Then it takes HUGE amounts of very toxic chemicals to mask and etch. When it's life span is complete, it is non-recyclable mostly because it would take orders of magnitude to de-dirty silicon once used to make things than the energy it takes to pull it out of quarts in the first place.
> ...


----------



## keeperofthegood (Apr 30, 2008)

nonreverb said:


> Interesting observations! There are a couple of things to point out...once upon a time it took huge amounts of energy to manufacture tubes too! When that's all there was, they consumed alot of energy. If the population back in the heyday of the tube was as big as it is today, it would most likely consume more energy than manufacturing similar equipment does today. Just think how many more people would want a tube television or radio...
> As for tube equipment being better it's kind of subjective. IMO, I like the way my flat screen TV looks. When I was young we had a black and white TV and I won't feel nostalgic if i ever see one again. Really, the tube stuff still being produced today ows its existance to the fact that as pointed out, the alternatives just aren't the same...maybe smaller, lighter with more features but somehow missing that which only tube amps can deliver.


Oh I agree, the A vs B is subjective, which is why the "are tubes better than transistors" comes up so often. I think each has a place in society. I do feel we dropped tubes too fast and going to silicon was a rush, and that society as a whole was impacted by this change. 

To support the maligned tube: 

there is an energy cycle in manufacturing true. However, I do think that tubes, from raw ore to finished product, have a smaller footprint than anything made with silicon.  I wish I was in Uni with a bud that was good at sorting out the statistics, to really do it up properly. The big difference between the production energy of tubes and transistors is the energy to grow out silicon. I say this based on the vids and texts over time I have watched or read, and in that reading experience, it is a lot more than nickle, tin, zinc, copper or iron. Maybe there is a more modern or current mode of making silicon that I am not aware of, and I am interested in this enough to kindly ask for any information anyone has on this. 

The rest of what accounts for a tube device vs a transistor device, say with the OP's "guitar amplifier" is actually pretty much the same. Same cab's, same speakers, same power cords in same speaker wires out. 100watts is 100watts too, HOWEVER conversion efficiency is another thing I don't know about well enough to comment on so I cannot say if a SS drawing 100 watts of line power in will produce at 100 feet the same level of decibels as a tube amp drawing 100 watts of line power at 100 feet. *I would be curious for anyone to talk on that difference between tubes and silicon, power efficiency * but the next half of an items life cycle is that other part where they diverge. 

Tube equipment can be easily repaired, and failing repair, is more easily recycled back into tube equipment, but really, there are tube devices a century old that work today (or 60, in the case of Fender Guitar Amps) every bit as fine as when made, and still do their job to a level that people are not dissatisfied with it with tube designs that are still in active use today (that solid state mixer I have, if anything in it should smoke, the whole unit will be toast, none of the op-amps are in manufacture today etc). I am reading here in this thread that DIGITAL MODELERS are far better than SS Amps... which leads to the whole "vocoder VS talent" discussion on the one side, to repairability or reliability or upgradability or even long time maintainability on the other. I could buy that 60 year old Fender Champ for $1000 off eBay, and I know, if a resistor is gone in it I can replace it, if a tube is week, I can replace it. My computer is 5 years old, if something in my computer goes, I have to replace the whole unit as none of the parts internally were in production for any longer than it took to make the computer, and in 5 years, 10 years, the same fates will befall digital equipment. Sure, you only spent $500 on digital instead of $1000 on tubes, but in 100 years, replacing that 500 every 5 years (be real, it is digital, it is obsolete in a matter of months the plastic only lasts a few years and the parts are only made for that run so it breaks that is it, it is done) comes out to $10000, where as that $1000 amp, replacing appropriatly priced tubes, say 4 tubes at 20 bucks each, pushing their lifespan, every 3 years, in 100 years that is $2666.67, so the cost over what is the shown to date lifespan of tube equipment (as I said, there are century old tube devices still functioning today which is why I picked on 100 years) is significantly less than digital.

The biggest political hot potato over the last 20 years of waste management has been the recycling of silicon electronics. It is still shipped by the boatload to third world countries to fill land fills there while many of us "greenies" have been trying to get that stopped over the years http://earth911.com/blog/2010/01/15/nyc-e-waste-recycling-law-tied-up-in-court/ is the kind of deal, and kind of fights happening now. Here, we JUST got TV recycling laws AND options for home owners. 

Not to be a complete Luddite. *I LOVE MY COMPUTER* and many other silicon based tools I use every day. I am simply saying we rushed into silicon, but did not benefit from that to a huge degree and even lost a lot culturally due to that rush. Silicon replaced tubes, and that point in history is very interesting, the social shifts that occurred after 1961 (the end of the table top tube radio) and ending by 1971 (then end of the tube based television) were huge, many of the impacts with us still today. However, a good Tube Amp will give you more decades of use, with sound that remains "as good as" if not better than any piece of modern tech (as this thread is showing, it is an intellectual debate), and I do really believe that all radios should glow. If we took a good look at where society benefits, silicon and tubes both have a place, and there are a lot of places society would benefit with having silicon withdrawn from it

OH and, Hi Def TV was available "intellectually" in the 1950's, it was politics that set the TV standards and ended that drive so it never became a reality at that time. Been a few decades since I read that history though,  something to brush up on again


----------



## rhh7 (Mar 14, 2008)

Really enjoyed your post. My hope is to learn enough to design and build a very simple solid state amp. Wouldn't it be possible to build a ss amp with good components, hand wiring etc., which could then be repaired and kept going indefinitely like a tube amp?

I would also like to build a tube amp, with one tube for preamp, and one tube for power.


----------



## keeperofthegood (Apr 30, 2008)

rhh7 said:


> Really enjoyed your post. My hope is to learn enough to design and build a very simple solid state amp. Wouldn't it be possible to build a ss amp with good components, hand wiring etc., which could then be repaired and kept going indefinitely like a tube amp?
> 
> I would also like to build a tube amp, with one tube for preamp, and one tube for power.


I have a book somewhere. It is filed with "onion skin" pages, about 3 inches thick from Motorola, third edition of the transistor cross reference. The actual pages is in the 1000's somewhere. There are a few important things to know about this book. The third edition was the most popular, and it was the last. Nearly 99.9% of the transistors and diodes listed in it are out of production as well, and not just due to replacement-obsolescence, but because industry went to IC and simply stopped needing such a wide variety of parts.

The other side of the coin in terms of tech change, has been a new idea. Instead of getting a transistor tailored to your application, just tweak your application to a stock transistor. This is in part why there are still so many 2N2222's around or 1N4000 to 1N4007's, because the need for an "exact" part disappeared with general functional understanding.

The end results for silicon here is that is has been a victim of its own success. While you "can" do a hand wired, transistored and fet'd amplifier (I would use both, bias with transistors as they make good constant voltage or current sources, signal amp with fets for the even harmonics and high impedance's), getting those parts right now will be harder than 20 years ago, and will be even harder in 20 years. If you do (and I do feel you should) build a silicon based amplifier, I would encourage you gluing in a mint tin or similar container inside the amp with a dozen spare transistors/fets/diodes  because in 10 or 20 years when a part fails, you may be hard pressed to replace it.

Op-Amps are more time stable, though their specs change, and you may need to update more than just the chip when going from one to the next (thank pedal builders for the info on what is and is not compatible and what level of work you need to do to change one to another).

Purpose built amplifier IC's like the TA###### series ... those are a crap shot, what is in or out of production or for how long :/


----------



## Budda (May 29, 2007)

My buddy out east has an axe fx. His buddy has a mesa mark IV. Axefx guy uses the mark IV sim for his main patch. They ran the patch through the power amp of the mark IV and guess what!

It was ridiculously close to the exact same tone.

Maybe I'll give a modeler another chance some day. I was going to use a GT-8 for fx and recording.. I plugged into the JSX 9 times out of 10 in the timespan I had it. I sold it, and got some nice tattoos out of the deal haha


----------



## Lemmy Hangslong (May 11, 2006)

The other guitarist in our band uses a combination of Marshall tube head DSL 100 and a SS Fender Chorus M 80 Head and he has the best hard rock metal tone I've heard... the SS amp keeps it's the huge bottom tight and the top has a very distinctive sparkle teh distortion is very "clean" with not a whole lot of sustain.
The Marshall provides most of the low mids, mids, hi mids and highs, and most of the grind with a smoother high gain.
With a slight amount of chorus there is a stero split and an enherant "wideness" that occurs.

So there you go SS and Tubes together with a great end result.


----------



## Rugburn (Jan 14, 2009)

Different amps for different needs I think. After playing a hollowbody for the last few years through several tube and SS amps, it's clear that she* behaves* better with SS. This shouldn't be confused with necessarily *sounding* better. For blues the hollowbody sounds much better through a tube amp. On the other hand NOTHING sounds as good to me as my Strat through my PR. However, I play my Roland Micro Cube most of the time, and it's an awesome little brute. Tubes are my very favorite, but good sounds can come out of anything.

Shawn.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

I moved to modelers a few years back and have no regrets. I think we spend far too much time worrying about the petty stuff and fail to see the big picture.

What matters most to me is how the band sounds in the seats, not how I sound on stage.

My personal experience is that a good modeling device, patched direct to the snake results in a better overall sound than even the best boutique tube amps with a mic in front of them.

There are a number of reasons for this. One is the reduced stage noise, presuming you use PA monitors or IEMs to hear yourself. 

Another is the fact that by the time your sound travels through a mic, 25' of mic cable, 100' of snake, through the board and outboard gear, then back down the 100' snake to the power amps and eventually to the mains the chances of retaining those subtle, almost imeasurable details tube amp lovers cling to, are pretty much non-existant.

Also, it's nice to eliminate the clutter. Some people like amps to be visible (otherwise why give a crap what they look like). Personally, I care more about how he PERFORMER looks. Even when I used tube amps, I hid them behind a backdrop for a more theatrical look.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

I find that for any kind of 80's rock and heavy metal like Van Halen and ZZ top kind of thing that nothing beats my Rockman gear. But for blues and more delicate stuff I use my tube amps


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

A lot of generalizations in the OP. Tube amps aren't better, SS isn't better. Amps are simply tools. You choose the right tool for what you want to accomplish. If you want that tube saturation you're not going to get it from an SS amp. A lot of players claim success in emulating the sound with modelers and I've spent considerable time with them. They aren't really for me. I like my rig very simple. I love an amp with 2 or 3 knobs (even one would be ideal) No tweaking or worrying on stage. 
At one time I carried a pretty complicated rig. Roland GP 16, roland D50 (for synth sounds) and a couple of amps. One tube and one SS. I found that my guitar processors were very finicky and had to be re eq'ed for every room. It was a nightmare. Constant tweaking all night instead of enjoying the playing experience. And heaven help me if a patch or midi cable went. I'd waste time sourcing out the issue. 
I've also had many SS amps both low end and more expensive over the years. Although the theory is that they are more reliable then tube amps I found that wasn't always necessarily the case. I'd have lots of issues as they didn't seem to always be durable for the road. And if something did go seriously wrong you basically through it out if it wasn't in warranty. Tube amps can also suffer the effects of the road buy are easier to trouble shoot. And the point to point wired amps are usually easier to fix. I only hear this from amp techs. I don't fix them my self. 
If I am after a super clean sound in an amp that is lighter than a tube amp then definitely SS is the way to go. There are some very expensive booteek ones out there (Pritchard) Not sure what they are like but they cost as much as a tube amp. Probably lighter though.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

guitarman2 said:


> A lot of generalizations in the OP. Tube amps aren't better, SS isn't better. Amps are simply tools. You choose the right tool for what you want to accomplish. If you want that tube saturation you're not going to get it from an SS amp. A lot of players claim success in emulating the sound with modelers and I've spent considerable time with them. They aren't really for me. I like my rig very simple. I love an amp with 2 or 3 knobs (even one would be ideal) No tweaking or worrying on stage.
> At one time I carried a pretty complicated rig. Roland GP 16, roland D50 (for synth sounds) and a couple of amps. One tube and one SS. I found that my guitar processors were very finicky and had to be re eq'ed for every room. It was a nightmare. Constant tweaking all night instead of enjoying the playing experience. And heaven help me if a patch or midi cable went. I'd waste time sourcing out the issue.
> I've also had many SS amps both low end and more expensive over the years. Although the theory is that they are more reliable then tube amps I found that wasn't always necessarily the case. I'd have lots of issues as they didn't seem to always be durable for the road. And if something did go seriously wrong you basically through it out if it wasn't in warranty. Tube amps can also suffer the effects of the road buy are easier to trouble shoot. And the point to point wired amps are usually easier to fix. I only hear this from amp techs. I don't fix them my self.
> If I am after a super clean sound in an amp that is lighter than a tube amp then definitely SS is the way to go. There are some very expensive booteek ones out there (Pritchard) Not sure what they are like but they cost as much as a tube amp. Probably lighter though.



Just an observation, but once the programming is done (at home), modellers are actually dead simple to use at a gig. It's a matter of doing the ground work ahead of time. If you program effectively, it's at least as easy as a conventional pedalboard/amp set up.


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

Milkman said:


> Just an observation, but once the programming is done (at home), modellers are actually dead simple to use at a gig. It's a matter of doing the ground work ahead of time. If you program effectively, it's at least as easy as a conventional pedalboard/amp set up.



At one time I was really in to all that tweaking and programming. But I was never good at it. If I was after a particular fender tube sound or some other amp I could never emulate it with modelers to my taste. I'm one of those guys that if the knobs buttons or software parameters are there I'll addictively tweak forever. where as I buy a tube amp with a volume and a tone knob I set the tone to taste and the volume as need and the rest of the night I enjoy playing.
I know there are those that get great sounds out of modelers. But they have never really worked for me.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

...i love my tube amp.

but, my tech 21 trademark 60 is not going anywhere.

as for digital - i'll keep an open mind.....

-dh


----------



## lbrown1 (Mar 22, 2007)

had digital and modelling for a while......amp and guitar modelling.....great tools - but in the end - liek another post mentioned - lots of prework to allow you to be able to fully utilize it in a live situation......

I use my tube amp for playing and full band practice.....it just sounds better in the band mix and - as I make full use of that saturated creamy tube tone.....never really looking for a fully clean tone.

I use my little SS Fender Frontman for practice alone......and I think it sounds really good if the gain isn't up too high

different strokes for different folks.......and different situations

oh - and as BEVO says - I like the smell of them hot tubes too


----------



## ezcomes (Jul 28, 2008)

i have the VOX AD50 valvetronix amp...its nice...i like it...but...you have to program your sounds in...if you need to tweak, then you have to reset everything, and then reprogram the setting...it has two channels and then a effects setting too...i've currently got mine set so that i've got channel one and two set...and the rather than click the foot switch to turn the effect on, it switches the amp to the current settings on the amp...thus making it a three channel amp...

its got decent clean and distortion...but...you cn't get the touch dynamics...i like being able to roll the guitar volume back some to clean up the signal, but all that does is turn the volume down...so i can't get that edge of breakup sound going...

i'm keeping the VOX but i'm looking for a tube amp...i want the dynamics...


----------



## Zeegler (Jan 2, 2006)

Very short answer: Tube amps sound better.

I've yet to hear a SS amp that I like. I have heard all kinds of clips of SS amps that supposedly sound good, but they just generally sound fizzy and tinny. Perhaps there are some good ones. Post some clips so I can hear one.


----------



## Zeegler (Jan 2, 2006)

Budda said:


> the axe-fx is as close as they've gotten - and that's digital, not solidstate. Solid state is lagging, digital is "where it's at" for some people. Why do people keep going tube? Some people are ditching $3K tube heads (or holding on to them if they can afford to) and getting into things like the digitech GSP1101 or the axe fx + midi + speakers.
> 
> You won't see too many high end digital/SS heads... because that's not the form they take. There's the H&K Switchblade and the Line 6 Vetta II - those are the only two I can think of, and I don't know how the switchblade sounds.
> 
> High end digital *preamps* come in rack form, such as the peavey rockmaster, digitech GSP2101/GSP1101, axe-fx.


Digital IS solid state.


----------



## keeperofthegood (Apr 30, 2008)

I Huff Paint said:


> Digital IS solid state.


Hmm... I think of Digital as "solid state with an expiry date".


----------



## Zeegler (Jan 2, 2006)

keeperofthegood said:


> Hmm... I think of Digital as "solid state with an expiry date".


That's one way to put it


----------



## zontar (Oct 25, 2007)

KHINGPYNN said:


> The other guitarist in our band uses a combination of Marshall tube head DSL 100 and a SS Fender Chorus M 80 Head and he has the best hard rock metal tone I've heard... the SS amp keeps it's the huge bottom tight and the top has a very distinctive sparkle teh distortion is very "clean" with not a whole lot of sustain.
> The Marshall provides most of the low mids, mids, hi mids and highs, and most of the grind with a smoother high gain.
> With a slight amount of chorus there is a stero split and an enherant "wideness" that occurs.
> 
> So there you go SS and Tubes together with a great end result.


And that's probably why I liked Legend amps so much.
But the only times I ever saw any for sale I didn't have the cash.

The second time I was ready to sell some of my gear to pay for it--but before I could do that--it sold.
Actually it sold very quickly.
I saw it the first day they had it, it was gone later that day.


----------



## dillinger4ever (Oct 27, 2009)

I think (maybe I'm wrong on that one) tube amps generates different level of harmonics.

And from what I can tell, and this is once again all a matter of personal taste, nothing compares to the cleans of a fender or the roar of a hiwatt or the wail of a marshall or whatever.

But this will never happen at bedroom level.


----------



## Jimi D (Oct 27, 2008)

I Huff Paint said:


> Digital IS solid state.


No... no it isn't... especially insofar as guitar amplification is concerned. My Trademark TM60 amplifier is a solid state amplifier, but there is NO DIGITAL CIRCUIT in it - at no time is the audio signal transformed from an analog signal to a digital (binary - you know, ones and zeros) one... Digital audio gear may have solid state circuits in it, but the defining aspect of such a circuit is the translation of the analog signal to a digitized representation of that signal, a translation that many people say effects the nuances of said signal in a negative fashion...



david henman said:


> ...i love my tube amp.
> 
> but, my tech 21 trademark 60 is not going anywhere.


+1 Even though my TM60 has been relegated to the role of my Mandolin amp since I got my Mesa Mark V, I'll never get rid of it; it's a great sounding amp!

Besides the TM60, I've got some SS practice amps (Roland Cube 30, Tech21 Trademark 10), and they sound pretty good, especially at low volumes, but they can't hang with a full-out hard rock band; when I rehearse and play out, I want the punch and body and air I get with a tube amp; the Trademark 60 comes close to realizing that, but compared to my SFDR, it isn't quite as expressive on the cleans, and the overdrive doesn't compare to either of my Mesas (Mark V, Express 5:25)... Ultimately, you can argue the technologies and specs until you're blue in the face, but to my ears, there is nothing as sweet as an electric guitar setup that includes a good tube amp. 

That being said, I think a lot of the lower-end tube stuff blurs the line here: the drive channels on the Fender Mexi amps are generally pretty poor to my ears, for example, and I think there are plenty of good ss amps that can do the Blues Deluxe thing as well as Fender's "tube" amp (the TM60, for instance)... There are equivalent examples of mediocre tube amps from Crate, Peavey, Behringer, whoever... and then there's the digital side of things that is often confused with solid state (but, of course, isn't), as well as the amps and effects that add tubes to digital or ss circuits... We're spoiled for choice today, that's for sure... Use what you need to find the tone in your head...


----------



## nonreverb (Sep 19, 2006)

There are equally justifiable applications for both solid state and tube amps. However,IMO tube amps place is in guitar amplifiers. Tube amps are inefficient devices with large amounts of their input power wasted as heat. It's easy to malign the solid state amp but when you consider the idea of say, building a 4000 watt PA system with tube technology then you realize just how uneconomical and inefficient it would be.
I agree that tube guitar amps sound better to my ears, however, I own a JC120 and I wouldn't use anything else for amplifying a Rodes or Wurlitzer for instance as it's clean power is excellent.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

guitarman2 said:


> At one time I was really in to all that tweaking and programming. But I was never good at it. If I was after a particular fender tube sound or some other amp I could never emulate it with modelers to my taste. I'm one of those guys that if the knobs buttons or software parameters are there I'll addictively tweak forever. where as I buy a tube amp with a volume and a tone knob I set the tone to taste and the volume as need and the rest of the night I enjoy playing.
> I know there are those that get great sounds out of modelers. But they have never really worked for me.


And of course most guitarists would agree with you.

My views on the subject are no doubt impacted by the fact that I spend more of my time behind the FOH mixer these days than playing.

I guess the trade off for having an ultra spartan set up (one tone knob and a volume) is a much narrower array of tones. Again though, when I'm playing a set, it doesn't matter whether it's a modeler or a simple amp and a couple of pedals. Tweaking during a set is a no no for me. Dialing in my tones with a Tonelab is simple. It takes a couple of minutes per sound and then they're programmed in a couple of seconds.

In fact, simplicity of set up and operation is a big factor in my preference to modelers.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

This is a quick note betweenmeetings, while I wolf down lunch. So if this has already been said by earlier posters, you'll forgive me.

One of the attributes most often sought in contemporary amp users is the quality of distortion. Among distortion users, there are those whose sense of what is desirable is really focussed on the amp's front end, or on the sound a pedal makes, and there are those whose sonic goal really relies more on the entire amp.

It is possible to design a very nice solid-state front end that distorts well, but the vast majority of SS amps do ot have subsequent stages designed in anticipation of breaking up in a pleasing way. That's a broad generalization, and not doubt there are many exceptions, but when Fender or Marshall smack a power-amp chip, whether 5W or 80W, into the power section of their amps, it is not designed by them, and it is certainly not designed by SGS Thompson or NatSem or Rohm or Toshiba or whomever to break up nicely. It is designed to resist breaking up until it isn't possible any more. The result is that the breakup properties of the amp are confined to the deliberate distortion circuits in the front end, and whatever it is that the particular speakers do.

In contrast, virtually every stage of a tube amplifier possesses identifiable and modifiable distortion characteristics, from the input tube to the phase splitter to the output tube to the transformer. All of these can be played with and pushed or relaxed to varying degrees to yield an overall *cumulative* breakup tone. It is that tone that people praise.....assuming that their preference is not confined to SS front ends, diodes, and pedals.

So, I think the OP's question was a fair opne to ask. For me, the answer is that, in some ways, one simply has more sonic choice and control with a tube-based amplifier.

there, got a meeting to rush off to, so I'll catch up with this thread later.


----------



## High/Deaf (Aug 19, 2009)

Some interesting thoughts by the OP.



I Huff Paint said:


> Digital IS solid state.





Jimi D said:


> No... no it isn't... especially insofar as guitar amplification is concerned. My Trademark TM60 amplifier is a solid state amplifier, but there is NO DIGITAL CIRCUIT in it - at no time is the audio signal transformed from an analog signal to a digital (binary - you know, ones and zeros) one... Digital audio gear may have solid state circuits in it, but the defining aspect of such a circuit is the translation of the analog signal to a digitized representation of that signal, a translation that many people say effects the nuances of said signal in a negative fashion...


I think you misread the poster (Mr. Huff Paint) you quote. He didn't say that all s/s amps are digital, but that all digital amps are s/s. And he is correct. While a digital amp may have tube stages, the digital part is most definitely solid state. If not, you are looking at one tube/bit, like Eniac. You never find a road crew big enough to carry that one! But you are correct in that not all solid state amps have any digital stuff going on.


----------



## High/Deaf (Aug 19, 2009)

Milkman said:


> And of course most guitarists would agree with you.
> 
> My views on the subject are no doubt impacted by the fact that I spend more of my time behind the FOH mixer these days than playing.
> 
> ...


If I had a FOH guy that was a guitar player, I'd be more inclined to leave my tone in his hands.  But I guess if I'm miked, that is the case anyways. Fortunately, I don't usually play gigs that big anymore - everything off the stage and vox and some drum through the PA.

I have modeling equipment and I usually take it along with me when I go to open jams - especially if I don't know what the backline will be. All I need then is one clean channel and my modeler provides consistent preset tones. Not as nice a tone as my tube amps, IMHO, but consistent and repeatable. 

I don't have much luck in getting what I want out of unfamiliar modeling amps. Imbedded controls, unusual terminology. Trying to dial in an unfamiliar modeling amp makes the most complicated Mesa seem like child's play. If they have a tube amp, I'm pretty confident I can get a useable tone or two out of that.


----------



## High/Deaf (Aug 19, 2009)

As for me, I prefer tube amps. I don't prefer carrying the extra weight, I don't prefer the extra maintenance required. I don't prefer the fact that their sound changes over time and as they get used. But there is something obviously there that I do prefer - in fact, enough to put up with all the other stuff.

I think, as already mentioned, its as much the feel as the sound. The way the sound comes out as you touch the strings. I've never really experienced that with a s/s or modeling amp. Granted, I've never played through a really good one, like an Axe-Fx. I'd like to some day, but I would also have a hard time justifying 2-3K for a computer based piece of equipment - they never appreciate.

That said, I do believe eventually modeling will take over. Maybe not completely, not for absolutely everyone, but for most of hobbiests. Just like there was resistance initially to digital recording (and rightly so in some cases), it eventually took over. It eventually got so good as to be nearly impossible to differentiate from analog (at least the very good recordings) and it has so many advantages over analog that its pretty hard not to use it. Imagine a modeling amp that gave you the sound and feel you wanted in a box the size and weight of a delay pedal - and that's just Preset 1. I haven't seen it yet, but I can't believe it won't happen somewhere down the road. It just keeps getting cheaper and better all the time.


----------



## lbrown1 (Mar 22, 2007)

although I can certainly appreciate the benefits of modelling - I used it for quite a while....I doubt digital stuff will ever completely take over the tube amp......as many a guitarist feels the combo of the guitar, coupled with the pedal (maybe) coupled with the amp are a single integral instrument..........


----------



## zontar (Oct 25, 2007)

High/Deaf said:


> I don't prefer the fact that their sound changes over time and as they get used.


This was one of the reasons I went looking for a new amp when I got my JC-60.
It's one of the reasons I got a SS amp.

But I do still like tube amps as well.


----------



## Rugburn (Jan 14, 2009)

High/Deaf said:


> Some interesting thoughts by the OP.
> 
> I think you misread the poster (Mr. Huff Paint) you quote. He didn't say that all s/s amps are digital, but that all digital amps are s/s. And he is correct. While a digital amp may have tube stages, the digital part is most definitely solid state. If not, you are looking at one tube/bit, like Eniac. You never find a road crew big enough to carry that one! But you are correct in that not all solid state amps have any digital stuff going on.


In regards to the electronics involved, yes both use SS components, but Jimi D is absolutely right when he says that SS and digital amplifiers _*amplify*_ instruments in completely different ways. Simply put, solid state amplifiers use similar circuits as tube amps only they employ transistors rather than tubes. Digital preamps are a software emulation of a given amp or crcuit. This requires that the analogue signal from the guitar be converted to binary code. Hence the oft heard complaint of latency issues or that they don't "feel" right.

Shawn


----------



## High/Deaf (Aug 19, 2009)

I can appreciate the differentiation.

But to say a digital amp isn't solid state would be erroneous. Not only is the digital circuitry solid state, the signal most likely passes through analog xistor stages before the digital conversion, and again after being converted back to analog and amplified. 

I couldn't imagine the size of an ADC, let alone the uprocessor, if not using silicon chips.




lbrown1 said:


> although I can certainly appreciate the benefits of modelling - I used it for quite a while....I doubt digital stuff will ever completely take over the tube amp......as many a guitarist feels the combo of the guitar, coupled with the pedal (maybe) coupled with the amp are a single integral instrument..........


No completely, as I said. But to a much larger extent than it is now. 

On the other hand, there must be more tube amp manufactures now than there's ever been. By at least a factor of 10. There will always be a market for tube amps. 

But if we all see many of our guitar heroes using Axe-FX Mark33 on arena tours, how many will follow them? That said, maybe some of them already are, but they will still have their wall of Marshalls for the visuals? Not like that kinda thing hasn't been happening for decades already. Things that make me go: hmmmmm..................


----------



## Zeegler (Jan 2, 2006)

Jimi D said:


> No... no it isn't... especially insofar as guitar amplification is concerned. My Trademark TM60 amplifier is a solid state amplifier, but there is NO DIGITAL CIRCUIT in it - at no time is the audio signal transformed from an analog signal to a digital (binary - you know, ones and zeros) one... Digital audio gear may have solid state circuits in it, but the defining aspect of such a circuit is the translation of the analog signal to a digitized representation of that signal, a translation that many people say effects the nuances of said signal in a negative fashion...
> d...



You have a comprehension problem my friend. I never said that solid state is digital. I said that digital is solid state, which it is. Just like a Siamese cat is a feline, but not all felines are Siamese. So, yes digital IS solid state.


----------



## Rugburn (Jan 14, 2009)

Well, semantics aside, I've come to favour the overdriven/distorted tones of the better digital amps over any non-digital SS models I've ever tried. The attempt to "model" tubes has proven more succesful than with the transistor amps of yesteryear IMHO. Of course the greatest advantage is to have those tones at bedroom volumes. When you have the luxury of driving a 50+ watt beast into saturation on the other hand, then there's little comparison.


Shawn


----------



## Zeegler (Jan 2, 2006)

Rugburn said:


> Well, semantics aside, I've come to favour the overdriven/distorted tones of the better digital amps over any non-digital SS models I've ever tried. The attempt to "model" tubes has proven more succesful than with the transistor amps of yesteryear IMHO. Of course the greatest advantage is to have those tones at bedroom volumes. When you have the luxury of driving a 50+ watt beast into saturation on the other hand, then there's little comparison.
> 
> 
> Shawn



Oh, without a doubt. I agree 100%. The advances in modelling technology over the last 5 years are astounding, and I've been fooled many times (mostly by the Axe FX) into thinking a clip is a tube amp. However, when actually in the room, I find even the best digital modelers tend to fatigue my ears after even 20 minutes. There is definitely something more organic about the way a tube amp sounds. I'll bet that within another 5 years, modelers will be on par. Will it end the reign of the tube amp? Hell no.


----------



## 4345567 (Jun 26, 2008)

__________


----------



## Budda (May 29, 2007)

If you dressed up a killer digital or SS rig with the exact same layout as your average 2ch 2 EQ master volume/presence head, and then told someone to play it, they may very well tell you "aw this tube amp rocks! what do you mean there's no tubes?!?!"

If you can put the digital version of a mesa roadster in place of my mesa roadster, but all my lovely controls are still there, and it sounds the same, yeah I wouldn't mind one


----------



## High/Deaf (Aug 19, 2009)

And its worth noting that YMMV. Its all personal preference. No doubt we all start with what our heroes use, but it shouldn't close our minds. I'm remaining open minded about modeling - technology will be the second coming and it will hit us while we are looking for a man (thanks, Devin, for that one.....).


Dimebag Darrel got incredible tone out of solidstate amps. Both in the studio and live. And he made no bones about using solid state. I've used solid state amps, but for what I play, they just feel a little sterile or something. 

But I don't play the same kinda stuff DD did. Wish I could, but that stuff happened too far along in my playing - my mold was already cast in the '70s, I guess. Not to mention, not many singers I jam and play with have much appreciation for, or interest in, singing like Phil!


----------



## Phlegethon (Dec 18, 2009)

interesting topic 

not too sure why nobody would make a high end SS amp . . although it would make for an interesting project. my best guess as to why there aren't any high end SS amps is that there's nobody willing to put the time and money into making one. at the end of the day an amp builder wants to make money . . . and if making money means taking the "easy" way out and making tube amps (as SS amps don't sell as well) then they're not going to bother putting the time/money/effort in making high end SS amps. 

second, SS amps function entirely different than tube amps if you want as high quality sound as possible . . . so building one from scratch would require you actually start with a completely blank slate. the biggest example in how tubes and SS differ is power amp distortion. with power tubes, the distortion gives even order harmonics which sound good. . .but the SS amp has to avoid power amp distortion at all costs (and get distortion from the preamp) as it simply reproduces everything. . .and that means rather harsh odd order harmonics 

at the end of the day though, if there were such a thing as a high end SS amp that could do all the things that a tube amp would let me do then I would have no need or reason to have an amp with tubes in it. . . .I generally prefer SS amps anyways. they're lighter, and they're more consistent across a wide volume range. but the fact that I am basically resigned to buy a new amp if it breaks is a bother. if SS amp makers would figure out a way to make their amps fixable like tube amps *and* put quality time in to finding out how to make one sound good on it's own merits than they would kill of their tube powered cousins


----------



## Budda (May 29, 2007)

I don't like dimebag darryl's tone, at all *L*


----------



## Jim DaddyO (Mar 20, 2009)

My 2 cents.

Why tube amps?
Why do people keep rebuilding and driving 60's muscle cars when new ones out handle them, are safer, and get better MPG?
Why do people go out of their way to get chippendale furniture when new stuff is cheaper, more comfortable, and more durable?
Why does anyone go out looking for anything old when there is a modern replacement?
I think there was a time when things were manufactured with pride. They lasted, were functional, and elegant. Tube amps, while sounding better IMO than SS amps, brings us back to those days. Something you can turn on, turn up, and play. No fussing, or tweaking, or messing around. Just tone.


----------



## Budda (May 29, 2007)

We can turn this into a new topic in the general section and ask "Why do people keep gravitating to outdated, old material goods?"


----------



## keeperofthegood (Apr 30, 2008)

Hey I recall when Hamilton built its "screw you" expressway. So much egg on its face when the surrounding communities became Hamilton, but their "expressway" goes up the old Ancaster boarder (was not going to connect to Ancaster, that was a fight to have access), through the center of "the mountain", and down the old Stoney Creek boarder (Stoney Creek never managed to get linked to The Link). Making sure it was a 'Hamilton Only' upgrade to traffic control (they shut down 10 lanes of traffic, replaced those 10 city lanes with 2 lanes of 'expressway' due to the doubling of city traffic... city math skills A+). The politics of waste aside (and that road is a billion dollar waste and counting), EVERY SINGLE BRIDGE over that piece of expensive tarmac looks EXACTLY like EVERY SINGLE BRIDGE over that piece of tarmac!!

Hamilton gets fog, rain, and night. In the dark, in the fog, in the rain... you don't see the sign, you have NO idea what bridge you are at, what turn off you are approaching, or where you are.

So, yes, 50 years ago, when bridges were competed for in design, designed by artists and architects, built by construction workers that were also craftsman, there would never be an issue, every overpass would be unique, and identifiable and points of pride.... and not "another featureless grey slab".


----------



## Rugburn (Jan 14, 2009)

Phlegethon said:


> interesting topic
> 
> not too sure why nobody would make a high end SS amp . . although it would make for an interesting project. my best guess as to why there aren't any high end SS amps is that there's nobody willing to put the time and money into making one. at the end of the day an amp builder wants to make money . . . and if making money means taking the "easy" way out and making tube amps (as SS amps don't sell as well) then they're not going to bother putting the time/money/effort in making high end SS amps.
> 
> ...


There are exceptional SS amps being made today. They're very expensive and can be great sounding amps for those that are chasing a certain sound, but they fall short of what tube amps can do. The point here I think, is that the better types of SS and tube amps can do different things very well. 

http://www.jazzamp.com/products_combos.asp

http://www.polytoneamps.com/gpage1.html

http://www.acousticimg.com/index2.html

Shawn


----------



## Budda (May 29, 2007)

Keep, I find your post very interesting as I drove to Hamilton yesterday afternoon and left today - first time driving in the city, and my 2nd time being there in.. 8ish? years.


----------



## keeperofthegood (Apr 30, 2008)

I lived there for 12 or 13 years. Just around the corner from Limeridge Mall, just off Upper Gage. I spent a few years doing deliveries and got to experience that dang road under a LOT of different conditions, and even after YEARS I still manage to miss my off ramps >.< or take an off ramp and realize "dammmmmmm"!

I DO miss the days where city construction wasn't military in nature; but actually added to the interest and pride of a city. Sure, a big grey slap of pre-stressed concrete gets the job done; however, it doesn't last longer than something artistically built (there are a lot of grey slabs across Hamilton and Burlington that are in need of LOTS of repair and they are only 10 to 30 years old), cost less then something artistic, and it sure is a visual disappointment to see.


----------



## Budda (May 29, 2007)

I'm glad there's only 2 places I need to be able to get to then haha - the university and my friend's place which is 5 minutes away from said university!

Back on topic, I'd be playing guitar if I could think of something other then the same old stuff to play! Through my tube halfstack...


----------



## keeperofthegood (Apr 30, 2008)

Budda said:


> I'm glad there's only 2 places I need to be able to get to then haha - the university and my friend's place which is 5 minutes away from said university!
> 
> Back on topic, I'd be playing guitar if I could think of something other then the same old stuff to play! Through my tube halfstack...



Haha can't help you there, I'm not even really listening to "guitar" music per/say tonight. A mix of experimental, dance, trance, and classical; Ataraxia, Oophoi, and Benny Benassi LOL


----------



## Powdered Toast Man (Apr 6, 2006)

I think several people here have nailed it when they said it's about choosing the right tool for the job. If you're looking for lots of clean volume then SS is the answer. I've heard that many jazz and funk players use SS for this reason. Also, something many of you have overlooked is BASS amps. If you look over on the bass side of things, a good portion of the high end stuff there is all SS, not tube. 
I've personally gone all tube with my amps. Why? It's just the sound I prefer. I also must prefer simplicity in my controls. I don't like multi-effects pedals for this reason - same with programmable amps. I've come to a place in my style where the fewer knobs I have to turn to make it sound good, the better. I also like how you can change the character of a tube amp by changing the tubes (even I thought this was BS until I actually had to retube one of my amps and it noticeably altered the tone).
A buddy of mine bought himself a brand new Line6 rig back in the summer. He played one gig with it and realized he didn't like how it sounded or how much he was having to tweak it. He'd always been a digital/SS guy but he decided to go out and just try everything to see what he liked. Ended up dumping the Line6 and replacing it with a Marshall DSL100. It's his first tube amp and he can't get over the difference in tone. He told me that the Line6 sounded great at bedroom volumes but it's when you get the volume up to stage level that it falls short.


----------



## Hypno Toad (Aug 1, 2009)

greco said:


> One of the guys that came to our jams (he didn't play...just drank beer) used to sit on my Super Reverb to keep his a$$ warm.
> We used to tell him that all those tubes give off a lot of dangerous waves, emissions, etc and tease him that if he sat there long enough he would never be able to father any children.
> 
> Back to the discussion....apologies to the OP
> ...


hahaha

My room get freezing cold in the winter, I suppose an upside would be the excess heat generated.


I've been watching a lot of those "fretted americana" videos on youtube, and phil x often uses an old magnatone tonemaster, which just sounds absolutely awesome. How hard is it to find on of those, and if so, how much do they cost (usually)


----------



## Powdered Toast Man (Apr 6, 2006)

This is why:

[YOUTUBE]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/xfLU2W0NTl4&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/xfLU2W0NTl4&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## torndownunit (May 14, 2006)

I am not going to argue that modeling or solid state amps can't 'replicate' a tube amp sound exactly yet. I have a 1968 Princeton Reverb and a 1966 Reverbrocket II. Nothing sounds like those amps. Especially the Ampeg.

But... I have started to use a Roland Cube 60 for gigging. The main reason? It's 'good enough' tone wise for almost any jam situation/live I have used it in. It's a small, loud amp that is built like a tank and gives me very 'usable' versions of my tones from my other amps, a couple of a usable effects (touch of trem, touch of reverb). I can guarantee if no one could see the amp on stage, they would have no idea I am playing through a Cube and not a tube amp. Especially playing in environments with a lot of people. And another important factor, the gap between the 'feel' of a tube amp and the modeling amps is starting to decrease IMO. I don't feel like I am missing out or sacrificing my playing gigging with the Cube.

So it's about perspective for me. I will still use my tube amps for recording, but I love the convenience of the Cube live. And again, while it doesn't exactly replicate the tube amps, I think it sounds REALLY good. That's just the bottom line for me nowadays.


----------



## Wild Bill (May 3, 2006)

torndownunit said:


> But... I have started to use a Roland Cube 60 for gigging. The main reason? It's 'good enough' tone wise for almost any jam situation/live I have used it in. It's a small, loud amp that is built like a tank and gives me very 'usable' versions of my tones from my other amps, a couple of a usable effects (touch of trem, touch of reverb). I can guarantee if no one could see the amp on stage, they would have no idea I am playing through a Cube and not a tube amp. Especially playing in environments with a lot of people. And another important factor, the gap between the 'feel' of a tube amp and the modeling amps is starting to decrease IMO. I don't feel like I am missing out or sacrificing my playing gigging with the Cube.


Well, I actually put your "guarantee" to the test!

A few years back I used to have these SS vs tubes arguments with a local guitarist named Mark Severn. Mark was a fabulous guitar player who managed to make his living in the studio and as a sideman for many of the high level performers in the industry. I don't think most folks ever realized the level of performers that Mark often backed! Sadly, we lost Mark in a car crash. A terrible shame.

Anyhow, Mark used to bring me his Valve State for servicing. This was fairly often as after all, it WAS a Valve State! He would always insist that it sounded the same as any tube amp he ever played! I would counter with the usual arguments from the other side. We had a lot of fun but of course, Mark would never give in!

Anyhow, Mark had some friends putting on a Sunday jam at a club in Niagara Falls, Canada and invited me down. I brought one of my tube amp projects, essentially a Marshall Plexi-style, along with a 2-12 Celestion cab.

I set my gear up a bit to the side. As we all know at a jam folks are mostly using the host band's equipment. Mark and his friends played an initial set and then the jamming started.

It took about half a set before someone asked about my setup. I explained that I wasn't much of a player but I built amps and had brought these projects for anyone to try. Immediately a local hot guitarist plugged in to my "stack" and gave my tube amp a whirl.

After that, NO ONE played Mark's setup! Every single guitarist used my amp and cab! I was very careful to stay back and say little, so as not to have Mark claim I was "pushing" the tube stuff over his gear. Mark was nonchalantly wandering around the bar, obviously listening to my gear but also obviously "trying not to be seen", a la Monty Python! The lead singer of the host band (a VERY talented lady named Kim Germaine!) and I were snickering up a storm watching him!

Mark never wanted to talk about tubes vs. transistors again after that afternoon. I didn't bug him about it. I think his feelings had been hurt enough.

No some might claim that since the first jammer was a great guitarist everybody just wanted to use the same gear as him. I don't think so. Mark had played the first set and I guarantee there wasn't ANY other guitarist at the jam anywhere near his league! His fingers were always magic and legendary. To me, it was obviously about the tone. People may not have been up on all the pros and cons of tubes vs. solid state but they naturally gravitated to what they found more pleasing.

I'd bet THREE beer on being able to repeat the experiment and win, any time!


----------



## torndownunit (May 14, 2006)

Wild Bill said:


> Well, I actually put your "guarantee" to the test!
> 
> A few years back I used to have these SS vs tubes arguments with a local guitarist named Mark Severn. Mark was a fabulous guitar player who managed to make his living in the studio and as a sideman for many of the high level performers in the industry. I don't think most folks ever realized the level of performers that Mark often backed! Sadly, we lost Mark in a car crash. A terrible shame.
> 
> ...


Ya but Bill, for me it doesn't matter in the SLIGHTEST what *other guitarists think*. I couldn't care less, they aren't playing my rig, and I don't play 'jam nights'. The only thing that matters is if it's good enough sound wise for *My gig* and the *crowd* watching. What other musicians think never even crosses my mind which is why I didn't clarify that in my post. The only thing that matters is the show I am getting paid to play and if my sound is ok for it. And I can guarantee you 1000000% that my sound is good. If it wasn't, then I simply would not be using the rig. I am only 33, but I have been gigging live since I was 12 years old. I won't play something that doesn't sound or feel good to me.

Again, I never denied the tube amp will likely sound better. I clearly laid out it's a matter of what I personally prefer to use nowadays because of the convenience of having one small light amp with all my sounds in it. No pedals, no stacks, no heavy combos. Just grab and go. You are presenting an argument where there is absolutely not argument to present.

I mean, I own 2 of the best sounding tube amps ever made, and have owned at least a dozen high quality vintage and custom made tube amps over the years (not a modern mass produced amp in the bunch except for a Traynor YCV50). I know how the amps sound and never once have I said a Cube sounds 'better' than those amps. And that is why I use them for studio work. There are a lot of other guitarists who have made the same choice I have for live playing for their own personal reasons. It's not like I am an anomaly or something.


----------



## Hypno Toad (Aug 1, 2009)

Those Roland Cubes are fantastic little amps. If you mic them, lots of people might not even notice you're not playing on a high end rig, or at least from what I've _seen_ (never actually played them, but most everybody who talks about them only has great things to say)


----------



## Rugburn (Jan 14, 2009)

Wild Bill said:


> Well, I actually put your "guarantee" to the test!
> 
> A few years back I used to have these SS vs tubes arguments with a local guitarist named Mark Severn. Mark was a fabulous guitar player who managed to make his living in the studio and as a sideman for many of the high level performers in the industry. I don't think most folks ever realized the level of performers that Mark often backed! Sadly, we lost Mark in a car crash. A terrible shame.
> 
> ...


While I can imagine a Marshall Plexi-type clone would be obvious in it's tonal superiority over a SS or Valvestate-type hybrid, I think it would be interesting to see how a well dialed-in Cube amp would fair in this kind of shootout. In a roomfull of discerning 'tone snob" types listening intently to them side by side, I think it would be pretty clear that the Cubes fall short of the real deal. However, in a busy bar with all the din and chatter, I'm not so sure it would be as cut and dry. I recently ran my *Micro Cube * through a friend's PA, and we were all suitably impressed. Just my $0.02 worth.

Shawn.


----------



## torndownunit (May 14, 2006)

Rugburn said:


> While I can imagine a Marshall Plexi-type clone would be obvious in it's tonal superiority over a SS or Valvestate-type hybrid, I think it would be interesting to see how a well dialed-in Cube amp would fair in this kind of shootout. In a roomfull of discerning 'tone snob" types listening intently to them side by side, I think it would be pretty clear that the Cubes fall short of the real deal. However, in a busy bar with all the din and chatter, I'm not so sure it would be as cut and dry. I recently ran my *Micro Cube * through a friend's PA, and we were all suitably impressed. Just my $0.02 worth.
> 
> Shawn.


Ya that's another good point as well. The Cube is not a Valvestate. But I wouldn't expect either to give you a bang on Marshall replication. But ya, I am strictly talking about live playing situations in busy rooms with a full band when I refer the sound as being 'good enough'.

There are some of us who like minimal gear. I am not saying there is a right and wrong answer. I just weigh out the pros and cons of the gear I USED to gig with, and what I gig with now. The Cube wins out for me with a combination of good sound, and amazing convenience/less worry.

p.s. no hostility meant with the last post Bill! Just doing some clarification of our comparisons!


----------



## Wild Bill (May 3, 2006)

torndownunit said:


> Ya that's another good point as well. The Cube is not a Valvestate. But I wouldn't expect either to give you a bang on Marshall replication. But ya, I am strictly talking about live playing situations in busy rooms with a full band when I refer the sound as being 'good enough'.
> 
> There are some of us who like minimal gear. I am not saying there is a right and wrong answer. I just weigh out the pros and cons of the gear I USED to gig with, and what I gig with now. The Cube wins out for me with a combination of good sound, and amazing convenience/less worry.
> 
> p.s. no hostility meant with the last post Bill! Just doing some clarification of our comparisons!


None taken! I'm well aware that times have changed! I believe the audience never did have the discerning ears of guitar musicians. If you got them drinking they'd like most anything!

Sadly, that's precisely the reason I rarely go out to hear a band anymore. For an old guy like me, the new status quo is actually painful! I slugged and did sound & lights for a band in the early 70's. We toured from Wallaceburg to Hearst/Kapuskaping, week after week of 3 and 6 nighters.

Now, when the marquee says "Classic Rock Band", I cringe! It means I know their set list before I even get there. It's always the same Top 40 hits that my generation never actually listened to or played in bars! Mine was the generation of FM radio and album cuts. We didn't just play AC/DC all night.

Since there's not the money in it like there used to be, guys tend to play just the easy hits and the same set list. It means they don't have to rehearse! Just find 3 guys available for the gig and they can pretty well just show up and play! It would take a lot more to do some Robin Trower, Captain Beyond or Uriah Heep tunes.

I agree that young folks today seem to have no problems with SS tone but that's because they have nothing to compare it to. For a guy like me, it's such a disappointment to hear some great guitarist playing through a Peavey SS Bandit with 20 pedals nailed to a board on the floor that I just couldn't bear it anymore!

I stay home and listen to my vinyl, only going out once or twice a year to hear some nephews play some slam dance metal!


----------



## torndownunit (May 14, 2006)

Wild Bill said:


> None taken! I'm well aware that times have changed! I believe the audience never did have the discerning ears of guitar musicians. If you got them drinking they'd like most anything!
> 
> Sadly, that's precisely the reason I rarely go out to hear a band anymore. For an old guy like me, the new status quo is actually painful! I slugged and did sound & lights for a band in the early 70's. We toured from Wallaceburg to Hearst/Kapuskaping, week after week of 3 and 6 nighters.
> 
> ...


Bill, and interesting thing is that I actually play Rockabilly and Surf mixed with some harder ACDCish rock in my current project (original tunes). It's not music I expected to be able to use something like a Cube for. The amp has been a very pleasant surprise. I have tried other modeling gear in the past and while I found it interesting, I wouldn't have worked for my playing. But the Cube is an acceptable substitute to save me a some wear and tear on my gear and my body live (had a bad shoulder and rib injury in the past).

As far as straight SS amps go, they aren't really my thing. But as others have pointed out, they have a sound some people want and like. Whether it's for clean stuff, or some metal tones. The one SS amp that has blown me away is the Vox Pathfinder 15r because it has more of a 'vintage' tone. It has a pretty impressive sound for such a small, budget amp.


----------



## Wild Bill (May 3, 2006)

torndownunit said:


> Bill, and interesting thing is that I actually play Rockabilly and Surf mixed with some harder ACDCish rock in my current project (original tunes). It's not music I expected to be able to use something like a Cube for. The amp has been a very pleasant surprise. I have tried other modeling gear in the past and while I found it interesting, I wouldn't have worked for my playing. But the Cube is an acceptable substitute to save me a some wear and tear on my gear and my body live (had a bad shoulder and rib injury in the past).
> 
> As far as straight SS amps go, they aren't really my thing. But as others have pointed out, they have a sound some people want and like. Whether it's for clean stuff, or some metal tones. The one SS amp that has blown me away is the Vox Pathfinder 15r because it has more of a 'vintage' tone. It has a pretty impressive sound for such a small, budget amp.


Well, the cleaner the tune the better fit for an SS amp. Rockabilly and Surf are two such examples. It's usually the distortion where SS lets down, particularly as regards power tube distortion, which SS can't do at all.

However, someone pointed out already that if SS had come first it would have set the standard. That's likely a perfectly true statement! 

Still, one hasn't heard surf until they've heard a tube amp using a full length, 3-spring reverb tank. 

Old guys like me are becoming less and less of a market. As I said, I can't enjoy going to clubs today because of the tone so why should anyone care to have that tone? You care about those listening to you, not those who stayed home!

That being said, there is such a thing as a competitive edge. The average joe in a club won't know WHY he likes the sound of one guitarist over another but it can make a difference as to which guy he'll make an effort to come out and see the next time!

We used to have songs like Robin Trower's "Day of the Eagle", Bowie's "Suffragette City" and Jerry Doucette's "Mama Let Him Play" in our set list. I can't imagine a SS amp doing a good job on such tunes.


----------



## Rugburn (Jan 14, 2009)

One thing I've found to be an imperative for delivering the best distorted tones from a Cube, is to put a decent quality overdrive pedal in conjunction with one of the higher-gain models. I've been using the Cool Cat TOD in with the Marshall modelling mode, and it sounds much better to my ears. Gets more of that *out-of-hand *sound for leads. I'll make a recording and post it. 

Shawn.


----------



## Budda (May 29, 2007)

I'd like to say that I was also impressed with the vox pathfinder (I think that's the model) one of my old roommates used to have. That amp with his gibson SG was a nice crunch tone, and it didn't bring the house down. I think we even jammed with him running SG-Vox and myself running LP-modded TS7-JSX.


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

I gigged with a POD 2.0 for 5 years or so. I had a couple pedals in front (TS-9, various compressors) and in behind (CS-9, DM-2) all fed into a big keyboard amp. I was, all things considered, happy with my tone and received compliments regularly. It was an easy rig to lug and set up and the tone was consistent. The only thing that stuck in my gut was making changes or introducing new tones, and the reverb - I have yet to hear convincing reverb outta digital rigs. I did, however, always feel somewhat of a fraud ..... I mean .... a keyboard amp and a plexi-in-a-chip? Sounded alright but just seemed wrong to this self-respecting slinger.

At home I had a wonderful, JC-55. It couldn't be beat for it's specific clean tone and the chorus - oh my. Took any king of O/D horribly though - bees and electric razors - ugggg.

Anyway, sold the POD, sold the Roland. Almost exclusively use tubes now. Love the feel, the tone, how they take pedals, how they smell when they heat up. I mean, I have yet to hear anything as sweet as the reverb in my 79' Princeton - or the way a Rat drives my 68' Princeton (or how the vibrato sounds on that puppy).

I still have some SS stuff hanging around - a Bloc 50 that gets loaned out now and then, a Micro Crush that I use around the pool, and a Tonelab that I practice with. Actually, the Tonelab has some interesting potential. The factory settings sound like crap and the reverb (typically) is horrible. I have managed, after a bit of poking around, to pull out some pretty good tones but I just haven't had the time or inclination to invest the time yet. When called upon, I grab my pedal board, any one of my tube amps (or both Princetons) and the appropriate guitar and I know that regardless of whether it's rock or country I can tweak a few knobs and start playing ..................... and it will sound glorious.


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

Seems like the answer to "Why Tubes" Is better for those unwilling to compromise. For most SS seems to almost always be some sort of a compromise for some sort of convenience.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

I think "unwilling to comprimise" seems a bit negative to those of us who don't buy into the tube amp superiority thing.

Willing to accept limitations in tonal variety in order to gain an almost imperceptable improvement (at least from the audience's perspective) in tone. And even THAT's a matter of opinion.


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

Milkman said:


> I think "unwilling to comprimise" seems a bit negative to those of us who don't buy into the tube amp superiority thing.
> 
> Willing to accept limitations in tonal variety in order to gain an almost imperceptable improvement (at least from the audience's perspective) in tone. And even THAT's a matter of opinion.


Don't get me wrong. Tube amps aren't superior. SS amps are lighter and in some cases cleaner.


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

Milkman said:


> I think "unwilling to comprimise" seems a bit negative to those of us who don't buy into the tube amp superiority thing.
> 
> Willing to accept limitations in tonal variety in order to gain an almost imperceptable improvement (at least from the audience's perspective) in tone. And even THAT's a matter of opinion.


If you're strictly comparing tubes vs. modeling then I agree. If you're comparing tube vs. SS then I don't.

In either case, I most certainly can tell the difference, but I can see the advantage in utility by using modeling. In a similar vein, I can definitely hear the difference between an MP3, a CD, and a good vinyl recording. However, 90% of the time my background music is MP3.


----------



## 4345567 (Jun 26, 2008)

__________


----------



## dwagar (Mar 6, 2006)

I think it's wrong to generalize 'tube amps' and 'ss amps'.

Many 'tube' amps get their distortion from diodes. 

I've played through tube amps I've hated, I've played through SS amps I thought were great. 

My preference is an old style, non diode, tube amp, I think they are more musical, I think tubes respond to the player, I think they have their own 'voice'. You can tailor the tone in a tube amp, by changing the power tubes or the preamp tubes.

But really, 99% of the time, a good SS amp or a good Tube amp (with or without diodes) is going to deliver the goods on stage anyway. The other 1% is just for me.


----------



## 4345567 (Jun 26, 2008)

__________


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

nkjanssen said:


> I think most of the comments on this thread assume that we are comparing good representatives of each type, not a poor example of one with an excellent example of another.


So this got me thinking. Modelers aside, name some great SS amps ... and I don't mean that old Bandit that you were fond of either. Name a great SS amp - one that you would choose over a comparable tube model. I mean, I have played through SUNN, Lab, GBX, JC's, and Fender SS amps that got the job done but for any of them I could easily pick a tube amp that I would have rather used.

Go ahead ..... name ten great tube amps ....... now name even three SS amps (NOT modelers) that you'd RATHER play through.


----------



## torndownunit (May 14, 2006)

allthumbs56 said:


> So this got me thinking. Modelers aside, name some great SS amps ... and I don't mean that old Bandit that you were fond of either. Name a great SS amp - one that you would choose over a comparable tube model. I mean, I have played through SUNN, Lab, GBX, JC's, and Fender SS amps that got the job done but for any of them I could easily pick a tube amp that I would have rather used.
> 
> Go ahead ..... name ten great tube amps ....... now name even three SS amps (NOT modelers) that you'd RATHER play through.


Personally, I am only commenting on the one modeling amp I know and love. But I really have no general knowledge of solid state amps. And I definitely have never had the chance to play many. I think both the Tech 21 amps, and the Vox Pathfinders are fantastic SS amps. But they are the only ones I have really played. I know there are more out there. I have read about high end SS amps being manufactured out there today that are fantastic.

As for your challenge, just because no one in the thread would rather play a certain SS amp it doesn't mean others wouldn't. EG there are plenty of people who would pick a Roland JC120 or a Sunn amp over a tube amp depending on what their personal needs are.


----------



## Powdered Toast Man (Apr 6, 2006)

torndownunit said:


> Personally, I am only commenting on the one modeling amp I know and love. But I really have no general knowledge of solid state amps. And I definitely have never had the chance to play many. I think both the Tech 21 amps, and the Vox Pathfinders are fantastic SS amps. But they are the only ones I have really played. I know there are more out there. I have read about high end SS amps being manufactured out there today that are fantastic.
> 
> As for your challenge, just because no one in the thread would rather play a certain SS amp it doesn't mean others wouldn't. EG there are plenty of people who would pick a Roland JC120 or a Sunn amp over a tube amp depending on what their personal needs are.


Well this is what it comes down to - personal choice. It would be like trying to decide whether Gibson or Fender guitars sound better. Or maybe we should debate whether single coils or humbuckers sound better. The answer is neither - each player likes them for whatever reason or whatever purpose they use them for. There's good SS amps, and there's bad SS amps. There's good tube amps and there are bad tube amps. You like blue and I like green. Whatever floats your boat.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

The funny thing is that we're just set in our ways and the things that have been improved upon in the evolution of amps are the very things that most guitarists seems to find negative.

Meh, nothing wrong with a good tube amp. Of course, you need to carry about five or six around in order to get the array of sounds you get with even the most basic modeler.


----------



## torndownunit (May 14, 2006)

Powdered Toast Man said:


> Well this is what it comes down to - personal choice. It would be like trying to decide whether Gibson or Fender guitars sound better. Or maybe we should debate whether single coils or humbuckers sound better. The answer is neither - each player likes them for whatever reason or whatever purpose they use them for. There's good SS amps, and there's bad SS amps. There's good tube amps and there are bad tube amps. You like blue and I like green. Whatever floats your boat.


Well, that is exactly what most of us have been saying. I was simply replying to allthumbs last post where he was asking people to name a 'good' SS amp that someone would pick over a tube amp. 

It's his post you should have been quoting, not mine. All my posts have said the exact same thing you are saying.

The bottom line is that in any of these threads people end up having to almost 'defend' using SS or modeling amps at some point in the thread. Which is ridiculous. People have their own reasons for using whatever gear they use. Most people clearly state 'better for my needs'. I am not sure why that can be an issue for some people.


----------



## Budda (May 29, 2007)

Really? My 4 channel head gets me the 4 basic sounds I use for any given style of music.


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

torndownunit said:


> Well, that is exactly what most of us have been saying. I was simply replying to allthumbs last post where he was asking people to name a 'good' SS amp that someone would pick over a tube amp.
> 
> It's his post you should have been quoting, not mine. All my posts have said the exact same thing you are saying.
> 
> The bottom line is that in any of these threads people end up having to almost 'defend' using SS or modeling amps at some point in the thread. Which is ridiculous. People have their own reasons for using whatever gear they use. Most people clearly state 'better for my needs'. I am not sure why that can be an issue for some people.


Wasn't looking to ruffle any feathers ...... just for anyone to identify what they consider to be a great SS amp. There are a number of good modelers and your Cube is most definitely one but outside of the JC (on Roland modelers) modeling amps and devoices all tend to reproduce tube amps (Commonly referred to as "Tweeds", "Blackface", "Hi-gain Brit" and such). There are a also a good number of "practice" amps that are SS and their convenience is undeniable and their tone is acceptable - even good. 

LAB has a history, as does Kustom and Roland but, outside of the JC-120, is there an SS amp that you would consider to be one of the great amps? I'd like to know .... really.

BTW Torn, I listened to some of your stuff and I really like it. Reminds me of Jet and their like. Great tone too!


----------



## torndownunit (May 14, 2006)

allthumbs56 said:


> Wasn't looking to ruffle any feathers ...... just for anyone to identify what they consider to be a great SS amp. There are a number of good modelers and your Cube is most definitely one but outside of the JC (on Roland modelers) modeling amps and devoices all tend to reproduce tube amps (Commonly referred to as "Tweeds", "Blackface", "Hi-gain Brit" and such). There are a also a good number of "practice" amps that are SS and their convenience is undeniable and their tone is acceptable - even good.
> 
> LAB has a history, as does Kustom and Roland but, outside of the JC-120, is there an SS amp that you would consider to be one of the great amps? I'd like to know .... really.
> 
> BTW Torn, I listened to some of your stuff and I really like it. Reminds me of Jet and their like. Great tone too!


allthumbs, thanks for the comments on the tunes. That band was on hiatus for awhile, but starting up again. And the recordings you listened to? Several Marshall stacks lol. So again, I use whatever tool is needed to get the job done lol.

SOme people love Kustom, Sunn, Roland amp. Again, I don't use them so I just don't have an opinion on them. I have owned a couple of fantastic solid state amps though. One was an old Univox that a steel player buddy of mine now owns. Fantastic reverb and tremolo, and a beautidful tone. The other is a Vox Pathfinder 15r. Which doesn't really emulate any other amp... it's a Vox, but it has it's own sound. So I have hardly even owned any solid state amps, and I can name 2 that I really loved.


----------



## Rugburn (Jan 14, 2009)

allthumbs56 said:


> LAB has a history, as does Kustom and Roland but, outside of the JC-120, is there an SS amp that you would consider to be one of the great amps? I'd like to know .... really.


I named several SS amp manufacturers earlier in this thread that are the main amps used by many famous jazz guitarists. They're very expensive, but they have great tone. I recently tried a* Polytone * again at the L&M in Cambridge, and it didn't do it for me. It's the second time I've tried one, and sadly, it was a ho-hum experience both times. To be fair both were used, OTOH, I* LOVE *recordings made with these and similar amps, so it may be a case of learning to dial them in properly.

Shawn


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

Milkman said:


> The funny thing is that we're just set in our ways and the things that have been improved upon in the evolution of amps are the very things that most guitarists seems to find negative.
> 
> Meh, nothing wrong with a good tube amp. Of course, you need to carry about five or six around in order to get the array of sounds you get with even the most basic modeler.


You are correct. Infact, my tube amps are not only "NOT" versatile, they are one trick ponies that do what they do amazing. Thats what I like and at my point in life I do what makes me happy. When I was young and played full time, toured, etc, I used modelers and processors that gave me all the sounds and banks and banks of presets.
They did most things pretty good, some things exceptional and some things not very good. But if I were to try and attain exactly what I have now it would be a compromise. 
Today I enjoy playing more than I ever did. An amp with a 2 knobs and a few pedals on the floor is simplicity the way I like it.
Not likely you could find a listener in the audience that could tell the difference and with all the noise on stage I might not be able to tell a great difference from a well set up modeler rig either. The biggest advantage for me is worry free simplicity. If my tube amp goes down I throw my backup tube amp on stage. If one of my pedals goes down I wire around it.


----------



## 4345567 (Jun 26, 2008)

__________


----------



## Stephan1980 (Oct 1, 2009)

*Answer*

You need a Traynor YCS50. That will fix everything.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

I understand your point of view and it makes sense.

I think when most people use modelers, they try to use them, WITH a conventional amp. Therein lies the fatal flaw. In order to really get these things to sound their best, you have to abandon the amp altogether and go direct.

I guess my persepctive is impacted by how much time I spend behind the FOH mixer these days. I'm really more concerned with how things sound out front than how they sound on stage. As far as simplicity goes, the coplexity built into the modelers provides total simplicity on stage. Step on a single switch and go from a Fender Champ model to a Vox AC30TB. One more stomp and you're playing through a Soldano, et cetera.


At the end of the day, I really don't care WHAT the guy is playing, or playing through. I care about how he sounds in the mix.


----------



## Budda (May 29, 2007)

I also care about how I sound in the mix. Haven't gigged in far too long, and as such I don't know how my current settings would sit. I still have 4 channels, a tubescreamer, and a huge footswitch to get me every sound I need


----------



## Phlegethon (Dec 18, 2009)

Milkman said:


> stuff about not using modelling devices right


after reading this it got me thinking . . . just how much technology in regards to amplifiers (or other things for that matter) could actually get a guitarist closer to the sound that they hear in their head if they were to leave antiquated notions of bygone days in their place, actively learn about the gear they use, and then properly use it? 

I'm going out on a bit of a limb here but I was also thinking about how bassists are much more likely to use various tech tools and know more about them (partly because they have to . . I've heard amplifying bass is a chore at times) and you don't hear them throwing a childish fit calling anything that isn't a 54 strat or a 59 LP thorugh a tube amp that's old enough to be an older father to a lot of the memebers on this board. to be honest I had this same attitude for a long time . . but then I smartened up and actually paid attention to properly using something instead of just scoffing at it (active pickups and SS amps to be specific) 

with that being said I will still have a tube amp around because it's a tool, and one that has a major advantage over an equivalent SS amp. from what I've managed to learn over the years tube amps seem to be simpler to repair as they're simpler designs. . .and having a set of standard parts (the tubes) that aren't made obsolete along with having production cancelled for a new part is a massive strength that IMO is one of the biggest reasons that SS amps can't beat their tube counterparts (yes there's tonal variation in any given kind of tube, but they're still being made and each tube still has characteristics that can be standardized) if you try to take out as many subjective reasons for evaluating them. 

either that or doing things exactly like they did in the 50's and 60's without trying to change is the way to go and I've got it all wrong with trying to use technology to overcome limitations in finding my sound


----------



## High/Deaf (Aug 19, 2009)

Milkman said:


> I understand your point of view and it makes sense.
> 
> I think when most people use modelers, they try to use them, WITH a conventional amp. Therein lies the fatal flaw. In order to really get these things to sound their best, you have to abandon the amp altogether and go direct.
> 
> ...


Abandon the amp - that's what I've been thinking about. Whatever I plug my modeler into affects the sound ultimately. I've tried different solid state and tube amps. And hi-fi equipment. And I can't really say which one is correct - they're all just different (with the hifi gear probably being the most accurate representation of what's coming out of the modeling gear). I've been thinking of trying something with a wider and flatter bandwidth - maybe a small pa box and power amp. 

But I haven't had the luxury of a soundman for many years - we mix off the stage. The sound I hear is what the audience hears. And while I appreciate the flexibilty of modeling gear, I have to like what I'm hearing, both for me and because it is what I'm sending offstage to the audience. Not that most of them would notice, but I'm always thinking there might be one or two out there that actually do.

I'm not totally given up on modelers, but until I find something I like as much as my current setup, which has alot of pieces but is still small and light, I keep watching and waiting.


----------



## gtrguy (Jul 6, 2006)

Hypno Toad said:


> tube amps are 2-3 times more expensive than a transistor amp and I don't know why they are sought after so much.



Because of the way they sound... not necessarily better... but certainly different.




> Now, I guess it'd be a fair argument that a lot of tube amps are better made than the mass produced solid state amps.


In general I'd agree with that statement, however there are some pretty cheaply made tube amps....



> But that being said, why aren't there many _high end_ Solid State amps? For the price you save on hand labor and cheaper electronics, you could probably give it a monster of a cabinet and huge speaker and still keep the price lower than your average tube amp. But if anybody wants a high end amp, they're pretty much doomed to a tube amp.


There have been a few tries at high end solid state amps- Pearce, Line6 Vetta, REXX. None have lasted or perfoirmed in my opinion. 'Doomed' to a tube amp? Jeez, there are worse fates...



> I want a high end amp at some point, but the whole mechanical reliance that tube amps have makes them seem sort of needy and finicky, and I'm not one who really appreciates an electronic device that really needs a lot of care.


I'm not sure that I'd agree that a *well made* tube amp is finicky or 'needs a lot of care'... I've got several amps that have been in use since the mid 60's and one that's from 1949 or so. All are going strong and working great. Have they needed some basic maintenance over the last 50-60 years. Sure but relatively little.



> what exactly is the difference in sound?


For me, there's a touch sensitivity and dynamic capability that I just don't get from SS amps. As someone else noted in their reply, there's a 'feel' aspect to it as well as a sound difference.




> From what I can tell from videos and reviews of both tube amps and SS amps, the sound of a tube amp, if anything has less potential audio fidelity than a SS amp.


Depends on the design of the tube amp or the SS amp. Fidelity isn't always desireable when it comes to electric guitar amplification.



> If you _really_ want that tube sound, I'm sure it could be replicated with a solid state amp, I have to laugh at people who say you can't; if SS amps ever get software into them, there is no sound they won't be able to replicate.


I haven't heard SS truely replicate a quality tube tone... I've tried lots- traditional solid state, digital modelling (L6, Johnson, Roland), software modeled amplifier plugins, etc. Lots of amps are software based at this point- they may not have LCD screens but it's software that's shaping the tone.




> If I can make some assumptions for a moment, I think the idea that tube amps are superior gets sort of burned into peoples heads for various reasons:
> 
> A) Because almost all vintage amps use tubes. Don't get me wrong, I can see why people collect old amps, I love old technology too, but I think since people pay a lot for old stuff. So regular amp companies go out of their way to design their amps like vintage stuff because people pay a lot for vintage stuff. Makes sense, right?


there's definitely an element of marketing involved in many companies agendas- offering to replicate particular vintage sounds, etc. But by the same token isn't that what a lot of SS are trying to recreate? Not to mention that there are companies (both tube and SS offerings) that are not going for anything resembling vintage but rather for an ultra modern sound.



> B) The pricetag. Vintage amps are more difficult to produce (which is why SS amps are technologically superior to them) and that brings the pricetag up. I think we can all agree that a lot of people tend to make the assumption that something more expensive is always better, which a lot of the time, is not the case.


You're right, expensive does not necessarily equal better. However, building a high quality SS amp is not necessarily a cheap proposition.



> C) The "vibe" you'll get from using and owning one. I can agree that having a finely crafted piece of vintage style electronics certainly does have it's benefits. You've got your loud, warm tube amp, and you have your Modest, reliable, articulate solid state amp. When the two are side by side, you might feel more inclined to love the tube amp more just for the "oomph" it has.


Sure, there's some coolness or mojo to tube amps. But you also just said yourself that a tube amp has more 'ooomph'... I that's what a lot of players love about them.



> D) People aggressively convincing you they are better. There's almost an aspect of peer pressure (especially for people new to the music hardware field) where it's like "well, I've got a fender frontman, and I think it's a pretty nice amp for the stuff I do." _Then_ you've got some arrogant asswipe who comes out and basically tells them "**** you, your amp is bad and you should feel bad. Now buy this tube amp." (this happens everywhere on the internet, all the time) after a while that sort of thing just works away at you.


I definitely agree with this. People like to tell others what is the best. Use your ears and decide for yourself.



> Through it all, I would love to own a tube amp one day (mostly for an interest I have in the old tech nature of vacuum tubes), and other than that I have absolutely no idea why. I just _want_ one. And that confuses me. If I'm going to be forced to irrationally like something, I'd at least try to make an attempt at figuring out why I should. Any ideas? There's a lot of older guys on this forums, and I can understand why you might like a tube amp over an SS, because that's what you grew up with, and are used to. Though, a lot of young guys seems to have it in their heads that all SS amps suck.


Think about the best tones you've heard... the most killer rythm parts, the most amazing solos. What were you hearing? Maybe that explains why you want a tube amp. Or maybe not... I don't know what 'turns your crank' musically.

For the record, I've owned crappy solid state amps, pretty good solid state amps, rack setups and tube gear. I currently only own tube amps.


----------



## gtrguy (Jul 6, 2006)

Budda said:


> You won't see too many high end digital/SS heads... because that's not the form they take. There's the H&K Switchblade


The Switchblade is a tube amp (preamp and poweramp) with digital effects on board.



> High end digital *preamps* come in rack form, such as the peavey rockmaster, digitech GSP2101/GSP1101, axe-fx.


Rockmaster is a tube preamp.


----------



## gtrguy (Jul 6, 2006)

Budda said:


> My buddy out east has an axe fx. His buddy has a mesa mark IV. Axefx guy uses the mark IV sim for his main patch. They ran the patch through the power amp of the mark IV and guess what!
> 
> It was ridiculously close to the exact same tone.


While I haven't tried the Axe-FX, I am *very* curious. Some players whose opinions I respect speak very highly of it. I'm curious though, I wonder if the Mark IV power section was adding to the closeness of sound of the Axe FX and the Mark IV.


----------



## gtrguy (Jul 6, 2006)

Milkman said:


> Just an observation, but once the programming is done (at home), modellers are actually dead simple to use at a gig. It's a matter of doing the ground work ahead of time. If you program effectively, it's at least as easy as a conventional pedalboard/amp set up.


I've never been happy with programming at home translating to live use. Once I was in a band context the sounds would get lost in the mix or wouldn't balance well. And for me it was a pain to scroll through menus to make adjustments. Granted a lot of newer units do offer some easy access front panel controls.


----------



## Phlegethon (Dec 18, 2009)

gtrguy said:


> While I haven't tried the Axe-FX, I am *very* curious. Some players whose opinions I respect speak very highly of it. I'm curious though, I wonder if the Mark IV power section was adding to the closeness of sound of the Axe FX and the Mark IV.


I'd like to try one out as well . . .but I echo the sentiments of a few posters in this thread and am going to say that its adjustability is a kick in the ass at times when you want to plug in and play. I know that the axe fx is for studio use and all, but all the information I've gathered on it so far tends to point to some rather extensive setup time involved with it regardless of what you're doing. in the studio, this would be king. I'd buy it if there was a "live" version of the axe fx that had a panel/section with controls that worked like an analog amp (well . . .also assuming I would have the money, as these units aren't cheap to say the least)

EDIT: suppose that if I don't want to spend the time to find a good tone with the axe fx then I don't deserve any kind of good sound in general as it takes time to hunt for it no matter the amp *facepalm*


----------



## Guest (Feb 11, 2010)

gtrguy said:


> While I haven't tried the Axe-FX, I am *very* curious. Some players whose opinions I respect speak very highly of it. I'm curious though, I wonder if the Mark IV power section was adding to the closeness of sound of the Axe FX and the Mark IV.


 It depends. If he was running the power section hard, to its limits: yes. But if it was running within its linear operating range: very little impact. The speaker and cabinet would be adding more than the power amp in that scenario.

The trouble with asking, "does it sound like brand X" is that you're going to have a hard time getting consensus on what "brand X" sounds like. I pull amazing Mark IV tones out of my Axe-Fx -- will they please you? Depends if you like your Mark IV the way I like my Mark IV set, know what I mean? The Mark IV is an amp that covers an absolutely INSANE amount of variation in its output sound qualities. The Axe-Fx can't possibly capture the full spectrum, but it hits the very key areas: the clear cleans, the preamp-ish low gain fuzz, the preamp-ish high gain sustain, etc.


----------



## Guest (Feb 11, 2010)

Phlegethon said:


> EDIT: suppose that if I don't want to spend the time to find a good tone with the axe fx then I don't deserve any kind of good sound in general as it takes time to hunt for it no matter the amp *facepalm*


 I'm about 8 months into my love affair with the Axe-Fx and prior to the latest 9.x firmware series I would have said: yes, it can be a little overwhelming to take a sound from your head and make it come out of the Axe-Fx.

But the latest firmware series has reworked the way the amp defaults are setup. Now when you call up an amp block it's scary good. Scary. You don't have to dive into the deep editing menus. You just need to twist the gain, treble, mid, bass, presence knobs and sit there with a big freaking grin on your face.

It's not hard to use. But it can be a little overwhelming if you're the kind of person who gets a bit flustered when you see _a lot_ of options and possibilities presented to you at one time.

Edit: 9.01 came out last night. Here's some quick-and-dirty clips from an Axe-Fx user:

http://www.fractalaudio.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=13692

As he says in that post: he touched nothing in the advanced parameter pages. Just played with the "amp" controls you'd normally see on an amp.


----------



## Guest (Feb 11, 2010)

gtrguy said:


> I've never been happy with programming at home translating to live use. Once I was in a band context the sounds would get lost in the mix or wouldn't balance well. And for me it was a pain to scroll through menus to make adjustments. Granted a lot of newer units do offer some easy access front panel controls.


 This is definitely a learned skill. When you write your patches at home you have to train yourself to drop the low end and the top end. I run some pretty extreme EQ on my patches to ensure I fit in my little bit of the spectrum in my synth-heavy band (I play in a Duran Duran tribute).










That's not shelving EQ BTW -- it's blocking, so it has a roll of that's some what more gentle compared to a shelf-style EQ band.

Once you get it setup it becomes easier and easier to replicate and tune. But yes, it definitely takes some learning. I was writing bass-heavy patches that sounded glorious at home but got lost pretty quick in rehearsals for the first couple of months.


----------



## Rugburn (Jan 14, 2009)

Here's one I finally did of my Micro Cube. I just bought a new PC and I've spent the past two days troubleshooting Ableton and my M-Audio thingy. So here's the MC before and then after the Cool Cat TOD is turned on. It's on the "Marshall" setting, which I find sounds more "classic" with the TOD added. This clip isn't much all alone, but this amp+TOD, through a PA with a drummer and bass player was surprisingly usable.This is a $170 amp with a $50 pedal, so it is what it is, but the overdrive sound of the SS amps I had back in the 80's and 90's never sounded very good at all. I think these inexpensive modellers are a vast improvement in thiat regard. However, I've been successfully pancaking lots of vintage and other all-anologue pedals in front of the MC and it's been a surprise how much it warms this little bugger up.

http://www.soundclick.com/bands/page_songInfo.cfm?bandID=917786&songID=8752410


Cheers, Shawn.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

gtrguy said:


> I've never been happy with programming at home translating to live use. Once I was in a band context the sounds would get lost in the mix or wouldn't balance well. And for me it was a pain to scroll through menus to make adjustments. Granted a lot of newer units do offer some easy access front panel controls.



My situation may be a bit different. I never play without a soundman,and I own the PA. Yes, with some patches you have to adjust the level a bit, but you do that ONCE and then it should be fine for every show after that. Adjusting the output level on a patch is pretty simple with any device I've used.

I tend to do my tweaking at rehearsals. The difference in sound between a rehearsal and a live show is really only related to the room in my case.

My set up and operation is so simple it's almost funny. One Vox Tonelab LE on the floor patched to the snake via two DIs. That's it. I hear myself via two wedges. Frankly I can have my guitar louder than most guy can with a normal amp simply because the wedges aren't pointing at the audience (or the FOH sound man).

It really CAN be made to work but you have to cast aside your old ideas.


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

Milkman said:


> My situation may be a bit different. I never play without a soundman,and I own the PA. Yes, with some patches you have to adjust the level a bit, but you do that ONCE and then it should be fine for every show after that. Adjusting the output level on a patch is pretty simple with any device I've used.
> 
> I tend to do my tweaking at rehearsals. The difference in sound between a rehearsal and a live show is really only related to the room in my case.
> 
> ...


As mentioned before, I used a POD for 5 years with pretty good results. It took a long time to get it dialed in - the interface required a lot of deep editing on the computer and it wasn't easy to twiddle for different rooms on the spot. But I liked the consistency and variety and learned to go with about 6 great patches and use a few pedals to enhance as required.

I also have a Tonelab LE but I just haven't had the time to spend with it. The factory settings are unusable to me and I don't understand why they feel the need to splash every patch with tons of reverb. I do know that the little box has a lot of potential and I intend on spending the time (when I find some). I don't know if there's a way to share patches, but I'd love to have some of your settings , Milk. The stuff I've heard of your's has some pretty good tones happening.

In the meantime, as I no longer play live right now, when the guys I jam with get together I grab one of my basic but competent amps - a YCV50, DSL401, DRRI, or both Princetons and my pedal board. Between those amps and my fairly versatile pedal set (I keep 5 different OD/Distortion pedals on my board), I can fiddle with a few knobs and find any number of good tones AND make it through the mix.


----------



## torndownunit (May 14, 2006)

The funny thing is it seems like everyone is going for their own version of simplicity. I have one Cube now, and can get a used backup for under $200. Beyond that I just need a guitar and a patch cord for my uses. So that is my version of simplicity on a budget. I don't use pedals, so my rigs about as barebones as you can get.

I also agree that in general a well built, well maintained tube amp is not much 'work'. But that doesn't mean I am comfortable taking my vintage amps to a lot of gigs. Some of the crazy shows just aren't the best environment for those amps and a lot of accidents can happen (or theft). That is the main reason I started exploring the Cube option.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

allthumbs56 said:


> As mentioned before, I used a POD for 5 years with pretty good results. It took a long time to get it dialed in - the interface required a lot of deep editing on the computer and it wasn't easy to twiddle for different rooms on the spot. But I liked the consistency and variety and learned to go with about 6 great patches and use a few pedals to enhance as required.
> 
> I also have a Tonelab LE but I just haven't had the time to spend with it. The factory settings are unusable to me and I don't understand why they feel the need to splash every patch with tons of reverb. I do know that the little box has a lot of potential and I intend on spending the time (when I find some). I don't know if there's a way to share patches, but I'd love to have some of your settings , Milk. The stuff I've heard of your's has some pretty good tones happening.
> 
> In the meantime, as I no longer play live right now, when the guys I jam with get together I grab one of my basic but competent amps - a YCV50, DSL401, DRRI, or both Princetons and my pedal board. Between those amps and my fairly versatile pedal set (I keep 5 different OD/Distortion pedals on my board), I can fiddle with a few knobs and find any number of good tones AND make it through the mix.


I agree about the excess effects on the factory patches, but once you take that away, the sounds are there. I think they're aiming too low (lots of sugar for the young'uns). Really all I did was strip away the effects, tweak the eq and gain and add back a tiny amount of delay and/or rev.

The tones are simple but effective once you take all the needless crap away.


----------



## 4345567 (Jun 26, 2008)

__________


----------



## Guest (Feb 12, 2010)

nkjanssen said:


> Wow! Those sound great. My AxeFX sounds good, but not that good. Time for me to upgrade the firmware, I guess.


 And 9.01 is out for the Standard now too. If you haven't tried the 9.x series yet be prepared for a wonderful surprise. You'll likely need to rework amp blocks, but it should be quick and easy. Reset the block with a double tap on the bypass and the defaults usually don't need much in the way of tweaking now. Thump and warmth are practically unnecessary now.

I'm looking forward to the kid going to bed tonight so I can get some time with 9.01. Hopefully the wife doesn't go into labour tonight!


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Ahhh labour schmabour. It's not like she can't wait while you tweak a few patches.

Women can be so selfish.



kidding


no really


----------



## torndownunit (May 14, 2006)

iaresee said:


> I'm about 8 months into my love affair with the Axe-Fx and prior to the latest 9.x firmware series I would have said: yes, it can be a little overwhelming to take a sound from your head and make it come out of the Axe-Fx.
> 
> But the latest firmware series has reworked the way the amp defaults are setup. Now when you call up an amp block it's scary good. Scary. You don't have to dive into the deep editing menus. You just need to twist the gain, treble, mid, bass, presence knobs and sit there with a big freaking grin on your face.
> 
> ...



I know absolutely nothing about this system, but man those are some nice sounding clips.


----------

