Most Popular


The EM Poll




CURRENT ISSUE

SUBSCRIBE
$1.84 an issue!

EM DIGITAL EDITION
Try it for free today!

browse back issues


Follow Us On...




Showdown at the Clubhouse | Amp Software Vs. Amps

Feb 1, 2009 12:00 PM, By Mike Levine



         Subscribe in NewsGator Online   Subscribe in Bloglines
 

AMP-MODELING SOFTWARE AND VINTAGE AMPS GO HEAD-TO-HEAD

BONUS MATERIAL
Take the Listening Test

CURRENT NEWSSTAND ISSUE

Read the full Table of Contents for the issue on sale now! Click here

Subscribe for only $1.84 an issue!

Please tell us about yourself so we can better serve you. Click here to take our user survey.

MixBooks Logo
Life in the Fast Lane

This collection of St.CroixÕs columns was assembled during the two years following his death of cancer in May 2006. Included are many of his most-read columns, as well as personal notes, drawings and photographs.

Click for more books
EM Podcasts

Listen to these latest podcasts and more:
Bela Fleck on recording Jingle All the Way.Go

What's New: software and sound products. Go

eDeals Newsletter for Discounts on Gear

Get First Dibs on Hot Gear Discounts, Manufacturer Close-Outs and Job Opportunities when you sign up to receive eDeals E-newsletter, sent twice a month. Check out an issue get advertising info or subscribe

Conventional wisdom states that while guitar-amp modelers are good at capturing the essence of the vintage amps they emulate, the actual amp will always sound superior. Naturally, you won't hear that from amp-modeler manufacturers, but you hear it all the time from engineers, producers, and musicians. It's one of those truisms that people in the audio field generally take for granted.

I've been a user of amp modelers (both hardware and software) in my studio for many years. I've used them to record tracks for all sorts of projects, including commercials and albums; in fact, the electric guitar sounds on my own CD were recorded entirely with modelers. I even fooled a “golden ears” engineer colleague of mine who heard my CD and was shocked to find out that no amps had been miked for it.

Still, in my mind I've generally subscribed to the conventional wisdom about amp modelers and assumed that if I had, say, a real Marshall JCM 800, properly miked, the British 800 patch in my amp-modeling software would sound inferior by comparison.

Nevertheless, I've also wondered what would happen if modelers were put head-to-head against the amps they emulate. Would it really be that obvious which is which? Would the real amp always sound superior to the modeler? At an editorial meeting last year, while thinking out loud, I raised the possibility of doing such a test for a feature story, expecting the idea to get rejected because of the logistical challenges it would engender. Much to my surprise, EM editor Gino Robair approved it, saying to me, “Make it happen.”

The Planning

As excited as I was about the assignment, the idea of turning it into reality was a bit daunting. First, I needed to find someone in charge of a studio that had a vintage-amp collection who would agree to host the testing. Second, I'd need to assemble a group of qualified experts willing to give up an afternoon to serve as panelists. Third, I'd have to acquire the software from the various manufacturers. Fourth, I'd need to work out a methodology for the test that would allow me to make accurate assessments.

The first hurdle was the studio. I initially tried a studio in Nashville that had been recommended to me, but it was too booked up for the owner to commit to letting us use one of the rooms for a day to do our testing. One day I was talking to Rich Tozzoli, who is a friend of mine and an EM contributor. He suggested I try a studio called the Clubhouse, which is located in Rhinebeck, New York. I had recently been in touch with Paul Antonell, its owner, about getting some quotes for an EM story on reamping. Tozzoli said that the studio had an excellent vintage-amp collection (their amps had been modeled by AudioEase for the guitar-amp portion of its Speakerphone software), so I asked Antonell if we could do the tests at the Clubhouse. He said yes, and we set a date of September 13 for the testing.

Paneling

The next challenge was finding the panelists. With the help of Tozzoli and Antonell, I was able to locate a number of producer-engineer-guitarists with excellent credits who agreed to be on the listening panel (see Fig. 1).

FIG. 1: The panel (from left to right): Pete Moshay, John Holbrook, Rich Tozzoli, D. James Goodwin, and Paul Orofino.

FIG. 1: The panel (from left to right): Pete Moshay, John Holbrook, Rich Tozzoli, D. James Goodwin, and Paul Orofino.

The panelists were D. James Goodwin (Thursday, Parliament-Funkadelic, Motion Picture Demise), John Holbrook (B.B. King, the Brian Setzer Orchestra, the Isley Brothers, Fountains of Wayne), Pete Moshay (Hall and Oates, Daryl Hall, Paula Abdul, B.B. King, Barbra Streisand, Fishbone), Paul Orofino (John Petrucci, Blue Oyster Cult, Anthrax), and Tozzoli (Al Di Meola, the Marsalis Family, David Bowie).

All of the panelists had lots of experience recording guitars through vintage amps in commercial-studio environments. Most also had experience with amp modelers, especially the tried-and-true Digidesign Pro Tools HD standby, Line 6 Amp Farm.

Get Copyright ClearanceWant to use this article? Click here for options!
© 2010 Penton Media, Inc.



Acceptable Use Policy
blog comments powered by Disqus

Back to Top