nikki-k
Well-known member
I am not quoting here as means of ridicule, nor am I doing so as means of singling one person out. Rather, it is simply being utilized as an example.. a current and readily available one. I could collect others if necessary.
This also leads to a bit about modeling and profiling; if you are going direct, or into an FRFR system..if you are using an IR (or similar technology), you are playing with a mic'd signal, not an "in the room" sound. IOW, you will not have the same experience as playing through a cab; instead, it could be likened to.. being in a studio control room and playing with the cab in another room with a mic on it. Worth consideration IMO.
Most of those utilizing profilers and modelers do so (as a compromise) as a means of one or more of the following: reduced volume use while seemingly playing through a "cranked" amp; vast number of amp types in a very small space; editor/librarian features afford edit, storage, recall functionality; direct injection recording/live, disregards fallibility of mic use; consistency; "presets" allows sharing of "tones"; "amp tones" not currently possible with "real amps" possible; some offer enough effects to allow further streamlining of rig; more. Most people that want some "real tube" sound opt to use a tube power amp, tube preamp, tube DI, etc.
A modeler/profiler is a different beast entirely. The currently measurable aspects of your signal are, erm, measured, processed, and then recreated. If there are unmeasurable aspects of said signal, they WILL be absent in the recreated iteration. IMO, there is "something" missing. To many, this is a compromise worth bearing. And there is nothing inherently wrong with that. After all, an electric guitar, by its very nature, is an "unnatural" tone
If one desires a lower volume, direct sound, it is very possible.. albeit with compromise. Understanding the science and maths affords this.
IMO, the reason that modelers and profiling are so popular is because.. the ability to emulate real amps (and effects) via software method has come far enough that many people are willing to accept, or are not aware of, the compromise(s) as means to reap the rewards they afford. In turn, with artists embracing the technology, more and more musicians are exposed to them. An "electric instrument" is already, as I said, unnatural. For many, with that in place, a "real amp" is no more "unnatural" than a modeler or profiler.
Different, not "better" or "worse."
This is a misconception, and also a bit of mis-speak, I see enough to find.. "disturbing." In no way, shape, or form is the MTS line "modeling." Period. Provide any reasoning you like as attempt to dispute that; you will still be 100% wrong. "Modeling" is a Method. Copying/modifying a circuit is not modeling.SteelDragon said:
First, "cabinet." A recording processed through a properly created IR of a speaker can closely enough replicate the signal produced by micing the speaker with a "live" instrument/performance to make this a VERY viable option. I can demonstrate this if any are curious (ask, PM, etc). EDIT: Further, to properly additionally capture the effect the cab that houses a speaker has, minus the effect a room will impart, requires certain criteria are met.SteelDragon said:
This also leads to a bit about modeling and profiling; if you are going direct, or into an FRFR system..if you are using an IR (or similar technology), you are playing with a mic'd signal, not an "in the room" sound. IOW, you will not have the same experience as playing through a cab; instead, it could be likened to.. being in a studio control room and playing with the cab in another room with a mic on it. Worth consideration IMO.
Most of those utilizing profilers and modelers do so (as a compromise) as a means of one or more of the following: reduced volume use while seemingly playing through a "cranked" amp; vast number of amp types in a very small space; editor/librarian features afford edit, storage, recall functionality; direct injection recording/live, disregards fallibility of mic use; consistency; "presets" allows sharing of "tones"; "amp tones" not currently possible with "real amps" possible; some offer enough effects to allow further streamlining of rig; more. Most people that want some "real tube" sound opt to use a tube power amp, tube preamp, tube DI, etc.
A modeler/profiler is a different beast entirely. The currently measurable aspects of your signal are, erm, measured, processed, and then recreated. If there are unmeasurable aspects of said signal, they WILL be absent in the recreated iteration. IMO, there is "something" missing. To many, this is a compromise worth bearing. And there is nothing inherently wrong with that. After all, an electric guitar, by its very nature, is an "unnatural" tone
If one desires a lower volume, direct sound, it is very possible.. albeit with compromise. Understanding the science and maths affords this.
IMO, the reason that modelers and profiling are so popular is because.. the ability to emulate real amps (and effects) via software method has come far enough that many people are willing to accept, or are not aware of, the compromise(s) as means to reap the rewards they afford. In turn, with artists embracing the technology, more and more musicians are exposed to them. An "electric instrument" is already, as I said, unnatural. For many, with that in place, a "real amp" is no more "unnatural" than a modeler or profiler.
Different, not "better" or "worse."
