Modelers

[AX17609]

Originally Posted by Aspiring

Yes the rabbit hole can go pretty deep. The cool thing about the fractal units is that they can sound pretty great just on factory presets but then you can dive way deeper.

Thanks. That's Jeff McErlain's and Tim Pierce's advice, as well. Jeff, in particular, recommends keeping it simple for a while. Fortunately, I have fairly limited needs. I would just like the FM3 to satisfy them as well as a modeler can.

[Bob Womack]

I'm having some fun with looping out to analog effects from the Helix. Of course it is also fun because my wife gave me a Catalinbread Belle Epoch Deluxe Echoplex EP-3 emulator.

Bob

[phcorrigan]

Originally Posted by Bob Womack

Pretty early into my twenty years with modelers I decided not to chase the sounds of individual amplifiers but to create presets that sound good.

I think that's good advice in general. Don't try to sound like something or someone else, just try to sound good.

[Rolph]

Originally Posted by Bob Womack

An electric guitar amplifier is a sound creating device, not a sound reproduction device. Oh, the original idea was reproduction, but as bands got louder and musicians couldn't always keep buying bigger amps, they discovered that a pushed amp made some cool sounds. It took a couple of decades to really dial it in, but the nature of the beast had changed.

As I aid, the basis of "my" sound is pushing the amplifier into gentle power amp distortion. It goes back to the '70s when we pushed low gain amps up to gentle distortion and sag. Preamp distortion, pushing 12AX7 preamp tubes into distortion sounds different from power amp distortion. Most drive and distortion boxes also sound different; they are fizzier. Soooo... the idea is to get three different sounds from a single channel amp. We used to do a so-so job by setting the amp so that it sounded great as a lead amp with the guitar dimed. To clean things up we'd roll back the volume. With a good guitar that had the proper pots it worked, but it was REALLY loud. In the mid-'70s people were starting to want get a distorted sound at lower volume so amp designers came up with master volume. You could pull back the master volume and crank up the gain and voile', it was distorted. But that was preamp distortion.

Also in that period, some guitarists wanted the compression that a dimed low-gain amp offered but without the distortion, so compression boxes came out. Lowell George used two studio compressors to get sustain, for example.

So, with a clean boost out front into a low-gain amp in a modeler we can get all the best of the amp at survivable loudness levels.

Now, FX pedals: We who were playing in the '70s discovered that our heroes sounds on record were always different from ours. They would add a flanger to a distorted amp and it was DRAMATIC! We bought a flanger or phaser and plugged it into our distorted amp and it sounded like mush. Same with delays: my Echoplex into a distorted master volume amp started getting mushy really quickly.

In 1979 I went school to learn to be a recording engineer and my eyes were opened: Many of those dramatic sounds were recorded with the guitar dry and the echo, phase, or flange added in the studio. THAT is why they were so dramatic and clear.

So, yes, I move my effects around as needed, but the basic sound many producers want is a driven power amp with nothing but gain modifiers before the amp and then the other effects after the amp and speaker.

Does that make any sense? Here is an example:

The lead sound at 2:04 is mostly compressor with some delay and reverb into a pretty clean amp.
The complex, fabulous four-note sound at 3:49 seems to be that same sound (with a little whammy bar) routed through a custom rotating speaker system called a "Doppola." The front-end sound is the same, but the amp output is routed to both his normal speakers and the Doppolas. You can get a similar sound with a Leslie cabinet and a regular speaker cabinet - I have my practice rig set up this way. But the rotating speaker cab is at the end of the chain and is modulating the delay and reverb. If you get a Leslie pedal and place it in your chain before the amp, it won't sound anything like that.

On the other hand, Eddie Van Halen was known to plug his guitar into a flanger and then an Echoplex and run that into a medium-gain amp. If you try to accomplish that with the modulation effects and delay after the amp, you won't pull it off.

Clear as dirt, eh?

Bob

Bob: Thanks for the response. I've had the same setup for about 30-40 yrs. Always try to slightly overdrive the amp, (Fender deluxe reverb 1964) and either a Carr Super Bee or an old Fender Woody, in stereo. TC elect chorus/flanger is the last effect for the stereo, Chandler tube driver in 1st position, and either a delay or a compressor in the middle. I used to play loud, but my ears have matured. RE: EVH, circa early 1973 we had a band and were getting ready to record an LP called Blue Rose w/ Genya Raven. We rented a practice facility on Ventura Bl. that had food, drinks and tables outside the practice rooms. Someone walked out of a room and the guitar coming thru the open door melted our brains. Like , Who the heck is that???
It was a very young Eddie, blowing our minds when we thought we had talent. He was really Something!

[Glennwillow]

Originally Posted by AX17609

I finally bought a fancy-pants modeler -- a Fractal FM3. ...

This should be a wonderful choice. I bet you will be pleased with this.

- Glenn

[AX17609]

Originally Posted by Glennwillow

This should be a wonderful choice. I bet you will be pleased with this.

I regret to report that I am not immediately enchanted. More study is called for.

[Brent Hutto]

Originally Posted by AX17609

I regret to report that I am not immediately enchanted. More study is called for.

I don't know from Fractal, my only "modeler" experience comes from 100's of hours of experimenting with my Katana amp when I first started out on electric guitar. But based on that rather crude type of modeling, I'd say "more study" is likely to mean a whole heck of a lot more study when you're starting out.

Not implying it's an onerous task or not worth it, I just don't think there's any such thing as a comprehensive modeler (amp plus cabs plus effects) that is going to be satisfying after a week or a month for a modeling newbie.

Of course like everything in life, expectations are the key. If you can somehow come into it NOT expecting to hear sounds that blow you away it's probably easier to be patient. But we all tend to thing our new devices are going to be something really special after just a short while.

[DanR]

One of the issues with modelers I have discovered is, that when playing through headphones or monitor speakers, they're never going to sound like playing through an amplifier at normal volumes. That said, I recently recorded an electric guitar through my favorite amplifier with a SM57 mic. I played the same parts recording through a tube amp (Fryette GP/DI) but using an IR loader recording silently. Through headphones or monitor speakers I could hardly tell the difference. Apparently, my experiences before this experiment was comparing the proverbial apples to oranges.

[Brent Hutto]

Originally Posted by DanR

One of the issues with modelers I have discovered is, that when playing through headphones or monitor speakers, they're never going to sound like playing through an amplifier at normal volumes. That said, I recently recorded an electric guitar through my favorite amplifier with a SM57 mic. I played the same parts recording through a tube amp (Fryette GP/DI) but using an IR loader recording silently. Through headphones or monitor speakers I could hardly tell the difference. Apparently, my experiences before this experiment was comparing the proverbial apples to oranges.

I've often wondered about that. It seems to me far easier to model guitar tone so that the modeler played through monitors (or headphones) sounds like a recording of a mic'd amp than to make it sound like a guitar amp in the room. You seem to be finding that's true.

[Bob Womack]

Originally Posted by DanR

One of the issues with modelers I have discovered is, that when playing through headphones or monitor speakers, they're never going to sound like playing through an amplifier at normal volumes. That said, I recently recorded an electric guitar through my favorite amplifier with a SM57 mic. I played the same parts recording through a tube amp (Fryette GP/DI) but using an IR loader recording silently. Through headphones or monitor speakers I could hardly tell the difference. Apparently, my experiences before this experiment was comparing the proverbial apples to oranges.

One thing that many overlook is that a guitar through an amplifier on a record and a guitar through a miked amplifier sent through a PA don't sound like the simple guitar through amplifier. Something is always tweaked, the mic has an influence, etc.

I've gigged a modeler through PA and it sounded great. These days I do virtually all of my sessions with a modeler. I have patches that sound fantastic in the studio and need very little tweakage if any at all to drop right into a mix. Why?

In the sturm und drang of an engineer/producer, I am well-acquainted with the guy who brings in his "perfect" guitar amp to record and doesn't want it tweaked. That amp may sound great to him but has to be carefully shaped to fit into a mix. Early on in this modeler poop I quit pursuing the dream of making the modeler sound just like a particular amp in a room and began pursuing creating sounds that sounded mature and mix-ready. They are based on classic amps but reproducing the amp isn't the goal. Reproducing a well-miked, well-tweaked amp is.

Can you even imagine what it was like to be producer/engineer Bill Szymczyk during the "Hotel California" song guitar overdub sessions? The amps were in different rooms and Walsh and Felder sat on each side of him in the control room over two days and wrote and performed those solos while listening to the mix on the control room monitors. Szymczyk describes it a the highlight of his career.

So, lot depends upon what monitors you are using. If you've got small near-field monitors, yep, it won't sound like a big guitar amp. Fender Champs use eight-inch speakers. However, if you've got access to large, tuned, monitors in a designed monitoring room at a goodly level, suddenly it sounds more... real.


Fifteen-inch drivers

Bob

[Brent Hutto]

Originally Posted by Bob Womack

So, lot depends upon what monitors you are using. If you've got small near-field monitors, yep, it won't sound like a big guitar amp. Fender Champs use eight-inch speakers. However, if you've got access to large, tuned, monitors in a designed monitoring room at a goodly level, suddenly it sounds more... real.

Not many modelers can emulate your ears ringing like they do with proper Rock and Roll electric guitar playing at suitable volume levels.

[Bob Womack]

Originally Posted by Brent Hutto

Not many modelers can emulate your ears ringing like they do with proper Rock and Roll electric guitar playing at suitable volume levels.

You know, you are right. I've overlooked that end of things. I use my ears for my work and simply can't afford to push the levels up to the point of damaging my ears. That's part of why I use modeling.

Bob

[FrankHudson]

I'm with both Bob and Brett on the modelers are not like a cranked amp in a live room.

In my younger days I used to do a fair amount of live amp and guitar interaction: not just pretty 'stand in the sweet-spot" sustain of a resonate note, but note-into howling-feedback or bumping right up against the amp to let all kinds of chaos let loose.

I might still do that once in a while. Modelers didn't do that handily. I'm not sure what a full-range powered cab might do hooked up with modern modeling stuff -- though you still might not be able to do the spring-boing from the reverb tank-jarring move.

However, my old ears and for that matter my old body isn't about to do that much, and the ability to simulate other cranked amp sounds at non-damaging volumes is a very practical value of modeling amps. Even while I'm mixing I try to make those timbral Fletcher-Munson decisions briefly and then return to modest levels.

[AX17609]

Originally Posted by Bob Womack

In the sturm und drang of an engineer/producer, I am well-acquainted with the guy who brings in his "perfect" guitar amp to record and doesn't want it tweaked. That amp may sound great to him but has to be carefully shaped to fit into a mix. Early on in this modeler poop I quit pursuing the dream of making the modeler sound just like a particular amp in a room and began pursuing creating sounds that sounded mature and mix-ready. They are based on classic amps but reproducing the amp isn't the goal. Reproducing a well-miked, well-tweaked amp is.

As usual, Bob captures the issue perfectly. You can hardly get past the first page of the Fractal manual before you are cautioned to not compare the tones from an FM3 with those of an amp in the room. What you should compare them to are the tones coming from an amp in another room with the speaker cabinet mic'd. I've seen enough demonstrations from top musicians to be convinced that you can craft tones indistinguishable from real amps when both are monitored thru headphones.

But this wasn't the issue when I said that I wasn't initially enchanted with the FM3. First, the interface is sub-standard. I was actually ready for this. Usability engineering is a well-understood topic, but Fractal appears to have eschewed it. The interface isn't totally terrible, but it's not optimized, either. I think the company had a hit with their Axe-FX III and decided not to throw a curve to their user base. So they kept the logic of that unit when creating the FM9 and FM3. The problem is that the Axe-FX III is designed for musicians who have a degree in audio engineering. Lesser musicians have lesser skills, and I am one of those.

Second, I wasn't taken with the built-in Presets. This caught me by surprise. FM3 Presets have a reputation for being quite good. They sound harsh to me. I'm not sure what the issue is.

Third, the training materials are fairly awful. I'm actually used to this from a long history learning laboratory equipment. Try learning electron microscopy. But, it's still tough to deal with. The manual is of the type that describes the features of the equipment without describing how to use them. This is typical of technical manuals. I expected salvation from YouTube videos. Usually, there's someone out there on the interweb who understands how to teach technical issues, but I haven't found the right FM3 guy yet. Highly respected guys like Leon Todd have more history with modelers and don't relate to noobies very well. So, I'm writing a training manual as I'm learning the unit.

[Bob Womack]

Originally Posted by AX17609

I expected salvation from YouTube videos. Usually, there's someone out there on the interweb who understands how to teach technical issues, but I haven't found the right FM3 guy yet. Highly respected guys like Leon Todd have more history with modelers and don't relate to noobies very well. So, I'm writing a training manual as I'm learning the unit.

I know how you feel. Way back in the 1980s I joined an Atari Computer users' group and eventually ended up in leadership. I discovered that there were always people who were extremely technical and could manipulate, code, or modify things to get their computer to do practically anything. However, there were the majority of folks who tried to read manuals and couldn't figure out much of anything. Quite often the techboys couldn't communicate to the average guys and vice versa. After trying a few mods, basically solo, I decided to write tutorials for the common man, buying a mod kit, for instance, tearing my drive apart on the kitchen table, finding ways to comfortably execute the mod without destroying anything, then buttoning it up and having it work! They were published online and in the club's quarterly journal and became quite popular.

When I got involved in guitar forums I eventually created a website to help answer questions about recording and guitar. These days I do reviews that are part review, part discovery, and part tutorial. Hopefully, some of it is useful to average guys.

One of the tough areas to tread is the area of technical reduction: You can use a perfectly good technical description of an item and the average guy just can't understand it. Quite often you have to resort to reduction of the complexity, exclusion of some info, options, etc., use of analogy, so forth, to get the subject down to where the average Joe can handle it. This immediately subjects you to drive-by sniping by tech people who can't understand the whole business of communicating to mere humans. They often have no problem pillorying your work for its simplification, missing the whole point but making you look like a simpleton. It is a hit I am willing to take.

Bob