5 reasons to sell your tube amp............................

eSGEe said:
settle down tube purists ................... he makes great points for both ...................and seems like a level headed logical sort ....

Click to expand...
Well Fender has always had some pretty good digital products starting with Cyber Twin.
In fact Fender was the first digital amp.
And the Cyber Twin is a pretty impressive sounding amp in itself.
Oh yeah I admit it's fun to play a digital amp, I enjoy playing around w/ it.

But they all have one basic shortcoming.
The slow response to pick attack.
Although it has improved quite a bit over the years.

It sounds like a tube amp, but it doesn't behave or respond / sustain like a real amp does.

Second, you enter the realm of disposable amps.
The amps will be junked and replaced over and over, instead of being maintained and treasured.
In that respect, you're not purchasing a family heirloom.
The life span of digital amps compared to their tube cousins will be short lived. Digital parts are not designed for long term durability like a tube amp is.
 
Amp Mad Scientist said:
Well Fender has always had some pretty good digital products starting with Cyber Twin.
In fact Fender was the first digital amp.
And the Cyber Twin is a pretty impressive sounding amp in itself.
Oh yeah I admit it's fun to play a digital amp, I enjoy playing around w/ it.

But they all have one basic shortcoming.
The slow response to pick attack.
Although it has improved quite a bit over the years.

It sounds like a tube amp, but it doesn't behave or respond / sustain like a real amp does.

Second, you enter the realm of disposable amps.
The amps will be junked and replaced over and over, instead of being maintained and treasured.
In that respect, you're not purchasing a family heirloom.
The life span of digital amps compared to their tube cousins will be short lived. Digital parts are not designed for long term durability like a tube amp is.
Click to expand...
While parts aren't made to be changed in digital things, they do not heat up like tube amps. They should last for ages.
There is no latency they respond instantly and indeed do sustain as much or more than a "real" amp.
The BluGuitar is an analog, not digital but still SS and is killer.
 
Jethro Rocker said:
The BluGuitar does have one nanotube in it but it certainly isnt a tube amp as such. Sounds great! The Katana is a modeler and SS and sounds pretty decent for a practice amp.
The rest are all tubes.
Click to expand...
I have a Vox Pathfinder 15R, which is fine for what it is. A cheap crappy amp. And then there's my '79 Marshall Master Lead 100. Sounds like arse with a guitar, but is not a bad bass amp. They are what they are.
 
SG John said:
I have a Vox Pathfinder 15R, which is fine for what it is. A cheap crappy amp. And then there's my '79 Marshall Master Lead 100. Sounds like arse with a guitar, but is not a bad bass amp. They are what they are.
Click to expand...
Yeah I cannot imagine he Vox 15 is meant to replace, well, anything else.
There is love here for some Peavey SS too and while I liked the Transtube stuff ok enough, I can't think of any albums featuring the stellar tones of a Peavey Bandit. They are, as you say, what they are and serve their purpose.
 
I think a lot of people that can't tell the difference use very high gain. In that configuration modeling sounds ok. You don't really see too many blues/rock guys using them because that is still a very weak spot for modeling. Saturated distortion for modern YouTube shredders seems to be the thing. Modeling seems to go ok with this.

It's a common act of persuasion a lot for the modeler guys to use the live setting scenario to justify the very opposite scenario they are commending it for and recommending it for ....as a fantastic bedroom solution. Live, the argument is "Do you really think you are going to hear a difference with all the crowd noise, noise, volume, other instruments, etc.". In reality they are inadvertently saying they do sound different, and with a difference that would be noticed in a quite bedroom.

"Tube amps are generally too large because they hold the tubes and house larger speakers." - That's an example, not a definition. There is the inverse case just as well regarding side and weight.

"They have build in effects" - Another example, not a definition. Inverse case can just as well exist. In any case there is the argument for built in anything not being a good thing as well.

He's amazed that the "old technology" of tube amps hasn't completely been replaced by modeling by now. So do we trash the acoustics now?

The age of a concept doesn't necessarily have any bearing on its future validity. Being a tube guy I could say the opposite to him and that technology has failed in this regard.


Anyway, I had a little extra time to needle in on his words. He's manipulating big time, but to each it own on what they like. Is what it is, and really the most important part. I think anyway.

.02
 
But... but... but... I just bought a tube amp... a BIG ONE... and that makes 4 now... this thread title is just mean... I feel attacked... :ROFLMAO:

In all seriousness, I think the amp is just a tool for an artist to use. If you get the art you're after with a modeler, a tube amp or a hybrid, then do that.

Tangent: I have a Little Black Box that he mentions, and it's awesome. Talked @LiveeviL2000 into getting one as well. Can't recommend them enough.

For me, it's all about versatility. I have a DSL1 that does .1 or 1 watt, a 6505mh that does 1/5/20 watts, a ZoMBie that is a 20 watter but sounds best in the 75-90DB range. And, then the big boy I just bought, a JCA100HDM but it has a 50 or 100 watt option. So I can go from .1 watt to 100 depending on my desires/needs. Each of those amps has its own flavor and covers ground the others don't.

Next up is the Fractal Axe FX II XL+ that, for my use, is the best modeler out there, albeit "last year's model". I use it exclusively for recording and routinely get compliments on my tone. It gives me access to a nearly unlimited combination of amps, cabs, pedals, etc. Which is something a similarly priced tube amp could never do.

In the end, it's like someone said the other day, ignore what others say and buy what get's you where you want to go. /paraphrase.

Sapient said:
He's amazed that the "old technology" of tube amps hasn't completely been replaced by modeling by now. So do we trash the acoustics now?
Click to expand...
My Grandfather held something like 136 vacuum tube patents when he died. During my teenage years, right before he passed, he assured me that solid state tech should be able to perfectly mimic anything a tube did. He was fascinated by what I was telling him (back in the 80s) about how solid state amps just sounded bogus. So, we were going to set out to design/build a solid state guitar amp to perfectly mimic a Marshall JCM800.

Unfortunately, he died before we ever got to do that, but the point is, even he - someone who spent his very successful career as a lead engineer for Westinghouse and RCA, who invented well over a hundred variations of the vacuum tube, was convinced it was anchronistic in the 1980s. Yet, here we are and SS tech still hasn't been able to supplant tubes... I'll never not wonder what he and I could have created had he not died.
 
Iron1 said:
But... but... but... I just bought a tube amp... a BIG ONE... and that makes 4 now... this thread title is just mean... I feel attacked... :ROFLMAO:

In all seriousness, I think the amp is just a tool for an artist to use. If you get the art you're after with a modeler, a tube amp or a hybrid, then do that.

Tangent: I have a Little Black Box that he mentions, and it's awesome. Talked @LiveeviL2000 into getting one as well. Can't recommend them enough.

For me, it's all about versatility. I have a DSL1 that does .1 or 1 watt, a 6505mh that does 1/5/20 watts, a ZoMBie that is a 20 watter but sounds best in the 75-90DB range. And, then the big boy I just bought, a JCA100HDM but it has a 50 or 100 watt option. So I can go from .1 watt to 100 depending on my desires/needs. Each of those amps has its own flavor and covers ground the others don't.

Next up is the Fractal Axe FX II XL+ that, for my use, is the best modeler out there, albeit "last year's model". I use it exclusively for recording and routinely get compliments on my tone. It gives me access to a nearly unlimited combination of amps, cabs, pedals, etc. Which is something a similarly priced tube amp could never do.

In the end, it's like someone said the other day, ignore what others say and buy what get's you where you want to go. /paraphrase.


My Grandfather held something like 136 vacuum tube patents when he died. During my teenage years, right before he passed, he assured me that solid state tech should be able to perfectly mimic anything a tube did. He was fascinated by what I was telling him (back in the 80s) about how solid state amps just sounded bogus. So, we were going to set out to design/build a solid state guitar amp to perfectly mimic a Marshall JCM800.

Unfortunately, he died before we ever got to do that, but the point is, even he - someone who spent his very successful career as a lead engineer for Westinghouse and RCA, who invented well over a hundred variations of the vacuum tube, was convinced it was anchronistic in the 1980s. Yet, here we are and SS tech still hasn't been able to supplant tubes... I'll never not wonder what he and I could have created had he not died.
Click to expand...
Would be amazing to see what he would have come up with in the modern day. Digital has its own amazements so he may have went with that. Probably would have gotten into programming then to get them to do what he wanted. I'd bet that.

I dated a girl whos grampa was a big engineer as well and had TV patents. Money too but the kids kinda took care of that. Anyway, those old timers meant business.

He may have also meant that they can mimic a tube in an on/off sense, not really considering sound. Maybe. I don't know - wasn't there. Lol

Being a programmer, I guess it's just a matter of programmatically simulating a tube and everything that is involved in an amp for it to happen. I can't think of anything else that is really in the way for them to sound like a tube amp. This hasn't happened yet but still could some day. Digital does prove capable of being able to hold and transfer the sound though. I mean, look at what a tube amp recording we can get. Especially when the sample and bitrate are pushed into the HD ranges.

(y)
 
Sapient said:
Would be amazing to see what he would have come up with in the modern day. Digital has its own amazements so he may have went with that. Probably would have gotten into programming then to get them to do what he wanted. I'd bet that.

I dated a girl whos grampa was a big engineer as well and had TV patents. Money too but the kids kinda took care of that. Anyway, those old timers meant business.

He may have also meant that they can mimic a tube in an on/off sense, not really considering sound. Maybe. I don't know - wasn't there. Lol

Being a programmer, I guess it's just a matter of programmatically simulating a tube and everything that is involved in an amp for it to happen. I can't think of anything else that is really in the way for them to sound like a tube amp. This hasn't happened yet but still could some day. Digital does prove capable of being able to hold and transfer the sound though. I mean, look at what a tube amp recording we can get. Especially when the sample and bitrate are pushed into the HD ranges.

(y)
Click to expand...
Well, I was just a dumb teenager at the time (vs a dumb old man, now. :rolf: ) but he did have me play him sound samples as he was curious what I meant by didn't sound as good. IIRC, which is equally likely/unlikely 40 years later, his thoughts on it were he simply needed to create an SS circuit that exactly duplicated those tube generated frequencies that were lacking in the SS sample I played him. And, he thought it would be pretty easy to do. He was an inventor, builder, engineer and more. He designed and built the house he and my grandmother retired in, had all sorts of hand made electronics all over and an entire workshop downstairs full of all sorts of electronics tools and such that he was always tinkering with. He was certainly the sort of guy who would accomplish things if he believed he could, no matter how crazy they sounded. But, it's possible when we built the first amp we ran into the same issue others had where the early ones sounded thin and processed. If so, it would have been fascinating to watch him adapt and overcome. Sadly, we'll never know...

Now, I'm no engineer and certainly not a mathemagician of any sort so I don't want to pretend I understand it now, much less back then, but that's what I recall...
 
Sapient said:
Being a programmer, I guess it's just a matter of programmatically simulating a tube and everything that is involved in an amp for it to happen. I can't think of anything else that is really in the way for them to sound like a tube amp. This hasn't happened yet but still could some day. Digital does prove capable of being able to hold and transfer the sound though. I mean, look at what a tube amp recording we can get. Especially when the sample and bitrate are pushed into the HD ranges.

(y)
Click to expand...

Yeah. I’m of the opinion that the processing power currently exists to replicate all the perceptible aspects of a tube amp, to include dynamics and “feel”, not just sound. Now, the degree to which that power is leveraged from one product to another is a different question.

Now, when I had the opportunity to drop some money on a new piece of gear, I considered a Helix, a Fractal of some variety, or a tube amp. I chose a tube amp (my Rivera) for some of the reasons cited in the video. It wasn’t because I thought any of the other options didn’t sound good. Quite the opposite. I know they sound great! But, I have been through the end-of-life thing and no more firmware upgrade thing with one of my other units. Frankly, that is annoying. Also, I prefer the on-stage workflow of a traditional amp and pedals. But, I also know from personal experience that a processor is fantastic when you need multiple sounds and patches for a varied setlist with a simple push of a switch. Also, there was a day when I got a kick out of building patches. Now, I find that to be more of a chore and would rather just dial in a sound and play.

There is another philosophical viewpoint. By engaging in the constant attempt to sound like a tube amp, the obvious implication is that those manufacturers consider the standard of good sound TO BE the tube amp! When anyone says, “This sounds just as good as a tube amp,” that person is revealing the actual standard is the tube amp. In a way, it’s a revelation that processing and modeling haven’t actually brought anything sonically new to the table. They are all judged on how well they sound like something else. Should this stop anyone from getting a processor? Nope. It’s more of just a “gee-whiz” observation.

I would love it if a manufacturer created a processor and just came out boldly and said, “This doesn’t sound at all like a tube amp. We created our own sound. It’s brand new!”

Now, processors and modelers offer HUGE advantages in consistency, portability, connectivity, convenience, and flexibility. They also provide exponential savings in that a single processor may have scores of amps, cabinets, mics, and effects onboard. I really do like processors for a variety of reasons, and the better ones do sound fantastic. That will trickle down to the point where the cheapest units will one day sound like the best ones today. This is not unlike how the phones in our hands have the same capability that used to cost millions of dollars and took up rooms of space.

Will tube amps one day be gone? I don’t think so, but I don’t care, either. These are just guitars and amps. These aren’t life and death decisions. Use what you like and what works best in your situation.
 
smitty_p said:
Yeah. I’m of the opinion that the processing power currently exists to replicate all the perceptible aspects of a tube amp, to include dynamics and “feel”, not just sound. Now, the degree to which that power is leveraged from one product to another is a different question.

Now, when I had the opportunity to drop some money on a new piece of gear, I considered a Helix, a Fractal of some variety, or a tube amp. I chose a tube amp (my Rivera) for some of the reasons cited in the video. It wasn’t because I thought any of the other options didn’t sound good. Quite the opposite. I know they sound great! But, I have been through the end-of-life thing and no more firmware upgrade thing with one of my other units. Frankly, that is annoying. Also, I prefer the on-stage workflow of a traditional amp and pedals. But, I also know from personal experience that a processor is fantastic when you need multiple sounds and patches for a varied setlist with a simple push of a switch. Also, there was a day when I got a kick out of building patches. Now, I find that to be more of a chore and would rather just dial in a sound and play.

There is another philosophical viewpoint. By engaging in the constant attempt to sound like a tube amp, the obvious implication is that those manufacturers consider the standard of good sound TO BE the tube amp! When anyone says, “This sounds just as good as a tube amp,” that person is revealing the actual standard is the tube amp. In a way, it’s a revelation that processing and modeling haven’t actually brought anything sonically new to the table. They are all judged on how well they sound like something else. Should this stop anyone from getting a processor? Nope. It’s more of just a “gee-whiz” observation.

I would love it if a manufacturer created a processor and just came out boldly and said, “This doesn’t sound at all like a tube amp. We created our own sound. It’s brand new!”

Now, processors and modelers offer HUGE advantages in consistency, portability, connectivity, convenience, and flexibility. They also provide exponential savings in that a single processor may have scores of amps, cabinets, mics, and effects onboard. I really do like processors for a variety of reasons, and the better ones do sound fantastic. That will trickle down to the point where the cheapest units will one day sound like the best ones today. This is not unlike how the phones in our hands have the same capability that used to cost millions of dollars and took up rooms of space.

Will tube amps one day be gone? I don’t think so, but I don’t care, either. These are just guitars and amps. These aren’t life and death decisions. Use what you like and what works best in your situation.
Click to expand...

"Will tube amps one day be gone? I don’t think so, but I don’t care, either. These are just guitars and amps. These aren’t life and death decisions. Use what you like and what works best in your situation." - Lol. Completely agree!

I also agree with the marketing as you say ..don't market "We sound like a tube amp". They should just roll with "Hey, we have digital amp that sounds pretty good". I think they run into a lot of BS with this unnecessary "tube amp" stuff when they still have "transistor" to get to with sound quality. The old "Just be yourself" would be great and ideal I think too. Don't set yourself up for rejection when taken another way you could really shine.

There are certainly advantages to modelers, no doubt, and if one likes the sound they would offer the world in other features too. I'd use one live but that does not make me say they "sound the same". They offer a worthy package if someone wants the ultimate in versatility and stage flexibility.

I tried one of those little VOX modelers for a gig and it was really awful. I know there are more expensive and better and I've heard them too. It was a try for simplicity but I wasn't going to break the bank for it on a Fractal or something like that. I still think the sound would not be as good, but I'd rock a free fractal for shows I thought might call for it. The expensive modelers to me are "good enough" amps for live gigs at this point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top