AcmeBarGig Forums

Here's the thing, Ken... that modelled 'lifeless distortion noise box' probably has quite a few of the same tonal characteristics that the amp does... just at a static volume, as opposed to 40dB swings.
Because our brains are so sensitive to changing volumes, when we hear a sound that is 'louder' than whatever was before it, we remember it better. This goes back to the time when humans walked on all fours, carrying rocks to smash the heads of rabbits for supper; it's not a recent thing.

So that real-life, raging JCM800 'sounds' huge in comparison to that plugin... but what happens when you record the amp, and bring it down to the same level?
All of a sudden, those perceived dynamics are gone, replaced by something more akin to the plugin's 'lifeless noise', because you're taking the Fletcher-Munson effect out of the equation.

It's a spooky thing, to record two (identical; coming straight from the DAW) guitar tracks through a Mesa, one at 50dB (meh) and one at 80dB (awesomely huge tone!!!11), and then level-match them and they nearly null. But it gives you a bit of insight into why it could be that people still insist that 'cranking a (modern high-gain) Marshall is the only way to get the tone', when virtually nothing about the actual tone changes, the amp just gets louder.

Anyway, it's food for thought, take it or leave it.

I agree with some of what you said... However, what I was meaning, I was probably not very clear on it, What I was meaning is that throughout the signal chain in a sim, one stage reacts to the next stage, and the next stage, etc. So, if you are making the signal throughout each stage nullify the the previous, then there is less life to the sim overall.

It would be the equivalent of adding bass, removing it, adding it, removing it...by the time the signal gets to the end, its the same as when it started, it just has distortion...The result is lifeless. I did a whole bunch of experiments with this approach to try and solve another issue we have, which is on going. Every time we nulled the previous stage the sim lost life and "breath".

The truth is, the more I read and research what happens in a tube amp, the more I am convinced that we as humans have no freaking idea what happens in there..I think the greatest of the greats in this business only have a rudimentary knowledge of what truly happens. All the more reason why I say, we will never be able to 100% model a tube amp, I don't believe anyone will. Perhaps when we get to Shred version 100678536 X, we might be closer than we are today...That will be JohnnyMcFly the 1200th, in the year 5016...

So, what are we left with...? We are left with something that I feel in no uncertain terms is not truly 100% possible now. Simply put, make the best sounding DSP plugin you can...Thats it...and try and be original. Studio devil has a great slogan, something like "Love tube, embrace digital"...

ahh, Sorry, ran on again..
KM

I think there's probably a point of diminishing returns, at which it's not advantageous to continue trying to digitally model a rudimentary piece of Soviet-era technology.
I think digital offers more possibilities, and more tone, then most gearheads would ever admit; and it's just going to keep getting better.
So you're right, Ken, we gotta embrace digital simulations for what they are - silent, endlessly configurable, endlessly flexible, unbreakable tone devices.