Super Models (plug in)

in my limited experience cab/room sims sound worse than modeled tube amplifiers, so i would try and take that variable out, not because i would mic the output of a plugin.

i think the plugin sounds bad enough an a/b is not necessary.
 
jxe said:
in my limited experience cab/room sims sound worse than modeled tube amplifiers, so i would try and take that variable out, not because i would mic the output of a plugin.

i think the plugin sounds bad enough an a/b is not necessary.
Click to expand...

I see where you’re coming from - hey, definitely try it with an amp you have, and a model of the same amp. It would be pretty darn interesting!

I mentioned in my earlier post that I wasn’t trying to be scientific. In fact, it would be impossible because I don’t have any of the amps in the SuperModel plugin package, but hopefully you saw my disclaimers.

I wanted to do a real-world, “here’s how an amp rig sounds when I record it, and here’s how a modeling rig set for similar tones sounds when I record it,” comparison.

On another front, I fiddled with the plugin a bit more today, and I do think it’s one of the nicer plugins on the market for sound quality. The only thing that IMHO beats it sonically is the UAD Tweed Deluxe. One reason that might be the case is that UAD’s DSP processor upsamples the audio for its internal processing. I record at the TV/Film broadcast standard of 48K. However, the UAD processor will upsample that to 96K, process it, and then spit the audio out digitally at 48K again. It’s one reason the UAD plugin stuff sounds so good (I have some of the same exact plugins in UAD and in Softube or Brainworx, and there’s a bit more fidelity in UAD - I’ve A/B’d them using Logic’s A/B facility on recorded tracks).

Why buy the same plugin in two formats?

Sometimes the UAD version came out later; when I A/B’d the versions, if the UAD version won the shootout, I bought it even if I had it already, but I only did this for stuff I use on the mix or mastering busses.
 
Last edited:
not at all critiquing your post LS, the comparison clip speaks for itself —just thinking out loud listening to how much better the mic’d cab sounds.
 
jxe said:
not at all critiquing your post LS, the comparison clip speaks for itself —just thinking out loud listening to how much better the mic’d cab sounds.
Click to expand...

Oh, you were definitely making a good suggestion! I just wanted to explain why I didn’t get all serious about trying to do something more rigorous.

I’d have to agree with you that the speaker must make a significant difference, however, there’s definitely a “liquid” sound and that bounciness I can hear that’s typical of the euphonic sound of tubes, such as tube microphones, and other tube audio gear.

My personal theory is that there’s a certain way that tubes add harmonics that folks who design modeling gear haven’t quite gotten right yet. But that’s what gives the tube gear what we refer to as warmth and liquidity. Maybe there’s a degree of unpredictability mixed in with the nonlinearities that adds some additional color. I dunno. Don’t much care. It is what it is, so I have my preferences.

In any case, When I plugged into the model and played the first few notes, my first reaction was, “Here we go again. Same as always.” Because while the clean sound was clean, and I could hear the guitar’s inherent tone, that beautiful electric liquidity I get with a tube amp wasn’t there.

However, adding some reverb post-amplifier helped make it sound more real.

EDIT: once I started tweaking the more hidden controls, I liked the whole setup better.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: jxe
Tucson Thump said:
A difference in clarity even through my laptop speakers. But there is something there to work with I think, somewhere in the EQ perhaps.
Click to expand...

There’s quite a lot to work with, and to like. The plugin has a little “gear wheel” icon; when you click it, a panel opens and you can choose from virtual cabinet types, load third party IRs, etc.

With plugins, tone shaping is also easy because you can put an EQ in the signal path before or after the amp, add other effects, etc.

The plugin models gain pretty well, also.

I may have given the impression that I don’t care for this plugin, when in fact I think it’s one of the best on the market. Does it have the dimensionality of a real amp? No, but no plugin I’ve tried does. However, it’s still a very useful tool for any number of purposes; in my case, coming up with parts and ideas for recording or re-amping later, practicing when using the real amp is too loud, etc.

I’ve also been known to use a plugin to layer in high gain sounds, since I don’t have a high gain amp. ;)
 
For me I just can't get that amp in the room feeling from my set up. But some of that might just be because I play the sims through full range speakers not my cab. In a recording either sound good. But I just like the sound of my tube amp combo live in the room. I was quite impressed with the supermodels though. Especially at the low price point. Modeling tools have improved across the board in the latest generation that uses IR's extensively. It's very noticeable, Supermodels is pretty easy to set up, haven't tried it as a plugin combined with separate plugin effects yet. Definitely worth a look at. The three amps included cover a lot of space and for $50 on the Waves site they are a bargain. I mostly played the Dallas because of the built in reverb, but they are all pretty sweet
 
Last edited:
For the asking price, even not taking into account the sale price, these are a no-brainer, right?

I agree with you about not quite getting that same real-amp thing happening. Anyway, today I tried the Archon model, and it’s my least favorite of the three. Didn’t have the charm of the real deal clean, and the overdrive channel was difficult to dial in.
 
LSchefman said:
For the asking price, even not taking into account the sale price, these are a no-brainer, right?
Click to expand...

Definitely, very simple to and intuitive to get up and running, especially the standalone amp models that don't require a plugin host. And there are lots of presets to cover a lot of ground tone wise.
 
Last edited:
LSchefman said:
For the asking price, even not taking into account the sale price, these are a no-brainer, right?

I agree with you about not quite getting that same real-amp thing happening. Anyway, today I tried the Archon model, and it’s my least favorite of the three. Didn’t have the charm of the real deal clean, and the overdrive channel was difficult to dial in.
Click to expand...
Well that's disappointing, because the real thing is... well, you know. ;)
 
DreamTheaterRules said:
Well that's disappointing, because the real thing is... well, you know. ;)
Click to expand...

The real thing has the tube coloration and a beautiful clean sound, with lots of headroom.

The model doesn’t have that lovely headroom. It will color the EQ of the sound in a tube-like way, so that’s good, but the beautiful liquid shimmer isn’t there. Also it saturates and gets grindy quickly, even when reducing the input gain, etc. Doesn’t mean it’s a bad model, of course. The only clean model I’ve heard in a plugin that can edge it out is the UAD Tweed Deluxe.

The high gain channel on the model sounds pretty good at high gain settings, but on the real amp, it can be dialed in for creamier, lower gain sounds.

I have the same issue with my models of the high gain Engls, and don’t even get me started on the models of the Fuchs and Friedman amps that sound only superficially like the real amps.

But one tremendous advantage of these models over many others is that unlike most (there are some notable exceptions), you can load in your own speaker impulse responses.

I’ve tried several now with all of the models, and a few sounded quite good; my favorites so far might be the Celestion IRs from the Celestion website. I think I prefer them over the Ownhammer IRs I’ve got.
 
Great post Les. Makes me think... while the Kemper is known to capture the amp "as set," the other modelers claim more to mimic the amp at any setting... but it seems to me that many models sound a lot like the real thing at "some" settings, but then don't react to changes the way the real amp does. Few clean up well with guitar volume knob, for example. Few high gain amp models sound like the real amp with the gain down... Seems to me that even modelers that claim to mimic the amp have a sweet spot or at least a smaller range of sweet spot where they may come really close, but others where they aren't close.

I think the Axe guy one time said that if you literally turned the dials from 1 to 10 one at a time, and accurately reproduced all of that range in every control, models would have such huge file sizes that a modeler could only hold a few amps. Seems like they try to get what they consider the sweet spots as close as possible and from there you often get further from the real amp the more you turn the knobs.

There was an interesting conversation going on at TGP a while back, comparing the Mark IV models in several modelers. One guy was swearing one was way better, another claimed another one was say better... guys agreed on both sides... the end was when it got interesting. Turns out one guy was playing fatter smoother, (Santana type tones) and one guy was playing metal. When the guys went for the other guys tone, they agreed with the other guys opinion. In other words, one modeler did a much better heavy version of the Mark IV, while the other did a much better fat smooth signing gain type tone. Seems that's the way the designer wanted "his" Mark IV to sound so that was the best tone in the box for that model. That's the one he used to create the model, or whatever.
 
DreamTheaterRules said:
Great post Les. Makes me think... while the Kemper is known to capture the amp "as set," the other modelers claim more to mimic the amp at any setting... but it seems to me that many models sound a lot like the real thing at "some" settings, but then don't react to changes the way the real amp does. Few clean up well with guitar volume knob, for example. Few high gain amp models sound like the real amp with the gain down... Seems to me that even modelers that claim to mimic the amp have a sweet spot or at least a smaller range of sweet spot where they may come really close, but others where they aren't close.

I think the Axe guy one time said that if you literally turned the dials from 1 to 10 one at a time, and accurately reproduced all of that range in every control, models would have such huge file sizes that a modeler could only hold a few amps. Seems like they try to get what they consider the sweet spots as close as possible and from there you often get further from the real amp the more you turn the knobs.

There was an interesting conversation going on at TGP a while back, comparing the Mark IV models in several modelers. One guy was swearing one was way better, another claimed another one was say better... guys agreed on both sides... the end was when it got interesting. Turns out one guy was playing fatter smoother, (Santana type tones) and one guy was playing metal. When the guys went for the other guys tone, they agreed with the other guys opinion. In other words, one modeler did a much better heavy version of the Mark IV, while the other did a much better fat smooth signing gain type tone. Seems that's the way the designer wanted "his" Mark IV to sound so that was the best tone in the box for that model. That's the one he used to create the model, or whatever.
Click to expand...

Interesting about the TGP guys, and as to the rest, I agree with you completely.

Why that should be, of course, I have no idea.

One plugin modeler I haven’t tried yet is the Helix plugin. Whether it sounds as good as the hardware (which I think sounds pretty good) is an interesting question, but at $400, I’m not interested.

Another thing I’m going to do over the weekend is try the Waves SuperModels at 96 and 192 kHz. I’ve only tried them at 48, and since the computer can do higher resolution, that might prove interesting. Might sound more real?
 
LSchefman said:
Another thing I’m going to do over the weekend is try the Waves SuperModels at 96 and 192 kHz. I’ve only tried them at 48, and since the computer can do higher resolution, that might prove interesting. Might sound more real?
Click to expand...

Interested to hear if it does. It should. On paper. But paper doesn't reproduce sound. :)

dmatthews said:
I'd pay good money to have all the awesome PRS amps professionally profiled for the Kemper.
Click to expand...

Dilly Dilly! Heck, that might even make me BUY a Kemper. ;)
 
Here's a nice demo of the models by Eli Krantzberg, who writes books on Logic Pro, and is a very experienced recordist, showing the features.

Meantime, I've been playing with the models at 96K this afternoon. So far the progress is encouraging. The plugin can sound pretty close to real; the sense of "air" is somewhat different, and there's still a little- perhaps oversensitivity is a good word? - with bright pickup settings.

Still, the plugin's controls are superior to those on most models once you dig in. The video is worth watching.

 
Last edited:
LSchefman said:
Exactly how much good money? :cool:
Click to expand...
Professional profile packs with multiple profiles (clean to filthy with/without effects) can range from $15 to $40 or so USD.
I just bought MBritt "Grab and Go" pack for $30 today. It has 92 profiles of 13 different amps. A Marshall pack of his has 36 profiles for $13.
Those are just examples.
 
dmatthews said:
Professional profile packs with multiple profiles (clean to filthy with/without effects) can range from $15 to $40 or so USD.
I just bought MBritt "Grab and Go" pack for $30 today. It has 92 profiles of 13 different amps. A Marshall pack of his has 36 profiles for $13.
Those are just examples.
Click to expand...

Britt's profiles are the bees knees!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top