Of Modeler Amps and Very Good Soft Synths and Mixes - A Manifesto

[László]

Today, Universal Audio released a couple of new modeled plugins. One is an upgrade to the Neve 88RS channel strip plugin to make it a Unison plugin for the Apollo interface. One was a Marshall-approved amp modeler plugin, about which more in a moment.

The way UA's Unison plugins work is that they send a digital instruction to a real analog preamp, and the preamp changes its actual physical topology in several ways, The plugin then adds some digital color to the sound in other ways. I have three Unison plugins, and already had the channel strip plugin, so the upgrade was kind of a no-brainer, although it was a $150 no-brainer, which is damned expensive for a version upgrade for a plugin. But the point is, this combination does work pretty well, and I think one reason it works is that it includes a physical analog preamp whose circuits change a bit and have the character of a real piece of hardware.

I'd rather have a couple of Neve preamps, which I used to have, and so that is going to happen, but in the meantime, a preamp isn't an instrument, and you hear more mic and instrument than you do preamp, so I can temporarily live with these. But I'm moving back in that analog direction for that soon.

OK, so much for that.

Then I listened to the UA Marshall plugin demo video. I was hoping for goodness. The website said it was the best amp plugin ever, maybe.

The video started off saying in effect, "The classic Marshall blah blah blah does this and that..." the idea being that you were supposedly listening to a real Marshall as the camera was focused on the real amp, a cab, a mic, in a studio.

I immediately said, "That's not a very well recorded Marshall, it sounds more like a model." Immediately the video said something to the effect of, "You have actually been listening to the new Marshall plugin." And it went on to say how it might be the best Marshall model ever, etc. All I could think was, "It wasn't very convincing at all." It is a typical digital amp plugin, somewhat two dimensional, somewhat lacking dynamics, with a mushy attack. I wasn't fooled for one second!

You know, UA, you can pee on my shoe, but for goodness' sake, don't tell me it's raining. I have a Plexi style amp in my studio, and I know what they sound like in a recording. Not fooled.

Later in the evening, I happened to read a Tape Op review of the Big Trees 2.5 watt amp and pedal combination made by Audio Kitchen. It was interesting, Audio Kitchen makes some superb stuff that gets used on records, and while it's a little on the unusual side to say the least, it's also cool. So I went to the website and watched some video.

In one, the famed producers Flood and Alan Moulder came on the screen, and they started talking about how modeled synths don't sit in mixes, using the same terms I often use when I discuss these things with people. How they sound great solo'd, but when you put them in a mix they turn to mush - I think Flood said it's just a "cloud".

So they talked about how they do something that I've also been doing off and on for 13 years with digital synths: They run the tracks through tube amps. Suddenly they sit in the mix much better, and all is well with the mix. And it's true, I've done it many times, and it works. Evidently they find this pedal/mini amp useful for that purpose.

I think they are talking around the same phenomenon I've discussed - digital distortion sounds different from the nonlinearities and harmonics generated in an analog circuit. Most of the soft synths these days try to emulate that analog circuit nonlinearity and distortion, but they fail to do it convincingly, at least for those who understand what putting together good recordings is all about.

In any case, I felt a lot better hearing two world famous record producers discussing issues I think about a lot, but it also reinforced something I've been thinking about. Namely, acoustic instruments sound wonderful and pleasing because they generate fundamentals and many harmonics. Electric guitars do the same thing through guitar amps. But when one gets to modelers and sampled sounds, nuance is missing, and that nuance is something that is important to the ear.

I used to do a trick with sampled drums. I'd play them back through my studio monitors and put up a couple of mics in the room, record that signal, and blend it with the sampled drum sounds. I stopped doing that at some point because so often there just wasn't time. But the sound of the room, recorded via mics, and into mic preamps, did something for the mix, and the drums sat better. I'm going to start doing that again.

In any case, I've decided that it is my obligation not to my clients, but to my art, to use real instruments or at least run digital synths into amps, whenever possible. I'd recently stopped using sampled basses and modeled guitar amps altogether. I have already switched from digital delay to a real tube tape delay for things I want to sound like a real tape delay.

If I use a soft synth, it will be run through an amplifier and cab.

Will my clients hear a difference? Who knows. Will I hear a difference? Yes. And it will matter to me and give me more inspiration and satisfaction in my work. Mixing and recording is fun if you aren't rushing through it and if you care enough to do the most artistic work possible. And ultimately, even TV ad music is an art form, albeit a commercial one. But if I can do better audio work, I think that's a good thing.

As they say, the devil is in the details, and I've decided to spend what relatively few years remain in my studio life thinking more about, and attending to, those details. I think I'll enjoy my work, and therefore my life, more. :top:

End of Manifesto.

 

[rugerpc]

I applaud your approach to chasing the tone, Les.

 

[Drew]

Great post.

 

[toothace]

Well said Les!

 

[László]

Sometimes I've just gotta put a commitment in writing.

Helps firm up the old resolve.

 

[John Beef]

So, if a synth sounds better through a tube amp, and faux drums sound better run through a speaker and mic'ed up, maybe a guitar modeler would too?

 

[László]

So, if a synth sounds better through a tube amp, and faux drums sound better run through a speaker and mic'ed up, maybe a guitar modeler would too?

Why, though, would you run a guitar modeler through a tube amp instead of just playing guitar through the tube amp? What would be the point?

You're still going to get a better result bypassing the modeled amp, because you can't recover what it loses (such as transient response). Sure you can improve the result that way, but why take the initial hit?

 

[sergiodeblanc]

Why, though, would you run a guitar modeler through a tube amp instead of just playing guitar through the tube amp? What would be the point?

You're still going to get a better result bypassing the modeled amp, because you can't recover what it loses (such as transient response). Sure you can improve the result that way, but why take the initial hit?

Because everything has a sound. I use a modeler pedal through a tube amp, they don't just model amps, they model other stuff too you know.

I've mic'ed a PA or an amp and run drums, synths, and sometimes vocals through it and recorded it to smooth transients or dirty a sound up a bit, it's a common technique. Hell, I have recorded full rhythm sections and then sent it out to a sh!tty sampler with a low sample rate to emulate the grungy sound of a Emu SP1200, and I keep a milk crate filled with random mic pre's and transformer balanced DI boxes because... Everything has a sound.

I believe mic pre's are instruments, and I also believe that a lowly ART pre is just as worthy as an API or Neve pre to run a signal through. A 1176 imparts as much of it's own sonic imprint as a Yamaha compressor, and you know what? They both sound good depending on what you're after. Experimentation is probably the most fun part of the recording process, so who cares what you're pumping stuff through? Just have fun, keep an open mind, and let the "best"* sound win, no matter what it is.

I will tell you that while I am a huge fan of soft synths and modelers, I firmly believe that you gotta have realistic expectations about what they are. Running a PCM Rhodes sound through a guitar amp isn't going to make it sound too much more "real" sounding than doing the same thing with a modeler. You may capture a sense of "depth" because you're using a mic on a speaker, which in turn brings some of the rooms ambience into your new track, but it isn't going to magically fool a critical listener who "knows" what a real Rhodes sounds like. Running sampled strings through your monitors may help you get them to "sit in the mix" better for you, but it's not gonna be any more "real" sounding because of it, it can't. But Les already knows this.

Here's my making most of your modeler for recording tip of the day: Create an illusion of space and depth with a single repeat delay (slapback) to emulate the first reflection of a early reflection rather than using reverb. Keep the time below 100 milliseconds(experiment) and barely mix that in. If you spread that out in the stereo spectrum i.e.: slightly pan them opposite of each other, you can impart a "in the room" feel that modelers lack, and it'll save you tons of CPU you'd waste on 'verb.

Try everything once, and remember that at the end of the day it's still about the song. No amount of gear or technique can turn a boring song into an exciting one.

*"Best" meaning the sound that elicits an emotional response.

 

[László]

Because everything has a sound. I use a modeler pedal through a tube amp, they don't just model amps, they model other stuff too you know.

I've mic'ed a PA or an amp and run drums, synths, and sometimes vocals through it and recorded it to smooth transients or dirty a sound up a bit, it's a common technique. Hell, I have recorded full rhythm sections and then sent it out to a sh!tty sampler with a low sample rate to emulate the grungy sound of a Emu SP1200, and I keep a milk crate filled with random mic pre's and transformer balanced DI boxes because... Everything has a sound.

I believe mic pre's are instruments, and I also believe that a lowly ART pre is just as worthy as an API or Neve pre to run a signal through. A 1176 imparts as much of it's own sonic imprint as a Yamaha compressor, and you know what? They both sound good depending on what you're after. Experimentation is probably the most fun part of the recording process, so who cares what you're pumping stuff through? Just have fun, keep an open mind, and let the "best"* sound win, no matter what it is.

I will tell you that while I am a huge fan of soft synths and modelers, I firmly believe that you gotta have realistic expectations about what they are. Running a PCM Rhodes sound through a guitar amp isn't going to make it sound too much more "real" sounding than doing the same thing with a modeler. You may capture a sense of "depth" because you're using a mic on a speaker, which in turn brings some of the rooms ambience into your new track, but it isn't going to magically fool a critical listener who "knows" what a real Rhodes sounds like. Running sampled strings through your monitors may help you get them to "sit in the mix" better for you, but it's not gonna be any more "real" sounding because of it, it can't. But Les already knows this.

Here's my making most of your modeler for recording tip of the day: Create an illusion of space and depth with a single repeat delay (slapback) to emulate the first reflection of a early reflection rather than using reverb. Keep the time below 100 milliseconds(experiment) and barely mix that in. If you spread that out in the stereo spectrum i.e.: slightly pan them opposite of each other, you can impart a "in the room" feel that modelers lack, and it'll save you tons of CPU you'd waste on 'verb.

Try everything once, and remember that at the end of the day it's still about the song. No amount of gear or technique can turn a boring song into an exciting one.

*"Best" meaning the sound that elicits an emotional response.

I don't disagree with anything you've said, except that I think running a PCM Rhodes through an amp does make it sound a lot better. Yes, the ear can distinguish the difference between that and a real Rhodes, but the combination track still mixes more easily. I've done it many times. Same with PCM sampled bass tracks, though the problem is that they still sound a little stiff compared to a real bass simply by virtue of what fingers can do on strings as opposed to keys.

Forgive my speaking in broad generalities about this stuff. I was trying to outline some basic processes I want to return to in my work. And I especially agree that every piece of gear, from low cost to high, imparts a worthy signal in the right context.

So let me modify my response to John this way: I don't know why you'd want to model a guitar amp and then run it through a guitar amp, because I don't understand personally what's to be gained. And to be clear, I wasn't talking about modeled effects.

If I recorded a guitar into a modeling amp, I'd run a separate output into a DI box and then re-amp that signal later. I might process it digitally before running it into the amp, but I wouldn't run the modeled amp into the real amp. I might even blend the model with the real amp. That kind of thing.

Please take my manifesto as meant "in the context of my own work." I say this often, and it's true: I'm referring to my own needs, and I'm not prescribing solutions for anyone else. So why make posts like this instead of just writing in a diary? Because it makes for interesting conversation.

Having tried a load of things, I've reached some conclusions as to what's going to work, more often than not. And what's not going to work, more often than not. This doesn't mean I disagree with the things you're talking about. Just that in production I have to draw the line at some point. The speed with which projects are done can only be stretched so far, and experimentation takes time.

Eventually one stumbles on a repertoire of techniques that will work for each person. There are creative guys like Serg who are always experimenting. I'm the kind of person who has to push myself to avoid habits, and in truth, some of my habits have gotten lazy over the years.

Hence my manifesto to return to some of my analog and hybrid roots. To push myself to take the extra step that I think makes a difference.

Again, not a prescription for others, just a statement of where I'm at these days.

 

[CatStrangler]

I had an Audio Kitchen little chopper. Selling it was one of my worst gear decisions ever. I only bring this up, because of your mention of an AK product Les. Steve at AK is the real deal and makes awesome, awesome stuff. The problem was I really should have bought the Big Chopper. It was a headroom thing.

 

[László]

I had an Audio Kitchen little chopper. Selling it was one of my worst gear decisions ever. I only bring this up, because of your mention of an AK product Les. Steve at AK is the real deal and makes awesome, awesome stuff. The problem was I really should have bought the Big Chopper. It was a headroom thing.

Cool that you had one! Yeah, his stuff is interesting and unique.

My son told me that when he was working with Flood, he and his studio partner Alan Moulder were way into using them on all kinds of tracks. I listened to the clips on the site, but never heard one in person.

Actually, it was kind of lucky that I didn't get one in the sense that around that time I discovered the PRS amps that have made me so happy in the studio. There would have been a difficult choice, and I am bad at difficult choices when both alternatives are good ones!

Now if only PRS would make an AC30 style amp...

 

[sergiodeblanc]

,,,,
Again, not a prescription for others, just a statement of where I'm at these days.

I know, buddy. I'm not tryin' to be contrary to your belief's all the time when it comes to modelers, so I'm sorry if I sounded aggressive.

 

[László]

This manifesto expressing my "close to my roots" philosophy is going to prove pretty darn expensive!

To do this right, even though the difference is subtle, I'll need to return to an analog summing mixer. I'll probably add a couple more colorful mic preamps, like APIs, plus a couple of analog EQs and compressors.

In terms of synths, I've heard the Dave Smith Prophet 12 and it sounds incredible. The amount of transient "cut" it has will definitely shine in a guitar-oriented rock track. Dave got his old company name back, too, Sequential, and is also coming out with a Prophet 6 that's a bit more vintage sounding because all of the oscillators are analog, where the 12 is a hybrid with fantastic analog filters.

Fortunately, there's no gigantic rush to complete this project and I can do it one step at a time. I'm a little torn between starting with the summing mixer or the hardware synth. Each has its sonic benefits.

 

[sergiodeblanc]

Fortunately, there's no gigantic rush to complete this project and I can do it one step at a time. I'm a little torn between starting with the summing mixer or the hardware synth. Each has its sonic benefits.

If it were me, I'd go with a Moog Slim Phatty and start building a 500 series lunchbox. You could get stereo pre's, compressors, and a small L-R summing mixer with one power supply. I'd rather have a Bangin' analog monophonic synth for bass and leads for less money.

 

[László]

If it were me, I'd go with a Moog Slim Phatty and start building a 500 series lunchbox. You could get stereo pre's, compressors, and a small L-R summing mixer with one power supply. I'd rather have a Bangin' analog monophonic synth for bass and leads for less money.

We think an awful lot alike - the API preamps I was talking about are going to be on a 500 series rack, and I'll probably also add some other modules as I go, the Focurite Red reissues being particularly appealing to me as well (I've got and have had other Focusrite Red gear, and it's classic stuff as far as I'm concerned, being a true Rupert Neve design). Also a Moog ladder filter will fit 500 series.

I'm also looking at some Manley stuff. I like tubes, as you know.

For the most part, though, I mainly use synths for pads, sound design, etc., so a polysynth I can play chords on is probably a more essential hardware choice than a monosynth for now. The Prophet 12 has 12 voices, with 4 oscillators per voice. It sounds absolutely huge. I can add a Moog later on, but it won't get a ton of use in comparison.

Waldorf synths usually appeal to me for the pads, etc., but the Prophet really sounds more wonderful than the Blofeld, as it should for 5 times the dough!

In terms of summing, I need 16 channels at minimum. I'm looking at the Burl Vancouver that can handle 32 channels, but may also test the Phoenix Audio Nicerizer in my studio.

 

[Boogie]

I would love to spend a week with Les and Sergio...studio boot amp of the stars. Seriously! That would be worth some certification acronym on by business card. We would laugh, have fun...ooo weee!

 

[László]

I would love to spend a week with Les and Sergio...studio boot amp of the stars. Seriously! That would be worth some certification acronym on by business card. We would laugh, have fun...ooo weee!

We would have fun! Of course, it sounds like Serge experiments more in the studio, whereas I usually go for the more traditional techniques. One might be tempted to put this down to the difference in our ages, except that I was this way 25 years ago.

I was never going to be the guy who discovered flanging, double tracking, direct boxes, or ribbon mics on guitar amps. If I'd been at Abbey Road in the 60s, I'd have been the guy in the white lab coat wincing while the Beatles overdrove the microphone preamps on Revolution.

"If you're going to overdrive my microphone preamps like that, I will never let you record at my studio again."

"But we're the Beatles."

"Yes I know, but it sucks to do that, so do it again and you're out of here."

"We'll buy you some new mic preamps if we break them, how does that work for you?"

"Sorry, it doesn't. They aren't making these Telefunken preamps any more, and I love the tone of what we have. No, you're just going to have to move on to another studio."

"Well, we're going to overdrive your f%^&ng mic preamps anyway."

"I'm calling the police."

 

[CatStrangler]

Now if only PRS would make an AC30 style amp...

I would love to see this and know why they probably won't. Very crowded market to break into. I for one would be lining up to buy an AC15/30 that Doug Sewell designs.

 

[László]

I would love to see this and know why they probably won't. Very crowded market to break into. I for one would be lining up to buy an AC15/30 that Doug Sewell designs.

I can get in the ballpark with my DG30 if I crank the treble. But it's a different style of amp at heart, of course.

There's a company that has resurrected the JMI brand, and is building a clone by hand in England that's supposed to be a dead-on AC-30, but honestly I'd rather have Doug's take on the amp with his special twists, because it seems he always adds to the concept like he did with the HXDA and Plexi style amps.

 

[sergiodeblanc]

We think an awful lot alike...

....I'm also looking at some Manley stuff. I like tubes, as you know.

For the most part, though, I mainly use synths for pads, sound design, etc., so a polysynth I can play chords on is probably a more essential hardware choice than a monosynth for now. The Prophet 12 has 12 voices, with 4 oscillators per voice. It sounds absolutely huge. my studio.

I think we would've made an interesting team. There seems like a natural order of compartmentalization in place.

it sounds like Serge experiments more in the studio, whereas I usually go for the more traditional techniques. One might be tempted to put this down to the difference in our ages, except that I was this way 25 years ago.

I have experience in experimentation, but what I mostly do/get called upon is very regimented.

I help making new songs, but most of them have specific musical tradition's that I have studied and learned, rather than discovering on my own. I'm actually kinda mean to indie bands that want to blow some of their budget on studio time experimenting, explaining they'll be better off paying for mastering and t-shirts.

I would love to spend a week with Les and Sergio...studio boot amp of the stars. Seriously! That would be worth some certification acronym on by business card. We would laugh, have fun...ooo weee!

Find four more students for a week in Chicago, at nearly half the price of a 2-week long Princess Cruise for a recording experience you'll never forget!