The National Department Of Amps That Sit In Mixes Well Doing...Things.

As far as fitting in with the mix , guitar wise my DG30 and old Boogie studio 22+ have the best ability to stand out in the mix at the volumes I prefer, for me it's an EL-84 thing . I had a peavey classic 30 with them that I loved as well , but I let my best bud buy it .
 
Let me start off by saying that I could do my work with only one amp and a few pedals. I've done so in the past. But you have to use EQ to sculpt stuff out or add stuff in tracking and/or mixing, and that changes the character of the amp's sound. It's no longer what the player is used to working with.

The results are fine if you have a knack for it. Not so much if you don't.

Ask yourself: Why have classic black panel Fenders of the mid to late 1960s found their way onto so many great records? Why have the Fender-inspired classic Mesa amps done the same?

I think much of the answer to this one is their scooped midrange. With recessed mids, there's lots of room in a mix. You can make the guitars relatively louder and they won't mask the vocal. In other words, they're naturally good at sitting in a mix. They just work in that role.

Why have Marshalls and Dumbles been so great for lead tones? Same answer in reverse: they work well in that vocal midrange area. A solo is a replacement for the vocal, it's expected to live in that frequency area.

What's cool about what a Vox AC30 does in a mix? Its purposely-designed low frequency cutoff not only allows the amp to be louder (bass frequencies requiring more effort from the amp), it also means that you can hear the kick drum and bass very well. Pulling back the mids a little to make room for vocals doesn't seem to hurt the amp's tone, because most of the chimey overtones folks love are produced above the vocal range.

Similar things can be said about any number of amps used in a variety of ways on recordings, or in a live setting.

So I'm interested in starting a conversation about which of your amps are best suited for what, in a variety of similar roles, and why. If you use a modeler, which models do you like for these roles?

This stuff kind of fascinates me - we have so many amp choices now, it's fun to know what works for what.
Les. HiWatt. You left out the HiWatt!

Can anyone point me to a searing emotional guitar moment that was a modeler? I am just biased toward the tubes.
 
Les. HiWatt. You left out the HiWatt!

An oversight to be sure, but you know what? I've never played through one! So it didn't come to mind.

No one I knew ever had one, and I never saw one in a store to check out. Have you got one? If so, how does it fit into your rig?

Can anyone point me to a searing emotional guitar moment that was a modeler? I am just biased toward the tubes.

I dunno; is disappointment an emotion? 🥹
 
I understand - likely similar to how it feels to play a real piano vs. controller. The sound in the recording may be virtually indistinguishable but it feels different which can lead to playing differently (hopefully better!).
Yes, very similar. Not that there's anything wrong with a controller. But real pianos and organs have a different thing going.
 
Les. HiWatt. You left out the HiWatt!

Can anyone point me to a searing emotional guitar moment that was a modeler? I am just biased toward the tubes.
**controversial opinion ahead***

The quality is to the point where no one can tell the difference in a mix and likely solo if done properly. We tend to hear with our eyes when it comes to instruments and gear. The bias can impact our playing.

I have the same bias. I prefer playing a real piano and I probably play better on one. However, Pianoteq is going to sound better most of the time for recording purposes and live use. But the improved playing is a real world result of playing a real piano, feeling the vibration through the keys and being enveloped in the sound. It is a very different experience from listening to a modeled piano through headphones or monitors while playing.

If playing the real thing (amp, guitar, pedal etc) makes you feel a certain way, it will have an impact on your playing and that alone makes it worthwhile. It does not matter if real or modeled sounds the same if the real thing makes you play better.

I can cite the studies looking at the same bias comparing Strad violins to quality modern violins. Players, conductors etc. firmly believe the old, priceless violins were made with a special process that makes them superior sounding instruments. The studies showed a different result.

The studies were published in a reputable, peer reviewed journal (a journal I am very familiar with for my day job). The violin players and conductors etc were quite unhappy with the results and I doubt many changed their minds. I am guessing you would get similar results examining other strongly held views regarding instruments/gear.

Here is song of mine with all guitars recorded through modelers. I am not playing the guitars and the solos were by two different players. The production and mix is from my brother (who is a professional musician, mixer, producer etc). I have a more recent example (linked below) with less high gain sounds (played by another great player (not me!) who plays his core PRS guitars through a Kemper).

Because of my involvement, I know what was used. But a lot of players routinely use modelers for recording and live use and no one is the wiser. For example several Porcupine Tree albums were recording on early Line 6 modelers and the guitar sounds are amazing. Deadwing in particular (listen to the song “Shallow”).


 
**controversial opinion ahead***

The quality is to the point where no one can tell the difference in a mix and likely solo if done properly. We tend to hear with our eyes when it comes to instruments and gear. The bias can impact our playing.
Everyone goes around and around on this, and I don't want to belabor it, because this thread isn't really intended to be about the controversy.

I'm in front of my monitors 24/7. I've sent out many pieces for other guitarists to play on, and they send me tracks for approval as files. I don't see the amps or modelers.

I can usually tell when they use a modeler like the Axe FX or Kemper. Often I ask them to re-record. That's a fact.

I just got a track in the other day, very obviously done with a modeler, that will have to be re-recorded. Even though the player put lots of effects on it, the thing just didn't sit in the mix, especially with his real (and very excellent) bass playing. He's in LA, I'm in Detroit. I didn't see what he used and he didn't tell me. There was certainly no eyeball bias involved.

People can, of course, use what pleases them in their work; it's important for folks to express their ideas the way they prefer. I use what pleases me in mine. If I hire someone to lay down a part, I want it to work in my context, however.

As mentioned in an earlier post, I find that real amps add more juice. I don't really care what some famous band did or didn't do; that's not relevant to my work.

You know, one thing is unmentioned in the various studies about violins, and amps, and you name it:

It's not just how things sound to a listener; it's how things feel to a player and contribute to the performance. If you can get more nuance out of an instrument - be it real or a model - that's a good thing. The hands-ear-brain feedback loop is important. We're constantly modulating what we hear and feel as we play.

At least, I am.
 
Last edited:
I agree with your last point completely and the studies were not designed to look at the impact on performance. The studies are contrary evidence to your first point - the musicians were adamant about their ability to tell the difference. To be clear I am not aware of any similar study outside of violins.

They actually conducted two studies. The first was criticized because it was conducted in a hotel room. The second study, which reproduced the results of the first, was conducted in a concert hall. It could be the results would be different for electric instruments but I doubt it. I wish someone would conduct the guitar/amp version and throw in analog vs. modeled analog synthesizers just for fun.

I think the stories/nostalgia about gear is very, very powerful. The book Sapiens highlights the power of stories - according to the author, stories are our superpower and the reason why we are the dominate species on the planet (query how long that will last). We are able to mobilize cooperation across thousands and millions of people because we all buy into a story. The monetary system is one example as is the concept of a country.

Music brands are also stories and they are often tied to famous players from famous bands playing famous songs. Associating your gear with great players doing amazing things is more attractive than playing a model coming out of a computer system. The software companies spend a lot of time developing the GUI to give an impression of the look and feel of the instrument/amp.

I was involved in a pro bono project involving one music industry party attempting to acquire the brand/goodwill and story associated with a famous music brand that had fallen on hard financial times. The dispute was resolved amicably but it was interesting to see the enormous value of a name/brand. The value was in the story and the ability to associate that story with a product.

Speaking of which, although I am very happy with my two PRS guitars and have no need for more, I would buy a John McLaughlin SE model in a heartbeat (I would be kicked out the house if I bought the core model). My ability to play would not change but I would just love to have one!
 
I agree with your last point completely and the studies were not designed to look at the impact on performance. The studies are contrary evidence to your first point - the musicians were adamant about their ability to tell the difference. To be clear I am not aware of any similar study outside of violins.

They actually conducted two studies. The first was criticized because it was conducted in a hotel room. The second study, which reproduced the results of the first, was conducted in a concert hall.
I've watched videos on those studies.

There's one interesting thing to note about A/B tests that don't get mentioned - there's an inherent problem when it comes to listening because ear memory after very few back and forths between A and B becomes confusing. This is also a matter addressed in the literature.

Long term listening tests are actually more accurate.

It reminds me of the 'cable controversy'. Two years ago I did some recordings with an acoustic guitar, a Neumann mic, a 1073 preamp, and two cables; one from Mogami, one from Sommer that cost quite a bit more. The Mogami is very good cable.

The preamp went straight into the interface. The mic position was not moved a millimeter.

There was a significant enough difference between the two cables that I wound up buying three of the Sommers for use with my condenser mics, at a cost of around $750. I wouldn't have done it without testing.

I posted links to the results on a forum I had for a while. All of the people who posted responses said that I wasn't alone in hearing it, all were able to hear the difference.

Several years before, my excellent studio tech, with a EE from Michigan, insisted I couldn't hear the difference between the fat speaker cables I was using and zip cord. It was impossible, he said. He insisted we do an A/B test. I had to leave the room so he could set it up with a sheet and a couple of mic stands behind my analog console, so he could change the wires without me seeing what he was doing.

In 10 runs, I got 9 right, the last was the one I couldn't because my ears were fatigued. As you know, 9 out of 10 is statistically significant.

My tech literally stormed out of the studio, shouting, "That's impossible. Something must have gone wrong!" Seriously. The guy got in his mobile fix-everything truck, and drove off mad.

Um...OK.

A similar thing happened when I was recording some ads in Holland at Wisseloord, Polygram's studio at the time. We had recorded everything on a Sony digital open-reel DASH machine, at the insistence of my clients. That was the first high-resolution digital multitrack, a $200,000 machine. The recordings sounded great. BTW, we chose the studio because the clients insisted on finding one to record with.

I mean, OK, send me to Europe for a week to work in a world-class studio! Yay!

The agency producer wanted the fade out at the end to be shorter, this after the musicians had gone back to London.

Trouble was, making it shorter cut off the tail of the last chord's reverb, and he couldn't deal with it. So Hans, the engineer said, "No problem, I have a digital machine that can speed it up enough to keep the tail. You will never hear a difference."

So he used it. I said, "It doesn't sound right." It didn't. The texture was wrong to me. The timing seemed off. I know what we laid down, and knew exactly what to listen for.

He insisted that was because I knew what he'd done, and wanted to do an A/B blind test.

The clients thought that was a fun thing, to test my ability to hear certain details in a mix. So I left the room, they did an A/B. I got it right. Then they did it 9 more times. I didn't miss once.

Why? I don't have super-hearing. But I do know what to listen for, and I lived with my demo track for a couple of weeks before making the trip.

A guy who makes high end AC cables near me can show on an oscilloscope that his freakin' AC cables show a measurable difference. I tried a couple with my studio monitors and guitar amps, and hot damn, the difference was indeed audible. All of my studio audio gear is now powered with them, including my AC balanced isolation transformer, and the recording equipment, including the converters, the monitors, the monitor controllers, the preamps, the guitar amps.

Yes, I know. This is 'impossible'. But it isn't. I did a back and forth for my son, who has several gold records as an engineer/producer. He heard it right away.

I spent a lot on professional acoustical treatment, and upped the ante a couple of years ago with more. The room sounds great. So I hear stuff.

One of my engineer/studio owner (lots of high end gear and a great studio) friends came in and asked to hear the results. I played a few high resolution, 24 bit, 196 kHz tracks. He turned around from the mix position and said, "This sounds like a mastering suite."

I kinda like that!

I have been invited to guest lecture on music production at U of Michigan School of Music and at regional AES. So someone out there thinks I'm not 100% crazy!

"So you're 75% crazy, then."

"I'll take that and run with it!" 😂

I honestly think that there are a lot of tests that are simply based on invalid assumptions, including the one that short A/B tests are always valid. They are not. There are problems that people often ignore.
 
Last edited:
I'll add a 'tip'.

When tracking and mixing, take your eyes off the computer monitor except to grab a virtual knob or fader when listening back to a take.

Don't look at it while you're evaluating a track or mix.

Take a break for a few hours before listening again, and then listen again the next day. With rested ears, and long-term listening, things will often sound quite different from one's first impressions and initial thinking about what to do.

Even if your ears aren't cooked by volume - I mix at moderate levels - repetitive listening to takes or mixes, one after the other, fools the ears. This is, of course, also the limitation in A/B tests.
 
Last edited:
Very interesting and I enjoyed the war stories!! I am not saying the studies could not be improved but they are not the only studies showing similar perceptual biases. Regarding A/B tests, they are routinely used by audiologists and I am not aware that they have been invalidated - I just had an A/B hearing test. If it were a matter of confusion, you would not see results of two studies all pointing in the same direction (preference for the modern violin). Instead, the results would be inconclusive.

It is significant that the study was repeated to address the venue criticism and the conclusion was the same. It is also unusual for such a study to be in a journal like PNAS. Unlike forums (no offense to forums!), YouTube channels, music magazines etc. the papers are subject to peer review by (in this case) cognitive scientists. I am guessing the authors are not welcome in many concert halls.

Here is a summary based on the studies - https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1405851111

And a relevant quote:

“What's going on then? Why does the folk belief that old instruments sound better persist? A cognitive explanation is that this phenomenon represents the influence of top-down processing, that is, expectation-driven perception, as opposed to stimulus-driven perception. Top-down processing was perhaps most compellingly demonstrated by Stroop (4) and later by Biederman et al. (5), and Palmer et al. (6). More recently, top-down processing has been demonstrated in the reading of musical notation (7), emotion regulation (8), and in the restoration of speech intelligibility among cochlear implant users (9). Top-down processing is well known to change perception, as demonstrated in a number of visual illusions, such as Kanizsa's illusory triangles (Fig. 1) (10). . . . In short, simply knowing that an instrument has a certain pedigree or history could activate expectations for its sound that cause neural circuits—even lower level sensory-perceptual ones—to behave differently than they would without that knowledge. We may really believe that they sound better, even if there is no acoustic difference in the distal world.”
 
Last edited:
I'll add a 'tip'.

When tracking and mixing, take your eyes off the computer monitor except to grab a virtual knob or fader when listening back to a take.

Don't look at it while you're evaluating a track or mix.

Take a break for a few hours before listening again, and then listen again the next day. With rested ears, and long-term listening, things will often sound quite different from one's first impressions and initial thinking about what to do.

Even if your ears aren't cooked by volume - I mix at moderate levels - repetitive listening to takes or mixes, one after the other, fools the ears.
This is great advice! It is amazing the difference taking a break can make.
 
Speaking of keyboard controllers, there is a MIDI 2 specification now. Logic supports it, so do the new Native Instruments controllers, and a few others.
This is great advice! It is amazing the difference taking a break can make.
Yes.

This also highlights, for me, the problems with repetitive A/B tests.
“What's going on then? Why does the folk belief that old instruments sound better persist? A cognitive explanation is that this phenomenon represents the influence of top-down processing, that is, expectation-driven perception, as opposed to stimulus-driven perception. Top-down processing was perhaps most compellingly demonstrated by Stroop (4) and later by Biederman et al. (5), and Palmer et al. (6). More recently, top-down processing has been demonstrated in the reading of musical notation (7), emotion regulation (8), and in the restoration of speech intelligibility among cochlear implant users (9). Top-down processing is well known to change perception, as demonstrated in a number of visual illusions, such as Kanizsa's illusory triangles (Fig. 1) (10). . . . In short, simply knowing that an instrument has a certain pedigree or history could activate expectations for its sound that cause neural circuits—even lower level sensory-perceptual ones—to behave differently than they would without that knowledge. We may really believe that they sound better, even if there is no acoustic difference in the distal world.”

I've read very similar studies. I'm sure that the belief system, etc., has some effect.

I'm willing to bet that most people can't distinguish between a cheap acoustic guitar and an expensive one, especially in an AB test. Yet I think most of us can hear the difference.

Is it all a perception/belief problem, or are there limitations to the way tests are conducted?

We know the limitations of brain studies, for example. We still don't know much about how the brain works. If we don't know how the brain works, it's very difficult to cook up the perfect test for how our brains process information. At best, we can make educated guesses.

Look, I'm a believer in science. Totally. But the truth is also that new things are learned every day, and studies aren't immutable, carved-in-stone, pronouncements. Objectively, they're results worth thinking about and evaluating. But if our every day experience tells us one thing, and studies tell a different story, well, more studies, and different methodologies might be needed.

There were immutable rules of physics until Einstein was proved right shortly after WW1.

The believers in Newtonian physics weren't completely wrong about everything; they were intelligent people who simply had to make a few adjustments to the knowledge base.

I'm not saying I'm right and everyone else is wrong. I'm saying that more investigation is not a bad idea.
 
Last edited:
I agree - science is a method not a thing. It is not immutable which is why it is so valuable. Unlike most people (cue the soapbox), when new data arises, the science is supposed to change. If it doesn’t, there is a process to correct it. These studies are a data point and other studies may show a different result if a better test is found. The reproducibility pointing in one direction is another data point strengthening the conclusions, in my view. I am all in favor of more and better studies and also continuing to use the tools that work for each of us. Compared to what was available when I was young, we have unbelievable tools at our disposal to make music that I could never have imagined.

I am very interested in the NI Kontrol S88 MK3 because of the MIDI 2.0 and polyaftertouch. The problem is most plugins are not MIDI 2.0. Once my favorite piano plugin (Pianoteq) is MIDI 2.0 compatible, I will likely sell my current piano controller for the S88 or equivalent and get all the other benefits of Kontrol etc. My current controller is a high resolution MIDI controller which generates around 16,000 velocity layers in Pianoteq which is one of the few plugins that uses high resolution MIDI. MIDI 2.0 with 14-bit resolution can accomplish the same result. The idea that I could possibly feel the difference between 128 velocity levels and 16,000 is my equivalent of tonewood or a high end amp in the piano world. Just tell me I am playing a Steinway and I will believe it!!
 
Over the years, I've learned to do this with amps or modelers, in another old fashioned way. I scoop enough mids from the amp (real or modeled) to sit where it needs too in the mix, then use an OD for solos that pushes the mids up for solos. I also don't scoop the mids when there are no vocals, so that even the rhythm type playing fills in the mids better. This also suits a Van Halen style more, where you're throwing in little leads while playing the rhythm parts.
 
"True, but there's only 'regular people stuff' in Studio Craptastic. All I do is go out and buy something anyone can walk into a store and easily find. That's just shopping, it ain't 'curating'.
Can't name names, but someone once remarked about a "carefully curated NOS tube complement."

Kidding aside, great and interesting thread.
 
Can't name names, but someone once remarked about a "carefully curated NOS tube complement."
That part actually was technically true. It took a long time to put together the sets I wanted, at least at first, before NOS dealers were big online. Talking 20-25 years ago for some.

But still, I was being unbelievably pretentious!

😂

Who says a person has to be consistent?

"I do."

"Yeah, not really."

"Who says 'yeah' 'not' in the same three word phrase that's not even a sentence?"

"It's a disease. I caught it from my kids."
 
I like to record the cab with the mic 12"-24" from the speakers
I recently saw a video by Segeborn on mic distance which was really eye (ear?) opening, as I have always just found the best close mic position instead of every trying to pull it back at all. This is definitely something I'm going to be playing with the next time I'm actually recording guitar!
 
Last edited:
I recently saw a video by Segborn on mic distance which was really eye (ear?) opening, as I have always just found the best close mic position instead of every trying to pull it back at all. This is definitely something I'm going to be playing with the next time I'm actually recording guitar!
He had me at Physics.:p:D I saved this.
Thanks!👍🤘
 
I should add that players often choose amps in a vacuum; that is, without much regard to what roles they'll play in the context of making music with other people and instruments.

That's great if you're playing by yourself in "mom's basement;" but doesn't work as well in a mix.

We talk often about guitars as role-players - something I think might be a bit overblown - yet we sometimes ignore the huge impact the amp has on the final outcome. As a producer/composer, I think the amp plays a larger role.
It's amazing how the "in the mix" issue can come up even if you're playing with only one other instrument. The tones I get at home don't always work with others.
 
I am very interested in the NI Kontrol S88 MK3 because of the MIDI 2.0 and polyaftertouch. The problem is most plugins are not MIDI 2.0. Once my favorite piano plugin (Pianoteq) is MIDI 2.0 compatible, I will likely sell my current piano controller for the S88 or equivalent and get all the other benefits of Kontrol etc.
I have a nice-feeling Yamaha 88 key controller, it's very piano-like, so when I decided to get a new 61 key controller (nice to have one of each for the different types of keybeds) I figured I'd keep it, and add one of the N.I. S61 Mk3s.

I have to say, I love the S61 Mk3.

It's one of those 'they thought of a lot of really useful things' instruments. The modulation strip is in the right spot, the wheels and knobs feel professional, the screen is glass instead of plastic so you can actually clean it without fogging/scratching it, and the body is made of aluminum, which is both very lightweight and sturdy (it only looks like plastic because of the matte finish).

It's a quality piece of gear in every respect. The Fatar keybed is a little stiffer than the very light one I was used to, but as I use it, either my fingers have become happy with it, or it might be breaking in a little bit, because it feels natural now.

The polyphonic aftertouch is useful with both synths and the orchestral libraries, the display is large, and once I got used to using the Komplete Kontrol software, that integration, as well as Kontakt's, is pretty nice, too. That took a minute, simply because the Mac OS had a bug causing incompatibility with the NI software, and Apple only fixed it a few weeks after I bought the keyboard. Now it runs very smoothly.

Logic runs MIDI 2.0, but as you mention, third party software plugins haven't caught up. I should probably find out whether Logic's own plugins run MIDI 2.0 - they might.

I've been futzing around with a new Mac Studio and working out some orchestral instrument recording plans, getting more equipment set up, and I just haven't had time. Incidentally, the Mac Studio is blazing fast, and for the first time I'm recording and mixing at 96 and 192kHz. The higher rates are just that tiny bit more lifelike with recorded tracks.

Nonetheless, for me the move to the NI Mk3 keyboard was worth it, even without the MIDI 2 being useful just yet.

In hindsight, what I shoulda-woulda-coulda done was trade in or sell the Yamaha controller, get the S88 Mk3, and run the studio with that. Now the plan is to replace the Yamaha with the S88, but keep the S61 for a 'best of both worlds' rig, since it makes no sense to take a financial hit on the new S61. There's no rush until MIDI 2 is more widely implemented, but I kinda have GAS for getting everything the way I want it.

A recent hospital 'adventure' put my plans on hold a short while; I'll be back to normal in a couple of weeks, and get back to updating the studio to do more of what I want to do for my independent material, as opposed to mainly being set up for the ad stuff. I've reached that point in life where it has to be all about me! 😄
 
Last edited:
Back
Top