My Vision of the Future Guitar Amp

[Phostenix]

Let me start by saying that I fully understand there will always be a percentage of players that will never give up tube amps and analog effects. I don't know what that percentage of the market is, but I believe that as technology improves & prices come down over the next 5 years or so, 2 things will combine to dramatically change the typical new guitar amp. More refined, modify-able modeling technology & multi-touch screens could provide the features & user interface that push the vast majority of players over to digital modeling for good.


Here's what I envision for the evolution of the common guitar amp:

The "faceplate" will be a multi-touch flat panel screen that runs the width of the amp.

The screen will allow you to choose pre-amp effect(s), the amp sim, and post-amp effect(s).

You will "flip" through pictures of effects boxes & amps with a swipe of your finger ala the iPhone.

Once selected, the screen will display visual controls that match the original effects & amp models' faceplates.

You will "grab" virtual knobs with 2 fingers & turn them like you would a real knob for adjustments.

Higher models will have an "Advanced" button for the modelled amp or effect that adds more virtual knobs for parameters that the original didn't. Players who want simple interfaces get what they want & players who want more options get what they want, too.

Foot controllers could be as simple as switch & light units that correspond to the pre-fx, amp, and post-fx displays - keeping all the controls up on the amp. No more bending down to the floor to adjust effect controls.

The amp could have only guitar speakers or it could have FRFR (Full Range Frequency Response) speakers, enabling it to be used with electric or acoustic guitars or even with guitar synths. The amp sim & effects can be suited for any use at that point.

The number of effects, amp models, preset banks, etc., can be varied for different sizes & price points, but the undelying technology can be reused from model to model.

Since power up is essentially a computer boot, the display could show the amp in "Standby" until the computer is ready, when it shows "On".


Here's where I think it gets very interesting. If manufacturers adopt an open software model for their amps, modders could begin modding the sims or creating new ones - including your own custom faceplates (Line6 already has software available that you can use to create your own effects). The ability to create your own sound AND look would be very compelling, I think.

[anson]

I hope this proposed amplifier has Windows compatability and and can double as a DVD player/web browser. Pop-up software update reminders would be a nice addiion too.

[tubeswell]

Originally Posted by anson

I hope this proposed amplifier has Windows compatability and and can double as a DVD player/web browser. Pop-up software update reminders would be a nice addiion too.

... and comes with a fully equipped bar that also does espresso and latte and shoe shine (and a whole lotta other things that no self respecting tube amp can do)

[Phostenix]

Originally Posted by anson

I hope this proposed amplifier has Windows compatability and and can double as a DVD player/web browser. Pop-up software update reminders would be a nice addiion too.

I'm guessing Linux or Android would be the OS of choice.

[Phostenix]

Originally Posted by tubeswell

... and comes with a fully equipped bar that also does espresso and latte and shoe shine (and a whole lotta other things that no self respecting tube amp can do)

C'mon, guys, where's the, "You'll have to pry my tube amp out of my cold, dead hands!"?

[tubeswell]

Originally Posted by Phostenix

C'mon, guys, where's the, "You'll have to pry my tube amp out of my cold, dead hands!"?

Yup - that too

[Old Tele man]

...when the only vacuum is in the heads of the "new-wave" players and not inside the tubes, it'll be a total "loss" situation (all puns intended).

[loudthud]

And then one day you amp catches a virus from all the crap you had to download and it dies in the middle of a gig. All your patches are lost. So you have to buy more software to protect you amp but it needs updates every day and you have to pay a subscription. Eventually you have to spend more on the subscription and software updates than the original cost of the amp. Then there is also a problem where your amp crashes at random times. The amp manufacturer says it's not their problem because the amp passes the diagnostics. The third party software vendor says it's the amp manufacturers' problem. Does any of this sound familiar? When will your guitar have a USB port?

[Phostenix]

Originally Posted by loudthud

And then one day you amp catches a virus from all the crap you had to download and it dies in the middle of a gig. All your patches are lost....

'Cause nobody's ever had a tube amp crap out in the middle of a gig? Gigging with a backup rules still apply.

Viruses are a somewhat valid concern, but let's look at it. The OS in a dedicated hardware modeller (not software running on a pc or Mac) is not a "general purpose" operating system like Windows or OSX. It's a custom OS built to do 1 specific thing. As such, it can be hardened against attack. As long as you don't download OS updates from bit torrent, you should be fine. User patches should never be able to touch the OS. This is what will separate the men from the boys. Just like any piece of gear - including tube amps - there are ways to build things to be stable & reliable and there are ways to cut corners. "You get what you pay for" still applies.

System configs & patches can all be backed up. If you have to blow away the system & start over, then you reload your data. It's a computer, you'll operate it like one.

Originally Posted by loudthud

When will your guitar have a USB port?

We'll save the modelling guitar of the future for another discussion.

[tedmich]

for a baby step towards this future, check George Anderson's (tubelab.com) Minitron amp project (its award winning!)

MiniTron

[Enzo]

For something this complex, why would it NOT be windows or something like it? Why would Marshall or Peavey or Fender invent a OS from the ground up when they could just license existing systems and embed them? And then your internet could constantly update the available models. Of course the system would decide to download the updates just about the time you start into your solo. Your notes come out 10 seconds behind...

[Phostenix]

Originally Posted by tedmich

for a baby step towards this future, check George Anderson's (tubelab.com) Minitron amp project (its award winning!)

MiniTron

Seems like a totally different track, but very interesting. Tube guys should be intrigued by the promise of 2-3 times the power output of a given tube amp.

I'm always amazed by how many really smart people are out there doing really interesting things that most of us never know about.

Thanks!

[cminor9]

it's always interesting to speculate.

Personally, I'd hate to see this happen. Look at what has happened to phones. You have your iPhones, Android phones, etc, etc, which are very cool.

Until you realize that often new tech is used by corporations to make more money and remove more control from the hands of the users.

First, you have planned obsolescence. Do you see guitar players, or let me rephrase that, *working* musicians, upgrading every few years? I don't. Things get built to break, or in such a fashion that over time what was once sufficient is no longer sufficient. I am typing this on a computer that is six years old. Firefox 3.5 sucks on this machine, as does iTunes, as does just about everything else I use. Why? The software doesn't do much more than it did four years ago. It's just that since there is such better hardware out there apps are built much fatter now.

Also, corporations do not make interoperative systems. It's not in their own best interest to be compatible. Nope, they'd want you to buy upgrades, new effects, whatever have you from them. I'd be shocked if such a system were created with an open source paradigm.

Then, back to the idea of cell phone service providers. If you want a verizon phone, then be prepared to pay for everything. Want a ringtone? That'll be $2. Never mind the fact that you can buy the entire song for a buck and make your own ringtone. Well, if you can connect your phone to your PC. Providers make every attempt to stop that. Want an iPhone? Well, get ready to (over)pay for phone service, a data plan (even though you may be already buying DSL service from them), text messaging, etc. Text messaging? Don't get me started. The plan for unlimited text messaging on an iphone is $20. If you send 300 messages a month, calculate the cost for that. Probably a lot more per kb than you pay for net service or email. A LOT more. Bottom line, you pay through the nose, only because other people willingly pay through the nose. It's easy to charge whatever the market will bear when you and your buddies control the market.

The beauty of old technology is that I can build whatever I want. Nobody can stop me. If I have the know-how, which isn't that hard to get, I can build it. I could conceivably build a mesa-boogie, a matchless, a fender, whatever.

I am no luddite. I love technology. But I HATE that it is used to extort money from people too ignorant to know better.

[Phostenix]

Originally Posted by Enzo

For something this complex, why would it NOT be windows or something like it? Why would Marshall or Peavey or Fender invent a OS from the ground up when they could just license existing systems and embed them? And then your internet could constantly update the available models. Of course the system would decide to download the updates just about the time you start into your solo. Your notes come out 10 seconds behind...

Too much "extra" stuff they don't need. There is an embedded version of Windows, but just about every kind of box you can think of is already running custom versions of Linux. All the modelling amps today have some sort of OS running them. I'd be curious what they are....

[Gollum]

I've been saying for YEARS now that Line6 would do well to make a simple color LCD screen that showed a picture of the amp model you were running, and use knobs that are unlabled, that would switch functions depending on what model you were on, you could make the amp picture line up with your knobs. It wouldn't even need to be touch screen, just well implemented. One of my biggest beefs with their amps is having mid and presence controls on amps that never had them! I want the model to at least TRY to act like the original.

There's a lot of disconnect for most players with modeling amps still. Tonally they really need to nail speaker emulation. They can emulate cabs well enough, but not speaker dynamics. This is why to me a modeling amp should be rung with ZERO cab modeling and run into a good speaker like a V30. I believe this to be the MAIN reason the spidervalve sounds so much better than the regular spider amps. They're the same basic models, tweaked a bit, and then run through a completely clean tube amp. I'm 100% positive it's the speaker dynamics of a REAL guitar speaker being driven hard that makes it sound better, and not the bogner badged glass bottles. That reeks of marketing to me. (lets not forget that if you pull the speakers out of any line6 amp they're generally comparable to a full frequency mid driver PA speaker)

But either way, speaker emulation or not, the next generation of modeling amps WILL start to look and act more and more like computers, since that's basically what they are.

If anything though, I expect the electrical manufacturing market to kill tube amps long before modeling amps do. I've met very few $1,000+ modeling amp owners that don't enjoy some similarly priced tube amps from time to time. They're not exactly a competing market for the most part. Manufacturing on the other hand though, is moving more and more towards low voltage parts, and the need for our high voltage parts goes down every year.

[Phostenix]

Cm9,

The issue of constant upgrades is certainly a valid one, but I guess we're being conditioned to accept that. One of the things that Fractal is doing "right", from all accounts, is responding to user feedback & making changes & updates to their software on a regular basis. I don't think they are charging for this. Of course, eventually they will need to upgrade the hardware to go to the next level.

I'm not sure it's that much different than needing more power or more features from a classic amp. You don't upgrade, you buy another one. And then another. We all make decisions on whether we can live with what we have or whether we need more gear. Isn't GAS the big problem with guitar guys?

All the new modelling amps in the world won't affect your ability to keep building & using the old gear that you love.

I do think that the black magic & mojo mythology that has infiltrated the vintage analog gear world (like it did to the audiophile world before it) has created a tremendous amount of misinformation & outright cons. There's no magic to the physics of the world we live in. Tubes/transformers/speakers may create complex waveforms in response to an input signal, but it's still a finite number of possibilities. I believe that the modelling engineers will be able to get close enough to satisfy 90% of the market.

[Phostenix]

Originally Posted by Gollum

Manufacturing on the other hand though, is moving more and more towards low voltage parts, and the need for our high voltage parts goes down every year.

This is a huge factor for me in this discussion. Even solid state parts from the 70's & 80's are gone now. It's hard to maintain/repair a lot of SS analog stompboxes & amps from the glory days.

The upside for collectors is that prices will continue to rise as working vintage stuff gets more scarce, but I think it will become another contributing factor for the average buyer to move to digital models.

It will be interesting to see if any small outfits will spring up to manufacture parts for vintage gear. I don't know if the market is big enough to make it worth anyone's while.

[Phostenix]

This discussion reminds me of a Rush tune from 1980

All this machinery making modern music
Can still be open-hearted
Not so coldly charted, it's really just a question
Of your honesty, yeah, your honesty


Speaking of which, haven't keyboard players been using customized computers for 30 years now?

[Enzo]

One problem with touch screens is cost. A bunch of synths have them. I get the occasional Korg Triton in with a dead or busted screen. The repair bill is about $300. My dealer cost on the part is about $130, and i am not so sure it is sturdy enough for guitar amp use. Synth tops are usually treated with more respect. And a whole panel width screen would cost even more.

[Gollum]

Originally Posted by Phostenix

I believe that the modelling engineers will be able to get close enough to satisfy 90% of the market.

I agree, but I bet less than 10% of the market actually makes any money, let alone makes a living playing guitar. Most true gigging musicians will probably still opt for a real tube amp. Last real metal show I went to had well over 10 metal bands that probably aren't breaking even on tour, and not a single one had a solid state or modeling amp. Marhsalls, Mesas, Diezels, Bogners, one band even had a Framus amp. These guys know the tone they like, and need TUBES for them. :-D

Originally Posted by Phostenix

It will be interesting to see if any small outfits will spring up to manufacture parts for vintage gear. I don't know if the market is big enough to make it worth anyone's while.

I keep wondering when the DIY market will kickup for component making. It's not too big of a deal to rewire a transformer, but I've never heard of anyone making their own capacitors or resistors yet. I'm betting as the costs go up people will start to educate themselves.

Originally Posted by Enzo

One problem with touch screens is cost.

Werd!! Those things are pricey. On the durability though - just wait until touch screen OLED screens hit the market. As long as glass isn't used as the protector they should be indestructible. You can nearly fold them back on themselves without issue.

See Video:

YouTube- Ground-breaking New SAMSUNG Flexible AM OLED Screen

YouTube- Ground-breaking New SAMSUNG Flexible AM OLED Screen

[Steve Conner]

I develop embedded instruments based on Windows CE in my day job. To cut a long story short, I come here to get away from all that computer crap.

I have one of the Line6 Tonecore DDKs, but wussed out on it when I realised that I needed to learn yet another assembly language to use it effectively. Not that 56k DSP assembler wouldn't look good on my resume, but I just couldn't be bothered. I have DSP boards kicking around that can be programmed in C, which makes life a lot easier.

The thing that pisses me off about modelling amps, patch-based digital synths, and fancy digital effects in general, is that I feel like I'm playing someone else's music. The sound designer put so much time and effort into making it sound just the way he wanted it, and somehow that stops me from making it sound how I want it. With an old tube circuit there's only so far the "sound designer" can mangle the tone.

[Phostenix]

Screen costs should inevitably come down as modelling improves. That's why I gave it 5 years or so.

[Phostenix]

Originally Posted by Steve Conner

The thing that pisses me off about modelling amps, patch-based digital synths, and fancy digital effects in general, is that I feel like I'm playing someone else's music.

That's an interesting reaction. I've had the opposite reaction. I love that I've got sounds available to me that I can't get out of my "real" amps. I'm becoming more creative now. I'm more excited than ever about playing & learning new things.

[tubeswell]

I'm with Steve on this - that exactly why I won't go for it. The mojo in the tube happens in the responsiveness of the tube under different voltages, temperatures etc and this makes a tube amp alive as an instrument. It responds and reacts to the way you play the strings as much as anything. Its attraction as a sound generator is in this semi-predictable and variable nature. Pre-sampled mono-dimensional sounds from modelling amps don't give you this, and they just ain't my bag.

[Gollum]

I just thought of an analogy I never have before. Playing a tube amp is like playing a violin, while playing a modeling amp is like playing a keyboard.

And I have yet to hear a keyboard that can REALLY fool me regarding grand piano sounds, but that doesn't mean they can't do some pretty neat things.

[RudeBoy]

A couple of points:

First, regarding embedded OS's: Tek scopes use Windows now. They boot up. Some need a mouse to operate. People put them on the network and they try to autoupdate. This can be a problem. Despite their capabilities I occasionally get frustrated with one and will reach for an analog scope. I can usually see exactly what I want in about five seconds. Rather than an open OS, I'd suggest something open but with a standard plug-in capability.

Second, concerning the OP's premise about modeling amps. The modeling amp concept will work for some people and for some it never will. The ones that don't like it will say "It has no personality of its own." The ones that do like it will say, "but it can have any personality."

Why does this matter?

For a performing musican to feel he is "being creative" there is a certain psychological connection between what he hears and what he is attempting to do to create that sound. If you think the tube brand matters, then it matters. It can affect your performance and while the audience may not be able to hear the difference between an KT66 and a 6L6, it *can* tell the difference between an inspired performance and an uninspired one.

Here's an example. There are several Hammond organ clones out there now. They duplicate the fractional math pitch synthesis model of the original Hammond tone generator. They introduce tone generator crosstalk to simulate age. They have variable key click. They have the appropriate taper. They often sound better than many real B3 examples I have heard. Yet despite their similarity to the real thing, I know of no organ player that wouldn't rather sit behind the console of a lesser sounding real one. (They seldom want to carry one however.) There is a visceral experience while playing a real B3 that no clone can give. The organists think they play better and have more musical involvement. It's more fun.

I think it is the same with a modeling amp. Some people won't care. They can play just as well regardless of the gear. Or if you do a lot of studio work a modeling amp might be a great solution. For others it will never do. We all know players (might even be those players), that use the same amp and guitar for twenty-five years. They will be a tough sell.

-- rb

[Godwin]

a large part of the reason people reject modellers is because they sound bad...

but they sound bad because too many of them are owned by people who dont know how to tweak tone, and get carried away by the overly adjustable nature of them. for example, you can scoop much more of the mids on a moddelling amp then you can on the standard analogue amp, and for some reason an alarming number of people think this is a good thing.

I personally think the future of amps is software and half decent soundcards on laptops which get plugged into a PA. similar to the way studio recording has gone.

[Patrick M]

FYI, I am a EE and design analog integrated circuits

My take on all of this: we have today all kind of multi-effect pedals, modeling amps with tons of featiures and a whole bench of sofisticated stuff.

Let just assume for the sake of the argument that all the fancy digital/programmable stuff can sound just as good as your favorite tube amp .

Why is that most pros seem to prefer a tude amp and a pedal board with a bench of individual 'analog' stomp boxes to the fancy super-programmable do everything magic box?

For the same reason as I do (and I am very far from being a pro) - I much prefer a good analog box with a few knobs than having to hire a full-time software enginner to operate the darn thing.

With digital electronics and computers, we have the capability to make everything a lot more complicated than it needs to be (tried to operate a microwave oven lately?). Yes, we can create all kind of features and options, but should we????

I strongly believe in making everything as complicated as it HAS to be, and NOT MORE. (This is a regular conflict at work when facing the inevitable 'feature creep')

And... I do think my tube amp DOES sound better anyway...

[Chuck H]

All opinion (and a little over view too) but Line 6 products do really well because they are versitile, not because they sound great. They do sound good though, and I hate that they do. As far as the majority of players letting go of the old tube amps in favor of digital technology, I absolutely believe it will happen. And I hate that too. It will happen for the same reason that your home hi fi system is now a "7 way" with a sub and all the speaker cabs are made of plastic. Do these "home theatres" sound better than the old console speaker systems made by Marantz and Pioneer? No F#$CK!NG WAY. But we buy them anyway because in the modern world of disposable product the cost of building old style tube home audio and speaker systems in wooden boxes makes them a luxury exclusive to the elite. We are still using tubes for guitar amps because when solid state guitar amps first started to appear they sounded really bad. Players learned that to sound good you had to get an older tube model amp. Only very recently has solid state (or actually digital) technology been made to sound "good enough" for most good players that can hear the difference. And the younger players can't hear the difference because they've been pre conditioned by listening to most of their music through little plastic "earphones". As music genres continue to become more generic and product like, and the newer generation of guitar players come of age, these two phenomenon will converge and the need for modern versitility combined with a lower expectation of fundamental "tone" will force tube amps into obsolescence. They will become the novel tool of old cranks, like those guy's that restore old Fisher 500C's and the like. No less to blame is information technologies. The most profitable and marketable products will be raised and all else ignored in favor of profit. Boutique amp builders everywhere will be crying in their beer talking to whoever will listen about the "real difference between..."

It's a very sad truth most of us will see come to be in short order. But I want to be clear that I don't agree with this direction, or even the direction of most pop and rock music. But the two are intertwined. Just as the musicianship and innovation of rock and roll has faded, so too will the sound quality of their equipement. It won't be about sound quality, it will be about function and interface compatability.

It reminds me of how I felt when I tried to get my young nephew to go outside to play, even offered to take him fishing, camping, dirtbike riding, etc. But all he wanted to do was stay in on the nicest days and play video games on the computer. Drove me crazy. No dirt and mud, no poking at frogs with a stick, jumping off homemade ramps on his bike or falling down and getting hurt a little. Just a "virtual" life. And that's all there will be soon. Virtual amps and virtual rock.

Chuck

[cminor9]

Originally Posted by Chuck H

Just a "virtual" life. And that's all there will be soon. Virtual amps and virtual rock.
Chuck

That is true, but it's also funny how a long of younger musicians are into old music, precisely because of what you describe. One can only handle so much simulacrum. The pendulum always swings back.

And there is a lot of really good music that is being made by guys on computers. It's possible for that to co-exist with more traditional forms of music. People still buy Count Basie and Duke Ellington records, even though some of this music is nearing 80 years old.

[cminor9]

Originally Posted by Patrick M

I strongly believe in making everything as complicated as it HAS to be, and NOT MORE. (This is a regular conflict at work when facing the inevitable 'feature creep')

IOW, Make everything as simple as possible and no simpler. Simplicity in design is not the same thing as minimalism (which only some of us like) or a lack of key features (which none of us like); everyone appreciates simplicity.

You are essentially making the argument for dedicated consoles, and I agree with you. Want a computer? Then buy one. Want a video game console? Buy one. Want a DVD player? Buy one. And so on. The moment you start expecting your PC to do everything and do it well is the moment you create the demand for an overly complicated, fragile, and overly expensive operating system.

Let a tube amp be a tube amp.

[Phostenix]

Having a touch screen that looks like the faceplate of the amp or effect appeals to me because it solves one of the big objections to modelling systems - the complex user interface.

I don't think simple is always as simple as people make it out to be. A classic tube amp is simple, but limited, so then you buy another one to get a different sound. And a 3rd or 4th for some other options. Then you start trying different speakers or speaker cabs & trying combinations. And then you buy pedals for more sound choices. And then you need a pedal board & a power supply. And interconnect cables. And then you buy more pedals.

I've seen this over & over and have done it myself. A big part of the appeal of the Boss GT-Pro for me was simplicity. I was sick to death of the endless fiddling and A/Bing of things. I wasn't happy with the sounds I was getting from my gear and didn't really want to spend thousands of dollars on a collection of classic vintage amps - or even modern high end stuff, for that matter (though I'd love to have a Mesa Mark V).

As a recent example (tonight again), even though I spend most of my time playing through the GT-Pro, I've still been fiddling about with different speakers for my current tube & SS amps (Ampeg VL-503 & Crate GT3500H) and can't seem to get quite what I want. I LOVE the fact that changing speaker sims on the GT-Pro is a few button pushes. I can even setup a patch where I can switch between cabs with a footswitch (I did that with the Fender Pro Reverb sim).

Anyway, while I appreciate the guys who have played through the same amp for 20 years & won't put anything but a cable between their guitar & their amp, I don't think that represents most players. Most people love choices, love to try new gear, and continue to add equipment over time to have more options. I am completely astounded at the number of stomp boxes available today (especially OD/Distortion). If everyone was so happy with their amps, why does everybody get so excited about the latest boutique pedal?

Buying great tube amps is expensive & will most likely get more expensive over time. You can certainly argue that it's a better investment (nobody wants a 5 YO computer or a 5YO modelling box), but it's still cheaper to buy something like a Fractal Axe than it is to outfit yourself with 3 or 4 of the classics (plus great analog effects).

We will always appreciate the classics, for many reasons, but I still see these things as tools. I don't want an emotional attachment. I admit that I'm not much for nostalgia. I just want the best tool for the job.

[Chuck H]

What you argue goes back to a point I made in my post. Quality of tone will be sacrificed in the name of versitility and interface compatability. A lot of guys, even professionals, are gigging with modeling amps. It's because they want one amp that does it all. But as I also noted, they only sound good, not great. As far as I'm concearned, great tone is only possible with a tube amp. And "good enough" tone isn't good enough for me. I accept the limitations of the antiquated gear I use because what it does, it does so well. If players as a group opt to accept mediocrity in tone it follows that they must be mediocre artists. If this is the demographic spending $$$ on amps then what they want to buy will become whats available. This phenomenon is made much worse by information technologies and E commerse. And mediocrity will prevail in the gear and the music. That's only technological progress. It's certainly not cultural progress. If I have to prioritize progress I'll put cultural ahead of technological every time. Anyone who wouldn't is an anarchist whether they know it or not.

FWIW I do think there are still some young bands doing good things. But every year it gets slimmer. Perhaps a commentary on my age, but at my age I think I know enough to know the difference. And IMHO subtracting the option of great tone from pop and rock music isn't going to make this trend any better.

Chuck

[Enzo]

"Oh, it's OK for the stage, but I wouldn;t want to record with it."

SOund familiar? Kinda what CHuck is saying.

I have to say I don;t understand how having a touch screen virtual panel makes a user interface less complicated. Ever sit on a chair playing and reach out and tweak a knob with your toe? Or reach over and brush the side of a knob to turn it a little? Requires no precision of movement.

I guess it is OK to imagine "some sort" of touch screen, but the devil is always in the details. How exactly do you envision it to be laid out? Gonna have a virtual panel with images of each knob? Always all the knobs there? Or will it wind up - and I don't see how they could resist - with pages and layers? I mean if you are going to have virtual knobs, it is only a small step to virtual panels. Poke, its a Fender Deluxe, poke again and it is a MArshall Valvestate, poke again, AMpeg V4. The whole panel changes to appear like the modelled amp. Maybe the Deluxe screen would have the option to become the Deluxe Reverb upon demand. Marketing is the whole deal here, so why would they pass that up? You call up Champ, and all the extra "knobs" disappear. Or create your own panel - delete knobs you don't want, say you never use the trem on your Fender, so lose those knobs.

But lets say it is simplicity they want, so we have a stable panel - the same 10 - or however many - knobs are there all the time. How will the "knob" be actuated? You going to have to make a circular motion woth a fingertip like you are dialing an old phone to represent knob turning? or will you just poke at the setting position you want on a circular scale? or (shudder) up/down buttons for each knob?

And effects. You going to have those controls always displayed too? Or will they only pop up upon demand. I mean with any common FX train you got the overdrive gain and level, the chorus speed and depth, the compression threshold and level, maybe the EQ for solos with freqs and levels. If this thing is to take the place of say 6 floor pedals, that is maybe 20 knobs on the panel screen. Unless you want to go to pages of windows, and then so much for simple user interface. GO play with a Korg Triton and check that out.

Speaker emulators? OK, even more controls to select cab style and speaker model?

To me any of that is more complicated an interface, not less. I have to make sure what I am touching. AN example is my car radio. My old radios were tuned by turniing a knob up or down the dial, some these days have up/down tuning buttons. Especially inconvenient while driving. ANother is when I go to turn the volume control and the car hits a bump causing me to push in on the knob a moment. The multifunction control then interprets the push as a command to advance to the EQ or panning or something I don;t want.

If everyone was so happy with their amps, why does everybody get so excited about the latest boutique pedal?

These are mutually exclusive?

Why does someone use a pedal with an amp they love? Variety of tone. It frightens me artistically to hear guys talking about their "tone" as if it were one thing. I can;t imagine anything less interesting than a guitar with the same tone all night long. That Tube Screamer gives your Fender Twin a sound it doesn;t have on its own. And I like my Twin a lot.

I have a hard time believing that no pedals would appear on the floor in front of this modeller.

[BackwardsBoB]

Back in 1979, in college, I heard my professor bemoan the fact that "We gave them 8 bytes of memory, and they wanted more, so we gave them 16 bytes, but the wanted more, so we gave them 32 bytes... There's no end to it!"

For 30 years, faithfully following Moore's law, PC manufacturers have built computers with faster processors and more memory, because it was the only way to differentiate their products.

Now, programmers don't make programs smaller unless they're perceived as too big, and they don't make them faster unless they're perceived as too slow.

Combining these two realities, we find that faster computers with more memory only result in slower, more bloated code. Don't believe me? Boot Windows 3.1 on a 20 MHz processor. Then try booting what you're using now. Except for a decent networking card, the only common applications that old computers can't handle are video and 3D gaming, and that code had to be optimized to get it to work. And the speed race has dramatically reduced reliability and put a drain on the power lines that's hard to believe.

So, for your prediction to become reality, modeling technology will have to become fully competitive with tubes before the processor needs 100W+ and 20 programmer-years for software development. Wait too long, and you'll have to go to Asia for the software, and for reasons I've never figured out, they've never been able to write a useable user interface.

I am constantly amazed at the low-volume products I can't do cost-effectively because I'll need some simple software. Our $40,000 (used) 'scope runs Windows. It got a virus. Six weeks and $550 later, we've got it back. That's OK. I prefer the little 200MHz lunchbox one for most stuff.
There's no software in tube amps.

I'm not against sand in a tube amp. You could stick little DSPs in front of all the tube grids, and get an amp that will model everything out there, with touch sensitivity, but it wouldn't be any fun.

How many knobs do you need? Line 6's first amp had a row of maybe 8 knobs, with maybe 12 rows of labels above them that you selected with pushbuttons. That made maybe 96 effective knobs. I got some nice sounds out of it (though the default setting sucked, and you had to hook it up to a computer to get a useable interface), but it was possible to change some obscure global setting and turn it all to junk. Line 6 now offers a simpler interface with only a few knobs, dramatically limiting adjustability. Apparently, they agree that adjustable "everything" is way too much. Unfortunately, on many products, they dropped the nice input level knob with the clip LED, so you need high-output pickups or a booster in front, or none of the presets will sound right.

Ever notice how the modellers always seem "unfinished"? There will be a few decent models, but then there are a bunch of bogus ones because the marketing department said they needed a minimum of 12. Same with the effects. And there's always something brain-dead in the user interface that serves to limit and annoy. And the combo amps' speakers have their own tone that can only be twisted so far... You can only spend so much on NRE before the product is a sure loss.

I do like my GNX4 for practicing with headphones though. The MFX SuperModels Diesel Uberschal model and the stock EVH model are fun, and I can get some nice clean tones. With the recording, drum machine, and external input, it's pretty neat.

But I'll probably never see a Window 7 driver for it. Oops. Upgraded my computer. Need a new amp.

Please stand by while Windows loads the next post (ever wonder why they don't let you walk away, do something else, and come back?).

Paper empty on Drive A: (I actually got this message once).