simulation versus real tube amp ???

[rodriki1]

Have anybody compared (even by ear) a real cranked tube amp to ANY simulation like GT2 or Runoffgroove?

LXH2 was tested by his author and in his opinion the marshall simulation
in the marshall cabinet sounded exactly like the real thing!!!!!

The "only" comparation that i found was VOX AC30 SIMULATOR (NOT ANYMORE AVAILABLE)

Maybe i am crazy to ask that

suggestion


http://geocities.yahoo.com.br/rmfidelis/TubeSimulator.html

[amz-fx]

Have anybody compared (even by ear) a real cranked tube amp to ANY simulation like GT2 or Runoffgroove?

The frquency rolloffs of the FET emulations are not the same as the amplifiers they are copying and this will make then sound different in frequency response...   not that they will sound bad but just not exactly like the tube amp version.

regards, Jack

[rodriki1]

Thanks for the reply.

[transient]

Runoffgroove has compared their Supreaux to the actual amp:

http://runoffgroove.com/supreaux.html

.
e

[R.G.]

Have anybody compared (even by ear) a real cranked tube amp to ANY simulation like GT2 or Runoffgroove?

Many people have, for a long, long time.

It nearly always happens like this:
1. Someone gets a bug to simulate tubes with solid state.
2. They labor long and hard (well, at least as long and hard as they can) and come up with something that they like. To them, it sounds good-ish.
3. They compare it to tube amps of one stripe or another, and think it sounds really close.
4. They announce this triumph to the world. They may actually go to the expense to patent it first.
5. Other people listen to it. Some think it sounds like a good approximation, some don't - not surprising, since people don't even think all real tube amps sound alike.
6. It gets relegated to the bin of "tube simulator" circuits; interesting, but not the tube sounding paradise their creators thought they were.

For a good rundown on this, search a patent archive for "guitar tube simulator". Many, many patents. We can also recap the attempts that are not patented: the Ibanez "Tube Screamer" series, the Carvin SX-100 series of amps, the Moeller AC30 sim (which happens to hit *my* ears as good BTW); many, many JFET-for-triode circuits too numerous to mention, going back decades. The DSP emulators keep getting better, and are probably where we'll get the best approximation some day.

Logically we can prove that there are no sufficiently good solid state tube simulators that exist.
1. Tubes sound so good that musicians will pursue them in spite of their limitations.
2. Tubes are undesirable because they are expensive, fragile, big, and have strange power supply requirements.
3. It therefore follows that a solid state emulation of a tube is economically desirable to a manufacturer of musical equipment.
4. The functional and economic advantages of solid state over vacuum tube equipment from a manufacturer's point of view are overwhelming - there is a huge amount of money to be made by a manufacturer who can successfully make a good-enough tube simulation. This fact is bolstered by the many more-or-less successful attempts to do so.
5. Any manufacturer who could do this would rapidly eat up almost the entire market of tube audio equipment. There would be some emotional holdouts to which no amount of evidence would be sufficient, but the vast majority would vote with their ears that the emulation was good enough.
6. (5.) has not occurred.
7. It follows that "good enough" has not been reached. If it had been reached, especially with simple circuitry, it would already have eaten up the tube market.

This is a little like determining whether anyone can predict the stock market. Anyone who could consistently predict it better than random guessing would already own the entire market. The rewards are simply too great for someone not to do so. Therefore we can say with some surety that no one can.

This is not to say that a good enough simulation will never be available. It will not be simple and will not be easy - no several-opamps-and-a-diode circuits need apply - but when it happens, tubes will rapidly become extinct by reason of being so expensive to manufacture. Tubes have been rescued from extinction by a couple of quirks of history over the last forty years. I doubt that the quirks will repeat.

[petemoore]

Let me be the first to congratulate you RG!!
 Your report there is the closest approximation of the way tubes compare to solid state that I've ever read.
 I was eyeing this post, waiting for someone to let loose on it, I'm glad I waited.
 I Have heard DSP, in the form of a combo amp, that sounded so close to exactly like a big clean tube amp, [at a 'certain' settings'] that blindfolded I surely would say "Fender Sounding' Tube Amp. I've even built and heard some Jfet emulations that had a fairly wide 'streak of tube sound' in them.
 Nothing I've heard that is not tube sounds like a tube amp:
 Clean
  Boosted
   Fuzzed
    OD'd
 I do think the DSP Shows the greatest potential, but they all seem 'bound' to a certain 'applications', tone and volume level, and setting, trying to exceed those 'limitations' [opinion here] quickly turns into a 'dialing' session with limited results compared to a tube amp.
 "They Say' DSP will or can do Anything a Tube can, but like many, I'm yet to be convinced...the saga continues though...they're gettin' better !!

[corbs]

a bit OT but i have a tech21 TM60 which is said to have 'analogue circuitry' (aint all transistor based stompers analogue?, maybe they use fets?). apparently they encase the key electronics in resin.

it sounds nice but i do wonder how a valve would compare - never owning one.

[mangonjb]

a bit OT but i have a tech21 TM60 which is said to have 'analogue circuitry' (aint all transistor based stompers analogue?, maybe they use fets?). apparently they encase the key electronics in resin.

it sounds nice but i do wonder how a valve would compare - never owning one.

Analogue means anything not digital so FETs are analogue too. I think they mean that it is done with discrete components rather than DSP.

I have not tried Tech21 products, but am led to believe they get closer than many. But that's just closer. With valves, its not just about soft clipping (which can be simulated) its about dynamics, harmonics, sag, combination of pre and power amp overdrive, big transformers, output transformers etc which gives valve amps their loud, dynamic, touch sensitive, overdriven feel....I could go on. I don't think you can better the sound of a simple, single-ended big bottle amp for tone, and you can get that cranked valve sound at levels that don't make your ears bleed.

[rodriki1]

I really thanks the answers.
My english is not that good to express my thanks.

I have just been reading A LOT of articles and collected A LOT of schematics and read much patents from the internet.

Sometimes i think this question i have posted is treated as a "mistic" subject, or a secret.

Besides that, people do not think about sharing a hard work for free. That is completely natural.

Some considerations

1) What makes me interested is the DISTORTION of tube amps.
2) I am shure is not a matter of TUBE SOUND but AMP SOUND.
3) A good transistor amplifer will be pretty expensive as a good tube amp (need an engineer and hard work here).
4) The VOX AC30 SIM work from stephan moeller was the only "SCIENTIFIC" work available at this direction, but he held the secret.
That was really a professional work.
5) Any transistor, Fet, mosfet DO NOT expose the same TRANSFERENCE CURVE as triode or penthode.
If we could dare simulate tube with transistor, the CURVEs MUST be simulated. That is not so easy.
6) It is HARD to get at the internet a simple good pure sample of a cranked MARSHALL or a FENDER.

People "never" talk about scientific comparation.

We just use expressions like organic, liquid , fat ...

Things happen as a healthy hobby or just for fun.

It is not that easy to see complete articles about audio amp project.

It is a matter full of tricks, like local negative realimentation, choosing good parts, taking care of oscillation, energy source, rf interference, sag and so on.

They just say "listen my emulation" or "read about it".

But never that:

Listen to the real thing. Now listen my emulation. And what?

Simple as this.

When talking about clean amp the only question is:

The amp can reproduce "COMPLEX AUDIO SIGNAL" as it was heard from an alive jam?

If we could say "clean amp"...

If yes you hear NATURAL BASS, MID AND TREBLE.

If not, we are getting a machine that produces some kind of DISTORTION.

If the distortion is good or not is the matter of taste.

When i turn on my rock radio station I listen crazy complex mix of timbres.

Modern rock shows super harsh distortion.

My shower sometimes gives a better sound.
That is really a matter of taste.

Amazingly modern rock sound is made of tubes.

I just would like to believe it "is not possible" to get tube amp "distortion" from op-amps like VOX AC30 sim.

Maybe i should just forget these ideas...

Anyway Thanks again and lets keep studing...

http://geocities.yahoo.com.br/rmfidelis/TubeSimulator.html

[Doug_H]

The problem with simulators is the word "simulation". We need to quit using it. (Need to throw out the word "emulation" too.)

Instead, think of it like "here's another way of building a cool solid-state pedal besides an op amp or fuzz face circuit". Then, everyone is happy.

We need to quit inviting comparisons such that we are always trying to build something to "sound like something else". There are a lot of things that sound vastly different but still sound great. I say let's just concentrate on building stuff that sounds great and quit worrying about it.

I'll get off my soapbox now... :lol:

Doug

[R.G.]

Your soapbox is correct - whether detailed simulation or emulation is possible or not, it's far simpler and more accurate to say "here's something that sounds great!"

But I bet the second or third response to that will be "it sounds just like a tube".

It's gotten so that I think "snake oil" when I hear the words "tube emulation".

[bwanasonic]

My general motto for artistic creation has always been "use what's in front of you". A GT2 into a 4tk cassette can sound pretty good (and I have the tapes to prove it  :wink: ). Now, I can plug into my powerbook and use plugins to become a *golden guitar god*.  In the ancient primordial mists, I used a few MXR boxes into an assortment of SS amps. But tubes remain the 100% cotton t-shirt of musical tone creation for electric guitar players. The way they transition from *clean* into various shades of distortion and *singing* overdrive has yet to be properly reproduced my other means from the player's POV. In a practical sense though, this is not always the case from listener's POV. This is why the POD is such a widely used tool. I am a baby without my *bottles*, and other musicians (esp. non- guitarists) often wonder why I remain so enamored of *archaic* technology. The analogy I often think of is derived from an interview with Brian Eno, where, in the context of synthesis, he compares the complexity of actual wood with simulated wood grain. The real wood is an infinite fractal regress, whereas the *simulated* grain may seem complex on the surface, but a simple inspection with a magnifying glass reveals the fake.

Kerry M

[Connoisseur of Distortion]

I have a nice tube amp that i purchased from a friend. it had been upgraded with some Mesa hardware prior, and had undergone some tweaks so that it would have a cleaner clean channel. it can sound very nice.

the truth is, that one is stuck as my practice amp. it may sound good, but my SS Line 6 can make the same sounds. It's lighter (a combo), it is louder, and it has a TON more options.

tubes may be a big part of what's out there, but some of those digital amps can sound really good. Besides, why would i shell out a couple thousand dollars to have that rectifier sound when my little spyder II can do it?  :?

[B Tremblay]

The problem with simulators is the word "simulation". We need to quit using it. (Need to throw out the word "emulation" too.)

Instead, think of it like "here's another way of building a cool solid-state pedal besides an op amp or fuzz face circuit". Then, everyone is happy.

Right on, Doug!  That's exactly what we did at the 'Groove once "emulation" and "simulation" became four-letter-words.

I feel like there is a unwritten disclaimer in the DIY-fx community that needs to be spelled out from time to time:

This circuit sounds good to me.  I like it.  Because I think that others may like it too, I'm sharing it freely.  Accept it for what it is.  If you don't like it, I hope you find one that suits you better.

[frank]

Whatever we say, when I see "solid state simulation of tube" I always wonder what is beside the trick.
I am thingking that a lot of people will take a quick look just for the fun.  Also if you are willing to try your hand
at some "simulation designs" you can learn a lot.  So suppose that somebody say: give a try at that "good sounding effect"
and an other say: I have a simple and inhabitual circuit that simulates the amp with glowing bottles inside (for hat and that reasons), I would be curious to see if
the second circuit looks like something I already have viewed or tried myself.

It was just to say that whatever is your main interest at the moment, "simulating tube circuits" can be a very good reason to
adopt an impulsive-compulsive behavior that is called "good guitar effects" construction.

My experience began with fets.
Have fun!
Frank



 

[brett]

Hi
RG said that a good reason for replacing tubes with SS is :

2. Tubes are undesirable because they are expensive, fragile, big, and have strange power supply requirements.

In almost all cases that is true.  But there are cases where inexpensive tubes are run at low voltage, overcoming many of these disadvantages.  The best known example is the use of the 12AX7 in Vox's Valvetronix series (to simulate several expensive Class A and Class AB amps at only a few percent of the price of the real amps). 

Similarly, the use of 12AU7s and minitubes at low voltage have been examined here in the forum, recently.  IMO the use of tubes at low voltage is a very interesting "third" kind of technology.  Sure, it's not the whole deal, but IMO these circuits are overtaking, or at least have the potential to overtake, many of the SS efforts.

cheers

[drewl]

There are numerous products that sound great and sound pretty close to tube amps- at low volumes.
When you start cranking a SS amp up to playing levels just about all of them lose it.


Another interesting thing....just about every distortion I own or have built sounds great with ANY tube amp,
And so far they all sound BAD with every SS amp I've tried so far.....like at practice last night. Tried a SS Crate, and a Marshall MG series.

[DougH]

I hope you guys realize- this thread is like, what, going on 3 years old now...

[signalpaths]

I believe this thread will continue as long as there are two of us to debate it 

[DougH]

Like "Spy vs. Spy" huh?