Not scientific, but here's an interesting comparo of three guitar tones used in a real mix, one tube amp, and two models that approximate this amp as close as I can get 'em. I worked on this for a few weeks, after the modeler/amp thread. This was really for my own curiosity but I think the results are pretty cool.

This isn't "sitting in a controlled environment listening to two sources and comparing them blind" kind of deal. What's important here (and I made this point a lot in that thread) is that I don't have a model of this particular amp, nor do I think there is one out there. I didn't tone print the amp or get an IR from it, either. What I did was find models that are in the ballpark, and work with them (using the tone controls of the amp sim) until I was having a hard time telling one from the other. Some may consider that a bug, but I call it a feature.

So, this is a song I have been tinkering with....just an instrumental/backing track that I had been messing around with. I just improvised some solo stuff on it, careful to repeat some lines and chords so that between the three tones if they were different enough to really matter they should jump out of the mix. I used a bluesy, slightly overdriven sound because I believe this is probably the hardest tone to really get right, from my experience.

Here's the specs of the tones:

Analog/tube setup: Fender '57 Custom Deluxe 12W 1x12. All handwired, very nice upper end model of the Fender line. This is on loan to me from a friend. It's recorded using a Samson Q9 and a Fathead ribbon, into an ART MPAII. From there, into a Clarett interface and DAW.

The modelers are as follows:

Model 1: Guitar straight into interface/DAW. VST sim is a LePou (LeCto, which is a Mesa Dual Rectifier model). It has an IR loader, so I used the IR from a 59' Bassman, which got me as close as anything I tried.

Model 2: Boss GT6 multi-pedal, circa late 2000's. Not exactly latest/greatest, or a renown modeler, but I've found it to be amazingly versatile, so I wanted to see if this particular source could get me to where the real deal was. The model used is the "Tweed" amp, and cabinet emulator is a 4x12. Fed directly into the interface/DAW.

The analog signal is a blended mono, the two models are mono.

The processing on all three tones is identical in the DAW. NLS Buss emulator, EQ (high pass, rolled off at 11k), and mild compression from a Drawmer 76. CLA Guitar VST is also applied to give a slight delay and reverb. I used a summing output filter to volume match the three as close as mathematically possible.

Guitar is a tele build I have with two TV Jones Filtertron Pu's, it's in the neck position with a coil split on everything you hear.

Now, you will not hear an audible or clean break between the three tones, just a long solo where the sounds move from one to the other intermittently. All parts were recorded in the same session, I switched back and forth at least 12 times between the three sources. The last solo (after the quiet break) are all three sources but with a Tubescreamer in front of the amp/sim with just a touch of OD/boost.

So, give it a listen and tell me what you think. Can you hear them jumping back and forth between three sounds? Enough that you can ID one over the other or make a preference or prediction?

https://craiggibson.bandcamp.com/track/nashville

As a hint, I'll tell you that there is a pattern. They go 1 then 2 then 3 and repeat that, but I won't reveal which is 1 or 2 or 3 just yet. I'll give my impressions after I spoil which is which later on...as far as feel and response, there is a diff.

Will give it a listen this week. I've been working on tone matching since i picked up the Bugera V5 for Xmas but there aren't any (1)12ax7+(1)EL84 amps in my modeler, just the "Small Tweed" which modeled after the Fender Champ with 12ax7+6V6.


ETA

Guessing the real deal Fender at 0:50 and 1:09?

Just gave it a quick listen on my phone.

That was really nice. Relaxing. The quality of the recording sounded good on my phone so will assume it'll sound better on real speakers.

Will give it a listen tomorrow on real speakers to see if I can tell the real amp from the simulated amp. Couldn't tell from my phone.

Got one, but not the other.

I'll take a couple isolated clips of the three tones and post them up later identifying which is which. It really surprised me how close they sound in the final mix (which is why I think this is neat because I think it proved to myself that if you really want to replace tubes, when it comes to recording or being in a mix, it can be done. I can hear some difference, barely, on the isolated takes but since I know which is which I can't even be sure I'm not falling victim to my own bias but it's really hard to hear the diff. It's easier when you're playing, I'll tell you that, because the response is different. Believe it or not, I had to stomp on the strings a bit and play with more gusto to get the real amp to match the first model I recorded (the GT6). That particular amp must do a bit of natural compression that the models are not.

In a mix, it's usually hard to tell, because even some of the older modelers like the ones you used are close enough that the human ear can't hear the differences in a mix. And your track is no different. In person or in, yeah, differences can be heard. Especially in person and especially if the modeler is being amplified differently.

My Helix, for instance. If I run it through a solid state poweramp and into a cab next to one of my real amps, it sounds lifeless and dead. But run the same patch through a tube poweramp into the same cab, it sounds lively.

But if you mic a real amp and track it right next to a Helix in a DAW, they both sound about the same.

I don’t know, it's all very subjective and ultimately is up to the user's ears as to what sound better or good enough.

Agree on all counts. In person, being driven out of cabs or a monitor, the difference between the three tones I'm using is palpable. No doubt about it.

But, in the context of being in a song/live or recording it becomes very difficult to discern one from the other. With some post processing (that will be done regardless), I'm not sure the dude that invented the amp would know which is which.

It definitely is subjective, but I think this also speaks to what matters to you. Bedroom excitement playing through your amp? Well, to a lot of guys that matters and it's why they love the instrument. If they don't get the jollies listening to the tubes burn, they're not into it the same, and I get that because I have always had tube amps and they are magical sometimes.

But, if you're a working musician or the goal of your endeavors is to be in a mix somehow, I think the argument that you need tubes to match the quality of a mic'd tube amp just isn't there.

The right IR's can take that lifeless patch and make it pretty glorious...i'm just saying...

Yeah, that really makes/breaks models, that's an excellent point. I've downloaded and tested a slew of IR's and found some that really shine and some that are pretty shit-tastic (even when they're based on a cab that on paper should be great).

That's why I hang on to that GT6 and haven't gone to a more modern floor unit, it has a couple REALLY good output sims (IR's), that really wake up a patch or preset. I even use the preamp/output stage on with other pedals before it because it's so reliably good sounding, with minimal fuss (and I retain a really user-friendly pedal control system, and a volume/wah).

Keep an eye on the used market for Helixes in the near future after the Quad Cortex finally is released. The QC in some ways is just the latest whiz-bang thing, but in several ways it combines the best features of the Helix, Axe FX, Headrush, and Kemper into one unit, and Neural DSP (the creators of the QC) are well known for excellent DAW plugins, so they already have a decent following. When the QC is finally released, I think quite a few people are going to offload Helixes and whatnot to finance a QC, which will drive down used Helix prices. And you don't have to get a full blown Helix to get into the Helix game. The HX Stomp has all of the same models, and the Pod Go has most of them, both for a fraction of the price.

The Line 6 Firehawk FX and HD500X have come down a lot and you can run a $100 IR loader innthe FX loop. If you can jump on one for $200-$250 its a great deal but if you get too far above that, with the price of the IR loader, it starts making more sense to go with a PodGo.

For tube amps? i think the Blackstar HT-5R is the best bang for buck right now if you were trying to get a nice amp for around $500.

The Neural quad looks like a really cool unit, and very user friendly from what I'm seeing. That might be my choice in the coming year.

I'm really set well on VST options, and they're scalable as upgrades come in, so that's cool but when the GT gets long in the tooth I'd like something a little more powerful.

On tube amps, the Bugera V22 is a great combo if you're in the $500 range. It didn't really do a lot that my Yamaha doesn't, so I passed on it, but I've been recommending it as a really useful do-all combo for a great price. I haven't tried the Blackstar (haven't found one in stock locally), but I generally like their offerings.

Ok, here's the three tones isolated, pre-mix, no processing as far as FX or EQ.

This is as close as I could get them by ear, having recorded the tube amp/mic'd first.

Played the same small part with as close as I could match in terms of strength/feel.

You can for sure hear the differences when isolated, as opposed to in the mix. Take 1 is the GT6, Take 2 is the VST modeler, and take 3 is the Fender tube amp, mic'd. Same guitar, same player, same hand.

Rhett Shull and Pete Thorn both released reviews of the Quad Cortex in the last couple hours so something's happening on that front..

Yep, I've been in one of the QC FB groups since around NAMM time last year, so that stuff got posted there even before I got around to checking my YT subs. And after watching the demos (watched Anderton's and Rabea's too), I'm gonna stick with my Helix for the time being. I think the QC sounds good, but not "OMG I NEED TO SELL MY HELIX!!!!!1!!!!!11!!!!" good.

Real tube amp verses two modelers, can ye hear it?

I have an old Marshall head and a couple of modelers.  In my office where I practice, I can easily hear the difference between the Marshall and the equivalent in the modelers.

However, on stage, I don't notice an effective difference between a Kemper and a tube amp.  So to answer the question...  in tightly controlled environments, yes easily; but in uncontrolled environments it much harder to where it's not worth it hauling tube gear, imo.

In those tightly controlled environments, are you sure it's controlled? For instance, are both sources at exactly the same volume? That has DRASTIC effects on perception. Are they coming from the precise same space in the room? Also a huge detriment on comparison unless your room sonically dead (and none are). Also, are you factoring out confirmation bias? Have you done the switching blind with all the above controlled for?

I'm not picking on you, I'm sure there's sonic differences, just pointing out some of the real issues with our ears and perception (and I'm as guilty of it as anyone). Even things like true guitar cabinet verses monitors or reference source can make a huge difference, while the signal past the power stage could otherwise be identical.

And, then this comes back to modelers only being effective to a point....your old Marshall wasn't what was ever modeled. Not that design, likely, certainly not that example with all of its eccentricities, on your power supply, in your environment, with age having its way with the capacitors or speaker cones. Of course it's never going to be an exact match. Close? Maybe. Close if you really invest time to dial everything in to match it? Possibly, and even then it may never be perfect.

But, the greater point of my experiment was to suggest that the modeler can be so good that in a mix (or sometimes to the naked ear with all things being equal) that it really don't matter because the quality of the tone is there. Maybe not as an A/B, but desirable and useable tone.

The track is good. I like it. I also don't care what you used to get your sounds...as it does not matter. You made a song and its not bad at all...so who care what physical or digital stuff helped you make it. I enjoyed it and that's all that matters to me. Now make some more.

"All this machinery making modern music can still be open-hearted....."

*sing it with me!*

Thanks, btw, I appreciate the compliment.

Ok, I made some more....actually a "sister" track to the one above (I usually do two or three in a similar vein and keep the good one and trash the rest, but I liked this one and kept it around).

https://craiggibson.bandcamp.com/track/metric-ave

Nice, I like it too.

While Line 6 has abandoned Firehawk FX buyers, its still a platform that has aged well imho. Considering these are going for $240-280, Andoid/ios full control via BT, and you can add IR loader in FX loop with cab sims disabled, its nicely featured...

just did a $6 mod to my Bugera V5 Infinium that turned a $225 dark budget tube amp into a really great sounding amp. 220pf caps on volume and gain pots.  Went from a dark small tweed to more of a blackface amp.  It takes an OCD type pedal well to get Marshallish. Before i needed a lot of intervention from EQ to use with humbuckers but now it plays well with all my guitars. Can't believe Bugera went two generations of this amp without this mod.  The infinium models are a little more difficult to solder because of the new circuit board with micro components, but doable.  i would recommend getting a non-infinium model if you are looking.

Interesting. I've got a V5 head, but I don't use it for much. Bought it on a whim and wasn't blown away, I'll look into that.

I'd imagine running it through a different cab opens it up a bit also but if it's dark, the caps go to the inner two terminals on volume and gain. Have to remove the pcb and flip it over unless yours in the old pre-infinium.  I believe you can do those without removing the board on top. What cab so you use?

I've got the Infinium, newer style. I have a couple cabs, a Randall 2x12 with their vintage styles (which I believe are Eminence celestion copies). And, I have a 1x12 with a greenback. It's definitely on the dark side for tone, just lifeless is my issue with it. It doesn't sound bad, just kinda flat.

My Vox VT did a better job of the push/pull thing despite being a hybrid, but yeah the Bugera only having a single preamp and single power tube probably does seem a little less spongy than most larger tube amps.

I can hear the difference, but I can't play a tube amp without pissing off neighbors, so it's modelling for me.

decided I'm putting away my modeler for a month or maybe more.  Just going to practice through my 5w Bugera tube amp and two drive pedals.  Just added some bright caps to the Bugera and it has 'verb.  Enough tweaking for a while, no distractions, just playing.  Even using the modeler as a stomp seems to remove some of the amp's character. it has same config as a Vox AC4TV, or Epiphone Valve Jr. minus the tone/gain knobs.

Are you using the modeler with any output or speaker modeling/EQ or just effects then direct into the amp? Shouldn't affect the amp's tone otherwise, except what the effects themselves do to the color of the signal. My GT6 runs effects loop duty or as an effects rig in front of all my amps, especially live, but I've never known it to have any effect at all unless I put something on it to purposely affect tone.

I enjoyed them both, I couldn't say my untrained ear could identify a tube amp from a modeler.  I do think I detected some differences on the youtube clip, but I don't know if it was due to an actual difference or only because I expected they would be different.  Like the wine test consumer reports did, same wine, from a box=bad!, from a fancy bottle=good.

Confirmation bias is a thing, and I'm as guilty of anyone of hearing it when I expect to hear it. I try, but it colors our expectations.

Watched a video once where people were testing fireproof doors, and they started introducing more and more signs that the door was holding back actual flames/heat (an extinguisher placed beside it, or a different color door, or even singe marks), and as the signs increased, people swore they could feel the door was hotter than previous tests....even tho in every instance, was identical surface temps. The mind is fucking trickster.

When using amp/cab simulation i use a powered speaker, not the amp. i have presets that have no amp/cab modeling when i use it for pedal effects only. Have to be careful since there are attributes the Firehawk adds that arent an option on analog pedals/fx, such as input/output levels which really changes how the pedals and amp interact.  I screwed up and ordered a used speaker from a marketplace i said id never use again... found a Jensen MOD 8-20 lightly used for $28 to replace the Turbosound 8" in my Bugera.  Reviews are mixed but i can always use it with a 10 or 12 in an extension cab later if it sucks ...

I can hear it. But practice is the most important thing. Whatever allows you to practice more without blowing out your ears / annoying others is best. You can save the good tone for recording / later. I play through a shitty modeler with a ~2ms delay and it has allowed me become a better guitarist. Does it sound like my real tube amps, no, but who cares at this point?