Think You Can Tell Amps from Models?

Written by

UPDATE, Friday Sept. 23: The contest is now closed! Read the results here. But although the prizes have been claimed, but you can still challenge you ear for fun here!

Ready for some fun, kids? [Evil clown laugh.]

Join the Amps vs. Models Contest! The winner gets a fabulous prize: Any three Seymour Duncan stompboxes. The runner-up gets to pick any two, and third-place gets one.

Just apply your ear to this simple test. I’ve recorded four boneheaded guitar phrases. Each appears twice, once through a real amp, and once through a software model of the same amp. The trick is, I’m not telling you which clips features an amp, and which ones don’t.

Here are the eight clips:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

And here are the answers in no particular order:

A. 1965 Vox AC-30 [amp]

B. Vox AC-30 [model]

C. 1959 Fender Bassman [amp]

D. Fender Bassman [model]

E. 1970 Marshall 50-watt [amp with 1970s 4×12 Marshall cab, Celestion 25-watt speakers]

F. Marshall 50-watt [model]

G. Diezel VH4 [amp with 4×12 Diezel cab]

H. Diezel VH4 [model]

Just jot down your answers, like this:

…and so on. Then email them to me. The first three participants to get all eight answers correct are the winners. If no one scores 100% by Halloween, the prizes go the the three highest scorers. If there’s a tie, well, I’ll think of something.

Fine print: There ain’t no fine print!

But I will mention that the analog amps are all-original vintage classics, except for the Diezel, which is new. The demo guitars are a ’63 Strat and an ’81 Les Paul. The mic is a Royer R-121. And all the modeled sound were created using various plug-ins in Apple’s Logic Pro.

I recorded the guitar parts into Logic, pumped them through the analog amps using a ReAmp, and then re-recorded them via an tube Avalon preamp and Apogee I/O, but no additional EQ, compression, or any other processing. Next, I tried to match the recording with the software. The matches aren’t perfect—anyone with decent ears will hear that the file pairs aren’t identical. But can you tell which is which? (For the record, I probably won’t get a perfect score myself if I try taking the test in a few days.) More important, which ones do you prefer?

These audio files on the page are mp3s. If you feel that hi-res files will help you decide, you can download them all in 96kHz/24-bit format here.

May the best ears win!

P.S.: I promise not to publicly humiliate any losers. (Though I reserve the right to send a taunting email or two.)

Comments

124 responses to “Think You Can Tell Amps from Models?”

August 31, 2011

nicholaspaul

Brilliant! You get to make a point about guitar modelling AND hold a competition at the same time! I’m not being facetious, I love it.

Reply
August 31, 2011

joe.gore

Nicholas! You have made the very first of what I hope will be many posts here. And your very first word was “Brilliant!” Hope it’s not all downhill from here! 😉

Reply
September 1, 2011

nicholaspaul

I feel honoured! I was hoping I could set the bar really high for you and leave it to you to keep the standard up! Nah, I’m confident you’ll keep it interesting. There was a review you wrote for Guitar Player a few years ago for a TC Electronic multifx – one that cost more than my car, if memory serves – but I loved the writing so much I read that review over and over! So if you can make that shiny box worth reading about, then I can look forward to more evil laughing clowns.

Reply
September 1, 2011

Scott

This is such a clever idea. I’m going to try but I’m sure I will epically fail this test.

Reply
September 1, 2011

dan k star

cool contest – thanks for putting this on. pretty wild how you were able to dial in nearly the exact gain and EQ for each of the above. rock on!!

Reply
September 2, 2011

Joe M.

This is awesome. I’m gonna get a few of my friends to do this too. I can’t wait to see the answers. Heh, I think my guesses were pretty far off but I guess we’ll see. Well, thanks for the cool opportunity! Oh and nice playing as well!

Reply
September 2, 2011

Donnie V.

Cool contest, I’d love to know how I did. The models and the real deal were VERY close. Sad thing is, in my mind it was harder to match the clips to the amps. We’ll have to wait and see…

Reply
September 2, 2011

joe.gore

No instant winner yet — but some good ears out there!

Yes, this is HARD! 🙂

Reply
September 2, 2011

nicholaspaul

It’s crazy how close they are! Are you going to give up all your software secrets too, Joe?

Reply
September 2, 2011

Neil

Nice site Joe, and cool competition. Would be cool if you could post the actual amps after the competition ends so we can see which we guessed right and wrong…and laugh.

Reply
September 2, 2011

Patrick

Awesome stuff, thanks man!
I recognized all the amps but well model vs. real amp is f—ing hard…

Reply
September 2, 2011

Glenn J

This is a great idea for a contest, not only is it fun, but the prizes are looking very very attractive. I hope to see more of these contests from Seymour Duncan in the future! Evan gave us the head’s up for this in the forum. 🙂

Reply
September 3, 2011

Aceman

Hey Joe, great talking to you at the Seymour Duncan User’s Group day about this!

As I have always said, if it FEELS good, and it SOUNDS good, it IS good. At the end of the day, it doesn’t matter to me, as long as I like the sound. In fact, [blasphemy!] there may EVEN be a few modeled amps that sound better than the real thing for whatever reason.

Modeling has a lot of bonuses to me. I love being able to flip a knob on my Roland and go from Old Skool AC/DC JCM 800 grind to 5150 Big Hair Metal instantly. I love having Fender amps with extra knobs. I am a huge fan of the Digitech CF-7 Chorus Factory. Lot’s of extra tweeking on the various chorus models that wasn’t part of the originals.

Of course, there is something to be said for the righteous organic tones of say, that Bogner XTC that was the jam Friday night. (You were working the mojo on that Black Beauty!)

I drink a lot of wine. For years connoisseurs have known to do blind tests, and have been finding out that often, a budget brands takes names and kicks ass compared to a well known ego bloated historic/iconic brand. The term cork sniffing is used for a reason.

Reply
September 7, 2011

Wade

Cool idea. Wouldn’t be surprised if my ear had them all backwards. Funny how what you “think” you hear is often much different from reality. Thanks Joe.

Reply
September 7, 2011

Byron Fry

GREAT idea, fun contest! I’m so anti-modeling I can’t listen objectively because I want the models not to sound good. Plus, listening to one mic is like trying to get the sense of a landscape while looking through a soda straw…but I tried anyway, what the hell.
Thanks for the great pickups, keep up the good work!

Reply
1. September 7, 2011
  
  joe.gore
  
  Hehehe — a late relative of my wife was the engineer at NBC during the ’40s and ’50s. He was the tech guy for Arturo Toscanini and Glenn Miller, among others. Back then his gig consisted largely of moving an orchestra of musicians around a single mic, trying to get the right balance.
  
  So to your mind, Byron, does any pre-stereo recording sound like it exists through a soda straw? Duke Ellington? Robert Johnson? Not being snarky — I’m genuinely curious about those perception issues. Please explain! 🙂
  
  Reply
September 7, 2011

Sean

This was an awesome idea. I hope my ear is good enough to at least pinpoint my main touring amp, The 59 Bassman, both the real amps and Models sounded very similar. You did an amazing job Eq’ing them together.

Reply
September 7, 2011

Jack Williamson

It’s tougher than it seems, but still really fun!!

Reply
September 7, 2011

blake

Fun contest and great idea. Having owned several modeling amps/programs I was always under the impression that I could tell a difference but man, sometimes, I’d really question if I could or not. Let’s just assume I could since it helps me justify my many tube amp purchases to my fiance. haha. Looking forward to the results! Love to get some new toys but also justify my nonstop gear spending. haha. Thanks Joe!

Reply
September 7, 2011

Robert

Using Axe-FX II really helped me practice for this as the sounds that come out of that box are about 99% the same. I think I can figure which one is an amp and which is a model, but telling the models apart is a little more difficult to me.

Reply
1. September 7, 2011
  
  joe.gore
  
  Hey Robert — I haven’t worked much with Axe-FX,though some friends I trust dig it a lot,so it’s good to hear that the sounds are roughly in the same ballpark.
  
  But — hehehe — you didn’t ID the amps and models with 100% accuracy. Not that I could either,mind you…
  
  Reply
  1. September 7, 2011
    
    Robert
    
    I’m guessing my guess had something with the Diezel mixed up. That’s the only one on here I’ve never got to play at a store before =P
    
    Reply
    1. September 7, 2011
      
      joe.gore
      
      <---lips sealed till results posted. ;)
      
      Reply
September 7, 2011

Eric

Here’s hoping this old man can win. 37 year veteran player but standing in front of 1/2 stacks for so long I am half deaf.

Reply
1. September 7, 2011
  
  joe.gore
  
  Hehehe — I love when little 37-year-old kids whine about being old.
  
  Reply
September 7, 2011

kahawe

Dude, it is called Diezel “VH4” and not V4…

Reply
1. September 7, 2011
  
  joe.gore
  
  Right you are, dude! Thanks. Fixed.
  
  Reply
September 7, 2011

Tom

Man, I’ll admit this was hard. Now I could make all the excuses in the world about ideal recording, PC speakers, microphones etc. but hey, the fact is when it comes to the recordings it’s very difficult to tell the difference!

Now live? That’s a different story. You couldn’t even prise my Marshalls from my cold, dead hands. It’s in person you can appreciate the dynamics of an old Super Lead!

Reply
September 7, 2011

Dylan

Can I ask what modeler/software you used for this?

You did an awesome job!

Reply
1. September 7, 2011
  
  joe.gore
  
  All will be revealed when I post the answers and announce all the winners — once we HAVE all the winners! 🙂
  
  Reply
September 7, 2011

Shahir

Tougher than it first sounded. Good stuff! Can’t believe you still don’t have three winners!

Reply
September 8, 2011

John

This was fun! While I could definitely tell there was a difference between the two, I didn’t know which was which! It probably would have helped if I had ever used an amp modeler. I tried to go with the logic that the model would sound “too perfect” when compared to the amp. I don’t think I did too well!

Reply
September 8, 2011

Jim

This was much more difficult than I had anticipated. I look forward to the answers being revealed. Good luck to everyone else who gives this a shot.

Reply
September 8, 2011

captbob

I don’t know the amps, but I think I can tell the modeled from the analog amps. A better test might be an a/b test that is basically: pick the analog amp v. modeled amp.

Reply
1. September 8, 2011
  
  joe
  
  Okay, which four do you think are models? 🙂
  
  Reply
September 8, 2011

Paul

Still no three perfect answers? I would guess that most guitarists would have a good shot at identifying all the amp types correctly. And I don’t know about the odds for guessing real amp/modeling, but even when guessing randomly, you’d have a 1/16 chance. I’m curiously awaiting the answers…

(And I hope I’m correct, I always wanted a Shape Shifter…)

By the way, I agree with the “soda straw” comment from Byron Fry. When I’m recording a guitar that should be featured high in the mix, like a solo, I would always prefer stereo miking or a bit of ambient miking thrown in. Maybe modeling can nowadays perfectly recreate the sound of a (mono) close-miked amp, but that’s certainly not my favorite kind of guitar tone. It doesn’t come close to how the guitar sounds in the room.

Reply
1. September 8, 2011
  
  joe.gore
  
  So I repeat my question: Do all mono recordings sound like they’re made through a soda straw? I certainly don’t think so — some pre-’50s recordings impart profound sensations of space and perspective, albeit in not in the left-right field. And do you have any idea how many great, classic electric guitar recordings were captured with a singe mic?
  
  Of course, we’ve got two parameters here: the room ambience that might be captured by a mic positioned some feet from the speakers, and whatever simulated stereo effect might be created by panning the two sources apart in the mix. Of course, if you record with an omni mic (or a fixed figure-8 mic like a Royer), you’re capturing a great deal of room ambience via a single source. Plus, a lot of times two-mic configurations are panned to a single mono position in the mix, à la early Zep. For rock, pure mono guitar sources sound bad-ass and heavy. Though yeah, sometimes it’s nice to simulate a reflected sound via a low-level delay sound, like many mixers do to make a lead vocal sit nicely in a mix.
  
  In any case, modeling can simulate any conceivable miking scenario. You could, for example, route a single guitar track through two different impulse response reverbs, one of a close-miked speaker, and one, say, 6 feet back in the same room. I’ll do some posts on this in the near future. 🙂
  
  Reply
  1. September 8, 2011
    
    Paul
    
    (Warning: lost post)
    
    About your first question: I haven’t heard nearly enough pre-’50s / mono recordings to give a reasonable answer to that. I’m sure they sound surprisingly good. But probably *because* they were room-miked, not close-miked. (So that’s indeed the other parameter: distance & room sound, not whether it’s stereo.)
    
    And I know that the majority of electric guitar recordings have been done with a single close mic, even on some of the best sounding, most classic albums. For metal and heavy rock that “in your face” sound is often perfect. But I would humbly claim that some of those classic recordings could have sounded even better! Firstly, that’s of course subjective. And secondly, in the context of the entire mix, the difference is probably negligible. So I’m not claiming they have been doing it wrong all the time.
    
    I really *want* to love modeling. I would love to be able to play and record with headphones in the middle of the night, and be inspired by the sound. And I’ll even concede that modelers can model the sound of a close-miked tube amp perfectly. Or at least as close to perfect as I would ever need. That’s what your test shows after all!
    
    But unfortunately, my experience has always been the following:
    
    First, I’m playing through my amp in my room, thinking “wow this sound ROCKS!”, being really inspired.
    
    Then it’s time to record the ideas, and I turn on my modeler. I add a bit of stereo reverb to get a bit of a room sound. And I start playing through headphones, maybe even pretty loud, and still I think “meh. This sound sucks.”
    
    So then I decide to just put a close mic on my amp, and record that rocking sound I got before. I’m recording my parts, being really inspired (I’m hearing the amp sound in the room after all).
    
    Finally, I’m listening back to the recorded parts on headphones, and… The modeler sounds better??! Or, if I positioned the mic really well, the two recordings sound comparable.
    
    So I can only conclude that the sound of a modeled/close miked amp plus stereo reverb doesn’t come close to the sound I’m hearing in the room.
    
    So is my reverb not good enough? Are my headphones not good enough? Although I don’t have the ultimate high-end gear, it’s pretty decent, the difference can’t be that big. Is stereo that important? Or is it maybe simply the distance?
    
    Guitar amps are notorious for sounding wildly different in different positions. In particular, the angle to the ‘beam’ in front of the speaker is important. But in my experience, the sound also starts to ‘sweeten’ if you move away a bit from the speaker. And maybe that’s not only because of the room sound. I would guess that even when recording in an acoustically dead environment (like a desert), putting the same mono mic a few meters away from the amp sounds better than putting it close to the amp.
    
    Do you agree? Or, to get this away from the subjective part, do you agree that it will sound significantly different?
    
    Summarizing, I haven’t yet heard a modeler that models the sound I want to hear. I’m not sure exactly where the magic lies, but just adding a bit of delay or stereo reverb doesn’t do the trick for me.
    
    I must admit that I haven’t heard the Axe-FX or the latest software modelers yet. And I have never tried impulse response reverbs. So maybe the solution is out there. In any case, I would love to hear about it! I’m looking forward to any upcoming posts about it.
    
    Reply
    1. September 8, 2011
      
      joe.gore
      
      Long posts are welcome! 🙂
      
      Thanks for such a thoughtful reply. These are topics that will probably appear a lot here, since I’m obsessed with them! Hope you’ll join us! 🙂
      
      Seems like a real weak link for you is the ambient processing — the delay and reverb. Which happen to be really crappy on a lot of the popular hardware modelers. It’s no accident that I prefer working on a computer, where you generally have a lot more control over those things. Of particular interest to you might be the whole world of impulse response/convolution reverbs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convolution_reverb). These let you mimic acoustic spaces, and even speakers and microphones, with phenomenal accuracy. You could, theoretically, make an impulse response of the room you like to practice in. A good IR reverb is included with Apple’s Logic and some other DAWs. There are also great plug-in versions from AudioEase, Trillium Lane, Waves, and other developers. I’ll definitely be looking at these in upcoming posts!
      
      Reply
September 8, 2011

Julien

Well, that was tough 🙂

Have you decided when you’re going to end it and reveal the answers? I’m curious just how far off my “[not] quite perfect” was.

Reply
1. September 8, 2011
  
  joe.gore
  
  Please see the update at the top of the post. 🙂
  
  Reply
September 8, 2011

Guillermo

Indeed, I can´t believe how close the modeled amps sound. It´s a good thing because it made me do a little bit of research (I hadn´t even listened to a Diezel before)

Reply
September 8, 2011

Peter Trott

My first amp was a Fender Bassman, circa 1969, so I thought I’d be able to recognize that sound. But then, I was playing a bass through it… I’m looking forward to seeing the answers. It wasn’t as easy as I thought it would be.

Reply
1. September 8, 2011
  
  joe.gore
  
  Love those Silverface Fenders — I swear, they sometimes sound as good as any blackface. But the tweed Bassman is a very different critter. Actually, it’s somewhat common knowledge that early Marshall amps pretty much copied the tweed Bassman circuit, though both Fender and Marshall veered off in different directions in subsequent years.
  
  Reply
September 8, 2011

Joseph

It’s not a 1/16 it’s a 1/256 chance of getting them all right… just a heads up.

Reply
1. September 8, 2011
  
  Joseph
  
  Whoops, that’s not correct.. it’s 1:40320… 8 * 7 * 6 * 5 * 4 * 3 * 2 * 1…
  
  Reply
  1. September 8, 2011
    
    joe.gore
    
    Yeah, that sounded wrong to me. But I haven’t had a day of math since high school geometry ~~back in the Pleistocene~~ some years ago.
    
    Reply
  2. September 9, 2011
    
    Paul
    
    The 1/16 odds are based on the assumption that you would be able to tell the amp types. I know, that already a bit of an assumption, but these are mostly very different amps, and also very well-known/often-recorded amps (except for the Diezel), so I would expect that a lot of guitarists would be able to tell.
    
    And even if you have no clue about the amp types, you can probably match the modeled and recorded sample to each other. 😉
    
    So in that case, the odds are still 1:3840.. (3840 = 4 * 3 * 2 * 2^4)
    
    And if the odds are indeed 1/16, the expected number of participants needed before there are 3 winners is 48. (Geometric distribution.)
    
    [/mathgeek]
    
    So I’m expecting a winner any moment now…
    
    Reply
    1. September 12, 2011
      
      Paul
      
      Oops that should be 1:384 of course. I don’t know where that 0 came from…
      
      Reply
September 9, 2011

Scott

It’s a lot trickier than you’d think to tell them apart. I use modeling for recording and I have used it for some live applications too but I’ve had way more success on the recording end getting the sounds I want.

Reply
September 9, 2011

Aceman

Drop the permutation talk or I’ll break out my big brain and show you how it really works! It will be a thread killing post. What a bunch of geeks!!!!! Just because you can doesn’t mean you should!!! Stop yapping about the lottery odds start listening. LMAO!

I’m just hoping the clips are actually the sam amp in a pair….I can tell the Recto from the 5150 from the Marshall on my amp at least.

Reply
1. September 9, 2011
  
  joe.gore
  
  Thankfully, I haven’t yet had to ban any topics — after all, the blog is only a week old! But it would be pretty hilarious if math got banned before religion or politics. 😉
  
  Besides, I already have a permutation thread going on here: https://bit.ly/r8IhKy
  
  It only goes to 24, though, so I can handle it. Barely.
  
  Reply
September 9, 2011

TCITD(ID)

Great competition, really shows off how far modelling has come.

I’ve always been a ‘mics and amps’ only type of guy, but recently had to switch to using a Palmer PDI-03 & reamping later (I have to be silent now) and I’m really pleased with the results I’m getting.

If we are all having such trouble telling the difference with single guitar tracks it would be near impossible to spot them in mixed songs.

Tube amps and mics method will never die though. Never.
(I hope)

Reply
September 9, 2011

joe.gore

“If we are all having such trouble telling the difference with single guitar tracks it would be near impossible to spot them in mixed songs.”

Key point. 🙂

Reply
September 9, 2011

Robert

After listening to the high quality version, it seems to me that the low quality version is easier to tell apart. I thought it would be the other way around though…

Reply
September 10, 2011

Romain

Really cool contest! Thank you for organizing it!

Reply
September 10, 2011

Chris

Great contest Joe! Thanks for doing all of this. : ) Even with an ear for these things, it’s difficult to discern every one as model or amp. If nothing else, you’ve proved that it’s not always a night and day difference.

Reply
September 12, 2011

Peter Trott

I won’t mention numbers, not wanting to get banned, but I don’t think the math in the posts above can possibly add up. I’ll have to ask one of my engieering buddies…

But I’m curious as to who uses models? I mean, in my high school band I had a Fender Bassman. Its sound was wonderful, and I never thought about changing it. But I sold it to pay for tuition when in college. My next band a few deca…years ago, I had an Acoustic 120 bass amp that I loved, and aside from a Small Stone phase shifter stomp box, I never felt the need to change its sound, either. Why does anyone want to model any other amps? Band tend to have a signature sound (or, in my opinion, they should). Of course, this was all live performance. I guess it may be different in the studio. But I’m an old fogey who has that apparently outdated notion that musicians should live or die by their talent, not by the talent of the guy at the mixing board. Songs like “96 tears” and “Louie, Louie” were huge hits because they were real, unadulterated, full-of-feeling, “we aren’t great, but boy are we having fun” songs. You can hear the errors, and it makes the songs all the better. So, to wrap it up, my opinion is that if you want to sound like you’re playing through a Marshall stack, buy a Marshall stack! (Come around next Sunday for my next sermon, “The Evils of Auto-tune.”)

Reply
September 12, 2011

joe.gore

Sounds like a lively sermon! But would you be so kind as to deliver it on your lawn? I don’t want those dang kids messing up mine.

Reply
September 12, 2011

Biffoz

I used to play through Marshall 2203’s and Flag 2×12’s and loved it, but often had problems getting that sound to FOH due to mic-ing and eq issues. It would sound godly on stage and meh out front. (sometimes). I began using HK Red Boxes on my stereo Marshal setup and nearly immediately got compliments that things were sounding consistently good. I then began playing a theater gig, yearly where I was invisible in a pit or backstage and of course started with amps, but caved pretty quick and began using modeling (Boss GT-5) and strangely enough, because the only sound your heard were monitors, the playing field was level and what you heard at your monitor was pretty close to FOH. I’ve had people come up raving about how great it sounded and asking what amps I was using and would often hear a compliment revised to advice about how I could sound better, to which I nearly always replied, “You can’t take it back! You said yourself how good it sounded!” (jokingly of course, but in a mix, going to a medium room the difference is lost. In a very small intimate club setting an amp can be a joy, but for consistency? I’ll take modeling every time.

Reply
1. September 12, 2011
  
  joe
  
  Yeah, that’s the sort of scenario where modeling really goes to bat for you.
  
  A lot of players compare the sound of a modeled amp to the sound of standing in front of a blasting cabinet. But it seems the real comparison should be not to what you are accustomed to hearing, but what your listeners hear: namely, your final track or the FOH mix.
  
  Reply
September 12, 2011

Biffoz

I know I’ll never feel the thrill of stepping on my Rat, into stereo delays going into a pair of 2203 JCM800’s push some deep Flag cabinets! The hairs on my arms would stand on end . . . but that was just in my sweet spot; the sound out front suffered frequently and things like wall-current and fluorescent lights really tortured me too. But I’ll never forget hitting that button into those Marshalls. When it’s right, the bandmembers really felt it too, so there’s definitely something wild about that, which doesn’t seem quite the same; I have a sustainer system, so it makes the modeled dynamic feel pretty damned alive and visceral, so that’s another element. It’s all fun though!

Reply
September 13, 2011

Brian Daly

Great job on this Joe! I must say I feel very confident in my choices. If I’m wrong, I’ll have to change my mind in a big way!
To me all of the clips are very close on a macro level, but in the nuances of the tone I always preferred one over the other. In my mind. models have a phasey quality on the high end, and the semi distorted sounds aren’t as “integrated.” It’s like you can hear different parts of the tone being distorted in different ways.
On a real amp the distortion spectrum is smoother. So, going with my huge bias, I just picked the clips I like the best as the amps!
One problem I’ve had with the models is I don’t like the latency, I can always feel it, even in hardware units like the Pod.
But did an amazing feat of engineering getting them this close.
Thanks!

Reply
September 13, 2011

joe

Thanks for the kind words, Brian! I had a blast putting it together.

I’d love to comment on your comments, but I really don’t want to say anything that might provide clues that early contest entrants didn’t get.

But I can’t help adding this. 🙂

Reply
September 13, 2011

Kevco

The fake hint link was a really sick Joe, just sick. Clownrolled!

Reply
September 13, 2011

ezcomes

I would like to note, that I don’t have any modelling software outside of my VOX AD50VT…and, three of the amps are way older than me, and I cannot afford them or the Diezel.

This is a cool contest, and I look forward to seeing the answers! To see what I hear as true, and the same with others as well.

Reply
September 14, 2011

el reclusa

That was HARD! In at least a couple of places, it was just as hard to tell one amp from another as the real thing against the model… looking forward to finding out how WRONG I am! 🙂

Reply
September 15, 2011

Dionisis korkolis

The sample answers spell DEAF…..cute

Reply
1. September 15, 2011
  
  joe
  
  I was wondering whether anyone would notice. 😉
  
  Reply
September 15, 2011

Daniel Thompson

I never thought my tin ears would be able to discern the difference between amplifiers, let alone between modeling and original. Boy was I surprised! Great contest!

Reply
September 15, 2011

Shiv

Pretty great giveaway. Whoever wins either deserves it (cause they have amazing ears), or they’re mostly lucky. Either way, you’ve got to earn this one (in a way), and it makes this way more interesting. Keep these going on!

Reply
September 15, 2011

Kyle Alm

I guess I got pretty close, the amp models are really tough to tell from each other. Waiting until Halloween to find out is going to be even tougher.

Reply
September 16, 2011

zantek

Amps and models sounds are very close! you did a great job!
It’s a funny contest, my ears works hard 😉

Reply
September 16, 2011

Dan

Yes, I can tell the difference between amps & models- the models are the skinny ones and have long legs!

Reply
September 16, 2011

Bill

One of the “10 Commandments of Guitar Douche-baggery” is to instantly proclaim that anything digital sounds “fake”, “sterile” and “is filled with digital artifacts”. In the absence of the ability to know what is analog and what is a model I must refuse to accept that any of this sounds good, no matter how much I like the tones.

A/B’ing amps and models? It’s pure heresy! How many guitar douche-bags must suffer disgrace for your little stunt?

Reply
1. September 16, 2011
  
  joe
  
  That made me spit coffee in laughter, Bill. Thanks. 🙂
  
  And you didn’t even use the words “organic” and “warm-sounding.”
  
  Reply
September 16, 2011

Gil

Wow!! tough, tough test!! I’m gonna use the age card (I may be 71 by the calendar, but only 16 in boy years) and just say that now I know why I had trouble listening to the Seymour Duncan audio clips to decide whether to change out pickups…..

Reply
1. September 16, 2011
  
  joe
  
  Age is no excuse! You don’t have to be 16 to rock out any more than you have to be 71 to be deaf. 😉
  
  Reply
September 16, 2011

brupop

Great fun Joe, funny stuff Bill and Dan.
And while I didn’t get them all correct, I enjoyed listening and cipherin’.

Reply
September 16, 2011

Eddie

This is such a great competition. With so many people saying that they can really tell the difference between tube and models i’d love to see them to be proved wrong!

Reply
1. September 16, 2011
  
  joe
  
  I can’t help mentioning that WE DON’T YET HAVE THREE WINNERS! Draw your own conclusions.
  
  Reply
September 16, 2011

plexicrunch

Cool piece, Joe. As an Axe-FX diehard AND an owner/user of great vintage amps (Marshall, Vox, Fender, Orange, Hiwatt), I can say that modeling done well offers approximately one zillion advantages with very few drawbacks. The sound of a Marshall half stack flapping your pants is something that’s hard to give up, but if you get over the emotion of that visceral experience and just play, modeling all the way. But whatever floats your boat is good. Happy playing.

Reply
September 16, 2011

Tom

Thanks for this contest, it was fun to participate.

I have been using modeling for quite some time. I love the flexibility this type of rig, and it has worked very well for me. Although I admit I’ve felt it still isn’t quite as good as the real thing, but close enough as to where I am happy with it. Because it is consistent and extremely flexible and tweekable.

I have say these samples were very hard to distinguish apart. You did an excellent job matching up these sound samples. I can’t wait to see the correct answers. And also to know what you used to make the models.

Reply
September 17, 2011

John

This give me hope that my modeling amps and guitars may be fooling most of the people most of the time!

Reply
September 17, 2011

Bruce Boome

I’m not even going to try. I,ve always maintained that a good modeller sounds like a recorded guitar, not like it does to the player in the room. Therefore to the player, the feel of it is different- which could result in him not playing as well as he might (we all know that when it sounds and feels right we play better). But to the listener, he probably wouldn’t know- and if he’s not a guitarist, care. Even playing live, most guitarists mike their cab- giving something like a recorded sound to the audience.So if the player can adjust his attitude, and expect to hear a recorded guitar sound he can get good results. There’s a lot to be said for portability if you don’t have the resources to hire a roadie 😉

Reply
1. September 17, 2011
  
  joe
  
  So true, Bruce. In fact, you might have written my conclusion for me!
  
  Yes, players have a choice of comparing the sound of a model to the sound of a recorded amp, or to the sound of standing in a room next to an analog amp. So your satisfaction with models depends largely on who your audience is. If you’re playing for yourself, the model may never be gratifying. If you’re playing for listeners (via recordings or through a PA system), the gap narrows to the point of being meaningless.
  
  Reply
September 17, 2011

Charlie FARREN

Cool contest Joe – harder than I thought!

Reply
September 17, 2011

Everett Young

The problem with this test is that you’re reamping, and when you record the guitar by direct-lining into Logic, you lose the impedance characteristics of the amp, and perhaps (I’m not an electronics expert) some interplay between the guitar pickups and the amp’s electronics.

I was stunned to find, recently, that my amp models and my real vintage Fender amp sounded virtually the same when I re-amped, but when the guitarist plugged straight into the Fender, there the difference was startling, and I had to admit that re-amping is not a suitable answer, at least not always.

I am NOT one of these people who thinks the “real thing” is always better. I have done plenty of shootouts, for example, between modeled compressors and real high-end compressors, same with eqs, and I’m convinced that the digital recreations are indistinguishable from the real things. People are fooling themselves if they think they can hear those differences. But I was not fooling myself a few nights ago when I had to throw up my hands and admit that re-amping was killing the beauty of this guitar part.

I have no doubt that, in this particular shootout, the models will hold up. They are wonderful, and do a great job of emulating what an amp does to a sound. However, the analog direct line input does not match the real amp’s analog input characteristics, and I’m afraid that contributes a good bit to the tone.

Reply
1. September 17, 2011
  
  joe
  
  Hey Everett — thanks for a thoughtful post!
  
  You touch on two genuine issues with re-amping: the interaction between the amp and pickups, and impedance load. Both are complex, hard-to-quanitify variables, and both vary ENORMOUSLY according to the type of guitar and pickups you use, how loud your amp is, where you stand, what sorts of pedal and cables you use, how reflective the recording environment is, and probably a buttload of other factors, notably the nature and quality of your digital recording signal path.
  
  The most extreme case (the one in which you may perceive genuinely meaningful differences between live and re-amped sound) is if you are plugged directly into a loud amp without pedals while facing the amp. Even if you’re not playing with feedback-level gain, the sound of the amp can excite the strings, adding nice resonance and perhaps making them “sing” a bit more. But bear in mind that the HUGE majority of guitar recordings, classic and otherwise, were made with the amp isolated from the guitars to the extent that there is no meaningful interaction. Also, you can replicate this interaction when recording direct by listening through studio monitors rather than headphones. Crank the monitors loud enough, and you can get pretty much the same interaction you’d get standing next to a screaming amp.
  
  Now, I can barely understand the physics behind impedance, let alone explain them intelligently (though my pals at Seymour Duncan have labored mightily to explain it to me). But practically speaking, the issue boils down to this: plugging into some things (crappy cables, crappy/old pedals, or just too much cable or too many pedals) increases the load on your pickups, robbing them of signal, especially treble—your tone sounds dull. If you’ve ever noticed a difference between playing through a pedalboard with all effects bypassed and plugging directly into an amp, you’ve encountered this phenomenon.
  
  But before making too many assumptions, consider that a buffer in your signal path counteracts this tendency—and many common stompboxes, from Tube Screamers to Klon Centaurs, include a buffer circuit. Additionally, some recording preamps (like the Millennium TD-1 I used to track my examples) include switchable impedance settings.
  
  Buffering vs. true bypass is something guitar nerds argue about incessantly—just Google “buffer vs. true bypass.” IMHO, this debate is a gigantic time suck. There’s a simple solution: Get a buffer and actually LISTEN to it at various points in your signal chain (especially before all your pedals and/or after all your pedals). Notice a difference? Then use a buffer.
  
  Hmm — maybe the soon-to-convene Tonefiend Makers Club should do a simple buffer project . . .
  
  Reply
September 17, 2011

Jim Nicoletti

I would like to thank Joe for doing this. Great tool.
I’m a Analog Snob, hack guitar player that records to 1/2 tape.When I saw this contest I thought great, should be easy. I listened to the tracks at the most twice each on my my 8 year old laptop. Some of the tracks I thought where more evident. My ears tell me that when your playing chords or rhythm the overtones that happens with an amp is more musical. The single line stuff is harder to notice the difference. I guess modelling has come a long way since I gave it a proper chance. Thanks again and good luck to all.

Reply
1. September 17, 2011
  
  joe
  
  I hear you. I am also an analog snob. The problem is, I’m en even worse digital snob.
  
  Reply
September 17, 2011

Anthony

Seems to me , Like were all gone lose.
its a lose lose situation.
I would still like to win those pedals…

Reply
1. September 18, 2011
  
  joe
  
  Sounds like a philosophy of life, albeit a rather pessimistic one! 🙂
  
  Reply
September 17, 2011

Mark

Aloha Joe, It’s so amazing to me how you and your brother “Al” have such a different sense of humor. Your interests are so different too. Anyway, I’m even more amazed at how far technology has come since the days of my Gibson “Maestro” Fuzz Tone. When I thinks of any customizing gear,(toys) Seymour Duncan is the first and only name I think of. Mr. Duncan has come out/up with the most innovative products that even the pros pro appreciate. If that weren’t enough, he has employed such qualified and dedicated people to represent his staff. People like yourself Joe. (at this point I’m thinking, even if I don’t guess the contest correctly, maybe all this sucking up will win me something) Please, if you don’t believe me, wait for all the other dudes who will respond to this post. (if I need to suck up some more, please let me know) I’ll do whatever to win those pedals.
Sincerely, Mark

Reply
September 17, 2011

Sid Kar

Hi Joe,

It would be interesting to see some statistics too when you finally show us the answers. Like how many got it right, and individual stats for each amp and the like.

Thanks for this interesting contest. It was great.

Reply
1. September 18, 2011
  
  joe
  
  Wouldn’t it though? Too bad we banned all those mathematical/statistical types early in this thread. 😉
  
  Reply
September 18, 2011

Greg

hey, just wanted to comment and say that this was really hard!! just got your reply email, telling me my answers werent perfect, which i expected… but still, it is extremely hard to tell the difference!!

i was reading the other comments and someone said something about how hard it would be to tell after all the other instruments were added to the mix, and thats a great point!! amp modeling has certainly come a long way!!!

after hearing this, i am a bit skeptical of those who say they can still hear all the differences between the real thing and models… they either must have damn good ears, or 99% of us must be tonedeaf!!

Reply
September 18, 2011

jay

cool contest man 0 I might go for three of those delays though

Reply
September 19, 2011

Everett again

Hey Joe,

Can you tell me…is there a genuine interaction between an amp’s electronics or tubes and the guitar’s pickups? Or is the impedance load the only “alteration” the amp makes to the performance of pickups, remaining static throughout a recording?

If the impedance load is the only thing, then one can still justify using ElevenRack’s impedance variation function–which I do, and I think it helps. However, if the amp’s electronics are, on the fly while you’re playing, reaching into the guitar itself to change the performance of the guitar from note to note, then this is a process which in principle can’t be modeled, and models would appear to be at a permanent, irrevocable disadvantage.

Note I’m not talking about standing in front of the amp. I pretty much always record with the guitarist sitting in the control room unless I specifically want feedback. Maybe for some parts I just like the sound of 25-foot guitar cable? Nice and mellow! (But it was that same long cable I was using to input direct into an expensive preamp, which left me with a little unwelcome nastiness in the high end, as well as less “breathability”–the part sounded compressed.)

Of course, what it sounds like is still what matters. Yesterday, I chose an 11rack sound over a guitar-plugged-into-amp sound just because, though close, I thought the 11 rack just sounded a bit cleaner and fit the song better. But I could imagine that cleanliness being unwelcome and going with the amp in a different song.

So obviously both 11Rack and a real amp are useful to have around. But I still want to have the knowledge. So, can you tell me…is the amp playing the guitar as well?

Reply
September 19, 2011

Everett again

I will add too that, in re-amping, equing hi-end out of the direct-line guitar sound before sending it on to the amp–an attempt to simulate the effects of impedance loading–helps a little, but does NOT get me there. I’ve tried hard.

Reply
September 19, 2011

Ed Ten Eyck

Fun contest. I’m really curious about the answers. At first, I thought it would be easy, now I’m not sure if I got any correct.

Reply
September 19, 2011

Nuno Carmona

Modeling is definitely here to stay and Joe’s given an excellent example of the state of the art. Congrats

Reply
September 19, 2011

el reclusa

I might be wrong, as I’ve never used the “name brand” Reamp, but doesn’t it have some kind of drag control on it to load the signal, thus simulating the interaction of pickups?

Reply
1. September 19, 2011
  
  joe
  
  Nope — as you can read at https://www.reamp.com/, the only user-adjustable control is the output level control.
  
  Reply
September 19, 2011

Marcelo Ocanto

Not even three of us have yet guessed the answers. The difference between amps and models is a matter of us only. So, think about your listeners, they won’t care if you’re pluggin into and 5000$ boutique amp, and old radio, or a toaster. The points is, models can sound good, amps can sound bad, so don’t waste any more, make your music, have fun, and make others have fun!

Reply
September 20, 2011

Duztin5391

I do feel this would be slightly easier if having to guess which amp each one is in addition to the model or not wasnt a factor. But whateves its still fun

Reply
September 20, 2011

James Knowles

I play bass and dabble with guitar, but feel I have a good ear so I gave it a shot. I have heard them all but the Diezel, but am no expert. That being said, my guesses have been sent and am eagerly awaiting how I did. My birthday was on the 11th so this would be a wicked late birthday present. 😉 Only time shall tell now.

Reply
September 20, 2011

Keith Rural

Don’t feel so ashamed of my Line 6 HD147, 3x Rec. stolen : ( , but I do love my versatile and effects filled amp, tube snobs be damned. Cheers.

Reply
September 21, 2011

prinspatrick

Great contest! Love it!

Although I love tubes, I always thought that one day digital will be equal and you have proven it.

Let’s face it: if you ask a tube-snob what’s better a real vox of the 60′ or a new one. they will tell you all the old one. (and I agree since I have an old one at home). Also the fact that all modelers are based on old types, not the reissues confirms this.

Logical that means that the early tube-amps are 100% best and everything after that is less.

Now the early digital modelers where far from 100%, BUT they only grew better and better over the years and as today the differences are so subtle that one can only conclude that they are as good as the originals.

It’s my stong believe that within 5 years tubes will only be used by endorsers, fortunate ones and of course all those who listen by their eyes and not their ears!

Reply
September 21, 2011

Bernard Piller

Great shootout!

My 2c: If you have a good current modeller (no latency, good dynamics) and you are playing through a FRFR system or recording it, it’s equal to a tube amp (miced in a sound cabin and also played back through a FRFR system).

The ONLY difference with a tube amp – for me – is the “amp in the room” feel that so many of us want or even need when playing.
I also think a good old tube amp is actually less hassle in a live situation. It can be hard (and expensive) to get a good stage sound with a modeller.

Reply
1. September 21, 2011
  
  joe
  
  Thanks Bernard!
  
  I agree that analog amps are often less hassle when gigging. With an amp, you have a pretty good idea what to expect when you show up at a gig. I would only use a modeler on a gig if a) I carried my own small PA system, which I generally do in such cases, or b) knew and trusted the house sound system, or c) had a guaranteed soundcheck with a trustworthy engineer.
  
  Reply
  1. September 21, 2011
    
    Robert
    
    While I know what you guys are talking about analogs being a bit less hassle, U have found that using a “modern” axe fx modeler has given me a more consistent sound in venues and tweaking wasn’t really a necessity once the tone was dialed. It’s also nice to have 2 separate amps to switch between in one convenient, easy to carry box. =)
    Although, the psychological thrill of playing through an awesome tube amp still CAN’T be modeled.
    
    Reply
    1. September 21, 2011
      
      Robert
      
      I*
      
      Reply
September 21, 2011

PazF

Cool contest, I personaly prefer an analog amp on any model…this was my setup for a long time and I ususally get my tone from two amps rather then two pedals….still no mattar which was which all the parts sound great and you can really hear REAL guitar sounds out of a modeling device.

Reply
September 21, 2011

gui

hi, i usually spot a modeller, but that was a really tricky one. Did i miss wich modeller was used in the test?

Reply
1. September 21, 2011
  
  joe
  
  They were mostly using Amp Designer, the amp-simulation plug-in that comes with Apple’s Logic program.
  
  Reply
September 22, 2011

Niall

Great contest! Got the models amazingly close to the real thing! Really tricky.

Reply
September 22, 2011

William

Very nice contest.
The truth is that Modeling Technology today is at a very high level from all companies. I’m sure that through a studio recording it’s not possible to recognise if an amp is real or is VST or modeling rack fx or pedalboard etc. But in the “real world” and i’m talking ’bout live gigs, the differences are recognizable.
So from me for modeled sounds, thumbs up for studio use, but thumbs down for live use.

Reply
September 22, 2011

Marcelo Ocanto

ok, 2,3,5 and 8 are the models…

Reply
September 23, 2011

zok@volny.cz

Love this thread! For me it is important to understand if I liked the sound and feel of it at all. It does not matter if it was analog or digital. The blues sound and feel I like (SRV, JM, KWS … ) I used to hear only on their recordings and they were all recorded using the real amp (probably more than one) , and no digital modelers (as far as I know). I wonder how digital modelers could replicate that sound and than I would like to compare. Many of us are going after some specific type of sound and feel that we know from our guitar idols.

You may try to guess how I recorded the following three songs…

https://www.soundclick.com/player/single_player.cfm?songid=10702878&q=hi&newref=1

https://www.soundclick.com/player/single_player.cfm?songid=10843961&q=hi&newref=1

https://www.soundclick.com/player/single_player.cfm?songid=11023737&q=hi&newref=1

Reply
1. September 23, 2011
  
  joe
  
  Nice playing. Thanks for posting the clips. Links to clips are ALWAYS welcome here, and I hope more readers post ’em!
  
  Reply
September 23, 2011

Vlad

Great and very exciting.
Especially because I tried to separate the real ones from the models by a few other attributes, which you can hear on the records also.

Reply
September 27, 2011

Filipe Freitas

Fact is we all should be able to afford the Axe-FX II. You get an Axe-FX II, then you get the greatest EL84 Tube Power-Amp there is, then you get 3 cabs (1×8, 2×12, one FRFR) and bam, you’re ready to go.

Reply
October 30, 2011

PVDHP Vadim

What amp simulators was used it this test? Tell please.

Reply