The thing with a profile is, you're getting an amp on one specific setting and it might sound completely indistinguishable from the real amp on that setting - but the moment you try to tweak something, I find that they generally don't respond to EQ settings in the same way the amp does and it severely hampers the realism. With a model, generally it's more encompassing and less "one setting forever", but at the expense of basically being at the mercy of the manufacturer for the quality of the model. Some are *scarily* good, some are a bit less accurate or more oldie-fashioned-digital sounding. YMMV depending on the modeler you have. And of course, some amps simply aren't *available* as a model, so a profile/capture is the only way to replicate them. For example, you can capture the sound of an amp with a distortion pedal in front of it as one "unit", or with a studio EQ over the top.
Except for liquid profiles on Kemper which approximate the tone stack of the provided models. Also the poly effects ample combines a NAM-like model with some modeled tone stacks so you do get a much closer approximation of the tone stack and gain variation (poly effects captures several gain versions)
The *actual* answer is it doesn't matter anymore because everything sounds great nowadays, and no audience member/listener cares what gear someone uses!
@ Marshall. Specifically the silver jubilee. I’ve tried everything. Victory v4. Quad cortex. Friedman irx. In the end I just bought the 20w mini jubilee for gigs so I don’t have to lug the 100w I also have. It’s epic
Captures are great as you're not just stuck with the amps in the box , But Fractal has been the most satisfying modeller in a sense of Amps,Effects and Overdives by a mile and i've had them all.. A lot of the FAS amps i'd choose over alot out there! And the amount you can do is just insane. Issue i've found after having ToneX and Kemper is there's just so many bad bedroom captures out there . And a lot of people also don't take into consideration with captures is it also depends on the guitar/pickups being played on the capture also. You're essentially capturing the voice of the pickups inside the guitar as well as the Amp/Cab/Mic and a lot of people don't realise that. From my experience captures are only really good if you are just capturing your own gear. I cant be the only one thinking it but man i really wish the Fractal stuff was available in UK stores.... I've had it all and nothing compares to the Fractal stuff.
I used tube amps for gigs for years but recently switched to the HX Stomp exclusively a couple years ago with great results but there has always been this “cold” characteristic to the tone that can’t be EQ’d out. It doesn’t have the warmth of a tube amp. I just added a Tonex pedal to my board and run it through the effect loop of the HX stomp. The stock captures are ok but I added the amalgam chefs special captures and OMG it’s like night and day compared to the Helix models. The captures have that tube amp warmth and touch response. I’m now 100% capture. If anyone is looking to put together a powerful yet inexpensive board, pairing the HX Stomp and the Tonex pedal is amazing. I use the Tonex just for the amps and everything else from the HX Stomp.
It's critical to see the dB Meter during such comparisons, as we know that louder typically sounds better, and bassier tends to sound more like a real/analog Amp. Both modeling and capturing tech can sound great. Last week, Nvidia released a $249 Mini Supercomputer to the public, with the ability to perform 117 TOPS - Trillion Operations Per Second. It will be interesting to see how/if this technology will be used in audio Modeling, Capturing, and Profiling.
The beautiful thing about captures is that it gives exposure to so many more sounds. Models are amazing but nit everything gets modelled. It’s so much fun to discover some gear in a video and most likely someone captured to download and play around with.
The best use case for captures is that you can capture YOUR OWN equipment, allowing you to take your specific and unique tone into projects and out to gigs in a more convenient format. For example, I have captured the preamps AND the full amp outputs of both my BadCat Lynx and Jet Black amps, at my preferred settings. So now I can: - Use them for recording, true to how things feel and sound in writing sessions - Put the preamps through the FX return of the actual amp, giving me super easy channel switching and infinite EQ/gain settings with scenes - I can do stereo setups using only 3 cables into the FX return of both amps - I can utilise the full amp captures to go into any clean power amp, mono or stereo, using real cabs - I can whack an IR on and put these sounds out to the PA or FRFR I'm not interested in other people's captures because they never sound the same as they did to other people. If I want sounds of gear I didn't or don't own them I go to modelling.
In my opinion, the capturing and profiling only really makes sense for huge artists that want to take the exact tones of the studio recording on the road. For anything else it is probably worse than modeling, because the quality of the sound depends on the quality of the capture. And since most people don't make their own captures, they will get some online, which 90% of the time will be worse than an amp in a modeling unit.
I have some real tube amps, pedals, a solid state GTX100 and a Tonex One...all relatively cheap. I have fun with them all. I can great tones all the time. Some of the tonex downloads are perfection. No need to decide! They can both be great! You can still get a cheap EQ pedal with either and the world is your oyster!
Been a Kemper owner since 2015. Amazing device. Now I own a Tonex which I bought in late October. Tonex also does 'captures'. Bought the Tonex to run it as an overdrive /fuzz pedal platform in front of my Kemper and tube amps. Two weeks ago, I bought a Fractal VP-4. Which does models of overdrives and fuzzes. VP-4 does some of the best time based effects you can get, too. Probably going to buy a second VP-4 to have mono effects in front of my tube amps and in stereo after my tube amps. Using the Kemper, you have their liquid profiling as a capturing option. This technology provides a modeling component to the tone stack. So a Kemper 'liquid' profile has aspects of both techniques. I don't think there is any definitive better or worse digital platform. No matter what you choose, some profiles and some models will be great and some will suck. Picking quality sounds on either platform will provide the greatest satisfaction.
You've already basically said it, but I also think of it like in modeling, each knob has the full range of 1-10. And profiling/capturing, etc., each knob effectively might have a range of 4-6, and everything changed is post-processing a single pre-determined sound. I originally thought that when profiling/capturing, the full dynamic response would be captured and editable, but it really seems like those aren't tweakable very far from the original. At least that how it seems here.
It is also possible to profile an amp without any cab or mics if you use a Two Notes Torpedo or the like. Then you can add any impulse response you like. That’s what I’ve done with my amps in my quad cortex and loved them enough to just sell my amps
Always great information from you guys! Even after 30 something years of playing guitar, maybe my ears just suck. It’s all honestly so great that I can’t personally tell a difference. I would’ve gone gaga for even the worst of this new stuff in the early 2000s, so I’m just enjoying it for the sake of having it and not having to break my back carrying that twin everywhere that I go. Anyway, happy holidays and be well!
In Quad Cortex, the models are captures that also include knob positions in the input training set. So a capture of an amp and the model of the amp with the controls set at the same point of the capture are likely to be pretty similar. There are of course differences in how they were captured.
Clones/Profiles/Captures (done right) are still better for me....and we have Liquid Profiling/Superclones to incorporate modelling advantages (i.e., dynamically changing gain/eq settings).
what neural does is not modeling if they are essentially profiling every setting of an amp. proper component modeling is a different process where an amp is modeled piece by piece down to the last component and every single part inside it is measured and reproduced in a digital way
You asked the question modelling vs Profiling and Christophe Kemper answered, both at the same time. Liquid Profiling. You have a Profile with modelled Gain and EQ tone stack of the Profiled amp. Watch the Leo Gibson video comparing a QC Capture and Liquid Profile of the same amp. When using the Gain and EQ controls on both units the Liquid Profile is 18% more accurate than the QC.
Was going to write this. I’ll add Qc and Tonex you’ll probably want multiple captures of different settings, but to play the devil’s advocate here, EQ is always added in post when in the studio. Everything we hear on a record has been debased so much that I don’t really think it matters if the gain and eq are accurate if it sounds good.
The liquid Profiling was the first thing that came to mind too. I think regardless which you prefer, technology is getting great and we are all winning.
Interesting that it was really easy to pick model and capture on my headphones. But only because of the particular biases, not because one was better than the other.
Here’s an example of modelling that I’ve been marvelling at for a few years now, and I’m still spellbound by both the user friendly simplicity of it and the remarkable sounds, and that’s the Moog Model D synth App. I’m primarily a guitarist and I’ve tried several synth apps but the Model D is head and shoulders the best. What’s rather interesting (and I know this isn’t so unusual) is how the factory presets pretty comprehensively fail to do the synth justice. I’d go so far as to say that though the presets do offer a good starting point, for me probably none of them are useable… I’ve created hundreds of dramatically transformed presets… the difference is night and day
Modelers are great; profilers are great. Everything is a compromise on some level. Real amps can be heavy, difficult to integrate into complex rigs, and less reliable. Digital gear doesn’t sound the same but is easier to handle complex routing. They are all tools. Pick the tools that work best for you
The difference in quality of capturing between different hardware/software suppliers is still much bigger than the difference in quality of modelling devices. Also, there is basically not really a bad modeller anymore, but there are a ton of bad user captures out there. And a big part of downloadable user captures (especially of more budget defives) are captues of modellers anyway.
I have a QuadCortex and somehow I managed to have very good sound with Vox AC30 modeler and one captured pedal and one modeled. But the best sound I got was to capture my amp, so I guess I will have more fun with capturing different sounds :) Maybe the key is, that you take a capture with your guitar, your mic, your whole chain and you just make it sound the best accordingly.
I got 100 percent correct (not a flex), the modelled amps have an underlying tone/frequency that’s just there, that I can hear (bugs me a little, but it is what it is)
The thing to do with captures is have several all through the spectrum from sparkly clean to full distortion. Then you have them as presets that can act almost like you added dirt pedals to it with a step of the button
hi guys, great video! when will the supro delta king 12 be restocked on your site? it said it would be restocked today, but now it doesn’t even let me preorder it.
It doesn’t really matter how we get our tones is whether you as a player are happy with them. Personally I now use a modeller though have considered using a profiler. The problem I have with profiles is that unless it’s my amp, it won’t react to my guitars in the same way. Modellers often have amps that do not exist in the real world which are idealised versions of real amps which often have flaws for good or bad. Fractal also allow you to change so many parameters on an amp that you can start with their model and then tailor it to suit you. I am using a JTm 45 model but with KT88 tubes to tighten up the bottom end flub the original model has and also get a slightly different power amp saturation. No such JTM 45 ever existed and probably would not have worked in the real world without changes to the circuitry of the amp. I have considered however profiling as a back up plan by taking captures of my fractal and real amps too.
I capture using my Ox Box, its great because there is a speaker/mic bypass which takes the unaltered signal from the amp speaker out. But in the end, I don’t care - captures, modelling, valves, solid state, I trust all three of my ears…
Traditionally I have preferred models because of the adjustability. The older I get, though, the more I seem to be leaning towards gear that has fewer settings. So maybe I ought to revisit captures. But I also feel that-for me-amp simulations may not even be necessary. I tend to gravitate towards either very clean sounds or "distortion pedal" levels of gain. I feel like I'm often happy with just a cab IR at the end of the chain without an amp sim in front of it.
As someone whos used Fractal units since 2007, owned Kempers and Tonex.... both have strengths and weaknesses. I could go WAY deep - but a quick summation is its down to workflow. Profiles are great if you want to copy your amp, or a borrowed amp to take live when you dont want to take the amp - copy what you have already. They are however a PITA to find 3rd party captures that are what you want - we all have different ideals AND the further you tweek form the profiled settings - the worse they get. MODELLERS are far better at creating a sound in your head, or a tone to suit a track perfectly - you have the tools to tweek to make it just right where profilers dont.... I prefer modelling BUT I use captures to audition real amps, and for specific iconic tones that have been captured.
quick qestion for everyone here, I notice in this video that they are using the XLR outs so that might mean that they had to add gain to both inputs on their audio interface to bring up the input level. Would it be better to use 1/4 inch outs like out 3 and 4 out of the QC instead so no gain needs to be added on the audio interface as adding gain on the interface can influence the tone.
The model sounded brighter with the first two so I thought I had found a pattern, but then it was the opposite with the last two. Though I agree with the Captain, that the Peaveys were definitely the closest.
I guessed which was which for every one through the speakers on a 2nd Gen iPad Pro. I prefer the captures but agree models are more versatile. I'm also capable of making my own captures.
The real question is not which is "better" but: which is "right". After years and years with musical equipments and instruments I come to this: everything it's fine by now in terms of results, technology had a huge leap forward and most of the modeling AND profiling systems now matched our beloved amps and old-fashion analog pedals. But music and art is not a race, a sport or a quest for perfectionism, but a long road of experiences to share with other people building STORIES and life. I still believe in the live experience of "doing things" becouse is the whole experience that are unmatched. Having such a wide and potentially infinte choice, ends up trivializing something that is not so trivial. There is also a risk of accumulation, a frenzy of possession that leads to paralysis by analysis and tend to be pure "digital feticism". Having all the knowledge available on the internet does not automatically raise collective awareness. Having all the world's music available for streaming does not mean knowing music in any better way or even listening more carefully. And having all the amps available in the world in a box does not mean knowing how to use them, understand them, etc. This is my very very personal and humble opinion and a personal stand which I try to stick to. But I digress, so coming to the initial question: which is "right" for me.... today in the digital realm at similar result I tent to reward someone who, pushed by an enormous amount of passion for instruments, put hours and hours to carefully crafted, with great effort, sims and emulations to replicate something real. Look (it's just an example) to Fractal: their amp wiki is an incredible well of researches and love for amplification... and this is an human effort I will embrace willingly, instead of a "cold" alghorithm capable of copying something. Yes of course: create an alghorhithm is also need a lot of efforts... initially. But when you create this, you can go on for years and years counting on customers effort to build a community, profilling his own amps. This of course are just my personal thoughts, I cannot and mostly don't want to judge anyone who choose/think otherwise....
The model has a brighter, more hi-fi sound, which isn’t my preference for most guitar tones. I think the duller-sounding "warm" capture would work better in a live setting without needing to cuts highs.
My understanding is that a capture is a digital recreation of a specific amp with specific settings, whereas a model attempts to recreate the entire possible settings of the amp. For example, if you want to capture a clean channel of an amp and a dirty channel, you will need 2 captures for the same amp. However, you can do the exact same thing with one model just by changing the gain setting. Sonically, I don't think anyone can tell the difference between a capture and a model with similar settings. However, if you're trying to coax out different settings of an amp, you won't be able to recreate the range of sounds with a capture that you can with a model.
In every A/B comparison you can hear the mic and cab and room in the capture. I prefer the way that sounds in most cases, as it’s a little more natural. But for the high gain stuff, in my experience, models are almost always more clear and defined.
You can always identify the model by the low end. And I'm not necessarily sure the real amp has that. Models seem to exaggerate that a lot. Sometimes it sounds like there's a subwoofer lol
I'm gonna go out on a limb but after spending 2 months with the nano cortex, from what I'm hearing at least, the neural captures add a certain crispness that isn't even on the amp, even when capturing a plugin for exemple, the neural capture feels more like an amp more dynamic and alive, natuarally compressed and the low mids tend to have less muddyness, just like if the algorythm captures the overall sound/gain/distortion but then adds clarity, cleans the noise, adds some level of comp and eq to make it sound better. I ve seen multiple AB test between headrush, tone x kemper and neural captures, and every time, the extra high end crispyness made me spot the neural capture, am I the only one hearing it?
I hate to admit that profiling sounds more accurate, but it does. But in this is a big butt, they only profiles that I get that sound professional quality ones I have to buy I can’t get them sounding that good myself.
Just bought a used Tonex from eBay for 140 quid with a load of profiles and the license number transferred from the old owner. It’s epic… genuinely blew me away.
I actually just had the reverse issue, I traded one to a local shop, and they just called me a week later saying the guy could not register it to his computer, because it was attached to mine. Luckily I was able to transfer the serial number, but if they wernt able to get ahold of me, or I was not willing to work with him they would have been screwed. I am never buying anything from IK again.
@@Riley880 yeah admittedly the set up was a massive ballache, but for what I paid, now it’s set up you can’t beat it. 140 quid?! The sounds and feel are fantastic.
In my mind a properly made model would be better as it should allow all the range of tweak ability as the real amp. Being that said I just tried the fender deluxe and JCM stock from ToneX One into a SS amp and 1x12 cabs with Celestions, it sounded great.
All Captures/models sound f**ing great these days. I use a modeller 5 days a week for gigs. After the initial.. ohh thats a new a thing I can play with wears off... You're back to the same, what tone can I use that's not gonna offend anybody! Don't get me wrong I love dialing in tones on my modeller but no one else gives a continental breakfast if I sound like Cory Wong or John Mayer just as long as they can sing oasis after a few pints....! If you're thinking of getting one do... You won't regret it and if you have one already I don't know what to say to you I've you're still reading this comment after listening to that!??
Maybe use a Modeler to play models and a capture device to play captures? Am I missing something? Actually I solve for X with a valve amp/pedals/and few of my favorite speaker friends. Works every time!
Great stuff! Thanks for showing me that they both suck hard. Nothing as a real amplifier. But I can understand that some ppl preffer give quaility up in favor of practicality.
While modeling presents more options, I actually prefer captures because I know it will sound almost indistinguishable from my real rig...plus I think I'd spend way too much time trying to dial in a model to replicate my real rig.
When they bake in the cabinet the IR I can’t use it. I’m using my own guitar cab. It’s no big deal but I’d like to utilize the IR’s but it would probably take up more time tweaking and then I typically stay with the same one.
I don't know why but I found all the captures sounded more "roomy" and all the models sounded more "direct"....no idea what that means. Apart form going 4 for 4.
Any chance you could buy DIGITAL JOHN!! a copy of SHUT UP AND PLAY YOUR GUITAR by Frank Zappa for his Xmas stocking? The case for analog artistry in the vain hope that the DIGITAL KID will evolve into the ANALOG KID in the near future. Needless to say love everyone at Andertons. You got me through those despairing lonely years recently for which I am eternally grateful. Merry Christmas!
As a crazy amp collector. Profiling is better. Modeling lacks of roundness and and still has some weirdness in the 10Khz area. I see different uses for them though. I can profile the exact rig I use in the record and go touring, modeling can do the same but I see it more of an experimenting tool.
Sounds like models are theoretically far superior, but much harder to get to even the same level. I'm saying that on the basis that it could eventually be possible to model all the components of a signal chain and not just the amp, so you get everything from a profile/capture. Profiles will always have one big advantage though, which is that simplicity of dialling in a tone. Even if you did what I said above and modelled the amp, the cab, a mic, cable types/lengths, a desk, everything about a room and so on, you've got to be a qualified sound engineer to have any hope of getting a good sound out of that. As a qualified sound engineer, I'm going to be fantasising about all that for a while, but for most people we're still only just reaching a point where models are really better. All that said, I've got a Line6 Spider IV 75 and my guitar has a broken mount on one of the pickups (and an 11 gauge E string, it's trying to bend an undersea cable), so I'm not really in a strong position to comment on anything sounding good 🤣
I feel like somewhere in the beginning they both took kind of a wrong turn with their arguments by saying a capture always contains cab and mic. Which is wrong. You can capture an amp and an amp only. Meaning you can connect a (reactive) load box to your amp and only capture the DI signal of the amp and it’ll reflect how the amp’s pre and power amp sections react without cab and mic. They only talk about that later in the video.
Yeah, there are some fundamental misunderstandings and a lot of misinformation in this video. It doesn’t appear that either of these guys has a particularly deep understanding of profiling, component-based modeling or signal-driven, machine-learning based modeling. A deep understanding isn’t necessary for a guitarist to make good use of digital equipment, but it does help to understand the difference in control or tweak-ability that different kinds of captures and models give, and how much to expect can be changed while retaining fidelity to an actual amp.
When IR's go full dynamic (Think animated response along the speaker and mic as well, rather than a static eq curve) that's going to lift modelling over captures forever.
Too bad we don't have the real thing to use as the control. Because, in the end, if it doesn't sound like the amp it's modeled after/capturing what's the point of it? We can pick out the one we like the best, but is it a Fender or a Marshall tone? I don't think so. Because the two don't really even sound like each other. And for the record I like the same ones that Lee did. so, maybe it's just that it sounds better, not right?
The model imo clearly sounded better on that first demo- it was clearer, brighter, more open- the second one had a muffled feel to it. And the model was clearly better on the second demo-it had more depth and weight to it, the capture felt thin. And the final demo- the model wins again- it has more depth and bottom end. I'm going with the model 100% of the time. That said- I guess if you knew already exactly what you needed and you could capture that and not need to change it in anyway- a capture would be fine. So, I can see why professionals would use them to capture their amps and stuff- the song is written, they already know precisely what they need, and they capture that and don't change it. Makes sense.
Fractal the only one but there’s no UK retailers, the FM3 can’t do dual amp, it has no expression pedal, no powered version, no Axe Edit for iPad or iPhone and it’s too expensive. I also think whatever you use. These modeller’s and profilers compliment players where as a full valve amp you’re on your own.
Question i have is captures require an amp to be made to be captured. Models can be made up from nothing . And to me that’s the future of amps. Not copying old amps making new ones in the digital world
I got to my studio a soldano slo-100, a Marshall 1959, a vox ac30, an old peavey and some others amps. An axefx 3, helix and also countless of pedals. After more than thirty years playing I think the best sounding gear I have ever heard is my Ducati Diavel with the full titanium acrapovic exhaust system!!! 😂😂😂
The thing with a profile is, you're getting an amp on one specific setting and it might sound completely indistinguishable from the real amp on that setting - but the moment you try to tweak something, I find that they generally don't respond to EQ settings in the same way the amp does and it severely hampers the realism.
With a model, generally it's more encompassing and less "one setting forever", but at the expense of basically being at the mercy of the manufacturer for the quality of the model. Some are *scarily* good, some are a bit less accurate or more oldie-fashioned-digital sounding. YMMV depending on the modeler you have.
And of course, some amps simply aren't *available* as a model, so a profile/capture is the only way to replicate them. For example, you can capture the sound of an amp with a distortion pedal in front of it as one "unit", or with a studio EQ over the top.
wrong,Kemper LP,Tonex and QC can tweak the amp without any issues
yeah its a POST EQ, not the amp EQ. Profiling is a snapshot of the amp, everything you do after, is post.
Except for liquid profiles on Kemper which approximate the tone stack of the provided models. Also the poly effects ample combines a NAM-like model with some modeled tone stacks so you do get a much closer approximation of the tone stack and gain variation (poly effects captures several gain versions)
I think it's not which is better, it's more how well was it captured or how well was it modeled
The *actual* answer is it doesn't matter anymore because everything sounds great nowadays, and no audience member/listener cares what gear someone uses!
Speak for yourself, I've learned that lesson everybody has their preferences and that's okay
I’ve got a quad cortex. Recently gone back to valve amps. It’s so much better feel wise
@@truthfactreality6814 what brand of amps do you prefer?
@ Marshall. Specifically the silver jubilee. I’ve tried everything. Victory v4. Quad cortex. Friedman irx. In the end I just bought the 20w mini jubilee for gigs so I don’t have to lug the 100w I also have. It’s epic
@truthfactreality6814 thanks for letting me know I'll have to check that out. I love valve amps
Captures are great as you're not just stuck with the amps in the box , But Fractal has been the most satisfying modeller in a sense of Amps,Effects and Overdives by a mile and i've had them all..
A lot of the FAS amps i'd choose over alot out there! And the amount you can do is just insane.
Issue i've found after having ToneX and Kemper is there's just so many bad bedroom captures out there . And a lot of people also don't take into consideration with captures is it also depends on the guitar/pickups being played on the capture also. You're essentially capturing the voice of the pickups inside the guitar as well as the Amp/Cab/Mic and a lot of people don't realise that. From my experience captures are only really good if you are just capturing your own gear.
I cant be the only one thinking it but man i really wish the Fractal stuff was available in UK stores....
I've had it all and nothing compares to the Fractal stuff.
Merry christmas to all of you guys.
I used tube amps for gigs for years but recently switched to the HX Stomp exclusively a couple years ago with great results but there has always been this “cold” characteristic to the tone that can’t be EQ’d out. It doesn’t have the warmth of a tube amp. I just added a Tonex pedal to my board and run it through the effect loop of the HX stomp. The stock captures are ok but I added the amalgam chefs special captures and OMG it’s like night and day compared to the Helix models. The captures have that tube amp warmth and touch response. I’m now 100% capture.
If anyone is looking to put together a powerful yet inexpensive board, pairing the HX Stomp and the Tonex pedal is amazing. I use the Tonex just for the amps and everything else from the HX Stomp.
It's critical to see the dB Meter during such comparisons, as we know that louder typically sounds better, and bassier tends to sound more like a real/analog Amp.
Both modeling and capturing tech can sound great. Last week, Nvidia released a $249 Mini Supercomputer to the public, with the ability to perform 117 TOPS - Trillion Operations Per Second. It will be interesting to see how/if this technology will be used in audio Modeling, Capturing, and Profiling.
but does the supercomputer run DOOM?
@@nintendoaddict12 Perhaps "p-doom".
The beautiful thing about captures is that it gives exposure to so many more sounds. Models are amazing but nit everything gets modelled. It’s so much fun to discover some gear in a video and most likely someone captured to download and play around with.
Obviously both can be incredible, but as a nerd, modelers rock. Especially when done well
very interesting. although I use modelers for flexibility, I much preferred the captures - a lot more clarity.
This is where Headrush is nailing it. Hopefully, all companies will find their own way to create Superclones.
Agreed
The best use case for captures is that you can capture YOUR OWN equipment, allowing you to take your specific and unique tone into projects and out to gigs in a more convenient format.
For example, I have captured the preamps AND the full amp outputs of both my BadCat Lynx and Jet Black amps, at my preferred settings. So now I can:
- Use them for recording, true to how things feel and sound in writing sessions
- Put the preamps through the FX return of the actual amp, giving me super easy channel switching and infinite EQ/gain settings with scenes
- I can do stereo setups using only 3 cables into the FX return of both amps
- I can utilise the full amp captures to go into any clean power amp, mono or stereo, using real cabs
- I can whack an IR on and put these sounds out to the PA or FRFR
I'm not interested in other people's captures because they never sound the same as they did to other people. If I want sounds of gear I didn't or don't own them I go to modelling.
nope,you can use any free or paid capture
In my opinion, the capturing and profiling only really makes sense for huge artists that want to take the exact tones of the studio recording on the road. For anything else it is probably worse than modeling, because the quality of the sound depends on the quality of the capture. And since most people don't make their own captures, they will get some online, which 90% of the time will be worse than an amp in a modeling unit.
Marry Christmas to all of you at Andertones.
I have some real tube amps, pedals, a solid state GTX100 and a Tonex One...all relatively cheap. I have fun with them all. I can great tones all the time. Some of the tonex downloads are perfection. No need to decide! They can both be great! You can still get a cheap EQ pedal with either and the world is your oyster!
Been a Kemper owner since 2015. Amazing device. Now I own a Tonex which I bought in late October. Tonex also does 'captures'. Bought the Tonex to run it as an overdrive /fuzz pedal platform in front of my Kemper and tube amps. Two weeks ago, I bought a Fractal VP-4. Which does models of overdrives and fuzzes. VP-4 does some of the best time based effects you can get, too. Probably going to buy a second VP-4 to have mono effects in front of my tube amps and in stereo after my tube amps.
Using the Kemper, you have their liquid profiling as a capturing option. This technology provides a modeling component to the tone stack. So a Kemper 'liquid' profile has aspects of both techniques.
I don't think there is any definitive better or worse digital platform. No matter what you choose, some profiles and some models will be great and some will suck. Picking quality sounds on either platform will provide the greatest satisfaction.
I like "models" as you can have "perfect" or "ideal" models like Fractal does with their "FAS" models.
You've already basically said it, but I also think of it like in modeling, each knob has the full range of 1-10. And profiling/capturing, etc., each knob effectively might have a range of 4-6, and everything changed is post-processing a single pre-determined sound. I originally thought that when profiling/capturing, the full dynamic response would be captured and editable, but it really seems like those aren't tweakable very far from the original. At least that how it seems here.
It is also possible to profile an amp without any cab or mics if you use a Two Notes Torpedo or the like. Then you can add any impulse response you like. That’s what I’ve done with my amps in my quad cortex and loved them enough to just sell my amps
Always great information from you guys! Even after 30 something years of playing guitar, maybe my ears just suck. It’s all honestly so great that I can’t personally tell a difference. I would’ve gone gaga for even the worst of this new stuff in the early 2000s, so I’m just enjoying it for the sake of having it and not having to break my back carrying that twin everywhere that I go. Anyway, happy holidays and be well!
Thanks for covering this topic.
In Quad Cortex, the models are captures that also include knob positions in the input training set. So a capture of an amp and the model of the amp with the controls set at the same point of the capture are likely to be pretty similar. There are of course differences in how they were captured.
That’s a great approach and the reason a Iile Hotone Stage 2, modeling, profiling and dual chains.🔥🎸
Clones/Profiles/Captures (done right) are still better for me....and we have Liquid Profiling/Superclones to incorporate modelling advantages (i.e., dynamically changing gain/eq settings).
what neural does is not modeling if they are essentially profiling every setting of an amp. proper component modeling is a different process where an amp is modeled piece by piece down to the last component and every single part inside it is measured and reproduced in a digital way
You asked the question modelling vs Profiling and Christophe Kemper answered, both at the same time.
Liquid Profiling.
You have a Profile with modelled Gain and EQ tone stack of the Profiled amp.
Watch the Leo Gibson video comparing a QC Capture and Liquid Profile of the same amp.
When using the Gain and EQ controls on both units the Liquid Profile is 18% more accurate than the QC.
Was going to write this. I’ll add Qc and Tonex you’ll probably want multiple captures of different settings, but to play the devil’s advocate here, EQ is always added in post when in the studio. Everything we hear on a record has been debased so much that I don’t really think it matters if the gain and eq are accurate if it sounds good.
The liquid Profiling was the first thing that came to mind too. I think regardless which you prefer, technology is getting great and we are all winning.
I wonder what a capture of a modelled tone would sound like, would it be exactly the same?
Interesting that it was really easy to pick model and capture on my headphones. But only because of the particular biases, not because one was better than the other.
I’ll stick to:
Orange cr120c (£200 SH)
Tuner (£20)
Compressor £100
EQ Pedal (£70)
Boss SD1 (£60)
Behringer Fuzz (£20)
Delay £50
Chorus £50
Tremolo £80
Phaser £70
Octave £70
Can do it all
Here’s an example of modelling that I’ve been marvelling at for a few years now, and I’m still spellbound by both the user friendly simplicity of it and the remarkable sounds, and that’s the Moog Model D synth App. I’m primarily a guitarist and I’ve tried several synth apps but the Model D is head and shoulders the best.
What’s rather interesting (and I know this isn’t so unusual) is how the factory presets pretty comprehensively fail to do the synth justice. I’d go so far as to say that though the presets do offer a good starting point, for me probably none of them are useable… I’ve created hundreds of dramatically transformed presets… the difference is night and day
Modelers are great; profilers are great. Everything is a compromise on some level. Real amps can be heavy, difficult to integrate into complex rigs, and less reliable. Digital gear doesn’t sound the same but is easier to handle complex routing.
They are all tools. Pick the tools that work best for you
Would be great if PRS offered an SE edition of that Studio!
The difference in quality of capturing between different hardware/software suppliers is still much bigger than the difference in quality of modelling devices. Also, there is basically not really a bad modeller anymore, but there are a ton of bad user captures out there. And a big part of downloadable user captures (especially of more budget defives) are captues of modellers anyway.
I have a QuadCortex and somehow I managed to have very good sound with Vox AC30 modeler and one captured pedal and one modeled. But the best sound I got was to capture my amp, so I guess I will have more fun with capturing different sounds :) Maybe the key is, that you take a capture with your guitar, your mic, your whole chain and you just make it sound the best accordingly.
I got 100 percent correct (not a flex), the modelled amps have an underlying tone/frequency that’s just there, that I can hear (bugs me a little, but it is what it is)
i like both modelling and profiling
🔥 Another good one
The thing to do with captures is have several all through the spectrum from sparkly clean to full distortion. Then you have them as presets that can act almost like you added dirt pedals to it with a step of the button
hi guys, great video! when will the supro delta king 12 be restocked on your site? it said it would be restocked today, but now it doesn’t even let me preorder it.
johns playing my guitar! nice
It’s nice to see him playing the PRS guitars.
excellent taste pal
I love my PRS Studio. You don't see that model out in the wild very often.
It doesn’t really matter how we get our tones is whether you as a player are happy with them. Personally I now use a modeller though have considered using a profiler.
The problem I have with profiles is that unless it’s my amp, it won’t react to my guitars in the same way. Modellers often have amps that do not exist in the real world which are idealised versions of real amps which often have flaws for good or bad. Fractal also allow you to change so many parameters on an amp that you can start with their model and then tailor it to suit you. I am using a JTm 45 model but with KT88 tubes to tighten up the bottom end flub the original model has and also get a slightly different power amp saturation. No such JTM 45 ever existed and probably would not have worked in the real world without changes to the circuitry of the amp.
I have considered however profiling as a back up plan by taking captures of my fractal and real amps too.
I used to feel models were better until I discovered Amalgam and their captures. Now I prefer captures. From a happy Quad Cortex user since launch.
I capture using my Ox Box, its great because there is a speaker/mic bypass which takes the unaltered signal from the amp speaker out. But in the end, I don’t care - captures, modelling, valves, solid state, I trust all three of my ears…
Traditionally I have preferred models because of the adjustability. The older I get, though, the more I seem to be leaning towards gear that has fewer settings. So maybe I ought to revisit captures. But I also feel that-for me-amp simulations may not even be necessary. I tend to gravitate towards either very clean sounds or "distortion pedal" levels of gain. I feel like I'm often happy with just a cab IR at the end of the chain without an amp sim in front of it.
As someone whos used Fractal units since 2007, owned Kempers and Tonex.... both have strengths and weaknesses. I could go WAY deep - but a quick summation is its down to workflow. Profiles are great if you want to copy your amp, or a borrowed amp to take live when you dont want to take the amp - copy what you have already. They are however a PITA to find 3rd party captures that are what you want - we all have different ideals AND the further you tweek form the profiled settings - the worse they get. MODELLERS are far better at creating a sound in your head, or a tone to suit a track perfectly - you have the tools to tweek to make it just right where profilers dont.... I prefer modelling BUT I use captures to audition real amps, and for specific iconic tones that have been captured.
DIGITAL JOHN
quick qestion for everyone here, I notice in this video that they are using the XLR outs so that might mean that they had to add gain to both inputs on their audio interface to bring up the input level. Would it be better to use 1/4 inch outs like out 3 and 4 out of the QC instead so no gain needs to be added on the audio interface as adding gain on the interface can influence the tone.
The model sounded brighter with the first two so I thought I had found a pattern, but then it was the opposite with the last two. Though I agree with the Captain, that the Peaveys were definitely the closest.
I guessed which was which for every one through the speakers on a 2nd Gen iPad Pro. I prefer the captures but agree models are more versatile. I'm also capable of making my own captures.
The real question is not which is "better" but: which is "right".
After years and years with musical equipments and instruments I come to this: everything it's fine by now in terms of results, technology had a huge leap forward and most of the modeling AND profiling systems now matched our beloved amps and old-fashion analog pedals.
But music and art is not a race, a sport or a quest for perfectionism, but a long road of experiences to share with other people building STORIES and life.
I still believe in the live experience of "doing things" becouse is the whole experience that are unmatched.
Having such a wide and potentially infinte choice, ends up trivializing something that is not so trivial.
There is also a risk of accumulation, a frenzy of possession that leads to paralysis by analysis and tend to be pure "digital feticism".
Having all the knowledge available on the internet does not automatically raise collective awareness.
Having all the world's music available for streaming does not mean knowing music in any better way or even listening more carefully.
And having all the amps available in the world in a box does not mean knowing how to use them, understand them, etc.
This is my very very personal and humble opinion and a personal stand which I try to stick to.
But I digress, so coming to the initial question: which is "right" for me.... today in the digital realm at similar result I tent to reward someone who, pushed by an enormous amount of passion for instruments, put hours and hours to carefully crafted, with great effort, sims and emulations to replicate something real.
Look (it's just an example) to Fractal: their amp wiki is an incredible well of researches and love for amplification... and this is an human effort I will embrace willingly, instead of a "cold" alghorithm capable of copying something.
Yes of course: create an alghorhithm is also need a lot of efforts... initially. But when you create this, you can go on for years and years counting on customers effort to build a community, profilling his own amps.
This of course are just my personal thoughts, I cannot and mostly don't want to judge anyone who choose/think otherwise....
The model has a brighter, more hi-fi sound, which isn’t my preference for most guitar tones. I think the duller-sounding "warm" capture would work better in a live setting without needing to cuts highs.
Amp pedals for me. I use a Friedman IR-D and a UAFX Ruby. So much easier for quick tweaking than either a capture or modeler.
My understanding is that a capture is a digital recreation of a specific amp with specific settings, whereas a model attempts to recreate the entire possible settings of the amp. For example, if you want to capture a clean channel of an amp and a dirty channel, you will need 2 captures for the same amp. However, you can do the exact same thing with one model just by changing the gain setting.
Sonically, I don't think anyone can tell the difference between a capture and a model with similar settings. However, if you're trying to coax out different settings of an amp, you won't be able to recreate the range of sounds with a capture that you can with a model.
Apples or peaches, which one is better?
In every A/B comparison you can hear the mic and cab and room in the capture. I prefer the way that sounds in most cases, as it’s a little more natural. But for the high gain stuff, in my experience, models are almost always more clear and defined.
I agree. I’ve always felt modelers benefit higher gain stuff and I prefer captures/profiles for almost everything else.
I think the winner is guitar players. It all sounds amazing. It's a great time to be a guitar player!
AxeFx modeler over everything on the market
besides Kemper....
I don't think the question here is important. Both can sound amazing! I was surprised I guessed the first A/B correct though😁
You can always identify the model by the low end. And I'm not necessarily sure the real amp has that. Models seem to exaggerate that a lot. Sometimes it sounds like there's a subwoofer lol
I'm gonna go out on a limb but after spending 2 months with the nano cortex, from what I'm hearing at least, the neural captures add a certain crispness that isn't even on the amp, even when capturing a plugin for exemple, the neural capture feels more like an amp more dynamic and alive, natuarally compressed and the low mids tend to have less muddyness, just like if the algorythm captures the overall sound/gain/distortion but then adds clarity, cleans the noise, adds some level of comp and eq to make it sound better. I ve seen multiple AB test between headrush, tone x kemper and neural captures, and every time, the extra high end crispyness made me spot the neural capture, am I the only one hearing it?
I hate to admit that profiling sounds more accurate, but it does. But in this is a big butt, they only profiles that I get that sound professional quality ones I have to buy I can’t get them sounding that good myself.
Just bought a used Tonex from eBay for 140 quid with a load of profiles and the license number transferred from the old owner. It’s epic… genuinely blew me away.
I've been using mine for about 2 ½ years now, nearly daily. Absolutely killer.
yeah i sold my gear and now i use tonex with amplitube on a notebook. PS: i am not a professional.
I actually just had the reverse issue, I traded one to a local shop, and they just called me a week later saying the guy could not register it to his computer, because it was attached to mine. Luckily I was able to transfer the serial number, but if they wernt able to get ahold of me, or I was not willing to work with him they would have been screwed. I am never buying anything from IK again.
@@Riley880 yeah admittedly the set up was a massive ballache, but for what I paid, now it’s set up you can’t beat it. 140 quid?! The sounds and feel are fantastic.
@@Riley880 Again not true, emailing support at IK they will with no fee transfer the serial number over or give buddy a new one.
Digital John!!!
In my mind a properly made model would be better as it should allow all the range of tweak ability as the real amp. Being that said I just tried the fender deluxe and JCM stock from ToneX One into a SS amp and 1x12 cabs with Celestions, it sounded great.
All Captures/models sound f**ing great these days. I use a modeller 5 days a week for gigs. After the initial.. ohh thats a new a thing I can play with wears off... You're back to the same, what tone can I use that's not gonna offend anybody! Don't get me wrong I love dialing in tones on my modeller but no one else gives a continental breakfast if I sound like Cory Wong or John Mayer just as long as they can sing oasis after a few pints....! If you're thinking of getting one do... You won't regret it and if you have one already I don't know what to say to you I've you're still reading this comment after listening to that!??
Maybe use a Modeler to play models and a capture device to play captures? Am I missing something?
Actually I solve for X with a valve amp/pedals/and few of my favorite speaker friends. Works every time!
That was helpful, thanks!
Great stuff! Thanks for showing me that they both suck hard. Nothing as a real amplifier. But I can understand that some ppl preffer give quaility up in favor of practicality.
I haven’t used a modeller that sounds and plays as good as a capture.
While modeling presents more options, I actually prefer captures because I know it will sound almost indistinguishable from my real rig...plus I think I'd spend way too much time trying to dial in a model to replicate my real rig.
I prefer modelling for the most part.
Would have loved to hear them in very clean tones; it's much easier to perceive the difference in clean tones in my opinion
I prefer modelling as I prefer more control rather than having the complete sound baked in.
When they bake in the cabinet the IR I can’t use it. I’m using my own guitar cab. It’s no big deal but I’d like to utilize the IR’s but it would probably take up more time tweaking and then I typically stay with the same one.
Huge difference is, if I don't have a relatively mainstream amp, there's no chance of me finding a model.
If anyone knows of a model of an Epiphone Blues Custom 30 with 61 Mallard Blackplates and a 59 Brimar rectifier let me know 🤷
Mullard - not a member of a "Ducks Deluxe" cover ban
I don't know why but I found all the captures sounded more "roomy" and all the models sounded more "direct"....no idea what that means. Apart form going 4 for 4.
Any chance you could buy DIGITAL JOHN!! a copy of SHUT UP AND PLAY YOUR GUITAR by Frank Zappa for his Xmas stocking? The case for analog artistry in the vain hope that the DIGITAL KID will evolve into the ANALOG KID in the near future. Needless to say love everyone at Andertons. You got me through those despairing lonely years recently for which I am eternally grateful. Merry Christmas!
Love them both. 💯🔥✔️
As a crazy amp collector. Profiling is better. Modeling lacks of roundness and and still has some weirdness in the 10Khz area. I see different uses for them though. I can profile the exact rig I use in the record and go touring, modeling can do the same but I see it more of an experimenting tool.
I like the idea of modeling better. Being able to make adjustments seems too valuable to me.
I really like my fender tone master pro, but the quad cortex is still in the back of my head for sure
Sounds like models are theoretically far superior, but much harder to get to even the same level. I'm saying that on the basis that it could eventually be possible to model all the components of a signal chain and not just the amp, so you get everything from a profile/capture.
Profiles will always have one big advantage though, which is that simplicity of dialling in a tone. Even if you did what I said above and modelled the amp, the cab, a mic, cable types/lengths, a desk, everything about a room and so on, you've got to be a qualified sound engineer to have any hope of getting a good sound out of that. As a qualified sound engineer, I'm going to be fantasising about all that for a while, but for most people we're still only just reaching a point where models are really better.
All that said, I've got a Line6 Spider IV 75 and my guitar has a broken mount on one of the pickups (and an 11 gauge E string, it's trying to bend an undersea cable), so I'm not really in a strong position to comment on anything sounding good 🤣
It all doesn't matter. IRs is where it makes any noticeable changes.
please put modelling into nano cortex, then I would buy one
Melhor musica do album! Obrigado por compartilhar!
Lee Andyjobs, Jonas Conman & Dutch Pete😆 Sounds like a skiffle group from the 60s😁 8:27
I'm anti model from being bitter about having a digitech RP so long which Andertons videos saved me from
No right or wrong , I personally prefer captures as they do feel more natural but obviously not as tweakable as modelled sound.
I feel like somewhere in the beginning they both took kind of a wrong turn with their arguments by saying a capture always contains cab and mic. Which is wrong. You can capture an amp and an amp only. Meaning you can connect a (reactive) load box to your amp and only capture the DI signal of the amp and it’ll reflect how the amp’s pre and power amp sections react without cab and mic. They only talk about that later in the video.
Yeah, there are some fundamental misunderstandings and a lot of misinformation in this video. It doesn’t appear that either of these guys has a particularly deep understanding of profiling, component-based modeling or signal-driven, machine-learning based modeling.
A deep understanding isn’t necessary for a guitarist to make good use of digital equipment, but it does help to understand the difference in control or tweak-ability that different kinds of captures and models give, and how much to expect can be changed while retaining fidelity to an actual amp.
models sounded better to me. thanks for this test event.
For me, models all the way. Captures are a snapshot. Models are more tweakable. Both sound good, but one is not really adjustable like an amp is
I preferred the good old days when you used to dip sprouts in chilli sauces
When IR's go full dynamic (Think animated response along the speaker and mic as well, rather than a static eq curve) that's going to lift modelling over captures forever.
Fender Tonemaster Pro, all day 😍
Too bad we don't have the real thing to use as the control. Because, in the end, if it doesn't sound like the amp it's modeled after/capturing what's the point of it? We can pick out the one we like the best, but is it a Fender or a Marshall tone? I don't think so. Because the two don't really even sound like each other. And for the record I like the same ones that Lee did. so, maybe it's just that it sounds better, not right?
The model imo clearly sounded better on that first demo- it was clearer, brighter, more open- the second one had a muffled feel to it. And the model was clearly better on the second demo-it had more depth and weight to it, the capture felt thin. And the final demo- the model wins again- it has more depth and bottom end. I'm going with the model 100% of the time. That said- I guess if you knew already exactly what you needed and you could capture that and not need to change it in anyway- a capture would be fine. So, I can see why professionals would use them to capture their amps and stuff- the song is written, they already know precisely what they need, and they capture that and don't change it. Makes sense.
Fractal the only one but there’s no UK retailers, the FM3 can’t do dual amp, it has no expression pedal, no powered version, no Axe Edit for iPad or iPhone and it’s too expensive.
I also think whatever you use. These modeller’s and profilers compliment players where as a full valve amp you’re on your own.
Question i have is captures require an amp to be made to be captured. Models can be made up from nothing . And to me that’s the future of amps. Not copying old amps making new ones in the digital world
I got to my studio a soldano slo-100, a Marshall 1959, a vox ac30, an old peavey and some others amps. An axefx 3, helix and also countless of pedals.
After more than thirty years playing I think the best sounding gear I have ever heard is my Ducati Diavel with the full titanium acrapovic exhaust system!!! 😂😂😂
Do a test between real Amp, model and capture of the amp.
What PRS is it that John has there?
PRS Studio 10 Top Maple Top Rosewood Fretboard in Faded Whale Blue £3999
an extremely nice one