They both sounded great. But I knew which on was the tube amp as soon as I heard it even through my laptop speakers. There's just this bloom you get from guitar speakers with some volume. The simulation is much more polished. I prefer the sound and feel of an amp in the room but the ability to get the sound of a professionally recorded amp is invaluable.
This was great . Well done and super practical. Last few gigs I used either tube amp, Joyo AMS direct to PA, and a Katana. Gig success had nothing to do with what rig I used. My enjoyment at the gig, aside from seeing the crowd having fun, was how well and how clearly I could hear my own guitar and vocals. Running a pedal-amp direct to the PA makes that last part easier to deal with. Someday I’ll upgrade the Joyo!
Listening on both studio monitors and high-end headphones, the most notable difference, and what gave it away, was the deeper bass response on PA rig. Both sound great.
That was fun guys!!! Loved how Chis reacted in disbelief 😁. I have a deluxe reverb too and a Quad Cortex using Tone Junkie captures and I like how smooth sounds in the capture but when using my Gretsch liked the real deal better. Great video. Cheers guys!
I've been saying for while, that a guitar amp is basically an effect. A mic'd up guitar amp is very similar to a amp sim into a PA. It's also true that the typical audience member will not notice or care whether it's a guitar amp or an amp sim. What is important is melody not the minute difference in tone that is important to a guitarist
The differences in tone are inspirational because playing with a tone you don’t like is distracting. If you’re an older guitarist who grew up listening to tube distortion? Many of us can consistently pick out what is the vs modeler by ear… … and tube vs profiler by feel.
Please, let someone who needed Straplocks on his guitar before he could play, say something about standing in front of a 100 watt Marshall stack that's over six feet tall. Oh... oh... now I don't have to.
Well ... me thinks - there is no better no more - you proved the quality of the UAFX Dream and the EV PA - gorgeous sounds of a great PRS Strat(y) thing and a great player either way Well done
Well, the question of sound... How do we listen to music? Through a hi-fi system, headphones or a PA system... And always mixed. We're used to that. It's usually the end product of sound generation. An amp in the room provides a benefit for a guitarist. It certainly gives a certain feeling when playing. But a well-tuned PA and stereo always "sounds" better in my opinion. Guitarist since 42 years....
Both sound great. Dream 65 solution came out on top for me. I don't gig anymore and my home rig is based around a Strymon Iridium, it's what I'm used to now. Spend enough time with one or another setup and you will become accustomed to the nuances of either and be able to coax great useable sounds.
ok, based on the sound quality alone, which is all I can do as a listener, I hear a darker, fuller (maybe) from rig B where rig A definitely had a more higher sheen to the over-all sound. The tone from both options was great, nothing to complain about with either clean tones.
Well that was fun. When the PRS was playing it was really hard to notice a difference, and I thought B was the tower, but when the Les Paul was playing it was a more noticeable difference, and thought B was the amp. Pretty amazing!
another crazy idea. use a modeller as a preamp/effects unit into the deluxe. i do the same thing with a fractal. you retain the feel of a real amp, but have all the tonal possibilities in the world. dialing in a bluesbreaker boosted dumble ODS + a nice spring reverb in the fractal and plugging it into the bright channel of the deluxe is the most godly strat tone i ever had
@@thierry18 true, but the fractal has all the reverbs ever + modulation options. it depends on how you want to shape your tone. but ofc, both options are valid
Great playing and quite differences witghout wanting to say if one is better or worse. My thoughts on such comparisons via headphones/monitors are that they assume that sound is primarily perceived via the ears. I'm right there with Kris. The last pub concert I saw with a “silent stage” (even the drums were electric) confirmed to me that PA moves air, but the spark didn't really jump over. Sure, anecdotal observation and could be down to the FOH or the band itself or something else, but it will never be mine. When it comes to recordings, I'm all in, great sounds come out of the digital devices or VSTs, but I also perceive them primarily with my ears, which I dare to deny at live concerts/playing loudly myself...
The difference is so subtle, that it does not even make a difference what you personally prefer. You can confidently go to any gig or session with either rig.
I knew the sim was 'A' before even hearing 'B', by watching Chris' micro expressions. His face told me that he was thinking "does that sound like the real thing?" It does sound really good, but the amp had more low end. Should have turned the Bass down a touch IMO, so they were more evenly matched.
I don’t know how to describe it correctly. For me it is less about the sound, but more about the feeling how the air is being moved around me. I prefer the punch from a real amp and cab over a frfr speaker/monitor. It’s a feeling in the room only for myself in that moment. The audience doesn’t care and the final sound is great no matter how you do it.
I tend to put these kinds of videos on while I'm doing something else, so it's kind of in the background. I only really notice if like, there's a stark difference in style or quality. So from my POV listening, both were quite good. Different, but not really a preference between the two.
My preference is both, and if there's some flaw or inadequacy in the resulting tone, that's why they make more stuff that can drown out the weakness. 🤘 The Hammond Scanner Vibrato really ties it together for me, but surely you could find something.
Through my monitors, they both sound great. I could feel the PA rig in my feet because my sub was working with that setup. The PA had more highs and lows. I love a high presence sound without painful frequencies so I really like the PA. I also loved the pedal into the real amp like Kris. From the audio, both sounds would make me happy and be usable. My experience with my quad cortex suggests the UA pedals will have a similarly responsive feel so I'd probably fall back to using whichever style of rig fits my need in the moment. I made a couple captures of my real amps to use for practice and writing, and play my real amps for having fun. I've been considering getting a headrush or similar to stream my laptop audio. Then I can use an FRFR for my quad cortex and/or playing backing track audio. I never really crank my studio monitors to try competing with my real amps
I like Rig A for the PRS and Rig B for the Les Paul. It has to do with how the guitars hit the reverbs differently, and and the interstring modulation. Unless your gig is at a Namm show, the audience will be happy either way. That DR is not a bad amp, but there have been through history many 2x10 versions of that by different people. To my ear that would be closer to the simulation.
It was obvious which was the PA as the room reverb was different, the amp was so much closer to the back wall, and the PA more in the middle of the room. It's also curious that each player prefered the amp they were closest to. C+, but must improve experimental regime! :-D
I did notice a delay between the action and sound in the A rig, the B sound more realistic for me… I mean, for me, the real difference between both worlds the truth is in the musician’s hands…
I love the full range sound of the PA - best take a stereo set! Most important benefit of the PA is its versatility… for singing, harmonica, keyboard, acoustic and yesss electric guitar this one rig will do🙉
I've stopped at 6:04, before hearing which rig was A or B. I much preferred the sound of rig A with both Silver Sky and LP. Whatever it is, that's the rig I'd go for.
At the beginning I thought A = Amp and B = The PA on the single coils, but the Humbucker gave me assurance I was wrong, the reverb of the B sounded more like the Amp so I changed my opinion 😂 I am not saying that one was better than the other (this is obviously about taste and what you need at the moment), just that the reverb on B was more characteristic with the Fender Reverb "Reverb" 😂
Interesting experiment, good playing, great job! Unfortunately, you cannot transfer the response in the room (the air movement), only the sound EQ'd by room mics. Rig A for slow clean sound is so much better than Rig B because it has a much brighter reverb with a longer decay. As gain goes up I'd say Rig B will be more and more preferable because its reverb sound and mid focus. But I'm sure that it is possible to configure both rigs to sound very much the same: just turn knobs a bit. Funny to read comments that state Rig B is so much closer to what they hear on records, which are closed mic'd guitar amp with reverb off (almost always) and highly EQ'd.
Huge difference in the sound. A. sounded wider, much more sparkly, and dripping with reverb. It sounded like a recorded reverb layered though. B. sounded much more direct, more thud, not nearly as much sparkle, and far far less reverb. I thought it was really easy to tell that A. was the PA. It really did sound like a recorded guitar sound, not an amp. Would be interesting if you could bring the two sounds closer together, if that's even possible.
I can definitely hear the difference between the two with headphones on and I prefer the EV/PA sound for me, is bigger and more full sounding, the amp sound is smaller, tighter and may be punchier. But over-all I love the digital sound with this rig comparison. I’m a bass player/professional sound engineer.
I own EVM12L and Celestion G12-65 speakers. I can immediately tell that Rig B was the real amp - the clear difference was the sound from the speakers themselves. Those small speaker arrays are meant for generic PA use, not just guitar - it is a sound that is not in any of the recordings of guitar riffs I have memorized over the decades.
The G12M-65 and G12T-75 are simply the best guitar speakers ever made. I’ve gone through thousands of dollars on so many different guitar speakers chasing that tone and found it with mixing the two different creambacks in a single cab. The only speaker I think might give the creambacks a run for their money (that I haven’t tried yet) are the lynchbacks.
The throw of the PA is the main difference. Nothing can cover a room like that. BUT with a band, the direct sound of an amp in a room is hard to be beat
When I heard the first demo, I could tell it wasn't an amp, and when rig 2 came up, it only confirmed the impression. Interestingly, I thought the single coils sounded sweeter through the amp, but I also thought the humbuckers came to life more through the PA. I think that I liked the single coils through the amp thanks to the mid focus and top end roll off, which makes total sense. Conversely, humbuckers are darker pickups with generally more midrange, and the clarity and "3D" airiness of the PA kind of pulled the blanket off. And of course, overdrive is gonna be nice through the amp. Just goes to show that you can't make a blanket statement here - people will prefer the one or the other based on a multitude of criteria and depending on "how" they hear their sound and what they generally listen for. Maybe what we need is not more new amps and more meticulous emulations thereof, but futuristic speaker systems than can provide both a full range response as well as a traditional amp curve, and you could switch back and forth depending on your needs.
I think a major difference in sound comes from different radiation patterns. With 12 inch speakers mids and highs become way more beamy than with this this PA speakers system. So it´s not even necessarily simulation vs amp that we hear but probably a lot of speaker physics.
I do high energy classic rock one man show. I run the tracks and vocals thru a similar pa system. I run a Tech 21 fly rig plexi v2 direct into the same pa. The guitar sound is great, feels like an amp including dynamics, and mixes well with the tracks
Same here The flyrig is on a pedal board…then my perfectionist dumb butt added pedals in from and after the RK5 I did not factor i. The RK5 played well with the pa but the pedals did not Final signal to DI fixed that
In my opinion, real amps are great toys, they bring you the real raw feeling in the rehearsal room. But when it comes to live playing, its just way more convenient to use amp sim with DI, it is easier to mix and when your band has their own rig/mixer you can basically plug and play. I still love the 100W head in the rehearsal room, but unless you are playing huge stages, they are always way to loud and crank up the stage volume to more than 110dB, on the one hand, thats rock'n'roll but on the other hand its almost deafening to the audience.
Listening with a pair of Sennheiser HD600 headphones through a Neve preamp, and an RME ADI- 2 DAC, I could not tell when the systems changed. If the guitar was played in a band mix, I don't think that there would be any audible difference. The UAFX Dream is that good.
WOW i really enjoyed the video. Exactly what I need it. Can you please make a similar comparison between Vox and Ruby they have the same level of "most popular recorded amp"?
Listening with headphones the most noticable difference was the reverb tails after the stabs. One was quite spikey and nasty compared to the other. Otherwise the playing sound was very similar. One has wider bass response than the other.
The difference is pretty high, especially with the overdrive is totally different. Maybe increasing the bass on the UA it could help. On the clean the UA is different but i still like it, but with the antique is fizzy….i had the same impression with my Iridium. If i have to go digital i get better tone from all in one solution (e.g. Fractal)
With the EV the top end sound opens up and blooms quicker. Probably has something to do with an 'Array' of drivers(speakers) pointed in many directions filling the room mic fairly quickly. With the DR you only have how the 12inch speaker projects outward. EV for the win.
Well, i got it wrong. In the first Set-I thought A was the amp, because it was focused and direct. Rig B sounded like there was more of a stereo effect, and the sound was incorporating more of the room. Weird. I think i may be reacting to the way reverb is being rendered, though. I am not liking the way the reverb is being recorded from the amp. The EV thing is nice. I heard one-or something like it-used for synths in a store and immediately felt it was a really good solution for that purpose. Wouldn't have occurred to me to use it for guitars. So... wait-it doesn't do stereo, right? Like, it doesn't project left and right out of the two faces of that upper unit? So, does it work well as a stereo pair?
Isn't the output of the UAFX amp sims a mic'ed-up amp (what you would hear in a recording) that will of course sound different from a guitar played through an amp through a speaker? in saying that both sound good
I could hear the difference immediately. The amp had more mids, compression and warmth. The differerence is small if you are just listening and the audience couldn‘t care less, I guess. But playing the guitar and standing in front of the amp you can feel the difference, that’s for sure
I preferred the Dream and the EV. I didn't care for the amp tone very much. The Dream is a great sounding pedal but I wish there was a little more headroom before it breaks up. My real deluxe amp doesn't break up anywhere near as easily.
There were two different systems? 😉 Both sounded very workable, I have no preference in this case. Fundamentally I prefer tube amps especially in winter, but if I were to live in a nano-apartment in the tropics and have to rely on a PA, thanks to this video I know which "Tower Of Power" to be top choice.
*OK, any input here would be great.* Loved this video. *My situation:* I'm contemplating a couple of different effects / amp modelers, like the Fender Tonemaster Pro. I already have some great tube amps, with my primary being a 1967 Blackface Fender Twin - obviously, a VERY clean amp. And neither of my tube amps have an effects loop. My question is, can I use a modeler / simulator with the Blackface to get a great sound OR do I need something else? I only play and record in my small studio, I don't gig. Also, I have a small PA that sounds good in the room - so, could use that. Use the Twin, the PA, or buy something else for output with a modeler / simulator? *What would YOU do?*
It wasn't hard at all to tell the difference. To me the amp had more life to it while the PA sounded like is was being played in a box. Plus during the clean portion you could here the springs of the Delux's reverb.
Once a microphone is involved for a recording to listen to later it’s no longer an amp in the room sound you are hearing. Only you guys playing (excellently) can hear the Fender speaker directly into your ears compared to the amp sim into the PA.
A had much more sparkle to me. B softer. So my preconceptions said A was the Fender, and wondered why you wouldnt EQ them both more closely so it was less obvious. So I got that totally wrong 😂 But I still prefer A on the audio playback, though only you guys really know what felt better in the room.
Well, nine-and-a-half Grand is going to postpone the JU 100 acquisition for a minute.. I have D.I. boxes that go in front or behind the primary IRLs, and those lead to various effects and amps, some of which are P.A. equipment. I could probably spring for a camera holder for the in-the-room sound. 🤔
Honestly, this sort of thing proves to me that guys like Rhett Shull are wrong. The amp sims/modelers, if you know what you are doing (and you guys clearly know what they are doing), just sound sweeter and more controlled. Yes, all the amp sims/modelers are based on real tube amps. But because you have more ability to customize and tweak the sound, you can create a sound that is so much better. We humans notice odd frequencies. That "raw" amp sound without any tweaking is just... not as desirable to the ear.
There's a lot of truth to what you write. I don't fully agree though and here's why. Guitar tone has always been perceived differently by the player and by the audience. A fine-tuned and produced guitar tone is what the audience wants to hear, clearly. But if you play with that tone on stage you might just not hear yourself because those frequencies that got removed to sound nicer are actually important to cut through a band mix. It's not the player's job to make the tone sound produced, that's what the mixer should do. :) A player should have a great and inspiring tone that she/he can actually hear next to a drummer, another guitar player and a singer that wants to be double as loud in the monitors as everyone else, haha. Cheers //Kris
I cannot believe im saying this but i like UAFX with the PA in this video better. And i was listening to the sound only for the first time, then watched the video.
Really like there are places where amps are not allowed? I think live music sounds more 3 dimensional when musicians have amps on stage, lately, I have the impression that live music is pushed more through PA like whole "sound picture" is built in two rows, that is in my opinion kinda 2 dimensional. I think it is better when PA is added on top of the band to fill missing spots. That way sound fills the room from multiple sources in the space giving it 3 dimensional sound, rather than everything comming from two rows of speakers. This is only for smaller venues, for bigger venues PA needs to do heavy lifting.
A sounded closer and B sounder further away. The Amp is B and it is a few feet back. You should have had them the exact same distance from the room head mic.
Amp sim is more hifi, not bad at all. Imo it all depends on your taste and kind of music you play. For trad blues rock, I will go with the amp with a little less verb.
Maybe some day there will be something that can amplify a guitar better than a tube amp. But if all something aspires to do is imitate a tube amp, it will always fall short.
Interesting differences. The Real Amp sounded like an Amp in the room. The Amp Sim sounded like an Amp in a Studio recording. For practice and performing, the Real Amp might be better. For listening, I definitely preferred the Amp Sim.
Except the sounds you’re hearing from *both* of the examples are recorded. The only way you would be hearing the actual non-recorded sound of the real amp is if you were there in their studio while they were playing through it.
Great Video, thanks for that. You could make it even better by making the player not knowing which kind of rig he’s playing … or even more better (!) by making the guy who switches the rigs not knowing … (think double-blind), and of course, try with 100players to make it into science 😊… anyhow, sorry for saying thank you in such a convoluted way 😂❤
The difference is in the midrange. PA has richer sound, more highs more lows, the amp has less richer sounds but has midrange where the electric guitar should be in the band. Both sound great, differently, someone will like more richer sound, somebody else will like more mid projecting sound. Just like you two guys there.
Not following too closely (I was reading something else while listening to the video)...there's a difference, but at this point just using another Deluxe Reverb would probably be as different as these two are. All in all, at this point, it's not "analog sounds better than digital" anymore, we've moved way past that (and my beloved Marshall Studio Vintage rig is gathering dust because of my Quad Cortex rig, sooo), to the point that it's more a matter of what makes the more sense for your own personal situation and taste. Being a gigging guitarist first and foremost, the direct to PA solution wins every time on many fronts (weight and general bulk, ease and speed of setup, consistency of tone in FoH and IEMs), it's also simpler to use for at-home recording...tube amps are still fun and cool, and there's nothing beating the feel of a loud amp in the room, but for day to day use, the QC (or any direct solution you might prefer, doesn't really matter) wins.
A diferença foi muito grande pra mim, descobri no primeiro teste, o digital tem o ataque lento e com menos graves, quando mudou pro Deluxe Reverb, saquei na hora sobrando aquele grave gostoso.
Although you've EQed the PA it sounds fuller, simply 'more' as Guillaume said. You can hear the deep frequencies of the subwoofer and also the more linear and hifiesque treble frequencies. And in my ears the PA sounded better. But the amp also sounds killer. So which would I prefer? That's a matter of the use case. What kind of music will be played, in what kind of room, at what volume, how many instruments are playing simultaneously, etc, etc............? For example the PA would be totally wrong for a blues gig in a venue with an audience of 100 people. But if you want to play slow ambient things like 'Cigarettes After Sex' with a lot of lush reverb or delay the PA would be better.
Damnit. I liked the amp better every time. I wish I didn’t. Oh well, digital is never gonna do “the thing.” Still sounds good. At least it’s an option. But, at home? (Yes, I can play pretty loud at home)😂
After one of the lower notes played in Rig B it was clearly the AMP. Amp sims always sound thin and lack the depth and harmonics of an amp. maybe digital cannot duplicate the randomness or imperfections generated by a real amp.
So I thought Rig A was the amp because it sounded smaller, further away, more roomy, and the reverb was a bit much. Thought rig B was the PA because it sounded more direct, more bassy, and it didn't breakup as much. So...what this shows is I have too much faith in a PA sounding direct & full. As a solo instrument maybe singer/songwriter thing I think the PA would work, but in a band context the PA would disappear.
Like rig B way more... the percussive nature and punchiness... it sounds real... sounds live... not recorded... more dynamic as well... Tube amps forever... 🤟🤟👍👍😉😉🙌🙌🎸🎸🔊🔊
They both sounded great. But I knew which on was the tube amp as soon as I heard it even through my laptop speakers. There's just this bloom you get from guitar speakers with some volume. The simulation is much more polished. I prefer the sound and feel of an amp in the room but the ability to get the sound of a professionally recorded amp is invaluable.
I forgot to compare, just sat here and listened.
With all tha reverb drench it doesn't matter.
This was great . Well done and super practical. Last few gigs I used either tube amp, Joyo AMS direct to PA, and a Katana. Gig success had nothing to do with what rig I used. My enjoyment at the gig, aside from seeing the crowd having fun, was how well and how clearly I could hear my own guitar and vocals. Running a pedal-amp direct to the PA makes that last part easier to deal with. Someday I’ll upgrade the Joyo!
Listening on both studio monitors and high-end headphones, the most notable difference, and what gave it away, was the deeper bass response on PA rig. Both sound great.
That was fun guys!!! Loved how Chis reacted in disbelief 😁. I have a deluxe reverb too and a Quad Cortex using Tone Junkie captures and I like how smooth sounds in the capture but when using my Gretsch liked the real deal better. Great video. Cheers guys!
Both sounds good, and without knowing, my money is set on Rig A is the PA, Rig B is the amp.
I've been saying for while, that a guitar amp is basically an effect. A mic'd up guitar amp is very similar to a amp sim into a PA.
It's also true that the typical audience member will not notice or care whether it's a guitar amp or an amp sim.
What is important is melody not the minute difference in tone that is important to a guitarist
The differences in tone are inspirational because playing with a tone you don’t like is distracting.
If you’re an older guitarist who grew up listening to tube distortion? Many of us can consistently pick out what is the vs modeler by ear…
… and tube vs profiler by feel.
Please, let someone who needed Straplocks on his guitar before he could play,
say something about standing in front of a 100 watt Marshall stack that's over six feet tall. Oh... oh... now I don't have to.
"minute differences in tone don't matter to a guitarist."
OMG have you ever met one??
😂😂😂
Well ... me thinks
- there is no better no more
- you proved the quality of the UAFX Dream and the EV PA
- gorgeous sounds of a great PRS Strat(y) thing and a great player either way
Well done
Liked both. I'll still always be an valve amp person.
Well, the question of sound...
How do we listen to music? Through a hi-fi system, headphones or a PA system... And always mixed. We're used to that. It's usually the end product of sound generation. An amp in the room provides a benefit for a guitarist. It certainly gives a certain feeling when playing.
But a well-tuned PA and stereo always "sounds" better in my opinion.
Guitarist since 42 years....
Both sound great. Dream 65 solution came out on top for me. I don't gig anymore and my home rig is based around a Strymon Iridium, it's what I'm used to now. Spend enough time with one or another setup and you will become accustomed to the nuances of either and be able to coax great useable sounds.
Great video. I've sworn by Amp Sims and PA Speaker for a while now. Sounds great, and SO practical. I recommend Yorkville PA's.
ok, based on the sound quality alone, which is all I can do as a listener, I hear a darker, fuller (maybe) from rig B where rig A definitely had a more higher sheen to the over-all sound. The tone from both options was great, nothing to complain about with either clean tones.
Both sounds are good, but man honestly: that warmth in the amp tone…that’s what people miss in all the digital units ✌️🎸
Well that was fun. When the PRS was playing it was really hard to notice a difference, and I thought B was the tower, but when the Les Paul was playing it was a more noticeable difference, and thought B was the amp. Pretty amazing!
B. The real rig sound superb. That drip had me making the Tube amp immediately. Phenomenal reverb. But Rig A is really nice as well.
another crazy idea. use a modeller as a preamp/effects unit into the deluxe. i do the same thing with a fractal. you retain the feel of a real amp, but have all the tonal possibilities in the world. dialing in a bluesbreaker boosted dumble ODS + a nice spring reverb in the fractal and plugging it into the bright channel of the deluxe is the most godly strat tone i ever had
I'm with you 99%, but why would you use a spring reverb sim instead of the reverb on the amp?! That's one of the best spring reverbs out there!
@@thierry18 true, but the fractal has all the reverbs ever + modulation options. it depends on how you want to shape your tone. but ofc, both options are valid
I’ve done a similar thing… I wouldn’t say the dream benefits from the tube power section filtering the emulated power section of the dream
Great playing and quite differences witghout wanting to say if one is better or worse. My thoughts on such comparisons via headphones/monitors are that they assume that sound is primarily perceived via the ears. I'm right there with Kris. The last pub concert I saw with a “silent stage” (even the drums were electric) confirmed to me that PA moves air, but the spark didn't really jump over. Sure, anecdotal observation and could be down to the FOH or the band itself or something else, but it will never be mine. When it comes to recordings, I'm all in, great sounds come out of the digital devices or VSTs, but I also perceive them primarily with my ears, which I dare to deny at live concerts/playing loudly myself...
Had it right, and preferred the amp throughout. The sim is absolutely usable.
The difference is so subtle, that it does not even make a difference what you personally prefer. You can confidently go to any gig or session with either rig.
I knew the sim was 'A' before even hearing 'B', by watching Chris' micro expressions. His face told me that he was thinking "does that sound like the real thing?"
It does sound really good, but the amp had more low end. Should have turned the Bass down a touch IMO, so they were more evenly matched.
I don’t know how to describe it correctly. For me it is less about the sound, but more about the feeling how the air is being moved around me. I prefer the punch from a real amp and cab over a frfr speaker/monitor. It’s a feeling in the room only for myself in that moment.
The audience doesn’t care and the final sound is great no matter how you do it.
I tend to put these kinds of videos on while I'm doing something else, so it's kind of in the background. I only really notice if like, there's a stark difference in style or quality.
So from my POV listening, both were quite good. Different, but not really a preference between the two.
My preference is both, and if there's some flaw or inadequacy in the resulting tone, that's why they make more stuff that can drown out the weakness. 🤘
The Hammond Scanner Vibrato really ties it together for me, but surely you could find something.
Through my monitors, they both sound great. I could feel the PA rig in my feet because my sub was working with that setup. The PA had more highs and lows. I love a high presence sound without painful frequencies so I really like the PA. I also loved the pedal into the real amp like Kris. From the audio, both sounds would make me happy and be usable. My experience with my quad cortex suggests the UA pedals will have a similarly responsive feel so I'd probably fall back to using whichever style of rig fits my need in the moment. I made a couple captures of my real amps to use for practice and writing, and play my real amps for having fun. I've been considering getting a headrush or similar to stream my laptop audio. Then I can use an FRFR for my quad cortex and/or playing backing track audio. I never really crank my studio monitors to try competing with my real amps
You can hear the artifact in the reverb tank when you accent also the mids are up on the rig b. That’s my choice for awesome tube tone
UAFX + PA sounds bigger but both are great!
Both sounded great and very similar. In a band mix, no one could tell the difference.
I like Rig A for the PRS and Rig B for the Les Paul. It has to do with how the guitars hit the reverbs differently, and and the interstring modulation. Unless your gig is at a Namm show, the audience will be happy either way.
That DR is not a bad amp, but there have been through history many 2x10 versions of that by different people. To my ear that would be closer to the simulation.
It was obvious which was the PA as the room reverb was different, the amp was so much closer to the back wall, and the PA more in the middle of the room. It's also curious that each player prefered the amp they were closest to. C+, but must improve experimental regime! :-D
I did notice a delay between the action and sound in the A rig, the B sound more realistic for me…
I mean, for me, the real difference between both worlds the truth is in the musician’s hands…
I love the full range sound of the PA - best take a stereo set! Most important benefit of the PA is its versatility… for singing, harmonica, keyboard, acoustic and yesss electric guitar this one rig will do🙉
I've stopped at 6:04, before hearing which rig was A or B. I much preferred the sound of rig A with both Silver Sky and LP. Whatever it is, that's the rig I'd go for.
Both Sound pretty similar. For the common listener in the audience without any musical knowledge no big difference
At the beginning I thought A = Amp and B = The PA on the single coils, but the Humbucker gave me assurance I was wrong, the reverb of the B sounded more like the Amp so I changed my opinion 😂 I am not saying that one was better than the other (this is obviously about taste and what you need at the moment), just that the reverb on B was more characteristic with the Fender Reverb "Reverb" 😂
Master EQ FTW!
Interesting experiment, good playing, great job! Unfortunately, you cannot transfer the response in the room (the air movement), only the sound EQ'd by room mics.
Rig A for slow clean sound is so much better than Rig B because it has a much brighter reverb with a longer decay. As gain goes up I'd say Rig B will be more and more preferable because its reverb sound and mid focus. But I'm sure that it is possible to configure both rigs to sound very much the same: just turn knobs a bit. Funny to read comments that state Rig B is so much closer to what they hear on records, which are closed mic'd guitar amp with reverb off (almost always) and highly EQ'd.
I use a yamaha dzr10 with quad cortex and with EQ tweaks at end it sounds soo smooth. And in this video I prefer the PA more.
Huge difference in the sound.
A. sounded wider, much more sparkly, and dripping with reverb. It sounded like a recorded reverb layered though.
B. sounded much more direct, more thud, not nearly as much sparkle, and far far less reverb.
I thought it was really easy to tell that A. was the PA. It really did sound like a recorded guitar sound, not an amp.
Would be interesting if you could bring the two sounds closer together, if that's even possible.
I could tell right away which was which. I prefer the real amp. It just does the thing.
Put a dynamic mic in front of the speaker of the DR. Then, plug that into the EV PA. BAM!!!
Two excellent solutions but from my end of the net, listening through head phones, preferred the digital set up.
I can definitely hear the difference between the two with headphones on and I prefer the EV/PA sound for me, is bigger and more full sounding, the amp sound is smaller, tighter and may be punchier. But over-all I love the digital sound with this rig comparison.
I’m a bass player/professional sound engineer.
I own EVM12L and Celestion G12-65 speakers. I can immediately tell that Rig B was the real amp - the clear difference was the sound from the speakers themselves. Those small speaker arrays are meant for generic PA use, not just guitar - it is a sound that is not in any of the recordings of guitar riffs I have memorized over the decades.
The G12M-65 and G12T-75 are simply the best guitar speakers ever made. I’ve gone through thousands of dollars on so many different guitar speakers chasing that tone and found it with mixing the two different creambacks in a single cab. The only speaker I think might give the creambacks a run for their money (that I haven’t tried yet) are the lynchbacks.
WOW, I really thought it was the other way around. Things are changing fast
The throw of the PA is the main difference. Nothing can cover a room like that. BUT with a band, the direct sound of an amp in a room is hard to be beat
When I heard the first demo, I could tell it wasn't an amp, and when rig 2 came up, it only confirmed the impression. Interestingly, I thought the single coils sounded sweeter through the amp, but I also thought the humbuckers came to life more through the PA. I think that I liked the single coils through the amp thanks to the mid focus and top end roll off, which makes total sense. Conversely, humbuckers are darker pickups with generally more midrange, and the clarity and "3D" airiness of the PA kind of pulled the blanket off. And of course, overdrive is gonna be nice through the amp.
Just goes to show that you can't make a blanket statement here - people will prefer the one or the other based on a multitude of criteria and depending on "how" they hear their sound and what they generally listen for. Maybe what we need is not more new amps and more meticulous emulations thereof, but futuristic speaker systems than can provide both a full range response as well as a traditional amp curve, and you could switch back and forth depending on your needs.
I think a major difference in sound comes from different radiation patterns. With 12 inch speakers mids and highs become way more beamy than with this this PA speakers system. So it´s not even necessarily simulation vs amp that we hear but probably a lot of speaker physics.
I do high energy classic rock one man show.
I run the tracks and vocals thru a similar pa system.
I run a Tech 21 fly rig plexi v2 direct into the same pa.
The guitar sound is great, feels like an amp including dynamics, and mixes well with the tracks
Same here
The flyrig is on a pedal board…then my perfectionist dumb butt added pedals in from and after the RK5
I did not factor i. The RK5 played well with the pa but the pedals did not
Final signal to DI fixed that
In my opinion, real amps are great toys, they bring you the real raw feeling in the rehearsal room. But when it comes to live playing, its just way more convenient to use amp sim with DI, it is easier to mix and when your band has their own rig/mixer you can basically plug and play.
I still love the 100W head in the rehearsal room, but unless you are playing huge stages, they are always way to loud and crank up the stage volume to more than 110dB, on the one hand, thats rock'n'roll but on the other hand its almost deafening to the audience.
I love these days that it's all about what you like, not "what's better" anymore.
btw I couldn't decide really, both absolutely useful rigs.
Listening with a pair of Sennheiser HD600 headphones through a Neve preamp, and an RME ADI- 2 DAC, I could not tell when the systems changed. If the guitar was played in a band mix, I don't think that there would be any audible difference. The UAFX Dream is that good.
WOW i really enjoyed the video. Exactly what I need it. Can you please make a similar comparison between Vox and Ruby they have the same level of "most popular recorded amp"?
Listening with headphones the most noticable difference was the reverb tails after the stabs. One was quite spikey and nasty compared to the other. Otherwise the playing sound was very similar. One has wider bass response than the other.
You missed the option C: Tonemaster Deluxe reverb. Would have been interesting to see does it land in the middle or has other way didferent sound.
Have you tried this kind of test with bass amps? I suspect the small PA wouldn't cut it, but if it did, that's very cool.
To produce low frequencies you need to move a lot of air. Big speakers are a must, not matter if bass amp or PA speakers.
The difference is pretty high, especially with the overdrive is totally different. Maybe increasing the bass on the UA it could help. On the clean the UA is different but i still like it, but with the antique is fizzy….i had the same impression with my Iridium. If i have to go digital i get better tone from all in one solution (e.g. Fractal)
Heard the difference especially with the single coil. It breaks up nicely with the tube amp, organic. The tower is good maybe for rhythms.
People thinking about common things 🎉
Rig A: PA
Rig B: Amp
rig A has a lot of flexibility for future amps, so pretty cool to hear a PA in action
Thanks, that's exactly why we made this. It's super interesting somehow. //Kris
With the EV the top end sound opens up and blooms quicker. Probably has something to do with an 'Array' of drivers(speakers) pointed in many directions filling the room mic fairly quickly. With the DR you only have how the 12inch speaker projects outward. EV for the win.
Well, i got it wrong. In the first Set-I thought A was the amp, because it was focused and direct. Rig B sounded like there was more of a stereo effect, and the sound was incorporating more of the room. Weird. I think i may be reacting to the way reverb is being rendered, though. I am not liking the way the reverb is being recorded from the amp.
The EV thing is nice. I heard one-or something like it-used for synths in a store and immediately felt it was a really good solution for that purpose. Wouldn't have occurred to me to use it for guitars. So... wait-it doesn't do stereo, right? Like, it doesn't project left and right out of the two faces of that upper unit? So, does it work well as a stereo pair?
Please can you guys do this with the UAFX lion 68 vs .. Greetings
Isn't the output of the UAFX amp sims a mic'ed-up amp (what you would hear in a recording) that will of course sound different from a guitar played through an amp through a speaker? in saying that both sound good
I also thought the A sounded better. I'd be curious to try the same thing with a more affordable speaker. like a 300 euros PA
I could hear the difference immediately. The amp had more mids, compression and warmth. The differerence is small if you are just listening and the audience couldn‘t care less, I guess. But playing the guitar and standing in front of the amp you can feel the difference, that’s for sure
😂
I preferred the Dream and the EV. I didn't care for the amp tone very much. The Dream is a great sounding pedal but I wish there was a little more headroom before it breaks up. My real deluxe amp doesn't break up anywhere near as easily.
There were two different systems? 😉
Both sounded very workable, I have no preference in this case. Fundamentally I prefer tube amps especially in winter, but if I were to live in a nano-apartment in the tropics and have to rely on a PA, thanks to this video I know which "Tower Of Power" to be top choice.
*OK, any input here would be great.* Loved this video. *My situation:* I'm contemplating a couple of different effects / amp modelers, like the Fender Tonemaster Pro. I already have some great tube amps, with my primary being a 1967 Blackface Fender Twin - obviously, a VERY clean amp. And neither of my tube amps have an effects loop. My question is, can I use a modeler / simulator with the Blackface to get a great sound OR do I need something else? I only play and record in my small studio, I don't gig. Also, I have a small PA that sounds good in the room - so, could use that. Use the Twin, the PA, or buy something else for output with a modeler / simulator? *What would YOU do?*
It wasn't hard at all to tell the difference. To me the amp had more life to it while the PA sounded like is was being played in a box. Plus during the clean portion you could here the springs of the Delux's reverb.
Once a microphone is involved for a recording to listen to later it’s no longer an amp in the room sound you are hearing. Only you guys playing (excellently) can hear the Fender speaker directly into your ears compared to the amp sim into the PA.
A had much more sparkle to me. B softer. So my preconceptions said A was the Fender, and wondered why you wouldnt EQ them both more closely so it was less obvious. So I got that totally wrong 😂 But I still prefer A on the audio playback, though only you guys really know what felt better in the room.
Well, nine-and-a-half Grand is going to postpone the JU 100 acquisition for a minute..
I have D.I. boxes that go in front or behind the primary IRLs, and those lead to various effects and amps, some of which are P.A. equipment. I could probably spring for a camera holder for the in-the-room sound. 🤔
nice,can you do it with UAFX lion and zero reverb?
Honestly, this sort of thing proves to me that guys like Rhett Shull are wrong. The amp sims/modelers, if you know what you are doing (and you guys clearly know what they are doing), just sound sweeter and more controlled.
Yes, all the amp sims/modelers are based on real tube amps. But because you have more ability to customize and tweak the sound, you can create a sound that is so much better. We humans notice odd frequencies. That "raw" amp sound without any tweaking is just... not as desirable to the ear.
There's a lot of truth to what you write. I don't fully agree though and here's why. Guitar tone has always been perceived differently by the player and by the audience. A fine-tuned and produced guitar tone is what the audience wants to hear, clearly.
But if you play with that tone on stage you might just not hear yourself because those frequencies that got removed to sound nicer are actually important to cut through a band mix.
It's not the player's job to make the tone sound produced, that's what the mixer should do. :) A player should have a great and inspiring tone that she/he can actually hear next to a drummer, another guitar player and a singer that wants to be double as loud in the monitors as everyone else, haha. Cheers //Kris
sure buddyy....🤣
@@jed1mindtricks857 , we found Rhett Shull's alt account. Enjoy being wrong there, Rhett?!
@@SamBrockmann Calm down buddy, you probably can't even play a c chord.
@@jed1mindtricks857 , let me know when you figure out what a C7#9#11add13 is there, buddy.
I cannot believe im saying this but i like UAFX with the PA in this video better.
And i was listening to the sound only for the first time, then watched the video.
This one was hard! I was listening to the reverb for hints…😅
Really like there are places where amps are not allowed? I think live music sounds more 3 dimensional when musicians have amps on stage, lately, I have the impression that live music is pushed more through PA like whole "sound picture" is built in two rows, that is in my opinion kinda 2 dimensional. I think it is better when PA is added on top of the band to fill missing spots. That way sound fills the room from multiple sources in the space giving it 3 dimensional sound, rather than everything comming from two rows of speakers. This is only for smaller venues, for bigger venues PA needs to do heavy lifting.
A sounded closer and B sounder further away. The Amp is B and it is a few feet back. You should have had them the exact same distance from the room head mic.
Amp sim is more hifi, not bad at all. Imo it all depends on your taste and kind of music you play. For trad blues rock, I will go with the amp with a little less verb.
Maybe some day there will be something that can amplify a guitar better than a tube amp. But if all something aspires to do is imitate a tube amp, it will always fall short.
Interesting differences. The Real Amp sounded like an Amp in the room. The Amp Sim sounded like an Amp in a Studio recording. For practice and performing, the Real Amp might be better. For listening, I definitely preferred the Amp Sim.
I bet the Fender amp set up with a Deeflexx would have worked better for Guillaume.
I thought they both sounded great, but honestly preferred the digital rig. The "real" amp sounded a little constricted at times.
Multiple parallel amps loosens up that constriction, especiall if they are not too underpowered.
I can’t get used to recorded sound - what should I do? I’ve heard the A is recorded from very first note;(
Except the sounds you’re hearing from *both* of the examples are recorded. The only way you would be hearing the actual non-recorded sound of the real amp is if you were there in their studio while they were playing through it.
@ so the A sound is double recorded. Btw I compared QC with Fender Fr-12 to my tube amps and heard the same
The spring reverb on B clearly better (darker) and amp like
My goodness to me the amp is just miles above. It’s not that the PA didn’t sound good, but in comparison the amp is great.
Yeah, I like the Dream rig better actually. But it was a lot less saturated. Real amp was cleaner.
Great Video, thanks for that. You could make it even better by making the player not knowing which kind of rig he’s playing … or even more better (!) by making the guy who switches the rigs not knowing … (think double-blind), and of course, try with 100players to make it into science 😊… anyhow, sorry for saying thank you in such a convoluted way 😂❤
The difference is in the midrange. PA has richer sound, more highs more lows, the amp has less richer sounds but has midrange where the electric guitar should be in the band. Both sound great, differently, someone will like more richer sound, somebody else will like more mid projecting sound. Just like you two guys there.
Not following too closely (I was reading something else while listening to the video)...there's a difference, but at this point just using another Deluxe Reverb would probably be as different as these two are. All in all, at this point, it's not "analog sounds better than digital" anymore, we've moved way past that (and my beloved Marshall Studio Vintage rig is gathering dust because of my Quad Cortex rig, sooo), to the point that it's more a matter of what makes the more sense for your own personal situation and taste.
Being a gigging guitarist first and foremost, the direct to PA solution wins every time on many fronts (weight and general bulk, ease and speed of setup, consistency of tone in FoH and IEMs), it's also simpler to use for at-home recording...tube amps are still fun and cool, and there's nothing beating the feel of a loud amp in the room, but for day to day use, the QC (or any direct solution you might prefer, doesn't really matter) wins.
Thanks for the video guys!
Was wondering what’s the pedal nam: big one with a girl’s face on it?
Thanks
A diferença foi muito grande pra mim, descobri no primeiro teste, o digital tem o ataque lento e com menos graves, quando mudou pro Deluxe Reverb, saquei na hora sobrando aquele grave gostoso.
Although you've EQed the PA it sounds fuller, simply 'more' as Guillaume said.
You can hear the deep frequencies of the subwoofer and also the more linear and hifiesque treble frequencies.
And in my ears the PA sounded better.
But the amp also sounds killer.
So which would I prefer?
That's a matter of the use case.
What kind of music will be played, in what kind of room, at what volume, how many instruments are playing simultaneously, etc, etc............?
For example the PA would be totally wrong for a blues gig in a venue with an audience of 100 people.
But if you want to play slow ambient things like 'Cigarettes After Sex' with a lot of lush reverb or delay the PA would be better.
I got the Amp sound just because the reverb difference. Both sounds great
Damnit. I liked the amp better every time. I wish I didn’t. Oh well, digital is never gonna do “the thing.” Still sounds good. At least it’s an option. But, at home? (Yes, I can play pretty loud at home)😂
After one of the lower notes played in Rig B it was clearly the AMP. Amp sims always sound thin and lack the depth and harmonics of an amp. maybe digital cannot duplicate the randomness or imperfections generated by a real amp.
The spring reverb in Amp A - I guess that's the real amp?
So I thought Rig A was the amp because it sounded smaller, further away, more roomy, and the reverb was a bit much. Thought rig B was the PA because it sounded more direct, more bassy, and it didn't breakup as much. So...what this shows is I have too much faith in a PA sounding direct & full. As a solo instrument maybe singer/songwriter thing I think the PA would work, but in a band context the PA would disappear.
Liked A the best.
Like rig B way more... the percussive nature and punchiness... it sounds real... sounds live... not recorded... more dynamic as well... Tube amps forever... 🤟🤟👍👍😉😉🙌🙌🎸🎸🔊🔊