synthetic said:
A modeler can never be the same as the thing it's modeling, right? The best it can do it 99.99% or whatever but there will always be some difference. It might be "so close it doesn't matter" but I don't think it's there yet. Something about moving air molecules in a room that we don't have the math for just yet. I still feel that any tube amp + any dynamic mic + any preamp is going to have more depth, character, and musicality than the best modeler. They just sound flat and boring to me.
Most modelers are based on a convolution response of an amp cabinet. It's the same theory of taking a convolution response of a hall or room and turning it into a reverb. But take two impulses of the same room without touching anything, will they be identical? No, because of chaos theory or whatever. That one repeated moment captured in an impulse is not the same as the real thing.
A convolution reverb sounds OK on its own but it flat and terrible in a mix – you would assume the opposite because it's not as revealing in a mix, but try it. Same as a modeling amp. Every time I've gotten lazy and used a modeling amp instead of micing up a cabinet, I have always regretted it later on.
I understand what you're saying, and you make some excellent points. Especially pointing out how taking two impulses in the same room without touching anything will not be identical. I would argue that something has changed if they are not identical, even if you are not able to identify what that change is, but in a sense that is the point. Regardless of the reason there is an unpredictability in analog.
That said, with reference to only being able to model something 99.99%, consider this.
Two tube amps of the same model will sound at least slightly different due to component tolerances alone.
The same tube amp with a different set of tubes will sound slightly different due to tolerances with tubes.
Hell, my stiletto sounded different when I kept the same tubes in it and rotated them to different slots. I found the tubes from two separate slots (same manufacturer 12ax7) even made a difference (albeit slight) in tone.
My JCM 800 2204 is a 1989 and it ate my buddies 83 2204 for lunch, contrary to what the "purists" would tell you. He offered to trade thinking I would bite on the whole vertical input thing, I said no chance!
In a couple weeks I'll put together a blind amp test.
I'll do a shootout between a real JCM 800 and the Axe FX II on the latest firmware.
I'll also do the Mark V 25 vs the Axe FX and we will see who can accurately pick the real tube amp.
I certainly understand the pull to tube amps. As you can see I still own tube amps and LOVE them. There are more boogies in my future no doubt!
But don't confuse the Axe FX with your average modeler. Spend some time with one first! If you still don't like it, then I guess it's not for you. It's not for everybody.
But I'm will to bet most people will have a hard time identifying the real amp vs the axe fx in a blind amp test.
Give me some time (and an empty house for a few hours) and I'll throw that together. Will be fun.
