Modeling is Dead? Why Modeling is STILL Superior to Profiling and Capture (Mostly)
For my Presets visit: https://johnnathancordy.gumroad.com/
For ArtistWorks courses: https://artistwork.prf.hn/click/camref:1011lwi3R
For TrueFire courses and All Access Memberships: https://prf.hn/click/camref:1100lqzr3
Use the code JNC40 for a 40% discount off all courses, or JNC100 for $100 off all access membership!
https://thmn.to/thoprod/585378?offid=1&affid=3252 if you’re impressed by the Nanocortex – try this link
https://www.patreon.com/johnnathancordy get my lesson tabs and backing tracks here
https://www.buymeacoffee.com/johnnathancordy – if you like what I do and
only if you wanted, you could buy me a coffee!
Get my PADs bundle here: https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=TVZN39QQAAKTG (this folder will grow, and I’d encourage you to ask for different keys/songs and stuff that might suit this type of preset?)
I’ve decided to make it possible to grab both my Helix/HX Stomp bundles (the expression bundle with freeze presets has always been separate) together – https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=CCTNL7P2XSQDC – I will then email you a link to both bundles!
Try my general patches for Helix or HX Stomp in this bundle using this link – I will then send out the patches! https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=45L8AZ4RYL3HW
You can get my EXPRESSION patches in this bundle using this link – I will then send out the patches! https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=3PUJ7M8YPS4WU
Try my patches for Pod GO using this link – I will then send out the patches! https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=2E7DSCRZW45JN
https://www.patreon.com/johnnathancordy get my backing tracks here
https://www.buymeacoffee.com/johnnathancordy – if you like what I do and
only if you wanted, you could buy me a coffee!
#Modeling #Dead #Modeling #Superior #Profiling #Capture
Originally posted by UCkL4v-tohdDZX7kzmL9b2UA at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIna_dR1CB4
![[LIVE SHOW] Where did all the good YouTube go?](https://justthetone.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/LIVE-SHOW-Where-did-all-the-good-YouTube-go-390x205.jpg)
What preset was used for the intro?
Tried almost any and all modeling you can think of. After a minute with ToneX I can't even imagine ever using modeling again.
What?
As is the case with a lot of things, the answer for me is somewhere in the middle. That's why I'm building a simple pedal board that uses both the Nano Cortex and HX Stomp to have access to the best of all digital worlds, with the flexibility needed to use captures OR models depending on what my specific needs are for a given patch or situation. With the midi capabilities of these devices, and therefore their ability to control each other back and forth, the sky's the limit
Please check out the Dimehead NAM Player! Would be very interesting what you think of it
What preset are you using for this intro?
Since the appearance of the UAD UAFX ANTI I haven't used my QC for tone generation. It's now the effects processor, switcher and balancing unit for my smaller pedalboard because physical modeling is so much more superior.
To Tweak or not to tweak…that is the downfall of modelers without amp clone feature. No one wants to tweak they want to plug ???? in and go. No tweaking necessary
I have had zero interest in profiling/capturing since its inception. Modelling always seemed like a viable technology, whether or not it always succeeded in sounding “as good” as real amplifiers, because it’s basically the same idea as hardware amp building, except using virtual software “circuitry” to mimic the behaviour of analog hardware circuits. But taking “a picture” of an amp’s sounds at static settings? No thanks.
Let's remember ; the average punter at a live corporate or function gig has very little grasp on the finer details of tone sculpting. Only other guitarists, ( and probably a few Jazz aficionados), can really notice shades of tone, that seem obvious to many musicians. If pushed, about 3.5 people out of any ten people listening at a gig, could distinguish the shades of tonal difference between a throaty Marshall, and a Fender twin with a mid-boosting overdrive, so why obsess over which Dumble sounds best, when only guitarists might notice ( even thiugh mist have never heard a Dumble live. As musicians we get overly tangled in this stuff, which is great for the manufacturers ( and for the entertainment industry bankers that already control the major touring acts) … and now they want to extend their greedy grasp over the simple enjoyments we all used to take for granted in function gigs and bar stints, by dominating cheap gear and low level sound production. Beware!
I've always thought that it's no sin to be ignorant, but it's deplorable to be smug or take pride in your ignorance. I must confess I don't really understand the hair splitting distinctions between Modeling, Capturing, and or profiling. I'm not prejudiced about anything that substitutes convenience for reality, when it's not artistically or commercially practical to use or mic up an amp and cabinet. If you're sitting in your bedroom or doing music for advertising background, or film work, I can understand spending hours experimenting with line-level processing and menu hopping to learn what is appropriately applicable to your work, but I can't understand that if the reason you began playing electric guitar was to hear sound moving air in a space ( not just in your ear), why anyone wouldn't turn down the kinds of work that reduce you to " having to" forego the things that inspired you to start. If you comply with tyranny, you are complicit with both the intent and result of any trend in the business that marginalises the creativity and mystery of true art. I have three children, and when I couldn't work in the entertainment industry any more because of the way it was going, I simply sat back and found other ways to provide for those dependent on me. You're either part of the solution , or part of the problem. Now, if you've grown up in a time of canned preset sounds, and by learning to wield them have found enjoyment and fulfilment, and personal artistic growth in the process, then good for you… more piwer to you, but to become the tail that wags the dog ( ie, the industry controls the art, rather than the art getting support from the industry) then I feel that is a shame, in my opinion. If playing with digital line level sound really inspires you … great! But why contribute to a trend that forces others into having to use that stuff if they don't want or need to. Nobody really needs twelve distinctly different amp sounds for any gig, unless you reduce yourself to be part of the juke-box machine that is from your descriptions,the way many live gigs are going. Each must choose their own degree of compromise in live work. All I have to do is find among the many tunes I've heard or can learn, something adequate for the occasion,and find a way with any good amp to get a ballpark idea of the sounds involved, and I can do the gig, without having to be subservient to some front of house engineer. Sound reinforcement is an added support to the onstage musician, not the other way around. Feel free to differ, but I'm not ashamed to admit that much of the scrupulous detail involved in programming sounds seems back to front in the natural order of playing, and I listen to this channel with interest to learn more of these tech details, mainly out of casual curiosity, and I listen mainly to hear John's elegant playing rather than how many menu's he has to plow through at breaknet speed , before I could figure iut how to switch on a computer if I had one. As a student audio learner, I had a 100% result in my IT exam ( 1995), but still found the process of fighting through MIDI sequences in silco, frustrating. Perhaps for us tech luds of the distant past, some basic explanations of what the hell you are talking about could be the opportunity for a learning experience, if it wouldn't slow down the incessant release of newer and newer products to extract money from young guitarists. I get that product demos are an important earn for YouTube guitarists, but I enjoy the more direct playing/ coaching videos bestter. Keep up the good work!
I tried the Boss IR 2 and the Tone X and found the Boss to be a better fit for me. It's simple, it does what you need it to do. I don't need to spend time or money chasing some boutique capture when I have all the options I could possibly need in the Boss pedal.
Nice video, like always. I have had Boss GT1000, Stomp XL, FM3 and, more recently, FM9. In parallel, I also bought Tonex, and now I have sold FM9 to get Quad Cortex. My humble opinion: analog tube amps are highly imperfect creatures and it seems to me that profilers preserve that amount of imperfection that makes them sound pleasing. And "unpleasant sounding" is the exact quote in the readme note of one of the most recent updates of the Fractal systems, where they introduced algoritms mimicking random imperfections to correct for the unpleasantness of their amp models. That was exacly what I perceive from modelers: sonetimes, expecially on cleans and edge of breackup, they sound hifi. I found, particularly with Tonex, that element of inperfection that makes it sound more real. Probably, with modelers you can tweak to the point of getting fantastic results, but, with modelers, immediacy is, at least for me, a win.
In all honesty, nothing can match the
Dynamics, Harmonics, and Play ability of the HX Stomp.
I had this Ultimate Preset programmed on the Stomp and I had been playing it for a couple of weeks. I was in hog heaven.
Then my Tonex came in the mail.
I played the Tonex for one week straight and then I tried the Stomp again.
Tonex has more Articulation, Headroom and Detail in the attack than the Stomp.
However, The Tonex does not have the Dynamics, Feel, or Harmonics that the Stomp does.
So, I place the Loop Block after the Nobels ODR-1 in the Stomp.
This adds back in a bit of the gooey goodness of the Stomp.
Lol I literally just did 2 videos on this exact conundrum. I sold my FM3 after hearing my splawn half stack captured with perfect studio sound accuracy. It broke my brain a little.
I caved and got a QC and sent the nano back so I could just consolidate both my acoustic and electric pedal boards into 1 unit and also consolidate all my pedals (except my golden boy drive) into one unit.
I loved the AxeFX3 and FM3 but hearing THE sound of my Nitro and Jubilee coming out of the nano made me never want to touch my FM3 again.
I guess bonus points to the QC for also having exceptionally good models and cabs but none of them sound as good (to me) as my captures.
Literally no one that is a working musician cares or pays attention to that talk
Thought 2: I understand what you mean about it being impractical to make a matrix of profiles that cover every possible configuration of an amp or pedal. You just have to let go of the workflow you had with modelers or with the analog gear. You can still get under the hood of your tone, you just can't have every sound at any given moment. But why do you need every sound at any given moment? How often have you used that drive pedal you had at a gig and you used more than two or three configurations of the parameters? You don't have to profile every possible sound it can make, just the ones you're going to use. Also, the only profiler or capture device I'm aware of that doesn't have a built-in Overdrive modeler is the tonex, aren't they adding that with the update anyway?
Thought 1: I used to think it was really pretentious when certain YouTube people said they think, "capture tech beats modeling every time". But then I noticed something using HX, UA Dream, IRX, and Kemper… every time I use the kemper, all kinds of people approached me with compliments afterward. And here's the kicker: in the kemper i usually run a profile I made myself of one of those Chinese Monoprice tube amps. In HX, I'm usually running the matchless or z 66 models. The Dream 65 is no slouch and the IRX is real tubes. It shouldn't even be close. That's how I know objectively that kemper profiles are better than anyone's modeling. Or maybe Kemper does something that causes it to sit in the mix better?
Yes, "ramble of bullocks", but we still love you. Thanks for the videos!
Whatever sounds right in the context of the music you are playing or creating is what matters…
I'm sure most guitarists out there can get legit use even out of an old Line6 Pod if just taking off the snob prejustice for a second.
Profilers are here to capture the combination of a specific mic position, cab and amp.
Modelers just make their own sounds.
I have had fun recording even with a Roland Microcube and Peavy Vypyr 30V combo.
Somehow I made those things sound better for my needs than a real Dual Rectifier, 5150 and whatever else I tried over the years…. Maybe I just suck at tube amps, but even Vypyr digital combos can sound pretty damn nice!
Thanks for the rambling bollocks ????. To start with, I’m not a pro muso. I’m a Helix user but I had wondered if profiling was going to be the way forward. It seems not. Also I find that the tweaking that you can do with the Helix allows me to closer to what I like, as per one of the points raised. I understand that some people want to pick up and play, but I’m nerdy enough that I quite enjoy the fiddling. It also teaches me about signal chains, not to mention giving me access to more gear than I could ever dream of.
Kemper combines both profiling and modelling (liquid profiling)..best of both worlds really.
I've used modelling since the mid 90's, with gear from ROLAND, BOSS, DigiTech and Line 6. Switched to Kemper last year, and for my 2 cents, I don't think there's any bad gear anymore. All the current products, even the older ones like Helix and Kemper still sound fantastic. Kemper's liquid profiling is a great addition, as long as you can get good profiles of course. It is a minefield. You can get profiles/captures of a particular amp and cab combination from six different profile creators, and they'll all sound really really different. Listen to a JCM 800 profile from Bert, MBritt, Top Jimi, BLittle, Guido etc, and they won't sound anything alike. A minefield.
Please, oh please let this loose into the cloud ☁️!
The best solution is to buy a Fractal FM9 and then insert a nano cortex (or Tonex) in the loop effects, you would have a Super-Mega guitar processor ????. Best modelings, and your personal amp captured, the best effects. You would have the latest in technology for today's guitarists.
It's what I've always said. In my case, I only have one tube amp and a guitar cabinet. If I spend 1500 euros on a Quad Cortex, the first thing I would do is clone my amplifier. And then what? IF I want to clone another amplifier to my taste, with the microphone position that I like and with the cab that I want, I have to buy them and do it myself because in many cases, what is in the cloud is made with the taste of another person and it can ruin the expectations that I may have about that amplifier.
That is to say, it could be that I download someone's capture and lose interest in that amplifier when perhaps, if I had made the capture to my tasting, it would be the ideal amplifier. Anyway, I use Fractal FM9 and an IR is a capture from a cab, which influences the tone quite a bit and the amplifiers are well modeled, I don't need a Cortex. Sorry for my english ????
Totally agree and I also think that a captured sound is like a still photograph where as a well written model changes as you push into it more like a video or a game. It’s why as a player of real amp for most of my 47 years on earth the only thing me that’s come close is the UA pedals/software….because they aren’t static pre-amp, power amp and IR they are fully coded “circuits” that react and the dynamic speaker modelling has real feeling speaker break-up. If you really know what a miced up amp sound and feels like just dial in an edge of breakup sound on one of the UA pedals and change ONLY the speaker sim and see the real difference the speaker modelling makes to just the breakup. If you have the experience and get your ears and hands really dialed in you can really tell the difference. When you were comparing the Enigmatic to the Tonex or whatever it was the other day @johnnathancordy I had my eyes closed and I could tell every time you switched back to the enigmatic without fail.
I’d never expect the Neural stuff to sound as good as what UA does in all its complexities. But likewise I wouldn’t expect UA to give me a ton of captures from everyone else. It’s really what ever you want these days. Pick one or the other or both. You can really have your cake and eat it too. For the price of a few UA pedals and a Nano Cortex, I can have more options than I ever could before and great tones to boot. Have fun folks.
I'd like to hear your thoughts on Neural's new thing, TINA. It seems pretty game changing to me.
Is Kemper mostly profiles of amps ? I know you can capture but mostly
I have both an axe and a Kemper. Kemper is my goto.
…is that PRS a one piece plastic or is it a 2 piece plastic glue up ?…
Try Liquid Profiling.
According to Leo Gibsons tests it's 18% more accurate than a QC Capture when using both units Gain and EQ controls.
The Liquid Amp Stacks are modelled, not profiled…so Profiling + Modelling integrated.
I think modeling sounds better still. I have the nano, tonex one and shot them both out through my line 6 helix.
A lot of captures seem distant and thin. Idk…. All I know is I won’t be ditching my helix any time soon. The nano is awesome, but was it neccisary to do that? Absolutely not. I just wanted to experience QC and the 550 price I could justify. But I won’t be ditching my helix or its stock tones solely
For the qc
Modeling appears to be more dynamic or reactive.
I can't prove this.
And yea agreed ????. Of you don't have access to the original and time with it, you can't possibly understand it. Captures to me really aren't anything more than photographs or at best mild animations of the real thing. A model is multi dimensional and will always give you a somewhat more complete idea of the box in question.
Nothing wrong with either, in fact they should go hand in hand and both if inspiring enough can do several things, either bring you to the point of finding one of your own – no small feat with vintage gear to be certain! Or in the hands of professionals you can at least try to save gear that should end up in a museum for actual daily usage…
Splashing out on a proper tape delay these days would be unthinkable for most , not just in terms of cost but space, portability and maintenance. It would be quite a thing if at some point you can capture modulation effects like we can drives.
You've taken an absolute shining to that silver sky haven't you ?? I'm actually starting to miss your k-lines… Come on ..bit of semi hollow next ?
Perhaps the best of both worlds is to use a few amp captures you really like and then use a modeling pedal for effects. I may try pairing my ToneX for amps with the new Fractal VP4 effects only pedal when it comes out.
Using an amp model while playing guitar sounds like you are playing a Recording of that amp. Does that make sense to anyone? It really doesn't sound like the amp in front of you. But it DOES sound like the amp in general.
modeling is the future…
I agree – I like to roll off the volume on a fuzz face ????
That would be fine if the models ware actually acurate and you could tweak them just like you would a real amp. But it is not the case.
I just started getting into captures and I'm enjoying it. I agree that modeling is a better choice for many things, especially the exploding combinations of pedals and pedal settings that is possible.
However, I think that one under-explored aspect of captures is the ability to do complex rig captures. Let's say that you need 5 blocks of tone shaping in Helix to get your perfect tone (overdrive, amp, kinky boost trick, cab, EQ) and now you want to have a second amp sound on your preset, but you're on HX Stomp. You're pretty constrained for blocks at that point and likely DSP. Have a ToneX? Problem solved — chuck the chain into Native, capture it 100% in the box (can even turn on high sample rate to reduce aliasing), and now you've dropped # of blocks down to 1 (FX Loop) and HX DSP usage to essentially 0.
You could go even further and add outboard processing — anything from real hardware rack compressors to whatever plugin you want, maybe that dynamic EQ for taming spiky transients.
If you don't quite like a capture, you can do capture-inception and do detailed tone shaping in your DAW and make a capture of the chain. There are a ton of possibilities.
You want to take some of your favorite plugin amp tones with you? Grab a capture.
I think modeling and capture are very complementary technologies; they are poor substitutes for each other in the grand scheme of things.
Play whatever inspires you whether it’s modeling, capturing or a real amp. In the end it’s about the music not the gear.
That lick at 2:13????
I agree 100%. I have no use for profiling. Fractal gives you over 300 highly detailed component modeled amps. If you can find the tone with those, you can make it with a little creativity. Not to mention the really cool things amps that don't exist in reality, like the FAS branded amps. Also, I don't simply want a snapshot/copy of a tone with some basic eq options. I prefer to create my own presets from scratch. That said, I was fortunate wo grow up with real amps and pedals. So I have a good bit of experience how real amps and pedals sound, and interact. That helps with building presets, since the good stuff like Fractal act just like their real world counterparts. YMMV