Can you tell the difference?

[DF96]

What worked?

It wasn't the levels, chunkiness or crunchiness... it's the fact that you can hear the granularity of effect running through an analog circuit. The tube sounds the way it does because the "math" is engineered into the circuit and is performed as often as physics allows by the material science. The analog circuit sounds like it runs as if there is water running through it (at the speed of light, no less).

Digital is while constrained by materials is also constrained by the speed of execution of the underlying code governed by a clock. In the end, it sounds like a clock made it. It has a check valve and minimum flow rate in and out.

I have no idea what you are saying here. I recognise the words, but the sentences appear to have no meaning. It reads a bit like advertising copy for 'high-end' audio.

 

[SY]

Dave, did you actually see the video? These are MI amps and their associated speakers and cabinets. As I mentioned before, the control is sloppy, and the conclusions are questionable, but the audible differences are clear, even in a YouTube low-resolution recording.

Perhaps this would have been less confusing if it had been in the MI forum rather than Tubes.

 

[DF96]

Silly me. I jumped to the conclusion that the flawed comparison was between sound reproducers. After all, this is the forum area headed by the statement "Threads about Musical Instrument Amps of all kinds should be in the Instruments & Amps forum".

 

[SY]

We were all new once and had to learn our way around. Note his registration date.

 

[Binely]

Oops

I have no idea what you are saying here. I recognise the words, but the sentences appear to have no meaning. It reads a bit like advertising copy for 'high-end' audio.

Apropos, the inverse equivalent reasoning is my own perception in this case. Agree that we think differently.

Dave, did you actually see the video? ... (edited for brevity) ...the audible differences are clear, even in a YouTube low-resolution recording.

Perhaps this would have been less confusing if it had been in the MI forum rather than Tubes.

I missed that - sorry for that confusion. Honest mistakes happen.

/shakes fist and yells, "You kids, get off my lawn!"

I will stay on the sidewalk from now on. Yes, the final quote is out of context and was intended as humor and I intend the same.

My mistake. Best Regards.

 

[kevinkr]

Don't worry about it.. I will move the thread to I&A since that is what I do..

 

[kevinkr]

As promised moving to Instruments and Amplifiers..

 

[Binely]

Tks!

 

[JMFahey]

No. Nor basic logic. Science and math "education" has been reduced to learning terms and names rather than principles and means of calculation. I have had my son's teachers furious at me for showing him how amazingly silly his lessons are and then teaching him correctly. He's old enough now to understand why his teachers are ignorant of basic science, which is a great lesson in itself.

Same here.
My Son is studying Industrial Engineering and I'm *crushed* by the abysmal level of education.
As you say, they get names mentioned, and repeating the proper one when asked will eventually get him a Degree , but there's no analysis or problem solving involved.
Useless in a Factory, maybe that's the point because there are only a few of them left and rapidly disappearing, may do in a clerk type job.

EDIT: back to the YT video: did my best but it beat me, could only stand it for 7 minutes and had to close it.
Absolutely silly unbearable "reviewers" , speak nonsense 60 seconds for 3 seconds play time, WTF?

Plus the test is flawed, specially for them: one amp is behind a player, the other on the opposite side, the third in between.
This alone DRASTICALLY changes perceived sound, easily by 10dB or more, each one will hear the closest amp louder, brighter, "moving clothes" , etc.
As flawed a comparison as I ever saw.

 

[Binely]

There is a second link that may be more useful. It does get a bit annoying after a bit on the first one... Just a fun experiment, even if for just the utility of bemusement only.

The main reason I took exception earlier.

 

[shanx]

Well, managed to get through the 1st vid, and then the second one. Something interesting I noted that the reviewers hitting strings at different force, and rolling back and forth the guitar volume knobs. I think they are trying to seek out the compression and saturation (touch dynamic) character. That's where playing versus just listening (even live) is better to judge. A lot of modelling amps don't quite have the dynamic response down pat, and as mentioned you have latency, even a few millisecond you ''feel'' live playing is not so live. That can happen with SS and tube amps too..but well designed they can have very fast response times.
I liked the Roland sound, FWIW maybe live I would like it more, but it had a really smooth overdrive. The Fender tube amp gave a little more grainy impression of the breakup, maybe relying more on preamp overdrive than power amp drive at those volumes. The mustang modeling amp, for the price range I mean- jeez not bad sound really! Would an audience of non musicians notice, or care? Not sure.

 

[Binely]

Fun to read your impressions. Yes, I thought that was silly that they were still playing with it even as they tried to stay objective.

Seems like the mustang, for the cost and effect is getting a lot of good press from these vids. And based on the overall sound, I can't blame it - it does sound pretty "clean" and while they dynamic response might overshoot at time with a bit much overdrive on the power stage - definitely a playable response from the sound of it.

If you wanted a tremolux and were willing to spend the coin, I guess you can't go wrong - but then there it is... one option.