Digital Amp Modelling vs VA Synthesis

[Soc Prof]

1. Which is harder to accomplish successfully, digital amp modelling or virtual analog synthesis? By successful, I mean sounding like the real thing. (I acknowledge that something can still sound good to your ears even if it doesn't sound like the real thing.)

2. Do hardware and software have roughly equal quality in each category, or does one approach have an advantage over the other?

I would be interested in hearing your opinions.

I stick to hardware (a Zoom G3X multieffect and a Roland SH-201 synth) because I like tweaking real knobs and sliders.

[trurl]

To my ears... amp modelling. Although in reality it's probably a tie. Both are really pretty convincing under most mix conditions, as long as you don't do a direct a/b comparison to the real thing. But I find I'm generally less satisfied with modeled amps. BTW you can tweak real knobs and sliders in most virtual synths if you buy a control surface- all the virtual controls are assignable, you just have to get the physical knobs ;)

[Soc Prof]

BTW you can tweak real knobs and sliders in most virtual synths if you buy a control surface- all the virtual controls are assignable, you just have to get the physical knobs ;)

Thanks for the tip. I should look into the software side someday.

[Plasmatopia]

I always assumed that the knobs on your amp-modeling multi-fx pedal were really encoders/data wheels....which are inputs to software that alters your sound. So in both cases there is software involved. The amp-modeling changes the shape of an incoming (guitar) signal with software, the virtual synth generates the sound from the ground up (and allows you to change the shape of it) with software.

Or did I misunderstand?

[trurl]

No, that's pretty much it. Most keyboards since the Prophet 5 have just been little dedicated computers running software. The early ones had more knobs, later ones less as there began to be too many parameters to access anyway, but that's generally what's happening. Then of course, companies like Moog started bringing back true hardware synthesis- at a price! I would assume something like a Line 6 Pod or amp is the same- it's a dedicated box, with some well matched I/O hardware and probably a real tube preamp in the amp versions, but the heart of the modeling would be a chip running software.

Again, I don't know for absolute, but I assume if you buy a "virtual" version of a digital keyboard like the Korg Legacy Digital Edition for pc, it really should be the same general sound generator as the keyboards, like the M1 and the Wavestation, just ported to a newer platform. The sound might be a little different due to the DACs in the keyboards though.

[Soc Prof]

There is definitely software in both, though it goes by the odd name of "firmware" inside a hardware synth or multieffect. Hardware will have a specially made digital signal processor, while software will run through your computer's processor. In theory they should be capable of roughly equal sound quality, but I'm asking what people's actual experiences are, especially since economics plays a big role in what companies produce.

[trurl]

Well, again I think the differences are more likely to occur in the peripherals like the D/A converters. Not that that invalidates the question, of course. In that case I think I would say that a fully software solution is at least theoretically better, because you have complete control of the signal path once the sound leaves the digital domain, not to mention how and at what quality it leaves the digital domain- it's just down to what kind of budget you have to throw at it. On the other hand, hardware will pretty much always be more robust and reliable, though hard to upgrade- you get what you get, whereas software can evolve. I think I'm grasping the question a little more now...

There's a certain apples and oranges aspect though. Basically, if we're talking guitar processing, Line 6 (for example) doesn't exist in a VST environment, I assume the Zoom doesn't either and Guitar Rig doesn't exist in a hardware one. There's no direct comparison to be made. I can't think of a project where a direct comparison can be made, so it becomes all about what sounds right for me, what fits my work style and budget... all that stuff.

[Soc Prof]

Thanks again for replying. Let me clarify a bit. With amp modeling, I was thinking of someone whose goal is to have a recorded track that sounds like they played a Marshall Plexi. Many guitar multieffects have a Plexi emulation, and I assume there are software packages that do the same. So the question is whether one approach tends to get better results than the other. I hadn't thought about the peripherals--good point.

The "apples to oranges" probably applies more to synths. I don't know of any hardware VA synths that attempt to emulate a specific analog synth. Sure, there are filter emulations (Alesis Ion, Kingkorg, and Nord Lead 4 all have Minimoog filter emulations), but this is not the same as emulating the entire synth. But there are software packages dedicated to specific analog synths.

Hardware actually can evolve through firmware upgrades. The Zoom G3 initially only let the user link 3 effects at once. A firmware upgrade doubled this to 6 effects and added several additional amp models to choose from--a huge improvement.

[Plasmatopia]

Thanks again for replying. Let me clarify a bit. With amp modeling, I was thinking of someone whose goal is to have a recorded track that sounds like they played a Marshall Plexi. Many guitar multieffects have a Plexi emulation, and I assume there are software packages that do the same. So the question is whether one approach tends to get better results than the other. I hadn't thought about the peripherals--good point.


I can't think of any reason why one would be better than the other unless a hardware manufacturer is motivated to skimp on the actual hardware to improve their bottom line. In theory I think they are capable of the same thing.

Talking about soft synths is confusing the issue because the sound is all generated by the software. With amp modeling there is still a little bit of "garbage in, garbage out" that is going to be a factor in people's perception of the result.

[Soc Prof]

unless a hardware manufacturer is motivated to skimp on the actual hardware to improve their bottom line.

That's the question. Browsing in the Gearslutz forums, I saw some people argue that it is too expensive to make a digital signal processor (for a hardware multieffect) that is as powerful as top of the line personal computer processors. The counterargument is that DSPs are especially made for audio, while computer processors are all purpose devices, so DSPs win.

[trurl]

The counterargument is that DSPs are especially made for audio, while computer processors are all purpose devices, so DSPs win.

I don't think that holds water. For years (maybe even now, I don't know) the Sony PS3 was the best Bluray player you could get because it had graphics processing that was far far superior to what was being sold in standalone players, it was faster, and for a time it was the only one with an Ethernet connection for instant firmware updates. The fact that it was primarily intended as a game platform didn't affect it's performance as a BD player. I think with the pc we have the same situation, and again you get the benefit of selecting your own preferred audio interface.