Will digital modelling ever replace analogue.

[pianoguyy]

Wait. They're actually replacing the pipes themselves with PA systems? Not just replacing the traditional manuals and stops with digitally controlled ones and MIDI sequencers?

 

If what you're saying is true, my mom will be crushed—she's played pipe organ professionally for longer than I've been alive.

 

My post was actually regarding the ones who's pipes would not be able to be moved. But there are all sorts of mods being done depending on the modder, the setup, and the bank account... 

I've seen each external button being wired to digitally produce the same sound. I've seen each pipe being wired to produce the same sound. From the outside, you would never know. Its all inside. 

Sound being produced digitally instead of mechanically, whether it comes out of the pipes or not.

 

Sort of how L6 has removed the tubes but still sounds like tubes. 

[maxnew40]

Horses for courses. I will probably never sell a couple of my old tube amps. However I am done taking them to gigs. I can get tones I am very happy with using the Dream Rig and It is a lot less heavy to carry.

 

-Max

[jandrio]

fact: nowadays all recording studios record digitally - analogue tape recorders [(Ampex, Revox, Studer, etc)]  r ..."historical museum monuments"...

so, yes, in recording studios digital HAS replaced analogue.

[NucleusX]

In studio's that may be, but I think this thread is more focused on guitar FX and amps, rather than the tech that's used to sample and record them.

[jandrio]

theoretically, the tech that's used 2 sample + record is the basis of digital sound representation (zeroes+ones).

[cruisinon2]

And now it's a semantics thread...lol

[smrybacki]

Horses for courses. I will probably never sell a couple of my old tube amps. However I am done taking them to gigs. I can get tones I am very happy with using the Dream Rig and It is a lot less heavy to carry.

 

-Max

Maybe this aspect is more important than anything else.  Since I don't gig now, I don't have to haul my analog gear to gigs regularly nor do I have to get the sound with it right once there, hence I am 100% happy with it.  If I were gigging with it, convenience would play a big part I am sure and so the lighter, more versatile digital alternatives would be more attractive -- especially in a cover band where you need a lot of different sounds

 

But this last part (cover bands) is interesting to me As a young lad when the drinking age was still 18, I went to a LOT of bar band gigs long before anything digital.  All of the cover bands back then used a few basic pedals and (usually) a single amp and guitar to do cover band work and we still had fun listening to them.  And in my own case, I could still have fun playing OPM (other people's music) as I do now too with the same setup really.  Then too, back then at least in my world (upstate New York) there was rock and roll, country and radio silence to choose from genre-wise lol...

[NucleusX]

cruisinon2 "And now it's a semantics thread...lol"

 

Well, the subject was started within the POD HD section of this forum. Just clarifying. :P

[cruisinon2]

cruisinon2 "And now it's a semantics thread...lol"

 

Well, the subject was started within the POD HD section of this forum. Just clarifying. :P

 

You're 100% right...that wasn't directed at you, lol. :D

[maxnew40]

Maybe this aspect is more important than anything else.  Since I don't gig now, I don't have to haul my analog gear to gigs regularly nor do I have to get the sound with it right once there, hence I am 100% happy with it.  If I were gigging with it, convenience would play a big part I am sure and so the lighter, more versatile digital alternatives would be more attractive -- especially in a cover band where you need a lot of different sounds

 

But this last part (cover bands) is interesting to me As a young lad when the drinking age was still 18, I went to a LOT of bar band gigs long before anything digital.  All of the cover bands back then used a few basic pedals and (usually) a single amp and guitar to do cover band work and we still had fun listening to them.  And in my own case, I could still have fun playing OPM (other people's music) as I do now too with the same setup really.  Then too, back then at least in my world (upstate New York) there was rock and roll, country and radio silence to choose from genre-wise lol...

 

I played in cover bands back in the 80s and saw a lot of them too. We never were able to cop all the tones from the records. We did the best we could with an amp and a couple of pedals, Most cover bands I saw back then ended playing all their songs with 3 or 4 main tones.

 

-Max

[pianoguyy]

fact: nowadays all recording studios record digitally - analogue tape recorders [(Ampex, Revox, Studer, etc)]  r ..."historical museum monuments"...

so, yes, in recording studios digital HAS replaced analogue.

 

That is something I often bring up about modern music, and the debate over record vs cd. 

It's not just the fact that you are listening on an mp3 vs vinyl. Its the fact that even at the studio level, things get computerized.  

Every beat is synchronized/quantized. Every note is precisely in tune. Every volume meticulously leveled. 

 

Even guys here, you can read their comments. They play a straight signal to record, and then decide which fake amp and fx sounds best later. 

[pianoguyy]

 

But this last part (cover bands) is interesting to me As a young lad when the drinking age was still 18, I went to a LOT of bar band gigs long before anything digital.  All of the cover bands back then used a few basic pedals and (usually) a single amp and guitar to do cover band work and we still had fun listening to them.  And in my own case, I could still have fun playing OPM (other people's music) as I do now too with the same setup really.  Then too, back then at least in my world (upstate New York) there was rock and roll, country and radio silence to choose from genre-wise lol...

 

But PA systems are a lot cleaner now too. You can get loud, but clear sounds out of them. So, an audience hears a lot more 'tone' than they used to at that level. 

Plus, I think a big difference between then and now is the fact that --- Times have changed.

Most of the bar bands that play your standard rock, country, or metal will make a choice of one amp. A clean sound and a dirty sound. 

Yet some of the more modern rock uses a lot of chugga chugga type of sounds, and echos and harmonies. So they need more access to sounds. 

 

But your typical top 40/pop band. I mean, wow, what a selection they have. One minute you are doing disco type stuff (Maroon 5 - Moves Like Jagger), and the next you are doing a heavy metal version of Lady Gaga, which will be followed by the Use Your Love (brought back by Katy Perry). Bang Bang Bang, 1 2 3, all songs needing something different one right after another.

Its not like using the same distorted sound to play both Poison and KISS. You can get away with that. But you can't get away with the same sound for that other stuff.

[joel_brown]

Back in day (yeah I'm over 50) it still took quite a few pedals.  You still had to have chorus, compressor, boost, distortion, delay, reverb, and noise gate, plus switching between pre-amp A and B for clean and crunch.  Pedals were still expensive, noisy, broke down, cables failed, and you couldn't just press one button and get the tone you wanted.  It was a tap dance sometimes.  I still have my Marshall amps but now I use the PODHD as a digital pre-amp and digital FX and press one button to change a bunch of things at once.  And unlike pedals, the PODHD saves my settings.  Every gig I used to check the pedals and make sure the knobs were in the right location.

[duncann]

Back in day (yeah I'm over 50) it still took quite a few pedals.  You still had to have chorus, compressor, boost, distortion, delay, reverb, and noise gate, plus switching between pre-amp A and B for clean and crunch.  Pedals were still expensive, noisy, broke down, cables failed, and you couldn't just press one button and get the tone you wanted.  It was a tap dance sometimes.  I still have my Marshall amps but now I use the PODHD as a digital pre-amp and digital FX and press one button to change a bunch of things at once.  And unlike pedals, the PODHD saves my settings.  Every gig I used to check the pedals and make sure the knobs were in the right location.

 

This actually sounds something along the lines of having to get up to change the channel on the television.

[joel_brown]

More like the very early days of T.V. when you had to get up to change the channel, adjust the rabbit ears to get a clear picture, then adjust the vertical hold, then tweak the volume, and of course bang the side of the T.V. a few times just for good measure.  This was for EVERY TIME you changed the channel.  Oh and it was black and white...

 

"Back In The Day" kind'a sucked sometimes. 

[duncann]

Funny. But it only sucks(ed) in a retrospective sense.

[radatats]

I remember when crusty old diehards used to say "this digital video in a box stuff will never replace analog live stage performance, it just doesn't have that 'actor in the room' feel to it..."   lol...

[pianoguyy]

TV

1. I use TV more like a radio. Its on and I hear the stories. But there are very few shows that get me to watch. 

2. I hate digital television signals. First, because of the time it takes to load a station when you change the channel. Scrolling takes forever. But also because, when a signal goes bad, you usually lose everything. You used to be able to get a fuzzy view when there was a problem. Now, you get nothing.

The on-screen channel menus and things like that are nice. But if I just wanted to flip back and forth, its a drag. 

3. I still use VHS (in addition to other mediums). 

4. New tv technology (plasma, lcd, etc) does not last as long as CRT. I have 30 year old CRT's that have never been a problem. Yet, I've replaced many Plasma and LCD televisions and computer monitors.  

[radatats]

TV

1. I use TV more like a radio. Its on and I hear the stories. But there are very few shows that get me to watch. 

2. I hate digital television signals. First, because of the time it takes to load a station when you change the channel. Scrolling takes forever. But also because, when a signal goes bad, you usually lose everything. You used to be able to get a fuzzy view when there was a problem. Now, you get nothing.

The on-screen channel menus and things like that are nice. But if I just wanted to flip back and forth, its a drag. 

3. I still use VHS (in addition to other mediums). 

4. New tv technology (plasma, lcd, etc) does not last as long as CRT. I have 30 year old CRT's that have never been a problem. Yet, I've replaced many Plasma and LCD televisions and computer monitors.  

 

no doubt about it, you definitely sit in that crusty old diehard category...  lol...  switch to FiOS...  and you couldn't pay me to watch a CRT ever again...

[pianoguyy]

no doubt about it, you definitely sit in that crusty old diehard category...  lol...  switch to FiOS...  and you couldn't pay me to watch a CRT ever again...

I have mutliple tvs in multiple homes. 

Main viewing tv in each location is always a big screen. So, no, its not a CRT. But I am not going to throw out a perfectly working CRT when I could just put it in a bedroom or kitchen where a 13-32" screen is more than satisfactory. 

 

Usually, how I work it is --- 

when something breaks and needs replaced, I will shuffle all current inventory around. So, in theory, if space permits, I end up with a new big screen as my main viewing tv, and my current main tv in a bedroom, the bedroom in the kitchen, and so on and so forth. 

 

Obviously, I don't need a 42" in the bathroom. So that rules out the possibility of shifting the screens under all circumstances. lol 

[joel_brown]

But yet your tag line talks about wanting to use your phone or tablet to run your POD.  So I guess you like technology but don't like to admit it ?  hehe...

[NucleusX]

There are some die-hards out there that will still argue that a CRT television produces a better picture than most digital televisions today.

And to some degree, alot would agree with that, since CRT televisions have spectacular response times and contrast ratio's in comparison.

When digital televisions (like modellers) where first introduced, their quality results where clearly inferior, and still yet to catch up in certain

aspects of the underlying technologies to surpass CRT in EVERY specification. http://www.displaymate.com/crtvslcd.html

[Mr_Arkadin]

There are some die-hards out there that will still argue that a CRT television produces a better picture than most digital televisions today.

And to some degree, alot would agree with that, since CRT televisions have spectacular response times and contrast ratio's in comparison.

When digital televisions (like modellers) where first introduced, their quality results where clearly inferior, and still yet to catch up in certain

aspects of the underlying technologies to surpass CRT in EVERY specification. http://www.displaymate.com/crtvslcd.html

As it happens I work in professional broadcast television in the UK and yes we still regard CRT (or 'glass monitor' as we refer to them) as the level the plasma a etc. have to to attain.

 

For audio they are necessary to judge audio sync to picture (all flat screens have some processing delay) and for colour grading they are obviously preferred as trying to judge exposure and colour balance on flat screens is a crapshoot. In my department I don't get the luxury of CRT so I'm often asking people to 'check it on glass'.

 

There are some very expensive OLED monitors that are supposed to be what we call Grade One but I think they're at least £50,000 and still have the sync issues.

 

So ironically it seems all our technical advances are aiming to get us back to where we already were with CRT.

[NucleusX]

Mr_Arkadin  "So ironically it seems all our technical advances are aiming to get us back to where we already were with CRT." 

 

Exactly, and it seems there's many parallels of the digital vs analogue debate in different technologies where digital still hasn't surpassed analogue in all specifications.

[Mr_Arkadin]

Mr_Arkadin  "So ironically it seems all our technical advances are aiming to get us back to where we already were with CRT." 

 

Exactly, and it seems there's many parallels of the digital vs analogue debate in different technologies where digital still hasn't surpassed analogue in all specifications.

 

 

But at least us musicians were left with a choice, we don't have government bodies deciding what direction equipment is going to go. Buying and using a CRT, whilst not impossible, is fairly difficult now, whereas there are many modern valve amps available. Mind you, wide screen CRTs were friggin' huge. I had my 4:3 Sony trinitron up until about three years ago, that's how much I thought the picture was better.

 

Sometimes it feels like the old NASA joke about spending millions developing an ink pen that could write in zero gravity, whilst the Russians used a pencil!

[NucleusX]

Its one thing to trick the senses and muddle through blind tests, its another when these things are scrutinized and analysed with

oscilloscopes and specification measurements are made with proper test equipment. This is where digital flaws become apparent.

 

Mr_Arkadin "Sometimes it feels like the old NASA joke about spending millions developing an ink pen that could write in zero

gravity, whilst the Russians used a pencil!"

 

:lol: Brilliant analogy to this subject.

[radatats]

good points all but the question was never "will digital surpass or exceed analog in specifications" (even though that may happen at some point in time) it was "will digital ever REPLACE analog" and clearly for tv at least, that is the case and also for hifi and I dare say soon enough for our subject matter as well...

[NucleusX]

You would like to think "surpassing" would be the main reason to "replace" a technology. Why would anything be replaced with something inferior ?

Common sense would suggest that these 2 definitions are inextricably linked in the context of progress, regardless of contradictive examples.

[cruisinon2]

You would like to think "surpassing" would be the main reason to "replace" a technology. Why would anything be replaced with something inferior ?

 

Or entire economy is based on this premise...cheap, mass produced crap with a deliberately short lifespan, guaranteeing that you will replace everything you own a dozen times over before you finally crap out yourself. The fact that "they don't make anything like they used to", is not an accident.

[radatats]

unfortunately surpassing or exceeding current technical standards of excellence is not the main factor driving the changes in majority acceptance. It is always accompanied by factors such as appearance, cost, functionality, ease of use, physical size, etc.  When presented with a less technically perfect product that exceeds on all those other levels, well you know which way the consumer will go...  They sell far more Honda Civics than Mercedes AMG's for example...

[duncann]

... before you finally crap out yourself.

One day, even this will be replaceable. First by analogs, then by digital simulacrums. Will the digitals be better? But more importantly, will the digitals be better guitar players? And what will the coexisting analogs think of their digital counterparts? Will the analogs be referred to as cellular snobs?

[cruisinon2]

One day, even this will be replaceable. First by analogs, then by digital simulacrums. Will the digitals be better? But more importantly, will the digitals be better guitar players? And what will the coexisting analogs think of their digital counterparts? Will the analogs be referred to as cellular snobs?

As long as digital me can be a bit taller, it's all good...

[Mainframemac]

The question will modeling replace analog for me is a resounding YES!

I have a unique perspective on this subject I would like to share, however, I am afraid this will turn into quite a tall read so hang on.

 

30 years ago I started out playing electric, late 60's Tele with a center pickup added, Fender twin reverb amp with JBL speakers, and half dozen pedals, I remember having a jolly good time managing buzzing, hissing unpredictable volume changes and the sheer enjoyment of lugging around sensitive HEAVY pieces that were completely reliant on a few glowing tubes was more than a little rough! But the few "tones" I had sounded OH SO GOOD! However, managing sound back then seemed like something that would never happen (at least at the level of venues I was involved with) which ultimately had a lot to do with me backing away from playing anywhere but the basement or jamming with friends.

 

I fully understand what some posters refer to a "feel" with their analog rig but I want to fast forward to my current situation, not a smokey bar or wedding, not a small venue with borrowed PA equipment like the old days, I play in a church praise band, a hybrid band/orchestra with trumpets, violins, electric piano, keyboards, tuba and more, base, rhythm player and me doing leads .

 

This is one of those HUGE churches with a full stage, lights everywhere and a sound system to die for, we use avioms for monitors for the rotating 6 front singers and the base, digital drums me etc, the brass section has some type of overhead monitor system that rains sound down on them and the choir background singers from above.

 

Surprisingly (and much to my delight) these people are all about hearing the lead guitar, I am surprised how loud they have me out in the "house" and in the overheads for the brass to hear, although the horns are just so naturally loud they don't need miked or anything just the violins and recorder.

 

This brings me to the modeling solution, now keep in mind I have only been playing at this location for 3 months, before this I had been playing in a handful of smaller churches. I had my Hd500x and JTV 69 (and sometimes I use a Tele modern player HSS) all plugged straight into the boards of all the different locations at various times. Although I always thought (and many people around) the smaller churches with respectable sound systems in their own right my pod system sounded pretty good.

But OH WOW does my set up sound good through the high end sound system I am currently playing through, I am telling you the difference was literally stunning! Playing with all the sounds, acoustic, banjo, strat, tele, Les Paul, etc is just a thrill! 

 

The rich clean sounds I get are just unreal, and all at the push of a footswitch, mixing all the effects and set lists and being able to SAVE them, share them and tweak them from week to week is of value beyond measure. Not to mention, my whole rig is carried in with 2 hands, one trip from the car.

 

I honestly don't know how long I will be playing with these folks, they are fabulous people and treat me very well but we play 2 services on Sunday and I must say it is a lot of work, we also rehearse Thurs for an hour and Sunday am before the first device.

 

But my biggest point to all this rambling is my accidental discovery of how well the line 6 modeling rig sounds through a high end venue. One of my favorite distortion lead tones is one I got from the Lincoln Brewster site he mixed up and shares with everyone. Man does it sound good! If you ad in the convienience of the pedal board mode and light weight of it I think Line 6 has hit a home run on modeling period.  I am hooked and could not easily go back.

[NucleusX]

cruisinon2

 

"Or entire economy is based on this premise...cheap, mass produced crap with a deliberately short lifespan, guaranteeing that you will replace everything you own a dozen times over before you finally crap out yourself. The fact that "they don't make anything like they used to", is not an accident."

 

Sounds to me like your describing the "Planned Obsolescence" business model.

[joel_brown]

So what was the consensus ?  Will digital replace analogue ?  I still see people riding horses, just a lot more driving cars.  Haven't seen an 8track lately but record players have turned into a musical instrument ;-)

[innovine]

Lets replace the singer with a speech synthesizer while we're at it. All the same arguments apply.

[cruisinon2]

Lets replace the singer with a speech synthesizer while we're at it. All the same arguments apply.

 

That will be the next generation of auto-tune. Just type in the lyrics, and pick a key signature. "Effects" will include the ability to select inflections specific to the genre, gospel, jazz, pop...whatever. We'll call it the GagaSpears Vocal Simulator... :P

[radatats]

well this is a potential game changer...  apparently all analog is completely replaceable by this new gadget... check it out...

 

https://d2pq0u4uni88oo.cloudfront.net/projects/1688050/video-508468-h264_high.mp4

[duncann]

well this is a potential game changer...  apparently all analog is completely replaceable by this new gadget... check it out...

 

https://d2pq0u4uni88oo.cloudfront.net/projects/1688050/video-508468-h264_high.mp4

 

Terrible. I hope things like this don't become popular at all. But, it most likely will. :(

[smrybacki]

well this is a potential game changer...  apparently all analog is completely replaceable by this new gadget... check it out...

 

https://d2pq0u4uni88oo.cloudfront.net/projects/1688050/video-508468-h264_high.mp4

 

Terrible. I hope things like this don't become popular at all. But, it most likely will. :(

Well, the girl in the Fiesta Red sweater was kinda cute.

 

Actually, that is a pretty cool device in my view.  I love that anyone with  desire can make music for themselves in a way that inspires them.  That kind of thinking is actually visionary.