Jump to content

5150 vs PV Panama


arislaf
 Share

Recommended Posts

I'd like to hear both of those tests using a DT50 with the L6 link.

 

There really isn't anyway for a solid state computer model of an amp to have that real tube sound without adding tubes. :)

Brother, it's 2015.  If you know how to dial tone in and EQ and you're running good cabs, power amps (Matrix), well built guitars...you can DEFINITELY get real tube tone and feel now.  It's possible YOU haven't found real tube tone with a modeler...but believe me, it's very possible.  My tube heads sit at home most of the time now and rarely see a gig.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh I agree that the modeling is very good. I'm using my HD500 with my band at the moment without my DT50 just straight to the board and it sounds awesome!
BUT...not as awesome as it does with the tubes of the DT50 involved.

Just like in those vids of the 5150 and Mesa Treadplate side by side of the real thing.

The models sound real good...until you play the tube head right next to it. Then that little something extra of the vacuum tube comes into play.
Tweaking EQ and other things can get you real close on the models.

But then again, having all these models of various tube amps at your disposal with modeling on the HD500 is freakin' great! :)

And when it comes to playing "live" through a big P.A. system in a big room...the whole addition of the tubes becomes pretty moot.
I'm pretty sure that you can get a "better" sound in that situation with just the HD500 going straight to the board as opposed to the "real" amp with a microphone on it and running through the board out to the mains.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh I agree that the modeling is very good. I'm using my HD500 with my band at the moment without my DT50 just straight to the board and it sounds awesome!

BUT...not as awesome as it does with the tubes of the DT50 involved.

 

Just like in those vids of the 5150 and Mesa Treadplate side by side of the real thing.

 

The models sound real good...until you play the tube head right next to it. Then that little something extra of the vacuum tube comes into play.

Tweaking EQ and other things can get you real close on the models.

 

But then again, having all these models of various tube amps at your disposal with modeling on the HD500 is freakin' great! :)

 

And when it comes to playing "live" through a big P.A. system in a big room...the whole addition of the tubes becomes pretty moot.

I'm pretty sure that you can get a "better" sound in that situation with just the HD500 going straight to the board as opposed to the "real" amp with a microphone on it and running through the board out to the mains.

Ya, I would NEVER, in a pro...live situation...use the POD direct to a board.  Way too much EQing has to be added (eq blocks) to smooth out the harshness of the direct tone.  

 

I was more talking about a situation where you're plugging into a solid state source/power amp...made for modelers.  In that situation...if configured right, you can't tell the difference in an A/B situation.  I'm using either my 500X or my ProX, with a Matrix GT1000FX to an orange 4x12.  I keep buying high end tube heads...as either a back up or if I feel like using a tube head....and I keep selling those heads...because I cannot match the tone and feel of my non tube rig.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's on the Internet so it must be true...

 

Actually in both cases I thought the tube amp was much better sounding but I think with some EQ and a little High Pass Filter adjustment they could be extremely close.

 

But I still lug my Marshall tube amps around and plug my PODHD into it because I still can't get that roar any other way - yet.  But I'm trying...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ya, I would NEVER, in a pro...live situation...use the POD direct to a board. Way too much EQing has to be added (eq blocks) to smooth out the harshness of the direct tone.

 

Can't say I agree. This is precisely what the POD is designed to do. I do it live, and have done it in the studio, with excellent results. Plenty of others do too. As for EQing out the harsh frequencies, that only has to be done once...hit 'save',and you're done. EQing for the room is not a Herculean task, and can either be done at the board, or with the new global EQ if there is no sound guy (or if there is one and he's deaf, ;) ).

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can't say I agree. This is precisely what the POD is designed to do. I do it live, and have done it in the studio, with excellent results. Plenty of others do too. As for EQing out the harsh frequencies, that only has to be done once...hit 'save',and you're done. EQing for the room is not a Herculean task, and can either be done at the board, or with the new global EQ if there is no sound guy (or if there is one and he's deaf, ;) ).

You're kind of missing the point.  All good.  Original point was yes you can get tube tone and tube feel today with a modeler.  Take care.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're kind of missing the point.  All good.  Original point was yes you can get tube tone and tube feel today with a modeler.  Take care.

And I'm saying that in my opinion...you can get damn CLOSE to true tube feel.

 

By the way...I sold my Bogner Ecstasy head when I got the hd500 and the DT50 together. The two together sound real, real good and have that tube sound because it has...tubes. :)

 

But everyone's ears are different. And like I said...at the moment I'm just using my hd500 directly to the board. Sounds great.

Sounds "better" with the DT50 but the situation I'm playing in at this moment needs to keep stage volume to a minimum and needs quick changeouts of gear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, night and day IMHO.

 

I'm not standing on the side "digital gear cannot sound good because it doesn't have tubes". I think with correct post-processing, POD HD can sound good, even awesome perhaps (I can improve the sound greatly by EQing and I absolutely don't consider myself a pro). But I don't understand why this processing isn't part of POD HD out of the box, Line 6 pros would be able to beat my processing to dust for sure (different processing would probably be needed for Studio and Live sound which is why I proposed these two output modes could be separated: http://line6.ideascale.com/a/dtd/POD-HD-New-Live-Gig-Output-Mode/688489-23508).

 

The only reasonable explanation I could think of why POD HD sounds the (thin, harsh...) way out of the box is that it is the real raw recorded sound (amp+cab+mic) without any post-processing but these head-to-head samples showing how vastly different (just plain great) the recorded amp sound is simply making me think this cannot be the explanation. So I'm left with business arguments ("this is what customers without real-amp experience buy the most based on quick auditioning") and purely conspirative theories like "guitar amp producers pay Line 6 so that they make POD HD sound like crap by default" (in that case great job Line 6 for making HD such business success :D)

 

I agree that all these comparisons are never really convincing because no one can be sure what post-processing was applied and how the real amp was recorded etc. So I'd love two things:

 

1) Line 6 (Digital_Igloo) could tell us - is HD a raw recorded sound with no post-processing or what kind of processing is applied, how loud was the amp when recorded/sampled for modelling etc.

 

2) Live (as in physical) meeting of POD HD users in a room with some amps, cabs, mics and POD HD, recording and tweaking and comparing and hearing for themselves what the results are. I'm especially interested in live gig scenario for which (loud) volume is also critical and that is even harder to do online.

 

I guess no.1 will never happen (no hard feelings here, business is business) and no.2 is geographically complicated given the (great!) global community here. But anyway... anybody up for a tweaking session in Prague? :)

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

obviously NOT digital igloo....

but

1) models are not recordings at all.... and the process of actually modeling is a proprietary trade secret i doubt you'll get much detail....

 

Well, night and day IMHO.

 

I'm not standing on the side "digital gear cannot sound good because it doesn't have tubes". I think with correct post-processing, POD HD can sound good, even awesome perhaps (I can improve the sound greatly by EQing and I absolutely don't consider myself a pro). But I don't understand why this processing isn't part of POD HD out of the box, Line 6 pros would be able to beat my processing to dust for sure (different processing would probably be needed for Studio and Live sound which is why I proposed these two output modes could be separated: http://line6.ideascale.com/a/dtd/POD-HD-New-Live-Gig-Output-Mode/688489-23508).

 

The only reasonable explanation I could think of why POD HD sounds the (thin, harsh...) way out of the box is that it is the real raw recorded sound (amp+cab+mic) without any post-processing but these head-to-head samples showing how vastly different (just plain great) the recorded amp sound is simply making me think this cannot be the explanation. So I'm left with business arguments ("this is what customers without real-amp experience buy the most based on quick auditioning") and purely conspirative theories like "guitar amp producers pay Line 6 so that they make POD HD sound like crap by default" (in that case great job Line 6 for making HD such business success :D)

 

I agree that all these comparisons are never really convincing because no one can be sure what post-processing was applied and how the real amp was recorded etc. So I'd love two things:

 

1) Line 6 (Digital_Igloo) could tell us - is HD a raw recorded sound with no post-processing or what kind of processing is applied, how loud was the amp when recorded/sampled for modelling etc.

 

2) Live (as in physical) meeting of POD HD users in a room with some amps, cabs, mics and POD HD, recording and tweaking and comparing and hearing for themselves what the results are. I'm especially interested in live gig scenario for which (loud) volume is also critical and that is even harder to do online.

 

I guess no.1 will never happen (no hard feelings here, business is business) and no.2 is geographically complicated given the (great!) global community here. But anyway... anybody up for a tweaking session in Prague? :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

obviously NOT digital igloo....

but

1) models are not recordings at all.... and the process of actually modeling is a proprietary trade secret i doubt you'll get much detail....

 

Sure, not recordings, but they were trying to achieve the sound of a specific miced amp so they had used specific miced amp sound as a reference. And this reference sound was produced in some specific conditions (perhaps a set of) - mic placement(s), volume(s), room(s)... I'm not absolutely certain describing WHAT sound reference(s) they were after reveals much about HOW they did it.

 

Anyway I expressed explicitly that I don't expect no.1 to materialize for business reasons so not sure what your comment meant...?

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

no hidden meaning in my comment at all....

 

i do know that they go into alot more depth than just how it sounds....

they have to model every control on the amp to make sure that it affects the sound just like the original...

so that the end product should match their reference at every volume and every setting... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd like to hear both of those tests using a DT50 with the L6 link.

 

There really isn't anyway for a solid state computer model of an amp to have that real tube sound without adding tubes. :)

 

I would be too. Great examples Aris! Thanks for posting'em man.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

both the real 5150 and the XT model are plugged into the same real cab/mic which affects a lot the final tone..

 

thats why they sound so similar to each other..

 

however the above here is a very bad audio quality recording

All true that you said Nico. Coming down to only one conclusion after all. Pod HD amps are really good... The cabins are the worst they modeled.... I believe with a Torpedo cab the pod becomes the tube amp they modeled....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

don't forget the cab dep parameters, their settings can make big differences

Big sure Nico, and I own this to you, but still it is half way there ;) not full way... Need improvment that we will never get...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

what I don't understand is why they don't plug the pod into the 5150 and/or mesa FX loop if they really want to compare the tones apples-to-apples.. The vid clearly states they were using the bugera's power amp and not the mesa/peavey power amp to compare the tones, so even if it's the same cab, it's not the same power section which makes a big difference in the final analysis.

So yeah, it sounds close because it's a virtual 5150/dual rec preamp into a different power amp. Run the 5150 pod preamp into the 5150 poweramp into the cab and THEN see what they sound like in comparison. Geesh.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What you mean?

 

The Van Halen song "Panama" was recorded in 1983 and on tour was played with a Marshall Plexi some debate about the Variac treatment of the amp used on the recording.

 

The Peavey 5150 wasn't introduced until 1992

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Van Halen song "Panama" was recorded in 1983 and on tour was played with a Marshall Plexi some debate about the Variac treatment of the amp used on the recording.

 

The Peavey 5150 wasn't introduced until 1992

Thanks didn;t know that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...