This completely changed how I thought about guitar amps.0:00 - Intro1:32 - Bias Type2:22 - Rectifier Type3:17 - Power Tube Type4:27 - Preamp Tube Type6:05 - ...
Incredible. He basically duplicated over $10,000 worth of guitar hardware with a fucking tackle box and some pedals.
Tangentially related: This reminds me of an experiment that was done to try to end the "digital versus analogue" endless debate that music producers have.
They got the best sound engineers in the world together to do a blind test.
The music production was split into two groups: One group had access only to analogue equipment: the best most expensive amps, the best microphones they could get their hands on, everything, you name it.
The second group had access to only computer software, shit like Native Instruments guitar rig
They each produced some music using their equipment making it sound as good as they possibly could. The sound engineers then had to listen to each produced song and determine which one had a better audio quality (the old analogue folks will always INSIST that old school hardware is better, music was better back in the good old days blah blah blah)
The verdict?
spoiler
Digital sounds better. It was unanimous. So, essentially, a few hundred bucks worth of software beat out countless thousands of dollars worth of top-shelf guitar gear, and it was fucking unanimous
Yeah this is kind of an industry secret these days. The same can even be said for vintage synthesizers. Especially in a full mix context, absolutely nobody is going to care about the difference between a Minimoog model D, and an adequate VST plugin.
Does that make the Minimoog entirely worthless? Well, no. There's differences in workflow for one. A VST synth invites you to browse presets until you find something that sounds kind of nice for your purposes, and alter things a little at best. A hardware Minimoog doesn't have presets. It requires you to fiddle with the knobs and discover sounds that way. So, in that respect, in one setting you get to where you need to be through tedious browsing, while in the other it's more of a journey of discovery. Then there's also the nostalgia factor. Playing on a dingy MIDI controller into a DAW, versus sitting behind a museum piece that was built before you were born, engineered as good as they could, by people who may already be dead. This has no bearing on the actual sound, but it can definitely inspire the player.
I've always been pro-digital just based on the cost and size factor alone. My whole adult life I've lived in tiny ass apartments so I've had to cram a lot of equipment into a small space and a 4x12 speaker cabinet just isn't going to work.
That sounds a lot like how people test vinyl records. They objectively don't sound as good as digital playback, but there is a sort of mindfulness / ritualistic approach to listening to them, since each album you play is a very intentional physical act of placing the disk and needle, and you don't control the order songs play. It's very different from putting on headphones and letting Spotify feed you music while you do chores.
A better old synth to compare is the 303, since ppl actually sweep the filters and where those peaks are matter in the sequence and mix.
It’s also why even clear eyed engineers admit there are discrepancies between tb clones and even production dates/runs of the original (and how they were stored/used).
No one cares if there’s a little bandwidth discrepancy in the Taurus, but if the resonance is a little sharp on a 303 it’s suddenly not acid.
Incredible. He basically duplicated over $10,000 worth of guitar hardware with a fucking tackle box and some pedals.
Tangentially related: This reminds me of an experiment that was done to try to end the "digital versus analogue" endless debate that music producers have.
They got the best sound engineers in the world together to do a blind test.
The music production was split into two groups: One group had access only to analogue equipment: the best most expensive amps, the best microphones they could get their hands on, everything, you name it.
The second group had access to only computer software, shit like Native Instruments guitar rig
They each produced some music using their equipment making it sound as good as they possibly could. The sound engineers then had to listen to each produced song and determine which one had a better audio quality (the old analogue folks will always INSIST that old school hardware is better, music was better back in the good old days blah blah blah)
The verdict?
spoiler
Digital sounds better. It was unanimous. So, essentially, a few hundred bucks worth of software beat out countless thousands of dollars worth of top-shelf guitar gear, and it was fucking unanimous
Yeah this is kind of an industry secret these days. The same can even be said for vintage synthesizers. Especially in a full mix context, absolutely nobody is going to care about the difference between a Minimoog model D, and an adequate VST plugin.
Does that make the Minimoog entirely worthless? Well, no. There's differences in workflow for one. A VST synth invites you to browse presets until you find something that sounds kind of nice for your purposes, and alter things a little at best. A hardware Minimoog doesn't have presets. It requires you to fiddle with the knobs and discover sounds that way. So, in that respect, in one setting you get to where you need to be through tedious browsing, while in the other it's more of a journey of discovery. Then there's also the nostalgia factor. Playing on a dingy MIDI controller into a DAW, versus sitting behind a museum piece that was built before you were born, engineered as good as they could, by people who may already be dead. This has no bearing on the actual sound, but it can definitely inspire the player.
That's a very good way of putting it actually.
I've always been pro-digital just based on the cost and size factor alone. My whole adult life I've lived in tiny ass apartments so I've had to cram a lot of equipment into a small space and a 4x12 speaker cabinet just isn't going to work.
prole-digital
That sounds a lot like how people test vinyl records. They objectively don't sound as good as digital playback, but there is a sort of mindfulness / ritualistic approach to listening to them, since each album you play is a very intentional physical act of placing the disk and needle, and you don't control the order songs play. It's very different from putting on headphones and letting Spotify feed you music while you do chores.
A better old synth to compare is the 303, since ppl actually sweep the filters and where those peaks are matter in the sequence and mix.
It’s also why even clear eyed engineers admit there are discrepancies between tb clones and even production dates/runs of the original (and how they were stored/used).
No one cares if there’s a little bandwidth discrepancy in the Taurus, but if the resonance is a little sharp on a 303 it’s suddenly not acid.