Help Me Go Ampless : Amp Sim Pedals Discussion

[Telliot]

I wasn't sure whether to put this in amps or pedals, but stuck it here since it seemed to make slightly more sense. I rarely ever play out anymore, and my Princeton Reverb sits dormant for good chunks of time. When I record guitar and bass I tend to go straight in and either reamp later or use a software sim in Logic. While this works fine much of the time, I do miss having the feedback an amp gives me and have been waiting for a piece of hardware that would react like an amp and take pedals well, and allow me to continue recording late into the night without disturbing anyone.

I'm sure you're aware UA released 3 amp sim pedals last year (I'm referring of course to the Ruby '63, Dream '65, and Woodrow '55. For anyone not aware of these, the Ruby is based on a 60s Vox, the Dream is based on a Deluxe Reverb, and the Woodrow is based on a 50s tweed).



As usual The Internet has lots of opinions on these, and I've read everything from glowing to Worst Thing Ever. I'm not looking to drive a cab with this, only something to go between my pedals and my interface as I'm recording or practicing with headphones. I tend to play on the cleaner side, maybe with a touch of breakup every now and then. If I want to get crazy I'll use an OD or fuzz pedal.

Does anyone here own any of these or have they tried them? I'd love to hear your opinions.

[Larry Mal]

I haven't, but I'm going to follow along with this thread anyway. I'm exactly like you, and I have not found a good interface that would allow me to skip using simulated amps. Iridium, for instance, was a disappointment.

Subscribed.

[Embenny]

I have no doubt that they're very good, UA's hardware emulations have always been top-notch.

But I guess the knock against them is that you're paying a lot for a hardware unit running a single amp sim, at a price point where there are lots of hardware and software options that offer multiple amp models and tones.

If the feature set and price are attractive to you, then I'd be confident you'd find it to do what it says on the tin. The tone is the last thing I'd worry about.

But if the goal is to use it as a headphone/practice amp, there are a lot of competing alternatives. Modern phones and tablets can all run really competent amp sims, so all you need is an appropriate interface. Your computer obviously can, too, and you should be able to do so with low enough latency for that to work well.

There are also lots of modeling amps in that price range, which have direct outs and headphone jacks, plus of course the added versatility of being able to use their internal speakers if desired.

For a while, I had one of those Fender Mustang V2 amps with the 1x12" speaker. Some of the models and effects were not good, but the blackface Fender tones in particular were lovely. You can find those used for a fraction of the price of the UA pedal, so if you were going to get the blackface Fender one, that would be something I'd give serious consideration to.

[Telliot]

To be clear, my main goal would be to capture a nice, more realistic recording tone, rather than just a practice rig.

[Embenny]

To be clear, my main goal would be to capture a nice, more realistic recording tone, rather than just a practice rig.

Oh, sorry, I read your post as saying that you're happy with your current reamped/sim tone.

If the goal is realism for recording, I'd look at putting your money into software instead of hardware, as long as you've got a decent interface (which I believe you have).

For example, the Neural DSP amps are available as individual plugins for a fraction of the UA's price, and are very well-reputed.

The entire set of Line6 Helix amps and effects are available as a plugin as well, at a similar price point to the UA unit. Those are really nice models, and aid be shocked if you couldn't easily find at least a few distinct tones that rival the UA unit in realism.

The UA pedal is just an interface, A/D and D/A converters, and a CPU running a single amp model. By leveraging your current interface, converters, and CPU and spending your money exclusively on the amp model, you'll get a lot more bang for your buck.

Also, all of these software solutions offer demo versions or trial periods, so you can check them all out and see if they're worth it.

[Telliot]

Two things spring to mind here:

I haven't had great luck when it comes to using software amps in real time because of latency, and I've also not had great luck using my pedals in combination with the plugins. Maybe the newer generation stuff is better, but it's been my experience so far. This is where the idea of the UA pedals is attractive to me; the processing is self contained and it takes pedals the way an amp would. (At least that's what I understand.)

[marqueemoon]

How about a load box with your amp + speaker/room IRs in the box?

That would be cheaper than the UA option.

[Telliot]

How about a load box with your amp + speaker/room IRs in the box?

That would be cheaper than the UA option.

I have a Swart Night Light that I use with my PR, but it's pretty noisy. I'll give it another try just to be sure (it's been awhile since I used it this way).

[Larry Mal]

To me, the reason I would like something like this is because it does less.

You know, I fire up Amplitube, and there's dozens of amps, hundreds of presets, all the pedals, simulate microphone positions, and it can sound very good.

On the other hand sometimes I just want to play and record guitar and spin a bunch of simulated knobs over and over.

[marqueemoon]

How about a load box with your amp + speaker/room IRs in the box?

That would be cheaper than the UA option.

I have a Swart Night Light that I use with my PR, but it's pretty noisy. I'll give it another try just to be sure (it's been awhile since I used it this way).

I’m going to be picking up an attenuator with a line out in about a week. It’s basically a Swart Night Light clone.

My plan is to go amp>attenuator>line out>Neunaber Iconoclast>TRS line in on Focusrite ISA Two>Interface

If this fails miserably I’ll just use the attenuator as an attenuator and annoy my family a little less when tracking guitar.

So… I don’t know yet.

My take on amp sims whether hardware or software is they usually present an idealized version of an amp sound rather than a more ugly/interesting sound. The Audio Kitchen Fake Plastic Trees is the only pedal I’ve heard that sounds convincingly like it’s gonna blow up. It it were more affordable I would own one.

[Telliot]

To me, the reason I would like something like this is because it does less.

You know, I fire up Amplitube, and there's dozens of amps, hundreds of presets, all the pedals, simulate microphone positions, and it can sound very good.

On the other hand sometimes I just want to play and record guitar and spin a bunch of simulated knobs over and over.

Exactly. I don't want a ton of options, just something I know works and will give me reliable results.

[Embenny]

Well, sounds like you're exactly the target audience for that pedal, then.

[Telliot]

Hopefully I'm not coming off as combative. I feel like I've been down this road so many times only to come up short. It feels like this could be an actual solution, but I was hoping someone here had experience with these.

[Larry Mal]

I really could have edited that post a little better above. If anyone is confused about what I wrote there just tell them I'm a moron.

[Larry Mal]

60 Cycle Hum review.