Not really though.
Well I would. I play jazz gigs as well and a nice Fender Amp in a room sound would be perfect at a small jazz club. When I used to Live in New York City, most jazz gigs would have extremely small stage and you would have to be careful with volume since you mostly play with upright bass player.
Actually, yes you’re right and I should ( probably will ) get a Fender Tone Master. I already have a Nano Cortex and I could get a tone master as well.
However, the main topic was about the future of the modelers and we were kind of having hypothetical next step on revolution / invention. I guess I thought it would be next best seller if someone invented a gadget that would make amp-in-the-room sound possible for every amp. It is already possible with tone masters but everyone would want one if it was possible to simulate many.
Anyways, it is a great time now compared to what we had 40 years ago.
I think IK-Multimedia tried it with their new FRFR Cab, but I like the Fender Fr-10 a lot more. I got the board from Archangel Electronics for my FR and it sounds and feels very amp in a room like.
The new Eq section did wonders for that
1 Like
So, which direction do you think the new step will come from? FRFR side or modeler side or something we have not expected. I mean resolution wise we are already having difficult time telling which is capture which is real amp. So I would say we’re there already. But amp next to me sound wise we have a bit more to go.
I’m confused how boomers always talk about “amp in the room” sound when they’re using an IR of a microphone on a speaker with an FR….. That sound will always be similar to hearing a cabinet with a microphone on it going through a studio monitor.
If you want “amp in a room” sound then get an actual guitar speaker and a power amp. It’s crazy how many different FR speakers people will buy and not realize that concept. A guitar cab IR will naturally have a low end roll off for most microphones, which also sounds WAY different than just sitting next to a cab in a room. People will spend so much money not realizing that difference at all, when the answer is so simple haha.
Cabinet IR + Full Range Speaker = studio monitor
Amp Model + Power Amp + guitar or bass speaker cabinet = amp in the room
1 Like
I think usability, ease of use and educational content are the way to go. The little infos the stadium has and the new dumbbell have are great. I never had and will never have a real dumble, but to get a little explanation for the special options is very welcome.
The focus mode is a great idea, too.
Since there is a good spring reverb finally, there are some other effects to add, but the sound isn’t going to get drastically better in my opinion
The idea of a a power amp + speaker all in one for modeling would be great and may be a path forward, to mimic the Amp in room sound.
I’m totally fine with my Fr on stage and we played a small gig with backline and just the fender fr and I got many compliments on my tone…
Well debate started with what could be the next invention / revolution since the V2 resolution is up to a point where you can not tell the difference with the original amp. So we were speculating what could be the next step for simulation? That is when “Amp in the room” could be next. Array of speakers or other possibilities were mentioned. Overall it was fun to see what others think.
1 Like
It’s a question people always ask in forums for modelers. Recreating the “amp in a room” feel always feels off with FR speakers, but I see people go in circles trying to figure it out.
Usually the cabinet construction for FR or studio monitors is different than a combo or guitar cab, the speakers are very different, and people are running an IR to it.
Even if you were to mimic the eq response of a V30 with a plugin while running to a studio monitor, it’ll still react differently. Usually since FR and studio monitors have a different speaker size, cab construction, amount of speakers, etc.
Same sort of issue if trying to use headphones. Since you then enter the whole debate of open vs closed back.
This caught my eye:
I thought I remembered there being a post or an article about how the QC’s switches were tested to X number of clicks, somewhere in the tens or hundreds of thousands. (I tried to find it but couldn’t.) If there was any better option for a tougher footswitch type, Neural would have used it. No one is counting the number of times they step on a switch anyway, let alone 11 switches.
Early on, Neural shared that the QC passed through rigorous temperature and shake-table testing. As an engineer in the aerospace world who has performed both on flight hardware, I appreciated a lot that they did that. I’m not sure if other companies with modeler hardware have done this, but I sure hope that this becomes standard across the board.
I think the existing footswitches ( even on the Nano ) are excellent. So, yes I agree.
Which is not so bad at the moment I think. Well, also there is this thing for really good players. They have a signature sound. Most of them ( except a few others like Robben Ford, Bonamassa etc.. ) use one axe, one amp 1-2 pedals at a time. So at least we know it is not a limitation for being a good player.
As do I. In case it needs to be clarified, my initial comment wasn’t a criticism of the existing hardware, but just a question of where the focus might be in the future with new products.
You want amp in the room? Then try this.
Turn off your IR and add EQ
Yes, exactly. So next discovery/innovation could really be an “Amp in the room” sound than.
Thanks for sharing.