Instantly knew that B was the real thing, it sounds clearer and more crisp if that makes any sense.. I´m still a big fan of todays tech, and what obviously is possible, thank you for the impressive comparison!!
IMO the biggest giveaway is how it sits in a mix. Real amps in these types of tests often lay back in a less obtrusive way while the amp sims always sound a little too up front. I was able to pick it out pretty immediately but your Helix tones are so good I second guessed my self for a second lol.
Agreed. I feel like digital amps compress the signal more (less dynamics than a real amp), and of course the frequency change and response is also different. Not that digital is bad, but I think it can still get a lot better.
You consistently do the most useful comparisons. Thanks I guessed right, and have an HX Stomp and Helix Native. Examples A and B sounded very close. The differences I heard was the Helix sounded a little clearer in the highs and less distinct in the lows. The real Amp sounded a little thicker, smoother, warmer, and more organic/relaxed in the mids. There is a video all guitarists should watch on how YT applies "Compression" to videos, how it affects audio, and what you can do about it. The video is "RUclips ruined all my videos - UNLESS you disable this setting". It makes a noticeable difference.
This is the first video where I couldn't pick the helix out. I skipped to the playing so I didn't even know it was a helix. Thought it was capture tech haha. All that to say, exceptional work on this one
both sounded really good, mainly heard the difference starting @6:55 - A was a bit more sterile yet pronounced, B just sat more naturally, like it was embraced by the rest of the mix. at the end of the day the general listening audience will not know or care - great work here as always!!!
A and B are almost impossible to tell the difference in a Mix. I half Heartedly guessed B was the real amp because it was a little darker. It just goes to prove that people need to focus on making good songs and stop fighting over gear sound choices.
@@SonicDriveStudio yes for me the same. The digital stuff came a long way and sounds soo good. Maybe in feel and some platforms dynamics, because tubes ‘push’ a llittle different. But in sound you can’t tell the difference these days between digital or real amps. 🙌🏼
Woah! I was just doing my homework about 2 -3 days ago, clearing all my pedals and go less with gears. Thinking of getting the VP4 and this video came out. Thanks much for this. Gonna go with the VP4 and pass those pedals and gears to the kids if they ever play.
John single handledly boasting sales of the helix haha I’m definetly getting an HX Stomp! Your comparisons kick ass, your tones kick ass and your videos are sick and superrrrr helpful!
This is so proving my point. Whilst my friends all buy more analog equipment than ever I sold about anything and am happy with it. Nobody notices a difference really. By the way: just tested one of your IR packs against some other "name" packs. They are great, will for sure come back for others.
Absolutely loved this! This is super interesting because, in my mind, there was always a night and day difference between digital and real amps. Really goes to show how far tech has come. Mind if I ask which cab this uses ???? I want to recreate this tone.
Amp B was VERY obviously the real amp. Called it immediately. Helix Native made a good showing though. Line 6 has always done well with gainer sounds and cleans. The test of any good amp sim is how it does with edge of break up.
Crazy how close that was! It would also be interesting to hear the real amp with the real cab vs the IR you’ve made of it. Also it came to mind that if you would have been pushing the both HX and orange with an OD, would they be even more hard to tell apart? 😅 Great content yet again!
@ very cool!! Lately I’ve been really happy with my HX stomp as I’ve been digging into it. I do use mostly Neural DSP plugins for my studio work, but it often seems I’m able to dial in very similar stuff from the HX stomp. For random live stuff I alrealdy ditched the laptop. Seems like a no brainer deal to just get the HX Native with the deal I get owning the Stomp 🤷♂️
It really sounds extremely close. Great job with the IR, you really nailed it. I guessed correctly. What I think gave it away for me was: a) Brightness/harshness. Amp sims and IRs are almost always brighter and more top endy, I guess it's just the nature of the beast. That can and often should be treated a bit differently in the mix as well as playing live. One needs to roll of that top end very carefully and precisely with a high cut filter and tame those very harsh and hissy highs around 16k, sometimes also 8k, that are always there but add only digital noise and no "tone". A lot of people don't do that and it's the reason many productions nowadays sound so grating. b) Spatial information. This is often not thought about, since we assume that cabs are close-miced anyway. But close miced doesn't mean, and never is, recorded in an anechoic chamber. With an IR, there is no space interacting with the cabinet - we only have one snapshot of a cab and mic interacting with the space at one tiny moment in time - so the digital method will always sound more full on in your face. Also, when playing a tube amp, there are true analog irregularities happening all the time within the circuit, that's just physics - it exists in the real world. The tube amp's response is constantly modulating, giving it a certain impression of a little bit of "give", which when playing tends to feel a bit saggier and smoother, but in terms of auditive perception the result is a sensation of the sound diffusing itself within the environment, like being pushed back into the room a tiny bit (people will often call this "dynamics"). The amp sim on the other hand is an idealized image of one snapshot of irregularity in one moment in time, it will typically react in a more static way. Again, both factors can be accounted for in the mix, this time with psychoacoustics. Which means spatial positioning using pre-delay and reverb. This seems counterintuitive when working with guitar sounds, because those are supposed to be dry and in-your-face, but it's not about "audible room" via reverb tail, hall effect etc., but about placing the sound in a perceived space through "inaudible reverb". Having all that said, the bottom line for me is: if I only heard ONE version and not both, would I have identified it correctly as being digital or analog? Most probably not. I just went off of my own associations, expectations and previous experience from enthusiastic experimenting with real and digital gear (friends and family call it "obsessing" 🤪).The very slight differences are only noticeable if you really get to do a careful A/B comparison. But you would also perceive differences if you recorded two real rigs (two different units of the same cab and amp, for example). So who cares about differences when both sounds are absolutely satisfying, like in this example? Which tells us: physical AND digital are absolutely fine as long as the gear is top quality and is being utilized in a competent manner.
I knew right away that option A is the Helix. In my opinion, in almost all tests, the Helix sits better in the mix than real amplifiers. The Helix has more mids and highs and more compressed sound. The real amplifier sounds wider in this case, more bass and much less compression. In any case, both sounded great and thank you for your videos!
@@SonicDriveStudio Well, the real Rockerverb sounded more like my own Rockerverb 50 MKIII (paired with Orange PPC212), so I guessed correctly. That said, Helix sounded really good and, although I wouldn't trade one for the other, I could consider it as a convenient backup. Jon, it is your fault I bought this Orange and it was my best purchase for many many years. Thanks!
Interesting and cool video. Another variable you can introduce into your signal chain is experimenting with different mic preamps. I've done the comparison between the mic preamps of different audio interfaces, software preamps in my UAD Apollo, and a dedicated rack-mounted tube preamp, and there are surprising and significant differences (even between different audio interfaces by the same brand). My favorite is the latter, which also allows me to play with the impedance and gain / saturation knobs for each mic.
Extremely convincing test ! I usually enjoy modeling with Neural DSP plugins for writing music, reherse at home, work my guitar skills etc., and in the same time I enjoy to play with real amps, also at home with a loadbox and IRs (good ones if possible ;-) !). I always found a difference between both because the dynamic and global respsonse to the playing, IMHO, is not the same. There is something lacking with the modeling, but it's still very convincing (particularly in a mix) and it wouldn't pose any more problem than that to make an album only with modeling. Also, there are so different factors that can explain the differences between the best modeler you can find and reality : the cab/speakers models used for modeling, the tubes brand, specs, age and biasing, the revision of the amp (components, place where it was assembled, manufacturer of the PCBs if that's the case etc.) etc. So with my experience and knowing how many parameters can be taken into account, I'm absolutely amazed of the so tiny difference between both. Very good job John (as usual), and also I take my hat off to the engineers who modeled these amps...
I preferred the Helix in the isolated tracks because of the low end that you mentioned. It also had little less presence to me, so by itself it sounded nicer. But the real amp sat much better in the mix. Just the right frequencies
Great Video :) Yeah, it´s the palm mutes what gives it away. With little reverb on both you can smooth things out a bit. But like you said, the difference is minimal. When i record guitars i sometimes use Helix stomp and a tube amp in a song, sometimes i connect the helix with a tube poweramp (Marshall 9000) and then speaker or IR. It always depends on my mood that day :) cheers
Sound wise about the same - feel wise will feel different, but the audience listens most of the time and does not watch, future belongs to modelers whether we like it or not.
Pausing at 7:04 to guess A for Helix and B for real amp. We'll see! Edit -- neato, got it. But in no way do I think one is "worse" than the other. Someone else said B sounded darker, and listening in my car that's what I picked out, too. But man they're both so good. My Helix LT is so extremely good, I couldn't be happier with it.
I guessed them right from the first A / B clip but they sound stupidly close and both excellent. I think the only reason I got it right is because I use a Stomp a lot. I feel like the Helix stuff doesn't ring out quite the same and note separation isn't the same. Thanks for the video! Makes me feel like I'm missing out less by having to play with headphones most of the time on my Stomp :D.
Interesting. I didn't know what to expect but I prefered mix B by a relatively large margin (with proper headphones). I can't say exactly but there some kind of mid presence that is a lot more pleasing. Seems less harsh... but the Helix certainly still sounded great!
Theres also a cool factor beyond the sound. Like a mechanical watch is just cooler than digital quartz watch, though a digital watch is actually more acurate. Or how people collect old Nintendo consoles when you can download a free emulator on your computer. Nothing against modelers or emulators its just what you find useful and inspiring.
For recording both solutions provide same level of quality if you ask me. For live playing when I stand next to a cab I still have more fun with real amp, but I get idea of convenience the modellers provide.
I got it right, with initial reaction “B sounds and feels more organic/natural”. And especially when hearing plain guitar tracks I see why, it’s the same story when I hear from amp modelers vs. real amps. All amp modelers lacking proper low end, Cortex gets it really close, but first thing you hear in AB is that model having less low-end (perceivable low-end). You try to compensate by adding more lows but it immediately gets boomy and muddy. Amp modelers sounds static and consistent compared to real amps, not in a good way. Real amps feels dynamic, it’s always depending on a previous step in a way, there is always something going on, changing in time, if I were trying to describe it. I think this low end and dynamics from the real amps are not really coming from the amps themselves but from the speakers. Guitar tube amps have really low damping factor, it can be like 1 or even 0.25 or something like this (compare it to typical solid-state amp where even value like 80 can be considered low). This means the speaker will resonate by itself quite a lot, depends on the frequency how much (the signal is modulated by the impedance curve). And as you know the resonance peak of a guitar speakers resides typically around 75-100Hz, so this frequency region resonates the most. Amp modelers try to model amp output, even with a reactive load I think it’s missing what real physical speaker is doing, as it’s not all necessarily translates directly back into electrical signal, it’s a complicated mechanical system with its own inertia. So real amps do not push that much low end actually, but when you suddenly play something that pushes the resonance frequency (e.g. palm mutes) the speaker really sing more of that even when the amp is done playing. Thus we perceive more low-end, but not like overall EQ but in the right moments. This also happens with highs. When playing longer modelers tire the ear, because they are consistently pushing the hiss and sizzle to stay clear, while real amps do it like with some kind of swings, only peaking with highs, not pushing the highs all the time. So the loose speaker probably is taking part in it (since the impedance curve is also rising towards the highs).
This isn't true. No problems with low end on my fractal or helix. For arguments sake, let's say you are correct. Many things can cause added low end to get "boomy". Are you doing it/preamp/ post? What frequency are you boosting? If it's boomy and you are using a 10 band, try a parametric. If it is still boomy, try a more surgical/ wide Q. It really isn't that complicated, and most people aren't using those amazing ears you allegedly have. I own a 1960AB Marshall cab and a Mesa trad. straight 4×12. There is a slight difference only in the amount of "air" being pushed, and it is easily mitigated using only a few tweaks. You are talking about a mere 3% difference, that literally makes no difference.
Very close! I only could recognize the real amp because I know that Orange amps are boomy and compressed in the low ends. The digital version sounds a little bit flatter in the overall frequency curve what is a common thing for the Helix and others like the Kemper. Not meaning that it's less good than the originals, but it's just a tad different.
There is a warmth and extra something to the tube amp. The helix is very close but it misses that special/magical feeling. I’ll say this too. I think unless you’ve had serious time with a tube amp it’s not something as easily picked up upon.
I think the original sound a bit more "unpolished" and has some tiny imperfections in the upper mids/ high end while the digital amp stay very "clean" up there. Both sounding absolutly great. The difference is definitly not what will make or break a record. 🤟😎
Telling you my thoughts before i listen to yours: this is really damn close, but i like the tube amp a little better. I don`t hear a lot of difference in frequency response, this is almost perfect covered by the helix, but the tube amp is more three dimensional/deeper, gives more room and breath to the sound, is not so close by the ear. Like it, still an big Rockerverb fan.
Thing is, it's not likely that even 2 different Rockerverb 50 MkIII heads are going to sound exactly identical to each other. Taking that into consideration, that you were able to make this amp and the Helix model sound the same in overall character which is where it counts is a great testimony of the quality of and attention to detail given to Helix modeling. I'll the flexibility of Helix modeling with parameter modulation over MIDI and snapshots over the actual head.
10 seconds into the mix comparison, I had a favorite souding one : the dynamic of the bass response, the splash and clarity when you hit the open high strings, and overall a more lively, less flat sound than the other one. Turns out, it was the tube amp, but I"ve done enough wrong blind tests to not fool myself... I probably just know by now on what aspect fo the sound to focus on. Bottomline you just can choose whatever you like, just be aware that the lerning curve on modelers is tight, they're full of possibilities but can quickly sound horrible. Tubes are straightforward and I'm afraid i'll always find them more fun to play than modelers. Would have been really interested to hear a ToneX or NAM shootout, though
Difference is in transients, and how they process transients in my opinion. I had impression that modeling reacted "quicker" to transients. That's maybe the limitation of the technology used in modeling. But it may be exactly what you need.
Hey Jon, great comparison. I’ve been using the helix since it was released so gone through all the cabinet iterations and deep into the IR jungle. I use your stuff exclusively and love it. Curious that I always leave the default at -18 on the cab block and I saw you had it at 1.6. Can you elaborate? What were you running the channel volume and master on Helix? Thank you sir👍
I didn’t hear much of a difference. I was also sitting outside next to a construction site with one earbud in while eating lunch 😂. Seriously though, both sounded awesome, thanks for doing a blind comparison as well and keeping it unbiased
Both sounded great! I couldn't hear a big difference. In a band context with another guitar, I think it doesn't matter if you are using a real amp or the Helix. So, I think just use the gear that makes you feel good. There is no right or wrong.
Even with the guitars isolated it is truly hard to tell any difference. I'm listening on Kali Audio IN-8's CRANKED and the difference is very subtle. Especially if a scroll down and can't see when you switch between sources. I hate to tell you, but I'll take your captures and IR's any day for tracking. Too easy. :D
Got it correct becuase of low end of real amp. But i know helix well. Now iam pairing it with tonex to compensate fellow, but helix hold its ground. Waiting for Helix 2;) awesome comparision;)
Yeah dude this is nearly exact. Great job!! Now I gotta go play the Mandarin model tonight. What’s your favorite run of the mill boost for the rockerverb?
Being able to change the impedance curve on the IR block is one of the big things Helix is missing. Really surprised they haven't implemented that this far into the products life.
I like the amp a little better for the isolated tracks but the difference is minimal. I hear the amp a little "rounder" in the top and "richer" in the lower register - it's hard to put into words about a sound experience. In a mix with a bass guitar + maybe a hint of EQ, it wouldn't be possible to tell for sure which is the amp and which is the plugin.
The bass was the giveaway for me, Amp Sims tend to get a bit blurred and less defined there, at the same time some tend to overpronounce other frequncies. But i also know the Mandarin Rocker Helix Model and it´s still impressive how close they are for a listener in a mix (not necessarily how it feels when you play).
the tone was the same but the electrical 3d bloom was alive drums always settle back better in the mix with real mics and cabs, but the flatter model lets the drums out, if your a guitarist use amps if your a drummer use sims, if your greedy and needy use both
The real amp has the edge for me. Even in the mix it just sounded slightly better. A win for real amps! You’ll be happy to know since you have like 50 of them 😂
I still like Helix/Native for effects but it's become kind of frustrating to play vs my real amps run through a load box and IR. The models just always feel a little neutered to me though sound wise I still think many of the models are close. Unfortunately the amp out on my unit won't channel switch any of my amps or I'd use it as a pedal board so it's been collecting dust for a few months now
Near impossible to tell in a mix, if you’re good at dialing the model in and your IR is good. The only really giveaways are in the hands, which nobody else can actually hear of course. Doesn’t matter what modeler you choose (as long as it’s a good one), some models are able to portray the real amp better than others. And Sometimes, all it takes is a drive in front to get it closer to how the real thing plays (or make it sound like a different thing altogether)
I closed my eyes and didn't hear the difference in the mix (maybe in 1 place, but couldn't tell which one was that). On the standalone the tube amp had a tiny bit more sparkle - maybe I'm fooling myself here, but I preferred that. All-in-all, using the Helix over a real amp won't be the factor breaking the career of a band :D.
It's pretty much the same with most amp sims.... There's a generic quality to the saturation and harmonics. I use amp sims exclusively, so I'm not knocking them . They also typically lack that push or growl of a real amp which a lot of this isnull in a mix because it's all removed.... EXCEPT when the guitar is solo before all instruments come in, like an intro or break when you want all theberf you can get. Amp modeling in the end is the same argument solid state amps dealt with.... It doesn't sound like a tube amp, but, it does sound like an amp, and you do the best with what you have.
They definitely sound very close in the mix, but the real amp sounds more “Fluid”. I know that’s a weird descriptor but there’s something about the way it responds to the lows and transients across the mids that sounds more reactive. I’m listening on headphones. I’m wondering if using a multiband expander in a very gentle way at the 80-200 area and maybe somewhere 1.5k-3k would help? Just a thought. Great test as usual!
I am wondering did you ever compare a tube amp/amps with a cab vs a modeler with power amp going through the same cab? If not I think that it would make for an interesting video and I did see some people use this type of setup or recommend it and depending on the modeler it can get really close to that "amp in the room" type of feel and sound. Most common way I see it used live is that one cable goes straight to mixer the other in the power amp and into the cab and the cab can be used as a "monitor" or you can mic it but that kinda defeats the purpose when making a setup easier for live use but for a comparison it would be necessary to mic it. I have seen a youtuber review this setup with a Fractal FM9, Seymour Duncan Powerstage and a cab with great results to the point that he only plays his tube amps at home for his personal enjoyment or studio use only.
Funny enough, most of the people arguing tube vs digital probably have never used many if any the amps available in Helix, Fractal, QC etc units anyways. Or listening on their phone. Not sure how anyone would have problems with either one of those 2 tones. They sound great.
I'm curious, did you experiment with matching IRs to get the helix closer? I had some success with that. It's definitely not the perfect solution, it's still a linear approximation but it did further reduce the differences for me. :)
10:40 NO, the differences are the same differences every Surface Mount Technology amp has unless you go tube or some transistors even, its not the same
I'm new to digital modelers, etc. I have a Randall Century 200 solid state amplifier. I want to profile at least the output sound from the cab and be able to preserve that sound and use it digitally. What would you or anyone that reads this comment recommend to do this the most accurate way possible? Thanks again for another great video!
I think it is difficult to hear a huge difference but for me it’s a feel that you get from a tube amp. That spongy feeling when you dig in, I have not been able to get out of a modeler. I have a QC, FM9 and Kemper and they all sound great but none have that feel. Yet…
I think if you cut frecuences in helix arround 15kh may be you can erase hi fizzy frecuences to make more real. The problem is when you do this you have less dynamic, but recording is not a big problem. I’ll do this in post recording to have a better playhability while you are recording.
I couldn't tell a difference listening to the full mix on a 2:1 speaker setup. Listening to the isolated tracks, not looking at the screen for the change-over, I couldn't really tell which was which, even if one of them seemed the most miniscule bit more woofy in the lows. Goes to show that there's barely any difference between analog and digital when digital is done right.
Yeah because master volume controls in some modelers tend to act more drastically at lower settings. The master on my amp was pretty low too and I wanted to match that. With high master volume settings an amp gets muddy and darker
I can’t hear the difference in the blind comparison In the isolated tracks i can hear that the real amp is just a bit flubbier and fatter sounding. Both sound incredible
I'm convinced that there's no need to spend $4k on an actual amp anymore and that modern amp modelers and pre-amp pedals/modules sound good enough to give you studio level tones worthy of going on an album.. unless you're really into amps and a stickler for the feel of a real amp..
There's also something to be said for supporting the industry that has (and still does) create the tones we all love so much. Without tube amps there wouldn't be any modelers at all. Let's not forget that!
@SonicDriveStudio Well that is very true.. but because that falls outside of the realm of affordability for a lot of people, I wonder if in the future amp makers will start making digital models of their new amps with collaborators right away and be more financially supported by licensing/royalties as opposed to selling the real thing..
@@SonicDriveStudio So awesome to hear a RUclipsr admit this. Modelling and its ability to democratise access to expensive/premium IP is exactly the same devils bargain that the music industry made with Napster/Spotify. Customers decided they wouldn't pay for music properly anymore (despite spending £3.50 on a coffee, or £50 on a meal out) and now the music industry is basically an expensive hobby for nepo babies. Exactly as you put it, without the amp companies and their IP for people to steal with the capture process, modellers and the capture/profile market don't exist. Just another example of ethics and collectivism being sidelined. I feel like we are almost there already with the amp industry. Tonex One has now chopped the value out of modelling just as modelling chopped the value out of real amps. Marshall blatantly saw the writing on the wall and have sold to China. Just another continuation of the race to the bottom of society. Sad face.
I think both digital and analog can live together in harmony but it's important that we still respect and acknowledge the tube amps. They're a lot of fun too, and that will never change?
@ I've been HX Stomp (Mandarin Rocker) into Pedalbaby 100 for a few years now for shows. I did get a SV20h and loved it but... a power tube died and its too loud for the bedroom so it just sits there looking sexy and vintage currently. The 20kg of my TH30 alongside a pedalboard and 2 guitars just became too much of a ballache for shows. I love modelling, I just wish the models/captures were licensed and paid the original amp creators their fair share.
Buy my IRs & Captures: ko-fi.com/sonicdrivestudio
Thomann Affiliate: www.thomann.de/intl/index.html?offid=1&affid=3210
Sweetwater Affiliate: sweetwater.sjv.io/k0mGvx
My personal Thomann recommendations: thmn.to/thocf/cv37zixo68
Instantly knew that B was the real thing, it sounds clearer and more crisp if that makes any sense.. I´m still a big fan of todays tech, and what obviously is possible, thank you for the impressive comparison!!
Yep. 10 seconds of listening on my phone and I could tell B was the real amp… in the mix and isolated.
So subtle in the mix. Proves that it is all acceptable these days!!
Being able to download basically any classic guitar song and have it dialed in instantly is heaven. Love my Helix.
IMO the biggest giveaway is how it sits in a mix. Real amps in these types of tests often lay back in a less obtrusive way while the amp sims always sound a little too up front. I was able to pick it out pretty immediately but your Helix tones are so good I second guessed my self for a second lol.
Agreed. I feel like digital amps compress the signal more (less dynamics than a real amp), and of course the frequency change and response is also different. Not that digital is bad, but I think it can still get a lot better.
What a great time it is to be a guitar player. So many great tools to play and create!. Thanks for the comparison!!
You consistently do the most useful comparisons. Thanks
I guessed right, and have an HX Stomp and Helix Native. Examples A and B sounded very close. The differences I heard was the Helix sounded a little clearer in the highs and less distinct in the lows. The real Amp sounded a little thicker, smoother, warmer, and more organic/relaxed in the mids.
There is a video all guitarists should watch on how YT applies "Compression" to videos, how it affects audio, and what you can do about it. The video is "RUclips ruined all my videos - UNLESS you disable this setting". It makes a noticeable difference.
My takeaway from this is how helix universe platform not only is amazing but also its longevity is unmatched
It’s the magical feeling that the tube amp gives that i just can’t describe through words.
I can. It’s called ‘confirmation bias’ 😅
This is the first video where I couldn't pick the helix out. I skipped to the playing so I didn't even know it was a helix. Thought it was capture tech haha. All that to say, exceptional work on this one
both sounded really good, mainly heard the difference starting @6:55 - A was a bit more sterile yet pronounced, B just sat more naturally, like it was embraced by the rest of the mix. at the end of the day the general listening audience will not know or care - great work here as always!!!
A and B are almost impossible to tell the difference in a Mix. I half Heartedly guessed B was the real amp because it was a little darker. It just goes to prove that people need to focus on making good songs and stop fighting over gear sound choices.
Yup! We need to get over our need to justify spending our savings on incredibly expensive equipment and just focus on making the best music we can
I'd say, spend your money however you like. I personally enjoy both digital solutions as well as boutique amps. It's all fun!
@@SonicDriveStudio yes for me the same. The digital stuff came a long way and sounds soo good. Maybe in feel and some platforms dynamics, because tubes ‘push’ a llittle different. But in sound you can’t tell the difference these days between digital or real amps. 🙌🏼
Woah! I was just doing my homework about 2 -3 days ago, clearing all my pedals and go less with gears. Thinking of getting the VP4 and this video came out. Thanks much for this. Gonna go with the VP4 and pass those pedals and gears to the kids if they ever play.
Both sound very good !!!
John single handledly boasting sales of the helix haha I’m definetly getting an HX Stomp! Your comparisons kick ass, your tones kick ass and your videos are sick and superrrrr helpful!
This is so proving my point. Whilst my friends all buy more analog equipment than ever I sold about anything and am happy with it. Nobody notices a difference really.
By the way: just tested one of your IR packs against some other "name" packs. They are great, will for sure come back for others.
Thanks for checking out my IRs! Glad you like em!
Absolutely loved this! This is super interesting because, in my mind, there was always a night and day difference between digital and real amps.
Really goes to show how far tech has come.
Mind if I ask which cab this uses ???? I want to recreate this tone.
To replicate the tone you can get my IR pack which you can find in my webstore or get Grossman Fatbox, Celestion V-Typ, 2 SM57s and an MD421 Kompakt
@ really cool! mind giving a general estimate of mic positioning ? like cap edge or straight on the cone ?
@@josephperkins-z7n he showed it in the video I think
Amp B was VERY obviously the real amp. Called it immediately. Helix Native made a good showing though. Line 6 has always done well with gainer sounds and cleans.
The test of any good amp sim is how it does with edge of break up.
Great video Jon🤘🏽 i have bought your v30 pack and its amazing✌🏾
Awesome, thanks! Glad you like it
Crazy how close that was! It would also be interesting to hear the real amp with the real cab vs the IR you’ve made of it.
Also it came to mind that if you would have been pushing the both HX and orange with an OD, would they be even more hard to tell apart? 😅
Great content yet again!
Cab vs IR comparison video coming soon!
@ very cool!!
Lately I’ve been really happy with my HX stomp as I’ve been digging into it. I do use mostly Neural DSP plugins for my studio work, but it often seems I’m able to dial in very similar stuff from the HX stomp. For random live stuff I alrealdy ditched the laptop. Seems like a no brainer deal to just get the HX Native with the deal I get owning the Stomp 🤷♂️
Good timing. My orange amp head should arrive soon, and I already have an IR set up with a gx100 and a headrush frfr. I want both worlds
It really sounds extremely close. Great job with the IR, you really nailed it. I guessed correctly. What I think gave it away for me was:
a) Brightness/harshness. Amp sims and IRs are almost always brighter and more top endy, I guess it's just the nature of the beast. That can and often should be treated a bit differently in the mix as well as playing live. One needs to roll of that top end very carefully and precisely with a high cut filter and tame those very harsh and hissy highs around 16k, sometimes also 8k, that are always there but add only digital noise and no "tone". A lot of people don't do that and it's the reason many productions nowadays sound so grating.
b) Spatial information. This is often not thought about, since we assume that cabs are close-miced anyway. But close miced doesn't mean, and never is, recorded in an anechoic chamber. With an IR, there is no space interacting with the cabinet - we only have one snapshot of a cab and mic interacting with the space at one tiny moment in time - so the digital method will always sound more full on in your face.
Also, when playing a tube amp, there are true analog irregularities happening all the time within the circuit, that's just physics - it exists in the real world. The tube amp's response is constantly modulating, giving it a certain impression of a little bit of "give", which when playing tends to feel a bit saggier and smoother, but in terms of auditive perception the result is a sensation of the sound diffusing itself within the environment, like being pushed back into the room a tiny bit (people will often call this "dynamics"). The amp sim on the other hand is an idealized image of one snapshot of irregularity in one moment in time, it will typically react in a more static way. Again, both factors can be accounted for in the mix, this time with psychoacoustics. Which means spatial positioning using pre-delay and reverb. This seems counterintuitive when working with guitar sounds, because those are supposed to be dry and in-your-face, but it's not about "audible room" via reverb tail, hall effect etc., but about placing the sound in a perceived space through "inaudible reverb".
Having all that said, the bottom line for me is: if I only heard ONE version and not both, would I have identified it correctly as being digital or analog? Most probably not. I just went off of my own associations, expectations and previous experience from enthusiastic experimenting with real and digital gear (friends and family call it "obsessing" 🤪).The very slight differences are only noticeable if you really get to do a careful A/B comparison. But you would also perceive differences if you recorded two real rigs (two different units of the same cab and amp, for example). So who cares about differences when both sounds are absolutely satisfying, like in this example? Which tells us: physical AND digital are absolutely fine as long as the gear is top quality and is being utilized in a competent manner.
I knew right away that option A is the Helix. In my opinion, in almost all tests, the Helix sits better in the mix than real amplifiers. The Helix has more mids and highs and more compressed sound. The real amplifier sounds wider in this case, more bass and much less compression.
In any case, both sounded great and thank you for your videos!
Wow, this is the first time i ever watch a video from you where it doesn't always sound exactly the same. For the first time it sounded different.
There is a difference, sure! BUT, does one sound more "real" than the other?
@@SonicDriveStudio Well, the real Rockerverb sounded more like my own Rockerverb 50 MKIII (paired with Orange PPC212), so I guessed correctly. That said, Helix sounded really good and, although I wouldn't trade one for the other, I could consider it as a convenient backup.
Jon, it is your fault I bought this Orange and it was my best purchase for many many years. Thanks!
Interesting and cool video. Another variable you can introduce into your signal chain is experimenting with different mic preamps. I've done the comparison between the mic preamps of different audio interfaces, software preamps in my UAD Apollo, and a dedicated rack-mounted tube preamp, and there are surprising and significant differences (even between different audio interfaces by the same brand). My favorite is the latter, which also allows me to play with the impedance and gain / saturation knobs for each mic.
Wow!
Nice IR captures!
Extremely convincing test ! I usually enjoy modeling with Neural DSP plugins for writing music, reherse at home, work my guitar skills etc., and in the same time I enjoy to play with real amps, also at home with a loadbox and IRs (good ones if possible ;-) !). I always found a difference between both because the dynamic and global respsonse to the playing, IMHO, is not the same. There is something lacking with the modeling, but it's still very convincing (particularly in a mix) and it wouldn't pose any more problem than that to make an album only with modeling. Also, there are so different factors that can explain the differences between the best modeler you can find and reality : the cab/speakers models used for modeling, the tubes brand, specs, age and biasing, the revision of the amp (components, place where it was assembled, manufacturer of the PCBs if that's the case etc.) etc. So with my experience and knowing how many parameters can be taken into account, I'm absolutely amazed of the so tiny difference between both. Very good job John (as usual), and also I take my hat off to the engineers who modeled these amps...
I preferred the Helix in the isolated tracks because of the low end that you mentioned. It also had little less presence to me, so by itself it sounded nicer. But the real amp sat much better in the mix. Just the right frequencies
Yes, very, very similar. Listening on iPhone but I actually picked the Helix as the one I liked best.
Great Video :) Yeah, it´s the palm mutes what gives it away. With little reverb on both you can smooth things out a bit. But like you said, the difference is minimal. When i record guitars i sometimes use Helix stomp and a tube amp in a song, sometimes i connect the helix with a tube poweramp (Marshall 9000) and then speaker or IR. It always depends on my mood that day :) cheers
Sound wise about the same - feel wise will feel different, but the audience listens most of the time and does not watch, future belongs to modelers whether we like it or not.
It sounds great either way!
Pausing at 7:04 to guess A for Helix and B for real amp. We'll see!
Edit -- neato, got it. But in no way do I think one is "worse" than the other. Someone else said B sounded darker, and listening in my car that's what I picked out, too.
But man they're both so good. My Helix LT is so extremely good, I couldn't be happier with it.
love this channel
Wow! Well done.
I guessed them right from the first A / B clip but they sound stupidly close and both excellent. I think the only reason I got it right is because I use a Stomp a lot. I feel like the Helix stuff doesn't ring out quite the same and note separation isn't the same.
Thanks for the video! Makes me feel like I'm missing out less by having to play with headphones most of the time on my Stomp :D.
I absolutely was not expecting to prefer the helix in the mix
Keep these coming!
Interesting. I didn't know what to expect but I prefered mix B by a relatively large margin (with proper headphones). I can't say exactly but there some kind of mid presence that is a lot more pleasing. Seems less harsh... but the Helix certainly still sounded great!
Theres also a cool factor beyond the sound. Like a mechanical watch is just cooler than digital quartz watch, though a digital watch is actually more acurate. Or how people collect old Nintendo consoles when you can download a free emulator on your computer. Nothing against modelers or emulators its just what you find useful and inspiring.
Run the Helix into the power amp of the amp into speakers is really good.
Quite awesome as usual! Did you adjust the settings of the model to match the amp or adjust the amp to match the modeler?
Never clicked a video as soon as i did with this! :D
Hope you enjoy it!
For recording both solutions provide same level of quality if you ask me. For live playing when I stand next to a cab I still have more fun with real amp, but I get idea of convenience the modellers provide.
I got it right, with initial reaction “B sounds and feels more organic/natural”. And especially when hearing plain guitar tracks I see why, it’s the same story when I hear from amp modelers vs. real amps. All amp modelers lacking proper low end, Cortex gets it really close, but first thing you hear in AB is that model having less low-end (perceivable low-end). You try to compensate by adding more lows but it immediately gets boomy and muddy. Amp modelers sounds static and consistent compared to real amps, not in a good way. Real amps feels dynamic, it’s always depending on a previous step in a way, there is always something going on, changing in time, if I were trying to describe it. I think this low end and dynamics from the real amps are not really coming from the amps themselves but from the speakers. Guitar tube amps have really low damping factor, it can be like 1 or even 0.25 or something like this (compare it to typical solid-state amp where even value like 80 can be considered low). This means the speaker will resonate by itself quite a lot, depends on the frequency how much (the signal is modulated by the impedance curve). And as you know the resonance peak of a guitar speakers resides typically around 75-100Hz, so this frequency region resonates the most. Amp modelers try to model amp output, even with a reactive load I think it’s missing what real physical speaker is doing, as it’s not all necessarily translates directly back into electrical signal, it’s a complicated mechanical system with its own inertia. So real amps do not push that much low end actually, but when you suddenly play something that pushes the resonance frequency (e.g. palm mutes) the speaker really sing more of that even when the amp is done playing. Thus we perceive more low-end, but not like overall EQ but in the right moments. This also happens with highs. When playing longer modelers tire the ear, because they are consistently pushing the hiss and sizzle to stay clear, while real amps do it like with some kind of swings, only peaking with highs, not pushing the highs all the time. So the loose speaker probably is taking part in it (since the impedance curve is also rising towards the highs).
I appreciate your detailed review and thoughts on the matter!
This isn't true. No problems with low end on my fractal or helix. For arguments sake, let's say you are correct. Many things can cause added low end to get "boomy". Are you doing it/preamp/ post? What frequency are you boosting? If it's boomy and you are using a 10 band, try a parametric. If it is still boomy, try a more surgical/ wide Q. It really isn't that complicated, and most people aren't using those amazing ears you allegedly have. I own a 1960AB Marshall cab and a Mesa trad. straight 4×12. There is a slight difference only in the amount of "air" being pushed, and it is easily mitigated using only a few tweaks. You are talking about a mere 3% difference, that literally makes no difference.
@@jayjaymerritt2785 " You are talking about a mere 3% difference, that literally makes no difference.", ....To you, all ears are different...
Bass response is always a key
Very close! I only could recognize the real amp because I know that Orange amps are boomy and compressed in the low ends. The digital version sounds a little bit flatter in the overall frequency curve what is a common thing for the Helix and others like the Kemper. Not meaning that it's less good than the originals, but it's just a tad different.
There is a warmth and extra something to the tube amp. The helix is very close but it misses that special/magical feeling. I’ll say this too. I think unless you’ve had serious time with a tube amp it’s not something as easily picked up upon.
I always enjoy when you shift to Yiddish accent when saying Grossman
I think the original sound a bit more "unpolished" and has some tiny imperfections in the upper mids/ high end while the digital amp stay very "clean" up there. Both sounding absolutly great. The difference is definitly not what will make or break a record. 🤟😎
Telling you my thoughts before i listen to yours: this is really damn close, but i like the tube amp a little better. I don`t hear a lot of difference in frequency response, this is almost perfect covered by the helix, but the tube amp is more three dimensional/deeper, gives more room and breath to the sound, is not so close by the ear. Like it, still an big Rockerverb fan.
Thing is, it's not likely that even 2 different Rockerverb 50 MkIII heads are going to sound exactly identical to each other. Taking that into consideration, that you were able to make this amp and the Helix model sound the same in overall character which is where it counts is a great testimony of the quality of and attention to detail given to Helix modeling. I'll the flexibility of Helix modeling with parameter modulation over MIDI and snapshots over the actual head.
10 seconds into the mix comparison, I had a favorite souding one : the dynamic of the bass response, the splash and clarity when you hit the open high strings, and overall a more lively, less flat sound than the other one. Turns out, it was the tube amp, but I"ve done enough wrong blind tests to not fool myself... I probably just know by now on what aspect fo the sound to focus on. Bottomline you just can choose whatever you like, just be aware that the lerning curve on modelers is tight, they're full of possibilities but can quickly sound horrible. Tubes are straightforward and I'm afraid i'll always find them more fun to play than modelers. Would have been really interested to hear a ToneX or NAM shootout, though
Difference is in transients, and how they process transients in my opinion. I had impression that modeling reacted "quicker" to transients. That's maybe the limitation of the technology used in modeling. But it may be exactly what you need.
Hey Jon, great comparison. I’ve been using the helix since it was released so gone through all the cabinet iterations and deep into the IR jungle. I use your stuff exclusively and love it. Curious that I always leave the default at -18 on the cab block and I saw you had it at 1.6. Can you elaborate? What were you running the channel volume and master on Helix? Thank you sir👍
The volume and master were very low, that's why I compensated in the amp model
I didn’t hear much of a difference. I was also sitting outside next to a construction site with one earbud in while eating lunch 😂. Seriously though, both sounded awesome, thanks for doing a blind comparison as well and keeping it unbiased
At least you used an earbud! :)
Both sounded great! I couldn't hear a big difference.
In a band context with another guitar, I think it doesn't matter if you are using a real amp or the Helix. So, I think just use the gear that makes you feel good. There is no right or wrong.
Even with the guitars isolated it is truly hard to tell any difference. I'm listening on Kali Audio IN-8's CRANKED and the difference is very subtle. Especially if a scroll down and can't see when you switch between sources. I hate to tell you, but I'll take your captures and IR's any day for tracking. Too easy. :D
Got it correct becuase of low end of real amp. But i know helix well. Now iam pairing it with tonex to compensate fellow, but helix hold its ground. Waiting for Helix 2;) awesome comparision;)
johnny is the best.
Yeah dude this is nearly exact. Great job!! Now I gotta go play the Mandarin model tonight. What’s your favorite run of the mill boost for the rockerverb?
Lichtlaerm Audio The King In Yellow!
🔥 Another great video
Being able to change the impedance curve on the IR block is one of the big things Helix is missing. Really surprised they haven't implemented that this far into the products life.
I like the amp a little better for the isolated tracks but the difference is minimal. I hear the amp a little "rounder" in the top and "richer" in the lower register - it's hard to put into words about a sound experience. In a mix with a bass guitar + maybe a hint of EQ, it wouldn't be possible to tell for sure which is the amp and which is the plugin.
I still prefer real amps. Keep it up Jon. Cheers
Wow I prefer helix rather than the real amp! That suprises me 😮
The bass was the giveaway for me, Amp Sims tend to get a bit blurred and less defined there, at the same time some tend to overpronounce other frequncies. But i also know the Mandarin Rocker Helix Model and it´s still impressive how close they are for a listener in a mix (not necessarily how it feels when you play).
the tone was the same but the electrical 3d bloom was alive drums always settle back better in the mix with real mics and cabs, but the flatter model lets the drums out, if your a guitarist use amps if your a drummer use sims, if your greedy and needy use both
The real amp has the edge for me. Even in the mix it just sounded slightly better. A win for real amps! You’ll be happy to know since you have like 50 of them 😂
I still like Helix/Native for effects but it's become kind of frustrating to play vs my real amps run through a load box and IR. The models just always feel a little neutered to me though sound wise I still think many of the models are close. Unfortunately the amp out on my unit won't channel switch any of my amps or I'd use it as a pedal board so it's been collecting dust for a few months now
Near impossible to tell in a mix, if you’re good at dialing the model in and your IR is good. The only really giveaways are in the hands, which nobody else can actually hear of course.
Doesn’t matter what modeler you choose (as long as it’s a good one), some models are able to portray the real amp better than others. And Sometimes, all it takes is a drive in front to get it closer to how the real thing plays (or make it sound like a different thing altogether)
I closed my eyes and didn't hear the difference in the mix (maybe in 1 place, but couldn't tell which one was that). On the standalone the tube amp had a tiny bit more sparkle - maybe I'm fooling myself here, but I preferred that. All-in-all, using the Helix over a real amp won't be the factor breaking the career of a band :D.
On the blind test I liked A better it sounded richer, the B was not bad at all, it was actually tighter but both work of course, what ir did you use?
It's pretty much the same with most amp sims.... There's a generic quality to the saturation and harmonics. I use amp sims exclusively, so I'm not knocking them . They also typically lack that push or growl of a real amp which a lot of this isnull in a mix because it's all removed.... EXCEPT when the guitar is solo before all instruments come in, like an intro or break when you want all theberf you can get. Amp modeling in the end is the same argument solid state amps dealt with.... It doesn't sound like a tube amp, but, it does sound like an amp, and you do the best with what you have.
They definitely sound very close in the mix, but the real amp sounds more “Fluid”. I know that’s a weird descriptor but there’s something about the way it responds to the lows and transients across the mids that sounds more reactive. I’m listening on headphones. I’m wondering if using a multiband expander in a very gentle way at the 80-200 area and maybe somewhere 1.5k-3k would help? Just a thought. Great test as usual!
I am wondering did you ever compare a tube amp/amps with a cab vs a modeler with power amp going through the same cab? If not I think that it would make for an interesting video and I did see some people use this type of setup or recommend it and depending on the modeler it can get really close to that "amp in the room" type of feel and sound. Most common way I see it used live is that one cable goes straight to mixer the other in the power amp and into the cab and the cab can be used as a "monitor" or you can mic it but that kinda defeats the purpose when making a setup easier for live use but for a comparison it would be necessary to mic it. I have seen a youtuber review this setup with a Fractal FM9, Seymour Duncan Powerstage and a cab with great results to the point that he only plays his tube amps at home for his personal enjoyment or studio use only.
Shocking. I would have said A = real, B = Helix
I can hear a difference in the isolated parts but honestly not on the first listen in the mix. It is very close indeed. Did you use any post EQ ?
No post eq
Most people that shit on Helix only used the factory cabs instead of 3rd party IRs.
I sold my Helix, but sometimes I miss it.
Funny enough, most of the people arguing tube vs digital probably have never used many if any the amps available in Helix, Fractal, QC etc units anyways. Or listening on their phone. Not sure how anyone would have problems with either one of those 2 tones. They sound great.
I'm curious, did you experiment with matching IRs to get the helix closer? I had some success with that. It's definitely not the perfect solution, it's still a linear approximation but it did further reduce the differences for me. :)
10:40 NO, the differences are the same differences every Surface Mount Technology amp has unless you go tube or some transistors even, its not the same
That's neat and all, but which one inspires you more?
Jon let's get some Quad cortex Adam Jones Tool Tones 🔥
I'm new to digital modelers, etc. I have a Randall Century 200 solid state amplifier. I want to profile at least the output sound from the cab and be able to preserve that sound and use it digitally. What would you or anyone that reads this comment recommend to do this the most accurate way possible? Thanks again for another great video!
I think it is difficult to hear a huge difference but for me it’s a feel that you get from a tube amp. That spongy feeling when you dig in, I have not been able to get out of a modeler. I have a QC, FM9 and Kemper and they all sound great but none have that feel. Yet…
Ok, works for Orange? but how about with Fryette Amps or similar knobby moderns amps
I think if you cut frecuences in helix arround 15kh may be you can erase hi fizzy frecuences to make more real. The problem is when you do this you have less dynamic, but recording is not a big problem. I’ll do this in post recording to have a better playhability while you are recording.
Tube amp also had little better mids and highs, both sounded awesome. Could audience tell? Never.
I couldn't tell a difference listening to the full mix on a 2:1 speaker setup. Listening to the isolated tracks, not looking at the screen for the change-over, I couldn't really tell which was which, even if one of them seemed the most miniscule bit more woofy in the lows. Goes to show that there's barely any difference between analog and digital when digital is done right.
Why do you have the Master setting so low on your Helix Preset? Is that a tonal choice in some way?
Yeah because master volume controls in some modelers tend to act more drastically at lower settings. The master on my amp was pretty low too and I wanted to match that. With high master volume settings an amp gets muddy and darker
I can’t hear the difference in the blind comparison
In the isolated tracks i can hear that the real amp is just a bit flubbier and fatter sounding. Both sound incredible
If you only listened to the produced track, you would never know there was any switching going on.
The VType is an underrated speaker.
It's great!
close as anything...be great to see frequency response graphs...
my Dream rig only needs a 2X12 Hesu demon speakers and a SD powerstage or some other poweramp.
A was a little thinner in the low mids other than that, it sounds very close
Again the engl xxl 🤘🤘🤘
I'm convinced that there's no need to spend $4k on an actual amp anymore and that modern amp modelers and pre-amp pedals/modules sound good enough to give you studio level tones worthy of going on an album.. unless you're really into amps and a stickler for the feel of a real amp..
There's also something to be said for supporting the industry that has (and still does) create the tones we all love so much. Without tube amps there wouldn't be any modelers at all. Let's not forget that!
@SonicDriveStudio Well that is very true.. but because that falls outside of the realm of affordability for a lot of people, I wonder if in the future amp makers will start making digital models of their new amps with collaborators right away and be more financially supported by licensing/royalties as opposed to selling the real thing..
@@SonicDriveStudio So awesome to hear a RUclipsr admit this. Modelling and its ability to democratise access to expensive/premium IP is exactly the same devils bargain that the music industry made with Napster/Spotify. Customers decided they wouldn't pay for music properly anymore (despite spending £3.50 on a coffee, or £50 on a meal out) and now the music industry is basically an expensive hobby for nepo babies. Exactly as you put it, without the amp companies and their IP for people to steal with the capture process, modellers and the capture/profile market don't exist. Just another example of ethics and collectivism being sidelined. I feel like we are almost there already with the amp industry. Tonex One has now chopped the value out of modelling just as modelling chopped the value out of real amps. Marshall blatantly saw the writing on the wall and have sold to China. Just another continuation of the race to the bottom of society. Sad face.
I think both digital and analog can live together in harmony but it's important that we still respect and acknowledge the tube amps. They're a lot of fun too, and that will never change?
@ I've been HX Stomp (Mandarin Rocker) into Pedalbaby 100 for a few years now for shows. I did get a SV20h and loved it but... a power tube died and its too loud for the bedroom so it just sits there looking sexy and vintage currently. The 20kg of my TH30 alongside a pedalboard and 2 guitars just became too much of a ballache for shows. I love modelling, I just wish the models/captures were licensed and paid the original amp creators their fair share.
What took you so long😊