Fender's Justin Norvell Teases About New Tone Master Amp In The New Year

[maxvintage]

The point is, a computer can do more than one thing.

You don't need one laptop for your email and another one to play Call Of Duty. The quote implies that each Tone Master amp is a unique circuit that does one thing well, but in reality it's a computer than can run the Twin model just as easily as the Deluxe model. The only reason they don't make a Tone Master than can emulate multiple amps is that they want to sell you multiple amps, not that the infrastructure of the amp is so complex that it can only do one thing at a time.

Sure, it can. And algorithms can do more than one thing. My favorite reverb pedal is the Catlinbread talisman, which only does one thing--plate reverb emulation--but does it really really well. It does exactly what i want it to do, and way better than any other reverb pedal I've ever tried. That might be because it doesn't also have a spring reverb setting, and a hall setting, and etc etc.

In the world of digital audio plugins, it's really common to have plugin that just does one thing: one kind of compressor, for example, not all kinds of compressors

I mean swiss army knives are useful, and ok at all the things they do.

So I'd be interested to try it if Fender wanted to come up with a dedicated tweed deluxe TM model.

 

[burntfrijoles]

I’d love to try a good one, but for a 45 watt amp like the Bassman, can an attenuator really get you that classic overdrive tone at reasonable volume for playing with other people in the house?

I think a good one like the Tone King Ironman II can. It’s made for larger wattage amps. (They have mini version for lower wattage amps as well). It has an impressive amount of attenuation.

 

[middy]

Although the Bassman and the Tweed line don't have Reverb and Tremolo?

I've heard that the Reverb on these has its own processing section (or whatever, not a tech guy) which Fender is really proud of.

So wondering if they would do an amp that doesn't have any extra effects?

They could add a 50’s style studio plate reverb. Sure, it’s not like the original, but there are small variations in the TM line from the originals.
I would absolutely love to see a tweed Tremolux with plate reverb built in!

 

[Mondaysoutar]

The point is, a computer can do more than one thing.

You don't need one laptop for your email and another one to play Call Of Duty. The quote implies that each Tone Master amp is a unique circuit that does one thing well, but in reality it's a computer than can run the Twin model just as easily as the Deluxe model. The only reason they don't make a Tone Master than can emulate multiple amps is that they want to sell you multiple amps, not that the infrastructure of the amp is so complex that it can only do one thing at a time.

I hear what you’re saying man, but all of them respectively so far have different speakers and speaker configurations, just like the originals. There’s so many variables between say a Twin or a Princeton, whether it’s powered by tubes or a computer.

Edit - only just seen another poster said basically what I’m on about here. So, well said to that poster and carry on.

 

[beyer160]

Sure, it can. And algorithms can do more than one thing. My favorite reverb pedal is the Catlinbread talisman, which only does one thing--plate reverb emulation--but does it really really well. It does exactly what i want it to do, and way better than any other reverb pedal I've ever tried. That might be because it doesn't also have a spring reverb setting, and a hall setting, and etc etc.

In the world of digital audio plugins, it's really common to have plugin that just does one thing: one kind of compressor, for example, not all kinds of compressors

I mean swiss army knives are useful, and ok at all the things they do.

So I'd be interested to try it if Fender wanted to come up with a dedicated tweed deluxe TM model.

A guitar pedal is not a computer, though. If it was, it could be a Talisman, a Topanga, a DLS, a RAT, a Big Muff, etc. And your computer can run multiple plugins, that's all I'm saying. Fender wants you to think they built an amp that's so special it can only ever be one thing and that's not the case. I'm not saying there isn't a market for a stripped down modeling solution, just calling BS on their marketing hype.

I hear what you’re saying man, but all of them respectively so far have different speakers and speaker configurations, just like the originals. There’s so many variables between say a Twin or a Princeton, whether it’s powered by tubes or a computer.

Why does this exist, then?

A Tonemaster is basically their version of this with only one profile, mounted in a cabinet with a speaker.

 

[maxvintage]

View attachment 1075946


A Tonemaster is basically their version of this with only one profile, mounted in a cabinet with a speaker.

Yes, everyone agrees with you on this, although it's not clear to me that fender uses the profiling method that kemper uses

Why don't I have a Kemper? Because I've got no interest in or need for 300 or whatever number of amps Kemper makes possible. I find it actually annoying and distracting and the opposite of making music. I realize many people love them and good for those people, but working in a DAW for a while convinced me that I was better off with a small number of plugins than I was with 300 plugins, and I'm better off with one or two amps than I am with 300.

A tweed deluxe is a great amp and surprisingly versatile, and if they manage to get the essence of a tweed deluxe in a lighter and less expensive package it's hard to see a downside. The magic of tubes PTP wiring etc etc, I know. It would all depend for me on how it sounded. It's conceivable that Fender would do a better job modeling a tweed deluxe than they would modeling a Vox or a marshall, I guess.

If I buy this imaginary amp you could argue that I've been duped, because it could just as easily have had 300 amps in it. Which I don't want and would not use. And sure, the imaginary tweed deluxe TM could also include, with the turn of a knob, a BF deluxe. Maybe so! But I don't want a BF deluxe. And I didn't want to sit there going "hmm sounds good! But what if I tried it through....."

IMHO the worst thing about modeling amps is the overabundance of choices, which for me at least tends to paralyze creativity. That's not true for everyone, but for me at least the TM series is kind of appealing because it does less.

 

[Blrfl]

My favorite reverb pedal is the Catlinbread talisman, which only does one thing--plate reverb emulation--but does it really really well. It does exactly what i want it to do, and way better than any other reverb pedal I've ever tried. That might be because it doesn't also have a spring reverb setting, and a hall setting, and etc etc.

Information about how Catalinbread's products are built is pretty scarce, but the pricing and very-low current consumption tell me they're probably discrete analog. If that's the case, then yes, adding more features means adding more circuitry. They could add a spring circuit and switch it in and out like you'd do on a pedalboard; it's no different electrically. In a standard-sized pedal, you run into limitations on real estate, but that didn't stop Tech 21 from making the Fly Rig into a single, wide pedal to stuff in what they wanted. Software's not like that. What isn't running doesn't occupy any of the computer's time and it doesn't take up any extra physical space.

At any rate, with buyers who'd take spring and/or plate versions at $200 each, they'd make more money than one $300 pedal that does both.

In the world of digital audio plugins, it's really common to have plugin that just does one thing: one kind of compressor, for example, not all kinds of compressors ... I mean swiss army knives are useful, and ok at all the things they do.

Individual plugins are probably more-profitable than do-it-alls for the same reasons as it is with pedals.

An Eventide H9000 is a no-compromises Swiss Army chainsaw, and I don't think may would argue that those are only okay at what they do. But it does take up two rack spaces and an $8,000 price of entry. Good is expensive; lots of good is lots of expensive.

Fender wants you to think they built an amp that's so special it can only ever be one thing and that's not the case. I'm not saying there isn't a market for a stripped down modeling solution, just calling BS on their marketing hype.

There's a hair here that needs to be split. When Fender says "build something that does one thing well," they're talking about the finished products as you buy them. For that, it's a true statement. The underpinnings are clearly capable of doing more than just that one thing. Fender's never said anything of the sort in public; we know it because people who own Tonemasters have taken them apart and taken pictures and people like me have done some reverse engineering of the firmware load. Whether the platform will end up in a modern-day CyberWhatever is a good question.

Why does this exist, then? ... A Tonemaster is basically their version of this with only one profile, mounted in a cabinet with a speaker.

The Kemper exists as a benchmark for the inevitable comparisons to the dashboard of the Space Shuttle. You're essentially right, though, and Fender's serving a market that, for the most part, wouldn't go anywhere near anything like that.

 

[johnnyASAT]

The built in attenuation on stuff like ToneMasters and Tube Logic amps points in an obvious direction: this stuff is largely marketed toward the home player who can grow into someone who can get gigs and take their TM/BC with them. So, a foundational solid combo amp that sounds good at practice volume that can grow with you as you advance, with the added bonus of relative affordability and feeling like you’re participating in some way in some of these guitarist traditions, such as over analyzing your gear.

The Kemper (and suchlike) is built like a professional tool. Who wants to spend all that time dialing stuff in? Someone whose job it is, that’s who.

 

[RCinMempho]

And the Tone Master was a move to say, we're not going to make this digital amp do 100 things pretty well, we're gonna make it do basically one thing extremely well,

This is hilarious. I guess they're counting on people not understanding that a Tonemaster is just a computer hooked to a class D power amp.

I think you are wrong.

The genius of the ToneMaster series is using the physically correct cabinet and speakers. By using the correct cabinet and speakers, you don't have to model the speakers and cabinet. That means you ONLY have to replicate the signals sent to the speakers. You eliminate speaker emulation from the design. You focus only on matching the waveforms coming out of the amp. It's easier, and you are matching only ONE model of amp. Your number of sample points can increase dramatically. There are no compromises in the design. One amp drives all the design factors. You send that one carefully modeled signal to the right speakers in the right cabinet, and it is going to sound like the amp that was modeled. A LOT MORE like the amp that was modeled simply because it has the right cabinet and speakers.

Yeah, there's and XLR out with two IR settings. Just two. They nailed those 2 to sound just like the amp does with two different mic methods. Again - modeling ONLY the actual amp model this is. There is no support for other speaker combinations. No need to compromise the algorithm to accommodate other configurations.

This is WHY it is so damn good. It is why you WON'T see Tonemaster amps that do more than one model. They may do that, but they won't call them Tonemasters. That title I firmly believed is owned by this concept. Model the amp's performance and put that signal into the same cabinet and speakers.

Given the acceptance these amps are getting, this concept seems to be working well. It wouldn't surprise me to see someone like VOX follow suit.

 

[telequacktastic]

Maybe they'll make a Tonemaster version of the old Squier 15 I had when I was a kid

 

[Mondaysoutar]

A guitar pedal is not a computer, though. If it was, it could be a Talisman, a Topanga, a DLS, a RAT, a Big Muff, etc. And your computer can run multiple plugins, that's all I'm saying. Fender wants you to think they built an amp that's so special it can only ever be one thing and that's not the case. I'm not saying there isn't a market for a stripped down modeling solution, just calling BS on their marketing hype.

Why does this exist, then?

View attachment 1075946


A Tonemaster is basically their version of this with only one profile, mounted in a cabinet with a speaker.

Again, I hear what you’re saying man, and I’m sorry you seem raging about me being conversational. For me, the Kemper profiler is different from the Tonemaster. Way I see it, if you’re looking for a Deluxe, Twin, Super or Princeton Reverb, the Tonemaster versions are a viable option. I was in that position a wee while ago, after considering and trying a few, I went for a Tonemaster Twin - it sounds like a really good tube twin to me, the 2x12 speaker configuration is vital to that for me. I had a loan of a Kemper, it’s a totally different thing that answers different questions - good for recording maybe, but not really what I’m after. The reason that the Tonemaster is popular is the same reason the tube versions are popular, again in my opinion. Hope you’re good anyway, no offence intended.

 

[BigDaddyLH]

The software world has turned to subscriptions via the cloud for recurring revenue rather than outright ownership. Would Fender do that for a digital amp? (probably not, but who knows?)

I like the idea of an amp that won't play if it can't connect to the cloud

 

[goonie]

The genius of the Tone Master is that people are fooled into thinking it bears any resemblance to the real thing.

 

[Fret Wilkes]

The genius of the Tone Master is that people are fooled into thinking it bears any resemblance to the real thing.

I'm not sure if you are trying to insult me, sing Fender's praises, or both. Lol

I can tell you that I'm not "fooled" by anything with the Tone Master. I know what it is, and what it is not.

I have a great sounding, "real thing", 1968 Drip Edge Twin Reverb. I love it. To reiterate what we've all read ad nauseum, it is extremely heavy, and extremely loud. This we all know, but again, it sounds fantastic. I gigged it exclusively since I purchased it in 2010 for the next 10.5 years. BTW - It cost me a small fortune to bring the "it needs some TLC" up to spec, but that's another story.

The idea of an amp that sounds like this 1968 Twin, but has greatly reduced weight, power scaling, and IR outs was extremely attractive to me. So, I bought a Blonde Tone Master Twin Reverb coming up on 2 years ago thinking that I'll A/B it against "the real deal" and if I don't like it I'll just return it and continue with my proven "real thing" 1968 Twin Reverb with all it's glory, and faults (weight and volume largely). After setting my old Twin right next to my new TMTR and bouncing back and forth between them testing it straight in, testing with my limited pedal board, and testing with different guitars, I was thrilled to find out that the TMTR too sound fantastic, and very, very much like "real thing". Knowing that the real test would be at a gig I reserved my final decision till I played out with it a couple of times. Bottom line - I LOVE it, and I haven't used the 68 since. It sit next to me here in my office.

The 1968 Drip Edge Twin Reverb is a classic, tube driven amp with exceptional sound.
The TMTR is a modern, digital model of teh amp I know so well and it sounds FANTASTIC.

I'm not "fooled" by anything with the Tone Master. Rather, I'm thrilled, and amazed that Fender has created this fabulous alternative to my well loved "real thing".

 

[That Cal Webway]

1969 Fender Capricorn ss amp Tonemaster

.

.

 

[Blrfl]

The genius of the Tone Master is that people are fooled into thinking it bears any resemblance to the real thing.

Unless you're in possession of the amps used to develop the model in the Tonemasters, your concept of "the real thing" is probably... um... inaccurate. Different copies of "the real thing" don't bear any resemblance to each other, either.

 

[Brent Hutto]

So to play semantics, the goal of a Tonemaster Twin Reverb is to sound very much like "A" real Twin Reverb. There's no such thing as "THE" Twin Reverb.

 

[BigDaddyLH]

So to play semantics, the goal of a Tonemaster Twin Reverb is to sound very much like "A" real Twin Reverb. There's no such thing as "THE" Twin Reverb.

Take a bunch of TRs that sound great to you. Plot their sound in "sound space". Aim for the mid point!

 

[RCinMempho]

I'm not sure if you are trying to insult me, sing Fender's praises, or both. Lol

I can tell you that I'm not "fooled" by anything with the Tone Master. I know what it is, and what it is not.

I have a great sounding, "real thing", 1968 Drip Edge Twin Reverb. I love it. To reiterate what we've all read ad nauseum, it is extremely heavy, and extremely loud. This we all know, but again, it sounds fantastic. I gigged it exclusively since I purchased it in 2010 for the next 10.5 years. BTW - It cost me a small fortune to bring the "it needs some TLC" up to spec, but that's another story.

The idea of an amp that sounds like this 1968 Twin, but has greatly reduced weight, power scaling, and IR outs was extremely attractive to me. So, I bought a Blonde Tone Master Twin Reverb coming up on 2 years ago thinking that I'll A/B it against "the real deal" and if I don't like it I'll just return it and continue with my proven "real thing" 1968 Twin Reverb with all it's glory, and faults (weight and volume largely). After setting my old Twin right next to my new TMTR and bouncing back and forth between them testing it straight in, testing with my limited pedal board, and testing with different guitars, I was thrilled to find out that the TMTR too sound fantastic, and very, very much like "real thing". Knowing that the real test would be at a gig I reserved my final decision till I played out with it a couple of times. Bottom line - I LOVE it, and I haven't used the 68 since. It sit next to me here in my office.

The 1968 Drip Edge Twin Reverb is a classic, tube driven amp with exceptional sound.
The TMTR is a modern, digital model of teh amp I know so well and it sounds FANTASTIC.

I'm not "fooled" by anything with the Tone Master. Rather, I'm thrilled, and amazed that Fender has created this fabulous alternative to my well loved "real thing".

If I may ask, why the Blonde? Does it have more fun?