Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Modeling Amps, Plugins and Apps' started by KnopflerStyle, Jul 18, 2019.
More like a third of the price would be my estimate..
Yeah I watched the vids also, and while I do think it is a good idea for Fender, I think they are way overpriced and will be quickly discontinued and/or heavily discounted. As someone said above, Fender probably put a lot of money into R&D on these, but I bet their manufacturing cost in China is at most 100 U.S. bucks.
I feel that everytime we have a brand new digital amp. we start a comparison or discussion vs valves ones. Which is better? Own experiences...
i think this time Fender gave a twist to that discussion.
What if a make the same "classic" amp that everybody loves and we improve its features... not a new one. Just the same, but better.
So.. let me put the twin as example
Which are the - attributes of twins?
1) Weight --> Solve it with digital
2) Maintenance --> Solve it with digital
3) You need big volumes to use it --> Solve it with digital
4) Price --> in same way... solve it... i gave the other 3 features, why will you not pay for them? Instead, are you willing to buy the original for the difference?
They still respect the possitive attributes
1) Simplicity of a valve amp
2) Looks good, a classic to the majority of us
3) Configuration (speakers size and quantity)
4) Materials (knobs, cabinet, grill etc)
So the only attribute, probably the most important is the sound which fender says their work 3 years on them. So it should be very close i guess. We will know it soon.
In my case, i have the money, but i cant buy a twin reverb. I cant carry one, play at high volumes at home. Here valves are expensive and i dont want to put it on my car and send it to do a maintenance. Also i dont know valves brand... or where i could find them. i have valve amps, probably if they broke i will have them for weeks in that condition.
So this alternative opens to me a new option. I still think it expensive, but if they sound equal or very very similar, who will still prefer a more expensive, heavy, big volume, and difficult to maintain amp?
I'm definitely gonna try one out when I see one in a store, that's for sure. Is it worth $900 vs. $600 vs. $300 - that's really a question for the accountants. If I play one and it seems nicely built, and I like it, well it looks friggin' cool too, so yeah. If I wasn't flat broke that is
I want to try to understand why people might take offense to having a digital amp in a classic Fender tube amp style, like if I took a Ford pickup and put an electric engine in it (or whatever... substitute your own analogy) but I think people who love the classic Deluxe Reverbs are going to check in the back for the 6V6's before buying anyway, right? I don't think even Fender can kill their own legacy. Can they? If so, oh well. The "real" Deluxe Reverb isn't going anywhere.
I dunno, the "difficult to maintain" complaint about tube amps seems wildly overblown to me, and I am a huge fan of solid state amps. I have only owned a few tube amps in my life, not gigged heavily with them, but never had any problems at all. I think if any type of amp is "difficult to maintain," well maybe it's just a piece of crap!
Maybe, maybe not. Twins and DRs are some of the most reliable tube amps out there and are built like tanks. I've owned a '73 Twin for over 20 years and the maintenance has been minimal and inexpensive -- I spend maybe $100 - $150 on maintenance every 5 years or so. I've also owned lots of digital gear over the years (I played synths before guitars) and agree that it is fairly reliable. But when digital stuff breaks the cost to repair tends to be far more expensive -- especially if something goes wrong with a logic board or DSP chip.
One last point about maintenance, is the faster churn rate and obsolescence of digital gear. Even allowing for the fact that tube manufacturing may decrease, there is far better likelihood of replacing the tubes in my '73 Twin 20 years from now than replacing a busted DSP chip in one of these digital Tone Masters.
Don't get me wrong, I'm excited to see the development and maturation of digital amp technology, and amp manufacturers like Fender should embrace it, but digital hardware isn't a panacea.
Cars used to be easy to fix most of the time: easy to set the timing, easy to gap the plugs, easy to get the parts and easy to get "to" the parts under the hood. Now they are computer-ridden nightmares. It's a little harder to be a shadetree mechanic.
My post on Strat-Talk:
...which is a good thing, because they needed a whole lot more fixing. Cars from the era of the first couple I ever owned and maintained were state-of-the-art when they were made (early 1970s) but they're junk compared to what I'm driving today (2010s).
Sure, but how often do you need to do those things on a modern car? Ignition timing never needs adjustment because the only mechanical parts of that system are the crank and cam shafts. The plugs in my current car don't need to be pulled until ten years or 100,000 miles, and that's only because it's the replacement interval. On my 1973, they had to be pulled, inspected, cleaned and re-gapped every year or 12,000 miles. and that was only one of a dozen things that had to be done at that interval. The engine in my car is shoehorned into the engine compartment, but pretty much everything you'd ever need to get at is right up top.
Are they nightmares because they're badly-engineered or because the set of knowledge it takes to work on one is different than what it was 50 years ago?
Fender mostly sell guitars inspired by 50's cars. In 50's car color paint.
I really like this. How many of fenders products says 2019?
I know hybrid amps has mostly been cheap toys before but this is an intresting take.
State of the art software (universal audio charge 199 dollars for there software), a jensen neo (130 euro at thomann), pine cabinet and a few other parts.
They certainly can serve a purpose. I'm suspicious of the bait and switch marketing, based on the names though, and see that as a liability. These could turn into a badge of shame, like having "sucker" tattooed on your forehead.
I was finally in a position to listen/watch the video today. And yes, the usual caveats do apply, absolutely.
That said, I have a hunch that the bulk of audible differences probably have to do with the ceramic speakers in the tube versions, vs. the neo speakers in the DSP versions.
Jensen doesn't have anything at their website for the Jensen N-12K, but I have a feeling that it's probably either the same as, or at least similar to, the Jensen Jet Tornado Classic 100.
So, just looking at the specs and graphs of specifically the C12K and Jet Tornado Classic 100, one should be able to at least partially verify why we're hearing the differences that we do, in the video. You can also see that the cones of those two speakers are different, even if you wanted to assume that all else were equal, which they obviously aren't.
Also, I think the differences with the Twin Reverb is more pronounced because you have two of them side by side, and even if micing just one, you get the interaction between the two.
I know Fender is trying to replicate the sound of the original, but speakers really are a subjective taste. Lots of folks replace what's in their DRs/TRs/DRRIs/TRRIs with all kinds of different stuff, anyway. To keep the weight down on the DSP models, I'd think that lots of folks would probably have good success simply trying some different neo speakers offered by different manufacturers.
Really excellent points especially about the speaker differences. Moreover, any 2 tube Twins can sound fairly different even those from the same era.
I'd like to hear one of these in person just to compare and to see how Fender's digital modeling has come along.
What is the bait and switch?
What would be the badge of shame?
How long did it take Google to copy the original feel of iOS and totally rewrite what they were planning for Android? Fender has dabbled in modeling since the POD first became popular. They can always poach engineers from other players or just acquire a smaller company.
Modeling will not be Fender Amp's bread and butter for a long time if ever. I like the concept. I just don't like the price since it only emulates a single amp. I wonder how Marshall would price a Plexi or Bluesbreaker?
BTW, I think Fender is on to something. These amps should not require endless hours of tweaking. They should be plug and play.
And everyone is probably going to have their own subjective preference WRT the "right speakers" in a DR or TR, which possibly will not include what their amp came with (or had in it, if they got it used). So that means Jensen, Celestion, JBL, etc. many years ago (including replacement alnicos in the DR), and then all the stuff by Weber, Eminence, et al in the 80's-onward.
If anything, if you like the sound of these DSP variants, the good news is that the only thing that will really cause tonal variation is the speakers. Tubes and drifting tolerances of old passive components are tonal variables that are eliminated. If consistency is your thing, that's obviously a big potential advantage.
Fender announced a new product that nobody outside the company has seen or heard ... And people are arguing already ... Let's wait ... Could be a dud...
Maybe not ...
If you thought you were buying a Twin Reverb but instead were buying a solid state or digital amp, and not realize you were duped. Only to show up at a jam, and have folks point and giggle
I thought the digital Deluxe sounded like crap in the Anderton's video.
Sounded fine clean as expected, but sounded horrible with the drive pedal and turned up.
The Twin Reverb was more like the original, because the tube one also sounded like crap turned up.
It’s a great idea! I’d love to get one, but the price is too high. Pass!