Re: Bill Walker's amp modeler

[<stanitarium@earthlink.net>]

> It just stands to reason that eventually computing power and good
> software would eventually be able to model a tube amp effectively.
> It's a complex system, to be sure, but hell my ex girlfriend got her
> doctorate writing code that modeled gravity wells in black hole
> situations.  Anyway, I swear by my Johnson.  It's less fragile, quieter
> and more powerful than my Ampeg Reverbrocket, and it has great tone.
> When I got the Reverbrocket I did A/B tests, and I swear some of the
> models on the Johnson sounded embarrassingly good.  I've also heard
> people who use vintage tube stuff exclusively that sound like crap.
> 
> Part of me waxes nostalgic about what's sure to be the end of tube
> amps, but the other part realizes that tubes are the result of a pretty
> nasty manufacturing process (so are microchips but they're not
> disposable like tubes are) and will for sure be ever harder to get as
> time goes by.  Oh well.
> 
> Then again, every time I hear Andre Lafosse play out of that
> Mesa/Boogie he uses I think, "wow, such tone..."
> 
> Mark Sottilaro


well mark, i guess that ol' addage is correct-"unreasonable people can
disagree"
usually the arguements i get into are about the weight of the amps and the
price of tubes and amps and the fact that tubes wear out. its hardly ever
about where tone is king.
your use of the word 'model' is good.
from webster:"a miniature representation of something."
the final arbiter for me is -either you hear and feel it or you dont.
if yo dont then dont waste time,money and yer back on vacuum tube
amplifiers.

stale
(i agree that bill has a great tone going...not that it couldnt be mo' 
betta
w/ totally tubular technology.)