Nick Crow 7170 Lead - Guitar Amp VST

Tolerances, I would say...
Creating an amp model from a schematic is going to make it sounds like an "ideal" amp, where all the components have that exact value and behaviour, when in the real world there could be up to a 20% of difference, for instance...

I've been talking to Thomas Serafini (the guy from Simulanalog and now Overloud) about this some days ago, and he told me that, for example, a real pot could not be perfectly logaritmic or linear, so it could react way different from an ideal one... this could explain the differences on the tonestack settings or the tone pot on an overdrive pedal...

Something I don't understand is the huge sound difference between different models of the same amp (Revalver 6505 vs 7170 or Revalver Mesa vs TH1 Mesa, etc.), but it could be dued to the schematics used and approximations...

You (Alu ?) are totaly right about tolerances, they are part of the assumptions that I was talking about. Apart from the assumptions related to the models, there are also approximations due to the numerical methods (or technics) used. As an exemple, take the Spice tube model presented by Koren. Real time evaluation of this model is very heavy on CPU. Numerical methods (or technics like lookup table, polynomials approx.) are most like needed to speed up the calculations of this model and this is another source of differences.

LePou
 
I did a quick test with some DI tracks Marcus posted a few months back. Most of the sims being talked about here, with me trying to fiddle a tone up really quickly with each one. Same TSS setting on each and same cabinet impulse on each. Only thing that varies is the amp sim and the settings being dialed into it.

Real 6505 head: http://dl.getdropbox.com/u/285689/marcus-6505.mp3

7170: http://dl.getdropbox.com/u/285689/marcus-7170.mp3

Dirthead: http://dl.getdropbox.com/u/285689/marcus-dirthead.mp3

SoloC: http://dl.getdropbox.com/u/285689/marcus-soloc.mp3

Bear in mind this was done on cans at 3am, so take that into account. From what I can hear, there is a clear winner.

6505 is using impulse or real cab?
 
It's a processor instruction set.

If you're running anything before Athlon 64 or Pentium 4 your processor probably won't support it.
I can't imagine many people running Pentium 3s or Athlon XPs these days though.


ooook, thanks for the explanation! So THAT'S why my Athlon XP 3000+ has such a hard time with 7170 and SoloC... :loco:

I'm still running that one as it is my dedicated recording PC which never gets connected to the internet (have a newer PC for everything else). And it does perfectly fine for recording, until I want to use several instances of ampsims... :cry:
 
Just wanted to give a :headbang::worship: to the creators of both the Solo C and the 7170 lead. Both plugin's are sounding pretty good on my extremely dated and subpar recording setup. Also, the massive Impulse library we have growing here matched with these excellent plugin's, I'd say you guys beat a lot of the competition. I'd love to see what you guys could come up with with some funding and backing and some henchmen. Keep it up.
 
I agree, thumbs up to Nick and LePou.

Not that I'm in a position to whine but I find it boring that every amp sim that is made these days are aimed at sounding like an existing real amp. I like unusual guitar sounds, and it would be really cool if someone made a sim that just comes up with new type of distortions, something that is really unreal, unorganic, uneverything :) Steinberg Warp is interesting, even though it is based on a real amp, it does something really interesting to the sound on the Warp sim. I have found a good use of that sim when blended together with a sim that has lots of mids. It's also useful on other stuff than just guitar.

Anyway... keep it up you guys, you rock!
 
I have been Mac0wned...

I really wish there was a Mac version of these. The clips you guys come up with sound incredible.