Official AmpliTube 5 FEATURES Wishlist

[Powersof10]

Might be asking too much, BUT.....

If you can give the user control over which mic preamps they would prefer for their amps/cabinets/speakers, that would be righteous!

A dime Marshall will sound different via an API pre vs say, a Neve pre, right?

[j4k-msc]

Might be asking too much, BUT.....

If you can give the user control over which mic preamps they would prefer for their amps/cabinets/speakers, that would be righteous!

A dime Marshall will sound different via an API pre vs say, a Neve pre, right?

This is actually already possible. All you have to do is drop a rack that models a classic preamp after a cab.

Although, currently, there’s only one classic preamp available in AmpliTube (EQ 81), so it would be, indeed, nice to bring more of these from T-Racks.

[Powersof10]

Might be asking too much, BUT.....

If you can give the user control over which mic preamps they would prefer for their amps/cabinets/speakers, that would be righteous!

A dime Marshall will sound different via an API pre vs say, a Neve pre, right?

This is actually already possible. All you have to do is drop a rack that models a classic preamp after a cab.

Although, currently, there’s only one classic preamp available in AmpliTube (EQ 81), so it would be, indeed, nice to bring more of these from T-Racks.

Yeah but then you would be getting a hybrid of 2 preamps: the first would be whatever the engineers used in the studio to capture the sound and the second would be the one you are choosing from T-Racks

As opposed to a pure signal of guitar -> amp -> only one type/brand of mic pre -> sound capture

To be honest, I find it a bit strange that there's nothing in the documentation about this (nothing on what mic pres were used to capture sound)... I've tried asking here on the forum but no answer either

[j4k-msc]

Might be asking too much, BUT.....

If you can give the user control over which mic preamps they would prefer for their amps/cabinets/speakers, that would be righteous!

A dime Marshall will sound different via an API pre vs say, a Neve pre, right?

This is actually already possible. All you have to do is drop a rack that models a classic preamp after a cab.

Although, currently, there’s only one classic preamp available in AmpliTube (EQ 81), so it would be, indeed, nice to bring more of these from T-Racks.

Yeah but then you would be getting a hybrid of 2 preamps: the first would be whatever the engineers used in the studio to capture the sound and the second would be the one you are choosing from T-Racks

As opposed to a pure signal of guitar -> amp -> only one type/brand of mic pre -> sound capture

To be honest, I find it a bit strange that there's nothing in the documentation about this (nothing on what mic pres were used to capture sound)... I've tried asking here on the forum but no answer either

Yes, you’re right. But it wouldn’t really matter in case the real preamp used was something modern and clean, but like you said, there isn’t any mention about that.

[carlaz]

I am not an expert in the signal flow of pre-digital audio recording, but I would guess that -- after the microphone(s) on the cab -- there would be mic preamp(s) that flowed into an analogue console, thence to tape ... and then back from that tape, through the console again to yet more tape when mixing ... and then from the tape of the final mix through more hardware at mastering time to create a master tape ....

I may be missing or duplicating steps in there, but, in any case, there are surely multiple stages of hard and tape between any mic'd guitar cab and what we hear on records made in the pre-digital era (and presumably many records made in hybrid fashions since or still).

[somebodyelseuk]

The ability to swap power amp configurations as in AT3/4.

[rspst14]

Not sure if anyone has already asked about it, or if this already exists in the form of an effect I'm not aware of, but it would be cool to have a variac model that could simulate a lower voltage going into the amp. It would be perfect for everyone trying to really nail the early Van Halen tone.

[Musical.Alchemy]

Looking over the Hendrix Collection I just purchased I was reminiscing about some of the amps we used back in the early 70's. I remember we used to remove the back panel of the closed back cabs which gave me the idea that maybe IK could give us the option of having the stock closed cab or a quick 'modded cab' with the back removed. For myself I usually preferred to have the back panel off. And my bass player of course always left his on. Just a thought.
M.A.

[KyceEssadki4]

a tone bender, I would love to see a tone bender

an AmpliTube David Gilmour collection

a Jimmie Page collection

[tgchan]

Can't be there an auto-limiter of some kind? To turn it on/off?

It is so annoying to adjust it after every single preset...


One thing I have noticed with bloody softwares is that you always have to fiddle with input/output shenanigans...

Input = okay I understand it. You set it up once and it's all good.

...but adjusting output for every change is just WTF? It should always go to the max without clipping and everything else should be optional/

Correct me if I am wrong somewhere.

[j4k-msc]

Can't be there an auto-limiter of some kind? To turn it on/off?

It is so annoying to adjust it after every single preset...


One thing I have noticed with bloody softwares is that you always have to fiddle with input/output shenanigans...

Input = okay I understand it. You set it up once and it's all good.

...but adjusting output for every change is just WTF? It should always go to the max without clipping and everything else should be optional/

Correct me if I am wrong somewhere.

Limiter is a bad idea. It changes the sound unnecessarily. There would be huge number of people complaining that AT5 sounds horrible, but in fact it would be them slamming the limiter. At least right now you can clearly hear that you’re clipping and therefore you should turn down the output.

What IKM definitely should do, though, is to get all their presets in order and gain stage them properly. Right know their levels are all over the place. If both input and output average signals would be set around -18 dBFS, it would solve these problems.

Another solution would be adding auto-gain feature for the output. You’d press one button, play loudly for 5 seconds and the average output signal would be automatically set to -18 dBFS (0 VU), or a different value set in preferences.

[carlaz]

What IKM definitely should do, though, is to get all their presets in order and gain stage them properly. Right know their levels are all over the place. If both input and output average signals would be set around -18 dBFS, it would solve these problems.

I agree that this would be nice, but I suspect there are at least some practical limitations that depend on the level of input -- which could be very different for everyone making a preset.

Another solution would be adding auto-gain feature for the output. You’d press one button, play loudly for 5 seconds and the average output signal would be automatically set to -18 dBFS (0 VU), or a different value set in preferences.

I think this would, in the end, be more practical. It would need to be something you could set on or off, and it would probably also be useful to set it so that it would either ask if you wanted your output volume adjusted based on recent levels or whether it would just automatically adjust output volume based on recent levels. It would probably also be useful to be able to set a "target" absolute output volume (e.g., -18 dBFS, etc.)

[j4k-msc]

What IKM definitely should do, though, is to get all their presets in order and gain stage them properly. Right know their levels are all over the place. If both input and output average signals would be set around -18 dBFS, it would solve these problems.

I agree that this would be nice, but I suspect there are at least some practical limitations that depend on the level of input -- which could be very different for everyone making a preset.

I agree that it wouldn’t fit all scenarios. Still, it could be a solid and easily achievable standard. Everyone creating presets —or even just an IKM intern, would set average input level of their DI guitar to -18 dBFS first, and then match preset output levels to the same value.

With the help of a VU meter plugin I do it for all my presets, AT5 and everything else. Easy to do and works like charm.

Another solution would be adding auto-gain feature for the output. You’d press one button, play loudly for 5 seconds and the average output signal would be automatically set to -18 dBFS (0 VU), or a different value set in preferences.

I think this would, in the end, be more practical. It would need to be something you could set on or off, and it would probably also be useful to set it so that it would either ask if you wanted your output volume adjusted based on recent levels or whether it would just automatically adjust output volume based on recent levels. It would probably also be useful to be able to set a "target" absolute output volume (e.g., -18 dBFS, etc.)

No turning on/off. This auto-gain is not meant to be an ongoing dynamic process. The idea is that the auto-gain, upon engaging, would simply measure RMS of your signal for a few seconds and set output fader to a target level. You could then manually adjust the fader however you like or restart the auto-gain at any time. Some audio interfaces have this simple straightforward feature on their preamps too.

Personally, I don’t really care about any of that —as I mentioned, I’m fine with using my VU meter, or even just knowing that 0 VU is at about –15 on the AT5’s mixer section LED meter— but a lot of people seem to be struggling with gain staging.

[squeezenor]

-filters: high/low pass filters

-crossovers: when running two amps/rigs, let us split the signal so we can send the highs one way and the lows another. this would really facilitate biamping bass, for instance.

-hide/show gear: there's just too much stuff in there, and some of it will never get used (until it does), so it would help if we can hide some of them to clear things up.

-favorites: let us have quicker access to key pieces of gear

-move some of the pedals so they are in more logical places: big pig with the fuzzes, treble booster with the overdrives, etc

-or better yet, maybe a tab just for the gate pedals, since they are all in different areas.

-the custom ir feature: maybe let us switch back and forth between the stock cab or whatever we were using and the custom ir we select? i use 412s the most and it's just maddening to have to scroll all the way back up to the top of the list to select the custom ir, find a nice one, and then go all the way back down to find the one or two 412s i was going between. maybe let us select and swap between a few cabs instead of picking one at a time.

-let us reset the default. my blank canvas is generally just a noise gate, maybe an eq pedal, and certain rack effects. then i'll add an amp and a cab if need be. but i hate that it just defaults to an 800 and it's 412. i literally never want that. it's annoying that i have to start there, and then dig for the two pedals i use the most. even setting that up as a preset is an extra step for us.

-i'd love it to be less resource intensive. i tend to use the same few amps unless i'm digging for something special, but 9 times out of 10, i don't need all 6 billion options on deck at all times.

just some things that came to mind; i'm sure there's more . not sure how often these come up; sorry if they are common suggestions.

edit: thought of another one that just kills me. the fender collections being the most obvious examples, but a few other amps do this, too: amps where the knobs block the amp's setting. that has to go. kills me when i can't see how the amp is set because the knobs are in the way and i have to mouse over or guesstimate.

[j4k-msc]

-let us reset the default. my blank canvas is generally just a noise gate, maybe an eq pedal, and certain rack effects. then i'll add an amp and a cab if need be. but i hate that it just defaults to an 800 and it's 412. i literally never want that. it's annoying that i have to start there, and then dig for the two pedals i use the most. even setting that up as a preset is an extra step for us.

You can set your starting preset anyway you like and then simply overwrite the original Default preset.