by stateofepicicity » Tue Nov 03, 2015 5:17 am
I realize that posting a review here is preaching to the choir, but I have to say, I've been using Amplitube for a long time, and I completely and totally love Amplitube 4.
Sound Quality:
First of all, I've tried so many amp sim VSTs on the market, free and paid (I don't buy them all, but I demo just about all that are available). I'm so obsessive and ridiculous about tone, I can't help but to try. No matter what, I always come back to the sheer quality of Amplitube. It has always felt the most real, no matter what. I think the shortcomings that guitarists find in sims are sometimes just the natural characteristics of the real amps. Amps often don't sound the way they do on your favorite record without the absolute magic formula. You might have a sim that's dead on for how amp x sounded on a record, but you don't know what mic preamp(s), what board, what master busses were used on that, and it takes every part of the chain to recreate an album sound exactly, not to mention the two most important elements of good tone: a great guitarist and a great recording engineer. Anyway, I don't think it's about recreating albums. An amp sim is about giving you the tools to do your own thing, giving you the palette to find your own tonal voice, what works for your playing, your style, your particular legato, your particular attack, etc; your musical thought process.
I've read, e.g., critiques of the Amplitube 5150 not being as tight as the original, but I completely disagree. It's every bit as loose as the original. Amps have quirks, and they're not necessarily bad. We know why the 5150 was created, and with whose ideas about tone in mind. Yes, it was used on Carcass' Heartwork album, but not without a pedal in front of it to tighten the sound the way they wanted. The pedal also helped to fight using low tension strings tuned really really low! That amp was my complete ideal for so long, and I've thought from the beginning that the Amplitube Metal V is just like the original. I think the mentality of trying to find a sim that out of the box sounds just the way it should in your head is so off. Before rejecting an amp sim as inaccurate, you'd not only have to compare it to the real amp in person, you'd have to compare the simulated mics too! Have fund doing that with a Neumann or similarly priced mic. Besides the particular amp, cab, speakers, and mics, the particular winding of the pickups makes such a big difference, and, most of all, just your playing itself! Great tone in a studio can be something that is quite involved and demanding. A guy like Andy Sneap might use an SM57 on the cone with a touch of eq and maybe a multiband comp, but a guy like Mutt Lange will have a different approach, and it's as much a function of the ears of the engineer as anything else. The weird thing with amp sims is that every guitarist using an amp sim at home essentially acts a recording engineer. The power granted in that is awesome, and it's a wonderful way to explore what works with tone and what doesn't. But, like any type of paintbrush, it's just a tool, and to reject a tool as inferior because you can't get a desirable artistic effect from it is more a reflection of the artist than the tool. I'm not saying that any amp can sing just right for any player who's good enough, I'm just saying that the judging of an amp sim seems to end up being more a comparison between album tones, the plexi sound, the AC30 sound that you imagine and go for when you phrase something a particular way. That kind of thought process overlooks the immense amount of work that can go into creating the right tone.
I've never liked Amplitube factory presets, by and large. It's irrelevant, because this whole thing about creating tones that are right for you. It doesn't make those presets bad; it means the guitarist who created those presets probably just plays with a very different style than I do; big deal. I do, however, really like the British Collection presets in Amplitube 4. Who knows, maybe I play more like the person behind those sounds.
I certainly haven't played through every amp modeled in this software, but it all acts so real, it's amazing. And, as far as the pieces with which I'm familiar first hand, it's dead on. I always use Amplitube at 96kHz. At least with my Roland Quad-Capture, the tone becomes deeper and more articulate on the low end, to my ears, than at 44.1.
The cabinets and mics are the kicker for me. I remember working with the grid mic placement of earlier versions and being overjoyed by the free placement that eventually became available. The amount of intense work that can be done with the available cabs is astounding, and with the new speaker swap, it enhances it to an insane degree. There is nothing that feels out of reach tonally, and there is far more available in Amplitube that I as a musician would even need to use.
VST3
I had wanted to request that version 4 be available in VST3, but I never actually did because I wouldn't be able to make an informed enough argument for using that format, at least not at a level that would convince any developer. What a nice surprise it was to see with Amplitube 4! I have this problem with wanting to be on the bleeding edge of software, and I love seeing IK keeping up with the current state of VST technology.
Ultra-Tuner
I had not considered the usefulness of the Ultra-Tuner until I finally just gave it a try for the first time, when restringing and re-intonating my axe. It is completely amazing how much more helpful this tuner is than the original. I found the original to be indispensable all this time, but the new actually makes the original feel obsolete. Whatever algorithm employed here is so musical, so intuitive, so helpful. I actually feel grateful to the developers involved in this creation.
Marshalls and Boogies
Marshalls are iconic, and the new models feel absolutely completely real. I feel nothing at all lacking from the new models. I place the Boogies in the same category (though not part of Amplitube 4 and seemingly developed over a long period of time, they seem to go right along with the quality of the new Marshalls). Just like the real dang thing. I couldn't ask for anything more. I've never played through a real HiWatt, and I can't remember how the Soldano was that I got to try out a couple of decades ago (or even if was an SLO100), but the Amplitube models of those two amps never cease to blow me away with their particular characters. I don't doubt the accuracy of the previous iterations of the 800 and 900, but I do feel a big difference in the real feel of the new models over the old.
Anyway, I guess this is not a real helpful addition to the conversation, just my take. I'm totally in tonal heaven with Amplitube, and I'm really happy that version 4 has come out. I know that IK Dynamic Saturation Modeling has always been the method they use to capture this gear, but it just seems to get better and better. I've conjectured that maybe some amps were revisited because they found actual amps that sounded better in person. It is more than possible to have two tube amps of the same model side by side that sound different for some reason, whether it be because they were produced in different years, or the biasing was different when tubes were replaced; could be a lot of different factors. Maybe just the age of the components. The tones are so wonderful that one of the only features I find myself still pining for is the old ability to mix and match preamps, tonestacks, and poweramp tubes. That said, though, it seems as though the elimination of the swap-ability seemed to coincide with the introduction of more and more musical models. There is a sound logic in the elimination of swapping, because the 6L6s used in one amp might be completely different than in another. Which particular 6L6s would you use, or EL34s? It's more involved than just the type of tube. I remember my friend putting GrooveTubes in place of his original Peaveys in his 5150, and the thing just became a different amp; still awesome, but very different. Every partnered, branded piece of gear I've tried in Amplitube has been top notch to my ears. Down to the OCD, Pinnacle Deluxe, and PowerGrid.
I had requested a larger screen for mic placement a while ago, and that was implemented to my delight in the latest version. That's so huge for me.
I do have three feature requests still to submit, the first of which I've asked before, but will ask again here:
1. To move knobs to center either by Control Clicking or by Double Clicking. Double Clicking would make more sense, since Control Clicking already moves knobs back to their preset positions.
2. To have an A/B compare button, to compare your current settings on the fly with your preset.
3. To implement 14-bit MIDI control. This might be overkill for certain parameters, but I think it's the only way to recreate, e.g. the actual behavior of the pedal on a Whammy. The Wharmonator is great in many ways, but it moves in integer increments of 0 to 100%. That can be transparent for certain functions, but to create, e.g., a divebomb of harmonics, you can hear the stepping as you reach toe down. It's only because of the pedal resolution being 101 steps. I suspect the actual Whammy pedals process in a manner similar to 14-bit MIDI, so that any audible stepping is eliminated. Since the difference between 7-bit at 128 steps (still greater than the number of steps of the Wharmonator) and 14-bit at over 16,000 steps is so great, it should utterly eliminate audible stepping at any setting. A good argument against implementing this is the current and unfortunate lack of 14-bit pedal controllers on the market, but DAW automation does allow for 14-bit control (I suspect in most DAWs), and at the very least, it would be very useful in that context.
Okay, enough about what I'd like to see, and back to my original point.
What I'm trying to say is, thanks to the people involved in the research and creation of Amplitube. I view this a great gift to guitarists, and my ears tend always to be rewarded greatly by the craft gone into this product.
