Форум гитаристов

Огни Святого Эльма, не успел поставить еще
Но ничего такого не заявлено.

Ок, накидал по-быстрому перед выходом из дома

Новьій Марк 4, например
https://www.dropbox.com/s/x8oatcltvdab85b/MK4_helix_reamp.wav?dl=0

Neidermeyer, поделаю еще реампов без кабинетов разными усилками, не вопрос.

Ну и главное в Хиликсе помимо звука - это динамика и ощущение от игры.
ПОД 500 в целом ведь не плохой аппарат.

... и добавил:

Вот мне нравится цитата продукт менеджера Helix Digital_Igloo по поводу "цифра vs настоящее железо":

When someone unfavorably compares modelers to the tube-amp-in-a-room experience without providing both their monitoring rig/environment and expectations, I just assume they'd also be the type to say:
 
"When I crank a 24-bit/192kHz recording of my girlfriend's voice through my $49 desktop speakers with 4" woofers in my cement block basement, it sounds nothing like when she's actually whispering in my ear at the park. Digital recording sucks!"
 
With an identical playback system, current modeling algorithms have already been proven to fool golden-ear session guys and engineers in double-blind A/B/X listening tests. So why is this sentiment still so strong?

 

I see four possible reasons for claiming modeling doesn't sound "real":

1. The person is hearing said modeling out of context—for example, comparing the experience of a PA speaker, FRFR speaker, studio monitors, or headphones with that of a roaring 4x12 pointing at the back of their knees. Hence, the playback system is the bottleneck, not the modeler. SOLUTION: Use the modeler in context; that is, a preamp model into your real power amp and cab—or—learn how to compensate for how your particular playback system affects your tone.
2. The person hasn't played the real amps and/or effects that have been modeled, and therefore has no reference for comparison. SOLUTION: Compare the actual amp and/or pedal in context, preferably in a double-blind A/B/X listening test.
3. The person hasn't actually used a modeler, or hasn't used one in many years, and is just joining the "modelers suck" bandwagon. SOLUTION: Try one of today's top modelers IN PROPER CONTEXT (see #1).
4. The person has fine-tuned ears, and is legitimately hearing very minor discrepancies and artifacts between the model and a recording of that particular amp, cab, mic, and mic distance combination. SOLUTION: Cool! Keep tweaking while we strive to make modeling even better.

Most people who question or discredit modeling mistakenly believe they're in the #4 camp.

Neidermeyer, поделаю еще реампов без кабинетов разными усилками, не вопрос.

Ну и главное в Хиликсе помимо звука - это динамика и ощущение от игры.
ПОД 500 в целом ведь не плохой аппарат.

... и добавил:

Вот мне нравится цитата продукт менеджера Helix Digital_Igloo по поводу "цифра vs настоящее железо":

When someone unfavorably compares modelers to the tube-amp-in-a-room experience without providing both their monitoring rig/environment and expectations, I just assume they'd also be the type to say:
 
"When I crank a 24-bit/192kHz recording of my girlfriend's voice through my $49 desktop speakers with 4" woofers in my cement block basement, it sounds nothing like when she's actually whispering in my ear at the park. Digital recording sucks!"
 
With an identical playback system, current modeling algorithms have already been proven to fool golden-ear session guys and engineers in double-blind A/B/X listening tests. So why is this sentiment still so strong?

 

I see four possible reasons for claiming modeling doesn't sound "real":

1. The person is hearing said modeling out of context—for example, comparing the experience of a PA speaker, FRFR speaker, studio monitors, or headphones with that of a roaring 4x12 pointing at the back of their knees. Hence, the playback system is the bottleneck, not the modeler. SOLUTION: Use the modeler in context; that is, a preamp model into your real power amp and cab—or—learn how to compensate for how your particular playback system affects your tone.
2. The person hasn't played the real amps and/or effects that have been modeled, and therefore has no reference for comparison. SOLUTION: Compare the actual amp and/or pedal in context, preferably in a double-blind A/B/X listening test.
3. The person hasn't actually used a modeler, or hasn't used one in many years, and is just joining the "modelers suck" bandwagon. SOLUTION: Try one of today's top modelers IN PROPER CONTEXT (see #1).
4. The person has fine-tuned ears, and is legitimately hearing very minor discrepancies and artifacts between the model and a recording of that particular amp, cab, mic, and mic distance combination. SOLUTION: Cool! Keep tweaking while we strive to make modeling even better.

Most people who question or discredit modeling mistakenly believe they're in the #4 camp.

Зерно здравого смысла в этом есть, но как же тогда общение? )

Ещё больше ревера с дилеем навалить, и вообще ничего не услышишь.

... и добавил:

А звук вполне себе подовский.

Ох жешь эти блин эти демки.... А ревера, а плейбеков всяких.... И чё тут понятно? Та сыграй ты 3 аккорда, открытых, с мьютом, пару нот подтяни, и все ясно. Не, надо симфонию написать...
Такое впечатление что тока и пытаются спрятать мыло и пластмассу за этими аранжировками...

ППКС

Дайте кто-нибудь если есть видос с просто playthrough разных ампов без микса. Можно в личку, если сюда уже выкладывалось

Ещё больше ревера с дилеем навалить, и вообще ничего не услышишь.

... и добавил:

А звук вполне себе подовский.

With an identical playback system, current modeling algorithms have already been proven to fool golden-ear session guys and engineers in double-blind A/B/X listening tests. So why is this sentiment still so strong?
 

... и добавил:

Дайте кто-нибудь если есть видос с просто playthrough разных ампов без микса. Можно в личку, если сюда уже выкладывалось

https://www.dropbox.com/s/2hb48tzbd4g99v7/Helix%20ReAmp.zip?dl=0
1,2,3,4 - Это реампы Хеликсом: 2204, Recta, Recta, Uber соответственно