Yamaha Digital Modeling to create tube sound

SuperLead100

"These go to 11"
So a random thought here. For some people the holy grail of hi-fi tone is found in the use of tube gear. This also holds true for the vast majority of guitar players. However, in the last 15 plus years digital modeling in the guitar amp industry, that seeks to replicate vintage tube tones in a solid state amp, has become very sophisticated and widely used.
So my question is this; has this technology been used in the creation of any of todays modern hi-fi gear?
If not, I believe Yamaha would be the perfect company to experiment with this in their new hi-fi equipment. As we all know, Yamaha has been producing digital modeling guitar amps and solid state hi-fi gear for a very long time; wouldn't it make sense for these two areas of design to come together? Yamaha even partnered with Soldano in the 90's to create a line of tube guitar amps (which was short lived).
Any thoughts on this idea? Is this feasable; is it not? Why?

Thanks,
Joe
 
A software defined psychoacoustic tube sounding amp c/w a micro, FPGA, and a DSP :scratch2: ... I'm sure it's feasible ... but the one word that comes to my mind is ... yuk. :D
 
A software defined psychoaucoutic tube (sounding) amp c/w a micro, FPGA, and a DSP :scratch2: I'm sure it's feasible ... but the one word comes to my mind is ... yuk. :D

Maybe, but many of these DSP amps sound very impressive even to professional players; they are increasingly being used in studios by professionals (and have been for a long time). My Yamaha DG-100 is an impressive amp and it is relatively old modeling technology. With the technology and know how that exists today I'm surprised this hasn't been posited yet by someone:scratch2:. Especially by a company like Yamaha. I just think they could replicate those tonal characteristics etc using modeling tech.
I think I'm more curious about real concrete thoughts on why it wouldn't sound good.
Many a player thought the same when these amps were first introduced...:yuck:
 
With a guitar amp you are trying to get distortion of some kind. That's not the goal in HiFi.
 
With a guitar amp you are trying to get distortion of some kind. That's not the goal in HiFi.

In many cases that's true; but what about all the famous glassy clean tones that are replicated such as in Fender, Matchless, Roland Chorus et al?
The greater point here is the tonal characteristics of tube hifi. What is it that makes (insert favorite tube integrated here) sound that way? Why not model those characteristics? If you dig deeper into this idea there are great possibilities! Tube amplification is expensive and high maintenance; look at what tubes cost; not to mention they're not widely manufactured as in the past.
We may never duplicate the tone perfectly but a very close alternative seems worth exploring.
 
Focusrite has developed a digital modeling audio compressor that models the characteristics of a bunch of classic recording gear, and it is highly regarded. Wouldn't surprise me a bit if Yamaha nailed it. Look at the digital pianos they make that play themselves, or the trumpet playing robot that Sony or Honda made (sorry, can't remember which).

Digital modeling guitar amps are pretty useful, but for an artist that wants to explore the intricacies/nuances of a particular tube amp, they aren't really what's desired. Plug the same player into two of the same make/model guitar amp, and the amps will often sound quite different; which one do you model?

On the Hi=fi front, why model just tube amps? Why not model Krell, Bryston Pass etc...?
 
A software defined psychoacoustic tube sounding amp c/w a micro, FPGA, and a DSP :scratch2: ... I'm sure it's feasible ... but the one word that comes to my mind is ... yuk. :D

Yup. Once you start applying digital modification to sound, any minimalistic goals you have of gear being transparent go right out the window!

These digital sound profiles that most modern Home theaters have make audiophiles shudder.
 
I think the idea has merit, but I don't believe the market is there.

Right now I agree. But if they could make it work; they show the technology at the trade shows, and they see if there is a market...create a market? To me it seems like you try it...find out for sure if it works or not, then move from there.
 
I've been wondering the same thing (and posting about it here for a few years). I think there is a market and that done correctly, it would definitely sell. Some of the higher-end tube gear (Mesa Baron for example) allows for a lot of sonic variation so there's no reason this couldn't be simulated with DSP.

I am amused when audiophiles get their panties tangled talking about this idea. All of our favorite components use a "circuit" of some kind and all use differing electronic components. Do they all sound the same? Of course not, or we wouldn't have endless discussions on forums like this about the merits of various gear. So why in the world can't these differences be quantified and programmed into a sufficiently high quality DSP ? I for one would *love* the ability to flip a switch or turn a dial on my preamp to call up various tube and SS circuit sounds. Want a smooth Fisher 400 presentation ? How about a little more lively Mac 275 sound ? Maybe a classic SS sound like Krell or Levinson ? With a mic and some kind of monitoring capability maybe it could simulate different interconnects as well?

Sacred cows anyone ? Computer processing power never stops getting cheaper or going faster. Someday, some enterprising person is going to come to market with a game-changing component that can do this. Put me down for one :)

jblnut
 
Yup. Once you start applying digital modification to sound, any minimalistic goals you have of gear being transparent go right out the window!

These digital sound profiles that most modern Home theaters have make audiophiles shudder.

From a very different perspective, how transparent can ANY system be when you have a zillion cartridges, patch cords, speakers cables, speakers, tubes, plinths, tonearms, platter mats, preamps, etc., that all sound different from each other?

If I can get a totally different sound from swapping one high-end cart for another, why would I think that applying DEQ would destroy the sound my system is producing?

"Audiophiles" may shudder at EQ being applied, but I have to wonder how many direct-to-disc recordings are out there that they can listen to.
It must get repetitive after a while, no?

I wonder how many listen to albums that have no RIAA EQ curve applied during recording or playback.


Oh, and to stay on topic, I think this digital modeling has been done, but I don't think it would be practical to incorporate it into firmware as they would have to settle on a specific sound "effect" and which one would they choose?
The choices would be staggering, and of course, they would want to choose the one that would sell the best.

Of course if it modeled a well-known/highly-regarded amp (like Bob C. did with his transfer function challenge), it would be a sell.
What high-end mfgr. would allow it, though (Imagine McIntosh licensing their name as a DSP choice in a Yamaha component)?
 
Last edited:
Robgmn,
They wouldn't need to license the replications; the modeling guitar amps don't. The different tones would have descriptive names almost like faux fragrances do. For instance, in modeling guitar amps a Marshall sound might be called British Crunch, where as a Mesa Boogie sound might be called Modded American. In fact these modeling guitar amps have hundreds of presets with as many descriptive titles.
Also it's like what jblnut said, you would have different presets; the manufacturer doesn't have to choose one sound to replicate; you could push a button or turn a knob to select a different model.
 
What high-end manufacturer would NOT allow it if it brought licensing fees, and wider product recognition? There will likely always be folks that just have to have "the real thing".

I think it is just a matter of time before digital audio quality surpasses analog (in some folks opinions it already has, but that's a contentious debate best not brought in to this thread). High enough sample rate at significant bit depth... perhaps emulation would allow you to listen to a performance using a Fisher 400C pre-amp into a Western Electric power amp for one song or style, then switch to something else for another. The guitar amp sims even allow for different speaker configurations and different rooms; and this can be had on a Line 6 Pod that is at least 5 years old, and cost me $300. Doing audiophile gear really wouldn't be that big a stretch if you had relatively deep pockets and a desire to be able to write-off pretty much any audio gear you can think of as a source for emulation... If only I were wealthy.
 
To respond to the previous two posts in one shot:
Giving a sound those names would be fine, as long as the consumer knew what the names meant. How would they know what the names meant without Yamaha saying "Vintage American Amp sound" really means McIntosh?

As for the licensing: it goes beyond that. Licensing is often the harbinger of product quality decline. Sell a high-end name to a company that sells more middle-of-the-road products and that name loses its value.

Put the "Omega" name on a Swatch watch (they are owned by the same company) and the remaining Omega line is going to lose a lot of its perceived value.

Allow Yamaha to add an effect that makes their receiver sound a lot like a McIntosh, and the perceived value of the McIntosh line is going to drop.

Most consumers spend their money based on perceived value.
I worked for a company that could pay their employees 3x (and more) the salary that other very similar companies were paying for the same job.
We were able to do this because we provided the same products to our clients as other companies, but provided a higher perceived value.

Dilution of perceived value is one hell of a risk based on the hope that licensing fees and name exposure will offset the losses.
Even knowing how good they have once again become, I find it hard to shake the image of those crappy 1980's rack-system Marantz products. Waiting for the next generation of consumers to replace the ones who remember a mess like that can be VERY costly...
 
Sounds like a perfect job for an outboard pre-amp AKA DSP processor by a 3rd party. I don't see Yamaha getting excited about emulating a classic Marantz (or other) response/distortion profile. Yamaha could do it...maybe it is already there, buried in the presets and parametric EQ settings available....all you need to do is push the right buttons...or maybe not. Maybe Yamaha could go as far as "Natural Sound" and "Classic Natural Sound" or "60's Tube Sound" to emulate Yamaha sound profiles...

I think the OP hit it on the head without realizing it . Line 6 can do it (for guitar amps) for the same reason Yamaha/Marantz/Macintosh/et al cannot.
 
Back
Top Bottom