AmpliTube Live

[arn]

Amplitube Live

To see a demo of it... watch The Power of X speech and scroll to 01:13:00 (one hour, 13 minutes) into it.

http://www.apple.com/quicktime/qtv/powerofx03/

Basically, provides real time digital signal processing via OS X to provide amplifier effects to your guitar. Pretty cool.

arn

[Rower_CPU]

Yeah, I saw it and said to myself:
"Hey (self)...you should learn guitar."

Pretty damn cool stuff...and that guys wails, too!

[springscansing]

What's so amazing about this? There's already Line 6 Pod plug-ins for TDM systems, and lots of other amp modeling ones too. Is it just cool because it is standalone? I mean realtime audio processing isn't exactly something brand new or reliant on X...

[springscansing]

la de da.. nevermind me.

[springscansing]

Hm.. just listened to the demos. It does sound quite well actually. Still I think its too much money for what it is.

[mac15]

the power of X was cool, I really like that app , now I wish I could plays guitar

[dricci]

Yeah, just seeing that app gave me the urge to learn how to play guitar, too. It looks like that could be used for some pretty cool things.

[Mal]

The software is $99. Amplitube XLive is coing out later for $299, prob with some advanced capabilities. This is a great piece of software!

JW

[RowdyBacon]

Originally posted by springscansing
That software is way overpriced. It should be $99, no more.

Actually, Amplitube has won accolades (and a couple of awards) from a substantial number of industry trade publications (Keyboard, Sound On Sound, Computer Music, etc.) as being one of the most outstanding software plug-ins released in 2002. Almost without exception, it has been lauded as being the most authentic and versatile amp modeller currently available from any developer.

And by the way, if you bothered to view Mark Altekruse's entire demo of Amplitube, you'd have heard him say at the very end that it is going to be available for $99!

[macmax]

Originally posted by springscansing
What's so amazing about this? There's already Line 6 Pod plug-ins for TDM systems, and lots of other amp modeling ones too. Is it just cool because it is standalone? I mean realtime audio processing isn't exactly something brand new or reliant on X...

UGH! I just saw the price on it! Ackies! 400 bucks?! Why don't you just go buy a Line 6 Pod II... its a proven design that sounds GREAT, and has a heck of a lot more amp and cabinet models than that software. Ugh. What a ripoff.

Plus its actual hardware... it's not going to crash during a gig, and you can utalize the Pod floorboard to quickly change presets during a live set.

That software is way overpriced. It should be $99, no more.

For my live gigs i would never use a stupid pod,
I use a fender guitar with Tom Anderson pickups and a Dual Rectifier Tremoverb modded by Voodooamps.
Why would i buy a stupid , awful ****ty sounding line 6 gear.
As for the amplitube , if i buy one , it will be because it is a software, duh.

It will be like a toy, notsomething i would consider pro anyway.

The difference between this software and the line 6 is that at least they (Amplitube) don't have the obsession of making amps or something that looks like an amp like those *******s in line 6, what a joke.

[springscansing]

Originally posted by macmax


For my live gigs i would never use a stupid pod,
I use a fender guitar with Tom Anderson pickups and a Dual Rectifier Tremoverb modded by Voodooamps.
Why would i buy a stupid , awful ****ty sounding line 6 gear.
As for the amplitube , if i buy one , it will be because it is a software, duh.

It will be like a toy, notsomething i would consider pro anyway.

The difference between this software and the line 6 is that at least they (Amplitube) don't have the obsession of making amps or something that looks like an amp like those *******s in line 6, what a joke.

Hey, obviously anyone who can afford it would use a real amp. I'm just saying I'd take the pod over that software for the same price.

[springscansing]

Originally posted by RowdyBacon

And by the way, if you bothered to view Mark Altekruse's entire demo of Amplitube, you'd have heard him say at the very end that it is going to available for $99!

I didn't view any of the demo actually, heh. I checked the website. It said $399. I must've been looking at something else. In that case, it's a good deal.

What the hell was I looking at though?

[springscansing]

Originally posted by skywalker
The software is $99. Amplitube XLive is coing out later for $299, prob with some advanced capabilities. This is a great piece of software!

JW

I saw $399 on the website. I must've been mistaken and confused the price for something else with the price for this. For $99, it's a good deal.

[alex_ant]

People should not buy this. There are way too many "guitarists" who substitute an arsenal of whizzy technological bull**** for talent, because it's easier to sound weird and "cool" than it is to sound good. If you need an effect, get a pedal. If you need more than 3 pedals, then go ahead and get this software but please don't subject innocent people to your "music."

[springscansing]

Originally posted by alex_ant
People should not buy this. There are way too many "guitarists" who substitute an arsenal of whizzy technological bull**** for talent, because it's easier to sound weird and "cool" than it is to sound good. If you need an effect, get a pedal. If you need more than 3 pedals, then go ahead and get this software but please don't subject innocent people to your "music."

Get off the damn high horse man. There's tons of great music out there that isn't even tonal. So what you are basically saying is, **** experimentation, guitars are only good if you play them with less then three pedals? To hell with innovation!

I am not saying technology is a substitution for talent, but its beyond stupid to think that it can't enhance it. How is this any different from a graphic artist using a computer to process his work?

Are you saying Danny Elfman is not talent because he scores everything and listens to it on his mac first?

Technology is great, and is not necessairly indicitive of a lack of talent if you make good use of it. This is not the first stupid post from you that I've seen. Try to think a little bit more next time, and don't be such a typical rock guitar nazi.

I'd take Reaktor 4 and Cubase SX over a Les Paul and a Marshall anyday. It's a matter of opinion. Don't be such an ass.

[RowdyBacon]

Originally posted by alex_ant
People should not buy this. There are way too many "guitarists" who substitute an arsenal of whizzy technological bull**** for talent, because it's easier to sound weird and "cool" than it is to sound good. If you need an effect, get a pedal. If you need more than 3 pedals, then go ahead and get this software but please don't subject innocent people to your "music."

Who the hell appointed you the arbiter of what is and isn't good or valid "music?" Technology is nothing more than a tool for creative self-expression. Just because you don't see the need for anything more than a guitar plugged into an amp, doesn't mean someone else's musical vision isn't more far-reaching.

In his time, no one sounded more "weird and cool" than Jimi Hendrix. And to this day, there isn't a legitimate contemporary guitarist of any worth who doesn't acknowledge Hendrix's raw talent or profound influence on the tonal spectrum of the electric guitar. And guess what? Hendrix frequently used more than 3 pedals to create his palette of signature guitar sounds.

[springscansing]

Originally posted by RowdyBacon


Who the hell appointed you the arbiter of what is and isn't good or valid "music?" Technology is nothing more than a tool for creative self-expression. Just because you don't see the need for anything more than a guitar plugged into an amp, doesn't mean someone else's musical vision isn't more far-reaching.

In his time, no one sounded more "weird and cool" than Jimi Hendrix. And to this day, there isn't a legitimate contemporary guitarist of any worth who doesn't acknowledge Hendrix's raw talent or profound influence on the tonal spectrum of the electric guitar. And guess what? Hendrix frequently used more than 3 pedals to create his palette of signature guitar sounds.

Good call!

[alex_ant]

Originally posted by springscansing
Get off the damn high horse man. There's tons of great music out there that isn't even tonal. So what you are basically saying is, **** experimentation, guitars are only good if you play them with less then three pedals? To hell with innovation!

Yes, that's exactly it.

I am not saying technology is a substitution for talent, but its beyond stupid to think that it can't enhance it. How is this any different from a graphic artist using a computer to process his work?

This is another tangent I'd like to go on. Computer-"enhanced" music is far too processed and overproduced these days. People have forgotten what it sounds like to mic a 4x12 Hiwatt cab with no EQ, no effects, no nothing. In nearly every case I've seen of technology being used to improve existing art forms, the users of technology bollox their own work - they don't realize that imperfection is a part of perfection.

Are you saying Danny Elfman is not talent because he scores everything and listens to it on his mac first?

No, it is possible to have talent and to use a computer to augment that talent. My point was that waaaaay too many people substitute technology for talent and try to pass off the impression that they have talent.

Technology is great,

Says who? It's the bane of rock & roll guitar.

and is not necessairly indicitive of a lack of talent if you make good use of it.

I never said it was.

[alex_ant]

Originally posted by RowdyBacon
Who the hell appointed you the arbiter of what is and isn't good or valid "music?"

I never said anything about validity. I said something about sucktitude.

Technology is nothing more than a tool for creative self-expression.

What's creative about guitar effects? They've all been done a million times over. They're lame. People pile them on like ice cream toppings, thinking the more the better. The more effects they have, the better they'll be able to express themselves! It's nonsense. Technology isn't necessary at all to express oneself. People should spend less time working to be able to afford more gadgetry and more time practicing.

In his time, no one sounded more "weird and cool" than Jimi Hendrix. And to this day, there isn't a legitimate contemporary guitarist of any worth who doesn't acknowledge Hendrix's raw talent or profound influence on the tonal spectrum of the electric guitar. And guess what? Hendrix frequently used more than 3 pedals to create his palette of signature guitar sounds.

And he was a ****ing mega guitarist, even without the pedals! This is my whole point. Nobody breaks the barriers of the instrument itself anymore. Instead you've got people like the Edge with an entire rack of machines that enable his Explorer to sound like an electronic fart machine. Why? People buy effects instead of practicing because it's easier, and then they chew out people like me for calling them the wankers they are.

[RowdyBacon]

[edited]

[railthinner]

Alex, you come across as being completely narrow minded. I don't think you're the guy to tell the Edge or Brian Eno or any of the rest of us what good music is. You could make the argument that you shouldn't use an electric guitar because it's unnatural and that sucks. It's been said. Give it up.

You sound so frustrated because you've been struggling all this time to really be really really good and then all these guys come along with all their effects and..... 'Hey that's not fair.' boo hoo. Right, you're the legitimate musician. Keep it up.

[railthinner]

Um, anyway..... It's great if OSX and core audio can further the progress of developers toward creating zero latency processing. Think about the day when you can bring a powerbook on stage and have sequencer of some sort mix all of your processes live--for you forward thinking musicians.

[alex_ant]

Alex, you come across as being completely narrow minded.

Why? Because you don't agree with me? The current trend in rock & roll today is to be clever and "different" and to "innovate" and so on. How am I being narrow-minded in resisting this? If anything, I'm thinking outside the box and not afraid to be different. Enough effects have been tried already to point out pretty obviously that they're not going to make any more of an impact if some schmuck in Electric Egg Beater Conspiracy invents a VST instrument that makes his guitar sound like a gorilla in heroin withdrawal. I remember back when rock & roll actually meant something! Now it means nothing. It's a bunch of whining *******s with secondhand clothes a size too small trying to make up for their lack of musical talent - and I don't mean just technical talent, I mean ability to affect social change in their music - with nifty electronic devices.

I don't think you're the guy to tell the Edge or Brian Eno or any of the rest of us what good music is.

Why, who are they? Who appointed them the all-knowing musical gods? Of course I can tell them what good music is, and so can you, and so can anybody else. One of the reasons there's so much crap music today is that people are afraid to say, "Hey, you suck. You suck, and you suck, and you suck too."

You sound so frustrated because you've been struggling all this time to really be really really good and then all these guys come along with all their effects and..... 'Hey that's not fair.' boo hoo. Right, you're the legitimate musician. Keep it up.

I'm neither very good nor very bad at guitar. I'm better than many people who use lots of effects, and I'm worse than many who use lots of effects. *I* am not the issue here. There's a lot that's been said about the "democratization" of music and how it's such a great thing - that anyone can download Pro Tools Free or whatever and make their very own music to share with the world. I can see the good in this, in fact I've even taken advantage of it to some extent, but it's also had the side effect of ruining the culture and mystique of rock & roll. There are so many groups out there now that it's impossible to sift through them all, and the HUGE amount of total crap that's out there makes it impossible to find the good stuff - the real talent, the music that *could* mean something if it were given the chance, not trapped and diluted amongst the heaping piles of cliched indie rock dung. As to how this relates to guitar effects: I think it's obvious. I realize my position is very uncool, and that I would be considered very unhip in the thick black-rimmed eyeglasses and tussled-curly-hair community, but there it is for you all anyway.

[wrylachlan]

Originally posted by alex_ant

The current trend in rock & roll today is to be clever and "different" and to "innovate" and so on. How am I being narrow-minded in resisting this?

I'm sorry... I thought you just asked how resisting innovation is narrowminded... isn't that sort of the text book definition of narrowmindedness?

And as for the effects thing, I think you are discounting tonal quality as an ingredient of music. Listen to albumns that make great use of tonal quality, like OK Computer, any Pink Floyd albumn, or Achtung Baby. You can love or hate the music, but there is something specific of the tonality that without it the song wouldn't be as good. Why? Because what the words are saying interacts with the chord progressions, which interracts with the riffs, which interacts with the tonal quality in an interesting way. Change any one and the whole is lessened.

I think you are mis-placing your anger. Because effects-laden music that is really crap gets popular isn't the fault of the effects makers. It is the fault of the paying public who buy the albumns and go to see the bands live. If you hate it, vote with your wallet. Pick up that copy of Paul Westerberg or old Hendrix and put on those oversized headphones and rock out.

By the by, I gave up my electric about 3 years ago and have played nothing but acoustic ever since and am happy as a clam.

[alex_ant]

Originally posted by wrylachlan
I'm sorry... I thought you just asked how resisting innovation is narrowminded... isn't that sort of the text book definition of narrowmindedness?

I believe I was arguing against the idea that by not embracing "innovation" and "progress" I've "got my head in my rectum" or whatever it was. I understand how my position could seem narrowminded, and maybe it is - if it is, though, it's definitely for a reason. (That reason being laid out in prior posts)

And as for the effects thing, I think you are discounting tonal quality as an ingredient of music. Listen to albumns that make great use of tonal quality, like OK Computer, any Pink Floyd albumn, or Achtung Baby. You can love or hate the music, but there is something specific of the tonality that without it the song wouldn't be as good. Why? Because what the words are saying interacts with the chord progressions, which interracts with the riffs, which interacts with the tonal quality in an interesting way. Change any one and the whole is lessened.

I don't think I agree with that. I would change what you said to "there is something specific of the tonality that without it the song wouldn't be the same." Radiohead and U2 have done acoustic versions of effects-laden songs off both OK Computer and Achtung Baby (to use your examples) that sound just as good if not better than the originals. My question is: The Beatles could define an entire generation with 2 guitars, a bass, 3 vocals, a French horn, and a piano. Why does it take many bands an entire rack of equipment to try, and why do each of those that try still fail? They say they're experimenting. I'm still waiting for their experiments to reach the "finished product" stage, and I've been waiting since I was a fetus.

I think you are mis-placing your anger. Because effects-laden music that is really crap gets popular isn't the fault of the effects makers. It is the fault of the paying public who buy the albumns and go to see the bands live.

I don't think I was really blaming anybody for anything, I think I was lamenting the changed sound in general of what is now considered rock - the fact that bands make it, the fact that people buy & listen to it, and the fact that electronics & software companies enable them. As for whose fault it is, I don't think it's anyone's fault in particular, it's just changing tastes and a culture that doesn't happen to jibe with mine. I realize I sound like a stodgy curmudgeon, but the world is a big one, and there is room for a few of us amongst the greasy-haired. And I realize I haven't changed any opinions, but at the least, I'm glad I was finally able to stir some people up. It's getting so hard to do now in the political threads that I've had to branch out.