Amplitube , ToneX whats the difference ?

[ecoulombe@gmail.com]

As it says in the title what is the difference between Amplitube and ToneX ?

[Peter_IK]

They are definitely different but work together to form the perfect virtual guitar chain. Here is something we've posted before explaining in detail:

AmpliTube and TONEX are two different products using different technologies: AmpliTube is made using analog modeling technology while TONEX uses a new technology called AI machine modeling ( https://www.amplitube.com/ai ). While analog modeling simulates the behavior of the whole circuit of the amp - with all the knobs, switches, buttons and their interactions - AI machine modeling gives an ultra-realistic simulation of the rig with a specific knob settings. So it's not that one technology is "better" than the other, it depends of what the final user's needs are: full editing and customization versus accuracy in getting a specific sound. Using them together gives of course the best of both worlds and a super-powerful amp-sim system.

The two products are also different because AmpliTube can simulate the entire set up used in guitar recording (multiple serial and parallel rigs combining amps, all type of stomp effects, post effects, cabinets and microphones, etc.. with full editing down to the single gear), while TONEX is dedicated to simulates just amp, cabinets and certain type of pedals (distortions, overdrive, fuzz, EQ, boost) in each of their combinations. However TONEX can be used inside AmpliTube, as a sub-system of amps and pedals, again to have the best of both worlds.

[ecoulombe@gmail.com]

i looked at the text you pasted and the page for ToneX. I am still not very clear.

I will stick to Amplitube 5.

Thanks

[Peter_IK]

TONEX and AmpliTube 5 work together in a very complementary fashion. You should download TONEX CS and try it, I think you'll be impressed.

[carlaz]

AmpliTube and Tonex take different approaches to reproducing virtually the effect of drive pedals/amps/cabs on a DI guitar signal.

AmpliTube uses virtual models of such gear. In other words, there are virtual, digitized models of various pieces of gear in terms of the electronics, speakers, and physical spaces that they represent. In other words, running your guitar signal into a virtual amplifier attempts to digitally recreate the real, interior workings of the real, physical amplifier on which the digital model is based, and turning the virtual knob is intended to have the same effect on the virtual amplifier's workings that turning the real knob on the real amplifier would.

Tonex attempts to capture a "snapshot" of the sonic characteristics of what happens to DI signal when it is passed through a particular chain of electronics (drive pedals, amps, cabs, or some combination of these). It does not use digital models that try to reproduce what happens to the signal within a particular piece of gear; it is interested in only in the sonic snapshot. It has controls that allow you some control of EQ and gain, etc., but they are based on the snapshot Tonex has captured of the particular chain and not any modeling of the real interior workings of the gear involved.

Thus, both AmpliTube and Tonex are attempting to let you affect your guitar (or bass, etc.) DI signal through "representations" of physical gear, but the approaches by which they do it (and thus the kind of control that you might have over the given "representation") are different.

[darkogav]

Thus, both AmpliTube and Tonex are attempting to let you affect your guitar (or bass, etc.) DI signal through "representations" of physical gear, but the approaches by which they do it (and thus the kind of control that you might have over the given "representation") are different.

And the big unknown for me is which product is right not the guitarist who want's to experiment with mixing and matching different pedals and amps to see what they can achieve? It seems to me ToneX is more for people that want a better representation of a particular well known guitar amp'ed sound as opposed to someone who want's to be able to tweak in a virtual enviroment different combinations of gear that would be impossible to do in a real world scenario. (I might be wrong)

[carlaz]

It seems to me ToneX is more for people that want a better representation of a particular well known guitar amp'ed sound as opposed to someone who want's to be able to tweak in a virtual enviroment different combinations of gear that would be impossible to do in a real world scenario. (I might be wrong)

Well, I don't know that you're necessarily wrong. You might at least not be very wrong.

Obviously, neither AmplITube nor Tonex are completely perfect simulations of everything that is possible in the real world, and because they approach the simulation of the real world in different ways, they have different strengths and different weaknesses for different use cases.

And I am sure everyone has different use cases and workflows, and different goals -- and thus different opinions -- but I tend to see Tonex principally as a "modeling-amp killer" for studio owners or players who have favorite gear or setups to which they would like easy access without the hassle of actually carting around or setting up all that gear. Tonex seems to be really good at capturing the vibe of a particular chain, with the bonus that it has some controls for EQ, gain, etc. built in so that you can tweak a given tone for its context. But I really feel that Tonex is principally about "this is what the gear does, and if you want what the gear does, then this model will do it for you". In that sense, if you aren't interested in messing around with simulated controls for a lot of different parameters, you can just flip through Tonex models until you find the ones you like best for your purposes.

Perhaps it is because I am used to AmpliTube, but I tend to use it more frequently than Tonex. Having spent years now doing it, I'm just used to messing around with virtual stomps, amps, and the (freakishly tweakable!) cab room. I haven't really got any real gear that I want to model, so Tonex is mostly about seeing if anyone else has a particular model that I feel does something I can't already do, or if any Tonex models of gear that isn't available in AmpliTube shows up. (Well, OK: I've got an old Russian Big Muff that I think about capturing in Tonex, but I'd mostly do it just for the fun of seeing what it is like to capture a model of a piece of hardware. There's perfectly useable modeled fuzz for me in AmpliTube, and the stock Tonex models include a Russian Big Muff capture!)

But AmpliTube and Tonex are both tools to get jobs done, and one or the other might be better for the particular job you have.

All that said, I wish the searching and sorting on ToneNet for Tonex were a bit more sophisticated. I want to click on column headings to sort them ascending or descending; I want to click on user icons for their info, or to see their other models. I wish there was more info about especially pedal model captures, since I feel like players tend to use dirt pedals with more extreme swings of settings than with amps. (Is the drive down and level up, as for a boost? Is everything dimed, like a death-metal HM-2? Are the settings all somewhere modest, like at noon?)

Oh, well. Tonex is fun and AmpliTube is fun and these are interesting times to be a guitarist. Seriously, even compared to just 10 years ago, the quality and flexibility of virtual amps and processing is just nuts.

[darkogav]

Good post. I have yet to try ToneX. For now I am used to AT5 as I like to mix and max and try to do different stuff in virtual environments. I approach the guitar a bit like modular synthesis a bit -- see how far I can get sonically with mixing and matching different combinations. I don't chase old famous rock sounds. I gotta try spending more time tinkering in the cab rooms section.

[carlaz]

IMO, the cab room is one of the most powerful -- and, thus, most difficult! -- features of AmpliTube.

I confess, I will often just stick a 57 in the middle of a cone (and maybe a 421 or a condenser on the edge of another cone) and leave it at that -- which is, after all, probably how a lot of recorded tones were captured.

Nevertheless, there is a lot that one can do in the cab room.

In a mix, I increasingly try to train myself to go back to the cab room in AmpliTube and tweak things there rather than just slapping post-processing EQ all over the place. I kind of feel like a proper recording engineer would have gotten the right tone at the recording stage -- though since I am not a proper recording engineer I am content to go back and play with things after the fact in my virtual recording studio. (Though, I suppose, re-amping DI guitars is probably increasingly common these days in real recording studios in any case!)

[Steve-xyz]

Good discussion, many insightful points raised here. I am not a guitarist, though I got turned onto the potential for using guitar pedals with non-guitar sounds when a friend borrowed a wah-wah pedal from a friend of his so I could run my alto sax through it. Great fun!!!!

With AmpliTube I have access to many guitar FX to shape certain synth sounds. Not imitating a guitar, but using sounds that have some similar characteristics. So for me, Amplitube meets my needs. But with Tonex CS, I have been able to use some sampled and emulated guitar plug-ins with various models, so I see usefulness there, too.

Having used hardware samplers and sound modules, I have wondered if Tonex's algorithms are specifically tailored to guitar sounds or is it possible to faithfully model the FX engines of samplers and synths. Just wondering in case anyone has some knowledge about this.

Thanks for the initial question and for the discussion points raised here.

[ewangle]

I haven't played around with CS though I have it installed. I'm trying to find reasons to spend the time and money on ToneX vs. my recent AT5 MAX upgrade and all my other amp sims. I personally prefer the vendor endorsed models and AT5 seems to have spent the most effort in getting big names like Mesa, Fender, etc. to come onboard as I think there is a perception given of more credibility and quality. But for ToneX, which I presume competes with Kemper to some degree, I'm not sure why I want to 'go back' to 'generic' simulations given the competition. I have no interest in ToneX Capture, I want the 'best' amps out there for my virtual rig.

And what does this mean for AT5 upgrades? Is AT6 in the works? Why not 'blend' both products together for AT6? Or, is ToneX going to cannibalize AT going forward as the newest/best technology, hence all the AT5 sales going on of late? Does ToneX sound significantly better than AT5 technology, or just subjectively different? If latter, still a lot of money for ToneX MAX, which to me has models I find most different, or unique (Klon, Dumble) from AT5, so of course IK puts these only the most expensive MAX version!

[Peter_IK]

TONEX isn't cannibalizing AmpliTube 5 at all. I'd suggest taking another read through my post above that explains how they are separate and complementary products with neither taking over the other. TONEX is different technology not "best" as it does something completely different than AmpliTube 5 as explained. "Newest", yes, that makes sense as it is a new product but it isn't a new version of AmpliTube 5 technology as explained in the two paragraph short explanation above.

Also, we own the amps that we model in TONEX - including the very expensive Dumble which we do still own and plan to continue keeping in our possession - so "generic" is the very last word that would describe the TONEX Tone Models.

[carlaz]

Having used hardware samplers and sound modules, I have wondered if Tonex's algorithms are specifically tailored to guitar sounds or is it possible to faithfully model the FX engines of samplers and synths. Just wondering in case anyone has some knowledge about this.

Tonex seems specifically aimed at capturing processing that introduces some kind of distortion/harmonics, i.e., amplifiers and drive/distortion pedals. You can use it to capture a model of a drive pedal by itself (i.e., without any amplifier, cab, etc.) but the instructions note that it doesn't capture time based effects, modulation effects, etc. (i.e., Tonex doesn't capture a model of a delay pedal, or a chorus pedal, etc. but it will capture a model of an overdrive pedal, a fuzz pedal, etc.).

[carlaz]

And what does this mean for AT5 upgrades? Is AT6 in the works? Why not 'blend' both products together for AT6? Or, is ToneX going to cannibalize AT going forward as the newest/best technology, hence all the AT5 sales going on of late? Does ToneX sound significantly better than AT5 technology, or just subjectively different?

As noted, Tonex is a different thing than AmpliTube, and Tonex does a different (if arguably similar) job than AmpliTube does. The already interoperate, but whether one or the other or both might best fit your needs will depend on, well, your needs.

[Steve-xyz]

Tonex seems specifically aimed at capturing processing that introduces some kind of distortion/harmonics, i.e., amplifiers and drive/distortion pedals. You can use it to capture a model of a drive pedal by itself (i.e., without any amplifier, cab, etc.) but the instructions note that it doesn't capture time based effects, modulation effects, etc. (i.e., Tonex doesn't capture a model of a delay pedal, or a chorus pedal, etc. but it will capture a model of an overdrive pedal, a fuzz pedal, etc.).

Thanks for these observations and details!