Please donāt take this the wrong way, and this is my opinion only, but I find this debate interesting but misses the point.
If you are a beginner, then if the music you want to learn and play is done on an electric guitar, then you get an electric guitar and a small practice amp and master that instrument. If the music you want to play is mostly done on an acoustic, then get one and master it. Thatās not to say that you canāt cross over and switch from electric to acoustic, or acoustical to electric, but learn and master the guitar you prefer to play first.
The point should be, for any beginner, is to get the appropriate guitar for the style of music you want to play, then practice, practice, and practice to master that instrument. Even if you donāt have an amp, you can still practice. You are LEARNING, not performing.
There are some great observations posted, but these do not answer the original question. That is why I believe this debate is a bit silly.
This was not the point of the original post. The point was whether you really need an amp for learning how to play electric guitar or if youād be better served playing through a computer with appropriate software and monitors. Thatās what most of the discussion above has been about. Not about electric vs. acoustic.
Quote: āDo you really need an amp?ā directly from the original question.
My point was, no, you do not need an amp. You can learn on an electric without the amp. I practice on mine without an amp. My post was not about electric vs acoustic, but that you can learn on either one, and to master the one you picked.
The amp, computer software, can all come later, if desired.
While I wouldnāt suggest it for a beginner (mostly because of expense), you actually can get limited volume, headphone play, stereo output, and stereo line outs from a valve amp with its power section maxed out. (And thatās even with valve amps that donāt have any built in attenuation or cab simulation.) For example, a Two Notes Torpedo Captor X will do all of that when paired with your valve amp (you can even load your own IRs if you want to). Iād highly recommend it for anyone who has valve amps they want to play and record at home.
Like I said, probably not the best option for most beginners, but still a great option for limiting volume while enjoying valve amplifiers.
My start was on a Yamaha silent guitar. This is a steel-string acoustic without a conventional body to amplify the sound of the strings. Unplugged it still sounds like an acoustic but without the tonal range youād expect from an acoustic, however, if you plug in a set of headphones or an amp, that is when the magic starts! There is a modeled version of one of Yamahaās high-end acoustics in the preamp that you can blend in with the under saddle piezo pickup and the sound is simply glorious!
There is no question that there has never been a better time to start guitar as a hobby. So many great options. Now, trying to do it professionally it is the opposite but this thread is not for people headed that way.
As I keep trying more devices, including the Headrush MX5 which I owned briefly but returned, here is my thinking now that EVH released a more home-friendly version of the 5150.
I think that for anyone who is just starting the Fender Mustang Micro is the #1 device to get going. Unlike the Boss Pocket GT, it is extremely convenient and though this will vary by person, I think it has better amp sounds. In addition, a plugin like the Revalver 4 for 25$ can offer some rather great soundsāand not just for the price.
Basically, for 100-150, one can get going with a plethora of sound options instead of a limiting basic amp unless that cheap amp is the Orange Micro.
And from there, I would personally go to the ārealā thing be it something like the Iconic series 5150, the Orange Rocker, the Fender Blues Junior OR the Fractal FM3, Boss GT 1000 or at least GX 100, and so on.
Personally, I will wait a few more months so I can learn more and make a better informed decision but the appearance of the 15/3.5W iconic 5150 with proper emulated out for headphones and studio monitors changes everything for me and puts a real amp back in the driver seat especially since the modeller that suits me bestāthe Fractal FM 3ācomes with caveats (quality control, basic warranty, harder to repair, etc).
My point is that I am struggling to justify the mid-tier products, be it on the amp or on the modelling side of things. Obviously, others may feel differently.
I have not read through the whole of this thread, so apologies if already covered, but one important issue that might have been ignored is tone. Once you reach a certain level having a good or great tone can inspire you to play better. That is pretty dependent on equipment. Somehow Iām not convinced you can get a great tone through headphones.
Personally, I dislike playing through headphones. Itās not really about the sound, itself; I think it can sound fine. However, I find that playing through headphones makes me feel less connected. With an amp, youāre not just playing through the amp, in some ways youāre also playing the amp and the way it responds and moves the air, as well as playing the guitar. Playing a simulated amp through headphones is okay, but feels like its missing something, to me. YMMV.
I wonder if you would get the same feeling of disconnection if you were to play a real amp into a load box or, even, through an iso cab and microphone into headphones.
IoW, do you think itās the headphones and not having the amp in the room sound, or the amp sim thatās the main issue?
Of course, you may not be able to answer this if you havenāt actually tried this.
But, in my experience, itās mainly down to the headphones giving a difference experience. Note that I pretty much started only using headphones (as a lot of people have) and I can live with both. They are different experiences and, these days, I prefer an amp in the room, but headphones is fine too.
Iāve got a Captor X and Iāve played my tube amps into that (including into headphones). I think itās mostly the headphones and not having the amp in the room sound, moving the air and making that part of the loop between the guitar/amp/player. To me thatās a visceral thing that I just donāt get with headphones.
For amp sims I think it depends on the sim. Sometimes I can tell itās a sim and sometimes I canāt. When I can tell, the give-away is almost always the feel/response, rather than the sound, itself. I was pretty impressed with the Boss GT-1000 Coreās options for emulating the feel and response of a real amp. It can be quite convincing. (FWIW, Iāve found my favorite way to use the GT-1000 Core is to put it into my Katana 100/212, bypassing the Katanaās preamp and just using its power amp and the speakers. Thereās a setting in the GT-1000 Core for that exact use case with that exact amp. But the GT-1000 Core is quite good direct, too.)
I bet so much of this depends on personal experiences, preferences, and goals.
For example, I much prefer the two amps I have had via the emulated out and studio monitors and thus stereo over the mono āreal deal.ā True of the Blackstar HT 5 which is tube-based as well.
Obviously, if one has been used to amps for decades, thatās itched into their feel and perception, it is part of āwho they areā and thatās totally normal and fine.
For those of us dumb enough to wait till their late forties to start (and dealing with hand issues partly in result of that!) and who play alone at home, emulated outs are hard to beat.
As for an objective sides= to this, studio headphones surely win for critical listening but thatās different.
My hands situation (ultrasound today, results who knows when) motivates me to stay on the brake and not commit to either a premium modeller or a 5150 amp until after I get a feel of whatās next and until after I have developed to the point that I can consistently play well the rhythm portions of at least ten songs that I LOVE (I donāt play any basic āstrummingā songs, I am talking Enter Sandman, Fear of the Dark, Aint Talking Bout Love, Jamieās Crying, Little Dreamer; I donāt count simpler songs like Highway to Hell or Dioās Rainbow in the Dark and Holy Diver in that number).
Just coming back to tone, a lot of which is determined by volume. Back in the day the tone from a 100w stack was awesome but they werenāt called trouser-flappers for nothing. Trying to achieve that at home levels is proving impossible. Going off demos on YouTube is no good cos most of the time those things are cranked. Even on 7watts my Tiny Terror is loud but compared to a 100w Marshall itās also very thin.
Ok, speaking of toneā¦ the 5150 is supposed to give you its proper tone at low levels because its tone comes from the preamp. Or this is the standard opinion on the internet.
As for old Marshalls, I have come to reconsider my assumptions.
My heroes back in the day:
Blackmore: as it turns out, heavily modified Marshalls, he says he hated the stock ones
Van Halen and Lukather: heavily modified Marshalls
Vai: not Marshall
Sykes: Mesa Boogie
Perhaps Vivian Cambell alone of āmineā actually used a typical Marshall JCM 800.
Iāve experimented with stereo amp setups. I think it sounds pretty cool, but it can be tough to translate that impact into a band or full song mix. Depends on the song, instrumentation, et cetera.
When using two amps Iāve had better luck with the wet/dry approach (e.g. a dry Marshall and a wet Fender together). Wet/dry/wet is pretty cool, too, because you get the whole wet/dry thing, but your wet part can take advantage of stereo delays and reverb and such, which is where the stereo thing seems to shine the most, anyway.
Iāve used wet/dry with amp sims, as well as with real amps. If I recall correctly, this recording used two amp sims in the Boss GT-1000 Core) set up in a wet/dry configuration. I believe I added a stereo reverb in the DAW, too.
Probably more info (or more talking, anyway) than youāll ever need:
But in short:
Wet/Dry: You send your signal to two amps. One amp is āwetā and gets effects like reverb, delay, and modulation. The other amp is ādryā and gets things like compression, drive, wah. This setup allows you to have lots of wet effect dialed in without the overall sound losing attack and definition and getting muddy or washed out (because you have one amp devoted to a crisp, dry signal).
Wet/Dry/Wet: Itās the same as wet/dry, but you have one dry amp and two wet amps. The wet amps are set up in stereo. Exactly the same benefits as wet/dry, but you can utilize all the cool stereo reverb and delays and such and turn them up surprisingly high without muddying the overall sound.
