Fender Tone Master Pro

Gear & Tools Talk 🔊 Amplification & Effects
21

Yeah that makes sense, I guess. The GTX is also a one-person thing, probably couldn’t easily be shared with guitar techs dialling it in etc. That’s real-pros though, not local giggers. They would sell more of these than just to the big dogs.

Most of this stuff is not strictly necessary anyway. But it’s fun. Maybe you’ll end up with one, one day, now that the tone drug has given you some early hits, and you end up spending more time tone chasing than playing…

I’m not sure the Kemper is better for most users. If you watch the Andersons vid (I watched a bit but not all), Fender said they have made this the authoritative source on what their amps sound like, and they dial in the tones as accurately as possible for the other amps.

A kemper you have to do yourself, or download from someone else, right? That sounds like the way of the past. I think it is easier to have the tone pre-modelled (or pre-profiled or whatever, on the box already).

I did say Australia. I got the prices from google & aussie music gear websites. I just checked out sweetwater for USA prices, and they’re all the same price as each other except the kemper is slightly cheaper (the QC is on sale, its usually more expensive). So they’re all in a similar ballpark price wise in US & Australia. But not the UK I guess.

Here it’s about the same price as a Les Paul Tribute, one of the cheapest Gibsons. So it’s not cheap, but not out of this world expensive for quality guitar gear either.

22

If you are saying you don’t think the Kemper is better than a multifx unit for most user, I would agree. But I think that applies to just about any multifx unit.

Many would consider it the way of the future. Compared to the Tonemaster Pro where you have factory preset models which you can’t change, just like every other modelling amp, plugin, or multifx pedal of the last 30 years.

Downloading and installing a model is just as easy as downloading and installing a patch.

And the Kemper, and other profiling units, do come with a bunch of preset profiles, and using those is no different from using the built-in models on something like the Tonemaster Pro, Helix, etc.

Of course they do.

Just about every modelling amp company claims they have the best modelling technology, and the most accurate models. It’s called marketing.

But, just because they are Fender, it doesn’t mean they have a monopoly or special knowledge of what Fender amps sound like.

There’s no specific reason to believe their amp models are any better than, say, Quad Cortex’s.

Cheers,

Keith

23

It occurred to me I should be clearer about my opinion here (and it is an opinion).

In general, although it has a fairly well respected effects capability, the Kemper is primarily a replacement for a Valve amp. I don’t think people buy Kempers for their effects capability.

People buy Kempers because they obsess about high-wattage valve amp characteristics and want something that can give those same characteristics at lower volumes, with more reliability, less electricity consumption, smaller physical footprint and (possibly most importantly) with less weight than a 100W 2x12 valve combo amp (especially important for gigging musicians; I know having had to carry a 100W Marshall up a flight of stairs on more than one occasion)

I suspect that most people who have Kempers rarely use the onboard effects, and have a full pedalboard of mostly analogue pedals.

That’s fine but it’s probably a relatively niche market

Multifx units, like the Tonemaster Pro, fulfil a different market. It’s basically the same market filled by units like the Boss GT-3 in the late 1990s (to give a specific example).

That is people who want a flexible platform with lots of tonal options (not just amps and drive pedals) that they can pre-programme and then pull up at a tap of a foot switch.

That is not to say that the Kemper couldn’t do this, but the target audience for a multifx system is probably more interest in user-interface, tone creation and patch creation/select capabilities than on getting the absolute best recreation of the specific nuances of a specific amp.

In my view, most people realise that those nuances don’t really matter and, in a lot.of cases, are more mythology than reality.

Most people are willing to forgo the cork sniffing in favour of practical solutions that give them lots of tonal flexibility and convenience, which is especially important for gigging musicians.

In that respect, chasing some mythical,. probably unobtainable tone is impractical for most people.

And, for them, a decent multifx unit is probably a much more useful option than a Kemper.

I, personally, know a number of former diehard gigging valve amp users who have now moved to multifx platforms like the Helix, QC, or Boss GT1000 and sold their valve amps once they realised how good these systems were.

In the last couple.of years I have also witnessed some decent bands producing great tones and great performances to appreciative audiences with relatively humble modelling kit.

Possibly the most extreme example of that was a guitarist using a cling filmed Boss GT-1 that I saw recently.

Which is why I say that, for most users, a decent quality multifx system is a much better option than a profiler.

But for most users (especially the learners on this forum) a relatively inexpensive Boss, Nux, Valeton, or Zoom unit is far more useful than either a Kemper, or a high-end modeller like the Tonemaster Pro, Quad Cortex, or full Helix.

Cheers,

Keith

3 Likes
24

As I said amp sim vs profiler is an argument on its own.

Both have advantages. A profile is basically a single snapshot of an amp where as a sim has more potential for change.

So within the amp itself on the tone maser pro you can change more and have more of an effect but you cant add another amp or profile your own etc.

Theres space for both products imo

25

Actually, on these profilers, you do have similar controls to an amp: gain, bass/middle/treble and can shape the tone in similar ways to a conventional amp.

And, yes, there’s space for both products, especially now that less expensive units like the ToneX are available.

But there is also a big overlap in capabilities between these systems and, for many people, it’s a choice between them. And in that situation, for most people I would suggest a modeller is probably a more useful, flexible, and practical option.

As prices come down and the technology improves, it will become more reasonable to have both options, and it’s really just a matter of time before we see tone capture built into a mainstream multifx pedal.

As @LievenDV pointed out above, you can already do this on the MOD Dwarf.

Cheers,

Keith

26

They dont change the response of the amp really tho you are stuck with how it was when it was profiled. You end up with a bunch of profiles for the same amp.

1 Like
27

Yes, the tone controls are generic. They don’t exactly model the EQ section of the amp.

Another reason why multi-fx units are probably better for most users.

Cheers,

Keith

28

Okay, I watched all of the Andertons video and now I understand why people have these rather than a Mustang or Katana. Lots and lots of configurability and replaces a whole rack of stuff. I understand now.

29

That is always a very interesting topic of discussion, as it always leads me to the question whether the user want to have a predictable control over their sound or aim for an exact copy of an existing amp. Since i’m in the first group, it doesn’t matter to me and I rather have controls that are as predictable as possible.

When it comes to the multiple profiles; interesting topic as well!
The people at MOD Audio are also experimenting with this when they created a “dynamic” model. They did this with a "The Dude"pedal. They had 2 parameters they’ve put on, I think, 5 settings from 0 to 10. They made a model for meach combination and then created some kind of smooth transition in between those when you turn the stepless knobs of these 2 parameters.

I have zero issues with a profile of an amp on certain gain settings as I’ll probably won’t fiddle with these things live but still, I have control over the gain. The amount of control you have over tonestack, gain, presence etc is still pretty broad. MOD covers the the high to lowgain sounds in their premium models by adding simple buttons to transition

What we can all agree on is htat it is a wonderful time to be alive!
I’ve modeled a BUNCH of amps already, most of them sounds I tweaked from a VST, working on EQ to take a bit of the hiss out on high gain etc. Also, Thanks to units like these, I can leave a speaker cab in the rehearsal room and all the rest fits on my pedal board (incl power amp)
There is so much free stuff out there as well; think of all those great cabinet impulse responses (IR’s); they impact your sound very much indeed.

1 Like
30

I think it’s a question of how much flexibility do you need.

Arguable the Mustang GTX, Boss Katana, etc. can replace a whole rack of stuff, because they have a lot of effects built in.

You can also do a lot with changing the order of the pedals, etc.

There are, however, limitations in these units compared to the higher-end ones. For instance, on most of the higher-end pedals you can have multiple instances of a single effect (so you could stack gain pedals, for instance) and can do clever routing like splits and joins to have multi-amp or stereo setups.

You can’t do this on any modelling amp I know of.

What you can do on the Mod Dwarf is crazy:
(from ...Close to the limit :) - Pedalboards - MOD Audio Forum )

image
image1439×801 180 KB

That, is obviously, an extreme. But if you feel you need this sort of capability, that’s a good reason to buy one of these high-end multi-fx unit over a Mustang, Katana, or even a less expensive multi-fx unit like Zoom or Boss GT-1, etc.

Cheers,

Keith

1 Like
31

that looks user friendly.

1 Like
32

Yes, that’s a ridiculous setup from someone pushing the limits of the device.

A more normal setup would be something like this:

image
image800×454 107 KB

Cheers,

Keith

33

And how long would your legs need to be?

That second picture is more like my kind of setup Keith.

2 Likes
34

Someone we know has posted some good examples here:

Cheers,

Keith

35

I saw this had launched yesterday but not the price. At this price point they are obviously angling at the pro side for definite! Surprised at that given this is fenders first foray into this market. I suspect they’ll have plenty try before they buy/commit for these with no real track record. Have to admit there’s plenty of very competent competition from Boss and Line 6 (and many others) already in the market at lower price points (and with better track record of ongoing support) so will be interesting to see how it fares.

1 Like
36

This is exactly the restriction on my Mustang III, that led me to buy the POD Go. Only a single instance of one type of FX. On the POD I can stack multiple iterations, depending on the overall processing limitations. Models like the Helix have a greater DSP capacity, so a greater number of “pedals” can be added.

1 Like
37

Profilers or modellers, they can both sound good. I think I’m in the modeller camp because I don’t have access to or experience with a whole bunch of real world amps, I like the fact they have pre-canned ones to use. That are programmed to act like those real amps, even though you can’t add your own.

They can replace a whole lot of stuff, but not a full rack of guitar stuff. I can’t speak for the Katana, but on the Mustang you can only put pedals before or after the amp and change the order. This Fender unit you can do full A B switching on different pedals chains, run two entirely separate chains (voice & guitar), mic up two amps & cabs simultaneously… loads of stuff that replaces a full real-world stage set in my view. So seems like full flexibility - or at least a lot more than a GTX. I’ve spent quite a bit of time with the GTX and this has much more capability. And I love the GTX.

I assume the other top end modellers/profilers etc are similar, so I now “get” why people want them.

I get that but… the Mod dwarf interface doesn’t look intuitive.

There was a youtube comment I saw about the modellers that said something to the effect of - at the top end, they all sound good, interface is king. That sentiment makes sense to me, Fender seem to have developed an insanely good interface.

My LT25 Mustang had similar limitations, only one type of effect in each preset. GTX, you can stack as much as you like, and put multiple of the same kind of effects in the chain. The only limit is that processing capacity, and it’s clear some effects use more processing than others (e.g. pitch shifting seems to use more than overdrive).

2 Likes
38

Really. It looks pretty simple to me.

You pick pedals from the pallete, drop them on the workspace, and drag to join virtual cables to connect them.

I’m struggling to think what would be more intuitive.

@LievenDV can give a view here, as he has one.

Cheers,

Keith

39

Er, you have to connect it to a network and fire up a web browser on another device to access it… there is no way that is easier than just using a built in touch screen.

40

That’s a valid point and that’s mostly because of the flexibility you have when settings things up.
Though; in that setup process you cas assign parameters, on/off switches, routing and presets to bunntons and endless knobs. The boards I create seldom need work in a browsrer because I control the parameters in the logic I created myself in several “pages”

It isn’t all a perfect and smooth experience along the way and that’s where the community there tries to provide as much useful feedback as possible. Though, most of the challenges don’t have to do with the interface but with stuff that isn’ always that transparant of some noise issues with grounding issues and power supplies etc.

So indeed, you won’t create pedalboards on the fly at rehearsal. You’ll need a tabelt or laptop for that. You’ll have to do your homework at home and make sure you don’t forget to bind the button for the control you want to have.

It’s up to the consumer to figure out how much effort he/she likes to put in tinkering and experimenting versus on-the-fly-face-meltijng tones :smiley:
I’m a sandbox kinda guy; my lego sets were built once and then all bricks went into the big crates; I love sandbox boardgames and computer games and the Mod Dwarf fits that well. “Sandboxy” people tend to forgive imperfections a bit more easily but need to be countered with the feeling there is opportunity that is not yet explored.

That’s why it is perhaps wrong to compare the Fender unit with something that does something else to serve the same end goals. I think your comment illustrates that.

1 Like