Ampcraft 1992 - The closest Amp Sim 5150 yet - New from Kazrog

[@WholeLottaBulldog]

Kazrogs stuff imo is the best in a very competitive market

[@Producelikeapro]

Fantastic video Adam! Thanks for sharing this, great observations!

[@jordanpene5279]

Could tell the real one in the blind test listening on my iphone speaker haha. The giveaway was the Kazrog sounded uniform, whereas the real amp, had subtle real amp inconsistencies.

[@musician1971a]

I'm usually very bad at this, but from the start I found that B sounded just a little better. However, when you showed the eq you did on the 5150 that fell into place. Like still something in the low mids where the real one sounded a tiny bit fuller. But yes, they are very very similar and the differences can be even more minimized I think. Plus, the difference was audible in an A/B comparison, but I doubt people would hear that if they listened to the same mix an hour apart with the other amp. I bought this one a few weeks ago and am very pleased with how organic it sounds in my mixes, compared to prety much everything else out there. And the difrference can also be explained by Kazrog having used a different unit. As with all tube gear, no 2 sound alike depending on what tubes were used and how old they are.

[@Airtrooper719]

I actually thought all the B's were the ampsim. I heard the extra low end and i immediately attributed that to ampsim "flub/mud". Guess I was suprisingly wrong lol will have to check this out.

[@clowncorpse7230]

Great video & I agree😀

[@evenstephen2000]

Great comparison. Thank you! Bottom line: I don’t own a 5150, I’d like that tone in my arsenal, and this plugin’ll certainly do that really well. Sitting in a mix, I’m not sure I’d really be able to tell unless I A-B’d them right there…

[@MichaelDespairs]

Could you please do this again and literally keep the two signal paths identical please, aside from 5150 and Ampcraft?

[@cmd_f5]

I picked the full version up yesterday and it's really a joy to play through. In this demo, I can hear a bit more mid forwardness (that like 430hz band or so) is a little more obvious in AC1992. And gain is a bit different in the demo mix, I actually thought A was the real amp lol. Even if it's not EXACT 1:1 to a real 5150 it's damn close and gets the essential signature of that amp. Pegging the cab dynamics can help get a more "real" cab sound although it's subtle. Some great OD's in here also. For 60 bucks it's worth it. Wouldn't pay full price though. At least not instantly. Great vid man Edit They now have a standalone version. Go dawless and have some fun! Still enjoy this sim and play through it all the time.

[@acmeyakko]

There's something in the distortion character that is different. It's hard to describe, and it isn't just the top-end fizz amp emulations tend to have, but something in how the fundamental is distorting too. I can hear the same thing comparing my Mesa amps to the Mesa emulations in Amplitube. I wouldn't call it a bad thing, and I've used the Mesa emulations in the past with good results, but the character of the distortion is definitely different in both cases.

[@frankjager1647]

It's always funny to me to see people talking about modern-day amp sims with the line of thinking similar to "Yeah well it's not 100%, only 95% of the way there so it's time to dismiss it.". Great video.

[@alexgl]

If A had more gain they would be near identical. And I wouldn’t have guessed which is which.

[@Cefshah]

Great video man! (I'm a keyboard player... but I need this kind of thing for guitar-flavored patches.) 🙂

[@neonblack612]

Those were so amazingly close it’s hard to discern… if you wernt doing a comparison video nobody would know

[@ran-diy-audio]

I hear much more 3d in the real thing in the blind test. I admit that I was afraid that it was the simulation, but my ears did not fail me, the A sounded a bit dead to me. Good test!

[@juankalmao]

About 6505+ Preamp output recently I bought a 6505+ plus 6505 cabinet. my concern is, due space problems & the place where i live i can't make loud noise. my options are to use the head from the "Pre AMP" output connected to a cabinet emulator's plug in . is it possible to use it that way without suffering any damage?can i use the 6505+ amp without any cabinet connected from outputs? How u route for this video? thanks bro for ur help

[@adamsteelproducer]

This was a real 5150 to a Two Notes Captor X, taking the power load of the amp so there is no risk of damage

[@caseylockwood5512]

I could hear a slight difference in the mids and in the level of saturation between the two. Didn't really have a preference though, both sounded awesome. The Kazrog is incredible value.

[@BayanChacra]

They sounded veryyyyyy close, I guessed it right because to my ears the plugin sounded just a little bit cleaner, maybe related to saturation, but the difference is really small

[@MichaelDespairs]

One was boosted? One wasn't? One was drastically EQ'd and the other wasn't? A couple of dB shelf at 400 Hz is a great way to make something pop in a mix. But it's NOT a subtle correction or whatever you think it was.

[@Stargazerz]

I liked B better because it was more saturated and had tamer mids. It also was thicker in the lows/low mids. A sample was too dry and kinda had a plastic sound going on in the mids.

[@artean4700]

Exactly this.

[@gathda]

I can’t tell the difference. Going to listen on my monitors to see if anything stands out. Glad I got this plugin.

[@robmlisanti]

In a mix u want it too cut through

[@ramspencer5492]

I could hear more space in B, the real amp..... But maybe not in a mix.... they both do something really similar.

[@paulbradshawguitar]

was pretty much an instabuy after trying it with different cab IRs i had, cool comparison vid did you also crank the oversampling in the options? (goes up to 32x which is bonkers) can make a nice difference

[@resistorstudios]

It sounds fine but it still sounds digital to me on both A and B because there is no real cab being used. Because you are running through a digital cabinet. Its ok if you like using no cab, I prefer to use an actual cab. If you try micing up a real cab you will get a more “familiar” tone with the real amp and it is something I much prefer, the difference is much more obvious. I just worked with my 5150 / mesa cab last night and did a comparison video between the amp sim&IR vs the real amp and cab. I probably will be only using amp sims for scratch tracks from now on. There is a weird something going on with the palm mutes that gives it away for me when a digital cab is being used.

[@iurigrang]

B is a little more compressed and distorted, but I bet that could have been compensated with either the output volume of the 808 or the gain in the amp itself. Otherwise they sounded very similar, no idea which is the real amp.

[@davidlevene5727]

I own a Ampcraft 1992 -and love it!!

[@JosephForrest-m7l]

HA!! I preferred A lol. I thought it sounded smoother! Both extremely close, though.

[@dirtyharry1881]

And tighter! I would definitely take it over the real one in a mix!

[@VagendaAdnegav]

Isn't your 5150 a MkII? You have the signature on the front of yours. The original release has the signature on the back, and the black letters on the front where yours has the signature.

[@adamsteelproducer]

I think you may be mistaken, the mark Ii clearly says “5150 II” on the front and has a completely different set of controls. The difference between where the signature is on the mark 1 units means nothing at all in terms of the actual amp unit, it was just a small cosmetic change that Eddie wanted for some reason

[@VagendaAdnegav]

@@adamsteelproducer Fair enough. The original did have two iterations, so this is what I thought you meant by mkII. If by mkII you mean the 5150 II, and in that line of thought the 5150 III would be the mkIII, then I can follow that logic - but there was two editions of the first amp, but it wasn't all purely cosmetic. Within the way I had been referring to it, the original mkI is what is also commonly known as the "block letter" version, and the first revision visually distinguished by the signature on the front, instead of the block letters. I can see what you mean when you say mkII now though. I'm just used to those being called the 5150 II and the 5150 III rather than mkII and mkIII, but ok.

[@adamsteelproducer]

Yeah no the “signature” and “block letter” are identical. Not only have I seen the schematics, but I’ve personally asked James Brown about it. Can confirm they’re the same despite some websites trying to claim otherwise.

[@downcode]

(writing this before seeing the results) I think B is the real amp, just sounds way more "alive", "3D", whatever... The flatness of the plugin is really apparent.

[@steviejames4861]

The plugin sounded great, then the real thing happened and the video was done. Thanks man.

[@robonguitarnz]

B just sounded the tiniest bit brighter.... but really the difference was so miniscule it would not have mattered at all, im keen for an ampcraft

[@mikesbadopinions9671]

Definitely more Sag in the real amp but both sound great.

[@Maksitto]

B sounds better for sure. It's more saturated and it has more highs (air)

[@adamsteelproducer]

Funny how others have said A - and it's not the same way round each time, so listen again!

[@garrisonaudio7877]

Great amp sim. Just a heads up tho. It's a very resource hungry vst. If you're running an older machine, I'd skip this one..

[@adamsteelproducer]

I certainly didn't find this - yes my machine is powerful, but it was using 0.6% of the CPU. You'd need to be on a complete potato from 2002 for this to be an issue, in which cause surely any modern software would need you to freeze your tracks regularly. I wouldn't skip on good tone just because of processing issues...

[@dollsandgamingtvenglsavage5149]

That was my 5150 head a long time ago unless you had it retolexed…. I think I sold that to some guy in Russia ? I can’t remember

[@adamsteelproducer]

I had mine retolexed at Zilla Cabs, it was black before that

[@dollsandgamingtvenglsavage5149]

@@adamsteelproducer mine was done the exact same

[@JesseJuup]

Pretty damn nice, but the real one sounds alive in the top end and the modeled one not. Most likely the amp sim would sound alive trough a real cab.

[@transmundanemusic]

killer sim

[@AlexRoxjar]

Sounds really good. Luckily, I don't have thaaaaat many 5150 plugins...

[@ericolson326]

Maybe it's just the speakers I'm listening through, but the phrase "as near as makes no difference" comes to mind. 😄

[@xplanet2112]

hmm… thought you sounded local, Ashton? Might be throwing some work your way one day.

[@dannyboystudios6604]

Wow. Those are really close, I think the Peavey has a slight lift in the highs compared to the 1992. Something I noticed in the mix. Might just be me. Still very close. Great shootout using the exact same IR to make sure it’s really just Amp vs Amp.

[@DadoSimicStudiostriver]

Less low end is know noticeable when you play it later afterwards. More mids on ampcraft as well. And it seems B more saturate bit more, and tiny bit tighter. Other then that its pretty damn close.

[@adamsteelproducer]

All fair observations, but it really is close! I’d dare to say that in a full mix it’s almost impossible to compare, which is a win in my book

[@DadoSimicStudiostriver]

@@adamsteelproducer That is crucial selling point. Other amp sims always just carry spirit of real deal, or resemble. This one is one giant step closer to realism. In about 10 years we will came till they will be indistinguishable i`m sure. For some reason emulating analog synths is extremely hard and never sounds totally right as well.

[@JamieSlays]

Hiiiii

[@adamsteelproducer]

Yoooo!!

[@roberteismann1929]

I used to have one of the first 5150's and did not get on with it, too scratchy, and this plugin is unfortunately no different. Good comparison though.

[@adamsteelproducer]

Well at least we can say it’s a close sounding version! We do all have our preferences for sure

[@ryanpwm]

Great comparison. For the next one though, I'd much prefer prerecorded raw guitar going into both and AB. Takes an important variable out of a comparison. amp sims are certainly getting better. but it seems like they over compensated cutting the highs trying to battle the cardinal issue of sims, that brittle high end. Which even the distortion has. The sustain in the sim isn't as lively as it should be, which is confirmed by checking with a spectrogram. You can see all the deviations in the spectrum on sustains where the sim stays ruler flat, making it lack the space and dimensionality of a real amp. The hard clipping also always appears in dense harmonic groups while the sims can appear errantly, making crackles more harsh. 100hz and below is completely off on the sim. Zero sustain there where it should be. When isolated it just sort of farts where the real thing has full sustain. Because of the way it appears and disappears, it makes me believe that it's not something the sim can do no matter the setting. The digital sim also has really precise harmonic groupings. The real one is much more rounded, which makes sense given that it's harmonics are always slightly changing in both volume and pitch during sustain. (in faster intervals than string fingering could do) and the high end is general more chaotic. Transients are always spread out over many ms, like 30-40 in the real thing where the digital one sort of does, but has many transients that are simply instant across the spectrum. Frequencies above 6k get through of course, but in general, there's a gentle low pass filter on the sim that is making it sort of dead sounding on clean settings. Although without it it's probably much worse, but still, nothing an EQ can do about that in a proper way. And in general the sim cuts at about 6k. The real amp clearly goes out to 12k. As far as an integrated EQ analyzer will show anyways. They both have a proper hard stop at 15.5khz. But the real thing is always more full bodied up until that point. Analyzing with RX8 loopback recorded audio of the clean section. I would wonder how it sounds using only a real pre-amp and tone section in and then just the cab simulation if that's possible. I think that's the real way sims should be done. Fancy pants dynamic convolve the cabs and put the hard stuff to program in a box on a desk with no power section.

[@Francisco17Berrios]

The problem with the highs is that it takes way too much processing power to avoid artifacts. The only developer I've ever seen that "fixed" this issue is dibiquadro with extra oversampling.

[@adamsteelproducer]

Not sure what you saw here, but the comparison was prerecorded guitar going into both and then AB’d!

[@nichttuntun3364]

mmmonster sim!

[@wallbreakers5062]

I thought A sounded better and worked better in the mix.

[@nicopoppe4838]

b is the real amp