I got rid of my late model valve Twin and replaced it with a Tone Master Twin. I play jazz with a mostly clean sound and for my purpose the Tone Master sounds as good or better and won't break my back. You can also update or change the firmware. I don't regret the purchase.
One thing I want to point out about modelling: the manufacturer making the algorithm is capturing a specific single amplifier, not every amp of that model. A person could put two old valve Princetons side by side and A/B them and hear differences depending on parts or amp/speaker condition. The Tonemaster might sound exactly like the Princeton used for the model profile.
I've had mine for over a year now, and to your point, the Princeton they modeled it after was apparently a damn good one. It's pretty much the Fender tone I've always wanted.
Digital is the future, tubes are past, doesn't matter what you like most, it's a fact, so stop complaining about Tone Masters and digital amps and enjoy them, they are more usable in all contexts, and more environment friendly. And if they break, you can fix them the same way as a laptop, a computer or a TV, so don't worry, be happy. Congratulations to Pete and the Captain for the video!!!
Well I mean that Fender did a good job at emulating the 65 Princeton Reverb. I think the part where the difference is more noticeable is when the pedals are on, but honestly with the embedded attenuator, you have a great option for home/bedroom use.
They both sound really similar in the clean channel. The dead giveaway was when the overdrive was used. You definitely could hear the difference between the digital and the tube.
@ghost mall it just comes down to that they're different amps,speaker aside. If you swapped the exact same speaker back an forth, it's still be different. They tweak these designs and circuits.and they'll never put one out that's 100% the exact same spec,board,schematic, and parts. If they did, it'd basically be a custom shop amp at that point an it'd be 5000$£¢€¥
I love the attenuation availability. You can't always crank the volume and being able to have the amp sound good sub 90 db is convenient. Hope other amp companies follow suit and make digital models that focus on a couple iterations of specific models.
Not only that, it makes the volume knob less of a nuclear detonation device. I have a 120W head and I can't use it without one, because the literal weight of your finger goes from 90db to 120db, and I swear I'm not exaggerating in the slightest, if anything I'm underselling here
@@DudeMcGuybro Like a hair trigger? I think I see what you're saying. You guys both have a point. In some instances, tube amps would be ideal. But if your circumstances don't lend themselves, a tube amp can create more problems than it would solve. I wish Marshall in particular would follow suit and create an amp in the same vein as these Tonemasters. Sound is not the only factor, I like looking over at it and seeing that I'm actually using a real amp as opposed to something that more resembles a blu-ray player.
That also turns into producing a consistent sound at any venue. And it’s enhanced more by the speaker impulse XLR out, so you’re no longer at the mercy of how well the live sound engineer knows how to mic a guitar amp. So you can monitor for your own pleasure onstage, at the gain level you want, and be confident the audience is hearing what you’re hearing.
Hard to tell with RU-vid compression but I actually preferred the digital although there was not much in it. Just sounded a little warmer which is a personal preference for me.
I totally agree! Except for the overdriven bridge humbucker! That was a dead giveaway….went fizzy…..all other intro tones were definitely fatter on the digital amp! Crazy!
The Tone Master Super also has "real" Jensens in it, and if I didn't have that amp I would be buying this Princeton. I've had the super for just over a year as my main gigging amp, this series is a back saver!
Without any pedals added, both sound really similar and very nice. But with overdrive/distortion/fuzz pedals added, I heard some nasty high frequency artifacts on the digital amp, in addition to being more boxy and less smooth and warm. So my choice would still be the tube version. Very nice comparison, guys!
Does anyone have words to express approximately how good an all-around guitar player Pete is? It's way beyond me. Cappers is good, but Danish Pete is phenomenal.
Both these amps sound great. Honestly, from the intro, I couldn't tell which was the valve am and which was solid state. My initial guess was Amp B being the valve one as it had a slightly warmer sound when played with a Tele but it was a point that I considered it might just have the bass up slightly more.
Yeah, I'm terrible on the difference between tube and digital (never having owned a tube amp) but I was fairly certain that B was the tube amp ... and it's also the one I preferred. Oddly, the tube amp sounded cleaner, almost digitally clean. Go figure.
I had 2 Princeton reverb Reissues. Great amps, but they had at least 8 tubes in them. One of them started having a squealing noise when at a certain volume. It was a tube issue. I had to figure out which tube was the issue. My point is that for someone like me, who plays at home, the tonemaster is all I really need: Good tones with less maintenance concerns, and other options as well. I do also own a 57 ri champ and 70's champ. Great amps as well, but simple, only 3 tubes.
Same here. I had the same issue with 65 deluxe reissue. Went through two of those amps brand new in three months!!! Both tube issues. Been cranking my TMSR for over a year now with absolutely no issues at all.
I could absolutely tell the difference and guessed correctly. Both sound really good though. That said I have never heard a non valve amp that throws sound the way a valve amp does. I think that is the part that is truly impossible to replicate. Valve amps kick out sound in such a physical and visceral way.
They sound slightly different but I think you can dial them to a very similar sound; the Tonemaster just needs to be tweaked differently on the EQ setting. It's the same with my Super Reverb TM. You can make it sound very valvy!
In room and wearing headphones, I had problems catching the differences between the amps (and by the comments I know I'm not the only one). On a live presentation, with a drummer and such, I think pretty much no one would notice any difference. On a studio recording? That's what I would like to know! Speaking as a hobbyist guitar player, it is awesome to have such great options at affordable prices.
Great comparison, but for the cost difference I would go tube amp. I bought a 68 custom princeton reverb for $800 used in mint condition. At least the tube amp can be repaired. The digital amp would be a complete board and how long is Fender gonna make those? If the digital was $300 that would be way better option.
Your modern tube amp can barely be repaired. If anything goes wrong often times the traces get burned on PCB amps. That’s why vintage amps are still so valuable. One is because there’s a finite number left and the other is that they are actually repairable and built to last unlike any reissue amp Fender makes unless you buy the “hand wired” variant
As I listen to the fuzz pedals being compared, I feel like the TM digests the pedal in a way that is more friendly for production, whereas the tube amp translates the pedal the way we naturally love to hear it and feel it. Plus, the tube version sounds 'wider' with pedals, and the TM kind of compresses them and focuses them in a very tight and centered way.
I think that you are right. I feel like in a band and/or recording context I think the Tone Master would be cutting more and be easier to use as it's stage volume and the front of house volume can be different and won't be influenced by you turning up the amp. Sound Engineers will like these.
That's what I was hearing too. All that low end in the tube version with the fuzz sounds good on its own in the room but would actually be problematic in a live or recorded mix.
@@Big_Coil Could it set a precedent for the other big 2 to follow? A DSP '59 Marshall-or JCM , DSP Vox AC30..or 15 ..the small AC10 would work in digital . A DSP Tone King ..the list is long
Tube amps will always give you a warmer, deeper bottom end while the digital will always give you a sharper, more defined high end. The difference is subtle but definitely there. If these were used without the other in a side by side comparison, it would be difficult to tell the difference. Technology has come a long way but not enough to replace a tube / valve.
IMO the only digital gear that actually beats valve amps for sound is the Kemper. And even then, it's a profiler (and you really can't tweak it all), so you still need valve amps to capture sounds if you want a different tone. Gotta have both.
If you stack a low gain overdrive pedal after the fuzz, it solves that harsh fizzy sound when using a fuzz in the Tone Master. I prefer stacking it with the Wampler Pantheon on the low gain soft clipping setting. I'm sure any blues breaker type circuit will work fine.
@ghost mall That’s sure sounds plausible. There’s nothing inherent in the Tone Master’s modeling that should make it perform so poorly with fuzz, except for the fact it has an A/D converter on the input which WILL clip if the signal gets too hot. And clipping an A/D will behave a lot differently than overdriving the input on a tube preamp. Probably just needs some attenuation after the fuzz to keep its signal in the right range.
Just an advice for anyone here ! If you can get a 65 Princeton Reissue go grab one it’s really great. Magnificent cleans, and the way it’s driving the reverb and tremolo when you crank the amp is really something to experience. Definitely one of the best amps I’ve ever played and owned.
@@DTension To be honest I don’t find it too heavy, the Deluxe Reverb is heavy yeah, but not the Princeton. For me at least. And yeah the Tone Master is cheaper, but I’m more into changing tubes and other things than throw the amp to garbage cause something blew up in it after 10 years. That’s why I bought the tube version :)
@@michael4630 I get it. I would hope (but don’t trust) that Fender would have good affordable supper for their tone masters. It would be a really bad look if they all started to fail at the same time.
They’re a bit different, but both very good! The DI out sounded like it needed a tad more bass and reverb. I agree with Pete that the Tonemaster inherently has a bit more mids. So turn up the bass and treble to keep it in perspective. I will be buying this amp!
Could be just a mismatched pot. If you set both on 6 (or any other), the resistance level will always be different. Even two pedals or amps of the same model will sound different if you set them to the same "visual settings". But, if you have a decent QC department that measures every component individually, those differences are minimized.
@@olifilipe The Tone Master doesn't have pots, I think. Since it's all digital, those are probably rotary encoders. So it should be always the same in this model. But what you're saying is still true for the 65 Princeton, of course.
After watching Jim Lill's latest video what I'd like to see instead of modeling or capturing would be an all analog amp that can be digitally controlled. He was able to mimick a variety of amps just by being able to move the tone circuit around.
Was just about to comment that every time Andertons put out an 'amp' marketing video, just going to drop the Jim Lill video remark. The cat is well and truly out of the bag after decades of marketing BS.
@@400_billion_suns I don't know what the sales numbers are - but I do see real gigging musicians using them so I assume they're doing pretty well. I love my Digital Reverb Tone Master - it's perfect for my needs and I got it on sale for $750 so the numbers worked out pretty well.
To me, the digital sound way better. Creamier and warmer. Also, I've been choosing digital reverb for decades. I have 2 all tube amps custom made purchased long ago. Today, I would go for digital.
I play a Princeton and am a fan of the Tonemaster concept however, I don't know why they did a Princeton Tonemaster. It's priced the same as the 68 Vibro Champ, which would be excellent for loud home amp, a week or two extra saving for a new 68 Princeton (which absolutely needs attenuation at home) perfect for pubs, and used Tonemaster Deluxes are louder, cheaper, & have the same great features. Frankly Fender picked the wrong 12w amp to Tonemaster. They should have done the Tweed Deluxe. All that moaning said for posterity, this sounds great & I'll bet they sell millions.
Would love to see a TM tweed deluxe but I think they won't do it because the driven sound/feel is too difficult to emulate. Clean tones are easier to copy digitally ib would think.
The biggest (pleasant) surprise on the Tonemaster is (for home recording in particular) the emulated output sound. That, through my headphones at least, sounded better than it did miced up in the room and at least as good as 65 Princeton. That was impressive. The fuzz/OD argument doesn’t affect my opinion as I would almost exclusively use a Princeton for those beautiful Fender cleans. Given that the DI sound is so impressive, it would be interesting to see how it plays with different IRs in software. Summary: with an attenuator, headphone out an Direct Out to your sound card/computer/ DAW/Speaker simulations, the Tonemaster version looks perfect for home playing and recording or easy lugging to a studio. Of course, the tone romantic in many of us would LIKE a valve version but, from this demo at least, the Tonemaster is probably better suited to the applications I’ve listed above. Love to hear from actual owners as I’ve yet to see one in the wild.
I’d probably still save up go for the valve one, not for the sound but I feel like it’s gonna be more of an item that I’ll treasure in the future, and if I want a modelling amp I probably would’ve get something that’s more versatile than the tonemaster, but just my personal preference though
Yeah. I agree on this one, even as a proud owner of the deluxe tonemaster. I do plan on getting a classic princeton reissue. With the Deluxe or twin, you are getting a major benefit for practicality with the attenaution, DI out and weight. But the princeton as is, is already lighter weight, smaller, and lower wattage. And you can still simply mic it. And I think the fact that it is repairable and will never become obsolete out does the benefits of the tonemaster. It makes more sense to go with the tonemaster if you are considering something like a Twin, because the original Twin is so heavy and loud and inconvenient that it's absolutely worth it to go for the tonemaster. The ONLY downside I have found with the tonemaster after almost 2 years is that someday it will be obsolete and lose it's value, and someday it could break and it won't be able to be repaired.
Fender make great valve amps but can't compete with the likes of Neural and Kemper yet in my opinion. Unsure who this amp is targeted at since digital while valve guys want valve.
I want one! My very first amp, back in 1981, was a Princeton, purchased used from a pawn shop for about $50. I foolishly traded it away for a more "metal" 100W Crate SS head in about 1985.
In the intro A vs B. I liked the Amp B, as it sounded a bit thicker and rich, particularly when crunching. But then you set them the same, which may not be the right thing to do.
They are really similar, but I guessed correctly because the digital amp had a bit more clarity, which I actually preferred, until the fuzz showed up the digital amp and the valve amp was so much better.
I’ve pretty much been a “valve amp guy” but bought the Deluxe Reverb Tonemaster, more features, less money & fraction of the weight of the valve version! In terms tone, no discernable difference in the real world when played a gig volume as there is no A/B comparison. The Tonemaster comes into it’s own for recording & the atttenuation feature means you wont get evicted! Brilliant amps!
Good review and some great playing too. Loved That "riff". I bought the TM Twin three months ago and for all my practical purposes I'm completely satisfied. Tubes are great and I might buy another one someday, just to have one. Thanks guys. Loved it as always.
Was able to guess which was which after a couple minutes. The main difference to me though was the reverb. The digital one sounds a bit more brittle to my ears. Subtle and probably would not be able to pick out in a band mix. Both amps sound really good though . I have been on a bit of a tone journey of late and have come to the conclusion that many of the nuances in this type of thing come down to things that are difficult to demo on RU-vid. Touch sensitivity, dynamic range , compression, headroom/ ability to play well with pedals. These are all things that are difficult to convey without actually getting a piece of gear and playing it yourself. Those are usually where the difference comes down to these days based on my experience with different amps and amp sims of late. That all said in a band mix very few if any people will be able to tell the difference. I know I wouldn’t be able to.
@ghost mall I hear you and I believe you are right. The loss of the low end though completely changed the EQ balance the Princeton provides and to my ears didn't sound too good. Not to say it can't be dialed in differently or that it sounds like rubbish. On the contrary, it sounds just as good as any other amp in certain scenarios.
@ghost mall I have the might Axe FX3 Turbo and love it to death. I believe it has the best modeling on the market....but if I COULD I would be an analog guy all day just because its more fun at times. Although digital definitely has its advantages.
They both sound fab! Buy with your gut! Idea for a rig challenge: function gig rig, pick a set list of uk function band staples and pick a rig that will serve the gig and get as giggable as possible in relation to the set list.
To me it's always been about matching the correct gear together. I had a guitar come to life in cheaper solid state amp, but not sound as good in an old tube amp. The Protien distortion sounded good in the solid state, the fuzz sounded good in the valve amp. Find the correct match to your ear and you'll be all good
"Favorite use of digital technology"... That Roland had been doing years before with the Blues Cube (including attenuation). I agree though, I prefer this style of modeling over the typical tons of f/x and amp/cabinet simulations with 20 knobs where most of the selections sound just "ok" and you might have only have one or two really good sounds in the end.
Tbh this was pretty clear amp A has the springs and tubes, especially back to back. The tones are quite different. But… if you didn’t have the amps side by side either amp could really be all you need - basically if you couldn’t sound amazing off amp B, it’s not because of the amp. The pedal thing could really be a problem though. I feel they’ve nailed replicating the tone master, but that fuzz kinda exposes that once you go outside of the set parameters it was programmed to match, things can go a bit wrong. It really struggled with that fuzz input, and that could be a problem for some people as a lot of people buy fenders for their clean tone because they want to use them as a pedal platform
I think that either way, you'd be getting a great amp. You'd have to dial in the amp and any pedal you're using a bit differently, but they both sound great and you'd probably be happy with the cheaper one.
I Love to hear and See Pete Play His Tele. Sounds much more authentic than Pete with another guitar. You can hear the emotions of guitar and master! And both amps Sound absolutely playable.
I played a few tone masters a few weeks back, I did really love the sound and all the practical aspects. But I just can't get over the pricing - and im not usually too shy with spending on gear lol. I just think Fender know if the sound is right, and the look is right people will suck up the cost - which they do. And in conjunction with a fair bit of fenders piss taking of late... I just can't swallow this one.
The Tone Masters are great amps. The only real "flaw" is that they don't behave the same as their valve counterparts when you boost the front end. Even though I have the hand-wired '64 Custom, I'd consider grabbing a Princeton Tone Master when I see one at the right price.
@@tomdijk5549 I'd keep the '64. The Tone Master would be an amp that I could take with me when I visit someone or go on holidays because it's cheaper and there's less to break.
On the clean sounds I had the opposite reaction, like the digital amp was trying too hard to sound like a valve amp, which actually sounded pretty "big" to me. But on the fuzz hands-down the valve amp was better.
Background: I own a silver face Princeton Reverb (vintage) and have played it since it was brand new. I was able to distinguish between the two amps immediately, however I got it reversed. Amp "A" sounded more clear and pristine and I thought for sure that was the solid state amp because clear and pristine were the strong point of solid state while amp "B" was more nasal and slightly boxy. Wow was I wrong. I believe that the designers overthought the vintage sound and designed the filter so it sounded "vintage". The good news is that they can patch the filter and open up the amp because there's plenty they are filtering out. Sounds like a nice amp and can only get better with software upgrades. Kudos Fender !!!
The tonemaster had way more treble/presence to me, surprised they sound engineers didn't spot that when they asked for their opinion so that could match the tone between the two.
Did you ever asked yourself why all the knobs on the guitar and guitar pedals and amps? Well that the reason why! The Tonemaster feel to me more ready to mix in a full band scenario. When the bass guitar fill the low end and the drums fill the high end. The fuzz need some tweaking and maybe low overdrive pedal after it to smooth it out. It will not sound identical to the tube version but it will sound good and fun and convincing.
Thank you for trying a fuzz through them both. In my experience, fuzz tends to be very different through digital processing (whether it’s a digital amp or cab simulation)…but like any amp, it’s possible to find a pedal that will sound good through it. As amps move from valve to digital, I imagine we will see pedal makers adapting to get those classic tones. Maybe all those vintage pedals will all become worthless as they don’t produce “the” sound through digital amps.
"Your fuzz is great, but how is it with specific digital amps?" - No one. If the amp can't support most pedals out there already, then someone is going to be making amps and pedals for a very niche market. I think the onus is on digital amps to take existing pedals well. Making a fuzz for a digital amp sounds like a bad stopgap solution to a problem that was invented and ideally won't be around forever. People who have pedals want to use those pedals. They're probably not going to want to find a digital amp friendly version. If you want fuzz compatible with digital amps/amp models, just get an all-in-one Fractal or Line 6 system. Otherwise, building pedals for digital amps sounds like a bit of a reach.
Once I swapped out the stock speaker on my Champ 40 with a old Jenson it does everything I need. I've been playing since 1963 and I've played lots of amps and currently own four both tube and SS. The champ gives me great tone at low volumes so it's my go too amp now.
Pretty impressive. You can tell the difference but it's small and in a mix no-one would ever know. If you were buying a new Princeton it'd be hard to argue against the cost, weight and features of the Tonemaster, but if you're already blessed with a valve amp, not really worth changing. Only downside is, as you say, if it goes wrong it's a bigger problem than taking it to your local amp guru and could be expensive. Having said that I use a Roland VGA-3 for practice which I think is from 2003 and it's still got great sounds.
I have the Deluxe Tonemaster. We like using it with the di output to the house with the speaker attenuated as a monitor on stage. Works well. I am sure this one is just as nice.
Yes... but Yes, when listening to the amps side-by-side, playing the exact same part, listening through Adam A7X monitors, +25 years playing guitar, and trained ears from +5 years recording and producing guitar oriented music -> I was able to accurately identify the valve amp and real spring reverb. However, this might be the wrong question: 1) In the context of a full mix, there's little chance I would be able to pick out the valve amp 2) In a recording scenario I'd be more than comfortable using the modeled amp... and I'm fairly obsessed with vintage gear
I can't tell which is which (on the initial example). Maybe I liked B a bit more, but I think it was a little louder so it may just be that. They did sound different, Amp A was brighter like a Princeton, with Amp B being a bit warmer. Tube amps are a bit like fingerprints in that no two are identical, so unless you have the actual Princeton used for the emulation... Speaker emulation, could hear more of a difference. Also, the fuzz, big difference.
I’m adding a comment because I can’t find the old comment to add to it… I just gigged with mine and it sounded and felt fantastic….I never once thought “oh…this is a solid state amp”… More than once when reaching around to turn it off I was careful to not touch the tubes…and only then remembering that there aren’t any! I changed the speaker to a Eminence Signature Series GA10-SC64 and it sounds even better! It took a slight bit of top end sizzle out which I wanted. I also used a Nobels odr-1, which sounds crazy-good with my Tele with’51 nocaster PUPS. It’s one of the best tube amps I’ve owned and I have an amazing sounding 75 champ and a 77 vibro champ, and this is every bit as good or better sounding and feeling
Nice comparison and really, not much difference between the two. I've been gigging a TMDR Blonde over the last year, and cranked up in a club, it sounds great, and pretty much like any Deluxe Reverb I've used over the last 45 years. The Princeton TM might be on the shopping list next.
Pete, that intro was gorgeous on your Tele. I was working on the computer and youtube was playing in the background. I had to stop and open the RU-vid page to see what I was listening to. No surprise ,... "It's Danish Pete!" Thanks man for all the beauty and humor!
What most people don’t understand is we don’t need a Ferrari to get back and forth to work we don’t need a Custom Shop 59 Les Paul to play in our living rooms and tube amps are awesome but we don’t actually need them either 🤦🏻♂️ Can you imagine if there were no $5,400 PRS guitars or no Custom Shop Les Paul imagine if we all had to play a Player series Fender instead of a 57 replica 😐 personally I can’t justify a $5,400 PRS so I must be happy with my SE 24 Standard 🥂
I teach children how to play rock music and I was just watching your video whilst setting up the instruments in a primary school on the South Coast whilst watching your video. In walks a child and says 'that man sounds like the weather man!' So Captain Lee, if the music bizz doesn't work out you can always become a weather reporter. The company I work for (Rocksteady Music School) has just awarded me a £50 Andertons voucher, which I'm super happy about! Not sure what to spend it on yet. Anyway, cheers!
I am really starting to think I can get equally or even more consistently great sounding tube tones with the right digital amp modeling. In this case, however, I'm not sold. When you kick in a little overdrive, the digital amp is noticeably thinner sounding.
Clean, wow so close.... But, that's never really been an issue with any Solid State amps. It's all about the dynamics and how it deals with gain/od/distortion.. That Fuzz demo truly showed the biggest difference and why i personally can't pull the trigger on a SS amp.. Especially now that you can get a Monoprice/HB 15w fantastic tube amp for 400$ !!
Fender understand everything with the tone master series they are so great... I'm a tube freak and will stay. But with a light weight tone master you can play at bedroom level with a great sound and no tube maintenance. Fender tone master make young and "less" young generations ;) happy to play with this kind of staff. The other Amps brand should definitely goes on this way... Good video guys!
Beginning, before tweaking, I could tell difference between valve/tube and solid state. Solid state does miss something (realistic/smooth/warm?) that tube/valve does have.
First off -- the Tone Master is really impressive considering it's a screenless iPhone w/a speaker as you all pointed out. The clean tones (I can hear the difference) and reverb are really close,...HOWEVER, when hit with a pedal it reveals itself. There is a mid hump that's just there man, and the topend is a tad spikier. The mid-hump isn't necessarily bad -- just different.
As soon as Pete kicked in the Dane, the difference was pretty noticeable (in favor of the real one). Not side by side, I think I'd still like the Tone Master, especially with the attenuator and recording options, but the real one is just more desirable.
Truth, I have the Deluxe Reverb Tonemaster and that's the point I'm stuggling with, as soon as you put a OD or boost in front, it doesn't get the same kick in the tubes as a real tube-amp....
Thanks for doing this guys! I was one of the many who wanted to hear the comparison. I guess I just need to find a shop local to me that carry's both and hear it for myself. Great job gents.
I own a Princeton Reverb Bordeaux w/ the 12" Jensen P12Q. I think both Princetons sound great, I think the Tone Master Princeton is just a bit brighter...hard to tell the difference, but tweaking the tone controls does get them very close. Having the Line out and cab mic sim is a cool feature. Great demos - thanks guys! (by Herb Dixon).
I've had the Tone Master Twin(Blonde) for several months. I really like it. It works great for home recording. I don't use it in a commercial studio. I will usually use my Dr. Z for those times.
I could tell which was which from listening. I never hesitated in my decision. Not just saying that because I would buy the digital one and at this point I don't own either amp. Just could hear the difference. As the video went on they began to sound more and more alike.
They were close but side by side it wasn’t hard to pick the tube amp provided you listen through decent headphones. I was surprised just how close they were though.
I was instantly able to tell that Amp A was the valve amp and B was the digital modeler. The Tonemaster was thinner and harsher sounding. I was listening on my iPhone speaker. When the fuzz was turned on the difference was even clearer.
I spent big money the '64 handwired version after watching Rhett Shull's video on them, and I think I could've been happy with the Tone Master version just fine.
When you guys turned the Reverb up that is where I could hear a stronger tonal difference between the amplifiers. The tube version has more top end and a little less of the low frequencies. The tone master is coming across a little bit more girthy in the low end. Different midrange characteristic as well. Both do sound great!
Honestly, I think digital quality on this, as well as other amps, is so much better now days. I really don't want to screw around with tubes anymore. The solid state amps are so much more reliable, less costly, and lighweight. That's me; but it's great that Fender makes both versions of this classic amp.
I've had a VOX AC15C1, a Fender Blues Deluxe, a couple of Marshalls, including a current DSL40. But I seem to have settled on my digital Fender Champion 100 Watt 212. I just love the tones from it, and it is a great pedal platform.
I always see people in the comments talking about "RU-vid compression", not realizing that RU-vid stopped doing anything so heavy-handed well over a decade ago. Pretty much all audio is encoded and streamed in the Opus codec, at bitrates which are - for all real-world listening intents and purposes - indistinguishable from lossless audio.
I'm typing this as I watch the intro comparison. I believe amp B is the valve amp, or "tube" amp as we say here in the States. Update: Wow....I was wrong. I'd have sworn that B was the valve because I liked it more than amp A and I have a tendency to prefer tube amps over solid state. Nice.
I replaced my tube Deluxe Reverb with the TM and there's no going back. I agree the drive sounds were a little cold compared to the tube amp in this video, but the XLR output, lightweight, etc totally override that flaw. I can't see myself buying another tube amp unless I lived in a house I owned with a studio and never had to move the amps that were in it.
I have the tube Princeton, and the option to attentuate/amplify it using a Fryette PS100. So yes, I will need to change tubes sometime along the way... but I don't care. If I wanted to go all or half-digital, I either take my UAFX Dream 65 into the Fryette through the Princeton's Jensen or straight into the mixer or interface. I friggin love it. These are awesome times to be alive as a guitarist. I think the TM Princeton sounds good. The fact that you only save yourself 3 kilograms compared to the tube version... well. But you can toss it around and no tubes will be harmed, so that's a plus for sure.
