phaser compare phase 90 handwired to Axe-fx

I can hear some subtle differences, but they're really subtle. I have no idea which is the pedal and which is the Axe-FX, so you've at least got it that close.

It sounds to me like one of them is a touch thicker than the other, but it's a pretty small difference IMO.

D
 
Is the first clip the Phase-90? That's the one I prefer (but they're so close I wouldn't sweat it).

It sounds to me like there should just be a hair of mid-range distortion/color added to the second clip to get it to sound like the first. You know more about this stuff than me, but I would try and put very subtle distortion driving the phaser, or in parallel. Or maybe the drive of a tape delay, with almost no delay.
 
I liked the first one better too. There was a richness to the sweep that was most noticeable when the chords were held. Both were nice, but the first one seems to have more complexity, IMO. Would be very interested to know which was which!
 
Slightly OT, but I tried to emulate a MuTron Phasor II of a friend of mine over the last couple of days. I'm sort of 90% there with my first trial setting, but I definitely noticed that it will be almost impossible to get it to 100%. These analog things just have a mind of their own.

First of all to get the waveform of the LFO to match is impossible. Not a sine nor triangle. in the end I went for a log setting since it came closest, but it's still not the same. I've got it so far now, that I sort of like both versions and one could be fooled in thinking that they are almost the same. I played my Axe version to my friend over the phone and funny enough he liked my Axe better than his Mutron :lol: .

Maybe Cliff could add an option where the waveform could be more freely manipulated since this seems to be a reoccouring problem with emulating analog choruses,phasers etc. The Axe just sounds a lot more static or if you want 'digital' in that department...

One thing's for sure though...the Axe has a much better signal to noise ratio and man, does that Mutron destroy the signal in bypass :lol: ....
 
btw... nicely done. Both sound very similar. The second definitely doesn't push the amp as much and is a bit more scooped, but modulation wise...very close.... ;)
 
VegaBaby said:
Slightly OT, but I tried to emulate a MuTron Phasor II of a friend of mine over the last couple of days. I'm sort of 90% there with my first trial setting, but I definitely noticed that it will be almost impossible to get it to 100%. These analog things just have a mind of their own.

First of all to get the waveform of the LFO to match is impossible. Not a sine nor triangle. in the end I went for a log setting since it came closest, but it's still not the same. I've got it so far now, that I sort of like both versions and one could be fooled in thinking that they are almost the same. I played my Axe version to my friend over the phone and funny enough he liked my Axe better than his Mutron :lol: .

Maybe Cliff could add an option where the waveform could be more freely manipulated since this seems to be a reoccouring problem with emulating analog choruses,phasers etc. The Axe just sounds a lot more static or if you want 'digital' in that department...

One thing's for sure though...the Axe has a much better signal to noise ratio and man, does that Mutron destroy the signal in bypass :lol: ....
Click to expand...

If a duty cycle parameter were added along w/ a bass,treble, and hi-cut frq(like the chorus) it would go along way
 
javajunkie said:
If a duty cycle parameter were added along w/ a bass,treble, and hi-cut frq(like the chorus) it would go along way
Click to expand...
Yes, absolutely. The funny thing is with me though, that I prefer a lot of the modulation stuff if it actually doesn't alter your initial sound too much. All the Mutron really did, was drive the input a bit more which could be easily compensated for, but it didn't add its own EQ as much as some of the older Boss pedals do.

Still, don't really know why Cliff hasn't added those features to the Phaser block :?
 
tlainhart said:
Is the first clip the Phase-90? That's the one I prefer (but they're so close I wouldn't sweat it).

It sounds to me like there should just be a hair of mid-range distortion/color added to the second clip to get it to sound like the first. You know more about this stuff than me, but I would try and put very subtle distortion driving the phaser, or in parallel. Or maybe the drive of a tape delay, with almost no delay.
Click to expand...
Mark said:
I liked the first one better too. There was a richness to the sweep that was most noticeable when the chords were held. Both were nice, but the first one seems to have more complexity, IMO. Would be very interested to know which was which!
Click to expand...
VegaBaby said:
btw... nicely done. Both sound very similar. The second definitely doesn't push the amp as much and is a bit more scooped, but modulation wise...very close.... ;)
Click to expand...
I take the last one to mean he prefers the first too. Less scooped~more natural.

javajunkie said:
BTW, the second half is the real phase 90. I think it will be close enough for my purposes.
Click to expand...

I think we have a winner here! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Actually I could hardly tell any difference that couldn't be accounted for by playing dynamics.
 
Dutch said:
VegaBaby said:
btw... nicely done. Both sound very similar. The second definitely doesn't push the amp as much and is a bit more scooped, but modulation wise...very close.... ;)
Click to expand...
I take the last one to mean he prefers the first too. Less scooped~more natural.
Click to expand...
No, I actually liked both. Just tried to point out the differences between the two.
 
Could you please share your patch...or the settings from the phaser? ? i really like how you dialed the phaser in.
 
Here are the settings:

order:4
tempo 1/4
rate 1.00hz to 1.7
depth 7.87
res +10.2%
freq 80.8
freq span 4.26

I also ran the phaser parallel with a dry signal. The mix was at 100% and placed a peq w/ high and low shelf boost about 2.5 with freq set at 100Hz and 3772Hz respectively.
This boosts the highs and lows of the phased sound and leaves the dry sound w/o the eq. I don't know if it makes that big a difference, but I liked it.

You could leave it out and not worry about going parallel, just set the mix at 50%.


I collapsed the signal back to one row after the PEQ.
 
Nice job!

I liked the first version better too... seemed richer... also the 2nd half had more noise, which sort of gave it away as being the "real thing".
 
Thanks for the settings, javajunkie! I've got an old block logo Phase 90 stored away that I haven't played for a long time. I haven't A/B'd, but I can say that your settings make the AxeFx sound great.
 
I preferred the second clip, what turned out to be the actual pedal. My initial impression of the first (axe) clip, before I read about your patch and settings, was that the phaser sounded "notched" at a certain point in the higher frequency portion of the sweep. The other thing was that it seemed a little faster than the the other. I preferred the second clip because it sounded more shimmery or swimmy to me, a little less pronounced.
 
javajunkie said:
BTW, the second half is the real phase 90. I think it will be close enough for my purposes.
Click to expand...

OK so we are done here.
You did better then the original!

Can we have the preset?

:mrgreen:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom