Do You Hear a Difference

Do You Hear a Difference

  • Total voters
    296
  • Poll closed .
Greg H said:
Even though I hear a difference (as listed in an earlier post), I have to say that it is possible that 2 seperate Triaxis amps would have more difference from each other than what I am hearing. It is amazing how close the two sound to each other. I have more difference in tone between two Marshall heads of the same model and year.
Click to expand...

I have two Triaxises (Triaxees?). They sound more different than the model and the one that was the basis for the model.
 
BigD1977 said:
LOL!!!!!!!

I also love how we invent adjectives to describe a guitar sound. i should try it next time I cook for my wife....

"Yes dear, the sauce has a tremendous amount of air in the low end, kind of fat at the bottom, and the crispness of the dumpling is just amazing......"

She'd probably lock me up.
Click to expand...

Air, Crisp , =Safe! Better keep the fat bottom thing to yourself???
 
The first one makes my colon shake up to my duodenum more than the other one and the other one crisps my gonads more than the other. The second one makes my poop more brown sounding than the other too.
 
FractalAudio said:
The clips were made using an IR. A (lame) riff was recorded using the looper. This riff was played into the Triaxis. The output of the Triaxis was fed to the Axe-Fx which applied a cabinet IR and reverb. The riff was then played into the Axe-Fx which applied the same cabinet IR and reverb.

The original premise was that the Axe-Fx preamp model was "way off". Therefore the test was conceived as to only compare the real preamp with the model, leaving all else the same.
Click to expand...

Ah.
So no power amp or power amp sim at all, correct?
 
I feel the need to clarify a few things. I am all for the Axe-Fx and that's what I've been saying over and over again but for some reason I get these accusations with presumptions that I'm not. I can make my Axe-Fx sound awesome. There's no denying that and I bet some of you agree with me.

First I'd like to say something about how you measure stuff in these tests. 1) Ofcourse the scientific way with all the meters etc. but 2) "the feel" is something that can't be explained by graphs or science but you have to experience it and sadly all I have to give is words.

I wasn't being too clear about the test we made mostly because too much text is harder for people to digest but seems like even that amount of text was a bit too much for most people. We did multiple tests. That dynamic picture was just one out of many and I think that one was through a Palmer PDI and same settings on the Triaxis and Axe-Fx model so there was no power amp influencing that signal. (yes we used the right output of the Triaxis)

Cliff's test is different to ours. I'm talking about [real amp + real cab + mic] vs [axe-fx (with an IR of the same mic position)]. Because most of what we were testing was "is an IR good enough?" how could we compare that if both clips came through an IR? That's the "questioning" part and I was hoping for conversation. Is there a cool compressor setting that could maybe slow down the attack of the IR to make it maybe a bit smoother etc? The IR thing definitely falls into the "feel category". Also because the power amp affects the IR so much, is there a power amp that is really perfect for shooting IR's because in my experience tube power amps end up too scooped and SS power amps sound closer but maybe too much middle? I almost feel like maybe mixing the same IR with a tube and SS power amp would be the most realistic outcome. This is all just guessing though.

But this requires a bit of brain work. How many of you have been in a studio with a separate isolated amp room and a mic'ed up cab, shot and IR with a good SS power amp (we also tried a tube amp), used the same mic position for a comparison between all inside Axe-Fx vs all real tube gear and A/B'd them under a microscope for a day? That is what I'm talking about. And the difference was small but there was a difference that I couldn't explain in that situation where I tried everything to make it disappear. Simply put: the Axe-Fx was clearer and lacked a certain depth that the real life counterpart had which could be match EQ'd in post but not with the amp sim knobs.

So yes I might be a bearer of bad news and we all know what happens to those guys. Personal remarks might be "very funny" but the need for some people to go there shows that they would rather not see evolution in the Axe-Fx. I guess I'm not the cool kid in the guitar geek club then. :lol
 
FractalAudio said:
I didn't specify which was which.
Click to expand...

You didn't?

I thought you said in the other thread where you first put up the clip that the first half was the Axe Triaxis sim and the 2nd half was the real Triaxis.
Then at the start of this thread you said the 1st clip was the same as the one in the other thread and 2nd clip was the same thing but with the order reversed.
No?

If not then I'd really like to know which is which.
 
An interesting point was mentioned a few posts back ,(well more of a description ) about the difference heard being time alignment of frequencies, just made me wonder if this is a possibility, could the high and lower frequencies be manipulated to reach the speaker source offset? Have I had too much time to think?
 
FractalAudio said:
The first clip is amp then Axe. The second clip is Axe then amp.
Click to expand...

Hmm.
That's the opposite of what I thought you'd said in the other thread.
But it fits with my memory of my old Triaxis in that it didn't have much usable bottom end with gainy tones.
It always flubbed out when trying to add some bottom.
Trying to dial it back in post-gain with the Dynamic Presence never really worked because that also boosts the highs and cuts the mids.

The Axe Triaxis sims allow for much better post-gain EQ'ing.
 
Clark Kent said:
I feel the need to clarify a few things. I am all for the Axe-Fx and that's what I've been saying over and over again but for some reason I get these accusations with presumptions that I'm not. I can make my Axe-Fx sound awesome. There's no denying that and I bet some of you agree with me.

First I'd like to say something about how you measure stuff in these tests. 1) Ofcourse the scientific way with all the meters etc. but 2) "the feel" is something that can't be explained by graphs or science but you have to experience it and sadly all I have to give is words.

I wasn't being too clear about the test we made mostly because too much text is harder for people to digest but seems like even that amount of text was a bit too much for most people. We did multiple tests. That dynamic picture was just one out of many and I think that one was through a Palmer PDI and same settings on the Triaxis and Axe-Fx model so there was no power amp influencing that signal. (yes we used the right output of the Triaxis)

Cliff's test is different to ours. I'm talking about [real amp + real cab + mic] vs [axe-fx (with an IR of the same mic position)]. Because most of what we were testing was "is an IR good enough?" how could we compare that if both clips came through an IR? That's the "questioning" part and I was hoping for conversation. Is there a cool compressor setting that could maybe slow down the attack of the IR to make it maybe a bit smoother etc? The IR thing definitely falls into the "feel category". Also because the power amp affects the IR so much, is there a power amp that is really perfect for shooting IR's because in my experience tube power amps end up too scooped and SS power amps sound closer but maybe too much middle? I almost feel like maybe mixing the same IR with a tube and SS power amp would be the most realistic outcome. This is all just guessing though.

But this requires a bit of brain work. How many of you have been in a studio with a separate isolated amp room and a mic'ed up cab, shot and IR with a good SS power amp (we also tried a tube amp), used the same mic position for a comparison between all inside Axe-Fx vs all real tube gear and A/B'd them under a microscope for a day? That is what I'm talking about. And the difference was small but there was a difference that I couldn't explain in that situation where I tried everything to make it disappear. Simply put: the Axe-Fx was clearer and lacked a certain depth that the real life counterpart had which could be match EQ'd in post but not with the amp sim knobs.

So yes I might be a bearer of bad news and we all know what happens to those guys. Personal remarks might be "very funny" but the need for some people to go there shows that they would rather not see evolution in the Axe-Fx. I guess I'm not the cool kid in the guitar geek club then. :lol
Click to expand...

Makes sense to me.

For me, if you would have left of the bit about money spent and time wasted tweaking and cutting your loses, giving up on the AxeFx and going back to a conventional amp rig, you could have avoided part of the criticism. Just my take on your OP.
 
joegold said:
But it fits with my memory of my old Triaxis in that it didn't have much usable bottom end with gainy tones.
It always flubbed out when trying to add some bottom.
Trying to dial it back in post-gain with the Dynamic Presence never really worked because that also boosts the highs and cuts the mids.

The Axe Triaxis sims allow for much better post-gain EQ'ing.
Click to expand...

Same here, that's why I sold mine!
 
barhrecords said:
Makes sense to me.

For me, if you would have left of the bit about money spent and time wasted tweaking and cutting your loses, giving up on the AxeFx and going back to a conventional amp rig, you could have avoided part of the criticism. Just my take on your OP.
Click to expand...

Yeah, all that...and the part about it being a problem with the amp model...and him ignoring anyone who suggests he may be in error in any respect.
 
Clark Kent said:
Cliff's test is different to ours. I'm talking about [real amp + real cab + mic] vs [axe-fx (with an IR of the same mic position)]. Because most of what we were testing was "is an IR good enough?" how could we compare that if both clips came through an IR?
Click to expand...

As I said earlier, your conclusion that IRs are inferior to a real mic and signal path is the total opposite of my own conclusions after doing similar test myself.
I find them virtually indistinguishable.

The sound of a mic'd cab vs a real cab-in-room is another matter entirely though.

The only advantage of recording a real cab vs an IR is that during the recording process itself you can further experiment with different mic placements and combinations.
An IR is just a static picture of one mic'ing scheme.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom