If that really is the goal, at some point that primary goal will be achieved. I think you could argue that it has been achieved, at least as much as any casual listener would ever be able to tell.
Okay, but just as engineers don't record, mix and master to the best of their ability solely for the casual listener, there's an argument to be made for developing gear with the most critical ear in mind.
And bear in mind that 99% of the people who hear an AxeFx should be casual listeners; people at concerts, listening to the radio or streaming music or whatever. I doubt that virtually any of them would be able to listen to a song and determine if they were hearing a real amp or a modeler.
By that logic, engineers should mix and master music for the lowest common denominator because that's who makes up the bulk of casual listeners.
We've seen cases where players have blind tested real amps against the AxeFX and have trouble telling the difference between the two.
A lot of people couldn't tell the difference a few years ago either, but if Cliff had stopped refining the firmware based on that sort of feedback, none of us would be enjoying the excellent improvements that have been instantiated since then.
Further, the vast majority of people who compare Kemper profiles to the source amps they're based on can't tell the difference in blind A/B tests, either. However, I can. So can a number of other Kemper users. Even if it's a game of inches or millimeters, why should Cliff settle for less than perfect replication if he doesn't have to? That isn't to say the Axe FX doesn't sound authentic as is, but if Cliff is able to discern minor discrepancies, I'm all for ironing out every last wrinkle. What skin is it off of anyone else's nose anyway? We, the end-users, benefit in the end. It's about conforming to the highest standards and not accepting compromises.
It really does feel sometimes like we're 99% of the way there, so is Cliff putting in 10x the effort to deliver 1/10 the improvement?
What's the difference between an outstanding audio engineer and a very good one? Very, very minor, incremental improvements that add up. The Axe FX has seen a number of small (
and large) refinements over the last few years, but just as you don't judge a painting based on one small stroke, you don't judge the quality of a modeler based on one, small refinement. Small, collective improvements add up over time.
That said, the latest improvements involving Speaker Compression aren't trivial to my ears.
at what point does he decide it's not worth it?
I presume when Cliff is unable to discern discrepancies between the source and reference.
Why is any of this even a discussion? Anyone who feels the Axe FX has arrived can just stop upgrading. The rest of us are enjoying the ride and look forward to further improvements if and when offered.
