Is the AxeFX concept outdated?

[Marrafat]

I get what you mean ..... but last night's alcohol is refusing to let me form cognitive thoughts on just how many 'shaping' knobs would perhaps be needed and what they might be called

Currently slightly Guinnessed up but I'm thinking of those morphing applications where you get say a face on the screen and you then begin to morph it by dragging it about. So for example this would be ideal for a touch screen where you would select an amp model that would appear as an image on screen, you then morph it using your fingers and this would change parameters in the background amp model. The morphed image would be saved as your preset.

Okay lass next bottle please !

 

[Coldsummer]

Currently slightly Guinnessed up but I'm thinking of those morphing applications where you get say a face on the screen and you then begin to morph it by dragging it about. So for example this would be ideal for a touch screen where you would select an amp model that would appear as an image on screen, you then morph it using your fingers and this would change parameters in the background amp model. The morphed image would be saved as your preset.

Okay lass next bottle please !

I like this if only for the Guinessed up comment!!

 

[Coldsummer]

OK, my last thought for the day.

The reason I originally started to think about this was because I was considering about how important IR's were to the overall tone and how different IR's can dramatically change the overall character of a preset based on the same amp model. I started wondering if there was any point in modeling individual amps when their intrinsic character could be altered significantly by an IR. I know this is a bit controversial, but if we accept that this is the case, would it not be possible to simply use a generic amp block as a starting point, or building block, a blank slate if you like, for tone creation then sculpt the tone using any number of subsequent parameters, as opposed to using an established amp make/model, thereby releasing us from preconceptions and the tortuous antagonising over whether it actually sounds like the 'real' thing? I think we are all susceptible to the tendency to get hung up on emulating stuff rather than creating new tones.

I've thought about this quite a bit today and I am convinced that guitar tone creation will eventually move away from emulating existing hardware into a more creative and less constrained territory as a natural evolution. It may not be next week, but if/when this happens I'm sure Fractal will be at the forefront of this exciting new approach. Of course it will only happen if guitarists (customers) are willing to embrace it, and that could be the biggest stumbling block because we are a conservative bunch and as much as we like new technology we also like it to be familiar and presented in a format that we are comfortable with, i.e. sounds just like a Marshall Plexi with a tube screamer thru a 4X12 loaded with greenbacks.

 

[maxdown]

.... and when the product hits the market the next thing people will do is experiment by sticking an external pedal or combination of same in front and the odd thing in the loop maybe ..... bloody guitarists eh?

 

[symphx]

OK, my last thought for the day.

The reason I originally started to think about this was because I was considering about how important IR's were to the overall tone and how different IR's can dramatically change the overall character of a preset based on the same amp model. I started wondering if there was any point in modeling individual amps when their intrinsic character could be altered significantly by an IR. I know this is a bit controversial, but if we accept that this is the case, would it not be possible to simply use a generic amp block as a starting point, or building block, a blank slate if you like, for tone creation then sculpt the tone using any number of subsequent parameters, as opposed to using an established amp make/model, thereby releasing us from preconceptions and the tortuous antagonising over whether it actually sounds like the 'real' thing? I think we are all susceptible to the tendency to get hung up on emulating stuff rather than creating new tones.

I've thought about this quite a bit today and I am convinced that guitar tone creation will eventually move away from emulating existing hardware into a more creative and less constrained territory as a natural evolution. It may not be next week, but if/when this happens I'm sure Fractal will be at the forefront of this exciting new approach. Of course it will only happen if guitarists (customers) are willing to embrace it, and that could be the biggest stumbling block because we are a conservative bunch and as much as we like new technology we also like it to be familiar and presented in a format that we are comfortable with, i.e. sounds just like a Marshall Plexi with a tube screamer thru a 4X12 loaded with greenbacks.

I could see this for an IR builder --take some very clear very FRFR type IR and have a 2 or 3d graphic representation of x/y/z coordinates, and begin dragging the coordinate lines around to meet ones taste. Essentially we do this now in a very laborious, ear tricking way; we grab thousands of IR's and start "earballing" them, for miniscule sound differences due to mic type or placement. Couldnt there be a sort of IR fluid modulator/modeler. In a way like the size parameter on the speaker page now.

The graph coordinates, could be size, depth, treble/bass etc.

 

[javier]

god!

 

[Sidivan]

Line 6 does something like this with their digital mixer. You can view and tweak all the EQ's and compressors individually or you can grab a screen with descriptors like "punch" and then drag the tone to add more. The software than adjusts the compression, gates, EQ, etc... To provide that sound. It seems like a really cool feature, but I haven't used it.

 

[Rex]

Please forgive my long-windedness, Coldsummer, but you've just described the Axe-Fx.

Conventionally, all modelers including our esteemed AXeFX, seem to use a similar template based around replicating the tones of existing makes and models of amps, effects and cabinets.

Except for the FAS amp models.

Imagine the AxeFX technology incorporated into a unit which uses many different algorithms to slowly and methodically build a tone from scratch.

Cliff does this all day. The Axe has a bunch of basic algorithms that get tweaked into different tones; some of the resulting amps aren't based on anything that physically exists.

Start with say clean or dirty (or anywhere in between)...

We already have that.

...then shape the tone around other elements reflecting the desired tone, brighter/softer, warmer, colder, open, boxier, and so on.

You've just described EQ.

Imagine a software editor based on logical steps utilising a simple linear slider to alter the basic parameter...

That's Axe-Edit.

...then fine-tuned using an x/y axis adjuster.

I can see where there might be some value to having an X/Y controller that could adjust two parameters at once—but only two. If you start assigning multiple parameters to one axis, you have to make some risky assumptions about what any one guitarst would find pleasing.

For example, the delay stage could have the slider sweep from a short slapback echo to a long/infinite ambient effect then adjust the x/y axis to fine tune the character of the delays...

Character = EQ. You'd be dumbing down all of the Axe's EQ options into a single axis, which would severely restrict the tonal options we already have.

...and so on for other elements (think blocks) of the final tone.

That's the grid.

The advantage I see in utilising this kind of interface is that tone creation would become a far more intuitive process and less restrictive...

Maybe more intuitive, but way more restricted.

...allowing our ears to dictate the final tone rather than dialing it in based on a set of preconceived numbers and values.

If you're not already using your ears to dictate the final tone, you're approaching the Axe-Fx backwards.

Yes, the technology and process is the same as I said in my original post, but I'm talking about using it in a different way outside of the confines of traditional thinking.

The only thing you've proposed that we don't already have is a dual-axis controller.

Tone shaping and creation doesn't necessarily have to be based around setting numbers values and named parameters...

If you don't reduce it to a number at some point, you can't control it. If you don't name a parameter, you can't approach it. Unless you're going to call everything "stuff"...and even that's a name.

I started wondering if there was any point in modeling individual amps when their intrinsic character could be altered significantly by an IR.

Dial up one IR, and play a bunch of different amp models through it. You'll hear the point.


The Axe can already produce a wide range of tones that no physical amp can produce. It has parameters like Dynamic Presence that are totally outside the capabilities of any physical amp. If you want to be able to affect a tone in ways that aren't currently possible, you have to explain what those ways are. Otherwise the designer has nowhere to start from.

... I am convinced that guitar tone creation will eventually move away from emulating existing hardware into a more creative and less constrained territory as a natural evolution.

I totally agree. It's already begun.


Damn! I don't believe I typed all that. I've gotta get some sleep.

 

[warlockII]

I'm a little late to the party here. I think the most difficult part of your idea is having everyone agree on terms that are basically relative and sometimes nebulous. I think back to all the posts about top end hiss and how it is really a sizzle that is natural and necessary to cut, etc. I'm afraid I would never get a tone I like if I had to get my mind around all these terms as opposed to the ones I've always used (drive, master, treble, etc.)

 

[BigD1977]

Interesting.

I can see where you're coming from Coldsummer. Logic ProX introduced a drummer track a few months back which effectively does this for drum loops. The complexity and dynamics are controlled on the X/Y axis, and new broad controllers were introduced on channel settings describing compression, reverb, delay, etc. where each knob could be mapped to more than one controller on more than one plugin. It's an interesting approach, and they got a little bit of criticism from the engineering clique regarding turning Logic in GarageBand, but IMO, what was unwarranted. I've found the loop generation very useable, but the sound crafting functionality limiting.

You have basically two methods to tone generation. The first is the generation of the note, which is comparable to a note on MIDI message and the resulting raw tone. The second part is the 'effects' part, where aftertouch, controller change messages are applied, reverb and delay added and/or controlled. Both of these parts use realtime input (pick or fingers, legato, vibrato in stage 1, realtime parameter control for stage 2) and automatic generation (guitar type, raw amp tone in stage 1, non realtime parameter controlled effects in stage 2) to generate music. Using this approach, you could design an editor/interface which uses a scenes-like approach to both stages. Stage 1 would be tone generation where a number of controls could be mapped onto parameters for a certain 'type' of tone; for instance, having a generic 'metal' tone with a knob that details going from 'Ynwie' to 'Djent' from the 7oclock to the 5 o clock position. Stage 2 could be the more realtime, hands on, X/Y setting which uses effects to generate special effects, room spaces, and the more wacky aspects of sound design.

The positives are;

1: that there would be more realtime hands on control of multiple parameters without the need for mapping out the controls yourself.
2: sound design could become a more integral part of the FAS market.
3: mixing and tone generation would become more intuitive.

The negatives:

1: We already have this kind of control. We can program a realtime controller to multiple parameters as it stands.
2: A computer with a good DAW and good plugins will outstrip what is currently capable with the Axe because the CPU useage can be streamlined with offline processing, and they're not limited to a grid system.
3: We already have an 'intuitive' way of tone seeking: Axe Exchange. We can search for a tone and load it up without having to program it ourselves.
4: We don't have standard definitions of what amp controllers mean. 'Treble', 'bass', and 'presence' effects differ from make to make, not just in crossover frequency, but in their effect and architecture. If we have a controller generically marked as 'Phat' (for instance), it will have a different effect based on sound type, and a whole other world of education would need to be implemented, just as we did when different synthesis types became popular, and this will lead to even more confusion regarding standard definitions of words in the audio realm.
5: Customer response. A psychological study revealed that the least amount of options that a person is faced with had a direct relationship to their happiness. If we have another product that markets itself as a more intuitive editor, fault will be found with it, parameters will not be implemented in the way some would like, and general disgruntlement will abound.

So, while I understand the want, I think it's a stone best left unturned.

 

[Loquenau]

So what's your desired goal? Is it finding timbre outside the traditional palette or getting to a guitar tone in what you consider to be a more direct manner?

This question. I've been wanting the first one since '95. Guitarists, by issue of circumstance, have taken a 'classical' approach - mixing pieces of gear, and altering values of their parameters. Amp buliders have stepped a level lower, by creating and altering circuit designs. For decades, other people have been using synthesizers. The classical approach gives you a lot of content to work with - which can be a lot of work. Synthesis, arguably, requires you know some things about sound - and have a lot of processing power.

Regarding articulation: I've heard a lot of really good recent examples by keyboard and keytar players. But what's missing is the envelope doesn't behave the same in digital articulation, versus physical/mechanical articulation - so it depends on what you want there.

As for 'listening to your fingers and hands', I agree only after you have the timbre you need to make the sound you want. For many people, perhaps for most, they develop through the character of the instrument (guitars, amps, and cabs used and the sounds those are capable of). I work in the reverse. Which is why I don't play much. But every time I get closer to the timbre I've long had in mind, I start loving to play.

Oh, and I might now know what in life is the closest to what I've had in mind: the horn on a tractor trailer truck. Pure tone, lots of oomph, no hair on it.