TubeAmp vs AxeUltra = my test

Where is the RealAmp?

  • Total voters
    67
  • Poll closed .
very close!

If you'd want to match the second take to the first one even more closely you could add a peaking filter:
3247Hz 0.38Q +1.70dB - to match the extra bite

There's also a slight difference below 50Hz:
Low shelf 46.6Hz 0.98Q -6.18dB

very well done! :)
 
Last edited:
From what I have heard, I doubt very seriously that people who claim to hear a tube amp, could do so with a full band added to it!

If it sounds this close without a band......... Imagine if you had drums, bass, keyboard and even another guitar going!

In a band setting, I doubt the critics would even know the difference!
 
webe123 said:
In a band setting, I doubt the critics would even know the difference!
Click to expand...

You are right, but the Sound consist from little details, so averything is important.

Well, I see boys, 30 days is to much to wait for all of you. If you like I can publish the Tube position earlier. You just choose:

1. when a 100 votes completed
2. or 10 days passed

Say which choise you prefer, because I already got my point, with respect to your help.

Also, If you like, I can duplicate the same with reverb delay and horus ON.
 
Through cheap computer speakers, 2nd half is the real amp and sounds better. Less compressed and open sounding. And no you did right with no effects, just dry amp tone.
 
The results at the time of this post is pretty much neck and neck. Based on some of the responses I can see why. The fundamental tones between both are so close it's to the point of pointless. I can hear slight differences between the two but honestly I couldn't tell which is the amp and which is the Axe, which is the reason I sold all my tube amps.
 
The second half sounds like the tube amp to me. Although the 2 recordings sound nearly the same, to me the true test is in how the 2 pieces of gear respond to your playing (dynamics, feel, tone, controlled feedback...), and only you can answer that.
 
Well, I decided to publish the answer, because I’ve got my aim already:

The RealTube is = Second Half

From this experiment I’ve learned:
1. Some of you can definitely hear the difference, and you are able correctly locate a tube. Even more you can definitely explain why.
2. The Public probably will not care the difference.

Thus, in the studio I will continue to work with hot glass and lots of cables. Damm…
Maybe Axe II ??? Another pain in the neck….
Thanks to all of you.
 
Glad you posted the results sooner, It was damn close.Though I thought the second one,I guess the best way to explain is more open
 
Second half of the second half sounds more "ampish" but they're close enough as to be statistically irrelevant. (I voted 2 but could have gone either way)
Once, as someone else already said, that sound is inserted into a full band...all differences will disappear completely.
 
First half, more natural compression. Highs more blended into program material.
Second half, more presence..highs are not as well blended..makes for better definition and articulation.
The waveforms may clue us to which is valve harmonics v/s synthetic.
Either way..I agree..good modeling....neat little riff too.
 
I can very clearly hear a difference between the two tones in the bottom end. In the first clip, a lot of the low end is missing, but on the 2nd one it's wide open. Maybe some compression on the first one, but I can only tell when it's palm muted. Seems like there's a smidgeon more low-mid in the 2nd clip as well. As for which one is the real amp? I dunno. You could get either of these tones from the Axe and I'm not familiar enough with this particular voicing to identify the real amp.
 
Sidivan said:
I can very clearly hear a difference between the two tones in the bottom end. In the first clip, a lot of the low end is missing, but on the 2nd one it's wide open. Maybe some compression on the first one, but I can only tell when it's palm muted. Seems like there's a smidgeon more low-mid in the 2nd clip as well. As for which one is the real amp? I dunno. You could get either of these tones from the Axe and I'm not familiar enough with this particular voicing to identify the real amp.
Click to expand...

I'll post frequency graphs later...
 
Sidivan said:
I can very clearly hear a difference between the two tones in the bottom end. In the first clip, a lot of the low end is missing, but on the 2nd one it's wide open. Maybe some compression on the first one, but I can only tell when it's palm muted. Seems like there's a smidgeon more low-mid in the 2nd clip as well. As for which one is the real amp? I dunno. You could get either of these tones from the Axe and I'm not familiar enough with this particular voicing to identify the real amp.
Click to expand...

This is what I find when trying to compare to my Marshall, something is missing in the lower mids. I've tried boosting/cutting various lower frequencies, but I'm still not there. I'm convinced it has a lot to do with the power amp, which is also a tube amp. It's got plenty of low end, but not the same "shape" as the Marshall. The difference is even more obvious with the SS amps I've tried. I'm hoping version 3.0 (or some other tweakery) will help fill the void.
 
axel said:
I've tried boosting/cutting various lower frequencies, but I'm still not there.
Click to expand...

Actually me also 

1. The Axe sounded cleaner in case of low and high end harmonics. So, in the mix it could sounds nicer.
2. But Tube has bass response, high control and feel. Tube is more compressed, but more opened and smooth the same time.

I posted this comparison, because I tried probably all combination of “Advanced Options” of Amps. I use “FAS L1” and “FAS M”. These two AmpModels suits my needs. BUT I CAN NOT duplicate with AxeUltra a real Tube DeepSound Immersion.

I appreciate if you share your experience with advanced params of Amps in order to get that overloaded feel. I do not care about any harshness in high-end, because I already experienced dealing with it. But “Dead Sound” keeps me out of my bed…
 
Amp-versus-Axe shootout/comparison/blindfold-test...

Hi nolik,

First of all, well done! Now here is my vote/answers and companion explanations...

I think the first one sounds like a tube-amp. It sounds like a "punchy" & midrangey (...perhaps EL34-based, like maybe Marshall, Orange, or a Suhr Badger for example) amp. The first sample had a certain "midrange-bump" that sounds familiar to me (and which I did NOT hear in the second-half's sample.) Also, the first one's high-end/treble seems more "open" (less compressed,) and the second one's low-end seemed "tighter." By itself, the second one sounds more balanced and thus finished (like it has been mastered almost?!?) That's why I think the second one is the model. FWIW, that first one has just enough "spikey-ness" in the upper-mids and highs/treble to allow it to sit in a "band-mix" better than the second one, but I like listening to the second one if I have to hear it by itself (if that makes any sense - LOL!)

....but I'm probably wrong about everything I've just explained - LOL!

Now I'll go look up the answer (as you said you've divulged it in a "P.S.-edit" below the audio-player's-interface!) on page 3.

Bill
 
I'm wr-wr-wr.....WRONG!

billmeedog said:
Hi nolik,

First of all, well done! Now here is my vote/answers and companion explanations...

I think the first one sounds like a tube-amp. It sounds like a "punchy" & midrangey (...perhaps EL34-based, like maybe Marshall, Orange, or a Suhr Badger for example) amp. The first sample had a certain "midrange-bump" that sounds familiar to me (and which I did NOT hear in the second-half's sample.) Also, the first one's high-end/treble seems more "open" (less compressed,) and the second one's low-end seemed "tighter." By itself, the second one sounds more balanced and thus finished (like it has been mastered almost?!?) That's why I think the second one is the model. FWIW, that first one has just enough "spikey-ness" in the upper-mids and highs/treble to allow it to sit in a "band-mix" better than the second one, but I like listening to the second one if I have to hear it by itself (if that makes any sense - LOL!)

....but I'm probably wrong about everything I've just explained - LOL!

Now I'll go look up the answer (as you said you've divulged it in a "P.S.-edit" below the audio-player's-interface!) on page 3.

Bill
Click to expand...

Hi nolik,

Well, as usual, I was wrong!!!

As I said initially though, you did an excellent job, as they sounded very close. I probably could've benefitted from monitoring your samples through better speakers though :( I DO stand by my initial assessment ( atleast through my crappy speakers - LOL!) that the first one would probably sit in a mix better while the second one sounds more "finished" or "mastered" and thus more balanced and pleasing to the ear. I agree with Don Peterson to some extent that you could probably make these clips a bit more similar (frequency-wise) by clever EQ-usage! I think some subtle (dare I say...surgical!) use of compression in your patch-tweakage could also get your first-clip closer to your second-clip too. BTW, I would add that every tube-amp is unique in a way, and that you might get "closer-to-your-amp" results by starting with an amp-model which is closer to what you own/use (although I guess you may have done this already, not sure?!?) What amp do you use (did I miss where you mentioned the amp, or did you omit that?) Also, you might benefit from a more thorough understanding of the advanced-parameters in the power-amp and cab-modeling sections especially. One thing that Cliff seems to keep reminding us is that the subtle differences in tone between models and amps is often in the power-amp section behavior and the cab/IR's and their interaction with the various microphone-models, etc. Cliff thinks the "average-user" - and I must admit, I've been guilty of this a LOT too (which probably means I'm an "average-user" - LOL!) is that we spend a bit too much time in the pre-amp and EQ-tweakage. Certainly, that's important too, but we need to hear how all aspects of the complete-model interact! (I.E: Pre-Amp-->EQ-->Power-Amp-->Cab/Mic/IR's-->Mixer)

Keep up the good work, and don't feel too bad...I also still have plenty of "hot glass and a bunch of cables lying around!" - LOL!

Bill
 
I agree, and my rig allows me to A/B test my tube pre's and the Ultra's Amp Blocks through the same cabs or Cab Blocks, time and phase aligned, though either tube or SS power sections.

Another thing that hasn't been pointed out is the test source material. If you really want to hear all modelers struggle with sounding like a tube amp, dial up a good mid-gain sound and play some blues/blues-rock type single note lines in the middle of the neck on the G and B strings, and hold some 1 step up bent notes with vibrato. The real tube amps sing and bloom over time etc, while the modelers sound sterile and one dimensional in comparison IMO. That and the differences in the top and bottom end responses are the biggest differences to me.

nolik said:
Actually me also 

BUT I CAN NOT duplicate with AxeUltra a real Tube DeepSound Immersion.

I appreciate if you share your experience with advanced params of Amps in order to get that overloaded feel. I do not care about any harshness in high-end, because I already experienced dealing with it. But “Dead Sound” keeps me out of my bed…
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom