Thanks for sharing. sounds good. I have BKP Jugg's in my 7 too.I'll give it a run after work and see how it sounds
Do you still pull frequencies out in your global settings?Agreed. I added the 5-band passive, after the Cab, also to all presets. Decreasing Low all the way, and cutting High with 5 dB, brings out the guitar very nicely. No need to boost the 3 mid bands, in my case.
I'm not getting it...
I'm not either. I'm not sure what's so "game changing" here. It's an EQ. We've had great EQ's in the Axe since the beginning. Is it just that it's an EQ for the "EQ Challenged"? I don't know. Honestly, since we've gotten some better IRs in the box standard, I haven't been using ANY post EQ and it sound great. And natural.
Karl, maybe it's not for you, and that's cool, but there is no reason to imply that because you don't get it the rest of us must be "challenged".
Statements like that can easily comes across as arrogance from somebody feeling superior.
Stuff like that is flamable and can easily start something ugly on the interwebz, even on this forum.
I resisted the temptation to reply that if you don't get it you must have tin ears - well maybe you do have tin ears !? - which on many other forums would have ben a typical reply to you for implying that those who are of a different opinion than you must be challenged.
Take a look at who have posted on this thread, many of us are what is often refered to as power users, with extensive experience not just with the Axe but also from analog gear and studios.
From recording and mixing I have a lot of experience with both analog and software EQ's and to me the passive 5-band reminds me of the best traits of the analog passive EQs.
I agree with you that there is less need for EQ's now than before the "new generation" speaker cabs from Fractal, Ownhammer and others and that there are many other great EQ's in the Axe, but to me the passive 5-band EQ is the most musical sounding, it's super fast to use and does just what I want it to.
It's just tools and horses for courses.
Have a good Day
Wait - scratch all the above - you don't get it because you have tin ears, and apart from that I'm stronger and smarter than you and my girlfriend is better looking than yours - HA !!!!!
Hi RB
I have a Manley Massive Passive in my studio which I find indispensable for getting good drum sounds particularly snare. I find I get better results with it than software EQ. I think its partly the valve compression as well. How do you think the passive EQ in the Axe compares with that. I haven't yet has a chance to hook up the Axe as an insert just for use as a "plugin". Wondered whether you have any views as to whether the Axe is useful as an effect on different tracks. I would have thought that with the modelling power in the Axe it could emulate some pretty expensive boutique analog gear. Personally I love the Massive Passive and I have some Fearn EQs as well which sound huge. Would be cool if cliff could emulate and model all these sounds!
James
I'm not either. I'm not sure what's so "game changing" here. It's an EQ. We've had great EQ's in the Axe since the beginning. Is it just that it's an EQ for the "EQ Challenged"? I don't know. Honestly, since we've gotten some better IRs in the box standard, I haven't been using ANY post EQ and it sound great. And natural.
Intriguing thread. I have used much of the advice here with great results, but still exploring.
A question, since I have so many of you in one place...
I'm looking for like an ultimate clean tone (or club clean might be more accurate) - any EQ advice for that regime? Current clean is based on Super Reverb with a hi-res IR. I love what I'm hearing, but I think I can make it even better with some intelligent EQ tweaks.
Hi James
You have great taste in gear my friend - Manley, Fearn and ATC - I'm not sure I dare ask what else you have in your studio
I used to own a few outboard EQ's and among those a Manley, that I loved and thought I'd never part with.
Due to events that I won't go into on the forum, I had to sell a lot of stuff and work like a mule to make ends meet last year and among the first things to go was unfortunately a lot of my gear including most of my outboard, as that was easily replaceable if I ever get the cash again, and because I have access to a few studios.
So now at home I use my Metric Halo ULN-8 with it's outstanding DSP effects and plugs including a great Channel strip, some carefully choosen SW plugs (including the great "surgical" Flux EQ), a TC 2290 and the Axe II and have a fast workflow with a very good, compact and portable mostly ITB setup that yields great results.
The studios that I mostly work/recording at don't have a Manley, and when I had one the passive 5-band wasn't in the Axe, so I haven't done anything remotely close to an AB test between them, and it's been a while since I used a Manley, so I'm careful with comparing them to much.
As I understand it the Passive Axe EQ is not an exact clone of a specific EQ, and I don't think (from memory anyway) that it sounds like the wonderful Manley - but there is to my (challenged) ears anyway a "similarity" in the way that it sounds and reacts, just something very musical about it. I don't mean to say that the passive sounds like a Manley per se more that they are of a similar breed if that makes sense.
The Axe is definitely a great "insert plug" on many sources and I use it al the time as such over AES into the MH ULN-8.
Haven't tried the 5-band passive on anything other than guitars yet, but surely will next time I have the time to experiment a bit.
In a wish list thread I asked for Classic studio efx like EQ's, consoles, comps, mic pres and such in the Axe or in a "Axe-Studio" and using the way the passive EQ has turned out as an indication I think that we could be in for great things in that genre if Cliff takes up the challenge.
In the mean time I'll buy back the Manley and some of the other stuff I had to let go if I win the lottery.
Btw James - did you ever get around to doing that monitor AB test that we once talked about ? Maybe PM me so we don't dertil this thread ?
Best
RB
Karl, maybe it's not for you, and that's cool, but there is no reason to imply that because you don't get it the rest of us must be "challenged".
Statements like that can easily comes across as arrogance from somebody feeling superior.
Believe me, you TOTALLY took that wrong.
LOL! I really didn't mean it that way! Honest! I simply meant that maybe the appeal was that it had fewer sliders and since it doesn't have named frequencies, it didn't force you into pre-conceived notions of what a particular slider should do.
Believe me, you TOTALLY took that wrong. No arrogance here. I haven't earned it.
statements like that on a forum can make it seem like you are arrogant and know better than everyone...
haha just kidding come chat!
To elaborate a bit on what I found when I used it:
I threw it on there, tinkered with the suggested settings to make it a bit more ideal for what I was hearing, did some double track recording, and then compared it to my previous tone. What I found was that it sounded more present when I was just playing along, but that, when it was recorded and double tracked, it actually made the tone stand out less than my patch without it, regardless of how I toyed with the settings.