Has the Axe-FX II Achieved 99% amp modeling accuracy?

Rinkleton said:
In my opinion, if we are talking strictly about the amplifier sims only, they I'd say they are 99% there. However amps are such a small percentage of of the overall sound that there is still much room for improvement in other areas. Particularly the stuff between cab and daw. Yeah there's mic and preamp sims, but I have yet to hear anyone's Axe Fx direct in recordings and though "man that really sounds like an amp recorded in a room."

My example would be the Deftones Koi No Yokan album. The first time I heard it, I thought the guitars sounded not quite warm enough but couldn't put my finger on it. Later I find out they said they recorded the whole album though the Axe Fx only. Not that they don't have some awesome sounds on the album, but the "overall" sound wasn't 99% the same as their past records.
Click to expand...
I don't think they or even stef would want that record to sound the same as all the others. You gotta remember that KNY had the guitars 8th string dropped to E apart from F# like on the prior album Diamond Eyes. That alone is enough to require tonal reshaping which sort of results in a different overall tone. Here's the catch, in the end they still sound like who they are..., DEFTONES! That's what makes them great I think. Can't really say that about many other well known bands.
 
FreeMind said:
That would mean, that they are different... Which means, the models in the Axe are not yet accurate...
.
Click to expand...

No two amps are the same even of the same model. Thats why you see specific amps so revered. Tube amps just vary from amp to amp. I would say Cliff and his FAS team has it nailed 99%.
 
ML SOUND LAB said:
+1. I really think people need to do this kind of real life A/B before they are qualified to say how close the modeling is. Taking a guitar sound out of context is not an apples to apples comparison.
Click to expand...
Thing is when you look at just gain staging at some guys presets it's clear that some guys have simply not learned how to get what they want out of gear.
But it's just like with pro audio, I'm perfectly happy using my Chandler 12345 Curve Bender EQ or Culture Vukture on my UAD, but fuck me if won't use the hardware when given the chance. The few times a year I get to use the big set up in a well designed studio it's Fx8 into Ax2 running two amps with it. Cause one thing that isn't happening in modelling alone is the harmonic complexity of multiple Amos interacting in a space.
However I can perfectly happily just plug into my Axe and get results all day long. But sometimes it's big in slop time. :)
 

Attachments

  • 2017-03-07 13.46.20.jpg
    2017-03-07 13.46.20.jpg
    130.1 KB · Views: 44
I have a Kemper and an Axe FX II XL+.

All I know is, there have been NUMEROUS blind a/b tests, where people could not tell the difference in tone, or feel between the Kemper and the 'real' amp. So I would say that was as close to 100% accuracy as is discernable by a human. So, I figure it makes a good benchmark (and I have both and can a/b)

When I first got the Axe, it was Quantum 6 firmware. Tonally, amp to amp, the Axe sounded a little different than the Kemper for say a JCM800. Could tweak the Axe (or vice versa) to sound close to the same tonally. It was still a little different, but sounded like a tube amp, maybe not exactly like that amp profile on the Kemper, but who cares if it sounded good. Fell, and I define that as the amalgam of response to pick, sag, touch response, etc, was also a little different on the Axe. So, if we assume that the Kemper is as close to 100% accurate, per all those blind tests, that means the Axe wasn't. Again, could tweak it to 99% close usually. And also, it was still great feel.

Then Quantum 7 came out. Everything above became very negligible as far as difference. Sure, some presets need a little tweaking to match pretty much exactly the Kemper Rig for the same amp.(and yes, using same cab and mic). The feel and thickness/complexity of harmonics I think the Kemper has an advantage in, was dramatically closed with this firmware.

I think, now, without question, if you did blind a/b tests with the Axe and 'real' amp, players would also have a hard time determining which is which.
 
Billbill said:
I don't think they or even stef would want that record to sound the same as all the others. You gotta remember that KNY had the guitars 8th string dropped to E apart from F# like on the prior album Diamond Eyes. That alone is enough to require tonal reshaping which sort of results in a different overall tone. Here's the catch, in the end they still sound like who they are..., DEFTONES! That's what makes them great I think. Can't really say that about many other well known bands.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with most of that. I love all of their records a lot and appreciate the differences. They have changed tunings and numbers of strings between records quite a bit, however Koi No Yokan to me is the one that sounds WAY different. Not that it's bad, but it's just different. So in the context of "is the amp sims 99% accurate?", it makes me want to say no.

I've been trying to justify that stance to myself and I guess the reason I feel that way is that, if the amp sims were extremely accurate, it should be almost difficult to get a not-authentic sound, particularly with a big time band that has access to a professional studio and engineers. I know that's not a perfect way to think about it, but it seems like too big of a coincidence that the one album that they recorded through the Axe FX sounds so different to me.
 
cybermgk said:
I
When I first got the Axe, it was Quantum 6 firmware. Tonally, amp to amp, the Axe sounded a little different than the Kemper for say a JCM800. Could tweak the Axe (or vice versa) to sound close to the same tonally. It was still a little different, but sounded like a tube amp, maybe not exactly like that amp profile on the Kemper, but who cares if it sounded good. Fell, and I define that as the amalgam of response to pick, sag, touch response, etc, was also a little different on the Axe. So, if we assume that the Kemper is as close to 100% accurate, per all those blind tests, that means the Axe wasn't.
Click to expand...

This logic does not hold water at all... as you are assuming

1: All tubes amps of the same make/model are the same sound/feel-wise (i.e. the amp your profile was built from sounds the same as the amp Cliff's model was built from, heck they might not even be biased or tubed the same way even if this was true). So there is no way they could be accurate and sound truly identical. There would HAVE to be variation if they were 100% accurate unless the profile was of one of Cliff's amps and the Axe settings were mapped directly to those used in the profile.

2: Your stated assumption that the KPA is as close to 100% accurate as possible is completely unfounded unless you personally have some sort of objective data or metric for this. The Axe, heck the POD2, has been able to fool people in A/B blind tests. Given that the KPA is not a tube amp and you have nothing but anecdotal data (of which many data points to the converse could be supplied) it makes no sense to make the assumption that 1:1 matching to the KPA, which is not the amp being modeled, constitutes a standard for accuracy for the AxeFx model.

While your experience is interesting and appreciated, comparing back to a KPA makes no sense to me as a gauge for accuracy, at least in the objective sense. I'd much rather have Cliff's data measured from his IRL specimens give better 1:1 matches with each revision. Heck I'd rather see a comparison back to a random physical specimen than the KPA as the KPA is only 100% on target at a single operating point and extrapolates the amps behavior as soon as a knob is moved and there is no guarantee the KPA is 100% accurate since it is just a different digital emulation device.

I think, now, without question, if you did blind a/b tests with the Axe and 'real' amp, players would also have a hard time determining which is which.
Click to expand...
FWIW, this has already happened many times in different forums experiments posts, YT vids, etc. Including the recent experiment under Q6 with Grammy winning artist Larry Mitchell.
 
Last edited:
zenaxe said:
This logic does not hold water at all... as you are assuming

1: All tubes amps of the same make/model are the same sound/feel-wise (i.e. the amp your profile was built from sounds the same as the amp Cliff's model was built from, heck they might not even be biased or tubed the same way even if this was true). So there is no way they could be accurate and sound truly identical. There would HAVE to be variation if they were 100% accurate unless the profile was of one of Cliff's amps and the Axe settings were mapped directly to those used in the profile.
Click to expand...
Ergo the need to tweak to get them to sound the same. You did see that above, correct?

zenaxe said:
2: Your stated assumption that the KPA is as close to 100% accurate as possible is completely unfounded unless you personally have some sort of objective data or metric for this. The Axe, heck the POD2, has been able to fool people in A/B blind tests. Given that the KPA is not a tube amp and you have nothing but anecdotal data (of which many data points to the converse could be supplied) it makes no sense to make the assumption that 1:1 matching to the KPA, which is not the amp being modeled, constitutes a standard for accuracy for the AxeFx model.
Click to expand...
Yes it is based on the assumption, from anecdotal data, that person after person that has taken blind tests of the KPA with the Amp that was profiled, couldn't tell the difference. Yes, have to take that assumption that that constitutes accurate, and if so, then if one can make the Axe model match the KPA profile, we have a transitive connection.

And, frankly, for me, That is all I care about, does it walk, talk, look, smell, taste etc like a duck, then it's a duck for all practical purposes. When I play it, does it sound and feel like a tube amp? When I record it, does it as well? When people hear me play it, or hear the recording, can they tell the difference? That's All I care about. And they both do

Your level of satisfaction is something different, as regards this. Fine, soldier on. BUT, what criteria YOU hold as the pinnacle of accuracy, holds true, and there is no other way around this, for you. My criteria holds true for me. anything else is just you taking a "holier than thou' attitude to the whole concept and discussion.

And, for what it is worth, your not entirely correct on "KPA is only 100% on target at a single operating point and extrapolates the amps behavior as soon as a knob is moved and there is no guarantee the KPA is 100% accurate since it is just a different digital emulation device." For certain aspects, like gain and volume, there is a sweep that isn't extrapolated, as that was determined as part of the profiling process. EQ, and complete interaction of all controls, yes your correct.
 
Rinkleton said:
I don't disagree with most of that. I love all of their records a lot and appreciate the differences. They have changed tunings and numbers of strings between records quite a bit, however Koi No Yokan to me is the one that sounds WAY different. Not that it's bad, but it's just different. So in the context of "is the amp sims 99% accurate?", it makes me want to say no.

I've been trying to justify that stance to myself and I guess the reason I feel that way is that, if the amp sims were extremely accurate, it should be almost difficult to get a not-authentic sound, particularly with a big time band that has access to a professional studio and engineers. I know that's not a perfect way to think about it, but it seems like too big of a coincidence that the one album that they recorded through the Axe FX sounds so different to me.
Click to expand...
They are authentic and u can tweak enough to earn a tone that's indistinguishable between "real or fake". Gore,KNY,& Diamond Eyes were all non-amp albums and yet all sound different. DE was recorded with the AxeFx ultra while needing to reproduce the digital sound, Guitar Rig software was utilized. I saw them live last year and DE sounded exactly like the album only now through AxeFx 2's. Point being, anything can be tweaked enough to sound exactly like anything. It's the sounds we are after that we ain't heard yet...that's the tricky part! Lol
 
All that tube mojo is so overrated I fn guarantee you I can make the KPA and AxeFx BOTH sound exactly like shit haha
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom