Ares vs Cygnus - if it was perfect - how can it be better now?

phil92

Experienced
consider this: over a hundred years ago, the first moving pictures were shown to an audience in London. It was black and white, on scratched celluloid, there was no sound and it wasn't playing at the correct speed. Yet when a train seemed to race toward the audience, people are said to have fled in panic.
The illusion was "perfect" at the time because of what people were used to seeing.

Now compare that to any contemporary Netflix production...

As we grow more educated, listen more closely, we may perceive details we were unaware of before. What we didn't consider a relevant component of the sound or feel may now appear obvious.

So yes, what appeared to be "perfect" a year ago may very well be approved upon today (that's why I don't use that term).
I for one am very happy Cliff strives for constant improvement and doesn't seem to tire pulling all of those amps out of storage to re-evaluate, re-tweak and re-confirm the algorithms.

When I bought the Axe FX I had no idea I would be getting all of those free updates.
 
Well said. This is the only guitar modeler I've bought that's gotten better overtime. I used Line 6 forever from the pods to the vettas to the helix and the updates were very far apart. Around the time I switched is when the pitch shifting was updated in the Axe which allowed me to completely get rid of my last physical pedal the Whammy DT. A single update to this unit sometimes adds more features than what I've been used to getting over an entire lifecycle of another product.
 
As we grow more educated, listen more closely, we may perceive details we were unaware of before. What we didn't consider a relevant component of the sound or feel may now appear obvious.

Absolutely agree...one of the phrases I've used over the years that certainly applies to the evolution of modeling is "you don't know what you're missing until you do."

I've found many firmware upgrades that were very satisfactory and, for all intents and purposes, 'exact enough' to be more than usable/functional (and indistinguishable from the real thing, particularly in mixes and/or recordings)... but the next upgrade peels another layer off the onion and you go "ahhhhhh, never heard/felt that before...I do hear/feel a difference and like this much better."

You don't know what you're missing until you do...
 
but, but, 100 yrs ago they had nothing to compare to. Amp modellers model
amps which can be
precisely compared against - the issue seems to be a fuzzy definition of "perfect" that emerges from a wide swath of peoples' subjective opinions, skillsets, and varying environments. I'm guessing the more scientific minds here who have expert tuned ears know well where the remaining low and high hanging fruit is along the road to true scientifically provable "perfection". As we get closer to that point, the discussion starts to remind me of the "tonewood" debate.
 
Back in the 80s I bought my first multi-fx, a Roland GP-8. I remember it sounded glorious into an amp. Then came TC, Line 6, Digitech, all of which sounded state of the art at the time (...except the Line 6 always had a mosquito sound I could not remove). None of these, even added together, have the processing power of Axe FX. Enter the Ultra, the II, and the III, each of which sounded fantastic. Now Ares, now Cygnus. Even better.

Funny thing is firing up the old GP-8 into an amp and it still rocks. Yes, noisy and simple. But creamy and fun. I'll have to see if Cygnus can model it.
 
Modeling tubes isn't straightforward, that's for sure... There's been tons written on the topic:
Just a few places to look. Research is on-going. I would be surprised if Cliff didn't publish some articles at some point.

That's one aspect: "Does the math exist to model this behavior"?

The second aspect is "Do we have enough compute and the right algorithms to turn this into a real-time system?"

Both are hard. I'm glad people are working on it!
 
People still contend analog has a place - and I say they are right - to be modeled and then put safely in storage for posterity or for the Axe Fx IV, which might want to do fresh modeling, but that’s 8+ years away so.....

The Axe Fx 3 is the be all end all for pre amp, guitar recording, And amp modeling amplification. It sounds identically perfect to anything it models. You can even say it’s better because for $2k you get every amp on earth plus ones that don’t exist.....what is there to not see? Lol

I say this liberally since this is Axes forum, and wouldn’t dare be so boastfully arrogant of the axe 3 superiority and complete domination until 2030, where I think Kemper or Helix might Havel enough time To make a catch up, but that’ll be a schlep.....Let’s face it, if your not on the fm3/axe 3 train, your either a hater or not up on thangz as snoop would say
 
My issue is, if we are incrementally getting towards perfection, why are some updates so vastly different than their predecessors? I’d think the difference from 97% perfect to 98% perfect would be more nuanced.
 
I feel like the biggest part of why these products are so great is because there is a person at the front of the train driving it. I’ve had a lot of other products before but never had the feeling that anyone at the company actually cared about them. Someone cared about those other companies’ products BEING bought, but that’s where their commitment ended. Every person that I’ve seen out here or talked to at Fractal acts like they are owners of the company - thats the people you want working for and with you.

it keeps the technology moving!
 
My issue is, if we are incrementally getting towards perfection, why are some updates so vastly different than their predecessors? I’d think the difference from 97% perfect to 98% perfect would be more nuanced.
They have always said that the Devil is in the details. But it’s not a stretch to say that a serious reworking of the code to push the final product slightly differently is just a natural progression of any manufacturers product, or the sounds they can create. It’s the Helix from the Pod, the COSM to the AIRD and whatever comes next. We’re just talkin’ progression is all.

I bought the Axe lll and the AX8 before that, because it was the best to my ears at that time. I don’t owe Fractal anything other than the cash they asked for and which I laid down for these products. And they don’t owe me a thing past that either. But, If they can make it better. This is good. And if they choose to make it better for free. Well, that’s just great! ..But I didn’t buy either of these units for any future takes on the definition of “perfection”. Future updates are the whipped cream on the sundae. Nice to have! ..But, you can happily life without it.

...My point is, I read some of these posts regarding these updates and I sit here thinking that pulling apart the specifics of definitions regarding previous product descriptions of this current, or any future upgrades (we currently get for free and are not entitled to), or questioning previous opinions or even marketing jargon, doesn’t detract from either the original product we bought, or the resultant product after any free optional updates.

Companies are always working to stay competitive. Fractal tests it’s beta software on a Friday ..on occasion .. and this makes a lot of people happy. Because they tend to improve on stuff. How “perfect” will all this get? ..who knows. Don’t really care either. I didn’t buy these things for what they may be. I bought them for what they were at the time. It was impressive then. And it’s improving.

..when the math is working out for us all just this peachy. I just find - personally - that I’m Much happier if I just kick-back, enjoy the ride, and try not to pick-nits too much. :0)
 
Not necessarily. My ability to discern details has improved with age, namely because I do a lot of mixing. Cliff has stated his ability to discern differences has improved over the years. Practice makes perfect.
I was talking about the aging process and that's not gonna stop for you. I agree that with time you learn more and you improve your cognitive hearing
 
Back
Top Bottom