Cygnus Poll - Honest Question - Improvement?

Do you notice an improvement with Cygnus amp modeling?

  • Yes, right out of the box

    Votes: 264 61.5%
  • No, even after attempting to tweak presets

    Votes: 10 2.3%
  • Yes, but it takes effort to tweak presets

    Votes: 66 15.4%
  • I can't tell

    Votes: 39 9.1%
  • No vote, just show results

    Votes: 50 11.7%

  • Total voters
    429
Not trying to be mean but, I think 80% of the people here would say it got better, if Cliff released the same firmware twice just with a different name. The other 20% are people with serious bat-like hearing of the gods and tons of experience.

Even the thought of it possible sounding better can change a lot about perception
 
There was a noticeable improvement out of the box, but the speaker compression settings need some careful tweaking to get the most out of them.
 
At the risk of being tossed out a window, I gotta ask the question.

There's a lot of hype around Cygnus, but numerous threads / comments complaining that things sound muddy in the low-mids and generally not 'good' (subjective), even after resetting amps and trying to tweak. I've seen amp modeling updates in the past and I know there's always some complaining, but Cygnus criticism seems a little louder than in past updates.

I'm sure there's some 'user error' here, but I suspect the (minority) criticism is drowning out the (silent majority) praise for Cygnus.

What are your thoughts? Check out the poll/comment.
All that matters is what you think. Who cares what others think?
 
If you know Cliff he’s always innovating. He’s constantly thinking and absolutely making improvements all the time to the Axe Fx III. What that means is that with every firmware update some of your presets might be thrown out of whack. Unlike other platforms where there is mostly incremental changes sometimes the changes can be big. If you’re doing shows with your current setups and you update the firmware you might actually have to update many of your presets. That’s the name of the game with Fractal products in general. Many professionals stick with one firmware or version and don’t update. Look at Adrian Belew, he’s still using an Ultra because of the many algorithms that you cannot get out of the III which is sad. But for realistic amp tones this update is the finest yet, a true achievement and my wallet will come out again when Cygnus is ported to the FM3.
 
All that matters is what you think. Who cares what others think?

I agree with you.... But we all have limited time, so if there's no significant advantage of going from Ares to Cygnus, I'm not going to spend time updating my presets. This poll was created for 2 reasons. 1 - help me see if Cygnus is worth the time to upgrade/update my presets. 2 - squelch nay sayers who criticize Cygnus. It's accomplished both.

When it's ported to the FM3, I'll be able to tell you what I think ;)
 
I didn't update any of my presets, they still worked fine after the update, but as had been said there was just a little more detail, and a little more something something going on in the low mids. To my ears anyway.
 
to my ears Cygnus sounds more "real", less polished and tame than 15.01. It's easier and quicker to dial in, requires a bit less of a dive into advanced parameters.
All of this, to me, is much more apparent with vintage-y type amps/tones. For example there now is a certain husky chime in the Blackface Fenders that I haven't been able to quite capture before. When you roll off the guitar volume on a Strat to 5, play whisper quiet and lightly brush the strings with your index finger in front of the pick... that's fantastic. Almost ASMR
 
Not trying to be mean but, I think 80% of the people here would say it got better, if Cliff released the same firmware twice just with a different name. The other 20% are people with serious bat-like hearing of the gods and tons of experience.

Even the thought of it possible sounding better can change a lot about perception
Well I've been reading every comment and thread for all the Cygnus updates and honestly this is about as close to 100% satisfied users have ever been, my estimate is more like 98%, there are a couple guys who prefer FW15 but have come back to Cygnus in the end.

The poll reflects this too, only 1.2% said NO, they don't like Cygnus, and I'm pretty sure they will come around in the end too.

As Mr.Audio said, it's all what YOU think......if you can hear it, great! If you can't hear it, just play on with whatever firmware you are happiest with.
 
I pretty much only use the Brit 800 and various 5150 sims. They sounded fine before and sound fine now. Brit 800 is very very close to my Marshall 2204 (maybe indistinguishable). The 5150 and 5152 sims are definitely in the ballpark of my 5150 and 6505+, but I can immediately tell the difference with those (AFX is much more polished/tame, even after Cygnus).
I am a very long term and dyed in the wool Marshall JMP 2203 user. I have also used loads of other amps (Twin, Princeton, Deluxe, Marshall 1986, Marshall 1987, Marshall 1959, JTM45, BBRI, AC30, AC30TB, Hiwatt DR103) both on their own, and in A/B/A+B setups with the 2203. However whenever I tried to get a channel switching amp that would replace the 2203, and do so with the flexibility of having a clean channel, they worked in the shop, they worked at home, they worked in the rehearsal studio, but I'd get to the first gig and it would be, "Nope, need my 2203 here". Closest contenders were Matamp [very] Custom 100, Orange RV50, and 65 Amps Whiskey (which I really did love, but it was a lot of money to have tied up in something that nearly worked for me). When I got my Axe FX II I could get the MV Marshall sound with a LOT of deep tweaking, and by the final firmware AFX II version it was really pretty good. Finally something flexible I could gig with, and I have not taken a 2203 out since. Have been using that Brit 800 model a lot with the AFX III over the last couple of years as well.

For me, from the first of the public beta versions, Cygnus is extraordinary in that it pretty instantly nails the response of the original 2-prong Marshall Master Volume amps, warts and all. Right down to unresponsive bass control, especially when the mids are turned up, weird presence response, total character change between 3 and 4 on the master volume if using "just into crunch" preamp settings, but most importantly the way it responds to digging into the guitar dynamics. That was before it got fine-tuned, and it was the one I was waiting for, and like you say, the Brit 800 is maybe indistinguishable. It must be a quirky amp to model, because it's not a terribly well-designed circuit in conventional terms, it must have sounded pretty poor in the shop or bedroom when it first came out in 1976. But for whatever reason in a loud rehearsal or gig, when you really let the thing rip, that has been almost an addiction for me for over 25 years. It just works brilliantly in the mix of a noisy band.

Are the Marshall 2203 or 2204 a good sounding amp? Not really. Hiwatt DR103, Marshall 1959, Blackface Twin all have more conventional beauty in their tone. But like the Fender SF Deluxe Reverb, there's something very musical and usable about their inadequacy for me. It was the way that this shines through in Cygnus that made me realise something rather different is going on in the modelling now. It feels like my amp. I wish I still had my old '78 SF Deluxe Reverb to compare with Cygnus, because that was another amp that wasn't terribly beautiful sounding in conventional terms, but stick it next to a drum kit for 2 sets of Chicago influenced blues and I knew I was in for a great evening. Probably no coincidence that there is another model that for many may seem "worse" in Cygnus. For me, this is definitely my definition of better.

I'm cheerfully soft resetting every amp block before I try it, and then having a good play with "authentic" amp knobs on anything I try now. Haven't got as far as "old, old" Marshalls or Vox AC30 yet, but for all the Marshall and Fender models I have tried so far, Cygnus just works better and more authentically than anything so far. I have questioned how much better Fractal modelling could ever get for years now. I really have to wonder if there is very much further they can take this. Could it really be time to model the Klon Centaur? I think that might be the final hurdle.;)

Liam
 
I am a very long term and dyed in the wool Marshall JMP 2203 user. I have also used loads of other amps (Twin, Princeton, Deluxe, Marshall 1986, Marshall 1987, Marshall 1959, JTM45, BBRI, AC30, AC30TB, Hiwatt DR103) both on their own, and in A/B/A+B setups with the 2203. However whenever I tried to get a channel switching amp that would replace the 2203, and do so with the flexibility of having a clean channel, they worked in the shop, they worked at home, they worked in the rehearsal studio, but I'd get to the first gig and it would be, "Nope, need my 2203 here". Closest contenders were Matamp [very] Custom 100, Orange RV50, and 65 Amps Whiskey (which I really did love, but it was a lot of money to have tied up in something that nearly worked for me). When I got my Axe FX II I could get the MV Marshall sound with a LOT of deep tweaking, and by the final firmware AFX II version it was really pretty good. Finally something flexible I could gig with, and I have not taken a 2203 out since. Have been using that Brit 800 model a lot with the AFX III over the last couple of years as well.

For me, from the first of the public beta versions, Cygnus is extraordinary in that it pretty instantly nails the response of the original 2-prong Marshall Master Volume amps, warts and all. Right down to unresponsive bass control, especially when the mids are turned up, weird presence response, total character change between 3 and 4 on the master volume if using "just into crunch" preamp settings, but most importantly the way it responds to digging into the guitar dynamics. That was before it got fine-tuned, and it was the one I was waiting for, and like you say, the Brit 800 is maybe indistinguishable. It must be a quirky amp to model, because it's not a terribly well-designed circuit in conventional terms, it must have sounded pretty poor in the shop or bedroom when it first came out in 1976. But for whatever reason in a loud rehearsal or gig, when you really let the thing rip, that has been almost an addiction for me for over 25 years. It just works brilliantly in the mix of a noisy band.

Are the Marshall 2203 or 2204 a good sounding amp? Not really. Hiwatt DR103, Marshall 1959, Blackface Twin all have more conventional beauty in their tone. But like the Fender SF Deluxe Reverb, there's something very musical and usable about their inadequacy for me. It was the way that this shines through in Cygnus that made me realise something rather different is going on in the modelling now. It feels like my amp. I wish I still had my old '78 SF Deluxe Reverb to compare with Cygnus, because that was another amp that wasn't terribly beautiful sounding in conventional terms, but stick it next to a drum kit for 2 sets of Chicago influenced blues and I knew I was in for a great evening. Probably no coincidence that there is another model that for many may seem "worse" in Cygnus. For me, this is definitely my definition of better.

I'm cheerfully soft resetting every amp block before I try it, and then having a good play with "authentic" amp knobs on anything I try now. Haven't got as far as "old, old" Marshalls or Vox AC30 yet, but for all the Marshall and Fender models I have tried so far, Cygnus just works better and more authentically than anything so far. I have questioned how much better Fractal modelling could ever get for years now. I really have to wonder if there is very much further they can take this. Could it really be time to model the Klon Centaur? I think that might be the final hurdle.;)

Liam

Ive had so so many amps. Legit IIC+ DRG, Rev C Recto, Blueface VH4, an '80s SLO rackmount, plexi-panel and metal-panel Superleads, old Bogner mods, etc etc.

An old, bone-stock Marshall 2204 is just my hands-down favorite amp.

Ares sounded great, but at higher volumes (I use real cabs), it just didn't rattle the room the same way the amp did. I don't know that I can really hear a difference with Cygnus, but it seems to have more "push" that I feel (and hear from things vibrating). The Brit 800 sim is really good IMHO.

Not all the amp sims sound that great to me, to be honest. The Mesa Marks sound great compared to the real amp as long as the GEQ is defeated, but I can't figure out how to get the AFX GEQ to sound like the Mesa GEQ. I can't get the Recto to sound right to me (too smooth and too much low end), but lots of folks seem to really like it. And the VH4 doesn't have that Godzilla sound that I remember. And the 5150/5152 sims are a bit too polished I think? But this could all be user error. But Cygnus hasn't really changed my experience on these.

Also, I should note that I always completely turn down the speaker compression and whatever those related settings are. I'm using actual cabs and don't like what those effects do. The few times I use headphones, I can see why some people really like them, though. If I used those features, maybe Cygnus would be more revelatory for me.
 
The only thing I noticed is that my presets sounded quieter and on my mesa c++ patch it seemed like the presence was lower. Once I raised that value, I couldnt tell the new tweaked version from the old version apart. I'm playing through a matrix and 4x12.
 
Ive had so so many amps. Legit IIC+ DRG, Rev C Recto, Blueface VH4, an '80s SLO rackmount, plexi-panel and metal-panel Superleads, old Bogner mods, etc etc.

An old, bone-stock Marshall 2204 is just my hands-down favorite amp.

Ares sounded great, but at higher volumes (I use real cabs), it just didn't rattle the room the same way the amp did. I don't know that I can really hear a difference with Cygnus, but it seems to have more "push" that I feel (and hear from things vibrating). The Brit 800 sim is really good IMHO.

Not all the amp sims sound that great to me, to be honest. The Mesa Marks sound great compared to the real amp as long as the GEQ is defeated, but I can't figure out how to get the AFX GEQ to sound like the Mesa GEQ. I can't get the Recto to sound right to me (too smooth and too much low end), but lots of folks seem to really like it. And the VH4 doesn't have that Godzilla sound that I remember. And the 5150/5152 sims are a bit too polished I think? But this could all be user error. But Cygnus hasn't really changed my experience on these.

Also, I should note that I always completely turn down the speaker compression and whatever those related settings are. I'm using actual cabs and don't like what those effects do. The few times I use headphones, I can see why some people really like them, though. If I used those features, maybe Cygnus would be more revelatory for me.
2204, 2203, tomato, tomaarrto, there's something in the bass headroom that I love better about the 2203, but I'm with you. If someone wanted me to play soft cabaret function music and specify an amp for it, either of those! What they lack in beauty I can make up for in knowing how they respond, and I love them. (Kind of loud and out of control, but hey... :) )

Cabs are such a big part of the equation it's not true. I had quite a few different 4x12 cabs when I got my first Axe FX, and already knew how much the cabs changed the character of any amp I plugged into them, not least an Axe FX II with a Matrix power amp. Back in 2016 I was having to use IRs just to make any of them sound "normal" through a cab too. To be honest, I struggled to make the Axe FX II work with "real" cabs, but that was in a pre-Ares world.

2 things that changed my life were good(ish) headphones with reasonable bass response (ATH-50 MX), closely followed by a sh1t kicking 15" FRFR cab. Then a third thing turned up in the shape of ML sound labs IRs, because they so accurately reproduced the tonality of the cabs I already had. So I kind of left "real" cabs behind in favour of FRFR, headphones, and studio monitors.

I now realise I lied a bit when I said I have only used "authentic" amp controls in Cygnus, because I have been tweaking the speaker load on the power amp page. I have a physical and actually existing in real life late JMP 4x12 can that spent its early life under a 2204. It's OK, but has slightly scooped mids and sharp bass attack compared with some of the best 4x12s I ever owned, and I am sure has an impedance curve similar to that in the "stock" Cygnus Brit 800 model. I have swapped that curve for Basketweave or TV impedance/load in all my Brit 800 presets. It's not life-changing through FRFR or headphones, but might be worth trying for some of the models that aren't quite floating your boat. I'd suggest going for cab impedance curves that match the actual cabs you are using. Might do nothing, might get you closer to where you want to be with the Mesas.

Liam
 
I like my patches on Cygnus. Also heard another player use my rig at our last gig, sounded great. And if I didn’t like it I’d be happy to stay on 15.01.

I really think some folks overthink and overanalyse this stuff. Getting great tone from the Axe FX is easy and fast. Or maybe I’m just easy to please.
 
2204, 2203, tomato, tomaarrto, there's something in the bass headroom that I love better about the 2203, but I'm with you. If someone wanted me to play soft cabaret function music and specify an amp for it, either of those! What they lack in beauty I can make up for in knowing how they respond, and I love them. (Kind of loud and out of control, but hey... :) )

Cabs are such a big part of the equation it's not true. I had quite a few different 4x12 cabs when I got my first Axe FX, and already knew how much the cabs changed the character of any amp I plugged into them, not least an Axe FX II with a Matrix power amp. Back in 2016 I was having to use IRs just to make any of them sound "normal" through a cab too. To be honest, I struggled to make the Axe FX II work with "real" cabs, but that was in a pre-Ares world.

2 things that changed my life were good(ish) headphones with reasonable bass response (ATH-50 MX), closely followed by a sh1t kicking 15" FRFR cab. Then a third thing turned up in the shape of ML sound labs IRs, because they so accurately reproduced the tonality of the cabs I already had. So I kind of left "real" cabs behind in favour of FRFR, headphones, and studio monitors.

I now realise I lied a bit when I said I have only used "authentic" amp controls in Cygnus, because I have been tweaking the speaker load on the power amp page. I have a physical and actually existing in real life late JMP 4x12 can that spent its early life under a 2204. It's OK, but has slightly scooped mids and sharp bass attack compared with some of the best 4x12s I ever owned, and I am sure has an impedance curve similar to that in the "stock" Cygnus Brit 800 model. I have swapped that curve for Basketweave or TV impedance/load in all my Brit 800 presets. It's not life-changing through FRFR or headphones, but might be worth trying for some of the models that aren't quite floating your boat. I'd suggest going for cab impedance curves that match the actual cabs you are using. Might do nothing, might get you closer to where you want to be with the Mesas.

Liam
My main cab is an '82 or so Marshall with four G12-65s. When comparing the AFX Brit 800 to the real Marshall, the Brit 800 seems to sound closest with the Basketweave impedance curve.

The Brit 800 impedance curve is much brighter. I wonder if it was based on a cab with G12-75s, which would have been in '83 or '84 cabs onward.

So I tend to use the Basketweave impedance curve with all the sims when I use that cab.

I have an older Recto 4x12 as well, but the Recto Large impedance curve sounds kinda awful when paired with it. Not sure what's going on there.
 
My main cab is an '82 or so Marshall with four G12-65s. When comparing the AFX Brit 800 to the real Marshall, the Brit 800 seems to sound closest with the Basketweave impedance curve.

The Brit 800 impedance curve is much brighter. I wonder if it was based on a cab with G12-75s, which would have been in '83 or '84 cabs onward.

So I tend to use the Basketweave impedance curve with all the sims when I use that cab.

I have an older Recto 4x12 as well, but the Recto Large impedance curve sounds kinda awful when paired with it. Not sure what's going on there.
My final remaining 4x12 is a very late ('79 I think) 1960A cab that will be the same as yours barring the JCM800 name plate. I haven't yet dared AB Cygnus with my 2203, which is of the same JMP era, but got modified a bit over time as it had a lot more gain than I needed, and I wanted it to be bassier and less fizzy, for some reason... You'll note I landed on Basketweave for many presets too. Great minds (or fools seldom differ.. :O )

Tricky understanding how real cabs might respond. It might just be that the impedance curve over-emphasises a frequency band that the physical cab emphasises too.

Out of interest, do you still use IRs with real cabs, or just ditch and go straight out to the power amp? What power amp are you using for the Axe FX?

Liam
 
I've gotta say... Was eager to try certain plugin because I like the artist it was made for/with. Absolutely loved playing along the songs, it really sounds "like the record", but that was it.

I just can't make that plugin work for me outside playing along records or wanting "mix ready" sounds to record with. Now with Cygnus the Axe sounds more "Amp like" than ever, raw and glorious through a loud FRFR or guitar cab. You can still have polished sounds for recording if that's your thing, but untamed is what this is all about for me. :cool:
 
For those who have replied "No improvement" or "It takes effort to tweak" it would be relevant to know how many of the 289 amplifiers do they consider that have not improved or takes effort to tweak.

If it is just a couple of models, why do not try another one instead of being frustrated, like you would do when shopping?

For me, the result is the contrary: besides the improvement, many amps that I didn't like now are very usable. I still haven't tried them all on FW16, but so far I am liking them all (once paired with the right CAB)
 
Last edited:
I find it’s a huge improvement. Much easier to dial in a pleasing sound. I often fall into the trap of micro-analysing a sound and endlessly fiddling, usually before a gig, and then realise that the small nitpicks I have actually are what makes it sound good or cut through in a live mix. But I realise not everyone is playing live.
 
Back
Top Bottom