They All Sound the Same, It's About Workflow

javajunkie said:
I can here difference in them. If you listen to the reverb, you can hear how each mask the reverb differently. The first and last one on allow the reverb to stick out. The third one just has a low-end resonance I do not particularly like. There is a fizzy distortion that stands out (not in a good way) on the 2nd one. The first and the 4th I like the most. They are very similar. There is just something about the 2nd one the is really grating to me. The third, has that boomy low-end. The 1st and 4th sound similar to me and I like them the most. The 1st sounding a little grittier and the 4th a little less aggressive. Then again, my brain could be making all that up. I gave up on caring which is real a while back :)
Click to expand...
So if no one is 100% sure to know which one is real, all the modelers are finally »good » in a way . Imagine if you add the rest of the band here in a mix
once again, if you ask people « where is the telecaster ? » and they never played one …. 😅
We don’t even know the name of the modelers 😅
 
I know my ears are shot... like many of us, I have experienced too much overloud (but good) music over the years. Remember when it wasn't a 'proper' gig unless your ears were ringing afterwards? What on earth were we thinking?

This is why I rely on those who really do have golden ears to make the judgement call.
 
1st and 4th sound the best to me. Better attack and bloom on single notes. Also fuller and rounder low-end. Distortion on that chord sounds more balanced and natural as it rings out, like it has more even harmonics? I could be just making things up :)

2nd and 3rd are the opposite. 3rd one is the worst, as there is something unpleasant going on in the low-end.

1st - amp/Fractal
2nd - QC
3rd - Kemper
4th - amp/Fractal
 
Hell I can have the same firmware for a month and every time I turn the AFX on I hear something different. Not enough low, too much low. Top end is a tad bright then the next day it's not enough. I try to keep my monitoring exactly the same day to day Same output on the AFX same on the mixer same on the monitoring system.
 
FractalAudio said:
This thread proves one thing: some people can hear the differences and others can't. I'd say half the respondents hear the same thing I hear. The other half have tin ears or lousy monitors.
Click to expand...
Lousy or almost no monitors here.
Still suffering from the flooding and living in a small room at our mother and fathers at law‘s house.
Time until our new home ready, four months.
New monitors ordered.
 
I hear something funny in #2's midrange, #3 sounds anemic.
#1 and #4 sounds best, in a hertbeat I'd say #4 is the amp.
 
Last edited:
The second sample (listening from phone speaker) seems to have something wonky going on in the mid response.

Sure, they sound very close. But I would imagine that playing through the tones and I'd easily have a preference/be able to tell the differences more so.

Which arguably matters if I prefer one to the other.

Kemper can sound very close to the source tone too, but it's not hard to know what I'm playing through when the mosquito-mid feel is as distinct as it usually is, relatively speaking.

Even different axe fx firmwares can sound quite similar to me. But when playing? There can be quite a meaningful difference. And on that end, it's not exactly "just" about workflow.

It's arguable we exagerate this "feel" thing also. There's certainly arguments to be had about how much this should reasonably matter to us.

But I certainly lean on the side of "I do care about this; and it's a reasonable care, to an extent". Hence why (for me) fractal software revisions are often welcome.
 
Last edited:
The first one sounded best, the next three all had a 4.3 k tone that bugged me before the playing started are those the modelers ?
 
Sashman said:
Lousy or almost no monitors here.
Still suffering from the flooding and living in a small room at our mother and fathers at law‘s house.
Time until our new home ready, four months.
New monitors ordered.
Click to expand...
Your Redsounds got flooded?
 
Having not listened to it but gone off of other people's comments: A is the real amp, D is the Axe FX. The models tend to have more bass than the real amps, which is a thing a few people have mentioned. Haven't listened yet but I'm curious.

I don't really care if that's right or not tbf, since I'm happy with my Axe FX anyway, but may as well take a punt, right?
 
If I commented on the sound examples, anything I would say, I wouldn't feel like it would be honest. My monitors are not to a compatible level as the Axe, so any comment I would make, would be me overlaying what I think I hear, versus hearing the differences and reacting to them. Upgrading my monitors is definitely the next big gear purchase.

Right now, with my current monitors, it feels like I am driving a Mercedes S class on $100 dollar tires. These sound examples suffer because of that, so I could only comment on the workflow part of the initial message. Cliff's example also proves how important good quality monitors are.
 
1. Real amp
2. A modeler, strange tonal structure
3. Another modeler (maybe even Fractal with older FW)
4. Fractal with newest FW

I'm probably wrong but I'm sure that I don't like the #2. Or it could just be that I'm not that familiar with this amp.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom