Fixed. Thanks. Though I have to laugh that "u" "mustv" have felt the need to correct my spelling typo.u mean "impedance"? - I mustv missed that one - sounds intriguing though
Fixed. Thanks. Though I have to laugh that "u" "mustv" have felt the need to correct my spelling typo.u mean "impedance"? - I mustv missed that one - sounds intriguing though
well, since you mention it, I didn't feel any need at all (being somewhat dislexik I'm not much of a speller so couldn't give 2 sh%ts about spelling perfection). What I was trying to ask was clarification on what you are referring to?Fixed. Thanks. Though I have to laugh that "u" "mustv" have felt the need to correct my spelling typo.
So you're saying include a preset selection for speaker types? That could kinda work, but the issue here is that in reality speaker drive would be a function of the amp's volume, the speaker's individual power handling, and the number of speakers. Within any modeler the amp model volume is emulated to some degree but without some significant meta data regarding the IR loaded, how could a modeling device understand the virtual power handling of the IR?
To the later...yes, no speaker is perfectly efficient that's not what I'm suggesting. Have you messed around with the parameter at all? Seriously, I think it's the special sauce at higher settings for those who are looking for the sound of a speaker being pushed past it's limits. But at more subtle settings it seems to add another layer of subtle compression which one may or may not like. I suggest trying it and seeing if it's something you want to use and worry a little less about whether it's 100% "authentic" as I can't see how a single setting here would be accurate in all settings.
There's no need for metadata for the speaker, just like you don't need for the amp like we've talked about.
Yes, I have.
Isn't this the forum from the arguably leading company when it comes to valve amp modeling? Isn't this the company that puts out constant updates in order to get better and better? What I find odd is that a minor criticism, maybe suggesting that something might be wrong - God forbid - is met with "don't worry about accuracy" in this very forum out of all places.
I am not sure people are saying "don't worry about the accuracy" as much as they are saying
the variables are not fixed or static, and that speaker drive and comp depend on a variety of
factors. I am not sure how those context dependent factors could be modeled accurately that
you are asking for. Maybe they can be. I just don't think it is a static/fixed quotient, as much as
a sliding scale that depends on the specific speaker and amp relationship.
There's no need for metadata for the speaker, just like you don't need for the amp like we've talked about.
Yes, I have.
Isn't this the forum from the arguably leading company when it comes to valve amp modeling? Isn't this the company that puts out constant updates in order to get better and better? What I find odd is that a minor criticism, maybe suggesting that something might be wrong - God forbid - is met with "don't worry about accuracy" in this very forum out of all places.
That’s exactly what you asked for in your first post whether you used those words or not. “…, what should the value be?”, not “What is a range of values” or anything to generalize.I never asked for a single asbolute value.
It’s the forum, yes. Say that again 10 times. It’s. The. Forum.Isn't this the forum from the arguably leading company when it comes to valve amp modeling?
Yes, I want the value for a specific amp set to a specific volume into a specific IR. But that answer might be different values for different volumes. I guess it would be fair to assume that's, but I don't know what the algorithm is actually doing. Maybe it's dependant on the amp block master volume, if that's true maybe the speaker drive is actually modeling speaker age/use/worn. I don't really know.Maybe I'm being ignorant here but more or less in my mind you might as well be asking what's the most accurate tone stack or gain setting. To me there's zero difference here. Just like one may prefer a cleaner tone or a dirtier tone they may like the sound of a lower wattage speaker pushed or a "clean" high power speaker, that's why there are a range of values. I imagine if you crank up the gain, you may want to up the Speaker Drive as well for "accuracy" and vice versa.
Now if you mean accurate specifically to the Amp specimen being modeled along with the matching IR of it's speaker at specific volumes....more power to you.
That’s exactly what you asked for in your first post whether you used those words or not. “…, what should the value be?”, not “What is a range of values” or anything to generalize.
It’s the forum, yes. Say that again 10 times. It’s. The. Forum.
You need to be blocked. Goodbye.
kinda harsh ehThat’s exactly what you asked for in your first post whether you used those words or not. “…, what should the value be?”, not “What is a range of values” or anything to generalize.
It’s the forum, yes. Say that again 10 times. It’s. The. Forum.
You need to be blocked. Goodbye.
Figure I’ll stick my nose where it probably won’t be appreciated. First, to me my FM3 is for getting a sound that I always wanted to get in a different way without all the extra equipment that I needed to get that sound. I don’t really care if the parameter ranges and specific points match exactly a specific real world piece of hardware. I just tweak until I get there. IMO the critical aspects of building a preset all pretty much default to a nominal useable spot and then can be refined if needed or wanted.kinda harsh eh
Nothing wrong with using ears to dial a sound in for sure - the point I was trying to get at above (lost also I suspect) is that some settings (speaker drive) are not easily determined by the average joe looking for a sound that matches some rig he heard or perhaps owns, and that average joe probably prefers that setting gets approximated automatically (doesn't have to be exact (amp to amp instance differences and all that). I think this is a reasonable wish for these type of parameters and imo is what modelling strives for (to replicate the moving parts of instances of real world amp rigs). The difference wrt one particular automated setting might be very small / nuanced, but added together these bits can add up to a big improvement which is one reason I think Axefx is best of breed (they strive toward ALL the little bits). The amp/cab relationship is one of the more untapped areas of modelling afaik, and one that Fractal has made significant strides into ahead of competition. Trying to silence logical discussion of where the technology might/could go next is, imo, damaging.Figure I’ll stick my nose where it probably won’t be appreciated. First, to me my FM3 is for getting a sound that I always wanted to get in a different way without all the extra equipment that I needed to get that sound. I don’t really care if the parameter ranges and specific points match exactly a specific real world piece of hardware. I just tweak until I get there. IMO the critical aspects of building a preset all pretty much default to a nominal useable spot and then can be refined if needed or wanted.
I did have to step back while lurking on this thread and realize there are probably many younger people (or anyone) who have very little experience with some of the amps that are modeled and want to obtain what they hope is an “authentic” recreation. While I have not played many of the amps modeled, I’m old enough that I played enough that it’s just not that important. There are really only so many tube amp circuit topologies and everything else is some variation with some tweaks to make minute changes in the grand scheme.
As far as being “harsh”…yeah I have to agree. What’s that about?
Yes I certainly am not intending to shutdown dialog. In fact while it is reasonable to take from my comment that I was advocating to just “use your ears”. The truth is I don’t do that absolutely. I tend to sweep the entire range from max to min and some points in between to get an idea what I’m dealing with then use ears and the info I gained doing that, especially with something I’m unfamiliar. For sure if this discussion would lead to some major revelation that Cliff and company haven’t thought of and would makes sense then more power to it.Nothing wrong with using ears to dial a sound in for sure - the point I was trying to get at above (lost also I suspect) is that some settings (speaker drive) are not easily determined by the average joe looking for a sound that matches some rig he heard or perhaps owns, and that average joe probably prefers that setting gets approximated automatically (doesn't have to be exact (amp to amp instance differences and all that). I think this is a reasonable wish for these type of parameters and imo is what modelling strives for (to replicate the moving parts of instances of real world amp rigs). The difference wrt one particular automated setting might be very small / nuanced, but added together these bits can add up to a big improvement which is one reason I think Axefx is best of breed (they strive toward ALL the little bits). The amp/cab relationship is one of the more untapped areas of modelling afaik, and one that Fractal has made significant strides into ahead of competition. Trying to silence logical discussion of where the technology might/could go next is, imo, damaging.
Apologies - I wasn't clear - my comment about trying to silence such discussions as being damaging was referring to the call above for Tito83 to be blocked - not to your post content. I can appreciate the approach you describe - it's what I do now also - but speaker drive not being a control I've ever seen on a real amp, I can't help but think that as modelling tech moves along more into the amp/cab zone it will be one of those parms that's dynaically set and not a control most users would venture into to tweak though they will understand that it's getting set dynamically according to the makeup of their virtual rig and settings of virtual equivilents to typical real world controls / mods. This is not a criticism of Axefx in any way which is state of the art imo - a state that constantly moves forward.Yes I certainly am not intending to shutdown dialog. In fact while it is reasonable to take from my comment that I was advocating to just “use your ears”. The truth is I don’t do that absolutely. I tend to sweep the entire range from max to min and some points in between to get an idea what I’m dealing with then use ears and the info I gained doing that, especially with something I’m unfamiliar. For sure if this discussion would lead to some major revelation that Cliff and company haven’t thought of and would makes sense then more power to it.
Yes, I understood. No apologies needed. I was just covering the bases because I could see how it might be taken in a more subtle way that I was not exactly endorsing the OP’s concern. It’s all cool. I also decided to jump in because of the “blocking” statement more than anything.Apologies - I wasn't clear - my comment about trying to silence such discussions as being damaging was referring to the call above for Tito83 to be blocked - not to your post content. I can appreciate the approach you describe - it's what I do now also - but speaker drive not being a control I've ever seen on a real amp, I can't help but think that as modelling tech moves along more into the amp/cab zone it will be one of those parms that's dynaically set and not a control most users would venture into to tweak though they will understand that it's getting set dynamically according to the makeup of their virtual rig and settings of virtual equivilents to typical real world controls / mods. This is not a criticism of Axefx in any way which is state of the art imo - a state that constantly moves forward.
Well-designed interfaces encourage experimentation. One of the top human-interface design guys wrote about the brilliant designs of rotary-dial phones, and door knobs because it only takes a few seconds to explore them and figure out what we need to do to use them.I can appreciate the approach you describe - it's what I do now also […]
I suspect, because modeling is truly in its infancy compared to door knobs and even rotary-dial phones, as Cliff investigates using code to generate the sounds an amp makes, that there'll be a change in how the modeler works, that all the small moving parts we can adjust now will merge into larger units that act more like traditional tube-amp circuitry when we're on the "Authentic" page because things that we need to adjust manually in the modeler would actually be done automatically and dynamically as the circuit compensated and reacted to the change because Cliff will figure out ways to tie them together. I'm sure we'd still have the ability to dive under the cover and adjust individual parameters, but the high-level interface would remove some of the need for twiddling.[…] - but speaker drive not being a control I've ever seen on a real amp, I can't help but think that as modelling tech moves along more into the amp/cab zone it will be one of those parms that's dynaically set and not a control most users would venture into to tweak though they will understand that it's getting set dynamically according to the makeup of their virtual rig and settings of virtual equivilents to typical real world controls / mods. This is not a criticism of Axefx in any way which is state of the art imo - a state that constantly moves forward.
This is an important part of modelling imo, and an aspect of Axefx I appreciate a lot: Like no other, it strives to replicate the simplicity of a real amp with just the real life knobs (authentic page), while at the same time providing deep level controls for those that want it (I tend to use some of both depending) and all the while maintaining a high level of authenticity to what happens irl both on the surface and in depth. On the simplicity / authentic mode side I think there is still opportunities for Axefx to adapt more automatically to speaker swaps and cab swaps - Like all aspects of modelling, Fractal is waay ahead of all others wrt adjustability of speaker related characteristics - adding more automation to respond to what people understand more intuitively in this area (speaker swap, cab swap ...) would be the icing on the cake but might require more technical integration with IR makers.I suspect, because modeling is truly in its infancy compared to door knobs and even rotary-dial phones, as Cliff investigates using code to generate the sounds an amp makes, that there'll be a change in how the modeler works, that all the small moving parts we can adjust now will merge into larger units that act more like traditional tube-amp circuitry when we're on the "Authentic" page because things that we need to adjust manually in the modeler would actually be done automatically and dynamically as the circuit compensated and reacted to the change because Cliff will figure out ways to tie them together. I'm sure we'd still have the ability to dive under the cover and adjust individual parameters, but the high-level interface would remove some of the need for twiddling.
Though one could think of the authentic page as an "automatic" transmission, some advanced parameters go beyond what I would equate to operating a manual transmission and more into the realm of the weekend mechanic that has their engine apart in the garage to tinker with fuel mixture - anyone can get in there and futz around, but few will know enough to proceed methodically and know what to listen for in order to make adjustments logically and complimentary to other settings. Dynamics page? - ok, woohoo! I got a clutch and shifter!, Plate Bias Excursion? - say whaaaaat? (but by all means, feel free to twirl the Pl Bias Excursion dial "to taste" lol!).It's akin to having a car with an automatic transmission versus a manual; An automatic is usually easier to use, though it has a lot more parts. But once we know how to use a manual transmission and we're more closely coupled to the engine and accelerator, shifting and letting the engine wind up on curving mountain roads becomes a passion because we have more control.