Fractal vs Capture

York Audio

Fractal Fanatic
Vendor
NOTE: This post isn't meant to speak negatively of anyone's product. It's simply meant to show different attributes found in two types of modeling.



All this talk about amp captures lately has made me curious about a couple things. Even though amps, models, and captures are all supposed to sound the same, Fractal has always had a "feel" that I haven't been able to get out of other modelers. People have said the Quad Cortex models aren't great, but the captures are amazing... so I (literally) dusted off my Quad Cortex and decided to make a capture of my '77 Marshall JMP to see how it stacked up.

Tonally, it's way better than the Kemper, but still has some excited frequencies. Not exactly apples to apples, but more like an apple vs a different kind of apple if that makes sense. It's not bad by any means... just a little different. I remember Cliff saying something a while back about hearing the quality of the modeling by rolling off the guitar's volume knob and comparing it to what a real amp does, so that's what I did.

It seems like captures can "sound" close when the guitar is on 10, but they still don't "feel" close in my opinion, so I played something on my looper pedal with the guitar's volume really low with a swell to 10 at the end and recorded it through my Marshall JMP with the LB-2 load box, the Fractal Brit 800 model with the LB-2 impedance curve, and a QC capture I made of the JMP through the LB-2. Disclaimer... I'm recovering from Covid, so my ears are still plugged up which made it a little tricky to match the Fractal with my amp by ear, but today it isn't about a direct "tone match," it's about what makes a digital recreation "feel" right or not. The capture was not changed or altered in any way, and I even captured it twice to make sure my results were consistent.

I'm going to do this in two parts. Part 1 is "Full Volume" where we hear all three examples with the guitar's volume all the way up. There's similar tonality and gain structure. They aren't identical, but that's what we're listening for here. The capture is a bit of an outlier, but it's still in the ballpark and would probably work well for some players. I notice the chord bloom with the amp and Fractal, but it's much more linear with the QC. This is when things should sound the closest.


Order: Marshall, Fractal, Capture



Part 2 is "Volume Rolloff" where we hear all three examples with the guitar's volume knob rolled off and turned up at the end. This is where the magic happens in my opinion. Even lightly picked with the volume rolled off, you hear this angry volatility in the amp like it can't wait to explode. The Fractal does a great job of replicating it; like you can hear the components in the amp working with and against each other as if it's trying to figure out what going to happen next. When we hear the capture, all of that chaos is gone. It's soft, polite, and doesn't really have any of those swirling elements we hear in the other two. I think this is why models and captures feel so different.


Order: Marshall, Fractal, Capture



All that to say, I think the crazy nonlinear behavior we hear in the Volume Rolloff clip ends up being the stuff that makes a model respond more accurately to our playing and what gives us an authentic playing experience. We may not hear it with our guitars on 10, but we can definitely feel it.
 
NOTE: This post isn't meant to speak negatively of anyone's product. It's simply meant to show different attributes found in two types of modeling.



All this talk about amp captures lately has made me curious about a couple things. Even though amps, models, and captures are all supposed to sound the same, Fractal has always had a "feel" that I haven't been able to get out of other modelers. People have said the Quad Cortex models aren't great, but the captures are amazing... so I (literally) dusted off my Quad Cortex and decided to make a capture of my '77 Marshall JMP to see how it stacked up.

Tonally, it's way better than the Kemper, but still has some excited frequencies. Not exactly apples to apples, but more like an apple vs a different kind of apple if that makes sense. It's not bad by any means... just a little different. I remember Cliff saying something a while back about hearing the quality of the modeling by rolling off the guitar's volume knob and comparing it to what a real amp does, so that's what I did.

It seems like captures can "sound" close when the guitar is on 10, but they still don't "feel" close in my opinion, so I played something on my looper pedal with the guitar's volume really low with a swell to 10 at the end and recorded it through my Marshall JMP with the LB-2 load box, the Fractal Brit 800 model with the LB-2 impedance curve, and a QC capture I made of the JMP through the LB-2. Disclaimer... I'm recovering from Covid, so my ears are still plugged up which made it a little tricky to match the Fractal with my amp by ear, but today it isn't about a direct "tone match," it's about what makes a digital recreation "feel" right or not. The capture was not changed or altered in any way, and I even captured it twice to make sure my results were consistent.

I'm going to do this in two parts. Part 1 is "Full Volume" where we hear all three examples with the guitar's volume all the way up. There's similar tonality and gain structure. They aren't identical, but that's what we're listening for here. The capture is a bit of an outlier, but it's still in the ballpark and would probably work well for some players. I notice the chord bloom with the amp and Fractal, but it's much more linear with the QC. This is when things should sound the closest.


Order: Marshall, Fractal, Capture



Part 2 is "Volume Rolloff" where we hear all three examples with the guitar's volume knob rolled off and turned up at the end. This is where the magic happens in my opinion. Even lightly picked with the volume rolled off, you hear this angry volatility in the amp like it can't wait to explode. The Fractal does a great job of replicating it; like you can hear the components in the amp working with and against each other as if it's trying to figure out what going to happen next. When we hear the capture, all of that chaos is gone. It's soft, polite, and doesn't really have any of those swirling elements we hear in the other two. I think this is why models and captures feel so different.


Order: Marshall, Fractal, Capture



All that to say, I think the crazy nonlinear behavior we hear in the Volume Rolloff clip ends up being the stuff that makes a model respond more accurately to our playing and what gives us an authentic playing experience. We may not hear it with our guitars on 10, but we can definitely feel it.

The QC doesn't sound bad, but it's definitely missing some complexity and dynamics the amp and Axe have. Sounds more comparable to early Axe II modeling.
 
NOTE: This post isn't meant to speak negatively of anyone's product. It's simply meant to show different attributes found in two types of modeling.



All this talk about amp captures lately has made me curious about a couple things. Even though amps, models, and captures are all supposed to sound the same, Fractal has always had a "feel" that I haven't been able to get out of other modelers. People have said the Quad Cortex models aren't great, but the captures are amazing... so I (literally) dusted off my Quad Cortex and decided to make a capture of my '77 Marshall JMP to see how it stacked up.

Tonally, it's way better than the Kemper, but still has some excited frequencies. Not exactly apples to apples, but more like an apple vs a different kind of apple if that makes sense. It's not bad by any means... just a little different. I remember Cliff saying something a while back about hearing the quality of the modeling by rolling off the guitar's volume knob and comparing it to what a real amp does, so that's what I did.

It seems like captures can "sound" close when the guitar is on 10, but they still don't "feel" close in my opinion, so I played something on my looper pedal with the guitar's volume really low with a swell to 10 at the end and recorded it through my Marshall JMP with the LB-2 load box, the Fractal Brit 800 model with the LB-2 impedance curve, and a QC capture I made of the JMP through the LB-2. Disclaimer... I'm recovering from Covid, so my ears are still plugged up which made it a little tricky to match the Fractal with my amp by ear, but today it isn't about a direct "tone match," it's about what makes a digital recreation "feel" right or not. The capture was not changed or altered in any way, and I even captured it twice to make sure my results were consistent.

I'm going to do this in two parts. Part 1 is "Full Volume" where we hear all three examples with the guitar's volume all the way up. There's similar tonality and gain structure. They aren't identical, but that's what we're listening for here. The capture is a bit of an outlier, but it's still in the ballpark and would probably work well for some players. I notice the chord bloom with the amp and Fractal, but it's much more linear with the QC. This is when things should sound the closest.


Order: Marshall, Fractal, Capture



Part 2 is "Volume Rolloff" where we hear all three examples with the guitar's volume knob rolled off and turned up at the end. This is where the magic happens in my opinion. Even lightly picked with the volume rolled off, you hear this angry volatility in the amp like it can't wait to explode. The Fractal does a great job of replicating it; like you can hear the components in the amp working with and against each other as if it's trying to figure out what going to happen next. When we hear the capture, all of that chaos is gone. It's soft, polite, and doesn't really have any of those swirling elements we hear in the other two. I think this is why models and captures feel so different.


Order: Marshall, Fractal, Capture



All that to say, I think the crazy nonlinear behavior we hear in the Volume Rolloff clip ends up being the stuff that makes a model respond more accurately to our playing and what gives us an authentic playing experience. We may not hear it with our guitars on 10, but we can definitely feel it.

Thanks for your reactions. I've come to trust your ear quite a bit :)

Not to slide down yet another rabbit hole that doesn't really belong here, but have you tried Tonex?
 
Thanks for your reactions. I've come to trust your ear quite a bit :)

Not to slide down yet another rabbit hole that doesn't really belong here, but have you tried Tonex?
I haven’t tried Tonex yet. I’d want to hear someone do a similar test with it before I’d consider going down that road. If it doesn’t get the nonlinear behavior right, it’s probably not going to feel right.
 
The dynamics, whether it came from rolling off or on the volume, picking lighter, or letting the notes decay, was always my complaint about modelers until I tried Fractal’s AX8. The new generation hardware with the latest Cygnus has the modeled amplifiers feeling and behaving right.
 
The dynamics, whether it came from rolling off or on the volume, picking lighter, or letting the notes decay, was always my complaint about modelers until I tried Fractal’s AX8. The new generation hardware with the latest Cygnus has the modeled amplifiers feeling and behaving right.
Agreed. I was impressed with the 'realism' of the AX8 but have continuously been blown away by Cygnus through its development.
 
NOTE: This post isn't meant to speak negatively of anyone's product. It's simply meant to show different attributes found in two types of modeling.



All this talk about amp captures lately has made me curious about a couple things. Even though amps, models, and captures are all supposed to sound the same, Fractal has always had a "feel" that I haven't been able to get out of other modelers. People have said the Quad Cortex models aren't great, but the captures are amazing... so I (literally) dusted off my Quad Cortex and decided to make a capture of my '77 Marshall JMP to see how it stacked up.

Tonally, it's way better than the Kemper, but still has some excited frequencies. Not exactly apples to apples, but more like an apple vs a different kind of apple if that makes sense. It's not bad by any means... just a little different. I remember Cliff saying something a while back about hearing the quality of the modeling by rolling off the guitar's volume knob and comparing it to what a real amp does, so that's what I did.

It seems like captures can "sound" close when the guitar is on 10, but they still don't "feel" close in my opinion, so I played something on my looper pedal with the guitar's volume really low with a swell to 10 at the end and recorded it through my Marshall JMP with the LB-2 load box, the Fractal Brit 800 model with the LB-2 impedance curve, and a QC capture I made of the JMP through the LB-2. Disclaimer... I'm recovering from Covid, so my ears are still plugged up which made it a little tricky to match the Fractal with my amp by ear, but today it isn't about a direct "tone match," it's about what makes a digital recreation "feel" right or not. The capture was not changed or altered in any way, and I even captured it twice to make sure my results were consistent.

I'm going to do this in two parts. Part 1 is "Full Volume" where we hear all three examples with the guitar's volume all the way up. There's similar tonality and gain structure. They aren't identical, but that's what we're listening for here. The capture is a bit of an outlier, but it's still in the ballpark and would probably work well for some players. I notice the chord bloom with the amp and Fractal, but it's much more linear with the QC. This is when things should sound the closest.


Order: Marshall, Fractal, Capture



Part 2 is "Volume Rolloff" where we hear all three examples with the guitar's volume knob rolled off and turned up at the end. This is where the magic happens in my opinion. Even lightly picked with the volume rolled off, you hear this angry volatility in the amp like it can't wait to explode. The Fractal does a great job of replicating it; like you can hear the components in the amp working with and against each other as if it's trying to figure out what going to happen next. When we hear the capture, all of that chaos is gone. It's soft, polite, and doesn't really have any of those swirling elements we hear in the other two. I think this is why models and captures feel so different.


Order: Marshall, Fractal, Capture



All that to say, I think the crazy nonlinear behavior we hear in the Volume Rolloff clip ends up being the stuff that makes a model respond more accurately to our playing and what gives us an authentic playing experience. We may not hear it with our guitars on 10, but we can definitely feel it.

As a guy who plays extensively with volume and tone controls, you articulated exactly what makes the Axe FX so amazing. I've never played the QC, but any modeler I played before the Fractal could not handle the volume and dynamics and so always missed expressing what I was communicating (or trying to).
Thanks for this post and the examples.
 
As a guy who plays extensively with volume and tone controls, you articulated exactly what makes the Axe FX so amazing. I've never played the QC, but any modeler I played before the Fractal could not handle the volume and dynamics and so always missed expressing what I was communicating (or trying to).
Thanks for this post and the examples.
I'll second that. I'd never really thought much about it until reading your comment though. I've had several modelers and my FM3 is way more responsive to dynamic changes.
 
Tonex will do it better than the QC (this particular 'flatness' characteristic is actually why I stopped using the QC). But that's also to be expected, because you've got substantially more training resources for tonex models than the few minutes QC training. I'm also an "always on 10" player, so I can't speak to the response like this, but tonex is definitely more dynamically accurate than the QC
 
I haven’t tried Tonex yet. I’d want to hear someone do a similar test with it before I’d consider going down that road. If it doesn’t get the nonlinear behavior right, it’s probably not going to feel right.
You should totally try it - it's right up there with the Fractal IMO

https://forum.fractalaudio.com/threads/fractal-user-reviews-tonex-pedal.191824/page-6#post-2388495
https://forum.fractalaudio.com/threads/fractal-user-reviews-tonex-pedal.191824/page-7#post-2388718

Now, obviously the advantage of the Amp block in the Axe-Fx III is that you can change settings and it still behaves as the amp would. But I see the capture tech as similar to browsing IRs - you browse some until you find one that you like. Different paradigm but I totally get the appeal now.
 
Last edited:
You should totally try it - it's right up there with the Fractal IMO

https://forum.fractalaudio.com/threads/fractal-user-reviews-tonex-pedal.191824/page-6#post-2388495
https://forum.fractalaudio.com/threads/fractal-user-reviews-tonex-pedal.191824/page-7#post-2388718

Now, obviously the advantage of the Amp block in the Axe-Fx III is that you can change settings and it still behaves as the amp would. But I see the capture tech as similar to browsing IRs - you browse some until you find one that you like. Different paradigm but I totally get the appeal now.
Your demo sounds good - if noisy.
 
The dynamics, whether it came from rolling off or on the volume, picking lighter, or letting the notes decay, was always my complaint about modelers until I tried Fractal’s AX8. The new generation hardware with the latest Cygnus has the modeled amplifiers feeling and behaving right.
I still feel some difference. So I grabbed some amps and make tests. The best way I can describe is that the Cygnus seems to sound wha-ish... the shift in frequencies seems more pronounced, while real amps sound more subtle. Maybe it depends on setting, dunno...!
 
I m super sceptical when it comes to the "feel" of an amp, as it s l a bit like the notion of god: you ask 10 people and you get 10 different answers. From my personal experience I was never able to understand what they refer to. Is it the dynamics of the tone based on how hard you hit the strings? The harmonics? The palm mutes? The sustain?
To me most amps or modellers react the same to my playing, meaning i hear what i expect, based on what i play. It s not identical but it is close enough to be practically not something i think or notice while playing. I mean you play through 2 amps of the same model and yet they sound a bit different. So my question is two fold:
1. What do people mean with feel
2 and more importantly, how does this minute differences of how the device reacts to playing, affects people's playing. To me it is beyond my understanding and experiences. On top if someone is affected by such minute differences, it limits them significantly as a player.
And I m not talking about a real amp through a cab vs IRs through monitors. I hear these things even when people connect modellers to cabs.
 
Gary Moore live goes from sweet to hungry, from love to joy to sadness... just with pick attack and volume! Feel is the ability to articulate the feeling you had into sounds and emotions. Harmonics content, pick attack, sustain... all those affect feel.
 
You should totally try it - it's right up there with the Fractal IMO

https://forum.fractalaudio.com/threads/fractal-user-reviews-tonex-pedal.191824/page-6#post-2388495
https://forum.fractalaudio.com/threads/fractal-user-reviews-tonex-pedal.191824/page-7#post-2388718

Now, obviously the advantage of the Amp block in the Axe-Fx III is that you can change settings and it still behaves as the amp would. But I see the capture tech as similar to browsing IRs - you browse some until you find one that you like. Different paradigm but I totally get the appeal now.
I watched both of those videos. In Jon’s video, I picked out the Tonex on the first A/B. The common tell tale for me is in the top end air. Most modelers have less top end than what real amps naturally produce.

In your video, the sound is close, but having identical performances (using a looper) helps to reveal more similarities and differences because the dynamics of the playing is the same between two sources. I’d love to hear you try a similar “volume rolled off” kind of test with a real amp to see how Tonex recreates the finer details of the amp’s inner workings.

To be honest, the snapshot thing is like an anti-IR in my opinion. An IR is like sitting in front of an amp and turning knobs to get the sound you want. A capture/snapshot is like standing in front of an amp and moving around until you find a spot that sounds good. Personally, I like having more control over the amp than the cabinet. If I dial in a tone with my Les Paul and then pick up my SG, I’d rather adjust the amp for the guitar rather than searching for an IR that fits the guitar. When we need to make a tone adjustment live or in the studio, most of us would probably tweak our amp rather than moving the mic.

I think the tech behind Tonex/Capturing is really cool and promising, but it still feels young at this point. If amp capturing was a person, Kemper would be a baby and Tonex would be a toddler. It’s growing, but still has a long way to go. If a system could overlap measurements sweeping each knob’s range on an amp and consolidating it as a single amp capture, that would be capturing as an adult.
 
I m super sceptical when it comes to the "feel" of an amp, as it s l a bit like the notion of god: you ask 10 people and you get 10 different answers. From my personal experience I was never able to understand what they refer to. Is it the dynamics of the tone based on how hard you hit the strings? The harmonics? The palm mutes? The sustain?
To me most amps or modellers react the same to my playing, meaning i hear what i expect, based on what i play. It s not identical but it is close enough to be practically not something i think or notice while playing. I mean you play through 2 amps of the same model and yet they sound a bit different. So my question is two fold:
1. What do people mean with feel
2 and more importantly, how does this minute differences of how the device reacts to playing, affects people's playing. To me it is beyond my understanding and experiences. On top if someone is affected by such minute differences, it limits them significantly as a player.
And I m not talking about a real amp through a cab vs IRs through monitors. I hear these things even when people connect modellers to cabs.
I would say the feel is something experienced under your fingers when you play through something. An amp/modeler with feel will react to your playing… it makes the player feel more connected to their sound. A modeler without that feel can still sound similar, but the playing experience is much more sterile.

The difference may be minute to some, but really important to others. Think of it like a guitar. A vintage Gibson Les Paul and a new Epiphone Les Paul are essentially the same guitar on paper. Same shape, same materials, same pickup type, etc. The difference comes down to how the guitar feels in your hands. A great guitar can feel like it plays itself. A mediocre guitar still gets the job done, but may not feel as inspiring when you play it.

That experience is in the “important” category for me. I don’t feel that it limits me as a player, it just means that I choose to play instruments I connect with that feel inspiring when I pick them up.
 
I would say the feel is something experienced under your fingers when you play through something. An amp/modeler with feel will react to your playing… it makes the player feel more connected to their sound. A modeler without that feel can still sound similar, but the playing experience is much more sterile.

The difference may be minute to some, but really important to others. Think of it like a guitar. A vintage Gibson Les Paul and a new Epiphone Les Paul are essentially the same guitar on paper. Same shape, same materials, same pickup type, etc. The difference comes down to how the guitar feels in your hands. A great guitar can feel like it plays itself. A mediocre guitar still gets the job done, but may not feel as inspiring when you play it.

That experience is in the “important” category for me. I don’t feel that it limits me as a player, it just means that I choose to play instruments I connect with that feel inspiring when I pick them up.
I see. As I said this is another approach to "feel" as you link it more to inspiration and connection rather than actual physical characteristics of the tone and amp responsiveness. I never had such connections tone wise, instrument wise for sure but there things are more measurable.
My point was more that when people mention the "feel" as an issue with modellers, i m super sceptical. In the Gary Moore example above, i m pretty sure that if he was playing with a crappy practice amp, he would still sound like Gary Moore, maybe not with the best tone but all these playing attributes would have been there.
 
Back
Top Bottom