QC, ToneX and the future of Fractal

cole lewis said:
The accuracy of captures is never perfect. They sound off every time to me, feel off to me. The controls on captures don’t react anything like the real amps.

Try playing a capture of a Mesa Mark series head. The capturing concept literally cannot create a model of these amps that responds ANYTHING like them.
Click to expand...

I mean, I didn't say it was perfect, I said it was nearly indistinguishable - which in a vast majority of cases is true. It doesn't always work and it doesn't work for all amps. But more often than not, you will get a result that is so convincing the only way to tell it apart is isolated A/B comparison with very careful listening and/or measurements / tests. If you need a null test to prove that something isn't the same, then for all practical actual use cases - it may as well BE the same. I'm not sure if you're describing tonex or qc here, and it honestly doesn't really matter because the point here isn't a specific product. With better ML and better training will come better results, eventually.

The controls aren't supposed to represent the amp. That was never the point in the first place. I don't understand why people get so hung up on this point. If you're using capturing tech, it's understood from the very beginning that it's going to be a snapshot of one sound. However, it doesn't really matter - especially if you have the amp in question and can capture your normal settings or any changes you decide on.

fcs101 said:
I'm confused. One of these two situations is true, yes?

1. You own an amp (or have access to it). So you are able to set the amp, but cannot set the modeler?

or

2. You are using someone else's profile of an amp. So you are letting them set your amp for you.

Just trying to get clarity as to what is the issue.
Click to expand...
There's no issue. I have no stake in this, nor even a driving emotion to go one way or the other. I'm just explaining why ML capturing is attractive and has a future / is not a passing gimmick. I can capture the amp next to me (one which is not in axe fx, btw), and take that exact, precise tone out in a portable little box. That's not me saying it's more favorable or better than using the FM9 instead, I'm just saying it's more representative of my real gear. I'm not even saying it sounds better. And who's turning the knobs on an amp to make a capture makes little difference if it's the sound you want.
 
northern_fox said:
There's no issue. I have no stake in this, nor even a driving emotion to go one way or the other. I'm just explaining why ML capturing is attractive and has a future / is not a passing gimmick. I can capture the amp next to me (one which is not in axe fx, btw), and take that exact, precise tone out in a portable little box. That's not me saying it's more favorable or better than using the FM9 instead, I'm just saying it's more representative of my real gear. I'm not even saying it sounds better. And who's turning the knobs on an amp to make a capture makes little difference if it's the sound you want.
Click to expand...
Just trying to understand why you'd like the option to profile.

This isn't at all meant negatively: I suspect that some people see profiling as the "easy button". That's okay, because if you get what you want great, but I personally enjoy learning the amp.

Anyway, for reasons stated above it's not coming to FAS products.
 
fcs101 said:
Just trying to understand why you'd like the option to profile.

This isn't at all meant negatively: I suspect that some people see profiling as the "easy button". That's okay, because if you get what you want great, but I personally enjoy learning the amp.

Anyway, for reasons stated above it's not coming to FAS products.
Click to expand...

Oohh I'm sorry - I misunderstood your question. The reason I think it would be an amazing addition is because not only can you do amps, you can do all kinds of other gear and pedals that will likely never be a part of the fractal system or are otherwise hard to replicate within it. But as for amps - as an example, I'd love to be able to replicate my lee jackson GP1000 because it's my favorite tone. Same goes for my peavey pirahna, or the ampeg VH140c. Heck, there are some great nonreal plugins and tones from other modelers of past that also won't be that easy to copy. I think many people would appreciate the ability to include tones like that as well. In some instances, if you know quite a lot about specific amps and how they've been built / operate, you can probably get pretty close on fractal deep tweaking - but there's a huge knowledge barrier there in many cases and most of us are NOT subject matter experts on amp building.

Or for a very simple scenario - you just can't get the axe model to sound like the amp next to you for some reason - but a basic ML capture will get you there. Why not include such a useful functionality? The entire reason I have a QC at all, is to be able to capture gear I know is hard to find in modelers like Axe. But I'd much rather use the fractal everything-else any day for most tones and better functionality overall.
 
Last edited:
Despite the fact of having hundreds of amp models included, I think Fractal has to come up with a profile/capture function.
Even if you can rebuild your real amps, many prefer the easy way to just duplicate what they have.
Two other things as well: UI and mobile/app support. Mandatory in 2023, not just "nice to have".
 
MrPond said:
Despite the fact of having hundreds of amp models included, I think Fractal has to come up with a profile/capture function.
Even if you can rebuild your real amps, many prefer the easy way to just duplicate what they have.
Two other things as well: UI and mobile/app support. Mandatory in 2023, not just "nice to have".
Click to expand...
I don't think they have to do anything. They seem to have a winning formula. Cliff has already stated his philosophy about capture/profiling.
 
fcs101 said:
I don't think they have to do anything. They seem to have a winning formula. Cliff has already stated his philosophy about capture/profiling.
Click to expand...

I think they have to because in a not so far future, the competitors will all have such capabilities on board.
He also once stated that he tested profiling functions. He is not testing those functions if he is not interested.
 
MrPond said:
I think they have to because in a not so far future, the competitors will all have such capabilities on board.
He also once stated that he tested profiling functions. He is not testing those functions if he is not interested.
Click to expand...
It's not an imperative as you stated. It is only an option. It also may not be as popular as you imagine.

Agents for change are often only perceived to be the majority because they are the only ones commenting on a given proposal. It's sort of like the Wish List. I could care less about many of those wishes. I won't "shoot down" someone's wish though unless it negatively impacts my usage. Profiling is the same for many here. No one will campaign against it, but many just don't care. Just give me superior amp modeling.

On a side note, I rather like the UI.
 
northern_fox said:
The draw of ML devices like the QC and tonex is that you can know (and verify) that they sound indistinguishable (or very nearly) from the exact gear you are using. That's a mentally - very attractive proposition. It's one that's hard to beat. Why do I want to use someone's modeling of gear, when I know I can get the exact copy of the real tone from my own unique gear? There are many good answers to that question, but I'm just making the point that while it does have its relative limitations, ML capturing is a very attractive prospect for many people (myself included).

For me, what's seeming to be a bit of a dealbreaker there is that I know the best I can possibly hope for in that scenario is a perfect recreation of my source amp. What's possible with fractal/high end modeling, is to create a more than perfect representation in many ways. It's not always the case, but it's a different way of looking at it. There's no need to be limited to the question of "does it sound identical to my real amp?" I'm still very much back and forth quite a lot (I own a QC/Axe III/Fm9). I think if fractal added an ML block for those edge / hard to replicate cases, it would definitely crush the current competition.
Click to expand...
I like this concept of "more than perfect". :)
 
fcs101 said:
It's not an imperative as you stated. It is only an option. It also may not be as popular as you imagine.

Agents for change are often only perceived to be the majority because they are the only ones commenting on a given proposal. It sort of like the Wish List. I could care less about many of those wishes. I won't "shoot down" someone's wish though unless it negatively impacts my usage. Profiling is the same for many here. No one will campaign against it, but many just don't care. Just give me superior amp modeling.

On a side note, I rather like the UI.
Click to expand...
Though I don't campaign against it, I've posted the odd profiling wish rebuttal because of the opportunity cost of Fractal doing it. I appreciate the progress Fractal makes into full amp modelling and I think there is more to do. Profiling, which I have no use for, could be a tangent that takes Fractal away from more important stuff to me. So ya - squeaky wheels sometimes need a little competition - otherwise it appears that's what everyone wants.
 
FWIW, I have, ON RECORD, someone high up on the Neural DSP chain, stating that the method they use for “modeling” is the same technology they use for capturing.

Therefore, comparing Fractal’s component modeling to the Quad Cortex, Kemper, or TONEX is apples to oranges.
 
I’d imagine capture/profile technology will continue to evolve.

Imagine for example that while doing a capture the user turns each knob on the amp over its full range. Your not capturing just one setting but capturing the full range of tones and therefore when using a capture your able to tweak parameters and have it perform just like the amp. We might be able to get to a point where it’s really indistinguishable from a specific amp….

Modeling will likely improve too, maybe we will have dynamic IR models, who knows what else…

I’m sure FAS just like any other company is going to continue to evolve and put out the best product they can
 
lqdsnddist said:
magine for example that while doing a capture the user turns each knob on the amp over its full range
Click to expand...
this would win my attention and interest - currently I can't get past what appears to be a time consuming process to capture a snapshot of settings with limited usage range, as compared to modelling where I can choose my settings and go with ability to change them with full range on the fly, either manually or automatically thru modifiers. Plus I don't have a lot of real gear not modelled in Axfx to capture, and what I have I prefer to use directly - can't see a use case to capture my H+K head or Revv Pedal... I'm sure if Fractal dives into it, it will have some great added value to capture my gear head fascination - I would just hope it does not overshadow their component modelling efforts.
 
sprint said:
this would win my attention and interest - currently I can't get past what appears to be a time consuming process to capture a snapshot of settings with limited usage range, as compared to modelling where I can choose my settings and go with ability to change them with full range on the fly, either manually or automatically thru modifiers. Plus I don't have a lot of real gear not modelled in Axfx to capture, and what I have I prefer to use directly - can't see a use case to capture my H+K head or Revv Pedal... I'm sure if Fractal dives into it, it will have some great added value to capture my gear head fascination - I would just hope it does not overshadow their component modelling efforts.
Click to expand...
I believe this is what Neural DSP is doing.
 
ruso said:
I believe this is what Neural DSP is doing.
Click to expand...
so advancing which is good for all - and adds context to my perception that NDSP is doing well at not dropping the ball within their initial core business (plugins) while they've gone into hw modelling. I don't see myself going for QC but I do like some of their plugins and was happy to see they released a new MBIIC+ plugin this week which looks interesting. I'm also an Amplitube customer and hoping Tonex dpes not slow Amplitube progress, or that they don't somehow try to "meld" the two.

- I guess my other hesitation is wrt losing touch with how amps work. With component modelling I'm immersed in the topology of tube amplifiers, and gaining an understanding of how tube amps work, which I find useful in becoming more adept (though still a long way to go) at quickly dialling in the tones I want on my own. With capture based modelling (let's say it becomes as good as component based modelling), the methodology for generating a given tone is (unless I misunderstand) buried in the capture tech, not really exposed to the end user - seems like I would become dependant on this black box magic and lose the ability to dial in tones effectively using my evolving knowledge of how the topology works within the amp models I'm interested in.
 
sprint said:
so advancing which is good for all - and adds context to my perception that NDSP is doing well at not dropping the ball within their initial core business (plugins) while they've gone into hw modelling. I don't see myself going for QC but I do like some of their plugins and was happy to see they released a new MBIIC+ plugin this week which looks interesting. I'm also an Amplitube customer and hoping Tonex dpes not slow Amplitube progress, or that they don't somehow try to "meld" the two.

- I guess my other hesitation is wrt losing touch with how amps work. With component modelling I'm immersed in the topology of tube amplifiers, and gaining an understanding of how tube amps work, which I find useful in becoming more adept (though still a long way to go) at quickly dialling in the tones I want on my own. With capture based modelling (let's say it becomes as good as component based modelling), the methodology for generating a given tone is (unless I misunderstand) buried in the capture tech, not really exposed to the end user - seems like I would become dependant on this black box magic and lose the ability to dial in tones effectively using my evolving knowledge of how the topology works within the amp models I'm interested in.
Click to expand...

While I respect where your coming from, I think a lot of users, probably want the opposite. They don’t want to know how amps work, how to adjust B+ voltage et al, to get a tone. Don’t care what circuit was in someone’s transition period Fender amp, or anything like that. They want to click a button and have the exact sound as such and such from a given album and don’t care how the sausage is made lol.
 
Capturing or profiling a real life amplifier requires gear and a specific skill Set. It's a fun little sidebar if you Have that gear and that skill set. Other than that; component modeling is still king vs. fumbling around downloading profile after profile till you find the right 1. There is some great stuff out there in the profiling world but none of it is a magic bullet for a new user.
 
Last edited:
lqdsnddist said:
While I respect where your coming from, I think a lot of users, probably want the opposite. They don’t want to know how amps work, how to adjust B+ voltage et al, to get a tone. Don’t care what circuit was in someone’s transition period Fender amp, or anything like that. They want to click a button and have the exact sound as such and such from a given album and don’t care how the sausage is made lol.
Click to expand...
ya - so true - a lot of times I also prefer not to know about the deeper parms as I've not yet got a good understanding of how they work - but a few of the more "beginner amp design concepts" like how the gain staging works on some amps has really helped my tone creation abilities in that I know how to get the model to do some things and why.

It's all good for guitarists these days. Reminds me of when I helped my friend haul home a used Marshall ?? half stack in the late 70s. We were excited to hear some hard rock tones (VH) out of it (he was a good player in late teens - I would
not own my 1st guitar for another 25yrs but a metal head nonetheless), but we were dissappointed as he couldn't get those tones without peeling the paint off the walls of his parent's brown panelled finished basement. Things have come a looong way since a half stack was pretty much the standard / only thing for a basement player to get heavier tones.
 
Last edited:
lqdsnddist said:
I’d imagine capture/profile technology will continue to evolve.

Imagine for example that while doing a capture the user turns each knob on the amp over its full range. Your not capturing just one setting but capturing the full range of tones and therefore when using a capture your able to tweak parameters and have it perform just like the amp. We might be able to get to a point where it’s really indistinguishable from a specific amp….

Modeling will likely improve too, maybe we will have dynamic IR models, who knows what else…

I’m sure FAS just like any other company is going to continue to evolve and put out the best product they can
Click to expand...
Except that on many amps all those knobs interact with each other.

I still don't think that approach will solve it. Although it would probably improve things.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom