Fractal Audio AMP Models: Revv (based on Revv Generator 120)

[TenorKeith]

First, I am so thankful Cliff included the Revv amps! They sound great, however I was swapping them in and out of some presets and noticed that these new amps sound like they have a much lower output than many of the other amps. Has anyone else noticed that you have to really crank up the output? Am I missing something?

 

[sprint]

First, I am so thankful Cliff included the Revv amps! They sound great, however I was swapping them in and out of some of the presets and noticed that these new amps sound like they have a much lower output been many of the other amps. Has anyone else noticed that you have to really crank up the output?

I've noticed - assume it is modelled as per the real amp which Fractal inticated has a very even master volume taper compared to many other amps. Just compensate with the amp block's output level control.

 

[LucasLeCompte]

I've noticed - assume it is modelled as per the real amp which Fractal inticated has a very even master volume taper compared to many other amps. Just compensate with the amp block's output level control.

The real amps are actually a lot like the set up on the axe fx. Each channel has its own level, and then they all feed to the two master volumes. It has two so you can program it to be louder for lead tones.

 

[unFILTERed]

Arggggggh with these “we already have it” or “you can build it in the axe”

Don’t forget that some people owning a 3 sometimes just owned one tube amp in their life, some don’t even got one…. So if you don’t have all that knowledge that channel 1 in that amp is similar to the 1967 model with 3 different transistors… if the axe got so many amps, there is a reason.
The customer want to choose a JVM and have immediately all the channels and tone from that amp, that is what the modelers are about.

As you can see, after 2 years of requests about the revv where the answers were “we don’t need it”, “another high gain amp” blabla . Now you choose the model and everyone say that it kick ass, even more than all the others high gain heads in the unit…

If you start with the fas modern, you can have a similar tone than the revv

So YES, we want all the channels from every amps if possible

When people write “it’s already in the box.” it’s also ment as help. It’s completely up to fractal what amps/channells they model…and i seriously don’t care about what they are working on for the next update unless there is a bug that gets on my way and needs to be fixed.

 

[State of Epicicity]

Arggggggh with these “we already have it” or “you can build it in the axe”

Don’t forget that some people owning a 3 sometimes just owned one tube amp in their life, some don’t even got one…. So if you don’t have all that knowledge that channel 1 in that amp is similar to the 1967 model with 3 different transistors… if the axe got so many amps, there is a reason.
The customer want to choose a JVM and have immediately all the channels and tone from that amp, that is what the modelers are about.

As you can see, after 2 years of requests about the revv where the answers were “we don’t need it”, “another high gain amp” blabla . Now you choose the model and everyone say that it kick ass, even more than all the others high gain heads in the unit…

If you start with the fas modern, you can have a similar tone than the revv

So YES, we want all the channels from every amps if possible

I'm not necessarily for or against Cliff adding those missing channels of amps already modelled. For most of those amps, I've never played them. Stuff like the clean channel of a 5150, though, I can totally see why there'd be no reason to add that. I think the best thing to do is just to read forum discussions of these missing channels and find out what they equate to. I'm really guessing Cliff just looks at the schematics, plays those channels and decides it's just not worth taking up space in the unit, but again, this is just my guess.

Ever since I've gotten the Axe-FX III I've been meaning to learn more about amps themselves, but I realize more and more that the engineering part interests me exactly long enough to dial in a good tone, so I'm just leaving decisions like that to the dude who knows the amps best. Some stuff, like having an accurately placed mid cut on the Herbert models, I do think is important for the character of an amp, the way you noticed the Shred button on the JP2C wasn't right at first, but as to full models, I'm actually wondering if it really is a matter of available space, and leaving as much open as possible for the most important stuff.

I think the big thing that was missing for me since I got the Axe-FX III was just a movable mic cab sim, and now it's here. As for these missing channels, I truly doubt we're missing anything that can't be recreated with other models. If this is the case though, it would be interesting, as @Dave Merrill has asked, to know what those models are, not only for the Generator 120, but across the board in Fractal land.

Finally, I think something that's easily overlooked in this community is that the wiki is open for all to contribute. There could be a wiki page entirely dedicated to this, e.g. I'm not as passionate on this subject, but it's a thought, for those so inclined.

 

[secretpizza]

These amps are completely sick. They need nothing at all to sound good. High gain game changer.

 

[Burgs]

These amps are completely sick. They need nothing at all to sound good. High gain game changer.

They sound pretty great in the old-school-gain area too, I think.

 

[Dave Merrill]

They sound pretty great in the old-school-gain area too, I think.

Can't listen to this right now, but thank you!

As I think I may have said somewhere, I've been having big fun with Purple 2, gain really low.

 

[JoKeR III]

First, I am so thankful Cliff included the Revv amps! They sound great, however I was swapping them in and out of some presets and noticed that these new amps sound like they have a much lower output than many of the other amps. Has anyone else noticed that you have to really crank up the output? Am I missing something?

I noticed it as well, but turning up the Revv model Master Volume from 4.0 to @ 6.50 seemed to match the previous amp overall level. Didn't adjust the block Level parameter.

 

[laxu]

The only problem with the missing channels is that it's hard to find what are the closest equivalents for them. This stretches to the drive models where some modes of pedals are not available and you need to trawl the Wiki to find what you should use. So I would be fine to have some "redundant" models that are just a Fender Twin clean channel or something but shows up as Revv Blue on the unit.

At the same time, I'm against the flood of "add this and that amp" requests. There's about 100 unique amps modeled in the Axe-Fx and I just don't believe there are so many unique amp tones out there that you couldn't replicate the Revv with one of the existing models.

People seem to just want to "catch them all" and have the comfort of a preset amp without taking the time to learn the hundreds of models available to craft tones that they enjoy. You can see how many of the requested amps are something recently shown off on YT.

I bet if Fractal added the completely wrong model as Revv Green just to troll people, Fractal users would be going "yeah, sounds just like the real deal".

 

[Dickie Fredericks]

@yek In the second paragraph you use the word cheap. Certainly you mean less expensive?

I apologize. Use of the word cheap generally to me means - not of quality)

Sure do appreciate your input and efforts.

I went through the Revv stuff this weekend and was pretty impressed. Used a few Dyna Cabs w it.
Thanks Fractal for adding it.

 

[stephenclark1]

How about giving it a rest?

You don't enjoy 40 page discussions about "this doesn't sound like..."?? I've been playing since the mid-seventies and I've play about 10 out the 300 or so amps in my Turbo...the only real amps I still have are a 65 Deluxe Reverb and a LabSeries L5. I'll tell you the one difference between the FAS Deluxe and my real one...didn't have to open up the Axe and re-solder a loose ground wire to the brass plate!
Think I should start a new thread about how the AxeFXIII won't be complete until they add a L5??

 

[yek]

@yek In the second paragraph you use the word cheap. Certainly you mean less expensive?

I apologize. Use of the word cheap generally to me means - not of quality)

Must be language thing, I don't know. If I can get a cheap ticket to a concert, it means I pay less money but the ticket and performance is identical.

 

[Sashman]

Must be language thing, I don't know. If I can get a cheap ticket to a concert, it means I pay less money but the ticket and performance is identical.

In Germany, cheap is mostly associated with lower quality, like cheap plastic, cheap material etc.
But personally I would never associate the word cheap with Fractal.

 

[Sashman]

The only problem with the missing channels is that it's hard to find what are the closest equivalents for them. This stretches to the drive models where some modes of pedals are not available and you need to trawl the Wiki to find what you should use. So I would be fine to have some "redundant" models that are just a Fender Twin clean channel or something but shows up as Revv Blue on the unit.

At the same time, I'm against the flood of "add this and that amp" requests. There's about 100 unique amps modeled in the Axe-Fx and I just don't believe there are so many unique amp tones out there that you couldn't replicate the Revv with one of the existing models.

People seem to just want to "catch them all" and have the comfort of a preset amp without taking the time to learn the hundreds of models available to craft tones that they enjoy. You can see how many of the requested amps are something recently shown off on YT.

I bet if Fractal added the completely wrong model as Revv Green just to troll people, Fractal users would be going "yeah, sounds just like the real deal".

Yeah,
maybe some people including me don’t understand, why only the half of an Amp is modeled, when the Unit has enough capacity.
That does not mean that we are not thankfully with what we already have.

 

[State of Epicicity]

when the Unit has enough capacity

I'm guessing, is that there is only so much capacity, that it might be more of a limitation than one would think. I'm thinking he wants to leave enough room for the more unique stuff. Because also, God knows what other improvements are planned for the future, and what kind of space they'll require. Again, just guessing.

 

[Sashman]

I'm guessing, is that there is only so much capacity, that it might be more of a limitation than one would think. I'm thinking he wants to leave enough room for the more unique stuff. Because also, God knows what other improvements are planned for the future, and what kind of space they'll require. Again, just guessing.

Completely understandable but we don’t know.
Cliff stated that the III has more than enough capacity for further firmware updates.

 

[HereToday]

Yeah,
maybe some people including me don’t understand, why only the half of an Amp is modeled, when the Unit has enough capacity.
That does not mean that we are not thankfully with what we already have.

Consider that it could be a commercial limitation from Revv. That's how I would do it were I in the business of selling amps.

 

[yek]

As "giving it a rest" didn't work, let's do the math. I don't work for FAS so the following are all assumptions.

Let's assume that adding the "missing" clean channels would translate to around 50 extra models (haven't counted).

Note that people are going to ask for the clean channel of an EL34 Shiva, for the clean channel of a Marshall which was only produced between June 2 and June 3 in 1976, for the clean channel of this and that, bla bla bla.

Let's assume that modeling a clean channel takes a single day (I have no clue): programming, measuring, testing, etc.

So that's 50 days at least.

That's 1/5 of the available working days of one capable employee in a year. Plus, that capacity is no longer available for other tasks.
Financially, it's 20% of the employer's charges for that employee in that year.

Now take into account that people are going to complain about some of the 50 models, which means more programming, measuring, testing, etc.
Also, with every development in amp modeling (= new firmware), those extra 50 models will have to adjusted, checked etc. again. Adding to the total investment required.

Finally, realize that after all this ... you'll come to the conclusion that most of the 50 extra models sound similar to the blackface Fender models we already have in the box. If they didn't, FAS probably would have added them.

Investment <> Redundancy. Do the math.

 

[laxu]

As "giving it a rest" didn't work, let's do the math. I don't work for FAS so the following are all assumptions.

Let's assume that adding the "missing" clean channels would translate to around 50 extra models (haven't counted).

Note that people are going to ask for the clean channel of an EL34 Shiva, for the clean channel of a Marshall which was only produced between June 2 and June 3 in 1976, for the clean channel of this and that, bla bla bla.

Let's assume that modeling a clean channel takes a single day (I have no clue): programming, measuring, testing, etc.

So that's 50 days at least.

That's 1/5 of the available working days of one capable employee in a year. Plus, that capacity is no longer available for other tasks.
Financially, it's 20% of the employer's charges for that employee in that year.

Now take into account that people are going to complain about some of the 50 models, which means more programming, measuring, testing, etc.
Also, with every development in amp modeling (= new firmware), those extra 50 models will have to adjusted, checked etc. again. Adding to the total investment required.

Finally, realize that after all this ... you'll come to the conclusion that most of the 50 extra models sound similar to the blackface Fender models we already have in the box. If they didn't, FAS probably would have added them.

Investment <> Redundancy. Do the math.

I would assume Fractal has already done much of that work. "Oh, this amp is basically just a Fender Twin for the clean channel, let's not model that." Then all it needs is a name and to point to the Twin model.

To the end user "select Revv Clean" becomes "select Revv Clean model -> under the hood load Fender Twin model but show its name as Revv Clean".

I agree that it would add a lot of redundancy to the unit, as well as battles about "does model X clean sound unique or not" but the flipside is that it would simplify usage considering people want X amp Y channel.