Dialing OUT the digital Axe-Fx midrange

Status
Not open for further replies.
jayjay347912 said:
You weren't using stock ir.s by chance were you? Much harder to dial in decent presets on the Helix, but nothing sounds "digital" to me at all. In fact it's the only thing keeping me from selling mine since I've bought the Axefx3. It was hard work making 70 or so presets that sound damn good, I'm not selling that hard work away lol
Click to expand...

I have a Helix and a Stomp XL, and I agree that it takes more effort to get the sounds I want out of them than it does my Fractal gear.
 
RifferMcDuck said:
Yeah I get your point. But my question above still stands if you'd like to take a swing at it.
Click to expand...
It was answered with aliasing, no?

OP started a similar thread 5 years ago and has 23 posts since 2016. Gonna say maybe pause here unless other members legitimately need help..
 
Budda said:
It was answered with aliasing, no?
Click to expand...

No. I can rephrase it perhaps?

Let's say a person does not know what "aliasing" or any other modeler-enthusiast-specific terminology is. That person comes here asking for help with a tone they perceive is "digital". They are met with suspicion and/or dismissal, as use of that term is considered "red flag". What should that person have done differently?
 
RifferMcDuck said:
No. I can rephrase it perhaps?

Let's say a person does not know what "aliasing" or any other modeler-enthusiast-specific terminology is. That person comes here asking for help with a tone they perceive is "digital". They are met with suspicion and/or dismissal, as use of that term is considered "red flag". What should that person have done differently?
Click to expand...

The difficulty here is why the word ‘digital’ is being used. That’s like going on a car forum and complaining that your new car drives too Chevrolet. It gives nobody anything tangible to work with and winds up being a big circle jerk.

And no, I’m not busting your balls here. Just offering the perspective that many have so that we can all understand each other a little better.
 
Frodebro said:
The difficulty here is why the word ‘digital’ is being used. That’s like going on a car forum and complaining that your new car drives too Chevrolet. It gives nobody anything tangible to work with and winds up being a big circle jerk.

And no, I’m not busting your balls here. Just offering the perspective that many have so that we can all understand each other a little better.
Click to expand...

Haha no worries, I'm just discussing for fun here.

But I don't think that's an equal comparison. I can't imagine anyone will have claimed to hear "Chevrolet" used in that way before, while describing a guitar tone as "digital" is extremely common.
 
RifferMcDuck said:
Haha no worries, I'm just discussing for fun here.

But I don't think that's an equal comparison. I can't imagine anyone will have claimed to hear "Chevrolet" used in that way before, while describing a guitar tone as "digital" is extremely common.
Click to expand...

It’s also common for people to still believe that only tubes can sound good, but that doesn’t make it the truth.
 
Frodebro said:
It’s also common for people to still believe that only tubes can sound good, but that doesn’t make it the truth.
Click to expand...

What? I feel like some of these responses, including this one, aren't actually responding to me, but are just venting their anger at whoever these tube-amp supremacists are.

It's starting to seem like one of those "show me on the doll where they hurt you" situations lol
 
RifferMcDuck said:
What? I feel like some of these responses, including this one, aren't actually responding to me, but are just venting their anger at whoever these tube-amp supremacists are.

It's starting to seem like one of those "show me on the doll where they hurt you" situations lol
Click to expand...

It is indeed venting, but at the same time enlightening you as to how some things that seem innocent enough to you can be seen completely differently by someone else.
 
RifferMcDuck said:
What? I feel like some of these responses, including this one, aren't actually responding to me, but are just venting their anger at whoever these tube-amp supremacists are.

It's starting to seem like one of those "show me on the doll where they hurt you" situations lol
Click to expand...
I think it is responding to you and it may be perceived as a bit of an attack.

If someone comes here and says their unit sounds digital, its fair to guess that the regulars will explain terminology there as they did here. It’ll be explained that “digital eq” etc isnt a thing.
 
Budda said:
I think it is responding to you and it may be perceived as a bit of an attack.

If someone comes here and says their unit sounds digital, its fair to guess that the regulars will explain terminology there as they did here. It’ll be explained that “digital eq” etc isnt a thing.
Click to expand...

Ah, I see what you mean. I suppose I was curious if there was a better way of handling the use of that term that doesn't dismiss someone's opinions, or just assume they are misinformed, tube-purists or have otherwise nefarious intentions right off the bat. I feel like immediately treating them that way paints the community as sort of ... I dunno, defensive or bitter. Not saying anyone here is, but you get what I mean.
 
RifferMcDuck said:
Ah, I see what you mean. I suppose I was curious if there was a better way of handling the use of that term that doesn't dismiss someone's opinions, or just assume they are misinformed, tube-purists or have otherwise nefarious intentions right off the bat. I feel like immediately treating them that way paints the community as sort of ... I dunno, defensive or bitter. Not saying anyone here is, but you get what I mean.
Click to expand...
If they’re using the term, they’re one of those things (or a troll).

The community will get defensive, because that is immediately implying the community is in the wrong in some way ;)
 
So glad I do not have to deal with this stuff-Hi gain is something I avoid (for 45 years or so)...Don't get me wrong-to each his own--- Interesting conversation though...............
 
RifferMcDuck said:
No. I can rephrase it perhaps?

Let's say a person does not know what "aliasing" or any other modeler-enthusiast-specific terminology is. That person comes here asking for help with a tone they perceive is "digital". They are met with suspicion and/or dismissal, as use of that term is considered "red flag". What should that person have done differently?
Click to expand...
I actually agree with you entirely.

Even though I'm ranting over at TGF about aliasing (and the Kemper really does alias quite badly; worse than the Quad Cortex) I don't actually expect most people to know what it is, or why it is bad.

I totally understand what someone means when they say something sounds digital. They mean it sounds fatiguing; often there is something about the mid and high frequencies that is distracting or even painful to listen to.
 
RifferMcDuck said:
No. I can rephrase it perhaps?

Let's say a person does not know what "aliasing" or any other modeler-enthusiast-specific terminology is. That person comes here asking for help with a tone they perceive is "digital". They are met with suspicion and/or dismissal, as use of that term is considered "red flag". What should that person have done differently?
Click to expand...
Describing an undesirable tonal characteristic as "digital" only makes sense if that characteristic is actually a direct consequence of the system in question being digital. Aliasing and quantization noise are two examples. The mere fact that the system is digital doesn't imply that this is the cause of every perceived shortfall. "Digital" is not and should not be a universal term to describe every unsatisfactory aspect of a digital modeler's eq, any more than an eq problem with an analog amp should be described as problem with "analog."
 
I'm with @RifferMcDuck regarding the lack of understanding the terminology to describe certain sounds. Sounds are difficult to describe using words and those unfamiliar with the technical terms attempt to convey what we are hearing only to fall back on "it sounds digital".

Case in point, I was close to getting a Helix a number of years ago but there was something in the gain structure that reminded me of the XT line that sounded/felt "digital". The reason is probably going to be "aliasing" or some other technical term, but unless I know what these terms sound like, it's going to continue to be called "digital" sounding while trying to explain what I'm hearing. I'm not one to use words to describe something without knowing what they mean.

I've spent a little time to try to understand the different aspects of great vs good vs poor modeling and trying to hear their associated sounds. I don't spend much time on it anymore because there are things I'd rather do. Speaking of which, time to go harrass the grandkids.
 
JoKeR III said:
I'm with @RifferMcDuck regarding the lack of understanding the terminology to describe certain sounds. Sounds are difficult to describe using words and those unfamiliar with the technical terms attempt to convey what we are hearing only to fall back on "it sounds digital".

Case in point, I was close to getting a Helix a number of years ago but there was something in the gain structure that reminded me of the XT line that sounded/felt "digital". The reason is probably going to be "aliasing" or some other technical term, but unless I know what these terms sound like, it's going to continue to be called "digital" sounding while trying to explain what I'm hearing. I'm not one to use words to describe something without knowing what they mean.

I've spent a little time to try to understand the different aspects of great vs good vs poor modeling and trying to hear their associated sounds. I don't spend much time on it anymore because there are things I'd rather do. Speaking of which, time to go harrass the grandkids.
Click to expand...

The best way to deal with something sounding too digital is to analog its solid state.
 
JoKeR III said:
I'm with @RifferMcDuck regarding the lack of understanding the terminology to describe certain sounds. Sounds are difficult to describe using words and those unfamiliar with the technical terms attempt to convey what we are hearing only to fall back on "it sounds digital".

Case in point, I was close to getting a Helix a number of years ago but there was something in the gain structure that reminded me of the XT line that sounded/felt "digital". The reason is probably going to be "aliasing" or some other technical term, but unless I know what these terms sound like, it's going to continue to be called "digital" sounding while trying to explain what I'm hearing. I'm not one to use words to describe something without knowing what they mean.

I've spent a little time to try to understand the different aspects of great vs good vs poor modeling and trying to hear their associated sounds. I don't spend much time on it anymore because there are things I'd rather do. Speaking of which, time to go harrass the grandkids.
Click to expand...
"Poorly modeled" is a far better term than "digital." Same holds true for an analog model of an item, event, or system.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom