That was it. Sounds exactly the same.
Gator makes one as well. Reasonably priced. Got mine from Sweetwater.
main project https://n-o-m-a.bandcamp.com/music
I fully agree with you and understand that potentiometers can vary pretty significantly from amp to amp, and cumulative differences using multiple potentiometers can make a really big difference in the end. I know a few amps have needed little things tweaked here and there in the firmware and just wanted to offer an A/B you mentioned to see if anything was "amiss" that would support what that user was experiencing.
I couldn't agree with you more. If you've heard the recent amp/model comparisons I did with the SLO and Mark IV, they're very similar, and I mention that the subtle differences are akin to trying to match two physical heads that will also have little differences by nature. I matched those by ear and turned knobs accordingly and was blown away by how close they are. In this instance, a user noted that the 5150 sounded more mid-forward than the real amp, so Cliff asked for an A/B. I set the controls identically in case it brought out something he would hear that might explain the mid-forward claims, and finished by happily saying that I would make adjustments if needed. We've seen "fixed wrong X value in Y amp" pretty regularly in firmware release notes over the years that get amps and models even closer... I just wanted to offer help in case that was the situation here.
Especially this latest update! My largest gripe with all modelers including Fractal is responsiveness to playing dynamics like pick attack or, to a greater extent, the volume knob on my guitar. I can happily say I've noticed a HUGE improvement with this latest release and finally am in a place where I hardly desire to fire up the real tube amp anymore. It just THAT good!I've got a bunch of amps that I compare to the Fractal all the time, and confidently tell people that it easily has the most accurate modeling of any product on the market. Any contributions I make are always well-intended and solely meant to either show accuracy between amp and model, or to help address something that might, but not always, need correcting. Even if the model doesn't change, I'm still gonna play the crap out of it.
I fully agree with you and understand that potentiometers can vary pretty significantly from amp to amp, and cumulative differences using multiple potentiometers can make a really big difference in the end. I know a few amps have needed little things tweaked here and there in the firmware and just wanted to offer an A/B you mentioned to see if anything was "amiss" that would support what that user was experiencing.
Here's a new comparison. Knobs around noon and subtly tweaked for a good match. With Depth at zero, they're remarkably similar. Even my frequency analyzer showed both the real amp and model with nearly identical frequency peaks! Then I set the Depth at 10 on the amp and model which is where our two units seem to vary the most (not necessarily bad, just different). The third section has the model's Depth frequency lowered from 180Hz to 140Hz. My amp still outputs more low end energy, but sonically it sounds more similar in the low-mids and cleans up that area a bit. Maybe our amps have something different happening in the Depth portion of the circuit that's causing the change? I don't know, but hopefully this helps the other user (sorry for forgetting your handle) to get things in a good spot while also confirming the accuracy in the "knobs at noon" scenario you mentioned.
I couldn't agree with you more. If you've heard the recent amp/model comparisons I did with the SLO and Mark IV, they're very similar, and I mention that the subtle differences are akin to trying to match two physical heads that will also have little differences by nature. I matched those by ear and turned knobs accordingly and was blown away by how close they are. In this instance, a user noted that the 5150 sounded more mid-forward than the real amp, so Cliff asked for an A/B. I set the controls identically in case it brought out something he would hear that might explain the mid-forward claims, and finished by happily saying that I would make adjustments if needed. We've seen "fixed wrong X value in Y amp" pretty regularly in firmware release notes over the years that get amps and models even closer... I just wanted to offer help in case that was the situation here.
I've got a bunch of amps that I compare to the Fractal all the time, and confidently tell people that it easily has the most accurate modeling of any product on the market. Any contributions I make are always well-intended and solely meant to either show accuracy between amp and model, or to help address something that might, but not always, need correcting. Even if the model doesn't change, I'm still gonna play the crap out of it.
Yep, this is pretty much the approach I've taken with the Axe-FX (II and III): Early on, I was trying to duplicate exactly what I had in my tube amps --which can be tricky given that I mostly play bass and also tend to use a few less-common boutique amps-- and over the years I've made a major shift from "copy this" to just dialing in something that sounds great on its own and moreso in the ballpark of what I was doing with 130lb 300W tube amps. Less A/B comparison and more using my "tone memory" to go at what I remember it sounding and feeling like, even if it wasn't exactly 1:1. To me, worrying about a few Hz difference was less important than "this shit sounds great!" That suits my need though: make good sounds, whereas it is probably more irrelevant in your line of work where you're making IRs and whatnot based on famous tones for mass consumption.
Yup, I just got a text from a well known producer and massive gear head asking about the Axe. I sent him the SLO and Mark IV comparison clips and now he wants one. I don’t think I could do that with any other modeler.
You do outstanding work, and I have nothing but immense respect and appreciation for what you do. I fully trust that the verified models are accurate to your real amps. Thanks for your dedication. It makes playing a Fractal a satisfying experience.
I captured that cab before I had my SIC measurement tools, so I can't say for sure what the best fit would be. The 4x12 Basketweave SIC tends to sound pretty great with most Marshall cabs, so I'd give that one a try and see how it feels. I could be wrong, but I think all of the Greenback curves were taken from cabs with M25s rather than H30s.While speaking of Mark IV, your Marshall BLK cab mixes #1 and #3 are great companions with that amp, with the Brit TV SIC.
Any other SIC recommendation for that specific cab is welcome, I'll test and use it for my first album
It is so good to be a guitarist who lives in 2022, who knows both Fractal and York Audio! You guys are great!
You can always save a copy of your current firmware and do a full backup of your unit before installing the Beta if you want to check it out. If you dig it, rock on... if you want to revert back to pre-Beta, you're covered. I did that and have no regrets sticking with the Beta until the release version comes out. I think you'll love it!oooh, these last talks makes me really want to install this beta..it’s quite a test for my patience..but since I waited now for what feels so long...hmm.. I feel the official release must be behind the corner..
I should add that Depth is also dependent upon the open-loop gain of the power amp which, in turn, is dependent upon the transconductance and bias point of the power tubes.
That makes perfect sense. Thanks for clarifying. I like Electro-Harmonix power tubes for non-Mesa amps (Mesa brand for Mesa amps), and your amp is probably biased a bit hotter than mine... add tube age and usage differences to the equation and you've got the recipe for a big can of worms. I'm gonna mess with the bias a bit and see what happens. I think I remember you saying something about the 5150 factory bias being really cold. Do you have a ballpark idea where to set bias to get it close to factory specs?
5150s aren't adjustable.
