3.0 Beta Triode & Power Tube Hardness at different settings

mortega76

mortega76

Fractal Fanatic
Here is a clip that shows the Triode & Power Tube Hardness at different settings...
Amp sim is Cameron Channel 2 everything defaulted except for presence at 2.75 to give it a bit more bite and I raised the gain to just before clipping in Sonar... and Factory Cab 12

3.0 Beta has these two settings defaulting at 5.000 for each.



Here is the info for the clip...

01: TH 0.000 PTH 5.000
02: TH 2.500 PTH 5.000
03: TH 5.000 PTH 5.000
04: TH 7.500 PTH 5.000
05: TH 9.500 PTH 5.000
06: TH 5.000 PTH 0.000
07: TH 5.000 PTH 2.500
08: TH 5.000 PTH 5.000
09: TH 5.000 PTH 7.500
10: TH 5.000 PTH 9.500
11: TH 0.000 PTH 0.000
12: TH 9.500 PTH 9.500

Wave File Upload
Triode & Power Tube Hardness.wav
 
I've found that for most of my tones that the 2.5-3.0 range for Triode and 3.00 (or so) settings for Pentode are my go-to settings for beta V3.0. Note that these values presented here might not hold any relevancy to what the actual production firmware will offer. All values might change.

This is also important to balance against the new Transformer Match parameter and the new Transformer Voicing parameter (new amp block, not advanced setting).

Hold on folks the ride is about to get fun. :D
 
Scott Peterson said:
I've found that for most of my tones that the 2.5-3.0 range for Triode and 3.00 (or so) settings for Pentode are my go-to settings for beta V3.0. Note that these values presented here might not hold any relevancy to what the actual production firmware will offer. All values might change.

This is also important to balance against the new Transformer Match parameter and the new Transformer Voicing parameter (new amp block, not advanced setting).

Hold on folks the ride is about to get fun. :D
Click to expand...

I see what you did there! :)
 
My ears must totally suck. I could tell very little difference even downloading the .wav file through my Adam A7's. :(

What exactly am I supposed to be hearing as far as a difference that I'm not?
 
I'm with you Mott. I hear virtually no change. I've A/B'ed 11 and 12 over and over and I can't detect anything substantially different. Then again, I'm using some kinda crappy computer speakers.
 
Mott said:
My ears must totally suck. I could tell very little difference even downloading the .wav file through my Adam A7's. :(

What exactly am I supposed to be hearing as far as a difference that I'm not?
Click to expand...

Same here - I think the differences are too small to make me go wild :)
 
Err, guys. The last two clips, are they the extremes of the settings? like #11=both 0 and #12=both 9,5? And #3 and #8 are both at 5 in the middle?


Because I downloaded the .wav and listened really hard with my Beyer DT770 Cans... Even cut some pieces out so the clips ran into eachother, pasted some clips into eachother to really zero in on the differences.

Call me crazy or deaf, but I don't hear any...

Other than that it's not a re-amp, every clip is played differently with clip #8 having a bit of a peak... Very evenly played, though, I usually have more of a difference in dynamics, cause... well... I'm not that good a player. XD. But still, that might more than account for any difference in tone between bits.
Also on all clips you hear a bit of a clangy tone, especially at the end where the last chords gets muted and of course inbetween the chords. Sounds almost like a microphonic tube.
I don't know if that's the reason for the clanginess, but this file is pretty low in level. I had to amplify it 24dBs to get to normal levels.
 
Ah. I see Mott and Sidivan have the same experience since I started examining this...
Let me assure that DT770s are very nice headphones. I think even our Fractal Audio programming and artist-relations dude Matt recommended these once.
 
I would have used one clip and then re-amped it but the beta doesn't have USB audio... For me these two parameters add/cut a bit of "clarity" and "chunck" I had all parameters set to default except for presence... I'm also guessing that having the master set differently would have a greater/lesser effect on the tone... I'm also expecting it to have more of an impact via my SS/cab...

I'm also wondering if different amps would make the parameters more pronounced
 
The parameters have a definite effect that may not be highlighted here at all. I am not in a position at the moment to do clips; but this example not showing much (I don't hear much difference either) could be due to a whole range of issues.

I'd do it again without the high gain and note my comments from my prior post...
 
Dutch said:
Err, guys. The last two clips, are they the extremes of the settings? like #11=both 0 and #12=both 9,5? And #3 and #8 are both at 5 in the middle?


Because I downloaded the .wav and listened really hard with my Beyer DT770 Cans... Even cut some pieces out so the clips ran into eachother, pasted some clips into eachother to really zero in on the differences.

Call me crazy or deaf, but I don't hear any...

Other than that it's not a re-amp, every clip is played differently with clip #8 having a bit of a peak... Very evenly played, though, I usually have more of a difference in dynamics, cause... well... I'm not that good a player. XD. But still, that might more than account for any difference in tone between bits.
Also on all clips you hear a bit of a clangy tone, especially at the end where the last chords gets muted and of course inbetween the chords. Sounds almost like a microphonic tube.
I don't know if that's the reason for the clanginess, but this file is pretty low in level. I had to amplify it 24dBs to get to normal levels.
Click to expand...
sorry guys, I'm usually very good with hearing even the most subtle change and producers hate me for that when I want my pans to be changed from 125 to 127 or the signal raised by half a dB, but here...nothing. the file was horribly quiet, that I checked my studio monitors to see if something's wrong with them, jumped back and forth between extreme settings...not much of a difference. I know that a lot of changes in the modelling has recently been in the favour for feel, so I'm sure it'll be the same thing here, but as an audio demo...my apologies again, useless.
 
Higher level seems to have more "punch", more compression on attack. Probably it's more of a feel then hears... :) Listen how low chords evolve over time. It's a dynamic thing, not eq.
 
Dutch said:
Phew.
I almost assumed it must be my ears...

That's a relief, then.
Click to expand...
I guess it's also got to do with what you expect... I expected to hear the default results at 5 and everything above would go more towards extreme settings, like the tubes are about to blow up, things you really shouldn't do to a real amp. now that would be cool ;)
 
Smilzo said:
Higher level seems to have more "punch", more compression on attack. Probably it's more of a feel then hears... :) Listen how low chords evolve over time. It's a dynamic thing, not eq.
Click to expand...
I didn't expect much of a change in EQ to be honest, but more of a character change and complexity of the distortion. then again. like I said, the II sounds so good already, and additional tweaks from now on are probably going to affect feel more than anything else (just a guess).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom