5150 Presence Knob

Do You Want the 5150 Presence Control to be Authentic?

  • Yes

    Votes: 160 36.6%

  • No

    Votes: 277 63.4%
  • Total voters
    437
I've been thinking for some years now that the FAS modelers would benefit from having a bit of HW memory dedicated to 'patch notes' that would appear on the front panel display and on AxeEdit. For the 5150 model, a pop-up note about the presence control would address the desires of both camps. Those that have experience with the physical amp could readily recognize that the presence control on the model should be different from the physical amp. Adding a few representative mappings might be extra helpful: e.g. physical @ 3pm = model @ 3/10, etc. Those with no experience with the physical amp, would be aware of the difference, maybe not care, but would be happy to know that they have better control of presence than they would have with the physical amp. No need for wiki diving.

Is it more work for Cliff and company to implement 'patch notes' on all patches than to choose a particular taper? Yes, of course. Though the immediacy of having an explanation at the point of use, would be super helpful. IMO, there are many patches where if a few helpful design decisions were conveyed, it would go a long way in helping us users understand our models. Do I think having patch notes embedded in each patch (well, each patch that needed to have design decisions or other notes communicated) would stop questions about the patch notes on this forum? No, of course not! ;)
 
SwirlyMaple said:
That's part of the problem, though. Unless I'm wrong (could be!), my read of this forum indicates we already have some amps with idealized pots and some without.
Click to expand...
The Bogner Ecstasy has fixed idealized tonestack tapers. Edit: I'm wrong.
Mark EQ has idealized slider tapers.
A touch here, a touch there, easy mode, generic tasteless noodles.
 
Last edited:
Now I wonder where EVH set his presence knob, since the first 3/4 was placebo.

It has caught my attention that Wolfgang seems to use the 50W heads live. Maybe he liked the presence taper?

PS if you haven't checked out Mammoth WVH, you're missing out. He's more than just Eddie's kid. He is truly talented - performing all the instruments and vocals. My understanding is that he tracks to tape, so he can do punch ins or bounce tracks, but he is not using digital recording to surgically cut and splice perfect takes (like I have to do). He has to "play it that way". I encourage you to have a listen.
 
I rest my case.
Mr. Brown and Eddy did not just pick a generic Log10 pot, they specifically went for 10k Log20 and 1.3nF presence network.
This is VOICING that stood the test of time and should not be tampered with.

Presence pot value of the original 5150 and 5150 II from the original schematic:
Original 5150.png
 
This would probably be a pain in the ass for Fractal but interesting thought would be a switch in the ideal part of the amp block that gave you "exact" or Cliff's idealized version. That would allow Cliff to fix anything he wanted with any amp and the user to decide what they preferred for each preset. My vote though is ideal since I just dial with my ears.
 
Ahhh for sure, I can also see why modeling it "warts and all" and faithfully duplicating the effect/throw of the controls, etc. is paramount for people who know the real amp and it's quirks already, etc....they are "home" instantly. "Ideal" just appeals more to my inner sense of "correctness", as does having a consistent Presence control/action over the all the variants.

Either way I good; I've played two different 100W variants of the 5150xxx amps over the years and they were super easy and quick to dial in, strange pot or not...same with the one in the AFX. A longtime favorite for "70's rock tones" and crunchy rhythms...
 
Last edited:
James Freeman said:
I rest my case.
Mr. Brown and Eddy did not just pick a generic Log10 pot, they specifically went for 10k Log20 and 1.3nF presence network.
This is VOICING that stood the test of time and should not be tampered with.

Presence pot value of the original 5150 and 5150 II from the original schematic:
View attachment 130865
Click to expand...
I’m sure he mentioned it in videos too, it was definitely something he was aware of but Eddie wanted it that way. I think the same was true with the MV taper which on the real amp is also kind of “dumb”, it starts maxing out around 4 and the taper between 4 and 10 is just mush. All the best tones in a 5150 are bunched in a small area of the master control as well.

When using the amp, IMO the presence control is more of a set and forget and wouldn’t really benefit from having a wide sweep. The amp needs to be opened up a bit with presence and depth and most people run them quite high.

IMO idealized creates more problems than it fixes, I think people who think they want idealized tapers would be fine with the authentic when using the amp. It’ll lead to more typical 5150 tones and the experience will match the real world more. There is still plenty of scope to dial in the presence and it means people can lean on their real world experience with the amp.

If anyone misses the idealized behaviour, they can use the 50W EVH models, or FAS stuff. The amp models themselves are providing a wealth of variety and different behaviours as it is. In paper the ideal tapers make sense but you lose the connection to the behaviours of the real amp and other design choices start making less sense. In real world use, I don’t think the tapers really offer that much, the MV and presence just naturally want live in a small range of the taper. Less dragging for all!
 
Last edited:
Stratoblaster said:
Ya...as long as I can get the same results from the presence control on that amp I don't care where I have to set the control.
Click to expand...
Not to poke this bear any further, but that’s just the thing isn’t it. We’re not really going to get different “tone” or “voicing” either way, which is why the idealized argument is slightly stronger from my armchair. Both will result in exactly the same sound, just one option makes it potentially more frustrating/confusing/fiddly (to me) to get there. If it was a steering wheel, that’s not a car I’d like to drive!

The main value I see for authentic is that you can visually match knob positions, but we already know how fraught that is anyway.

But… eh. Unless it becomes the case that a 0.01 change typed into AxeEdit results in a bigger change than would be possible with an ideal control, then it’s really just a matter of preference. I get that people are attached to that amp and want it to behave the same.
 
It's been interesting reading this thread. It feels like people who love this amp and actually use this model want the authentic taper, and the people who might want to try it in their spare time like the idea of an "ideal" taper.

Those who know the real amp will care about the finer details. I've done obnoxiously critical real 5150 shootouts with friends getting nerdy comparing block vs. signature models, original tubes vs new tubes, etc. The little things are the difference between an amp used to track a record and one that gets sold on Reverb (I can say the same for a Mesa Dual Rec, but that's a different conversation and way more heads were used in that comparison).

All that to say, true amp connoisseurs go nuts over the little details. Fractal is the only modeling company so far that can fool amp connoisseurs in an analog/digital comparison nailing the finer details in both sound and feel (from personal experience with lots of artists comparing Fractal models with their own amps), so keeping everything as true to the actual amp experience as possible keeps Fractal's reputation as being the most accurate modeler intact.
 
York Audio said:
It's been interesting reading this thread. It feels like people who love this amp and actually use this model want the authentic taper, and the people who might want to try it in their spare time like the idea of an "ideal" taper.

Those who know the real amp will care about the finer details. I've done obnoxiously critical real 5150 shootouts with friends getting nerdy comparing block vs. signature models, original tubes vs new tubes, etc. The little things are the difference between an amp used to track a record and one that gets sold on Reverb (I can say the same for a Mesa Dual Rec, but that's a different conversation and way more heads were used in that comparison).

All that to say, true amp connoisseurs go nuts over the little details. Fractal is the only modeling company so far that can fool amp connoisseurs in an analog/digital comparison nailing the finer details in both sound and feel (from personal experience with lots of artists comparing Fractal models with their own amps), so keeping everything as true to the actual amp experience as possible keeps Fractal's reputation as being the most accurate modeler intact.
Click to expand...
I think you’re right. I am definitely in the second group you mentioned.
 
pushead2 said:
As someone that has gigged with a block letter for years and uses the 6160 in my rig now, I could care less. In the end I'm going to dial it in the way I need it.

With that being said, I see the pros for both sides.
Click to expand...
That!
Swipeup Reaction GIF by Atria


We've probably spent more time here than the time we are going to spend tweaking that control until we finally dial it in the way we like it, forget it, and start playing guitar 😂

calling phone call GIF by Feliks Tomasz Konczakowski
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom