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
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...
At the same time, if the control does nothing for most of its travel, and was even replaced by a different solution by the company who made the real amp, can it be said that it was a deliberate choice rather than just a mistake? It's not even a "happy accident" where the wrong components resulted in a better result. Just because it's listed in some original schematic doesn't mean it wasn't a bad decision.

If the behavior of most of the presence knob can be replicated by simply setting presence to zero using the 50W 5150's taper, then I see no real harm in using that taper.

To me this is the same situation as the Mesa graphic EQ sliders where their range was made more useful. Yet all the tones are still there. Users that are using the real amp as reference for knob positions, which isn't usually a great approach anyway due to component variance etc, have to know about this difference and actually use their ears.

For everyone who is not familiar with the amp model, using a better taper simply reduces "need to know" stuff.

I don't really see Fractal as "tube amp archivists in digital form" but as providing tools for musicians and to me usability of tools matters more. Replicating "warts and all" should pertain to replicating the real amp's tones rather than replicating bad usability.
 
laxu said:
At the same time, if the control does nothing for most of its travel, and was even replaced by a different solution by the company who made the real amp, can it be said that it was a deliberate choice rather than just a mistake? It's not even a "happy accident" where the wrong components resulted in a better result. Just because it's listed in some original schematic doesn't mean it wasn't a bad decision.

If the behavior of most of the presence knob can be replicated by simply setting presence to zero using the 50W 5150's taper, then I see no real harm in using that taper.

To me this is the same situation as the Mesa graphic EQ sliders where their range was made more useful. Yet all the tones are still there. Users that are using the real amp as reference for knob positions, which isn't usually a great approach anyway due to component variance etc, have to know about this difference and actually use their ears.

For everyone who is not familiar with the amp model, using a better taper simply reduces "need to know" stuff.

I don't really see Fractal as "tube amp archivists in digital form" but as providing tools for musicians and to me usability of tools matters more. Replicating "warts and all" should pertain to replicating the real amp's tones rather than replicating bad usability.
Click to expand...

All great points. Your point "using a better taper simply reduces "need to know" stuff" is a particularly notable one since an "Ideal" mode ultimately negates the one specific, unique thing you need to know that only applies to this amp, all the while providing an overall improvement and a control who's operation is now consistent with how it works on other amps, and is the expected 'experience'.
 
laxu said:
At the same time, if the control does nothing for most of its travel, and was even replaced by a different solution by the company who made the real amp, can it be said that it was a deliberate choice rather than just a mistake?
Click to expand...
I don’t think this is the correct way of looking at it though.

The original amp circuit (Peavey 5150/6505) never changed this value or behaviour. Its been exactly the same since 1992, whether you use an early 1st year of production version, or a brand new one.

The same is true for the 5150II/6505+ circuit. Both amps underwent various production evolutions while keeping the respective circuits true to their originals. When they went from Block Letter to Signature, or changed the naming from 5150 to 6505, or moved production from America to China, or released the 1992 version recently, they never saw it as a mistake that needed fixing. There is one correct behaviour for these amps.

The EVH series amps made different tweaks with the release of new amp models. The original EVH 5150 is a continuation of the 5150II with some changes. From there the amps kept evolving - For instance, the 100W and 50W EVH 5150’s are different circuits. The Stealth version changed other things, the EL34 version isn’t just EL34’s in the poweramp. I think at a certain point with those amps, it made sense to tinker with the value because other changes in the circuit started to justify it more.

Also regarding that “need to know” information, having an idealised taper has the complete opposite effect. It requires the user to know that the amp will not behave like the original and it’s up to the user to find out why. I think if it was always an authentic taper, no one would have said anything anyway (no one mentions the MV behaviours, or the taper or the 2203 presence being bunched up etc). And even if they did, you’d just say “it’s authentic to the original design” and then we’d move on. There is so much scope to tweak things in Fractal devices anyway if you don’t like how something sounds or works that I think the starting point should be 1:1. There’s just too much cat and mouse involved if you have to tinker around to get an accurate starting point.
 
Last edited:
MirrorProfiles said:
Also regarding that “need to know” information, having an idealised taper has the complete opposite effect. It requires the user to know that the amp will not behave like the original and it’s up to the user to find out why
Click to expand...

Yep, I agree. Consider the scenarios:

(1) A user familiar with the real amp -- they'll set the knobs where they do on their real amp, and then wonder why it's off. If they don't somehow know already that the presence knob taper has been changed, they might start changing other things trying to dial it in. Also, if they realize one pot taper has been changed, they might wonder if others have too, and then second-guess all of their settings.
(2) A user unfamiliar with the real amp -- they already don't know what to expect, so they'll be learning "fresh" how the amp works and how to dial it in anyway. And if they ever happen to get a real one, they'll already know how the knobs react.

Because of this, it's not clear to me that it will make things any easier for an unfamiliar user, but could definitely make things more difficult for a familiar user.
 
Why not have it this way:
1. Authentic replicas of specific amps which should be as close as possible to the real amp including it's flaws. In the end it's supposed to be a digital replica.
2. Idealized versions of specific amps that "need" improvements over the original. These should be named accordingly so everyone can see that's it is not "authentic"

In a way this has already been implemented for a long time via the FAS models. Why not go from there?
In the specific case of the 5150 this would mean having both, an authentic model and an improved FAS model (that we kind of have already).
 
Lilarcor said:
Why not have it this way:
1. Authentic replicas of specific amps which should be as close as possible to the real amp including it's flaws. In the end it's supposed to be a digital replica.
2. Idealized versions of specific amps that "need" improvements over the original. These should be named accordingly so everyone can see that's it is not "authentic"

In a way this has already been implemented for a long time via the FAS models. Why not go from there?
In the specific case of the 5150 this would mean having both, an authentic model and an improved FAS model (that we kind of have already).
Click to expand...

The sound isn't different. Just the behavior of the control is. Hardly a reason to dedicate a custom model to that purpose. AFAIK we have only one custom model of that kind: the USA MKIIC++. I hope it stays that way.
 
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...
When I use my Axe FX, I am assuming it behaves the same way my real amps do in real life to an extent. When those two don’t match as far as controls the go, then that makes me think something is off somewhere. I think it’s a dangerous precedent to mess with some amps and not others. How will I know whether the amp I’m using on the Axe FX is authentic or idealized? The whole point of Fractal as you said is that it is supposed to be the most realistic.

Yes, we should always dial with our ears but knowing how the real amp works is always helpful when translating that to setting up a digital version.

What’s to keep you from messing with other parameters too? Please keep the base amp models authentic.
 
Orvillain said:
You can literally say that about any amplifier design choice that you care to mention. If authenticity to the original circuit isn't paramount, then why bother having models in the first place? Just have 10 FAS models in a $2000 box, and be done with it!
Click to expand...
I did have the qualifier that the sounds should be there. With the better taper, you aren't going to be missing out on any of the sounds the real amp is capable of producing, same as you are not missing out on anything with the way the Mesa graphic EQ tapers work.
 
SwirlyMaple said:
Because of this, it's not clear to me that it will make things any easier for an unfamiliar user, but could definitely make things more difficult for a familiar user.
Click to expand...
Let me try to offer a perspective how "idealized" might be beneficial for those not owning an amp or not trying to copy someone's else settings.

1. We keep using FAS because it SOUNDS better, "authentic", not because of the slick design of the "plugin UI". So matching of the knobs position matters... very little. It does, but Cliff's motto always was "use your ears, not your eyes". If you (not you, I refer to a "user") do it differently, you'd better reconsider! Even long-awaited Dyna-cabs are a very controversial topic still. It is clear why people owning an amp would prefer the "authentic", but even for the amps I'm familiar with "ideal" is the best choice any day of the week for me.
2. Once you've found a sweet spot, you'll just leave it there. At this moment it would probably stop matter to both owners and people not familiar. From here you can jump directly to the last section of my message if you will.
3. As @laxu mentioned, you will lose none of the original's amp capabilities. You might gain some more (see what I did here? :)
4. Having all the knobs acting in the same predictable manner makes fine-tuning so so easy. Unification is a wonderful thing for this kind of work.
5. Many owners will never own 5150. I would dare to say: most. They would be confused.
6. Many future young owners (you will not go wrong assuming: most) will never use tube amp at all, so why make it hard and confusing for them, that there is a model which is "broken" and its Presence is "not working"?

I'd suggest for this particular model to just put the Presence knob at 8 or 9 as a default value of an idealized control and be done with it, or whatever the "magical" value is. Only people looking for something "different" will be messing with this control then, the rest will have "out of the box real amp" experience upon loading the model.
 
Fractal's typical definition of "accuracy" has looked to me like: the model can match the sound of the reference amp instance using the standard controls - tapers may not match to reference, but the sounds are there. Maybe I'm out to lunch but I feel like this has been the overall approach since I arrived here many moons ago.

I got a bit concerned about a switch in approach when an earlier post seemed to suggest (unless I misunderstood) that ideal vs authentic taper choice could mean possible differences to the actual end to end range of values on tap. Once Fractal subsequently confirmed that this is not the case (
FractalAudio said:
Taper only affects where on the knob the sounds occur.
Click to expand...
), I'm back to belng good with whatever way they think is best.

Does seem that having a more mixed approach might make for
some lively forum discussion as this discussion might well take place for any number of amp models/knobs (not to mention drives / fx) - fine tho as I suspect lively forum engagement on such topics is a good thing for Fractal - plenty of opportunity for it on this topic.
 
Kind of hilarious, we are at 10 pages of comments on the new firmware release https://forum.fractalaudio.com/threads/axe-fx-iii-firmware-23-04-release.199875/unread

...And 10 pages on the behavior of a single presence control pot. Never played the 5150 (edit: I mean the real tube amp, not the Fractal model) and probably never will so from my perspective the idealized version would be easier for me. Being the owner of a Mesa Mark V:90 I can handle non-intuitive controls so anything would work for me
 
Last edited:
Jeronimo said:
Never played the 5150 and probably never will so from my perspective the idealized version would be easier for me.
Click to expand...
Not being funny, but this is part of the problem with this poll.

If you'll never use it, then you shouldn't have a preference. You're needlessly biasing the results towards 'ideal' when I would wager that the vast majority of people who actually care, are more in line with the 'authentic' camp.

The poll should have had more than two options: ideal, authentic, not sure, don't care.
 
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...
Well crap, when you put it that way, I'm with @skolacki , I'm changing my vote too........biggrin.gif
 
Chromatizm said:
So matching of the knobs position matters... very little.
Click to expand...
If one were to follow this logic, every knob on every model ought to be "idealised". But the fact is that these are digital models of real-world amps. Why not have the quirks of the real amp modelled in the Axe as well? If anything, it's an education for those (like me) who have enver owned or will never own even half of the amps that are modelled by FAS. One of the factors that made the Axe Fx appeal to me originally was the fact that the amp behaviour (in terms of knobs etc.) was as close to the real deal as it could get; coming from other modellers where tapers were "idealised", it was like playing a completely different amp tbh. Making the knob behaviour mirror the real-world amp also meant that I could read up older discussions on fora or magazines about people's experience with a particular amp and try and dial those in settings in to see what they sound like. I guess what I am trying to say is that there is a whole pool of knowledge of real-world amps that can be applied to dialling in tones in the Axe. In this way, even though the FAS ecosystem will be at the cutting edge of amp technology, it can still retain the knowledge created by millions of guitarists, producers, engineers, techs, and amp designers over the many years of these amazing amps existing. The best example is the Mark series amps where the BMT behaviour in the Axe Fx is the same as the real-world amps, so one can apply the real-world trick (low bass high treble etc.) on the model in the Axe and get the great tone that these amps are known for. I know this is also down to proper circuit design and component modelling (tone stack before gain stage) in this particular example. But my point is that the fact that turning a knob on an amp model in the Axe Fx to a certain setting is pretty much the same as doing so on the real-world amp that is being modelled is one of the things that makes the Fractal stuff stand well and truly above the competition in my book.

In any case, I think we are all forgetting that we already have an "idealised" 5150 model in the FAS models. Why not keep the non-idealised model as "authentic" as it can be? If one is really bothered about finding their own unique sound, I feel they would mess with the dials anyway, or choose the FAS version instead of the exact model.

Chromatizm said:
I'd suggest for this particular model to just put the Presence knob at 8 or 9 as a default value of an idealized control and be done with it
Click to expand...
This is a really great suggestion, I think, that will make for a good compromise between the two positions. Keep the behaviour "authentic" but have the default value (upon refreshing the block) be set higher than usual so that new users are guided to a "more sensible" starting point for dialling in their sound.
 
I've created so many different 5150 presets since I became an Axe owner, and I've always kept the presence low and used dark IRs, but I've just had a couple of pretty bright guitars during this time. It makes me wonder if Eddie Van Halen was playing a pretty bright guitar when he was developing the original amp and found the presence harsh with too much range. I also wonder typical settings for those playing really dark Les Pauls and such.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom