About that Real Marsha vs Fake Marsha comparison

Brick_top

Brick_top

Power User
This thread could probably be understood as nitpicking, but it is not my intent really.

When Pete Thorn made the clip comparing his marsha to the axe-fx model of the marsha although in the recording they are extremelly similar there was something that I noticed the first time I heard the clip and made me like part two more because of it. With this thread I would like people to tell me if they can hear the difference I'm hearing and tell me their opinion on it.

The difference I noticed was in how the chords rang. The way I listen to it the chords in the second part seem to be more "in tune" and bloom, and kind of "roar" more? some kind of "consonanse"??
Also let me say that despite of me liking part two better I had no ideia which was the real amp.

What I did was to cut the original mp3 file using an "mp3 splitter" software which I believe doesn't mess with the quality of the original file.
I cut the first chord of both parts.

Here is the link to the two versions: http://music.mp3lizard.com/bricktop2/

Here is the link to the original thread at TheGearPage: http://www.thegearpage.net/board/showthread.php?t=736760

Sorry if my english may sound strange.
 
Brick_top said:
...let me say that despite of me liking part two better I had no ideia which was the real amp.
Click to expand...

I think that was the point. I don't think an Axe-FX simulation compared to its "real life" counterpart will ever be I... ::hand clap:: ...dentical. But what I think has been proven out is that they are so close you can't tell.

The question is do you want to spend time identifying the sonic differences or do you want to play?
 
These threads are fun until people REALLY start breaking down clips. The TGP thread devolved into 'that's not right, I want to hear it through the same cabinet, same speakers, the same power section, the same relative humidity, and the same time of day'. Some people just don't want to sit back and say 'it sounds great' (modeler bashing mostly it seems...) And the inevitable 'I liked the RIGHT one' ho ho.

That's great you did that by breaking down the clips, but if you recorded this with a band, would you REALLY be able to hear the .00032% of difference between the 2 tones? No.

It should stop with 'sounds great, and very close to the real amp'. And get back to playing.

Ron
 
Let Cliff nitpick the details... and given his history there is no reason to believe he is planning to stop working on improvements to get us even closer to the "real" thing. You could argue quite convincingly that he's already there. But again the cool thing is we don't have to worry about it we can just play... Fender, Marshall, Mesa, Bogner, Dr. Z., Dumble, Trainwreck, Marsha, CAE 3+, Soldano, and many others...
 
*blink blink*

Wait a minute... people are actually freaking out about the difference in those tones? Sure the Axe FX one has a little more "RAAAANG" to it, but who gives a $h!t? I'm a friggin' tone Nazi, but jesus people... just play your stupid instrument. Nobody, and I mean NOBODY, not even the most tone-analyzing guy in the audience is going to pick up on that at a gig. Besides, with a few parameter tweaks or maybe even an PEQ, you could fix it anyway.

You know what's funny? If you're playing covers, you don't have to hit the tone of the album dead on. There are some albums I listen to that I think, "Wow, that would sound better with THIS" and dial in a tone that fits. People love it. Do you think ANYBODY in the audience hears it and says, "That's not the tone of the record"?

If you play in an original band, the difference is even less important. It's your voice. If you like the sound coming out of your speakers, who's to say it's not "accurate" to the real thing? My war cry ever since I bought my first POD XTL has been, "I don't know what a 1960 Marshall sounds like 'cuz I've never plugged into one, but I know the tone I get from this thing is awesome."
 
I listened to the clips...yes I hear a slight difference. Honestly, I think if you boost a bit of low mid in the "fake" clip they would be indistinguishable, and like has been already said...c'mon, how ridiculous do you want to get with comparing???!!!

They are pretty darn close.
 
I knew this could get the kind of criticism its getting, but I only brought this up because as I said:

I heard this difference the first time I listened to the clip. (so it was apparent to me)
the difference was enough to make me like the second part the most.

So, this was relevant for me, and wanted to know if others thought the same and knew what the difference could be.

I know that this can be interpreted as a "I was right" thing, but it is not.

And it isn't as well to bash modeling or anything.

I know that in a band no one (I think) could tell the difference, and it obviously sounds great and extremelly similar even without the band.
 
Sidivan said:
*blink blink*

Wait a minute... people are actually freaking out about the difference in those tones? Sure the Axe FX one has a little more "RAAAANG" to it, but who gives a $h!t? I'm a friggin' tone Nazi, but jesus people... just play your stupid instrument. Nobody, and I mean NOBODY, not even the most tone-analyzing guy in the audience is going to pick up on that at a gig. Besides, with a few parameter tweaks or maybe even an PEQ, you could fix it anyway.

You know what's funny? If you're playing covers, you don't have to hit the tone of the album dead on. There are some albums I listen to that I think, "Wow, that would sound better with THIS" and dial in a tone that fits. People love it. Do you think ANYBODY in the audience hears it and says, "That's not the tone of the record"?

If you play in an original band, the difference is even less important. It's your voice. If you like the sound coming out of your speakers, who's to say it's not "accurate" to the real thing? My war cry ever since I bought my first POD XTL has been, "I don't know what a 1960 Marshall sounds like 'cuz I've never plugged into one, but I know the tone I get from this thing is awesome."
Click to expand...

Did I sound freaked out?

As I said I brought it up because that difference was notieable enough for me to like it best. Just wanted to know what others thought.

I didn't brought this up because I was afraid someone in the audience would feel it or because I was afraid not to cop 100% of someones tone even if it is already at 99%.
 
Brick_top said:
I knew this could get the kind of criticism its getting, but I only brought this up because as I said:

I heard this difference the first time I listened to the clip. (so it was apparent to me)
the difference was enough to make me like the second part the most.

So, this was relevant for me, and wanted to know if others thought the same and knew what the difference could be.

I know that this can be interpreted as a "I was right" thing, but it is not.

And it isn't as well to bash modeling or anything.

I know that in a band no one (I think) could tell the difference, and it obviously sounds great and extremelly similar even without the band.
Click to expand...


To be fair you were not so clear when you first guessed:

This what you first said when you listen to the clip:
You said,
"The second one seems to have more "gain" or something. I have no Ideia which is which.

But sounds like something that could be tweaked "

you later echoed someones comment about liking something in the second one better. I happened to like the second one slightly better as well. Whether that was because it was the real thing or not, I have no idea. But both were good enough to not really care.
 
javajunkie said:
To be fair you were not so clear when you first guessed:

This what you first said when you listen to the clip:
You said,
"The second one seems to have more "gain" or something. I have no Ideia which is which.

But sounds like something that could be tweaked "
Click to expand...

Yes that's right, I did define it quite vaguely.

And I think it can be tweaked I guess. This thread was to find out what other people thought about it.
 
I know you posted this as a fun exercise, but for me, at least, the hand wringing over getting the 'exact' tone is a non-issue. (Whoever said even playing covers, AC/DC might sound cooler using an XTC rather than a Marshall.

From my standpoint, I could never understand those who would endlessly chase, say, EVH's tone. Spending thousands of dollars to get it as perfect as possible was kind of nuts to me, but to each their own. Same thing with cover bands...who I've worked for several times...who's only goal in life is to play NOTE FOR NOTE all the songs we played. I wanted to show we were musicians who could do more than ape a record, and they wanted to have people come up to us in a bar and say 'that sounded EXACTLY like the record...hell, I'll drink at home and listen to the record rather than watch aging musicians play it note for note...it's cheaper.

Point is, get CLOSE, and just play. IMO, YMMV, etc.

R
 
Ok, I get it.

It's not that I can't sleep at night because of this.

I'm not worried I'm not going to get someones tone 100%, I'm not interested in that.

This was just about one characteristic of this tone I liked better.
 
wezx said:
I listened to the clips...yes I hear a slight difference. Honestly, I think if you boost a bit of low mid in the "fake" clip they would be indistinguishable....
Click to expand...


+1

I was going to say basically the same thing. The real one just has a little more low mid growl to it. A slight bit of eqing and I think they would be exact.
 
To me, it was different than all of that.

The amazing fact of the Thorn's challenge was that, maybe for first time, a digital artifact was competing hand to hand against top-notch world quality analog artifact.
Of course there were differences if you listened to it carefully, but the beauty this time is that was very difficult not only to name them, but choose which one you liked more.

Indeed, I think is a nosense talking about "real" and "fake". Both are the real thing because right now they both play in the same league.

Tone is a good thing, it's inspiring, makes you to keep practicing, studying, playing, enjoyning... but it's that, a tool. We guitarrist tend to be a pain in the ass about tone, and begin to give it a lot of importance, underrating the real infinite variables in music like harmony, melody, rythmn, dynamics, expression, feeling...

I hate when I'm listening at a concert and a friend of mine ( of course, guitarrist) begins to comment things like "guitarrist tone is a little bit trebbly", or "that Marshall sounds like modded". That gets me off and I end shouting "Come on man, enjoy the fucking music".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom