Another FW 6.0 Tonematching Preview

kmanick said:
OK, I know I am going to be Mr. unpopular with this statement , but............................
Please, Please, Please do not rush this release out.
Click to expand...
M@ has been doing a bunch of stuff behind the scenes to make sure testers are giving good coverage of the firmware and software. There's a lot of attention being paid to QA. When it goes out, it'll be solid I'm sure. Don't worry. :)
 
Search4Tone said:
For any tone matching to get a fair evaluation, it needs to be compared to the original album side by side IMHO.

Here's a side by side comparison:

http://www.rockrollband.com/compare.mp3

I have to agree with Steady State. This isn't very close IMHO. I had a tone a lot better than this, no offense intended, using Ozone for matching the EQ and my ears for matching the distortion, and I'm going to start on a new patch and IR from scratch right now, and post the results as soon as I'm done with the same side by side comparison. My IR and patch were created in 5.04 and got corrupted in 5.07, but I'm confident I can repeat the process and create something pretty close.

If you really want to impress, spend more than 5 minutes and nail the tone IMHO. Not bad for 5 minutes, but not that close either.

Thanks.
Click to expand...

I understand the concern you are expressing but to my ears the difference between the album version and the matched version are no so much in EQ but in saturation of the distortion. The matched version sounds tighter but still very similar to the album tone. That leads me to believe that if you pushed the amp model harder but overlaid that same IR for eq over it, then it would be even closer.
 
Sure, there are definite differences between the two, but everything that makes the basic tonal fingerprint of the Limelight sound is there IMO and the differences are nothing some minor EQ and FX tweaking couldn't fix...it would seem after 5 minutes spent you're more than in the ballpark when duplicating a tone. Amazing that a single coil was used for this experiment and got the results it did.
 
Last edited:
iaresee said:
M@ has been doing a bunch of stuff behind the scenes to make sure testers are giving good coverage of the firmware and software. There's a lot of attention being paid to QA. When it goes out, it'll be solid I'm sure. Don't worry. :)
Click to expand...

I'm not coming down on Matt - that's not the intent of the post. Considering he spent 5 minutes on that it's an awesome job. And I'm certain he's got a lot of other things to do to help get this new firmware out ASAP, and I'd MUCH rather see him spend time on that than duplication of the Limelight tone.

I'm simply saying that it's not "identical" or "perfect" as some people post. It's damn close for a 5 minute patch. Some chorus, the right reverb, some EQ tweaking and it will sound much better. I take exception to the distortion being nailed however. It doesn't sound like the same amp as Limelight to my ears, only the EQ is close. Change the EQ to something much different than Limelight and it doesn't sound like the same type of distortion. That's just my opinion, not an insult to Matt who is probably working his butt off right now beta testing and not an insult to the AXE. Perhaps a Hiwatt model would have fared better. I'm pretty certain Limelight wasn't done with a plexi and a single coil. It sounds great for what it is, but in all fairness, Cliff posted direct A/B comparisons that were all virtually identical. Limelight is an unusual tone and the A/B is a tough test.

Matt, please don't take my post as overly critical. Considering that you used a different amp model and single coil pickups in a 5 minute endeavor you did pretty damn well IMO.

I'm still working on mine and it's been over 2 hours now and I'm not done yet.
 
Wow.

Guys'...it's a throwoff preview. Judging this on perfect accuracy is like asking if Lady Gaga's un-planned, not even in the future child will write a Platinum record when it grows up.

Come on. We're all anxious to try it, and everyone will have their own tweaks, but can we have a bit of 'slow down' here?

Just sayin'.

Ron
 
electronpirate said:
Guys'...it's a throwoff preview. Judging this on perfect accuracy is like asking if Lady Gaga's un-planned, not even in the future child will write a Platinum record when it grows up.
Click to expand...

Yea I just find it more than a little intriguing how close both tones are for what is just a quick, unscientific preview of a process in a beta state. The translation from a physical system (amp/cab/mic) to a virtual one (match block/cab+mic IR) in the other matching clips is more than impressive for a feature in it's infancy and, again, in a beta state at present.

It only gets better from here ;-)
 
some people will cry either way... i think it's awesome, and will make getting tones a lot faster... bottom line. Exact? is anything exact? who cares.
 
This whole concept is incredibly cool. Kudos to Cliff...Looking forward to the 6.0 release!
 
Search4Tone said:
For any tone matching to get a fair evaluation, it needs to be compared to the original album side by side IMHO.

Here's a side by side comparison:

http://www.rockrollband.com/compare.mp3

I have to agree with Steady State. This isn't very close IMHO. I had a tone a lot better than this, no offense intended, using Ozone for matching the EQ and my ears for matching the distortion, and I'm going to start on a new patch and IR from scratch right now, and post the results as soon as I'm done with the same side by side comparison. My IR and patch were created in 5.04 and got corrupted in 5.07, but I'm confident I can repeat the process and create something pretty close.

If you really want to impress, spend more than 5 minutes and nail the tone IMHO. Not bad for 5 minutes, but not that close either.

Thanks.
Click to expand...

real one just sounds wider about it
 
electronpirate said:
Wow.

Guys'...it's a throwoff preview. Judging this on perfect accuracy is like asking if Lady Gaga's un-planned, not even in the future child will write a Platinum record when it grows up.

Come on. We're all anxious to try it, and everyone will have their own tweaks, but can we have a bit of 'slow down' here?

Just sayin'.

Ron
Click to expand...
I suspected my original posts would lead to this, and I apologize. As I said, I am drawing no conclusions from this clip, other than it shows results for this particular tone that are comparable to other eq match programs I've tried on it.

I simply called it like I saw it, and after five pages of "it's perfect", I figured one honest opinion to the contrary might provide some balance. I hear substantial differences in eq (while factoring out differences in distortion characteristics, multiple tracks, and effects), just as I do with other programs...on this one tone...that is all.
 
steadystate said:
I suspected my original posts would lead to this, and I apologize. As I said, I am drawing no conclusions from this clip, other than it shows results for this particular tone that are comparable to other eq match programs I've tried on it.

I simply called it like I saw it, and after five pages of "it's perfect", I figured one honest opinion to the contrary might provide some balance. I hear substantial differences in eq (while factoring out differences in distortion characteristics, multiple tracks, and effects), just as I do with other programs...on this one tone...that is all.
Click to expand...

I hear ya. I didn't think it was 'perfect'...but it was still close. This is usually good enough for me...as I don't attempt to do any 'spot on' tone things...I like my own tonal signature. But at the same time, if I'm this close, it saves me a TON of time.

I was not implying any criticism of you (or anyone else who did not find the tone 'exact'.) Just trying to level-set here.

I do know we can tend to hyperbole here tho. Of course, as we have a great product...we tend to be right.

Ron
 
I have a couple of recordings I did with a hand-tuned Fuchs ODS-50 amp that I owned for about five years. I sold the amp because it required a light touch to get the most out of it. Four years ago I was diagnosed with an arthritic condition (autoimuune issue) that causes moderate to severe joint pain (all joints, all the time - gets worse with activity - no effective treatment as of yet). This condition has had a significant impact on how I play, how often I can play, and how long I can play without taking a break. It's the change in how I play that led to the sale of the Fuchs. I'm a bit heavy handed since this started and so I was always playing against the top of the amps dynamic range. The once very expressive vocal-like quality the amp afforded me turned into a flat, compressed mess. I tried for a couple of years to lighten up but I just could not get back to where I had been (dynamics) and so I eventually sold it. Having put a great deal of effort into trying to work with the amp after the arthritis started I have no regrets.

Fast forward to today: Listening to the tone matching demos gave me an idea, one I believe will work well enough to meet my expectations. I'm going to try to tone match one or more of the recordings I made using the Fuchs amp and then adjust the amps dynamic range to better suit my current playing. This should give me access to that amps voicing again. The ODS100 model has a very similar gain structure so this would probably be the best model to use. I've tried to work with this model and a variety of RedWire IR's to get a similar voicing but it's not there yet. I am able to get the ODS100 model to respond to my current picking dynamics with very similar vowel-like expression and the overdrive 'texture' is there. The voicing (EQ) is the part I'm having trouble with. This tone matching seems an ideal tool to get the voicing where I want it (as recorded).

If it works I will definitely post the preset when complete.

There has never been a better time to be a guitar player! :)
 
Last edited:
steadystate said:
I really hate to say this, and I don't want to come off sounding like a dick, but honestly, that tone doesn't sound much at all like Limelight to me. Not even close.

Sorry. After all the rave posts, I had to put in my two cents. I'm not sure what you guys are hearing.
Click to expand...

I don't think you sound like a "dick", everyone has their own perception of what sounds good or what sounds "like" another tone. I do wish you would elaborate on what you hear or don't hear that led you to say that it doesn't sound the same. To me, it sounds pretty close, maybe not exact, but pretty darn close.
 
I thought the first couple of seconds was a single track from the original recording, then after the drums was the matched tone from Matt. If that's the case, it's really close. The mastered copy is double or triple tracked. You have to clone each tone of each track and multi track the riff to get it sound as close to the original but this a single track tone so its not gonna sound like a muti tracked tone. The "not even close" is subjective because of the multi tracking. IMHO it sounds pretty close for a single track take.
 
Last edited:
The riff sounds different depending on the source. The 30th Anniversary Remaster is different from the Ultradisk Remaster which is different from the CD conversion which is different from the original vinyl. If I heard it in the bar, I would think it was a pretty good representation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom