Another FW 6.0 Tonematching Preview

To put my following opinion into perspective, here is how I look at guitar tone.

I am not at all monkish about guitar tone. To me, the playing technique is almighty and the tone is secondary. It doesn't matter what your tone is if your technique is off... you will not sound right. You can get away with a lot more tone-wise if your technique is on.

That being said, while I respect the effort some people put in trying to nail down a tone, I don't those that lash out about it. The tone match on here is VERY good. Is it a little off? I don't care. It is so freakin close it'd fool 99.999999% of those listening and by the time you run this through the house PA system or the varied consumer grade speakers that the end-listeners will be using, it won't even sound like what you heard in the studio had you nailed it down anyways. If you get it in the ball park and get the playing technique down... it is on as far as I am concerned.

What is going on here with the tone matching is FAR better than what I'd consider acceptable.

All that just means to say I dig it and it is plenty good for me and most.
 
Last edited:
Radley said:
Gimmee a break here - the original track has some very obvious doubling or stereophonic enhancement for added depth. If you can't hear that distinction immediately, you probably shouldn't bother making tonal comparisons because they will never be accurate...
Click to expand...

I can hear that distinction immediately, thank you.

If you read posts #71 and especially #92 in this thread and post #88 in the "Tone Matching an Amp" thread you will get a more complete picture of what my position is here. Without this knowledge, you probably shouldn't bother making comments about my posts because they will never be accurate.

I'll reiterate here. I've heard several examples of the new tone matching block that sound close enough for me to discount the differences. The Limelight clip is not one of them. I have the utmost respect for M@. He and I have corresponded on other forums and through PMs and email. He is a great guy with lots of talent and knowledge. If anyone could match the tone with this block, he could. My comments about this clip have nothing to do with him, Cliff, anyone else, or the quality of the new block.

I have used other eq match programs on the intro to this song with similar results. All fall short. I am aware that there are multiple tracks as well as reverb. I am referring to the raw tone. Tripling the matched tone and putting the same reverb on it will not make it sound fundamentally different than it already is. Perhaps each of the multiple guitars on the record has a different eq, and when these eq's are combined and applied to a single instrument, it just doesn't work. I don't know.

There is no pissing match here. I read several pages of "it's dead on" and I wanted to state that I disagreed. If you think it sounds identical, great. Does it matter? Who knows?

The box is already a tremendous offering, and the new firmware adds more than this subject addresses. The future will surely include more innovation from Cliff and crew. The responses posted over a single opinion of a single clip are a bit much IMO.
 
Last edited:
There is some irony here, in that the tone being 'duplicated' is not a particularly outstanding specimen (imho). But regardless, I do believe it is impossible for the human brain to 'virtually remove' all the effects of double-tracking, effects & EQ, to make a totally accurate assessment of the tonal comparison. I'm sure the 'matching algorithms' Cliff is using will continue to be refined, and I dare say may actually *improve* on some sounds (kinda like going to 'eleven'). The best thing for us all is to just 'wait and see'. :)
 
Scott Peterson said:
Search4tone you seem to want to lecture everyone on everything. You are not king of the internet.
Click to expand...

Thank you for lecturing me that I'm not king of the internet. Radley is king of the internet and has a better ear than any of us. I can tell that by the way he lectures other people who have posted recordings proving they can very closely duplicate tones by ear on the AXE, and I'm not referring to my Limelight patch.

Radley - King of tone replication and the internet. Sorry the rest of us are too stupid to realize Matt's clip has no chorus, doubling or other stereophonic enhancement effects. Duh!

And @Matt: I agree with Steady State - you're a great guy who has also provided me with some very useful insight, and I NEVER intended my critique of your tone as an insult, and I sincerely hope I didn't offend you with my words. That was not the intent at all. I hope no offense was taken. Thanks.
 
Last edited:
That's awesome! It really is amazing that such a tone is coming from a Strat! I'm excited for the new firmware! Thanks!
 
Search4Tone said:
Thank you for lecturing me that I'm not king of the internet. Radley is king of the internet and has a better ear than any of us. I can tell that by the way he lectures other people who have posted recordings proving they can very closely duplicate tones by ear on the AXE, and I'm not referring to my Limelight patch.

Radley - King of tone replication and the internet. Sorry the rest of us are too stupid to realize Matt's clip has no chorus, doubling or other stereophonic enhancement effects. Duh!

And @Matt: I agree with Steady State - you're a great guy who has also provided me with some very useful insight, and I NEVER intended my critique of your tone as an insult, and I sincerely hope I didn't offend you with my words. That was not the intent at all. I hope no offense was taken. Thanks.
Click to expand...

I didn't lecture you. Passive-aggressive stances are fine, but they don't win you any points. You aren't winning the Internet. :D
 
Personally I think the Amp Match is where the magic will be, based on the clips I've heard and based on the information the AXE will have to use when it attempts to match sounds. Just my opinion.

And here's my attempt at the same tone using my ear for the amp distortion and effects and Ozone EQ matching for the EQ:

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

To be fair I spent a LOT longer on mine that Matt did on his.
 
Scott Peterson said:
I didn't lecture you. Passive-aggressive stances are fine, but they don't win you any points. You aren't winning the Internet. :D
Click to expand...

Damn. That's always been my life's ambition - to win the internet! I want everyone to love and admire me, and I'm failing! I'll go jump off a bridge now.

You know what's cool? Seeing my 10 month old son take his first steps today and getting it on video. Do you think I care even in the least what people think about me here? I don't mean to be rude intentionally, but if somebody lectures me, expect me to return the favor. If it wins me no friends so be it!!!
 
Last edited:
Search4Tone said:
Damn. That's always been my life's ambition - to win the internet! I want everyone to love and admire me, and I'm failing! I'll go jump off a bridge now.

You know what's cool? Seeing my 10 month old son take his first steps today and getting it on video. Do you think I care even in the least what people think about me here? I don't mean to be rude intentionally, but if somebody lectures me, expect me to return the favor. If it wins me no friends so be it!!!
Click to expand...

I'm still not lecturing you. I never have. I disagreed with you and the manner you are conducting yourself. It's good you have your priorities in order but I would hope you would. No one questioned your priorities. Another example of passive-aggressiveness on your part. No one is lecturing you, no one is questioning your priorities.

I would suggest you simply reassess the manner in which you engage on the forum. That's as much a 'lecture' as I'm giving you. This is a community and are glad to have you as a part of it. You don't need the attitude to be here though. It's not needed.
 
Scott Peterson said:
I'm still not lecturing you. I never have. I disagreed with you and the manner you are conducting yourself. It's good you have your priorities in order but I would hope you would. No one questioned your priorities. Another example of passive-aggressiveness on your part. No one is lecturing you, no one is questioning your priorities.

I would suggest you simply reassess the manner in which you engage on the forum. That's as much a 'lecture' as I'm giving you. This is a community and are glad to have you as a part of it. You don't need the attitude to be here though. It's not needed.
Click to expand...

Dame!!!! Scott you touch!!!! Thumbs up!!!
 
Radley said:
I do believe it is impossible for the human brain to 'virtually remove' all the effects of double-tracking, effects & EQ, to make a totally accurate assessment of the tonal comparison.
Click to expand...

As far as reverb and delay...

FractalAudio said:
Delay and reverb don't really affect the results too much since they are basically delayed versions of the tone itself. Some minor EQ after can usually compensate, if necessary.
Click to expand...

As for eq, that is what tone matching is all about. Any eq applied to the original would be accounted for. If each of the double-tracked guitars is the same tone, it should make no difference either. If each track is a different tone, I could see that causing a problem with tone matching. Perhaps this is why I've never heard this intro impressively matched by any eq matching software.

I agree the tone on the record isn't stellar. But I wholeheartedly disagree with your opinion that an accurate judgement of the tone cannot be made due to multiple tracks and effects. The matched tone is very different from the original in this case. The match is a god starting point for sure. But tweaking by a capable ear is needed after the fact. Having the work cut down to 1/10th of what it would be without the tone matching ain't bad in my book.
 
Steadystate & Search4Tone,

You won't get an argument from me that the matched tone is a 'dead ringer' - clearly not. I just know that my own tones sometimes sound night & day different when I remove all effects/doubling - my comment was mainly sparked because I felt the original comparison was unfair/unflattering because the matched tone did not have the additional layering & effects. I think we're making more of this than we need to, because we all agree that these new features are gonna be *killer*! :)
 
FWIW, I don't believe it is possible to make one guitar sound *exactly* like another with today's technology, but I do believe a very good approximation is possible, and it should be even more convincing when running through an overdriven amp model... we'll see! :)
 
Radley said:
Steadystate & Search4Tone,

You won't get an argument from me that the matched tone is a 'dead ringer' - clearly not. I just know that my own tones sometimes sound night & day different when I remove all effects/doubling - my comment was mainly sparked because I felt the original comparison was unfair/unflattering because the matched tone did not have the additional layering & effects. I think we're making more of this than we need to, because we all agree that these new features are gonna be *killer*! :)
Click to expand...
Agreed.
 
Could anyone tell me if IR made by ozone suppose to sound exactly the same if the procedure is done on different high gain amps or it needs to be close to original amp setup of the sound owner?(sorry if thats an offtopic question but I think the quicker FW6 is out the less PC i will have to use.)
 
sickindian said:
Could anyone tell me if IR made by ozone suppose to sound exactly the same if the procedure is done on different high gain amps or it needs to be close to original amp setup of the sound owner?(sorry if thats an offtopic question but I think the quicker FW6 is out the less PC i will have to use.)
Click to expand...

Ozone can closely match the eq, but nothing else. You have to give Ozone a tone that is as close in character to the original in every aspect other than eq. Ozone also works best if you try to match the eq as best you can using whatever tools are available in whatever unit you are using before you send it to Ozone. Even then, Ozone isn't perfect. It matches some tones better than others.

I think the subject clip is a good example of that. The Limelight tone has a distinctive breakup and attack. You first have to choose the right amp model and adjust its parameters if you want a tone very close the original. Eq alone won't do it all. I've only found one or two models in the Ultra that will do the job for that tone, and then only after substantial tweaking and experimentation. That's one reason I'm all for as many amp models as Cliff chooses to add, especially if they are unique.
 
Last edited:
Scott Peterson said:
I'm still not lecturing you. I never have. I disagreed with you and the manner you are conducting yourself. It's good you have your priorities in order but I would hope you would. No one questioned your priorities. Another example of passive-aggressiveness on your part. No one is lecturing you, no one is questioning your priorities.

I would suggest you simply reassess the manner in which you engage on the forum. That's as much a 'lecture' as I'm giving you. This is a community and are glad to have you as a part of it. You don't need the attitude to be here though. It's not needed.
Click to expand...

Scott, I know you're not lecturing me in your previous post. This all started when Radley did lecture SteadyState about his inability to ever make accurate tonal comparisons, which you and I both know is wrong - you've heard what Steady State can do and how good his ear is. Apparently Radley didn't but I hope he took the time since then to dig up the posts of Heartbreaker and Eruption by Steady State. I think my response was valid in light of the "tone" of Radley's post to SteadyState as well as the inaccuracy of it. If you didn't consider it a condescending "lecture" then our definitions of lecture are different. I didn't hear you lecturing Radley to reassess the manner in which he engaged SteadyState:

Radley said:
Gimmee a break here - the original track has some very obvious doubling or stereophonic enhancement for added depth. If you can't hear that distinction immediately, you probably shouldn't bother making tonal comparisons because they will never be accurate...
Click to expand...

I think the subsequent posts cleared the air and this is finished with all parties in agreement. I'm not out to make enemies, but I'm not going to let an inaccurate statement preceded by "gimme a break here..." that is totally inaccurate go unchallenged.

@Scott and Radley - no offense intended. I hope we can bury this and move on with constructive dialogue and not insult each others ability to hear the differences in tones. Somebody here put it very well recently (can't remember who it was) but in a world where children go to bed hungry and some are even starving to death, how does that make ALL of us look arguing about how close the matched tone is to a song that's over 30 years old? Discussion - sure. But arguing? It all looks silly to me including my own statements when it's put into perspective.

I can sure let it go if you guys can, in fact, I'm letting it go, period. And again @Radley - that's an impressive list of artists you've performed with. I'd be lying if I said I wans't just the tiniest bit envious! Very cool.

I hope we can all peace out now. And to get back to discussion, not argument, the character of the distortion of Limelight is very unusual IMHO. It's not a straight plexi sound. It has a lot of breakup, but again of an unusual type. I used a HiWatt with a lot of power amp distortion and very little preamp. I think I got it close, but it's still not there and I can clearly hear that. Unfortunately (but NOT a complaint) the Tone Matching PROBABLY won't help us out there, but we won't know until 6 comes out. I do know that using EQ matching alone won't do the job (such as programs like Ozone). You need to use your ears to adjust the amp blocks to get the right kind of distortion as SteadyState put very eloquently. Limelight also has some unusual time domain "stereophonic" processing that I haven't been able to come close to.

My playing sucks by my own admission, but I think I've got a good ear for distortion tones in spite of the lack of dexterity of my fingers compared to the rest of you guys who have fast hands. God didn't give me fast fingers and in spite of practice that hasn't changed much. But I think playing well and hearing well are two different talents. Some people are blessed with both, and others are blessed (or acquire through a lot of experience) only one.

I hope 6.0 comes out soon!!! I check about 3 times a day now. I have a tube amp and cabinet with my Y cable all set up and ready to go for Amp Matching. I'm downplaying my expectations so I won't be disappointed, but if you listen carefully to the 3 Amp Matching clips that Cliff posted, assuming he didn't cherry pick those from a large batch of others he made, I think it will be a winner.
 
steadystate said:
Ozone can closely match the eq, but nothing else. You have to give Ozone a tone that is as close in character to the original in every aspect other than eq. Ozone also works best if you try to match the eq as best you can using whatever tools are available in whatever unit you are using before you send it to Ozone. Even then, Ozone isn't perfect. It matches some tones better than others.

I think the subject clip is a good example of that. The Limelight tone has a distinctive breakup and attack. You first have to choose the right amp model and adjust its parameters if you want a tone very close the original. Eq alone won't do it all. I've only found one or two models in the Ultra that will do the job for that tone, and then only after substantial tweaking and experimentation. That's one reason I'm all for as many amp models as Cliff chooses to add, especially if they are unique.
Click to expand...

Thanks for clarifying what I was hoping to achieve it looks like its not that easy as I would thought.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom