Another V10 Preview

[jasonwb007]

That's really cool! Can you generate a match for a Voodoo modded Marshall JMP-1?

Just finished matching this modded 65 Bassman that Dweezil sent me. It's a crazy sounding amp, sounds nothing like your typical Fender. It was modded by Roy Blankenship.

www.fractalaudio.com/tmp/dweezil_bassman_v10.mp3

 

[trancegodz]

That 65 Bassman model was way off. The MIMT data showed significant deviations so I knew something was wrong. Turns out I had the Tone Stack Frequency multiplier set to 4.0 (should be 1.0) so the tone stack was off by a factor of four.

I love the sound of the 65 Bassman in the Axe FX II now. It's one of my favorite clean amps in the Axe FXII. I can't imagine it sounding any better. Can't wait to hear it in V10.

 

[Muzza_Boogie]

Wicked sounding gain!! Yet so articulate .. Both sound just fine to me.. The latter seems a little brighter and more edgy in the gain... Love em both!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[Muzza_Boogie]

Oh didn't see all the posts...I was talking about the bassman.. Prefer the 2nd.

Awesome stuff.. How can someone not like nay I say love this little black box of aural bliss??


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[stevorc321]

I love the sound of the 65 Bassman in the Axe FX II now. It's one of my favorite clean amps in the Axe FXII. I can't imagine it sounding any better. Can't wait to hear it in V10.

It may not necessarily be 'better ' for what you want, but it will be closer to the original

 

[Alexis]

Ok, sound is good but PLEASE rework the CAB-IR's.
I can't understand why everybody is so focused on the Amp-Sim. Yes the improvements are ok but you can make a way bigger jump forward in sound-quality if you rework the CAB.

 

[toolfanem]

Ok, sound is good but PLEASE rework the CAB-IR's.
I can't understand why everybody is so focused on the Amp-Sim. Yes the improvements are ok but you can make a way bigger jump forward in sound-quality if you rework the CAB.

Probably because not everyone uses the cab or IRs. A lot of people run only the amp and effects into a power amp and real cab.

 

[FractalAudio]

Ok, sound is good but PLEASE rework the CAB-IR's.
I can't understand why everybody is so focused on the Amp-Sim. Yes the improvements are ok but you can make a way bigger jump forward in sound-quality if you rework the CAB.

If you don't like the stock cabs there are a plethora of aftermarket choices from Redwirez, Ownhammer and others. There are also many free IRs available on the web. Furthermore, the Axe-Fx can capture IRs using the built-in utility. In other words, if you don't like the stock cabs the power is in your hands to change that. So rather than complaining and asking someone else to change something to your tastes (which we have no idea what those tastes are) take the initiative and do it yourself.

Furthermore, we will be adding many new IRs this year. See this thread: http://forum.fractalaudio.com/axe-fx-ii-discussion/62159-fractal-irs.html

 

[guitarzpt]

I think that he was talking not of the IRs themselves but maybe about the interaction with the amp.
Or maybe about the whole speaker emulation philosophy.

I still think that there's bound to be a better way to do this then with a static IR.

 

[FractalAudio]

I think that he was talking not of the IRs themselves but maybe about the interaction with the amp.
Or maybe about the whole speaker emulation philosophy.

I still think that there's bound to be a better way to do this then with a static IR.

You are entitled to your opinion of which I respectfully disagree. I suggest you do some research and, if you find a better technique, start your own company and market a product around that technology.

 

[zander]

And the really killer part... ALL the knobs behave exactly like the actual amp

I'm still looking for the "Mojo" control. I heard it was all on the user, but I'm not buying it.

 

[toolfanem]

" In other words, if you don't like the stock cabs the power is in your hands to change that."

Do it. It's super rewarding and you end up with a tone that's perfectly suited to you.

 

[Alexis]

If you don't like the stock cabs there are a plethora of aftermarket choices from Redwirez, Ownhammer and others. There are also many free IRs available on the web. Furthermore, the Axe-Fx can capture IRs using the built-in utility. In other words, if you don't like the stock cabs the power is in your hands to change that. So rather than complaining and asking someone else to change something to your tastes (which we have no idea what those tastes are) take the initiative and do it yourself.

Furthermore, we will be adding many new IRs this year. See this thread: http://forum.fractalaudio.com/axe-fx-ii-discussion/62159-fractal-irs.html

Youre right, there are tons of other IR's out there and I've tried a lot of them. BUT I still haven't found the one that satisfies me 100%. As you've written in the mentioned Thread "Fractal IR's" ....

One of my primary goals for next year is to build up a library of pro-quality IRs. We are reserving studio time to capture as many cabs as we can. This will include classic amps (i.e Fender Champ) as well as separate cabinets.

I can't overemphasize the importance of IRs. The amp modeling is down to the point that it is so close to the real amps that it doesn't matter anymore. It's all about the IR.

The Axe-Fx II was designed with a lot of extra storage space for factory IRs and I would like to take advantage of that soon.

.... is exactly what I mean. I'm really thankful for all your updates and improvements but I felt like the IR's are fallen a bit by the wayside compared to everything else.
My personal preference would be a IR library that doesn't need a PEQ afterwards. I do have good results with self-made IR's but not every cab works with every amp and that's the point here. If I would like to stay with one amp and cab I wouldn't use the AXEII. I don't have the money yet to buy the perfect cab for every amp-sim and make a IR out of it. That's where I hope that you and the Fractal Team keep an eye on as you've done it with all that amazing Amp-Simulations.
So I haven't seen the IR-Thread before as the Forum is a bit chaotic (Why no Future Firmware Section or something similar? I prefer playing with the axe fx instead of searching the forum for news ;-) ) but I'm really nosy about what's coming next and maybe all the IR complaining was for god's sake

 

[DukeOfPrunes]

The knobs have always matched. Multi-point Iterative Matching Technology (MIMT) extracts pertinent data from various points in the amp's circuitry to correct the model. A model can deviate from the actual amp due to parasitics, i.e. coupling between various points in the circuit, through the chassis, etc. as well as non-ideal behavior of transformers and other components. It is impossible to predict the deviations since they are not "designed in" and are not reflected in the schematic. In some cases these "imperfections" are happy accidents and give an amp it's character. Older amps, with their point-to-point wiring, are especially susceptible to this although I'm seeing it in some modern amps too.

The advantage to this multi-point approach is that we correct the model at various points in the circuit rather than just doing a match on the output.

This has the effect of making the models extremely accurate across all possible settings of the various controls (I'm actually laughing here at times that the controls track so well). The difference tends to be subtle in many cases but it is audible and, after all, we are striving for perfection. Another advantage is that it cleans up mistakes in the model so if a value was entered incorrectly, MIMT will correct the mistake automatically. Furthermore, the matching data makes it easier to find mistakes since I plot the data prior to saving and embedding and if the data indicates significant deviation then I know something is incorrect. For example, I have found at least 10 mistakes in the last two days. That 65 Bassman model was way off. The MIMT data showed significant deviations so I knew something was wrong. Turns out I had the Tone Stack Frequency multiplier set to 4.0 (should be 1.0) so the tone stack was off by a factor of four.

Cliff, is MIMT your invention? If so, sounds like a patent would be in order....

Thanks for all the ingenious hard work!

Jean.

 

[zander]

... Multi-point Iterative Matching Technology (MIMT) extracts pertinent data from various points in the amp's circuitry to correct the model. A model can deviate from the actual amp due to parasitics, i.e. coupling between various points in the circuit, through the chassis, etc. as well as non-ideal behavior of transformers and other components. It is impossible to predict the deviations since they are not "designed in" and are not reflected in the schematic. In some cases these "imperfections" are happy accidents and give an amp it's character. Older amps, with their point-to-point wiring, are especially susceptible to this although I'm seeing it in some modern amps too.

This was brought up in a prior post (simone I think?) and the terms "random" and "organic" were used. It was thought that the AXE already performed this way. Based on the explanation above, I think this is exactly what the OP in that thread was asking about. Nuances that can't possibly be programmed in. "Imperfections" and "happy accidents" are a good way to describe it.

 

[pharmd07]

.... is exactly what I mean. I'm really thankful for all your updates and improvements but I felt like the IR's are fallen a bit by the wayside compared to everything else.
My personal preference would be a IR library that doesn't need a PEQ afterwards. I do have good results with self-made IR's but not every cab works with every amp and that's the point here. If I would like to stay with one amp and cab I wouldn't use the AXEII. I don't have the money yet to buy the perfect cab for every amp-sim and make a IR out of it. That's where I hope that you and the Fractal Team keep an eye on as you've done it with all that amazing Amp-Simulations.
So I haven't seen the IR-Thread before as the Forum is a bit chaotic (Why no Future Firmware Section or something similar? I prefer playing with the axe fx instead of searching the forum for news ;-) ) but I'm really nosy about what's coming next and maybe all the IR complaining was for god's sake

Keep in mind that in the studio and live (but especially in the studio), there is a ton of PEQ applied to real amps/cabs. A lot. And since the AxeFx is designed to emulate real world amps/cabs/mics, why wouldn't it be any different?

I think it's a good idea for all guitarists, especially those here who are using the AxeFx to handle all the amp/cab/micing duties, to read up on music engineering and production. It gives one an insight on how guitar is recorded and edited to fit in the mix. The tools to do that are all in the AxeFX, you just got to learn how to use them. So many people feel that EQ is an evil device that should never be used. If that were the case, then pretty much every well respected studio and live sound engineer would be "wrong" and I'm sure that's not the case. Instead, we should embrace these tools and learn how to use them properly to enhance our sound. Here's a great ebook that I recently read that has a lot of great how to's for guitar processing:

SYSTEMATIC PRODUCTIONS - Official Website - Mixing Guide

It's not free, costs $20 AUD, which is about $20 here in the USA. I think it's worth every penny (no I'm not affiliated with the author in any way, I just like the book). The book gives a lot of great insights on how to use compression, EQ, etc on guitar.

Long story short, I don't think having to use EQ is a bad thing. In real life you can't expect to throw a mic in front of a cab and expect it to sound perfect without any tweaking (EQ). And since an IR is supposed to be an accurate representation of a real speaker/cab through a mic, I don't see why it would be any different than real life. The AxeFx gives us all the tools we need to tweak our sound. Might as well use them!

 

[Gamedojo]

Youre right, there are tons of other IR's out there and I've tried a lot of them. BUT I still haven't found the one that satisfies me 100%. As you've written in the mentioned Thread "Fractal IR's" .......

I've found, personally, that no SINGLE IR sounds perfect to me. I always struggled until I forced myself to use TWO in every patch. Seems like a pain, especially considering the mountain of options, but I narrowed down a few for my personal sound that I find seems to work an all amps. Currently, I'm rocking a C12N combined with a Greenback G12M 25. The Greenback gives a lot of bottom and top, and the C12N fills in the mids. Gives lots of body to the tone of my strat. (keep in mind, I use redwirez cabs...they are amazing)

Single IRs tend to sound weak in one EQ area or another, combining really fixes the problem. In the real world, players do this too...but at the frustration mess of having to mic both speakers at gigs.

 

[DukeOfPrunes]

Thanks for the link.

 

[Scott Peterson]

I've found, personally, that no SINGLE IR sounds perfect to me. I always struggled until I forced myself to use TWO in every patch. Seems like a pain, especially considering the mountain of options, but I narrowed down a few for my personal sound that I find seems to work an all amps. Currently, I'm rocking a C12N combined with a Greenback G12M 25. The Greenback gives a lot of bottom and top, and the C12N fills in the mids. Gives lots of body to the tone of my strat. (keep in mind, I use redwirez cabs...they are amazing)

Single IRs tend to sound weak in one EQ area or another, combining really fixes the problem. In the real world, players do this too...but at the frustration mess of having to mic both speakers at gigs.

I wholeheartedly and enthusiastically agree with Tyler.

 

[Scott Peterson]

The knobs have always matched. Multi-point Iterative Matching Technology (MIMT) extracts pertinent data from various points in the amp's circuitry to correct the model. A model can deviate from the actual amp due to parasitics, i.e. coupling between various points in the circuit, through the chassis, etc. as well as non-ideal behavior of transformers and other components. It is impossible to predict the deviations since they are not "designed in" and are not reflected in the schematic. In some cases these "imperfections" are happy accidents and give an amp it's character. Older amps, with their point-to-point wiring, are especially susceptible to this although I'm seeing it in some modern amps too.

The advantage to this multi-point approach is that we correct the model at various points in the circuit rather than just doing a match on the output.

This has the effect of making the models extremely accurate across all possible settings of the various controls (I'm actually laughing here at times that the controls track so well). The difference tends to be subtle in many cases but it is audible and, after all, we are striving for perfection. Another advantage is that it cleans up mistakes in the model so if a value was entered incorrectly, MIMT will correct the mistake automatically. Furthermore, the matching data makes it easier to find mistakes since I plot the data prior to saving and embedding and if the data indicates significant deviation then I know something is incorrect. For example, I have found at least 10 mistakes in the last two days. That 65 Bassman model was way off. The MIMT data showed significant deviations so I knew something was wrong. Turns out I had the Tone Stack Frequency multiplier set to 4.0 (should be 1.0) so the tone stack was off by a factor of four.

I cannot click "like" more than once, so want to comment on this (as did many others, I know).

This is the sort of analysis, attention to detail, drive and tone quest that makes me dig this whole trip. It makes it all worth it.