Are the Amps in Axe-Fx modeled after "Real Amps" or "Schematics"?

[jefferski]

Curiosity and thinking outside the box is a wonderful thing. You may be a long-term owner of an Axe who just joined the forum, but otherwise, why not play around with it and learn about all the things that you *can* do with it? As others have said, there are lots of parameters you can tweak to try to create the tone and feel you want, without having to wait until some undetermined time when it hopefully hits your sweet spot. After all, it may not - by definition, a somewhat random "aging process" may never deliver the sound you hear in your head. But you seem to know a great deal about component-level variability - you could probably tweak to find what you want pretty quickly.

Joining the board only 3 weeks ago and continually telling long-term members of the group in multiple threads why they're wrong, and how FAS should be doing it - even when people keep patiently explaining things (and giving you advice on how to get to the sound you want) based on years of experience - is not the way to make progress. The Axe already sounds freaking amazing, and we all have all the tools to dial it in the way we want it. As FZ said: "... play your guitar."

 

[dumbeat]

Curiosity and thinking outside the box is a wonderful thing. You may be a long-term owner of an Axe who just joined the forum, but otherwise, why not play around with it and learn about all the things that you *can* do with it? As others have said, there are lots of parameters you can tweak to try to create the tone and feel you want, without having to wait until some undetermined time when it hopefully hits your sweet spot. After all, it may not - by definition, a somewhat random "aging process" may never deliver the sound you hear in your head. But you seem to know a great deal about component-level variability - you could probably tweak to find what you want pretty quickly.

Joining the board only 3 weeks ago and continually telling long-term members of the group in multiple threads why they're wrong, and how FAS should be doing it - even when people keep patiently explaining things (and giving you advice on how to get to the sound you want) based on years of experience - is not the way to make progress. The Axe already sounds freaking amazing, and we all have all the tools to dial it in the way we want it. As FZ said: "... play your guitar."

Thanks for the advice. There is practice and there is Philosophy, tech feeds off both. Conversely, being a member for 10 years does not grant anything other than being a member for 10 years.

The fact that The Fractal device drives the imagination is a good thing and only a good thing.

The fact that some people immediately resist without even thinking about it, as if it is a bad thing to imagine things in technology just shows closed mindedness and lack of camaraderie and is reminiscent of the people who called Rock n Roll "music of the Devil", since none of my tech musings is taking away any of the great things about the Axe Fx, on the contrary, it is emphasizing this great platform.

So any personal retaliation i face here on a personal basis has to do with certain member's personality, which has nothing to do with how many years he or she has been a member.

And if you want some more FZ:
“A mind is like a parachute. It doesn't work if it is not open.”

 

[iaresee]

The fact that some people immediately resist without even thinking about it

This is an assumption on your part that is largely false. Much of the stuff you bring up and characterize as a brilliant flash of personal inspiration has been discussed repeatedly over the years on the forum. You are playing catch-up here.

 

[Smilzo]

I get your point and appreciate parts of it. However, real time fluctuations for one are a thing we react to and in my opinion create a certain relationship with the instrument and the amp. That, in my opinion IS desirable. The heat and the result of it in real time is a real property of the way we interact with the instrument. That is about short term fluctuation.

Cliff model the component. So if you have any suggestion (thermal heat drift for caps, or resistor, or whatever) you could suggest as a wish to be added. If Cliff doesn't already modeled it.

As far as long time fluctuation of the parts, i think they are desirable as well in order to reach a "Special sauce", since there are so many variables

Tube amps are simple: tubes, diode, resistor, caps, wire, transformer. Each element ageing means different properties, well known since the '60s. No magic involved. I understand the wish for a "ageing". But it should give a "consistent" result: I am a guitar player, not a wizard. I (could) wish my amp sound like my 40 years old Twin.

As far as AI is concerned, I wish it helps me. I wish "bass a bit tighter and higher a bit crunchier and smoother", ie. I don't wish to have to adjust n parameters (each component ageing, temperature, voltage, etc...), or the advanced parameters (NFB, hard clip, compression, bias, etc...). I wish I could tell my AXEFX IV what kind of tone I need. Or a way to set the sound where I like it to be. It implies I know what kind of sound I need.

 

[jefferski]

Conversely, being a member for 10 years does not grant anything other than being a member for 10 years.

True, it grants nothing. However, it also shows that a person has significant experience and knowledge gained though long-term use of the product, interaction with other users, etc.

The fact that The Fractal device drives the imagination is a good thing and only a good thing.

I totally agree with you on this.

The fact that some people immediately resist without even thinking about it, as if it is a bad thing to imagine things in technology just shows closed mindedness...

Many people have entered into discussions about your ideas, not just shot them down. Just because someone doesn't agree with something doesn't mean that they're closed minded. And as @iaresee said, many of them have been discussed before.

“A mind is like a parachute. It doesn't work if it is not open.”

This is one of the most open-minded online communities I've ever been a part of. YMMV.

 

[dumbeat]

True, it grants nothing. However, it also shows that a person has significant experience and knowledge gained though long-term use of the product, interaction with other users, etc.


I totally agree with you on this.


Many people have entered into discussions about your ideas, not just shot them down. Just because someone doesn't agree with something doesn't mean that they're closed minded. And as @iaresee said, many of them have been discussed before.


This is one of the most open-minded online communities I've ever been a part of. YMMV.

I have zero issues with someone having a different opinion, i have some issues with discarding any potential for others to find an idea appealing, A lot of the responses are just negative attitude. Look back and see. Including @iaresee who said its the top worst idea he has ever heard, and he's a moderator... Thats not the way to discuss stuff as a community. Just flattering a product all day is not a discussion.

Ill explain what i mean about bad attitude: see someone on a first date, he'll get out of his way in order to get into the head of the women he's with. Here the opposite happens, there is lack of will to get into the head of an idea that has a lot of substance, and basis in modern technology trends -whether you feel its for you or not, yet people are just insulting in their responses. Dont assume this is one of the most open-minded online communities, there are very supportive forward thinking communities online and they are not busy insulting others as much as some are here.

Even Cliff felt the need to chime in and ask people to chill out with their personal attitudes like a school teacher.

 

[NaturalScience]

see someone on a first date, he'll get out of his way in order to get into the head of the women he's with. Here the opposite happens, there is lack of will to get into the head of an idea that has a lot of substance

This is a bad analogy - totally different motivations between your two scenarios

I think you may be assuming too much regarding whether someone wants to get into the substance of your idea or not. While the processes of aging and their effect on tone might be fascinating, the end result in the context of the Axe FX seems pretty simple: you seem to want the tone to evolve towards something different than what you dialed in, yet still within some general tolerances of what that amp should sound like. Which raises the question, again - what's wrong with just picking some of the advanced parameters and randomly changing them? Are you suggesting that age is the only way to get to your holy grail of tone, or do you want randomness for its own sake?

I would venture to guess most people who obsess over dialing in the perfect tone do not want it changed once they get "there," and many people seem to be able to get "there" with the tools already in the box. Go back and read the firmware release threads about the Modeling Version on the Axe FX 2 for more of that rabbit hole...

Then again, you may get your wish - the original marketing for the Axe Fx Standard was something to the effect of, "we're not modeling the exact amps, we're modeling the ideal versions of these amps." That philosophy has changed, obviously, and thankfully.

 

[JoKeR III]

an idea that has a lot of substance

The idea has a lot of substance to you, and that's totally cool. Thinking outside the box and using imagination is how things are created and modified.To jump on everyone and discount those who don't share the same passion or find the idea as useful or cool as you is doing the exact thing you're accusing the 'detractors' of doing.

Back to the topic, an amp that has 'aged' to a point where the tone is affected no longer sounds how it was originally designed. Some find this new tone 'better' but it's still not as intended. Even Fractal stated that before modeling an amp, they check the amp's components to the schematic and replace worn or out of spec parts. They model the amps as they were originally intended to sound. Along the way, they found ways to include parameters that can be used to tweak components should someone want mismatched tubes, different voltage for various parts of the circuit, different interaction with the preamp.

Your idea to add an algorithm that ages components seems to go against the very core of what Fractal does; offer amps that sound they way they should at peak performance. You seem to find that the 'aging' of components adds some form of mojo and again, that's cool, more power to you. Others find mojo in how or what they play or how they configure different parameters within the amp block and that's just as cool. Others still simply want to hear the amp as it is supposed to sound and feel. Again, totally cool. No single way is correct and to say otherwise is simply arrogance. Guitar tone is one of the single most subjective thing there is. It's like a fingerprint, everyone's idea of the perfect tone or tone in their head is different.

Should someone, including yourself, wish to explore the parameters and find certain settings that provide the mojo or feel you are craving, that would be awesome and a useful tool for others on the fence to explore. To continue pushing the idea as the next big breakthrough in amp modeling on this forum and suggesting that others are just missing the point seems to be a futile one. A lot of the comments I've read suggest that most are simply weary of hearing the same thing over and over only to be answered the same way. Whether they're right or not or your idea has valid credibility is moot. This is a forum and each person is entitled to their own opinion, even if it differs from yours, no matter how strongly you feel about it.

 

[Matt_B_77]

...... the original marketing for the Axe Fx Standard was something to the effect of, "we're not modeling the exact amps, we're modeling the ideal versions of these amps." That philosophy has changed, obviously, and thankfully.

Based upon this quote from Cliff C from earlier in this thread I don't think that philosophy has really changed all that much.

"FWIW, when I get an old amp for modeling I have it serviced replacing any components that are out of tolerance, fresh tubes, etc. Old tubes don't sound good."

Then again, there is that old Friedman HBE V1 that isn't "ideal", based upon the amp's specs but dang it if folks don't love it, myself included.

 

[shatteredsquare]

This is an assumption on your part that is largely false. Much of the stuff you bring up and characterize as a brilliant flash of personal inspiration has been discussed repeatedly over the years on the forum. You are playing catch-up here.

This is kind of a good point man, the search bar could keep someone occupied with new revelations for hours in these forum archives, but none of it's new, it's just new to the newcomer. Waving excitement around like a toddler with a stick is cute, but maybe not so cute after a couple weeks.

 

[iaresee]

Including @iaresee who said its the top worst idea he has ever heard

You specifically asked me to provide my opinion on your idea. So I did. Sucks you didn't like it, but that's life -- we don't all agree. Doesn't mean we aren't getting along.

and he's a moderator...

And what does that have to do with anything? I am allowed to participate and hold opinions as much as anyone else here. I don't moderate in threads I participate in.

an idea that has a lot of substance

If I'm being particularly nice, that's a qualitative statement, but really it's a sentiment. That is, "a lot of substance" is in the eye of the beholder here.

 

[TG3K]

While I can appreciate the philosophical aspect of a "self-aging" amp modeler, I'm firmly in the "I want tonal consistency from gig to gig" camp. And having been in the software development game for 30 years or so, I'd rather see Cliff and his team put their development time and energies into features that will improve the sound and functionality, not features that randomly change modeled components in hopes of temporarily stumbling across some magic elixir of tone.

 

[shatteredsquare]

75% of 'amp voodoo' could be achieved with filtering. Components age/type/material do either two things, distort or filter, or both. There's preamp high cut and low cut, there's preamp bias (like 6 knobs of bias stuff), power amp bias stuff, power amp filtering stuff, Xformer filtering (high/low/distortion amount)...any aging of components would be doing either more filtering or more distorting. If digital is 100% pure, analog is something less than that, because of the media distorting or filtering. There are like 30 places in an amp model you can filter or add or remove distortion.

To be honest, I can't hardly tell a difference when I adjust preamp bias, I don't think I know what I'm supposed to be hearing, haven't wrapped my head around it yet. But when I take Recto 2 Red Modern and under match the transformer and lower the Xformer high end, I hear the non-reborn non-multiwatt 3 channel, because I know precisely what I'm looking for.

 

[IFITYWYBMAD?]

Time for a limerick:

There once was a man from Boston,
Who bought himself an Austin,
He had room for his ass and 5 gallons of gas,
And his ears hungout and he lost them.