Ares 2.0 vs Axe-Fx III fw.14 (worth the upgrade?)

[Andy Eagle]

Hi fi developers use control systems to ensure accuracy of their products, it should be developed for modellers . At the moment we have the very unhelpful not knowing whether your global EQ is not right or just the amp model. Correct the wrong one and everything gets worse except the one thing you are listening too.

 

[Jason Scott]

Hi fi developers use control systems to ensure accuracy of their products, it should be developed for modellers.

What control systems? How do they control for variables such as different rooms and speakers? They have no way of replicating my room and speakers, thus how audio sounds through their playback system in their listening environment may not (ie. won't) translate perfectly to mine.

 

[Andy Eagle]

Only in development because they are simply trying to replicate the source .
It would be perfectly possible for fractal to test a variety of FR FR solutions and provide global patches dedicated too particular setups. Yes rooms have a big effect but to give no indication or even a method of seeing if your FR solution is even ballpark is unhelpful. Like I said photography without white balance would be a huge PITA.

 

[Andy Eagle]

A very basic version could be an iPhone app. The axe makes a reference tone you hold your phone at the point you consider optimal then the readings could be transferred to the axe and it could make global correction to get as close as possible. Not perfect but a hell of a lot better than nothing .

 

[Jason Scott]

Only in development because they are simply trying to replicate the source

Replicate what source? Example?

It would be perfectly possible for fractal to test a variety of FR FR solutions and provide global patches dedicated to particular setups.

Fractal Audio wouldn't need to test a variety of FRFR speakers, actually. If, say, you're listening to a YouTube clip of someone else's preset over your speakers, in your room, and those are the same speakers and same room you practice through and in, then you've controlled for both, the playback system and room. The primary variables that are not controlled for in that instance would be the guitar, pickups, and playing style.

 

[Andy Eagle]

A control would be a huge advantage but you wouldn't need to use it if you didn't want too. Even Apple Music has a bunch of global eqs that can be helpful for a quick fix. An alternative could be a Fractal FRFR . Obviously the player is THE most important part but the whole idea of modelling without a zero point is problematic. If everyone starts from a random place you can get great results but there is no reason not to add it.

 

[Jason Scott]

A control would be a huge advantage but you wouldn't need to use it if you didn't want too. Even Apple Music has a bunch of global eqs that can be helpful for a quick fix. An alternative could be a Fractal FRFR. Obviously the player is THE most important part but the whole idea of modelling without a zero point is problematic. If everyone starts from a random place you can get great results but there is no reason not to add it.

Again, if you're LISTENING to an audio demo of someone else's Axe-Fx preset over the SAME SPEAKERS that you PLAY that preset through with your Axe-Fx, then you've controlled for the playback system. And if you're LISTENING to an audio demo of someone else's Axe-Fx preset in the SAME ROOM that you PLAY that preset in with your Axe-Fx, then you've controlled for the acoustic space. Understand? In both instances, the speakers and acoustic space you're using to hear the demo are the same speakers and acoustic space you're using to play the preset with your Axe-Fx, thus the speakers and room are controlled for because they're identical. Again... the primary variables that are NOT controlled for in that instance are the guitar, pickups, and playing style.

If your goal is for everyone to be able to hear exactly the same thing, the same way, on any playback system in any room, well, that's an entirely different discussion. It's also impossible. Trust me, if there was a system that would allow perfect translation of audio from one listening environment to any other listening environment, engineers wouldn't need to listen to their mixes on various playback systems and in different listening environments to ensure that their recordings translate properly.

 

[Andy Eagle]

Again, yes I understand but you seam to have a problem with the concept of someone disagreeing with you. I don't run my computer through my FR FR rig .The later part of your rant is the aim. No more difficult than modelling in general. Both fall short but that doesn't mean you shouldn't try.

 

[boardwlk17]

Most definitely

 

[mr_fender]

The control in all audio reproduction is a flat frequency response. Everything revolves around the idea that your playback system reproduces all audio frequencies as equally as possible.

Just like white balance on a camera, the idea is to ensure the end result is as accurately balanced as possible. What you actually see depends entirely on how accurate your video monitor is at reproducing all colors of the visible light spectrum equally. Same goes with audio. What you actually hear depends entirely on how accurate your audio system is at reproducing all audio frequencies equally.

This has been the bane of electronic audio reproduction since the beginning and has nothing to do with digital modeling.

 

[FractalAudio]

What Andy is requesting is corrective EQ. The problem with these types of things is they rarely work well. You need a high-quality microphone. The mic in a cell phone is anything but. In a poorly treated room the corrective EQ can change drastically just moving the mic a few inches. Then you get the problem of "non-invertability". Someone will invariably try to correct a speaker/room that has a huge notch in it's spectrum which results in a massive corrective boost at that frequency which then causes clipping.

 

[Andy Eagle]

What Andy is requesting is corrective EQ. The problem with these types of things is they rarely work well. You need a high-quality microphone. The mic in a cell phone is anything but. In a poorly treated room the corrective EQ can change drastically just moving the mic a few inches. Then you get the problem of "non-invertability". Someone will invariably try to correct a speaker/room that has a huge notch in it's spectrum which results in a massive corrective boost at that frequency which then causes clipping.

Yes this is what I mean. Thanks for the answer. I understand your point but how about some corrective presets that you could program (fixed) I realise that this would loose the original intention but a set of global "quick fix" eq presets in the global controls would be very useful when you arrive with no time to sound check properly and the room sounds like ass or sounds radically different when full (if only at the moment.) This could be in the performance menu. I can't be the only one who would find this useful.

 

[Jason Scott]

Again, yes I understand but you seam to have a problem with the concept of someone disagreeing with you.

I don't have a problem with disagreement. I do, however, get frustrated when I've explicated my point over the course of several posts and it's still not understood.

that doesn't mean you shouldn't try.

People have tried since the 1970s. There's a reason engineers don't opt for corrective EQ to flatten a room. It usually just plain doesn't work. Ever tried fixing room modes with EQ? Try it. You'll end up overcompensating for the nulls and peaks.

 

[LiamH]

Thanks Lee! After much debate I just could not justify the price for the added features and increased waiting time for an mk2. Still feels quite scary to buy something this expensive through Reverb and hope that everything arrives safely and in perfect working condition.

I am not sure whether I will use the FC-12 though. But it is great that I will be able to try it and have the flexibility to sell it to end up with an even cheaper Axe-Fx III.

SOAWM,

Make sure you give the FC-12 a really good go before you sell it on. I think it is a remarkable thing. I could possibly live with an FC-6 for my Axe FX III, I am not sure I can live without the FC-12 as well. I have been thinking about an FM-3 vs. an FC-6 for smaller gigs/rigs when we can all play again. Either way, fortunately I have been able to keep my Matrix GT1000FX and 15" FRFR cab, so will be shaking some rooms again when we allowed to. You will miss the Matrix when you have the Axe FX III.

Going back to your original post. For full-on distortion/overdrive Axe FX II and Axe FX III are similar, maybe not indistinguishable, but either work pretty well for me. Same for clean. For edge of breakup, which is where I live a lot of the time, Axe FX III models feel different in a night and day kind of way. Not many are talking about it, but the Fractal vintage Fender and 60's Marshall tone/feel really came of age in the FX III era. But sounds like you are sorted with the better option all round, which I am glad to know!

Liam

 

[LiamH]

People have tried since the 1970s. There's a reason engineers don't opt for corrective EQ to flatten a room. It usually just plain doesn't work. Ever tried fixing room modes with EQ? Try it. You'll end up overcompensating for the nulls and peaks.

Agree entirely. Corrective EQ cannot flatten a room, because it would be trying to flatten the room by altering the source EQ, which is great in theory, but in practice sound waves carry phase as well as frequency, and the room interaction would most definitely involve phase. If corrective EQ stood any chance of correcting a room, IRs never would never have been needed, you could just put an EQ block where the cab IR's go in your Fractal amp preset. The joy of IRs is that they contain phase as well as frequency information, and so end up sounding like good imitations of close mic'd cabs, or even rooms (but only in one listening position). The idea that you might disentangle all of that with some kind of omnipresent "reverse IR" for all listening positions is not impossible, but would be many orders of magnitude beyond current technology. I think for now, good sounding rooms will remain good sounding rooms, but turning a horrible sounding room into a good one will still involve some physical acoustic engineering.

Liam

 

[Andy Eagle]

I don't have a problem with disagreement. I do, however, get frustrated when I've explicated my point over the course of several posts and it's still not understood.



People have tried since the 1970s. There's a reason engineers don't opt for corrective EQ to flatten a room. It usually just plain doesn't work. Ever tried fixing room modes with EQ? Try it. You'll end up overcompensating for the nulls and peaks.

I understood you. Corrective EQ is a part of just about every HiFi amp sold ( loudness control ) and a key part of Apple Music's EQ. Some preset EQs at least would be useful for the reasons above. These are not really for accurate but on the fly fixes that can easily be global applied. Axe could include a list easily (YOU DON'T NEED TO USE THEM) and I'm sure that gigging guitarists would find them very useful in a variety of situations.

 

[SOAWM]

I understood you. Corrective EQ is a part of just about every HiFi amp sold ( loudness control ) and a key part of Apple Music's EQ. Some preset EQs at least would be useful for the reasons above. These are not really for accurate but on the fly fixes that can easily be global applied. Axe could include a list easily (YOU DON'T NEED TO USE THEM) and I'm sure that gigging guitarists would find them very useful in a variety of situations.

Instead of working with a list of predefined presets, I personally think it would make more sense to enable the user to save presets in the global EQ settings. This would allow to set specific settings for the venues you often play. If you do this together with your live engineer during soundcheck, you could end up with a list of different venue-specific global EQ's and enable your engineer to say to you 'activate preset X, because I think this particular venue we are in today sounds quite alike and/or uses the same FOH system).

 

[Andy Eagle]

Lets not also forget the fact that because something can't be achieved perfectly does not mean it should not be done at all. If this where true Axe would not exist at all. Every firmware update is a testament to ongoing improvement . If Axe was truly indistinguishable from the amps it modelled there would be no firmware updates other than to add things.

 

[Andy Eagle]

Instead of working with a list of predefined presets, I personally think it would make more sense to enable the user to save presets in the global EQ settings. This would allow to set specific settings for the venues you often play. If you do this together with your live engineer during soundcheck, you could end up with a list of different venue-specific global EQ's and enable your engineer to say to you 'activate preset X, because I think this particular venue we are in today sounds quite alike and/or uses the same FOH system).

This would also be excellent , no reason not to include both IMO.

 

[Jason Scott]

I understood you. Corrective EQ is a part of just about every HiFi amp sold ( loudness control ) and a key part of Apple Music's EQ. Some preset EQs at least would be useful for the reasons above. These are not really for accurate but on the fly fixes that can easily be global applied. Axe could include a list easily (YOU DON'T NEED TO USE THEM) and I'm sure that gigging guitarists would find them very useful in a variety of situations.

Would you let a mix engineer apply an EQ preset that worked for a guitar track in some other person's mix to a guitar track in yours without them ever having heard it? An EQ preset that fails to take the source material into account is no more likely to improve the sound than it is to ruin it. Ever used EZmix? It was created to offer whole signal chains of effects presets designed by professionals to shape the sound of specific instruments and/or mixes. Sounds great in theory, but in practice, the presets are completely hit or miss. Such presets serve as a great opportunity to shoot yourself in the foot.

Every firmware update is a testament to ongoing improvement. If Axe was truly indistinguishable from the amps it modelled there would be no firmware updates other than to add things.

The difference is, modeling takes the source into account. Corrective EQ presets don't; they're one size fits all solutions that are just as likely (probably more so) to screw things up as they are to improve them.

Lets not also forget the fact that because something can't be achieved perfectly does not mean it should not be done at all.

I agree, but corrective EQ presets aren't the way forward.