"Perfect" and "Exactly" are common terms used by Fractal users to express happiness and reassurance that they did not dump their great Tube amps for nothing. But everybody knows that the world of Modeling and Digitizing an Analog phenomena is an eternal Chase since nothing can ever be exactly like something else. Just ... well, different.
Sometimes better for certain applications and sometimes not as gratifying. The term "Exactly" and "Identical" should certainly leave the vocabulary in order to keep the discussion intelligent and real... No offense, im in Awe of Fractal stuff and use it a whole lot.
Just leave it in IMHO ...there’s so much slang, word play in todays semantics and is a given. Human nature to help express and convey their experience ...yet everything should be taken with a “grain of salt” per se.
I don’t think it can be suppressed anyway.
Even when I see “Best this or best that” it does attract attention ....but subjective.
Exchanges can home in more detail.
I think just expect the semantics and form an educated take.
I agree with you in part, but since we're dealing with 1. Science and 2. An attempt to recreate an analog device in the digital domain, there is no room for semantic looseness.
Its not like saying "its the best cake ever made" just because it tastes good.
This context demands responsibility in terminology in order to function within the discussion and be valid more than just an expression of enthusiasm.
Agreed with regard to quantifying measurements and values. It it should have tight parameters for discussion.
But the op’s post seems very general.
The problem too is no two instruments and amplifiers sound the same after completion. One can’t help expressing perfectness if it applies to his past experiences and recall.
Even the “standard” of what is “THE” sound or tone is a moving target maybe?
Awesome links, thanks for them...I recognize one of the authors in one of the papers mentioned above as I've read several papers on guitar amp modeling but haven't read/found the ones you've listed...great reads...this stuff is always very interesting.Modeling tubes isn't straightforward, that's for sure... There's been tons written on the topic:
Just a few places to look. Research is on-going. I would be surprised if Cliff didn't publish some articles at some point.
- REAL-TIME WAVE DIGITAL SIMULATION OF CASCADED VACUUM TUBE AMPLIFIERS USING MODIFIED BLOCKWISE METHOD
- MODELLING OF NON–LINEAR DISTORTION IN VACUUM TRIODES USING TRANS–CHARACTERISTICS INVERSE AND NEWTON’S METHOD
- A Review of Digital Techniques for Modeling Vacuum-Tube Guitar Amplifiers
That's one aspect: "Does the math exist to model this behavior"?
The second aspect is "Do we have enough compute and the right algorithms to turn this into a real-time system?"
Both are hard. I'm glad people are working on it!
See, I totally understand and agree with your question, but I think the underlying premise may be tops turvy - that being , I don’t find these updates VASTLY different at all, quite the opposite, I find them to be as you said, incrementally nuanced. Improvements to be sure, but no update I’ve heard since buying the axe fx iii did it chance my mind at all about the quality of replication and sound of my Mesa Rigs...and that was two years ago.My issue is, if we are incrementally getting towards perfection, why are some updates so vastly different than their predecessors? I’d think the difference from 97% perfect to 98% perfect would be more nuanced.
Totally Agree...is there a document that specifically outlines all of the changes/improvements that Cygnus will provide over the current Ares platform?consider this: over a hundred years ago, the first moving pictures were shown to an audience in London. It was black and white, on scratched celluloid, there was no sound and it wasn't playing at the correct speed. Yet when a train seemed to race toward the audience, people are said to have fled in panic.
The illusion was "perfect" at the time because of what people were used to seeing.
Now compare that to any contemporary Netflix production...
As we grow more educated, listen more closely, we may perceive details we were unaware of before. What we didn't consider a relevant component of the sound or feel may now appear obvious.
So yes, what appeared to be "perfect" a year ago may very well be approved upon today (that's why I don't use that term).
I for one am very happy Cliff strives for constant improvement and doesn't seem to tire pulling all of those amps out of storage to re-evaluate, re-tweak and re-confirm the algorithms.
When I bought the Axe FX I had no idea I would be getting all of those free updates.
From the Release Notes.pdf:...is there a document that specifically outlines all of the changes/improvements that Cygnus will provide over the current Ares platform?
I consider major Axe FW updates like a logarithmic spiral (of which the golden spiral is one) converging upon a range of aspects of accurate tube amp modeling.
Thus even if each major FW is only 61.8% "more accurate" (in some area of modeling), over 5 FW iterations it would be 90% accurate and after 10 iterations it would be 99% accurate. Of course all fractals have this kind of scaling behavior.
Granted tube amp modeling has many subtle interactive and dynamic aspects so it's probably a mixture of additive and multiplicative improvements, some barely audible and others very audible depending on user.
View attachment 82213
I had no clue about the math (esp. Fibonacci stuff) in that song. They take Rush type rhythmic/lyrical nerdiness to a whole other level."We'll ride the spiral to the end and may just go where no one's been"
Yup. They make really mind blowing stuff, first times I listened to some of their songs I almost thought they played random notes and tempos, but it was just a complex order I wasn't able to grasp at the time.I had no clue about the math (esp. Fibonacci stuff) in that song. They take Rush type rhythmic/lyrical nerdiness to a whole other level.