Axe-Fx Accuracy Issues

[mortega76]

Moderator's Note: the OT posts have been separated from the Bogner thread and placed here. Please do not take the original thread off topic again.


I love what you guys are doing... and thank you very much for sharing your results...

but...

To throw a "monkey wrench" into the whole thing... why do we need to have global eq's, graphic eq's, parametric eq's, or any other "external" eq just to match up the Axe-fx amp sim to the real amp?

I am going to go out on a limb here and say I bet if you were to put the Axe-fx's amp sim (disabling the virtual power amp) into the power amp section of the real amp it will probably be a 1:1... tit-for-tat... mirrored "image" of the amp in question.

I wrote in another thread where (I thought the power amp sims may not be up to par and) we couldn't get the PVH 5105 amp sim (10.01) to sound close to the real 5150 amp without some massive GEQ... mainly in lows and especially in the mids... which leads me to believe that some of the higher gain amp sims have something that is not working well to give us the true sound of what a cranked up high gain monster can do. Cliff has stated many times where an amp sim (specifically the Recto New) shouldn't be cranked past 10 to 11 o'clock (3.0 or 4.0)... well, we had the 5150 crank to 3 o'clock (or what would be around 8.0 or 9.0) and it sounded soooo beautifully brutal.

There are some folks (Mark Day) who have set their Global EQ with some crazy settings as a "set it and forget it" to make is sound more like a tube amp using a SS power amp... I would rather have my Global EQ, PEQ, GEQ as an "as needed" effect instead of a "required" effect.

Also, this notion of "use your ears" (or that that 1:1 does not apply) nullifies every single suggested tone amp setting that is recommended on just about every tube amp forum out there on the web doesn't it?

As I mentioned in the other thread... I don't want to bash the Axe-fx... I want it to be the best selling and best sounding modeler it can possibly be, and if it takes some of us folks to bring our experiences to Cliff's attention then hopefully he will take a look and see if there is something that can possibly be improved with his magical geniusness... (is that a real word?)

 

[Scott Peterson]

Re: Part II: Things learned comparing AXE-FX to Bogner Blue

I love what you guys are doing... and thank you very much for sharing your results...

but...

To throw a "monkey wrench" into the whole thing... why do we need to have global eq's, graphic eq's, parametric eq's, or any other "external" eq just to match up the Axe-fx amp sim to the real amp?

I am going to go out on a limb here and say I bet if you were to put the Axe-fx's amp sim (disabling the virtual power amp) into the power amp section of the real amp it will probably be a 1:1... tit-for-tat... mirrored "image" of the amp in question.

I wrote in another thread where (I thought the power amp sims may not be up to par and) we couldn't get the PVH 5105 amp sim (10.01) to sound close to the real 5150 amp without some massive GEQ... mainly in lows and especially in the mids... which leads me to believe that some of the higher gain amp sims have something that is not working well to give us the true sound of what a cranked up high gain monster can do. Cliff has stated many times where an amp sim (specifically the Recto New) shouldn't be cranked past 10 to 11 o'clock (3.0 or 4.0)... well, we had the 5150 crank to 3 o'clock (or what would be around 8.0 or 9.0) and it sounded soooo beautifully brutal.

There are some folks (Mark Day) who have set their Global EQ with some crazy settings as a "set it and forget it" to make is sound more like a tube amp using a SS power amp... I would rather have my Global EQ, PEQ, GEQ as an "as needed" effect instead of a "required" effect.

Also, this notion of "use your ears" (or that that 1:1 does not apply) nullifies every single suggested tone amp setting that is recommended on just about every tube amp forum out there on the web doesn't it?

As I mentioned in the other thread... I don't want to bash the Axe-fx... I want it to be the best selling and best sounding modeler it can possibly be, and if it takes some of us folks to bring our experiences to Cliff's attention then hopefully he will take a look and see if there is something that can possibly be improved with his magical geniusness... (is that a real word?)

Umm, my presets don't have any EQ. No parametric EQ. No graphic EQ. No Global EQ.

Perhaps actually trying my preset might be in order before you get all a flutter.

Yes, using your ears is indeed frustrating if your ears don't work. I'd assume any musician worth his salt can learn to use them though when they dial their tones... instead of amp forums. Do you really use amp forums to dial your analog amps? You use your ears. You might use someone else's posted settings as a starting place, sure. And you can download the attached presets here as a starting place too in the Axe-FX 'world' as it is.

But past that, brother use your ears. No matter how many times you complain, Cliff isn't coming to your house to dial your Axe-FX for you.

 

[mortega76]

Re: Part II: Things learned comparing AXE-FX to Bogner Blue

Umm, my presets don't have any EQ. No parametric EQ. No graphic EQ. No Global EQ.

Perhaps actually trying my preset might be in order before you get all a flutter.

Yes, using your ears is indeed frustrating if your ears don't work. I'd assume any musician worth his salt can learn to use them though when they dial their tones... instead of amp forums. Do you really use amp forums to dial your analog amps? You use your ears. You might use someone else's posted settings as a starting place, sure. And you can download the attached presets here as a starting place too in the Axe-FX 'world' as it is.

But past that, brother use your ears.

Thanks for the quick response Scott... my Axe-fx is stuck in Nashua, NH in some UPS warehouse due to "adverse weather conditions" so at the moment I am unable to try your preset... but I was mainly referring to the OP's (and my) experiences when A/B'ing the Axe-fx amp sim to the real amp... Where he had to adjust the Global EQ's just to tame whatever it was he was hearing in his Axe-fx when compared to the real amp... but of course he did say that he liked your preset much more than his own... so I definitely (hopefully soon) will try your preset as soon as I possibly can... thanks.

 

[Scott Peterson]

Re: Part II: Things learned comparing AXE-FX to Bogner Blue

Umm, my presets don't have any EQ. No parametric EQ. No graphic EQ. No Global EQ.

Perhaps actually trying my preset might be in order before you get all a flutter.

Yes, using your ears is indeed frustrating if your ears don't work. I'd assume any musician worth his salt can learn to use them though when they dial their tones... instead of amp forums. Do you really use amp forums to dial your analog amps? You use your ears. You might use someone else's posted settings as a starting place, sure. And you can download the attached presets here as a starting place too in the Axe-FX 'world' as it is.

But past that, brother use your ears.

Thanks for the quick response Scott... my Axe-fx is stuck in Nashua, NH in some UPS warehouse due to "adverse weather conditions" so at the moment I am unable to try your preset... but I was mainly referring to the OP's (and my) experiences when A/B'ing the Axe-fx amp sim to the real amp... Where he had to adjust the Global EQ's just to tame whatever it was he was hearing in his Axe-fx when compared to the real amp... but of course he did say that he liked your preset much more than his own... so I definitely (hopefully soon) will try your preset as soon as I possibly can... thanks.

You don't need tricks, just an understanding of what the tools at hand can do and you can reach what you want - one-to-one with any mic'd amp you choose. You play power amps into cabs, if I recall, so that cuts out even more variables.

EQ's in all their guises are just tools. If they get you there, great! No recording session, or live performance that ran through a board wasn't EQ'd. What you have in the Axe-FX is the ENTIRE chain... with your power amp and cab in a conventional setup, you are removing an entire slew of variables but relying on the power amp, cab and mic in analog to do what you can control - perfectly - inside the Axe-FX running FRFR.

But your assertion that somehow the Axe-FX is flawed and grabbing presets with EQ as 'proof' is flawed logic. The tools are in there. How you use them is on you, not the box. You are not covering up flaws in the box, you are using tools to get where you want to go. Frankly, they are NOT necessary in many cases. I don't have ANY EQ's in the presets I am running now since I've rethought my approaches. No Drives after the amps, no PEQ, no nothing. No global EQ's. And the tones are better than ever.

The tools are in the tool box. How you use them and why you use them is on you, not the box. I'd suggest your issues with the power amp lie more in the choice of physical power amp and cabinet and quite possibly mic placement. If you are comparing the Axe-FX as preamp, with a power amp and cab to a tube amp next to it, then unplug YOUR rig, plug your Axe-FX straight into the effects return of the amp next to it and use that rig to compare. That's MUCH more 1:1.

 

[mortega76]

Re: Part II: Things learned comparing AXE-FX to Bogner Blue

Edit: Since you took a "stab" at my "ears" I wanted to first say that I do thank the Lord that my "ears" are working quite well... and going to a couple of (mini) amp fests (and hearing first hand the top notch amps that these fine folks have graciously allowed me to hear in person further assures me of that. All I hope is that Cliff will go back and A/B the Axe-fx amp sims to the real amps he has in his growing collection at a more "brewtalz" volume by cranking the master volume of these amps and see if there is something missing... and of course if he comes back and says... "Mo, you gotta just clean out your ears because my shit sounds awesome..." then I will leave well enough alone and keep on with my pursuit of a better (tube or not) power amp to better or more accurately amplify the sounds coming out of my Axe-fx.

P.S. Since Cliff's staff will have my Axe-fx in their possession here soon, maybe they will just tell me whether or not something is "wrong" with my Axe-fx or not.

 

[Scott Peterson]

Re: Part II: Things learned comparing AXE-FX to Bogner Blue

Edit: Since you took a "stab" at my "ears" I wanted to first say that I do thank the Lord that my "ears" are working quite well... and going to a couple of (mini) amp fests (and hearing first hand the top notch amps that these fine folks have graciously allowed me to hear in person further assures me of that. All I hope is that Cliff will go back and A/B the Axe-fx amp sims to the real amps he has in his growing collection at a more "brewtalz" volume by cranking the master volume of these amps and see if there is something missing... and of course if he comes back and says... "Mo, you gotta just clean out your ears because my shit sounds awesome..." then I will leave well enough alone and keep on with my pursuit of a better (tube or not) power amp to better or more accurately amplify the sounds coming out of my Axe-fx.

P.S. Since Cliff's staff will have my Axe-fx in their possession here soon, maybe they will just tell me whether or not something is "wrong" with my Axe-fx or not.

That's BS.

I'm not 'stabbing' your ears. I am telling you the tools are in the box and you are not using them either correctly or simply the box isn't your cup of tea. There's no slam in what I'm saying - you cannot and will never just match settings with an amp 1:1 with the Axe-FX as it is currently. I know it, I've reinforced it to myself and Cliff even notes why.

You have to dial with your ears, not your eyes. You have stressed how you want to not use certain EQ blocks and such because 'real' amps don't do that. That'd be the definition of dialing with your 'eyes' and NOT your ears. That's my point. Not that something was wrong with your hearing.

Give me a little more credit than that man. I don't play that game.

 

[mortega76]

Re: Part II: Things learned comparing AXE-FX to Bogner Blue

You don't need tricks, just an understanding of what the tools at hand can do and you can reach what you want - one-to-one with any mic'd amp you choose. You play power amps into cabs, if I recall, so that cuts out even more variables.

EQ's in all their guises are just tools. If they get you there, great! No recording session, or live performance that ran through a board wasn't EQ'd. What you have in the Axe-FX is the ENTIRE chain... with your power amp and cab in a conventional setup, you are removing an entire slew of variables but relying on the power amp, cab and mic in analog to do what you can control - perfectly - inside the Axe-FX running FRFR.

But your assertion that somehow the Axe-FX is flawed and grabbing presets with EQ as 'proof' is flawed logic. The tools are in there. How you use them is on you, not the box. You are not covering up flaws in the box, you are using tools to get where you want to go. Frankly, they are NOT necessary in many cases. I don't have ANY EQ's in the presets I am running now since I've rethought my approaches. No Drives after the amps, no PEQ, no nothing. No global EQ's. And the tones are better than ever.

The tools are in the tool box. How you use them and why you use them is on you, not the box. I'd suggest your issues with the power amp lie more in the choice of physical power amp and cabinet and quite possibly mic placement. If you are comparing the Axe-FX as preamp, with a power amp and cab to a tube amp next to it, then unplug YOUR rig, plug your Axe-FX straight into the effects return of the amp next to it and use that rig to compare. That's MUCH more 1:1.

Well, in my case when A/B'ing with the 5150... we used the same "knobs" (drive, low, mid, high, presence, and master volume) and nothing else when comparing the two... we had the passive tone stacks and started off with a 1:1 on "knob" placement which didn't sound close... so we proceeded to move the "knobs" to different positions to try to compensate for the "missing meat" that was overwhelmingly in the 5150 amp. I actually spoke to my buddy and he said he ran his newly purchased Axe-fx in 4CM and used the power amp section of the 5150 amp and he said it sounded great... I have not had a chance to go to his house to hear it first hand but I take his word for it and hopefully I will be able to hear it first hand very soon...

 

[mortega76]

Re: Part II: Things learned comparing AXE-FX to Bogner Blue

That's BS.

I'm not 'stabbing' your ears. I am telling you the tools are in the box and you are not using them either correctly or simply the box isn't your cup of tea. There's no slam in what I'm saying - you cannot and will never just match settings with an amp 1:1 with the Axe-FX as it is currently. I know it, I've reinforced it to myself and Cliff even notes why.

You have to dial with your ears, not your eyes. You have stressed how you want to not use certain EQ blocks and such because 'real' amps don't do that. That'd be the definition of dialing with your 'eyes' and NOT your ears. That's my point. Not that something was wrong with your hearing.

Give me a little more credit than that man. I don't play that game.

I didn't mean for my comments to sound "harsh" Scott... you should know from my posts that I'm a easy going guy and I don't take people's comments to heart... so I apologize for any confusion Scott...

 

[Sebastian]

Re: Part II: Things learned comparing AXE-FX to Bogner Blue

Edit: Since you took a "stab" at my "ears" I wanted to first say that I do thank the Lord that my "ears" are working quite well...

Seeing well is not enough to enable you to paint photography-like pictures, right?
And hearing well does not equal mastering the Axe-Fx (or any other "sound processing unit").
It's a matter of learning how devices, or tools, work, and then applying this knowledge.
Learn to use your ears. If you've already learnt that, you still have to learn how to use your hands (=editing parameters on the Axe-Fx).

 

[yek]

Re: Part II: Things learned comparing AXE-FX to Bogner Blue

Hmm, drifting away from the OP here, and returning to beaten-to-death subjects. Sorry Buddy

The "use your ears" thing cannot be disputed, it's always true. Nevertheless, I can see Mortega's point. IMO the Axe-Fx user is entitled to expect to be able to dial in tones by the eye too, as with real amps. To a certain extent at least, using the passive tone controls. Nothing wrong with that approach, many manufacturers (Bogner as well) provide sheets with suggested "visual" settings. The fact that the Axe-Fx can do so much more is a valuable bonus.

Manual:
"The Axe-Fx’s amp, drive and cabinet simulations are very faithful reproductions of the originals (...)".
"the Axe-Fx passive tone stack simulation exactly replicates the frequency and phase response of the classic passive tone stack")

It's just that there are so many variables.

Take the 5150: there's the I, II and III. Is the modeled version the same as the real amp it's being compared with? F.e., Buddy is matching an old XTC with the 20th Ann. XTC, which are not the same amps.

And the model: maybe the specific model just isn't perfected yet. Model optimization is clearly an ongoing process, as demonstrated by the firmware releases.

And the parameters: are the Global amp settings really set right?

And the cabs (for FR at least): many FR cabs/monitors are not really flat.

And what about the reference material? Take Buddy's approach: he recreates his real "in the room" XTC with greenbacks. But his preset has a MIC'd cab, so he has to adjust the amp parameters and use EQ to compensate for the coloration by the mic sim. And I believe Scott uses mic'd recordings of his old amps as a source to match his presets (also using specific mic sims) with, and uses various methods to recreate the "in the room" feeling. So his gain/tone settings will not translate to gain/tone settings on the real non-mic'd amp. These factors have to be taken into consideration, each time.

With all these factors, it's often apples and oranges.

@Mortega: I too haven't been able to get the same oomph/thump/impact from the Axe as when using my tube amps at louder volume. Some time ago I was playing with a buddy who has a Mesa Road King and 4x12. While I could get in the same ballpark tonally easily, I knew I couldn't get the same low end impact, whatever the method of amplification or cab, without extra measurements. Can't tell whether it's the poweramp sim or something else. But: I didn't and don't care. I know that part of the frequency is of no use at all when playing in a band, it just messes things up. I've seen so many metalheads using massive amounts of gain and bass which get lost in the mix alltogether.

At the moment I'm playing around with neutral-mic'd stock cabs and neutral Red Wirez IRs (KM84). That's because I'm mainly playing live and I use my amp as a backline amp a lot, so I'm going for the cliché "in the room" thing. Neutral-mic'd cabs/IRs don't record as well, but they enable me to stick much closer to "traditional" tone control settings in the amp sim, ones that I'm familiar with and like to hang onto. They also generate less extreme low and high frequencies and hitting a note or chord seems to have more impact, subjectively. Not saying that's it's better, it's just another approach. I also like Scott's current RW recipe a lot.

It does take time, it does take effort, it can be frustrating at times (I've never supported the "dialing Axe-Fx is easy and quick" claim) but it's an easy price to pay for the tremendous range of sounds and possibilities available within the Axe-Fx.

P.S. New Year's resolution #1: type shorter posts.

 

[Deltones]

Re: Part II: Things learned comparing AXE-FX to Bogner Blue

why do we need to have global eq's, graphic eq's, parametric eq's, or any other "external" eq just to match up the Axe-fx amp sim to the real amp?

Also, this notion of "use your ears" (or that that 1:1 does not apply) nullifies every single suggested tone amp setting that is recommended on just about every tube amp forum out there on the web doesn't it?

Exactly. When I read the patch process the OP used to re-create his physical amp, I can't help but compare it to a Cirque Du Soleil artist doing a contortion show. It's insane the steps he had to do, just insane. Scott, in a later post, said that he doesn't have any EQ's in the presets he's running, yet he posted an IR mix to help out the OP that looks like an alchemical recipe:

V30 Ref Mix4
Uberkab-V30-TC30-CapEdge-0in.wav,0.05
Uberkab-V30-SM57-CapEdgeOffAxis-2in.wav,0.85
Uberkab-T75V30-TC30-Back-12in.wav,0.05
Uberkab-T75V30-TC30-RoomL.wav,0.025
Uberkab-T75V30-TC30-RoomR.wav,0.025

For one thing, these are Redwirez cabs and not stock Axe-Fx. Second, there are 2 cabs, 5 mics, 4 mic distances in that mix. I'm sorry Scott, use your ears all you want, but that mix is not in the reality of a guy with no Redwirez cabs at his disposal. And it's even further from the reality of a guy plugging his guitar in his amp that's connected to a single cabinet with a single SM57 on the front, which is the majority of players, bedroom or even live. Studio is another thing.

Yek is right when he says we're returning to an old beaten-to-death subject. But...

IMO the Axe-Fx user is entitled to expect to be able to dial in tones by the eye too, as with real amps. To a certain extent at least, using the passive tone controls. Nothing wrong with that approach, many manufacturers (Bogner as well) provide sheets with suggested "visual" settings.

And why will that poor dead horse continue to be beaten on a constant basis in these forums? Because of this:

Manual:
"The Axe-Fx’s amp, drive and cabinet simulations are very faithful reproductions of the originals (...)".
"the Axe-Fx passive tone stack simulation exactly replicates the frequency and phase response of the classic passive tone stack")

And because people like the OP spend hours in sonic contortions on the modelled amp that the manual says is a faithful reproduction of the original. Hours to get the result they can get in 10 minutes or less on their physical amp. That's why.

 

[Scott Peterson]

Re: Part II: Things learned comparing AXE-FX to Bogner Blue

why do we need to have global eq's, graphic eq's, parametric eq's, or any other "external" eq just to match up the Axe-fx amp sim to the real amp?

Also, this notion of "use your ears" (or that that 1:1 does not apply) nullifies every single suggested tone amp setting that is recommended on just about every tube amp forum out there on the web doesn't it?

Exactly. When I read the patch process the OP used to re-create his physical amp, I can't help but compare it to a Cirque Du Soleil artist doing a contortion show. It's insane the steps he had to do, just insane. Scott, in a later post, said that he doesn't have any EQ's in the presets he's running, yet he posted an IR mix to help out the OP that looks like an alchemical recipe:

V30 Ref Mix4
Uberkab-V30-TC30-CapEdge-0in.wav,0.05
Uberkab-V30-SM57-CapEdgeOffAxis-2in.wav,0.85
Uberkab-T75V30-TC30-Back-12in.wav,0.05
Uberkab-T75V30-TC30-RoomL.wav,0.025
Uberkab-T75V30-TC30-RoomR.wav,0.025

For one thing, these are Redwirez cabs and not stock Axe-Fx. Second, there are 2 cabs, 5 mics, 4 mic distances in that mix. I'm sorry Scott, use your ears all you want, but that mix is not in the reality of a guy with no Redwirez cabs at his disposal. And it's even further from the reality of a guy plugging his guitar in his amp that's connected to a single cabinet with a single SM57 on the front, which is the majority of players, bedroom or even live. Studio is another thing.

Yek is right when he says we're returning to an old beaten-to-death subject. But...

IMO the Axe-Fx user is entitled to expect to be able to dial in tones by the eye too, as with real amps. To a certain extent at least, using the passive tone controls. Nothing wrong with that approach, many manufacturers (Bogner as well) provide sheets with suggested "visual" settings.

And why will that poor dead horse continue to be beaten on a constant basis in these forums? Because of this:

Manual:
"The Axe-Fx’s amp, drive and cabinet simulations are very faithful reproductions of the originals (...)".
"the Axe-Fx passive tone stack simulation exactly replicates the frequency and phase response of the classic passive tone stack")

And because people like the OP spend hours in sonic contortions on the modelled amp that the manual says is a faithful reproduction of the original. Hours to get the result they can get in 10 minutes or less on their physical amp. That's why.

A) You are ignoring my very clear note to just use the stock cab if you do not have Red Wire IR's.

B) Beat things all you want, if you are not willing to learn how to utilize the tools at hand, no one else is going to come along and do it for you. Learn from the presets presented and shared. You come off as someone complaining about buying and using a professional level piece of equipment and then you don't want to learn to use it. It has such a deep pool of professional level tools. Learn them. Use them.

If the Red Wire formula (which is simply the verbiage you need to plug into the Red Wire IrMix app) is overwhelming, then sorry, just ignore it.

 

[electronpirate]

Re: Part II: Things learned comparing AXE-FX to Bogner Blue

Okay, I see 2 sides here, and both are valid in my eyes.

1. This is a professional level piece of equipment, and you need to understand it very well to be able to FULLY utilize it.
2. This is just an amp, and you should be able to dial it in without 3 months (or more) of intensive study.

Problem with 1:
Not everyone using this is a 'professional', and shouldn't have to be to have top of the line equipment. I consider myself fairly intelligent, and I still struggled with concepts new to me.

Problem with 2:
It's unreasonable to expect that guitarists will spend 3 months to get what they term a 'usable' sound. This varies with the user, but I'd say if you dial in a default amp/cab, and you don't at least hear CLOSE to what you want to hear, then you should move on.

Problem 1 SOLVED:
Do NOT speak of those who question the need for elaborate presets with PEQ, Global, Custom IR's as 'don't get it', or 'bad ears', or 'RTFM'. It's just not within any framework of reality. Not everyone is a studio engineer, or a professional with hours to spend tweaking and reading. (Long complaint from people who are on the fence.)

Problem 2 SOLVED.
You are provided with default presets, Axechange, WIKI, this board for questions. If your needs extend beyond that, then don't complain about having to do studying.

Both are right.

Ron.

 

[Scott Peterson]

Re: Part II: Things learned comparing AXE-FX to Bogner Blue

Okay, I see 2 sides here, and both are valid in my eyes.

1. This is a professional level piece of equipment, and you need to understand it very well to be able to FULLY utilize it.
2. This is just an amp, and you should be able to dial it in without 3 months (or more) of intensive study.

Problem with 1:
Not everyone using this is a 'professional', and shouldn't have to be to have top of the line equipment. I consider myself fairly intelligent, and I still struggled with concepts new to me.

Problem with 2:
It's unreasonable to expect that guitarists will spend 3 months to get what they term a 'usable' sound. This varies with the user, but I'd say if you dial in a default amp/cab, and you don't at least hear CLOSE to what you want to hear, then you should move on.

Problem 1 SOLVED:
Do NOT speak of those who question the need for elaborate presets with PEQ, Global, Custom IR's as 'don't get it', or 'bad ears', or 'RTFM'. It's just not within any framework of reality. Not everyone is a studio engineer, or a professional with hours to spend tweaking and reading. (Long complaint from people who are on the fence.)

Problem 2 SOLVED.
You are provided with default presets, Axechange, WIKI, this board for questions. If your needs extend beyond that, then don't complain about having to do studying.

Both are right.

Ron.

Agreed.

If it takes you 3 months, let alone 3 hours to get something usable from ANY gear, then that piece of gear probably isn't your cup of tea or flavor of ice cream.

Spend some time on TGP in the amp section. There are guys asking for help to dial in a JCM800 or Vox AC30. Some of these requests and 'complaining' threads about amps extend to amps with a minimum of knobs.

The reality is that the Axe-FX simply requires you to have some knowledge going into it about what you want to get out of it. Once you learn the car's mechanical logistics (gas pedal on the right, brake on the left, clutch to the far left) then you can focus on driving. Too many guys just refuse, or fight learning to drive their car. You cannot drive on the race track or highway if you cannot get past shifting gears with the transmission without thinking about it. Learn the tools, then seek what you want.

 

[mortega76]

Re: Part II: Things learned comparing AXE-FX to Bogner Blue

I'm hoping that we will get to a point where we could (just as we did on just about every tube amp in the amp fest) adjust the drive, low, mid, high, master volume and presence (just opened up Axe-edit and realized that these are the only knobs under "basic") and get that tone that just makes you want to involuntarily say out loud... wow. Without having to adjust the low cut, high cut, Xformer LF/HF, or spend the amount of years that we both have on trying to achieving our ultimate tone with the Axe-fx with only the amp sim into a (known good) SS amp and through a real cab with some (known good) speakers.

I should be able to connect a great sounding amp like a 5150 to a cab... adjust the knobs and get a great tone... then I should be able to (through the same speaker cab) connect my Axe-fx/SS-amp and go to the PVH 5105 amp sim and dial in using the same (virtual) knobs (including cranking the master volume) and get a similar sounding and feeling tone... no?

 

[Scott Peterson]

Re: Part II: Things learned comparing AXE-FX to Bogner Blue

I'm hoping that we will get to a point where we could (just as we did on just about every tube amp in the amp fest) adjust the drive, low, mid, high, master volume and presence (just opened up Axe-edit and realized that these are the only knobs under "basic") and get that tone that just makes you want to involuntarily say out loud... wow. Without having to adjust the low cut, high cut, Xformer LF/HF, or spend the amount of years that we both have on trying to achieving our ultimate tone with the Axe-fx with only the amp sim into a (known good) SS amp and through a real cab with some (known good) speakers.

Yes, I have evolved my approach with the evolving gear. As has everyone, this is a moving target. To remain static is fine, if you are happy. I'd prefer to take advantage of new tools, new possibilities and use what I continue to learn to better perform in a musical setting.

I also continue woodshedding on playing guitar for the same reasons.

As the firmware has evolved, it has become easier and simpler to get where you want to go. And along the way, the tools have increased both in number and in ways to adjust parameters.

I'm no smarter than any other guy here, in fact I am well below the pay scale of many on the 'smarter than thou' scale. I don't have every answer, nor do I have the intricate knowledge some assume I do about using the box. I am not afraid to learn, be wrong, stumble and tear down to start over when I discover - or am taught - a better way to things.

This isn't some box with 1 or two minor firmware bug fixes and that's 'it'. This is a very deep, constantly moving, growing, deeply rewarding and fun box.

Complaining about having powerful deep rich parameter dense options just tells me that you do not want to learn to use them. That's no knock on you, that's what this tract of thinking indicates your propensity towards. I'd suggest just buying whatever amp you like and playing. It's about music, not about fighting your tools. If you want to fight over having to learn to 'get inside' the tools, you chose the wrong toolbox to use.

I sit almost daily using this box saying, WOW. And meaning it. If you are not, then you are either not using it to suit your needs or it's the wrong toolbox for you to use to get there. I don't fight the box, I get what I want and then improve upon it to the point where I laugh when I'm playing a LOT. With joy, not frustration.

 

[Sebastian]

Re: Part II: Things learned comparing AXE-FX to Bogner Blue

Okay, I see 2 sides here, and both are valid in my eyes.

1. This is a professional level piece of equipment, and you need to understand it very well to be able to FULLY utilize it.
2. This is just an amp, and you should be able to dial it in without 3 months (or more) of intensive study.

Problem with 1:
Not everyone using this is a 'professional', and shouldn't have to be to have top of the line equipment. I consider myself fairly intelligent, and I still struggled with concepts new to me.

Problem with 2:
It's unreasonable to expect that guitarists will spend 3 months to get what they term a 'usable' sound. This varies with the user, but I'd say if you dial in a default amp/cab, and you don't at least hear CLOSE to what you want to hear, then you should move on.

Problem 1 SOLVED:
Do NOT speak of those who question the need for elaborate presets with PEQ, Global, Custom IR's as 'don't get it', or 'bad ears', or 'RTFM'. It's just not within any framework of reality. Not everyone is a studio engineer, or a professional with hours to spend tweaking and reading. (Long complaint from people who are on the fence.)

Problem 2 SOLVED.
You are provided with default presets, Axechange, WIKI, this board for questions. If your needs extend beyond that, then don't complain about having to do studying.

Both are right.

Ron.

To me, learning how to get the desired sound out of my guitar (including the amp, effects and signal path to FOH or recording desk) is just part of learning how to play the electric guitar. It's just a matter of time, practice, patience and how far you want to go - with both.
Learning to strum some chords is easier and takes less time than jazz impro or mastering sweep picking.
Learning how to use a two channel combo amp is easier and takes less time than mastering the Axe-Fx - nature of the beast.
People who give up with the Axe-Fx, or a pro level software (audio or image editing) after x weeks are entitled to do so.
But they shouldn't blame the Axe-Fx for that, as there are enough people who succeeded with it. You don't throw away the violin or the trumpet after one week and blame the instrument either...
I understand Mo's (and other's) frustration and I'm far from the "Axe-Fx user level" or sound engineering skills I wish to have,
but I'm convinced I (and others) can achieve it.
If someone decides to opt out - there are a lot alternatives available.
It's a great time to be a guitarist

 

[Jay Mitchell]

Re: Part II: Things learned comparing AXE-FX to Bogner Blue

I should be able to.... then I should be able to....

I'm gonna say this once, even though I don't expect it to sink in very quickly. It took my kids awhile to get this, too. Regardless of your idea of what should be, you have no choice but to deal with what is. If that is not acceptable to you, then it is time to move on to another piece of equipment. You've been at this long enough to be able to decide whether the Axe-Fx does it for you. My money says it doesn't. And that's fine. No amount of complaining here is going to change that. It may not be fair, but life isn't always fair.

That's the essence of the message. It is true regardless of how you might feel about the messenger....

 

[electronpirate]

Re: Part II: Things learned comparing AXE-FX to Bogner Blue

I should be able to.... then I should be able to....

I'm gonna say this once, even though I don't expect it to sink in very quickly. It took my kids awhile to get this, too. Regardless of your idea of what should be, you have no choice but to deal with what is. If that is not acceptable to you, then it is time to move on to another piece of equipment. You've been at this long enough to be able to decide whether the Axe-Fx does it for you. My money says it doesn't. And that's fine. No amount of complaining here is going to change that. It may not be fair, but life isn't always fair.

That's the essence of the message. It is true regardless of how you might feel about the messenger....

Not fair Jay.

I understand folks who understand (as you clearly don't) that it doesn't HAVE to be 'it is what it is'. ASKING for things to be different (or even complaining about it) is different than saying 'I wish my dog hadn't died'. Exploring ways that it could work out better for others is not a bad thing.

If you're trying to teach someone something, insulting them ain't the way to do it.

Ron

 

[mortega76]

Re: Part II: Things learned comparing AXE-FX to Bogner Blue

Yes, I have evolved my approach with the evolving gear. As has everyone, this is a moving target. To remain static is fine, if you are happy. I'd prefer to take advantage of new tools, new possibilities and use what I continue to learn to better perform in a musical setting.

I also continue woodshedding on playing guitar for the same reasons.

As the firmware has evolved, it has become easier and simpler to get where you want to go. And along the way, the tools have increased both in number and in ways to adjust parameters.

I'm no smarter than any other guy here, in fact I am well below the pay scale of many on the 'smarter than thou' scale. I don't have every answer, nor do I have the intricate knowledge some assume I do about using the box. I am not afraid to learn, be wrong, stumble and tear down to start over when I discover - or am taught - a better way to things.

This isn't some box with 1 or two minor firmware bug fixes and that's 'it'. This is a very deep, constantly moving, growing, deeply rewarding and fun box.

Complaining about having powerful deep rich parameter dense options just tells me that you do not want to learn to use them. That's no knock on you, that's what this tract of thinking indicates your propensity towards. I'd suggest just buying whatever amp you like and playing. It's about music, not about fighting your tools. If you want to fight over having to learn to 'get inside' the tools, you chose the wrong toolbox to use.

I sit almost daily using this box saying, WOW. And meaning it. If you are not, then you are either not using it to suit your needs or it's the wrong toolbox for you to use to get there. I don't fight the box, I get what I want and then improve upon it to the point where I laugh when I'm playing a LOT. With joy, not frustration.

I have taken that same exact approach with everything in life... you have to be willing to be wrong to find out whatever "truth" you are seeking... and I am definitely willing to be wrong to search for the "truth" in great tone... I tried to locate where I read that user's don't necessarily have to use the advanced or geek settings when trying to achieve the desired tone of a modeled amp, but didn't find the page... what I'm getting at is these settings (advanced & geek, in Axe-edit) shouldn't have to be a prerequisite for achieving a tube like amp sound when A/B'ing (with a good SS amp) to the real deal...