• We would like to remind our members that this is a privately owned, run and supported forum. You are here at the invitation and discretion of the owners. As such, rules and standards of conduct will be applied that help keep this forum functioning as the owners desire. These include, but are not limited to, removing content and even access to the forum.

    Please give yourself a refresher on the forum rules you agreed to follow when you signed up.

Axe-Fx Accuracy Issues

Status
Not open for further replies.

steadystate

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

No matter how I adjusted the knob on my Pignose, I just couldn't get a sound I liked. I decided it wasn't for me and moved on. One parameter or a thousand...does it really matter?
 

Jay Mitchell

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

electronpirate said:
I understand folks who understand (as you clearly don't) that it doesn't HAVE to be 'it is what it is'.
The Axe-Fx has been out for ~four years, and there have been, by my count, 34 firmware updates since I bought mine at 3.18. Most of us - my feeling is the vast majority - who own Axe-Fxs have by now come to terms with the capabilities and limitations of the box. The odds of there being night-and-day changes beyond what is there now are extremely slim, if not zero.

ASKING for things to be different (or even complaining about it) is different than saying 'I wish my dog hadn't died'.
Asking repeatedly for some unidentified "something" ("It's too hard to get what I want") is not productive behavior. If you don't have what you want in the Axe-Fx at this point, I would suggest that some soul-searching is in order. Either what you want but haven't gotten is minor enough that the pluses outweigh the minuses, or it is time to move on. That is called "coming to terms with reality." The Axe-Fx does not please me in every aspect of its operation or sound, either. I choose to keep mine nonetheless, because it beats the crap out of any alternative.

Exploring ways that it could work out better for others is not a bad thing.
I see no evidence that Mo has explored anything of consequence. The best exploring he could possibly do would be to find someone close to him who understands how to use the box and enlist their assistance, even if it costs money.
 

mortega76

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

Jay Mitchell said:
mortega76 said:
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....
Well Jay, I have to give "props" to Deltones for pointing out Yek's elegantly written post where he points out that that the manual states: "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")

So taking this into account... it "should" be the case...

And I'm not sure if you've overlooked my many posts stating that this is specifically the case with high gain amps which I'm not sure if you have any experience with, since you haven't stated otherwise... folks who use the clean to crunch models seem to find their tones very easily... as do folks who use tube power amps.

Deltones said:
mortega76 said:
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...

yek said:
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:

yek said:
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.
 

mortega76

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

steadystate said:
No matter how I adjusted the knob on my Pignose, I just couldn't get a sound I liked. I decided it wasn't for me and moved on. One parameter or a thousand...does it really matter?
The problem with getting a pignose is that you eventually have to play it... ;)

"One parameter or a thousand... does it really matter?" So are you telling me that you've NEVER adjusted ANY of your parameters on ANY amp you've ever used? :?:
 

mortega76

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

Jay Mitchell said:
electronpirate said:
I understand folks who understand (as you clearly don't) that it doesn't HAVE to be 'it is what it is'.
The Axe-Fx has been out for ~four years, and there have been, by my count, 34 firmware updates since I bought mine at 3.18. Most of us - my feeling is the vast majority - who own Axe-Fxs have by now come to terms with the capabilities and limitations of the box. The odds of there being night-and-day changes beyond what is there now are extremely slim, if not zero.

ASKING for things to be different (or even complaining about it) is different than saying 'I wish my dog hadn't died'.
Asking repeatedly for some unidentified "something" ("It's too hard to get what I want") is not productive behavior. If you don't have what you want in the Axe-Fx at this point, I would suggest that some soul-searching is in order. Either what you want but haven't gotten is minor enough that the pluses outweigh the minuses, or it is time to move on. That is called "coming to terms with reality." The Axe-Fx does not please me in every aspect of its operation or sound, either. I choose to keep mine nonetheless, because it beats the crap out of any alternative.

[quote:11hjmsrt]Exploring ways that it could work out better for others is not a bad thing.
I see no evidence that Mo has explored anything of consequence. The best exploring he could possibly do would be to find someone close to him who understands how to use the box and enlist their assistance, even if it costs money.[/quote:11hjmsrt]
As I've stated before Jay... being a clean to low gain player you don't "hear" what's possibly missing with the higher gain amp models when compared to their real life counterparts.
 

Scott Peterson

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

mortega76 said:
Jay Mitchell said:
electronpirate said:
I understand folks who understand (as you clearly don't) that it doesn't HAVE to be 'it is what it is'.
The Axe-Fx has been out for ~four years, and there have been, by my count, 34 firmware updates since I bought mine at 3.18. Most of us - my feeling is the vast majority - who own Axe-Fxs have by now come to terms with the capabilities and limitations of the box. The odds of there being night-and-day changes beyond what is there now are extremely slim, if not zero.

ASKING for things to be different (or even complaining about it) is different than saying 'I wish my dog hadn't died'.
Asking repeatedly for some unidentified "something" ("It's too hard to get what I want") is not productive behavior. If you don't have what you want in the Axe-Fx at this point, I would suggest that some soul-searching is in order. Either what you want but haven't gotten is minor enough that the pluses outweigh the minuses, or it is time to move on. That is called "coming to terms with reality." The Axe-Fx does not please me in every aspect of its operation or sound, either. I choose to keep mine nonetheless, because it beats the crap out of any alternative.

[quote:5aze0gol]Exploring ways that it could work out better for others is not a bad thing.
I see no evidence that Mo has explored anything of consequence. The best exploring he could possibly do would be to find someone close to him who understands how to use the box and enlist their assistance, even if it costs money.
As I've stated before Jay... being a clean to low gain player you don't "hear" what's possibly missing with the higher gain amp models when compared to their real life counterparts.[/quote:5aze0gol]

Then why are you doing this here on a 'low gain' thread?

Serious question. Time and place for everything, this isn't the place.

This thread started as a very constructive member helping member thread and has devolved into metal guys raking those that try to help others over the coals.

It's rude and bad form.
 

R.D.

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

mortega76 said:
As I've stated before Jay... being a clean to low gain player you don't "hear" what's possibly missing with the higher gain amp models when compared to their real life counterparts.
I hesitate to jump in here ..., but ....

I've cue'd up Mark Day's OD-100SEPlus clips right next to his Axe-Fx clips side by side ....

With him playing the same section of a couple of different songs ( Dokken's-In My Dreams & Toto's-Hold The Line ), using the same Guitar ( his Suhr Modern ) ..., listening on HD ( even after Y.T. f's with the file transfer ), that's as close to a control group as anything anyone else has done ....

I simply can't hear enough difference to amount to anything at all. And my listening monitors aren't necessarliy the best, but they're no slouch either ( Blue Sky ) ....

Plus Mark's definitely not a clean to low gain player by anyone's definition !

Go give a listen for yourself, and tell us what you could possibly think is missing in the Axe-Fx version that is present in the OD-100SEPlus version ?
 

FractalAudio

Administrator
Fractal Audio Systems
Moderator
Re: Part II: Things learned comparing AXE-FX to Bogner Blue

Yes, but it is what it is. I adjust little more than the basic controls and it sounds just like my real amps. So, in that respect, I can't give guys like Mo any advice other than "it's not for you, try something else".

Certain design choices were made (by me) that others may not agree with, i.e. the pot tapers. Those choices weren't made by polling the forum members. If you don't or can't agree with those choices then perhaps you'd be better suited using something else. You can argue semantics about what the manual says but that isn't going to change anything.

Furthermore there are certain aspects that simply can't be modeled and require user intervention. For example, a speaker has a low-frequency resonance. A tube amp will create a higher output at that resonant frequency. The Axe-Fx has no way of knowing what that resonant frequency is and defaults to a value that is common for the speakers that are typically used with that amp. However, if you drive that speaker through a solid-state amp you won't excite the resonance unless you adjust the LF Resonant Frequency to match it. This is the one of the few advanced parameters I ever adjust and I tweak it until I hear the bottom end "sympathize". For example, my favorite Mesa cab resonates around 110 Hz but most of the models default to 95 Hz so I usually adjust the LF Resonance to 110 Hz when using that cab. After I do that the Axe-Fx is indistinguishable from the real thing, IMHO.

If you are unwilling to accept limitations such as that then it's not the product for you. All the bitching in the world can't change the fact that the Axe-Fx is physically separated from the speaker and therefore can't measure it's resonant frequency.

Finally, it's still just a modeler. It's perhaps the best modeler ever created but it's still a modeler and as such, by definition, it's not an exact duplicate of a tube amp. Some people feel it sounds better, others feel it simply sounds different while others feel it sounds inferior. Those who fit into the first two categories are usually the type who understand that the unit is a tool, understand it's limitations and also understand its incredible power and versatility and, as such, are willing to exert the effort needed to use the tool to it's full potential. Those in the last category are probably better served by a different product.

To use the tired digital camera analogy: there are those who still think that any digital camera is inferior to a medium-format camera shooting Fujifilm Velvia 50. They stubbornly cling to that technology and are able to produce beautiful works of art. Many others, however, find the limitations of that medium far too restrictive (slow exposure, large camera body, need to develop the negatives, lack of shot review, etc., etc., etc.). Those people gladly accept the minor differences in color rendition, gamma, contrast, etc. in exchange for the vastly improved workflow and creative possibilities afforded by the digital medium. They too create incredible works of art. Neither type is superior to the other (although both would argue they are). If you fall into the former category then buy a Hasselblad and have fun. If you fall into the latter category then buy a Nikon or Canon or whatever and have just as much fun.

No amount of complaining, however, is going to turn a Nikon into a Hasselblad. FWIW I own a Canon and a Leica. The Leica produces incredible images but it's also severely limited. The Canon also produces great images but they don't have that "Leica look". The Leica does one thing and does it very well. The Canon is vastly more flexible and with a little work can produce images that rival the Leica although it takes patience and time to get there. On the other hand the Canon can do things the Leica could never do. Different tools for different jobs.

The Axe-Fx is a creative tool. Either you get it or you don't. If you don't there are tons of tube amps out there. The gear sites are overflowing with used ones. Buy one and be happy.
 

mortega76

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

Scott Peterson said:
Then why are you doing this here on a 'low gain' thread?

Serious question. Time and place for everything, this isn't the place.

This thread started as a very constructive member helping member thread and has devolved into metal guys raking those that try to help others over the coals.

It's rude and bad form.
Serious answer. As far as I was aware... the Bogner 101B Ecstasy was a high gain amp... and now that I think about it we actually played right before a guy who had a half stack Bogner Ecstasy and it blew away whatever high gain sound I was running at the time with my full stack. I think I even posted about it here the same night it happened...

Technically, I have not deviated from the OP's core subject... which was to A/B the sound of his amp with the amp sim in the Axe-fx and I was giving my experience and possible reason why he was having a hard time accomplishing his task... I don't see where there should be a problem?
 

Scott Peterson

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

mortega76 said:
Scott Peterson said:
Then why are you doing this here on a 'low gain' thread?

Serious question. Time and place for everything, this isn't the place.

This thread started as a very constructive member helping member thread and has devolved into metal guys raking those that try to help others over the coals.

It's rude and bad form.
Serious answer. As far as I was aware... the Bogner 101B Ecstasy was a high gain amp... and now that I think about it we actually played right before a guy who had a half stack Bogner Ecstasy and it blew away whatever high gain sound I was running at the time with my full stack. I think I even posted about it here the same night it happened...

Technically, I have not deviated from the OP's core subject... which was to A/B the sound of his amp with the amp sim in the Axe-fx and I was giving my experience and possible reason why he was having a hard time accomplishing his task... I don't see where there should be a problem?
I've owned the Bogner Ecstasy and the Blue Channel is far from "high gain". Please read Cliff's post, it speaks to this. You hijacked this thread to make your point. I get it. Everyone that read it gets it. Doesn't change the facts. Thread hijacking is rude. The OP notes that he's tried my preset and was happy. You have noted you did not try any presets because you don't have your Axe-FX. That means you are speaking out of school. I don't have any issue with you, but this behavior is indeed bad form.

The modeled amp in the Axe-FX is the Bogner Ecstasy 20th Anniversary. Not the 101B.
 

mortega76

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

R.D. said:
mortega76 said:
As I've stated before Jay... being a clean to low gain player you don't "hear" what's possibly missing with the higher gain amp models when compared to their real life counterparts.
I hesitate to jump in here ..., but ....

I've cue'd up Mark Day's OD-100SEPlus clips right next to his Axe-Fx clips side by side ....

With him playing the same section of a couple of different songs ( Dokken's-In My Dreams & Toto's-Hold The Line ), using the same Guitar ( his Suhr Modern ) ..., listening on HD ( even after Y.T. f's with the file transfer ), that's as close to a control group as anything anyone else has done ....

I simply can't hear enough difference to amount to anything at all. And my listening monitors aren't necessarliy the best, but they're no slouch either ( Blue Sky ) ....

Plus Mark's definitely not a clean to low gain player by anyone's definition !

Go give a listen for yourself, and tell us what you could possibly think is missing in the Axe-Fx version that is present in the OD-100SEPlus version ?
I've stated this before and he's even said it as well... he massively tweaks his Global EQ to compensate. I remember everyone loved his first couple of shared patches but they were chiming in on how it sounded much worse than what he was showing on this recordings...
 

R.D.

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

mortega76 said:
I've stated this before and he's even said it as well... he massively tweaks his Global EQ to compensate. I remember everyone loved his first couple of shared patches but they were chiming in on how it sounded much worse than what he was showing on this recordings...
Then you're not "up to date" .... The only compensation Mark's making now is pulling 63Hz all the way down .... After that eveything's flat ....

Besides ..., what does that have to do with the mysterious "something's missing" issue ? If Mark's got them tweaked to be that identical, it surely proves ( to me at least ) that nothing of any consequence is missing whatsoever ( IMHO ) !
 

steadystate

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

mortega76 said:
steadystate said:
No matter how I adjusted the knob on my Pignose, I just couldn't get a sound I liked. I decided it wasn't for me and moved on. One parameter or a thousand...does it really matter?
So are you telling me that you've NEVER adjusted ANY of your parameters on ANY amp you've ever used? :?:
You missed my point entirely. Read Cliff's post above.
 

mortega76

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

FractalAudio said:
Yes, but it is what it is. I adjust little more than the basic controls and it sounds just like my real amps. So, in that respect, I can't give guys like Mo any advice other than "it's not for you, try something else".

Certain design choices were made (by me) that others may not agree with, i.e. the pot tapers. Those choices weren't made by polling the forum members. If you don't or can't agree with those choices then perhaps you'd be better suited using something else. You can argue semantics about what the manual says but that isn't going to change anything.

Furthermore there are certain aspects that simply can't be modeled and require user intervention. For example, a speaker has a low-frequency resonance. A tube amp will create a higher output at that resonant frequency. The Axe-Fx has no way of knowing what that resonant frequency is and defaults to a value that is common for the speakers that are typically used with that amp. However, if you drive that speaker through a solid-state amp you won't excite the resonance unless you adjust the LF Resonant Frequency to match it. This is the one of the few advanced parameters I ever adjust and I tweak it until I hear the bottom end "sympathize". For example, my favorite Mesa cab resonates around 110 Hz but most of the models default to 95 Hz so I usually adjust the LF Resonance to 110 Hz when using that cab. After I do that the Axe-Fx is indistinguishable from the real thing, IMHO.

If you are unwilling to accept limitations such as that then it's not the product for you. All the bitching in the world can't change the fact that the Axe-Fx is physically separated from the speaker and therefore can't measure it's resonant frequency.

Finally, it's still just a modeler. It's perhaps the best modeler ever created but it's still a modeler and as such, by definition, it's not an exact duplicate of a tube amp. Some people feel it sounds better, others feel it simply sounds different while others feel it sounds inferior. Those who fit into the first two categories are usually the type who understand that the unit is a tool, understand it's limitations and also understand its incredible power and versatility and, as such, are willing to exert the effort needed to use the tool to it's full potential. Those in the last category are probably better served by a different product.

To use the tired digital camera analogy: there are those who still think that any digital camera is inferior to a medium-format camera shooting Fujifilm Velvia 50. They stubbornly cling to that technology and are able to produce beautiful works of art. Many others, however, find the limitations of that medium far too restrictive (slow exposure, large camera body, need to develop the negatives, lack of shot review, etc., etc., etc.). Those people gladly accept the minor differences in color rendition, gamma, contrast, etc. in exchange for the vastly improved workflow and creative possibilities afforded by the digital medium. They too create incredible works of art. Neither type is superior to the other (although both would argue they are). If you fall into the former category then buy a Hasselblad and have fun. If you fall into the latter category then buy a Nikon or Canon or whatever and have just as much fun.

No amount of complaining, however, is going to turn a Nikon into a Hasselblad. FWIW I own a Canon and a Leica. The Leica produces incredible images but it's also severely limited. The Canon also produces great images but they don't have that "Leica look". The Leica does one thing and does it very well. The Canon is vastly more flexible and with a little work can produce images that rival the Leica although it takes patience and time to get there. On the other hand the Canon can do things the Leica could never do. Different tools for different jobs.

The Axe-Fx is a creative tool. Either you get it or you don't. If you don't there are tons of tube amps out there. The gear sites are overflowing with used ones. Buy one and be happy.
Thank you very much for chiming in Cliff... I've actually seen a photography "video" that showed different wedding photographer's philosophies and there was this one photographer who shot with nothing but Leica cameras... it was a bit funny to hear that distinct film camera "click" but damn... the photographs were beautiful.

I have seen (many videos... I know they don't give a 100% accurate representation but the players responses say it all) and read too many instances where the Axe-fx is a 1:1 when going into the power section of the amp they are trying to mimic or sometimes even into a different tube power amp all together. Hopefully I will be able to afford a tube power amp and use it with the Axe-fx and get great results.

Again, thank you for chiming in Cliff... also, since it looks like they delivered my Axe-fx to your office maybe you could just double check to make sure it just isn't my Axe-fx that possibly has something wrong with it... I really do appreciate everyone's comments on this subject.
 

Jay Mitchell

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

mortega76 said:
As I've stated before Jay... being a clean to low gain player
You have no idea of the range of sounds I cover, now or at other times since I began playing guitar more than 45 years ago. Calling me a "clean to low gain player" is nothing but a rude attempt on your part to pigeonhole me into a limited area that represents one small corner of a universe of sonic ranges in which I am comfortable. You'd be much better off staying away from this kind of ignorant crap.

you don't "hear" what's possibly missing
I hear a lot better than you. Of that I am certain. If I want to get a "high gain" sound from my Axe-Fx (one of my primary presets uses a Bogner sim, and it is far from "clean") I get that sound. If you would spend your time learning instead of bitching, you'd find you could do likewise....
 

yek

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

Jay Mitchell said:
mortega76 said:
As I've stated before Jay... being a clean to low gain player
You have no idea of the range of sounds I cover, now or at other times since I began playing guitar more than 45 years ago. Calling me a "clean to low gain player" is nothing but a rude attempt on your part to pigeonhole me into a limited area that represents one small corner of a universe of sonic ranges in which I am comfortable. You'd be much better off staying away from this kind of ignorant crap.

you don't "hear" what's possibly missing
I hear a lot better than you. Of that I am certain. If I want to get a "high gain" sound from my Axe-Fx (one of my primary presets uses a Bogner sim, and it is far from "clean") I get that sound. If you would spend your time learning instead of bitching, you'd find you could do likewise....
Jeez, Jay...

What's with you people today? I read the thread again and IMO Mo has done nothing here that would deserve all these "elite" responses.
 

Jay Mitchell

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

yek said:
What's with you people today?
"You people?" Just who are these "you people" folks, and what, in your opinion, do "we" all have in common?

IMO Mo has done nothing here that would deserve all these "elite" responses.
It is long past time for Mo to move on. It is painfully obvious that he is not going to get whatever it is he wants from the Axe-Fx. I'm not the only one who has reached that conclusion, BTW.
 

mortega76

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

Jay Mitchell said:
mortega76 said:
As I've stated before Jay... being a clean to low gain player
You have no idea of the range of sounds I cover, now or at other times since I began playing guitar more than 45 years ago. Calling me a "clean to low gain player" is nothing but a rude attempt on your part to pigeonhole me into a limited area that represents one small corner of a universe of sonic ranges in which I am comfortable. You'd be much better off staying away from this kind of ignorant crap.

you don't "hear" what's possibly missing
I hear a lot better than you. Of that I am certain. If I want to get a "high gain" sound from my Axe-Fx (one of my primary presets uses a Bogner sim, and it is far from "clean") I get that sound. If you would spend your time learning instead of bitching, you'd find you could do likewise....
Jay... all it's going to do is get me banned again for talking to you so I hope you have a wonderful day. :D
 

mortega76

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

Jay Mitchell said:
yek said:
What's with you people today?
"You people?" Just who are these "you people" folks, and what, in your opinion, do "we" all have in common?

IMO Mo has done nothing here that would deserve all these "elite" responses.
It is long past time for Mo to move on. It is painfully obvious that he is not going to get whatever it is he wants from the Axe-Fx. I'm not the only one who has reached that conclusion, BTW.
And I also hope you have a wonderful 2011... :D
 

Deltones

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

mortega76 said:
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?
Yes, you should. After all, that's what Yek's reference to the manual implies. And yet, we get users' replies like...

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.
I don't know why, but that kinda puts me in a kick-in-the-nuts mood because it's so freaking far from the freaking point and it makes dismissive and insulting assumptions about how we roll with the Axe-Fx. The point is Basic parameters (BMT, Drive, Volume, Presence) VS Advanced parameters, not the willingness to learn the tool. As far as I'm concerned, Advanced parameters should be used if you want to experiment on, or mod if you will, the amp model you're working on AFTER you dialed in what it should sound like with a basic amp and its proper cab sim, using only the basic parameters you find on almost every amp faceplate in the universe.

Look at it this way: The basic parameters are the like the hammer and the nail. The advanced parameters are like the compressor and the nail gun. If you smashed your thumb/got a crappy sound because you handled your hammer/amp knobs like a retard, then it is really your own damn fault. But in everyday situations, you will nail that nail/tone by using only your basic, run of the mill hammer/amp knobs. However, there is absolutely nothing stopping you to use a nail gun/advanced parameters for special jobs/amp mods. So why should it be different with the Axe-Fx?

This weekend, a friend of mine came over and we tried to create a good Tweed Bassman patch, using only the basic parameters and the stock 4x10 cab. We couldn't do it, it just wasnt' there. So what am I doing? Same thing I did when I created my Twin patch, that I also couldn't nail using only the basic parameters and stock 2x12 cab by the way: Audition Redwirez cabs like crazy, playing around with Advanced/Amp Geek parameters. In short, using a freaking nail gun to nail one simple nail. I don't have any problem doing that with the Ultra. But I still think I shouldn't have to do it.

Addendum:

I just read Cliff's latest long reply and it's a good read. However, I'm pretty sure that what Cliff and others call complaints would never have been an issue if the passage I quoted from Yek's post wasn't in the manual. Perception is reality gentlemen, and people will expect that "the Axe-Fx’s amp, drive and cabinet simulations are very faithful reproductions of the originals" will reflect that reality. Unless I'm mistaken, in the originals, you didn't have to open the chassis and deal with XFormer Hi Freq and Hi Freq Resonance to get the trademark sound of that amp. Simple twists of knobs on the faceplate was all it took. It is what is is...

But using the Axe-Fx as a creative tool and not a direct replacement to existing amps? Sure, I can roll with that, no problem.

Oh yeah, about my Bassman patch attempt:

FractalAudio said:
I adjust little more than the basic controls and it sounds just like my real amps.
Well, my friend and I didn't use this as reference this weekend, but for your own amusement, can you guys make a patch with a 59Bassguy + 4x10 Bass cab block and use the settings you see in the following video? Just the basic parameters. And then compare what you hear. Don't forget that according to the wiki, the drive knob will be your main volume, so your master should be between 4 o'clock to full on with this type of amp. Here's the clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SHYHYzcqBOY
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom