First, thank you to everyone for taking the time to watch my video and provide comments. I'm so glad I did this test.
I have counted the votes on the YouTube video page as of an hour ago. A total of 26 people confidently or hesitantly chose which amp was the real AC-30.
There were a total of 26 votes as of an hour or two ago. 20 said the 1st amp was the Vox and 6 said the 2nd amp was the Vox. So 76.9% think that #1 is the Vox, or #1 received 3x more votes as the real Vox AC-30. Not a perfect statistical sample, but I think we can conclude most people would think #1 is the real Vox.
I know that most people can hear a difference, but I was certain that the split would come in closer to 50/50, give or take 5%. What's interesting is that #1 was often described as "softer" or "more organic", while number two was described as "sharper" or "thinner." Actually, I heard the same difference as the majority. It's just humans trying to describe EQ or physics. Amp #1 did have more mids and less treble (in more simple / direct terms). Now I know what "organic" means.
What's also clear in the comments is when people were unsure what to vote, they chose what they liked more. This is why a blind test is so important. A person's preference will align with a "real" amp because they are biased in thinking that what they like more must be more "real." If they like something better, they assume that what they like is the "real thing" or "more real." Absolutely fascinating! I'm sure there is a technical term for this bias, but I'm going to label it the "organic bias."
Drum roll please......
Well, the blind test worked. Amp #1 was the Axe-Fx II XL / Matrix GT 1000FX & NL212. #2 was the original 1964 AC-30TB "Gray Panel"! This is a big win for Fractal Audio and Matrix.
No statistical sample is perfect, but based on reviewing the vote and the comments, I'm convinced of the following:
1) Digital technologies (Fractal Audio in this case) can model analog amps so well that no one can tell the difference (just as digital cameras can now take pictures as well as traditional film - if you did a blind test between two photographs you wouldn't be able to tell which was digital and which was original Kodak film);
2) All the chatter on the various gear websites are just biased opinions. A blind test is the only way to compare any two items fairly;
3) Descriptions like "organic" and "softer" just mean that there is a EQ spectrum that is preferred by most people. It does not mean that something is analog vs. digital. It just means that a majority of the people like to hear balanced mids, highs and bass. An analog device can be made to sound harsh and thin with the bass cut and treble knob. So can a digital device. It seems most people don't like too much bass or too much shrilling brightness (on a relative basis as depicted in this test). In other words, if amp #1 had sounded like #2 and I had turned the treble knob and bass cut knob on amp #2 to sound even brighter, then most people would have chosen #1 again because it was RELATIVELY more "organic" or "softer" than #2. You only have two choices, so on a relative basis it seems most people like a more balanced EQ. But both overall tonal footprints were similar.
4) The brain can play tricks on you! Don't trust you own opinion! It's inherently biased because of past experiences and other signals stored in or being received by the brain.
Everything you hear is based on math and physics. Your brain is an amazing computer based on chemical reactions and electrical stimuli. Your eardrum vibrates and three tiny bones amplify the sound waves and go to the inner ear. The vibrations pass through the inner ear called the Cochlea (which is filled with fluid). Sound waves travel through the fluid of the Cochlea and move tiny hairs that cause an electrical signal to travel down the auditory nerve to the brain, and you hear sound. It's just physics. There is no "organic" vibration. There are specific frequencies at certain amplitudes colliding and combining to create and infinite number of sounds. Various human systems (systems that generate frequencies), whether analog or digital, should be able to create these sounds. The human body has a certain performance level in it's ability to detect sound (20hz to 20k hz, etc.), and engineering has created computers with A/D and D/A conversion, amplifiers etc. that are finally converging on specs of analog devices. It should not be a surprise that an analog signal can be reproduced by digital technology.
I've posted the video below a few times on this forum. Everyone should watch it. In a nut shell, the conclusions in this blind test supports the conclusions in this video. If you disagree with the video below, then you are tossing science out the window. Guitar pickups, amplifiers, cables, etc. are just physical devices that can be modeled using math (e.g., Fourier Transforms) and physics (speaker magnet and cone).
Cliff gets this more than anyone and it's why Fractal Audio is the best guitar pre-amp processor on this incredible planet. It just took 4.54 billion years to get here. ;-)
