Axe-Fx II XL & Matrix vs. 1964 AC-30

Does that mean my thoughts were correct? I stated that I liked Amp 1 more because the tone seemed to have a bit more bass and seemed to be a bit louder and that I thought that the amps sounded basically identical. Was there more bass and more volume dialed in on amp 1?

I didn't dial up more mids or bass in #1 on purpose, but based on the comments (and my own ears), yes amp #1 had more mids and bass in the end. The Vox had a sharper, tighter EQ footprint. There is also something going on with the resonance of the Matrix cab. There is a hollow mid/bass tone that seems to linger more than on the Vox. I tried very hard to get the Axe/Matrix to be more like the Vox but in the time I had couldn't get there 100%. I'm going to continue to experiment and refine it. Almost everyone observed the same you did. So at least we are all hearing about the same thing.
 
Michael,

Thank you for doing this test and for all your efforts on YouTube. I'm a big fan.

I'm late to the party here, but I wanted to chime in since I'm one of those folks still on the fence about what gear to invest in. I listened to the test without looking at the results or anyone's votes. I picked out #2 as the real AC30 right away. I didn't pick #2 on the basis of the eq. I actually preferred the midrange eq of #1. However, #2 has much more harmonic richness than #1. The sound is much thicker (despite the treble-y eq) and more complex than #1.

My humble opinion is something like this: The Axe model is quite good, and probably is a better musical instrument than many tube amps. I also have no doubt that you can often get a better sound to the audience with an Axe through the PA than you can by miking the real thing. But, I think the Axe still isn't quite as close to the real thing as many people would like. Some of the character of the real thing still isn't being produced (and I don't mean the amp-in-the-room phenomenon). As a U2 fan, I'm sure if you listen to your test again, you'll recognize that #2 has more of the recognizable Edge-like sonic qualities than #1.

Just my thoughts. Thanks again for your hard work.
 
Last edited:
Michael,

Thank you for doing this test and for all your efforts on YouTube. I'm a big fan.

I'm late to the party here, but I wanted to chime in since I'm one of those folks still on the fence about what gear to invest in. I listened to the test without looking at the results or anyone's votes. I picked out #2 as the real AC30 right away. I didn't pick #2 on the basis of the eq. I actually preferred the midrange eq of #1. However, #2 has much more harmonic richness than #1. The sound is much thicker (despite the treble-y eq) and more complex than #1.

My humble opinion is something like this: The Axe model is quite good, and probably is a better musical instrument than many tube amps. I also have no doubt that you can often get a better sound to the audience with an Axe through the PA than you can by miking the real thing. But, I think the Axe still isn't quite as close to the real thing as many people would like. Some of the character of the real thing still isn't being produced (and I don't mean the amp-in-the-room phenomenon). As a U2 fan, I'm sure if you listen to your test again, you'll recognize that #2 has more of the recognizable Edge-like sonic qualities than #1.

Just my thoughts. Thanks again for your hard work.

great work axeman. i'm just hoping that you have done what I would have done with a blind test experiment. that is, purposely given the wrong result for a fixed period of time, say a couple or 3 weeks so people can have the chance to react, then hit us all with the real and true result. this isn't a dig at you one09jason, just a way of adding to a blind test.

sid.
 
Michael, I was suckered six ways to Sunday and was beyond confident that the woody-sounding, and more organic sounding amp was amp #1, and was sure that was the real thing. I am beyond blown away, and have learned to question my prejudices whenever they may come up! Thanks for the lesson! This example was perhaps the best one to further convince me the AxeFx II was a great purchase!
 
I think a lot of people reacted similarly to Eric. My interpretation of this is that folks who aren't familiar with Vox amps might be more likely to mistake #1 for the real thing. I think most people who haven't played these amps don't realize how ear-splittingly bright Voxes are. For me, is was one of the dead giveaways in the test: strong clean volume in the upper frequencies. Lots of well-defined pick attack as well.

Another giveaway for me, being a U2 fan, was when you played the opening notes of "All I Want is You". As you go from picking the D chord back to the A, and the B and G strings continue to ring, there's something there too that the Axe doesn't replicate. Interference patterns? Additional harmonics? I'm not sure, but it is undeniable "Edge" tone from the AC30 and is a sonic fingerprint of that song.

Michael, is there any chance you could replicate this test with just the Axe in full swing (amp block, cab emulation, close miked, latest v16 firmware) with the real thing close miked? Pretty please?
 
I think a lot of people reacted similarly to Eric. My interpretation of this is that folks who aren't familiar with Vox amps might be more likely to mistake #1 for the real thing. I think most people who haven't played these amps don't realize how ear-splittingly bright Voxes are. For me, is was one of the dead giveaways in the test: strong clean volume in the upper frequencies. Lots of well-defined pick attack as well.

Another giveaway for me, being a U2 fan, was when you played the opening notes of "All I Want is You". As you go from picking the D chord back to the A, and the B and G strings continue to ring, there's something there too that the Axe doesn't replicate. Interference patterns? Additional harmonics? I'm not sure, but it is undeniable "Edge" tone from the AC30 and is a sonic fingerprint of that song.

Michael, is there any chance you could replicate this test with just the Axe in full swing (amp block, cab emulation, close miked, latest v16 firmware) with the real thing close miked? Pretty please?

one09jason, thx for your comment. Well, then you have an ear that way above average if you truly heard all that. Keep in mind, all it takes is a slight adjustment on any one of the Axe model parameters and you can get more brightness etc. It could be that I just didn't model it close enough. For me, there is not enough difference to own the amp (too loud, heavy, more expensive to maintain etc.). In fact I just sold her!

As for your request, I would love to, but I have to ship the amp. But here is my take on it. While I was confident that I could model the AC-30 using the Matrix power amp and cab, it would be harder with only the Axe II for a few reasons. First, what would I use for output? Compare sound in headphones, and the take off headphones and listen to the real amp? That's much harder to do because I would have to try to model the reverb in my room which is impossible. No way I could ever get the reverb in the Axe to be like in my room. Or would I use my monitors and use no reverb block, that would be the best way to do it. I would then have to set up the monitors next to my amp (possible but they are on a shelf). But then I would be introducing many more parameters that would require adjustments. THIS IS REALLY IMPORTANT. Let me explain.

With the Matrix gear, I used no cab model. I adjusted the amp model block only to compensate for the "fixed" Matrix cab (no parameters to adjust on that). The amp model block has many parameters and each time I changed one parameter meant I had to go back and change others to compensate for changes I didn't want (when you change one parameter it may have a non-linear affect on other parameters). It was iterative and took a lot of time. I eventually converged to fairly equivalent tone. Now, if I did the same with my monitors, then I would need to use the cab block and IRs along with a reverb block. So I would have to find an IR that matches my cab. Well I have one that I created with the Axe using the IR creation feature. But there are other parameters in the cab and reverb block that I would have to include in my iterative process. The number of possible combinations of adjustments goes up exponentially so it would take much longer to get the Axe to sound exactly like the real amp. I believe I could do it in a studio with everything carefully laid out.

With the Matrix, the cab is almost the exact same size and has two 12" speakers. Both cabs were passive and had no adjustments to make. So I was only comparing the amp model block to the amp's pre and power amp.

What I can do is take my clips from the video, use the IR I created from my AC-30 and then try to get the same tone. I think I can get close. I'll see what I can do.

My preliminary conclusion is if you want to model a real amp for live use, pick one cabinet that you feel you can use for all amplifiers. The cab is important, but with the Axe-Fx, you can compensate for the changes in cabs across amps by adjusting the many parameters on the amp model block. So now you have just one cab and hundreds of great sounding live amps. And it doesn't take a long to model the amps because you never have to worry about the cab or reverb blocks. Just use amp block on Axe to your external power amp into cab. The more you use gear you can't adjust, the easier it is to model. The Axe amp model block is that powerful. BTW, my clips in the video are all AC-30. For Vertigo, Edge uses a Fender amp. So I just used the same Matrix cab, dialed up the closest Fender amp type that gave me the closest tone, and then I adjusted the parameters to compensate for the Matrix cab. Added the right tube drive and bingo, I have perfect tone for Vertigo with the Axe and exact same cab as on other songs. Essentially, you don't have to model the "real life", "moving air" of a cab. Just use one real cab and focus on the amp model block. Then you don't have to worry about IRs either. This is why I chose not to go the FRFR route. More stuff to adjust and try which takes too much time.

Also keep in mind that if you lined up 10 vintage AC-30s and did a blind test, you could probably hear at least five or more different tones. Parts manufacturers may be different, resister and cap values can drift, speakers can be in different shape based on past use, etc. No AC-30 will sound the same. So if I model my AC-30 and then someone else compares my "all Axe-Fx" preset to their real AC-30, they may still sound totally different. And the person comparing may have a totally different guitar also.

I don't have the technical knowledge to know which parameter to change to get certain tonal qualities. I just experiment with all of the and let my ear direct me. If I had cliff in a studio with me and my amp, and a couple weeks of making adjustments, I'm certain I could model any amp to the point where you couldn't tell the difference at all. It's just a matter of the time invested. My video may not have been perfect, but it proves you can get there. The question is how much time do you want to invest to get a marginal improvement that most will not notice.

Cliff has created a monster! And I mean that as a compliment. The Axe is so flexible and can get you any tone with time and effort. It's amazing that the very few knobs on a real amp have been sliced and diced down to hundreds of controls. One amp block can be a thousand different amps using the exact same amp type. It's amazing!
 
Revisited this, as I am looking to improve the "amp-in-room" feeling when playing at my home base (plus, I'm a total gear junkie). Currently running a strictly FRFR setup with 3x CLRs (L/C/R) when I want to crank it, 2x Adam A3X for when wifey is home - and a Sennheiser RS 220 for when she is asleep :)

Now seriously considering the Matrix GT1000FX + NL 212 route as backline, with the CLRs still doing stereo duty on their stands. I play a lot to backing tracks, so I wanna keep elements of FRFR in my setup. Watching your video again has got me almost convinced, gotta go check out what Matrix can offer me I think - exciting times ahead! :)
 
Revisited this, as I am looking to improve the "amp-in-room" feeling when playing at my home base (plus, I'm a total gear junkie). Currently running a strictly FRFR setup with 3x CLRs (L/C/R) when I want to crank it, 2x Adam A3X for when wifey is home - and a Sennheiser RS 220 for when she is asleep :)

Now seriously considering the Matrix GT1000FX + NL 212 route as backline, with the CLRs still doing stereo duty on their stands. I play a lot to backing tracks, so I wanna keep elements of FRFR in my setup. Watching your video again has got me almost convinced, gotta go check out what Matrix can offer me I think - exciting times ahead! :)

If I had room, I would buy the new FR 212 and compare the Axe + NL212 (with no cab models) to the Axe + FR212 (with cab models). But end of day, I prefer simplifying things, so I'm happy with the NL212 for live use. I say choose a cab you really like and just adjust the amp model parameters to get the sound you want with that one cab. If you go the FRFR route, it can work great, but then you have to determine what cab model to use, IR etc etc. Lots of other decisions to make.
 
Just checked this out and honestly the second amp sounded way better too me. It had a sparkle and punch. I don't know if that equates "real ness" or not but that's my opinion. Would be interested to see a G3 type test like this
 
If I had room, I would buy the new FR 212 and compare the Axe + NL212 (with no cab models) to the Axe + FR212 (with cab models). But end of day, I prefer simplifying things, so I'm happy with the NL212 for live use. I say choose a cab you really like and just adjust the amp model parameters to get the sound you want with that one cab. If you go the FRFR route, it can work great, but then you have to determine what cab model to use, IR etc etc. Lots of other decisions to make.

Tonewise, I am happy with the FRFR-setup I have now. I like playing around with IRs, and being able to just plug into a mixer and a PA and getting the same tone as I have at home is great stuff. However, for my home playing I do wonder if I am missing out on the infamous "amp-in-room"-feel. Axe+FRFR by design is after all reproducing the sound of a mic´ed up guitar cab driven by a tube amp - which is absolutely stellar for studio work and gigs. However, playing around at home I do miss the punch and feel of a real cab - which is why I might try the NL212, in combination with my current setup. Was considering using a Vox extension cabinet with the GT1000FX, as I mostly play U2 stuff (by the help of your stellar tutorials and presets Michael, you´re the reason I even own an Axe FX...). But the NL212 seems like a more versatile option. I think :)

One of the (many) great things about the Axe FX is it´s versatility - being able to run both an FRFR-setup and power amp+ cab together, or separately at need. Good stuff.
 
I bet!
To me the Axe is the amp #2 of the test.
The more clarity/brighty sound to me is because you don't use a cab IRs. This little difference virtually became 0 with a cab IRs.
There is some kind of compression/autolevelling that goes on with the mics direct to the camera input: hitting the strings you ear the compression/autolevelling and then the release
 
I'd like to see a G3'd version of this too.

AFAIK the AC30 model is based on a modern version of the amp, which is less bright and more bell-like sounding.
Any chance Cliff can get his hands on an older one? Maybe even Axeman's ex grey panel.
 
I thought amp 1 was the Axe FX II because of the background noise when I first heard it. My home office causes my Axe FX II to buzz the same.

Listening to the guitar playing supported that initial impression. However I was not 100% sure.
 
Back
Top Bottom