Axe-Fx III 16.00 Beta 5 "Cygnus" Firmware - Public Beta #2

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ben.Last said:
I assume that that's your take with it stock, before anything is changed?
Click to expand...
I changed the preamp tube type to the JJ 12ax7 and nudged the power supply sag up to 3. The mid knob is a little more aggressive on Recto 2. I like to dime my Recto mids on the real amp which was around 7.6 in the Recto 2 model. That’s all it took for the A/B comparison to feel close enough to not be able to tell which was which.
 
Liam Thompson said:
Can confirm I'm also hearing this exactly as @Satch4u3 describes it after just updating from Beta 1 to Beta 2, similar to how the JVM and 5150 III Red was when discovered faulty.

For reference I'm using Friedman BE V1 and previously had the master volume set to 4. Using my ears and watching the headroom meter I hear that this seems to translate to around 2.8 on the master volume in the new beta, but this isn't the difference in sound I'm hearing, something definitely sounds off.

I have reset and re-dialed, new version of Axe Edit refreshed, everything covered from what I can see.
Click to expand...
There were no changes to the Friedman models. The taper also didn't change as it is Log15 in the model so it's power of suggestion.
Click to expand...

@FractalAudio Hi Cliff,

I've made a recording (attached) showing the difference I'm hearing and feeling. First pass is Public Beta 1, second Public Beta 2.

This is a very basic preset to make sure nothing in my own preset was messing this up.

We have an input block first, threshold OFF, nothing else touched from stock.
Then Friedman BE V1 in the amp block, all settings stock except gain upped to 9 as thats where I had it in my preset.
Cab block with a York Audio Mesa OS 412 SM57 CE2 IR selected, nothing else touched in the cab block from stock.
Output block, all stock.

Here you can clearly hear the difference, Public Beta 2 is muffled, has muddy low mids, it sounds a bit like you would if you knocked your guitar's tone control down a few notches. Almost sounds almost like some kind of blocking distortion is the best way I can describe it.

Disclaimer I haven't used a re-amp track, I can if you need me to provide identical takes. I just played pretty much the same chords each time, though this should be enough to hear something has went wrong with this model even if the model hasn't been changed since Public Beta 1.

If you need me to do anything else let me know.

 

Attachments

  • Beta 1 v 2.png
    Beta 1 v 2.png
    54.3 KB · Views: 20
yek said:
FWIW, my vote goes to an authentic MV control, simply because it's consistent with the other controls.
Click to expand...
One thing to consider with the authentic control is if it gives you less musical fidelity in the ranges that are important, e.g. if an amp is most musical in a small range, like 0.9 to 1.1 is all of the tone-shaping range, can we get values like 0.94853 and 9.5111? Since the distance between those musical sounds might have meaning. If we're locked into 0.94 and 0.95 (two significant digits) that distance might be too large of a musical change, whereas if the taper was more idealized, we'd have the necessary granularity for maximum musicality without going into 6 significant digits.
 
For many people that don't play non-master volume amps: having an authentic curve is an artistic expression control in my opinion, not an output volume issue. That's what the block level is for.

It's an integral part of the experience with tweeds, blackfaces and plexis (unless you're EVH) and the ideal curves were confusing and difficult to dial in for people with decades of experience on tone shaping with real versions.

Either way this beta is freaking awesome and I'm having the time of my life.
 
Liam Thompson said:
@FractalAudio Hi Cliff,

I've made a recording (attached) showing the difference I'm hearing and feeling. First pass is Public Beta 1, second Public Beta 2.

This is a very basic preset to make sure nothing in my own preset was messing this up.

We have an input block first, threshold OFF, nothing else touched from stock.
Then Friedman BE V1 in the amp block, all settings stock except gain upped to 9 as thats where I had it in my preset.
Cab block with a York Audio Mesa OS 412 SM57 CE2 IR selected, nothing else touched in the cab block from stock.
Output block, all stock.

Here you can clearly hear the difference, Public Beta 2 is muffled, has muddy low mids, it sounds a bit like you would if you knocked your guitar's tone control down a few notches. Almost sounds almost like some kind of blocking distortion is the best way I can describe it.

Disclaimer I haven't used a re-amp track, I can if you need me to provide identical takes. I just played pretty much the same chords each time, though this should be enough to hear something has went wrong with this model even if the model hasn't been changed since Public Beta 1.

If you need me to do anything else let me know.

Click to expand...

Try backing down your Master Volume in your Beta 2 patch. Since that taper changed to an authentic taper, it’s probably set too high in your preset. The same thing happened with the test I just did. I backed the MV down to where it was on the real amp and it worked great!
 
wulftone said:
One thing to consider with the authentic control is if it gives you less musical fidelity in the ranges that are important, e.g. if an amp is most musical in a small range, like 0.9 to 1.1 is all of the tone-shaping range, can we get values like 0.94853 and 9.5111? Since the distance between those musical sounds might have meaning. If we're locked into 0.94 and 0.95 (two significant digits) that distance might be too large of a musical change, whereas if the taper was more idealized, we'd have the necessary granularity for maximum musicality without going into 6 significant digits.
Click to expand...

Uh, seriously?
 
York Audio said:
Try backing down your Master Volume in your Beta 2 patch. Since that taper changed to an authentic taper, it’s probably set too high in your preset. The same thing happened with the test I just did. I backed the MV down to where it was on the real amp and it worked great!
Click to expand...
@York Audio
Hi Justin, that's what I initially did, I felt master on 2.8 sounded closest to 4 where I usually like to run the BE100 model, bit it it still doesn't sound right.

In Cliff's previous reply to me he assured me that the BE100 uses LOG 15 pot same as the model and no changes were made from PB1 and PB2
 
Last edited:
Liam Thompson said:
@FractalAudio Hi Cliff,

I've made a recording (attached) showing the difference I'm hearing and feeling. First pass is Public Beta 1, second Public Beta 2.

This is a very basic preset to make sure nothing in my own preset was messing this up.

We have an input block first, threshold OFF, nothing else touched from stock.
Then Friedman BE V1 in the amp block, all settings stock except gain upped to 9 as thats where I had it in my preset.
Cab block with a York Audio Mesa OS 412 SM57 CE2 IR selected, nothing else touched in the cab block from stock.
Output block, all stock.

Here you can clearly hear the difference, Public Beta 2 is muffled, has muddy low mids, it sounds a bit like you would if you knocked your guitar's tone control down a few notches. Almost sounds almost like some kind of blocking distortion is the best way I can describe it.

Disclaimer I haven't used a re-amp track, I can if you need me to provide identical takes. I just played pretty much the same chords each time, though this should be enough to hear something has went wrong with this model even if the model hasn't been changed since Public Beta 1.

If you need me to do anything else let me know.

Click to expand...

What I am experiencing as well. Also the JMPPre models sound like there’s something very strange going on.
 
wulftone said:
One thing to consider with the authentic control is if it gives you less musical fidelity in the ranges that are important, e.g. if an amp is most musical in a small range, like 0.9 to 1.1 is all of the tone-shaping range, can we get values like 0.94853 and 9.5111? Since the distance between those musical sounds might have meaning. If we're locked into 0.94 and 0.95 (two significant digits) that distance might be too large of a musical change, whereas if the taper was more idealized, we'd have the necessary granularity for maximum musicality without going into 6 significant digits.
Click to expand...
That's a good point - never thought of that, but, in the end I vote authentic mainly because one of the things I love about Axefx is that it responds predictably to real world tweaking norms (ie - the manual from my old recto has diagrammed control setting suggestions in the back which actually work pretty much as expected for me on Axefx - cool!), and, it's a slippery slope as suggested above - a couple of "ideally" tapered controls including MV I could negotiate but if we get more and more like this then, well, I agree with Ben above, it becomes unclear what the Axefx is actually supposed to be doing. As far as using one's ears, that's always a given, but if we mostly agree that a big part of what makes the Axefx special is it's precision in all respects, then MV taper should be precise. To wultone's point above, given authentic tapers where the value changes a lot with a small amount of travel, perhaps we need another digit of precision for fine tuning values (on my mac, it's command+up/down arrows instead of up/down arrows for regular adjustment in AxeEdit).
 
York Audio said:
I changed the preamp tube type to the JJ 12ax7 and nudged the power supply sag up to 3. The mid knob is a little more aggressive on Recto 2. I like to dime my Recto mids on the real amp which was around 7.6 in the Recto 2 model. That’s all it took for the A/B comparison to feel close enough to not be able to tell which was which.
Click to expand...
Any clips maybe w the Mesa OS V2 :)
 
York Audio said:
Just got done comparing some real amps to Cygnus and all I can say is WOW! I got nearly perfect matches for my 5150 and Dual Rec by just copying amp settings. Cygnus even matches the “ugly” parts of the real amp, which was actually the most impressive part of the comparison. FWIW, I really like the authentic MV taper. It actually made it easier for me to match the amps.

For the Recto 1 fans, Recto 2 is surprisingly close to my ‘96 Rev G, so don’t be afraid to dig into that model.
Click to expand...
Btw, I tested your “Edgy” IR with the Ac30, and I would bet my youngest daughter that it was dead on to my old ‘94 ac-30. I’m a hobbiest and don’t have the ears most have on here, but it sounded and felt the same to me.
 
do you hear the gap at 1:43 between 2 scenes in my latest video ? I got this in all my presets since day one I have the 3 .... I m living with it ... is it a story about the RAM in the axe that is not enough powerful or ? well this is off topic , but I was thinking about it while cuting the video , the gap is really present grrrr .
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom