Axe-Fx III Firmware 26.00 Public Beta

[Jim DeSchamp]

yes (thankyou), and so a debate on the topic is really about how close to 100% we are, and answering that needs precision + rigor as suggested above - most here don't have time for that

It’s similar to breath into a microphone, without it vocals would sound different. The air pressure a physical speaker moves does the same thing, gives it more weight . IR’s don’t have it.

Exactly!!

 

[Rock Chalk]

I think the available space is limited but Fractal did say before that some additional cabs would be added.

Yep, and for some reason I thought that space was going to be occupied by bass cabs, which is why I was pleasantly surprised.

 

[Joshua_L]

"Right"? It's mostly a question he's asking in varying words :

so again, the answer to that question is: it can!, and Fractal has been gradually accomplishing it here for years via incremental modelling improvements delivered in fw updates. Why is it so hard for some to acknowledge that obvious answer? - is there some distance still to go - yes, but not much in manys' view. Why the focus on "100% now" with language that sounds like: "its not there at all and what's the problem with the stall in getting it there"

That was a general statement. Not directed to fractal specifically.

It was underlined that it must be really hard and a real challenge to create algorithms for it.

I spend majority of my time praising fractal and saying how happy I am.

 

[Joshua_L]

It’s similar to breath into a microphone, without it vocals would sound different. The air pressure a physical speaker moves does the same thing, gives it more weight . IR’s don’t have it.

That’s the best comparison I’ve heard.

 

[unix-guy]

It’s a communication thing and after owning a guitar store for almost 30 yrs I totally understand what he is saying. You tech guys get lost so I understand why you disagree

It has absolutely nothing to do with "tech guys"... That's a pretty insulting statement to make.

And yes, it's a "communication thing" - that's what words are!

Using words to describe sounds becomes very easy to confuse. This topic has been discussed many times here and other places.

For example, using a word previously used in the discussion, what does "weight" sound like? How about "woody" or "glassy"? Those could all mean different things to you than to me than to the next guy.

Sounds are sounds. I can hear a sound but probably have no way to describe that sound so that you know exactly what it sounds like.

 

[notalemming]

It has absolutely nothing to do with "tech guys"... That's a pretty insulting statement to make.

And yes, it's a "communication thing" - that's what words are!

Using words to describe sounds becomes very easy to confuse. This topic has been discussed many times here and other places.

For example, using a word previously used in the discussion, what does "weight" sound like? How about "woody" or "glassy"? Those could all mean different things to you than to me than to the next guy.

Sounds are sounds. I can hear a sound but probably have no way to describe that sound so that you know exactly what it sounds like.

This!! If a picture is worth a thousand words, an audio clip that accurately demonstrates the concern is worth a million words.

 

[Peavey Herman]

Creamy, fat, thick, thin, syrupy, drippy, chewy, chuggy, spicy, tasty, spacey, airy, burning, searing, scorching, icey, breezy, crisp/crispy, heavy, light, dark, sick, insane, tubular (!) and "aaaaaaaaaaawesome dooood".

Who can guess the album?

(It's not by Billy Joel)

 

[unix-guy]

Creamy, fat, thick, thin, syrupy, drippy, chewy, chuggy, spicy, tasty, spacey, airy, burning, searing, scorching, icey, breezy, crisp/crispy, heavy, light, dark, sick, insane, tubular (!) and "aaaaaaaaaaawesome dooood".

Who can guess the album?

(It's not by Billy Joel)

Was that Dweezil?

 

[Jim DeSchamp]

It has absolutely nothing to do with "tech guys"... That's a pretty insulting statement to make.

And yes, it's a "communication thing" - that's what words are!

Using words to describe sounds becomes very easy to confuse. This topic has been discussed many times here and other places.

For example, using a word previously used in the discussion, what does "weight" sound like? How about "woody" or "glassy"? Those could all mean different things to you than to me than to the next guy.

Sounds are sounds. I can hear a sound but probably have no way to describe that sound so that you know exactly what it sounds like.

I apologize for the statement. My issues with you should have been left alone. My apologies to the rest also.

 

[Burn Witch Burn]

I like discussions about Telecasters sometimes ...but not on this thread. Some topic deviation is ok (to a small extent) but the tele topic has gotten too off-topic. Please start a tele thread. I would prefer this thread and firmware threads that follow stay on firmware topics.

 

[Randalljax]

Was that Dweezil?

I was going with Zappa
But Dweezil works too

 

[unix-guy]

I was going with Zappa
But Dweezil works too

This is what I was thinking of... Been many years since I listened to it.

https://www.dweezilzappa.com/songs/1964114-return-of-the-son-of-shoogagoogagunga

Obviously not the right one!

 

[Peavey Herman]

Somebody montion Beefheart and we got a hattrick.

 

[rzjd]

my 2 cents.
I compare an IR like midi drums at this point.
The main problem with midi drums is it's fine to have samples and it will get the job done, but they do not fully emulate the fact that the drum is already ringing from being hit previously. In the real world sound is very complex especially if that instrument is already resonating from previous notes. With midi, it is just playing the same round robin bank and not taking into account any previous notes. Like I said, it's fine in a mix and will be fine for certain music types live.
Static IRs fall under the same realm. Static curves are simple and will get the job done. However, they will not take into account the current cone motion from previous notes or cabinet resonances. Like I said it's all fine for now.

 

[York Audio]

It’s similar to breath into a microphone, without it vocals would sound different. The air pressure a physical speaker moves does the same thing, gives it more weight . IR’s don’t have it.

Your ears are better than mine. I'm the one who made these clips and still can't tell which is the live cab moving air vs the IR.

One is a live amp moving air, one is the amp through a load box and an IR, and one is half and half, but not necessarily in that order.



This one switches in real time between a live cab moving air and an IR... I don't remember which is first or how many times it switches though.



I can't hear much of a difference even focusing on an isolated guitar track, so I definitely wouldn't be able to hear the difference in the context of a mix.

 

[unix-guy]

my 2 cents.
I compare an IR like midi drums at this point.
The main problem with midi drums is it's fine to have samples and it will get the job done, but they do not fully emulate the fact that the drum is already ringing from being hit previously. In the real world sound is very complex especially if that instrument is already resonating from previous notes. With midi, it is just playing the same round robin bank and not taking into account any previous notes. Like I said, it's fine in a mix and will be fine for certain music types live.
Static IRs fall under the same realm. Static curves are simple and will get the job done. However, they will not take into account the current cone motion from previous notes or cabinet resonances. Like I said it's all fine for now.

Not the same... An IR isn't generating sound, it's filtering it.

Midi drums are actually generating/triggering the sound.

 

[duzie]

Your ears are better than mine. I'm the one who made these clips and still can't tell which is the live cab moving air vs the IR.

One is a live amp moving air, one is the amp through a load box and an IR, and one is half and half, but not necessarily in that order.



This one switches in real time between a live cab moving air and an IR... I don't remember which is first or how many times it switches though.



I can't hear much of a difference even focusing on an isolated guitar track, so I definitely wouldn't be able to hear the difference in the context of a mix.

The middle section of the first clip caught my ear for some reason.
They all sound fabulous!

 

[BTU]

Your ears are better than mine. I'm the one who made these clips and still can't tell which is the live cab moving air vs the IR.

One is a live amp moving air, one is the amp through a load box and an IR, and one is half and half, but not necessarily in that order.



This one switches in real time between a live cab moving air and an IR... I don't remember which is first or how many times it switches though.



I can't hear much of a difference even focusing on an isolated guitar track, so I definitely wouldn't be able to hear the difference in the context of a mix.

Interesting... Don't know why but now I want to replicate this test with my own amp and cab...

 

[Peavey Herman]

Not the same... An IR isn't generating sound, it's filtering it.

Midi drums are actually generating/triggering the sound.

I likely misunderstood, but I took rzjd's meaning not to be a direct comparison of method (filtering vs. creating/triggering) but a comparison of how far their respective part of emulation has come. "IR's have this problem while MIDI drums have that problem..." kind of statement.

 

[rzjd]

I likely misunderstood, but I took rzjd's meaning not to be a direct comparison of method (filtering vs. creating/triggering) but a comparison of how far their respective part of emulation has come. "IR's have this problem while MIDI drums have that problem..." kind of statement.

exactly. The current method of IR technology will evolve. Everyone seems hell bent to compare the real vs the model instead of just enjoying the current sounds. There are still a lot of factors to overcome if you want apples to apples and that may never arrive. As it stands, the sounds are ridiculously close.