Axe-Fx III Firmware 31.02 Release

Status
Not open for further replies.
Given the tonal quality of the Axe-FX III amp emulations, this discussion is entirely pointless. The components of a any tube amp are subject to an ageing process that changes the tone of the amp over time, some manufacturers use different components in the same amp model (depending on availability, price), etc. Therefore, the emulation of a tube amp is based on a specific amp at a specific point in time. If one really wants to assess how exact the emulation is, one would have to compare it to this particular amp, which will, however, likely have undergone aging in the meantime ...
 
I just wanted to say that I think my AxeFXIII sounds and plays fantastic.

It is without a doubt a true piece of pro gear that I can count on, and IMO the best digital amp modeler on the planet.

Thank you Cliff and your team for all the hard work and dedication that has gotten us to where we are today, and I appreciate and look forward to the upcoming FW releases while you hone your craft.

👏👏👏
 
Would be amazing if we could get 31.03 with the fixes before the 31st - got quite a big NYE gig I’d love to use the AFX3 for, without those strange distortion issues reported in this thread.
 
With white box modelling you just “have” to put faith on the designer that it’s accurate as they can make it, minus the marketing talk (fractal,line 6, boss etc) .

As consumers we don’t access to the original model they used to compare it to for ourselves to say if it’s practically/scientifically accurate.

Sure graphs and sound clips can be shared by the designer in the case for white box modelling but there’s always the distrust of the data being manipulated.

VS with black box modelling (neural dsp,NAM, kemper etc) we can compare our capture/profile to their original and practically/scientifically test ourselves if it sounds the same.

I say it’s a healthy speculation to question accuracy, if it sounds/feels good to play then it is good for the purpose of enjoyment IMO

-happy fractal user
 
Frank Furter said:
Given the tonal quality of the Axe-FX III amp emulations, this discussion is entirely pointless. The components of a any tube amp are subject to an ageing process that changes the tone of the amp over time, some manufacturers use different components in the same amp model (depending on availability, price), etc. Therefore, the emulation of a tube amp is based on a specific amp at a specific point in time. If one really wants to assess how exact the emulation is, one would have to compare it to this particular amp, which will, however, likely have undergone aging in the meantime ...
Click to expand...
I believe the modelled amps for the ax3 goes through component maintainance, so I read from cliff anyway.

Let me see if I can find it
 
ApocalypticKatana said:
I believe the modelled amps for the ax3 goes through component maintainance, so I read from cliff anyway.
Click to expand...
... and even if they do, our hardware amps that we use on- and off-stage all have some signs of ageing and may have different components installed (perhaps starting from the tubes). Therefore, it is not meaningful to compare any real amp out there to an emulation of the same model in the Axe-FX and complain that it does not sound exactly the same ;)

Personally, I sometimes use my Axe-FX III together with a Mesa Boogie Mk IV B in a 4-cable setup. I have set up an amp block with the three channels of the Mk IV that I have configured to match the sound of the real amp as closely as possible. I started by setting the tone controls of the emulated amp to the same settings as in the hardware amp, and the grid of the Axe-FX is configured so that I can switch between the hardware and the emulated preamp with a footswitch. After some adjustments of the settings of the emulated amp, the two are now so close that I am having difficulties to distinguish them in a blind test even though I have played the 'real thing' for more than 20 years now and I know it quite well.

My take-home message is that the real and the emulated amp do not sound exactly the same; otherwise I would have produced the same tone with the same settings. It can, however, be tweaked to sound almost identical. I expect that I might have experienced the same 'effect' when comparing my Mk IV to someone else's 'real' Mk IV.

This is the point that I was trying to make ;)
 
Hi

I am comparing a real Maxon 808 against the one is the axe (Maxoff 808) and am I surprised of how different they sound as boost

with the eternal : tone 5 , drive 0 and level 10 setting,

The original pedal is more transparent, respect the original signal and just add some gain , where the one in the axe add tons of gain, mids etc . the test is easy if you have one near you . I think There is some space to do something there

Also I hope you have a nice christmas you all !
 
My name is mud said:
Hi

I am comparing a real Maxon 808 against the one is the axe (Maxoff 808) and am I surprised of how different they sound as boost

with the eternal : tone 5 , drive 0 and level 10 setting,

The original pedal is more transparent, respect the original signal and just add some gain , where the one in the axe add tons of gain, mids etc . the test is easy if you have one near you . I think There is some space to do something there

Also I hope you have a nice christmas you all !
Click to expand...
This is latest update correct ?
I know last one had improvements to drives going into amp and how that reacts
 
Frank Furter said:
... and even if they do, our hardware amps that we use on- and off-stage all have some signs of ageing and may have different components installed (perhaps starting from the tubes). Therefore, it is not meaningful to compare any real amp out there to an emulation of the same model in the Axe-FX and complain that it does not sound exactly the same ;)

Personally, I sometimes use my Axe-FX III together with a Mesa Boogie Mk IV B in a 4-cable setup. I have set up an amp block with the three channels of the Mk IV that I have configured to match the sound of the real amp as closely as possible. I started by setting the tone controls of the emulated amp to the same settings as in the hardware amp, and the grid of the Axe-FX is configured so that I can switch between the hardware and the emulated preamp with a footswitch. After some adjustments of the settings of the emulated amp, the two are now so close that I am having difficulties to distinguish them in a blind test even though I have played the 'real thing' for more than 20 years now and I know it quite well.

My take-home message is that the real and the emulated amp do not sound exactly the same; otherwise I would have produced the same tone with the same settings. It can, however, be tweaked to sound almost identical. I expect that I might have experienced the same 'effect' when comparing my Mk IV to another 'real' Mk IV.

This is the point that I was trying to make ;)
Click to expand...

I agree, no two same name model amp’s/delay/drive/reverb etc sound the same anyway due to part tolerances and age as you said etc

My point was that cliff goes the extra mile to stay as true to what was initially modelled 😉

So why people compare for accuracy with the modelled amp in ax3 with their analog version when it’s not exactly what was modelled is just naive/or for experimentation on how close they can get it 😉
 
My name is mud said:
Hi

I am comparing a real Maxon 808 against the one is the axe (Maxoff 808) and am I surprised of how different they sound as boost

with the eternal : tone 5 , drive 0 and level 10 setting,

The original pedal is more transparent, respect the original signal and just add some gain , where the one in the axe add tons of gain, mids etc . the test is easy if you have one near you . I think There is some space to do something there

Also I hope you have a nice christmas you all !
Click to expand...
Component tolerances and different circuit board parameters/revision plays a huge factor on whether they line up or not.

Might be a user error level/gain aswell.
 
Randalljax said:
This is latest update correct ?
I know last one had improvements to drives going into amp and how that reacts
Click to expand...
yes that the 31.02

@ApocalypticKatana hm no. I'm ok with component tolerance, but here I think the gap is too huge . the 808 got this reputation of being one of the most transparent OD , thats why many persons like it and use it as a boost. Here it is everything but not transparent .
 
My name is mud said:
yes that the 31.02

@ApocalypticKatana hm no. I'm ok with component tolerance, but here I think the gap is too huge . the 808 got this reputation of being one of the most transparent OD , thats why many persons like it and use it as a boost. Here it is everything but not transparent .
Click to expand...
Then there’s the possibility of a different circuitboard revision/tamperment or the firmware did something to it (speculation in my and your end is pointless only fractal can really say)

Take a picture of what’s inside for the circuitry and maybe share here to see if it’s the same circuit version to fractal’s model. (Even then components could not be the same)

Just sharing perspective
 
My name is mud said:
yes that the 31.02

@ApocalypticKatana hm no. I'm ok with component tolerance, but here I think the gap is too huge . the) 808 got this reputation of being one of the most transparent OD , thats why many persons like it and use it as a boost. Here it is everything but not transparent .
Click to expand...
Never owned one so I could well be off base, but my understanding was that it cut lows and boosted mids, that's what people used it for.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom