Dimi Guitar
Inspired
Ok, but how?tested it many times.
Ok, but how?tested it many times.
A Les Paul standard from the 90s and a 60th anniversary R9 in to a Two Rock jet and axe. Also Marshall JTM45 vintage, VH4, Twin, MK4, SLO,HBE, very easy to tell the two apart in the real amps compared to the axe and a Kemper.Ok, but how?
Your opinion is a fact?They all sounded great but the difference in the two LPs was very much more apparent in tube amps. Sorry but fact.
Yes, anybody who did this would not hesitate to whole heartedly agree. Way beyond conjecture and the R9 sounds SOOOO much better than the standard. If you tried it you wouldn't even ask.Your opinion is a fact?
I agree. The character of my guitars stand out more on my FM3 and AF3 than with my tube amps.I disagree completely. I hear the guitar so much more with the axe.
What do you use for a stereo? Something that doesn't involve DACs?Putting any signal through a DAC diminishes it. You may get a sample rate that makes it so you can't hear the difference but it is there. In the real world the Axe is good enough but don't think it is the same, at can't be. It is just a different way of doing things. Embrace the difference instead of pretending it is an exact reproduction of old technology in a new shaped box. Axe has parameters that tube amps could never have and endless versatility. Now put that in a small box and play it at any volume, configure it any way you like and control it all with one small foot controller. BUT pick one amp one sound no FX and one guitar with a cable and the amp is better.
Totally agree, I play my axe every day but I know it's different to my analog rig and that's fine.What do you use for a stereo? Something that doesn't involve DACs?
I used to be an all analog tube stereo guy, and hung with a guy who designed state of the art versions of that stuff. He only played LPs from select labels, and those were significantly degraded after maybe a half dozen plays.
But that ship has sailed for me, not worth it IMO, not the money or the hassle.
My point is just that we can't really say that having a DAC in the chain turns audio into an undifferentiatable smear -- it's what we listen to pretty much every time we hear recorded music.Totally agree, I play my axe every day but I know it's different to my analog rig and that's fine.
Listening is different from playing through. I don't think anyone can spot an Axe recording from a tube amp one anymore but playing is still another thing.My point is just that we can't really say that having a DAC in the chain turns audio into an undifferentiatable smear -- it's what we listen to pretty much every time we hear recorded music.
So you're saying that people hear more defects while playing through an FRFR setup designed for high-ish volume, than through an audiophile rig built for critical listening?Listening is different from playing through. I don't think anyone can spot an Axe recording from a tube amp one anymore but playing is still another thing.
Sorry but this is simply mathematically not true.I don't think it is the axe in particular just DAC in general ,stuff is left out. I use Axe3 every day and just accept that digital is different.
In what way is 'sampling' all the signal??? So yes true, what sort of maths did you learn?Sorry but this is simply mathematically not true.
You'd literally need superhuman hearing to appreciate a difference if sampling is done properly.
In the only way that matters: what you can biologically perceive.In what way is 'sampling' all the signal???
Well you can tell in the way I said and maths is not your strong point.In the only way that matters: what you can biologically perceive.
Understanding the math behind how sampling works is different from knowing that with a high enough sample rate it's indistinguishable to the human ear. No need to be a dick.Well you can tell in the way I said and maths is not your strong point.
Telling me that it is not mathematically correct is just wrong and you can hear the difference I describe night and day. So no need for you to be a dick .Understanding the math behind how sampling works is different from knowing that with a high enough sample rate it's indistinguishable to the human ear. No need to be a dick.
Telling me that it is not mathematically correct is just wrong
Absolutelly not. I stand 100% behind my point. The way you're chosing your words seem to imply that there is some "magical" feature in the "analog world" that cannot be replicated in the digital domain. I don't know if this is your case, but when thinking about sampling, many people picture themselves the stair-shaped digital signal, and this is 100% wrong. For a band-limited signal, if sampling and reconstruction is done properly, the reconstructed signal coming from the speakers, in strictly mathematical terms, is exactly 100% equal to the native analog signal.Well you can tell in the way I said.