MisterE
Fractal Fanatic
Could you elaborate a bit more?I've blind tested the two Les Pauls example with quite a few people
Who was playing the guitar and who was listening?
Could the one listening see or feel the guitar being played?
Could you elaborate a bit more?I've blind tested the two Les Pauls example with quite a few people
But it is identical.Any sample rate does not capture 100% of the signal . It may get the salient points but the final result is not identical.
Brilliant. So clearly explained. A must-see for anyone with the slightest interest in audio recording
Then explain the difference that is quite apparent .This point is still completelly false. The sampling theorem shows that the reconstructed signal in the loudspeaker is 100% identical to the original not only in the sampled points, but for every t
That's the beauty of sampling, yet people still pictures incorrectly the stair shaped signal in their heads.
Then explain the difference that is quite apparent .
Two Les Pauls one ordinary, one exceptional. Amp hidden but fed through to cab in room . Switch between Axe pre and tube amp. Even Axe in to same power stage and cab . The result was the exceptional guitar was not diminished by the tube amp but far less of a difference when using a digital pre. Nobody that tried it was remotely unsure.Could you elaborate a bit more?
Who was playing the guitar and who was listening?
Could the one listening see or feel the guitar being played?
WTF.Apparent for your psyche, or other external factor
It is different, just not necessarily because of samplingOK people if it is not the AD/DA conversion that is loosing something then it is the firmware and the entire process of modelling used ( all systems not just Fractal ) How do you explain the improvements in modelling of the firmware updates if it was 100% all there in the first instance. This would mean no modelling changes at all ever, and no new hardware with more processing power needed EVER. You can't have it both ways. It is either missing something or it's finished and modelling captures 100% of the actual amp. I personally am happy to play digital but I KNOW it is different and go with it instead of pretending it is perfect. There are plenty of things that I can ONLY do with my digital rig and that is fine too.
I basically say this in my last post and the only reason I am talking about this is it is the subject of the thread.What if there was a modeler whose goal was creative expression, rather than emulation? Would we still be talking about what's "lost" going through digital gear?
Arguably the Axe is at least half that, even though it has models of existing amps.
Well if perfect reproduction of the sound and character of the modelled gear is the goal we are not there yet. On the other side there are plenty of really shitty tube amps . If you just want great tone we have it.It is different, just not necessarily because of sampling
This is another story. How far the actual modelling in the Axe is from the real amps in "mathematical" terms is only known to fractal (although the post I mentioned about intermodulation products presented some pretty interesting evidence). I personally am 100% satisfied with the status of modelling and I think I won't need any changes to the algorithm. In fact, in the middle of all the Cygnus excitement, I can't help but ponder if the improvements I'll perceive will worth all the work I will have to do related to preset adjustment. But I can understand this may be completelly different to other people (even if I still believe that psychoacoustics are too easily ruled out from some comparisons).OK people if it is not the AD/DA conversion that is loosing something then it is the firmware and the entire process of modelling used ( all systems not just Fractal ) How do you explain the improvements in modelling of the firmware updates if it was 100% all there in the first instance. This would mean no modelling changes at all ever, and no new hardware with more processing power needed EVER. You can't have it both ways. It is either missing something or it's finished and modelling captures 100% of the actual amp. I personally am happy to play digital but I KNOW it is different and go with it instead of pretending it is perfect. There are plenty of things that I can ONLY do with my digital rig and that is fine too.
This is another story. How far the actual modelling in the Axe is from the real amps in "mathematical" terms is only known to fractal (although the post I mentioned about intermodulation products presented some pretty interesting evidence). I personally am 100% satisfied with the status of modelling and I think I won't need any changes to the algorithm. In fact, in the middle of all the Cygnus excitement, I can't help but ponder if the improvements I'll perceive will worth all the work I will have to do related to preset adjustment. But I can understand this may be completelly different to other people (even if I still believe that psychoacoustics are too easily ruled out from some comparisons).
Here‘s a fun experiment: in a month or two, release a firmware update that does absolutely nothing at all. Write some fake release notes saying we changed this and that and the other thing. Now see how many pages we get of people gushing about how awesome the new sounds are. haha
So the people were aware when you switched between Amp and AxeFx?Two Les Pauls one ordinary, one exceptional. Amp hidden but fed through to cab in room . Switch between Axe pre and tube amp. Even Axe in to same power stage and cab . The result was the exceptional guitar was not diminished by the tube amp but far less of a difference when using a digital pre. Nobody that tried it was remotely unsure.
That doesn’t even have to happen; at least once or twice with every update there’s someone claiming they can hear something changed that was never touched. Then there are those who claim they hear the changes, but then describe what they’re hearing and it’s nothing on par with what the update brought.