Axe-fx power amp modelling possibly still not up to par?

mortega76 said:
Dinkledorf said:
http://www.fractalaudio.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=22974
Click to expand...
I'm not using IR's into my cabs...
Click to expand...
mortega76 said:
Dinkledorf said:
http://www.fractalaudio.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=22974
Click to expand...
I'm not using IR's into my cabs...
Click to expand...
mortega76 said:
Please don't take this as a stab at the Axe-fx... I only ask this because I want the best possible sound out of my Axe-fx... If by me voicing my concerns helps in any way shape or form to advance the "sound" of the Axe-fx for everyone then I'm glad I'm doing it... I'm a digital guy... and I've always believed that digital is the way to go...

I've used two different power amps... a Class H (QSC GX5) and a Class AB (Peavey PV1500)... I've done some A/B'ing with tube amps and a couple of times it has come up short and a couple of times it has "equaled" or "bested" the tube amps at the time... this last time I put it up against some tube amps it wasn't even close on the harmonic complexity that the tube amps possessed... call it noise, call it tube depth, call it whatever it is... it just wasn't there. It was as if a big chunk of the mid to mid/highs was gutted out... dynamics were nowhere close to the other amps in the room going through the same cabs.

I've asked a similar question in the past and I will say that the power amp modeling has made leaps and bounds over previous versions... especially with 7.xx, 9.xx and 10.03...

Lower gain folks seem to be able to get great tone out of the Axe-fx, and I've actually gotten some great punchy clean tones out of my Axe-fx... so I'm wondering if this affects higher gain amp sims more so than lower gain amp sims... Folks like Jay and Scott (lower gain to mid gain players) have had great success in A/B'ing their tones to tube amps with great success.




Are the amp sims being modeled at lower volumes? Are they A/B'd at ear ripping volumes to get good feel for how they compare to their physical counterparts?

Also, I've read folks here (and on other forums) who love the sound of their Axe-fx with the 4CM into the power section of a tube amp (or simply just get a tube power amp to drive their Axe-fx) have great success since earlier firmware versions since they are bypassing the virtual power amp section.

What are everyone's thoughts?
Click to expand...
:!:

Well ! The power amp simulation might be perfect . But the interaction with the speaker can´t be perfect beacause they aren´t connected to each other .
Speaker movements is a dynamic process , not some eq thing only . How could the AXE possibly know where your cone is at every moment in the attack . These things happens automaticly in tube amp´s output stage (connected to moving speakers) .

I bet that it never can be exactly the same thing . Maybe close enough for some people.
The usual problem is , dead attack and a low midrange bump.


Thomas
 
Well when we went back to back with the real 5150 and you Axe 5150 (after Cesar dialed in the Para EQ) I thought the Axe crushed the real thing. At the ampfest in Austin, I thought the Axe sounded great, but not quite as good as the modded JVM or the Cameron CCV. I sold my Axe last summer, but after those events, I'm ready to buy another.

too_much_power said:
Just a little question, how did you A/B the 5150 and the axefx? Thru the same cab? Two identical cabs next to each other?
Click to expand...


af1-1.jpg
 
mhenson42 said:
Well when we went back to back with the real 5150 and you Axe 5150 (after Cesar dialed in the Para EQ) I thought the Axe crushed the real thing. At the ampfest in Austin, I thought the Axe sounded great, but not quite as good as the modded JVM or the Cameron CCV. I sold my Axe last summer, but after those events, I'm ready to buy another.
Click to expand...
That's an interesting take on the comparison from another set of ears. Maybe you can get together with Mo and help him out?
 
Jay Mitchell said:
mhenson42 said:
Well when we went back to back with the real 5150 and you Axe 5150 (after Cesar dialed in the Para EQ) I thought the Axe crushed the real thing. At the ampfest in Austin, I thought the Axe sounded great, but not quite as good as the modded JVM or the Cameron CCV. I sold my Axe last summer, but after those events, I'm ready to buy another.
Click to expand...
That's an interesting take on the comparison from another set of ears. Maybe you can get together with Mo and help him out?
Click to expand...
That was my Axe-fx in the picture there... :D

I was at Matt's house for the mini-amp fest and we were both at the Austin amp fest... so technically we both experienced the same phenomena.

As I said, with an A/B (amp to amp sim alone) the Axe-fx didn't quite make it with the 5150... but with some massive GEQ and a PEQ (another person's suggestion at his house) we got the Axe-fx sounding better than the 5150 in 1000 watt bridged mode... and I know you're going to say "use your ears" but shouldn't we only have to the amp sim to sound like the amp in question? Or in the case of the CCV-100 and modded JVM... at least in the ballpark?
 
You bought and own a highly configurable tool box full of advanced powerful tools and don't want to use the wrench? You admit it sounded better than the amp.... yet this entire thread was started by you because the Axe-fx didn't measure up according to you.

No slam on you, but... really?

You seem stuck on debating the 'should' be when you have the tools to make it work.

Remember this - the Axe-FX running creates the entire loop of the signal both before and after the cab in a conventional setup. Even run as a preamp only, due to the power afforded by the routing matrix, you can do all sorts of things that are almost impossible in a conventional analog setup. You seem caught up in mirroring 1:1 your analog setup; but that's simply not reality. For instance, you cannot mirror setting the treble at 1 o'clock on the amp to a setting of 6.0 on the treble on the Axe-FX because the range is bigger on the Axe-FX. You must use your ears and think outside the box; this isn't some new thing. It's been the 'way' since Axe-Fx hit the street. You have to use your ears. As Jay says (a lot), the tools are in there. You have to use the tools.
 
Scott Peterson said:
You bought and own a highly configurable tool box full of advanced powerful tools and don't want to use the wrench? You admit it sounded better than the amp.... yet this entire thread was started by you because the Axe-fx didn't measure up according to you.

No slam on you, but... really?

You seem stuck on debating the 'should' be when you have the tools to make it work.

Remember this - the Axe-FX running creates the entire loop of the signal both before and after the cab in a conventional setup. Even run as a preamp only, due to the power afforded by the routing matrix, you can do all sorts of things that are almost impossible in a conventional analog setup. You seem caught up in mirroring 1:1 your analog setup; but that's simply not reality. For instance, you cannot mirror setting the treble at 1 o'clock on the amp to a setting of 6.0 on the treble on the Axe-FX because the range is bigger on the Axe-FX. You must use your ears and think outside the box; this isn't some new thing. It's been the 'way' since Axe-Fx hit the street. You have to use your ears. As Jay says (a lot), the tools are in there. You have to use the tools.
Click to expand...
Thanks for chiming in Scott... but in the case of the CCV-100 (and pretty much every other amp in the Austin amp fest) the mid range "meat" and dynamics was simply not there... including using the GEQ... maybe it's my Peavey PV1500, but if that were the case it would have been the QSC GX5 as well. Just doesn't make sense.

A buddy of mine Paul text me the other day after he got his QSC RMX 2450 and his Axe-fx (just ordered an Axe-fx after we A/B'd his ENGL SE and 5150 with my Axe-fx 10.02 and heavy GEQ :) ) and said that he tried the 4CM with his 5150 against the QSC RMX 2450 pushing 500 watts at 8ohm into his Mills Acoustic cabs with K100 speakers (same that we used at the amp fest) and he A/B'd the two and the QSC RMX setup just lacked that certain "something" when compared to the power amp section of the 5150... I was going to go over there to A/B them against my PV1500, QSC RMX 2450 and the power amp section of the 5150 but I didn't get a chance this week and he already has the QSC RMX 2450 packed up and ready to ship back to the music store.

I don't want to come off as "slamming" the Axe-fx... I'm only relaying my (and a couple of other folks) experiences... I want the Axe-fx to be my be all, end all of guitar tone.

P.S. Just sent an email to the Matrix folks to see how much it would be for the XT2000 power amp... it's a MOSFET (whatever that means) Class AB power amp at 600 watts at 8ohm and a whopping 1000 watts at 4 ohm!!!
 
MO - I don't think you 'slamming' anything.

I just want to point out that there are a lot of ways you can make it from A to B. If you use your tools, it's there.

What you sense as 'lacking' might be simply rethinking your process.
 
that something missing compared to a valve amp section - Ive heard it too. I used to run an Art SLA - but after trying 2 different valve amp power stages (a VHT and an Orange) they just sounded better to me - not tonally but dynamically. I them tried a valve power amp (a Marshall 50/50) and found the same improvements over the Art. I ended up getting a VHt 2:50:2 and much prefered it to the Art.

now - it may well be that the Art was a more neutral amp, and the VHt is adding colour that i happen to like. It may be the Art isnt a great amp (for the money its not really going to be is it?) but I havent tried anything really nice (and with all respect, your Peavey and GSC arnt that nice either in truth). i think class A/b is a must, but thats not all. I dont know what is, but all the amps Ive been recommended have been an order of magnitude more expensive than the Art.

Thing is, the axe gives you the tools, as has been said, and if your using a power amp into a real cab, then you have to factor in that too. If you like the sound of a valve power stage over a SS one, then use a valve one. It may not be technically the best way of amping the axe (as it adds some colour, however little) but if it gives you the feel you want then thats what you should do.
 
I think I understand what Mo is saying, he wants the Axe-FX to give the same sound and experience as the tube amps when going into the same cab. And he argues that it should not be necessary to tweak extensively and resort to "artificial" tools like EQs when everything else is the same. If it is accurate then the amp model should provide the same experience through a linear poweramp into said cab as the original real world amp does into said cab.

I see his point. Theoretically I can't argue against that.

Anyone can explain why it isn't so? Is it just a matter of the practical not following the theoretical? Or is it just a function of different amps of the exact same make and model also sounding different? It appears Mo remains unconvinced of this. Would using a tube poweramp solve his plight?



I must say, at our little Dutch Axe-FX meeting earlier this year there was one setup with a VHT 2502 and 2x12 guitarcab among all of us FRFR players and it was to me the least convincing of the bunch. Disappointing, actually. Tweaked to death, I figured. So, tweaking can certainly kill a tone.

Then again we didn't have all those lovely booteek amplifiers to compare to.
 
Dutch said:
I think I understand what Mo is saying, he wants the Axe-FX to give the same sound and experience as the tube amps when going into the same cab. And he argues that it should not be necessary to tweak extensively and resort to "artificial" tools like EQs when everything else is the same. If it is accurate then the amp model should provide the same experience through a linear poweramp into said cab as the original real world amp does into said cab.
Click to expand...

I'd say I agree with this too.

Let's say you have, say the SLO sim on with PA sim on going through a flat SS power amp into a 4x12, next to a real SLO into the same model 4x12 cabinet.

At the same SPL levels if the real SLO is put with all the controls at noon, I'd expect the controls at noon (with the exception of the gain & presence knobs since those are documented as behaving differently than most original implementations) to sound like the other amp.

Obviously the amps with abnormal tone stacks (Mark series, Vox) would be exempt from this, since that's documented that they behave slightly different than the original implementation (though personally I'd still prefer the tone controls to match what the original amp did, like for mark series needing to have the bass control on 2 or things get flubby).

I should postscript this with the fact that I've never had issues getting great sounds out of the Axe for what I'm looking to do. I admittedly have had to use a para EQ or GEQ to exactly match my axefx to the original amp. At one point I spent a fair amount of time A/Bing a powerball, SLO, and MarkIV side by side with the Axe; all needed some EQ love to get the voicing to sound identical, but I WAS able to make it happen. And I love that it has the flexibility to alter the tone like that, but I think we're just saying that it would be nice that this EQing shouldn't be necessary out-of-the-box.

Though I do have a deviation in tone snobbery after embracing the Axe. I no longer really want to capture THAT EXACT tone of the old tube amp. So I'll just sit and dial in a good tone, which we all know is there in spades. So I see both sides of this, but I think having an identical sound as the original amp out-of-the-box should be the default action. Likely easier said than done, but food for thought.
 
Dutch said:
I think I understand what Mo is saying, he wants the Axe-FX to give the same sound and experience as the tube amps when going into the same cab. And he argues that it should not be necessary to tweak extensively and resort to "artificial" tools like EQs when everything else is the same. If it is accurate then the amp model should provide the same experience through a linear poweramp into said cab as the original real world amp does into said cab.

I see his point. Theoretically I can't argue against that.

Anyone can explain why it isn't so?
Click to expand...

I was tending towards the "It's in there" camp as late as yesterday afternoon, but then went to jam last night with some folks I hadn't played with before. A guy brought an old Blackface Fender Twin and asked if I wanted to try it out. The amp had a compressed feel that didn't exactly feel like a compressor. The tone sounded clean, but sustained as if the amp was overdriven. Harmonics would bloom and the amp would sing forever if I dug in, but it never sounded gritty.

There may be a way to produce this with the Axe-FX sim, but I sure haven't been able to do it. I got close by diming the master, setting the drive to where it barely breaks up when I dig in, reducing the damp and increasing the sag. In a mix, you might not be able to tell the difference, but auditioning the amps side by side, it didn't seem like I'd gotten all that close.

I'll monkey with a compressor and will probably get it closer, but it does leave me wondering what is going on in the Twin that I haven't duplicated with a setting. I'm wondering if this singing sustain was the result of a slightly microphonic tube interacting with the speaker. If it was, I'm not sure how one might emulate that effect with the Axe-FX.
 
I sometimes ask myself things like this...

If I am at a gig somewhere in a bar and i've got my axe fx set up to sound like a 5150 (for example for the sake of this particular discussion) and I am really close... will the average dude in my audience say, "I don't know man... it's close, but I think the midrange isn't quite exactly like the "real" 5150's i've heard in the past."???

And, would the guitar players in the audience say it? How about any chicks in the crowd?"

And, would that also be enough to offset the effects, the other amp sound i'd use in the show, and the fact that it's "all in one" and I can make it all sound great & change everything by stepping on 1 button?

I'm just sayin'.
 
Dutch said:
Anyone can explain why it isn't so?
Click to expand...

In my case, it is/was "so".

When I first got my Axe I did several A/B tests with my Triaxis and the Axe going through the power section of my Mesa Simul-Satellite (like a MK IV's power section when it's set to pentode) vs Art SLA1 (in bridged mono mode) and SLA2 power amps, all driving an EVM-12L in an open back cab - which is how I've been playing since the 80s.

There is no "flat" setting on the Satellite.
It's about 95 watts with all 4 power tubes on in "Simul-Class" mode.
For jazz, the Satellite simply can not handle the bottom end at loud volumes as well the SLA's.
That's true for most tube amps that I've used. I.e. Even with a 100 watt power section the bottom end will break up if you're playing block chords with a dark tone with a loud drummer.

For pop, rock, and R&B the Satellite sounds a bit more authentic than the SLA's but it's too hard to tame the top end.

I.e. For my purposes the SLA was much more useful and more musical sounding over all.
I knew that it didn't sound exactly like a real tube amp but i didn't care because it sounded *good*, better actually than my real tube amps.
I ended up selling my Triaxis because the Axe's Mesa sims sounded *better*.
I still have the Satellite, but I don't use it.
I bought an SLA1 at the time and used it for a couple of years quite happily.

But now I'm using a Bryston 2B-LP-Pro (bridged).
It sounds absolutely like the best amp I've ever played through, *better* than any tube amp I've ever owned.
I am not missing any tube mojo on any level now.

IMO The thing about the Axe is that in order for you to really be able to hear the full effect of the amp modelling you need to run it into the absolute best amp and speaker you can find, otherwise all of Cliff's programming will not translate as well as it's capable of.

If you can't afford a good SS power amp then maybe running through a tube power amp will make up for the loss of tube amp feel.
But when I run my Ultra through my Bryston I'm missing absolutely nothing.

I really don't think that 100% copying of a tube amps is what guitarists really desire ultimately.
The reason that ss amps never caught on with guitar players is not because they didn't sound like tube amps.
It's because they sounded bad and tube amps sounded better.
The technology exists today whereby non-tube amps can actually be designed to sound good.
I personally don't care if my amp sounds exactly like some other tube amp I've owned in the past.
All I care about is if it sounds good.
And the Axe sounds *better* than any amp I've ever owned. And at over 35 years of being a professional guitar player and approx. 45 years of playing electric guitar, I've owned a lot of amps.
 
tzrider said:
I was tending towards the "It's in there" camp as late as yesterday afternoon, but then went to jam last night with some folks I hadn't played with before. A guy brought an old Blackface Fender Twin and asked if I wanted to try it out. The amp had a compressed feel that didn't exactly feel like a compressor. The tone sounded clean, but sustained as if the amp was overdriven. Harmonics would bloom and the amp would sing forever if I dug in, but it never sounded gritty.

There may be a way to produce this with the Axe-FX sim, but I sure haven't been able to do it. I got close by diming the master, setting the drive to where it barely breaks up when I dig in, reducing the damp and increasing the sag. In a mix, you might not be able to tell the difference, but auditioning the amps side by side, it didn't seem like I'd gotten all that close.

I'll monkey with a compressor and will probably get it closer, but it does leave me wondering what is going on in the Twin that I haven't duplicated with a setting. I'm wondering if this singing sustain was the result of a slightly microphonic tube interacting with the speaker. If it was, I'm not sure how one might emulate that effect with the Axe-FX.
Click to expand...

What power amp are you using to monitor the Axe with?
What firmware are you using?
10.03 does the best Twin sim yet, IMO

Were you running into the Twin's actual cabinet?
Otherwise, your A/B test won't tell you anything.
 
Dutch said:
I think I understand what Mo is saying, he wants the Axe-FX to give the same sound and experience as the tube amps when going into the same cab. And he argues that it should not be necessary to tweak extensively and resort to "artificial" tools like EQs when everything else is the same. If it is accurate then the amp model should provide the same experience through a linear poweramp into said cab as the original real world amp does into said cab.

I see his point. Theoretically I can't argue against that.
Click to expand...
Wow Dutch... this (in a nutshell) is everything I've been trying to say... hahahahaha...

Thanks for chiming in...
 
stevehollx said:
Dutch said:
I think I understand what Mo is saying, he wants the Axe-FX to give the same sound and experience as the tube amps when going into the same cab. And he argues that it should not be necessary to tweak extensively and resort to "artificial" tools like EQs when everything else is the same. If it is accurate then the amp model should provide the same experience through a linear poweramp into said cab as the original real world amp does into said cab.
Click to expand...

I'd say I agree with this too.

Let's say you have, say the SLO sim on with PA sim on going through a flat SS power amp into a 4x12, next to a real SLO into the same model 4x12 cabinet.

At the same SPL levels if the real SLO is put with all the controls at noon, I'd expect the controls at noon (with the exception of the gain & presence knobs since those are documented as behaving differently than most original implementations) to sound like the other amp.

Obviously the amps with abnormal tone stacks (Mark series, Vox) would be exempt from this, since that's documented that they behave slightly different than the original implementation (though personally I'd still prefer the tone controls to match what the original amp did, like for mark series needing to have the bass control on 2 or things get flubby).

I should postscript this with the fact that I've never had issues getting great sounds out of the Axe for what I'm looking to do. I admittedly have had to use a para EQ or GEQ to exactly match my axefx to the original amp. At one point I spent a fair amount of time A/Bing a powerball, SLO, and MarkIV side by side with the Axe; all needed some EQ love to get the voicing to sound identical, but I WAS able to make it happen. And I love that it has the flexibility to alter the tone like that, but I think we're just saying that it would be nice that this EQing shouldn't be necessary out-of-the-box.

Though I do have a deviation in tone snobbery after embracing the Axe. I no longer really want to capture THAT EXACT tone of the old tube amp. So I'll just sit and dial in a good tone, which we all know is there in spades. So I see both sides of this, but I think having an identical sound as the original amp out-of-the-box should be the default action. Likely easier said than done, but food for thought.
Click to expand...
To add to this... we did A/B the two at a fairly LOUD volume... I don't know if us metal folks have a higher threshold for pain or not but I love my tone inner ear piercing when comparing tones... :lol: We did push the power amps on every single amp at the Amp fests...
 
browlett said:
I sometimes ask myself things like this...

If I am at a gig somewhere in a bar and i've got my axe fx set up to sound like a 5150 (for example for the sake of this particular discussion) and I am really close... will the average dude in my audience say, "I don't know man... it's close, but I think the midrange isn't quite exactly like the "real" 5150's i've heard in the past."???

And, would the guitar players in the audience say it? How about any chicks in the crowd?"

And, would that also be enough to offset the effects, the other amp sound i'd use in the show, and the fact that it's "all in one" and I can make it all sound great & change everything by stepping on 1 button?

I'm just sayin'.
Click to expand...
If that were the case then my old POD 2.3 would have been enough no? To be honest... I never hear what the "average joe" hears out off stage so I can only get my sound on stage to sound as best as possible. I can't even remember the last time I specifically asked "how did my amp sound?" Because I can only hear how it sounds to me...


I've been jamming out on the Axe-fx live and in the "studio" (my house) for several years and up until recently I never had a chance to A/B the Axe-fx up against some top notch tube amps...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom