AxeFest UK monitor shootout

FRFR = flatish responce, fullish range

....cos even if you practice and gig through the same monitors, you do so at very different volumes..
so even when using the same monitoring system.. expect things to change when you wind them up..

Although you could definitely 'get away' with using one set of patches, you make a very useful point here, as bass and treble requirements change as you increase volume.

Even for our 'test' I accidentaly ran my 'home use' patch first, and Clarky immediately said ' too much bass and treble' when we turned it up, and he was right. I switched to my 'gigging' version of the patch (exactly the same, but with a slight drop in bass and treble and a slight mid-boost') and that sounded great at volume, and away we went!
 
maybe the second systems is a slightly different kind of flat...

even in major recording studios they acknowledge that different monitors have [to greater of lesser degrees] different tonal charactistics..
this tells you that there is actually no such thing as being "truly flat"..
because if this were the case, they'd all sound exactly the same...

but in reality.. they don't..

The only flat systems I am aware of at the moment are the Barefoot MM27 studio monitors, the Audeze LCD-2 and LCD-3 headphones and perhaps the EAW 59NT stage monitors due to their corrective on board processing. Flat systems sound, well, kinda sound flat, so until recently few companies ventured there. In years to come FRFR will come along as modeling becomes more mainstream and they are truly competing with companies like Marshall for your guitar sound reproduction needs.
 
actually, I'm not overly fussed at exactly how flat things are in either the studio or live...
maybe just that they are pretty good...

the killer part is you..
your ears and your perception knowing and understanding your monitoring and knowing how this will translate in differing situations [so that you can compensate - should you need to]..

the tonal world we live in is not a perfect place.. and maybe it's not meant to be...
all that really matters is the outcome..
is your tone really happening and moving people??
cos that's all that really matters...

much beyond that are debates that I'd happily leave to the beard and sandals types in duffle coats that argue about the specific gravity of the perfect real ale
and spend Sunday mornings on platform C, London Bridge station spotting trains...
 
...much beyond that are debates that I'd happily leave to the beard and sandals types in duffle coats that argue about the specific gravity of the perfect real ale
and spend Sunday mornings on platform C, London Bridge station spotting trains...

Have you been following me Clarky?

:)
 
no need to follow you at all....

Matt and his radio telescope array can take pics of you no matter what planet you're on....

we have all the evidense we need...
 
actually, I'm not overly fussed at exactly how flat things are in either the studio or live...
maybe just that they are pretty good...

Which totally defeats the purpose of Axe Change or exchanging presets in general.

Of course there are many variables, the player, the guitar, pickups, etcetera, but if we could eliminate one variable, the playback system, our patches would translate better to the next user.
 
Which totally defeats the purpose of Axe Change or exchanging presets in general.

Of course there are many variables, the player, the guitar, pickups, etcetera, but if we could eliminate one variable, the playback system, our patches would translate better to the next user.

in theory I absolutely agree...

in practice, it's just not possible...

If I create a preset using my studio monitors and you download it and play it through yours, it still won't sound exactly the same..
it's just not possible...

but what you will have is my config and settings..
so dialling that into your monitoring system / guitar / touch / taste should be a minor deal..

folk cannot expect to hear a tone by someone, grab it from Axe-Change and expect to sound exactly like that..
it's simply not possible.. there are just way too many variables..
maybe some folk don't have quite the right expectations with respect to trying other folks presets

I believe that Ted Nugent once had a sneak play through EVH's rig...
and funnily enough sounded like Ted Nugent playing through EVH's rig..
"touch" and technique have their contributions too...

your tone is the sum of all the parts..
and yes some parts will influence things to greater or lesser degrees..
but each of those parts do make a difference
and for the tone to be what it is... they all have equal importance..
because if you remove even a minor part.. it just won't be quite the same..
 
Hmm... I wonder if Cliff has given it thought to be able to specify an IR block globally on the output?
This would not be a part of any preset, but global data instead (same concept as the Global EQ).
AxeExchange could have known IRs that "flatten out" various speakers and combinations that users could use for their setups. The idea being that presets translate better across these different setups (the assumption is that this would only apply to FRFR setups).
 
I'd agree with this...

the only sensible approach has to be...

make sure that you personally sound amazing on stage...
because this will directly and absolutely effect your performance...
and let the sound man worry about the PA..
you do your job and let him get on with his...

Agree with you Clarky.

The is really no such thing as totally flat response.
We can hear the differences in apparently 'flat' speakers- well, we did on Saturday.

I don't consider that to be a real issue- we live in an imperfect world.
Maintaining a couple of banks of patches is a relatively small amount of work.
 
I still don't understand it. When there are so many sonic differences in monitors which are all supposed to be FRFR I am inclined to say there is no FRFR at all, is there? My experience is that they all affect the sound in one way or the other. How to eliminate this influence is beyond me though.

Measurably flat frequency and phase response plus a proper room to listen in would be ideal. For the average person, this is cost prohibitive, in my opinion.

But in my experience, and I have a partially treated listening room, and non-flat speakers, you can learn a set of speakers and a room enough to create mixes and presets that translate pretty well.
 
Hmm... I wonder if Cliff has given it thought to be able to specify an IR block globally on the output?
This would not be a part of any preset, but global data instead (same concept as the Global EQ).
AxeExchange could have known IRs that "flatten out" various speakers and combinations that users could use for their setups. The idea being that presets translate better across these different setups (the assumption is that this would only apply to FRFR setups).

A very interesting concept tgunn and a faster option than dialing in multiple global eq presets were they available as has been suggested in the past. I am the opposite of what a lot of the train of thought is in that my primary focus is on what the audience hears so if I have to choose between what I want to hear tone wise and what the audience hears I'll sacrifice for the audience because we market our group as an authentic sounding tribute band and I can't always trust the house guys to do me justice.
 
Hmm... I wonder if Cliff has given it thought to be able to specify an IR block globally on the output?
This would not be a part of any preset, but global data instead (same concept as the Global EQ).
AxeExchange could have known IRs that "flatten out" various speakers and combinations that users could use for their setups. The idea being that presets translate better across these different setups (the assumption is that this would only apply to FRFR setups).

I totally understand where you're coming from...
but to be honest does it really make sense???
cos you'll download the preset and maybe think "I'd personally prefer this to have beefier bass" and start tweaking...

as opposed to just downloding the perset, trying it out and tweaking anyhow...

this whole subject can get seriously anal [depending upon who you talk to]..
and also seriously enters into the realms of the "law of ever decreasing returns"
to my mind, the only guys that really need to be as close as possible to perfection are mastering suites [because of the things they have to do]..

maybe the rest of use shouldn't get quite so hot and bothered about it...
just being "aware" of all this and being aware of the effects should be good enough

if I slung a preset on Axe-Change and you downloaded it, I'd expect it to sound different for you...
you don't have a Morgan V6, you don't have my messed up ears, you don't have my technique, you do have an Axe, you do have my presets, you don't have my monitoring system and your room is not the same as mine...
way too many differences.. far to few similarities... and even the IR you suggest will not sort all this out...
so... don't bother or worry about it...

what you will have though is my preset..
you can look through it and get to see all the evil things I made the Axe do to make it work and sound like that..
you can then have that eureka moment that [based on something I did, or missed out] sends you off on a config path to your own tonal utopia..

true story from winter 2011....
when I first got the Axe I was struggling with the tone...
I knew it had what I was looking for.. but I just couldn't find it.. poking and prodding and fiddling and tweeking..
it just wasn't quite happening for me...
I saw a Mark Day clip and he posted his preset... I kinda liked where he was at and thought I'd give it a try..
I had nothing to lose right..
so.. I downloaded his preset and played through it...
the actual tone wasn't quite my thing, but it did have everything I knew that I was missing...
I took a look through his config.. all of it... and within minutes I realised what I was missing...
his config was like some sort of beacon lighting the way...
from there I head back to my own presets, made the changes and bam ! ! ! they sprung to life...

learn by example... then go walk your own path..
 
Sukh did the demo and it became clear that monitor A was the best, B was pretty good and C was pretty ok

then, just for fun, we replaced Sukh's Axe with mine, compared the 3 monitors again and the results were reversed...
it was really quite dramatic.. and seriously unexpected...

Exactly. It is in fact a peculiar way to test a fullrange system...an electric guitar? That's a pretty narrow spectrum and "undefined" sound. Skewed or unflat may just as well be preferred. You can do some seriously drastic eq'ing to an electric guitar and it might sound very nice. Not so with a familiar acoustic sound.

I'd test such systems with music, containing familiar music and acoustic sounds (voice, drums, acoustic instruments).

Or I would test them with a selceted set of cab sims, and amp blocks at their default. Not dialed presets.
 
I have to choose between what I want to hear tone wise and what the audience hears I'll sacrifice for the audience because we market our group as an authentic sounding tribute band and I can't always trust the house guys to do me justice.

with all due respect, I could never agree with this...
it just makes absolutely no sense to me at all..
and hear's why...

- 90% of the audience have no idea about tone.. and mostly within reason don't care or don't notice..
it's a guitar you're playing right.. sounds like a guitar too.. so that's cool...
but they can tell if you are having a sht day in the office..
or playing like a monster possessed

- how you play is directly related to how you feel and how you sound to yourself..
these three elements are all holding hands
good tone -> good feelings -> good confidense = better touch
better touch -> improved tone -> feels invincible = great touch
and so you ascend

bad tone -> bad feeling -> loss of confidense = poor touch [cos now you try to force it]
trying too hard -> not getting the result -> self conscious = tail-spin

when it comes to tone, it is you that has to play through it.. you that is close to it in a way that only another muso could ever understand..
and it is you that it effects the most...

when you get everything right, tone is right, feeling great, playing great you can deliver shock 'n' awe
and even if the crowd [for whatever reason] are not served up audio perfection...
they will forever remember how your playing shook heaven and earth.. and how you could make your guitar sing and scream and groove...

years later when telling their grandchilderen about that night....
"holy... smoly..... what a night... what a player.... he did..........<amazingness>......."

but I doubt he'd be saying
"yeah... but I thought he lacked a bit of 4 kHz and the 63 Hz was about 1.5dB too strong"

erm... unless of course his next story to his grand childeren involves the specific gravity of real ale, beard trimming technique, the best place to buy sandals
and of course... numerous exciting extracts from Beardy Adventures From Platform C......
 
Last edited:
Exactly. It is in fact a peculiar way to test a fullrange system...an electric guitar? That's a pretty narrow spectrum and "undefined" sound. Skewed or unflat may just as well be preferred. You can do some seriously drastic eq'ing to an electric guitar and it might sound very nice. Not so with a familiar acoustic sound.

I'd test such systems with music, containing familiar music and acoustic sounds (voice, drums, acoustic instruments).

Or I would test them with a selceted set of cab sims, and amp blocks at their default. Not dialed presets.

personally I'd test stuff by screwing around and trying to find out if I can make it sound amazing..
if I can't make it blow me away... it don't get bought..
in truth, that's about as scientific as I get...
 
folk cannot expect to hear a tone by someone, grab it from Axe-Change and expect to sound exactly like that..
it's simply not possible..

So tone match is a waste of time then. Let's free up the CPU space for something else.
 
I wouldn't say that at all....

tone match seems to be a pretty cool tool to me..
but like all tools..
you get the best out of them when you undestand their strangths and their limitations...

when we was at AxeFest UK, Octatonic did a tone match right in front of us...
and I have to say I thought it was very impressive...

this ebate though is not really about matching tones...
it's about monitoring...
EDIT - expect the tones matched perfectly through your rig to sound a little different through someone else's


one thing I think I can say with some degree of confidense though...
is that of all the monitors we tested, given time I reckon I could make a preset for each that could make them all sound pretty much the same
they all seemed to have the ability to put out enough low and high end.. and they were all loud enough...
but to make them 'hit the spot' they'd all need to have everso slightly differently eq'd source audio..

the morals of this tale are....
- I thought they were all very good
- they all have the ability to meet your needs

but more of all

the tones dialled into your monitors may not quite hit the spot through someone esle's even if they are both FRFR...
 
Great to meet everyone and put a face to the names..

It was a great day and much thanks must go to all who arranged and attended. Paul, Clarky (never met anyone so metal!! lol ) Sukh and Octatonic...

The whole idea of me going to the event was to see where I had in come (in terms of knowledge and understanding) in 3 and a half years of owning this gear and get and understanding of its possibilities, how other people are programming and setting there presets and if my 'ears' would be able to tell the difference in other people setups and sounds.

I'd also come to see how my choice of Speakers stood up against the others and if i'd made the right choice and if the RCF and Matrix product really did make a big difference.

Well the speaker shootout blew me away... when we first set up my QSCHPR122i speaker up...and played Sukhs Axe through it the sound was unbelievably shocking...mids and top and totally undistinguishable form any sound i'd ever heard out of it...I checked to see if it was connected properly and volume up. (it was !). These speakers on my Axefx usually have slightly too much middle and bottom.
but that sound.. WTF (i'm going get sukh to send me a couple of his patches to see how it sets stuff because his presets look brilliant but sounded like a banshee wailing through my speakers)

to prefice

I picked the HPRs after much comparison at my local PMT music store and I'd compared them with a vast array of other monitors powered and through poweramps...spent 7 hours at the store and eventually settled on the QSC... I did compare again RCF but not the monitor A version.

Clarky plugged his Axefx in disabled the poweramp and put some IRs in and there it was...the full blown Marshall sound that I'd heard when i bought the speakers 2 years ago. what really really did surprise me was how close the QSCs sounded to Clarkys Marshall Rig.. without sheer volume of 2 x 4 x 12 cabs although from where we sat the actual volumes where similar just not the movement of air !

What I have gathered is what everyone has said already - none of these speakers are really flat and all colour in different ways, what was also prominent was that you can get great sounds out of a vast arrange of speakers at different price points and supposed quality.

The Axechange to me is now slightly redundant as the variables in guitars, speakers technique and sounds as in reality shown that patches cant really be shared unless you have the same setup and speaker config and even then technique and guitars and IR's can just blow those patches apart - great to learn how people write presets and discover a new way to design sounds and great starting points to discover your own sounds.

Speakers - Great selection, I loved the RCF speaker, The Matrix Setups sounding good but i didnt spend enough time with them to give an honest opinion i"m very interested in the new 1500 W/D/W poweramps, but would I change my QSC's for the others??? probably not.. I may get another QSC and try the WDW with that...

I have learnt that I"m really really still scratching the surface...Clarky blew me away with some of the things he's doing and i need to stop thinking of the Axefx as a lot of pedals in front of a lot of amps in front of a lot of cabs in front of some rack stuff.

I need to think outside the 'box' and ask myself what am i trying to achieve what sounds do i want and know that this magical box can provide in bucket loads with the flexibility to do anything. Some of the ways clarky automated processes to get around his issues,the way he has automated effects and used the controllers is brilliant and he should be on the beta team to give his invaluable knowledge and insight of a pro.. from the UK side.

Looper -The world of looping came alive for me with Octatonic..I've had loopers and used them to some extent over the years. but not to a great deal of success...what I saw at the fest has really enthused me to take it back on board and try more. (perhaps a video on here would show people the possibilities and why we need more functionality in the Axefx to make this the very best looper available)
Again another great guy who knows this product and what can be achieved, would be good if he could make the beta team or have some valid input from the UK.

I think what seemed to be a general consensus as well was that what we would really like is more focus on the basics and the Ax-edit - bug free and feature rich .. not more AMPs and Pedals

To finish a great day that should be repeated.... bit further up North ! next year, lots learned, lots of new ideas - the possibilities are endless - great people ...hey and a buffet...and beer...

chris
 
Been thinking about this all day (when I should have been working - but hey). It appears to me that as supposedly FRFR monitors are so different, and so are near fields, then PAs will be as well (well, already knew that in fact). Therefore trying to hear on stage what the audience is hearing is a futile task UNLESS your using the same PA every time you play (possible if its the bands PA), and even then it will change a little as a different room will effect the on stage tone differently to the FOH one. In this case your monitor really needs to be one of the PA tops the band uses - whether you personally like the tone or not. At the very least - if you must use a wedge - use one from the same manufacturer as the PA, and preferably the same series.

if you use different PAs, then all you can do is present the most constant sound to the board - which we achieve using the AFX over a real amp, then let the sound man do his job. At this point monitoring will not sound exactly like the sound out front every night - so stop worrying about it, FRFR will get you as close as it matters. Once you get to a certain quality your monitor will sound good, so pick one that inspires you. doesn't matter if it has a slight bass lift, or mid cut, or is more neutral... if it makes you smile it will make you play better.

So - Im over trying to find the "best" monitor - or trying to sound exactly like the audience hears (though I am pretty much a covert of FRFR v Amp/Cab .. at last). For me its now a simple choice (though there is a choice - so maybe not so simple). Its a single RCF 12 monitor - or a pair of Matrix CRFs, which in the UK will cost approx the same. the RCF did sound slightly more "me" on Saturday, however the Matrix means I can go stereo - and i already have the amp. It also leaves the door open to replacing my GT1000 with a 1500, and adding a 3rd CRF for W/D/W in the future.

i wont be buying until July (all about the funds) so ill have time to think, and hopefully try the options again to confirm my thoughts.
 
It clearly shows how building patches on a non-flat system leads to undesirable results when those patches get inserted into a another system, with that second system being either flat or simply different from flat is an an other fashion from the original system.

+1.
 
Back
Top Bottom