Blind Test #1: Axe-Fx III vs. Real Amp

dumbeat said:
If you take a mono synth and a sax, in MP3, squashed and distorted to hell there is no difference, Dynamics are the tell. If you take that away there is nothing let to compare. Im sorry,
Click to expand...

Nothing was squashed or distorted in these samples. Further, I'd be glad to entertain examples of what you're talking about. You'd have to work a bit to make a sax sound indistinguishable from a mono synth.
 
1&2 are the same take (at least the same recorded take) and sound more present. The other 3 are the same alternate take and a bit more muffled in comparison. Not a difference that couldn't easily be eq'd. The sound character is almost identical otherwise IMO.
 
3 & 5 are the real amp - possibly 4

1 & 2 are axe-fx - possibly 4


edit: made adjustments after the 2nd listen :)
 
Last edited:
Jason Scott said:
You'll either take the test the way everyone else takes them in general, using high quality MP3 samples, or you're basically admitting you can't tell the difference. Frankly, I kind of figured you'd find every excuse in the world not to answer because you honestly don't know. Like most people who can't admit they don't know, they can't just admit they don't know. They have to blame it on sample quality, signal chain or whatever.
Click to expand...

Scott, if you don't present a proper vehicle for testing there is no way to take the test, Don't turn it around.

However, if you know the test that Cliff did with Larry Mitchell-
That is a fair test and it is clear what is going on and very easy to hear the difference in detail.

Check that out and create a new test.

 
dumbeat said:
Scott, if you don't present a proper vehicle for testing there is no way to take the test, Don't turn it around.

However, if you know the test that Cliff did with Larry Mitchell-
That is a fair test and it is clear what is going on and very easy to hear the difference in detail.

Check that out and create a new test.

Click to expand...


Oh, really? You'll accept a YouTube video as a fair test, despite the quality of the sample, yet a 320kbps sample converted from a WAV file is questionable to you? Whatever. Quit making excuses and take a guess if you can.
 
You may want to set up the trial as ABX, with at least 5 different clips if you want to actually get some meaningful data :)

ABX would be A perhaps the real amp, B AxeFx, then sample X is either A or B.

With enough people if X is chosen to be A or B 50% of the time then it’s basically indistinguishable as that’s like flipping a coin. But if it statistically deviates from 50% that tells you there’s still a difference.


dumbeat said:
Scott, if you don't present a proper vehicle for testing there is no way to take the test, Don't turn it around.

However, if you know the test that Cliff did with Larry Mitchell-
That is a fair test and it is clear what is going on and very easy to hear the difference in detail.

Check that out and create a new test.

Click to expand...


In a YouTube compressed audio stream? Isn’t this contradicting what you just said earlier?
 
Randalljax said:
Excuses lead me to believe he likely cannot tell you
Click to expand...

I've seen this time and time again. People make a big stink about how they can easily distinguish the difference, and when push come to shove they can't put their money where their mouth is. I mean, if he can, great. I just don't think he can and he's finding every excuse under the sun as to why he can't or won't hazard a guess. He's willing to accept a YouTube video as a fair test, but puts my samples under a microscope? Makes no sense.
 
Last edited:
For some r
Jason Scott said:
Oh, really? You'll accept a YouTube video as a fair test, despite the quality of the sample, yet a 320kbps sample converted from a WAV file is questionable to you? Whatever. Quit making excuses and take a guess if you can.
Click to expand...
There is a lot more to go by in those tests. More dynamic playing, more nuance. What you posted is a brick wall smashed material with zero dynamics, and zero nuance. What's to judge there exactly? Anyway im not here to argue, Think what you like.
 
dumbeat said:
For some r

There is a lot more to go by in those tests. More dynamic playing, more nuance. What you posted is a brick wall smashed material with zero dynamics, and zero nuance. What's to judge there exactly? Anyway im not here to argue, Think what you like.
Click to expand...

You claimed you could tell the difference and have passed plenty of blind tests easily. I post one and all of a sudden the sample quality is an issue, despite your referencing a YouTube video as a good representative sample. Then you have a problem with the dynamics, it's too compressed, etc. etc. Like I said. Excuses. It's obvious you were stumped when you heard the samples, and that's fine. There's no crime in admitting you don't know.

And for the record, the samples don't look like a solid block of concrete in a DAW. In fact, there was no added compression other than the compression that occurs during the conversion process from WAV to MP3. Granted, there's some distortion but that's just the nature of the gain in the amp/model, not from something foisted on the sample after it was recorded.
 
Last edited:
Jason Scott said:
You claimed you could tell the difference and have passed plenty of blind tests easily. I post one and all of a sudden the sample quality is an issue, despite your referencing a YouTube video as a good representative sample. Then you have a problem with the dynamics, it's too compressed, etc. etc. Like I said. Excuses. It's obvious you were stumped when you heard the samples, and that's fine. There's no crime in admitting you don't know.
Click to expand...

Its not a good test i can i tell you. It has none of the qualities an amp can be judged by, the stuff that makes an amp stand out do not exist in your examples. Again- Dynamic playing and dynamic presentation. Its just not there. Dont blame me for that. Make some examples of dynamic playing on clean tones, in breakup tones, let the player play dynamically and dont have it so compressed. Thats when you can judge the quality of the amp. Im sorry, but this is not on me.
 
dumbeat said:
Scott, if you don't present a proper vehicle for testing there is no way to take the test, Don't turn it around.

However, if you know the test that Cliff did with Larry Mitchell-
That is a fair test and it is clear what is going on and very easy to hear the difference in detail.

Check that out and create a new test.

Click to expand...

Lol!:oops: Just admit it and move on dude, you can't tell the difference.It won't matter how many tests he posts. It is a fair test of recorded amp vs AxFx. if you create your own test you will get it right every time.;)
 
Ya know ..., I've got 58 year old "crappy" ears .... But I have always been a great test-taker .... Give me enough detail on how the test was conceived and I'll pass it regardless of whether or not I can discern the details ....

I'm at work and I can't listen to the clips ..., but every musician whose "ears" I trust always complain how YouTube compresses the H#!! out of the material ....

So I guess I'm immediately suspect when someone says that a YouTube clip is superior to any other type of media ?!?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom