Cab block preamps

[Lionheart]

Preamp is the last thing after the mic on the cab i'd say. Then all the post effects are added after that. Right?

I think the non-linearity of EQ and other blocks means putting the cab last (so the preamp is last) makes no difference in the sound.

This is absolutely correct.

I haven't had a chance to a/b using the Axe-Fx with built-in preamps and effects versus just using the Axe-Fx amp and cab only and using Slate VCC and post effect plugins.

 

[Ironwill]

You're right, thanks for explain it again Sir

No studio preamp modeler especially for sure but a Interface at least, so good that we have this feature to sweet up things at the end of the chain in digital.

 

[steadystate]

Matter of degree. Fractal could leave the labels off of everything, telling us to use our ears. Fortunately, the cab preamps aren't a big deal for me. FWIW, if I stopped trying to recreate, I'd be out of a job As a musician who makes his living playing covers, the Axe has saved me countless hours in my efforts to recreate others' works. Without the labels, not so sure that would be the case

 

[edo]

I must say, I feel the opposite way.. in the old days of stompboxes / amps I just felt what I had was "good enough" for both original music and covers, and now with the axe, I constantly feel like "good enough" can always be "better" and when i'm not touring I spend a lot more time tweaking than actually making music!
Either route has its good and its bad, I should probably settle for a compromise rather than chasing perfection, like I used to do with the old school setup!!

 

[metal190]

Matter of degree. Fractal could leave the labels off of everything, telling us to use our ears. Fortunately, the cab preamps aren't a big deal for me. FWIW, if I stopped trying to recreate, I'd be out of a job As a musician who makes his living playing covers, the Axe has saved me countless hours in my efforts to recreate others' works. Without the labels, not so sure that would be the case

^This (although I don't make my living playing covers).

Knowing which real life amp each model is based on keeps you from having to guess a hundred or more times before finding the tone you're going for. When I go to write a song, if I'm hearing a section that needs 5150 III red, it would get old fast cycling through a ton of clean channels because the names were withheld as a way to stimulate my creativity. I know the differences between the pres is vastly less substantial and there are far fewer pres than guitar amps modeled, but for someone (not me) who intimately knows those preamps and knows what he's going for, I can see how the same idea could apply.

 

[Chronos]

I talk about this in an interview I did for an upcoming book. The way I sum it up is "stop trying to recreate and begin to create."

This works for me, but I just have no idea what the 35us, 70 or whatever means in context of tape. Wish anyone with a good knowledge base of tape could enlighten some of what that means.

 

[greiswig]

This works for me, but I just have no idea what the 35us, 70 or whatever means in context of tape. Wish anyone with a good knowledge base of tape could enlighten some of what that means.

Glad I'm not alone. I'm pretty sure it has to do with bias, but I've never been a tape op so I don't know how it works.

Doing the "try it and see" approach works well on individual presets. But if you're trying to learn the system, having a way of explaining to yourself why something works the way it does can be really helpful. That way, next time you run into a problem, you have a concept (not just a name) that you can harken back to to find the right solution.

The other disadvantage of the "try it and see" approach for me is that especially on complex blocks like amps I can easily get lost, and although there is a way to get the whole block back to defaults, there isn't a way to just reset individual parameters back to defaults.

So, as in the question below, I'm wondering how Scott even decided that 50uS was better than the other ones? Does it take extremes to hear the difference? If I knew what I was listening for, I might hear it better. If I don't, I might make a mistake like hearing a 1db volume increase as "better."

Thanks. I get that this is a "shaddup and create" instrument, and I do try to do that. Even if it seems to run counter to the idea of having the Vintage tube type in there because it isn't as authentic. ;-) But the tape part in part in particular has me puzzled. I gather it has something to do with different biases? But I struggle to hear any difference between the three settings. Scott, I'm kind of curious, too, as to how you arrived at your settings? If the Q on those bands is wide enough, aren't you nearly bumping the whole signal up by about a db? Which, if volume sounds better would sound...better? I have tried these settings, and I end up with some different EQ, and it is a very cool thing to be able to do. Saturation helps tame some of the highs on amps that I've had trouble with before, or example. Transformer setting is really nice as well, and a bit more subtle.

 

[barhrecords]

Specifics about the real world counter parts aren't always necessary but having a frame of reference is really good.

With so many parameters / options, it's nice to have a starting direction vs. just try every option in the box and use your ears. For example, if you really love to track guitars with a 1073 -> 1176 comp knowing where to start in the Fractal would not be a bad thing for me.

I feel the same way about IR's. There are literally thousands of them now. "Just use your ears". IR 1-9999. Having a frame of reference really helps to narrow the search to a reasonable number vs. trial and error.

 

[chris]

For me, if I can't hear a difference, then it really doesn't matter what is what. I personally don't hear the difference in the preamps. I didn't really try hard though since I don't have the CPU available to add the preamps anyway. I'm redesigning things lately and maybe I'll try to squeeze it in, but I really don't see the point for me since things sound so good already.

I'd say if you too can't discern the difference between the preamps - or any other parameter choices - just move on and play music. One day you will hear that difference, but reading that model x has more highs than model y, and then forcing yourself to believe it because you read it... Not really useful at all.


edit - let me clarify, i don't hear a discernible/usable difference between them for me. with studio ears on, silent room, analytical mode engaged... sure.

 

[barhrecords]

For me, if I can't hear a difference, then it really doesn't matter what is what. I personally don't hear the difference in the preamps. I didn't really try hard though since I don't have the CPU available to add the preamps anyway. I'm redesigning things lately and maybe I'll try to squeeze it in, but I really don't see the point for me since things sound so good already.

I'd say if you too can't discern the difference between the preamps - or any other parameter choices - just move on and play music. One day you will hear that difference, but reading that model x has more highs than model y, and then forcing yourself to believe it because you read it... Not really useful at all.

I agree that its not worth agonizing over. I can definitely hear differences between the types. Bipolar is pissed off one second, then happy, then sad Vintage is the best because it's vintage And Exciter is really exciting.

But trying all parameter choices (moving on and playing music or not) has become close to impossible. Not a bad thing, having all the options, but I don't have the time to trial and error everything in the amp block let alone the entire box.

 

[Ironwill]

For me, if I can't hear a difference, then it really doesn't matter what is what. I personally don't hear the difference in the preamps. I didn't really try hard though since I don't have the CPU available to add the preamps anyway. I'm redesigning things lately and maybe I'll try to squeeze it in, but I really don't see the point for me since things sound so good already.

edit - let me clarify, i don't hear a discernible/usable difference between them for me. with studio ears on, silent room, analytical mode engaged... sure.

Alrighty to me the preamps make the sound even better! Perhaps there's more difference for you when go for a hot Input(increase with the Drive knob)but not up to 0VU for sure then lower the cab output level a few dB. Preamp Drive around 3, SAT 1-3 depends, for High Gain Presets it rocks to give the tone some crystal analog real final touch I would describe, but thats how it is to me with the "Modern"

 

[Lionheart]

This works for me, but I just have no idea what the 35us, 70 or whatever means in context of tape. Wish anyone with a good knowledge base of tape could enlighten some of what that means.

They all provide a level of saturation; no matter if your using console, tape or preamp simulations. That is their main purpose. They each provide a different flavor though. The main thing is to not be afraid of driving them too hard. The organic saturation/compression effects will make the guitars creamy, lush and more controlled sounding.

 

[electronpirate]

....
So, as in the question below, I'm wondering how Scott even decided that 50uS was better than the other ones? Does it take extremes to hear the difference? If I knew what I was listening for, I might hear it better. If I don't, I might make a mistake like hearing a 1db volume increase as "better."

Scott only posed that as a 'starting point'. I've tried the others, and I keep coming back to *close* to what Scott suggested (having zero experience with these things.) I just tried them all and went with what sounded right to me.

I understand intellectually it might be satisfying to know the exact model, but functionally it does nothing for me personally.

 

[JRod4928]

I talk about this in an interview I did for an upcoming book. The way I sum it up is "stop trying to recreate and begin to create."

The way I like to sum it up is "stop trying to recreate and begin to procreate"

 

[Scott Peterson]

Glad I'm not alone. I'm pretty sure it has to do with bias, but I've never been a tape op so I don't know how it works.

Doing the "try it and see" approach works well on individual presets. But if you're trying to learn the system, having a way of explaining to yourself why something works the way it does can be really helpful. That way, next time you run into a problem, you have a concept (not just a name) that you can harken back to to find the right solution.

The other disadvantage of the "try it and see" approach for me is that especially on complex blocks like amps I can easily get lost, and although there is a way to get the whole block back to defaults, there isn't a way to just reset individual parameters back to defaults.

So, as in the question below, I'm wondering how Scott even decided that 50uS was better than the other ones? Does it take extremes to hear the difference? If I knew what I was listening for, I might hear it better. If I don't, I might make a mistake like hearing a 1db volume increase as "better."

Simple actually - I tried every setting as they were created in beta and throughout different ranges of drive, saturation and EQ. I decided what I liked best and really; that's it. No magic. Trial and error.

Scott only posed that as a 'starting point'. I've tried the others, and I keep coming back to *close* to what Scott suggested (having zero experience with these things.) I just tried them all and went with what sounded right to me.

I understand intellectually it might be satisfying to know the exact model, but functionally it does nothing for me personally.

Exactly the spirit of it - I don't share my settings as a "here you are, set in gold" but more of as a suggested guideline to share what I actually ended up with and run with. I alter all my settings on my own stuff based on my ear and have found over time that the 'starting' settings just really work for what I like to hear for the most part so I share that.

 

[trb]

In all my cabs (2 in //), I use your settings Scott and that's great. I gravitate between Vintage, Tube or Modern modes: that's the only ones I can hear a différence !

Depending on amp and/ or cab, I can set Bass to 0 or push Tbl to 2or3. The basic is BMT=(1, 1, 1) and it really add something to the global tone. A real addition for sure.

Love all what we can do with our AFX !

 

[Rex]

This works for me, but I just have no idea what the 35us, 70 or whatever means in context of tape. Wish anyone with a good knowledge base of tape could enlighten some of what that means.

Audio tape has a lot of background noise in the form of hiss. Tape hiss is heavy in high frequencies. Tape recorders make up for this by boosting the highs before they're recorded. They reverse the boost during playback, when the highs are rolled off. The end result is a flat response with lower noise.

The high-frequency pre-emphasis and de-emphasis uses filters which are described in terms of their time constant. The shorter the time constant, the higher the cutoff frequency. 50 microseconds and 70 microseconds are two of the filters that were commonly in use.

Remenber that opposite filters are applied, so there's no change in EQ. But there is a difference in how the highs frequencies saturate compared to other frequencies.

 

[greiswig]

Audio tape has a lot of background noise in the form of his. Tape hiss is heavy in high frequencies. Tape recorders make up for this by boosting the highs before they're recorded. They make up for this during playback, when the highs are rolled off. The end result is a flat response with lower noise. The high-frequency pre-emphasis and de-emphasis uses filters which are described in terms of their time constant. The shorter the time constant, the higher the cutoff frequency. 50 microseconds and 70 microseconds are two of the filters that were commonly in use. Remenber that opposite filters are applied, so there's no change in EQ. But there is a difference in how the highs frequencies saturate compared to other frequencies.

See, this is helpful! Now I at least have a theory about why I'm not hearing a difference between the time constant settings. I tend to use cabs that don't have a very extended high end, which might mean that the range I'm using is below the range affected by these changes. Thank you. Gives me a working theory to go on, at least.

 

[metal190]

Audio tape has a lot of background noise in the form of his. Tape hiss is heavy in high frequencies. Tape recorders make up for this by boosting the highs before they're recorded. They make up for this during playback, when the highs are rolled off. The end result is a flat response with lower noise.

The high-frequency pre-emphasis and de-emphasis uses filters which are described in terms of their time constant. The shorter the time constant, the higher the cutoff frequency. 50 microseconds and 70 microseconds are two of the filters that were commonly in use.

Remenber that opposite filters are applied, so there's no change in EQ. But there is a difference in how the highs frequencies saturate compared to other frequencies.

Very helpful. Thanks Rex.

 

[Rex]

See, this is helpful! Now I at least have a theory about why I'm not hearing a difference between the time constant settings. I tend to use cabs that don't have a very extended high end, which might mean that the range I'm using is below the range affected by these changes.

One reason for not hearing a difference is the fact that most people listen to guitar tones in terms of EQ: "This tone is brighter," or "This tone has more mids." They don't listen for differences in distortion character. And distortion character is a big part of the magic of the Cab block's preamp.

That said, the differences between 50 and 70 microseconds are subtle.