Can someone post a clip displaying FIZZ?

[billmeedog]

Here comes the fizz man, put that thing out!

Here is "fizz". The main cause is distortion by an amp block of the overtones of the strings as opposed to the fundamental tones of the strings. This is my perception and definition at least. Yours may differ and that's fine.

The first part of the sound clip has all of the overtones of the strings being fed into the amp block. It sounds sort of like "radio static" superimposed on top of the sound. The second part of the clip has some of the overtones of the strings reduced (low pass filtered) before entering the amp block which leaves a buzzing type of distortion that doesn't "clash" with the notes of the strings - less "noise" so to speak.

PLEASE NOTE: I am NOT saying that "fizz" sounds bad. The amount of treble being fed into an amp and distorted is a matter of personal taste, it does not mean the amp block "sounds bad", it's just the nature of the way tubes (and transistors as well) distort sound. So PLEASE don't "shoot the messenger" of what I call "fizz".

Here's the clip. It's the exact same patch only a low pass filter block that was placed before the amp block was bypassed in the first half of the recording. This is mainly to demonstrate to people without much experience with tones how amps sound different depending on the EQ of the tone being fed to them.

http://www.rockrollband.com/fizz.mp3

:roll

Hi Search4Tone,

Did you re-amp the same performance for these two different sounds? I don't think you did, (although you definitely should've) since it sounds like the second-half (which IMO sounds VERY dull - like it has a blanket over it - lol!) was NOT played with anywhere near the same pick-velocity?!? Maybe you did re-amp this test, and I'm only hearing the residual effect of the LPF placed before the amp block - I dunno??? Anyways, I'm NOT saying that your LPF approach is bad or always will sound bad, but IMO, this iteration of the LPF sounds bad! It sucks the life out of the entire high-end/treble-spectrum. Furrthermore, I could envision ths (second-clip) sound getting VERY LOST in a band mix too. Perhaps if you opened-up it's cutoff-frequency (higher) it might be a good compromise...

NOTE: Search4Tone, I am NOT critiquing your definition of "fizz!!" I think you nailed it!!! You also correctly stated that "fizz" is a matter of taste, NOT a matter of good-versus-bad...Personally (since I'm a "band-type-guy/in-context-type-guy") I generally prefer "fizz!"

That said, I believe one of the fundamental flaws of "fizz" is the importance some people place on the necessity to ELIMINATE IT! When we spend a LOT of time tweaking and listening to our sounds by themselves (I.E. NOT in a band mix) we lose the perspective of how a solo'd guitar-track sits in a recorded-mix or even in a "live x 2-mix."

I don't know about anyone else around here, but I DO NOT plan to spend more than a few minutes at each gig (level-check to FOH-engineer and a few intros, outros, and guitar-breakdowns in songs) playing electric-guitar-through-Axe-FX II "all-by-myself?!?" Therefore, I don't give a "rat's-behind" what I sound like ALONE! It's all about band-context man!

Bill

 

[3Dhuman]

Is this a possible scenario?

The first modellers come out. A lot of guitarists have never really heard themselves playing a naked, direct and close-mic'd tone... instead, being used to "amp in the room" tone and "amp in the room with a band" tone. The close-mic'd direct tone get labelled as "fizzy" sounding. This "fizz" definition becomes synonymous with "close mic'd". Endless debate ensues as to whether this is natural or not. No one is really sure what they are listening for. A meteor crashes into Earth, obliterating all life. Somehow, the "fizz" debate continues on...

Having listened to your example, I can honestly say the "fizz-less" tone sounds completely unnatural to me.

 

[kerrlehr]

It's easy - Think Alka Seltzer.... "Plop, Plop, Fizz, Fizz", or perhaps the faintest fizzling sound of a freshly popped Budweiser riding your notes.
I hear it on my Matchless Chieftain, Suhr Badger 18 and My Shiva 2x12 6L6.(not hearing it on my Roland JC though) They all clearly have a nice light note of the Fizz. I'm thinking it's simply one of the complexities which make the tube sound, which after all is what this AXE-II system contends to so accurately recreate. So, if my Axe-II is doing it's job, it better have an accurate note of Fizzle content, along with hints of chocolate & mulberry followed by a nice light oaky finish. MMMmmmmm I love Fizz!!

 

[AdamCook]

Is this a possible scenario?

The first modellers come out. A lot of guitarists have never really heard themselves playing a naked, direct and close-mic'd tone... instead, being used to "amp in the room" tone and "amp in the room with a band" tone. The close-mic'd direct tone get labelled as "fizzy" sounding. This "fizz" definition becomes synonymous with "close mic'd". Endless debate ensues as to whether this is natural or not. No one is really sure what they are listening for. A meteor crashes into Earth, obliterating all life. Somehow, the "fizz" debate continues on...

Having listened to your example, I can honestly say the "fizz-less" tone sounds completely unnatural to me.

I think you are on the right track.

Guitarists that are inexperienced with recorded guitar tones and/or close mic'd impulse responses are not used to hearing those frequencies. They are used to sitting in a room playing an amp with the cabinet in the traditional position on the floor. So most of the high freqs are shooting at your knees and not your ears.

If you play a real amp and stick your ear in front of the center of the speaker cone (which is what a closed mic guitar cab is) or tilt it back and point it directly at your ear you will hear all those fizzy frequencies.

Finally, a lot of those fizzy frequencies tend to get lost in a full band mix. They are either masked by cymbals and/or most recording engineers put a general hi-cut and low-cut on the guitar track so it sits nice and happy in the mid-range.

I hear a ton of fizz on EVH's isolated tracks: EVH Eddie Van Halen - Im The One *GUITAR TRACK* - YouTube

It's essential to the sound IMO.

 

[barhrecords]

+1 @ Adam's explanation.

Unfortunately, the word "fizzy" has come to mean several different things at once.

For some, it means the inadequacies of modelers in general, a negative connotation of why amp modeling "sucks"... "digital harshness"... "lack of tube warmth"... etc. For those folks the word fizzy means they won't accept a modeler over a tube amp.

But many real amps, good amps, don't sound all that great to the untrained ear, when they are soloed. But they have that special property of sitting in a band mix really well without much fuss. (As a side note I find guitars to be exactly the same... I have certain guitars that sound thin soloed but sit in mix sooooo easy).

I remember being a little upset when I bought my JCM800. I thought it was broken lol. But then you crank it with a band... light bulb... all that trash in tone works lol

Richard

 

[BMH]

Wow ... and I though it was from all the diet Coke I drink ....

 

[aziz]

Finally, a modeler can make some fizz. Still not enough for me!

 

[Search4Tone]

Hi Search4Tone,

Did you re-amp the same performance for these two different sounds? I don't think you did, (although you definitely should've) since it sounds like the second-half (which IMO sounds VERY dull - like it has a blanket over it - lol!) was NOT played with anywhere near the same pick-velocity?!? Maybe you did re-amp this test, and I'm only hearing the residual effect of the LPF placed before the amp block - I dunno??? Anyways, I'm NOT saying that your LPF approach is bad or always will sound bad, but IMO, this iteration of the LPF sounds bad! It sucks the life out of the entire high-end/treble-spectrum. Furrthermore, I could envision ths (second-clip) sound getting VERY LOST in a band mix too. Perhaps if you opened-up it's cutoff-frequency (higher) it might be a good compromise...

NOTE: Search4Tone, I am NOT critiquing your definition of "fizz!!" I think you nailed it!!! You also correctly stated that "fizz" is a matter of taste, NOT a matter of good-versus-bad...Personally (since I'm a "band-type-guy/in-context-type-guy") I generally prefer "fizz!"

That said, I believe one of the fundamental flaws of "fizz" is the importance some people place on the necessity to ELIMINATE IT! When we spend a LOT of time tweaking and listening to our sounds by themselves (I.E. NOT in a band mix) we lose the perspective of how a solo'd guitar-track sits in a recorded-mix or even in a "live x 2-mix."

I don't know about anyone else around here, but I DO NOT plan to spend more than a few minutes at each gig (level-check to FOH-engineer and a few intros, outros, and guitar-breakdowns in songs) playing electric-guitar-through-Axe-FX II "all-by-myself?!?" Therefore, I don't give a "rat's-behind" what I sound like ALONE! It's all about band-context man!

Bill

I agree with everything you said except the pick velocity. Those are two different performances, and I DID accidentally hit the SECOND chord on the "fizz-less" sample a little too softly, but the other chords were struck with the same velocity, or very close to it. I also put a compressor with a ratio set to full, hard knee, and a very low threshhold directly in front of the amp block so that the signal going into the amp block was essentially going through a limiter and the amp block received a completely "flat" signal with the same amplitude from the initial strum all the way to the end of the decay. The harder the strings are plucked or strummed the more harmonics are generated which then die out quickly as the chord decays, and the fizz decays as the harmonics decay. I agree it would have been better to use the exact same performance but I was too lazy to reamp it.

It was intended as an EXTREME example - not as a realistic one - and as an example of how an EQ before an amp block affects the tone in a very different way than an EQ after an amp block, and when used with discretion can be a useful tool.

Another point well taken. Guitars are almost always played in a mix with other instruments. If you were to isolate many of the guitar sounds you hear on recordings that are in a mix you would probably be very surprised at how "bad" some of them sound. A guitar tone that sounds great by itself will often sound horrible in a mix. Each instrument occupies certain parts of the frequency spectrum, and it's very easy to "step on" another instrument if there is a lot of overlap in the portion of the audio spectrum that they each occupy. I agree 100% with your observation regarding this.

However, sometimes a recording demands a solo guitar that sounds good standing alone. Here is a patch I created using a class A amp with zero feedback that has a very crystaline, bright sound when played softly, but can be driven slowly into distortion when played with a more aggressive picking style. Zero feedback amps typically have a less clearly defined "clipping point" and it's difficult to determine where the transition from clean to distortion occurs. It's a clean/dirty sound depending on the pick attack and the volume control on the guitar, but the high end is hyped to make it overly bright. I think it sounds cool but that's just my opinion.

However, by hyping the treble, when the amp block is driven into distortion it produces a lot of "fizz" (I still feel strange using that word but can't find a better one). To help reduce this behavior, I put a multiband compressor in front of the amp block to reduce (compress) the treble going into the amp block to decrease the "fizz" as the amp block is driven into distortion when picking hard.

Load the patch and play with a lot of dynamics, and toggle the bypass on the multiband on and off to hear the effect of the multiband. It has no effect when playing clean, however, it reduces the "fizz" caused by the hyped treble of the clean sound when you dig in to the strings or strum a chord hard. Creating the patch is a balancing act that requires the multiband be adjusted such that the treble going into the amp block is only cut as the amp starts to distort. If it's adjusted properly the effect is inaudible with the exception of the reduction of the fizz. If you can close your eyes while you toggle the multiband or have someone else toggle it while you play all the better.

Some people will prefer the sound of the patch with the multiband enabled, and some will prefer the sound with the mulitband bypassed. I'm not saying one is better than the other. They are just different. I like the sound with the multiband, but that's my personal preference, not a statement that it sounds better in any absolute sense.

Here's the patch:

http://www.rockrollband.com/Clean-Dirty_Less_Fizz_Multiband.syx

You might need to shorten the name if it won't load.

Thanks.

 

[nikki-k]

This is why I have become frustrated, and subsequently given up on even simply discussing this in an open forum: lack of an objective definition of terms, manipulation of definitions, and a general inability to engage in productive discussion. I have been driving myself crazy with my obsession to objectively quantify and provide non-stigmatized terminology in an effort to communicate the few, particular aspects of Axe Amp/Cab block... shortcomings. (note! it is close.. just not close enough for my detail oriented brain)

 

[Search4Tone]

This is why I have become frustrated, and subsequently given up on even simply discussing this in an open forum: lack of an objective definition of terms, manipulation of definitions, and a general inability to engage in productive discussion. I have been driving myself crazy with my obsession to objectively quantify and provide non-stigmatized terminology in an effort to communicate the few, particular aspects of Axe Amp/Cab block... shortcomings. (note! it is close.. just not close enough for my detail oriented brain)

That's an interesting viewpoint. I've attempted to help define the loosely used term "fizz" with an audio example, and provided a patch to demonstrate the response of non-linear devices including tubes as well as transistors to the alteration of the harmonic content of an audio signal. I don't know how much more can be done to clearly define and objectively communicate the definition of a term and the behavior of not only amp blocks in the AXE-FX but also all guitar distortion processing devices including all amplifiers that produce distortion.

It's my opinion that the AXE-FX models not only match the quality of real tube amplifiers, but they also exceed the capabilities of tube guitar amps. I can understand the frustration of verbally defining the audio characteristics of a device, but to my ears the models can be manipulated in so many ways that they can duplicate various tube amplifiers as well as allow the user to create virtual amplifiers that exceed the capabilities of real amps and allow new and interesting variations in guitar tone processing.

The patch example I posted above is an example of "going beyond" the capabilities of a real amp IMHO. You may not like the effect of the dynamic alteration of the EQ of the sound before the amp block based on it's high frequency content, but I do, and if you don't you're free to use the amp model "as is".

From one Trekkie to another, may I politely ask, without driving you crazy, what ARE the few particular shortcomings of Axe Amp/Cab blocks that you are obsessed with communicating? If it's not possible to describe your observations in words, would it be possible to provide A/B soundclips of real amps vs. the AXE-FX to demonstrate the details that fall short of a real amplifier?

If it provides any comfort, I'm not happy with 95% of the built in cabs. I think the best cab is the 6" oval, and most of the rest have so much coloration that they destroy the tone. But, that's only my opinion, and with 50 user slots I now don't see the cabs as an issue.

http://www.rockrollband.com/Clean-Di..._Multiband.syx Try it.