Chorus Comparison

dpeterson said:
exactly... just like i cant make the phase sound like a phase 90... it's too clean in the axe.. the phase 90 has some character.. and that character is it not being "prestine".

Just like everyone harps about true bypass... back in the day (the recordings all these guys are trying to reproduce) nobody had true bypass.. or cared... they had 100' coiled cords, no $100 power cables.. just thrown together... that is part of the charm.

I have to agree with that partly. There was just a topic on TGP where someone compared a real Phase90 to the one in the M13 and the one out of Thorn's VH patch (which could have probably be dialed in closer) in a blind test and most people chose and prefered either the real thing or the M13 ( :shock: ). I didn't actually, liked the real and the Fractal one. But I guess my point is, clean is not always best and a lot of those old units sound the way they sound because of that...dirt.

But, having said that, there is a difference in 'dirt'. Analog dirt can definitely be nice, digital dirt not so much (as seen with the G*****). Cliff mastered to introduce a bit of that charming dirt into the amp sims and maybe similiar to warmth, bias, transformer bla bla bla...etc...there could be some parameters introduced into the modulation effects which enable the user to, well, make it more dirty again (and I'm not just talking about adding a tape drive)...

Even digital dirt can be charming when it comes from the right decade :lol: . Call me crazy, but I'm still using a QuadraVerb and a SPX90 together with my Axe. These units definitely have NOT the cleanest digital signal path, but since they are so old, their 20bit converters actually sound cool to me. When measured, probably horrible compared to today's standards, but , they just 'sound' if you know what I mean.

To finish this and not leave the wrong impression. Still really like the Fractal Chorus and QuadChorus and definitely prefer them over a lot of other units on the market ;)
 
Is it possible to put more options in the Axe Ultra?
There is already several amp variations and distortion,
booster pedals. What about the same for the effects.
For instance- a type knob to choose between
different variations of chorus( DMP TSC, Roland Dem D,
CE-1, 1210). Same w/ rev, delays. I think the Axe already
crushes the competition, but this would be really nice.
It would take out a lot of the guess work for the customer,
+ enhance the Axe even further. I would love to see
Fractal Audio venture into this territory.
 
Awesome specs, Cliff. It really shows what a pioneer you are in this field. Until your work, I think we were all led to believe that modelling had become as good as it could be. I'm thrilled you've proved them wrong.
 
VegaBaby said:
dpeterson said:
exactly... just like i cant make the phase sound like a phase 90... it's too clean in the axe.. the phase 90 has some character.. and that character is it not being "prestine".

Just like everyone harps about true bypass... back in the day (the recordings all these guys are trying to reproduce) nobody had true bypass.. or cared... they had 100' coiled cords, no $100 power cables.. just thrown together... that is part of the charm.

I have to agree with that partly. There was just a topic on TGP where someone compared a real Phase90 to the one in the M13 and the one out of Thorn's VH patch (which could have probably be dialed in closer) in a blind test and most people chose and prefered either the real thing or the M13 ( :shock: ). I didn't actually, liked the real and the Fractal one. But I guess my point is, clean is not always best and a lot of those old units sound the way they sound because of that...dirt.

But, having said that, there is a difference in 'dirt'. Analog dirt can definitely be nice, digital dirt not so much (as seen with the G*****). Cliff mastered to introduce a bit of that charming dirt into the amp sims and maybe similiar to warmth, bias, transformer bla bla bla...etc...there could be some parameters introduced into the modulation effects which enable the user to, well, make it more dirty again (and I'm not just talking about adding a tape drive)...

Even digital dirt can be charming when it comes from the right decade :lol: . Call me crazy, but I'm still using a QuadraVerb and a SPX90 together with my Axe. These units definitely have NOT the cleanest digital signal path, but since they are so old, their 20bit converters actually sound cool to me. When measured, probably horrible compared to today's standards, but , they just 'sound' if you know what I mean.

To finish this and not leave the wrong impression. Still really like the Fractal Chorus and QuadChorus and definitely prefer them over a lot of other units on the market ;)

Couldn't agree more.
 
Analog warmth. Like Cliff did with
the amps. The Korg sdd 3000 has
a huge warmth to it as opposed
to a 2290 that is crystal clear.
 
james... said:
the phase 90 has some character

On the Axe, character is what you make of it. Fractal provides the palette-- you can paint just about anything with the primaries so well founded.

That said, there are limits to the architecture, but I'll be damned if they aren't squarely at the intersection of musically pleasing and technologically liberating.

So what do you think Cliff... time to add a bit reduction distortion type? ;-)
 
lilbman said:
Analog warmth. Like Cliff did with
the amps. The Korg sdd 3000 has
a huge warmth to it as opposed
to a 2290 that is crystal clear.

Try a tape or FET drive before, that analog warmth cost processing power, as you a adding a non-linear operation to the effect. Cliff would need to start getting all the effects more efficient before making the effects more processor intensive. The last couple of updates have been pushing some users presets over the top with the cpu.
 
I hated the G*****'s chorus compared to what I used to get out of the old SPX90s.
There was always something very clangorous (for want of a better word) about the G***'s chorus' top end that could not ne dialed out.
So far, I like the Axe's chorusing much more.
 
javajunkie said:
lilbman said:
Analog warmth. Like Cliff did with
the amps. The Korg sdd 3000 has
a huge warmth to it as opposed
to a 2290 that is crystal clear.

Try a tape or FET drive before, that analog warmth cost processing power, as you a adding a non-linear operation to the effect. Cliff would need to start getting all the effects more efficient before making the effects more processor intensive. The last couple of updates have been pushing some users presets over the top with the cpu.


Tried that and doesn't sound quiet the same, although
the fx sound very good. I was just wondering if Cliff
could approach the fx the same way he does the amps.
Like, make more algorithms based upon their schematics
adding his genious to them. More variety, or even
getting the ones we have in the ballpark of some of the most
sought after legendary effects rather another amp, drive.
Besides, I thought the Ultra still had tones of capacity
left for processing. Thank you for your suggestion. Either
way, I'm a proud owner of 2 Ultras, maybe 3 in the near future.
 
lilbman said:
javajunkie said:
lilbman said:
Analog warmth. Like Cliff did with
the amps. The Korg sdd 3000 has
a huge warmth to it as opposed
to a 2290 that is crystal clear.

Try a tape or FET drive before, that analog warmth cost processing power, as you a adding a non-linear operation to the effect. Cliff would need to start getting all the effects more efficient before making the effects more processor intensive. The last couple of updates have been pushing some users presets over the top with the cpu.


Tried that and doesn't sound quiet the same, although
the fx sound very good. I was just wondering if Cliff
could approach the fx the same way he does the amps.
Like, make more algorithms based upon their schematics
adding his genious to them. More variety, or even
getting the ones we have in the ballpark of some of the most
sought after legendary effects rather another amp, drive.
Besides, I thought the Ultra still had tones of capacity
left for processing. Thank you for your suggestion. Either
way, I'm a proud owner of 2 Ultras, maybe 3 in the near future.

It has memory space for new effects but people (myself included) are already hitting the processing % limit. It is not a matter of added a new amp,drive (plenty of room for more of those). He would have to change the entire effects algorithms and add non-linear behavior. This would add significant processing overhead. I really think Cliff doesn't want to go down the road of cloning effects (like line 6), but just make his own algorithms sound great and have their own character.

To quote the manual:

What is the Axe-Fx? Well, let's start by telling you what it isn't. It's not a modeler in the strict sense. Although it has cabinet emulation and different amplifier "types" it does not attempt to model any amplifier or effect exactly. Rather the Axe-Fx was designed to simply provide the effect as originally intended and with the utmost quality. All effects can be described in terms of their desired sonic manipulation. All effect processors, whether "stomp boxes" or otherwise, process the input signal to get an output signal, simple as that. However, some processors obviously do better than others. The Axe-Fx approaches effects processing as a strict set of specifications and implements those specifications.

For example, the wah effect in the Axe-Fx is not intended to model any of the classic wah-wahs. Instead the input-output relationship of a wah was distilled into a set of specifications. From there the effect was designed to exactly meet these specifications. There is no "black magic" or obfuscation. The effect does exactly what it should do. Inherent in this approach is a degree of flexibility that you do not get with other processors. In our wah example this allows you to set the sweep range, "Q" and other parameters. Most modeling processors do not allow this level of control.

The majority of great effects processors out there aren't about cloning other effects processors but being great in their own right.
 
joegold said:
I hated the G*****'s chorus compared to what I used to get out of the old SPX90s.
There was always something very clangorous (for want of a better word) about the G***'s chorus' top end that could not ne dialed out.
So far, I like the Axe's chorusing much more.

BTW
I'm talking about the G-Major, not the G-Force.
I don't have much experience with the G-Force.
 
joegold said:
joegold said:
I hated the G*****'s chorus compared to what I used to get out of the old SPX90s.
There was always something very clangorous (for want of a better word) about the G***'s chorus' top end that could not ne dialed out.
So far, I like the Axe's chorusing much more.

BTW
I'm talking about the G-Major, not the G-Force.
I don't have much experience with the G-Force.

Their choruses are the same.
 
Thanks again Java. You can't can't blame
a guy for trying though. I feel the axe has
already reached legendary status. The support
Cliff gives to his customers is unbelievable. The
updates for the Axe have been stellar. I haven't
any complaints. I feel somewhat spoiled in this
regard. Also, the community in this forum is the
best.
 
javajunkie said:
I really think Cliff doesn't want to go down the road of cloning effects (like line 6), but just make his own algorithms sound great and have their own character.
I think that's actually the best way to go. As long as the amp sims are 'the real deal', I don't mind having great Fractal sounding effects and if I need a CE-2 or whatever...just use that in real together with the Axe. Best of both worlds...

I think this idea that the Axe can replace everything is by some people taken a little too far...
 
VegaBaby said:
javajunkie said:
I really think Cliff doesn't want to go down the road of cloning effects (like line 6), but just make his own algorithms sound great and have their own character.
I think that's actually the best way to go. As long as the amp sims are 'the real deal', I don't mind having great Fractal sounding effects and if I need a CE-2 or whatever...just use that in real together with the Axe. Best of both worlds...

I think this idea that the Axe can replace everything is by some people taken a little too far...
I don't think the Axe can duplicate everything out there. But it can certainly replace it all for me.
 
javajunkie said:
Phil B said:
I'm still waiting for a nice TC 1210 sounding chorus. :?

Any isolated examples? I've never owned one of those. I know it is 2 choruses that interact w/ each other. The quad-chorus can do that.

Hey Java,
No, unfortunately not as far as examples go. Think warm, analog 80's chorus and there ya have it. Hooked up in stereo and run in series it is absolutely fantastic! The one thing that makes the 1210 so outstanding is basically what your working with is just speed, width and delay and from the second you plug into it you just hear "that sound". ;) Thing is, this sound may be in the Axe standard {which is what i'm working with} but there are so many parameters to dial in that I've either missed it or it just aint gonna happen. I consider myself pretty competent when it comes to dialing in effects but when your in a $300 an hr. studio and the producer throws a curve and says he wants a different type of chorus for a particular part of a song it can get a little frustrating having to tweak things when everyone is standing around looking for you to just plug N play. I can remember using a few Lexicon pcm 90's and the producer and engineer complaining that how great the unit was, they hated it cause everything took time to dial in what you wanted. I am in no way knocking the Axe, but I do kinda miss the plug N play factor of some of the other units. I guess I spend to much time playing and not enough on every parameter the unit can do. Everyday is a learning experience though! :D
 
The best analog chorus & flange sounds I've ever gotten were with the ADA Stereo Tapped Delay. It had 6 taps, which you could assign to left or right out for really thick stereo sounds. I would love to see this modeled in the Axe.

For digital gear, I really like the Holdsworth type chorus/delay in the Yamaha Magicstomp. These aren't dedicated chorus algorithms, but rather an 8 tap delay with individual mod and feedback. The Axe should be able to duplicate this with the Multidelay's Quad Tap, I'll get around to trying it eventually.
 
tubetonez said:
The best analog chorus & flange sounds I've ever gotten were with the ADA Stereo Tapped Delay. It had 6 taps, which you could assign to left or right out for really thick stereo sounds. I would love to see this modeled in the Axe.

For digital gear, I really like the Holdsworth type chorus/delay in the Yamaha Magicstomp. These aren't dedicated chorus algorithms, but rather an 8 tap delay with individual mod and feedback. The Axe should be able to duplicate this with the Multidelay's Quad Tap, I'll get around to trying it eventually.
This is also how the intellifex works for the 8 voice chorus. The problem with the Quad Tap Delay is the delay time parameter needs a finer adjustment (at least by 1ms increments) to be able to do this.

This would be a great addition in the next firmware. ;)
 
tubetonez said:
The best analog chorus & flange sounds I've ever gotten were with the ADA Stereo Tapped Delay. It had 6 taps, which you could assign to left or right out for really thick stereo sounds. I would love to see this modeled in the Axe.

For digital gear, I really like the Holdsworth type chorus/delay in the Yamaha Magicstomp. These aren't dedicated chorus algorithms, but rather an 8 tap delay with individual mod and feedback. The Axe should be able to duplicate this with the Multidelay's Quad Tap, I'll get around to trying it eventually.

That is extremely similar to the quad-chorus effect.
 
Back
Top Bottom