Diezel Herbert vs Axe FX II Raw comparison and Power Amp Influence on tone

Belensky

Belensky

Member
Hello everybody just made quick video comparison between Diezel Herbert and Axe fx II plugged to diezel power amp and straight to computer.



My goal was not only to compare sound of real amp vs modeller, but to show power amp influence on overall sound. master volume is running at 11, which is very loud, Herbert power section rated to 180w and designed to stay undistorted to keep amp tight but still it has big influence on tone and one of reasons that make amp sound the way it is.
 
1 st section - seems on the axe less gain and highs. 2 nd section - both sounds too closely. on the last section H3 with PA vs Axe with PA seems Herbie's PA sounds more focused and with more highs
 
tell me please does video played all way without freezing? on my computer and phone it freezes for some reason
 
No, I use Suhr Reactive load and Ownhammer IR's of the same Diezel Cab with same speakers, I think it 99.7% close to real thing, difference is that I don't have years of mic placement experience, right place for recording, and 10000$ to spend on mics and preamps. without all of that, I believe chances are that with couple SM57 I will make is sound worse than with IR and reactive load.
and herbert with master at 11, it's like drummer is about to stop hearing himself – very loud
 
Thanks! Another question, do you play live with this equip? What better - is head+cab better than FRFR system with same output power?
 
I play live with Diezel and FX8 for effects.
Axe fx II is just to have fun at home. and practice new stuff without burning tubes for no reason.
 
Yup the video freezes. At least you'll restore the lacking top end of the model by fine tuning the speaker page. On most models the high freq is typically set too high by default, and resonance typically too low.

Also, beware of the difference in presence settings

http://www.fractalaudio.com/downloa...actal-Audio-Systems-MIMIC-(tm)-Technology.pdf "Finally we measured the taper of the controls on the actual amps and entered that data. This ensures that the controls on the model behave identically to the controls on the actual amp. Note however that the taper of the presence (and depth) control can deviate from the actual amp. In our tests we found that the presence control on many amps did nothing for the first 80% of its rotation and all the action occurred in the last 20%. We feel that this design anomaly is undesirable and therefore did not model that aspect."
 
Last edited:
thanks, I didn't really mess with settings, everything were by default(except input trim, just to have same amount of gain) but yes tweaking will make it sound even more close
 
You might get closer by tweaking the global input gain in the global setup instead of input trim.

The preamp distortion of the herbert is more complex in ch3 though, high preamp distortions still lack a few details, nothing that can be fixed I guess without new firmwares. If you have some time, feel free to share some post EQs that simulate the mid cut possibilities, I'm never quite sure how many dbs it can cut and the max Q range.
 
speedloader said:
You might get closer by tweaking the global input gain in the global setup instead of input trim.

The preamp distortion of the herbert is more complex in ch3 though, high preamp distortions still lack a few details, nothing that can be fixed I guess without new firmwares. If you have some time, feel free to share some post EQs that simulate the mid cut possibilities, I'm never quite sure how many dbs it can cut and the max Q range.
Click to expand...
yeah, when you have ridiculous amount of gain Like channel 3 of herbert, Axe losing some details, real amp soften attack a bit, where fractal sounds a bit as bit-crusher distortion. same thing with crunch channel amp more dynamic.

interesting thing that, all those differences aren't so obvious when you pla, but more obvious when you listen record
 
I would say that the power amp on in the AF2 sounded a bit muddier, had a midrange quality I didn’t like and is not getting that bite I love like the Herbert power amp did. My guess is that since you left settings at Default it’s probably very possible to dial them to match 98% or better.
 
Speaking of the Herbie, I noticed the depth freq is set to 100hz by default (9.0.2) whereas the manual says it's 120hz, maybe it's worth checking that setting.
 
In general, I'm deeply suspicious of comparisons where the approach is, "I touched no other settings other than to swap between the different components being tested". First, because I think it makes assumptions about the non-interaction between the components and the effects of swapping them out that haven't been proven.

So if the question is, "Does the modeler sound just like the real power amp?". We still don't know. All we do know is that the answer to the the question, "Does the modeler sound just like the real power amp if you add the artificial constraint that you can't adjust any parameters?", is "No".

Second, and most important, it ignores the fact that this doesn't reflect any real-world application. Those other settings are there, and any normal user would adjust them to get the best sound possible out of the rig that they're using. It's entirely possible that you can get a sound which is MORE to you liking than the real power amp, by messing with power amp settings like compression or with transformer settings.

A more interesting test to me would be to fiddle with each setup to get the best possible sound out of it, then compare all three and ask which you like more.

One last thing, this test was done with the power amp into a resistive load. There's no way of knowing if that load presents exactly the same to the power amp as a real speaker cabinet. So if the argument is, "The default settings on the power amp model in the AF2 should give exactly the same sound as the real power amp", you would have to know if the power amp tone recorded in the test was the same as it was when Fractal modeled it, which might have been through a real cabinet, or through a different dummy load.

All that being said, I always find it interesting when people post these real world tests, because it makes it clear that the differences that we hear are always highly nuanced. This software is pretty damned close to the real thing, and at this point I'd say that the listener's playback device makes more impact on the sound than the differences we were hearing in this test.
 
Sure you can tweak axe fx or real amp to death, or use tone-match, but somebody else could say oh is still wrong/right/I'd tweak it differently etc.
I intended just to show default settings on amp vs default settings on fractal, as starting point for further tweaking.

And I didn't use resistive load, that box is reactive load, that sound way different.
 
I agree that it shouldn't be compared with attenuators and load boxes. There's no guarantee they don't impact the sound, and they probably do despite all claiming to be transparent. However from that comparison you can hear a slight difference in distortion quality that cannot be compensated with mods but better algos, so that observation is relevant and useful.

Also, since FAS claims to match the real settings, it's totally fair to try and compare both with similar settings. One just has to make sure no non-modeled parameters are influencing the result, the speaker comp is off, and the input, global amp gain and speaker page are fine tuned... whereas comparing an amp to a heavily modified model is showing what modifications can do, but it makes no valid point as amps can also be modified. At best it can help to determine if some modifications fix some issues of the model. @StickMan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom