Do You Hear a Difference

Do You Hear a Difference


  • Total voters
    296
  • Poll closed .
I'm in the camp that heard them slightly different...

... But for you guys staring at the waveforms... Isn't that a exercise I'm futility? I'm under the impression that tubes, and the tubes the axe models is a slightly chaotic and random generator of sounds which would make the waveforms slightly different even if you record the same looped sound twice on the same rig...

Yep, but the macro view is that there is a lot more we're able to analyse and predict than not. For instance, we know that Brownian motion is random, but we can still predict how a gas expands despite this. Even the fact that quantum mechanics can't decide whether an electron is a particle or a wave (or both) doesn't detract from the predictable behaviour of electricity. Component quality is the most random variable in all of this, giving us amps of the same model different sounds, and is much less dependable than the behaviour of electrons. Migrating wildebeast follow certain patterns, but the motion of one through the plains is random. I've noticed this from the tops of the trees I climb to build my nest day after day. We gorillas have a hard time of it and here you all are discussing amps..... ;)

I think this thread is proving that the most undependable factor is the human psyche though.
 
Listened very carefully to clip #1 on Event Opal's in thru high end audio system. Listened again, again, again, again and once more just to be sure…..
The two clips to my ears are nearly identical. The only extremely slight difference that I could discern - and it is not possible to nail down clearly - is that the second version of clip #1 seems slightly faster in the attack - but the overall tonal color is the same. But I get the impression that the attack or slew rate of the leading edge is steeper. I did not look at any audio analysis tools of the audio so my perceptions are strictly subjective. It is so subtle as to be almost nonexistent - and maybe it is!
 
actually, I did (and looking at right now). There are enough differences to be audible as far I can see. But like has been said, the difference are not any greater to me than two different units would be. I disagree that they are as close as they possibly could be.
You should check again, if that is the result you got. I did not get that result.

I will check again.
I captured both signals in ozone and while there were visual differences in the signal, they were minute, at least according to the tools I used. I don't see how it could have been closer without the signal running through the exact same equipment. I think a temperature difference in the electronics might even account for the difference I see. Perhaps ozone's visual spectrum isn't very accurate?

Have you been able to dial in tones closer than this? Not trying to disrespect or be argumentative, I am genuinely curious. I am not one to tone match and all that stuff, but early on I did tone match (the ultra) with ozone and didn't get as close as this while still thoroughly capturing the guitar tone I was cloning.

After I downloaded the mp3, I Bounced the two signals back and forth and through my Yamaha monitors and I honestly couldn't tell one from the other. On my laptop speakers, I thought I could hear a difference. However, the eq curve after a tone match with these two signals was almost flat. What did you capture the spectrum with if you don't mind me asking?

Bottom line for me is that it is remarkably close and the axeII is groundbreaking.
 
Interesting question. Staying inside the digital domain, is the Axe-Fx a 100% deterministic machine or not?
All computers are 100% deterministic. There is no true random number generator.

Most RNGs are based on random seeds and internal system time. So if both variables are the same, so will be your random numbers.
 
Quote Originally Posted by Roland View Post
Actually, the difference does matter to me, and I want to know why they are different, and how to dial it in or out



My question exactly. When Cliff(?) asked, "Do you hear a difference?" I am wondering, is he really asking; Can you guess what I did to make the difference?
Is one supposed to be a real amp/cab and the other an AxeFX simulation? or… Can you guess what I tweaked in the preset?

Another scenario; They are exactly the same and he's testing us to see how many of us out here will imagine a difference. "A difference" was only suggested, not absolute.
 
Last edited:
Statistically speaking, no matter what people on this board say regarding whether or not they hear a difference, any conclusion would be invalid. Here's why:

This is not a representative sample of the population. Only 296 people have voted. We would need thousands (maybe tens or hundreds of thousands) of people to listen to the clip and vote in order to be representative of the human population as a whole (about 7.1 billion people at this time). Also, results will be skewed because the people on this board do not represent the average population. We are musicians, and thus have better trained ears than the average person (at least I hope!). We need more people who are not musicians to listen to this clip, or else our results are skewed. Once again, we need people listening to these clips that are representative of the human population as a whole. This is basic statistics.

So, do you like what you hear when you play your Axe Fx? Yes? Great. Go forth and rock out.

No? Well, time to look for another option.

I personally would rather spend my time playing guitar and coming up with great tones than fretting (haha! that was punny!) over whether or not my amp model sounds exactly like the real thing. I love the tones I get, and that's all that matters to me. I'll leave it up to Cliff and the crew at Fractal to obsess over how to make the Axe Fx as realistic as possible. After all, they've been doing such a damned fine job so far!
 
Bullshit. I can clearly hear a difference. I'm shocked at the number of people who can't.

You cannot "clearly" hear a difference. Here is the spectral analysis as posted by javajunkie:

20260d1394233307-do-you-hear-difference-triaxis.jpg


The only place in the spectrum where the signal even slightly deviates is a very small notch around 80 Hz, and then the signal only becomes slightly non-identical until around 70 Hz and below, then at around 50 Hz it starts around to deviate between -55 and -58 db, and anything below that is is WELL below a guitar's normal range, as if 70 Hz isn't already well below that point. You'd be hard pressed to hear this even if you were standing in front of two real 4x12 cabs outputting both signals in the real world and specifically listening for it, knowing about it before hand.

To put this in real terms, the difference is less significant than the differences between the separate left and right speakers of a good stereo system. Less significant than the difference between two amps of the same make and model produced on the same day from the same factory. Less significant than moving a mic half an inch in basically any direction, which would comparatively be totally obvious.
 
Last edited:
Also, results will be skewed because the people on this board do not represent the average population. We are musicians, and thus have better trained ears than the average person (at least I hope!).

I agree about the statistics but in this case, I do want the "better" ears to vote. I think having a wider "statistical" view is good for perspective but helps little when only a fraction of people can tell the difference... it's kind of like asking people if they can tell the difference between a 308GTB and 308GTS. There's a difference but only few would know and the difference. If you went by the general public, you'd probably get similar results to this poll and end up with a bummer of a car in the long term (this is an analogy used to relay an idea, not a literal comparison).

No? Well, time to look for another option.

This I don't agree with.... or rather I do... but the "other" option for me is going to be AxeFXII FW14 !!!

This argument has been going on since the introduction of the AxeFX all while the models and FW keep getting better and better. If this particular difference can only be heard by 0.1% of the population, I don't really care. It's a difference nonetheless and something that I'd want improved whether or not I can hear it. This is a modeling product and the more accurate it is, the better it fits the product goals (ok, maybe Fractal's goals aren't 100% accuracy and I accept that) and for me, the better it works for me in the studio.

PS I triggered this thread so everyone can thank me for it. The bizarre thing is that I was using the clip as an example of what I was hearing in other amps in terms of the dynamics of the attack. I don't even care about the Triaxis! This example happened to be extremely close and obviously very hard for people to tell the difference. Using this as a testament of how close the AxeFX is to the "real" thing still has merit and I think more of it would be great for marketing... but with a few caveats:

1. This type of poll wasn't the discussion I intended when I posted a response to Cliff in another thread.

2a. This is an A/B test of the amp going through the AxeFX with mostly AxeFX components in the mix. In other words, I'm more concerned with end to end comparisons meaning guitar > amp > cab > mic > interface > computer vs. guitar > AxeFX (with amp and cab blocks) > interface > computer.

2b. Most of the time matching exercises are very limited. For example, if you have a reverb on while doing the testing and you think you've nailed it, try changing the reverb type and checking again... you may find that the match no longer works under those circumstances. All sorts of psychoacoustics come in to play. I'm not just saying this either... I've done a lot of matching exercises with reason (to replicate recordings that need to be replicated for further recording or for live use) and have found that the context in which you hear the sound makes a huge difference. Of course, this can all be meaningless to audience members and certainly to those who do not hear the difference, but when I or a client can hear a difference, it's still important.

2c. As mentioned before, context matters. Many are saying that the differences, if any, will be buried in a mix. The way I mix, this is not true. Subtle differences are actually magnified in a mix. I often find that what I thought was a good match, falls apart in a particular frequency range within a mix. Aside from this, I also mix dynamically so there are many parts in a song that have an instrument completely exposed or barely mixed with any other instrument that may mask the subtleties.

In closing, not everyone is the same in terms of perception, recording styles, etc. My mountain may be your mole hill. Keep in mind that discussions like these have repeatedly resulted in "better" sound either by learning how to make better use of the product as is or via improved modeling. In no way is this meant to denigrate Fractal, Cliff, or any forum member but rather to discuss, inform, and affect the future of music products. That's the spirit I try to stay within and hope that this is a forum where it's acceptable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ALE
You cannot "clearly" hear a difference.

I understand that you are saying this b/c of JavaJunkie's message but I can also clearly tell the difference. This "You cannot" is too strong... it's kind of like being 10KHz+ frequency deaf and telling someone else with 18Khz+ hearing that they cannot hear 16KHz. The fact that there is a frequency content difference in itself means that at least some humans should be able to tell the difference. It doesn't mean that it's a huge difference by any means but it certainly can be present and clear.

However, to me, I was suggesting that it's not the overall frequency content that causes me to tell the difference. My post that spawned this one was about dynamics, not frequency content. I was saying that while I get close frequency wise when tone matching, there still seems to be a dynamic difference and that's what I think I hear in this clip... also note that this specific clip is a really good testament to how close the AxeFX is but it's not the example that illustrates fully what I was talking about in the other thread.
 
I do in fact hear a small difference. But it isn't great enough for me to choose the real deal (which I have) over the Axe. I've done my own tests, which tell me much much more than this one recorded comparison. If this applies to the Triaxis, it probably applies to many of the other 50 or so amp models in the Axe. And the Axe continually improves. Whether to use the Axe or acquire 50 some-odd amps is a no-brainer. I'm keeping my vote a 'no'.
 
Well, the poll is closed. I would have voted yes after listening initially but then changed to no.

I listened many times, to both clips. Listened with AKG K601 headphones at fairly high volume.
In clip number one, the second clip initially sounded like it had a bit more air or room, slightly more open. To see if this was a psychological effect I took the file, put it into Reaper, cut the clip in two, placed them on separate tracks, arbitrary number of instances in a row, put reaper on loop over a bunch of iterations, minimized the window so I can't see which track is playing, muted the sound for a few minutes to loose track of how many times the clip has played, put on headphones, made notes on which clip sounds more open, then checked with reaper to see if my answers line up with the tracks.. I couldn't do it, I was wrong on the ones I even dared to guess. Funny.. at first the difference seemed palpable and clear enough.
 
Yea. My ability still seems to depend on what I had for breakfast, what color shirt I'm wearing, and how long it has been since I took a dump.
 
Well, the poll is closed. I would have voted yes after listening initially but then changed to no.

I listened many times, to both clips. Listened with AKG K601 headphones at fairly high volume.
In clip number one, the second clip initially sounded like it had a bit more air or room, slightly more open. To see if this was a psychological effect I took the file, put it into Reaper, cut the clip in two, placed them on separate tracks, arbitrary number of instances in a row, put reaper on loop over a bunch of iterations, minimized the window so I can't see which track is playing, muted the sound for a few minutes to loose track of how many times the clip has played, put on headphones, made notes on which clip sounds more open, then checked with reaper to see if my answers line up with the tracks.. I couldn't do it, I was wrong on the ones I even dared to guess. Funny.. at first the difference seemed palpable and clear enough.

Interesting!

Do you think ear fatigue had a part to play? IMHO the senses rely on difference for perception. IOW, if you look at a painting, staring in exactly the same spot for a while, the painting will eventually dissappear. Also, when dipping your hand into hot or cold water, a person can usually pinpoint how far their hand is submerged because of the difference in temperature. When it is exactly the same temperature, it's harder to pinpoint. Recording engineers need to take breaks and not listen too loudly because it all blends together after a while. I usually give a critical test 3-4 listens max at normal volume before coming away from it, depending on the nature of the difference (if there is one).

Just food for thought!
 
There is less difference than between two amps. :D
For the record I listened to the clips with very bass heavy speakers and there was definitely more bass on the first riff than on the second in the first clip.
 
Back
Top Bottom