Dual Rectifier comparison (real vs axe fx)

Isn't the slave out signal just the preamp? I would assume that's why it's substantially thinner. I've always used the line-out from my loadbox (THD Hotplate) when using IRs with a real head as the slave out always sounded pretty thin. I've gotten killer results this way when I didn't have the means to mic a cab effectively (I still feel for me the Axe is the best option of all 3).
 
Skyadron said:
Hey everyone! Sorry it took me so long to record a clip with the rectifier running through the same impulse as the axe fx model.
Here it is: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/14642837/Recto vs Axe fx (CP 7) .mp3

I used the slave out feed from the recto plugged to input 1 left (rear), and bypassed all blocks in the patch except for the cabinet (which is the same one used in the video).
The first one is the axe fx II, the second one is the real rectifier, which sounds a lot thinner now. I'm guessing that the speaker resonance simulation on the amp block gives the model more body (Mikko, please correct me if I'm wrong!). The model also sounds smoother to me.

I think that in this case, using the same IR, the Axe Fx wins. I'll try to do the same comparison this weekend, but this time I'll plug the axe fx to the rectifier's power amp and mic both of them up using the same mic position. This should also be interesting.
Click to expand...

Which just proves the importance of IRs. In this example the Axe-Fx does sound "better". That said I'm actually surprised there is that much difference. Well, not that surprised I guess.

The Red Modern mode in a Dual Rectifier has NO negative feedback. As such the frequency response will be completely dependent on the impedance of the speaker. The low-frequency resonance determines the bass response. The Speaker page in the Amp block is very powerful and understanding what it does and how to use it can give you that last little tweak to take your tones from good to stellar.

The other very important thing with the Red Modern mode in a Dual Rectifier is the Master Volume. The real amp is very loud in that mode and I bet the Master Volume was set very low. With the Axe-Fx you can crank the Master Volume up without shattering windows so you get added warmth. This would also explain why the Axe-Fx clip sounds better.

Regardless tests like these are highly enlightening and entertaining. People go on about "digital modelers never sound as good as the real thing, blah, fizz, harshness, blah, blanketed, blah, toobz rule, blah" and then someone does a real test like this and completely debunks all that. Well done.
 
ducci1012 said:
Isn't the slave out signal just the preamp? I would assume that's why it's substantially thinner. I've always used the line-out from my loadbox (THD Hotplate) when using IRs with a real head as the slave out always sounded pretty thin. I've gotten killer results this way when I didn't have the means to mic a cab effectively (I still feel for me the Axe is the best option of all 3).
Click to expand...

No, the slave out is right off the speaker jacks. It's just padded down to line level.
 
FractalAudio said:
Which just proves the importance of IRs. In this example the Axe-Fx does sound "better". That said I'm actually surprised there is that much difference. Well, not that surprised I guess.

The Red Modern mode in a Dual Rectifier has NO negative feedback. As such the frequency response will be completely dependent on the impedance of the speaker. The low-frequency resonance determines the bass response. The Speaker page in the Amp block is very powerful and understanding what it does and how to use it can give you that last little tweak to take your tones from good to stellar.

The other very important thing with the Red Modern mode in a Dual Rectifier is the Master Volume. The real amp is very loud in that mode and I bet the Master Volume was set very low. With the Axe-Fx you can crank the Master Volume up without shattering windows so you get added warmth. This would also explain why the Axe-Fx clip sounds better.

Regardless tests like these are highly enlightening and entertaining. People go on about "digital modelers never sound as good as the real thing, blah, fizz, harshness, blah, blanketed, blah, toobz rule, blah" and then someone does a real test like this and completely debunks all that. Well done.
Click to expand...

So my assumption about the Speaker page was right! Awesome! I never gave that page the attention it deserves. Now that I've realized it's importance, I'll definitely tweak that in my future patches.
The master volume on both the amp and the axe fx model were set to 9 o'clock, so both of them were fairly low. I couldn't set the mv higher because the amp was connected to the cab, I live in an apartment and I recorded this at 8 in the morning. The neighbours would kill me if the amp was any louder.


No, the slave out is right off the speaker jacks. It's just padded down to line level.
Click to expand...

Exactly. That's in the manual.
It is possible however to get the pre amp signal from the fx send on the back of the amp. It doesn't sound as cool though.
 
The speaker page is really the thing you wan't to tweak if you wan't to get recto models really work. Me and Clark Kent/Mikko/ML? tried to match recto2 everything at noon to my Roadster everything noon. All we had to do is change the lo res value and hi freg and hi res, BOOM! And we can get really spot on because Roadster was connected to my Trad 4x12 cab (CP7) and then use the IRs with axefx.

I don't know about the "normal" dual recto gain but to match roadsters gain the input trim had to be set 0.500.

And I really cranked the roadster...recto2 model MV max 2.0 was pretty much the same as window breaking volume in real amp.
 
octatonic said:
Sound like there are some phase issues with the AFX bits- double tracking related?
Click to expand...

I don't hear any phase issues. It wouldn't make sense to have phase issues in this case, since I only got a mono signal from the axe fx and then double tracked the guitars (double tracking won't cause any phasing issues).

Irotlas said:
The speaker page is really the thing you wan't to tweak if you wan't to get recto models really work. Me and Clark Kent/Mikko/ML? tried to match recto2 everything at noon to my Roadster everything noon. All we had to do is change the lo res value and hi freg and hi res, BOOM! And we can get really spot on because Roadster was connected to my Trad 4x12 cab (CP7) and then use the IRs with axefx.

I don't know about the "normal" dual recto gain but to match roadsters gain the input trim had to be set 0.500.

And I really cranked the roadster...recto2 model MV max 2.0 was pretty much the same as window breaking volume in real amp.
Click to expand...

The amount of gain was spot on between the model and the real amp. I was impressed with the accuracy. To my ears, the midrange and the high end are almost identical. The only really noticeable difference was the low end, like I mentioned earlier. My cab is also a recto 4x12 traditional. But it's not the same as CP7 since mine is slanted :(.
 
I'm very happy to hear that the gain level is exactly the same on the amp sim and real amp. :) That low end difference is huge. I also thought that it was the real amp first since it was so much better. :lol

I guess if you're still interested you could try lowering the master volume to like 2 on the amp sim and see if they're more similar but honestly I would expect it to add low end and not decrease it.

The only two differences I can come up with is 1) master control on the real amp effects the sound so was your amp set quiet? and 2) the speaker page might need adjusting.

Have you checked your tubes? It's funny but I never thought I'd see the day when we're trying to make a real amp sound as good as its modeled version. :lol
 
Hey mikko!
The mv on both the model and the amp were set to lower than 2 (I set them both at 9 o'clock so the neighbors wouldn't complain). Tubes seem to be working fine, and the amp sounds great when connected to the cabinet, so I don't think there's anything wrong.
You said that you did this kind of test before using the slave out on your recto. Was it much closer to the model than that when you did the comparison? (If you compared them both).

I wish I had a loadbox to run the same tests with higher mv settings


Enviado do meu iPhone usando Tapatalk
 
Skyadron said:
Hey mikko!
The mv on both the model and the amp were set to lower than 2 (I set them both at 9 o'clock so the neighbors wouldn't complain). Tubes seem to be working fine, and the amp sounds great when connected to the cabinet, so I don't think there's anything wrong.
You said that you did this kind of test before using the slave out on your recto. Was it much closer to the model than that when you did the comparison? (If you compared them both).

I wish I had a loadbox to run the same tests with higher mv settings


Enviado do meu iPhone usando Tapatalk
Click to expand...

It was the comparison with Irotlas's Roadster. It's a completely different preamp and most likely the power amp is also different. The weird thing is that once the input trim parameter is set it's really close to the real thing. The low end is pretty much the same.

This has some slight EQ tweaks. (the Roadster has more mids f.ex.) Take a listen:



The first one is the Roadster and in the end it's the Axe-Fx.
 
ML SOUND LAB said:
It was the comparison with Irotlas's Roadster. It's a completely different preamp and most likely the power amp is also different. The weird thing is that once the input trim parameter is set it's really close to the real thing. The low end is pretty much the same.

This has some slight EQ tweaks. (the Roadster has more mids f.ex.) Take a listen:



The first one is the Roadster and in the end it's the Axe-Fx.
Click to expand...


That's really close! Maybe the lack of low on the dual recto has something to do with the absence of negative feedback on the red modern channel. It's the only thing I can think of. The master volumes were set pretty much the same.

Anyways, I'll do another recording during the weekend just to be sure. After listening to your comparison I'm starting to feel that I may be doing something wrong (but I can't figure out what it is right now).
 
Skyadron said:
Hey everyone! Sorry it took me so long to record a clip with the rectifier running through the same impulse as the axe fx model.
Here it is: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/14642837/Recto vs Axe fx (CP 7) .mp3

I used the slave out feed from the recto plugged to input 1 left (rear), and bypassed all blocks in the patch except for the cabinet (which is the same one used in the video).
The first one is the axe fx II, the second one is the real rectifier, which sounds a lot thinner now. I'm guessing that the speaker resonance simulation on the amp block gives the model more body (Mikko, please correct me if I'm wrong!). The model also sounds smoother to me.

I think that in this case, using the same IR, the Axe Fx wins. I'll try to do the same comparison this weekend, but this time I'll plug the axe fx to the rectifier's power amp and mic both of them up using the same mic position. This should also be interesting.
Click to expand...
Axe does sound fuller,but you can hear that fizz-digital hiss that gives it away. the recto does not have that hiss sound.sounds cleaner.i wish axe fx could get that silent sound -if i am saying it right
 
I'm about to re-tweak all of my patches after the quantum update. I want to obtain the sound of my old Road King v2 in CH4 modern mode. Do I have to set the input trim to 0.500 anyway, to match the amp response?

Thanks
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom