Wish Explanation of the differences between the controls of the real amps and their modeled counterparts

axes said:
Reading through the Wiki it's clear that many of the amps were modeled with different (optimized) pot tapers on the controls. While it's nice to have ideallized versions of amps with controls that don't make that much sense in the originals it would also be nice to know on an amp-by-amp basis what controls have been changed compared to the originals and what the differences are (eg. how to set the modeled controls to match the real ones). For example, Cliff himself has shared that the modeled Mesa Mark Graphic EQ uses very different tapers to the original and since I believe I'm not the only one who likes to refer to artist settings sometimes, it would be nice to know how to dial those into the models accurately. Is this something we can expect or is it out of the question?
Click to expand...
The Wiki is not the only source of useful information. Cliff has a series of tech notes that dig into why things work the way they do. Spread through them is a common thread that the modeler can't mimic the behavior of every amp the manufacturer built.

The gist of the problem is that the manufacturers use components, in this case pots, with varying quality and tapers over the life of an amp model. Fractal can't and won't model every possible variation of those amps. Instead they work from a well-maintained version of the amp that sounds like the epitome of that model, and the schematic and then know what the pots are supposed to be, and if the amp they're physically using varies they'll replace the components with some that are correct.

There's also the related problem with the knobs; Especially on vintage amps, the knobs don't line up consistently because they weren't put on consistently on the manufacturing line, but people don't know that so they assume that 5 on every model turned the pot to the same position, but it didn't, and especially on something like a Tweed Deluxe, that little difference can make big difference in sound and feel. This little problem used to piss me off with my vintage amps and guitars, so I'd pop off the knobs, zero the pots, and reattach the knobs, not even thinking of variances in the pot itself… but I'm OCD and inconsistent that way.

I understand the frustration, but the more I thought about it I realized there's only so much Fractal can do to remedy these inconsistencies. While we'd like to have tables and charts, in the end they don't make the amp sound better, nor does it really make it more usable. It'd be an attempt to line the model up with one instance of an amp that nobody else had, and people would have the same complaints. To work around it, we'll spin the dials, listen to the change, and find what we like, resulting in what Fractal has said all along, "Use your ears, not your eyes."

PS - there is a chart on the forum that shows the relationship of various 0-10, 0-11, 1-12 dial setting combinations to 0-12. While it seems that'd be the perfect solution, it doesn't take into account the issues of the pots and knobs, and then we still have to fall back on spinning the dial on the modeler to where it sounds best, so we loop back to "ears, not eyes."
 
Last edited:
Greg Ferguson said:
so we loop back to "ears, not eyes."
Click to expand...
Ultimately, that is the last step. You ought to be able to get to a starting point (even with 20% tolerances on the pots) visually, though. If it was "ears, not eyes" in Rex' driving videogame analogy, how exactly would that work? Listen for the sound of crashing, then turn the wheel? There are some instances where the models are not accurate by design. The designer himself said so. Why is this such a difficult concept?
 
Joe Bfstplk said:
Knowing the screen's aspect ratio is skewed will, though. :p
Click to expand...

Rex said:
Different Mario. We're talking real cars, real intersections. Never take a turn with your eyes closed. ;) Or ears, in this case.
Click to expand...

Ever seen a curved wrap-around windscreen?

A lot of '50s and early '60s cars had them. There's a reason that they went out of fashion. They can screw with the shape of things you are trying to see through the curved part - much like a control which is purposely modeled in a completely different taper screws with the knob position.

All people are asking for is a map of the minefield....
 
Joe Bfstplk said:
Ultimately, that is the last step. You ought to be able to get to a starting point (even with 20% tolerances on the pots) visually, though. If it was "ears, not eyes" in Rex' driving videogame analogy, how exactly would that work? Listen for the sound of crashing, then turn the wheel? There are some instances where the models are not accurate by design. The designer himself said so. Why is this such a difficult concept?
Click to expand...
It's not a video game analogy. Different Mario. ;) I guess I'm dating myself.

The point is that formulas won't get you there. Even if the controls perform identically to the ones in the artist's amp snapshot. It's fine to know that a control works differently. But you still have to tweak when you hear a crash. Time saved by knowing it's different: zero
 
Rex said:
It's not a video game analogy. Different Mario. ;) I guess I'm dating myself.

The point is that formulas won't get you there. Even if the controls perform identically to the ones in the artist's amp snapshot. It's fine to know that a control works differently. But you still have to tweak when you hear a crash. Time saved by knowing it's different: zero
Click to expand...
Baloney. Time saved by knowing it off is not zero.

If you know it is off by a small, medium, or large percentage in a particular direction, you can compensate and start off closer to the lane and maybe even still on the track and rolling, instead of up in the bleachers....
 
Joe Bfstplk said:
Baloney. Time saved by knowing it off is not zero.

If you know it is off by a small, medium, or large percentage in a particular direction, you can compensate and start off closer to the lane and maybe even still on the track and rolling, instead of up in the bleachers....
Click to expand...
Agreed you can get a theoretical leg up by knowing it might be off. But here's the deal...

If you blindly follow settings, any of them can be off, for a host of reasons noted elsewhere in this thread. For opimal results, you're gonna have to tweak anyway. If MV is off, you'll hear it. Finding the sweet spot is a quick thing, whether you start a long way off or you're just verifying that it's right.
 
Rex said:
Agreed you can get a theoretical leg up by knowing it might be off. But here's the deal...

If you blindly follow settings, any of them can be off, for a host of reasons noted elsewhere in this thread. For opimal results, you're gonna have to tweak anyway. If MV is off, you'll hear it. Finding the sweet spot is a quick thing, whether you start a long way off or you're just verifying that it's right.
Click to expand...
Did you read all of my earlier post or just the parts you wanted to argue about?
 
Rex said:
Mr. Charles makes a good-lookin' straw man. Driving blind is equivalent to paying deaf. Which is not this situation.
Click to expand...
Hey, you brought in the driving analogy, not me. All I did was point out the silliness of your analogy, and even followed it with a silly face to indicate that it was humor.

If you disagree with this request being a useful thing for you, that's fine. You're allowed. A number of others doubtless agree with both you and the OP.

The level of instant-on snark in your responses clearly indicates one of two things:

1. Someone whizzed in your Cheerios this morning.

2. You are just the sort of person who feels so utterly valueless that you need to take your inner lack of self-worth out on others.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and ask why you didn't just pour yourself another bowl....
 
As for your most recent post, peace brother. Know that i mean you no ill will, that none of your Cheerios were harmed in the making of these posts, and that my snark in this thread is not superior to the snark which may have been brought by anyone else. :D
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom