FRFR and "Getting the most out of your Axe-Fx"

Y

youngmic

Inspired
There have been several comments on the forum stating that the better the FRFR solution, the more you get out of your Axe-Fx - or that you cannot truly experience the potential of the Axe-Fx without a monitor design that is usually accessible in solutions that end up costing in the $2000 - $5000 range.

Cliff (if I may), can you weigh in on this from the inventor's perspective? What does a $3000 FRFR solution (assuming that it is well engineered) buy you in terms of "tube amp feel", "axe-fx potential", "accurate modeling", etc?

There are so many opinions here that I was hoping you might be able to breathe in a little perspective from the source. One question I might ask is what considerations did you and Tom King have in mind when you designed the Atomic powered wedge? Is it correct to assume that "guitar orientation" was a factor? And if so, how does that factor into the conversation we're all having about ultimate neutral transparency?

Thanks,
Mike
 
I'm not Cliff or Tom, but while we wait for them to chime in I thought I'd try throwing an analogy out there.

The "full Axe-FX potential" is nothing more than the precise, unaltered mathematical results it calculates. "Tube amp feel" is expressed numerically by the Axe-FX; but if your sound gear cuts off or alters those numbers substantially, then you will get less of that "feel". You dial in "2 + 2" and what you hear is something that sort of sounds like "four" but probably sounds more like "flower" because you have an $800 powered monitor and not a Frazier cabinet. Don't get me wrong, flower is a rather nice sounding word, but it isn't really what the Axe-FX computed for you. Gear that says "four" with great articulation is very expensive; but that's what it takes to hear the full potential (i.e., the actual values being calculated) of the simulator.

Now you could just send the output of the Axe-FX to a traditional tube amp and guitar cab and hear something that sounds more like "floor", which is closer to "four" than "flower", but that is the only word it really speaks (though it says it perfectly). When you dial "2 + 3" into the Axe-FX, you hear "flove" because the traditional amp and cab is going to try and make everything sound like "floor" no matter what. Even a mid-range FRFR system will give you "fife", which isn't perfect but a lot closer to "five" than "flove" (IMO anyway).

So you pick your poison, and Cliff designed a device that lets you use whatever flavor of poison suits you. A lot of guys here are so in love with the word "floor" (to continue the analogy) that they don't mind how the results of every patch gets distorted towards that sound. But others want to dial in all sorts of values and hear them for what they are (even if there is no number that when said with perfect articulation ever sounds exactly like the word floor--they find "four" to be so close that most of the time nobody will tell the difference, not even them). They are willing to pay large sums of money for gear that will let them hear it. Jay gets to hear "one", "two", "three", "four", "five", "six", "seven", while we look on with wistful envy.

Most of us, though, look for an FRFR solution that gives us the most bang for the buck. We get to hear "fun", "due", "tree", "flower", "fife", "sex", "heaven", and so on, but that's all we can (or want to) afford. To my mind that's still better than using a traditional tube amp and guitar cab and hearing "flown", "flu", "fleer", "floor", "flove", "flox", "flubber", etc. I'm just not in love enough with the sound of the word floor to live with that coloration of every patch I create.
 
zslane said:
I'm not Cliff or Tom, but while we wait for them to chime in I thought I'd try throwing an analogy out there.

The "full Axe-FX potential" is nothing more than the precise, unaltered mathematical results it calculates. "Tube amp feel" is expressed numerically by the Axe-FX; but if your sound gear cuts off or alters those numbers substantially, then you will get less of that "feel". You dial in "2 + 2" and what you hear is something that sort of sounds like "four" but probably sounds more like "flower" because you have an $800 powered monitor and not a Frazier cabinet. Don't get me wrong, flower is a rather nice sounding word, but it isn't really what the Axe-FX computed for you. Gear that says "four" with great articulation is very expensive; but that's what it takes to hear the full potential (i.e., the actual values being calculated) of the simulator.

Now you could just send the output of the Axe-FX to a traditional tube amp and guitar cab and hear something that sounds more like "floor", which is closer to "four" than "flower", but that is the only word it really speaks (though it says it perfectly). When you dial "2 + 3" into the Axe-FX, you hear "flove" because the traditional amp and cab is going to try and make everything sound like "floor" no matter what. Even a mid-range FRFR system will give you "fife", which isn't perfect but a lot closer to "five" than "flove" (IMO anyway).

So you pick your poison, and Cliff designed a device that lets you use whatever flavor of poison suits you. A lot of guys here are so in love with the word "floor" (to continue the analogy) that they don't mind how the results of every patch gets distorted towards that sound. But others want to dial in all sorts of values and hear them for what they are (even if there is no number that when said with perfect articulation ever sounds exactly like the word floor--they find "four" to be so close that most of the time nobody will tell the difference, not even them). They are willing to pay large sums of money for gear that will let them hear it. Jay gets to hear "one", "two", "three", "four", "five", "six", "seven", while we look on with wistful envy.

Most of us, though, look for an FRFR solution that gives us the most bang for the buck. We get to hear "fun", "due", "tree", "flower", "fife", "sex", "heaven", and so on, but that's all we can (or want to) afford. To my mind that's still better than using a traditional tube amp and guitar cab and hearing "flown", "flu", "fleer", "floor", "flove", "flox", "flubber", etc. I'm just not in love enough with the sound of the word floor to live with that coloration of every patch I create.
Click to expand...

Man.. I don't know about y'all, but this is one amazing analogy! Thanks so much for sharing your thoughts!!!!!
 
I don't think I've ever heard anything quite like that. But I understand what you (and many others) are saying. I get it. The premise is that all tone generation and coloration are done by the Axe-Fx. Got it. The more transparent the solution, the less that gets in the way of what the Axe-Fx is trying to "say". Got it. And I don't disagree. I'm looking for a solution that let's me monitor both the Axe Fx and mix in the FOH monitor send. I also want to appreciate the cab modeling capabilities in the Axe Fx. So FRFR is the way to go. I'm not asking for a comparison between FRFR and traditional guitar cabs. I'm asking for the perspective of the guys that built this thing on the true gains that come in all the "vital" areas that get thrown around here - "tube amp feel", "axe-fx potential", etc.

Another reason I'm asking this (of them) is because I have not seen many examples of pros using these ultra high end solutions. Dweezil, Belew, Thorn, Brewster all appear to be using the Atomics. (I shy away from them because of my desire to run the FOH monitor mix through them as well.) Who is using top line L-Acoustics, Meyer, EAW, Turbosound, D&B, RCF, etc. solutions for the Axe Fx? And if they are, is it because they have spent the time to discern whether or not they are truly that much better than an Atomic or some other "prosumer" solution or is it because they asked their tech manager to go get them the best powered monitor available?

So much of this conversation seems so theoretical - meaning that there is very, very little actual experience of these high end solutions here. This was part of the reason for the poll I put up. 60% of the respondents are using either the 12ma, K series, or the Atomics. Of the respondents, there was one using a Renkus Heinz, one using Tannoy Power V12's, and one using an RCF NX M12A. I have seen at least one additional example each of the latter two. A couple people use Turbosound TCS 59's. And of course, Jay Mitchell has his solution. I was hoping to draw out more users of those ultra high end solutions - but others have tried this. They don't seem to exist.

So my question again is - what is actually true in practice (vs. theory). There will always be subjectivity in these answers. Even Cliff and Tom, should they choose to comment on this thread (and I do hope they will), won't be completely objective. But I think it's fair to say that their perspective might have a little more weight when it comes to "getting the most out of the Axe-Fx".

Thanks.
 
zslane said:
I'm not Cliff or Tom, but while we wait for them to chime in I thought I'd try throwing an analogy out there.

The "full Axe-FX potential" is nothing more than the precise, unaltered mathematical results it calculates. "Tube amp feel" is expressed numerically by the Axe-FX; but if your sound gear cuts off or alters those numbers substantially, then you will get less of that "feel". You dial in "2 + 2" and what you hear is something that sort of sounds like "four" but probably sounds more like "flower" because you have an $800 powered monitor and not a Frazier cabinet. Don't get me wrong, flower is a rather nice sounding word, but it isn't really what the Axe-FX computed for you. Gear that says "four" with great articulation is very expensive; but that's what it takes to hear the full potential (i.e., the actual values being calculated) of the simulator.

Now you could just send the output of the Axe-FX to a traditional tube amp and guitar cab and hear something that sounds more like "floor", which is closer to "four" than "flower", but that is the only word it really speaks (though it says it perfectly). When you dial "2 + 3" into the Axe-FX, you hear "flove" because the traditional amp and cab is going to try and make everything sound like "floor" no matter what. Even a mid-range FRFR system will give you "fife", which isn't perfect but a lot closer to "five" than "flove" (IMO anyway).

So you pick your poison, and Cliff designed a device that lets you use whatever flavor of poison suits you. A lot of guys here are so in love with the word "floor" (to continue the analogy) that they don't mind how the results of every patch gets distorted towards that sound. But others want to dial in all sorts of values and hear them for what they are (even if there is no number that when said with perfect articulation ever sounds exactly like the word floor--they find "four" to be so close that most of the time nobody will tell the difference, not even them). They are willing to pay large sums of money for gear that will let them hear it. Jay gets to hear "one", "two", "three", "four", "five", "six", "seven", while we look on with wistful envy.

Most of us, though, look for an FRFR solution that gives us the most bang for the buck. We get to hear "fun", "due", "tree", "flower", "fife", "sex", "heaven", and so on, but that's all we can (or want to) afford. To my mind that's still better than using a traditional tube amp and guitar cab and hearing "flown", "flu", "fleer", "floor", "flove", "flox", "flubber", etc. I'm just not in love enough with the sound of the word floor to live with that coloration of every patch I create.
Click to expand...

Dude, totally had me laughing the whole time....but i completely understand what you were expressing, and it makes total sense. Fantastic analogy.
 
youngmic said:
I don't think I've ever heard anything quite like that. But I understand what you (and many others) are saying. I get it. The premise is that all tone generation and coloration are done by the Axe-Fx. Got it. The more transparent the solution, the less that gets in the way of what the Axe-Fx is trying to "say". Got it. And I don't disagree. I'm looking for a solution that let's me monitor both the Axe Fx and mix in the FOH monitor send. I also want to appreciate the cab modeling capabilities in the Axe Fx. So FRFR is the way to go. I'm not asking for a comparison between FRFR and traditional guitar cabs. I'm asking for the perspective of the guys that built this thing on the true gains that come in all the "vital" areas that get thrown around here - "tube amp feel", "axe-fx potential", etc.

Another reason I'm asking this (of them) is because I have not seen many examples of pros using these ultra high end solutions. Dweezil, Belew, Thorn, Brewster all appear to be using the Atomics. (I shy away from them because of my desire to run the FOH monitor mix through them as well.) Who is using top line L-Acoustics, Meyer, EAW, Turbosound, D&B, RCF, etc. solutions for the Axe Fx? And if they are, is it because they have spent the time to discern whether or not they are truly that much better than an Atomic or some other "prosumer" solution or is it because they asked their tech manager to go get them the best powered monitor available?

So much of this conversation seems so theoretical - meaning that there is very, very little actual experience of these high end solutions here. This was part of the reason for the poll I put up. 60% of the respondents are using either the 12ma, K series, or the Atomics. Of the respondents, there was one using a Renkus Heinz, one using Tannoy Power V12's, and one using an RCF NX M12A. I have seen at least one additional example each of the latter two. A couple people use Turbosound TCS 59's. And of course, Jay Mitchell has his solution. I was hoping to draw out more users of those ultra high end solutions - but others have tried this. They don't seem to exist.

So my question again is - what is actually true in practice (vs. theory). There will always be subjectivity in these answers. Even Cliff and Tom, should they choose to comment on this thread (and I do hope they will), won't be completely objective. But I think it's fair to say that their perspective might have a little more weight when it comes to "getting the most out of the Axe-Fx".

Thanks.
Click to expand...

They'd be foolish to answer your question on a forum. Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

IMHO, there's something not considered yet in your post at all. A reference level studio monitor setup in a properly treated room. If the goal of FRFR as defined is to have as uncolored an experience in monitoring, that is, IMHO, the only way to do it.

None - NONE - of the commercially available solutions in powered/unpowered stage monitors are uncolored. And in each case past that fact, their response and accuaracy are all deeply affected on the room and environment they are used in.

The only way to remove those factors is to remove those factors.

Past that - it's all subjective anyway. Not just subject to being subjective. It's ENTIRELY subjective.

And that's the sticky wicket that gets folks tripped up in these conversations every single time.
 
youngmic said:
There have been several comments on the forum stating that the better the FRFR solution, the more you get out of your Axe-Fx - or that you cannot truly experience the potential of the Axe-Fx without a monitor design that is usually accessible in solutions that end up costing in the $2000 - $5000 range.
Click to expand...

As this discussion has progressed over the last few weeks, this is a growing misconception I see among the readers on the forum.

The benefits of a great FRFR system, the kind not available for purchase at Guitar Center, are applicable to ALL music. It has nothing really to do with getting the most out of the Axe-FX specifically. The differences are just as applicable to playing back CDs or amplifying a keyboard as they are to the Axe-FX.

Can people playback audio or amplify keyboards on lesser sound systems and still be happy? Obviously they do, all day, everyday. Would that audio sound better (it would be best to say "more accurate") on a better system? Absolutely. Does it matter enough to you if you're the one buying the system? That's the subjective part, and it's a decision only you can make.

I've used plenty of prosumer level equipment. It is far from perfect. I don't think it's worth they charge for it most of the time. The compromises abound, and the benchmark data that the companies supply is utterly useless. All that said, you can still get perfectly useable sound from it if you know what to do and have the right resources. Often it will involve some additional work, particularly with EQ and speaker placement, but it's still achievable.

Where the really high end stuff shines is it's transparency. What you put in is what comes out, with no extra trickery required. Aside from that, yes there are details that you hear that you often don't hear on lesser systems.

There is not an absolutely perfect amplification system, it's an impossibility. It's always a matter of "good enough" to some extent. How good is good enough is strictly up to you. It has nothing to do with the Axe-FX either. High end amplification is just as applicable to playing back CDs as it is to the Axe-FX.

I know someone will come in and say that this is why you should use an amp or the Axe-FX through a power amp and cab, but that doesn't bypass the issue at all. You're still going to mic that cab and send it through the FOH system, so you're still limited by the FRFR amplification at some level no matter what you do. I guess the exception is if you're playing very small venues where just an amp is enough, but I doubt that's the case for most players using the Axe-FX.

The FOH is a good example. Have you been to a concert that sounded great at FOH through speakers that were available easily commercially (QSC, EAW, FBT, etc)? Then you know that good results can be achieved with that level of kit. It may take some work (EQ and such), but it is obtainable.

D
 
youngmic said:
Another reason I'm asking this (of them) is because I have not seen many examples of pros using these ultra high end solutions.
Click to expand...

I think that most pros stop when they get sound they like, and don't question it much. Why fix what ain't broke? Sure, a Frazier cabinet might let Zappa and Belew and Thorn "hear what they've been missing all these years" from their Axe-FX rigs, but I suspect they might not care a whole lot. They are too busy making music to chase ideal sound reinforcement. Clearly, the level of gear they presently use isn't presenting any creative obstacles for them. Championing high-end gear is really in response to the dudes out there who keep opining that their Axe-FX rigs are "missing something" tone-wise. I don't read too many of the pros complaining about it; but if they did, I would make the same suggestion to them, which is to see what improving their FRFR solution might be able to do for them (assuming they have truly mastered the myriad parameters in the Axe-FX first...because if not, well, GIGO and all that).

youngmic said:
So much of this conversation seems so theoretical - meaning that there is very, very little actual experience of these high end solutions here.
Click to expand...

Yeah, mostly because there seems to be little belief in the idea that spending as much on the sound reinforcement gear as was spent on the sound production gear is "cost effective". Hearing is believing, I imagine, but most folks don't have a practical way to hear high-end gear before taking the plunge. Easier and safer to risk less than $1k on something you don't really know if you should believe in, than $3k and be stuck with something with limited resale potential (because the high-end customer base is so much smaller).
 
What dk_ace has posted is true but I still think a lot of what it has to do with is application and context.

What zslane posted made me fall out of my chair :lol.

So with that analogy said I guess what I'm hearing with my monitor solution is un, fu, fee, fo, fi, sic. but hears the capper the FOH system I play through (JBL not sure what model) sounds the same way so do I need a high end monitor... nope, would I like a high end monitor... sure, do I have the 3-5 K to spend on a high end monitor... nope. Therefor I am content untill the good lord blesses me with the funds to clear up my speech impediment :lol.

So I guess am stuck with as is everyone else that hears me in the FOH where I play, un, fu, fee, fo, fi, sic, do they care... I have not had one person come up to me and tell me my tone sucks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom