Clockwork Creep
Power User
What if an IR is made from a mic that is far away from the cab?
We already have that. They're called far field IRs.What if an IR is made from a mic that is far away from the cab?
That while sales pitch for reactive loads is all fine and good with one problem.... That impedance isn't a constant static curve it changes depending on frequency....I agree, and here's why.
It doesn't actually respond to a physical amp in the same way that a speaker would in a cabinet.
There's a special relationship that between a speakers in a speaker cabinet and the output transformer of a tube amp. That back and forth relationship between the output stage of the amp and the speaker is measurable (Impedance curve).
The impedance curve considerably affects the way that an amp sounds and responds. Depending on what type of cabinet you have that speaker loaded in, will actually change the impedance curve. The impedance curve affects the tone of your amp and the way that it responds.
So, if every speaker and cabinet combination has it's own special impedance curve, how do you account for all of those and put them into the Axe-Fx's speaker page?
You can't.
Cliff probably modeled an impedance curve for each amp model and put that as the default into that model's speaker page.
So, those resonant peaks might not be lined up with the IRs that we use.
However, it's close.
But until some breakthrough in technology comes along, this is where we're at with the Axe-Fx.
I'm not sure if you're agreeing with me or not.That while sales pitch for reactive loads is all fine and good with one problem.... That impedance isn't a constant static curve it changes depending on frequency....
I do mostly, the one thing that I don't subscribe to is the two dimensional nature of an impedance curve, I mean part of a speakers nature is to go between reactive and resistive above and beyond its resonance frequency. It doesn't figure in sanding etc... Which a waterfall plot would. It's kinda the same when you look at the frequency response curve of a ported studio monitor vs. Sealed box, as oppossed to a waterfall plot of the same.I'm not sure if you're agreeing with me or not.
No, I didn't think it was just something he pulled out of thin air. I'm sure he put his technical knowledge to use. No doubt about that.I don't think it's this completely arbitrary number cliff slaps on but it's only going to correspond correctly to the cab.
Okay, thanks for the clarification. I can get on board with that.I do mostly, the one thing that I don't subscribe to is the two dimensional nature of an impedance curve, I mean part of a speakers nature is to go between reactive and resistive above and beyond its resonance frequency. It doesn't figure in sanding etc... Which a waterfall plot would. It's kinda the same when you look at the frequency response curve of a ported studio monitor vs. Sealed box, as oppossed to a waterfall plot of the same.
Well, hell. I'm selling my Axe-Fx for a Line 6 Spider IV 30, then.Arguments over the finer sonic nuances of tube amp design always seem a bit academic to me when the reality is that most likely any signal (ie; music) is going to be heard/enjoyed via crappy earbuds and low bit rate mp3/streaming audio, or via a house PA system to a room full of drunks.....
Its kind of like "debating" the merits of specific vintage of wines and then throwing them in a wine spritzer, regardless of how fancy of vintage it started out
It depends on what you're playing. This thing is pretty astounding for clean tones, but once you start getting into breakup and high gain territory there's still room for improvement. This is just opinion of course.
It's much debated, but the high and low end on distorted tone still suffers, in my opinion, from a digital sound in top end, and a whompy low end. Also, the way the breakup sounds is still too smooth and undefined. It's gotten a lot better since the last few firmware iterations,to a point where many don't seem to be bothered by it. But I've yet to hear something as saturated sounding as, say "Silvera" by Gojira, "Psychosocial" by Slipknot, or "Vicarious" by Tool. Sure, the tone might be spot on, but the sputtering crackle just isn't there.
Hi everyone.
I have been a modeling amp user for many years, starting with the Fender Cyber Deluxe, then moving to the AXE standard, and now I love my Axe-FX II. Over the years, I've owned only a few tube amps, so I don't have the depth of experience that many others on this forum have with all the various amps that have been built over that last 50 years or so. So this question is for the seasoned amp users out there that have a very deep well of knowledge and experience with many different amps.......
With the quantum generation firmware updates, has the accuracy of the AXE-FX II achieved the 99% accuracy level? In other words, is there anything significant left to develop with the amp models to further improve tone/feel/touch sensitivity/etc? the latest quantum firmware is so incredible, it's hard for a less experienced amp user like me to imagine it can get any better.
Love to hear all the expert's thoughts.......
This could be due not to the amp models, but the IR.I think you're right about this. The biggest thing I wrestle with in dialing in tones with my fractal is the top end bite. It just doesn't sizzle, its either too smooth or just way too fizzy but not what I'm trying to get.
Another good example is Slipknot's "Before I Forget".
That would mean, that they are different... Which means, the models in the Axe are not yet accurate...
Here's another question: Even if amp modelling is 99% there, what about cab modelling? This whole manual thing about the speaker page does create inconsistencies with reality... Also, are IR's really accurate to a real mic'ed up cab in a room? I'm skeptical.