Has the Axe-FX II Achieved 99% amp modeling accuracy?

666was999 said:
When you crank a monitor in a room you already get some 'monitor in the room' effect and maybe that's a good target as well. When you have to much 'cab in the room' ambience and eqing in your signal you hear the room twice, the real room where your monitor sounds and the captured room as part of the signal, one room too much.
Click to expand...

That is what I think as well. Additionally, using the "null" mic setting seems to work well (for me at least) when playing in places that have a ton of natural "ambiance" because of the construction. On two occasions I swapped to a different IR because of the effect the physical space of the venue had on my tone. Being able to do that is pretty handy.
 
Definitely not IMHO. However, the Axe-FX II is the best modeler out there by far (props also to the Universal Audio plug-ins). This is also the most skilled and dedicated team out there and their pursuit of tone is endless.

This topic has come up many times. At this stage I'd still prefer to have some Boogie's in the studio, especially for high gain, however, while I've owned a few excellent tube amps, I currently only own the Axe-FX. The ease-of-use, versatility and editing capability is incredible as are the digital FX. The models are certainly acceptable to make some great recordings as evidenced by clips you can here throughout the internet and on some albums. Most A-list pros would still choose tube amps to record their albums at this time I believe.
 
Lionheart said:
Absolutely not. IRs are extremely accurate. Mic up a 4x12 Mesa cab with a single SM57 and then compare it to the IR equivalent. It's unbelievable how close they will be.

I totally disagree about your assessment of the IR vs the real cab. It's not the weak part by a long shot.
Click to expand...
They are accurate in capturing the linear properties of a speaker.
But speakers have non linearities such as harmonics of low frequency notes.
And those an you don't get with the IR.
 
Ed DeGenaro said:
They are accurate in capturing the linear properties of a speaker.
But speakers have non linearities such as harmonics of low frequency notes.
And those an you don't get with the IR.
Click to expand...
giphy.gif
 
Ed DeGenaro said:
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....
Click to expand...
No method is perfect but the sounds I get from the new digital reactive load boxes like the Torpedo Studio are very impressive. It's not that they are better than a real cabinet, of course not, but they come very close and I can play at very low volume levels and still get a good sound.
 
I've found its close enough when feeding a signal into a DAW but through FRFR in a band setting it lacks some cut. The biggest breakthrough for me was running the AxeFx 2 through a Mesa power amp. It instantly come alive and even patches that sounded average before now sound much more authentic.
 
99% accuracy? I hope it never gets to that point: The crackly pots, microphonic tubes, squealing voice coils, the thump of failing power tubes, screen resistors and transformer, the additional hum, the repair fees. Nah, not for me. The Fractal modeling sounds better and is more reliable than my history of amps and pedals. Maybe I'm not picky enough: but I can always find an IR that sounds excellent, but for those wringing their hands about IR authenticity or sub par PAs: a real speaker cabinet also works great.
 
jhsg said:
I've found its close enough when feeding a signal into a DAW but through FRFR in a band setting it lacks some cut. The biggest breakthrough for me was running the AxeFx 2 through a Mesa power amp. It instantly come alive and even patches that sounded average before now sound much more authentic.
Click to expand...


This sounds more like it comes down to the FRFR speaker your using, and your virtual power amp, and/or EQ settings, not to mention the directional nature of the speaker cab your using than an issue with the Axe modeling.

A 4x12 cab on stage is going to cut better depending on where your standing because of the very direct nature of a guitar speaker. A FRFR speaker is going to have better dispersion across the stage, which can be a pro or a con.

I've had plenty of instances with guitar cabs where I thought I could hear myself well, and my tone was nice and upfront per my spot on stage, but the vocalist and bass player couldn't hear me worth a darn. I've also played some FRFR monitors and pretty much what I heard was what they heard as well (within reason on a smaller stage) due to how the FRFR spreads the sound out better.

Obviously not all FRFR systems are equal either. Some can sound a bit mid-scooped which can make the guitar somewhat disappear, but then can be EQ'd to provide better cut.

There is nothing inherent in a tube power amp where it magically produces more "cut" than the Axe can be programmed to provide. If anything, the Axe has far more tonal shaping ability with a wealth of EQ options
 
lqdsnddist said:
There is nothing inherent in a tube power amp where it magically produces more "cut" than the Axe can be programmed to provide. If anything, the Axe has far more tonal shaping ability with a wealth of EQ options
Click to expand...

I agree - I hear (and have been in) many bands where everyone fights for the same frequencies. It often leads to an on-stage volume war.

A few years ago I moved to dialing in my live sounds while playing with the group. Taking that approach really helps regardless of what I am using (tube amp, Axe, etc.).
 
artzeal said:
99% accuracy? I hope it never gets to that point: The crackly pots, microphonic tubes, squealing voice coils, the thump of failing power tubes, screen resistors and transformer, the additional hum, the repair fees. Nah, not for me. The Fractal modeling sounds better and is more reliable than my history of amps and pedals. Maybe I'm not picky enough: but I can always find an IR that sounds excellent, but for those wringing their hands about IR authenticity or sub par PAs: a real speaker cabinet also works great.
Click to expand...
Gear breaks.... That simple, whether it's a blown output transformer or a borged IC....it happens.
 
There will be further breakthroughs in the coming years(from whichever company) that will make it very obvious about what was lacking from todays amp modeling & IRs...........so the answer to this thread is no:cool:
 
there are over 230 amp models in the Axe.
Are they all 99% on the real counterparts?
Dunno!
But what i know is that I can do all the kind of guitar sounds I want from clean to hi-gain in all the best "amp flavours" I want from fenders to ac30 to marshall, mesa etc and i can refine the tone and the color with the right cab IR
So... even IF the Axe is not 99% of a particular amp... well... is 101% of what I want from a guitar gear!
 
I really appreciate all the responses to my question. I want to add a few more thoughts of my own, but before I do, here are a couple of observations:

1) My initial question could have been worded better. While I enjoyed the discussions regarding IR’s, the purpose of my post was to solicit thoughts about the maturity of the amplifier algorithms.

2) I agree with all the comments about “how do you define “99%”? That is a subjective determination. My intent was to simply ask the experts if they believe the amp models could be refined further based on their real-world experience with the vast assortment of vintage and modern tube amps.

Several of the veterans/experts out there feel that the AXE is still not quite there. However, quite a few said the amp models are so good that it really doesn’t matter if the accuracy is perfect or not. Great tones can be had easily and quickly. Others mentioned that they sold their old tube amps and never looked back. To me, that speaks volumes.

So, what is the bottom line? After reading all the responses, I'm not sure it matters. My gut tells me that Cliff could declare the amp models “done forever” and no one would complain. I certainly wouldn’t…. I love this box.
 
In my opinion, if we are talking strictly about the amplifier sims only, they I'd say they are 99% there. However amps are such a small percentage of of the overall sound that there is still much room for improvement in other areas. Particularly the stuff between cab and daw. Yeah there's mic and preamp sims, but I have yet to hear anyone's Axe Fx direct in recordings and though "man that really sounds like an amp recorded in a room."

My example would be the Deftones Koi No Yokan album. The first time I heard it, I thought the guitars sounded not quite warm enough but couldn't put my finger on it. Later I find out they said they recorded the whole album though the Axe Fx only. Not that they don't have some awesome sounds on the album, but the "overall" sound wasn't 99% the same as their past records.
 
Brownmatthall said:
IR's aren't meant to emulate the amp in the room thing it's a close mic'd cab. Any room you're hearing in a recording is a far field mic and we have those
Click to expand...

That's why I didn't say anything about IRs.... but regardless, I realized the original scope of the axe fx isn't to model things after the cab. Actually I vaguely remember reading something that said they didn't even mean to model amps, it was just supposed to be effects. But they did it and it turned out awesome. So to me, the next logical weak spot in the chain is after the cab. Maybe weak spot isn't the right term, but rather it's what they can tackle and do a killer job with.
 
Rinkleton said:
That's why I didn't say anything about IRs.... but regardless, I realized the original scope of the axe fx isn't to model things after the cab. Actually I vaguely remember reading something that said they didn't even mean to model amps, it was just supposed to be effects. But they did it and it turned out awesome. So to me, the next logical weak spot in the chain is after the cab. Maybe weak spot isn't the right term, but rather it's what they can tackle and do a killer job with.
Click to expand...
It wasn't meant to shoot your point down, I just felt that if that's what you thought what was holding the axe back it doesnt. IRs and the cab block have come a long way but I think the last couple pieces of the puzzle are coupling them and the amp block in the most natural way without sacrificing the tweak ability we have now. Time will tell, and I'm more than happy with the way it is now so any advancement is just icing on the cake
 
The modeling is at a level where people shouldn't give a damn about accuracy anymore. It feels as good to play as a good tube amp and sounds just as good or better. Whether it perfectly matches whatever amp model is pretty irrelevant if you get the sound you're looking for.
 
coming back at this after 2 years out, i dont mind how close they are to a real amp. i care if i can get a good sound im happy with for what i want to use it for. id probably never find the sound im happy with even with the real amp, so im basically doomed haha
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom