Improve Wah

Improve Wah?

  • Yes, I would love that.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • No.

    Votes: 34 100.0%
  • Total voters
    34
H

hunter

Experienced
If there is one effect where I am not 100% satisfied in the Axe, it's the Wah simulation.

I know that Scott swears that his values sound 100% identical to his Fulltone, but I don't feel that. I tried loads of stuff, putting 2 in serial with a drive in between, 2 in parallel, single wahs, with EQs, with Tape Drives, etc etc

If I compare the Axe' Wah to my RMC3 or Vox847, it is
-too thick in the bass, while being too thin in the highs
-not "throaty" like the originals
-too clean, not adding that special dirt like the real ones

I cannot surely say which parameters should be added (if any) or if the agorithm complexity should be increased, but I would love to get some more authentic wah tones from the Axe.
 
I'd bet good money that all the ingredients to make a great sounding wah are already there -- what we need is more examples of wah blocks to drop in. I've been using what I think is Scott's wah block because tuning a wah from the default block setup quickly gets me nowhere. :)
 
iaresee said:
I'd bet good money that all the ingredients to make a great sounding wah are already there -- what we need is more examples of wah blocks to drop in. I've been using what I think is Scott's wah block because tuning a wah from the default block setup quickly gets me nowhere. :)
Click to expand...

I've tried so many settings and approaches, trust me, I can't get there with the current one. I am as close as I can get with what is there, but I still prefer my analog wahs a lot over it.
 
hunter said:
iaresee said:
I'd bet good money that all the ingredients to make a great sounding wah are already there -- what we need is more examples of wah blocks to drop in. I've been using what I think is Scott's wah block because tuning a wah from the default block setup quickly gets me nowhere. :)
Click to expand...

I've tried so many settings and approaches, trust me, I can't get there with the current one. I am as close as I can get with what is there, but I still prefer my analog wahs a lot over it.
Click to expand...
Have you tried using the Filter block instead?
 
iaresee said:
hunter said:
iaresee said:
I'd bet good money that all the ingredients to make a great sounding wah are already there -- what we need is more examples of wah blocks to drop in. I've been using what I think is Scott's wah block because tuning a wah from the default block setup quickly gets me nowhere. :)
Click to expand...

I've tried so many settings and approaches, trust me, I can't get there with the current one. I am as close as I can get with what is there, but I still prefer my analog wahs a lot over it.
Click to expand...
Have you tried using the Filter block instead?
Click to expand...

Yes. It sounds to me pretty much like the Wah TBH. I think there is some dirt introduced by the inductor or preamp that I am missing in the sim.
 
Would be nice to have selectable inductors etc.. to go between Vox, Crybaby, Morley... etc. Maybe even a selection of 'proper' models included modeled from actual schematics.
 
xpenno said:
Would be nice to have selectable inductors etc.. to go between Vox, Crybaby, Morley... etc. Maybe even a selection of 'proper' models included modeled from actual schematics.
Click to expand...

+1, like on some hardware units with selectable modes and switchable inductors
 
xpenno said:
Would be nice to have selectable inductors etc.. to go between Vox, Crybaby, Morley... etc. Maybe even a selection of 'proper' models included modeled from actual schematics.
Click to expand...
+2.
 
What would be great would be a model of the Teese RMC3. I own this wah, and with the internal trim pots and dip switches, it offers a huge range of great tones.

There is also a wealth of settings available, which could give you instant Hendrix, SRV, AIC, MonsterMagnet, etc..
 
I don't think Cliff is going to model different wahs. For one, it goes against what he said about modeling effects, but that's not really the big issue. The real problem is that nailing wah tones in the Axe-FX is mainly about getting the sweep right with your modifier settings. With the variety of expression pedals being used by the user base and the various pots and circuits in them, this would be largely impossible to get right.

I wasn't totally digging the wah after a few months with it. I liked Scott's settings, but it still wasn't perfection for me. For an analogy, it was better than the stock Crybaby sound to me, but it wasn't in Teese Picture Wah territory. A few months later, Scott posted his modifier settings. I dropped those in and the lightbulb came on. That is what was missing. Now I'm totally happy with the wah and the other players I work with always comment on how great the wah sounds. I ended up tweaking Scott's modifier settings a good bit to get what I wanted from it (I think our exp pedals probably have different pot values).

For those that aren't happy with the wah tones, I would spend some time with getting the modifier throw curve right.

D
 
dk_ace said:
I don't think Cliff is going to model different wahs. For one, it goes against what he said about modeling effects, but that's not really the big issue. The real problem is that nailing wah tones in the Axe-FX is mainly about getting the sweep right with your modifier settings. With the variety of expression pedals being used by the user base and the various pots and circuits in them, this would be largely impossible to get right.

I wasn't totally digging the wah after a few months with it. I liked Scott's settings, but it still wasn't perfection for me. For an analogy, it was better than the stock Crybaby sound to me, but it wasn't in Teese Picture Wah territory. A few months later, Scott posted his modifier settings. I dropped those in and the lightbulb came on. That is what was missing. Now I'm totally happy with the wah and the other players I work with always comment on how great the wah sounds. I ended up tweaking Scott's modifier settings a good bit to get what I wanted from it (I think our exp pedals probably have different pot values).

For those that aren't happy with the wah tones, I would spend some time with getting the modifier throw curve right.

D
Click to expand...

That is done. My issue is not a feel thing, more about sound/authenticity.
I got Ok sounding Wahs (especially using 2 of them in parallel), but they are not as great or on the same level as for example the reworked drive blocks. Some more complex modelling of the analog behaviour of these pedals, which are not just perfect filters in real life, would be awesome.
 
Note also that I tweak the Wah settings depending on the amp/cab being used. The stuff in the wiki and that I posted before are starting points only Every expression pedal is different.

I don't use the settings in the Wiki anymore FWIW. But depending on what you want to do (the same wah that works with a Fender Twin is necessarily the best fit tonally for a Marshall or Bogner all gained out).

FYI.
 
Scott Peterson said:
Note also that I tweak the Wah settings depending on the amp/cab being used. The stuff in the wiki and that I posted before are starting points only Every expression pedal is different.

I don't use the settings in the Wiki anymore FWIW. But depending on what you want to do (the same wah that works with a Fender Twin is necessarily the best fit tonally for a Marshall or Bogner all gained out).

FYI.
Click to expand...

What settings do you use now? :)
 
tonygtr said:
Scott Peterson said:
Note also that I tweak the Wah settings depending on the amp/cab being used. The stuff in the wiki and that I posted before are starting points only Every expression pedal is different.

I don't use the settings in the Wiki anymore FWIW. But depending on what you want to do (the same wah that works with a Fender Twin is necessarily the best fit tonally for a Marshall or Bogner all gained out).

FYI.
Click to expand...

What settings do you use now? :)
Click to expand...

Depends on what I am trying to get. Each preset has a different 'tuned' wah. It's not universal.
 
hunter said:
Here are two examples for how the RMC3 interacts with a small pedal/amp setup (the amp is a stock Epi ValveJunior, so expect no miracles). The two settings are quite distinct, and I hope this brings across what I mean with the more complex behaviour of this circuit compared to a clean bandpass filter:

more pronounced/agressive:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HeNKEq2ruzc&fmt=18

softer setting:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9TTrpYdXe4&fmt=18
Click to expand...

Put the RMC3 in front of the axefx. We don't want the "complexity" be caused by the amp itself. Bypass all except filter, and adjust. If you can replicate the sound, then another block has to be improved... :)
 
Smilzo said:
hunter said:
Here are two examples for how the RMC3 interacts with a small pedal/amp setup (the amp is a stock Epi ValveJunior, so expect no miracles). The two settings are quite distinct, and I hope this brings across what I mean with the more complex behaviour of this circuit compared to a clean bandpass filter:

more pronounced/agressive:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HeNKEq2ruzc&fmt=18

softer setting:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9TTrpYdXe4&fmt=18
Click to expand...

Put the RMC3 in front of the axefx. We don't want the "complexity" be caused by the amp itself. Bypass all except filter, and adjust. If you can replicate the sound, then another block has to be improved... :)
Click to expand...

Yes that is true, but I don't have the big rig here right now, so cannot do it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom