Intelligent Circuit Generating Algorithm

Status
Not open for further replies.
Rane

Rane

Experienced
Okay, this is an over-the-top, unlikely to ever be implemented "request", but...

What if amp models had an "Amp Generator" feature that randomized each circuit component value within it's specified manufacturing tolerances. This way manufacturing variations between amps of the same model could be simulated. Your amp model would be somewhat unique, while still falling within the manufacturing specs of the real amp.

Further still, users could select amp "age" which would generate component values and behaviors consistent with the selected number of years of degradation. Perhaps even take into account heat exposure and component placement on the board.

Generated amps could be saved and shared.

Might be an interesting way to tone search. No more tweaking. Just click "generate" and see what pops out. :D
 
Last edited:
I believe we can sort of do that now, although it would take a little research to figure out where aged part values drift to. ? and the values would have to be entered manually
 
It’s weird... when I bought older amps I’d take them and get the caps replaced, new tubes etc

Don’t see how we came to equate old and in need of service with desireable tone.

Never seen amps really improve with age
 
NeoSound said:
I believe we can sort of do that now, although it would take a little research to figure out where aged part values drift to. ? and the values would have to be entered manually
Click to expand...

Yeah, the aging part would be particularly difficult to simulate just because you'd have to understand how a circuit might deteriorate.

yek said:
This idea already has been put on the table. See recent discussions.
Click to expand...

I saw a post about virtual components aging over time.

I've not seen anyone talk about simulating production variations that happen due to component tolerances being what they are. Yet it's the number one thing that people bring up when someone mics up their amp X next to its equivalent Axe amp model. I was wiring up some LED's yesterday, and now need to change one of the 470R resistors because it is clearly not the same resistance as the same spec'd resistor in the LED right next to it.

yek said:
To add a personal note: sigh ....
Click to expand...

It's just a forum post. I'm not seriously suggesting this be implemented, or even that it would be useful.

lqdsnddist said:
It’s weird... when I bought older amps I’d take them and get the caps replaced, new tubes etc

Don’t see how we came to equate old and in need of service with desirable tone.

Never seen amps really improve with age
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm not actually an "aged amp" kind of person, but it seems to be a thing. Heck, simulating it might be a good way to convince people that vintage isn't better. lol
 
Last edited:
chris said:
The Axe is so good now that people want it to sound older/aged/worse/etc.

Interesting.
Click to expand...

I removed "aging" from the post title because it isn't the main point of the thread. My bad.

To clarify, I'm talking about a feature which would simulate the naturally occurring manufacturing variations between amps -and- (since it seems like a natural progression of the idea) variations due to age.
 
“No 2 Axe-Fx will ever sound the same” sort of thing?

I don’t understand the practical use of this feature.
 
Rane said:
Okay, this is an over-the-top, unlikely to ever be implemented "request", but...

What if amp models had an "Amp Generator" feature that randomized each circuit component value within it's specified manufacturing tolerances. This way manufacturing variations between amps of the same model could be simulated. Your amp model would be somewhat unique, while still falling within the manufacturing specs of the real amp.

...

Generated amps could be saved and shared.

Might be an interesting way to tone search. No more tweaking. Just click "generate" and see what pops out. :D
Click to expand...
Just... go through all the parameters and twiddle it a bit. Done.
 
chris said:
“No 2 Axe-Fx will ever sound the same” sort of thing?

I don’t understand the practical use of this feature.
Click to expand...

I was thinking the base amp model would always be the same, and you could use the generator if you wanted something “different”

Fun. It’s like a Minecraft world generator.

dpeterson said:
Or a random tolerance generator on component values?
Click to expand...

Yes.

yeky83 said:
Just... go through all the parameters and twiddle it a bit. Done.
Click to expand...

Probably would have basically the exact same results. Lol
 
While I respect people's opinions, I truly don't get the idea of messing up a careful design by throwing in random elements in the hope that it will sound better
 
Rex said:
While I respect people's opinions, I truly don't get the idea of messing up a careful design by throwing in random elements in the hope that it will sound better
Click to expand...

Random within component spec, thus theoretically no different than any of the variation between the real amps.

People often say that their particular version of said amp just has “that sound”. We could model that. Lol
 
Rane said:
Random within component spec, thus theoretically no different than any of the variation between the real amps.

People often say that their particular version of said amp just has “that sound”. We could model that. Lol
Click to expand...
I think there’s more of a “I own the amp and paid for it” thought that contributes to that. Also just what they’re used to.

How would you begin describing how to attain “that sound”?
 
Interesting how far we’ve come really that these are the type of things we wish for now.

I remember back in the early years when we wanted more edge of breakup, dynamics, et al., as modelers still didn’t sound or feel like an amp.

Now we pretty much gotten “there”, so wow.... quite the journey
 
I was musing about this topic lately and posted about it in the last week (see my thread on this very "wishlist" section from a few days ago).

A lot of the tech these days is moving towards "A.I" and Evolving Program and Artificial Organism, its a fascinating thing and where tech is heading.

Combining this with the simple fact that musical instruments and pro audio gear, including guitar amplifiers, have their "own life" so to speak, where components have a life span and changes over time, a by product of which gives very unique and loveable(and less loveable) states in which the gear operates,+ the fact that we interact in a certain way with the shifts the gear presents us with, i thought it was a natural direction for the technology to go, since it is about modeling "Real Gear", As this is a property of "Real gear", It is never static.

Simply put- a "frozen in time" static state amplifier simply can not be a natural and fully acurate representation of the electrical analog device that is being modeled. Fluctuation is a big part of the beast. Even in some of the Digital Synthesizers nowadays (the digital reincarnation of the Prophet line) fluctuation of the oscillators was programmed in.

I faced some backlash and pushback by a few members here, but i am not sure they got the full concept i was talking about, and based on where tech is going at this time im quite confident that in a few years, if not less, this idea i presented will actually take shape in one way or another. Its just the way things are heading.

From trying to make things "perfect" when tech was young, nowadays there is a shift in thought about Tech to become more organic, including the more and less desirable artifacts. Especially that you can reset values and not be doomed to a repairman when shit goes too far south.
 
Last edited:
dumbeat said:
I faced some backlash and pushback by a few members here...
Click to expand...
Yeah, I was a little baffled by that thread getting shut down so fast. I thought it was an interesting idea. I already barely use the advaced parameters as it is, so I don't know how much use I'd get out what OP is proposing, but it'd be a cool option; like an "Amp Age" parameter that takes some of those things like variance and component drift into account. Overall, I think it's cool, but I don't know that it'd be too useful - maybe though.

+1 :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom