Is Axe Fx too perfect sounding?

FreeMind, I understand what you mean. "Sterile" and "Clinical" are probably the better terms than "too perfect". It takes quite a bit of effort to make the Axe sound like a recording of an amp in a room mic-ed in a particular way. A large part if this is due to the IRs, EQ, reverb, and compression. All of the model improvements are definitely helping but without proper attention to the aforementioned parameters, you won't get what you are looking for. Out of the box the Axe absolutely has this sterile or clinical sound to me. But you CAN make it sound raw and very in the room. Not everyone wants that sound though. Keep in mind that this forum is largely on the heavier side of guitars and not as much as the "live" sounding or "smaller room" types.

As for the Rage Against the Machine song, the guitar is doubled (in the "normal" guitar sections) and the sweep sound is something fairly unique and who knows what they were using to get that. The song has a raw sound to it b/c of the drum room and vocal processing - more so than the guitar in my opinion. So maybe share another example of what you are looking for and we'll see what we can do.
 
What's the point of comparing final mixed and mastered songs (and instruments within) as you 'describe' like Rage against the machine or Korn,
with raw single guitar sound ?

Btw i love those songs, especially Rage against the machine,
they are masterpieces, the guitar sound is Bass and Guitar EQ mixed together upfront.
 
Last edited:
I think some people have forgotten how tube amps sound in a lot of playing situations. My axe typically sounds far more warm and dynamic than many real amps, especially when you can't crank the volume.

I sold my Fender BFDR a while back, so just use that model which sounds great. 2 weekends ago I was over at the brother-in-laws place for a cookout and he happens to have a DR which I plugged into. Didn't really play it ear splitting loud as it was later at night and they have young kids they were trying to get to bed, but with volume at about 2 or 3 I honestly far preferred the tone of the Axe model, way more dynamic.

Same story earlier this summer. Played a buddies JCM2204 through a stock late 80's 1960A cab. It was loud, but it didn't amaze me, make me think "this is the tone I'm missing". If anything, it made me totally enjoy coming home and playing the AFD, Cameron High, JCM800 Mod and other axe models, all of which sounded fantastic.

If anything, the real amp sounded like a poor emulation of the classic Marshall tone we all know and love, the tone we hear on records. Its darn hard work to get a real amp to sound like that. You need to more air, carefully mic it, etc. With the Axe its as simple as turning a dial and selecting an amp model and boom, you've got a great tone.

Nothing fake or sterile about it
 
FreeMind said:
Like, it's almost as if everything the Axe produces a bit too sterile, as if all recording conditions are unrealistically perfect

...

For a long time I was aiming my recordings to get this "Real, natural and alive" vibe, maybe, like, "Trusty amp in a garage" maybe "A little vintage" vibe. That's something that modern metal recordings lack, especially Djent, in my opinion.

...

What are your thoughts?
Click to expand...

I think that you're looking at the wrong places to make your comparison. Like maybe you're arguing that djent sounds overly perfect/tight and sterile because of how many of them use the AxeFX, whereas I would say it's more that the tight, sterile sound is what they want and they just happen to leverage the Axe (and editing/production) to achieve it.
 
At this point, FreeMind, you have lost me. I'm not sure we are even playing through the same device. I'd actually have to try VERY hard to get a "sterile" or "clinical" tone from the Axe, but I've also never tried, because I don't want to.

Also, NO IR's are not "just complex EQ's."


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
FreeMind said:
What I meant by "Perfect" is not "Too good". What I mean't is more like "Unnaturally idealized". Kind of like comparing a perfect sine wave versus a sine wave running through a speaker in a room, recorded with a mic. More likely, you will enjoy the latter one more, even if the first one is a perfect wave.



What tones you like is completely up to taste.
If you like modern productions - all power to you.
I like them too, but those others recordings that are not so "overpolished" sounding have a certain charm to me...
Click to expand...

Well, I think what gets lost in the world of the Axe Fx is that when it is employed in a direct setting, IE. recording direct or direct to FOH in a live situation, it's supposed to sound polished. One man's over polished is another's just right, etc.... My point was that I searched for that "polished" sound for years in frustration because though I love and will always love good old fashioned tube amps, speaker cabinets, real speakers and pedals, those things by nature are not consistent from gig to gig or session to session. Sounds good one day, sounds completely different the next. That combined with the all of the extra work that goes into shaping those sounds AFTER the amp like the mics, the preamps, eq, the board and the person running it makes getting a "good" sound much more difficult. For me, the consistency of the sound is important because I'm not having to fight it or my ears to be pleased. It simply makes it more gratifying to play my instrument when it sounds good everyday. I'm not sure what your situation is, but I typically do 200 plus shows a year so good sounds and consistency is high on my list.
I think it requires a change of mindset on how you approach your sounds when using a modeler. I know it was a change process for me. At the end of the day though, it was and is a good change.
All that being said, there are many ways to make the AxeFX and/or your production sound less polished. Twist some knobs, experiment and see what you get. I hope you find what you're looking for.
 
Grape!
Dude, you totally understood me. Yay. :)
I am not a very good communicator, i guess. Using the words "too perfect" to describe "Sterile/Clinical" perhaps was a mistake.

Though this thread was more for making sure whether the whole idea that the Axe, like all modellers, sound too sterile in comparison to real mic'ed up amps is true or false. Well, most people said "no, the idea is crazy" and I am near that opinion too. I am pretty sure the amps are more or less authenticly correct, with more or less just the right amount of imperfections... I'm saying "More or less" because cliff will come out at a random time and improve the whole thing drastically again, like he always does... So even if you think "It's 100% correct", Cliff always finds how to make it more correct...
However, I am not sure about the Mic/Cab modelling bit.

Here's my full thought process on cab modelling and why it may not be perfect:
This sterile/Clinical cab sound shouldn't be a problem in live performances, because this is how amps actually sound like. What people hear is Amp+Room. That is how, I think, the Axe should be experienced to be fully appreciated.
But capturing that "Amp+Room" in a recording for a song is a whole new game.
Real mic's do that naturally. They not only capture the direct cab sound, but they hear all real delayed reflections of the room walls (They're loud), extra sounds (Natural ambience), and they also have their own reactions to audio paired with a preamp...
Also, the cabs have their own reactions to the audio that is shoved through them. For example, "Motor Drive" is captured naturally.

But an IR? Does it capture all that? If it does, then all is good and I have nothing more to comment, but If it's just an EQ, then no.
That's like, Just the Amp without the Room. Sounds like the amp is eq'd properly but is nowhere, which may be the result of this "Sterilized" and unauthentic sensation.
Also, fake reverbs, even if they sound good, don't fit completely naturally, because they don't sound like the room the cab was in, when the IR was created.
The motor drive has to be dialled in manually...

We have nice sounding preamp modelling. I have nothing to compare that to, so I can't tell whether they are realistic or not, but the "Room" settings always sounded kinda crappy to me... Small amounts just to wet things up is fair enough.

From youtube videos, I noticed that the Axe has a potential to sound so much more pleasing when it's recorded with a mic, not direct.
For example, this sounds great to me:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkzFuQYs2Yo

If IR's are more than just EQ's, can they correctly capture the tone of an amp from far away? That is, mostly room reflected audio.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If you are asking if the AxeFX Quantum still sounds a tad sterile compared to real tubes live, then unfortunately the answer is still yes (IMHO).

When I a/b the AxeFX & my Mesa Studio Pre -> into Mesa 50:50 power amp -> Palmer PDI-03 (or a 2x 12" cab) the difference is still noticeable and a slight harshness (sterility) is still apparent in the top end (AxeFX power amp modelling & cab switched off).

Having said that, it is improving all the time & has improved considerably since I joined the AxeFX party last February at FW16. I have my flame suit on :) but I'm certain of what I hear, I also know that I will be proved right through time as the FW's come & go and the amps models continue to 'get realer'. Nobody needs to get upset, if users are happy with it now, good for them! I have to say for me it's verrrry close now, especially for feel & the gain tones, but still needs a few FW's to match my real boogie for the cleans! No point in BS'ing about this, YMMV, etc...
 
Last edited:
I stand corrected. This is the PERFECT thread...

...for those concerned with the rate of firmware releases.
...for those concerned with the phrase "more real."
...for those concerned with telling others what is and is not funny.
...for those with too damn much free time on their hands.
 
I find it kind of ironic trying to talk about amp+room sounds when I'm pretty sure none of us were in the studio with Tom Morrello to know what the track "really" sounded like. All any of us know is the tone as we heard it on disc, and/or through a PA live, no?

Essentially isn't the complaint that the Axe doesn't capture the "realness" of a studio recording and therefore it's too perfect?

Or another way of putting it is that it's more perfect than the studio recording, which is sort of a backhanded compliment to whomever engineered and mastered the studio recording we are comparing too lol

They spent hundreds of thousands recording RATM and Korn and probably aimed for "perfect", but our little $2600 box out perfects it

"Too Perfect" or "more real".... Take your pick lol
 
Rotti said:
I stand corrected. This is the PERFECT thread...

...for those concerned with the rate of firmware releases.
...for those concerned with the phrase "more real."
...for those concerned with telling others what is and is not funny.
...for those with too damn much free time on their hands.
Click to expand...

I blame the Internet...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom