Is the AxeFX concept outdated?

Coldsummer

Coldsummer

Experienced
I've been thinking about tone creation this Sunday morning and thought I'd share my random thoughts.

Conventionally, all modelers including our esteemed AXeFX, seem to use a similar template based around replicating the tones of existing makes and models of amps, effects and cabinets. For me, the logical next step would be to have a unit which isn't shackled with pre-existing amps but based around the actual sound/tone we require rather than thinking in terms of recreating a particular rig.

Imagine the AxeFX technology incorporated into a unit which uses many different algorithms to slowly and methodically build a tone from scratch. Start with say clean or dirty (or anywhere in between), then shape the tone around other elements reflecting the desired tone, brighter/softer, warmer, colder, open, boxier, and so on. I imagine a software editor based on logical steps utilising a simple linear slider to alter the basic parameter the fine-tuned using an x/y axis adjuster. For example, the delay stage could have the slider sweep from a short slapback echo to a long/infinite ambient effect then adjust the x/y axis to fine tune the character of the delays, and so on for other elements (think blocks) of the final tone.

The advantage I see in utilising this kind of interface is that tone creation would become a far more intuitive process and less restrictive, rather than being trapped in the mindframe of trying to replicate hardware units allowing our ears to dictate the final tone rather than dialing it in based on a set of preconceived numbers and values. It would require a shift in thinking away from what we consider normal but the concept appeals to my more visual/creative senses than my less developed logical/technical side. If you think about it, it is using exactly the same technology/processes but with a different interface.

Anyway, that's it, have a nice day :)
 
After fourty years with tube-amps I think my worst "enemy" against modelling was old-school conservative thinking. "Nothing beats the glowing glass".
Now I just close my eyes and wander a new path.


Every CD that I jump up and down to is in the digital domain.
 
Can't you already pretty much do this in the Axe by finding an amp sim with a similar tone to what you want and then adjusting the multitude of advanced settings? Even if you were to make an amp from scratch you'd still be adjusting all of those settings to create what you wanted. You can simply start out with one that's close as a baseline and then customize it to be whatever you like with the regular and advanced settings.
 
Isn't this was the FAS models are? Idealized models of different amp types, crunch, lead and so on, that inspired by, but not modeled directly after any particular amp models.
 
Try to think beyond the obvious folks.

Yes, the technology and process is the same as I said in my original post, but I'm talking about using it in a different way outside of the confines of traditional thinking. I'm not suggesting re-inventing the wheel here.

Tone shaping and creation doesn't necessarily have to be based around setting numbers values and named parameters, it can be a more intuitive process than simply confining ourselves to conventional methods.
 
I get what you mean ..... but last night's alcohol is refusing to let me form cognitive thoughts on just how many 'shaping' knobs would perhaps be needed and what they might be called :)
 
Okay, I'll play.

The that comes to mind with such a ground-up approach is "Where do you start and what parameters are you manipulating?" The signal chain paradigm used by the AxeFx allows the player to take advantage of knowledge he already has but people still complain about how hard it is to dial in the tone they're looking for.

Seems like you're looking for more of a synth-like approach in general. The problem I see with that is that a guitarist's performance is arguably more nuanced than a keyboardist's. Keyboard performance can be effectively expresses as pitch and velocity. The synth world threw in some nifty additional parameters like after-touch but there are relatively few dimensions required to describe a note.

On the other hand, a guitarist has a host of parameters in his performance. In addition to pitch and initial velocity, the ADSR is influenced by the player and instrument. There are other factors such as legato technique and picking mechanics. Where a synth player defines a specific timbre when creating a preset, a guitar player instead defines a set of transformations. Unless you're looking to take the sonic particulars of the player and/or the instrument out of the equation, I don't know that the signal chain paradigm is as constraining as you make it out to be.

While I've sometimes called for less amp-geekisms in the UI, abstracting all that out would be a step backwards IMO. Most folks think in terms of "I want to start with a clean sound like ______" and go from there. As for limiting to what's possible, the reason that the AxeFx is popular with the djent crowd is because it already enables timbres that are not possible with physical amps. You can run your virtual tubes at bias levels that would fry the real deal. You can have speaker impedance curves that are impossible in real life.

While I've been searching for "new" guitar sounds in recent months, one thing that I realize is that I still want my guitar to fundamentally sound like a guitar. I embrace that constraint because with it comes the nuances in performance that I mentioned above.
 
Coldsummer said:
Try to think beyond the obvious folks.
Click to expand...
The current models or framework/template etc. are used because they are based on an intuitive flow, a collective intuitive flow. Universally the 'parameters' mean much the same thing from gear to gear, pedals, interfaces etc. and the 'tones' we seek are universal in appeal. That's why AXE Exchange is rampant with hungry tone seekers. The 'approach' or template can be altered but we will still continue to try and re-mold the results into what we know/love/desire/feel etc. The current templates / models (based on, but not restricted to, old templates) just gets us there fastest.

When you say ' Start with say clean or dirty (or anywhere in between). I wonder what 'kind' of clean or dirty? Marshall Clean? Fender Dirty? Pedal Dirt? That 'start' would have to have a reference point. It would have to be based on something predetermined (restricted). Right now, the AXE FX with its multiple tone stacks, amp/effects blocks/ advanced parameters and global options seems to be what you are describing, sans a new template.

Maybe you could describe a 'new' parameter would you add that doesn't currently exist?
 
aleclee said:
Okay, I'll play.

The that comes to mind with such a ground-up approach is "Where do you start and what parameters are you manipulating?" The signal chain paradigm used by the AxeFx allows the player to take advantage of knowledge he already has but people still complain about how hard it is to dial in the tone they're looking for.

Seems like you're looking for more of a synth-like approach in general. The problem I see with that is that a guitarist's performance is arguably more nuanced than a keyboardist's. Keyboard performance can be effectively expresses as pitch and velocity. The synth world threw in some nifty additional parameters like after-touch but there are relatively few dimensions required to describe a note.

On the other hand, a guitarist has a host of parameters in his performance. In addition to pitch and initial velocity, the ADSR is influenced by the player and instrument. There are other factors such as legato technique and picking mechanics. Where a synth player defines a specific timbre when creating a preset, a guitar player instead defines a set of transformations. Unless you're looking to take the sonic particulars of the player and/or the instrument out of the equation, I don't know that the signal chain paradigm is as constraining as you make it out to be.

While I've sometimes called for less amp-geekisms in the UI, abstracting all that out would be a step backwards IMO. Most folks think in terms of "I want to start with a clean sound like ______" and go from there. As for limiting to what's possible, the reason that the AxeFx is popular with the djent crowd is because it already enables timbres that are not possible with physical amps. You can run your virtual tubes at bias levels that would fry the real deal. You can have speaker impedance curves that are impossible in real life.

While I've been searching for "new" guitar sounds in recent months, one thing that I realize is that I still want my guitar to fundamentally sound like a guitar. I embrace that constraint because with it comes the nuances in performance that I mentioned above.
Click to expand...

Interesting points and thanks for contributing to the discussion. I would say that creating a new patch, tone (call it what you like) based on touch and response guided more by your ears and 'feel' rather than a fixed preconception of traditional values and numbers would be far more beneficial to us guitarists than synth/keyboard players (although I accept your point that the interface I'm suggesting would have more in common with software synths than traditional guitar equipment). In that respect your point of view seems to support my proposition rather than detract from it.
 
I've always seen the Axe Fx presets as falling into two groups: 1. Replications of known quantities (the amps you refer to), and; 2. Examples of what can be done with combinations of amps and effects. At any rate, they are all examples... templates. I look at that as ingredients. Across all these examples are most of the "ingredients" available to an amp builder who might have a mind to create something.

Blank all of the presets, and you have a huge kitchen with all the best ingredients. Start cooking!
 
TexasHeartRush said:
The current models or framework/template etc. are used because they are based on an intuitive flow, a collective intuitive flow. Universally the 'parameters' mean much the same thing from gear to gear, pedals, interfaces etc. and the 'tones' we seek are universal in appeal. That's why AXE Exchange is rampant with hungry tone seekers. The 'approach' or template can be altered but we will still continue to try and re-mold the results into what we know/love/desire/feel etc. The current templates / models (based on, but not restricted to, old templates) just gets us there fastest.

When you say ' Start with say clean or dirty (or anywhere in between). I wonder what 'kind' of clean or dirty? Marshall Clean? Fender Dirty? Pedal Dirt? That 'start' would have to have a reference point. It would have to be based on something predetermined (restricted). Right now, the AXE FX with its multiple tone stacks, amp/effects blocks/ advanced parameters and global options seems to be what you are describing, sans a new template.

Maybe you could describe a 'new' parameter would you add that doesn't currently exist?
Click to expand...

Yes indeed, we are all used to the level of comfort that familiarity brings, that's not in question, and I understand the logic behind keeping things that way. Intuitive flow would be the fundamental benefit from my suggested approach beyond the restrictions of current methods. I'm simply asking what would happen if we looked beyond this and are we capable of embracing a new approach, and if so, would there be any advantage in doing so? I'm not saying it should be changed, nor that the current format is wrong, far from it.

The clean and dirty example was simply meant to illustrate the concept on a very basic level. Of course there would be many variants thereof which is why I suggested the linear starting point but with additional tweaking and fine tuning facilities added into the x/y axis and those themselves could contain additional linear choices embedded in sub-parameters. Of course the number of different stages are almost unlimited except for capabilities of the actual software/hardware involved. My question was more around the wider concept of approaching tone creation from a different and less conventional perspective.

Try to think of it using colour rather than sound. Imagine applying the same principles that you may use to create a colour using digital technology. You know the approximate colour and hue you are after and then fine tune it until you are able to come up with a specific pantone reference number. You can manipulate the colour pallet and spectrum and see the results change in front of your eyes. It is intuitive and you don't use a host of clumsy parameters such as 'add more green, or 'make it lighter' so why not create new tones using just your ears and a simplified interface?

I'm not really precious about this, and it's getting a bit too theoretical and spacey tbh, but I do find it an interesting concept. Thanks for contributing your thoughts.
 
So what's your desired goal? Is it finding timbre outside the traditional palette or getting to a guitar tone in what you consider to be a more direct manner?
 
Coldsummer said:
I've been thinking about tone creation this Sunday morning and thought I'd share my random thoughts.

Conventionally, all modelers including our esteemed AXeFX, seem to use a similar template based around replicating the tones of existing makes and models of amps, effects and cabinets. For me, the logical next step would be to have a unit which isn't shackled with pre-existing amps but based around the actual sound/tone we require rather than thinking in terms of recreating a particular rig.

Imagine the AxeFX technology incorporated into a unit which uses many different algorithms to slowly and methodically build a tone from scratch. Start with say clean or dirty (or anywhere in between), then shape the tone around other elements reflecting the desired tone, brighter/softer, warmer, colder, open, boxier, and so on. I imagine a software editor based on logical steps utilising a simple linear slider to alter the basic parameter the fine-tuned using an x/y axis adjuster. For example, the delay stage could have the slider sweep from a short slapback echo to a long/infinite ambient effect then adjust the x/y axis to fine tune the character of the delays, and so on for other elements (think blocks) of the final tone.

The advantage I see in utilising this kind of interface is that tone creation would become a far more intuitive process and less restrictive, rather than being trapped in the mindframe of trying to replicate hardware units allowing our ears to dictate the final tone rather than dialing it in based on a set of preconceived numbers and values. It would require a shift in thinking away from what we consider normal but the concept appeals to my more visual/creative senses than my less developed logical/technical side. If you think about it, it is using exactly the same technology/processes but with a different interface.

Anyway, that's it, have a nice day :)
Click to expand...


It sounds like what you describing is an "algorithm" that turns all the knobs for me based on the sound I describe. The bad news is that many musicians want a new sound and don't know how to describe it. Never have, never will.
They play, tweak all available knobs, try again, cry, then continue chasing the elusive tone they know is there but cannot describe.
Having an "algorithm" or application that sets up your sound creation modifier device per your description has already been invented, built and sold. They spent a long time building it and making it work perfect. An nobody uses it.

May I introduce the EZ tone by Boss.

 
loopie said:
The bad news is that many musicians want a new sound and don't know how to describe it. Never have, never will.
They play, tweak all available knobs, try again, cry, then continue chasing the elusive tone they know is there but cannot describe.
Click to expand...
So true.
 
The problem - from my POV is - that so many guitarists use part of their brain "trying to sound right - or like another with a much different set of skill's, musical interpretation etc." And don't listen to their fingers and musical path.

We can't all be twenty guitarists blended together. One adamant problem with tool's like the Axe is, that we have a plentitude of possibilities to "sound" like nearly everyone.

I aint got SRV's big hands.
 
Coldsummer said:
Conventionally, all modelers including our esteemed AXeFX, seem to use a similar template based around replicating the tones of existing makes and models of amps, effects and cabinets. For me, the logical next step would be to have a unit which isn't shackled with pre-existing amps but based around the actual sound/tone we require rather than thinking in terms of recreating a particular rig.
The advantage I see in utilising this kind of interface is that tone creation would become a far more intuitive process and less restrictive, rather than being trapped in the mindframe of trying to replicate hardware units allowing our ears to dictate the final tone rather than dialing it in based on a set of preconceived numbers and values.
Click to expand...
Sounds like the approach Roland took with their GA-112 & GA212 amps.
 
DLM said:
Can't you already pretty much do this. (ALREADY) You can simply start out with one that's close as a baseline and then customize it to be whatever you like.
Click to expand...

I agree. I have done this many times. A method that is one of several used to build a totally custom sound is to start with a clean amp and a clean cab, and just start adding effects until you think you're going in the right direction. It's trial and error. Sometimes, you shit-can the whole thing and start over. Sometimes you surprise yourself and stumble onto something that's really cool. I LOVE THIS MACHINE!!!
 
loopie said:
It sounds like what you describing is an "algorithm" that turns all the knobs for me based on the sound I describe. The bad news is that many musicians want a new sound and don't know how to describe it. Never have, never will.
They play, tweak all available knobs, try again, cry, then continue chasing the elusive tone they know is there but cannot describe.
Having an "algorithm" or application that sets up your sound creation modifier device per your description has already been invented, built and sold. They spent a long time building it and making it work perfect. An nobody uses it.

May I introduce the EZ tone by Boss.

Click to expand...


That's a nice idea but I was thinking of a much more sophisticated system coupled with the AxeFX processing power and quality. I've never really liked Boss/Roland guitar gear, it always seems harsh and inflexible although I've never had any of the later units.

Btw, nobody's crying here, just knocking around some ideas in a respectful and civil manner.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom