Jay Mitchell and the power of flat response

[Dutch]

Please forgive me, but I'm still a newbie with this wonderful device. Why would I lose the stereo function of pre-cab effects with mono Hi-Res cabs?

Because it is mono. It sums both sides to mono and processes that. Therefore it's called mono.

Sorry. Misread your question for my first answer. I was editing it when my wifi connection broke down. Again.

What if you use a stereo cab block and put the same IR L and R (it would be a Low-Res cab at that point, though)?

Yep. That too.

 

[zslane]

My only gripe would be that as I move my head, the sound changes...

Sounds like you may be a candidate for IEM?

 

[scotts]

My last traditional rig:
AXS II pedalboard ($169) with Voodoo Labs Pedal Power 2+($169)
{signal from guitar}
--->
Voodoo Labs Wahzoo ($279)
--->
Voodoo Labs Pedal Switcher ($220) with five switchable loops
Loop 1: Keeley Compressor ($229)
Loop 2: T.C. Nova Drive ($249) controlled by Rolls Midi Buddy ($129)
Loop 3: Xotic AC ($210) & RC ($210) Boosters
Loop 4: Xotic BB Preamp ($210)
Loop 5: Korg Pitchblack Tuner ($89)
--->
Radial BigShot Mix ($140) single line wet drying programmable Boomerang E-155 Delay/Chorus ($350)
--->
Radial PB-1 Power Booster/Line Driver ($140)
--->
Samamp amp head ($1,100)
--->
Samamp 1x12 cab ($400)
______
from 2nd speaker output on Samamp head
--->
Guyatone FR-3000V Tube Reverb set 100% wet ($500)
--->
Rocktron Velocity power amp ($249) Channel 1
--->
Wet Cabinet 1 ($300)

in parallel with:
Guyatone TDX Tube Echo set 100% wet ($225)
--->
Rocktron Velocity power amp Channel 2
--->
Wet Cabinet 2 ($300)

and +/-$300 of custom length Monster patch cables

~Total cost of my last traditional rig: $6,167
__________________

Current Axe Rig Mono:
AxeFX Ultra ($2,000) controlled by Behringer FCB 1010 ($149)
--->
QSC PLX 1804 ($799)
--->
Turbosound TCS-59 ($1,000new)

~Total cost to run my Ultra mono: $3,948
__________________

Current Axe Rig W/D/W:
AxeFX Ultra ($2,000) controlled by Behringer FCB 1010 ($149)
--->
QSC PLX 1804 to dry cabinet ($799)
QSC PLX 1104 to stereo wet cabinets ($699)
--->
Turbosound TCS-59 dry ($1,000new)
Turbosound TCS-59 x2 wet ($2,000new)
__________________
RECAP (everything at new retail $s):
~Total cost of my last traditional rig: $6,167
~Total cost to run my Ultra mono: $3,948
~Total cost to run my Ultra W/D/W: $5,948

My last traditional rig was insanely temperamental with regard to room size, acoustical quality of room, position of my ears, location of any given listener. In the right room and right listening location it was beautiful for me and varying degrees of good for any given listener(s) depending on their listening location.

This rig had one, and only one amp flavor and one overall soundscape presentation. Also, it could only support electric guitar.

Traditional Rig: pedalboard, amp head, three 1x12 cabinets, one rack case with power amp/reverb/delay, one large cable bag (seven pieces with lots of onsite cabling, 20 minute set-up)

Axe FRFR mono: One four space rack with Ultra and amp, one cabinet, one bag with FCB, four cables and an extension cord (three pieces, 5 minute set-up)

Axe FRFR W/D/W: One four space rack with Ultra and amp, one two space rack with amp, three cabinets, one bag with FCB, six cables and an extension cord (six pieces, under 10 minute setup)

My FRFR Ultra rig projects my sound, the way I hear it, evenly across any size and/or quality of room with minimum global EQ adjustments and sometimes with none. I can use it as a very efficient grab and go rig, a stereo rig, or a full blown W/D/W on the fly. I can bring one rack case into a studio and instantly transfer what I create to a recording with zero compromise. My Ultra rig does everything my traditional could do and more and in my opinion does it better on all levels I am capable of hearing/feeling/understanding.

~I have achieved this level of rig happiness/peace-of-mind using very good, mid-line FRFR gear. Go back and find my post about price points. I firmly believe any user hoping to achieve a level of satisfaction that will allow them to 100% embrace the simulation+FRFR paradigm in a live performance environment as at least equal to the traditional rig paradigm must shop in the mid level+ speaker market.

~Even if you have bricks for ears you will hear a difference, in any situation, between high end FRFR gear and everything else. Whether or not you can/will or want to go that route is a personal life/choice and outside the scope of my original intent and presentation.

~My FRFR Ultra rig sounds amazing with my accordion. FRFR opens my Axe rig up to any other non-guitar instrument I interface with. I no longer need to diddle with acoustic guitar amps and acoustic oriented effects, owning a separate PA system, etc. In my case I eliminated THREE different, expensive rigs with Axe+FRFR. With respect to this, stepping up to high end is a lark for me.

 

[zslane]

Because it is mono. It sums both sides to mono and processes that. Therefore it's called mono.

Okay, yeah, it's obvious now that I think about it (I think I was so focused on the significance of the "Hi-Res" qualifier in your answer that I didn't really catch the "Mono" part).

Are there any disadvantages to putting stereo effects post-cab?

 

[prometh]

I'd like to try IEM, but I have a feeling I wouldn't like having something stuck in my ears... they'd fall out from heavy nodding and I like to hear what's going on outside of instruments (audience, etc).

 

[scotts]

(zslane) Are there any disadvantages to putting stereo effects post-cab?

Most things that would be called "disadvantages" by a guitarist using post effects live in a traditional rig would relate to the hassle of physically implementing the gear (see my previous post and description of my old rig). In the grid reality of the Axe knock yourself out and try anything you can think of.

Overall, think of the sequence of events. Do you want delayed distortion or distorted delay trails? Do you want a Univibe sounding as if it's plugged into the front of an amp or do you want to apply Univibe to only the wet tail of a delay (or reverb) while keeping your main guitar tone dry? Etc...

 

[Rex]

. My only gripe would be that as I move my head, the sound changes...

That's a problem with the room, not the monitor. Most FRFR speakers have a sweet spot of more than 45°. That's more than wide enough to move your head without a change in sound. What you're hearing is reflections and standing waves in the room. Adding speakers won't fix it.

 

[TheOtherDave]

It's great to have such excellent tools like the Axe-FX but when it is so difficult to use it to it's fullest potential it can be disappointing and down right frustrating.

Well, yes, and now we get the heart of the matter IMO. The problem isn't that the Axe-FX isn't capable of "jumpin' for Jesus" calibre rigs, or that it can't nail that "alive" amp in the room feel, but that the amount of knowledge and effort it takes to get there surpasses most guitarists' personal thresholds for patience and interest. It becomes easier to just give up and hook up to a "tried and true" guitar amp and cab, even if that means adding color where it doesn't belong. We convince ourselves that it still sounds great and that the compromise is worth it. So be it. But let's be clear about where the ball is being dropped here. It's not in the Axe-FX or the FRFR paradigm, but in one's commitment to realizing/maximizing its potential.

What about those auto room-analyzing processors (here or here)? You could go ahead and get your favorite FRFR monitors, put one of those in between the monitors and the AxeFX, push a button, and sit back & relax while it analyzes the room. I know they can't compensate for everything, but it's surely better than nothing, and it'd give you time to tune (which lately seems to be sorely lacking in the lives of guitar players that I work with

). If you don't want your audio running through the undoubtedly inferior converters in those units (based on the price-point... I've never used either of them), you could put a spare PEQ in all your patches, look at what the processor wants to do, and copy the settings over to the spare PEQ. (Or maybe someone makes one that doesn't have undoubtedly inferior converters. Those are just the first two I came across.)

You'd still have some problems, but out of the room's issues that can be fixed without bass traps & such, the biggest ones should be solved. Maybe. Those devices are probably specifically designed for control-room-sized spaces, and I don't know if the same algorithms would work in a venue-sized space.

 

[hippietim]

Well, I don't think I'd be better off because even a "great sounding power amp and guitar cab" would be coloring the output of the Axe-FX in ways I wouldn't want (if I could avoid it, which I believe I can with FRFR). The Axe-FX is providing all the color that a guitar amp and cab is supposed to provide. It makes no sense to me to further color it and get further from the intended sound. Besides, what constitutes "unreasonable amount of money" may be different for me than for you. If your threshold for "reasonable" when it comes to the first half of this instrument (the Axe-FX) is $2000, then the logical threshold for the other half is also $2000. I get the impression that we can get a very effective FRFR monitor solution for the same money we paid for the Ultra in the first place.

Ok, then what is this very effective FRFR you speak of?

As for coloring the output, when you run the Axe-FX through a traditional cab you turn off cab sims and you get what that cab sounds like. This is pretty obvious to anyone that has spent much time using the Axe-FX. Now if a traditional cab doesn't rock your world then so be it.

Based on what I've read in these forums for the past month, something is definitely missing in your Axe setup if it isn't "alive" enough for you. I mean, it is possible that you carry a psychological bias that no FRFR solution, no matter how close it meets an engineering ideal, could ever overcome. But assuming that's not the case, creating a rig that you (or anyone) would "jump for Jesus" over is simply a matter of acquiring more expertise with the Axe-FX and applying a number of critical principles properly. Judging from the revelations expressed here by even the most experienced users, there is still a lot of misunderstanding--or just plain lack of deep understanding--governing the way everyone builds their Axe rigs.

I have none of this bias you speak of. I've using an Axe-FX for around 3 years. I've been gigging with an Axe-FX + FRFR for 2 of those years. I've spent a LOT of time tweaking. I know my way around the Axe-FX very well.

But I challenge you or anyone else here to come over to my place with any FRFR you choose and dial in something that sounds and feels as good as my Fish+Boogie 2:90. I'm not looking for identical - that's a tail not worth chasing and I don't care about that. Something that is just as responsive, has equivalent swell and sustain (what some folks call note bloom), and just plain feels right. I'll pay for your transportation (CONUS only please) and I'll buy that FRFR rig but the solution has to deliver the goods.

Well, yes, and now we get the heart of the matter IMO. The problem isn't that the Axe-FX isn't capable of "jumpin' for Jesus" calibre rigs, or that it can't nail that "alive" amp in the room feel, but that the amount of knowledge and effort it takes to get there surpasses most guitarists' personal thresholds for patience and interest. It becomes easier to just give up and hook up to a "tried and true" guitar amp and cab, even if that means adding color where it doesn't belong. We convince ourselves that it still sounds great and that the compromise is worth it. So be it. But let's be clear about where the ball is being dropped here. It's not in the Axe-FX or the FRFR paradigm, but in one's commitment to realizing/maximizing its potential.

I've spent years with the Axe-FX. I know how to use it. I've invested plenty of time with it. I fully grock the Axe-FX and FRFR paradigm and after several years of experimentation, trying countless tips posted here and elsewhere, user IRs, and trying about 10 different FRFR solutions I can say with a high degree of confidence that I'm not dropping any balls here. Where my frustration lies is not with the potential, but finding the right FRFR delivery system. I finally settled on the FBT. It sounds very good. But it is not better sounding than my high quality traditional rig. I'd love it to be.

As for compromises, the only compromise present in a traditional rig is flexibility, not tone and responsiveness. You don't even have to have the top of the line boutique amp to get a fantastic rig.

 

[zslane]

This rig had one, and only one amp flavor and one overall soundscape presentation. Also, it could only support electric guitar.

For me, this is the most compelling issue. A traditional rig will typically provide only one flavor of sound. Some fancy multi-channel amp designs (e.g., Mesa Mark V) will incorporate numerous different amp circuit designs (or very good facsimiles thereof) in one box, but they still tend to be centered around that company's signature tone profile. For many, maybe most, guitarists this is all they need. The complexity of a Mesa Mark V or Mesa Roadking or Marshall JVM410 is as deep as they would ever want to go. For them, Axe+FRFR would be an absurd rabbit hole.

However, the minute one contemplates a rig supporting more than one upper-echelon guitar sound (Fender + Marshall, Mesa + Vox, all+of+the+above), Axe+FRFR becomes substantially more practical, especially in terms of cost. When these 100w heads go for $2000 each, and high-quality guitar cabs go for $1000-1500 each, the prospect of spending $3000-4000 on an Axe-FX and high(ish) end FRFR monitor should hardly seem daunting. I just don't buy it when they raise cost as an obstacle.

Where I think Axe+FRFR really trips people up, though, is in the complexity factor. The complexity goes from managing a metric butt-load of pedals, amps, and controllers to managing a metric butt-load of Axe-FX parameter values. For some reason, the switch from physical parameters to software parameters freaks people out, and the "tweak-fest" that ensues is too much for them.

 

[scotts]

(hippietim) I challenge you or anyone else here to come over to my place with any FRFR you choose and dial in something that sounds and feels as good as my Fish+Boogie 2:90. I'm not looking for identical - that's a tail not worth chasing and I don't care about that. Something that is just as responsive, has equivalent swell and sustain (what some folks call note bloom), and just plain feels right.

Your test requirements seems very fair. I believe the Turbosound TCS-59 could meet your criteria. I am entirely convinced that a system at the level of Jay's powered monitor would floor you. The criteria you list seem to be the things that are important to me as well.

I'll pay for your transportation (CONUS only please)

In light of this offer (and your username and picture) I would be happy to engage you.

I've spent years with the Axe-FX. I know how to use it. I've invested plenty of time with it. I fully grock the Axe-FX and FRFR paradigm and after several years of experimentation, trying countless tips posted here and elsewhere, user IRs, and trying about 10 different FRFR solutions I can say with a high degree of confidence that I'm not dropping any balls here. Where my frustration lies is not with the potential, but finding the right FRFR delivery system. I finally settled on the FBT. It sounds very good. But it is not better sounding than my high quality traditional rig. I'd love it to be.

Seems to me that you hit a similar FRFR wall to the one I was hitting. If you are as sound sensitive and experienced as your posts indicate, and if you have gotten "almost there" with several mid line products then the only way for you (and me) might be the expensive world of high end. Having said that my TCS-59s really deliver in ways that many other comparable products I tested could not.

As for compromises, the only compromise present in a traditional rig is flexibility, not tone and responsiveness. You don't even have to have the top of the line boutique amp to get a fantastic rig.

Here is where I agree with you only in part. I have cycled through traditional rigs for 38 years. I have had rigs that sounded amazing... ...until I use them in this room or that. I have spent most of my performing life being extremely frustrated at how bad my great sounding rigs sound from venue to venue and from listening position to listening position in any given venue. Also, the beaming and unevenness issues of 12" guitar speakers has always driven me nuts everywhere but in my living room. Having the Axe global EQ alone has been a game changer for me.

As far as responsiveness and "bloom" (I believe I grok what you mean) the TCS-59s are enough "there" for me that I am at least at parity with the rig I mentioned above (I tested against it when I first got the Axe). I have also tested against several of my friends very nice rigs and I find nothing lacking (except for the tail not worth chasing part). FWI I completely agree with you about the insanity sinkhole that is that issue.

 

[zslane]

Ok, then what is this very effective FRFR you speak of?

I would direct you to scotts to address this question. He has more first-hand experience in this matter than I do (I've only been reading his reports on the subject, and basing my conclusions on his results.)

As for coloring the output, when you run the Axe-FX through a traditional cab you turn off cab sims and you get what that cab sounds like. This is pretty obvious to anyone that has spent much time using the Axe-FX. Now if a traditional cab doesn't rock your world then so be it.

I get that. But the real value of the Axe-FX is its ability to deliver the sound of many different cabs (and amps, and effects, and maybe even microphones), not just one. Turning off cab sims is discarding 25% of its functionality as far as I'm concerned. That just doesn't make sense to me. The sound of a traditional guitar cab can rock my world, but I am comfortable with the idea of using the Axe-FX to simulate it more than adequately.

I have none of this bias you speak of. I've using an Axe-FX for around 3 years. I've been gigging with an Axe-FX + FRFR for 2 of those years. I've spent a LOT of time tweaking. I know my way around the Axe-FX very well.

I'm sure you have. And if there is nothing more for you to learn about it, then I envy you. I wonder if Scott Peterson ever felt that way prior to his recent "JCM800 Re-think" which led him to re-evaluate his entire approach to rig layouts.

But I challenge you or anyone else here to come over to my place with any FRFR you choose and dial in something that sounds and feels as good as my Fish+Boogie 2:90. I'm not looking for identical - that's a tail not worth chasing and I don't care about that. Something that is just as responsive, has equivalent swell and sustain (what some folks call note bloom), and just plain feels right. I'll pay for your transportation (CONUS only please) and I'll buy that FRFR rig but the solution has to deliver the goods.

I am confident there are at least two people here qualified to do this. I doubt they would step up to the plate just to prove my point, but I believe it is possible to meet your challenge (I do not have the equipment or expertise to perform the necessary demonstration for you, sorry).

Where my frustration lies is not with the potential, but finding the right FRFR delivery system. I finally settled on the FBT. It sounds very good. But it is not better sounding than my high quality traditional rig. I'd love it to be.

scotts uses monitors a good notch or two above the FBT (which I too have and like just fine), and of course there is the legendary Frazier cab that only Jay has. But I think the whole thrust of this thread is that there are FRFR delivery systems out there that virtually noone here is aware of or availing themselves of that are such huge improvements over the usual mid-range stuff (like FBT) that the difference can't even be adequately described.

As for compromises, the only compromise present in a traditional rig is flexibility, not tone and responsiveness. You don't even have to have the top of the line boutique amp to get a fantastic rig.

Yes, I agree with you there.

But one does not buy into the Axe-FX in general, and FRFR in particular, to obtain a single fantastic tonal texture. As you say, any number of boutique amps will give you that. An Axe-FX is worth investing in specifically because of its flexibility and versatility. In order to achieve the same kind of flexibility, versatility, and tonal consistency (from venue to venue, application context to application context) with "traditional rigs" you would have to spend many times as much money and you would have a lot more gear to carry around and set up everywhere. If none of that is a concern, then the Axe-FX is solving problems you do not have, and all the discussion here on these forums are rather besides the point I should think.

 

[hippietim]

It's funny because I'm not actually one of these guys that goes insane about finding a great tone. There are few things more inspiring than connecting with your guitar and having *that* sound at the right time and place but I learned a long time ago that for the most part if I use good gear that is suited to the task I can get by no problem. For me it is much more about the feel and responsiveness than the specific tones. For a while I was taking a Mustang II amp to blues jams and open mics and had a great time because I could get the right feel despite the fact that the tone pales in comparison to everything else I own. As I have picked apart my favorite music over the years I realized that half the time the tone isn't really all that great but it was enough to inspire that player to do great things. A great example of this is Randy Rhoads. The day I can get the feel from the Axe that I get from a traditional rig will be glorious.

Heck, right now I'd settle for a single clean patch + FRFR that delivers the goods like my Bogner Mojado 1x12 combo (that has 2 knobs!). I've taken that that thing out a few times lately with a make shift pedal board and it kills.

Of course the traditional rigs have all those annoying WTF moments in some awful room that leaves you pissed off all night - you've got thousands of dollars in gear and it feels like you're riding a Moped at Indy. I've never had that problem with the Axe-FX live - the consistency is brilliant.

 

[youngmic]

Assuming 1 and/or 2 don't come to fruition I will...
~do a lot of homework on as many things like this:
Product | TFM-420 | Turbosound
as I can find
~pick my favorite
~ask Jay Mitchell what it would cost for him to test it for me
~drop ship the product to him during the trial period
~keep it if it meets his standards and go about my business

Wait a minute. Where can I buy something like the Turbosound TFM-420 or the NUQ12DP (or anything from L-Acoustics, Meyer, EAW, Coda, etc. for that matter) and get a return period? If someone can point me in that direction. I will return those JBL's tomorrow (I have 4 days left on my return period).

Of course, the question plaguing me right now is should I return them anyway and take the chance on something more expensive even without the return period...

 

[youngmic]

Seriously, does anyone know of a reseller who sells these high end products and maintains a usable return policy?

 

[Sixstring]

Wait a minute. Where can I buy something like the Turbosound TFM-420 or the NUQ12DP (or anything from L-Acoustics, Meyer, EAW, Coda, etc. for that matter) and get a return period? If someone can point me in that direction. I will return those JBL's tomorrow (I have 4 days left on my return period).

Of course, the question plaguing me right now is should I return them anyway and take the chance on something more expensive even without the return period...

I just did a quick search and found this... but you only get 5 days to try things out before they hit you with a restocking fee.
Terms Of Service | Full Compass

 

[youngmic]

Thanks, but hmmm, you can return within 5 days if the box hasn't been opened. Once opened, it's 15%. It's not clear what the time frame is past 5 days either. And returns are not allowed on special orders (which I'd bet these would be). But I may call them. Thanks again.

 

[Sixstring]

Thanks, but hmmm, you can return within 5 days if the box hasn't been opened. Once opened, it's 15%. It's not clear what the time frame is past 5 days either. And returns are not allowed on special orders (which I'd bet these would be). But I may call them. Thanks again.

Sorry about that, I just glanced at the return policy... I think with "high end" Pro Audio it's pretty much assumption that you know what you want and are looking at so test driving is not really a factor.

 

[youngmic]

I assumed as much, but Scotts' comment got me hoping. Oh well, I'll agonize for another 4 days then make the decision.

: )

 

[scotts]

to youngmic:

If you're really burning to step up, any of the high end products you are looking at (high end Turbosound, L-Acoustics, Meyer, EAW, Coda) should beat that particular JBL to death. I'm not saying that the JBL PRX is bad. You are simply making a huge step up with any of these. Go co-axial if possible.

P.S. If you make the jump enjoy the hole in your wallet!