Jay Mitchell and the power of flat response

[Jay Mitchell]

The quality (and expense) of the gear you use on stage is a personal choice. The homily that the "average Joe" (whoever that is) can't tell a difference can just as easily be used as an argument against spending the money on an Axe-Fx as against spending more money on monitors. You need to make your own choice, and you don't need to justify it to anyone else. If you think $1k - or $2k or $3k - is too much to spend on a monitor, then don't spend that much. I'm somewhat chagrinned to see anyone arguing against someone else choosing to spend that much. It's their money and their choice.

My observation about sound quality - as opposed to guitar "tone" quality - is that the average audience member can tell a diiference, and that they generally prefer more transparent, articulate sound. The line arrays that I've used for PA for the past 2+ years produce a vocal sound that is far more natural and articulate than you're ever likely to hear in a night club environment, and I've gotten many unsolicited compliments on the sound quality of the PA, from musicians and non-musicians alike. When I began using them, I knew they would constitute a radical improvement in the sound of the band I was playing with at the time. The only question - and it was a minor one - was the degree to which that difference would be detectable by the audience. As it turns out, they can definitely tell, and they like what they hear.

 

[Rampant]

The quality (and expense) of the gear you use on stage is a personal choice. The homily that the "average Joe" (whoever that is) can't tell a difference can just as easily be used as an argument against spending the money on an Axe-Fx as against spending more money on monitors. You need to make your own choice, and you don't need to justify it to anyone else. If you think $1k - or $2k or $3k - is too much to spend on a monitor, then don't spend that much. I'm somewhat chagrinned to see anyone arguing against someone else choosing to spend that much. It's their money and their choice.

My observation about sound quality - as opposed to guitar "tone" quality - is that the average audience member can tell a diiference, and that they generally prefer more transparent, articulate sound. The line arrays that I've used for PA for the past 2+ years produce a vocal sound that is far more natural and articulate than you're ever likely to hear in a night club environment, and I've gotten many unsolicited compliments on the sound quality of the PA, from musicians and non-musicians alike. When I began using them, I knew they would constitute a radical improvement in the sound of the band I was playing with at the time. The only question - and it was a minor one - was the degree to which that difference would be detectable by the audience. As it turns out, they can definitely tell, and they like what they hear.

Speaking as an audience member, it MATTERS. Because when people do not use accurate/transparent monitors, they tend to turn up the volume more in order to mask things. Even when they don't turn it up, it either tends to be muddled sound (which is tiring) or really harsh. Either way just fatigues your ears. I've been to some venues where the sound is excellent and it can be loud but not fatiguing and I can enjoy the whole show. Most places don't spend the effort (maybe they ran the numbers and decided it wasn't worth it) and I'm tired of listening to them after half an hour or so. And when they turn it up super loud I bring earplugs and that effects my experience of the show. And I know there is consistency here because I've seen the same band in different venues with different PA speakers and the difference was HUGE. And even the word 'huge' is pretty mild for the level of difference I experienced.

 

[Sixstring]

In my case, add funk, and blues, and rock 'n' roll, and pop tunes. My trio covers tunes from Jimi Hendrix to Donald Fagen to Mose Allison to Miles Davis, albeit at volumes that will not cause anyone hearing damage. Scott is capable of playing whatever style he wants, but you'll have to ask him about the range he covers on gigs. I can definitely say that the phrase "light jazz" sells him short. He does a whole lot more than that.

The styles Tim mentioned did not include hard rock. And, as he pointed out, he can tell the difference and people who hear him play can tell the difference. Based on that, it is clear that it would be productive for him to make progress in the direction he wants to go. I'm afraid that an upgraded monitor won't be much help in that regard, however.

Fair enough... I was simply commenting on the vid that was posted here of you and Scott playing together which sounded really good might I add. It looked like you and Scott really enjoy that type of music and such was the basis of my post.

The other point I was trying to bring to this thread is "most" might be satisfied with an $800-1,200 solution given the context and application there using it in. That is pretty much confirmed with the amount of individuals that have bought in that category.

If your the type that has the ability to and can micro analyze every little nuance no matter what type of music you play then the upper end of the scale is probably where you need to be looking plain and simple.

Personally I like the solution I use and it gives me what I need and does it convincingly without any frustrations. When I read statements like you spent 2K on the Axe so you have to spend 2-3K on a monitor solution to get everything out of the Axe to be satisfied is not entirely true.

IMHO the whole FRFR topic has become very convoluted and needs further refinement and simplification in this respect. Basic right to the point info on solutions in a particular price range and how it might relate to it's application as it is really not that difficult to understand.

 

[Rex]

The homily that the "average Joe" (whoever that is) can't tell a difference can just as easily be used as an argument against spending the money on an Axe-Fx as against spending more money on monitors.

That was neither homily nor an argument for or against anything. Just an observation. "Average Joe" is the "average audience member" you refered to in the second paragraph of your post.

You need to make your own choice, and you don't need to justify it to anyone else.

+1.

 

[dk_ace]

Fair enough... I was simply commenting on the vid that was posted here of you and Scott playing together which sounded really good might I add. It looked like you and Scott really enjoy that type of music and such was the basis of my post.

The other point I was trying to bring to this thread is "most" might be satisfied with an $800-1,200 solution given the context and application there using it in. That is pretty much confirmed with the amount of individuals that have bought in that category.

If your the type that has the ability to and can micro analyze every little nuance no matter what type of music you play then the upper end of the scale is probably where you need to be looking plain and simple.

Personally I like the solution I use and it gives me what I need and does it convincingly without any frustrations. When I read statements like you spent 2K on the Axe so you have to spend 2-3K on a monitor solution to get everything out of the Axe to be satisfied is not entirely true.

IMHO the whole FRFR topic has become very convoluted and needs further refinement and simplification in this respect. Basic right to the point info on solutions in a particular price range and how it might relate to it's application as it is really not that difficult to understand.

It's great that you're happy with what you have and it meets your needs, but what has been stated here time and time again here from those with the experience to back it up is that the differences between the great pro audio amplification systems and the "pro-sumer" stuff is not subtle nor is it nuanced.

I can assure you that most people that I have seen compare these two levels of gear have quite quickly decided that the difference was dramatic, not subtle. That was my reaction three years ago, and I'm still of that opinion today after many more such experiences.

That doesn't mean that everyone should be discontent now with their QSC, FBT, Fratomic, or whatever else monitor they currently have. It's all just about tools in the end, and people would do best to make the most of what they have and be happy playing their guitar. I got into this to have fun and make music, not have a pissing contest about who has the better equipment.

For those that want to scoff at the prices of high end pro audio gear as if it's entirely unneccessary and won't make that much of a difference to the actual sound, you should see if you can get a chance to hear the difference for yourself. You'll probably leave with a different opinion than the one you currently hold. You probably will keep what you have and be happy assuming you don't have an unlimited budget, but you'll know the difference at least. I can't afford the great stuff, but it's certainly worth every penny IMO. Once you experience the differences for yourself, I think you'll understand. Keep in mind, you probably won't be nearly as satisfied with all the gear that you are currently satisfied with once you've heard the difference.

D

 

[zslane]

"But I like the way my $800 speaker sounds," is merely what we tell ourselves to make the limitations of our budgets easier to live with. Suppose you won a contest and the prize was any amplifier and loudspeaker in the world, regardless of cost. I would love to meet the seasoned Axe-FX user who would knowingly turn down a Bryston amp or a Frazier cabinet (or whatever one might consider the world's most transparent combination).

I hope nobody disagrees that the goal is perfect transparency (or as close as the laws of physics allow). I think the only real disagreement is over where affordability intersects ideal performance. Which is actually kind of silly since each of us must decide for ourselves where that intersection is based on our own personal circumstances.

I might say that $3000 is too much (for me) to pay for state-of-the-art transparency, and nobody could really argue with me on that since I'm the one who has to live with my modest budget, not them. But it would also be silly of me to say that just because I can't afford it that the state-of-the-art doesn't deliver a superior FRFR experience. Both can be true at the same time (and I am convinced that they are).

 

[joegold]

On the other hand...
There is no compromise when using the Axe with a good guitar cab and a hi-quality power amp, eg. a Bryston 2B-LP.
Certainly there are limitations to working this way, but a limitation is not necessarily a compromise.

My Mesa Mark Series based Axe presets sound nearly identical to the real thing when both are played through the same cab.
I suspect that most of the other amp sims will sound nearly identical too, if those amps were played through my cab.

It's only when you wade into the FRFR world that the problems of transparency can multiply to the point where you might be missing some traditional tube amp feel when using the Axe.

 

[zslane]

On the other hand...
There is no compromise when using the Axe with a good guitar cab and a hi-quality power amp, eg. a Bryston 2B-LP.
Certainly there are limitations to working this way, but a limitation is not necessarily a compromise.

My Mesa Mark Series based Axe presets sound nearly identical to the real thing when both are played through the same cab.
I suspect that most of the other amp sims will sound nearly identical too, if those amps were played through my cab.

It's only when you wade into the FRFR world that the problems of transparency can multiply to the point where you might be missing some traditional tube amp feel when using the Axe.

Well, I think it is a compromise in the sense that you have to turn off the cab sims in order to make use of a guitar cab. So not only do you lose the flexibility of being able to select from a huge array of (virtual) cabinets/speakers, you end up always coloring the output of the Axe-FX with one and only one guitar cab response profile. That's fine if the only cab sound you like or want is the one you have. But that's not really making the most of FRFR, IMO. I didn't buy my Axe-FX to disable one of its primary features. I bought it so that I could play through any number of different cabinets as suited my needs and whims. Using a real guitar cab defeats that goal, I feel.

And I'd rather spend time learning/tweaking the sims to provide "traditional tube amp feel" than spend money in hopes of obtaining the physical amp+cab combination that will cover all the bases I want covered (hint: no one amp or cab could possibly do that). The ultimate expression of FRFR with a device like the Axe-FX which has amp sims, cab sims, and effects sims is to eliminate any and all physical embodiments of those sim blocks and let the Axe-FX do all the work they would do. Anything less than that is a compromise from my point of view (excepting, of course, physical devices for which there simply is no sim block available in the Axe-FX, in which case I would be resorting to the physical device out of sheer necessity, not out of preference for it).

 

[dk_ace]

On the other hand...
There is no compromise when using the Axe with a good guitar cab and a hi-quality power amp, eg. a Bryston 2B-LP.
Certainly there are limitations to working this way, but a limitation is not necessarily a compromise.

That limitation would be a huge compromise to me. I would give up the sounds of many of the speakers that I love, or be forced to lug several cabs around. Been there, done that. One of the greatest benefits I got out of the Axe-FX was having the different speaker sounds I love without having to lug multiple cabs around.

The audience almost always hears just my direct FOH tone, so whatever I'm monitoring with onstage isn't that big of a deal to me. I'm in the minority I think in that I don't really care what I'm hearing onstage with regard to the quality of the tone as long as I know it's good in the house and I can work sufficiently with what I'm hearing. I've played through some really horrible monitors on a few occasions over the last few years, but I've always been able to deal with it and make it work. I'm a bit lazy, so there are plenty of occasions where I'll work with the house monitoring system at a gig as opposed to lugging my own amplification. Some people can work that way, and some can't. Lucky for my back, I'm one of the people that can work that way.

D

 

[joegold]

Well, I think it is a compromise in the sense that you have to turn off the cab sims in order to make use of a guitar cab. So not only do you lose the flexibility of being able to select from a huge array of (virtual) cabinets/speakers, you end up always coloring the output of the Axe-FX with one and only one guitar cab response profile. That's fine if the only cab sound you like or want is the one you have. But that's not really making the most of FRFR, IMO. I didn't buy my Axe-FX to disable one of its primary features. I bought it so that I could play through any number of different cabinets as suited my needs and whims. Using a real guitar cab defeats that goal, I feel.

Well then if you're really committed to playing your Axe through an FRFR system you are either going to have to learn to live with falling short with your tone, compared to the real-world amps you are using sims of, or you're going to have to convince Jay to sell you one of his very expensive speakers.
I.e. It is possible to have a no-compromise FRFR solution for the Axe, but it will be very expensive.
If you *really* need that kind of sonic power to do your work then it will be worth it.
But I certainly don't need anything like that and I don't feel that my rig is in any way a compromise.
Again... I don't see limitations as being creative compromises.
I actually think that creativity needs to work within limitations.

I'd probably consider buying one of Jay's cabs though if he ever makes them available.
lol

And I'd rather spend time learning/tweaking the sims to provide "traditional tube amp feel"

Well I'm of the opinion that all the tweaking in the world won't give you an un-compromised guitar amp feel from anything less than the type of cab that Jay has made for himself.
You can come close, real close, with say a K12 or a 12ma.
But unless you're willing to spend the bucks I don't think you'll get all the way there with that type of consumer-oriented FRFR stuff.
I'd love to be proven wrong though.

As far as using the Axe to cop a true tube guitar amp feel is concerned, my rig is *all* the way there right now.
Now my rig's not exactly cheap either, but it's cheaper than Jay's and it is yielding a completely un-compromised tone, as good as or better than any real world amp I've ever plugged into my cabs.

than spend money in hopes of obtaining the physical amp+cab combination that will cover all the bases I want covered (hint: no one amp or cab could possibly do that). The ultimate expression of FRFR with a device like the Axe-FX which has amp sims, cab sims, and effects sims is to eliminate any and all physical embodiments of those sim blocks and let the Axe-FX do all the work they would do. Anything less than that is a compromise from my point of view (excepting, of course, physical devices for which there simply is no sim block available in the Axe-FX, in which case I would be resorting to the physical device out of sheer necessity, not out of preference for it).

Now I could also see myself learning to settle for a less than perfect FRFR system because of all the potential that playing FRFR offers.
I could even see myself eventually liking that even more than using a rig like I've got right now.
But I'd always know that it could be much better.
Good luck with your own search.

 

[zslane]

Well then if you're really committed to playing your Axe through an FRFR system you are either going to have to learn to live with falling short with your tone, compared to the real-world amps you are using sims of, or you're going to have to convince Jay to sell you one of his very expensive speakers.

I am not as impressed with "real world amps" as you seem to be. As such, I don't perceive my modest FRFR system as "falling short" nearly as much as you do. Therein lies the vast gulf separating us from possible common ground on this issue, I think.

 

[tubetonez]

FWIW, I would like to point out that the majority of tube amps and cabs, vintage to modern, have similar designs. Most of the early amps that we love, Fender to Marshall to Vox, were not really "designed" to be an electric guitar amp. The basic circuits were based on those provided by the tube manufacturers. Different components were sourced due to availibility. Cabinets, whether combo or the classic Marshall 1960 were designed as much for portability and asthetics as anything. Speakers were, by today's standards, pretty poor performers and used mainly because that's what was available at the time.

The fact that the tube amps could be pushed into distortion, and the way that they interacted with relatively low powered speakers is IMHO a fortunate accident. If there is some inherent "magic mojo" in a particular amp/speaker design it is not due to the original design intent of these products, and major changes since have been relatively few and far between - otherwise why are the 50+ year old designs still being used? They worked in an unprecedented manner, talented musicians created great music on them, and we still love the same tones.

In fact there was little difference in the "FRFR" systems of the day - PA amps & cabs used pretty much the same circuits and speakers.

 

[Rex]

Most of the early amps that we love, Fender to Marshall to Vox, were not really "designed" to be an electric guitar amp. The basic circuits were based on those provided by the tube manufacturers.

+1. Pretty much every tube circuit in existence today can be found in a 60-year-old tube handbook.

The history of guitar amps is mostly one of dumb luck, with a few tweaks here and there. Often those tweaks are the result of investigation into which aspects of an under-engineered circuit added the sweetest-sounding crap to the signal.

 

[Jay Mitchell]

In fact there was little difference in the "FRFR" systems of the day - PA amps & cabs used pretty much the same circuits and speakers.

By the 1930s, there were two-way FRFR systems in relatively widespread use in cinema houses. The Altec Voice of the Theater was introduced in 1947 and eventually found its way into live sound reinforcement for rock acts. The compromises in fidelity that were inherent in the design of guitar amplifiers were recognized and accepted, as you pointed out, but there were definitely more accurate means of amplifying signals in use from very early on.

 

[felken]

I had a friend a long time ago who had 2 voice of the theaters in his living room for his stereo with a 400 watt Sansui amp, I wonder if he has hearing problems today.

 

[xrist04]

I remember loading those Altec A-7s in and out of various venues, back in the day. Almost as bad as that B3 and the Leslie cab. Whew!

 

[tubetonez]

By the 1930s, there were two-way FRFR systems in relatively widespread use in cinema houses. The Altec Voice of the Theater was introduced in 1947 and eventually found its way into live sound reinforcement for rock acts. The compromises in fidelity that were inherent in the design of guitar amplifiers were recognized and accepted, as you pointed out, but there were definitely more accurate means of amplifying signals in use from very early on.

I stand corrected, I was thinking mainly of the portable PA's made by Marshall and Fender.

I didn't get to see any big rock acts till the late 70's. Seems like most of the popular cover bands in our area were using the Kustom PA, the head on chrome stand and tuck & roll columns - I particularly liked the gold metalflake naugahyde ;-)

 

[Jay Mitchell]

I stand corrected, I was thinking mainly of the portable PA's made by Marshall and Fender.

Neither of those brands were terribly popular for PA gear.

I didn't get to see any big rock acts till the late 70's. Seems like most of the popular cover bands in our area were using the Kustom PA, the head on chrome stand and tuck & roll columns - I particularly liked the gold metalflake naugahyde ;-)

I've used kustom PAs before. They made some PA speakers with HF horns in addition to the array of cone transducers (and they still sounded terrible). By the late 1960s, it was relatively commonplace to see Voice of the Theater type speakers being used for concert reinforcement. In 1973, a cover band I played in bought a PA system that used Altec 1204 speakers (same HF horn/driver as the Voice of the Theater, but with direct-radiating 15" woofers). The "FRFR" concept (for PA use) has been around, even at the cover band level, for quite some time.

 

[hippietim]

A "better FRFR" might make up that difference, but the real question is what set of parameters are not set the way they need to be in order to capture the kind of tone and "feel" you enjoy with the Bogner. Any ideas?

It's not just the Bogner. I can walk into Guitar Center, grab any reasonably good guitar, and plug into a Fender Pro Junior and get the feel and responsiveness I'm talking about. It's not as good as me taking my favorite guitar and plugging into the Bogner but it's still got "it".

My gut tells me that even with Jay's Frazier cabinet and the world's most linear amp, your Axe-FX will still fall short until the right amp and cab parameters (and IRs) are set exactly as they need to be for your goals. Are you certain what those are and that they are already set appropriately? If not, then you are quite possibly starting at the wrong end of the signal chain.

I'm sure I can spend more time tweaking and get even better results. But there is a certain point where I'd like to stop f**king around with the gear and just play. So I often just leave the Axe-FX patches alone for very long periods of time because they're good enough. I develop OS software for a living so I'm at a computer all day. When I grab my guitar I really just want to play, not interact with a computer.

When it comes to traditional gear, I can literally plug into just about any decent quality tube amp (that is suitable to the music to be played) and be ready to go in a few minutes. If the Axe-FX, IRs, and your FRFR rig are all doing what they're supposed to, you should, in theory, be able to do about the same thing by dropping an amp and cab block on the grid and adjusting just the basic parameters. But that's not the complete reality for me. I have no problem dialing in usable tones pretty quickly but I've yet to really get anything that captures the lively feel you get from playing tube amp.

 

[hippietim]

The styles Tim mentioned did not include hard rock. And, as he pointed out, he can tell the difference and people who hear him play can tell the difference. Based on that, it is clear that it would be productive for him to make progress in the direction he wants to go. I'm afraid that an upgraded monitor won't be much help in that regard, however.

We actually play some hard rock. If I had my way I'd be in a band that played everything from Pantera to Sinatra but there's not much call for that

I think you are right that I need to spend more time turning knobs on the Axe-FX if I want to get "there" but I've hit a wall in terms of tone chasing. It's probably time to put the Axe-FX on the shelf for a while and go play with tubes for a while.