Live Vs Studio Tones..

D

Daribo

Member
This is something that interests me and I know has been covered reasonably well in other threads, but I find at home levels, presets in the Axe 2 and any I download and try from the axechange sound great through my Mackie studio monitors, however pretty much all of them sound very thin/fizzy and unsatisfying through my active Matrix 1x12 guitar cabinet.

Even the Pete Thorne patches sounded pretty naff through this system (but great recorded or through studio monitors at reasonable volumes).

I guess what I'm asking, is that do most people program and share presets with direct recording in mind? For example - I may hear a recording of a killer tone on here/youtube etc and download the patch, but for live use at gig volumes it would need complete re working. That's fine, as I can dial in my own sounds, but got me thinking.

I can't imagine that Pete Thorn could simply plug that patch (available in the P.T pack) into the pa, cranked up to show levels and be satisfied with the result, but for direct recording it sounds awesome.

Maybe I'm missing something here.

Don't get me wrong - I can get some great sounds out of the Axe at gig volumes and am happy with it - they all sound pretty flat and lifeless as very low volumes, but that would be the same with a tube amp. I just wondered if anyone else felt that all the patches shared need drastic reworking to sound good loud through a F.R system.

I tend to make two versions of each sound I create - one to work in a live band environment and the other to record with and sound satisfying for home practice etc.

I don't know what would happen if I was taking a direct out into a recorder at a gig - I guess it would still sound a bit muffled?!

Hopefully it's not the Matrix at fault and something everyone is experiencing!

Interested to know peoples opinions as this is my very first venture out of a tube amp/pedal set up in 20 years and it's a fun but steep learning curve for me. I find myself learning a lot from experienced users here and it's a valuable resource that's appreciated.

Many thanks
 
I understand you a lot, i recently received the Axe II and have been putting it next to the Ultra that i know very well and right now, at lower volumes the Ultra sounds better, unfortunately this in not comparing apples to apples in any way. The axe has latest firmware and latest patches and the ultra the same. But Patches on the Ultra sound more professional and not so RAW as the AxeII. this i tested with a supposed flat response cab.

But it is too soon to get into any conclusions with the Axe II, i'll still have a billion tweaks to make, but i will not deny that it would have been fun to have at least the same level of pro sound out of the box as the ULTRA.

axe-II-and-ultra_zps46f5d64e.jpg
 
Daribo said:
This is something that interests me and I know has been covered reasonably well in other threads, but I find at home levels, presets in the Axe 2 and any I download and try from the axechange sound great through my Mackie studio monitors, however pretty much all of them sound very thin/fizzy and unsatisfying through my active Matrix 1x12 guitar cabinet.

Even the Pete Thorne patches sounded pretty naff through this system (but great recorded or through studio monitors at reasonable volumes).

I guess what I'm asking, is that do most people program and share presets with direct recording in mind? For example - I may hear a recording of a killer tone on here/youtube etc and download the patch, but for live use at gig volumes it would need complete re working. That's fine, as I can dial in my own sounds, but got me thinking.

I can't imagine that Pete Thorn could simply plug that patch (available in the P.T pack) into the pa, cranked up to show levels and be satisfied with the result, but for direct recording it sounds awesome.

Maybe I'm missing something here.

Don't get me wrong - I can get some great sounds out of the Axe at gig volumes and am happy with it - they all sound pretty flat and lifeless as very low volumes, but that would be the same with a tube amp. I just wondered if anyone else felt that all the patches shared need drastic reworking to sound good loud through a F.R system.

I tend to make two versions of each sound I create - one to work in a live band environment and the other to record with and sound satisfying for home practice etc.

I don't know what would happen if I was taking a direct out into a recorder at a gig - I guess it would still sound a bit muffled?!

Hopefully it's not the Matrix at fault and something everyone is experiencing!

Interested to know peoples opinions as this is my very first venture out of a tube amp/pedal set up in 20 years and it's a fun but steep learning curve for me. I find myself learning a lot from experienced users here and it's a valuable resource that's appreciated.

Many thanks
Click to expand...
Is your matrix the actual matrix cab or one of the FRFR offerings they have? A patch dialed in FRFR does not translate well to traditional cabs and vice versa
 
It's an interesting question. I've been thinking about how traditionally in the studio guitar will be recorded at very high volume to really push the amp/cab/speakers. After that eq, compression, verb, delays will often be added at more reasonable listening levels in the control room during mixing. Now with the tools in the Axe, we can dial up good amp tones at any level, which is great, but it also introduces these new questions. I don't have answers, but would be interested in hearing people's take on this question. It's similar to the question of dialing up live tones at lower volumes at home, but a bit different too.
 
This is very much the case for me and I'm guessing a majority of the other AXE 2 users... IME, it's the fletcher mundson thing.... we perceive frequencies differently at different SPL's or db's. At a lower volume (recording/studio monitors) certain higher frequencies are needed to provide clarity etc. but that same patch at a louder volume needs those highs to be tamed down a bit. In my experience, it's not a "drastic re-working" of the patches, but I do find that I need to reduce some high-end, and bump a little mid-range, possible cut the bass a bit. But, also referring to using someone else's patches, you have to keep in mind that your guitar/pickups/strings/playing style/monitoring situation, etc. etc. will all factor in how that patch sounds to you. So, even when I download an incredible patch (such as Tyler's Little Wing) I had to make a few very small tweaks... luckily I have a nice sounding Strat, so it was pretty much spot on from the get go.

All in all, I do agree that a recording/low level patch will differ from a live/loud patch. That's what is killer about this box, download a patch, make a copy with the name "Live" in front of it, and tweak it at live/loud levels and you've got your recording/practicing patch and your live/loud patch in about 2 minutes...
 
nicolasrivera said:
I understand you a lot, i recently received the Axe II and have been putting it next to the Ultra that i know very well and right now, at lower volumes the Ultra sounds better, unfortunately this in not comparing apples to apples in any way. The axe has latest firmware and latest patches and the ultra the same. But Patches on the Ultra sound more professional and not so RAW as the AxeII. this i tested with a supposed flat response cab.

But it is too soon to get into any conclusions with the Axe II, i'll still have a billion tweaks to make, but i will not deny that it would have been fun to have at least the same level of pro sound out of the box as the ULTRA.

axe-II-and-ultra_zps46f5d64e.jpg
Click to expand...

i couldn't agree more. i had the ultra dialed in and the tone was very professional sounding. the II has been much more raw, which is probably better through a real guitar cabinet.....but i'm having a real time trying to dial out the upper end brightness without sounding dull.
 
Riddle me this one then...

If CD sounds killer on your regular home system and you love the tones on it, do you think that cranking it through a +4kw PA system will make it sound crap..?

Somehow, I struggle to think that will be the case...
thinking.gif




Of course, if the PA is less than great or has been set up badly, then yes, there's plenty of scope for things to sound crap... but it doesn't not automatically follow that louder will sound 'worse'

So following that logic through would suggest that the flaw lies with the sound reproduction gear at one of the extremes
 
Have you tried reducing the higher frequencies on the global or amp graphic eq? I use the global as I typically play a strat. I can then keep the treble up to get the spank I need without being brittle or harsh. I know this is not the main topic.
 
I have three sets of presets:
- those I practice with
the preset names have the suffix ST for studio
they are dialled in for lowish volume playing through my studio monitoring
and as such, they only sound nice though my monitors at lowish volumes [kinda seems a bit obvious don't it... lmao]

- those I play live with
these are copies of the ST presets and so are tonally and functionally the same
they have the suffix LV for live
additionally, they appear in the same locations on the MFC but a bank higher
preset 1ST: MFC switch 1 / preset 1LV: 11
preset 2ST: MFC switch 2 / preset 2LV: 12
and so on..
this means everything has the same layout on the MFC for practice and for live work

- those for recording
these are just one amp and a single hires cab and nothing else [apart from the occasional 'special' tones]
when I record, I monitor my ST presets whilst recording the dry tone so I have the exciting tone and feeling whilst I play
then I reamp with these bone dry and very dull to play reamping presets
 
From your description I think something is amiss.

Can you get your Matrix cab in the same position in the same room as your monitors and try it that way? Apples to apples in the same room listening from about the same position in the room?

My presets created on NS10's or CLR's translate pretty well to PA's of all calibers. And I thought Pete's preset translated well on my system too.
 
tomc3084 said:
The amps in the II sound like the originals, so of course they sound raw, just like a real amp. There are many tools in the II to create the polished sound.
Click to expand...

Of course! Its only that the Ultra is far quicker to dial a killer tone... thats all...
 
PacoCasanovas said:
it dosen't sound better - it sounds more pre-produced, polished than the II - here is what you can do: add some room fx in the CAB block to your speaker sound.....
Click to expand...

Thanks Paco, i did that and to be honest i'm really not sold on that sound the room FX gives right now...

Was there any of the Axe II firmwares that got close to those polished produced sounds from the ULTRA???
 
clarky said:
a guitar tone on a CD has been processed, mixed, compressed and mastered
it's not the tone you'll take on stage or practice with
Click to expand...

EXACTLY!! i don't how many times this has to be said...i just can't understand why people can't understand that their guitar tone, on it's own, should not sound anything AT ALL like what they hear on an album, in a mix....ever.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom