Marshall JVM410HJS - real amp versus Axe3

Orvillain said:
From experience with the amp:
High master volume, low channel volume == low master volume, high channel volume.

You don't get any extra power amp response by cranking the master volume with a lower channel volume. You do if you crank both, but it should be fairly obvious that you would with any amp, because you are literally driving it harder.


https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/t38avnk908spjvonecabu/h?rlkey=19chuipogtadhr92g3if1sl3p&dl=0






This folder is some new clips. The new JVM OD Red versus my real JVMJS. I think it can be made much closer now.
Click to expand...
A sounds considerably better to me too.
 
Orvillain said:
Why does A sound better??
Click to expand...
To me, A seems smoother and more 3 dimensional somehow. A bit like real amp vs Kemper. But haven't listened on proper monitoring yet; my perception may be off. I'd have to make a blind test with the clips for myself, too.
 
Well:

A == Axe3
B == Real amp

I wasn't able to dial in the right amount of low-end resonance in the Axe3. The amp is capable of soooo much more. I suspect this is why you guys preferred A.
 
Orvillain said:
Well:

A == Axe3
B == Real amp

I wasn't able to dial in the right amount of low-end resonance in the Axe3. The amp is capable of soooo much more. I suspect this is why you guys preferred A.
Click to expand...
That's very interesting! I'll listen again with headphones.
 
sprint said:
When reading such comparisons, I tend to think that in order to really accurately compare any amp+cab, end to end with Axfx, one would first need to shoot an accurate IR of the real cab, measure the real cab's IC and have those values present in the Axfx model. Then with that, A/B audition both with the preamps set equally, and the power amp sections being pushed equally (and not just using knob positions to confirm that equalness since knob tolerances vary), and listening to the real amp+cab mic'd (with the same mic in the same room as was used to shoot the IR) through the same monitors as Axfx. Of all the real amp to Axfx comparison threads I've read here over the years I don't recall any that ever went through that kind of process to ensure no apples to oranges effect, which makes sense because it's a lot of work and requires some specialized gear (IC measurement). Comparing Axfx to real preamps is easy to do (and probably best done as a prerequisite to an end to end pre+p.a.+cab comparison, to ensure the preamps are equal in isolation to start), while comparing Axfx to real pre+p.a.+cab is a pretty tough go - and that's just to compare one static sound, never mind comparing Axfx vs real end to end in terms of response to controls variations or feel.
Click to expand...

I think a number of things are in play that make this thread stale because it’s now a moot discussion.

The version of the firmware being used in the test is not current, it’s 22.01 in the Edit snapshot and we’re on 23.01b2 now, which is no longer the current model because in the current release notes Cliff said…
Updated all JS410 Lead models based on a current production JVM410HJS.
Click to expand...

and in the prior release thread he said…
Yes. People were complaining. Joe himself said the production amps don't sound like his amp but people complain and we address the complaints.
Click to expand...
 
Greg Ferguson said:
I think a number of things are in play that make this thread stale because it’s now a moot discussion.
Click to expand...
Stale indeed (my last post here was 2.5 months ago) - but the point I tried to make remains relevent: It's laboursome and difficult to do a complete thorough comparison between an amp model and real amp - doesn't really ever happen much. As far as the 410 goes, I don't really care as I'm not a huge Satch fan (I tend to like the new version better). What's hilarious about that amp is that people seem to be hearing that Marshall's signature amp apparently doesn't sound much like the signature artist's actual amp that the signature amp would logically be expected to sound like: which confirms my long standing suspicion that signature gear may well be just a load of hooey in many cases.
 
Last edited:
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/0ncgaii86zr240fitg1zy/h?rlkey=mzzdrp460oakg0rzge9u96yg8&dl=0

Here you go, two more clips. Same IR. Fairly well matched I'd say. I could probably get them a bit closer.

I would note, to get the same mid-scoop that my amp+Suhr RL has, I needed to switch the tone-stack to the mid-shift version for this amp. However my real amp did not have the mid shift engaged. So I don't know if that is the effect of the RL, or if there are just tolerance differences between the model and my amp, but the newer Satch JVM is a million times better than the old one.
 
sprint said:
Stale indeed (my last post here was 2.5 months ago) - but the point I tried to make remains relevent: It's laboursome and difficult to do a complete thorough comparison between an amp model and real amp - doesn't really ever happen much. As far as the 410 goes, I don't really care as I'm not a huge Satch fan (I tend to like the new version better). What's hilarious about that amp is that Marshall made a signature amp that appearently doesn't sound much like the signature artist's actual amp that the signature amp would logically be expected to sound like: which confirms my long standing suspicion that signature gear is often just a load of hooey.
Click to expand...
I agree with you.

Companies used to pay celebrities to say they used the products, when they didn’t or it was not the same product that the average person was able to buy even though it was advertised as the same. That’s false advertising and is illegal.

It might have happened with this particular amp innocently enough, they might have had an original design that the artist signed off on and then they began adjusting the amp further as the artist’s needs or wants changed without changing the design being sold. In the older days the situation was a deliberate attempt to defraud the customers and companies who were caught were fined, the situation this time might not have been a deliberate attempt.

Cliff modeled the original iconic amp which people couldn’t buy then, when people complained because the production version didn’t sound the same, switched to what they could buy, and, now once again is somewhat stuck in the middle when trying to make people happy.

My “stale” statement was about the people who resurrect and continue threads without paying attention to the original situation that no longer exists. The threads become like zombies shuffling along trying to stay alive.
 
Greg Ferguson said:
I agree with you.

Companies used to pay celebrities to say they used the products, when they didn’t or it was not the same product that the average person was able to buy even though it was advertised as the same. That’s false advertising and is illegal.

It might have happened with this particular amp innocently enough, they might have had an original design that the artist signed off on and then they began adjusting the amp further as the artist’s needs or wants changed without changing the design being sold. In the older days the situation was a deliberate attempt to defraud the customers and companies who were caught were fined, the situation this time might not have been a deliberate attempt.

Cliff modeled the original iconic amp which people couldn’t buy then, when people complained because the production version didn’t sound the same, switched to what they could buy, and, now once again is somewhat stuck in the middle when trying to make people happy.

My “stale” statement was about the people who resurrect and continue threads without paying attention to the original situation that no longer exists. The threads become like zombies shuffling along trying to stay alive.
Click to expand...
I'm harsh on the more extremely sig gear (i.e: I have no interest in an EVH Frankie, EVH Shark ...), but there are other sig pieces that have become their own thing, and widely used not just for getting a narrow sig sound, which is cool and appeals to me (ie EVH amps, Wolfgang, JEM ...). I cringe at some sig pieces that are, stylistically, so much a personal refection of the artist (ie EVH Frankie) that it just feels weird to me somehow - like there would be something wrong with me owning / playing it even if I could nail EVH licks with it. An exception for me might be the Brian May red special, which, though it's 100% BM, the functionality and design of it seems quite interesting as a unique guitar to own even if one is not into BM or sig guitars.
 
sprint said:
I'm harsh on the more extremely sig gear (i.e: I have no interest in an EVH Frankie, EVH Shark ...), but there are other sig pieces that have become their own thing, and widely used not just for getting a narrow sig sound, which is cool and appeals to me (ie EVH amps, Wolfgang, JEM ...). I cringe at some sig pieces that are, stylistically, so much a personal refection of the artist (ie EVH Frankie) that it just feels weird to me somehow - like there would be something wrong with me owning / playing it even if I could nail EVH licks with it. An exception for me might be the Brian May red special, which, though it's 100% BM, the functionality and design of it seems quite interesting as a unique guitar to own even if one is not into BM or sig guitars.
Click to expand...
I’m amused by the signature versions of signature versions. I’m looking at all the variations of Les Pauls. :)
 
sprint said:
What's hilarious about that amp is that people seem to be hearing that Marshall's signature amp apparently doesn't sound much like the signature artist's actual amp that the signature amp would logically be expected to sound like: which confirms my long standing suspicion that signature gear may well be just a load of hooey in many cases.
Click to expand...
After thinking the same for years nowadays I tend to disagree. I had quite a lot of signature gear and - granted, playing in the style and feel of the artist - everything sounded just like the artist to me. A great example is my (now sold) JP2C and Majesty - instant JP tone if you play the same stuff in the same manner.
To me it's more likely that Joe's modeled amp was a prototype of some sort that he kept using simply because he liked it. Same happened with his Peaveys a lot back then. The Triple XXXs he used on G3 2003 were nothing like an actual Triple XXX.
 
Greg Ferguson said:
My “stale” statement was about the people who resurrect and continue threads without paying attention to the original situation that no longer exists. The threads become like zombies shuffling along trying to stay alive.
Click to expand...
Nonsense. You were just being your usual gate keeping snide self. It is my thread. I ressurected it with new audio clips using the new firmware.

I count at least 4 people, plus @MirrorProfiles when he's not busy, who are interested in this amp and how accurate it might be to the original model. Even Cliff responded, much more charitably than you have throughout the thread.

Take a deep breath, relax, and realise not everything is about you or what you think is worthwhile discussing. Just stop reading if it bothers you that much. Anything else is, frankly, childish beyond reason.
 
Back to the amp:

I'm not such a huge fan of the original JVM. As an amp to use live, it has a few problems that make it pretty terrible, and I think Santiago has acknowledged them himself. One is the footswitching latency and gap of silence when switching channels. It is quite easily one of the largest gaps on any amp I've ever tried. I think when we discussed it back on the old Musicradar forums, we found it was 75ms. This is easily in the audible/perceptive range, and is a real downer considering the amp has so many tones.

The other thing is too much gain - or rather, the pot tapers for the gain knobs are kind of shallow and a bit difficult to dial in.

The Satriani version fixes both of these. Because they replaced the digital reverb (very sub par digital reverb!) with the noise gates, they were able to speed up the switching time. It is still perceptible when playing by yourself, but in a band context it disappears well enough to not matter.

And the gain ranges were tweaked and are much more usable. I still never go above noon on the OD Red, because you simply don't need to.

They also took the clean channel from the 6100, and the Satch version has much nicer cleans than original; although this is more subjective than the other points.

I hate the mid-shift on the amp. Never use it. It thins the distortion channels out way too much. One of those things I think they included to tick a marketing bullet point.

But it really is one of the best Marshalls they ever made. Crunch Red will easily go up against an original JCM800 2203.
 
Greg Ferguson said:
Um, all threads on the forum belong to Fractal. We are all permitted to contribute as long as we follow the rules. These…



…fail that test.

You are welcome to ignore also.
Click to expand...
Those comments are well within the rules. And given you've just admitted that we are all permitted to contribute - as I knew you would, which is exactly why I phrased my response the way I did - means your original "stale" comments are obviously troll comments designed to just ruin the thread, and that they have zero validity whatsoever. If we are all permitted to contribute, then your comments have no basis in reality. Good day to you sir. Blocked.
 
oh lordy. Yeah i’m still interested in hearing the real amp side by side, especially now since the update.

I don’t find it stale at all, I love when a modeller is able to accurately sound indistinguishable to the real thing. This has been done time and time again and even though it’s not necessarily easy to do, it’s absolutely possible.

I am interested in knowing how to make the model sound and behave like the real thing - some amps are more straightforward, and some need some small adjustments to get there. i see this thread about what small adjustments will have the most benefit.

Nothing stale at all about it, but I accept that what I find interesting about modelling and what it’s capable of may not be so interesting to others. Focus on what interests and inspires you, or helps others. If you aren’t able to contribute to how to make the Fractal model sound like the real amp, then what are you actually offering to the thread?
 
200.gif

Simon Pegg Cheers GIF by PeacockTV
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom