Wish "Meta" controls

Disconnector

Inspired
Hi all!

The Axe FX has an amazing plethora off controls that if worked together can make nearly any sound you can imagine. The only challenge is understanding which controls to tweak together to get the specific sound that you are looking for.

This is where meta-controls come in . . .

A meta-control is a control that references multiple other controls to get an overarching result. For example - the Marshall sound is often compared to "crushed glass" and dialing in a Marshall is getting the shards into the correct size for the tone you're seeking. The problem with this is that there are MANY settings other than gain that control this part of the Marshall tone - biasing, output tube hardness, screen grid conduction, output transformer matching, etc. A meta-control would turn all of these controls in an intelligent manner - perhaps even against a series of Cliff-determined curves and exponentials - to get the require result.

I know that there are already several of these in the interface (pick dynamics, etc) but it would be cool to create specific controls for specific types of amps. Keep the individual detailed controls for the folks that really know what they are doing but add a layer of meta-controls on a page above them.

Some examples would be "hardness", "crushed glass", "thump", "grind", "sizzle", etc for a Marshall. These controls would be different on a Fender style amp - because folks want a different outcome from a Fender generally.

I know that these words don't really convey a specific sound but most guitarists would understand immediately what they meant. Anyway - thanks for reading!
 
Last edited:
This is exacly what you get if you share block channels: all the settings to make a specific sound for a specific block in one file.
 
This is exacly what you get if you share block channels: all the settings to make a specific sound for a specific block in one file.
I don't think that's the same. That would get you a specific sound, as you mentioned.

The OP is requesting (as I'm understanding it) a knob you can twist that will effectively alter multiple parameters in relationship to each other.

We can effectively already do what is being wished for:

Add a Controller (either a knob/pedal attached to an External Controller or an internal Manual Controller) as a modifier to multiple parameters in the amp block.

Adjust the modifier as needed for each parameter.

Turn the knob. (Or use Scene Controllers and change scenes)

Basic "morphing" recipe.

The "problem" is that you have to know all the related parameters and how to map out the modifiers in relationship to each other.

I think that this request is really about having that "mapping".

It's an interesting idea, although I suspect it might be very difficult to implement and would like have to be done distinctly for each model in the Amp block.
 
Hi all!

The Axe FX has an amazing plethora off controls that if worked together can make nearly any sound you can imagine. The only challenge is understanding which controls to tweak together to get the specific sound that you are looking for.

This is where meta-controls come in . . .

A meta-control is a control that references multiple other controls to get an overarching result. For example - the Marshall sound is often compared to "crushed glass" and dialing in a Marshall is getting the shardsinto the correct size for the tone you're seeking. The problem with this is that there are MANY settings other than gain that control this part of the Marshall tone - biasing, output tube hardness, screen grid conduction, output transformer matching, etc. A meta-control would turn all of these controls in an intelligent manner - perhaps even against a series of Cliff-determined curves and exponentials - to get the require result.

I know that there are already several of these in the interface (pick dynamics, etc) but it would be cool to create specific controls for specific types of amps. Keep the individual detailed controls for the folks that really know what they are doing but add a layer of meta-controls on a page above them.

Some examples would be "hardness", "crushed glass", "thump", "grind", "sizzle", etc for a Marshall. These controls would be different on a Fender style amp - because folks want a different outcome from a Fender generally.

I know that these words don't really convey a specific sound but most guitarists would understand immediately what they meant. Anyway - thanks for reading!
This is a really cool idea. Knowing Cliff leans more towards realistic controls, I don’t know if this would ever come to fruition.
 
This is a cool idea, but there’s a pitfall in there.

A lot of the parameters can affect multiple aspects of the tone. For example, “crushed glass,” “sizzle” and “grind” are all affected by the same parameters. You could find that dialing in more “sizzle” will totally mess with the “crushed glass” you dialed in, and vice versa.
 
This is a cool idea, but there’s a pitfall in there.

A lot of the parameters can affect multiple aspects of the tone. For example, “crushed glass,” “sizzle” and “grind” are all affected by the same parameters. You could find that dialing in more “sizzle” will totally mess with the “crushed glass” you dialed in, and vice versa.

Each meta-control may have some overlapping parameters but that's still useful as long as they weren't exactly the same parameters.

The problem is that the VAST majority of AF users have no idea how the specific controls advanced interact and interrelate. I think a set of over arching controls that work towards an archetypical slice within a specific tone would would be useful. Especially if they were set up by someone that REALLY knew the ins and outs of each amp and its functional components - ie. Cliff and M@.

I also agree that it would be different for each amp family. Marshall based amps would have one set, Vox based amps another, and Fenders yet another. You wouldn't need a huge number of meta-controls per amp - 3-4 would be fine to get the deeper parameters dialed in. The rest could be dealt with by gain, TMB, etc from the ideal/authentic page. For example - most folks want some sort of dirt from a Marshall, clean/bluesy overdrive from a Fender, and chime/singing overdrive from a Vox. If you knew how to engage the deeper controls you'd just ignore this page and go deep diving.

It would also be educational to turn (for example) a "hardness" meta-control and see how that effected settings in the advanced parameters of a Fender amp. There are so many things that go into the hardness of response to a Fender . . . and I'd love the advanced education that a parameter like this would give.

I also understand that Cliff would be predetermining a "sound family" for each amp. For example, a "grind" meta-control for a Fender probably wouldn't make sense unless you somehow wanted metal grind out of a Fender amp. Most folks don't - and if you wanted to you could still dive into the advanced parameters and create whatever you wanted. But think about it - don't we all naturally chose amp types for certain archetypes of sound? Most folks don't pick a Friedman for crisp and chimey clean sounds - even though you can get them. There are just better and more accessible amps for that tone rather than a Marshall clone.

Here are a few examples just for the sake of discussion:

Marshall - "clarity", "shard size", "grind", and "thump"
Fender - "hardness", "punch", "sag", and "sustain"
Vox - "Chime", "grind" (ohhh yeah), "pick sag", and "throatiness"

Just all ideas - but if you think about it you know exactly what each one of these meta-controls sound like in your head for these specific amps.. It's just REALLY hard to explain.
 
Last edited:
I like this idea. Having tried the Petrucci Neural plugin recently, they have a 'tight' knob on his amps. Kind of like what you're requesting...and worked well.
 
I like this idea. Having tried the Petrucci Neural plugin recently, they have a 'tight' knob on his amps. Kind of like what you're requesting...and worked well.
I tried the plug-in and really appreciated the dumbed-down controls of the amp model when compared to a real JPIIC.
 
I think this sort of functionality would be more useful for effects. I like to bring up my Strymon Volante as an example. Using the "mechanics" knob to add modulation artifacts to a tape delay is easy and straightforward, just turn it up and down until you get what you want. Using Fractal's two LFOs to do the same thing is way too complicated, even if it is more powerful for the user to fine tune it.

If we could have a "mechanics" (or "wow & flutter") knob that would on the background control the LFOs for this effect, then that would greatly simplify the end user experience.

For effects the easiest thing would be to have a "Simplified" view that collects most used params and gives you some "meta controls" as shortcuts to setting e.g. modulation of delays and reverbs or applying high/low cut without using the full blown parametric EQ. Things that you normally find on pedals that are easy to understand and operate.

---

The hard part with these "meta controls" as suggested is making them all work together. For each parameter they control, you would have to determine the min/max value, how much they change and in which direction as you turn up the "meta control" knob.

As an example, Tight control in the amp block could be something like this:
  • As you turn up the Tight knob, you apply increasing amounts of bass cut as input EQ.
  • As you turn up the Tight knob, maybe you need to compensate by turning up the low frequencies in the output EQ to avoid a thin sound, but not too much so it doesn't become boomy.
The next difficulty here would be how it interacts with the existing controls. Does it just override whatever input/output EQ you have set? E.g. if you turn up Tight you can see the input EQ bands < 120 Hz going down. What if you adjust those bands then? How does Tight apply to it all?

These kinds of controls are less of an issue when you don't also expose the params controlled, like on the Petrucci plugin. When they are available for adjustment, then it becomes a question of what takes priority, how are those settings stored in presets and how are they recalled. It quickly ends up in a complex preset load validation chain of "apply Tight control param changes, if user changes to these params then apply user changes".

For the amp block it gets a bit tricky and might need a separate "meta controls" tab where you have these sort of convenience controls and adjusting them will just apply their effect to the controls in the tabs we have now and their state is determined based on the state of the params they control.

It would be a valuable feature for ease of use but as you can see, not super easy to implement seamlessly.
 
If we could have a "mechanics" (or "wow & flutter") knob that would on the background control the LFOs for this effect, then that would greatly simplify the end user experience.
(since this is a wish)
I think what you described here would be very cool.

Good example - I'm trying to make the low end on a specific amp a little less 'dead' sounding. I want it to be more spongy (so palm mutes have more bounce) and I also want a little less 'woof'.
Last night I looped a riff, and just went into the advanced power amp parameters and started turning knobs. I know the right combination of knob turning will get me there, but it's very difficult (if you don't understand amp typography) to know how each control impacts OTHER controls.
"if you turn one up, AND turn this other one down...then that will do xyz to the feel"
Finding the right combination is a long process as I am not an amp builder....it's just a lot of trial and error.

But if a meta control worked as you described: Turn up the tightness....and these 4 knobs all move when I do that. That would be super useful.

(again...since it's a wish)
 
I think it's a great idea. Not everyone is an amp tech and understands all the little ins and outs, just want it "tighter" or more "chunk" that kind of thing. Would imagine it would be hard to program though.
 
(since this is a wish)
I think what you described here would be very cool.

Good example - I'm trying to make the low end on a specific amp a little less 'dead' sounding. I want it to be more spongy (so palm mutes have more bounce) and I also want a little less 'woof'.
Last night I looped a riff, and just went into the advanced power amp parameters and started turning knobs. I know the right combination of knob turning will get me there, but it's very difficult (if you don't understand amp typography) to know how each control impacts OTHER controls.
"if you turn one up, AND turn this other one down...then that will do xyz to the feel"
Finding the right combination is a long process as I am not an amp builder....it's just a lot of trial and error.

But if a meta control worked as you described: Turn up the tightness....and these 4 knobs all move when I do that. That would be super useful.

(again...since it's a wish)
This is exactly what I'm talking about. Thank you for stating it in a shorter and more concise way!

I'm an engineer and I understand most of the settings in isolation - what I don't have a billion hours to do is to understand how they all interact. That's what I want for a meta control - someone who does understand them to program the correct curves to make them work together in an intelligent way as I turn a higher order knob.
 
Last edited:
Incorporating some of the Tech Notes into so called Meta-Controls would be an interesting addition. Another approach could be to incorporate these controls on some of the FAS models as "authentic" controls for those amps. - the FAS Wreck/Express preamp bias control comes to mind.

As it stands the manual controllers together with the perform pages let you "roll your own". I've attached an example that uses manual controllers to sweep between B/M/T and GEQ settings on the USA Lead Mid Gain model so you can twist a knob to go from "smooth and creamy" to "aggressive and tight". Similarly, another manual controller scales the delay feedback and time using an inverse relationship so that shorter delays have more feedback and sound "dense" while longer delays feature fewer repeats for less clutter.

Of course as it stands not every amp block parameter will support modifiers, which is where a curated "meta" set of controls would be useful.
 

Attachments

  • Manual MK IV.syx
    48.2 KB · Views: 3
Those were just additional EQ controls from what I remember...

That was the unit I learned about midi controllers on. I was waiting more than a year for Musician's Friend to get them in stock after ordering when they were brand new...
Yeah, they just renamed the bands to reflect what they do. I had an ART SGE Mach II for a minute when it was released but sold it for Ibanez RG760 when they added the Lo-Pro Edge. 1992 I believe? The ART was ahead of its time for sure. I remember drooling after the 2000.
 
Yeah, they just renamed the bands to reflect what they do. I had an ART SGE Mach II for a minute when it was released but sold it for Ibanez RG760 when they added the Lo-Pro Edge. 1992 I believe? The ART was ahead of its time for sure. I remember drooling after the 2000.
It was pretty cool... Except for the preset loading gap (Same as it ever was!).

I discovered (on my own) "morphing" sounds with an expression pedal (courtesy of my X-15) since the SGX supported something like 12 simultaneous controller assignments.
 
Back
Top Bottom