Mic preamp models vs Neve 1073

strabes

strabes

Experienced
Vendor
Love the Axe-FX, it is honestly a life-changing product. The last piece of the puzzle for me has been the mic preamp section. I'm comparing a Neve 1073DPA to the Axe-FX III's mic preamp models which I've been using for the past few months. To me the Transformer mic preamp model sounds closest, with the drive at roughly 7 (pushing it to just below clipping) and the saturation at around 2 (higher than that adds too much odd-order harmonics for my taste). But the Neve clearly has some great sounding distortion/saturation (and therefore compression), as well as a smoother high end (not just a low pass filter), all of which combine to form what some would describe with annoying buzzwords like "mojo," "analog warmth," etc. Regardless, this has a big effect on how tracks sit in mixes and I'd love to duplicate this internally with the cab block's mic preamp section, but have so far been unsuccessful.

Here's a short demo recorded using the looper block placed between the amp+cab blocks. All I did was set the mic preamp model to "none" for the first clip and run it through the Neve, and in the second clip it's set to "transformer" with the drive+saturation settings above. All other settings are the same: https://www.dropbox.com/s/poad706vu4x6bpv/2023-01-20 neve.m4a?dl=0

Any help would be appreciated!
 
The lack of a mic input with phantom power is one of the more puzzling omissions in the Axe-FX III. Right up there with a lack of Bluetooth, a sample rate converter, an input clipping LED, and a USB A port. It's probably a safe bet the Axe-FX IV will remedy that.
 
I don't think "Transformer" type has ever been explicitly said to be the model of Neve 1073, so there may be a fundamental difference.
Maybe you could try the Dynamic Distortion block to add distortion/saturation that mic preamps often exhibit. Here's Leon Todd's demonstration of that block:
 
huge difference yep. But the Neve cost the price of the 3 . As @km 202257 said, don’t know if the “transformer” is supposed to mimic this one. I have asked to have more details about the mic preamps we have in the axe but I never been answered. (In the days fractal update the “tape” ones)
 
deathbyguitar said:
Imagine getting an SSL G bus compressor model and then using the Axe as outboard mixing hardware. Can't imagine this will ever happen because it's WAY outside of the scope of what Fractal ever indented. But damn that would be awesome.
Click to expand...


I think there would be very limited demand for a hardware emulation of outboard gear for two reasons. 1 - there is already so many in the box plugins that model darn near any channel strip, compressor, mic pre etc from UA, Waves, Slate Brainworx et al, and they all do a really good job, and given most people are working on a DAW anyways, running out into a hardware box that is just a software emulation anyways doesn’t add anything and probably has more drawbacks in terms off additional latency to content with and such. Two - I think a majority of those who run outboard gear probably want the real hardware. Real mics, real channel strip etc, just for bragging rights, impress clients and such. Why buy a $2500 hardware box with a G Buss comp when you can spend the same money and own the real thing?

As such, if your adding mic pre, 48v phantom power etc to the Axe, your adding a lot of cost and complexity and have to ask if that appeals to the target market which is guitar players.

It’s just like how technically I’m sure the unit could run a really good virtual synth rivaling anything on the market, but then how many people want both a high end modeling synth and a guitar processor ?

I think the focus seems to be making it the best guitar processor possible and let’s other brands deal with things like synths, outboard gear, FRFR monitor systems etc.

Not because FAS couldn’t do those things, but because they choose to focus on one thing and being the best at it.
 
lqdsnddist said:
As such, if your adding mic pre, 48v phantom power etc to the Axe, your adding a lot of cost and complexity and have to ask if that appeals to the target market which is guitar players.
Click to expand...

The Axe-FX III is specifically designed for the purpose of, as it says on the product page, "The Center of Your Music Workstation". It has all that I/O so you can connect multiple things to it, and a mic is one of the more likely things you'd want to connect. That's why the Helix and QC have mic inputs with phantom power.

If we're talking about the FM3 though, I'd agree with you. It doesn't make as much sense there.
 
I don't really need phantom or any additional hardware capabilities on the axefx, I'm just trying to duplicate internally in the cab block mic pre section what I can do with my hardware mic preamps so I can free up the mic pres for other things and take that same sound on the road without bringing the hardware pres.
 
la szum said:
I made Wishlist request for that.... and some Compressor Modeling, too. :eek:
:eyes:
Click to expand...
I'd love to see a Urei LA3A modeled. Especially since it's a favorite of a lot of the very top mix engineers out there. I'd also love to use my Axe Fx 3 like an eventide H3000/H9000 in my home studio. Presets designed for vocals, drums, etc.
 
It would be a massive hit in the recording world if cliff modeled some studio gear to the same level as the current guitar amps. I like to run my guitar after the axe through a neve, la2a, ssl g compressor, then RND 542 tape emulator. Sounds glorious. Obviously too much gear to use live but jammin in the studio, why not?!
 
I agree. In the same way that I know what a mic'd cranked AC30 sounds like and can instantly get what I want with Fractal because the amps are accurately modeled, I know what 1073/API 512/1176/LA-2A/CL1B/etc sound like and what they do, and for live use on guitar I'd prefer to just have models of those hardware units rather than playing the guessing game of trying to dial in, for example, a generic "optical compressor" to do what I can do instantly with the hardware or the plugin version.
 
Last edited:
These are fascinating requests, but I imagine everybody understands that this is a guitar processor. Not a mastering suite.

But … lol … I did master something through the fract recently using MBC, EQ, Verb.
 
∞Fractals said:
These are fascinating requests, but I imagine everybody understands that this is a guitar processor. Not a mastering suite.

But … lol … I did master something through the fract recently using MBC, EQ, Verb.
Click to expand...
Yes but it doesn’t have to be only one thing. I’m sure a 1073 style pre could be treated like a new amp model. An la2a could also be added to the amp models for the box tone, then if a new compressor model was added you could couple the two together, etc. seems like it would be similar to just adding some new amp and fx models, and then the axe fx could be the next big thing in the recording industry and fractal would have a whole new demographic of customers
 
Sorry guys i dont know nothing about the argument but i was wondering why anyone use the preamp section.. I ve tried after this post and with just a little drive level the sound is improving..
 
Fab8040 said:
Sorry guys i dont know nothing about the argument but i was wondering why anyone use the preamp section.. I ve tried after this post and with just a little drive level the sound is improving..
Click to expand...

To oversimplify: When recording a real guitar cabinet you use a microphone in front of the cabinet. Microphones need mic preamps to get them to proper recording level. Some mic pres (like those on most modern audio interfaces) are neutral and clean, with the goal of not imparting any of their own sound and capturing the "true" sound of the source material as clean as possible. While this has advantages in some scenarios, it can end up sounding "sterile" or "digital," especially as a bunch of super clean tracks in a mix begin to stack up.

In contrast, some mic preamps color the sound in a pleasing way, adding harmonic distortion, subtle compression, changing the EQ, smoothing out the high end (whatever that means), etc, depending on how hard you drive them. When you run direct with a modeler using an IR or some kind of cab emulation, you're recreating the paradigm of a mic on a cab. So using the mic preamp section in the cab block can help get some of that "vintage mojo" that comes from driving a colorful mic pre, like an API 512, Neve 1073, etc, without having to own any hardware mic pres or apply saturation with a plugin after recording. It's honestly not a gigantic difference when you blind A/B a single track, but stacking up a bunch of tracks in a mix makes a huge difference in the overall sound of the track, and it makes it much easier to mix.

The reason for my initial post is that I'm having a hard time recreating the same sound that I'm getting from my hardware pres. This isn't a big deal for recording since I can just use the hardware, but I'd like to duplicate them live without the hardware and it's proving to be difficult using the cab block's mic preamp section.
 
Last edited:
strabes said:
To oversimplify: When recording a real guitar cabinet you use a microphone in front of the cabinet. Microphones need mic preamps to get them to proper recording level. Some mic pres (like those on most modern audio interfaces) are neutral and clean, with the goal of not imparting any of their own sound and capturing the "true" sound of the source material as clean as possible. While this has advantages in some scenarios, it can end up sounding "sterile" or "digital," especially as a bunch of super clean tracks in a mix begin to stack up.

In contrast, some mic preamps color the sound in a pleasing way, adding harmonic distortion, subtle compression, changing the EQ, smoothing out the high end (whatever that means), etc, depending on how hard you drive them. When you run direct with a modeler using an IR or some kind of cab emulation, you're recreating the paradigm of a mic on a cab. So using the mic preamp section in the cab block can help get some of that "vintage mojo" that comes from driving a colorful mic pre, like an API 512, Neve 1073, etc, without having to own any hardware mic pres or apply saturation with a plugin after recording. It's honestly not a gigantic difference when you blind A/B a single track, but stacking up a bunch of tracks in a mix makes a huge difference in the overall sound of the track, and it makes it much easier to mix.

The reason for my initial post is that I'm having a hard time recreating the same sound that I'm getting from my hardware pres. This isn't a big deal for recording since I can just use the hardware, but I'd like to duplicate them live without the hardware and it's proving to be difficult using the cab block's mic preamp section.
Click to expand...
Thank you
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom