Hi Cliff,
Not trying to beat the dead horse, but...
If you are able, could you please at least give us some firm guidlines for more accurately simulating the graphic EQ found on the Mesa mark series amps? As has been mentioned, there is still a definite need/desire for this, as the information circulating around regarding the calculated values does not seem to produce an accurate reproduction when put into practical use. I know that Shredi and I are not the only ones who would be incredibly grateful for your time and expert ears/knowledge in helping us to achieve a more accurate simulation of some of our most favorite amps. The exact bands, the Q (and how this changes with the amount of cut or boost), the way the phase changes with cut or boost... These are all things that very intelligent people like you understand how to work out, while the rest of us try to fumble around with using our ears and limited understanding. We've been fumbling for a while, but are still anxious for a better answer.
In the case of the request for an actual model of the Mesa EQ or for it to be coded into the USA and MIIC amp simms...
I understand that the Mesa EQ may not be elegant, but please try to understand that, warts and all, it is as important to that amp's overall tone as something as characteristic as its tone stack is. Perhaps because it *is* crude, clunky, or limited, it is that much more essential. Most of the things we as musicians love can be described by these words (tube amps in general), but this is part of their appeal. Remember, the EQ on this amp is being used more in a fashion akin to its basic tone controls than the way a recording engineer would look at sophisticated EQing in the mix. I can, in all honesty say, that if the graphic EQ should suddenly disappear off of the front of my Mark IV, it would render the amp unplayable IMHO. If I had to use only an external EQ to shape the tone after it had been recorded, it would yield a far different result. It is ultimately your decision, but one man's opinion is that it would be unfortunate to have gotten so close in so many other respects and to leave this particular stone unturned.
Why such a fuss? The reason such accuracy is important to me, personally, lies in how I use the Axe-Fx. For me, I've found my tone(s). I've achieved these with a number of real world amps and other gear. I'm not looking to reinvent any of this, but instead find a more convenient method of getting these sounds on record. So for me, the Axe-Fx is a tool I am coming to rely upon for direct recording (something that I would have never thought about doing for any serious project in the past). I know this is different for some others (lots of ways to use the Axe-Fx for sure), but this particular use is probably shared by a great many. Here, I think (once again, for my own purposes), that accuracy is more important than flexibility or even improvement. My ultimate desire is that my direct recorded tones match what my real-amps sound like when properly recorded using high production standards--no more, no less. I can say that your Axe-Fx has given me hope (where hope never dwelt) that this is where we can eventually get to.
Please understand that even if your ultimate answer is "no," that I appreciate your constant improvements and innovations.
Cheers,
-Matt
FractalAudio said:
Use the Parametric or Graphic EQ. FWIW, the EQ in the Mark series sucks. It's a crude, clunky and limited design. The EQ in the Axe-Fx is far superior and much more flexible.
If you need to, you can copy the Mesa EQ using the Parametric EQ block.
