Ooooh... Charts and Graphs

Status
Not open for further replies.
I’m kind of on a different course than most of the previous posts here. I think it is everybody’s right to be critical of posted results etc. That’s what science is about (and more). If stated results and fact leave room for discussion or interpretation, by all means be straight about it. This will invite involved parties to disclose applied methods. IMHO there’s no reason to question the other party’s objective or motivation, it’s all good.
I'm all for questions and discourse, but there's a way to do that and a way not to do that. There's a reason it's called peer review and not anonymous persons on the internet review -- it falls apart if you have to fill in "gaps" in the reviewers knowledge just to put them in a position to actually understand the science. As for motivation, some parties laid it all pretty bare, no questioning required. @Rex pulled together a nice summary in the post above this.
 
Last edited:
The difference between the measured noise from 0 - 9 kHz (and 11 - 18 kHz) with the source on vs. off is the noise due to aliasing.

Sorry, @FractalAudio - one other thing. If the difference is purely the noise due to aliasing, surely you wouldn't see anything else - like the ground loop? Can you think of anything else which might be present, given that?
 
If you want to fill in gaps in your knowledge, the most effective method is to ask for knowledge, not to use your knowledge gaps to "prove" that someone is talking through his hat.

This is not necessarily true. I asked about the same questions politely, and it didn’t fill any gaps. @digitalscream ’s provocative tone worked like a charm though. :D
 
If doing these tests for yourself (or others doing them) are what you are after, what’s the point until the III is released into the wild? Because you still can’t compare anything? And do you really believe the Helix to be the pinnacle of modeling accuracy?
 
In the words of Tommy Boy, "You can get a great look at a t-bone by sticking your head up a bull's ass; but wouldn't you rather just take the butchers word for it?"

In this case, it seems if Cliff says its good, then I think I'll take his word for it. That kind is how the arrangement works. He's really smart regarding things I don't even pretend to understand, he uses that knowledge to produce a great product, I give him my money in exchange for that product, and I make what I subjectively consider pleasing music, and he makes what I hope is a very comfortable living.

I mean sure, it sounds like a great afternoon saying "hey kids, get in here and see if you can hear the aliasing?" and making sure everything is on the up and up, but I've sadly got a lawn to tend to.
 
Just make sure to not overdo it, or someone will shoot you or something. :)

Nah, I'm OK on that score. We don't have many guns in the UK ;)

If doing these tests for yourself (or others doing them) are what you are after, what’s the point until the III is released into the wild? Because you still can’t compare anything? And do you really believe the Helix to be the pinnacle of modeling accuracy?

I'm interested in broadening my knowledge and conducting tests on quite a few different units (I'm in a position where I can probably rustle up most of the available modellers if I really put some effort in...depends mostly on time), and that would start with at least reproducing the test Cliff did with the Helix to obtain a baseline. I'm also very curious as to what the result would be with a real amp...there won't be any aliasing, but would it show something else?

For what it's worth, I don't believe the Helix or any of the currently available modellers to be the pinnacle of modelling accuracy. Of course, that's from an academic standpoint; with my guitarist hat on, I actually don't care about any of this. That's because in a live situation, absolutely nobody cares and it's just down to two questions:

1 - Does it sound good?
2 - Does the workflow make my life easier than amp + pedals?

#1 is down to taste, and #2 is personal preference depending on the player's tap-dancing capacity (mine is...limited, to say the least). Any of the current top three modellers (I don't count the Headrush, because it doesn't have much of a pedigree yet) can easily satisfy those requirements for different people...all of them can for some folk, and for others they never will.

In fact, I'd go so far as to say that I actually don't care about any modeller's ability to mimic real amps accurately; I just want to know if I can get a good sound out of it that makes me want to play more.

So there you go...that's my own personal context.

Finally...having re-read my initial comments in this thread, I probably came across as rather more combative than I intended. I'm going to put that down to a combination of me being really quite ill at the moment, and the fact that I was born with a love of a good argument. I suppose some folk might go back and edit them to try to strike the right tone, but...that sounds like an awful lot of work for little gain, and I wouldn't want to make anybody change the opinions they've already made of me ;)
 
Nah, I'm OK on that score. We don't have many guns in the UK ;)



I'm interested in broadening my knowledge and conducting tests on quite a few different units (I'm in a position where I can probably rustle up most of the available modellers if I really put some effort in...depends mostly on time), and that would start with at least reproducing the test Cliff did with the Helix to obtain a baseline. I'm also very curious as to what the result would be with a real amp...there won't be any aliasing, but would it show something else?

For what it's worth, I don't believe the Helix or any of the currently available modellers to be the pinnacle of modelling accuracy. Of course, that's from an academic standpoint; with my guitarist hat on, I actually don't care about any of this. That's because in a live situation, absolutely nobody cares and it's just down to two questions:

1 - Does it sound good?
2 - Does the workflow make my life easier than amp + pedals?

#1 is down to taste, and #2 is personal preference depending on the player's tap-dancing capacity (mine is...limited, to say the least). Any of the current top three modellers (I don't count the Headrush, because it doesn't have much of a pedigree yet) can easily satisfy those requirements for different people...all of them can for some folk, and for others they never will.

In fact, I'd go so far as to say that I actually don't care about any modeller's ability to mimic real amps accurately; I just want to know if I can get a good sound out of it that makes me want to play more.

So there you go...that's my own personal context.

Finally...having re-read my initial comments in this thread, I probably came across as rather more combative than I intended. I'm going to put that down to a combination of me being really quite ill at the moment, and the fact that I was born with a love of a good argument. I suppose some folk might go back and edit them to try to strike the right tone, but...that sounds like an awful lot of work for little gain, and I wouldn't want to make anybody change the opinions they've already made of me ;)
Helix designer fishing?
 
Looks like rant of insanity instead of not so ignoRANT imo. As I said above he seemed to have an agenda.

Well, he says a lot of weird stuff and doesn’t get many things right. But since he clearly details what he’s doing it doesn’t matter much, just ignore his conclusions and look at the data.
 
:tearsofjoy:
Perhaps this wouldn't appear so unseemly if the party in question wasn't shilling a GoFundMe page for contributions to fund an AxeFxII purchase...you know...for further studies and comparison vs. his Helix. Hold on...let me get my credit card out. :tonguewink:

:tearsofjoy:
 
I've skimmed through his other articles. An eq match to convert humbuckers to single coil and vice versa. Deleting mic eq curves from a signal. These are things that have been discussed for years here on the forum. The difference with his alien, I mean aliasing article is that most of the aliasing write up has been cut and pasted from google. Same style dramatic comments in between and some data from his own supposed methods and findings.
Much information, many words, much drama, NOT much common sense = Modern day internet tyke.
 
I've skimmed through his other articles. An eq match to convert humbuckers to single coil and vice versa. Deleting mic eq curves from a signal. These are things that have been discussed for years here on the forum. The difference with his alien, I mean aliasing article is that most of the aliasing write up has been cut and pasted from google. Same style dramatic comments in between and some data from his own supposed methods and findings.
Much information, many words, much drama, NOT much common sense = Modern day internet tyke.

Just ignore the irrelevant stuff.
 
Ok... I just read that. Interesting... But, even not really knowing the complex stuff involved, there were a number of things in his methods I would question.

But ultimately, this quote from the article sums up my trust level:

But honestly – I have no idea. So half an hour later and half a dozen googles later I come up with a basic (very basic) idea of what foldover aliasing actually is.
 

What? This dude struggles to get one measurement right because of his lack of basic knowledge in the subject. Summary of his verbose, badly communicated article: He chronicles how he keeps getting the measurement wrong because of his equipment and technique, until the very last graph.

The only graph worth a salt is the very last one which goes to prove Cliff's finding, high-ish aliasing noise in the Helix across its amp models.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom