Part II: Things learned comparing AXE-FX to Bogner Blue Chan

[austinbuddy]

Hi everyone,

Some of you have reviewed a prior thread of mine as I A/B test my AX FX to my amps at home, this picks up on that.... in that earlier one I created some patches to emulate my Fuchs clean on overdrive sounds. Lotta prelude data there:

viewtopic.php?t=22836

Spent some time this weekend trying to nail the Blue Channel of my Bogner 101B Ecstasy, have early model (serial #104, funky characters that you have to decipher) with EL 34s. Ran the Bogner through a 4 X 12 with Greenback speakers, and mic'd it with an SM 57 just off the cap. My Bogner settings are:

Excursion: tight
Bright: off (N)
treble about 2
Middle about 1.30
Bass about 10.30
gain at 1.30
Gain structure set to 'High"
working in A/B mode, "new" pentode sound
OVERALL BOOST -- OFF

Tweaked and tweaked the Bogner patch attached, running through two (use BOTH) atomic wedge monitors, with tweeter down a little to 11ish. To get those to sound more like speaker cabinet, My global EQ rolls off about 6db of 63K and about 2.4 of 125, and about 1db of 8K.

The rest is PEQ tricks and Filters. Note the "rolloff" feature in feature (overlooked often) is pretty powerful to smooth out harshness when boosting, here in the 1-5k range...

*Note that I use the AXE FX Bogner Blue amp BOOST switch for a little more gain of a bassier kind and to simulate the "gain structure" switch being on high. I have found in AXE-EDIT that it will switch OFF on you while you fool around with other parameters, so if you lose gain, go back and click the BOOST switch toggle on/off so it resets to "on." * Guess should probably should let Matt P. at Fractal know about that one bug...

Anyways, this is a "ballsy" rock and roll sound for humbuckers (I used a Collings I35 w/Lollars, bridge pickup). It's not a "metal" patch, going more for vintage here.

In cab settings, used the AIR controls and an SM 57. Did find you could tweak it up switching from the 4X12 25W, 30W, Greenback, and V30 settings. Turns out (why I don't know) got closer using the 30 watt cab emulation than the "greenbacks" like I actually am actually trying to emulate (go figure).

I tried using my eyes on this for awhile....ran AXE and Mic'd Bogner via SM 57 into Garage Band and then Multibox spectrum frequency analyzer Plug-In to compare the curves as A/B'd via floor pedal between AXE-FX and Bogner 101B. Interesting... the Bogner had a smoother curve overall at first than the AXE FX Bogner Blue. The Atomic Reactors wedge speakers reproduced more bottom end so had to dial out some with PEQ and Filters plus add some high-mids to replicate.

But my eyes were fooling me too, you have to listen, use your EARS....trying to set the AXE FX tone controls to duplicate the exact Bogner settings did NOT get me there.... played with presence control, tone controls, advanced page, and tried to get closer....maybe fumbling in the dark a little here but seemed to work. Still a "noobie" and constructive advice on cleaning this up or getting even closer to Bogner is welcome!

As said in last post, this gets me in the 85% ballpark, enough to use live situation instead of schleping amp....in some ways the AXE FX sound can grow on you more than the amp sound! Cliff really did nail an amazing amount of the sustain and dynamics when playing, those were very hard to tell between the Bogner and the AXE-FX, it was just hard to get the frequencies to match up.

Happy New year too!

 

[Scott Peterson]

Re: Part II: Things learned comparing AXE-FX to Bogner Blue

Now this is exciting. I'll hook up the rig here and dig in.

You are right in my wheelhouse now man! Dig it!!

 

[austinbuddy]

AXEFXPart II: Things learned- dialing Bogner Blue & Clean Ch

Juts spent a few hours trying to get the Bogner Clean channel dialed in, which I think is based on a Black Face Super Reverb with mids. Attached is the results of my labors. Rremember my Global EQ (above).

Bogner excursion on tight, presence on 2, Clean boost ON, Pre EQ on B1, Treble at 1 o'clock, mid at 10 (simulates Fender level, got from Bogner forum), bass at 11, and (important) volume is at 1 BUT gain is at 9 (using GAIN as the master volume, clean headroom).

I used a Strat with vintage noiseless pickups for this one, and A/B'd it to a 2 x 12 with G12-65H's from the Bogner 101b. Same testing procedure as above (Garageband, spectrum EQ comparisons, A/B back and forth ,fiddle fiddle fiddle). Used SM 57 on 2 X 12 cab plus on the patch cabs, found combinations of EVL with SM57 and 4 X 12 with 30W with Royer, but blended in less volume, worked best.

Found that for my EARS, not EYES, the AXE FX Mesa Boogie Clean Channel Amp worked best, not the Fenders (always liked how Mesa Boogies thickened up Strats!) to get to the Bogner clean.

But am puzzled about something I can't seem to dial out no matter what tinker with... let me see can articulate this in a way that makes sense (Cliff, Tom, Matt are you listening?) the AXE FX sounds GOOD and it approximates the timbre very very very well, BUT on the real amp the single notes have a

1) definition -- they are more "out in front" of the attendant harmonics (or to put another way, the AXE FX has more pronounced attendant harmonics)
2) a sweeter mid-range (and "warmth?")

that in contrast to AXE FX it feels like you don't get the note piercing through on the fundamental string being played, with the other frequencies (harmonics etc.) in back ground -- the Fractal AXE FX seems to have a higher presence of surrounding frequencies of lows and highs for any given note,/attached to that note, but not the extra sweet mids that really make the note stick out (or maybe I just could not make it work on this one patch laughing!)....

Please that does NOT mean it sounds "bad" at all, in fact, in many ways to my ears. I AM BEGINNING TO LIKE IT BETTER, but it s clearly different than tube amp in that regard in running through Atomic Wedges (gotta dial those tweeters back a little for single coils!). Using a lot of PEQ to boost mids gets too harsh too quick... although pulling out frequencies (so under 0 db in areas) and boosting overall volume to recover level seems is better than adding frequencies above 0 db...gets nasally and harsh quick.

HELP WANTED: I am no techie expert ....fiddling with knobs to dial in tone maybe it's "wrong" but it would be a HUGE contribution to this forum if someone out there Has the secret sauce THAT really focuses the mids in the sweet land/warmth, and puts the lows and highs a little more in the background... does that make sense? GIVE IT UP IF YOU GOT IT!

Thanks all!

 

[gittarzann]

Re: Part II: Things learned comparing AXE-FX to Bogner Blue

Thanks a bunch man !!

I really like that dirty preset and sooo appreciate someone that has the amps in hand and spending the time to dial stuff in..then sharing !


Thank you so much.

 

[Scott Peterson]

Re: Part II: Things learned comparing AXE-FX to Bogner Blue

You asked for another view, so here's where I am with those same two amp blocks.

I have attached 'stripped' versions of each to not clutter the discussion. You'll notice these are amp/cab/reverb. I left a drive block on the Blue which matches what I like from the XTC Blue with Boost ON. You'll notice I have no PEQ, no drive after the amp, no EQ, nothing special at all. The IR matters in the EXTREME to being even and sounding right. I use reverb uniquely, mostly early reflections and mixed down so low you can't tell it's there... till you take it out.

On my presets, I use RedWire Mix for the IR. I am using a hi-res mono cab (both of these presets use the same mixed IR). On all of my Bogner amps I owned, they always relied on Vintage 30 speakers in all my Bogner cabs; so I approach them that way.

Here's the formula to plug into the MixIR on the Red Wire site:

V30 Ref Mix4
Uberkab-V30-TC30-CapEdge-0in.wav,0.05
Uberkab-V30-SM57-CapEdgeOffAxis-2in.wav,0.85
Uberkab-T75V30-TC30-Back-12in.wav,0.05
Uberkab-T75V30-TC30-RoomL.wav,0.025
Uberkab-T75V30-TC30-RoomR.wav,0.025

My global EQ is flat. Nothing special needed. The output level might seem low compared to what you have here; I run mine low in relation to the clean presets I run so the output volume on all my presets - clean to heavy - is even. I turn it up/down in the amp block in the 'level' control.

My Bogner XTC Blue preset has a bit more gain, but sounds very similar in character to what you have. That's good (for me and you!) in regards to your 'in the ballpark' tone-wise compared to the analog amp. I too use the "Boost" in the drive section, but I always cranked my Ecstasy up a bit on the Blue channel to where it was more my taste. Keep in mind that I tend to roll off the volume on my guitar most of the time, I use the guitar's volume to change up the dynamics and tone a lot.

You'll note that I have more stock settings than you do, but I tend to dial the mids up and keep the presence and treble lower in the amp tone stack EQ.

My presets are done for my guitars; both of these presets are done for a bridge humbucker.

I don't find the same issues in terms of the highs/lows and feeling separated from the tone.

Have a try at them; compare my settings to yours. Remember to flatten out your global EQ.

[attachment=1:rg6j67jz]XTC Blue Stripped SP.syx[/attachment:rg6j67jz]
[attachment=0:rg6j67jz]Shiva Cln Stripped SP.syx[/attachment:rg6j67jz]

 

[GiRa]

Re: Part II: Things learned comparing AXE-FX to Bogner Blue

Reminder for me. I'll check your patches out.

 

[austinbuddy]

Re: Part II: Things learned comparing AXE-FX to Bogner Blue

Scott:

You ROCK. This is a MUCH better sounding Bogner Blue XTC patch than mine, because you have captured the mids of the Blue XTC in a way I could not dial in.

And you did it "much simpler" than my patch. This is even before the speaker cab IR Mix/ change which really shines.

Totally agree, cabs are virtually 1/2 of the EQ of the sound, so that will be the next rabbit hole to go down...

(Have you noticed the Bogner Blue amp model defaults to tube bias of .25 rather than actual of .35? Wonder what story is on that?)

By putting a KLON centaur in front I lift some mids as well which helps fatten it up...

You have made me believe that the woofiness and treble can be conquered with the Atomic Reactors with this patch and a lot of IR mixing....and am seriously thinking of selling my Bogner XTC once all this gets dialed in!

Thanks for the TIME and effort to respond! You are a KING of all things AXE FX!

 

[Scott Peterson]

Re: Part II: Things learned comparing AXE-FX to Bogner Blue

Cool - glad you liked it. What's interesting is that we really were not far off settings wise at all between the two presets.

Yes I did notice the power tube bias and tried it all over the place; Reinhold always has a colder bias on his power amp designs - it feels stiffer, but helps to support that attack Bogner amps have, and it helps power tubes last longer. He claims the Shiva puts out 80watts (I think, typing that without checking) from 2 EL-34's. He also has a fan inside there to cool those things down, yet my power tubes in my Shivas always lasted over a year. I'm no tech, but it seems to me that it's just part of his 'thing' he does.

The IR mix posted comes after nearly a year and really extensive work on my part coming to understand and comprehend IR's and their usage at least in terms of speakers and the Axe-FX. The IR's do NOT add room, they do not add any sense of 'space' as I chased and chased space and depth with them... they add the sonic color (aka timbre) of what the speaker sounds like from different places, colored further by the mic choice and mic position. So when you see a mix like I do, it's more to capture the color or 'flavor' of what that speaker/cab sounds like from different places to give a better, more balanced representation of it's actual colored and flavored sound. It is vitally important to still have it cut and the 85% off axis SM57 you'll see in my "Mix4" blends (like coffee, eh?) is the best balance of cut/body that I've used to date. I use that early reflection subtle reverb (which really you don't 'hear' until you take it away) to add that 'depth' and space back.

In the past 3-4 weeks, I took a hiatus from most everything - left some long running projects, dialed back playing at church and only had a few jingle sessions - to reset, refocus, rethink, reassess and reboot my entire approach and mindset as if I was using the Axe-FX from a clean slate. One of the main thing that keeps getting my attention is that each amp model block needs to be approached individually. Conventions that work for one, very well might not work well for others. And it is true, at least in my experience, down to the individual amp model. Each and every one.

What you are doing - using your ears instead of your eyes - is the biggest key. And the hardest to logistically pull off in real life. We are creatures of habit; once something works once, we are inclined to do it again the same way. That was my biggest 'issue'. I had a hard time dialing up the XTC Blue for the longest time, at least one as good as I had when I had the Bogners. When I let go of trying to dial up the presence and treble and instead dialed up the mids; that was my epiphany with this particular block. This approach also works wonders with the Marshall voiced amps (Marshall, Cornford, Marsha, Brown) - treat the mids as your 'high end' and open up the treble and presence, but not the 1:1 way you would with an amp. With the greater range of gain offered in the Axe_FX controls, the 1:1 'set it like they set the amp' approach is doomed to failure in terms of accuracy IMHO.

All IMHO, YMMV.

And thanks for doing the real world comparison to the real thing; that's something I really would like to do myself but cannot. I am forced to rely on recordings done over the years to compare and contrast. Your posts and attention to detail is very informative and I enjoy reading and learning from your posts/threads. Keep up the good work!

 

[Smilzo]

Re: Part II: Things learned comparing AXE-FX to Bogner Blue

... the Shiva puts out 80watts (I think, typing that without checking) from 2 EL-34's

For a pair of EL34 80W are a hot hot bias... please, check!

 

[Scott Peterson]

Re: Part II: Things learned comparing AXE-FX to Bogner Blue

... the Shiva puts out 80watts (I think, typing that without checking) from 2 EL-34's

For a pair of EL34 80W are a hot hot bias... please, check!

Good conversation on this topic here: http://www.thegearpage.net/board/showthread.php?t=31327

I know. I am saying 'claimed' because that's what is claimed from the EL34 model (which is what I owned and preferred). But if you push up the bias on the Shiva model in the Axe-FX, it does NOT sound right to me. Leaving it cold DOES sound right to ME. So... there you go.

From the actual Bogner Shiva manual: "80 watt EL34 or 60 watt 6L6 Power Amp Section"

Keep in mind the Axe-FX Shiva is modeled from the KT-88 Anniversary model Shiva. From Bogner's site on the 20th Anniversary Shiva: "90 watt KT88 Power Amp Section"

I'll also mention this because it's personal to me: when I bought the Axe-FX, the most important thing was that I could 'get my Bogners back'; it was a deciding factor and getting a usable and accurate and GOOD Bogner tone from the Axe-FX has been of paramount importance to me using it and loving it. Speaking selfishly, without accurate Bogner models, I probably would not use the Axe-FX. Once Cliff added the Shiva and especially since he redid the Ecstasy, he basically created a perfect device for me - the Bogner 'thing' is essentially 'my' sound and the rock tones I gravitate towards using. Again, being selfish and honest, I needed a Matchless, Marshall (especially JCM800), Fender (Twin/Deluxe), Vox (AC30/Matchless) and Bogner. When he dropped in variants of those (Brown, BigHair where there from the beginning; then the Marsha models) he created - IMHO - the perfect piece of kit. (**Cliff didn't do anything 'for me'!!!! But speaking from MY personal, selfish perspective only here.***)

The Bogner models have always sounded good - the "Euro Red" has always been my main 'heavy' tone live and recording wise - and his reworking those models only made them better IMHO. So for me, getting my own Bogner presets 'right' through the firmware evolution has been Job #1.

Sorry for the personal rant/thread drift!

 

[yek]

Re: Part II: Things learned comparing AXE-FX to Bogner Blue

Thanks guys, great stuff. I've always found the XTC Blue difficult to dial in. And there are many variations: XTC 100, XTC 101, XTC Classic, XTC 20th Ann. Both of your efforts are better than mine.

but not the 1:1 way you would with an amp. With the greater range of gain offered in the Axe_FX controls, the 1:1 'set it like they set the amp' approach is doomed to failure in terms of accuracy IMHO

Do you use the active tonestack, Scott? When using the passive tonestack, the 3-band EQ should work exactly the same as the original amp. From the manual: "For those who prefer the classic passive tone controls that are found on most tube amps, the Axe- Fx has the option of using this style of tone control as well. Not just a crude shelving filter approximation, the Axe-Fx passive tone stack simulation exactly replicates the frequency and phase response of the classic passive tone stack. When using the passive tone controls the display will read out in traditional 0-10 style as opposed to decibel readings."
It's the active EQ controls that have an extended range.

BTW, did you try the RW KM84s already? KM84 (Capedge 2) works far better as a single IR without mic color than the TC30s IMO.

 

[Scott Peterson]

Re: Part II: Things learned comparing AXE-FX to Bogner Blue

Thanks guys, great stuff. I've always found the XTC Blue difficult to dial in. And there are many variations: XTC 100, XTC 101, XTC Classic, XTC 20th Ann. Both of your efforts are better than mine.

but not the 1:1 way you would with an amp. With the greater range of gain offered in the Axe_FX controls, the 1:1 'set it like they set the amp' approach is doomed to failure in terms of accuracy IMHO

Do you use the active tonestack, Scott? When using the passive tonestack, the 3-band EQ should work exactly the same as the original amp. From the manual: "For those who prefer the classic passive tone controls that are found on most tube amps, the Axe- Fx has the option of using this style of tone control as well. Not just a crude shelving filter approximation, the Axe-Fx passive tone stack simulation exactly replicates the frequency and phase response of the classic passive tone stack. When using the passive tone controls the display will read out in traditional 0-10 style as opposed to decibel readings."
It's the active EQ controls that have an extended range.

BTW, did you try the RW KM84s already? KM84 (Capedge 2) works far better as a single IR without mic color than the TC30s IMO.

No I do not use the active tonestack.

But I also do not find that the passive tone stacks are 1:1 with real life. Not in any case. My ears say different than my eyes on just too many amp blocks (well, all of them). Dial in a AC30 like you would it's analog counterpart, you'll need surgery to remove the ice picks from your ears. lol.

I've tried all the RW flavors; and like the TC30 better for what I want to do than the KM84's. YMMV - and it should. If we all just agreed on everything and used the same gear/settings/etc. then we'd all be eating bland food all the time too. Spice it up and do it your own style and your own way. I cannot and will not be using any one IR most likely; note my post above this one on it - I am approaching IR's now as 'color' recipes - mostly for cut, but enough body to make the musician (me) happy too. It's a balancing act; I've found my center balance point now.

IMHO.

 

[FractalAudio]

Re: Part II: Things learned comparing AXE-FX to Bogner Blue

My actual XTC has a Log10 pot for the treble which is an odd choice. Treble pots are usually linear and the Axe-Fx model uses a linear pot. The problem with a log-taper pot is that the treble does almost nothing for the first 50%. So you can't use your eyes if you want to copy the tone.

This is the case with several of the amp models. In these cases the taper used on the real amp is what I would call "a less than optimum" choice. I think in many cases the designer simply doesn't realize the affect the taper has on the locus. So, if I deemed the choice of taper to be "incorrect" the model uses the correct taper. The Bogner models fall into this category. The choice of a Log10 pot for the treble pot doesn't make sense so the model uses a linear taper which gives a smooth locus.

 

[Scott Peterson]

Re: Part II: Things learned comparing AXE-FX to Bogner Blue

My actual XTC has a Log10 pot for the treble which is an odd choice. Treble pots are usually linear and the Axe-Fx model uses a linear pot. The problem with a log-taper pot is that the treble does almost nothing for the first 50%. So you can't use your eyes if you want to copy the tone.

This is the case with several of the amp models. In these cases the taper used on the real amp is what I would call "a less than optimum" choice. I think in many cases the designer simply doesn't realize the affect the taper has on the locus. So, if I deemed the choice of taper to be "incorrect" the model uses the correct taper. The Bogner models fall into this category. The choice of a Log10 pot for the treble pot doesn't make sense so the model uses a linear taper which gives a smooth locus.

That fits my own personal pet concept - the actual amps modeled often have odd choices and components in their analog state that don't neatly fit into the paradigm and modeling philosophy/method/conventions that you (Cliff) dissect and disseminate it with. What we have to work with in the end is the result of careful choices made by the actual person/artist/engineer/mad scientist behind the modeling working with the physical analog thing being modeled. Exposing parameters allows us out here to explore other 'less than optimum' choices to further personalize/idealize these models to then create our own personal stamp on the tone and 'bend them to our will'.

One of the things the critics get their panties in a bunch over is that they cannot wrap their heads/ears around the simple edict: "Use your ears, not your eyes." I take that to a literal place, I actually close my eyes and move the mouse using the editor to further remove me from the actual 'turning up, turning down' physical reality so that I am forced to use my ears to seek out what I hear in my head.

 

[Matman]

Re: Part II: Things learned comparing AXE-FX to Bogner Blue

Nice work! Buddy, you might explore the different way that a 2nd PEQ in front of the amp can be used to shape tone. It can be used to shape what I think you are describing as "front"-ness.

Also, maybe with your set up, adjust the GLOBAL EQ to have a little rolloff on the low end, instead of having each patch compensate for it.

 

[austinbuddy]

Re: Part II: Things learned comparing AXE-FX to Bogner Blue

This is terrific feedback and am honored Mr. Fractal hisself Cliff weighed in here to share... overall it really reinforces Scott's mantra to use our ears and not eyes. Now we just need a custom designed hardware interface like the Ableton Live guys have with the 35+ guitar& amp parameters to dial in (laughing).

In the spirit of sharing, since Scott had his Red Bogner up, attached here is the one I dialed in best I could, it uses Scott's RedWire IR recipe above in this thread for slot #1 and a RWirez Royer G12M 1" cap Greenback in slot #2. I like to use the enhancer for fun. A Bogner is really dialed in for Celestion V30's from thefactory what I hear, but I like mine with Greenbacks and so "results may vary." Mine seems a bit woolier...in a good way....but honestly, I'm just a noobie trying to get my hands around this amazing tool. Also, mine is pretty early, Ecstasy101B serial #104, and it may be going up on EBay soon!!!

To me, trying to emulate amps is more of an instructive and rewarding exercise to to learn what it can do. Ideally, I can replicate my entire rig as exercise.... but the fun becomes when you start designing your own thing and using this as a tone design tool, much as Dweezil Zappa is doing so well. But then again, he apparently spends hours every night programming (to great ends I might add)! MatMan can attest...

Will also re-visit the global EQ back to neutral and juggle patches, since Scott does not adjust his, but I got too much "woof" in Atomic Wedges until rolled off 64H a good 6db, after all this is "recorded Guitar & Cab" simulation... not much "there" from guitars on the records I grew up with...

@MatMan -- thanks, PEQ in front of amp, hmmm... I hate to put anything between these Lollar pickups and the amp, not even crazy about pedals since they often cut out bottom end like tube screamers do <smile>. Care to share with us a PEQ pre-amp EFX suggestion?!?

 

[R.D.]

Re: Part II: Things learned comparing AXE-FX to Bogner Blue

Damn Yahoo .... double post ....

SORRY !

 

[yek]

Re: Part II: Things learned comparing AXE-FX to Bogner Blue

I should be able to.... then I should be able to....

I'm gonna say this once, even though I don't expect it to sink in very quickly. It took my kids awhile to get this, too. Regardless of your idea of what should be, you have no choice but to deal with what is. If that is not acceptable to you, then it is time to move on to another piece of equipment. You've been at this long enough to be able to decide whether the Axe-Fx does it for you. My money says it doesn't. And that's fine. No amount of complaining here is going to change that. It may not be fair, but life isn't always fair.

That's the essence of the message. It is true regardless of how you might feel about the messenger....

I understand folks who understand (as you clearly don't) that it doesn't HAVE to be 'it is what it is'. ASKING for things to be different (or even complaining about it) is different than saying 'I wish my dog hadn't died'. Exploring ways that it could work out better for others is not a bad thing.

+1

 

[austinbuddy]

Re: Part II: Things learned comparing AXE-FX to Bogner Blue

Wow... There a some real nuggets in this beyond what I expected with original post. Did not mean to stir things up!

To be clear, I am adjusting the global EQ because it seems to help the Atomic Wedges sound more like a guitar cab, not to compensate for the AXE FX in some way. I tried putting my IPod through them the other day "flat" per Simeons suggestion in other forum post, and they sounded really good that way, but with guitar it gets woofy. there is virtual no guitar information down under 63H anyway for most types of music save perhaps metal.

Live inAustin TX and plenty of tube amp folks here, but all that hear the AXE FX come away highly impressed. the Bogner XTC was elusive for me to capture but forum help has been great, and mine was an early model so Results can vary.

 

[electronpirate]

Re: Part II: Things learned comparing AXE-FX to Bogner Blue

Yeehaw.

Posted about 4 pages ago, and it's been a mess since then. Fun!

Regardless of the emotional responses, this is still an incredibly interesting thread. Even tho we have discussed LF to match the speaker, I cannot recall whether we actually have that listed in the WIKI. Might clear up quite a bit for those who hear something 'not quite right'. Just a thought.

I won't respond specifically to anything, as we should get back to the original thread. Those with problems with my posts should PM me and we'll hash it out there or with a quick phone call.

Which stock speaker is everyone using for the Bogner Patch? And anyone know what the LF numbers are for that cab to 'balance' that out?

Ron