Pick the real amp...

ML SOUND LAB said:
What's the lesson to be learnt here? We all had a 20% chance of guessing the real amp (1 out of 5) and 20% of us got it right (8 out of 40). It's exactly the average score. So as far as statistical analysis is concerned people can not tell the difference between the Axe-Fx and a real amp.
Click to expand...

I'd still like to understand what that "scratchiness" is. I can't hear any distinct Axe FX signature.
 
vangrieg said:
I'd still like to understand what that "scratchiness" is. I can't hear any distinct Axe FX signature.
Click to expand...
Based on this vote there's no "scratchiness" or "sonic imprint". You can have a different opinion but this is what the results tell us.

Throughout the years I've heard so many weird things said on several forums. Someone "having good ears" means nothing. F.ex. I've heard from people claiming to have "really good ears" that:
48khz is bad quality and the Axe-Fx should be 96khz. (most people have not heard anything better than 44.1khz in their life) IR's don't sound anything like a real mics. (It's been proven many times to be unnoticably similar) The latency on the unit is too much. (in many cases it's less than on real life rigs) Axe-Fx has a high end that sounds digital so FAS has cut all the "digital sounding frequencies" out but the end result is an inauthentic muffle. (...)
Click to expand...
Remember that just because someone wrote it on the internet, it doesn't make it true. :)
 
FAS Modern1 is fascinating amp and sound great - but IIRC from Cliff, it is modelled with some "virtual" high order filters that would be cost prohibitive in a "real" amp. This just simply demonstrates that modelling can surpass "real" amps, not just mimic them.
 
I wouldn't call myself a statistics expert, but my job does require at least a decent understanding of the subject.

As Mikko mentioned, 20% of responders stated that #3 was the real amp. As he pointed out, since there were 5 options, statistically speaking, if one were to blindly guess, you would expect to have a 20% chance of guessing the tube amp, which was reflected in the data of this small sample size of 40 responders. A larger sample size would likely be required to determine whether a difference exists, which brings me to my next point:

As musicians and guitarists, we're a VERY biased population. We listen to guitar ALL THE TIME because we are guitarists. We are more intimately familiar with guitar amp tone compared to the average listener. If the guitarists can't accurately discern the difference between the real amp and the AxeFx, then it would be reasonable to hypothesize that the general population most certainly can't hear the difference either. So even if we recruited a few thousand people (i.e. a larger sample size with enough power to discern a difference if it exists) to respond to this poll, I doubt the results would be much different. As musicians, while our audience may consist of other musicians, the majority of our listeners are non-musicians (if there is such a thing, I think we all have some music in us just waiting to come out, but that's a different discussion altogether...).
 
ML SOUND LAB said:
Based on this vote there's no "scratchiness" or "sonic imprint". You can have a different opinion but this is what the results tell us.
Click to expand...

I personally don't have a different opinion. Two people here claim that they do hear it. And the OP also stated that he knew someone who could hear it without knowing whether the sound is made using AFX or a real amp. Since it is quite possible that they hear something that I don't hear, my opinion may be wrong. It is also quite possible that only a handful of people can hear it. So it might be totally insignificant for practical purposes, but still there.
 
vangrieg said:
I personally don't have a different opinion. Two people here claim that they do hear it. And the OP also stated that he knew someone who could hear it without knowing whether the sound is made using AFX or a real amp. Since it is quite possible that they hear something that I don't hear, my opinion may be wrong. It is also quite possible that only a handful of people can hear it. So it might be totally insignificant for practical purposes, but still there.
Click to expand...
While I agree with this (something there that others may very well hear), the takeaway from this experiment for me is that this "sonic imprint" doesn't actually affect the perception of authenticity in the axe tones like everyone who says they hear it would have you believe. Hell the majority of voters chose am amp that doesn't even exist in the analog realm and that speaks volumes imo
 
vangrieg said:
I personally don't have a different opinion. Two people here claim that they do hear it. And the OP also stated that he knew someone who could hear it without knowing whether the sound is made using AFX or a real amp. Since it is quite possible that they hear something that I don't hear, my opinion may be wrong. It is also quite possible that only a handful of people can hear it. So it might be totally insignificant for practical purposes, but still there.
Click to expand...
I totally get what you're saying but ask yourself: Where's the proof? No one has shown us the scratchiness. No one has shown us the sonic imprint. Whenever we start asking about it we get A) no answer or B) told our hearing isn't good enough which is impossible for anyone to determine through an internet forum.

There are in fact people with really good hearing among us but based on my experience usually the people who say they have "good ears" are maybe a bit inexperienced and don't necessarily know what good hearing is. Let's start by saying that women usually have better hearing than men. (evolution: baby is crying, mother comes to help, baby survives, genes get passed on... something like that?) So show this comparison your girlfriend and see if she hears the imprint.

Hearing range (how low and high you hear) and sensitivity (how quiet can you hear) are important but in this case I would rank monitoring higher than that. You can compensate for bad hearing by compensating sensitivity with volume. Hearing sensitivity would reveal this imprint since guitar tones do not have a wide range. Just think about the distorted electric guitar sound. It's not very dynamic (= good hearing sensitivity not needed) and it ranges from about 100hz to 10khz (= wide hearing range not needed). Experience with guitar tones is something that does play a part but who's to say someone has more or less experience with guitar tones than the other and if the experience was valuable or not.

Out of all audio engineers out there have you ever heard Chris Lord Alge (the Yngwie Malmsteen of audio engineers) state that he has good ears?

deathbyguitar said:
I think the real takeaway is that good tone is good tone. Who cares where it comes from? Axe-FX has the goods and it's got it in spades.
Click to expand...
+1 on this!
 
The sound I hear is at the immediate attack/transient of the signal. Rather than a precise point, it’s a tiny slide/scrape, almost like a clipper would do in the DAW (that’s the best way I can describe it). It’s very subtle, obviously, and most folks will never hear it. I’ve used the Axe for several years now and I just think I’m tuned into it. It doesn’t mean it’s less convincing or bad by any means… just something ‘I think’ is audible and if you listen really close to all the amps, I think you might hear it as well. Other guys, like my friend I spoke of in a different thread, also seem to be able to hear it even without years of experience with the Axe… he’s only heard my productions and some famous bands that use the Axe. Oddly enough on this test he told me it was way harder to hear the difference. I attribute it to Q3 which seems to be the most bang on to the real thing and my way of dialing tones has certainly evolved since Q3… less internal tweaking/modding. If you listen to the end part, that is where I think the real amp is most distinguishable, IMHO. Listen to the single notes and the amount of rich harmonics in the chugging. Even with less high end detail, it’s still detailed. I think that’s noteworthy. Harmonics related?

Not looking to start a flame war here, I just thought it was really interesting to hear things in this context and the fact that folks didn’t point it out speaks volumes. The Axe is there for the vast majority of applications and tones. There IS room for improvement though. It will be subtle, but that last few % will be the game changer IME.


That being said, using a load box like the Rivera is not without its drawbacks. At higher MV levels (where it’s nice and chewy) there is less top end and low end detail so I have to add it back in later. But man, those chewy mids are fun! Lol. ‘Bouncier’. Also, there is a slight hint of phasiness that comes from somewhere. I hear it and it annoys me a little.

The amp in this test that gets the closest is number 1, imho. Funny enough, I think if I were to actually use one of these tones in my music, it might be number 1 or 2… NOT the Dual Rec. That says a lot. But, I’d be happy with any of them with the exception of #5 which is due to the amount of saturation at the end and lack of chewiness. I actually had to INCREASE the gain further than the other parts to get the intro to sound properly distorted but the end lost definition in the process, interestingly.


Also worth noting, the Dual Rec had the least gain in order to get the proper distortion/saturation for the intro and the end was still properly saturated. Also, it needed the least actual volume of all files which is probably due to that fact. When I play the amp directly (not reamping) I feel like I don’t have to dig in as much as I do with the Axe to get that nice thick pick attack.


Anyway, thanks for participating. I think this is healthy and fascinating! J
 
ML SOUND LAB said:
I totally get what you're saying but ask yourself: Where's the proof?
Click to expand...

Like I said in another thread, I've never seen it.

For me, it's a curiosity thing. I don't need proof that the sonic imprint, whether it exists or not, has no practical significance. I don't do recording, I play live. I know for a damn fact that there's no chance on Earth that somebody, golden ears or not, can tell whether I'm playing through a real amp or not, especially when I have a real stack sitting on the stage for looks. ;) Recording may be somewhat different when people listen to the sound knowing what to look for, through a pair of great monitors in a well treated room. Which is, on the other hand, a situation that has no practical significance again.

Moreover, I don't share the sentiment that sounding like a real amp is a good thing necessarily. I just don't care as long as I like the sound. Out of the five sample provided in this thread, I'd be totally happy with either one.

Yet it's a fun subject to explore, so why not? I'm curious. And maybe there is something indeed, and maybe that something could lead to yet another improvement of modeling, who knows.

Apart from curiosity, it doesn't matter. Even if AFX were half as good as it is, you couldn't drag me back to using tube amps live. I'm just not going back to hauling this stuff, dealing with crappy cabinets, ground loops, bleeding stage loudness, noise, hearing damage, all that stuff. No freaking way. :)
 
Last edited:
erockomania said:
The sound I hear is at the immediate attack/transient of the signal. Rather than a precise point, it’s a tiny slide/scrape, almost like a clipper would do in the DAW (that’s the best way I can describe it).
Click to expand...

Thanks for trying! I'll try to listen to it, maybe my ears aren't hopeless. :)

erockomania said:
Oddly enough on this test he told me it was way harder to hear the difference.
Click to expand...

Did he get it right?
 
erockomania said:
...There IS room for improvement though...
Click to expand...
I'm sure Cliff will continue to find ways to make the modeling better but I have to admit I've been really happy with the unit and it's authenticity for years at this point.

I'm not sure what to call this phenomena but let's call it "Reverse-Placebo". While I don't mean to say we've reached 100% modeling accuracy or that people are hearing things that aren't there, I do believe there's a Reverse-Placebo effect when you know something is a real tube amp. You start listening to it in a completely different biased way and you start hearing things that may or may not be there.

Taking blindfold tests yourself is good way to get your head straight. I do these with my band's guitarist. We don't tell each other which is which and f.ex. recently I preferred a PRS SE over a US PRS because the SE had newer strings. If I had knows one of those clips was a US PRS I'm sure I would've automatically started to try and find something in that US PRS clip that I prefer because I own three US PRS guitars. That's the Reverse-Placebo I'm talking about.

I've spent my time finetuning that pick/scratch dynamic A/Bing with the real thing and I think that has a lot to do with getting the master level set correctly. The power amp modeling is a lot more flexible on the Axe-Fx than on the real amps. It does a lot more so finding that spot where it does what the real life amp does at it's sweet spot may take some time. For a Recto it had to be seriously low (1.5) to match the real thing. F.ex. here's one comparison by my band's guitarist: Dual Rectifier Roadster vs Quantum Recto 2 (which are by the way not the same amp):



It's not 100% by any means but I don't think one sounds any realer than the other. The biggest difference is that you can hear the real amp almost feedbacking in the first clip. Here's a Mark IV comparison that's a lot closer:

 
Thanks for the comparison! These are always fun and blind is definitely the way to do it. I enjoyed the 2nd tone the most for this clip (as did most people it appears).

ML SOUND LAB said:
I'm sure Cliff will continue to find ways to make the modeling better but I have to admit I've been really happy with the unit and it's authenticity for years at this point.

I'm not sure what to call this phenomena but let's call it "Reverse-Placebo". While I don't mean to say we've reached 100% modeling accuracy or that people are hearing things that aren't there, I do believe there's a Reverse-Placebo effect when you know something is a real tube amp. You start listening to it in a completely different biased way and you start hearing things that may or may not be there.

Taking blindfold tests yourself is good way to get your head straight. I do these with my band's guitarist. We don't tell each other which is which and f.ex. recently I preferred a PRS SE over a US PRS because the SE had newer strings. If I had knows one of those clips was a US PRS I'm sure I would've automatically started to try and find something in that US PRS clip that I prefer because I own three US PRS guitars. That's the Reverse-Placebo I'm talking about.

I've spent my time finetuning that pick/scratch dynamic A/Bing with the real thing and I think that has a lot to do with getting the master level set correctly. The power amp modeling is a lot more flexible on the Axe-Fx than on the real amps. It does a lot more so finding that spot where it does what the real life amp does at it's sweet spot may take some time. For a Recto it had to be seriously low (1.5) to match the real thing. F.ex. here's one comparison by my band's guitarist: Dual Rectifier Roadster vs Quantum Recto 2 (which are by the way not the same amp):



It's not 100% by any means but I don't think one sounds any realer than the other. The biggest difference is that you can hear the real amp almost feedbacking in the first clip. Here's a Mark IV comparison that's a lot closer:

Click to expand...


The amp sounds way better to me in the Mark IV clip here. Maybe it's bias (I doubt it since I love my Axe) but these aren't very close to my ears. _/(°¯o)\_
 
Sacha said:
The amp sounds way better to me in the Mark IV clip here. Maybe it's bias (I doubt it since I love my Axe) but these aren't very close to my ears. _/(°¯o)\_
Click to expand...
I simply can't play that riff correctly. :D I'm palm muting every damn note. If I take a chord or chugg from both and measure them they're almost identical.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom