Pick the real amp...

erockomania said:
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?
Click to expand...

So I listened to the samples through my IEMs and I think I now understand what you mean by scratchiness. In sample #3, I hear notes quite distinctly, while in other samples it's a mix of notes and some percussive, hmm, well, scratching. Does it sound like what you're hearing?
 
vangrieg said:
So I listened to the samples through my IEMs and I think I now understand what you mean by scratchiness. In sample #3, I hear notes quite distinctly, while in other samples it's a mix of notes and some percussive, hmm, well, scratching. Does it sound like what you're hearing?
Click to expand...
Correct!
 
Yeah hard to describe but I think I hear it.. yeah...
erockomania said:
Correct!
Click to expand...

Curious, do all the patches you used in the recording have one amp block only? or two?

Also could we have the DI? I Think I hear what you are talking about, like a "ggrrhg" sort of sound.
 
@erockomania would it be too much hassle for you to test ML's hypothesis about power amp modeling being the culprit here? Like plugging Axe with power amp and cab modeling disabled into your amp's return? And trying to lower MV?
 
AlbertA said:
I hear what you are talking about, like a "ggrrhg" sort of sound.
Click to expand...

It's interesting that this ggrrgh thing isn't awfully un-amp-y, real amps do this kind of sound for sure, the sound is totally familiar! The amount and the time when it happens and the mix are important here, I think.
 
Describing sounds sucks doesnt it? I have no clue what the grrgh sound is....

The first 4 for me were splitting hairs so much that they were virtually a tie for me. I guess the diezel stood out as having a different base tone.... as it likely does.

Where was the presence setting on these? I find that control is arguably the most important to nailing the original amp's tone. They were several patches on my axe (bought used) that sounded just plain dull, and it was always the presence being set way low. I typically set presence now BEFORE the treble and bright controls, which was just the reverse on real tube amps
 
Remember when Cliff figured out how to get the fizz and frying bacon sound on top of the amp sound? Maybe that's the scratchy sound people are hearing. I can hear a small amount of something on top of my high gain channels that sounds like a clipping crunchy sound in the background that I discussed on here before. I actually have heard it on recordings of real amps so I don't worry about it anymore and assume it's a tube amp thing and the Axe is a tube mimicking device.
 
erockomania said:
nope, then blamed it on his earbuds, then said "now that I can hear it properly... it sticks out like a sore thumb". lol

He HAD to admit that the axe was way closer than it used to be. SO, in short, he's turning the corner now, lol.

For the record, he picked 5.
Click to expand...
I think it's more instructive that even though we now know that #3 is the amp, it still doesn't stick out like a sore thumb.
 
vangrieg said:
So I listened to the samples through my IEMs and I think I now understand what you mean by scratchiness. In sample #3, I hear notes quite distinctly, while in other samples it's a mix of notes and some percussive, hmm, well, scratching. Does it sound like what you're hearing?
Click to expand...
The thing here is, if no one told you #3 was the real amp you wouldn't have heard it am I right? This is what I mean with Reverse-Placebo. Now that you know which clip is real you start listening and maybe even imagining things. The blindfold test gave you the real answer. Changing your opinion after getting the results is psychology messing with you.
 
ML SOUND LAB said:
The thing here is, if no one told you #3 was the real amp you wouldn't have heard it am I right?
Click to expand...

Maybe. Maybe not. Need a blind test for that. Perhaps I'll save the samples, mix them up randomly, and listen some time later, when I properly forget the original impression.

I think it could have something to do with master volume as you suggested. Maybe there's too much saturation during the attack.
 
So first off, I'm not a frequent contributor to this forum, but I do tend to read and follow the majority of the discussions
regarding the authenticity of the modelling. What has caught my attention lately when I compared the
5153 models to a real 5153 head was this "elusive" scratchiness in the attack, discussed here.

What I had done was connect the Axe to the return of the fx loop and disable the power amp modelling.
When switching between the two and chugging some chords (also on single notes - although to a lesser extent), it was
apparent that there was a lot more clarity in the low end and attack (the notes seemed to be "glued" together for a lack of a better term)
coming from the head than when playing through the axe. I'm not sure whether this can be attributed to some gain staging/signal path
differences between the two - maybe someone can chime in regarding some input parameters in the axe.

In any case, this effect seems to be quite similar to the one described in this thread,
so I thought I'd throw in my own experience with this matter. Also, I must say that I don't think
I would be able to hear this difference in a mix context. I think it could be easily mistaken for a difference in gain levels.
 
Wow! My answer was right!

Only... I actually had no idea which one was real. It was just a dumb guess and I thought I couldn't tell the nuances because I was listening on my iPad, but now I listen on my good monitors and still I cannot tell which one stands out :)

I think NONE of them stands out as the real amp, and all are different from each other and all are very good.

Also... I would be sad, as an AFX owner, if one of them really stood out :)
 
First of all: Nice riff!!!!

Followed this tread on an Ipad a long time without earplugs and was not able to listen on my monitors before I saw the answer.

On the Ipad:
- I could definitely NOT hear big difference (mainly EQ and the last amp was quite different)
- Would not have been able to pick the real amp
- liked the first 3, didn't like the last one (especially at the end)

Today I did listen to it carefully on my monitor speakers:
- Big differences in sound and tone in frequencies due to IR and some eq
- Although I hear a difference between 1,2 (AFX) compared to 3 (real amp) - besides eq - I would not have been able to pick and choose the real amp and it would have been a random choice to be fair

Very interesting to see how 5 different setups can be so similar (especially listing on an Ipad) and when listening to the details so different especially in at the end of the take 5 (diezel) as if the amp (or the preset) couldn't handle the attack and got mushy.

So bottomline (for me):

- even when I know that #3 is the real amp it's really realy close call I would not have been able to NOT RANDOMLY pick the real amp
- there is some distinguished difference which I can not describe yet
- but as these are all different amps and setups it can be everything (IR, EQ, chosen pedal, etc..)
- AXE FX is pretty close to real amp modelling if lots of guitarist already can not pick the real amp
- Interesting that an virtual (not existing) amp gets the most votes ;)

In respect of the REAL AMP versus AXE FX

- I do not hear a specific hiss or scratchiness, but I did find that #3 (the real amp) felt a little more clarity or harmonics difference in the starting phase in respect of the openess of notes but on the other hand some less nice lows and highs. But again, that can be lot's of things. Different amp, IR, EQ, Mic etc...
Too many things in the equation.

Very nice, open and friendly handled topic and thread!
 
Last edited:
all the clips sound really good. if they were mixed in a track you'd never know whether the amp was real or modeled. for recording the axefx can't be beat. i love it live too but a musician at one of my shows last week (without seeing what i was using) immediately commented i wasn't using a real amp.
 
It's been interesting to watch the responses here, as well as the statistical analysis on an experiment that has some fundamental flaws. The fact that everyone could see everyone else's answers is one of the big problems, and if I was forced to guess, I'd say that was the result of #2 having 16 "votes" (even though some weren't votes at all, just an acknowledgement that they "liked" the sound better -- which is neither a vote for or against the "realness" of the amp tone). This snowball effect is common when people can see the selections of prior voters.

From a "let's have some fun" perspective, yes, I get it. I'm not trying to rain on the parade, so let's not take it that way. Thank you.

The questions being asked in the OP and those being answered and addressed have gotten muddled. If the question is, "Does the Axe Fx make a noise that can be used, in context, to replace the noise made by a real amp in such a way that the casual listener would not notice," then the answer is a resounding "Yes" and has been a yes for a long time. I find this question largely uninteresting, and irrelevant in 2016. Professional bands have been using far less advanced modeling technology to record albums and perform live for well over a decade. Nearly two.

What also makes this question irrelevant is because so many recordings were made with low-end, cheap, terrible, poorly-maintained, and sometimes purposefully broken gear, that the standard for "can it be used on a recording" is incredibly low. It's a bar the Axe Fx hops over with nary a thought of it's existence.

The other question, addresses the idea of a "sonic signature" -- or "scratchiness" -- that a subset of listeners claim to hear. I'm far more interested in this question, for many reasons. While I do not hear a sonic signature myself, I do often question the initial attack of some of my sounds -- not all, and not even a majority. The best way I can describe it is a piezo-like quality -- that quacky-ness people often ascribe to piezo pickups. This is not an accurate description of what I'm hearing...it's just my best guess at a term that I can use to describe a certain phenomenon that I hear sometimes. And frankly, what I'm hearing may well exist when playing real amps too -- I'm just not experienced enough comparing the two to know.

I certainly do not claim to hear a "signature" easily or regularly enough to say that I could point it out "like a sore thumb" in a professionally recorded, mixed, and mastered work. I openly question those who claim they do, and were I a wealthier man, I'd commission a double-blind experiment to test my hypothesis. But I digress.

Regarding this "scratchy-ness" and whether it can be heard in solo'd tracks/stems. Well, there's the interesting question, and would require the use of the same IR, no post-recording treatment, and an effort to make the real amp and the modeled amp sound as close as possible. We would also need a range of gain settings, and would need to use a loop or pre-recorded guitar track to eliminate the effects of the variables of performance.

I would certainly be willing to put some effort into this kind of experiment, though it would largely be as scientifically meaningless as most, as it won't be double-blind, try to remove biases, and the sample size will be tiny. The problem that I have is that I simply don't have any "real" amps here in meatspace -- I've been Axe Fx for years now, because it has met my needs.

Still it's a question that I'd like to see addressed.
 
stm113 said:
I've been using the Herbert as my main amp live for a few months I dig it! I know this question Is probably a stale one but how close is the model in your opinion to your amp? Tone, behavior of the gain, feel etc...
Click to expand...
Hey stm113,

I would say it is close, but not 100%. It had definitely been improved upon massively in the Quantum releases. I believe Cliff mentioned that there were some improvements to the Diezel models?

In my opinion, I hear the biggest difference with the Herbert and AFX cranked in the room...note that I am running my AFX with CAB sims off into a Matrix PA,then into a Cab. The Herbert just feels more alive...it has this low end punch that wants to throw me across the room. I get this nice chewy feel on CH3 where I can really dig into the strings. The harmonics in the gain feel a lot richer, smoother and controlled. Mid-cut is also awesome...I know the trick to get this in the AFX, but it doesn't have the same impact for me.

I'm sure with some tweaking in the advanced parameters I could get the AFX closer to the Herbert, but that's not really bag...I like to leave the advance parameters and keep things simple i.e. concentrating on getting a good AMP and CAB sim pairing, then making some minor adjustments from there.
 
I couldn't tell which amp was the real one at all, but #2 was my favorite as it sounded the least "boxed in" of any of the amps. Relative to the 2nd amp, the other amps sounded kinda cramped and flat to my ears whereas the 2nd amp sounds more "free to breathe" and comfortable, if that makes sense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom