Question about the Mark series graphic EQ modeling

mr_fender said:
I like the idea of a second option for the Mark EQ. Perhaps separate ideal (current tapers) and authentic (true to hardware tapers) versions for folks that prefer either one.
Click to expand...
phil92 said:
A few people have requested or asked, even pleaded for an additonal Mark GEQ with closer to real world tapers, .... why the modeling accuracy ends at the GEQ is beyond me, seems like an arbitrary line.
Click to expand...

^
Exactly this.

---
Question, is request gatekeeping by other users a thing here?
You don't need another eq, we already have an eq at home.
 
phil92 said:
...why the modeling accuracy ends at the GEQ is beyond me, seems like an arbitrary line.
Click to expand...
One area where Fractal sometimes deviates from complete accuracy is in the taper of the pots. Many amp makers use a linear-taper pot for some of their controls. That’s an awkward choice. It results in a touchy control that’s useless over much of its range. Changing to a different taper makes the control more useful, and easier to control.

A prime example of this is master volume controls. As you turn up the knob, the volume is moderate and controlled — until you get to about 2 or 3 on the dial. Then the volume comes slamming out. As you continue turning it from 3 to 10, it doesn’t get a whole lot louder. This works great for the sales person in the store. You turn up a little bit and think, “Wow! This is a powerful amplifier!” But it’s just the taper fooling you.

Still, I understand the wish. It can be daunting to “use your ears” when you don’t yet trust your ears. People are going to try the settings that their favorite guitar heroes use. This wish would give them a shot at that — up to a point. Some of those controls are so touchy that if you’re off by even a tiny fraction of an inch, you could completely miss the mark. And pictures of rock-concert amp settings are notoriously shitty.
 
Rex said:
One area where Fractal sometimes deviates from complete accuracy is in the taper of the pots. Many amp makers use a linear-taper pot for some of their controls. That’s an awkward choice. It results in a touchy control that’s useless over much of its range. Changing to a different taper makes the control more useful, and easier to control.

A prime example of this is master volume controls. As you turn up the knob, the volume is moderate and controlled — until you get to about 2 or 3 on the dial. Then the volume comes slamming out. As you continue turning it from 3 to 10, it doesn’t get a whole lot louder. This works great for the sales person in the store. You turn up a little bit and think, “Wow! This is a powerful amplifier!” But it’s just the taper fooling you.

Still, I understand the wish. It can be daunting to “use your ears” when you don’t yet trust your ears. People are going to try the settings that their favorite guitar heroes use. This wish would give them a shot at that — up to a point. Some of those controls are so touchy that if you’re off by even a tiny fraction of an inch, you could completely miss the mark. And pictures of rock-concert amp settings are notoriously shitty.
Click to expand...
Alright but unlike the tonestack tapers the Output EQ models are easily changeable, the request is to ADD an eq with authentic tapers not replace the existing one, that's a Win-Win situation for everyone.
Again, the request is to ADD an authentic eq model without changing anything else, the default is still the current ideal "5-Band (Mark)" eq model.

Just look at the amount of views of this thread, everyone's googling the same question and finding this thread, the idealized eq slider tapers got people asking the same question for years "why the Fractal 5-band GEQ doesn't behave like my real Mark amp?"
 
Last edited:
TheRedDevil said:
But I want to copy the setting 1:1 and be sure that I got the sound on amp side.
Click to expand...
You might want to read this thread:

https://forum.fractalaudio.com/threads/why-your-amp-doesnt-sound-like-our-amp.172907/

Even if the controls were 100% accurate, they would be 100% accurate to the reference amp that Fractal modeled and not the one you're copying settings from.

Additionally, copying settings from someone else's amp doesn't mean you're getting their sound. You'd also need to have the same mic(s), mic placement, room, etc. Not to mention the amp bias, tubes, and more.

That topic has been beat to death over the years...
 
unix-guy said:
That topic has been beat to death over the years...
Click to expand...
On that you're right. 😆

This thread is not about manufacturing tolerances but about intentionally "fixing" the "wrong" tapers based on personal preference without providing the authentic option.

For example, Hetfield's and Petrucci's "extreme" settings might not be that extreme with the authentic behavior, but are WAY off with the current idealized 5-band Fractal model.
Understand that people have no idea that Fractal "fixed" the 5-band, they start by copying the settings from the pictures and wonder why the Fractal model sounds like a super scooped angry can of bees.

BkvfprY.jpeg


X05vjd6.jpeg


pet.jpg
 
Last edited:
I just want 90% not 100% and if this is really true, every electronic device would work different. I don't believe it.
 
James Freeman said:
Understand that people have no idea that Fractal "fixed" the 5-band, they start by copying the settings from the pictures
Click to expand...
Which is why a common mantra here (and in this thread) is "ears not eyes".

I get it, though... It's much easier to set things to match as a starting point.
 
Never trust your ears. I want something that is consistant. My ears are not consistant.

Thats why you prefer Unix and not Windows 😉
 
unix-guy said:
Which is why a common mantra here (and in this thread) is "ears not eyes".
Click to expand...
The 5-band is a very visual part of the Mark series, the visual shape of the GEQ has mojo even in a virtual model, that's one Englishman's teeth you don't straighten no matter how bad you think they are.

unix-guy said:
I get it, though... It's much easier to set things to match as a starting point.
Click to expand...
Which WILL sound way off with the current Fractal 5-band model.
 
James Freeman said:
Alright but unlike the tonestack tapers the Output EQ models are easily changeable, the request is to ADD an eq with authentic tapers not replace the existing one, that's a Win-Win situation for everyone.
Again, the request is to ADD an authentic eq model without changing anything else, the default is still the current ideal "5-Band (Mark)" eq model.

Just look at the amount of views of this thread, everyone's googling the same question and finding this thread, the idealized eq slider tapers got people asking the same question for years "why the Fractal 5-band GEQ doesn't behave like my real Mark amp?"
Click to expand...
What did I say that went against that?
 
TheRedDevil said:
Isn't this the easy way to achive the measurment values for Fractal without disassembling all amps?
Click to expand...

I'm speculating, if Fractal so chooses and their 5-band model is accurate to the schematic, changing form S-Taper to Linear sliders is quick and doesn't require re-measuring the amp.
Still speculating, there is always the possibility that the 5-band is a generic eq with adjusted Q values, in this case it might not sound right even with linear sliders.
All I know for certain is I wish for an option with the authentic behavior no matter how wonky it is.

Rex said:
What did I say that went against that?
Click to expand...
Nothing, your post was very informative.
 
But what is the reason that Fractal seems not to be interested in this requirement by their customers? Is the programm code so different, that nobody knows about it or what? As Fractal I would not be happy to have a thread on top of the forum about the unreal usabilty of Mesa amp EQs in AXE FX. I want that Fracal is successful. Please don't ignore customer satisfaction for this topic. Thank you and all the best!
 
James Freeman said:
The 5-band is a very visual part of the Mark series, the visual shape of the GEQ has mojo even in a virtual model, that's one Englishman's teeth you don't straighten no matter how bad you think they are.
Click to expand...
+1 - and if we're gonna actually name a geq model "mark", seems logical to follow the authentic to ref amp taper as an exception to standard practice, particularly given that the visual aspect of the taper seems to be a big part of its widely known character.

I get the whole tolerance variation thing, but I don't think it's enough to invalidate this particular request.

"ears not eyes" - a once useful term now given all kinds of stretched meaning -"ears/eyes/brain" (in this case, eyes take hi priority).
 
Last edited:
unix-guy said:
I've never heard of them disassembling an amp...
Click to expand...
Of course they do.
How else would they measure B+ node voltages, transformers, pot tapers, etc. etc.
I know Fractal's approach to modeling is mostly schematic based but they do take reference from their real amp.
 
Last edited:
James Freeman said:
Of course they do.
How else would they measure B+ node voltages, transformers, etc. etc.
Click to expand...
I'm not a tech, I don't know.

What I said stands: I've never heard of them doing that as a very active member here for 10+ years.

I certainly don't think Cliff took apart his Dumble... Or Satch's personal amp, or Austin Buddy's Ojai.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom