randomisation of deep parameters to emulate real world variances

yes, that's the sort of thing. only if they lend a positive character to the sound. i'm not suggesting cliff should add anything that makes it sound worse, of course...
 
I may be totally off base here, but I think that's the foundation of Cliff's design. You might refer to it as "organic". I suppose there is a reason they call it Fractal.
 
Also - should such a thing be implimented - if its an Off/On selection by the user - you can still elect to have the conistant Axe you have now. Its never about "you will" with fractal but "you can". Personally I think its a good idea providing its not too CPU intensive. i dont think it will be - after all it might be as simple as adding a random 2% variance to some of the modelled parameters that arnt user accessible - so simple random generation of those figures between two limits rather than having fixed values shoudnt be too drastic a CPU hit.
 
I think this could be achieved by having casters on your speakers and have someone roll them around the room while you play :)
 
I personally like the idea of a controlled random parameter generator in Axe-Edit (with a % control or similar). Undo & Redo would be necessary with this... Why not? :)
 
Radley said:
I personally like the idea of a controlled random parameter generator in Axe-Edit (with a % control or similar). Undo & Redo would be necessary with this... Why not? :)
Click to expand...

+1

I think it would be possible to develop a heuristic algorithm that would take two presets as input and generate new presets "in between" the two input. I'm speaking about AxeEdit too, not in realtime in the AxeFx :)
 
I don't know how applicable this is given what the Axe already does, but if it could have a noticeable effect on the sound and it was selectable as opposed to built in, then I say go for it. Why not have more options if they're possible?
 
I think what is randomized on a real thing is also randomized on the Axe - the parameters you can tweak are also (most of the time) tweakable fixed parameters on a tube amp, so this is not required / already in.
 
No offense but I think the amps sound perfect the way they are right now.Sorry for the photo but I couldn't resist :mrgreen
 

Attachments

  • 01-how-about-no-bear.jpg
    01-how-about-no-bear.jpg
    191.8 KB · Views: 27
Last edited:
I think they sound great, too. It wasn't a request as such... More like a topic for discussion.
 
Such a feature would not be changing any Amp's DNA, but it might save some people a lot of tinkering time by just using their ears instead of various parameters in finding sounds they like. Regarding the 'How about no?' comment/picture, I would say it should become a 'sticky' on this board, since it seems to typify the overall attitude to most new ideas.:) Over and out.
 
59Bassman said:
Please, no!

I can't tell you how many times I had an absolutely perfect tone in practice, or in soundcheck, and it turned to dog poo as soon as it was for real. Or how many times I've basked in the warm, velvety tones late one evening only to have the amp sound cold, sterile, and lifeless the next morning with the same settings everywhere.

I'm perfectly happy with the capability to dial up something I like, and have it be that way every time I flip the switch. :mrgreen
Click to expand...
Please, make it stop! This option has nothing to do with making the AFX unpredictable and sterile - If you like what you hear you simply save it and it stays that way forever, as it has been from the beginning...
 
simeon said:
this has been knocking around my brain for a few days now... real amps aren't perfect. maybe the next stage in modelling them is to build in some of the flaws and imperfections that surely occur in the real thing. perhaps one single parameter exposed to the user to switch from an "ideal", fixed model to a more "real world" model that has variances?

by variances, i mean something like a fluctuating power supply from the transformer. not things the user has any control over, but things which may occur in real amps and impart something to their character...

i don't know anything about real amps, or what goes on inside them...i'm just guessing here...
Click to expand...

I think it could be cool,and could make the sound even more interesting, but with the option to have it turned off by the user, when needed.. I love how my analog synths behave,(specially MiniMoog) or should I say, don't behave, and that's what makes them sound really interesting, but i cannot ever get there same sound twice.. :)
 
Guys - I really think there is a basic misunderstanding here: This feature would only be used when enabled by the user/programmer - if it is not desired, it is simply ignored...
 
I think it would make more sense to have a screen that provides multiple choices ... something like this (from Gimp), but instead of adjusting hue/brightness/saturation in the image, the multiple choice options would have to do with tone and dynamics.
filterpack.png
 
And I tend to think you are a rather rare idiot. So much for open-mindedness and helpful dialog - back to the regular programming... :)
 
Radley said:
Guys - I really think there is a basic misunderstanding here: This feature would only be used when enabled by the user/programmer - if it is not desired, it is simply ignored...
Click to expand...
Bingo. You hit the nail on the head, sir.


Radley said:
And I tend to think you are a rather rare idiot. So much for open-mindedness and helpful dialog - back to the regular programming... :)
Click to expand...
I'm not so sure. Scrutinizer may be onto something. Most of us are tossing out and evaluating ideas with an incomplete understanding of what exactly it means, and whether it's doable. Even Simeon, who started the thread, was pretty up-front about that.

Maybe "randomizing" would be a real-time fluctuation of something. Or maybe it would be what Scrutinizer seems to be leaning toward—a way to lock in which way the randulum swings.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom