"Real amps just have something modelers can't replicate"

sprint said:
Can't resist momentarily coming out of posting sabatical:

Kinda, sorta agree, ..., but, I still can't seem to get around these old questions to myself:

1. If there are not material differences, how is it that so many past, recent, (+probably future) Axefx FW releases can offer so much regular significant modelling accuracy improvement, with so many experienced users clearly hearing material differences, and then (in new FW threads) applauding (+ verifying by some who know the real amps well) the progression / evolution toward 100% bang on? - My logic tells me there can be only 1 answer: "there were still material differences", and, "there likely still are material differences" (reminding myself that there've been dozens of times over the past 15y we said: "can't get much more accurate than this!", only to have a new release drop that raises the accuracy bar yet again with clear audible / feelable differences).
Click to expand...

I think the zenith of all this is pretty close now. but once all the audible and feelable differences are ironed out, there will be the improvements in UI to make the sounds accessible to everyone using an amp. There is still a job to be done.

sprint said:
2. How could the physical tube amp market thrive as it has been (particularly new modern amps with embedded tech (ie Revv / 2Notes) popular with new younger players) if modelled representations of those same amps are completely accurate. Again: only one set of answers adds up: the market for those physical amps would not thrive if modelling was totally accurate - they do survive because: "there are still material differences for enough players".
Click to expand...

Not sure it's quite that. If I had a short-notice blues gig tomorrow, I'd take my old Princeton Reverb and a couple of pedals, or maybe my Tone King Imperial. If I had a big room and a rock band at similar notice, probably one of my old Marshall half-stacks. Not because of the material differences, but because I'd want something instant, physically present, where I could just turn knobs. I would not need to put any time into it, and it might not be exactly what I wanted to sound like, but a tried and tested formula that's easy to access. Fractal would need a little more time in sound check (for me at least), and in an ideal world, a bit of time in the rehearsal room where the rest of the band isn't pressuring me for time. For younger players, that approach of just plugging in and turning some knobs to get a great tone must appeal, and for the price of an Axe FX III and FRFR system, you can get a pretty great sounding physical amp.

sprint said:
I know, I'm not using my ears, just whats between them - sorry, I think that counts too.

(from the mouth of a basement hacker who started with modelling/FR many years ago, and, despite no lack of trying or $ spent, never got real amp/cabs (or even other modellers for that matter), to sound as good to my ear as my Axefx (even compensating for AITR room by routing Axfx thru physical cabs and/or physical tube amps into IRs ... (a somewhat reversed tube amp snob pov, but nonetheless, an "I logically conclude there are still differences imo" pov))
Click to expand...

Your points are really valid. But would I try to turn the bass player from our band onto Fractal? Probably not - I have to turn the knobs on the front of his amp to help him to get a sound he's happy with. Singer and rhythm guitarist? Jeez, no way, :fearscream: he's still working towards understanding both channels on his old Peavey Classic 50 4x10 combo. There will be a place for traditional tube amps for a long time yet!

Liam
 
Rick said:
Nothing is for everybody. I kinda wish people would stop inferring there is something wrong with a person that prefers amps, and just thinks they sound better. I say that as much as I kinda wish people who play only traditional amplification would stop inferring that there is something wrong with people who play modelers. I love my Fractal gear, and I love my amps. Not selling one for the other.
Click to expand...

Before modeling came around, the big debate was PCB versus "point to point," which usually meant eyelet or turret board and not actually P-T-P, which was a rats nest on most production amps and phased out very early on in the world of tube amps. And Mesa/Boogie was the reigning king of "Spending more time tweaking than playing." Then modeling came of age, and suddenly nobody was worried about PCBs or board mounted tube sockets anymore. If it had even a starved plate 12AX7 just for marketing purposes, it was still superior because toobz.

People are funny that way.
 
Budda said:
@sprint think about the marketing budget and timeline of tube amps compared to modelling compared to fractal.

If you can convince someone their “team” is the right one, the stats no longer matter.
Click to expand...
Totally agree 👍 -

The most relevant observation for me is: Fractal regularly improves accuracy of models compared to real deal, and we clearly hear the differences - which means: there were / are differences. That's not emotion or preference speaking - that's a reality of what a lot of experienced guitarists here hear with their own ears - and we have hi confidence that Fractal knows exactly where + what the margins are between physical and modelling realms .

Tho I think this shows there are differences still, I don't think there is anything that modelling could not eventually replicate.
 
Last edited:
sprint said:
Totally agree 👍 -

The most relevant observation for me is: Fractal regularly improves accuracy of models compared to real deal, and we clearly hear the differences - which means: there were / are differences. That's not emotion or preference speaking - that's a reality of what a lot of experienced guitarists here hear with their own ears - and we have hi confidence that Fractal knows exactly where + what the margins are between physical and modelling realms .

Tho I think this shows there are differences still, I don't think there is anything that modelling could not eventually replicate.
Click to expand...
Just to say it, that last sentence is an article if faith, not fact. How is that a knowable thing?

I do think Cliff knows his stuff, has an incredibly detailed ear, and an endless drive to improve, which is all i need to know.
 
Dave Merrill said:
Just to say it, that last sentence is an article if faith, not fact. How is that a knowable thing?

I do think Cliff knows his stuff, has an incredibly detailed ear, and an endless drive to improve, which is all i need to know.
Click to expand...

There are plenty of people out there who post that modeling is "99% there," or a similar number. I guess we could view it as Cliff spending quality time in that one percent.
 
I’d be really curious to see Fractal’s take on captures if they ever decide to go down that path. If their approach mirrors what we see with the Quad Cortex, where captures tend to edge out the modeling in realism and versatility. I could easily see FAS delivering something that’s truly indistinguishable from a real amp, especially through proper amplification and speakers.

I think most people would agree that the Quad Cortex shines more in the capture department than with its models, and the flexibility that brings is hard to beat. If Fractal were to integrate something like selectable or variable tone stacks (instead of fixed B/M/T controls) for captures, that would pretty much eliminate my one gripe with the format.

A revamped AxeChange with a dedicated captures section would be absolute heaven.

That said, my Axe-FX is still hands down the best piece of guitar gear I’ve ever owned. I also enjoy my Quad Cortex for the ease of dialing up instant, great-sounding tones with captures, it’s fun having both tools in the toolbox.
 
????? My modeler does something (many things) that a real tube amp can't replicate!!! Great tones are easy but if I'm smart enough or rather have the patience, there's almost no tone I can't nail and unlimited new original great tones can be found.

Love tube amps and still own a few that haven't been powered up in years but for the most part they are a one trick pony... the Axe Fx is a million-trick herd!!! Definitely the best pallet of sound to paint with that I have had the pleasure to own!
 
I love Fractal. But I think there are a handful of models which seem pretty spot on, a ton that are quite good, and then a few that sort of miss the mark. Bell curve.

I’m recording some metal songs, and I spent way too long trying to dial in the right boosted Recto tone on my Axe. It should be pretty simple. But in the mix nothing sounded quite right. I bought a real 2-channel older Recto and bam, the tone was instantly there and it worked great in the mix. Took literally less than 10 min to dial in. Why is that? User error? Maybe, but I dialed in the real Recto just fine. And I’ve tried many presets. The real amp just worked better in the recording. And this is with using the same IRs for Axe and real amp, so that’s not the variable.
 

"Real amps just have something modelers can't replicate"​


Are you referring to routine maintenance or fear of modern tube failure?
 
Shask said:
I think since you are playing both into IRs it makes it more similar. When you run both into an actual cab the differences are more apparent.
Click to expand...
Did that with some amps and modelers, all going through the same physical cab of mine since over a decade so I'm quite used to it. Sold my 6505 plus and Invective now, only kept my 410h and some other amps but they all collect dust since I own the Axe III. This didn't happen when I got my Boss GT1000 or Line6 Helix because something was missing. The Axe sounds and feels fantastic enough to me...
 
Real amps do have something the Axe FX doesn't. They have a power section, so you can just hook them right up to a cabinet and play. Kinda neat, huh? I hear they even build the amps right into the cabinets some times and call it a "combo." Wild.
 
I don t have new gen Fractal units and don t have serious 100w head but, from all vids that i have seen about amps and digital units i accept the point of view that digital on current day, can t, and сhoosing at the moment thing that would give me a max i definitely incline to the choice to the amplifier side

​

 
I think there are people who earnestly believe this, and not always due to any kind of bias. A big part of it is that they're comparing apples to oranges, such as when they're running their modelling rig at a different volume than their tube rig. Or they're running one as AITR and the other as FRFR,

Some of it boils down to teaching new tricks to old dogs. Some of us have spent decades learning the nuances of dialing in conventional pedals and amps, and even though a lot of that knowledge translates to modelling, it's still a different paradigm, and some learning curves are steeper than others, or steeper for others.

Some people won't ever be able to get where they want/need to be with modelling, and that's fine, but I don't think it's a shortcoming of the tech or an analog-vs-digital thing. If you don't have the desire or persistence to reach the same level of proficiency with a new platform, it's convenient just to label it as inferior and call it day.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom