Real EVH 5153 vs Axe Fx 5153

I

indeloon85

Inspired
I have a question about real amp vs axe fx amp sims, mainly the 5153 sims.

Today I was building patches for a live show with my axe fx ii that I have yet to play with live. I've mainly used it in the studio, with the obvious incredible results. Obviously I am PRO Axe Fx or I would not have shoveled out the money to get one. I used the Ultra for a very long time, live and studio, same setup as below.

That being said, my setup for live is the common Guitar->AxeFx->FX Loop->Real amp (Effects Loop Return), (PA OFF). Pretty basic. I can get all the sounds I need to with effects pre and post amp, no worries about adjusting gates for different volumes, etc. So again, today was my first day using the Axe II with a real amp. I am powering it with my 5153 power section into my 5153 cab, after trying a number of amps, this seemed very suitable, tonally, for what I was using and going for.

Finally, I wanted to experiment with how the Axe II's 5153 sim compared to my real one. I'm on FM17 now, like most people. My results, a bit different than what I expected.

Granted, I know amps can vary but from what I was getting was a bit more difference than I expected. Being that all I was simulating with the AXE II was the Preamp section, I figured the Power amp section would react the same? It seemed like my amp had a little more compressed sound at the same settings, little gurthier, just a bit more "alive" sounding. I never thought that that was what the axe II was lacking until I A/B'd them.

Again, I am PRO Axe, the thing is amazing with all the sounds it can get, but I am curious if this is because of the PA just being off and something is missing between the Preamp sim, and my 5153 Power section, maybe between the 2 sections, something is missing? Would this mean (dare I say) that the 5153 sim may need to be redone to get it closer?

I dunno, either way, I wanted to know your thoughts. If you've a/b'd a related amp sim with a real amp or whatever. Thanks!
 
The first thing i can think of is that matching levels exactly, within about .1dB or less if possible, at your (the very same) listening position, is the only way to do the test. It is also important to use the same prerecorded direct signal in each case. since even slight performance differences will throw off your subjective results.
 
BillyZeppa said:
The first thing i can think of is that matching levels exactly, within about .1dB or less if possible, at your (the very same) listening position, is the only way to do the test. It is also important to use the same prerecorded direct signal in each case. since even slight performance differences will throw off your subjective results.
Click to expand...

Well, in this case, I wasn't recording or finding recording tones with the AXE or 5153. I was just standing in the room, same settings (as close as I could have gotten them) and playing. The feel and tone weren't drastic, but I would argue that it was definitely noticeable to an untrained ear.
 
At the same time, I have the say the AXE didnt sound bad or anything. It just had a bit more presence (again, settings the same on both AXE and Real), note articulation, and the low end (for a lack of a better term) had girth but more of a digitally induced girth (if that makes any sense). I think the note articulation was something that set both apart for the most part, being that I feel anyone could tell whether one was the AXE and one was the Real amp IMHO.
 
You can not eliminate the simulated power amp, so there is a doubling of that section.
 
Unfortunately I have to agree with you. The 5153 model in the axe is pretty different than the 100w 5153 head I had. I don't know if they changed the 5153 at one point and the axe is modelled on a newer version, but mine distorted differently than the axe. I had one from the first year of production.
 
I have a 5153 100w here. I can test the real thing connected to a two notes torpedo passing the uncabbed signal to the daw and the axe-fx 5153 with no cab to the daw and put the same cab sim on each.

I wouldn't put the same setting on both because that doesn't make much sense. Tolerances of tone and gain knobs can be significantly different. I would just make them both sound as close as possible with the basic settings.
 
acidfrost said:
Unfortunately I have to agree with you. The 5153 model in the axe is pretty different than the 100w 5153 head I had. I don't know if they changed the 5153 at one point and the axe is modelled on a newer version, but mine distorted differently than the axe. I had one from the first year of production.
Click to expand...

Ya, the model I have is also from the first year of production. I've heard that they changed after the first year production, but always thought it was just people that wanted to feel cooler because they had a first year production model. I'm glad you agree though, so its not just me who experienced this.

Again, in no way do I feel this takes away from the Axe, since it does everything I've ever needed in an amp. And yes, I probably could just tweak it, but I thought the simulations were 1:1, so I figured it would be "spot on". And of course, in a live setting, no one will care/know the difference, just something I figured I would share for some feedback. Thanks!!
 
javajunkie said:
I have a 5153 100w here. I can test the real thing connected to a two notes torpedo passing the uncabbed signal to the daw and the axe-fx 5153 with no cab to the daw and put the same cab sim on each.

I wouldn't put the same setting on both because that doesn't make much sense. Tolerances of tone and gain knobs can be significantly different. I would just make them both sound as close as possible with the basic settings.
Click to expand...

I'd be curious about what your test results reveal. Seems like a good test to try it.

I started out with the settings 1 for 1 because I've read in the forums that the knobs in the Axe are supposed to be 1:1. I think I've even read Cliff saying this. I did tweak a little (Bass/Mid/Treb) to get it a little closer, but nothing to my avail.
Also, as Acidfrost stated, I do get that, amp to amp, tones will be slightly different and thats just the nature of real amps. And yes, maybe the one that was simulated was just by nature different sounding than mine.
 
indeloon85 said:
Ya, the model I have is also from the first year of production. I've heard that they changed after the first year production, but always thought it was just people that wanted to feel cooler because they had a first year production model. I'm glad you agree though, so its not just me who experienced this.

Again, in no way do I feel this takes away from the Axe, since it does everything I've ever needed in an amp. And yes, I probably could just tweak it, but I thought the simulations were 1:1, so I figured it would be "spot on". And of course, in a live setting, no one will care/know the difference, just something I figured I would share for some feedback. Thanks!!
Click to expand...


No two amps are one to one. They are 1 to 1 to Cliff's 5153. Caps and pots have tolerances of sometimes 10-15%, usually less some times more. add all these variations up and you can get a significantly different result with the same settings. You have to use your ears here. If you signal level to the poweramp section is different from the sim and the real thing, you are likely going to get a differing amount of compression. Also, if you had your Axe-fx presence turned to anything but 5 (even w/ poweramp modelling off) , it will change the signal dramatically. 5 is neutral. There are other things that alter the tone as well. It is not just a simple as turning off poweramps sims and setting the preamps the same.

Global menu: Power Amp Modeling


  • Cliff: "If you turn off power amp modeling always check the Presence control. It changes from a "classic" control to a shelving type where 5.00 is neutral. I just spent an hour trying to figure out why this preamp model I am working on wasn't matching. Forgot to set the presence control to 5.00."Source
  • Cliff: "If you shut the power amp modeling off from the Global menu it is not exactly the same as turning it off by setting Supply Sag to zero. This is because the virtual power amp always runs. So if you shut the power amp modeling off from the Global menu the supply will still sag resulting in a more compressed response. If the Master is set high the sag can be quite pronounced." Source
  • Manual about switching off power amp simulation: "In this mode, MASTER works as a simple volume, DEPTH is deactivated, and PRESENCE turns into a simple shelving filter."
 
javajunkie said:
No two amps are one to one. They are 1 to 1 to Cliff's 5153. Caps and pots have tolerances of sometimes 10-15%, usually less some times more. add all these variations up and you can get a significantly different result with the same settings. You have to use your ears here. If you signal level to the poweramp section is different from the sim and the real thing, you are likely going to get a differing amount of compression. Also, if you had your Axe-fx presence turned to anything but 5 (even w/ poweramp modelling off) , it will change the signal dramatically. 5 is neutral. There are other things that alter the tone as well. It is not just a simple as turning off poweramps sims and setting the preamps the same.

Global menu: Power Amp Modeling


  • Cliff: "If you turn off power amp modeling always check the Presence control. It changes from a "classic" control to a shelving type where 5.00 is neutral. I just spent an hour trying to figure out why this preamp model I am working on wasn't matching. Forgot to set the presence control to 5.00."Source
  • Cliff: "If you shut the power amp modeling off from the Global menu it is not exactly the same as turning it off by setting Supply Sag to zero. This is because the virtual power amp always runs. So if you shut the power amp modeling off from the Global menu the supply will still sag resulting in a more compressed response. If the Master is set high the sag can be quite pronounced." Source
  • Manual about switching off power amp simulation: "In this mode, MASTER works as a simple volume, DEPTH is deactivated, and PRESENCE turns into a simple shelving filter."
Click to expand...

Ok, Thank you for your feedback JavaJunkie! I will definitely take that information into consideration the next time I try to sit them together.
 
I actually had this setup and was able to get the Axe to sound better than the 5153 Imo so I sold the amp. Just keep messing with the Axe you'll get there.


V__09A1 (3).jpg
 
I leave the PA setting on using the above stated method for the same reason...it just seems to add a little more girth and oomph. Like it's been stated many times before, I set my AxeFx using my ears and not how the settings would be on a real amp. Very true that 2 identical amps can have adifferences from slight to extreme. Turn the PA setting on and see what results you get...all in all,the AxeFX is awesome anyway you look at it !
 
Last edited:
I did an initial test on channel 3 and they very close with mine. I'll try to get a recording up later.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom