Real Mesa TC100 vs AF3 into guitar cab - looking for advice

laxu said:
Purely solid-state poweramps like the Matrix might be more problematic as you will need to rely more on matching the poweramp modeling on the Fractal to your real cab.
Click to expand...
I'm with you on this. I'm using a Crown K2 for my 'basement rig' when trying to create something that can replicate my JMP-1 and 100/100 tube power amp. But I'm just not able to create the same low-end response (yet!).
What I am trying to wrap my head around is - why is the QC doing a better job at capturing low end response, when I'm feeding both the Axe3 and the QC the identical output from my Fractal LB-2.

Only things I haven't tried yet is the 'US' setting on the LB-2. I've used UK setting (since I'm using a 4x12 cab filled with V30s).
And I have not tried doing the Tone Match using pink noise. I've been doing 'live tone match' using a guitar.
So more stuff to play around with I guess....
 
A few days ago, i hooked up my FM3 to the FX return of my Engl amp to compare it to my PS170 power amp
It was like 98% identical (FM3 with power amp modelling off), so i think its fair to say - the solid state power amp is not the problem.
So, maybe you need to tweak more in the preamp or try another amp model - for me, everything works right now :)
 
@Rekster - curious how things are going for you?
I have been looping and flipping back and forth (as best I can) and I think I'm 98% of the way there.
I did a tone match (using load box) and it helped quite a bit.

I tried with the stock JMP1 (no tone match) and got very close as well.

With the Tone Match version - I found that playing around with the Speaker Impedance Curve was very impactful (and very necessary).
Once I got close using that, I played with other advanced power amp controls, just twisting any knob to see what it may do.
Xformer Match was one that I liked (changing).

With the non Tone Match version - I had to tweak a lot of the output Eq. That was a quicker way to get them 'close'...then I used the advanced power amp controls again, to get even closer.

I'm pretty much at the point where it doesn't matter which is which. The Axe is replicating my JMP1 closer than another JMP1 likely would.
 
BBN said:
@Rekster - curious how things are going for you?
I have been looping and flipping back and forth (as best I can) and I think I'm 98% of the way there.
I did a tone match (using load box) and it helped quite a bit.

I tried with the stock JMP1 (no tone match) and got very close as well.

With the Tone Match version - I found that playing around with the Speaker Impedance Curve was very impactful (and very necessary).
Once I got close using that, I played with other advanced power amp controls, just twisting any knob to see what it may do.
Xformer Match was one that I liked (changing).

With the non Tone Match version - I had to tweak a lot of the output Eq. That was a quicker way to get them 'close'...then I used the advanced power amp controls again, to get even closer.

I'm pretty much at the point where it doesn't matter which is which. The Axe is replicating my JMP1 closer than another JMP1 likely would.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately I'm not having much luck here. Now that I made sure the preamp tones were virtually identical through the TC100 power amp, I switched back to my A/B setup and I simply can't get them to sound the same. There's frequencies that are simply lacking or overly represented with the Matrix and as much as I adjust every setting possible I just can't get it to respond the way I'd like. There's also a harshness through the Matrix, and I hate to use the term but a warmth through the TC100. I'm honestly running out of steam tweaking things here. As much as I enjoy this stuff I'm not getting anywhere, wasting time and losing sanity. I might give up on the notion of the Matrix ever being able to accurately reproduce a tube power amp. I was literally so frustrated I started looking into trying a Mesa 2:90 to run as a power amp instead of the Matrix. But unfortunately Mesa discontinued the 2:90 power amp now!!! This AF3 might end back into my studio to be used for recording purposes like it was originally. I'm stubborn so I'll probably keep fiddling a bit more but if it takes this much effort perhaps it's just not meant to be. :)
 
Rekster said:
Unfortunately I'm not having much luck here. Now that I made sure the preamp tones were virtually identical through the TC100 power amp, I switched back to my A/B setup and I simply can't get them to sound the same. There's frequencies that are simply lacking or overly represented with the Matrix and as much as I adjust every setting possible I just can't get it to respond the way I'd like. There's also a harshness through the Matrix, and I hate to use the term but a warmth through the TC100. I'm honestly running out of steam tweaking things here. As much as I enjoy this stuff I'm not getting anywhere, wasting time and losing sanity. I might give up on the notion of the Matrix ever being able to accurately reproduce a tube power amp. I was literally so frustrated I started looking into trying a Mesa 2:90 to run as a power amp instead of the Matrix. But unfortunately Mesa discontinued the 2:90 power amp now!!! This AF3 might end back into my studio to be used for recording purposes like it was originally. I'm stubborn so I'll probably keep fiddling a bit more but if it takes this much effort perhaps it's just not meant to be. :)
Click to expand...
Interesting cuz here at my home music room I have a set of FRFR cabs and a set of Mesa 112 guitar cabs. To power these I have a Matrix Gt1000fx and a pair of little solid state EHX Magnum 44 Pedal amps. I've probably swapped around the Matrix / Magnum 44s 10X between the FR cabs and Mesa Cabs and always come back to having the Magnum 44s power the Mesa Cabs for a warmer sound - same thing - Matrix just sounds cold on the guitar cabs where as the FR cabs seem to take the Matrix more easily.
 
sprint said:
Interesting cuz here at my home music room I have a set of FRFR cabs and a set of Mesa 112 guitar cabs. To power these I have a Matrix Gt1000fx and a pair of little solid state EHX Magnum 44 Pedal amps. I've probably swapped around the Matrix / Magnum 44s 10X between the FR cabs and Mesa Cabs and always come back to having the Magnum 44s power the Mesa Cabs for a warmer sound - same thing - Matrix just sounds cold on the guitar cabs where as the FR cabs seem to take the Matrix more easily.
Click to expand...

I just switched my setup back over to the 4CM that I was experimenting with before and that gives me the best solution for now. I can set up a preset to use the genuine TC100 preamp/poweramp if I'd like. I can still use preamp tones from the AF3 in other presets, and not to mention all the world class effects as well! Since the TC100 has MIDI I can even have my presets change amp channels as well. I'd prefer the FM9 for this setup at some point, if I can ever get my hands on one. But my studio can live without the AF3 for the time being... :)
 
So shouldn’t the axe power amp modeling be brought into question here? The matrix should just be flat no?
 
Rekster said:
Unfortunately I'm not having much luck here. Now that I made sure the preamp tones were virtually identical through the TC100 power amp, I switched back to my A/B setup and I simply can't get them to sound the same. There's frequencies that are simply lacking or overly represented with the Matrix and as much as I adjust every setting possible I just can't get it to respond the way I'd like. There's also a harshness through the Matrix, and I hate to use the term but a warmth through the TC100. I'm honestly running out of steam tweaking things here. As much as I enjoy this stuff I'm not getting anywhere, wasting time and losing sanity. I might give up on the notion of the Matrix ever being able to accurately reproduce a tube power amp. I was literally so frustrated I started looking into trying a Mesa 2:90 to run as a power amp instead of the Matrix. But unfortunately Mesa discontinued the 2:90 power amp now!!! This AF3 might end back into my studio to be used for recording purposes like it was originally. I'm stubborn so I'll probably keep fiddling a bit more but if it takes this much effort perhaps it's just not meant to be. :)
Click to expand...
You might wanna consider the Fryette LXII, if you're thinking tube power amp. 1 space, 6L6...tons of punch. Does wonders paired with an Axe FX if you're looking for that extra punch or resonance that a real head gives you.
 
Well, I would like to add to discussion, that we tried once in studio with 8 different guitarists, plus producer and studio owner my ax3 Mk2 with matrix 800, 1000 and my fryette ps-2.

Everyone of us agreed, that fryette ps-2 just sounds better, no tweaking needed at all.

Each one of us who was there, tried all 3 power amps with his own guitar, own patch and the result was still the same..

The producer is one of the best in our whole country ( if not the best ;-D ), he has ears I have great respect for.

He tweaked every single parameter for straight 30-40 mins, 10-15 mins spent on speaker page only :D .. and we were switching, comparing and listening for differences.

The result is that the matrix simply sounds less organic, more boxy or congested, especially in low mids, it has somehow more bass, but does not punch as nice as fryette (think 50-60hz matrix vs 100-110hz fryette punch). PS-2 is 50W tube power amp, matrix 1000w solid state, but that´s very misleading, it just felt weaker overall for 1000w power amp.

Based on this experience I would say you will never achieve the response you want with matrix, even if Cliff says, he can make his matrix sounds dead on to tube poweramps - based on this we tried our test and none of us could replicate that. YMMV of course, but for us, the matrix is big NO 👎

Edit : Important thing to mention - you need to raise output volume on matrix to at least 2:30-3:00 - we did comparison at that volume with our findings. If you lower the volume on matrix, it sounds even worse.
So it´s not really for playing at low volumes or enjoying at home, whereas fryette is amazing at whispering volume.
 
Last edited:
Thomas Obester said:
Well, I would like to add to discussion, that we tried once in studio with 8 different guitarists, plus producer and studio owner my ax3 Mk2 with matrix 800, 1000 and my fryette ps-2.

Everyone of us agreed, that fryette ps-2 just sounds better, no tweaking needed at all.

Each one of us who was there, tried all 3 power amps with his own guitar, own patch and the result was still the same..

The producer is one of the best in our whole country ( if not the best ;-D ), he has ears I have great respect for.

He tweaked every single parameter for straight 30-40 mins, 10-15 mins spent on speaker page only :D .. and we were switching, comparing and listening for differences.

The result is that the matrix simply sounds less organic, more boxy or congested, especially in low mids, it has somehow more bass, but does not punch as nice as fryette (think 50-60hz matrix vs 100-110hz fryette punch). PS-2 is 50W tube power amp, matrix 1000w solid state, but that´s very misleading, it just felt weaker overall for 1000w power amp.

Based on this experience I would say you will never achieve the response you want with matrix, even if Cliff says, he can make his matrix sounds dead on to tube poweramps - based on this we tried our test and none of us could replicate that. YMMV of course, but for us, the matrix is big NO 👎

Edit : Important thing to mention - you need to raise output volume on matrix to at least 2:30-3:00 - we did comparison at that volume with our findings. If you lower the volume on matrix, it sounds even worse.
So it´s not really for playing at low volumes or enjoying at home, whereas fryette is amazing at whispering volume.
Click to expand...
I can absolutely second that. I have tried the Matrix with different cabs, Friedman, Mesa and Marshall and always something was missing that I can't replicate.
I can also agree on the FRyette PS, it's awesome.
But since I went FRFR and/or In Ear, I don't care anymore.

But yeah, my vote goes to the Fryette, or the Suhr.

By the way, which producer was it, Kristian?

Cheers Sash
 
Sashman said:
I can absolutely second that. I have tried the Matrix with different cabs, Friedman, Mesa and Marshall and always something was missing that I can't replicate.
I can also agree on the FRyette PS, it's awesome.
But since I went FRFR and/or In Ear, I don't care anymore.

But yeah, my vote goes to the Fryette, or the Suhr.

By the way, which producer was it, Kristian?

Cheers Sash
Click to expand...
Actually, I am now getting to the point, where I think more and more about using in-Ears for obvious reasons, after all this years of playing at super high DB´s :sweatsmile:

It was Roman Šoltys from Klakson studios - do you know him ?

Cheers,
Tomas
 
Rekster said:
With the PS-2 are you turning off power amp modelling in the AF3 or keeping it on?
Click to expand...
always power amp modelling ON with fryette, sounds and feels better for 98% amp models.
Cameron CCV is the one I know that sounds better with OFF, but I still use it with ON, so it doesn´t mess with my other sounds.
 
Thomas Obester said:
always power amp modelling ON with fryette, sounds and feels better for 98% amp models.
Cameron CCV is the one I know that sounds better with OFF, but I still use it with ON, so it doesn´t mess with my other sounds.
Click to expand...
Ok interesting. So the PS2 is designed to be a more neutral 'tube' power amp?

What about the 2/90/2 and 2/50/2 offerings by Fryette? I assume with those power amp modeling should be off?
 
You guys are making me want to get a power station, every other month or so I start looking into them (especially tempting as I could also use them with my tube amps) then I play with the matrix and realise I’m very happy with the sound at the moment, and I forget about it for a time.

The speaker page is indeed very important, and probably not worth the time-sink of just moving controls via trial-and-error if you’re trying to match a specific amp/cab setup. I measured my cab impedence curve and modeled its general shape in the axe and it helps a ton. It’s not just the low res frequency and Q that is important, but the high res frequency and slope make a huge difference to the mids and highs response.

I sometimes run my rectifier into a reactive load I built (the impedence curve is also matched to my physical cab’s impedence curve) and reamp though the matrix into the cab, so I can do post-effects (since recto FX loop sucks) and so I can turn up the master without deafening myself. If I match volumes, recto > cab sounds the same as recto > load > matrix gt1000fx > cab, so I assume the matrix is very flat.

Though it would be nice to see it’s frequency response plot using a speaker cabinet as a load. I’ve seen people plot the frequency response using a resistive load (and it’s dead flat in that situation) but not in its actual use-case, into a cab.
 
Rekster said:
Ok interesting. So the PS2 is designed to be a more neutral 'tube' power amp?

What about the 2/90/2 and 2/50/2 offerings by Fryette? I assume with those power amp modeling should be off?
Click to expand...
Yes, PS2 is more neutral, maybe the most neutral on a market right now
Still has a tiny bit of coloration as Mr. Fryette himself says - it´s impossible to be 100% flat with tubes.

2/90(50)/2 are significantly more colored - with those it´s more probably better to use OFF.
I would always listen with my own ears though, and decide what´s better.
 
Last edited:
Space Helicopter said:
You guys are making me want to get a power station, every other month or so I start looking into them (especially tempting as I could also use them with my tube amps) then I play with the matrix and realise I’m very happy with the sound at the moment, and I forget about it for a time.

The speaker page is indeed very important, and probably not worth the time-sink of just moving controls via trial-and-error if you’re trying to match a specific amp/cab setup. I measured my cab impedence curve and modeled its general shape in the axe and it helps a ton. It’s not just the low res frequency and Q that is important, but the high res frequency and slope make a huge difference to the mids and highs response.

I sometimes run my rectifier into a reactive load I built (the impedence curve is also matched to my physical cab’s impedence curve) and reamp though the matrix into the cab, so I can do post-effects (since recto FX loop sucks) and so I can turn up the master without deafening myself. If I match volumes, recto > cab sounds the same as recto > load > matrix gt1000fx > cab, so I assume the matrix is very flat.

Though it would be nice to see it’s frequency response plot using a speaker cabinet as a load. I’ve seen people plot the frequency response using a resistive load (and it’s dead flat in that situation) but not in its actual use-case, into a cab.
Click to expand...
Yes, matrix is flat, though flat does not always equal better :)
 
Rekster said:
What about the 2/90/2 and 2/50/2 offerings by Fryette? I assume with those power amp modeling should be off?
Click to expand...
I have a 2/50/2 and while it’s ‘pretty neutral’ for a tube power amp, it isn’t flat response. Even with depth and presence at 0 and voicing switch off, the lows and highs are hyped to an extent and it imparts some of its own tonality. But turning power amp modeling off still kind of depends on the amp - the recto red preamp into a 2/50/2 doesn’t sound anything like a recto since the power amps are so drastically different in response (though it does still sound good if you tweak it right). Kind of a middle ground is turning low and high speaker resonance in the amp model to 0 (or use resistive load curve on axe iii) so you still have the amps power amp flavor to an extent.

It was just too fiddly for me though so I only use it with tube preamps and the axe always goes into the matrix.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom