Fixed. Thanks. Though I have to laugh that "u" "mustv" have felt the need to correct my spelling typo.
Fixed. Thanks. Though I have to laugh that "u" "mustv" have felt the need to correct my spelling typo.
well, since you mention it, I didn't feel any need at all (being somewhat dislexik I'm not much of a speller so couldn't give 2 sh%ts about spelling perfection). What I was trying to ask was clarification on what you are referring to?
That’s exactly what you asked for in your first post whether you used those words or not. “…, what should the value be?”, not “What is a range of values” or anything to generalize.
It’s the forum, yes. Say that again 10 times. It’s. The. Forum.
Yes, I want the value for a specific amp set to a specific volume into a specific IR. But that answer might be different values for different volumes. I guess it would be fair to assume that's, but I don't know what the algorithm is actually doing. Maybe it's dependant on the amp block master volume, if that's true maybe the speaker drive is actually modeling speaker age/use/worn. I don't really know.
kinda harsh eh
Figure I’ll stick my nose where it probably won’t be appreciated.
First, to me my FM3 is for getting a sound that I always wanted to get in a different way without all the extra equipment that I needed to get that sound. I don’t really care if the parameter ranges and specific points match exactly a specific real world piece of hardware. I just tweak until I get there. IMO the critical aspects of building a preset all pretty much default to a nominal useable spot and then can be refined if needed or wanted.
Nothing wrong with using ears to dial a sound in for sure - the point I was trying to get at above (lost also I suspect) is that some settings (speaker drive) are not easily determined by the average joe looking for a sound that matches some rig he heard or perhaps owns, and that average joe probably prefers that setting gets approximated automatically (doesn't have to be exact (amp to amp instance differences and all that). I think this is a reasonable wish for these type of parameters and imo is what modelling strives for (to replicate the moving parts of instances of real world amp rigs). The difference wrt one particular automated setting might be very small / nuanced, but added together these bits can add up to a big improvement which is one reason I think Axefx is best of breed (they strive toward ALL the little bits). The amp/cab relationship is one of the more untapped areas of modelling afaik, and one that Fractal has made significant strides into ahead of competition. Trying to silence logical discussion of where the technology might/could go next is, imo, damaging.Figure I’ll stick my nose where it probably won’t be appreciated.
I did have to step back while lurking on this thread and realize there are probably many younger people (or anyone) who have very little experience with some of the amps that are modeled and want to obtain what they hope is an “authentic” recreation. While I have not played many of the amps modeled, I’m old enough that I played enough that it’s just not that important. There are really only so many tube amp circuit topologies and everything else is some variation with some tweaks to make minute changes in the grand scheme.
As far as being “harsh”…yeah I have to agree. What’s that about?
Yes I certainly am not intending to shutdown dialog. In fact while it is reasonable to take from my comment that I was advocating to just “use your ears”. The truth is I don’t do that absolutely. I tend to sweep the entire range from max to min and some points in between to get an idea what I’m dealing with then use ears and the info I gained doing that, especially with something I’m unfamiliar. For sure if this discussion would lead to some major revelation that Cliff and company haven’t thought of and would makes sense then more power to it.
Apologies - I wasn't clear - my comment about trying to silence such discussions as being damaging was referring to the call above for Tito83 to be blocked - not to your post content. I can appreciate the approach you describe - it's what I do now also - but speaker drive not being a control I've ever seen on a real amp, I can't help but think that as modelling tech moves along more into the amp/cab zone it will be one of those parms that's dynaically set and not a control most users would venture into to tweak though they will understand that it's getting set dynamically according to the makeup of their virtual rig and settings of virtual equivilents to typical real world controls / mods. This is not a criticism of Axefx in any way which is state of the art imo - a state that constantly moves forward.Yes I certainly am not intending to shutdown dialog. In fact while it is reasonable to take from my comment that I was advocating to just “use your ears”. The truth is I don’t do that absolutely. I tend to sweep the entire range from max to min and some points in between to get an idea what I’m dealing with then use ears and the info I gained doing that, especially with something I’m unfamiliar. For sure if this discussion would lead to some major revelation that Cliff and company haven’t thought of and would makes sense then more power to it.
Yes, I understood. No apologies needed. I was just covering the bases because I could see how it might be taken in a more subtle way that I was not exactly endorsing the OP’s concern. It’s all cool. I also decided to jump in because of the “blocking” statement more than anything.
Well-designed interfaces encourage experimentation. One of the top human-interface design guys wrote about the brilliant designs of rotary-dial phones, and door knobs because it only takes a few seconds to explore them and figure out what we need to do to use them.
I suspect, because modeling is truly in its infancy compared to door knobs and even rotary-dial phones, as Cliff investigates using code to generate the sounds an amp makes, that there'll be a change in how the modeler works, that all the small moving parts we can adjust now will merge into larger units that act more like traditional tube-amp circuitry when we're on the "Authentic" page because things that we need to adjust manually in the modeler would actually be done automatically and dynamically as the circuit compensated and reacted to the change because Cliff will figure out ways to tie them together. I'm sure we'd still have the ability to dive under the cover and adjust individual parameters, but the high-level interface would remove some of the need for twiddling.
This is an important part of modelling imo, and an aspect of Axefx I appreciate a lot: Like no other, it strives to replicate the simplicity of a real amp with just the real life knobs (authentic page), while at the same time providing deep level controls for those that want it (I tend to use some of both depending) and all the while maintaining a high level of authenticity to what happens irl both on the surface and in depth. On the simplicity / authentic mode side I think there is still opportunities for Axefx to adapt more automatically to speaker swaps and cab swaps - Like all aspects of modelling, Fractal is waay ahead of all others wrt adjustability of speaker related characteristics - adding more automation to respond to what people understand more intuitively in this area (speaker swap, cab swap ...) would be the icing on the cake but might require more technical integration with IR makers.
Though one could think of the authentic page as an "automatic" transmission, some advanced parameters go beyond what I would equate to operating a manual transmission and more into the realm of the weekend mechanic that has their engine apart in the garage to tinker with fuel mixture - anyone can get in there and futz around, but few will know enough to proceed methodically and know what to listen for in order to make adjustments logically and complimentary to other settings. Dynamics page? - ok, woohoo! I got a clutch and shifter!, Plate Bias Excursion? - say whaaaaat? (but by all means, feel free to twirl the Pl Bias Excursion dial "to taste" lol!).