The Quest for amp clarity and sizzle

[unix-guy]

I already did this as per my original post.

He already did as per the first post.

Sorry... My brain decided to skip that part for some reason

 

[beteasta351]

Here is attempt 2.

Ok. I've found part of the problem. For me, there FM3 is lacking top end clarity for sure.

In the recording, the first one is the 5150, second one is FM3. If I dial the treble, presence, or even bump those up using an EQ, the top end becomes brittle and crumbly. Not smooth and sizzle-y.

 

[warlockII]

I'd suggest finding the right IR before you do anything else. "Right" meaning the one that gives you the frequencies you want to hear through your gear.

 

[DJD100]

Here is attempt 2.

Ok. I've found part of the problem. For me, there FM3 is lacking top end clarity for sure.

In the recording, the first one is the 5150, second one is FM3. If I dial the treble, presence, or even bump those up using an EQ, the top end becomes brittle and crumbly. Not smooth and sizzle-y.

Match the levels first!

 

[Aivoryuk]

So how are you actually recording this? 5150 into the two notes load box into the FM3 for the IR?

 

[Will Chen]

Here is attempt 2.

Ok. I've found part of the problem. For me, there FM3 is lacking top end clarity for sure.

In the recording, the first one is the 5150, second one is FM3. If I dial the treble, presence, or even bump those up using an EQ, the top end becomes brittle and crumbly. Not smooth and sizzle-y.

Levels not remotely close. Impossible to make an absolute comparison due to that, but now the second sounds much more scooped and yet also muddy. I'll be near a guitar in 30 minutes or so, I bet I can come close to matching that tone.

 

[beteasta351]

I'd suggest finding the right IR before you do anything else. "Right" meaning the one that gives you the frequencies you want to hear through your gear.

I am using the same IR through both the FM3 and the 5150. Is that what you meant?

 

[beteasta351]

Levels not remotely close. Impossible to make an absolute comparison due to that, but now the second sounds much more scooped and yet also muddy. I'll be near a guitar in 30 minutes or so, I bet I can come close to matching that tone.

Yes, I recognize now my attempt 1 was MUCH closer haha. My apologies.

 

[warlockII]

I am using the same IR through both the FM3 and the 5150. Is that what you meant?

Sorry, I need to read better prior to responding

 

[Will Chen]

I spent about 5 minutes trying to match and gave up, without match EQing, I can't get too far without the same guitar and IR (and too many artifacts using the virtual capo). So looking at attempt 1 through SPAN with both tracks normalized, there's a couple things going on which are probably the biggest contributors to the differences.

1. There is a different low end peak happening which becomes very apparent when palm muting. The real amp is exhibiting a steep-ish peak at 240 vs the fractal model having a more broad peak from 172 up though 280. The real amp is also peaking nearly 3db higher in the lows than the fractal model. Not entirely sure if this is simply a schematic diff vs the fractal model or what, but that's going to be difficult to replicate exactly. Seems like maybe the low EQ frequency is different between the 2. You can try to adjust the input EQ to try and get the peak to match more closely and goose the low end a bit, but unsure how to get such a sharp peak there which is reacting more like a resonance...maybe the depth control?.

2. The real amp has a steep notch around 7-7.5K vs the FM3 with a steep notch at 10K. You should be able to match the real amp notch with a parametric EQ in the FM3...but the 10K notch of the FM3 is so deep I doubt you're going to be able to match the amp using EQ here, something different in the model here (but there's no exact model for you amp, correct?).

 

[Joshua_L]

I used to play with amp and torpedo live before modeling.

Even with a fractal, the combo amp/2notes will always be more « open » and « real » because… …you play through the real amp..

I LOVE my fm3, fractal is the best to come the closest to a real amp.

But it’s the closest and unfortunately there is still some «extra harmonic content » (to my ears, don’t know if it’s the exact term) that don’t exist in a real amp. Especially in the Highs.

 

[VESmedic]

As far as sizzle/air, don’t over complicate it: first try a subtle 1-2 db boost around 12-16k with a parametric eq post amp. Wide q, or a shelf (preferably, a shelf will sound more natural natural more than likely). Go real subtle here, I’d start there.

Another great eq move: set the parametric to a shelf, wayyy high up: around 22-25k, I forget how high it goes. Boost about 5db on the shelf. This is obviously higher than you have your hi cuts set at im sure, however a boost like this will start much lower than this, bring up frequencies probabky starting around 2-5k, depending on the shelf’s slope. Try this one, I think you’ll be surprised.

 

[DJD100]

Clarity and sizzle in high-gain tones that are mostly noise, without the Axe's Cab Block's tools?

In that case, EQ and/or Tone Matching is your friend (being careful to monitor the A/B at the same level). Also, perhaps an external Exciter adding some higher harmonics as well? Another thing, don't hit the modeled power section too hard, these are preamp generated tones (use the Output Compressor if needing more compression rather than the power section drive).

 

[Dimi Guitar]

Have you tried playing around with the fractal amp sim master vol levels? Maybe you have, but can make a big difference.

 

[Gonwild]

if its not the exact same amp thats modeled, how are you gonna know if the FM3 lacks smooth and sizzle?

 

[IronSean]

Another thing, don't hit the modeled power section too hard, these are preamp generated tones (use the Output Compressor if needing more compression rather than the power section drive).

Have you tried playing around with the fractal amp sim master vol levels? Maybe you have, but can make a big difference.

That's a great point I forgot about.

We tend to run real amps with the master volumes a lot lower because they're loud. Try taking the master volume down until you've got no more power amp clipping, then slowly adjust from there.

It's even worse on amps with multiple volumes, because a channel volume at 1/3 and a master volume at 1/3 will be the equivalent of the fractal at 1/9, because you're getting 2/3 attenuation at the channel master to 1/3 signal, then another 2/3 attenuation at the global master for example. (The real numbers aren't quite that simple, this assumes linear tapers on everything. But the principle holds: on an amp with separate channel and master volumes, you might need to run the Axe master unintuitively low to get the same effect).

 

[Paul Bradshaw]

what really worked for me, was using the preamp in the cab block using some drive to add some character and then the simple eq bass/middle/treble

really liked the feel of the tape 35us , but your mileage may vary,

ended up with +2 mids , +5 treble in the end which worked the best with the cab IRs i'm using , which are fairly dark/thick sounding
a Multicomp after the cab (andy sneap trick) to help control low mids is really good as well

this really pushed clarity/sizzle, you could admittedly also use an EQ block to do something similar, but if it's within the cab block might as well use it

 

[TheloniusJ]

Not sure if you have played with the input EQ section on the amp block. I recently got hipped to that and have been pretty surprised at how much it can help the amp cut. Particularly the Definition parameter.

 

[Chromatizm]

Particularly the Definition parameter

What Marco Sfogli shared was a revelation, really
Like a single most important parameter I was looking for

 

[CAGOPOCO]

if its not the exact same amp thats modeled, how are you gonna know if the FM3 lacks smooth and sizzle?

In my experience it's common to all the amps. I'm seriously sad to say that NAM profiles (the good ones anyway) do not have the same problem and retain that immediacy, sizzle and openness.