They All Sound the Same, It's About Workflow

FractalAudio said:
This thread proves one thing: some people can hear the differences and others can't. I'd say half the respondents hear the same thing I hear. The other half have tin ears or lousy monitors.
Click to expand...
dunno about the lousy monitors. I listened through a pair of Sony wireless headphones that I paid around 30 euros for and apparently was the first who "got it"
 
On another note: Do FM3 and AxeFxIII with the current firmwares Sound the Same? Coming from Helix on FW2.4, I was really impressed how good FM3 sounded on the very first factory preset when I first plugged my guitar in (FM3 shipped with Firmware 1.02, I believe).
 
FractalAudio said:
1. Amp
2. Brand L
3. Brand N
4. Axe-Fx

All modelers with latest firmware.
Click to expand...
Hunh.....

So, I managed to pick the amp and axe-fx as my favorites and apparently ID'd #2 correctly despite not thinking I did. Awesome. I'll reiterate that I wasn't that confident, but still....that's awesome.

Was the amp running through load/ir or recorded with a mic?
 
jaza69 said:
On another note: Do FM3 and AxeFxIII with the current firmwares Sound the Same? Coming from Helix on FW2.4, I was really impressed how good FM3 sounded on the very first factory preset when I first plugged my guitar in (FM3 shipped with Firmware 1.02, I believe).
Click to expand...
Not currently. The FX3 just received an update using a new algorithm has hasn't been ported to the FM9 or FM3, but it should be ported soon.
 
A bit late to the party here but listening through 2 sets of headphones, Marantz MPH-1 and AKG K-271.

1 and 4 sound very similar, practically identical in gain structure, but I would say 1 has a touch more 'body' or fullness- low mids(?). They both have a nice krrrangg on the last chord with a 'believable' decay of the gain and both have a well defined, rounded tone.

2 - Came across a touch louder(?) and harsher, wouldn't really say brighter, just something in the highs that makes is less appealing.

3 - Didn't sound bad, less high end as has been pointed out, but also has something in the low end, a resonance, that doesn't sound natural. Could probably be fixed with a low cut.

Both 2 and 3 also had some of the digital 'artifacts' in the gain structure that kept me from pulling the trigger on one of the closest competitors to Fractal.
 
when I first listened through my smartphone speakers yesterday, the only one that sounded off was 2 which to me had too much top end. I listened through good headphones this morning and 1 and 4 were really good. I didn’t think 3 was terrible but the bass response was unpleasant.

Glad to know my ears work good and I didn’t ever make the mistake of buying a helix.
 
Harking back to my 3rd Year Uni "Statistical Interpretation Unit" .... if roughly half-could hear differences but could not reliably pick which is which -and- the other half couldn't hear any major differences and also could not reliably pick which is which ..... then by statistical definition its a total "wash" or what we officially termed as a "complete mutual cancellation" ....

I will say again though that 3 was clearly [ to me ] way different to the other 3 - that was immediate on playback - but non-one had any idea what it was - including me.

I also think Cliff is bang on the $$$$ about the QC modelling - if you listen to any demo's of just its inbuilt amps they all have something really weird going on in the low-mids / low end ... its a really obvious -and i.m.h.o - bad "signature".

Ben
 
The 3rd almost sounds like it has loud ghost note going on like an old Plexi....but totally in the wrong register. Have a subwoofer in my studio and feel like the 3rd goes down to sub frequencies....at least it still sounds as if it is in harmony with what was played. (for the most part)
 
Last edited:
Listened with my eyes closed. #1 sounded good. #2 seemed to have more presence and a touch more gain (crispness and bite made it seem like slightly more gain). #3 was OK at first, but had notably less definition/presence, and faded in/out towards the conclusion. #4 was similar to #3 and #1, except no fade, and not as much definition/input gain as #2.

I don't know which was the real amp, but IMHO, #1 or #2 would have been OK for live use, #2 definitely better for recording purposes.
 
When I listened on my iPhone, it was a bit hard to tell the differences. I just had a listen through my nice headphones and here are my observations:

2: bass is anemic/lacking
3: too much bass / tubby.
1 and 4 are the best. Difference between them is subtle enough to approach the margin of fooling myself / mind tricks.

I think 3 might be FW 18.03, 4 is FW 19, and 1 is real amp.
 
Last edited:
Interesting. Gave a few listens with headphones. Thought either 1 or 4 was the amp and that both sounded the best and most detailed, suspected 2 was a modeler, and thought 3 sounded horrible.
 
Only listened on iphone and saw the one graph and after 3 listens I thought 1 and 4 were good and similar. I thought 2 sounded harsh and 3 had weird bass. I didnt have a strong preference between 1 and 4. But really disliked 2.
 
This is cool.

All I know, is when I need a tempo-sync gapper, or a talk-box, or a synth harmony, or a quick switch between all of the above... I have it in my Axe.

Send it +4 to my power amp, and IRs to FOH?

I'm glad that a rising tide lifts all the boats.

I trust this thing to be the best and no-compromises.
 
Had the chance to listen to it with my Ollo Audio S4X and yes. There is a clear difference.
But since Cliff did revealed it, I can’t be objective any more.
But when listen on loud volume, yeah 1 and 4 are clearly the best sounding. There is a slightly difference between the two but I can’t tell which one I like more.
It’s awesome how close the Axe is to the original amp. This should solve all discussions about how accurate the Axe III is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom