They All Sound the Same, It's About Workflow

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
Oh, but the scientific design in this test is on par with researching how fast humans can run 100 meters. Then your sample group consists of a mix of elite runners, some average joes and a selection of nursing home residents. But to spice it up, some of the participants choose to run on a run track, some choose to run through a dense forest, and some choose to run on a dry sandy beach.

Or rather, since this test is in the 'are all swans white' category, you may say, that if some participants consistently can identify black swans, you know that they are in Australia (or New Zealand?). 😁
 
Last edited:
Really?

Maybe I have suck ears. But 'clear difference' ???

I was amazed at how THE SAME they were.
Yes but it really depends on what you are hearing with.
I do use some Ollo Audio S4X Headphones and a RNHP and yeah there is a clear difference. I couldn’t hear any difference with my Smartphkbe, Laptop.
 
I think a lot of people are missing the point of this whole thread.
The only reason why Cliff started it in the first place is to find forum members who have super sensitive hearing like his.
5 lucky members will be sent a golden ticket each inviting them to a factory tour, whereby, one by one, they will fall by the wayside on hearing tests.
Leaving the last person standing to inherit the Fractal business, as Cliff enjoys retirement on his island.
 
I got them all right except number 3. I thought it was the Kemper. I preferred number 4 to the others too and when the results were revealed, suddenly wondered if this could be the tipping point where the Axe FX is an improvement over valve amps.
 
This guy gets it.
Unfortunately, this post rather poisoned the well for me.

I originally read this thread on my phone yesterday morning, before I had a chance to properly listen with headphones.

Having already seen the comment that prompted this response, I found it difficult to separate my own thoughts and opinions on the tones from the thoughts already expressed by @nickd that Cliff had "confirmed".

To me, the tones sufficiently close that I would be ok with any of them, and any differences that I may hear I can't really separate as being particularly good/bad due to confirmation bias from earlier comments.

I.e. if I'm told that I should find tone 2 to be "shittier", I'm going to look for reasons to think that too, although in this case I wasn't successful! ;)

In my opinion, it would have been far better if @FractalAudio had omitted his own opinions and thoughts from the conversation and left it a few days, before posting the "results" and any further thoughts on the subject, but it's Cliff's forum and he's every right to post whatever he wishes!

The only question I have, is was the amp used the actual amp that the AxeFX model was based on, or just another example of the same amp?
 
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 .....

“And then there’s Mud….
And then there’s Mud…”

Those of you familiar with 70s sitcoms and Family Guy, you feel me… 🤣

For those that are not:

 
Last edited:
I didn't try to guess which was which because I'm not really interested in that kind of stuff, but it did strike me that #2 had the same thing going on in the high end that I fought with my Helix for a long time before finally conceding that it wasn't the right unit for my personal preference.
 
Oh, but the scientific design in this test is on par with researching how fast humans can run 100 meters. Then your sample group consists of a mix of elite runners, some average joes and a selection of nursing home residents. But to spice it up, some of the participants choose to run on a run track, some choose to run through a dense forest, and some choose to run on a dry sandy beach.

Or rather, since this test is in the 'are all swans white' category, you may say, that if some participants consistently can identify black swans, you know that they are in Australia (or New Zealand?). 😁

“And then there’s Mud….
And then there’s Mud…”

Those of you familiar with 70s sitcoms and Family Guy, you feel me… 🤣

For those that are not:



Only posting this because they were in response to my post ..... but I genuinely have absolutely no idea what each post is getting at ..... or if they have anything at all to do with the substance of this thread ....... I know I'm pretty slow on the uptake but I must be getting older than I feel !?!?!

Ben
 
Only posting this because they were in response to my post ..... but I genuinely have absolutely no idea what each post is getting at ..... or if they have anything at all to do with the substance of this thread ....... I know I'm pretty slow on the uptake but I must be getting older than I feel !?!?!

Ben
"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"

It was this part, I meant to refer to. What I meant to get to was that this "test" did not prove there is no difference between the modellers (that it's a wash). It rather proved the equivalent of old people with worn out legs (ears) don't run (listen) as well as younger people with well preserved ears. And people running (listening) through a dense forest or a dry sandy beach (cell phones and laptops) don't run (listen) as well as people running on (listening through) a proper running track (proper monitors or headphones and amps).
 
"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"

It was this part, I meant to refer to. What I meant to get to was that this "test" did not prove there is no difference between the modellers (that it's a wash). It rather proved the equivalent of old people with worn out legs (ears) don't run (listen) as well as younger people with well preserved ears. And people running (listening) through a dense forest or a dry sandy beach (cell phones and laptops) don't run (listen) as well as people running on (listening through) a proper running track (proper monitors or headphones and amps).
Ok ... perhaps I wasn't clear in what I wrote. You are totally right in that the statistical "wash" has nothing at all to do with actual modeler differences - which clearly do exist and are real regardless of the statistical "wash" / "numbers" .

What I was trying to get at before the reveal - because everyone is an expert and re-writes history after the reveal :) - was that it was roughly 50/50 split between those who could hear some differences and those that could not really hear any substantive differences ... across a variety of playback systems.

This is a "complete mutual cancellation" which simply highlights the individually unique and individually suggestive nature and bias of human hearing ie: when dealing with differences at the margin, saying X "sounds better" than Y can only be assessed by each individual listener ... its not a unique objective fact ........ the "split" I'm referring to, simply showed there was no consensus that A was better than B which was better than C which was better than D.

I'll go now ... Im rambling :)

Ben
 
Good morning, I’m Brian and I’m a guitar sound addict… it’s been -1 days since I tweaked amp settings on loop. 🤣 I hope us FM3‘ers will have the option to play with the new tubes. Back a while ago pre fractal, I switched out tubes in my JVM, dont even remember which ones, but I noticed an improvement in the cleans. I’m not going to comment on the distortion, cause I had a Pod HD in the chain 😬. But regardless, I recall hearing a difference, setting the bias for the first time, maybe the original tubes were out. But ya, that experiment started the rabbit hole of guitar sound. Soon after I had a Axe standard, AxII, Ax8 and now FM3.
 
Maybe but no comparison with the sound of Left and Right speakers breathing in plain air of a room.
For imaging and panning information, sure, but for judging minor differences in frequency response and tone, I tend to use my headphones more than my monitors, though I use monitors to double-check stuff, regardless.
 
Last edited:
I won't lie, that I din't know exactly, what was the AXE FX, what the real amp, but I could tell that I didn't like samples 2 & 3. I hoped, that this was not the AXE and tube amp :D

@FractalAudio As always with those kind of tests, there's always the biggest difference if one listens to a real cab in the room or the same PA/Monitors that you had when doing the test. I guess that most of us can't afford the gear that you are using when working with the amps :) But I had a chance to compare the HX, QC and FM3 once with FW4.01 through a decent PA and the difference was big enough for me. Of course, once the band starts playing, it becomes even more apparent, as those "other" modelers start to vanish in the mix.
 
I won't lie, that I din't know exactly, what was the AXE FX, what the real amp, but I could tell that I didn't like samples 2 & 3. I hoped, that this was not the AXE and tube amp :D

@FractalAudio As always with those kind of tests, there's always the biggest difference if one listens to a real cab in the room or the same PA/Monitors that you had when doing the test. I guess that most of us can't afford the gear that you are using when working with the amps :) But I had a chance to compare the HX, QC and FM3 once with FW4.01 through a decent PA and the difference was big enough for me. Of course, once the band starts playing, it becomes even more apparent, as those "other" modelers start to vanish in the mix.
2DD34CAF-C0AE-432F-AF97-1CAF32742BB9.jpeg
 
Only posting this because they were in response to my post ..... but I genuinely have absolutely no idea what each post is getting at ..... or if they have anything at all to do with the substance of this thread ....... I know I'm pretty slow on the uptake but I must be getting older than I feel !?!?!

Ben
Mud named all four source correctly before the results were posted, so he didn’t fit into the categories you mentioned.
“…And then there’s mud”

Get it? 😁
 
Back
Top Bottom