They All Sound the Same, It's About Workflow

ruso said:
They are still really damn good even thawed and baked at home.
Click to expand...
We’re gonna have to send a box to fractal audio systems in New Hampshire. Not sure if M@ can have a slice though… he started this crap; appears a little pizza-prejudiced.

You guys have a real oven at the factory? (Is it modified or modeled?) ;)

🍕
 
FractalAudio said:
1. Amp
2. Brand L
3. Brand N
4. Axe-Fx

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


I guessed 1&4 but figured 2 was the N and 3 maybe the K

1&4 def sounded the best, 2 I figured was the N because I could hear aliasing right at the start. The distortion sounded a bit flat and lacking bite.
3 sounded muffled which some K profiles can have but normally seem a bit more higher in the mids than that clip. (modellers doh!)

I own F's,N & K's to be transparent.

Probably would be much better if people commented what they were using to hear the clips.
Bose NC headphones here lol.

Using units that have aliasing can it be tamed using high cuts somewhat?
 
sprint said:
some guidance in listening would I suspect benefit a significant portion of the user base here.
Click to expand...
I think I agree with you at least as it pertains to what, specifically, Cliff was hearing. I'm curious myself.

I mostly approached it as a "better/worse" comparison based on my taste in that given moment. In some ways, and as much as this might cause Cliff dismay, I'm not sure I care how accurate the sounds are....I just want to get sounds that I really like. One of the FAS amps was in contention for my favorite for a long time....it narrowly got edged out by others. And they can't be accurate because they don't have direct counterparts in the analog world. If they were totally accurate compared to what they took inspiration from, why bother making the FAS version?

axl-fx said:
Using units that have aliasing can it be tamed using high cuts somewhat?
Click to expand...
Not as far as anything I've seen/read. Once it's there, it's there.

The way you get rid of aliasing is by avoiding it in the first place, typically by upsampling and downsampling before and after whatever process is going to cause it.

Once it's there, it's all over the place and not something that can easily be filtered away.

e.g.,

Standard Clip set to 0.5 dB of clipping a 10k sine wave with no oversampling:

1643066776690.png

Same thing with 32x oversampling:

1643066799244.png
(notice the scale)

One naïve way that some developers do it is to just low-pass the signal going into the distortion so that it's less likely that you'll get overtones over Nyquist. But, that also changes the character of the distortion.
 
marsonic said:
But, what you're suggesting is what I read, at least.

IDK...maybe I've been on the internet long enough to just give basically everyone the benefit of the doubt that they didn't mean something as a personal attack. Or maybe I give people too much leeway or too much benefit of the doubt. Whatever.

There are a lot of people who just plain haven't experienced just how much of a difference good monitoring makes. I had my head in the sand for a long time, partially because my first experience with a well-made room coincided with my first experience with quarter million dollar speakers. I incorrectly attributed the sound to the speakers for a long time...but the room was the much bigger component of how amazing the sound was there.
Click to expand...
Ok I'll bite, where was that?
Not doubting you, just interested.
 
Three takes are modelers, one is the real amp:
https://www.fractalaudio.com/tmp/Be_Be_Be.mp3

Deluxe Reverb Vibrato channel
Gain 10
Bass 2
Treble 8
Click to expand...

I am going to give this my very best effort -- fail or not.

The most noticeable quality, to me, was the the sustain of the overtone series.
Both #3 and #4 were very unsatisfying to me.
In both #3 and #4, the harmonics faded out much too soon,
much too abruptly, and much too unevenly.

#1 and #2 were both much more satisfying to me
-- as a result of the sustained harmonics and overtones.

Regarding #1 and #2, I found:
1) Both #1 and #2 and a longer sustain of the harmonic comb.
2) And, both #1 and #2 had a pleasing dynamic change in the overtones
as the overtones continued to sustain

3) #2 had the longest sustain of the harmonic overtone series.
4) As a result, #2 had a greater amount of harmonics (hair)
-- while maintaining the same level, or peak, of distortion as #1.

5) #2 also had a more complex morphing of the overtone series than #1.
Some cork-sniffers have referred to this quality as "swirl."
That is a good metaphoric term to me.

6) However, there is another quality difference between #1 and #2.

7) My best description of this difference
is the the difference between a vintage pulsonic-coned greenback
and a more modern vintage 30 greenback
This is a very exaggerated comparison.
The audible difference between #1 and #2 is only similar.
The actual difference between #1 and #2 is much, much smaller.

8) The pulsonic/V30 tonal difference is one of both smoothness and attitude.
Unfortunately, b****yness (V30)is the most descriptive term
-- although, hugely overstated.

9) My unfounded speculation is that this is how I hear aliasing.
I am not sure about that.
However, a V30's peakiness in the 2-3K range
gives it a more forward-sounding, more in-your-face, attitude.

10) So, I wonder if there is a fine, subtle peakiness, that I might hearing.
Perhaps, a quality caused by peaking due to aliasing sidebands?

11) Points #9 and #10 are hugely speculative
-- and very possibly a false hypothesis.

12) Specifically, #1 approached the smoother "pulsonic" sound.
#2 approached the more forward "V30" sound.

13) Both #1 and #2 sounded vocal and expressive to me.
#2 sounded very slightly more vocal and expressive to me.

14) I also find #2 to have a more defined, more chiseled,
more outlined sound. Which I actually like.
In fact, in other comparisons,
I have chosen Fractal model recordings over real amps
because they had a more precise, more defined sound.

So these are my guesses:

#1 is the real amp

#2 is the Fractal model -- due to:
longer harmonic sustain
more dynamically complex harmonic shifts in the sustain
a slightly more forward attitude in the tone
a more defined, more chiseled, more outlined tone

#3 and #4 did not please me.

#2 is my personal favorite.

I do like #1, also.

I sincerely hope I have not embarressed myself.

Flame Away My Tonal Frenemies!
 
All
1. Amp
2. Brand L
3. Brand N
4. Axe-Fx

All modelers with latest firmware
Click to expand...

I purposely took this test before looking at any other comments.
And, I committed to what I heard.
Regardless, of how I heard this test. I am still completely sold on my FM3. And, I fully expect to eventually purchase an Axe FX III -- or the next generation Fractal flagship model. Why? Because, I need the CPU power to get the quality and complexity of tone that I want. The possibility of modifying a tone to my exact desire on Fractal equipment has no parallel in the modeling world -- as far as I know. Having said that, I do struggle to get the overtone series that I desire. It has always been that way. Tube amps were even more difficult to mod for the sounds I wanted. LTSpice was really the only way to get there. And that was still a very slow process. I am extremely fussy about tone and timbre. And, much of my fussiness is in the balance, bloom and dynamics of the overtones. Fractal makes those tone adjustments more possible for me than anyone else. I am also pleased that the harsh, forward -- possibly aliased sound -- that I heard on #2, was on the Line 6 and not the Axe FX III. I only hope there are some useful bits in my subjective observations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom