They All Sound the Same Part Deux

My name is mud said:
Amp
Axe
Helix
Quad
And kemper in the end of the 2nd
Click to expand...
Was literally just ready to post this. I kept going back and forth between the Amp and the Axe. The thing that bound me up was hearing that initial hiss on the 2nd one that you hear with the amp in the room.
 
Couldn’t company X’s real physical amp modeled be different enough from the real physical amp FAS modeled to account for some of these differences?
 
levipeto said:
1, Axe-Fx
2, Amp
3, who cares
4, who cares

I prefer 1, but 2 has more of the typical 5150 eq filter tone.
Click to expand...
I just wanted to add, that I thought 1 and 2 were both amps and I only said 1 was axe-fx because we knew there was only one amp. Since I could hear the 5150 tone more in the 2, that's why I chose it, but I would have said that 1 and(!) 2 were real amps. I carefully listened to how the notes started and stopped and both sounded like a real amp to me.
 
FractalAudio said:
For a mass-produced amp like a 5150, no.
Click to expand...

https://forum.fractalaudio.com/threads/5150-iii-50w-vs-kemper-vs-fm3.163684/#post-1962333

FractalAudio said:
The Captor is not a realistic load. The FM3 will actually sound more like the real amp when the real amp is going into a real load.

If you expect the FM3 to exactly match your particular copy of an amp then it's the wrong product for you. The models are matched to OUR reference amps but all amps vary due to tolerances in the components. The biggest source of error is in the controls as potentiometers have poor tolerance. Do a search as I've talked about this at length.

The Kemper uses EQ matching so naturally it will compensate for the variation. I guarantee that the modeling below the EQ is superior on the FM3. The distortion characteristics, harmonic series, compression, etc. will be more accurate. If EQ is all your care about then stick with the Kemper.
Click to expand...

Besides me using a Captor here you said that the Pots, etc. would cause a variance, and I believe you, I’ve seen the differences in Pots pulled from the same bin. I’m not trying to be a jerk, I just always hear the same old “All amps are different.” statement being referenced when these types of comparisons are done.

Profiles still seem to sound more like the amp Profiled than any model in any modeler I’ve ever used (Helix, AX8, FM3, AXE III) when all the controls are set equal.
 
Texhex said:
https://forum.fractalaudio.com/threads/5150-iii-50w-vs-kemper-vs-fm3.163684/#post-1962333



Besides me using a Captor here you said that the Pots, etc. would cause a variance, and I believe you, I’ve seen the differences in Pots pulled from the same bin. I’m not trying to be a jerk, I just always hear the same old “All amps are different.” statement being referenced when these types of comparisons are done.

Profiles still seem to sound more like the amp Profiled than any model in any modeler I’ve ever used (Helix, AX8, FM3, AXE III) when all the controls are set equal.
Click to expand...
I disagree. The Kemper always imparts a kind of dull sheen on everything. It sounds great don’t get me wrong but every profile has this and as someone once said, once you hear Ir you can’t unhear it.
 
Also this thing about the controls being set to the same value across devices for comparison is silly. They all vary to one degree to another. I think the controls should be set to match the sound as closely as possible in these kinds of comparisons.
 
Sure pots can vary some, but any differences beyond a 10 to 20% tolerance window for the values is indicative of an inaccurate model.

Great tones can be had from all of these products with a bit of tweaking. Cliff is demonstrating the core accuracy of the models compared to the amp. That includes how the amp's controls affect the tone and how it responds to different pickups and input levels. If the model can't keep pace with the real amp with regard to those changes, it's not an accurate model.
 
frankencat said:
Also this thing about the controls being set to the same value across devices for comparison is silly. They all vary to one degree to another. I think the controls should be set to match the sound as closely as possible in these kinds of comparisons.
Click to expand...
I didn't adjust ANY of the modelers to match the sound of the amp. I set the controls the same as the amp. Axe-Fx models use "ideal" values for all components, i.e. if a pot is spec'd as 1M the model uses 1M. We don't "tweak" the models to match the reference amp. We use the values as originally intended by the designer. That's why there will also be a slight difference between different copies of an amp and between an Axe-Fx model and the actual amp.

If a product's algorithms and models are accurate then the model should behave very closely to the real amp. That is the very definition of a modeler. In this case there are SIGNIFICANT deviations which means the product simply doesn't do its primary job well.
 
mr_fender said:
Sure pots can vary some, but any differences beyond a 10 to 20% tolerance window for the values is indicative of an inaccurate model.

Great tones can be had from all of these products with a bit of tweaking. Cliff is demonstrating the core accuracy of the models compared to the amp. That includes how the amp's controls affect the tone and how it responds to different pickups and input levels. If the model can't keep pace with the real amp with regard to those changes, it's not an accurate model.
Click to expand...
Precisely.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom