• We would like to remind our members that this is a privately owned, run and supported forum. You are here at the invitation and discretion of the owners. As such, rules and standards of conduct will be applied that help keep this forum functioning as the owners desire. These include, but are not limited to, removing content and even access to the forum.

    Please give yourself a refresher on the forum rules you agreed to follow when you signed up.

They All Sound the Same Part Deux

ben ifin

ben ifin

Experienced
Are all units, including the loaded-down amp, all using the same IR and same IR settings ?

Only asking because 3 and 4 are so different that its almost like they are using different IR's and EQ'd totally differently (?)

Ben
 
levipeto

levipeto

Fractal Fanatic
I think I have to change my vote. Since 3 and 4 had lower volumes, I ignored them, and I forgot about the rolled-back volume.
I firmly believe that 3 is the actual amp; that is the most dynamic; 4 is close to that, so that would be the ax-fx.
 
Michael R

Michael R

Inspired
I played the 6160 model with my LP and the volume rolled back to 5 with the amp at 3 on gain and the master on 10.
If the FAS model is accurate then the real amp and FAS model have to be either #1 or #2.
Clips 3 & 4 sound like you rolled the volume to 1 on the guitar.
I hear more noise in #2 so, I will say:
#1 FAS
#2 Real amp
#3 no competition
#4 same as #3
 
LosD

LosD

Inspired
I can't believe I missed this thread lol. So far my take is #1 and #2 (my fave) sound awesome, #3 sounds not as good and a bit more anemic (like the model is waaay off when dialing the knobs), #4 sounds like an exaggerated #3 (in a bad way), and #5 sounds like a "useable" copy of #1 and #2 but lacks detail and sounds harsh.
 
unFILTERed

unFILTERed

Power User
Cliff is secretly ear training his customers! That’s all about it...otherwise we are way passed this point of comparing modellers 🤣
 
Dimi Guitar

Dimi Guitar

Inspired
Texhex said:
Llisten to that comparison of mine. No dull sheen.
Click to expand...
I certainly think comparisons you've done show Kemper "ts mids" tone (personally allergic to this, even if slight and just my taste). But other than that, arguably closer to the amp, in some other ways, perhaps.
 
Last edited:
unFILTERed

unFILTERed

Power User
Amp (i call this the amp cause in the first example the amp had the widest "usable" frequency range.)
Axe Fx (could be the amp, has slighty less bass than the 1st take)
Q (weird)
K (says i could sound good if you turned up your guitar but i am that product which can not react to volume pot changes as i should, could be also H)
H (Not bad but also not as good, super close though)
 
YetAnotherOne

YetAnotherOne

Inspired
I have a really bad ear but:

1 & 2 are very close. I think 1 is the Axe and 2 is the amp but only because there seems to be just a little bit more noise around that final chord and at the beginning. Honestly I'd have a hard time distinguishing them otherwise.

3 sounds dull and has kind of an exaggerated thing going on in the midrange that really jumps out versus the first 2. Very quiet, almost certainly digital. Very different from 1 & 2.

4 is somewhat like 3 but much more present, not dull and whatever I'm hearing that I don't like in the midrange on 3 is much more pronounced. More similar to 3 than 1 & 2 but quite different. Again really quiet so probably digital.

5 sounds much like 1 & 2. If I had to choose I like the first two better but can't quite put my finger on the difference. Noisiest of the bunch.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom