Tips for using Mesa sims

[OmegaZero]

...since I didn't just upload a syx file, but turned all the knobs myself, I feel a bit more comfortable with the preset by knowing how you achieved that tone.

I think this point gets missed too often. Personally I have found downloading other people's patches fairly useless, as they never sound like that when I try them. The Axe is so responsive that sounds vary tremendously depending on who's playing on it - just like real amps. It's SO much more valuable to discuss how a sound was achieved. Teach a man to fish instead of giving him a fish, etc.

 

[shredi knight]

Now THIS is interesting.

I have the gain on 3.5 and it's SATURATED. I'm talking soaked. Harmonics are effortless. It's truly getting into Dream Theater territory. The drive is at 0 yes. I'm using EMG's but they aren't that hot to be honest. Definitely not hotter than your stuff.

I'm truly perplexed as to how this could be. I will go back and triple check my patch. Maybe there's something I missed. But as it stands I am playing with all your settings and my gain is at 3.5... But I promise you I am getting some really high gain. Sounds like Lamb of God saturation

Hey, just a thought I didn't think to ask before. You don't have the amp sim's drive boost activated do you? That would explain why your are getting so much gain at only 3.5. Also, about where is your Input knob set at?

...since I didn't just upload a syx file, but turned all the knobs myself, I feel a bit more comfortable with the preset by knowing how you achieved that tone.

I think this point gets missed too often. Personally I have found downloading other people's patches fairly useless, as they never sound like that when I try them. The Axe is so responsive that sounds vary tremendously depending on who's playing on it - just like real amps. It's SO much more valuable to discuss how a sound was achieved. Teach a man to fish instead of giving him a fish, etc.

I know what you are saying and am tempted just to post the complete manual settings instead of the patch. It just seems more special when you dial it in yourself. Plus, I have my patches set up in an unusual way. I only have the core amp tone coming out of my right monitor, which I sit directly in front of when I play. For some reason, I really don't like the way it sounds with the amp tone in both monitors (I was this way when I was using two 4x12 guitar cabs too, so it's nothing to do with my monitors). It just sounds too spread out and "chorusy". Kind of watered down. Coming out of just one sounds much more natural, organic, and real to me. My effects (like Ping Pong Delay) are all run in parallel and stereo. I have them offset and panned a little more to my left monitor so they sound balanced when I'm sitting in front of my right one. I call this my Wet/Wet-Dry setup.

For me to post the patch, I would want to make it more user friendly for everyone, and that would mean readjusting all the panning and levels. And that kind of bugs me because it wouldn't sound like the patch that I'm actually using then.

 

[too_much_power]

Shedi, I tried your settings today at full blasting volume thru an FRFR system, and first of all I had to solve the high freq. buzzyness issue, I had to cut over 7-8khz. The new V30 cab does have some ear-piercing crap up there, I think this issue should be looked into.

I ended up with a cool sound, but I didn't know how to dial out some of the brightness (now I'm not talking about buzz) while staying true to the original intended tone. If I dial down the treble pot, it loses gain and character, and I don't know what freqs to cut or boost with an eq block.

BTW, I'm still undecided on the V shape eq. I'm not sure it sounds better with it on, the V30 cab is already very scooped.

 

[shredi knight]

Shedi, I tried your settings today at full blasting volume thru an FRFR system, and first of all I had to solve the high freq. buzzyness issue, I had to cut over 7-8khz....

The patch was created at low volume. At "full blasting volume", it will sound too bright. Between that and the fact that my guitar is very dark sounding, I don't have any brightness issues with it. Maybe try cutting the unused 6618 Hz freq in the Parametric EQ.

.... The new V30 cab does have some ear-piercing crap up there, I think this issue should be looked into.....

I'm not using the new V30 cab. I'm using the old one that was removed by Cliff, as a user cab (I posed the cab IR on page # 2 of this thread). It will not sound right without it.


P.S. Who's "Shedi"?

 

[shredi knight]

Anyway, I'll try and post the patch tomorrow in the "Share & Request" forum, new firmware out or not. I probably just post both a version with everything panned even and one the way I have it panned.

 

[fremen]

Thanks for all these tips !
I remember that Radley posted some tips regarding Mesa sims too :
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=7072

 

[Radley]

...since I didn't just upload a syx file, but turned all the knobs myself, I feel a bit more comfortable with the preset by knowing how you achieved that tone.

I think this point gets missed too often. Personally I have found downloading other people's patches fairly useless, as they never sound like that when I try them. The Axe is so responsive that sounds vary tremendously depending on who's playing on it - just like real amps. It's SO much more valuable to discuss how a sound was achieved. Teach a man to fish instead of giving him a fish, etc.

I must agree - talking concept/techniques about achieving tones is more useful than downloading a patch.

 

[Reiep]

Thanks for all these tips !
I remember that Radley posted some tips regarding Mesa sims too :
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=7072

Indeed, my previous Mesa presets were done using this trick. Now, let's mix both :twisted:

 

[hp/mp]

I know what you are saying and am tempted just to post the complete manual settings instead of the patch. It just seems more special when you dial it in yourself. Plus, I have my patches set up in an unusual way. I only have the core amp tone coming out of my right monitor, which I sit directly in front of when I play. For some reason, I really don't like the way it sounds with the amp tone in both monitors (I was this way when I was using two 4x12 guitar cabs too, so it's nothing to do with my monitors). It just sounds too spread out and "chorusy". Kind of watered down. Coming out of just one sounds much more natural, organic, and real to me. My effects (like Ping Pong Delay) are all run in parallel and stereo. I have them offset and panned a little more to my left monitor so they sound balanced when I'm sitting in front of my right one. I call this my Wet/Wet-Dry setup.

I recently tried using just 1 of my monitors and I like it a lot. But I'm pretty much a routing noob, how do I set up effects blocks how you describe? Or at least it's how I think you are - where delay for example is heard in the 1 main monitor but the repeats are also in the other monitor? I tried putting the delay block in the 1st row and routing it back to my main (2nd) row, but it didn't work.. I am panning everything to 1 monitor by using the mixer in the Layout..

 

[shredi knight]

I recently tried using just 1 of my monitors and I like it a lot. But I'm pretty much a routing noob, how do I set up effects blocks how you describe? Or at least it's how I think you are - where delay for example is heard in the 1 main monitor but the repeats are also in the other monitor? I tried putting the delay block in the 1st row and routing it back to my main (2nd) row, but it didn't work.. I am panning everything to 1 monitor by using the mixer in the Layout..

Here's a simple example of running a delay in parallel:





This way, you have the dry amp tone in row 1, and a delayed signal in row 2. In my case, row 1 is panned all the way to the right on the Layout's Mix page, and row 2 is panned at 12:00. I offset the Delay a little more to the left with it's Balance control. It's better to offset it there than in the Layout's Mix page (like the amp row) in case you put something in the same row as the Delay that you don't want offset, or offset a different amount (I pan the whole amp row in the Layout's Mix page because any effect I have in it, which is usually only Wah, I only want to hear in the right monitor).

The key to running effects in parallel is to have the Mix control of that effect at 100% so it's a completely wet signal. You then adjust the effect's Level control (it now acts like a Mix control) to blend in the amount of that effect you want. Be sure put the effect's bypass mode to "Mute Out", otherwise your patch will get much louder if you bypass it because you will have anything attached to that effect's row going straight through it like it was a Shunt.

Anyway, I hope that makes sense.

 

[hp/mp]

[quote="hp/mp":2qtg49d9]
I recently tried using just 1 of my monitors and I like it a lot. But I'm pretty much a routing noob, how do I set up effects blocks how you describe? Or at least it's how I think you are - where delay for example is heard in the 1 main monitor but the repeats are also in the other monitor? I tried putting the delay block in the 1st row and routing it back to my main (2nd) row, but it didn't work.. I am panning everything to 1 monitor by using the mixer in the Layout..

Here's a simple example of running a delay in parallel:

http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/9994/img5517f.jpg

This way, you have the dry amp tone in row 1, and a delayed signal in row 2. In my case, row 1 is panned all the way to the right on the Layout's Mix page, and row 2 is panned at 12:00. I offset the Delay a little more to the left with it's Balance control. It's better to offset it there than in the Layout's Mix page (like the amp row) in case you put something in the same row as the Delay that you don't want offset, or offset a different amount (I pan the whole amp row in the Layout's Mix page because any effect I have in it, which is usually only Wah, I only want to hear in the right monitor).

The key to running effects in parallel is to have the Mix control of that effect at 100% so it's a completely wet signal. You then adjust the effect's Level control (it now acts like a Mix control) to blend in the amount of that effect you want. Be sure put the effect's bypass mode to "Mute Out", otherwise your patch will get much louder if you bypass it because you will have anything attached to that effect's row going straight through it like it was a Shunt.

Anyway, I hope that makes sense. [/quote:2qtg49d9]
Thanks for the help, I got it to work! Awesome. For whatever reason using 1 monitor for the main sound sounds "better" to me.. Maybe with a separation it's harder to pick up subtleties in tone and characteristics, but whatever it is, so far I've enjoyed playing my patches with 1 main monitor . I've never been more happier with my ultra and bm5a's .

 

[shredi knight]

Thanks for the help, I got it to work! Awesome. For whatever reason using 1 monitor for the main sound sounds "better" to me.. Maybe with a separation it's harder to pick up subtleties in tone and characteristics, but whatever it is, so far I've enjoyed playing my patches with 1 main monitor . I've never been more happier with my ultra and bm5a's .

Yeah, it definitely sounds better in just one monitor (IMHO of course). Another thing I do is to split the amp row to a second row of Shunts and run it to the Output, so I have 2 rows of just the dry amp tone (this row is also panned all the way to the right on the Mix page like the first amp row). The reason is it just sounds better (to me) than having a single row. I've compared 1 row vs 2, both at equal volume (you obviously have to adjust the level down because 2 rows is much louder), and 2 rows sounds more focused and tight. Like the sound is coming right from the middle of the speaker, where with just 1 row, it sounds more spread out. Like the sound is coming from the edges of the speaker. I don't know why that is, but there is definitely a difference that I prefer with using 2 rows. Of course that only leaves 2 rows open for my parallel effects, but there are ways of having more effects than you have rows (I won't go into it, but if you download my patch when I post it, you'll see what I'm doing).

 

[brettllingle]

My tip is to Cliff to make the frequencies on the graphic EQ programmable so you can match the Mark series EQs.

 

[Bakerman]

I've compared 1 row vs 2, both at equal volume (you obviously have to adjust the level down because 2 rows is much louder), and 2 rows sounds more focused and tight. Like the sound is coming right from the middle of the speaker, where with just 1 row, it sounds more spread out. Like the sound is coming from the edges of the speaker.

I don't think this could possibly have any effect on the tone. You're digitally scaling down 2 identical signals to combine them, which will be the exact same waveform as one stream of zeros and ones scaled to whatever that level is. This could be verified by recording the digital output from each method while a looper repeats a phrase.

My tip is to Cliff to make the frequencies on the graphic EQ programmable so you can match the Mark series EQs.

http://axefxwiki.guitarlogic.org/index. ... _equalizer

http://axefxwiki.guitarlogic.org/index. ... _equalizer

 

[shredi knight]

I've compared 1 row vs 2, both at equal volume (you obviously have to adjust the level down because 2 rows is much louder), and 2 rows sounds more focused and tight. Like the sound is coming right from the middle of the speaker, where with just 1 row, it sounds more spread out. Like the sound is coming from the edges of the speaker.

I don't think this could possibly have any effect on the tone. You're digitally scaling down 2 identical signals to combine them, which will be the exact same waveform as one stream of zeros and ones scaled to whatever that level is. This could be verified by recording the digital output from each method while a looper repeats a phrase.

I didn't say it made sense. I agree, it should sound the same, but there is an obvious difference in the sound. It's really not even a subtle one, like I think it sounds different, but maybe I'm imagining it. I tried it again tonight after I posted that and it was plain as day. I don't need to to do an analysis to verify what my ears are telling me.

 

[Bakerman]

Are you sure you're not just setting up the 2-path routing to result in a slightly higher level? Level matching is extremely important in listening tests--the same thing slightly louder is usually perceived as sounding better. I'll do a 1 vs. 2 paths recording comparison sometime this weekend.

 

[Genghis]

My tip is to Cliff to make the frequencies on the graphic EQ programmable so you can match the Mark series EQs.

He did... it's called the parametric EQ... :lol:

 

[shredi knight]

Are you sure you're not just setting up the 2-path routing to result in a slightly higher level? Level matching is extremely important in listening tests--the same thing slightly louder is usually perceived as sounding better. I'll do a 1 vs. 2 paths recording comparison sometime this weekend.

Very sure. It's not a question of volume, or even really sounding "better", it just sounds different (but it's a difference I prefer). Even if I had the 1 row patch up a little louder than the 2 row one, I would still prefer the latter.


Anyway, I'm really going to try and post my Mark IV patch later on today when I have some time.

 

[hp/mp]

Are you sure you're not just setting up the 2-path routing to result in a slightly higher level? Level matching is extremely important in listening tests--the same thing slightly louder is usually perceived as sounding better. I'll do a 1 vs. 2 paths recording comparison sometime this weekend.

Very sure. It's not a question of volume, or even really sounding "better", it just sounds different (but it's a difference I prefer). Even if I had the 1 row patch up a little louder than the 2 row one, I would still prefer the latter.

I tried this and I like it as well! It's definitely not just in shredi knight's head, try it yourself... Not sure if I definitely prefer to the 1st amp block row alone, but I have initially - I would describe it as sounding similar to blending another amp block in.

 

[Bakerman]

Tried it & heard no difference, tested it and found no difference.

Using a looper as the last block in the chain to play back a recorded phrase (input disconnected after recording so zero additional noise could pass through during test) I recorded the SPDIF output.

1 row to output: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/28651/axefx/axefx_1_row.wav

2 rows with levels set to -6.0 dB in output mixer: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/28651/axefx/axefx_2_rows.wav

A mixdown after aligning both files in time, phase reversing one and matching levels as closely as possible: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/28651/axefx/axefx_phased.wav Matching the levels when the phase of one track is reversed (if the waveforms are differently-leveled versions of the same thing) can be done by listening for silence while adjusting one track's level, and that happened with the 2-row recording at -0.04 dB. You can normalize the file to hear the phrase is still there at low level, just an indication of the DAW fader's resolution.

Here's the equivalent of that process done within the Axe-FX, running 3 rows from looper to end of grid, phase reversing 2 of them with the enhancer and setting the levels of those 2 to -6.0 dB. The other row remained at 0.0 dB. http://dl.dropbox.com/u/28651/axefx/axe ... elling.wav
The slightly higher level vs. the DAW method is due to the more limited resolution of the Axe-FX output mixer. A setting of -6.0 (I think this is a rounded version of the real value if the level knob increments in equal steps) for the double-row signal gives the closest thing to total cancellation.