Tone Matching=highly processed tone?

A

AndrewSierra

Member
With tone matching wont you essentially be taking the sound of something that has been processed by the mixing engineer/mastering engineer? So all the surgical eq, mic type/placement, compressors and magic is made to your tone. In reality a tone matched guitar is a highly processed guitar tone? I'm just trying to wrap my head around this.
 
If that tone you hear on that recording sounds killer to you, and you want to have that tone, does it matter how "processed" it is? I don't see the down side.
 
Everything we do on our AFX is "highly processed". Actually, it is completely and exclusively processed. (with exception to the 4cm guys as opposed to us FRFR guys) You could not possibly get more processed than 100% processed. So what's the point? It either sounds good, or not. Right?
 
I'm not saying it's a bad thing on the contrary it's a very good thing. In my head I think of using the axe fx from a mixing engineers perspective. So if more people know that their beloved tone from whatever musician is a combination of cabs, mics, heavy eq and compression it can get axe fx users to polish their tones by cutting frequencies out and compressing things so everyone has their own polished sounds sans DAW plugins. Of course this may only be relative to those using frfr.
 
Exactly!

I don't have any inside info, but my guess is it'll benefit FRFRites and everyone else.
 
A few points from my perspective:
  • Tone Match = 'highly processed tone'? - Not necessarily, though it is possible. You are matching, then smoothing (there's a parameter for smoothing the curve) a sound source. It will be a very high resolution EQ match to what you are trying to get, assuming a high quality source. So your result depends on what you are matching. It will be as raw and organic as whatever you are matching as a source. Think outside the box though, you could grab a straight amp/cab demo that sounds amazing to you and tone match that. ***NOTE - folks keep sidestepping or ignoring what 6.0 brings to the table in terms of pure modeling. I don't want to over sell it; but do not underestimate it.
  • You don't give up any of the dynamics from the modeling - so 'processed' does NOT equal 'compressed' in other words, unless you dial it that way. The feel and response of the tone doesn't come from the Tone Match; it comes from the modeling engine. In other words, the dynamics are NOT 'baked in' as it is with other products on the market. YOU decide how it feels, reacts, sounds.
  • If you want to run with a traditional cab and power amp, you can use the Tone Match for sure - just shoot your own cab IR (capability *already* in the box), then shoot your Tone Match and when then running with your power amp and cab, removed the cab block and the Tone Match works for your non-FRFR rig.
Remember, this is a very powerful tool, but it is not limited to just copping pro recordings; you can use it in all sorts of unorthodox manners if you choose. You can use it with a conventional power amp/speaker cab rig.

And the modeling in 6.0 is not to be underestimated. I cannot stress that enough.
 
Has it been revealed whether or not the Tone Matching process matches gain settings as well or is that left up to the user to do?
 
So an afternoon of trying out amps at the local GC can have a lasting impact ;) Just need a good recorder.
 
Are the updated 'tone matched' amp models matched using a mic + cab, or simply the amp? If it were the former, and presuming tone matching is separate from the cab block, surely the tone would be constantly effected by the proximity effect due to close miking when tone matching, and wouldn't this sound funny if you are using real cabs or FF IRs?

Or am I way off?
 
I DO understand the basic question/point the op is making here. One of the biggest issues with all modelers since they started appearing years ago has been a sound that's more of a "finished" sound than that of the amp and cab just blasting away. The Axefx is light years ahead of those early L6 units, but I can see how using a guitar track that's been mixed and mastered (especially considering how squashed modern mastering has become) might not yield the most natural sounding results.
All that being said, I'm sure there will be a number of great patches from people who matched raw amp tracks.

I have a Kemper too so it will be interesting to compare results. The KPA is very cool, but anyone who says there isn't a difference between the real thing and the profiled version isn't listening carefully. It will be interesting to see how Cliff's mystical brain does with this kind of a concept.

cheers,
Steve
 
Chris Hurley said:
Has it been revealed whether or not the Tone Matching process matches gain settings as well or is that left up to the user to do?
Click to expand...

It's been confirmed many times that we have to set the gain and basic amp controls before we Tone(EQ)Match anything in order to get the best results.

Tone Matching simply matches the EQ curve, nothing else. Think Ozone or programs like that. Same basic concept, but everything will take place inside the Axe-II.
 
Last edited:
guittarzzan said:
I DO understand the basic question/point the op is making here. One of the biggest issues with all modelers since they started appearing years ago has been a sound that's more of a "finished" sound than that of the amp and cab just blasting away. The Axefx is light years ahead of those early L6 units, but I can see how using a guitar track that's been mixed and mastered (especially considering how squashed modern mastering has become) might not yield the most natural sounding results.
All that being said, I'm sure there will be a number of great patches from people who matched raw amp tracks.

I have a Kemper too so it will be interesting to compare results. The KPA is very cool, but anyone who says there isn't a difference between the real thing and the profiled version isn't listening carefully. It will be interesting to see how Cliff's mystical brain does with this kind of a concept.

cheers,
Steve
Click to expand...

I also own the KPA. I have found that when making profiles the EQ is usually quite accurate, but the quality of the actual distortion generated usually loses some of the tubey smoothness and touch of the original - this is most evident to me when I'm playing with a lighter touch or with my fingers. Don't get me wrong - I'm glad the Kemper came along because it was a very different approach to getting sounds, and will probably influence many upcoming products. It's all good! :)
 
willowdale said:
It's been confirmed many times that we have to set the gain and basic amp controls before we Tone(EQ)Match anything in order to get the best results.

Tone Matching simply matches the EQ curve, nothing else. Think Ozone or programs like that. Same basic concept, but everything will take place inside the Axe-II.
Click to expand...

So that clears the air on my thinking that the master of a song would affect dynamics since it's only an EQ curve there is no compression going on unless you want to slap some compression/multiband compression on there.
 
Chris Hurley said:
Has it been revealed whether or not the Tone Matching process matches gain settings as well or is that left up to the user to do?
Click to expand...

As stated above, nope dialing the gain will be in the amp block.

But it made me wonder, if you gave it enough time, could you write a function that would guess at different amp blocks and heuristically dial in the Drive, Bass, Middle, Treble, Presence, Master?

Say let it cook overnight until it converges on the Amp Block settings + Tone Match block settings that are closest to the target?

Richard
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom