"Tone Matching" Preview

[FPFL]

The bottom line is people nitpicking a feature that isn't even out yet, based on clips, knowing this feature will be a free upgrade... would complain in heaven.
They are not "helping" anything despite their intentions. At this point "Thank you!" is the only helpful response IMHO.

 

[iaresee]

I may add that I wrote that you need to buy outboard gear which is $$$ just because the palmer solution said earlier was a lot more costly and less effective than the line out solution which i mentioned (more $ and it would have not solved the problem as the palmer it's also a cabinet simulator).

You can bypass the cab simulation on the Palmer. It solves the problem completely. And if you don't need the load offered by the PGA-04 you could buy their cheaper in-line DI that sits between your head and a cab and use that instead. Only problem is you'll need to endure the volume when profiling.

Seriously though, what I'm trying to show you here, is there's many ways to skin this cat so you can get the profile you desire.

 

[shasha]

Are you kidding me? is it a serious answer for real?

How are you supposed to Tone match an amp behaviour when you're matching a guitar+amp behaviour then adding another guitar??

Or as you would answer, it's not always a linear equation.

I'm not gonna say it's not a bad idea, just the "match an audio track tone"-idea. When you tone match a guitar track played with a maple fingerboard kramer with bolt on neck with an amp block, are you sure you're gonna have a pleasent sound when played with a gibson SG?

PLEASE: don't shut down your brain when Cliff talks....I repeat myself, i do have an axe fx 2 inbound, but all this faboyism is making me mad!! it's just a suggestion...let's say a de-bug help from a user...how are you gonna help your favorite piece of gear acting like asserting zombies??

I don't think that anyone has shut down their brain here. I will say that this is the Fractal Forum and I think that finding out that there is something being developed and provided that is above and beyond what was ever expected when people purchased the device in the first place deserves a bit of excitement and a warm reception. I don't see anyone in here saying anything about "take that Kemper" or "we're the best again" or something equally as lame ass that I typically associate with blind fanboyism.

But yeah, its Fractal love-fest central on this forum, always has been and probably always will be, I mean it's a forum completely based on their products and the majority of people that own one are pretty happy with it. Doesn't mean that people are idiots as you are implying, it means that we are excited and are probably going to wait to see it in practice before we presume to know more than the designer of the product. He's got a bit of a track record for being a bit more clever than most of us when it comes to developing his products.

What makes "me mad" is someone "making suggestions" about something that none of us has even seen in live operation yet and then telling us that our brains are turned off and we're being zombies.

And nothing personal here because I understand your question, but of course the guitar is going to have an impact on the sound....I mean really think about what you are saying here. How in the world could it not? Why on earth would you not want it to? I mean seriously think about what you are saying. The tools will get you only so far, but as soon as you bring another piece into the puzzle it's going to alter what happens to the output and what I would be so bold as to presume here is that you would have to either dial the preset in a bit more to get it as close as possible or find a guitar that is closer to the original. I mean if you are looking to turn something with EMG's into Danelectro or vice versa you will more than likely be disappointed.

I'm not going to say that it can't be done or that it can be done, but I wouldn't expect it to be possible and I'll judge the usefulness of the feature once I see it...and then people will probably start identifying areas that can be improved and making suggestions.

 

[B. Ste]

The bottom line is people nitpicking a feature that isn't even out yet, based on clips, knowing this feature will be a free upgrade... would complain in heaven.
They are not "helping" anything despite their intentions. At this point "Thank you!" is the only helpful response IMHO.

I'm not complaining about anything which was not already revealed. I'm talking on an higher level, the concept. Tone matching a guitar track has little to be revealed. I'm not complaining about how it would be done (axe edit or inside the axe fx?) when it would be done or how does it sounds (i haven't even opened every file cliff posted! i don't even doubt they sound good! but they're only 2 clips, not 1000). As an engineer i'm asking Cliff or whoever is entitled to answer how can they solve this conceptual problem within the tone matching feature as"the tone matching a track" thing would take the guitar used and the cabinet+mic used in the equation. that's it! I'm also saying thank you to cliff and stuf...not that the money i already spent for the Axe was not enough LOL

 

[B. Ste]

You can bypass the cab simulation on the Palmer. It solves the problem completely. And if you don't need the load offered by the PGA-04 you could buy their cheaper in-line DI that sits between your head and a cab and use that instead. Only problem is you'll need to endure the volume when profiling.

Seriously though, what I'm trying to show you here, is there's many ways to skin this cat so you can get the profile you desire.

nice reply Ian. How would you resolve the guitar in the track problem? i'm thinking about it but i cannot find an answer....it would need a break point something in between the guitar and the amp input (the one you would like to profile), so that it can be left out of the chain.

Something like ISP technologies use to make their product as good. They track the guitar before the amp signal to see WHEN you're actually playing, then they apply the gate AFTER the amp distortion, so the circuit is shutting down the noise just when it has to be done. THAT's the kind of level of talking i'm about....

 

[B. Ste]

......

Which is more emproving?

- saying that it sounds awesome and it's a great idea and saying thank you for the improvement

- saying thank you for the emprovement and make suggestione about a REAL problem of the concept. As a product like Kemper is already OUT there and has a similar problem

...not that i'm talking about rocket science or speculating about something is not out, i'm an engineer, I'm used to talk about objective facts. The IDEA is out, and i'm talking about THAT.

And i'm here to help the Staff improve their product, as i invested my money in it, and i have interest in making it better than the other simulators/profiler/Fx processors and what not.

 

[eda123]

I'm not complaining about anything which was not already revealed. I'm talking on an higher level, the concept. Tone matching a guitar track has little to be revealed. I'm not complaining about how it would be done (axe edit or inside the axe fx?) when it would be done or how does it sounds (i haven't even opened every file cliff posted! i don't even doubt they sound good! but they're only 2 clips, not 1000). As an engineer i'm asking Cliff or whoever is entitled to answer how can they solve this conceptual problem within the tone matching feature as"the tone matching a track" thing would take the guitar used and the cabinet+mic used in the equation. that's it! I'm also saying thank you to cliff and stuf...not that the money i already spent for the Axe was not enough LOL

There is no way to pick apart an audio file of a full chain and dissect exactly what is amp/cab, etc. Its not possible. But that doesnt mean the feature wont be functional, usable, and well received. KPA hit this as well because its impossible to get past as Jay and others have said on TGP as well. And KPA has some decent interest out of the gate in spite of this. When FAS augments this "matching" concept with his own unique and IMO brilliant approaches, no doubt it will be a smash hit. He's got a proven track record of creative engineering, implementation, support, and has a huge base of users sharing and supporting each other. This wont be a "me too" solution any more than the Axe is a "me too" of the POD products. Its a whole different level in many aspects.

Anyway youve drilled this to death and Im sure Cliff is reading it.. time to move on and keep the thread productive.

 

[iaresee]

nice reply Ian. How would you resolve the guitar in the track problem? i'm thinking about it but i cannot find an answer....it would need a break point something in between the guitar and the amp input (the one you would like to profile), so that it can be left out of the chain.

Guitar in the track? That's not how this is done. If you're matching an amp you have on hand, you hook it up in a loop with the sampling device and it sends a test tone sweep through it and profiles it that way. There's no guitar involved.

If you're trying to sample tones from pre-recorded tracks you have the problems (and more like compression and effects) that you've mentioned. But not if you're profiling gear you have on hand.

 

[shasha]

....- saying thank you for the emprovement and make suggestione about a REAL problem of the concept. As a product like Kemper is already OUT there and has a similar problem

...not that i'm talking about rocket science or speculating about something is not out, i'm an engineer, I'm used to talk about objective facts. The IDEA is out, and i'm talking about THAT.

And i'm here to help the Staff improve their product, as i invested my money in it, and i have interest in making it better than the other simulators/profiler/Fx processors and what not.

Do you have the actual process involved because I'd be very interested in the details myself. Seriously, I have no idea what the workflow to making this happen is going to be. I must have missed that post.

Once again I have no issue with what you are asking, but to come on here and insult everyone else who's excited because they aren't informed about the process as well as you are (the guy who has one on order) just really irked the shit out of me. We can all go over to TGP to get insulted, we don't need it here....especially when its baseless...and even if it was founded in your opinion this is probably the only really appropriate place to be a little over the top and excited. I think that it's understandable and appropriate to show some appreciation and anticipation.

And yes you are absolutely right that the KPA is getting a little bit of flak about the separation of amp and cab. Considering it was designed to capture an amp and cab and seems to do quite an admirable job of it that honestly it's a little unwarranted for anyone to bash it for that. I mean if anyone really needed the ability to keep amp and cab separate there are plenty of other products out there (including real amps and cabs) that can do that very well. It was one of my concerns with the KPA and a reason I stuck with the Fractal stuff. Doesn't mean that one is better than the other, just means that they've got different capabilities and the AxeFXII fits my wants and needs better.

I'd assume that with the tone matching that there are going to be limitations because you're taking the complete path into consideration; guitar->amp->cab->effects->EQ, whatever. I don't see how you can isolate a component from a completed product and is not the intent of the feature. I'd wager to think that it's impossible. Do you know how it would be done?

 

[B. Ste]

Guitar in the track? That's not how this is done. If you're matching an amp you have on hand, you hook it up in a loop with the sampling device and it sends a test tone sweep through it and profiles it that way. There's no guitar involved.

If you're trying to sample tones from pre-recorded tracks you have the problems (and more like compression and effects) that you've mentioned. But not if you're profiling gear you have on hand.

but that was what Cliff said.you can match guitar isolated tracks tone...but if it's like you said that will solve the problem as the concept of taking an amp and putting it in a sampling loop that would be the solution! as it will take the amp as a black box, analizing what it's put inside and what is coming out...

 

[B. Ste]

Once again I have no issue with what you are asking, but to come on here and insult everyone else who's excited because they aren't informed about the process as well as you are (the guy who has one on order) just really irked the shit out of me. We can all go over to TGP to get insulted, we don't need it here....especially when its baseless...and even if it was founded in your opinion this is probably the only really appropriate place to be a little over the top and excited. I think that it's understandable and appropriate to show some appreciation and anticipation.

I didn't bash anybody for free.i SAID we don't want to be like that. as Every internet board is trying to say that here is a bunch of fanboy and nothing more....i don't believe that....but when i make a point and get an answer from a MODERATOR saying that 4+1 is equal 3+2....It's almost near insulting my intelligence....i spent time trying to suggest something....that's what I said and intended. Nothing more....and i can add that i'm talking as light hearted as i can be...i'm talking about an amp simulator not my family i'm taking it VERY easy

 

[mortega76]

I'm probably wrong but it would seem that you would be able to (in theory of course, because the fw hasn't been released) connect an amp using a dummy speaker load box with DI (don't even know if those things even exist) and have that go into the Axe2 and "clone-tone" (someone said that earlier and it stuck in my head... ) the amp without the cab coloration... So (in theory) I could go to an ampfest, pick an amp, dial in some great sounding settings, "clone-tone" it, lather, rinse, & repeat the process for the rest of the amps in room... if so, this is gonna be great!

 

[javajunkie]

but that was what Cliff said...you can match guitar isolated tracks tone....The concept of taking an amp an putting in a sampling loop that would be the solution! as it will take the amp as a black box, analizing what it's put inside and what is coming out...

The track Eq matching is only one part of what he is doing.

you can also match amps with what Cliff is proposing. How do you think he got the modeling matched.

I think you are missing where Cliff already described this.

Cliff stated there are 2 modes.

amp matching and tone matching

 

[mark_melling]

And i'm here to help the Staff improve their product, as i invested my money in it, and i have interest in making it better than the other simulators/profiler/Fx processors and what not.

Don't take this the wrong way..the Ax is where it is today because of community feedback over the last few years..one thing i have noticed, is guys who come along with seemingly "pushy" attitudes don't tend to be overly listened to.

Delivery can be as effective as content.

 

[AdamCook]

I didn't bash anybody for free...i SAID we don't want to be like that. as Every internet board is trying to say that here is a bunch of fanboy and nothing more....i don't believe that....but when i make a point and get an answer from a MODERATOR saying that 4+1 is equal 3+2....It's almost near insulting my intelligence....i spent time trying to suggest something....that's what I said and intended. Nothing more.

My understanding of your suggestion (please correct me if I'm wrong) is that you would like us to add the ability to isolate the guitar/pickup EQ from the amp EQ from the cab EQ, etc when one is doing a "tone match".

The point of my analogy (is 5 = 4+1 or 5 = 3+2?) is that it is mathematically impossible to isolate all the individual components that contribute to the total EQ curve. You can make guesses the way some other products do but it really is just a guess and it will have mixed results.

 

[shasha]

I didn't bash anybody for free.i SAID we don't want to be like that. as Every internet board is trying to say that here is a bunch of fanboy and nothing more....i don't believe that....but when i make a point and get an answer from a MODERATOR saying that 4+1 is equal 3+2....It's almost near insulting my intelligence....i spent time trying to suggest something....that's what I said and intended. Nothing more....and i can add that i'm talking as light hearted as i can be...i'm talking about an amp simulator not my family i'm taking it VERY easy

Well I get a little defensive on here sometimes. Like I said I get tired of going on other boards and feeling like I have to censor myself in order to avoid being called names so when I see it here I get a bit riled up.

But just to let you know your posts didn't come over as being light hearted, they seemed a bit aggressive with terms like irritated and such.

I don't think that anyone was trying to insult your intelligence, but rather the greater point is the final product, not so much the process involved. As with anything else it may work for you and it may not, YMMV. Its just another tool to get from point A to point B. You've already got the AxeFXII coming to you, at least take the time to see how it works as a conventional modeller and as a tone matching device before you get yourself and everyone else worked up over what may or may not be.

 

[B. Ste]

Don't take this the wrong way..the Ax is where it is today because of community feedback over the last few years..one thing i have noticed, is guys who come along with seemingly "pushy" attitudes don't tend to be overly listened to.

Delivery can be as effective as content.

I didn't thought to be pushy! i'm only trying to answer to everyone is talking to me....

 

[eda123]

The point of my analogy (is 5 = 4+1 or 5 = 3+2?) .

Ahh but with floating point arithmetic, 4+1 doesnt equal 1+4 Just saying

In all seriousness, Adam's point is dead on- you are after an end result this is a potential quicker way to the same result, which will have pros and cons associated.

 

[B. Ste]

My understanding of your suggestion (please correct me if I'm wrong) is that you would like us to add the ability to isolate the guitar/pickup EQ from the amp EQ from the cab EQ, etc when one is doing a "tone match".

The point of my analogy (is 5 = 4+1 or 5 = 3+2?) is that it is mathematically impossible to isolate all the individual components that contribute to the total EQ curve. You can make guesses the way some other products do but it really is just a guess and it will have mixed results.

that's correct. As a WHOLE rig is like a black box, you can't isolate the single contribution just having the TOTAL result. You have to do some breakpoints...if we're talking about isolated guitar tracks we're talking about NO break point or whatsoever...if we're talking about sampling loop or DI boxes we're talking about breaking points!

 

[Vegas Bob]

IMO I think this is just awesome. I'm really glad it's coming soon BEFORE we all sell off every amp we've collected over the years (which I've already started to do). Hopefully our community will put together a collection that will be the end all library of guitar tones. Cliff has certainly given us the tools...