"Tone Matching" Preview

cobbler said:
Funny you should directly reply to my post. Did you assume it was meant for you? :) I’ll give you my humble take and then bow out of this nonsense as it really serves no purpose at this juncture.
Click to expand...

I talked for like 2 pages in a row, trying to answer some users, i don't need to be OCD to think that was somehow directed to me...;)


cobbler said:
And yes, it is all based on assumptions because neither you nor I have any clue what will eventually be incorporated into the II or how it is developed and implemented by FAS based on the two little snippets of information and associated clips.
Click to expand...

You're wrong, i only debated a concept, which Cliff posted clearly without any other interpretation. I didn't post on the speculative post on the lounge section which is basically talking about nothing...I only made a point which if someone wants to model only the amp needs some breaking point in the signal chain. Which is not criticizing the work of Fractal guys, but to discuss about how the concept of tonematching a track can be misleading. You MUST be aware that when you're tone matching an entire track you're tone matching a WHOLE rig. Someone later said there will be two major ways to pursue this "more user friendly and fast" approach which can include some other signal path elaboration. I cannot comment on that since i have no details avaible nor i have commented clips (which i think sounds really good)....so, please, read carefully my posts.


cobbler said:
So here we are present day with a couple of sentences saying we will have both Amp Matching and Tone Matching added to our already purchased products and we are getting the Fanboy and Zombie rhetoric? Really? Why shouldn’t people get excited over free upgrades to our products? I completely understand your inquisitiveness and I am sure many share your questions and/or points of view but I never read anything where FAS has said they can or will overcome the limitations of the other approaches. To suggest others shut their brains down simply because Cliff talks is both condescending and to be honest, plain rude in my humble opinion. TO ME, it is calling people idiots.
Click to expand...
cobbler said:
As one poster commented prior, it’s not always about the content, but how you present it and I think some of your comments are presented in an offensive manner. And again, that is simply my humble opinion.

I am just happy to be along for the ride and learning process and would personally appreciate not being ridiculed for any excitement I or others may find in a POTENTIAL addition to a piece of gear.

Carry on... :)
Click to expand...

As i said before, i stated, we don't want to be like asserting zombies, so, instead of getting answers like "be happy as it's all good" or "what can you want more as long as the results is good". i'm more like "let's have a talk about that" and chat about critical approach other companies has taken. or at least pro and cons. How disrespectfull is that isn't it? shame on me LOL

I posted a question about some critical approach and got bashed like this...i must repeat myself for the 101st time, I didn't came here to criticize fractal work, which i think is phenomenal and alongside the free upgrade approach is part of their success. Moderators understood that and i had some pretty clever and in topic answers which stopped my curiosity in 2 lines at max.
 
We will agree to disagree then as I wasn not commenting on you critizing FAS work at all. My comments were based on all this being brought up over a simple little announcement and none of us knows how its going to be implemented and the ever obligatory fanboy rhetoric. Nothing more.

And I did read your posts. And I also read Cliffs where he stated there will be both Amp Matching and Tone Matching. I ASSUMED, yes assumed he meant one would match an amp and the other would match the whole chain. But I really dont know at this point since its merely in development and just several sentences have been posted. So I contend it is you who is wrong and were "debating a concept" without reading Cliffs post more carefully.

Ohhh and by the way... I dont see the use of the word "WE" anywhere in here... I just see you and your! Just saying. Mabye you should read your own posts carefully as well but no biggie really as im just a fanboy zombie and well just have to disagree on your presentation. :mrgreen


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 favourite piece of gear acting like asserting zombies??
 
Last edited:
debating a product concept is masturbation.
may feel good but it doesn't achieve anything. : )

let's just let this one go at least until we can actually use it. Then sharing notes will at least be useful.
 
I'm really excited for these 2 new features, especially EQ tone matching, but.......

Since Cliff stated he used a Fas amp block in the process of matching the KPA preset in his first clip, then it is obvious that both new features will require the use of existing amp blocks. Makes sense. My problem with this will be having to painstakingly do the whole process over again each time there is a firmware update because of the resulting tone changes. Obviously people already deal with this with their perfectly dialed in patches.

Is there no way to solve this problem without the patented " you can just choose not to update" response? There are bug fixes, new amp models etc.....in new firmware that cannot be taken advantage of just because updating firmware will also include "tonal improvements" that result in the dreaded re-tweaking patches, re-tone/amp matching of the tones you are already perfectly happy with.

We all love Cliff pushing the envelope and giving constant firmware updates, but I guess like many things in life there is always something that tempers excitement.

Before anyone gets their "panties in a bunch", I'm not complaining, only venting. I have no answers, and guess I'll only be truly happy once the Axe-II reaches its 11.0 like the Ultra/Standard!!(but then there will be Axe-Fx III the final frontier) lol
 
Last edited:
After reading about this type of functionality for the first time in the profiling thread I was having trouble to think of ways I could use it but the idea is growing on me.

For example - For a long time I searched hi and low to find recordings of popular songs I liked with the guitar tracks separated to use for learning purposes. I came up empty on finding such material in original form and have made do with L6 Guitar Port online - a pretty good product which provides good quality covers of popular songs with guitar tracks separated (there's also software out there that will attempt to suppress/isolate a guitar track from a final mix but they generally work poorly). Recently though I discovered Jammit which looks like a great product from Jammit Inc who are licensing ORIGINAL material with individual instrument tracks ISOLATED. I have not used the product yet as it only works with IOS (I'm waiting for the Mac OS version to be released within a week or 2). The AxeFxII tone matching feature combined with Jammit would I think be quite powerful as I should be able to take the isolated original guitar track from Jammit and tone match it in the AxeFxII, then learn the song and replace the original guitar track in the original mix with my own tone matched guitar performance. That's awesome!! (ps - someone mentioned Limelight earlier - that's one of the tracks available in Jammit).

I'm stoked!
 
B. Ste said:
I talked for like 2 pages in a row, trying to answer some users, i don't need to be OCD to think that was somehow directed to me...;)
Click to expand...
:mrgreen

Agree or disagree the way your posts were worded weren't interpreted the same as you say you intended them. It happens.

I do still say that until we get more details about it that speculating about how the process is done is a sure path to confusion and even worse in disappointment. The great thing about Cliff is that he comes up with something, presents it and then we get to see if it works how we want it to or need it to. We give him feedback and then he either fixes it or tells us to get bent. ;) It's a tried and proven process around here. Telling him about the pitfalls of tone matching (which aren't necessarily pitfalls if you are trying to match a specific recorded tone) isn't something that he isn't already aware of. As a matter of fact I'm pretty sure that a lot of the early statements in opposition to the concept of amp profiling by many people fall into that category as well. You can't separate amp from cab if they are profiled together (at least no effectively). The same concept will hold true with tone matching I'm sure. That isn't a problem with design as much as its impossible for any device to distinguish the sum of the parts when presented only with the final product. I think that is why it this technique pursued by him initially. If it is at all possible for to do it then I'm sure that he's already done it. We just don't know for sure yet, but we'll find out...soon.....(now that's funny if you read any of the other threads on this). :mrgreen

But the thing is that Fractal is probably the most responsive company I've ever seen in terms of giving what the customer asks for (within reason). We had a laundry list of things from the Ultra and Standard and just about everyone of them were put into the AxeFXII. So if the process of both of these new features works great then all will be good. If there are problems with either than I'm sure it'll be brought up and if there is a possible solution it can be addressed then. Just be aware that there are some inherent limitations involved in this next evolution of the product and I don't think that it's going to be instant perfection. Expect a period of refinement and improvement along the way as more updates become available.

What I do like about this integration though is that with the AxeFXII's other capabilities and indepth parameters I should in theory be able to go into a patch using one of these new features and really fine tune it to my guitar and monitoring system.
 
sprint said:
Recently though I discovered Jammit which looks like a great product from Jammit Inc who are licensing ORIGINAL material with individual instrument tracks ISOLATED. I have not used the product yet as it only works with IOS (I'm waiting for the Mac OS version to be released within a week or 2). The AxeFxII tone matching feature combined with Jammit would I think be quite powerful as I should be able to take the isolated original guitar track from Jammit and tone match it in the AxeFxII, then learn the song and replace the original guitar track in the original mix with my own tone matched guitar performance. That's awesome!! (ps - someone mentioned Limelight earlier - that's one of the tracks available in Jammit).

I'm stoked!
Click to expand...

I've been using Jammit for quite a while now. It's a great app and also includes the most accurate tab I've ever seen, that moves in time with the original master track. You can isolate/mute the guitar parts, slow things down, loop etc....

They keep adding lots of great tracks, and it is an awesome source for getting the isolated guitar tracks to eq match !!
 
"Listen to me! I am right! You are wrong!"

Before this hit with force, someone said 'prepare for a sh*tstorm' and they were prophetically correct.

My take? Wait till you have this in your hands and THEN discuss it. It'll be funny to revisit this thread after the features hit release and realize (as often happens) that many assumptions were incorrect and the resultant debate wastes of time, effort, patience and good will. Or bad will.

Or better yet, let's never revisit this thread once it drops and instead get back to actually building community support sharing cool Tone Matches between owners.
 
willowdale said:
I've been using Jammit for quite a while now. It's a great app and also includes the most accurate tab I've ever seen, that moves in time with the original master track. You can isolate/mute the guitar parts, slow things down, loop etc....

They keep adding lots of great tracks, and it is an awesome source for getting the isolated guitar tracks to eq match !!
Click to expand...

That looks really cool! Wish it was on the windows platform. They say though it will eventually make its way to windows and android.
 
anyone else amazed it can be done with existing hardware? i think it's cool as s#*t.

End result will be a mixed bag, some will like, some will not, just like firmware updates. Cant please everyone.

I'll be happy i get yet another update that will make it do more than orginally intended. Competition is good, progress is good.

If it's not your thing, or it's not 100% exactly like EVH with malt liquor and ciggarette smell included.. who cares.
 
you could get some interesting tones. i've used a plug-in before called Firium. you put a track through it and eventually it stored the eq. you then put your own track through it and it 'matched' your track to the one you are profiling. you could also modify things like... you could change the percentage of the matching to + or - 50 percent, and even move individual bands on the plug-in, if you wanted, which is quite lexible as it had a 50 band eq. you might want to do this as a bit of tweaking might be necessary when you hear the results.
in answer to your question it would be possible to use the tone from a recording where the guitarist is playing an amp that differs from the block you're using. it would be a bit hit and miss though sound great results could be had by chance.
once, i recorded something rush-like, sorta like old rush. well, i matched my track from one of the older recordings from the 70's, it was a disaster tonally. as an afterthought, i tried using some modern rush instead and the results were great! [but unexpected].
 
Scott Peterson said:
"Listen to me! I am right! You are wrong!"

Before this hit with force, someone said 'prepare for a sh*tstorm' and they were prophetically correct.

My take? Wait till you have this in your hands and THEN discuss it. It'll be funny to revisit this thread after the features hit release and realize (as often happens) that many assumptions were incorrect and the resultant debate wastes of time, effort, patience and good will. Or bad will.

Or better yet, let's never revisit this thread once it drops and instead get back to actually building community support sharing cool Tone Matches between owners.
Click to expand...

I don't think that is a surprise for anybody. It is obvious what is going to happen if you preview something, don't give enough details and leave people waiting for more. That will always create speculation, specially if people are eagerly awaiting for it or hyped. On top of that this a forum so what can you expect.
 
Any IDIOTS with me here, PUSHING for THIS...? :D

--> Presuming the TM will use an IR of some size yet unknown, if possible I'd love to also see a "2nd grade" option where we can come close with our 4 (by TM algorithm pre-configured) PEQs in parallel. Don't we have 20 bands that way(?) with which "I'm sure" you can do something...?

It would be cool to not lose IR spots that way and have it all built-in in the preset itself, without the IR hassle. If you've seen what guys like DonPetersen could do with one PEQ, I would think a few in parallel or series could make it pretty close in a lot of cases?
 
We will just have to wait and see. Every time i assume something, well you know the rest..

But at the risk of doing so, since Cliff already laid the ground work for grabbing IR's from cabs,, this is a add on from that?
 
Last edited:
Artic Myst said:
I don't think that is a surprise for anybody. It is obvious what is going to happen if you preview something, don't give enough details and leave people waiting for more. That will always create speculation, specially if people are eagerly awaiting for it or hyped. On top of that this a forum so what can you expect.
Click to expand...

Well engineers tend to be know-it-alls sometimes and some guitar nerds can be *I can play that better; arms crossed on the first row of the show types*.

If you add those two together = pop tarts :)

Disclaimer: I am an engineer. But at my shows, I ignore the first row guitar nerds and look for the girls with big cans in the second row.

Richard
 
barhrecords said:
Well engineers tend to be know-it-alls sometimes and some guitar nerds can be *I can play that better; arms crossed on the first row of the show types*.

If you add those two together = pop tarts :)

Disclaimer: I am an engineer. But at my shows, I ignore the first row guitar nerds and look for the girls with big cans in the second row.

Richard
Click to expand...

Dimebag Darell did that to me once in Dallas, tuff gig!!
Still see it in my minds eye, (arms crossed, serious look) glad i wasnt trying to match his eq lol. MXR=U. We had a laugh afterwards.
 
Last edited:
barhrecords said:
Well engineers tend to be know-it-alls sometimes and some guitar nerds can be *I can play that better; arms crossed on the first row of the show types*.

If you add those two together = pop tarts :)

Disclaimer: I am an engineer. But at my shows, I ignore the first row guitar nerds and look for the girls with big cans in the second row.

Richard
Click to expand...


Lol, so true. Based on what you said, if you know your audience, you know what to expect, so ...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom