"Tone Matching" Preview

aculturemind said:
Sounds to me the Axe tone has greater headroom than the processor. In turn, I can't really tell the difference between the Axe and the Koch Studiotone Tube Amp clips.
Click to expand...

In fact i double checked the two files, because it was for myself difficult to hear the difference, and i wanted be sure, that i did not post the same clip twice! But you hear at the end of the Koch file its Amp hum for a second ... thats for me the biggest difference *lol

In fact the headroom (dynamic) of the Koch studiotone seems to be a little bit better: when i compare by playing through both devices, the Koch feels a little bit more "elastic". The match of the Clean channel responded in a 3-4db less dynamic from the Axe, compared to the Koch: I "normalize" both clips to -3db and the Axe was on the quite positions these 3-4db louder. this is what my DAW speaks to me. So, note, that this was done with a Axe GEN1. But because of this experience i can imagine what people mean, when the say, that the Axe-II feels more dynamic and direct compared to GEN1. But note also: You feel these differences only in a A/B comparison, the difference in feeling is VERY small! And with gaining (compressed) tones the difference is not noticable when A/Bing .... imho...
 
Morphosis said:
In fact i double checked the two files, because it was for myself difficult to hear the difference, and i wanted be sure, that i did not post the same clip twice! But you hear at the end of the Koch file its Amp hum for a second ... thats for me the biggest difference *lol

In fact the headroom (dynamic) of the Koch studiotone seems to be a little bit better: when i compare by playing through both devices, the Koch feels a little bit more "elastic". The match of the Clean channel responded in a 3-4db less dynamic from the Axe, compared to the Koch: I "normalize" both clips to -3db and the Axe was on the quite positions these 3-4db louder. this is what my DAW speaks to me. So, note, that this was done with a Axe GEN1. But because of this experience i can imagine what people mean, when the say, that the Axe-II feels more dynamic and direct compared to GEN1. But note also: You feel these differences only in a A/B comparison, the difference in feeling is VERY small! And with gaining (compressed) tones the difference is not noticable when A/Bing .... imho...
Click to expand...

Thanks for your efforts. Yeah, I feel like there's no magic or special sauce that Kemper has found that others who have closely looked into profiling have not. Kemper just have created a great package for it.

Therefore, I have lots of faith in Cliff's genious that he will be able to pull this off. As you have already demenostrated with old technology and algorhythms, we could already get pretty close.
 
JIMMY G said:
I found info here on the forum on mics, but what would anyone suggest for a reasonable mic pre ?
Click to expand...

It really depends on your budget. I just happened to start getting into recording using high quality mics and mic pres, and I have a whole bunch of killer tube amps I want to record with. If this "tone matching" is implemented in the Axe II, and I can use that gear to get my amps properly modeled in the Axe, I'll be happier than a pig in shit. :)

But--back to your question--there's a whole bunch of great choices, and I did a lot of homework on the subject the last month or two. Feel free to msg me.
 
B. Ste said:
I same as the kemper one! which is lacking on flexibility (you cannot take out effectively the cab and mic sound on the profile)..
Click to expand...

Maybe I am totally off base, and I don't understand your comments, but why would I want to eliminate the cab and mic sound if I was trying use the amp tone matching feature? If I have a great tube amp (and I happen to have a small fleet of them), and I put a couple great mics on it (got those, too), and run them through a killer mic pre (Yep...got those), wouldn't I want the Axe tone matching feature to grab every last nuance of that signal path? And then I'd have the ability to refine and tweak the resulting "capture" (just as the KPA does)?? Wow...I'd be unbelievably excited.

Sign me up.
 
jshirkey said:
Maybe I am totally off base, and I don't understand your comments, but why would I want to eliminate the cab and mic sound if I was trying use the amp tone matching feature? If I have a great tube amp (and I happen to have a small fleet of them), and I put a couple great mics on it (got those, too), and run them through a killer mic pre (Yep...got those), wouldn't I want the Axe tone matching feature to grab every last nuance of that signal path? And then I'd have the ability to refine and tweak the resulting "capture" (just as the KPA does)?? Wow...I'd be unbelievably excited.

Sign me up.
Click to expand...
I think that is part of the reason why it wasn't pursued by FAS in the first place. If you get the absolute tone you are looking for then you're golden, but if it's not and it's a cabinet/mic position thing you are pretty much out of luck. Two different processes.

jshirkey said:
Isn't that how the amp models in the Axe were made in the first place? Or no?
Click to expand...
From what I understand you are talking about profilng, where as I believe the AxeFXII actually recreates the entire amplifier circuit using complex algorithms to recreate what would happen in a physical device. Very different processes.

jshirkey said:
Then it was actually "model matching", if the Diezel was a model--not an actual Diezel amp? Or am I now terribly confused? lol
Click to expand...
You may have missed it, but he wasn't able to crank up an amp due to 'family related' issues (didn't want to piss everyone off). I think that it was more about accuracy than creating the most amazing tone ever.
 
shasha said:
I think that is part of the reason why it wasn't pursued by FAS in the first place. If you get the absolute tone you are looking for then you're golden, but if it's not and it's a cabinet/mic position thing you are pretty much out of luck. Two different processes.
Click to expand...

Back into speculation mode I (we?) go: Do we know that that's not what the new tone matching feature will allow users to do? As I'm sure you recall, there are two modes: amp matching and tone matching. Both intrigue me, but the amp matching stuff is what really has my attention--so long as it's matching real miced amps we're talking about.


shasha said:
From what I understand you are talking about profilng, where as I believe the AxeFXII actually recreates the entire amplifier circuit using complex algorithms to recreate what would happen in a physical device. Very different processes.
Click to expand...

I wish I had the brainpower to understand both processes, but isn't the end result similar? You can take a KPA profile and tweak it in all kinds of ways to make it clean up more or add more gain, sound more vintage or modern--and so forth. In other words, the resulting KPA profile still behaves like its analogue in the physical world, the amp itself.


shasha said:
You may have missed it, but he wasn't able to crank up an amp due to 'family related' issues (didn't want to piss everyone off). I think that it was more about accuracy than creating the most amazing tone ever.
Click to expand...

I saw that, actually. I guess the core question (for me, at least) remains. Will the new amp matching allow users to mic their own amps and capture the results (even if it means you have to dial in a similar amp model on the Axe with which your amp's tone is subsequently compared)? Capturing another amp model or a signature guitar tone in a recorded track is super cool. I'm just wondering if we'll be able to tone match real amps--which, it seems to me, is one (small?) step away from being able to make our own amp models.

It's all very exciting stuff. I'm just sitting tight to see how things unfold. Not trying to stir the pot--or not too much anyway. ;)
 
Stevelow74 said:
It was a Diezel model from a some kind of "POD".
Click to expand...

Not correct. It was a Diezel amp profile patch from the Kemper that Cliff "matched" to a FAS amp block in the Axe-II (Cliff said so)

My understanding of the upcoming features:

1.The Amp Matching feature coming to the Axe-II can match a tube amp&cab (mic/into mic pre/into Axe2) to an existing amp block in the Axe-II, or also match a patch from any modeler/profiler to an amp block in the Axe-II by simply connecting the unit to the Axe-II using cables between both(which is what Cliff did in his example because he said that noise would have been a factor in his house that day if he had matched an actual tube amp/cab).

2.The Tone Matching feature is the ability to tone match an isolated guitar track to an existing amp block in the Axe-II.
 
Last edited:
Rex said:
No. The amp models in the Axe were created by hand-building software models of existing tube amp circuits and behavior.
Click to expand...

Okay, thanks for clarifying. I may be in the minority, but I think the profiles of amps sound much better all around, more natural, etc. If FAS is finding a way to incorporate a similar technology in the Axe 2, I think it will have no equal. Fingers crossed that's where this is heading.
 
jshirkey said:
You can take a KPA profile and tweak it in all kinds of ways to make it clean up more or add more gain, sound more vintage or modern--and so forth. In other words, the resulting KPA profile still behaves like its analogue in the physical world, the amp itself.
Click to expand...

You believe KPA doesn't use physical models?
The kpa profile behaves like analong AS LONG AS you don't tweak profile. Turning up gain(drive) or eq change the whole response: you have to re-profile it for each setting.
 
I think they (kemper) have a generic amp model simulation that is altered according to the profiling results.

If FAS is matching the real amps with the already existing FAS models, isn't it kind of the same thing?
 
gagged1.jpg
 
Smilzo said:
You believe KPA doesn't use physical models?
The kpa profile behaves like analong AS LONG AS you don't tweak profile. Turning up gain(drive) or eq change the whole response: you have to re-profile it for each setting.
Click to expand...

At what point did I say KPA doesn't use physical models (I assume by "physical models" you mean "amps"?) ?

The second part of what you wrote simply isn't true. Go watch some demos of the KPA. You can tweak quite a bit after profiling is done, changing the sound dramatically.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom