"Tone Matching" Preview

I don't see anything wrong with having "things" like Radley suggested. As a matter of fact a lot of real amps nowadays have parameters/settings like those and it is an easier/faster way of achieving the tone you are looking for. If for example you want your tone to be spongier, fatter, bloomier, ... would not be cool to have knobs named with the effect they produce that interact with the advanced parameters in the background so you don't have to know anything about how amp works internally? (i.e. http://www.sfdamp.com/images/product/SigX_Front-Detail.jpg)

I have to say that I find very useful the voicing parameter in the Axe.

I guess a problem with many "fancy named" parameters with no "real" counterpart or "real world meaning" would be that different people would associate different things with their description.
 
I guess a problem with many "fancy named" parameters with no "real" counterpart or "real world meaning" would be that different people would associate different things with their description.

I am obviously speaking of things that are self explanatory and/or already used in different amps or processors today. It would be pointless otherwise.
 
I get killer tone when I plug straight into my amps; I don't have to work for it (aside from working very hard on my playing, of course...that's a given...and that's where I'd rather spend my time). I have enough knobs to twist, if I so desire--and I often do.

What you wrote above makes me wonder if the Axe is for someone like me. I may discover that it's not. But with everything that's coming with 6.0, I'm interested in giving it a shot.
I have a theory about this kind of thing. And no this isn't directed towards you, it's a general impression I get (mostly from guys over at TGP to be honest).

Basically we have all heard somebody talk about how they've dialed in the perfect tone on a given piece of gear. That may happen with an amp with just 2 or 3 knobs on it. But that tone isn't perfect; it's 'as good as its going to get' with what they have available. It has less to do with getting a perfect tone and more with maximizing what they have available. Now that person could get out a soldering iron, a multimeter and some resistors and caps and all kinds of stuff and just start modding the crap out of that amp and end up either making it better or worse. My point being that they can go further; most of the time they won't because it's either unnecessary or impractical as hell.

Now on the other side if you put 50 knobs on an amp most people will feel compelled to touch each and everyone one of those knobs to dial in the tone. You can delete 45 of those knobs and the person will use the 5 he has in front of him and dial in a 'perfect' tone. What's the difference? He didn't see those knobs so they weren't part of his process. Out of site, out of mind.

What I'm trying to say here is that the advanced parameters don't have to be touched to make it sound good and to be honest the less time you spend in there the happier you are usually going to be. Now don't get all "well why are they there" or anything; I mean play with them, learn them, etc, but just don't feel like its got to be a required part of the process every time you create a patch. They should be used more as advanced parameters which is exactly what they are called. If you were playing an amp would you immediately go for the screwdriver and open it up to dial it in? Of course not, you'd mess with the tone, drive and master volume mostly. You'd get a good sound out of it too. If not then you'd go onto another amp...that's a whole other hang up that we seem to have.

And I think that a lot of the problem really comes down to the idea that we're going to find that magic knob or button that simply doesn't exist or we get obsessed with optimizing a patch to perfection. No amp on the planet is the end all be all, defacto, or perfect solution in every given situation. If you've got a patch that sounds great live, but you have to change a few things for it when you record there shouldn't be such resistance to just making a copy of that patch with the adjustments. Use a different guitar? Set up an X/Y switch in there to compensate.

And lastly I really think that people get way too hung up on using a specific amp model because its got a name on on some code. If your idea of the perfect plexi tone isn't anywhere close to the one that's in the AxeFXII (or any modeller for that matter) then don't be afraid to try a different amp type. We're talking about code here; no two amps are exactly like in real life, there is no reason to really expect a piece of code to sound exactly like a specific amp you heard that you liked.

Like I said, I'm not dogging or pointing fingers or anything; it's more like me just wondering out loud here. I get a bit obsessed with tone myself, but with the AxeFXII I find myself usually starting on something and happening upon a lot of things that I don't look at so much as "that's not right" but more like "how could I use this?" I think that if we spent more time listening to what we have and not what we don't that there'd be a lot more playing going on.
 
Because shasha nailed it on the head. If we think we nailed the perfect tone, sooner or later we'll hear another tone that sounds just as perfect, if not more so. He got the knob-turning compulsion, too. And the elusive "magic tone" knob. And the variability of tone between different samples of the same amp model. And being stuck on a model name. The whole post is great bit of insight, really.
 
Very well said, Shasha.

After a couple years with the Ultra, I can honestly say that when I dial in a new patch, I just use the basic controls. This realization came to me after picking up a Jet City 20w combo and spinning the knobs to create different sounds/textures (1 channel. using it for practice in my home-office). The owner at the shop was even impressed with my ability to "dial in" the amp, saying, "Wow, I can really hear that thing come to life with those little tweaks you're making". Since then, I hardly use the 2nd page (presence and master volume only) and I NEVER use the advanced parameters to dial anything in. I figure Cliff is WAY smarter than I am and has all the advanced stuff default to the real deal. I just need to adjust gain, bass, mid, treble, presence, and master volume to suit my taste.

Why on earth would I buy the most advanced modeling on the planet and immediately assume I need to adjust the transformer or B+ capacitance? Cliff already did that and it sounds awesome.
 
I'm gonna throw out a question on Tone Matching...hopefully one of the Beta testers can weigh in with an opinion.

One thing I'm hoping may be a possibility is more 'guitar matching'.
Example: I have an Ibanez acoustic that sounds excellent when plugged in direct (but is tough to play for 3 hours a night). I have a Crafter that sounds 'ok' when plugged in direct (but plays amazing).
If I take a sample of the Ibanez and a sample of the Crafter...and try to tone match them. How well is that going to work?

Love to hear some thoughts on that.....
 
Respectfully Cliff, my ears are hearing it differently - I hear a full frequency response with the Clarity control regardless of the setting. Perhaps some harmonics are being selectively removed after the distortion phase? Or perhaps the 'direct' signal of the guitar is still being passed with full frequency response while the distorted signal is being filtered? I use pre-filters and EQs all the time before my distortion sources, and I really don't hear that same effect with the KPA Clarity control...

Sorry, I was thinking of the "Definition" control. Clarity is mixing direct signal.
 
I'm gonna throw out a question on Tone Matching...hopefully one of the Beta testers can weigh in with an opinion.

One thing I'm hoping may be a possibility is more 'guitar matching'.
Example: I have an Ibanez acoustic that sounds excellent when plugged in direct (but is tough to play for 3 hours a night). I have a Crafter that sounds 'ok' when plugged in direct (but plays amazing).
If I take a sample of the Ibanez and a sample of the Crafter...and try to tone match them. How well is that going to work?

Love to hear some thoughts on that.....
yah, I don't think from what I've been told that it is realistic to do a great job of matching two very different guitars - maybe not even accurately representing unique pickup tonal spectrum characteristics, not even taking into account sustain, harmonics, etc., nevertheless it may do an OK job in helping to lessen those difference some, maybe, maybe? I mean, if you could even do a fair approximation of emulating a humbucker with a single coil, it would be a cool feature. Going the other direction might be even harder, next to impossible.

I'd love to know more as well.

What a rush it would be to have the program ask one to play, for each of two guitars, each string at several frets positions at 10 different levels of intensity (a 10 minute job it sounds like :) ), and try to work out amp settings that help get your poor-sounding/great playing guitar to sound like your great-sounding/poor playing guitar. Or just to help allow the approximation of various different pickups (or how about "between pickups" like having a 3 pickup/5 position setup in a guitar with only 2 pickups/settings.
 
Last edited:
The "Limelight" tone match was a SC guitar trying to match a HB guitar.

I don't know about anyone else, but I thought it sounded pretty OK.
 
Yes, Matt's track is what got me thinking of trying get my two acoustic guitars to sound 'closer' to each other.
Matt's clip was great (IMO).

Thanks for the opinions guys....will at least be something fun to play with!
 
Radley, if I could play with Neil...I would be honored to play anything he called out. He may not be everyone's cup o tea, but he is an icon in my book!

You sir have an awesome gig!
 
Back
Top Bottom