"Tone Matching" Preview

FractalAudio said:
It was "Amp Matching" but using a modeler since I don't want to disturb the other denizens of my habitat today.
Click to expand...

I'm confused. I thought the clip that was posted of the "DIEZEL CH2" being duplicated by the AXE II was "Tone Matching", not "Amp Matching". Then you seemed to indicate it was "Amp Matching" in a later post. What did I miss? Is there a clip posted anywhere of "Amp Matching" that I missed? I read through the thread but it's so long it's hard to parse.

Help!!!


These were the posts I saw that I thought pertained to the copy of the "DIEZEL CH2" using an FAS amp block and "Tone Matching":

FractalAudio said:
"The following clip compares two devices. One of the devices is a guitar processor. The other device is the Axe-Fx II after having the amp block "tone matched" to the other device using the new "Tone Matching" technology."

"First one is a preset named "DIEZEL CH2". Second one is FAS MODERN matched to it."



"There are currently two modes:
Amp Matching and...
Tone Matching.

In Tone Matching mode you can match the tone of an isolated guitar track."




"It was "Amp Matching" but using a modeler since I don't want to disturb the other denizens of my habitat today."
Click to expand...


If there was a post of sound clip example of "Amp Matching", can someone clarify which one it is and link me to it. Sorry if I'm dense today.

Thanks.
 
So, how much of the total package does Tone Matching cover? Is it a post-EQ-only thing, or does it also attempt to setup the actual Amp block itself?

I mean I'd asume it's EQ only, but I still thought I'd ask so I could get a head up just in case Cliff has decided to use actual magic instead of just science here.

Whatever it is, it sounds really, really good.
 
Last edited:
>I'm confused. I thought the clip that was posted of the "DIEZEL CH2" being duplicated by the AXE II was "Tone Matching", not "Amp Matching". Then you seemed to indicate it was "Amp Matching" in a later post. What did I miss?<

Well, while we're all guessing, I'll make my guess.

I'm pretty sure that that original comparison Cliff made of the Diezel w/ the FAS Modern "matched" to it is an example of "Amp Matching". (Cliff said as much, afterwards, as you quote)
I think Cliff accidentally muddied the waters a bit by using the phrase "tone match" earlier in the same sentence... thus your confusion. But it seem to make sense that what he posted was an example of "Amp Matching", since what's being matched is an AMP, not a recorded TONE.
 
paulasbell said:
>I'm confused. I thought the clip that was posted of the "DIEZEL CH2" being duplicated by the AXE II was "Tone Matching", not "Amp Matching". Then you seemed to indicate it was "Amp Matching" in a later post. What did I miss?<

Well, while we're all guessing, I'll make my guess.

I'm pretty sure that that original comparison Cliff made of the Diezel w/ the FAS Modern "matched" to it is an example of "Amp Matching". (Cliff said as much, afterwards, as you quote)
I think Cliff accidentally muddied the waters a bit by using the phrase "tone match" earlier in the same sentence... thus your confusion. But it seem to make sense that what he posted was an example of "Amp Matching", since what's being matched is an AMP, not a recorded TONE.
Click to expand...

I see it the other way around if I were to guess (which I am).

It was the "tone" of another amp (modeler) that he was matching, hence "Tone Matching" was being used. It could have just as well been the recorded tone from a record but it was more convenient to use a modeler and not have to learn to play an identical part that was on a recording. He also had to use an amp block in the AXE, which (I speculate) wouldn't be needed for "Amp Matching" or the equivalent of "profiling".

I interpret "Tone = EQ" and "Amp = distortion + EQ". So tone matching would require an amp model to be used in the AXE, while amp matching would be a "profiling" process that would recreate the entire sound, distortion + EQ. That's my GUESS.

Again, I'm guessing - that's why I asked. In any event, he made it clear they are two separate features. Maybe he purposefully interchanged the terms to confuse all of us and is laughing at all the speculation over a cold one and wants it to be somewhat of a surprise when it comes out. Or maybe he made it clear and I just can't read!

It's all good, that's for certain.
 
Last edited:
Search4Tone said:
I'm confused. I thought the clip that was posted of the "DIEZEL CH2" being duplicated by the AXE II was "Tone Matching", not "Amp Matching". Then you seemed to indicate it was "Amp Matching" in a later post. What did I miss? Is there a clip posted anywhere of "Amp Matching" that I missed? I read through the thread but it's so long it's hard to parse.

Help!!!


These were the posts I saw that I thought pertained to the copy of the "DIEZEL CH2" using an FAS amp block and "Tone Matching":




If there was a post of sound clip example of "Amp Matching", can someone clarify which one it is and link me to it. Sorry if I'm dense today.

Thanks.
Click to expand...

He was using the "Tone Matching technology"
It consists of two parts
Amp matching and tone matching

He used amp matching on that (he states that in the quote your are referencing). Amp matching includes the non-linear aspects .

so he took the Diezel CH2 preset from one device and applied it to the FAS Modern amp on the axe-fx.
 
Search4Tone said:
I see it the other way around if I were to guess (which I am).

It was the "tone" of another amp (modeler) that he was matching, hence "Tone Matching" was being used. It could have just as well been the recorded tone from a record but it was more convenient to use a modeler and not have to learn to play an identical part that was on a recording. He also had to use an amp block in the AXE, which (I speculate) wouldn't be needed for "Amp Matching" or the equivalent of "profiling".

I interpret "Tone = EQ" and "Amp = distortion + EQ". So tone matching would require an amp model to be used in the AXE, while amp matching would be a "profiling" process that would recreate the entire sound, distortion + EQ. That's my GUESS.

Again, I'm guessing - that's why I asked. In any event, he made it clear they are two separate features. Maybe he purposefully interchanged the terms to confuse all of us and is laughing at all the speculation over a cold one and wants it to be somewhat of a surprise when it comes out. Or maybe he made it clear and I just can't read!

It's all good, that's for certain.
Click to expand...

To me it sounds like the "Amp match" is superimposed over an existing model.
 
javajunkie said:
To me it sounds like the "Amp match" is superimposed over an existing model.
Click to expand...
I went back to read up on some of his posts and I get that impression as well. I won't elaborate on my take on that since it would be based on pure speculation, but it gets me even more juiced up over this. It would mean it's not a static profile....

Once again I don't want to get too far ahead without seeing it or hearing specifics from FAS.
 
From what I understand, It's the best of both worlds. Not sure but it can be the next step of profiling.

The faults of profiling are somehow fixed with this process, taking the amp block and the real components modeled and then match some settings directly from the amp. I think we still can tweak all the settings (if wanted) so the "profiles" aren't limited to one setting and will react exactly like the matched amp.

This are my deductions with the information we have and if this works this way, we are talking about one BIG thing.
 
I was interested in this concept, had no idea how it could work ( just dont have the brain for that kinda stuff ;) ) and after hearing the clips posted so far, sure sounded great.
The idea it could replicate a guitar tone just by hearing it is a concept that hurts my brain. Even with the recent release of the Kemper showcasing such behaviour in earlier and more recent videos I still cant get my head around it but clearly not only does the concept and technology exist but is now a reality and as a possible future update on the Axe FX II has me very interested as the difference between having the cabs / amps / eq and ability to spend hours scratching your head trying to get the tones you're after vs a function that can replicate the exact sound you want to me is a gamechanger.
Sadly not everyone who is a good, even brilliant player has the brain or patience to build tones from scratch. And more so there will always be people who would love " that tone " at the push of a button. So yeah, am very interested in this thread and still baffled and amazed in equal measures.
 
More sound samples Cliff please.

This thread is not long enough yet......

and maybe a details teaser lol...
that'L do it
 
Last edited:
DavidN1978 said:
I was interested in this concept, had no idea how it could work ( just dont have the brain for that kinda stuff ;) ) and after hearing the clips posted so far, sure sounded great.
The idea it could replicate a guitar tone just by hearing it is a concept that hurts my brain. Even with the recent release of the Kemper showcasing such behaviour in earlier and more recent videos I still cant get my head around it but clearly not only does the concept and technology exist but is now a reality and as a possible future update on the Axe FX II has me very interested as the difference between having the cabs / amps / eq and ability to spend hours scratching your head trying to get the tones you're after vs a function that can replicate the exact sound you want to me is a gamechanger.
Sadly not everyone who is a good, even brilliant player has the brain or patience to build tones from scratch. And more so there will always be people who would love " that tone " at the push of a button. So yeah, am very interested in this thread and still baffled and amazed in equal measures.
Click to expand...
I'm not saying that it's exactly the same process or result, but here's a video that shows the general concept. I don't know if it'll be IR or a new block or something completely different, but the basic fundamental idea is demonstrated here.

Dollar Sound Secrets: Guitar Tone Match EQ and IR - YouTube
 
FRACTAL AUDIO AND CLIFF CHASE - YOU ROCK MY WORLD!!!

javajunkie said:
He was using the "Tone Matching technology"
It consists of two parts
Amp matching and tone matching

He used amp matching on that (he states that in the quote your are referencing). Amp matching includes the non-linear aspects .

so he took the Diezel CH2 preset from one device and applied it to the FAS Modern amp on the axe-fx.
Click to expand...

Cool. So if I understand correctly, on the sound clip sample that was posted he used "Tone Matching Technology" which consists of two parts: 1) Amp Matching which captures the non-linear (distortion) behavior of the amp being copied, and 2) "Tone Matching" which captures the EQ of the amp being captured (the linear part).

So unlike the Kemper, on the AXE you start with an amp model that's already in the AXE, and the AXE examines both the non-linear (distortion) behavior as well as the Linear (EQ) aspects of the amp that you want to copy, and it imparts those qualities to an amp block, in this case to one of the FAS lead models, making that model sound like the one being "cloned". Do I have that right? That's not very intuitive to me but whatever works!

I guess my question would be, "How do you choose which model to start with in the AXE when you want to "Amp Match" the distortion of another amp? It would seem that a clean amp wouldn't be a good start to copy a 5150, but then again maybe it doesn't matter. Maybe the AXE simply substitutes ALL of the model with a waveshaper and EQ and you just end up with a completely different amp sound than the one that was in the amp block.

This is exciting stuff, to say the least.

One thing I've discovered about the AXE-FX II is that if you take some time and go into the detailed parameters like the bright cap, tonestack type and location, presence frequency, damping (a BIG one), B+ time constant, triode plate capacitor (plate freq), triode and power tube hardness, transformer match and drive, bias, etc., you can end up with an amp that sounds NOTHING like the original amp model. In other words, you can create your own amp.

I've built a few tube amps, and to be able to control all these parameters with a couple of button pushes and the turn of a knob is mind boggling. I took the Class A 15W TB and got a gorgeous light distortion perfect for arpeggios and picking by using a little bit of preamp, power amp, and transformer distortion. By using the speaker size and mic proximity controls you can change a speaker cab into something that sounds completely different that of the original. All this EFFECTIVELY GIVES YOU AN INFINITE NUMBER OF AMPS AND SPEAKER CAB COMBINATIONS, and that's not an exaggeration.

Now apparently were going to have Amp and Tone Matching. Thank God there is someone out there who doesn't let the bean counters run his business, refuses to compromise the quality of his product, and constantly innovates and adds more and more features and more and more sonic improvements. It's refreshing and it's VERY MUCH APPRECIATED.
 
I would have no problem losing some IR slots if I know I can copy the sound of my personal cabs (which I like better)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom