tonestack curves

Chief said:
1) If I just put an amp on the grid without tweaking anything that the passive tonestack EQ will look almost exactly as you have shown for the amp indicated?
Click to expand...

I chose the Tube Pre because I figured it would be the most neutral amp. Some amps have quite a bit of low cut and high cut, so that would probably show.
I'm not 100% sure I get exactly what you're asking, so let me point out one important thing:
'passive' in this case means the same thing as 'default'. With a Brownface sim for exsample the tonestack setting 'passive' and 'Brownface' are identical.

Chief said:
2) If I then change the tonestack to active and dial up a different amp tonestack type, the resulting EQ curve will then be exactly like the active one and all other parameters of the original amp will remain the same?
Click to expand...

again, the wording used here is a bit misleading:
'active' is a tonestack setting by itself. it means the tonestack is replaced by an active eq, like the PEQ block, but with fewer parameters. other than that: yes.

Chief said:
3) If I then change any of the tones (bass, mid, treble), the EQ would then change accordingly (pretty obvious here)? So,
4) I should change tonestack early in the tweaking process to make the basic change, then tweak other things that have less effect?
Click to expand...

messing with the tonestacks is for advanced users that have a good grasp of the different amp models in the Axe and know what they like/want IMHO. I'm not saying you're not, btw. :) If you like and use the PVH sim a lot for exsample, it could be fun to drop the PVH tonestack in a Recto. Or, use a Uber tonestack in the PVH to get a different shade (great for doubletracking) quickly and easily.

I've changed the tonestack right after selecting a amp/cab combo to start into the right direction, but I've also messed with a patch for days and then changed the tonestack to see what happens. It's like having a equalizer with 25+ mini presets that all yield useable results right away.
 
Last edited:
qingcong said:
This is cool. It might be helpful to add a blank graph with the x-axis labeled so that we have a reference.
Click to expand...

the first one is the bypass graph.
the amplitudes can only be compared relatively, since I normalized the results. some tonestacks might have a lower output than others, but differences in volume should always be compensated for in order to make meaningful decisions about 'tone'.
 
Thanks for the answers, Don, that helps! I'm not an advanced user, just curious. I have found combinations that I like, usually through trial and error. Thanks again!
 
DonPetersen said:
the first one is the bypass graph.
the amplitudes can only be compared relatively, since I normalized the results. some tonestacks might have a lower output than others, but differences in volume should always be compensated for in order to make meaningful decisions about 'tone'.
Click to expand...

Right, I was referring to the frequency (x-axis). Without the x-axis labeled, it's hard to tell what the frequencies are.
 
I've always been intrigued by how two very similar curves can end up sounding quite different to my ears. For example, in the 2nd post Blues and JT-45. I notice this with graphs for different speakers as well. If everything post tone stack (power-stage, speakers, cab, etc.) was identical would similar graphs still sound quite different to our ears?
 
banjoze said:
I've always been intrigued by how two very similar curves can end up sounding quite different to my ears. For example, in the 2nd post Blues and JT-45. I notice this with graphs for different speakers as well.
Click to expand...

yes, me too. and it's a good thing our ears are more hi-res! (than 72 dpi) ;)

banjoze said:
If everything post tone stack (power-stage, speakers, cab, etc.) was identical would similar graphs still sound quite different to our ears?
Click to expand...

call up a tube pre and nothing else. play with a clean sound through it and change the tonestack - it's quite obvious.

The problem with visual representations is not what they show you, it's the information that gets lost and is simply not displayed that makes them unreliable.
 
DonPetersen said:
yes, me too. and it's a good thing our ears are more hi-res! (than 72 dpi) ;)



call up a tube pre and nothing else. play with a clean sound through it and change the tonestack - it's quite obvious.

The problem with visual representations is not what they show you, it's the information that gets lost and is simply not displayed that makes them unreliable.
Click to expand...

Interesting. That's exactly my experience. Is it feasible to show visually as much difference as our ears hear? Has this ever been done successfully? The engineer side of me wants to believe that this is very feasible, but I have not direct experience in this side of engineering.
 
banjoze said:
Interesting. That's exactly my experience. Is it feasible to show visually as much difference as our ears hear? Has this ever been done successfully? The engineer side of me wants to believe that this is very feasible, but I have not direct experience in this side of engineering.
Click to expand...

it might be feasible, but a dip in a graph will be just that, and an interlectual understanding of what it signifies at best, but listening will almost always trigger an emotional response which might lead you to switch the preset or to write a whole song.
;)
 
DonPetersen said:
it might be feasible, but a dip in a graph will be just that, and an interlectual understanding of what it signifies at best, but listening will almost always trigger an emotional response which might lead you to switch the preset or to write a whole song.
;)
Click to expand...

Agree. I was musing more along the lines of what would be required if one were trying to build a digital model that is as close as possible to the analog equivalent. Seems like being able to measure in a "see-able" way the differences that we can hear would matter a lot while trying to hone in on an "accurate" model. But, maybe it's not as important as I intuit it to be.
 
If no one has mentioned it (no time to read entire thread etc), I'd think that adding the the min and max knob positions to the graphs would make them more usable (bass, mid, treble max and min along with the current default). This would give an idea of range and interaction.

Thanks for doing this and the stomps, much appreciated!
 
DJD100 said:
If no one has mentioned it (no time to read entire thread etc), I'd think that adding the the min and max knob positions to the graphs would make them more usable (bass, mid, treble max and min along with the current default). This would give an idea of range and interaction.
Click to expand...

right.
but I'm almost certain that I won't do it. ;)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom