Too many amps for meaningful differences?

Some people say "there are only like 5 circuits" and while there's some truth to that... plenty of players, including me, hear and feel enough of a difference between amps as close as "Fender Twin" and "Fender Super Reverb" to understand why having so many amps is as valuable as it is, which is "extremely."
 
nanowhisker said:
Until then it might be an interesting feature if the device could suggest a more appropriate amp model to the one the user is actually trying to tweak to sound like the more appropriate one
Click to expand...
As unix-guy said the axe can't read your mind to know what you're going for. So even a theoretically perfect suggestion based on what knobs you turn could only be as accurate as your skills in dialing in a tone, meaning the more help you need the more useless it would get. However, the general idea of suggesting amps for certain tones is solid IMO. While there is a lot of information about the amp models and blocks out there (e.g. yek's amp guide) it's not neccessarily helpful or easy to use for people without experience with real tube amps and/or audio skills. An easier way to build a base sound could be a very valuable addition - for example, imagine if Axe Edit had a wizard to assist creating a basic preset with an amp and cab block working like this:


The wizard starts on a dialog with a search field and a list of amp models. As you type into the search box, the amps get filtered according to your criteria. These can range from basics like tone and genre to more specific things like band names, guitar models, decades, and so on. So you can search for "metal lead" or "edge of breakup strat" or "metallica 90s" or "mesa clean" and the amp lists shows a selection of amps matching these tags (or even just all amps ordered by relevancy).
Selecting an amp model displays a short description of the amp and possibly a some more detailled data, as well as a "style" picker for that amp model. Styles are a set of preconfigured values for an amp's basic controls (gain,bass,mid,treble,...) which have names like "rock rhythm", "crunch" and short descriptions of what sound to expect.
Once you confirm your amp and style selection, the list changes to cab block configurations (e.g. "4x12 1960A 57 + 121", "1x12 Tweed 421"). Those are already filtered by the previously typed search string, and potentially ordered based on the selected amp and style. Selecting a cab block creates a temporary preset with a chain of IN -> AMP -> CAB -> OUT blocks so you can try it out. Don't like what you hear? Try a different cab configuration, or go back to select a different amp style or model. Once you lock in your selection, the temporary preset is written to the current preset number, where you can now tweak it some more or add effects.


The two main issues I see with such a feature would be 1) it would require tremendous effort, especially curating the amp tags, styles, and cab configurations, and 2.) you can never create a perfect wizard because everybody has different ideas of how a "metal lead" etc sounds, and the same amp settings don't produce the same result for different people playing different guitars (can't model fractal customers as ideal spherical guitarists in a vacuum).
However, the curation could potentially be performed by the community via an evolution of Axe-Change where people could upload amp styles and cab configurations that would be rated or up/downvoted by other users. And while it's impossible to create perfect suggestions for every person and scenario, it would be fine as long as it provides a significant improvement over the current state of starting with your amp with all knobs on 5 and the 1x4 pig IR. So IMO this could be a long term goal for an upgraded Axe-Change experience that's more flexible than downloading full presets.
 
l4mpi said:
However, the curation could potentially be performed by the community via an evolution of Axe-Change
Click to expand...

I think that's a key point. The axe fx is a professional piece of gear. It's not entry level nor a "gimmick" and stuff like automated tone systems™ (just gave a free name away) might make it seem as such. But a user based/updated cheat sheet would be a great idea.
 
bdrepko said:
There are some differences between them. For example, the JMP1 pre is just a variation on the JCM800. Although I am not able to get them to sound the same. I really like the JMP1 and it has become my go to amp for heavy Marshall sound.
Click to expand...

Again though, where do we draw a line ? When is it “enough” ?

do we need 300 different amp models of just Fender circuits ? Would 400 be too much ? Should we have 3 different examples of each and every model to better account for tolerances between the specific amp that was modeled by Cliff vs the one we may have owned/own ?

Is modeling off just one example enough ? Then if 3, why not 5 representative samples ? If some people can hear a difference there would be a point to, right ?

Then who gets to make this decision if not Cliff ? Majority vote ? There are probably some that say we have plenty of Fenders but we need more Marshall, and others that probably will say the opposite. Depends what your into...... but who is right ?

does tracking down an amp, modeling it etc take time Cliff could spend on other things ?

is amp #250 more useful than a pitch to midi block ?
 
And along comes a Hendrix, or Eric Johnson, or whoever, sounds completely new with the same set of available gear as everybody else.
 
lqdsnddist said:
Again though, where do we draw a line ? When is it “enough” ?

do we need 300 different amp models of just Fender circuits ? Would 400 be too much ? Should we have 3 different examples of each and every model to better account for tolerances between the specific amp that was modeled by Cliff vs the one we may have owned/own ?

Is modeling off just one example enough ? Then if 3, why not 5 representative samples ? If some people can hear a difference there would be a point to, right ?

Then who gets to make this decision if not Cliff ? Majority vote ? There are probably some that say we have plenty of Fenders but we need more Marshall, and others that probably will say the opposite. Depends what your into...... but who is right ?

does tracking down an amp, modeling it etc take time Cliff could spend on other things ?

is amp #250 more useful than a pitch to midi block ?
Click to expand...
But Cliff is doing other things. Improvements to the pitch block (FW12.08x), new compressor types(FW12.03) , improvements to the noise gates(FW?), improvements to scene and preset switching (FW12.01), overhaul of the phaser and flanger blocks (FW12.0), etc. And this is all been in the last several months.
 
Many successful musicians could sit back and rest on their laurels and bath in the absurd amounts of money they've made.......but they don't......why......because their passion for their craft and yearning to personally evolve is what drives them.

I believe Cliff is ensconced in his passion, and probably enjoys leading the charge into uncharted territory. If he decides to have more or less Amps or anything else he chooses to do, I'm happy to go along for the ride.

If nothing more was to become of the AxeIII, I'd be satisfied with what it already has to offer and could spend years finding new sounds. But I'm just as happy to enjoy whatever Cliff throws in from here on in.
 
I'm with you. I generally arrive at the exact same sound no matter what amp model I'm using, either by tweaking tone controls, EQs, adding dirt pedals, etc. I have my clean, edge-of-breakup, dirt, and lead sounds.

I went through a great deal of the amps on the Helix and using cabs, IRs, pedals, etc., basically was able to make every amp sound like "me" and my ideal sound.

Short answer is no, we don't need so many amp models, but that's not the point: I think 99% of the need for additional models is psychological - to "pretend" that we're playing through a Dumble or Petrucci's rig. My 2 cents.
 
I guess I don't get the premise of the argument. Given the chance would you remove some amps? I would 100% say no to that.

I mean, I guess I get the "paralyzed by too many choices" aspect -because that happens to me. If I was going to make that particular argument though, I would make it around IR's instead of amps. I know that I have no chance to go through all of those to even test them. I DO kind of wish they would be grouped into some sort of "sound families" to make it a little easier to hone in on what I am seeking. (clearer, thicker, muddy, brittle, - whatever.)

As it stands with IR's I sort of gravitate towards 5 or 6 that I know about (usually based on recommendations of a preset I hear and like. I won't filter through 50 IR's trying to find "the one" because I never will. The issue is that I am not well versed enough in what each crazy long IR name means, or what kind on tonality it would represent. I either go with a known IR or I just match the typical cab up to the amp head like I would if I bought a new rig from a store and maybe test 3 or 4 in that family. I could (personally, YMMV and all that) be fine with FAR fewer IRs than are available. Amps are a little different for me though...

For starters, there is the baseline advantage of "If I own this particular amp, I can replace it with this super awesome, reliable, stable, consistent, lightweight system and still have my amp, with the same tone, plus a bunch of adjustability as well as an entire collection of world class effects."

That right there makes the III marketable and a no brainer to a giant range of people. If I happen to own a Silver Jubilee (and I did) or a Bogner (which I love) or an Orange Rockerverb - then having it in the box gives me instant relief because I know what I know and love should be available to me. Can another amp make that sound? Sure, probably. But probably that is also true because of the insane level of customization and adjustment we have available to us on each amp. You can tweak that Plexi enough to get JCM like tones out of it if you work it over enough. (or to make one Plexi sound closer to another because in real life they are so different.) In the real physical amp world that might still work, but it would often be impractical, so starting with the right box makes life a lot easier.

Will I ever use all of the amps in the III? That's unlikely for me. But the point is that THE ONE that I DO WANT TO USE is in there... and it might be different than the one you want to use. I can pick my starting point and go from there, and I LOVE that about this machine.

It does make sense from a marketing perspective to have as many realistic amp models in the box as possible so that you can serve the fans of that amp. Theoretically, at some point when the tone and feel of all of the amps are 100% perfect and indistinguishable from the real world counterpart, and if you have made EVERY amp ever - then you are 100% the only solution the world needs. I don't see that ever being the case, but If I were invested in Fractal Audio, you can bet that would be my goal and line of thinking.

So.... can we get a Carvin V3 in here at some point? I like that amp. :yum:
 
Well, personally speaking I have owned all but the III,standard thru the axefx XL+, to AX8, FM3 and I have used appx 6 amps (in 11+ years).
I have fooled with many but to me it gets a bit overwhelming.
**So I go for a "sound" not for an amp.................
 
lqdsnddist said:
But how many different varieties of the Deluxe is needed ? Tweed, black and silver face ? Every single year of production ? Does every other amp based on the deluxe circuit also need to be included ?

where do you draw the line ?
Click to expand...
The Deluxe is pretty well represented. The tweed model would be more useful to me if it had all three knobs and three separate models to cover jumpered and either channel input alone.

Show me the tweed Super, Pro, and Bandmaster.

Great amps, and not in the Bassman/Marshall/Vox vein, nor any of the other large categories.

The '53 script grille Les Paul GA40 is another unique and quite awesome little amp. Octal 6SJ7 pentode preamps and a unique bias/screen modulating trem circuit that uses an LFO circuit fed to a third 6V6GT to pull the screen supply down and the shared cathode resistor's bias voltage up to manhandle the output section's input sensitivity and make the weeble wobble....
 
chris said:
"did you mean to choose a Cameron amp instead?"
Click to expand...
Maybe have an animated paperclip do the suggesting? :)
20200511_121151.jpg
 
Last edited:
I am just happy with what I have. People tell me that's a lot of money to spend on the axe fx 3 and I am like well its like this, $2500 on the mesa mark 2 c+ john Petrucci amp or $2000 on the axe fx 3 that gives you that same amp and hundreds more. hmmm its a no brainer to me.
 
Last edited:
Fractal should add as many as they want. I for one and glad for the options. I can think of several amps I’d love to see added right now without much effort.

Funny thing is, I tend to set and forget for a while. I don’t spend a lot of time auditioning the different models. But I like knowing they are there in case I want to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom