Too much 1k mids in amp models?

Have you run both signals through a spectrum analysis?

Forget the IR what do the two graphs look like?

Also remember - Every tube amp made is different. For example I had two Jubilee heads late 80s. One was the best amp I’ve ever owned. One just wasn’t, felt like less gain and definitely less mids and ‘poke’.

Both left the factory within a few days of each other.

Component variances add up. Just because the fractal model has more or less anything that your particular amp doesn’t make it wrong it just makes it different to your amp.

I do think the FM3 is slightly more ‘present’ than the III. Maybe converters? Who knows I like both
 
Hi there all. So I'm doing this the whole time, that I'm owning the FM3 and want to clarify it finally.

To me, all the amp models in the FM3 sound like they have way too much of the 1k mids! This makes the sound very soft and mid focused, but looses any aggressivity in the top end and doesn't have a proper low end. I tried to compare this to a real savage 60 amp a real 5150 head and a Marshall JCM800. Even the Peavey had way less of that midrange! This actually isn't really the mids you need in the guitar sound, as they mostly fight with the vocals. When I try and scoop out the 1k around 4dB with Q=4, then the sound becomes more real. Adding some 1-2dB in the 2k and 4k region and some 3dB in the 125Hz gives it the final shape of a real amp. I'm playing the FM3 over a Matrix GT1000Fx and a real 4x12 ENGL V30/V60 cabinet. No IR is active in the patch, it's just amp, drive pedal an a noise gate. I tried to play with the impedance curve of the speaker in the FM3, but it didn't help. Also I have the FM3 amp block in SS amp + cab setup. I just want to know what is the motivation behind? Even when recording a real amp through a loadbox and then applying the same IR, you can hear a massive difference!

You can also find tons of videos on YT where the axe III / FM3 can be easily recognized by just listening to the midrange... Even the Kemper doesn't have this strange feature.



I have posted in an AxeFx3 thread a couple of weeks back regarding using the Multiband Compressor to essentially solve the same problem.
https://forum.fractalaudio.com/threads/amp-block-compression.166424/
 
Absolutely not my experience with either the Axe III or FM3.

That doesn't negate your experience OP, yet you are using the products in a specific way, and I personally am using the direct options.
Although in previous set-ups I have used the Axe II XL through Matrix and cabs and the cabs will ALWAYS give "their" filter. Meaning, just like an IR, change cab, change the tone.

BTW, doesn't the Kemper, I have one, profile your finished tone? Therefore you will have already EQ'd that tone, correct?
 
I have the MV on the FM3 at 3.5, on the real amp at 5. I have found out, that dialing in some Sag does scoop out the mids, but I need to recheck at gig volume if that is right.
 
I have both here that I have been comparing all weekend. They are setup the same with the same cab and all settings through the same FRFR. They sound identical.
 
This is what I've been expecting as an answer! So I guess, that if I turn the master on the real amp to 5, I need to search for that spot in the FM3 and not set it to 5. Can maybe Chris clarify this? Cause I was confused a lot by the fact, why the FM3 has so much mids going on at the same settings.

"The Master Volume is the only knob in the amp models that may not have the same taper as the real amp. All the models use the same taper (10A IIRC) for consistency. Many amps use a more abrupt taper for marketing reasons. A more abrupt taper gives the impression that the amp is louder."
If I recall correctly, the master volume on the Fractals don't work the same as the master volume on the real amps. You can read up on it on the Fractal Wiki. https://wiki.fractalaudio.com/wiki/...k#INPUT_DRIVE_.2B_OVERDRIVE_.2B_MASTER_VOLUME
 
This is what I've been expecting as an answer! So I guess, that if I turn the master on the real amp to 5, I need to search for that spot in the FM3 and not set it to 5. Can maybe Chris clarify this? Cause I was confused a lot by the fact, why the FM3 has so much mids going on at the same settings.

"The Master Volume is the only knob in the amp models that may not have the same taper as the real amp. All the models use the same taper (10A IIRC) for consistency. Many amps use a more abrupt taper for marketing reasons. A more abrupt taper gives the impression that the amp is louder."
I don't think it depends on the taper cuz that would cause you to turn it higher on the axe, not lower (unless your real amp has a log5A pot, but I doubt it).
See this graph:
IMG_20201109_102312.jpg

The blue line is basically the master volume control on the axe fx (log10A).
Let's say your real amp has a linear pot, if you set it halfway you would need to set the axe fx master at ~7 to obtain the same resistance.
 
Last edited:
I don't think it depends on the taper cuz that would cause you to turn it higher on the axe, not lower (unless your real amp has a log5A pot, but I doubt it).
See this graph:
View attachment 74811

The blue line is basically the master volume control on the axe fx (log10A).
Let's say your real amp has a linear pot, if you set it halfway you would need to set the axe fx master at ~7 to obtain the same resistance.
So, then there's a question on why does it need to be lower than the real amp control to achieve the same character of the amp model?
 
I always found it helpful to just think of the Master Volume in the Fractals in a different way than how they work on a real amp. They both accomplish the same thing in the end, but I find it helpful to think of the Fractal MV in this way: at one end (lower numbers) it relies more on preamp distortion, while at the other end (high numbers) it relies on power amp distortion. The control just pans between those two characters.
 
I always found it helpful to just think of the Master Volume in the Fractals in a different way than how they work on a real amp. They both accomplish the same thing in the end, but I find it helpful to think of the Fractal MV in this way: at one end (lower numbers) it relies more on preamp distortion, while at the other end (high numbers) it relies on power amp distortion. The control just pans between those two characters.
Exactly this is how I think of the MV control. But then there's also this comment that I found searching the forum content:

"A little trick you can do to get the "bounce" of high MV without the muddy bass is to reduce the LF Res value on the Spkr tab. This will reduce the amount of bass clipping in the virtual power amp allowing you to turn the MV up. You can also reduce the HF Res to reduce the amount of treble clipping."

For me now, lowering the MV has solved up the muddiness and too much midrange problem. I need to just tweak it all at high volumes to make it sound just like my rig and then I can just bring the FM3 to a show instead of the Savage + pedalboard :)
 
I need to just tweak it all at high volumes to make it sound just like my rig and then I can just bring the FM3 to a show instead of the Savage + pedalboard :)
This is the solution. I can’t even find two identical real amps that sound exactly the same at exactly the same settings. I’m not sure if it’s me or the amps, but it just never happens. But I’ve found that the matching sound is usually there (real amp or Fractal amp) with ignoring the numbers on the knobs and adjusting until I like it. You are on the right track.
 
I love the sound of FM3 but I tend to agree that there is more mids on FM3. I specially remarked this when translating FM3 patches to Axe FX II. It is more or less variable with the amp, and quite pronounced with Plexis. I love the sound of the Plexis in FM3 though ;-). I don't have their physical counterparts, maybe it is related to the absence of ultra IR's in FM3 ?
why would you compare the FM3 to the II when they are running drastically different FW's?
 
why would you compare the FM3 to the II when they are running drastically different FW's?
Your question is logic, well, they're both on ARES and I came from Axe Fx II (still am translating some patches). I was very happy with the sounds from the II but choose FM3 for it's compactness and for not to have a rack and MIDI pedal o trail around. A few things are not possible with FM3 but most of it are though when programmed with some inventivity for limiting CPU use. Except for some nice to have items, that I don't really need, the Axe Fx III would be overshoot for me anyway.
So probably I still am in some kind of "comparing phase" as I'm searching to equal my major patches and found the UI of the Axe Fx II quite satisfactory. I am convinced though that with the next FW on FM3 I can sell my Axe Fx II without regrets. From that on I promise I will not compare anymore : "Axe Fx II, get out of this man !.."
 
Last edited:
The most important thing when comparing the II and the III is getting the listening volume absolutely identical. Even smalest differences in volume make you believe the tone is different. I don't know why that is, but it seems the ears are always the weaked part in the chain.
 
Yep, Parametric EQ with Q=4 and then 125Hz +3dB, scoop mids around 1k -4dB, then +1-2dB on the 2k and 4k range. Bang and the axe sound so much better. I haven't been able to figure our any amp parameter to make this as close as possible. I usually play with the pwr amp hardness and then the speaker impedance curve. Though raising the resonance of the cab to 200% helps a ton in making better note definition, it does not solve this problem with the mids. Neither does playing with the high/low resonances. I'm just still wondering why this is so? It's on the cleans as well.
Spot on exactly how I cured this one in particular for Marshall models. Also, you can push down that EQ range on the Output EQ's as well since I TOO agree that this is a bit of an "overall" characteristic too. Also, different guitars have different tonal impact naturally as well. For example, my Keizel Aries is much more mid focused (stock pickups) than my EBMM Majesty. Even between my Majesty and Monarchy, there are very noticeable differences with the Majesty being more mid pronounced and the Monarchy being much more and incredibly balanced. The old saying "everything matters" applies here huh? LOL How LUCKY are we to have so much power to shape our sounds so easily and readily available!?! I literally have the same general kitchen sink patches that I use for each guitar. Imagine the truck load of gear that once would have required!?
 
Back
Top Bottom