Turn PEQ on/off with Global Cab (old: PEQ in Cab block)

[joegold]

Re: Parametric EQ in Cab block

You yourself have complained that the amp block changes in 9.03 - which are overwhelmingly preferred by users who have stated a preference - have made the amps sound "worse."

I never said that all.
The results that are possible to attain with 9.03 are quite noticeably better than with previous firmware. I've always maintained that.
What I said is that I'd like to see the Amp Type *default parameters* adjusted on some Amp Types, especially the Double Verb, because the default parameters do not reflect the way that these amps actually behave in the real world according to my experience and in my opinion.

Try not to twist my words and/or actually misquote me and I'll try not to twist yours.
Sheesh.

As for my other comments in *this* thread, they still stand.

I've never noticed any "fizziness" in my sound when I've close-mic'd my cabinets.
When I EQ a close mic'd cabinet it's for reasons that have nothing to do with that.

 

[Jay Mitchell]

Re: Parametric EQ in Cab block

What I said is that I'd like to see the Amp Type *default parameters* adjusted on some Amp Types, especially the Double Verb, because the default parameters do not reflect the way that these amps actually behave in the real world according to my experience and in my opinion.

And yet, in the opinions of the vast majority of those who specifically complained about the sounds of the previous Fender sims, the 9.03 ones do "reflect the way that these amps actually behave in the real world."

I've never noticed any "fizziness" in my sound when I've close-mic'd my cabinets.

You're once again making generalizations when the specifics are everything. If you're saying that a speaker will never produce more high frequencies when a mic is placed in close proximity to it than it does in a normal listening position, you are simply wrong. That is a matter of basic physics, and one that, as a degreed physicist, I can tell you is trivially easy to demonstrate.

 

[joegold]

Re: Parametric EQ in Cab block

What I said is that I'd like to see the Amp Type *default parameters* adjusted on some Amp Types, especially the Double Verb, because the default parameters do not reflect the way that these amps actually behave in the real world according to my experience and in my opinion.

And yet, in the opinions of the vast majority of those who specifically complained about the sounds of the previous Fender sims, the 9.03 ones do "reflect the way that these amps actually behave in the real world."

I've never noticed any "fizziness" in my sound when I've close-mic'd my cabinets.

You're once again making generalizations when the specifics are everything. If you're saying that a speaker will never produce more high frequencies when a mic is placed in close proximity to it than it does in a normal listening position, you are simply wrong. That is a matter of basic physics, and one that, as a degreed physicist, I can tell you is trivially easy to demonstrate.

I don't know what the Blackface Fender Twin unit that Cliff is working with actually sounds like.
But any Blackface or Silverface Twin I've ever played through has way less top end available via its Treble control when the bright switch is engaged than I get with the default parameters of the Double Verb sim after I engage its Bright Switch.
A real Twin generally has a bit more bottom end available too than the default parameters of the Double Verb sim allow for.
That's just my experience.
I can't argue with Cliff's experience, because it's his experience.
So I dropped it. Thanks so much for bringing this all back up.

I can still get great sounds out of this amp sim, so me belabouring the point is unwarranted. At this point I don't really care. I only brought it up originally because I thought it would be better to have default parameters that actually better reflect the real world amps without needing to go into the Advanced Tabs of the Amp Block.

As far as close-mic'ing is concerned....
Of course you get more highs when the mic is close to the speaker.
But not fizz. A good guitar speaker that is suitable for med or hi-gain guitar tones has no fizz to begin with.

 

[dk_ace]

Re: Parametric EQ in Cab block

I've never noticed any "fizziness" in my sound when I've close-mic'd my cabinets.
When I EQ a close mic'd cabinet it's for reasons that have nothing to do with that.

If you don't notice significantly increased high end response when close-micing a cabinet, then you may need a hearing test. I'm not saying that sarcastically at all, so please don't take it that way.

That's just how this stuff works at a physical level as Jay pointed out.

I haven't read the entire thread, but some seem to be arguing that the cab block needs improvement. What I'm about to say goes way back to the old forum, so many may not know the history.

The cab block was originally 512 points. Jay demonstrated a noticeable improvement by using multiple cab blocks with a delay to create a 1024 point IR. The difference was significant to many of us, and Cliff created the hi-res 1024 option in the cab block. Some thought that now they could make things even better using the previous trick to increase the resolution to 2048 points. No significant audible difference resulted.

The cab block is as good as it gets as far as resolution is concerned. You can create/load your own user IRs that can be whatever you want them to be. You can still further modify the sound should you need to with more distortion, EQ, effects, etc. Short of playing the guitar for you, I'm not really sure what some people want this thing to do.

D

 

[joegold]

Re: Parametric EQ in Cab block

I've never noticed any "fizziness" in my sound when I've close-mic'd my cabinets.
When I EQ a close mic'd cabinet it's for reasons that have nothing to do with that.

If you don't notice significantly increased high end response when close-micing a cabinet, then you may need a hearing test. I'm not saying that sarcastically at all, so please don't take it that way.

My God man. Read the actual posts that you are responding to maybe?
Of course there is more hi-end with close mic'ing.
Sheesh.

That's just how this stuff works at a physical level as Jay pointed out.

I haven't read the entire thread, but some seem to be arguing that the cab block needs improvement. What I'm about to say goes way back to the old forum, so many may not know the history.

The cab block was originally 512 points. Jay demonstrated a noticeable improvement by using multiple cab blocks with a delay to create a 1024 point IR. The difference was significant to many of us, and Cliff created the hi-res 1024 option in the cab block. Some thought that now they could make things even better using the previous trick to increase the resolution to 2048 points. No significant audible difference resulted.

The cab block is as good as it gets as far as resolution is concerned. You can create/load your own user IRs that can be whatever you want them to be. You can still further modify the sound should you need to with more distortion, EQ, effects, etc. Short of playing the guitar for you, I'm not really sure what some people want this thing to do.

D

Again... Go back and read the thread before responding.
Have a look at the subject line this time.
:roll:

 

[dk_ace]

Re: Parametric EQ in Cab block

My God man. Read the actual posts that you are responding to maybe?
Of course there is more hi-end with close mic'ing.
Sheesh.

You're the one that said you never heard any fizziness. I was quoting you. If you can't hear it, you need to get your hearing checked. I think that's a fair assessment. Maybe you should choose your words a little more carefully?

Again... Go back and read the thread before responding.
Have a look at the subject line this time.
:roll:

I already voted and commented on the idea of a PEQ in the cab block. I think it's a waste of resources. My comments you quoted there were in response to the idea that the cab block didn't sound like a real cab. I was providing some background facts that showed the opposite to be true.

Perhaps you should read the thread a little more closely?

In the end, life is too short to play with trolls. Goodbye

D

 

[joegold]

Re: Parametric EQ in Cab block

My God man. Read the actual posts that you are responding to maybe?
Of course there is more hi-end with close mic'ing.
Sheesh.

You're the one that said you never heard any fizziness. I was quoting you. If you can't hear it, you need to get your hearing checked. I think that's a fair assessment. Maybe you should choose your words a little more carefully?

Again... Go back and read the thread before responding.
Have a look at the subject line this time.
:roll:

I already voted and commented on the idea of a PEQ in the cab block. I think it's a waste of resources. My comments you quoted there were in response to the idea that the cab block didn't sound like a real cab. I was providing some background facts that showed the opposite to be true.

Perhaps you should read the thread a little more closely?

In the end, life is too short to play with trolls. Goodbye

D

1. I suppose that you and I have different definitions of what "fizz" means.
In my lexicon, top-end is not synonymous with "fizz".
"Fizz" is the type of top end found above 5k that most real guitar speakers attenuate to inaudible levels.

2. My entry into this thread was based on the contention that the the majority of the people who were using a PEQ after the Cab Block were doing so in order to reduce the "fizz".
I base this idea on several other threads that are running around here where people have expressed that that is what they were using the PEQ for.
If folks are just using the post-Cab-Block PEQ to reduce the top-end in the same way that they would use to EQ to mix a close mic'd cab then there is no issue.
If they're doing it to compensate for "fizz", then there is an issue.

'In the end', to my way of thinking, *you're* the troll.
But I never would have said that because I don't believe in ad hominem attacks in discussions like these. I'd rather be talking about the Axe, not me.
Of course once you start the ad hominem ball rolling, then everything is on the table.
[Let's see how long it takes before this thread is deleted by the censors.]
It's your call. You can keep this discussion civil, or you can continue being a(n) <insert generic personal insult here>.

 

[Jay Mitchell]

Re: Parametric EQ in Cab block

As far as close-mic'ing is concerned....
Of course you get more highs when the mic is close to the speaker.
But not fizz.

Yes, fizz. Most of what is typically called "fizz" resides in a relatively narrow band of frequencies, roughly 5kHz - 5.5kHz. Lots of guitar transducers will produce substantial output in this frequency region, both in the farfield on axis and when close-mic'ed.

A good guitar speaker that is suitable for med or hi-gain guitar tones has no fizz to begin with.

This is demonstrably false.

 

[javajunkie]

Re: Parametric EQ in Cab block

Enough of the name calling. Everyone, a little more civility please.

 

[joegold]

Re: Parametric EQ in Cab block

As far as close-mic'ing is concerned....
Of course you get more highs when the mic is close to the speaker.
But not fizz.

Yes, fizz. Most of what is typically called "fizz" resides in a relatively narrow band of frequencies, roughly 5kHz - 5.5kHz. Lots of guitar transducers will produce substantial output in this frequency region, both in the farfield on axis and when close-mic'ed.

A good guitar speaker that is suitable for med or hi-gain guitar tones has no fizz to begin with.

This is demonstrably false.

Ah.
I didn't realize that "fizz" was a bona fide technical term with an objective definition as used by audio professionals.
My bad. Lol. :roll:

 

[Jay Mitchell]

Re: Parametric EQ in Cab block

Ah.
I didn't realize that "fizz" was a bona fide technical term with an objective definition as used by audio professionals.
My bad. Lol. :roll:

You implicitly claimed to know what it is, at least well enough to be able to say whether or not it is present. So lemme make sure I understand you: are you now saying you don't know what it is? Or that you know what it is, but I don't? :lol:

Try this experiment: create a preset that sounds "fizzy" to you. (The characteristics of "fizz" are such that you can easily mistake it for fret buzz. In fact, the same range of frequencies is involved.)

Now, add a PEQ block as the final element in the signal chain, select filter 2, set it to maximum cut and maximum Q, and sweep its frequency value until you've found the point that maximizes the removal of the "fizzy" sound. Then let us know what that frequency turns out to be.

 

[joegold]

Re: Parametric EQ in Cab block

You implicitly claimed to know what it is, at least well enough to be able to say whether or not it is present. So lemme make sure I understand you: are you now saying you don't know what it is? Or that you know what it is, but I don't? :lol:

What I'm saying is that at this point in the discussion, I don't care.

Ta ta.

 

[Sunburst71]

Re: Parametric EQ in Cab block

Guys,
Thanks for the passionate discussion, but my original request was really more about a utility function - the ability to turn the PEQ on and off globally together with the Cab block. Nothing really to do with the quality of Cab IR's in the Axe.

The logic (to me, at least...) was that when switching between FRFR and guitar cab, just as it would have been a pain to have to turn the Cab block off on every patch, it's a pain to turn the PEQ off on every patch.

I concede that my Cab tweaking skills are rudimentary, as I do need a PEQ after the Cab to get results that I find pleasing . And, I did not buy the Red Wirez and don't plan to - I'd really like to get the max out of my $2K Ultra without having to buy extra stuff. And, honestly, I don't think it's fair to imply that my request should be ignored because if I'd only bought the 3rd party IR's, I wouldn't need a PEQ in the first place.

I also understand (I think...) that I could dedicate an external assign to the PEQ in every patch, and use its global initial value to turn all PEQ's on or off. But - I already use all 8, and I don't want to give one up just for a global utility function I'll use once per session.

If adding a PEQ to the Cab block hogs up resources, then I'd like to change my request to:

"Please let me turn the PEQ on/off globally when I turn the Cab block on/off globally"

Thanks

 

[Smilzo]

You can use a global CC to bypass the block when recall patch... :?:

 

[Didejek]

The logic (to me, at least...) was that when switching between FRFR and guitar cab, just as it would have been a pain to have to turn the Cab block off on every patch, it's a pain to turn the PEQ off on every patch.

I don't like the idea. First of all, how could Axe know which one should be turned off in a patch that utilizes more than one PEQ block. Or perhaps all of them? What about patches where for example we use PEQ to mimic Mesa Mark GEQ?

Regarding adding Lo/Hi Cut in Cab block - we already have that in Amp block. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but if we have two blocks in series and the frequency is cut in the first one, it shouldn't magically re-appear in the next block (Amp->Cab). If someone needs to just cut some lows and highs, there is already a very well working tool for that in the amp block, so using PEQ block just for blocking lows and highs is in my opinion waste of resources. If you use PEQ for tone shaping, you most likely wish to have the same tone on different systems - FRFR and PA+Cab - in this case I would just compensate everything with global EQ.

 

[yek]

Regarding adding Lo/Hi Cut in Cab block - we already have that in Amp block. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but if we have two blocks in series and the frequency is cut in the first one, it shouldn't magically re-appear in the next block (Amp->Cab). If someone needs to just cut some lows and highs, there is already a very well working tool for that in the amp block, so using PEQ block just for blocking lows and highs is in my opinion waste of resources.

Use of the Lo/Hi Cut parameters in the Amp block is not identical to using a PEQ after the Amp block.
The difference is audible. Somebody probably can explain why and how, but it just isn't the same.

 

[Didejek]

Use of the Lo/Hi Cut parameters in the Amp block is not identical to using a PEQ after the Amp block.
The difference is audible. Somebody probably can explain why and how, but it just isn't the same.

Probably different filter Q. Still - I find adding global PEQ on/off feature unnecessary - there are other ways to deal with that and I wouldn't like to see Cliff working on that instead of something else - there are other issues much more important for me, like lack of Bitcrusher, no input select in Drive block and no MFC101...

 

[yek]

Still - I find adding global PEQ on/off feature unnecessary - there are other ways to de
l....

Agreed

 

[Jay Mitchell]

Use of the Lo/Hi Cut parameters in the Amp block is not identical to using a PEQ after the Amp block.
The difference is audible. Somebody probably can explain why and how, but it just isn't the same.

Probably different filter Q.

No. The Lo Cut and Hi Cut parameters in the amp block are for a filter that is applied before the input to the block. These filters affect how hard you're driving the amp block (and with what frequencies). A PEQ after the amp will have a different effect, even if you create identical filters to the ones in the amp block.

 

[javajunkie]

Use of the Lo/Hi Cut parameters in the Amp block is not identical to using a PEQ after the Amp block.
The difference is audible. Somebody probably can explain why and how, but it just isn't the same.

Probably different filter Q.

No. The Lo Cut and Hi Cut parameters in the amp block are for a filter that is applied before the input to the block. These filters affect how hard you're driving the amp block (and with what frequencies). A PEQ after the amp will have a different effect, even if you create identical filters to the ones in the amp block.

The manual states they are applied not before the input to the block but after the drive but before the master. The boost is what is applied before the input to the block. But the point is still valid.