Two notes , impulses GOOD LORD!

[too_much_power]

What DSP does this product use? I don't think it can be better that the axefx's as I believe the ultra uses the fastest available (that's one of the reasons we won't see an axefx 2 for a long time).

If its DSP is not better, there's no reason to believe Cliff couldn't add new cab sim algorithms if it were clear it gives better results.

 

[marvinx]

The IR's in the torpedo can be changed dynamically in real time.

This is a huge error, because it implies that the torpedo does dynamic convolution. It does not.

It may simply be panning between multiple static Ir's, but i am unsure.

The only reason motivation for going beyond a linear IR - which is not "static" by any definition - is to accurately capture the effects of speaker distortion. This effect is highly overrated, and, more importantly the torpedo does not capture these nonlinearities. It approximates them. So does the Axe-Fx.

[quote:ycogllhd]The ir's in the torpedo are of much greater length.

That's an incredibly silly argument. The 1024-point IR used in the Axe-Fx is more than is ever needed to capture the response of a guitar speaker with inaudible error.

The axe fx cannot load IR's of that length currently.

And it never needs to.

Ir's beyond the axe-fx's length may contain more than speaker energy,

They do.

and to me that is precisely why it sounds so good.

IOW, you like the room reflections contained in longer IRs. That's what this wonderful invention called "reverb" is for. The Axe-Fx has that. Perhaps you should spend some time with it.

I believe the creator came in here a while ago and cleared that up however.

The creator acknowledged, on questioning from myself on another forum, the approximate nature of the torpedo's nonlinear modeling. It does not do dynamic convolution.[/quote:ycogllhd]

Okay im going to engage in this ONCE.

You are right, its not dynamic convolution. By dynamic i meant, you can easily change it on the fly vs loading a a new single ir each time.
I know they contain more than speaker energy. And i like it that way.

I have spent time with the axe's reverb, and i understand its purpose. In my opinion it is less favorable than convolution reverb. Mind you i have the standard, which does not have all of the diffusion bells and whistles of the ultra. The axe-fx cannot do convolution reverb. Leave your assumptions about my use of reverb at the door.


Incredibly silly argument? No, you stating that, is incredibly silly Jay, because the only thing i was arguing is that the cabinet modelling of the axe-fx is NOT THE SAME. All the rest is my opinion. And the bottom line is as you admit the torpedo's IR's are longer. Hence NOT THE SAME.
Same for the purposes of only cabinet modelling? Sure. Globally. As a whole. NOT THE SAME.



Thanks.
~mx~

 

[marvinx]

Incidentally the last time i went to the doctor , he did tell me that i could detect frequencies above what the average person my age could.

Congratulations. Really, no sarcasm here.

You could blame it on psyco-acoustics

I could.

I have no idea how many years you've been playing guitar or anyone else for that matter so i won't presume to judge your hearing.

Exactly, you have no idea, please don't judge it, then.

My exposure to very loud guitar sounds has been obsessively limited.

90% of my work as a musician has been playing classical violin, in orchestras or chamber music, I hate and avoid loud sounds, guitar or whatever. As profesional musicians it's very important to take care of our ears.

Anyways my intent was not to offend, i will presume your intent was not to either. We have an understanding now.

My intent has never been to offend, I don't think I have ever offended anyone in this forum. I just don't like that kind of "my ears are better than yours" attitude, especially when my ears tell me otherwise.

Point 3 . I never did judge it. Your request is satiated. All i said, is some people hear it, some dont. that is a fact , and i have no idea where you fit into that fact. (no sarcasm)

Im glad you take care of your hearing, its a wise move many musicians don't make. (no sarcasm)

Point 5 , i was indeed offended. You then indirectly clarified your intent was not to offend. That is why i made that statement. Please understand my perspective. I am saying that some may hear it and some may not. That is a factual statement. From my perspective, others are just as likely implying their ears are better than mine. Why am i the one doing the wrong? Im not. I am simply acknowledging that i hear something, and others obviously do not. If you can't hear the difference, then obviously you don't hear it. If you wan't to blame that on psyco-acoustics be my guess. The assumption would be based on nothing, but, be my guest.

Btw im not trying to imply that you are blaming that difference on P.A. .

Okay, whew, ive got to get back to packing.
4 days till moving.
~mx~

 

[Jay Mitchell]

You are right, its not dynamic convolution. By dynamic i meant, you can easily change it on the fly vs loading a a new single ir each time.

"On the fly?" This is not at all clear. You mean you want to be able to select a different IR while you're playing?

I know they contain more than speaker energy. And i like it that way.

But they're called "cab" sims, not "cab plus very early reflections" sims.

In my opinion it is less favorable than convolution reverb.

The torpedo doesn't do "convolution reverb." That would take IRs of several seconds in length.

The only thing i was arguing is that the cabinet modelling of the axe-fx is NOT THE SAME.

No. You were arguing that the cabinet modeling of the Axe-Fx is inferior. It is not.

 

[ML SOUND LAB]

Incidentally the last time i went to the doctor , he did tell me that i could detect frequencies above what the average person my age could. And it is widely known that years of exposure to loud sound (i.e. blasting guitar amps) can reduce your ability to perceive higher frequencies (the first to go). I have no idea how many years you've been playing guitar or anyone else for that matter so i won't presume to judge your hearing. My exposure to very loud guitar sounds has been obsessively limited.

After leaving the military service (air force) my whole team was put through a hearing test to see if any of us had partially lost our hearing because we had been working with loud jets and assault rifles etc. and all of my teammates got good grades and I actually heard such high notes that only kids in preschool should be able to hear. Now I've been playing loud tube amps for as long as I can remember and when I was young I hardly ever protected my hearing. I can also tell you that jets are probably 100 times louder than tube amps. Nowadays I'm very careful and always protect my ears mostly because I do a lot of mixing and with wrong gear (not FR) human ear tends to get tired.

My point is that you're probably digging your own grave if what you're saying is that all of the forum members have inferior hearing when compared to you. I have strong reason to believe that ears have to be broken in to hear certain things f.ex. if you've never heard a loud tube amp without ear plugs you probably don't have a clue what it should sound like. And it's not necessarily loud noise that reduces you hearing. It's even noise that your ears get used to like listening to white noise for an hour. And about losing high frequency hearing... it wouldn't effect your ability to determine whether or not your guitar tone is good or not since after 7khz it really doesn't matter all that much (after overheads cover everything over that freq.) and we all can hear that high even if we were half deaf.

 

[Jay Mitchell]

I am simply acknowledging that i hear something, and others obviously do not.

No. You are claiming that something you prefer - something that others can hear every bit as well as you - is superior, and you are further misdiagnosing the cause of the differences. There is a huge difference between being able to distinguish audible differences and understanding what causes them. Most people can, with a little training, become quite good at the former, whereas very few are any good at all at the latter.

 

[Scott Peterson]

Lots of hostility.

Over what?

If you dig your Two Notes box, God bless you. Have a ball with it. Make a ton of music and dig it to the maximum.

I have heard the Two Notes box online and read some folks' thoughts. But I've never used it, so I've no opinion of it.

If you dig it; have a great time with it. Sincerely meant.

 

[marvinx]

What DSP does this product use? I don't think it can be better that the axefx's as I believe the ultra uses the fastest available (that's one of the reasons we won't see an axefx 2 for a long time).

If its DSP is not better, there's no reason to believe Cliff couldn't add new cab sim algorithms if it were clear it gives better results.

Well its not "better" except in my opinion.

The problem here may not be speed of the axe's processor , but rather that the axe isn't intended to do nothing but run huge impulses. Its designed to run impulses sufficient for speaker modelling, plus effects, plus amps, all at the same time with 1ms latency.

The torpedo does huge IR's. No more than a few at a time. No fx, no amps, nothing else, all at 5 ms latency.

They are really apples and oranges. I just wish i could stick the torpedo's orange onto the tail end of the axe's apple without coughing up $2700 to do something the axe does,except in a slightly "better"(imo) manner.

----

Please don't misunderstand the torpedo to be some competing amp modeller. It isnt. It does one thing and one thing only ( and well). Cabinet simulation (with a built in dummy load). You plug in your tube amp and it is the virtual cabinet.
---

~mx~

 

[marvinx]

Lots of hostility.

Over what?

If you dig your Two Notes box, God bless you. Have a ball with it. Make a ton of music and dig it to the maximum.

But dropping on other forums and slamming down your first, waving your **** in the air and shouting about how much better your box is than this other box, that's going to incite some hostility and mistrust.

To then get frustrated and irritated when everyone else doesn't simply genuflect and agree with you... that's sort of a self fulfilling prophesy in action, no?

I have heard the Two Notes box online and read some folks' thoughts. But I've never used it, so I've no opinion of it.

If you dig it; have a great time with it. Sincerely meant.

Scott, im not saying my box is better than our box. I don't even own the thing. What i am saying is a) I prefer to hear a longer IR. and b) i think those clips sound great.

Am i mad others don't? Nope. I just don't think those clips sound the SAME.

My hostility comes , when i receive sarcasm from a non sarcastic statement. I said that we do not all hear the same things. Thats all. Some how this got construed to mean, your ears suck and im better than you.

Its irritating. Sorry if i flew off the handle though. Sincerely. (wow, i know that does seem sarcastic but i promise it isnt).


-----


i will now clearly state what i mean.

A) Boy i sure do think these clips sound great. The axe-fx doesnt support IR's that long and i sure wish it did.
B) I think, not everyone may hear a difference there, and frankly not everyone hears the same thing. In addition not everyone pays attention to or is listening for what i am. I can only generally describe where the differences lie. If im not effectively communicating what i am listening for, others may not be hearing it. By hearing i don't just mean physically hearing, but actually focusing on the same details.


What i do NOT mean
A) This box is "better" than the axe. It isnt, its different. Longer IR's are better , only IMO. One thing is certain, they are DIFFERENT.
B) Everyone can't hear the same frequencies i can. Some can't, but not all, and some hear higher.

What i am sure of is that we are not all perceiving the same thing, and that what i am hearing is not imagined.

Sorry that was so dry and socially flat.

I hope you kind of get where i am coming from scott. And I appreciate you at least attempting equanimity.

~mx~

 

[marvinx]

I am simply acknowledging that i hear something, and others obviously do not.

No. You are claiming that something you prefer - something that others can hear every bit as well as you - is superior, and you are further misdiagnosing the cause of the differences. There is a huge difference between being able to distinguish audible differences and understanding what causes them. Most people can, with a little training, become quite good at the former, whereas very few are any good at all at the latter.

It is your assumption that others can hear it every bit as well as I can. Im not assuming they can't, its simply possible.

And YES i am. You pulled the NO out of the void. Obviously i prefer it , that doesn't change my statement.

I'm not misdiagnosing the cause.

Part of the cause is the extra info in the long IR. We both agree on that. The other cause is the use of actual amps.

Our conversation has ended.

~mx~

 

[G-Man Music]

GOOD LORD...Can't we all just get a long?

:roll:

 

[marvinx]

GOOD LORD...Can't we all just get a long?

:roll:

lol yeah . I've got to remember prov 15:1 "An answer, when mild, turns away rage".

~mx~

 

[G-Man Music]

LOL! Right on Bro!

 

[Xavi Garci]

It is your assumption that others can hear it every bit as well as I can. Im not assuming they can't, its simply possible.

Is it possible that you can't hear it every bit as well as I can? I'm not assuming you can't, it's simply possible.

Only joking. But think about it.

 

[Jay Mitchell]

It is your assumption that others can hear it every bit as well as I can.

No. I'm not assuming anything. I'm saying that there is a body of scientific research which tends to disprove "golden ears" assertions and further that, when actual differences are present, relatively inexperienced subjects can be trained to identify them in a short time.

I'm not misdiagnosing the cause.

You have no way of knowing the cause, because there are many uncontrolled variables present. You're comparing clips of a combination of several devices to what one can only presume are attempts on your part to produce similar results using just an Axe-Fx. Whether or not the sounds you like in the torpedo clips can actually be produced by the Axe-Fx has not been definitively answered. Longer IRs will not audibly improve the accuracy of speaker/cab modeling - which is exactly what the IRs in the Axe-Fx "cab sim" block are designed to do - even if you exclude all room reflections from those longer IRs. The only possible audible difference a longer IR can create is to introduce a completely unknown - and usually highly undesirable - set of very early room reflections into what is being represented as a "cab sim."

 

[Dinkledorf]

Could it simply be that marvin prefers the sound of the torpedo is producing without all this talk of "golden ears"? Are we not all individuals with different tastes and likes? If we were not, would not a single amp model with a single cab suffice for all? Why does everything have to come down to science and physics? I like seafood while my brother doesn't. Does that mean my taste buds are more advanced than his or perhaps his are more advanced than mine because seafood actually tastes like crap and I can't tell!

Who cares, the man likes the sound of those clips and he has not been capable of producing that tone out of the Axe-Fx, so far. Its not the end of the world people. Others have listened to those clips and don't like them and have to their ears produced better tones using the Axe-Fx by itself. So what exactly is the argument here?

There is a serious dose of bashing that goes on around here from time to time. There was a comment on another site about this and although the poster had some bizarre ideas as to how forum behavior affects his purchasing decisions, this is what he is talking about. Marvinx did not come in all high and mighty with "The Axe has been Torpedoed!" He stated a personal opinion and just because it wasn't all golden over the Axe, he gets bashed for it. WTF!

Going to enjoy my seafood now.

 

[godprobe]

Hi Jay, just curious for a quick clarification (though it probably doesn't even matter in the context of this thread)...

It may simply be panning between multiple static Ir's, but i am unsure.

The only reason motivation for going beyond a linear IR - which is not "static" by any definition - is to accurately capture the effects of speaker distortion. This effect is highly overrated, and, more importantly the torpedo does not capture these nonlinearities. It approximates them. So does the Axe-Fx.

Do you mean "overrated" in the sense that it's not typically audible in a mix, or, noting your traditional preferences, that the effect is traditionally undesirable?

 

[virgil]

The IR's in the torpedo can be changed dynamically in real time.It may simply be panning between multiple static Ir's, but i am unsure. You can only load one IR at a time into the axe and it remains static. The ir's in the torpedo are of much greater length. The axe fx cannot load IR's of that length currently.

Ir's beyond the axe-fx's length may contain more than speaker energy, and to me that is precisely why it sounds so good.

It is not the same.

I believe the creator came in here a while ago and cleared that up however.
~mx~

..and above all... you have to spend another 2000 euros..right ?

 

[Jay Mitchell]

Could it simply be that marvin prefers the sound of the torpedo is producing without all this talk of "golden ears"?

You're missing the point. He isn't hearing just "the sound of the torpedo is producing." He's hearing clips from their website made with loaded amps played through a torpedo, and he asserts without support that the Axe-Fx cannot produce those sounds. There are a lot of variables here, making it a mistake to attribute tonal differences between a given Axe-Fx preset and any of those clips to the torpedo and its IRs.

 

[Jay Mitchell]

Do you mean "overrated" in the sense that it's not typically audible in a mix,[

It's not typically audible when you play solo. The notion that speaker nonlinearities are a big contributor to the sound character of guitar amps is a huge misconception. When one element in the signal chain - the amplifier - is generating very large amounts of distortion, it is silly to think you can hear the comparatively tiny contribution of another element (the speaker). Of all the guitar players who claim they hear speakers distorting, I have never found one who bothered to isolate the sound of the speaker - by playing through a reference-quality power amp - and learned what a distorting speaker really sounds like. That would be an enlightening moment, and it would put to rest the BS about needing speaker distortion to create an "authentic" sound. If you drive a cone transducer hard enough to make it distort audibly, not only will it sound like crap, it will fail catastrophically within a minute or less. This has nothing to do with my preferences. It has to do with facts.