V6 firmware: Time to Release the Monster - Speaker Resonance Page

OK, somebody really needs to write a dummies book for us inquiring minds. I soak all this stuff up like a sponge, I just wish we had something in the form of documentation that I could read at nausea to learn this stuff faster. I'm under the notion that my personality is bent to want to learn this stuff, that's why I bought it. I knew what I was in for.
 
Just a question:

As I'm looking at it right now, when I change the tonestack to German, the hi frequency sets to 2900...

Should I adjust it back down to 1500 and start from there?
 
One huge problem with this credo (which i've followed for over a decade myself) is that now in the world of the AxeFx, the sheer volume of parameters in so many different areas of control mean your ears may be trusted, but unless you set something a certain way, your ears may never even get the chance to HEAR something. Since 1000 settings all change how those 1000 settings sound, its good to have some non-ear using facts to help find the tones to compare.

Totally agree. I may listen to the presets and think "hey, that sounds good" and I can adjust the B,T,M,P controls like a regular amp. But I'm never going to know if it could sound better by tweaking the 1000s of variations of all those deep parameters. I don't have the time or the understanding of what I'm doing.
 
What I'm deducing here is we might be losing context a little bit. I "think" Scott is coming from more of a live FRFR standpoint and playing with the band, mix, at live band volumes. One thing I've noticed about Scott's settings is when I crank up my monitors and FM kicks in, then those settings do sound good to me, as they tame some of the high end among other small differences. Also keep in mind, it's mainly directed at using with the NF/FF mix.

Cliff "might" be coming more from the direct recording standpoint, which is usually a much lower volume and therefore those stock settings might be more applicable. Also, Cliff is probably not using a NF/FF mix all the time like Scott is.

The "trust your ears" method still applies, but I think it makes sense to decide FIRST what your context is, use the 'science' as a starting point, then go from there. One thing I'm noticing along the way is patches sound different at different volumes (obviously) and in different settings/mixes/monitoring. I do agree that simplifying this box into an "use your ears" method is not a reality for most people. Either you don't have the time to tweak tweak tweak (and your ears will fatigue before too long anyways), or you'll end up like me and you don't know when to stop tweaking. Sometimes I think something sounds good, come back the next day and it needs more tweaking... it can be a never ending cycle. So, it helps to have a scientific starting point, which should get you in the vicinity, then from there you can try a few tweaks.
 
Totally agree. I may listen to the presets and think "hey, that sounds good" and I can adjust the B,T,M,P controls like a regular amp. But I'm never going to know if it could sound better by tweaking the 1000s of variations of all those deep parameters. I don't have the time or the understanding of what I'm doing.


I think this is a fairly common feeling, at least for me, there are parameters out there that could really take this more over the top! :)

Did the AxeFx II create parameter G.A.S.? :)
 
I don't want to beat a dead horse here, but I think the question in my previous post bears a need for answering. I am up to date on my firmware, and for the record, and having loads of fun playing around with the various speaker settings inside the amp. Way cool.

If what you are saying is true, Cliff, and a Hi Freq. of 3000 is an unrealistic setting, why is the German tonestack set to 2900? I did end up setting it back to around 1500 and adjusting the amount, and I've managed to make it sound great either way, but I am curious: Is this a specific effect that is meant to happen the tonestack, and is therefore correct? Or should we assume that this was overlooked and adjust it back to around 1500? I'm not trying to be an ass or anything, but there are minor differences between the two sounds, and I'd like to know what you have to actually say about it. Thanks in advance.
 
Just a question:

As I'm looking at it right now, when I change the tonestack to German, the hi frequency sets to 2900...

Should I adjust it back down to 1500 and start from there?

This has nothing to do with the tone stack type. No idea what you are talking about.
 
Just a question:

As I'm looking at it right now, when I change the tonestack to German, the hi frequency sets to 2900...

Should I adjust it back down to 1500 and start from there?

I don't want to beat a dead horse here, but I think the question in my previous post bears a need for answering. I am up to date on my firmware, and for the record, and having loads of fun playing around with the various speaker settings inside the amp. Way cool.

If what you are saying is true, Cliff, and a Hi Freq. of 3000 is an unrealistic setting, why is the German tonestack set to 2900? I did end up setting it back to around 1500 and adjusting the amount, and I've managed to make it sound great either way, but I am curious: Is this a specific effect that is meant to happen the tonestack, and is therefore correct? Or should we assume that this was overlooked and adjust it back to around 1500? I'm not trying to be an ass or anything, but there are minor differences between the two sounds, and I'd like to know what you have to actually say about it. Thanks in advance.

This isn't about the tonestack. It's about the speaker impedance tab. VERY different things.
 
What I'm deducing here is we might be losing context a little bit. I "think" Scott is coming from more of a live FRFR standpoint and playing with the band, mix, at live band volumes. One thing I've noticed about Scott's settings is when I crank up my monitors and FM kicks in, then those settings do sound good to me, as they tame some of the high end among other small differences. Also keep in mind, it's mainly directed at using with the NF/FF mix.

Cliff "might" be coming more from the direct recording standpoint, which is usually a much lower volume and therefore those stock settings might be more applicable. Also, Cliff is probably not using a NF/FF mix all the time like Scott is.

The "trust your ears" method still applies, but I think it makes sense to decide FIRST what your context is, use the 'science' as a starting point, then go from there. One thing I'm noticing along the way is patches sound different at different volumes (obviously) and in different settings/mixes/monitoring. I do agree that simplifying this box into an "use your ears" method is not a reality for most people. Either you don't have the time to tweak tweak tweak (and your ears will fatigue before too long anyways), or you'll end up like me and you don't know when to stop tweaking. Sometimes I think something sounds good, come back the next day and it needs more tweaking... it can be a never ending cycle. So, it helps to have a scientific starting point, which should get you in the vicinity, then from there you can try a few tweaks.

This isn't live vs. recording. I use the same tones for both.

What I've tried emphasize all along is that these values are not fixed nor universal. I want folks to move the parameters and listen... training their ears. I personally and openly feel that the speaker resonance tab is one of... if not THE... most important things you need to work with to get that "1%" (or "10%" or whatever percentage number you prefer to use) from the Axe-FX II.

This is simply a powerful box and what I see a lot are guys that are almost afraid to change things because they assume that parameter names are confusing or default settings are somehow 'fixed' and my point was to have folks approach it instead as a method to both educate, train and dial in the thing to their ear and preferred feel.

Once you get these settings dialed for any given amp/IR combination, the results are breathtaking and uniquely personal. You are idealizing something that really is almost impossible with any other box - whether we are talking amp/cab/processor/etc - and the Axe-FX's strength is that it allows such control.

The weakness of that much control is many want the results, but either do not understand, do not want to understand or just do not want to work at it. They just want it dialed in for them.

On this platform and with this box, that's overly simplistic and unreasonable given the level and depth of control and complexity it is built on.

For instance - not one of my own presets uses the OP settings at all. Not one. Because I've dialed each in according to my ear after using the OP settings as a leaping off point. I vary each parameter till the amp/cab 'settles' and feels best. To get into how I do that is time consuming, and maybe I'll do a video to demonstrate. The key isn't the settings or parameters or presets or anything - the key is the method. To do this you have to know what you want. All you are listening for is for it to get there as you change the parameters. None of this is anything but finding your own voice and not just stumbling or dropping presets into your box. This is making things your own; which is massively empowering once you master it.

Just my opinion and the reason behind all these sorts of threads.
 
My bad - seriously. I think what was happening was before hand, I was using Axe-Edit to work my patches, and all kinds of things were going wonky. When I changed speaker resonance settings it had a huge impact on the overall sound of the amp. Also, when I changed tone stacks, it (that being the speaker resonance page) would appear differently in Axe Edit. So I turned it off and have been editing through the front panel since this morning, and things are making a lot more sense as to why it was so weird to dial things in. I'm seeing now that as I change tone stacks, it has no bearing on the speaker resonance page. Egg. On. My. Face.
 
Last edited:
Just got around to reading this. Gonna have to respectfully disagree with the analysis.

Know you're busy, but could you give us guitarists (read: non-techies) the general gist of how to use this page of parameters? I generally don't go beyond the amp knobs and EQ. If this is useful to getting a good sound while going direct, it would be cool to understand. Otherwise, I'll just skip this page and still be perfectly happy.
 
I tried this again today, not in my studio, but at a producer's studio I do a lot of work for. since he bought my Ultra he wasn't against this little test. to cut things short and not wanting to sound negative here, it still didn't work for me or in this case for us. A/B recordings and in a full mix the stock settings just won. we could EQ the non-stock settings to sound more like stock, but we both definitely preferred stock. we didn't use any cheap gear either. SSL console, Genelecs, the whole lot.

all I'm saying is, the "trust your ears" approach is very valid here. Scott's settings may well work for me if I'd done the same test using big cabs and volume, but for recording the stock settings (especially with v7) just work absolutely fine IMHO. great thing though that Cliff exposed these parameters, so I guess everyone can be happy.
 
This post from Cliff was helpful in understanding the speaker resonance page:

http://forum.fractalaudio.com/axe-fx-ii-discussion/45261-speaker-resonance-controls-2.html

...especially this:


Adjusting the low-frequency resonance is easy. You simply move the frequency to match and adjust the amount and Q as desired.

High-frequency resonance is a little more tricky. You'll notice in the Axe-Fx that the curve does not look like the graphs. The graphs increase smoothly whereas the Axe-Fx has a peaking response. That's because the speaker impedance reacts with the transformer and power tubes to form a higher-order network. The general rule-of-thumb is to use your ears. Lower the frequency and Q to get more midrange. Increase them to get more "chime".

But I recommend reading the entire post.

Cliff, any additional guidance/perspective would be welcome. Thanks.
 
I tried this again today, not in my studio, but at a producer's studio I do a lot of work for. since he bought my Ultra he wasn't against this little test. to cut things short and not wanting to sound negative here, it still didn't work for me or in this case for us. A/B recordings and in a full mix the stock settings just won. we could EQ the non-stock settings to sound more like stock, but we both definitely preferred stock. we didn't use any cheap gear either. SSL console, Genelecs, the whole lot.

all I'm saying is, the "trust your ears" approach is very valid here. Scott's settings may well work for me if I'd done the same test using big cabs and volume, but for recording the stock settings (especially with v7) just work absolutely fine IMHO. great thing though that Cliff exposed these parameters, so I guess everyone can be happy.

IMHO, the stock settings are accurate. As I explained a few posts up I wouldn't set Hi Freq outside the range of 1.0 to 1.6 kHz. Vibroverb model is an exception (800 Hz) since it had a more voice coil inductance.
 
I tried this again today, not in my studio, but at a producer's studio I do a lot of work for. since he bought my Ultra he wasn't against this little test. to cut things short and not wanting to sound negative here, it still didn't work for me or in this case for us. A/B recordings and in a full mix the stock settings just won. we could EQ the non-stock settings to sound more like stock, but we both definitely preferred stock. we didn't use any cheap gear either. SSL console, Genelecs, the whole lot.

all I'm saying is, the "trust your ears" approach is very valid here. Scott's settings may well work for me if I'd done the same test using big cabs and volume, but for recording the stock settings (especially with v7) just work absolutely fine IMHO. great thing though that Cliff exposed these parameters, so I guess everyone can be happy.

very concise way of saying it!

try the factory settings, try scott's settings, and make a call
 
....This is found by fc = R/(2*pi*L). For a typical speaker R is around 6 ohms and L is around 0.75 mH. Therefore fc = 1270. Jensens tend to have higher inductance so that would move this value down. Eminence speakers tend to have lower inductance so that would move this value up. Celestion does not publish their values so I used Eminence values when calculating the defaults. You'll notice the Marshally stuff has fc around 1500 which is consistent with a typical Eminence copy of a Greenback.

Just to clarify, that 6ohms is the speaker resistance right? As in, thats what you'd read on an 8ohm speaker if you hooked a ohm meter correct? Sooo...the ultimate question doesn't the equation change for a 16ohm speaker? Thats what most 4x12 speakers have and are wired to. considering 16ohm speakers usually read between 12 and 14ohm... wouldn't the fc come to around 2500?

...I'm guessing i'm not understanding it all..but I think I do.
 
Yes, that's for an 8-ohm speaker. Don't worry about 8, 16 etc. since if you put two 8-ohm speakers in series then the inductance doubles as well and the answer is still the same.
 
Yes, that's for an 8-ohm speaker. Don't worry about 8, 16 etc. since if you put two 8-ohm speakers in series then the inductance doubles as well and the answer is still the same.

But I'm not talking about two 8ohm speakers. A standard Marshall 4x12 cab has FOUR 16ohm speakers wired in series parallel resulting in a 16ohm cab.
 
This isn't live vs. recording. I use the same tones for both. [/FONT][/COLOR]

Okay cool, I guess I was trying to find some common ground where both yours and Cliff's suggestions were optimal, but perhaps in different settings etc.. I've used your settings as a starting point and have found I liked the result, I have also found on some patches that I didn't like the result.

Overall however, I definitely feel this thread has further educated me on this concept and if that was the goal, it has worked.

Now I feel like I understand about 20% of the AMP block, still have about 80% to go...
 
Back
Top Bottom