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

I've given this a try at gig volume...actually maybe a bit louder than normal gig volume for how I play...and it sounds okay. What I notice is that there is a slight rolloff of the highs, the mids are a smidge less prominent, and the bass is slightly less. Other than that, I don't really notice any earth shattering differences. It's good, but probably up to personal preference. It certainly doesn't make the tone any worse. :)

I know Cliff has said in the past that changing the speaker resonance parameter to match your cab, real or IR, does make a difference in feel.
 
I'm confused (as usual). I'm running SS power amp into real cab. Originally I thought based on above that I'm looking for the resonance frequency of the *speaker* in my cab. (An EV12L). I see its published specs have a "free air resonance frequency" of 55hz. So I figure I'm setting that to 65hz per Scott. But then I read further in the thread and it seems that for us power amp/cab guys it's not the RF of the speaker that we need it's the RF of the *cab*. Is that right? If so, how do I find the RF of the cab (A Glasswerks Thiele-style 1x12), other than by trial and error?

By the way, just using Scott's settings and the 65hz figure I do think it sounds better. Less "grainy". Smoother. Less fatiguing.
 
bjjp2 said:
I'm confused (as usual). I'm running SS power amp into real cab. Originally I thought based on above that I'm looking for the resonance frequency of the *speaker* in my cab. (An EV12L). I see its published specs have a "free air resonance frequency" of 55hz. So I figure I'm setting that to 65hz per Scott. But then I read further in the thread and it seems that for us power amp/cab guys it's not the RF of the speaker that we need it's the RF of the *cab*. Is that right? If so, how do I find the RF of the cab (A Glasswerks Thiele-style 1x12), other than by trial and error?

By the way, just using Scott's settings and the 65hz figure I do think it sounds better. Less "grainy". Smoother. Less fatiguing.
Click to expand...

Please remember that's a *starting point* and you can (and should) move it from there. (Normally up. I end up around 100Hz-115Hz for most every cab for instance).

These starting point parameter settings are not 'set in stone'; I'm attempting to get folks to trust their ears here. Start at 65Hz and move it up. Play as you do it (chug along on a muted e string) and listen. When it sounds right, it is right. No matter what the parameter reads.

Starting points are just that, starting points. You have to adjust per preset from there. The idea is to customize the tone to your preferences; there is no one 'right or wrong' setting here. I want folks to use my thing as a jumping off point, not a destination. :D
 
simeon said:
find out what the low res frequency of your real cab is, then follow along a fibonacci spiral until you reach the next prime number. divide this number by the molecular weight of carbon and then multiply that by pi. then find out the low res frequency of the cab block you are using and divide that by the charge of the higgs boson. this will give you the "cern" number for your cab block. this must be averaged down using the sum of the hypotenuse and aristotle's formant to 2 decimal places. once you have these two values for the cabs, they must be hybridised in liquid nitrogen for 3.2 minutes. this will give you the new low res value relative to C, so calculate the absolute value by simply plugging the numbers into a mobius quadratic and swapping the lambda values. easy.
Click to expand...

This is, by far, my favorite post in 2 years on this board. :)
 
yek said:
+1

In my experience you need to play really loud to "hear" the correct resonance frequency.

I find these tips very useful:

1. (by Cliff): Put a Filter block after the Amp block. Set it to Peaking, Q to 5 or so and Gain to 10 dB. Start with a Freq. of 50 Hz. Play some chugga-chugga and slowly adjust the Freq. until you hear and feel the cabinet resonate. Make a note of the frequency. Remove the Filter block and set the Low Resonance to match.
2. Playing the guitar while adjusting the frequency is tedious. Make it easier by using the Looper to record a phrase and repeating it.

Amp block: parameters and dialing in - Axe-Fx II Wiki
Click to expand...

why not just do the same with the Low RES until it sounds good, why go through the extra step with the filter block?
 
sp "akin to a blind man stumbling about on an ice rink."

I love this quote, and it just about sums up my entire experience with Axe 2 and Ive stumbled on awesomeness more times than not!
 
Scott Peterson said:
You are assuming too much here. There's no intention at all, and there's no 'recording' vs. 'live'. Cliff exposes parameters so we can adjust them. It's not 'severe' to do so; he expects it. I think this is a more natural and organic sounding way to address that part of the parameter set we have available. I'm not saying this is right and he is wrong... far from it. I am saying the default curves sound great - as you have already noted - and I feel these sound greater (yes, I made up a word). LOL. So I share that experience and opinion. This isn't a 'right' vs. 'wrong' or black and white battle of wits with Cliff or anyone else.

You either hear it/feel it sounds better or not. One thing to also keep in mind is that I've simplified it to express it against confusing the issue and topic to better communicate what I am getting across. Different amps I might deviate from my formula because of the highly subjective and very unscientific gold standard I always follow - I trust my ears.

You should trust yours too. If it sounds better to you to set the parameters another way or to leave them stock... then do it. The parameters are not some sort of mystical magic formula, they are collections of settings.

I feel that - for me - the curves I am using work better for what I want to hear and feel. I've logically asked experts in the field and done my own research and laid it all out as to how/why I came to where I am. I am sharing in the hope that others dig it. Nothing more, nothing less.

The only thing missing is when folks do not understand how/why different pages of parameter sets are exposed and broken out. Cliff gave this parameter set its own page in the amp block for a reason - it is VERY important to dialing in your tone. Many are afraid of this page or at least have no idea how/why to approach it. I worked with it for over a year and didn't really 'get' it until I got a hold of Jay. Cliff has posted many times that there is no way to do this in a default manner because it assumes too much. Everyone uses different rigs, different cabs, different approaches and goes for different tones. No default curve can cover all of it.

I don't think Cliff has his feelings hurt if we change settings on the Axe-FX... that's why he put them in there. So we could.

In the end, you trust your ears. If you like the stock curves better, then you roll with them. It's ok, my feelings won't be hurt. :D
Click to expand...

All of this may be true. But I would still very much like to know what assumptions/validations went into the default settings. As we have all repeatedly seen, our "ears" are not as simple as our ears. They are affected by many things - emotion, environment, fatique, opinion, perception, hearing loss, assumption, etc. In the context of infinite possibility, having a point of logic to offset your subjectivity can be very reassuring. If Cliff's default's are a wild guess based on his ears, fine. If they are based on some attempt at a logical and balanced happy medium, fine. If they are the result of his methodical identification of the optimal setting based on several assumed factors, fine. But I for one rather know than assume.
 
I just tried it, for direct recording only though (which is what most of my work consists of atm). started with an entirely new patch, NF IRs only (don't like FFs). unfortunately it didn't work at all for me, or let's say for the direct recording route. everything sounded slightly muffled, even when cranking highs and presence (far beyond where they'd be on a real amp), there was still that kind of "blanket" present.

now, I can definitely see, that for a FF/FR setup this could work really well since it's an entirely different situation, for direct recording however, I prefer the stock settings for their clarity.
 
youngmic said:
All of this may be true. But I would still very much like to know what assumptions/validations went into the default settings. As we have all repeatedly seen, our "ears" are not as simple as our ears. They are affected by many things - emotion, environment, fatique, opinion, perception, hearing loss, assumption, etc. In the context of infinite possibility, having a point of logic to offset your subjectivity can be very reassuring. If Cliff's default's are a wild guess based on his ears, fine. If they are based on some attempt at a logical and balanced happy medium, fine. If they are the result of his methodical identification of the optimal setting based on several assumed factors, fine. But I for one rather know than assume.
Click to expand...

VegaBaby said:
I just tried it, for direct recording only though (which is what most of my work consists of atm). started with an entirely new patch, NF IRs only (don't like FFs). unfortunately it didn't work at all for me, or let's say for the direct recording route. everything sounded slightly muffled, even when cranking highs and presence (far beyond where they'd be on a real amp), there was still that kind of "blanket" present.

now, I can definitely see, that for a FF/FR setup this could work really well since it's an entirely different situation, for direct recording however, I prefer the stock settings for their clarity.
Click to expand...

And there you have it.

Asking me (or anyone) what Cliff does or how he does it is fool's gold and you are welcome to the pursuit if you need to. Most likely answer will be that it is proprietary information. I seriously doubt Cliff "guesses" at most anything though... really. ;) :D If you'd like to know, you can ask him because he is the only one that can answer it. IMHO, he has answered it and it's been alluded to multiple times in this thread (I have done so a few times). He wants owners and users to adjust it to their own situation and rig configurations to match their taste. Essentially, it's 'dialing in' the amp's response to the cab configuration you've choose to use.

And in the end, we all need to choose what suits us. The power of this box is that it allows individual approaches. You do not have to be 'baked in' at all - you can create your own thing. That's the power. No matter what you prefer - evidenced by Vegababy, he prefers the stock curves.

I do think that the key here is that everyone will be richer for the experience of working with that tab no matter where they end up.

That - after all - is the reason of the thread. Not to convince anyone that any settings of some parameters one way is 'right' or 'wrong'; it's to find your own voice by utilizing the parameters.
 
prometh said:
I tried it out and to me it sounds muffled. I like the stock (with speaker-matching LF Resonance) better. Thanks for sharing, though, of course.
Click to expand...

Havent tried yet, but wondering if these arent mainly good for cranked live open air rooms. Perhaps to help if you make presets at bedroom levels, but then need to defeat fletcher the Munson (in a battle to the death of course) later when gigging?
 
i have a really hard time hearing the effect of changing the freq number in high gain unless it's really a major change. Do I need to do this on a lower gain setting? Sorry im at work or else i'd try it myself
 
simeon said:
find out what the low res frequency of your real cab is, then follow along a fibonacci spiral until you reach the next prime number. divide this number by the molecular weight of carbon and then multiply that by pi. then find out the low res frequency of the cab block you are using and divide that by the charge of the higgs boson. this will give you the "cern" number for your cab block. this must be averaged down using the sum of the hypotenuse and aristotle's formant to 2 decimal places. once you have these two values for the cabs, they must be hybridised in liquid nitrogen for 3.2 minutes. this will give you the new low res value relative to C, so calculate the absolute value by simply plugging the numbers into a mobius quadratic and swapping the lambda values. easy.
Click to expand...

As a chemist, this made my day!
 
well I tried it , I dunno, I lose a lot of higher end, again Im sure its good for loud volumes. Everything seems to boil down to what the ear hears, call it what you want, but I hear bass or treble frequencies. I change these settings then go and change my eq settings then Im back where I started.
 
I've spend all day going through my patches and this change make a huge difference!
It's important to redo the "basic tab" in amp block to get the sweet spot.

After the change the "cab-in-room feeling" playing from my Adam studiomonitors is so damn good that I finally can sell my poweramp/cab

Thanks Scott for sharing this!
 
Scott Peterson said:
And there you have it.

Asking me (or anyone) what Cliff does or how he does it is fool's gold and you are welcome to the pursuit if you need to. Most likely answer will be that it is proprietary information. I seriously doubt Cliff "guesses" at most anything though... really. ;) :D If you'd like to know, you can ask him because he is the only one that can answer it. IMHO, he has answered it and it's been alluded to multiple times in this thread (I have done so a few times). He wants owners and users to adjust it to their own situation and rig configurations to match their taste. Essentially, it's 'dialing in' the amp's response to the cab configuration you've choose to use.

And in the end, we all need to choose what suits us. The power of this box is that it allows individual approaches. You do not have to be 'baked in' at all - you can create your own thing. That's the power. No matter what you prefer - evidenced by Vegababy, he prefers the stock curves.

I do think that the key here is that everyone will be richer for the experience of working with that tab no matter where they end up.

That - after all - is the reason of the thread. Not to convince anyone that any settings of some parameters one way is 'right' or 'wrong'; it's to find your own voice by utilizing the parameters.
Click to expand...

Scott, I don't recall any specific answers to this question. If it is proprietary, fine. It would be nice to know. I don't necessarily expect you to answer. But honestly, it feels like you are trying to invalidate the question. Frankly Scott, your OP on this matter belies your stated neutrality. There is a passion, conviction, and authoritative quality to your post that more than offsets any caveats, YMMV's, IMO's, IRC's, etc.

I appreciate the work you do. Don't get me wrong. It is helpful. But the question is simple and I don't believe it's irrelevant. If Cliff has stated the opinion you reflect here in previous posts, I'd love to know what to search for to read about that.

And BTW, yes, I doubt that he guesses as well. But that was given as an extreme example of why the information might be helpful. To identify it as what I actually believe in order to mock the question seems pejorative.

It may not be your intention, but unfortunately your response to this question feels rather dismissive.


Mike
 
I just thought... doesn't this then assume that the IR capture you use properly captures the impedance character of said speaker? I remember a few weeks ago I tried to capture the IR of my favorite '74 marshall cab and came up with about a half dozen completely different sounding IR speakers. I'd assume only one (if any) properly captured the IR correct to spec...
 
youngmic said:
Scott, I don't recall any specific answers to this question. If it is proprietary, fine. It would be nice to know. I don't necessarily expect you to answer. But honestly, it feels like you are trying to invalidate the question. Frankly Scott, your OP on this matter belies your stated neutrality. There is a passion, conviction, and authoritative quality to your post that more than offsets any caveats, YMMV's, IMO's, IRC's, etc.

I appreciate the work you do. Don't get me wrong. It is helpful. But the question is simple and I don't believe it's irrelevant. If Cliff has stated the opinion you reflect here in previous posts, I'd love to know what to search for to read about that.

And BTW, yes, I doubt that he guesses as well. But that was given as an extreme example of why the information might be helpful. To identify it as what I actually believe in order to mock the question seems pejorative.

It may not be your intention, but unfortunately your response to this question feels rather dismissive.


Mike
Click to expand...

See below. I am no authority at all, I'm a guy like you that just took the time and effort to figure out something and thought to share it. I've posted numerous times that Cliff said to adjust these depending on your situation. Cliff posted a thread on this topic. He said these are important controls and has stated numerous times that it is up to the end user to adjust/tweak them to match their taste and situation. No one is dismissing you, you just need to read some more is all. LINK TO CLIFF'S THREAD ON THIS HERE --> http://forum.fractalaudio.com/axe-fx-ii-discussion/45261-speaker-resonance-controls.html

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

Searched on posts containing "resonance" by Cliff. Simple suggestion. Very helpful results.
Click to expand...

Thanks youngmic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom