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

Just been dialing in. This is actually working out great for me. Taking away a lot of the harsh high end.

Scott, one thing I'm not quite getting is where you get those figures for Mid & High resonance? Are they just graphical approximations based on the speakers impedance curve, or does it come from somewhere? Apologies if this has been answered somewhere, i've read the thread through a couple of times but i'm knackered lol.

P.S

This might be placebo, but I feel like i'm getting a truckload more sustain.
 
Last edited:
themaidenmaniac said:
Just been dialing in. This is actually working out great for me. Taking away a lot of the harsh high end.

Scott, one thing I'm not quite getting is where you get those figures for Mid & High resonance? Are they just graphical approximations based on the speakers impedance curve, or does it come from somewhere? Apologies if this has been answered somewhere, i've read the thread through a couple of times but i'm knackered lol.

P.S

This might be placebo, but I feel like i'm getting a truckload more sustain.
Click to expand...

Cool. I got the figures and scale from Jay Mitchell. He's an (professionally) acknowledged expert on everything related to speakers; he is an expert in the field and has published many white papers and owns a serious high end speaker company. It is a graphical approximation of the speaker's impedance curve. I have links in the thread, but you can easily google 'speaker impedance curve' and read for yourself.

It's not placebo. Trust me.
 
Scott Peterson said:
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
Click to expand...

Scott, your response to my post was dismissive. I am not angry. I was put off...a bit. But your post was dismissive. References to "fool's gold", use of wry smiles, and your overall language communicated this fairly clearly.

It's OK. It happens. I just wish you'd recognize it and move on. I'm going to. It's a small thing.

I remain appreciative for all of your contributions to this community.

BTW, I'm youngmic.

Mike
 
Ok, I superimposed the curve from the axe onto the P12N curve you said you copied. There are no horizontal values on the Axe, but if you superimpose you'll quickly realize the graph on the Axe is proportional to the standard graph and the 200hz and 2K lines match up.

I'm honestly not posting this to fight, but you posted your graphs to show they are "similar" so its an intersting study to actually show how close they are.

whats very interesting here, is that from reading these, it seems like there might be something in between these two that would work better. Notice how the high resonance fits better in the stock form, but the lower fits better in the new SP & Jay form...

resonance_curves.jpg

BUT, note how interesting it is that in the new curves, the AXE's resonance curve perfectly intersects where the frequency and Impedance curve meets... I know you posted frequency has nothing to do with it, but i HIGHLY doubt thats just by accident...
 
Last edited:
youngmic said:
Scott, your response to my post was dismissive. I am not angry. I was put off...a bit. But your post was dismissive. References to "fool's gold", use of wry smiles, and your overall language communicated this fairly clearly.

It's OK. It happens. I just wish you'd recognize it and move on. I'm going to. It's a small thing.

I remain appreciative for all of your contributions to this community.

BTW, I'm youngmic.

Mike
Click to expand...

 
Definitely use your ears.

I was rocking along thinking this was gonna be a great start on everything and then hit a preset where there was an EVM-12 speaker. Cranking up the high freq/resonance absolutely dulled it to death. I ended up changing them nearly back to where they were in the first place.




Man, reading that Speaker Resonance Control thread again made me realize there are some people who can suck all the fun out of playing guitar with overanalyzing everything.......

;)
 
Gamedojo said:
Ok, I superimposed the curve from the axe onto the P12N curve you said you copied. There are no horizontal values on the Axe, but if you superimpose you'll quickly realize the graph on the Axe is proportional to the standard graph and the 200hz and 2K lines match up.

I'm honestly not posting this to fight, but you posted your graphs to show they are "similar" so its an intersting study to actually show how close they are.

whats very interesting here, is that from reading these, it seems like there might be something in between these two that would work better. Notice how the high resonance fits better in the stock form, but the lower fits better in the new SP & Jay form...

View attachment 12351

BUT, note how interesting it is that in the new curves, the AXE's resonance curve perfectly intersects where the frequency and Impedance curve meets... I know you posted frequency has nothing to do with it, but i HIGHLY doubt thats just by accident...
Click to expand...

That was interesting. It made the broader Q of Scott's approach more obvious to me.
 
Alright...someone give THIS a try. (I'm at work and don't have my guitar/unit here. Just doing this for fun.

LowResFq: 90
LowresQ: 2.2
LowRes: 4.00

Mid Res Fq: 300
Mid Res Q: .322
Mid Res: -2.71

Hi Freq:1700
Hi Res: 10

Here is my curve superimposed over the P12N graph:

tyler_curve.jpg
 
Just gave it a whirl Tyler. I am playing a high gain patch atm, but that hi res being 10 is making baby jesus cry! :D Im sure on a fender clean patch it would be pretty sparkly though. Slightly confusing to me though as yours would appear to be bang on. Maybe it doesnt scale right?

resonance.png
 
Last edited:
Gamedojo said:
Ok, I superimposed the curve from the axe onto the P12N curve you said you copied. There are no horizontal values on the Axe, but if you superimpose you'll quickly realize the graph on the Axe is proportional to the standard graph and the 200hz and 2K lines match up.

I'm honestly not posting this to fight, but you posted your graphs to show they are "similar" so its an intersting study to actually show how close they are.

whats very interesting here, is that from reading these, it seems like there might be something in between these two that would work better. Notice how the high resonance fits better in the stock form, but the lower fits better in the new SP & Jay form...

BUT, note how interesting it is that in the new curves, the AXE's resonance curve perfectly intersects where the frequency and Impedance curve meets... I know you posted frequency has nothing to do with it, but i HIGHLY doubt thats just by accident...
Click to expand...

barhrecords said:
That was interesting. It made the broader Q of Scott's approach more obvious to me.
Click to expand...

Gamedojo said:
Alright...someone give THIS a try. (I'm at work and don't have my guitar/unit here. Just doing this for fun.

LowResFq: 90
LowresQ: 2.2
LowRes: 4.00

Mid Res Fq: 300
Mid Res Q: .322
Mid Res: -2.71

Hi Freq:1700
Hi Res: 10

Here is my curve superimposed over the P12N graph:
Click to expand...

themaidenmaniac said:
Just gave it a whirl Tyler. I am playing a high gain patch atm, but that hi res being 10 is making baby jesus cry! :D Im sure on a fender clean patch it would be pretty sparkly though. Slightly confusing to me though as yours would appear to be bang on. Maybe it doesnt scale right?
Click to expand...


All cool in theory, but damn.. listen first next time. LOL! Sounds like poo poo to me.

IMHO - the scale of the graph and the rise of the curve don't sound right at all in Tyler's. You be the judge though.

Have a peak here:

spadres.gif


spadres2.gif


That's a more natural curve. Look at more sites on the web - just google: speaker resonance frequency
 
Last edited:
youngmic said:
Scott, your response to my post was dismissive. I am not angry. I was put off...a bit. But your post was dismissive. References to "fool's gold", use of wry smiles, and your overall language communicated this fairly clearly.

It's OK. It happens. I just wish you'd recognize it and move on. I'm going to. It's a small thing.

I remain appreciative for all of your contributions to this community.

BTW, I'm youngmic.

Mike
Click to expand...

Mike - you don't know me and if you did know me you would not say I am dismissive, angry, being wry or using 'overall language' to create that illusion. You are taking all this far too personally and far too serious. "I just wish you'd recognize this and move on." Well, I wish you'd not take offense when none was intended and follow your own advice. You are reading far too much into the words. Lighten up man; we are just talking. It isn't a contest.
 
One thing I can imagine is that at volume this new setting is gonna supply some girth and fletcher munson will take it to a whole new level :D One thing I have suffered with in the past is taking any processor into the live environment, & i'm pretty sure these settings will be just the ticket.

I'm feeling another 5150 amp match coming on.
 
Lol!! Im just having fun... Just want to tr a curve that really looks the same.... Of course, I'm also guessing the normal amp perameters need to drastically change. I'm not being scientific
 
Gamedojo said:
Lol!! Im just having fun... Just want to tr a curve that really looks the same.... Of course, I'm also guessing the normal amp perameters need to drastically change. I'm not being scientific
Click to expand...

Did you copy that curve out of Axe-Edit ? Remember either Scott or Jay mentioned that the curve shown in Axe-Edit isn't even close to the curve shown in the Axe-II .... And as it turns out it's, not very accurate either ....
 
R.D. said:
Did you copy that curve out of Axe-Edit ? Remember either Scott or Jay mentioned that the curve shown in Axe-Edit isn't even close to the curve shown in the Axe-II .... And as it turns out it's, not very accurate either ....
Click to expand...

Ah... Well that explains my epic fail:)
 
Gamedojo said:
Lol!! Im just having fun... Just want to tr a curve that really looks the same.... Of course, I'm also guessing the normal amp perameters need to drastically change. I'm not being scientific
Click to expand...

I know you were - the idea is sound. The approximation used by Axe-Edit isn't accurate; it's just a representation.

Try those settings you came up with once you get home though... but turn the volume down first. Ouch.... ;) :D
 
Scott,
I never understood why I couldn't get that thump I get from my Marshall jmp-1 through my simulcasts 2:90 and recto cab with the axe. I just applied your suggested settings and it's like the sky has parted because the tone now has body and a restored sense of the audio spectrum I was used to with my old rig.

I also never understood why the deep switch on my Marshall power amp wasn't anywhere as good to my ears as the one on the Mesa. Well, the Mesa's deep circuit was probably Devised in conjunction with the resonating freq of whatever they were using in their cabs.

This is one of the most insightful thread I've read all year, at least for my needs. Nice work bud!
 
Scott Peterson said:
Mike - you don't know me and if you did know me you would not say I am dismissive, angry, being wry or using 'overall language' to create that illusion. You are taking all this far too personally and far too serious. "I just wish you'd recognize this and move on." Well, I wish you'd not take offense when none was intended and follow your own advice. You are reading far too much into the words. Lighten up man; we are just talking. It isn't a contest.
Click to expand...

No, I don't know you. And you don't know me. Which is why text only can be a very difficult medium. I'm not privy to your body language, your personality, or even any historical interaction with you on this board. Perhaps I took it wrong. Perhaps you assumed my intent was different than it was. But perhaps you could have gone back and evaluated whether your post may have come across a bit different than you intended. Telling me to lighten up certainly does nothing but fuel the issue. Perhaps I'm just in a snarky mood. But consider that in 2 years on this board, I have never raised an issue like this. I took it the way I took it. I'm really not contesting anything. I'm just letting you know that your response hit me the wrong way. Maybe I said that a little too harshly. I thought I kind of eased into it. But if I did not, I am sorry.

I believe you when you say that you did not intend to communicate what I interpreted. But sometimes that happens with text. Consider the misunderstandings that have occurred via email. Wasn't really trying to make a big thing of this, but was admittedly trying to get a nod from you that perhaps your response could have been polished a little.

If you don't see that at all, OK.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom