What are the biggest contributors to an amps raw/alive feel?

somniumaeternum

somniumaeternum

Member
Hey everyone,
I should preface this by saying I'm not exactly sure how to describe the effect I'm hearing, I haven't really found the right adjective unfortunately. I've been using the AxeFX2 for years now and it's my main rig. My main patch is based on a USA Lead amp model + 4x12 Cali cab, and I've tweaked it so that it feels perfect under my fingers - the right tone, response, etc.

I've been trading some guitars lately and got a couple of amps as backups / students rigs when I teach. I picked up a Mesa Mark V:25 yesterday and been playing it quite a lot through a 4x12 with CL80s and really enjoying the rawness of the response. I'm not exactly sure what I like about it it just feels very "alive". I guess the best way to put it would be that it's like the amp already has that tone, and I'm just shaping it when I play. It feels rawer of a tone. With my main model, it feels like I'm creating it when I play. My patch actually feels more immediate in the response (which is actually better overall, and due to how I tweaked power amp model, etc. etc.), so I don't think it has much to do with the model itself, but doesn't feel so upfront / alive. I have a few questions around all this then:

1) I'm wondering if it's just that my patch sounds really polish vs the rawness of the actual amp? There's definitely a certain level of creaminess in the amp that isn't in my patch, especially in the clean channel. Do any parameters contribute to this? My patch sounds crisper, especially with distortion, and a bit more compressed with cleans.

2) How much does a FRFR vs actual speaker make a difference? Since the guitar speaker isn't able to reproduce higher freqs, maybe those are creating a different sonic signature to the tone that makes it sound less raw/alive (sorry, still searching for the right adjective here).

3) It's crazy because tone wise I actually much prefer my main patch. I'm wondering though how much of that "fun\aliveness" is lost by using mic models / IRs? Even when I turn off the mic model, it's not really the same rawness as the amp though. When I record, the model sounds much better imo - kind of like the Mesa when all the stars line up magically.

I suppose it's also possible that by the tweaking I've basically gotten an amp that doesn't really have that Mesa tone anymore - at least to the degree that the actual Mark V:25 does anyways. Maybe that's the difference I'm hearing and it's just fun because it's something different/new.

Basically, I'm just trying to analyze what I'm hearing, where it's coming from, and trying to figure out if there are some parameters that contribute to this. I'm not even saying I prefer the amp over the AxeFX2 (because I don't), but just want to learn more about this to see if I can make use of it somehow. I'm hoping some of this makes a little sense at least.
 
It sounds like you're comparing apples to oranges here- an amp model with an IR (colored by a microphone) going through a monitor (that will color your tone even further) versus a different amp through a different cab (and a different kind of speaker cab, at that).

The "feel" will always be different, although you'll probably get closest to the real amp feel by running your axe fx through a power amp into a guitar cabinet (as opposed to a monitor system).

If you want to compare further, you could always try recording an axe fx tone into your DAW, then run your Mesa V:25 into a load box and use the SAME EXACT IR you recorded your axe fx tone with. That way you'll really be able to see the differences between the Axe and the real thing, which at this point are nearly inaudible in my opinion.
 
The Last Romantic said:
It sounds like you're comparing apples to oranges here- an amp model with an IR (colored by a microphone) going through a monitor (that will color your tone even further) versus a different amp through a different cab (and a different kind of speaker cab, at that).

The "feel" will always be different, although you'll probably get closest to the real amp feel by running your axe fx through a power amp into a guitar cabinet (as opposed to a monitor system).

If you want to compare further, you could always try recording an axe fx tone into your DAW, then run your Mesa V:25 into a load box and use the SAME EXACT IR you recorded your axe fx tone with. That way you'll really be able to see the differences between the Axe and the real thing, which at this point are nearly inaudible in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Yeah I'm aware it's not a good 1:1 comparison, but I'm actually not after that - I already prefer the AxeFx2 tone. I've picked up several other amps and they all tend to be a bit rawer than the models I've used. I've done direct comparisons of matching several amps with their respective models, without mic modeling, and basically as straight across as possible to try to isolate different things. I'm really just trying to figure out what that "rawness/creaminess" is in the parameters and the contributors to that sonic and feel difference other than just mic/IR. I'm more leaning towards my patches just sound more polished and a bit more "hi-fi" due to the FRFR spears instead of the guitar ones.
 
What are the big contributors?
  1. Volume.
    1. Greater acoustic coupling with the guitar
    2. Greater interaction with the room's acoustics
    3. Fletcher-Munson
  2. Near field vs. far field speaker sound
    1. Near field sounds nothing like an amp in a room
    2. Proximity effect
  3. Mic coloration
There's probably more but those are the biggest ones off the top of my head
 
I get what you're saying, or asking rather.

It's a great question or thought - because your ears hear what they ear. I've discovered that the way the Axe models the amps, to me, is slightly more cleaner, more rounded, and less finicky than a real amp, as per se. However, I agree with your comment of real amps sounding more 'rawer', which I reckon they are too. It's hard to articulate. I've done a few amp-vs-Axe comparisons here and there and I've actually found the Axe to sound 'better' to my ears compared to some amps, for both FRFR and running the Axe into the return of an amp. I've found that I love the Splawn Nitro and Quick Rod on the Axe, but after playing (and nearly buying a Pro Mod) last week, I was a bit disappointed and prefer the Axe version of both compared to the real thing. It's weird; you gotta hear it to understand it I guess. That said, I'm not a big fan of the Mesa amp models in the Axe (sorry guys!) - so it's horses for courses. Some will sound great via FRFR, some will sounded better via a real amp.

A lot of what you're referring to, again in my opinion, comes down to the amp as well as how you run your Axe rig. It comes down to amp settings and which cabs to gravitate to. When I run my Axe through my Friedman FRFR setup, I mainly gravitate to the Dirty Shirley amp more than anything, which surprises the hell out of me. When I run it via the return of my amp head, I alternate between the Splawns, Friedmans and Camerons mostly.

One least thing as far as FRFR goes, DEFINITELY experiment with the cabs, especially the ones you can buy. Those IRs are great. The Misha BULB ones (I forget which ones exactly) are my go-to ones more often than not.

Not sure if that helps, but you're on the right track. Experimenting is everything.
 
i cant really speak on what your looking for in terms of the "rawness" youre looking for, but I think you should take a look at the speaker tab in the amp block and mess with the high and low resonances. bring down the high curve and bumping the eq up a bit to my ears helps with the fizzy quality in some amps at the very least
 
It's really hard for me to comment on this without coming across as pitching my own work but to me this all sounds like you should try different IR's. If you're into Mark series tones you could try the free "Clark Kent Job - Generation Y" IR's. It's a good gateway drug...

Here's a comparison between the real amp vs amp sim without tone matching. They're very close!

 
In my not scientific opinion:
1. Cab. With a real cab, the tone you hear changes a lot with even small head movements. IR's capture one location,,but FRFR speakers are much more even in their response around the room, so you have a more "static" sound.

2. Power amp. Big tube power amps have something in them. I dont know what it is, maybe it's just power and authority. Maybe a 1500w ss amp has it too, I dont know.

Listening to a recording of a real amp vs. Axe levels the playing field. Also, that's what the audience hears. Imo, real cabs are more fun to play through. It's very fun to rattle your skull and get the responsive feedback with the guitar, but then you have only one sound. If you don't like the tone of that particular cab, there's not much you can do. And the beam of death from a 4x12 is not a good thing. Versatility, coverage and 1:1 with the tone audience hears, that's why I play through FRFR.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the responses guys. I think I need to get more into 3rd party IRs, I feel like I've been just trying to get the most out of the stock AxeFX2 ones and, while I'm definitely not an expert, I'm feel pretty competent in being able to tailor the sound/feel to what I want so far. I've been trying to stick to just 1 cab model when I experiment to have as few variables as possible. I've done a lot of experimentation with most settings and combinations thereof, although there's always more magic hidden under the hood it seems. Little things like this are just fun to try to track down.

The Clark Kent Job IRs sound pretty great, I'll probably start there when I dive in on 3rd party IRs.

Regarding what I mentioned earlier, I do think it's something intrinsic to the models though, they sound so good it's almost unnaturally polished kind of tone - which is fantastic, don't get me wrong but just curious about the components of this and if you can emulate the rawness as well. I'm curious to what extend the AxeFX2 can models "natural" operational variations in tubes, voltage, etc. as I'm also thinking that has something to do with it what I hear on a real amp. In other words, it may just sounds too good to be true compared to the actual amp, and I perceive that as a reduction in "rawness" due to it being more consistent/constant?

I suppose that the elephant in the room is always that our friendly confirmation bias could be striking again albeit it I'd wager against it - but that could be the bias talking again ;)

It's definitely not a complain by any means, just more of an academic sort of curiosity.
 
somniumaeternum said:
I'm curious to what extend the AxeFX2 can models "natural" operational variations in tubes, voltage, etc. as I'm also thinking that has something to do with it what I hear on a real amp.
Click to expand...
The Axe gives you control over voltages, tube types, impedences, crunch, bias, and a bunch of other stuff. You can dial in edginess, flubbiness, and general crap, to the point that you can go anywhere from pristine tone to tone that's so crappy that it's useless.

The amp models in the Axe are intended to represent a tube amp on its best day: new tubes, properly biased, fresh caps...the works. You can pervert that as much as you like. :)


somniumaeternum said:
In other words, it may just sounds too good to be true compared to the actual amp, and I perceive that as a reduction in "rawness" due to it being more consistent/constant?
Click to expand...
It's more consistent than any real tube amp could ever hope to be.
 
The FRFR speaker absolutely matters.

I A/B between two CLR's and my studio monitors in a calibrated treated room.

The CLR's absolutely give more of a guitar amp feel when comparing at the same calibrated SPL level.

Very noticeable when rapidly switching speakers on the same preset.
 
ML SOUND LAB said:
It's really hard for me to comment on this without coming across as pitching my own work but to me this all sounds like you should try different IR's. If you're into Mark series tones you could try the free "Clark Kent Job - Generation Y" IR's. It's a good gateway drug...

Here's a comparison between the real amp vs amp sim without tone matching. They're very close!

Click to expand...


Mikko, thank you for sharing just how important the master setting can be, perhaps not just in the Mark IV??

barhrecords said:
The FRFR speaker absolutely matters.

I A/B between two CLR's and my studio monitors in a calibrated treated room.

The CLR's absolutely give more of a guitar amp feel when comparing at the same calibrated SPL level.

Very noticeable when rapidly switching speakers on the same preset.
Click to expand...

Barhrecords, also good intel regarding getting the real amp feel, from the AxeFX.

Cheers guys,

Lee
 
IMO, the Axe Fx, or any modeler, is going to be more consistent in it's processing of the signal passing through. A tube amp is a crude beast, and not precise or as consistent. I think this could be part of the "rawness" and difference between the two, aside from the more obvious guitar cab vs. FRFR differences.
 
I understand what you mean and my solution is to run a power amp into a cab in addition to the FRFR. I know some will think it's overkill but in a live situation there is something that is far irreplaceable about a amp through a real cab. Going out of output 2 via the FXL with no cab sims into a power amp and cabinet has that rawness to it, especially at gig volume. FOH gets the output 1 with polished FR signal and I can hear both on stage. This has worked for me for a few years.
 
You are talking about amp in the room vs FRFR. This has been gone over about a million times. Run a real cab with AFX if you are looking for AITR.
 
I run mine through a tube poweramp and guitar cab and it sounds just as alive and powerful as my 5153 head. I also have a complete frfr rig with a Carvin dcm1540l and 2 Xitone cabinets and I just can't get used to it. I guess I'm just old school but the frfr rig just doesn't do it for me and will probably be for sale very soon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom