What is the next big modelling nut to crack?

Maybe a knob that would dial from "Brand New Tubes" to "Microphonic if you even look at it wrong". It could even have a setting that, when dimed, could put out little puffs of gray smoke...
 
My humble opinion is that modeling will never equal the real thing. It will be close, undetectable differences, etc, but never the same. Like a real whiskey, you cannot emulate it ever! Don't let me start about emulate a real women...

Given that the real thing never equals the real thing, you are undoubtedly correct. ;)
 
My humble opinion is that modeling will never equal the real thing. It will be close, undetectable differences, etc, but never the same. Like a real whiskey, you cannot emulate it ever! Don't let me start about emulate a real women...

"Never" is a long time.

Remember Arthur C. Clarke: “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.”
 
My humble opinion is that modeling will never equal the real thing. It will be close, undetectable differences, etc, but never the same. Like a real whiskey, you cannot emulate it ever! Don't let me start about emulate a real women...
I think emulation, such as III, is now beyond the real thing. Have had enough bad experiences of badly behaving tube amps at gigs. I would not like that to be emulated.
 
I’d like to see speaker and cab emulation (not modelling which is not practical at this stage). Just something that allows us to dial in and fine tune typical speaker characteristics such as general frequency response, significant notches, general “notchiness” etc. All with the matching impedance curve of course :)
 
Apart from the long-sought "talent" button, I do think there are still things yet to be cracked:

Make It Smooth: Block channel changes (any block; Amp, Cab, Cho, Flg) that morph or crossfade from one channel to the other over a preset crossfade/morph duration, so that the change-of-tone isn't unmusically abrupt unless you want it to be;

Make It Realistic: Pitch shifting that sounds like the same string being played on a higher/lower fret, rather than going chipmunk/Vader (unless you want it to sound that way);

Take One Guitar To The Gig: Guitar-sound modelling: I plug in a Strat, and hear the sound of a Les Paul.

And, of course...

Money, It's A Gas: Half the price for same amazing capabilities.

But when I say these are "yet to be cracked," I can happily say that they've all been partly cracked.

Making channel changes on a per-block basis a crossfade is basically do-able now by having 2 copies of the same block running simultaneously, and when you hit the Scene Change button (where one Scene uses Channel A and the other uses Channel B), the block just automatically loads up the new channel into an alternative parallel block, crossfades over to that other block, and then unloads the channel from the original block. But it's a real hassle to set this up. In some future Axe FX IV, though, the extra CPU could make this a default behavior.

Likewise, the pitch-shifting already sounds good. But I recently struggled to make the right whammied sound for the solo in Like a Stone by Audioslave; I couldn't make it sound as thick and normal at the top of the sweep as the recording sounds.

And I know there's that box that kinda does guitar modelling. But it isn't in the Axe FX just yet.

As for money? Well, the Axe FX III isn't 5 times the price of an Ultra or a II, so there ya' go!
 
Last edited:
Ahh the aroma of vintage electronics... Quite toxic actually.

"This firmware release contains code known to the State of California to cause cancer, birth defects and/or other reproductive harm."

This firmware release sterilized me.
 
When comparing the outputs of the preamp block of the III and the preamp out of jvm head,
The Preamp block? Where does one find that?

How were you comparing? Have you compared several real amps of the same model to compare how they are different from each other?
 
I agree, lorandkiss. That 2016 video is impressive, but the difference I hear between the II and the amps is similar to what I hear in comparison videos between the II and the III: more clarity and brilliance in the treble. Would we have heard that difference in 2016... ha... now, there's a good question :)

What I'll say about my III is it sounds good enough that I generally don't bother comparing it with real amps. When I've tried, I haven't gotten IDENTICAL tone to my ears, but the III sounds good enough that I can close my eyes and forget about the gear I'm using. Which is always my goal!
 
The Preamp block? Where does one find that?

How were you comparing? Have you compared several real amps of the same model to compare how they are different from each other?

I turned off the power amp modeling in the global settings and took the preamp out of my JVM and compared the two signals by ear (A/B switching two scenes). I've repeated the experiment with power amp modeling enabled and using the Tube Pre as power amp for the JVM preamp signal. While the difference was less obvious due to possible power amp discrepancies (I tried to match the MV settings and everything), it was still there.

I haven't tried multiple JVM heads but I had a very similar experience with other heads / tube preamps in terms of feel.
 
The next major modelling nut to crack is going to be a virtual cabinet, synthetic IR synthesizer that you can position the mic on, change mics, change speakers, change cab dimensions. At some point the virtual cab being connected to the amp so that speaker and cab dimension adjustment affect power amp response (integrated)...that's a long way off for FAS to build one, but basically what the Mikko plugin does, taken to the upteenth degree and in a VR cab block, a VR cab block that cross talks with the power amp section. With the amp modelling at this point, you're having to go in and nit pick too say "the real thing sounds worse, how do I reduce the modeller quality to sound like the real thing..." modelling is beyond replication, it's digital circuits.
 
Back
Top Bottom