Where the Axe FX II can't compete with real amps....

The clip on my video is with the knobs set exactly the same on each unit. Sounds pretty bang on to me.

I couldn't tell in your video where the real Tri Axis began or ended. Can you do a similar test between a real Friedman BE50 or BE100 vs the Fractals model????
 
I'm assuming you're using Output 2. If so be sure turn the Output Level knob on the front all the way up. This sets the output to "Unity Gain". If you don't do that then things will sound very different between the amp and the model.

Cliff.... Can you make a amp model or something to honor the great Nigel Tufnel in the next FW update? That would \m/
Or, at least bring back the Melted Faces
 
Chain 1:
Guitar -> Axe Input front -> Pre-Shaper Blocks -> Axe Amp Block (same sound as real amp) -> Output 1 -> Poweramp -> Real Cab

Chain 2:
Guitar -> Axe Input front -> Pre-Shaper Blocks -> Out 2 -> Real Amp in fx loop block (with unaltered settings) -> In 2 -> Out 1 -> Poweramp -> Real Cab

Those 2 chains result in different sounds, as soon as the pre-shaping in the axe comes in.

No difference when pre-shaping blocks are off.
This more or less really sounds like a volume mismatch - but maybe you could simply post the preset?
I by no means have a Triaxis, but maybe one can see what's wrong from a look on it.
 
...The company has a rather rude way to deal with Kemper and the others.... I adapt to it. I hear something and describe it here. Not what you want to hear? Not what boosts selling numbers? I don't care for selling numbers and quantity. I hear it, I describe it...
The only rudeness in the this thread has been from you OP. It is not “rude” to ask questions or disagree. It is rude to take out your ire on others as you have done.
Oh come on..... the master volume argument =D
...I also don't care for statements from people shown on the companies website. Obviously they are hired for defense...

...I am kind of annoyed by the three guys that post all the answers that totally don't care of what I've described. You can be pissed off now, because I am, too...
And again another FAS employee that rather acts rude without any glimpse of argumentation... nice work guys. Congrats.
You also claimed some type of attack against users of other modeling products, which never happened in this thread. The only person to mention another product is YOU.

You are not “adapting” to how people have treated you, sorry. You came in looking for a pissing match:
...I guess this is not what some of you want to hear, but test it yourself with some real gear. And now let the bashing of the thread begin =D...
...You can be pissed off now, because I am, too...
I think that sums up your intent. Seems you started this thread looking for conflict. Then you get pissy when someone questions your intent:
Yek: yes, why not? not possible? Is quantity the only factor that comes in to write that?
Actually yes post count is a factor when you show up on a forum and lob a grenade. It raises questions of your true intent.

As for this gem of double talk:
...I don't accuse people...
Yes you do:
...The company has a rather rude way to deal with Kemper and the others...

...I also don't care for statements from people shown on the companies website. Obviously they are hired for defense...

...It seems that's not the way of this company. I am kind of annoyed by the three guys that post all the answers that totally don't care of what I've described. You can be pissed off now, because I am, too...
=D very funny and ironic from my perspective!
And again another FAS employee that rather acts rude without any glimpse of argumentation... nice work guys. Congrats.
Not sure if you have a hidden agenda or if you simply are unaware/uncaring of how you come across. Either way you are being toxic and I DO know how to deal with toxic individuals: add to the ignore list.

EDIT: after looking at the OPs posts in other threads, it would seem to be a case of “Germanic Frankness”. This is not the first thread he has been involved where he showed his @$$ is some way. In his first post he shows awareness that he can come across $hitty. Funny thing is that the Germans in my life generally take it as well as they give it, but not this OP. Very frank in his delivery, very sensitive in his reactions to others. I take no issue with the OPs observation, I think the approach is tone deaf and not prone to producing a constructive dialogue.
 
Last edited:
Chain 1:
Guitar -> Axe Input front -> Pre-Shaper Blocks -> Axe Amp Block (same sound as real amp) -> Output 1 -> Poweramp -> Real Cab

Chain 2:
Guitar -> Axe Input front -> Pre-Shaper Blocks -> Out 2 -> Real Amp in fx loop block (with unaltered settings) -> In 2 -> Out 1 -> Poweramp -> Real Cab

Those 2 chains result in different sounds, as soon as the pre-shaping in the axe comes in.

No difference when pre-shaping blocks are off.
Are you using a load box to get your amp to line level in order to run it in the FX loop?
 
What I meant: The axe's amp model are true to the sound of the real amps, until there is manipulation of the sound before the preamp stage. And that manipulation happens so often in my setup that I can't ignore that difference.

It's about the manipulation (boosting, volume drops, EQing, shaping and so on), not preferences for either axe fx amp block or real amps and axe fx cab blocks or real cabs.

What about when you play your amp vs axe with nothing in front (only guitar) and you change volume or tone at the guitar? Behave both the same?
 
You've posted only a few times, but still you managed to accuse all commercial IR companies of lying AND attack the host company and its owner on its own forum.
Spot on...maybe if everyone keeps feeding the troll he'll get full and go away.

Here's my contribution:
The OP is right as rain - the axe is not up to real amps:
  • It cannot sound completely inconsistent from venue to venue -- not possible.
  • It is incapable of exhibiting anemic tone and feel at all volumes except loud -- never gonna happen.
  • It totally fails to capture the true feel of lugging a real-man amp & cab at 2am after 4 consecutive gigs -- clueless!
  • It utterly destroys the joy of micing a cab and tweaking it at the board for half the night -- missed that one by a mile.
  • Even worse, they keep sticking stuff after the name...Ultra, II, III, etc....like that'll make up the gap -- LOL!
 

Attachments

  • ms-s4IXNl.gif
    ms-s4IXNl.gif
    813.6 KB · Views: 141
Last edited:
Not sure if your stuff is set up right, OP but I've used my axe in multiple different setups with "real" amps, DI, 4CM, all kinds! Axe owns all and that's not subjective. Actually caused me some mental damage as I don't get to tinker with it much anymore:((( thanks FAS if u only knew what you've done to meee:sob:
 
Chain 1:
Guitar -> Axe Input front -> Pre-Shaper Blocks -> Axe Amp Block (same sound as real amp) -> Output 1 -> Poweramp -> Real Cab

Chain 2:
Guitar -> Axe Input front -> Pre-Shaper Blocks -> Out 2 -> Real Amp in fx loop block (with unaltered settings) -> In 2 -> Out 1 -> Poweramp -> Real Cab

Those 2 chains result in different sounds, as soon as the pre-shaping in the axe comes in.

No difference when pre-shaping blocks are off.
Also....not that it makes a difference?....but you do have power amp sag in the amp block set to "Off" (zero) to disable the power amp in Chain 1?

Reclavea might be on to something here. If the power amp modeling was still enabled on the Axe FX, you would essentially be running two power amps in that chain vs 1 in the real amp chain. I'm not sure if the extra power amp stage would make it darker but it would definitely color the sound and make it dirtier.

Chain 1:
Pre-shaper blocks -> Axe FX preamp -> Axe FX power amp -> Real power amp -> Real cab
Chain 2:
Pre-shaper blocks -> Real preamp -> Real power amp -> Real cab


Furthermore, if you do disable the power amp modeling, the "master volume" becomes a simple volume control with no effect on the tone (page 43 of manual). I'm not sure where the correct position would be for that knob (maybe all the way up if it's just like a passive cut?), but it definitely should NOT be mirrored to where the Master knob on your real amp is.
 
I just matched my real JCM 800 2203 (vertical input) to the JCM 800 2204 (horizontal input) model in Axe FX III. They sounded different at first (of course) but I managed to get them really close by ear.

Tonally speaking, a Marshall 2204 is very different from a 2203. Even though the preamp circuits are identical, the differences between the two tube output stage and transformer and four tube output stage and transformer are tonally significant. We're talking about completely different plate loadings and transformer inductances, all of which certainly affects the total sound.

I just got myself two real Marshalls, my first Marshalls. A 1973 JMP 1959 Superlead, and a 1977 JMP 2203 master volume. Since neither of them has an effects loop, I'm interested in trying out my AFII purely as my effects pedalboard (with MFC-101 III foot controller) along with these amps, to find out how well that works. Since EVH seemed to get good results with no effects loop, I think this has some potential.
 
Tonally speaking, a Marshall 2204 is very different from a 2203. Even though the preamp circuits are identical, the differences between the two tube output stage and transformer and four tube output stage and transformer are tonally significant. We're talking about completely different plate loadings and transformer inductances, all of which certainly affects the total sound.

Yes they are different, but it was possible to get the Axe FX JCM 2204 model to sound really similar to a real 2203. Had to crank up the input gain and master volume trim quite a bit to match the gain and compression of the real amp. Matching the levels between the amps is really crucial here. Then lowered high treble to -5–10, raised negative feedback by 41% (I read that value from somewhere) and carefully adjusted the amp graphic eq. Did a few A-B tests and it's really hard to tell which is which.
 
Ha ha Yek I didn't know you were hired on to be a defender lololol. DM45110 sure has some insight of the master plan we are all falling for.
 
Well, I don't see any evidence that "the company has a rather rude way to deal with Kemper"...but I have only very limited praise for that product. Its limitations as a device that relies on a stimulus-response method of capturing amp performance is blatantly evident to my ears. It has its uses if you have a collection of vintage amps that you don't want to subject to road abuse and all that goes along with it, but then again, you could buy an AFII or better yet an AFIII and almost certainly you will then get a more comprehensively engineered model of any amp in your collection, that will sound more like it than the Kemper can manage.

I find that the Kemper sound is timbrally pretty close to the amp being modelled but my ears hear it as being simpler, cruder, less harmonically complex, and somewhat lacking in authenticity of dynamic behavior. If we were to agree that a real tube amp has true 3 dimensional sound, so to speak, then the AFIII (and AFII as well) are full color holograms that are nearly real and will seem real to MOST observers, while the Kemper presents a color photograph lacking in any 3D attributes. It's a decent photo but it's no hologram.

I can envision an improved profiling capture system that could do a better job. It'd have to understand the function and range of every control on the amp and require the user to exercise every control on that amp, as part of the profiling process, in all relevant interactive iterations, to fully capture all aspects of its performance. It'd take HOURS, if not DAYS, to perform all those iterations on a complex amp. It would be impractical.

I see the Kemper as a dead end product that basically has no reason to exist. Profiling your own amp is a gimmick when that same type of amp is already modelled more accurately and comprehensively in a Fractal. You'd buy a Kemper if you were unaware of what a Fractal can do and how it does it...and most importantly, how it sounds.
 
Not every amp is modeled in the Axe, and like with guitars, some amps of the same series are more equal then others. I can see the attraction of wanting your own amp, which may sound radically different from others of the same model after years of abuse and component changes, over some amp model in the Axe. Which is not modeled after your own amp. And yes, you can't change the amp you've profiled in the Kemper much, but if its profiled on the same setting you've used for years that shouldn't be much of an issue.

I've got an old Fender Twin, silverface with orange JBL speakers. Love that thing, the first amp that I got, so its special to me. I plan to be buried in that thing. Grind me up into a fine paste, pour me in it and lower me into the ground with it. But I'll take my Axe over it any day for convenience sake. I can't gig with it, like all Twins its a back breaker. It's probably gotten a little finicky over the years. I'd love to have a profile of it, I should really do a tonematch of it.
 
Well, I don't see any evidence that "the company has a rather rude way to deal with Kemper"...but I have only very limited praise for that product. Its limitations as a device that relies on a stimulus-response method of capturing amp performance is blatantly evident to my ears. It has its uses if you have a collection of vintage amps that you don't want to subject to road abuse and all that goes along with it, but then again, you could buy an AFII or better yet an AFIII and almost certainly you will then get a more comprehensively engineered model of any amp in your collection, that will sound more like it than the Kemper can manage.

I find that the Kemper sound is timbrally pretty close to the amp being modelled but my ears hear it as being simpler, cruder, less harmonically complex, and somewhat lacking in authenticity of dynamic behavior. If we were to agree that a real tube amp has true 3 dimensional sound, so to speak, then the AFIII (and AFII as well) are full color holograms that are nearly real and will seem real to MOST observers, while the Kemper presents a color photograph lacking in any 3D attributes. It's a decent photo but it's no hologram.

I can envision an improved profiling capture system that could do a better job. It'd have to understand the function and range of every control on the amp and require the user to exercise every control on that amp, as part of the profiling process, in all relevant interactive iterations, to fully capture all aspects of its performance. It'd take HOURS, if not DAYS, to perform all those iterations on a complex amp. It would be impractical.

I see the Kemper as a dead end product that basically has no reason to exist. Profiling your own amp is a gimmick when that same type of amp is already modelled more accurately and comprehensively in a Fractal. You'd buy a Kemper if you were unaware of what a Fractal can do and how it does it...and most importantly, how it sounds.
Exactly,
As an engineer point of view it's just a stupid way of copying a thing : It's like taking every existing picture in the world while you could create a 3d simulation...
Btw that's what is still done with IRs and maybe that's the next revolution, really simulating the cabs...
 
Well, I don't see any evidence that "the company has a rather rude way to deal with Kemper"...but I have only very limited praise for that product. Its limitations as a device that relies on a stimulus-response method of capturing amp performance is blatantly evident to my ears. It has its uses if you have a collection of vintage amps that you don't want to subject to road abuse and all that goes along with it, but then again, you could buy an AFII or better yet an AFIII and almost certainly you will then get a more comprehensively engineered model of any amp in your collection, that will sound more like it than the Kemper can manage.

I find that the Kemper sound is timbrally pretty close to the amp being modelled but my ears hear it as being simpler, cruder, less harmonically complex, and somewhat lacking in authenticity of dynamic behavior. If we were to agree that a real tube amp has true 3 dimensional sound, so to speak, then the AFIII (and AFII as well) are full color holograms that are nearly real and will seem real to MOST observers, while the Kemper presents a color photograph lacking in any 3D attributes. It's a decent photo but it's no hologram.

I can envision an improved profiling capture system that could do a better job. It'd have to understand the function and range of every control on the amp and require the user to exercise every control on that amp, as part of the profiling process, in all relevant interactive iterations, to fully capture all aspects of its performance. It'd take HOURS, if not DAYS, to perform all those iterations on a complex amp. It would be impractical.

I see the Kemper as a dead end product that basically has no reason to exist. Profiling your own amp is a gimmick when that same type of amp is already modelled more accurately and comprehensively in a Fractal. You'd buy a Kemper if you were unaware of what a Fractal can do and how it does it...and most importantly, how it sounds.

Good post. This is exactly how I feel with the Kemper. I've never tried the Profiler because I don't care about the design. I already have a better product.

Now when I think about it, I've never heard any band sound astonishingly good with them. Or had "the moment" when I've thought that the guitars have sounded amazing and afterwards been positively surprised for what they've been using. Some of the cases are user error for sure, but I know there's some really professional people in some of the bands that have been using Kempers and they still can't get it to sound decent in a mix. Thin, artificial, uninspiring and decent they can.
 
EDIT: after looking at the OPs posts in other threads, it would seem to be a case of “Germanic Frankness”. This is not the first thread he has been involved where he showed his @$$ is some way. In his first post he shows awareness that he can come across $hitty. Funny thing is that the Germans in my life generally take it as well as they give it, but not this OP. Very frank in his delivery, very sensitive in his reactions to others. I take no issue with the OPs observation, I think the approach is tone deaf and not prone to producing a constructive dialogue.
[/QUOTE]

Now we’re talking...
But, please, not about how you regard the mentality of people in other countries. Let’s keep it to music making on this forum and the simple fact: Guy came across rude, end of story.
Thank you and greetings from Germany.
 
My real amps are, among others, a 20th Anniversary Bogner Ecstasy and a Mesa Mark V and a Fender Deluxe Reverb.


I owned a Bogner estacy it was the 2nd to hit Texas Ej got the 1st one
first Ejs went down and never sounded the same then a molex connecter on flat ribbon cable burned out in mine I fixed it the sound was back but slowly went bye bye I shipped it back to Bogner paid to have it fixe when I got it back it sounded NOTHING like the original as they put different boards in it....
Right after I paid 2 grand cash for that amp I went into a store that had Grissoms old silver klon for 800 bucks I compared my amp 2 grand to the Klon through a new twin and then the 1st channel of Bogner vs 2nd..

I then realized I could have spent 800 for the klon and had the same tone..
When I finally got the bogner back and it did not sound at all the same......
I sold if for 4300 dollars because it was one of 150 made from the first batch..


If you ever have a good surge or the plug gets kicked out that Bogner is gonna burn up at the Molex connector... after that it wont ever sound remotely the same...

printed circuit boards with molex connectors and computer cable...
Eventually the sound is gonna change on the bogner I know I owned one of the first ones made and I could have bought EJs and it sounded horrible..
The Japanese bought that amp for unheard of cash AFTER Bogner had to fix that also.......

I own a 50 watt Dumble amp I matched the sound into the axe 2 by ear
not tonematched by using my ears..

I recorded the original and then dialed the axe 2 in.
on recorded play back in a mix or alone I could not tell the difference sitting in the room with the original..

I did the same for all my amps I charted the Dumble myself and duplicated the layout because I built amps for 3 years in production line fashion

Btw the anniversary Bogner E sounds nothing like the original 150 made either..

Compared mine against those and not the same..

at some point if you listen to both on playback they will be so close you are not gonna tell

also this the knobs on your real amp compared to axe 2 knobs might be completely different not the same settings at all you gotta tweak and keep tweaking and making notes till its there....

I still dont know how to Tone Match and cant get much help in that regard
but Im going to do it anyway by ear and not complain....

Keep Trying.....
 
Back
Top Bottom