Why not have a built-in "test file" for TM

Incorrect.
I only listened to the section that is cued up (where he is strumming and talking). If it is not distant-miced, then this section has a large amount of room reverb on it, which again, makes an accurate tone match impossible. Perhaps the rest of the video has isolated close-mic or direct guitar with no effects or backing music. Even then, you'd have to duplicate his playing exactly. And most of all, you'd have to want to. Tone matching an existing recording is never as easy as tone matching a rig to which you have access.

Still, if you want an accurate tone match of an existing rig to which you have access, you can use the synth block for your "test signal". Amplitude variations in the test signal can only make the tone match worse, not better. The Kemper analogy does not apply.
 
As soon as someone says, "you prove it to me", the thread is over. We're not here to convince you of anything, @Brock. We can offer advice and suggestions, but we're not going to do the heavy lifting for you.

If you're not getting satisfactory tones out of the system, maybe the system isn't for you? Maybe what you want is an exact replica of Petrucci's Tri-Axis rig?
 
Thing is, there are several examples of tone matching on the forum that are indistinguishable from the tone matched rig. There is your proof of concept. The execution is up to the skill and resourcefulness of the individual user.
 
I agree - the LM video was amazing. That said, the amps they TM'd were simple - and every control was copied 1:1. The Triaxis is not simple. It has controls the Axe-Fx model does not have: Dynamic Voice, as well as the Deep and Modern voicings on the 2:90 power amp. Petrucci uses all of these to achieve that tone. I am not clever enough to know how to translate them onto the many, many controls within the Amp block.

And @iaresee I indeed have divined that solution - I bought a Triaxis and 2:90 and will be looping them into the Axe-Fx when I want those tones. Unfortunately the Triaxis is in for repair, however prior to sending it off I did do some TMs (disabling the power amp block), following Cliff's instructions (see http://www.fractalaudio.com/tmp/tma_tutorial.mp4) to the T. Even using those TM blocks the Triaxis and the Axe-Fx model+TM sounded a bit different.

More, I've been unable to do a TM with the 2:90 because (1) my Triaxis is at M/B being repaired, and (2) I don't have a load box - waiting for the one Fractal will be releasing.
 
Last edited:
And the video you posted was recorded with a distant camcorder mic. There is no way to accurately tone match such a recording.
This is what it ultimately comes down to. A random room miked guitar signal ripped from a VHS from the 90s. There's all kinds of phasy "stuff "that an EQ will not make up for.

@Brock I thought we'd be comparing the Axe-Fx to your real Triaxis already. ;)
 
This is what it ultimately comes down to. A random room miked guitar signal ripped from a VHS from the 90s. There's all kinds of phasy "stuff "that an EQ will not make up for.

@Brock I thought we'd be comparing the Axe-Fx to your real Triaxis already. ;)
Turns out the audio in the clip is apparently recorded close and/or direct. But the section I heard, if not distant miced, had a lot of room reverb on it, which yields the same result. I jumped around the clip a bit, and only heard sections with effects and/or backing tracks. Plus, you'd have to play the same parts with the same timing to even get close. Not practical.

What it boils down to is that Tone Matching and Profiling are two different things. Profiling comes at a significant cost (lack of flexibility after the profiling process). Depends on what is most important to you.
 
Presumably his guitar is close mic'd in this clip and it's the same sound.



I know it's a matter of the Dynamic Voice control. While the manual says it's just doing a 5-band V EQ blended with the original signal, I think there's more to it. Even without the 2:90 in the signal chain (so no Deep and Modern modes), I can get really close to this sound with the Triaxis, but not with the Axe-Fx.

FWIW, a friend sent me some clips of a Kemper profile of the LD2 Yellow mode of the Triaxis and it sounded awful to me (then again, who knows what settings were used when the profile was made).
 
I had two Triaxis units (still have one), but never used Dynamic Voice. When I compared them to the Triaxis models in the Axe using the same IRs, I was hard-pressed to tell the difference. If I had used Dynamic Voice, I may have had a harder time.
 
I had two Triaxis units (still have one), but never used Dynamic Voice. When I compared them to the Triaxis models in the Axe using the same IRs, I was hard-pressed to tell the difference. If I had used Dynamic Voice, I may have had a harder time.

Exactly! And applying the 5-band V EQ curve in the Amp block simply doesn't sound the same. The EQ in the Axe-Fx sounds like an EQ on a Mark-series amp (like it's supposed to). Like I said, to me it sounds like the Dynamic Voice settings is doing more than just EQ. I almost wonder if it's introducing a phasiness from blending the EQd and non-EQd signals.
 
There must be a reason why they blend the two signals. Cliff has written about DV before. All I remember him saying was that it was crude.
 
Nah, I've already done it. I've copied it setting for setting. I've tried a variety of @ML SOUND LAB's IRs. I've done a tone match using Cliff's tone matching guide.

Bottom line, it doesn't sound the same.

The original owner of the Triaxis I just bought, a very capable Axe-Fx, user did the same directly prior to selling the unit and he agrees. See https://forum.fractalaudio.com/threads/how-to-tone-match-pre-gain-differences.124512/#post-1485278

I think the 290 has a lot to do with the sound too because of the different modes it has and the Presence knobs. I had never seen that pic you posted of all Petrucci's Triaxis settings. I'm so pissed my Triaxis got damaged during shipping to you. :mad:

The tone match recordings I made the night before I shipped my Triaxis to you sounded very different with default settings on the Triaxis and Axe-Fx II but it was something in the pre-gain causing the issue. I wish I knew how to match or measure the frequency response of pre-gain because that's where the magic is coming from.

I tried to get some answers by creating the post you quoted but the only info I found didn't tell me how to find the info scientifically, it just provided a way to better sculpture pre-gain. I'm sure if I were to feed the Triaxis and Axe-Fx II some pink noise or white noise I could get the tone match 99% perfect but as soon as I plug in a guitar and feed the 2 a dynamic signal, that's were they will go their separate ways tone wise.

I don't know anything about how real amps work but I'm sure Cliff could shine some light on this topic. I don't know if gain reacts differently to different frequencies, so maybe a static pre-gain EQ wouldn't work and we'd need to use a Multiband Compressor before the Amp block? I don't know how to use a compressor to get more dynamics and I only know how to use Gates or Expanders to get more dynamics. That's why in the post I created I asked if there was such a thing as a Multiband Expander. As I mentioned here ( https://forum.fractalaudio.com/threads/how-to-tone-match-pre-gain-differences.124512/#post-1481845 ), I can try using the Expander into the Multi Band Compressor into the Amp and then compress the frequencies that I want to have less dynamics, so kind of backwards to what I was looking for.

I'm personally not looking to make my Axe-Fx II sound just like the Triaxis. I want to know how to sculpture my tone better. The reason I got the Axe-Fx II is because it's a toolbox filled with top of the line tone tools. Now I need to learn how to use all the tools but it seems like a lot of people don't know how to use them either.

Is it even possible to understand what the advanced settings do without knowing how to build a real tube amp? Like what is AC line Freq? When I see that I think of the current AC/DC lineup with Axl Rose :eek: No matter which way I adjust the knob, Axl Rose still sounds horrible with AC/DC :rolleyes:
 
This is something that I've gone into in super scientific detail multiple times. For me it's always been the Petrucci Recto sound and I felt like I could never get it with the Axe-Fx. Well... I bought a Mesa Single Recto, Dual Recto and Roadster and couldn't get the Petrucci Recto sound with those real amps either. The realization was that the sound I was comparing the real amps to was a live recording where different factors come to play. The reality is that when you have the real amp right next to you and the Axe-Fx right next to it and shoot and IR out of your mic-up you can match the real amp quite easily WITHOUT ANY TONE MATCHING. This clip is a real Mark IV compared to the Axe-Fx USA Lead running the first Quantum firmware:



I'm not saying it's 100%. But I'd say that it's so close that an average person wouldn't even notice a change in sound. The Mark series amps are really close to the Triaxis. I doubt the Triaxis will be way off either when compared to the real thing. But.. we need to be comparing the Axe-Fx side by side to the real thing with audio clips.

The Petrucci sound I always wanted was the Budokan tone obviously (and only because John had the best hair):


This is pretty much the same situation IMO. Sometimes I hear these awesome sounding clips on YouTube recorded with mobile phone camera mics etc. that have a certain growl or emphasis on the palm mute etc. The thing is, these tones would never sound professional in a real mix. The Budokan sound would sound horrible in a studio recording. In my most humblest opinion I doubt the MI Petrucci sound would be the best sound in a mix either. Both have the same nasally character to them that I'm starting to think is a trick live engineers use for making a guitar cut through. Neither are anywhere near to being a raw amp sound. Multiple mics, FOH settings and at least in the case of Budokan it was mixed at a pro studio afterwards and most likely EQ'd heavily. What I'm getting at here is that if the Axe-Fx sounded like that out of the box most people would say the Axe-Fx sounds broken. My advice: do not compare these sounds to each other. They're not comparable.

Now I've talked about this thing with @Brock for.. probably years already right? And it's the chugg attack where he feels the Axe-Fx is lacking. I personally feel like that has everything to do with the power amp modeling and fine tuning it. Back in Quantum 1 I narrowed it down to setting the master level to 4. I'm sure some of the advanced settings could help us out but which settings? That's the real question. For some reason people seem to recommend pre low cut but that sacrifices the low end of your guitar sound completely. Which knob is the sag tightness knob? :D
 
This is something that I've gone into in super scientific detail multiple times. For me it's always been the Petrucci Recto sound and I felt like I could never get it with the Axe-Fx. Well... I bought a Mesa Single Recto, Dual Recto and Roadster and couldn't get the Petrucci Recto sound with those real amps either. The realization was that the sound I was comparing the real amps to was a live recording where different factors come to play. The reality is that when you have the real amp right next to you and the Axe-Fx right next to it and shoot and IR out of your mic-up you can match the real amp quite easily WITHOUT ANY TONE MATCHING. This clip is a real Mark IV compared to the Axe-Fx USA Lead running the first Quantum firmware:



I'm not saying it's 100%. But I'd say that it's so close that an average person wouldn't even notice a change in sound. The Mark series amps are really close to the Triaxis. I doubt the Triaxis will be way off either when compared to the real thing. But.. we need to be comparing the Axe-Fx side by side to the real thing with audio clips.

The Petrucci sound I always wanted was the Budokan tone obviously (and only because John had the best hair):


This is pretty much the same situation IMO. Sometimes I hear these awesome sounding clips on YouTube recorded with mobile phone camera mics etc. that have a certain growl or emphasis on the palm mute etc. The thing is, these tones would never sound professional in a real mix. The Budokan sound would sound horrible in a studio recording. In my most humblest opinion I doubt the MI Petrucci sound would be the best sound in a mix either. Both have the same nasally character to them that I'm starting to think is a trick live engineers use for making a guitar cut through. Neither are anywhere near to being a raw amp sound. Multiple mics, FOH settings and at least in the case of Budokan it was mixed at a pro studio afterwards and most likely EQ'd heavily. What I'm getting at here is that if the Axe-Fx sounded like that out of the box most people would say the Axe-Fx sounds broken. My advice: do not compare these sounds to each other. They're not comparable.

Now I've talked about this thing with @Brock for.. probably years already right? And it's the chugg attack where he feels the Axe-Fx is lacking. I personally feel like that has everything to do with the power amp modeling and fine tuning it. Back in Quantum 1 I narrowed it down to setting the master level to 4. I'm sure some of the advanced settings could help us out but which settings? That's the real question. For some reason people seem to recommend pre low cut but that sacrifices the low end of your guitar sound completely. Which knob is the sag tightness knob? :D


Damn! I lost your Generation Y IR's when my hard drive crashed. You're link to download the album and IR's doesn't work anymore :( I wish I could get the tone in the intro of Euphoria. That riff stomps! The whole album sounds great. I even bought the Groove 3 Deconstructing a Heavy Rock Mix. Are you using stock pickups in your PRS? Any chance you could share some dry tracks? As the Joker would say "Where does he get all those wonderful tones!"
 
Sometimes I hear these awesome sounding clips on YouTube recorded with mobile phone camera mics etc. that have a certain growl or emphasis on the palm mute etc. The thing is, these tones would never sound professional in a real mix. The Budokan sound would sound horrible in a studio recording. In my most humblest opinion I doubt the MI Petrucci sound would be the best sound in a mix either. Both have the same nasally character to them that I'm starting to think is a trick live engineers use for making a guitar cut through. Neither are anywhere near to being a raw amp sound. Multiple mics, FOH settings and at least in the case of Budokan it was mixed at a pro studio afterwards and most likely EQ'd heavily. What I'm getting at here is that if the Axe-Fx sounded like that out of the box most people would say the Axe-Fx sounds broken. My advice: do not compare these sounds to each other. They're not comparable.

This makes total sense. Thank you for taking the time to clarify. Now that you say it, it seems obvious. Of course the sound isn't pure. There is a mic, a mic position, room mics, all going into a mixer which could have a variety of settings as well. A lot more in the signal chain than just the Triaxis/2:90.

Now I've talked about this thing with @Brock for.. probably years already right? And it's the chugg attack where he feels the Axe-Fx is lacking. I personally feel like that has everything to do with the power amp modeling and fine tuning it. Back in Quantum 1 I narrowed it down to setting the master level to 4. I'm sure some of the advanced settings could help us out but which settings? That's the real question. For some reason people seem to recommend pre low cut but that sacrifices the low end of your guitar sound completely. Which knob is the sag tightness knob? :D

I'm with you and @GotMetalBoy - lots and lots of controls in the amp block - and personally, I have no idea what 95% of them do. I'm able to dial in sounds using knobs on an amp, but I'm most certainly not able to build an amp.
 
Just saw this and thought it was pretty interesting.



Quite a few thumbs down - maybe the Kemper fanboys didn't like it? That said, it seems like what the guy played to refine the tone match didn't cover much of a range. Makes me wonder though - does this video demonstrate the limitations of tone matching?

This also makes me wonder how well the Axe would stand up - e.g., the @Larry Mitchell sessions.
 
Yup.. I once posted a video of preferring the Axe Ultra over the Kemper and.... I had to delete that video. Never ever ever ever question the Kemper in front of Kemper users. :D
 
Back
Top Bottom