Here's what Fractal is doing to our music

[SteveO]

My next major purchase is going to be an Axe FX II XL. Fortunately, Metallica isn't "my" music, so everything should work out just fine. :mrgreen:

 

[dodger916]

Hell "most" people (when including those who don't play guitar) couldn't tell the difference between a 69 plexi and a solid state Peavey Bandit.

Not for nothing, but my Bandit is the best $100 I EVER spent, including cover and footswitch.

The biggest difference I find between tubes and solid state/simulators is feel, preferring the feel of nice hot tubes over SS.

 

[thunder100]

Hell "most" people (when including those who don't play guitar) couldn't tell the difference between a 69 plexi and a solid state Peavey Bandit.

Not for nothing, but my Bandit is the best $100 I EVER spent, including cover and footswitch.

The biggest difference I find between tubes and solid state/simulators is feel, preferring the feel of nice hot tubes over SS.

I have my flamesuit on !!

I live in both world-I even made with an Fractal Ultra a blindtest with a real Mark IV -->1 day of tweaking and playing both through the Mark IV speaker(Blackshadow)-->and the tubelover guitarist friend could not distinguish,in fact found 4 times the Mark IV what was the Ultra

Now thats a work of an hour ( with correct IR)

AND a AXE can do Mark IIC+ better ( in my opionon especially if you mismatch the transformer ) then a Mark V

But there is love on both sides-that says somebody with an Axe FX II and 10 tube Amps and will never sell my Mark V

Roland

read here ( in the headers no 7 ) what Metallica says-->not the usual endorsement !!

http://www.fractalaudio.com/

 

[HCarlH]

Every time I hear the AXE it sounds compressed and artificial. The times I don't use my Mark V (for convenience and/or size of personal setup room I am allotted), I use my Kemper Profiler which sounds more natural and realistic **IMO**. (Let's not turn this into an AXE vs. Kemper thing.)

Now, I don't play/listen to what is considered metal these days (more of a classic rock/blues/fusion guy), but it seems all of the AXE clips I find online are using it to play extreme metal with a lot of high end and crunchyness in the tone which I don't like. (To be fair, a lot of Kemper clips do the same thing.) Surely, there must be some good tones in that thing(?).

 

[ryjan]

Every time I hear the AXE it sounds compressed and artificial. The times I don't use my Mark V (for convenience and/or size of personal setup room I am allotted), I use my Kemper Profiler which sounds more natural and realistic **IMO**. (Let's not turn this into an AXE vs. Kemper thing.)

Now, I don't play/listen to what is considered metal these days (more of a classic rock/blues/fusion guy), but it seems all of the AXE clips I find online are using it to play extreme metal with a lot of high end and crunchyness in the tone which I don't like. (To be fair, a lot of Kemper clips do the same thing.) Surely, there must be some good tones in that thing(?).

How many hours would you say you have logged on an Axe-Fx? Not clips but actually playing with the unit yourself.

 

[gtrnstuff]

Oh, here goes. Another guy with an opinion.
I think people should use what they like, if they are able.
I'm not trying to get anybody to accept or reject a particular tool.
I got the Axe FX II in late 2013. Lots of hours tweaking and comparing, now on FW 18.07.
Impressive, very impressive. I think Cliff and his team have done amazing work.
It is versatile. I'm not a modern metal guy, and I like more vintage, organic tones.
The FX are really fine, and the routing options and patch building capabilities are well done.

But... I still honestly prefer tube amps to the models for almost everything, if it's feasible to use them.
Tube amps can sound good and bad, so can the Axe.
But in the Axe's distorted sounds, I hear something I don't like, something I don't hear in my tube rigs.
Something about how it handles intermodulation distortion when playing more than one note.
And I can't really mask it with low pass EQ, or any of the hundreds of speaker IR's I auditioned.

I would be curious to participate in a double-blind listening experiment, since Fractal has said that many pro golden-ear types have been fooled.
But not over the internet. In the same room as the other participants, with good speakers, or headphones. Preferably with guitar in hand.
And I doubt I will get to.

 

[synthetic]

Does anyone honestly prefer virtual amps?

 

[HCarlH]

How many hours would you say you have logged on an Axe-Fx? Not clips but actually playing with the unit yourself.

A couple of hours on an Ultra when I was helping a friend out with his. None on the new one.
That's not the point. I'm asking about clips/videos to show what the AXE can do. If you can post any clips that equal a warm, over driven tone and or classic rock tone (Robben Ford or ZZ Top), please do so. I'm all ears.

This guy is in the general ball park (using the S-Gear application).

https://youtu.be/k4uFMEknHRQ

 

[ryjan]

How many hours would you say you have logged on an Axe-Fx? Not clips but actually playing with the unit yourself.

A couple of hours on an Ultra when I was helping a friend out with his. None on the new one.
That's not the point. I'm asking about clips/videos to show what the AXE can do. If you can post any clips that equal a warm, over driven tone and or classic rock tone (Robben Ford or ZZ Top), please do so. I'm all ears.

This guy is in the general ball park (using the S-Gear application).

https://youtu.be/k4uFMEknHRQ

My point was the quality of the unit isn't tied to the quality of recordings on youtube.
I owned a standard Axe Fx for a year or so and I've played an Axe II recently. When properly set up nobody in the world would be able to consistently pick between a recording of a close mic'd amp and the Axe Fx.
x10 in a band mix.

 

[SteveO]

Does anyone honestly prefer virtual amps?

I prefer things that sound good to me. How they go about it is of little concern.

 

[ryjan]

Does anyone honestly prefer virtual amps?

I prefer things that sound good to me. How they go about it is of little concern.

Exactly.
I prefer options. :lol:
Honestly it depends on what I'm doing. If I was a pro musician who toured or even a recording artist I'd be using the Axe Fx exclusively. Reasons being cost, ease of use, versatility, and sound quality. To replicate what the Axe can do you'd need a couple hundred thousand $ (maybe even a lot more) of amps, cabs, fx, mics, interfaces, and miles of cable.You can't seriously believe that the general public or even guitarists will hear the difference after mixing, production, and mastering.
Since all I do is wank in my basement, jam with buddies, play a bar maybe once or twice a year, only need clean and dirty, and I don't use fx so I'm good with my little V:25.

 

[mreilly]

I have owned plenty of really nice tube amps over the years, I do a lot of recording as well as live gigging and I currently own both tube amps and the Axefx II. Both have their place and I like Both. The Axefx with the current software version is fantastic and requires no more tweeting then your standard preferences in eq an gain on a tube amp and the fx are great as well.

If you like and want a lot of different sounds and use a lot of fx the axe is a perfect choice and will get you plenty close to an authentic sound. And let's be honest most musicians can not afford to have multiple high end tube amps.

If you are the plug and play type and don't require more then one or two sounds then a tube amp may be the better solution for you.

At the end of the day they are both tools and you need to use what works best for you. I have heard plenty of bad tones out of tube amps and modeler and ultimately it comes down to the player.

 

[NorCal-Mesa]

k I have pretty much have had every tube amp over the last 11yrs and all of the Mesa Amps. I still have my collections of amps. Ok I went for it and bought a kemper amp. They claim this new 3.0 software is a game changer for them, ect. I really liked the idea of all these incredbile amps in one amp. Well that is the case and for clean stuff its pretty top notch. For high GAIN these Kemper amps seem too color the tone so all the stuff sounds so simular. Yeah its close in tone when I profiled my amps but there is somthing non organic about the tone, makes it sound simular to other high gain profiles on the Kemper. So long story short Im sure 5 yrs or less from now these companies might nail it down. For now the old saying stays true. THERE IS NOTHING LIKE THE REAL THING.

 

[thunder100]

I cannot comment on Kemper,but on Fractals Axe

And i am one of that famous ididots which had time ago an Mark IIC+ and sold it for a fully necessary colliseum head

I can say that the Axe ,especially now when Cliff got a non EQ CII+ and digitalized it ,it sounds better then my CII+ on Mark V.No not sound --same--but that fluids lead pick responsivness of the real Mk II is there

Of course its a question of money but I love both worlds.Some weeks are purely tube Amps and nothing else.Then comes new trys to cover a song perfectly-its Axe time

So for me its not either or

And since the IR's got so much better its an extreme close draw

Roland

One point though.To get decent results on both worlds if you compare 1 amp to 1 Axe the 1 Axe world cost more as you need a decent power amp and decent speakers too.But if you play direct through PA hard to beat the Axe as you can dial out any shortcomming of the venue PA

 

[ryjan]

Does the OP also blame poor food quality on the spoon?
:lol:

 

[siggy14]

A modeler can never be the same as the thing it's modeling, right? The best it can do it 99.99% or whatever but there will always be some difference. It might be "so close it doesn't matter" but I don't think it's there yet. Something about moving air molecules in a room that we don't have the math for just yet. I still feel that any tube amp + any dynamic mic + any preamp is going to have more depth, character, and musicality than the best modeler. They just sound flat and boring to me.

Most modelers are based on a convolution response of an amp cabinet. It's the same theory of taking a convolution response of a hall or room and turning it into a reverb. But take two impulses of the same room without touching anything, will they be identical? No, because of chaos theory or whatever. That one repeated moment captured in an impulse is not the same as the real thing.

A convolution reverb sounds OK on its own but it flat and terrible in a mix – you would assume the opposite because it's not as revealing in a mix, but try it. Same as a modeling amp. Every time I've gotten lazy and used a modeling amp instead of micing up a cabinet, I have always regretted it later on.

I understand what you're saying, and you make some excellent points. Especially pointing out how taking two impulses in the same room without touching anything will not be identical. I would argue that something has changed if they are not identical, even if you are not able to identify what that change is, but in a sense that is the point. Regardless of the reason there is an unpredictability in analog.

That said, with reference to only being able to model something 99.99%, consider this.

Two tube amps of the same model will sound at least slightly different due to component tolerances alone.
The same tube amp with a different set of tubes will sound slightly different due to tolerances with tubes.
Hell, my stiletto sounded different when I kept the same tubes in it and rotated them to different slots. I found the tubes from two separate slots (same manufacturer 12ax7) even made a difference (albeit slight) in tone.

My JCM 800 2204 is a 1989 and it ate my buddies 83 2204 for lunch, contrary to what the "purists" would tell you. He offered to trade thinking I would bite on the whole vertical input thing, I said no chance!

In a couple weeks I'll put together a blind amp test.
I'll do a shootout between a real JCM 800 and the Axe FX II on the latest firmware.

I'll also do the Mark V 25 vs the Axe FX and we will see who can accurately pick the real tube amp.

I certainly understand the pull to tube amps. As you can see I still own tube amps and LOVE them. There are more boogies in my future no doubt!

But don't confuse the Axe FX with your average modeler. Spend some time with one first! If you still don't like it, then I guess it's not for you. It's not for everybody.

But I'm will to bet most people will have a hard time identifying the real amp vs the axe fx in a blind amp test.

Give me some time (and an empty house for a few hours) and I'll throw that together. Will be fun.

The 2204's where not really effected by the year change, it was the 2203's because they got less caps in them. Yours could have ate his for a number or reasons..1 it was a killer sounding amp...2 you had better tubes...3 he just got a shitty one. There are many other reasons but those are the three major ones.

 

[siggy14]

A modeler can never be the same as the thing it's modeling, right? The best it can do it 99.99% or whatever but there will always be some difference. It might be "so close it doesn't matter" but I don't think it's there yet. Something about moving air molecules in a room that we don't have the math for just yet. I still feel that any tube amp + any dynamic mic + any preamp is going to have more depth, character, and musicality than the best modeler. They just sound flat and boring to me.

Most modelers are based on a convolution response of an amp cabinet. It's the same theory of taking a convolution response of a hall or room and turning it into a reverb. But take two impulses of the same room without touching anything, will they be identical? No, because of chaos theory or whatever. That one repeated moment captured in an impulse is not the same as the real thing.

A convolution reverb sounds OK on its own but it flat and terrible in a mix – you would assume the opposite because it's not as revealing in a mix, but try it. Same as a modeling amp. Every time I've gotten lazy and used a modeling amp instead of micing up a cabinet, I have always regretted it later on.

What a lot of people do not get is something like the AXE FX is suppose to give you a great recorded tone which it does, if you want the feeling of playing an amp then you can always take the AXE FX and put it through a power amp into a speaker cabinet and you will get the same feeling as playing through a tube amp and you will get the air moving like a regular amp.

 

[ryjan]

^^^^
That's how I ran mine when I owned one.
I had the main outputs set up to run to the board with the cab impulses and the other outputs were just of the amp and fx models ran into a SS power amp and into a 4x12.
Amazingly versatile rig it was. The 4x12 "amp in the room" was perfect for rehearsals with my band as it matched up tone and feel wise with my other guitarist who had a half stack. Then for gigs (and late night practice) I'd run the mains to FOH and the second output to a little combo amp fx return as a monitor.
Kicked the hell out of any other mic'd cab tone I have ever heard. By quite a large margin too.

 

[jazzypizzazzy]

Probably an unpopular opinion, but I wouldn't put the blame on the Fractals for the bands bad tone, but the fact that the band's live tone has been pretty bad ever since 2003. James' Diezels sound pretty bad compared to when when he was running ONLY Mesa, or at least running it alongside the Wizard amps. I thought their live tone from 1995 - 2000 was probably the best they ever sounded, even better than the 1991 clip.

I don't know, I guess I'm just not a huge fan of Diezels.

Oh, and I'm also going to agree that using an unproduced clip from a livestream could make ANYTHING sound less-than-stellar, especially compared to the produced 1991 clip. :lol:

 

[firmani99]

I would agree that James' tone was better in the late nineties. I don't know how to describe what I don't like about it now but it just sounds like too much of something. Or maybe too little of something. lol.

I also agree that it isn't the axe fx. They just matched the axe to his already bad tone.

I'm not saying his tone is terrible but I definitely think it was better back then. I love the tone on S & M. You can really hear it near the end of Enter Sandman when it goes silent and james comes back in with the main riff. You can really hear the vintage 30 tone that seems to be pushed to hard break up. I think.

I also wonder if his change in tone was due to his new pickups as opposed to the 81's