36 posts
http://www.wikiupload.com/download_page.php?id=203032
here's a quick nasty clip i did to show how the dynamic range a regular amp has is starting to be mimic'd digitally. the old modelers like the pod, digitech, etc. had no touch sensitivity, dynamics, etc. it was like a compressor on max. while the playing isn't the greatest (very rusty) this shows the touch sensitivity of the axe fx. i'll work on some decent clips in the next week. i haven't recorded anything guitar related in about a year IIRC
Don't play games, fellas...
;)
Tripper
chase — Dec 15, 2009the old modelers like the pod, digitech, etc. had no touch sensitivity, dynamics, etc. it was like a compressor on max.
I think this is a huge exaggeration and over-generalization. Surely certain models sounded more "compressed" than others, but you could get a lot of touch sensitivity and dynamics out of old modelers if you used them right. Not as much sensitivity as AxeFx, of course, but they didn't have that sort of processing power.
And I don't know if you've actually spent any sort of time with a POD X3, but there's tons of "touchyness" and dynamics available in that sucker.
Tripper
to be honest i haven't played with an X3 much. can you roll the volume knob back and get decent cleans? i have a friend who is looking for a modeler for practice and i might have to steer him towards that
I can't get to the linked sample here at work but I've heard some great Axe fx clips elsewhere, pretty convincing. Modelers will always have their place/market, not going anywhere and will only improve. I still use the original Pod Pro for daily low volume practicing.
I can't get the link to work either
Axe fx has almost religious followers on the net
It has interested me on occasion and I have heard a couple of excellent tracks done with it - but most clips i have heard sounds like other modellers using good convolution cabs - like revalver or an xt thru a cab in pristine space
Also the clips usually have a ton of fx which makes me wonder if what the accolytes love so much about the unit is the fx
It has always put me off - I would buy if they made one as a plugin - maybe
But for that money I would prefer to get a top end preamp for recording thru pristine space cabs
And maybe buy a UAD/TC card for fx
That might come to more dosh though it would be more flexible for studio - use the fx on any track when mixing
And the preamp would be a piece of real kit for a live rig
I haven't been convinced by the axefx as something I could use outside a studio
YouTube clips mostly sound like a pod - the others sound like ass
So it seems a recording tool to me
Only live use would be as an fx unit driven from an amp send to throw fx over monitors
With the amp providing the guts of the sound
This works great with an xt
Sounds crazy good in fact and maybe the axefx would be better at that
Anyway as a recording pod like unit - it seems to be the best
Glad you love it
chase — Dec 15, 2009http://www.wikiupload.com/download_page.php?id=203032
here's a quick nasty clip i did to show how the dynamic range a regular amp has is starting to be mimic'd digitally. the old modelers like the pod, digitech, etc. had no touch sensitivity, dynamics, etc. it was like a compressor on max. while the playing isn't the greatest (very rusty) this shows the touch sensitivity of the axe fx. i'll work on some decent clips in the next week. i haven't recorded anything guitar related in about a year IIRC
You know you can upload files to this site, right?
I tried pretty much everything to get that file off wiki upload... it's no worky.
I might have a more positive opinion of AxeFX if you showed up to Kentucky this year... ;)
I agree with some of fingers' points... I think the AxeFX sounds like a great FX box and most clips tend to highlight that. There is a point of diminishing returns on "touch sensitivity"--I play real amps all the time, and none of them are ever as "touch sensitive" as software. Especially when playing with drums and bass.
I got the file after typing in the prompted letters and numbers.
First impressions, nice playing. The Axe FX sounded like a modeler to me, although the dynamics were very nice (if that was all done with the guitar volume knob, and your touch) The tone was great on both cleans and overdrives. I still say it sounds like a modeler, but that is not a bad thing. When I listen back to the stuff I did with modelers (everything I recorded since my analog studio days) I am fairly impressed with the tones I got, from all 4 modelers I owned, a Digitech RP2000, GNX2, Tonelab tabletop-(with tube distortion stomps in front) and Pod XT. All that said, if you are getting those kinds of dynamic responses, it is well worth the money, because a pro amp with backup and stomps would cost you as much, and with that Axe FX you can plug it right into the PA gear and your on.
Nice guitar work
charger — Dec 15, 2009I agree with some of fingers' points... I think the AxeFX sounds like a great FX box and most clips tend to highlight that. There is a point of diminishing returns on "touch sensitivity"--I play real amps all the time, and none of them are ever as "touch sensitive" as software. Especially when playing with drums and bass.
I tend to agree, any amp with an overdrive channel in the pre amp section is compressed as all get out on that side. The only amps I ever got some sort of touch sensitivity and clean up with the volume control were all Pre CBS Fender amps turned all the way up. The reason I like tube amps over modelers is they sound a bit sweeter/rounder, vs the sharp attack of the digital stuff. The Mesa Lonestar was great for touch sensitivity on the tube rectifier setting, but the one I got was probably defective, as it would not sound anything similar tone for tone from guitar to guitar like my Fender HRD and Valve Jr does.
I can tell you as a person that has heard an Axe FX live and in person ran through a myriad of different odd ball set ups.....it is really really really sweet. And I don't hear how anything in the modeler world get close to this thing.
desertbluesman — Dec 15, 2009[quote author=charger link=1260838368/0#7 date=1260914768]I agree with some of fingers' points... I think the AxeFX sounds like a great FX box and most clips tend to highlight that. There is a point of diminishing returns on "touch sensitivity"--I play real amps all the time, and none of them are ever as "touch sensitive" as software. Especially when playing with drums and bass.
I tend to agree, any amp with an overdrive channel in the pre amp section is compressed as all get out on that side. The only amps I ever got some sort of touch sensitivity and clean up with the volume control were all Pre CBS Fender amps turned all the way up. The reason I like tube amps over modelers is they sound a bit sweeter/rounder, vs the sharp attack of the digital stuff. The Mesa Lonestar was great for touch sensitivity on the tube rectifier setting, but the one I got was probably defective, as it would not sound anything similar tone for tone from guitar to guitar like my Fender HRD and Valve Jr does.
the ecstacy i had would go from clean to good crunch with nothing more than a change in attack. add the volume knob and you could go from clean to scream pretty easily
Chase,
Load the clip here so it's not such a hassle to check it out.
i'm working up a better clip right now; but this one is attached
What a wicked thing to do
to make me dream of you...
Too much swirly effects... sounds like a permanent reverb or something. I am not all that excited by the distortion tone at the midway mark. Sounds good at the beginning and the end, though. Distortion still sounds... modeled... for lack of a better term.
charger — Dec 17, 2009 Distortion still sounds... modeled... for lack of a better term.
I agree, no one has hit the nail on the head with a modeler, they still sound modeled on the distortions, although I could get it sounding a little more real by tweaking like crazy on the old XT. I am not ashamed of my tones recorded using that modeler or the T-lab or GNX2 either. But all in all a modeler still sounds modeled, although the AxeFX does a superb job at getting as close as possible to a real tube amp sound.
Yep, the high gain sounds are just not quite there IMO as well. I hear it, does have gobs of distortion on tap, but just having loads of it doesn't make it sounds like the real deal. Might need to hear a more raw sample though. Have to admit I don't know squat about the Axe Fx (specs, tubes or no tubes ?, etc) but the gainy stuff sure sounds solid state still, no hiding that. Cleans are nice. Great modeler but I don't see most high gain tone freaks selling off stuff to nab one unless its in addition to their tube amps for practical reasons like low volume jams and what not. Improving, oh hell yeah. There yet, no. 0.2
I think the real problem with modeling is with the attack. It is simply too fast. So the pick noises are greatly enhanced. They should have a sag control which would allow for 2 or 3 different tube sag, and a silicon diode rectifier sag, or modelings lack of sag. Plus there is always that fizz that would be lost at band volumes, or at lower volumes in a real tube amp. I always compensated for that fizz by turning off the presence all the way. Which is what I always do with any tube amp as well, Although I could stand a little of it on the Lonestar I had for a few days.
It is the fizz that reveals the modeler. However I betcha with a little tweaking for that particular purpose the AxeFX could probably be the best at masking the fizz.
desertbluesman — Dec 18, 2009I think the real problem with modeling is with the attack. It is simply too fast. So the pick noises are greatly enhanced.
totally agree.
the distortion (after the pick attack) is usually fine, even excellent, but that attack sound... meh.
I always thought modeling would be greatly improved with the addition of an attack envelope. Back in the mid to late 1980's I was into synth work big time. I had 30 of them (samplers included) and I could program each and every one of them with the editor librarian software on my Macs at the time. I found the attack and decay envelope very useful items in programming many sounds. I think with the addition of an attack envelope adjustment, modeling would go a much longer way towards approximating the real warmth of a good quality tube amp.
Well, talking with the guys at Line 6 when I was there a few years ago, here's the biggest issue with modelers: To really model a tube amp they would need to use better processors where a lot of the processor isn't being used except to emulate tube-sag and other dynamics. In a real tube amp, these situations actually take the amp out of its normal boundaries temporarily, but most modelers use all of the processing power for the definied limits (not the actual limits).
This really is a case where you need to spend another 90% to get that last 10%.
CraigBert — Dec 18, 2009Well, talking with the guys at Line 6 when I was there a few years ago, here's the biggest issue with modelers: To really model a tube amp they would need to use better processors where a lot of the processor isn't being used except to emulate tube-sag and other dynamics. In a real tube amp, these situations actually take the amp out of its normal boundaries temporarily, but most modelers use all of the processing power for the definied limits (not the actual limits).
This really is a case where you need to spend another 90% to get that last 10%.
Well I think it will eventually happen, the processors of today are miles ahead of what happened just a few years ago. With the addition of multi threading, or a separate processing unit just for sag/dynamics, it could be done relatively inexpensively. It may happen in the near future, and if it does, that unit will sell big time.
I agree with that
The weird attack is the current #1
The thing that keeps the honeymoons short.
About 5 years ago it was the blanketed lo fi sound - the whole EQ fixation over at L6 back then.
but that has opened up massively since convolutions - it is as present and in your face as you like, feels like a real space etc.
but the unatural thwack of the attack is still there,
I don't think that is down to the modeller so much as the interface.
with an amp the guitar becomes part of the analogue circuit
go thru a digital interface and it is A/D converted into a signal that is only ever approximated and is pretty stretched at transient peaks.
feed that into amplification - whether real or modelled and I would bet you would get a click weird attack.
I think it needs better conversion technology - not the hardware which is good enough to catch sound (straight from a mic) - but the software interpretation of it as the signal - this is not someone singing it is a guitar into the interface - so it should model the behaviour the circuit it makes - which compresses peaks.
The irony of this thread being about guitar dynamics - is that the modellers don't compress and envelope the input enough.
It is based on the idea you can't turn down the vol pot/pick softer and change the level of distortion.
Every modeller can do this - the difference is the change in volume is too big compared with an amp.
Ans XT cleans up alright - but it has halved volume and it doesn't work.
and amp - it compresses and you can clean up and push it over with only a small "surprising" change in level.
That is the key - compress the input and balance distortion effects on the sharper edge of this less dynamic input..
It will remove of the clicky stuff as well as those peaks will be reduced.
This is like those POD vs amps discussions of years back
and I have lost interest in the outcome - whatever works - works.
End of the day it is all about what you do with it
For a laugh
To check out the picky clicky attack
From a year ago.
In the unlikely event you need the key
May is L and I am R
I did the take against the backing alone - sync'd better than I expected
but modeller clicky as fuck
What player do we use to hear .ogg files? I have Windows Media Player and QuackTime on this PC... :-?
chase — Dec 15, 2009to be honest i haven't played with an X3 much. can you roll the volume knob back and get decent cleans? i have a friend who is looking for a modeler for practice and i might have to steer him towards that
In my experience, yes. Especially on the more traditionally "touch-sensitive" models, so long as you have your volume up. He should bring his guitar to the store and try it for himself.
Or he could just set up a clean amp model and switch patches... :)
Ah, workarounds...
Tripper
CraigBert — Dec 19, 2009What player do we use to hear .ogg files? I have Windows Media Player and QuackTime on this PC... :-?
I use this codec to play .ogg files within windows media player
http://xiph.org/dshow/
fingers — Dec 18, 2009For a laugh
To check out the picky clicky attack
From a year ago.
In the unlikely event you need the key
May is L and I am R
I did the take against the backing alone - sync'd better than I expected
but modeller clicky as fuck
that's actually very good fingers. Although modeller can be a bit clicky and too sharp, I actually like a very crunchy attack that empahises that a note has been plucked with a pick. I mostly use a metal pick to emphasise this...It's the attack and crunch that gives it the power rather than a violin attack.
It is not about attack or not.
violin attack is a nice effect - it is not a way I could play most of the time.
I like attack.
It is just that unatural "thwack" it has with modellers
Where real amps just attack.
It is like piezo vs mic aoustic.
Yeah, the sound is like flicking the edge of a business card with your finger nail.
I think the biggest mistake people do with modellers (especially the pod) is to use excessive amounts of distortion and compression and then use loads of noise reduction. In this manner you will never get any touch responsiveness from a guitar, it will be either on or off. Although I use mostly a real amp now, I do have a PODX3 patch that I use quite a lot and it has no compression and no noise gate and just a small amount of distortion to break up but still be recognizable as a guitar rather than sounding like a synth. It really does respond very well to how hard you play and works really well by rolling the guitar volume back to go from clean to dirty.
Jon — Dec 20, 2009I think the biggest mistake people do with modellers (especially the pod) is to use excessive amounts of distortion and compression and then use loads of noise reduction. In this manner you will never get any touch responsiveness from a guitar, it will be either on or off. ...
+1 with that !
Anyway the AxeFx is a great tool...To be honest I'm not sure I would recognise the "Real thing" Vs the modelled.. :)
This is a demo of what a modeller can do in the righ hands.. :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MRDDJjTwTw
The guitar part starst at 5:30... and what what happen at 7:12 is just..incedible !!!!
Ciao !
Marco
P.s. the endig part is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UT-rLy0CWc4&feature=channel
take a look at this one, axefx, sounds really good
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVzu6kIIbKY
Along similar lines, it seems Marshall has jumped onto the bandwagon. They will be releasing an pre-amp called the JMD:1 which could be the successor to the old rackmount JMP1. It features some form of digital amp modeling. More than this I don't know. A bit of detail here: http://marshallvintagemodern.com/viewtopic.php?f=41&t=4287