Axe-Fx: Cabinet sans Microphone? (can it truly model an amp?)

[MarkF786]

I've owned a few modelers in the past and have been considering an Axe-Fx Ultra. I've never been thrilled with the previous modelers I tried; though I liked the novelty and flexibility of them, they never sounded "real" to me. The other day, a realization hit me which I think explains my dissatisfaction with modelers...

All modelers I have tried simulate an amp played through a cabinet, monitored by a microphone. The last point is crucial; it is the sound of the amp and cabinet through a microphone, as if it were recorded. But a recording of a amp doesn't sound the same as being in the room with the amp. This is where I think the sound falls apart for me since I consider the amp an integral part of the guitar, and having the amp sound like a recording of an amp makes the playing experience strange and unreal.

As an analogy, imagine a violinist playing a violin that sounds like a recording of a violin. Or a more common analogy would be like a pianist playing a digital piano.

With all that said, can an Axe-Fx model an amp without the intermediary of a microphone simulation, ie. can it sound the same as being in the room with the amp being modeled? I know some might say it's not possible; I would agree that even if using a FRFR, it can never sound exactly the same due to the different physical structures of the modeled cabinet, but I think it could do a convincing enough job.

Mark

[Turbo Gerbil]

With all that said, can an Axe-Fx model an amp without the intermediary of a microphone simulation, ie. can it sound the same as being in the room with the amp being modeled? I know some might say it's not possible; I would agree that even if using a FRFR, it can never sound exactly the same due to the different physical structures of the modeled cabinet, but I think it could do a convincing enough job.
Mark

There have been a ton of threads about this subject at the AxeFx forum. In basic, you just use a cabinet IR taken with a measurement microphone and set the AxeFx mic to "none". The Cabinet IR should also be a "far field" IR, rather than one taken with the mic right up to the speaker. I haven't used them, but the Red Wirez cabinet IR's have specific measured IR's with these requirements that people have been using. I seem to remember that a couple of the default IR's are also far fields provided by Jay Mitchell... 2x12 gold and 2x12 blue I think.

[banjoze]

Assuming you play through a high-quality FRFR speaker system and crank it as much as you crank your amp (ie. move the same amount of air), then "yes".

Personally I find that I enjoy it through nice speakers even when I don't do this. Specifically, I like being able to hear the sound of a classic amp, say a JTM-45, cranked via modeling, but at lower volumes in my room. I can't get this with the amp and it's a VERY nice thing to have in addition.

[paulmapp8306]

Im not keen on the FRFR sound either - for the same reason. Not a problem at gigs where everythiong gets mic'd up - but for me I play smaller venues where only vocals go through the PA. In this case its not just me, but the audience too that heres the difference.

One comment I got when I did go FRFR was - you sound like a CD man, I want to hear a REAL band."

So - I went for a flat Power amp into my 2x12 guitar cab. This way the Axe is a pre amp, guitar power amp and FX unit. No cabs and no mics in the chain.

The sound is more restricted - because your only using YOUR cab - so in my case its never gonna be a Recto stack or small tweed amp, just not possible through a 2x12 cab.

BUT - what I do get is the differences between putting a Bassman, JCM800, Recto HEAD though my cab - and as a bonus the amps atages of combo amps too. They DO sound different, and the whole rig DOES s sound and feel like the real thing.

So many ways of using the Axe :)

[Scott Peterson]

I've spent considerable time chasing exactly what the OP is describing. I've used Farfield (FF) IR's, endless hours listening, adjusting and listening again.

IMHO, FF stuff sounds great alone. IMHO, in the mix (both live and recordings) it sounds washed out and indistinct. No life. No cut.

IMHO, there's a reason we use the mic's we do and not absolutely flat measurement mic's for recording guitar tones. It works.

Jay Mitchell can do it; but he has the knowledge, experience and resources to make it work.

IMHO, YMMV.

[MarkF786]

I've spent considerable time chasing exactly what the OP is describing. I've used Farfield (FF) IR's, endless hours listening, adjusting and listening again.

IMHO, FF stuff sounds great alone. IMHO, in the mix (both live and recordings) it sounds washed out and indistinct. No life. No cut.

IMHO, there's a reason we use the mic's we do and not absolutely flat measurement mic's for recording guitar tones. It works.

Jay Mitchell can do it; but he has the knowledge, experience and resources to make it work.

IMHO, YMMV.

Scott,

It sounds like you're speaking from the perspective of recording or playing in a large venue. I'm sure the cab & mic sims sound great in those settings, but how about in a small live setting, where you want the sound of the amp, not a recording of the amp?

I do like some of the feedback so far, using either a FF IR or a real cab (and shutting off the cab/mic sim).

Mark

[Scott Peterson]

Scott,

It sounds like you're speaking from the perspective of recording or playing in a large venue. I'm sure the cab & mic sims sound great in those settings, but how about in a small live setting, where you want the sound of the amp, not a recording of the amp?

I do like some of the feedback so far, using either a FF IR or a real cab (and shutting off the cab/mic sim).

Mark

I am of the firm opinion, based on my own experience, that 'sounds like a recording' versus 'in the room' is simply not relevant to the discussion. It just sounds good. Really good. Listen to Pete Thorn play direct to FOH with Melissa Etheridge http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLBF3hnWW2Q&feature=related

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/DLBF3hnWW2Q&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/DLBF3hnWW2Q&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

Tell me that sounds 'not in the room' or 'like a recording' or odd in any way. It doesn't sound any of these terms we all use; it just sounds good.

It's impossible to communicate it in the written word.

We sometimes get caught up in the 'reality' of the Internet Forum world and in real life, it's just as simple as: "It sounds really good."

Mic or not.

[riffy]

That sounds GREAT with Pete Thorn. Anyone who can say that they could tell that was an Axe-FX instead of any other type of amp, well, either they have the hearing of a dog or they are simply full of it.

Did Pete simply go FOH there or did he also use some type of FR monitor system?

Gary

[vinney57]

That sounds GREAT with Pete Thorn. Anyone who can say that they could tell that was an Axe-FX instead of any other type of amp, well, either they have the hearing of a dog or they are simply full of it.

Did Pete simply go FOH there or did he also use some type of FR monitor system?

Gary

PT (sinas1?) might drop in but I believe it was AxeFX straight to the desk and then a mix back to in-ears. There are also a couple of wedges on the floor.
The AxeFX is sitting on an (unpowered) AC30 at the back - which is kind of ironic since Pete is using - can you guess? ... the AC30 model into a mix of two speaker IR's

[Matt Jones]

I've owned a few modelers in the past and have been considering an Axe-Fx Ultra. I've never been thrilled with the previous modelers I tried; though I liked the novelty and flexibility of them, they never sounded "real" to me. The other day, a realization hit me which I think explains my dissatisfaction with modelers...

All modelers I have tried simulate an amp played through a cabinet, monitored by a microphone. The last point is crucial; it is the sound of the amp and cabinet through a microphone, as if it were recorded. But a recording of a amp doesn't sound the same as being in the room with the amp. This is where I think the sound falls apart for me since I consider the amp an integral part of the guitar, and having the amp sound like a recording of an amp makes the playing experience strange and unreal.

As an analogy, imagine a violinist playing a violin that sounds like a recording of a violin. Or a more common analogy would be like a pianist playing a digital piano.

With all that said, can an Axe-Fx model an amp without the intermediary of a microphone simulation, ie. can it sound the same as being in the room with the amp being modeled? I know some might say it's not possible; I would agree that even if using a FRFR, it can never sound exactly the same due to the different physical structures of the modeled cabinet, but I think it could do a convincing enough job.

Mark

I have hung on to a Tech 21 Power Engine for this reason. *I* personally think it does a pretty good job of doing just what you're describing with my Axe-fx, however on admittedly a limited number of amp models. I use it with cabinet sims on and mics off.

[andrekp]

Disclaimer: I have never played an Axe-FX.

But this thread raises the real question about modelling amps:

Is the amp for the audience or the player?

In the one sense, the purpose of the amp is to make the player hearable. So in that sense, the question of whether it's a real or modelled JTM45 is largely academic - so long as it SOUNDS like it should.

But in the other sense, from the player's perspective, if a modelling amp doesn't play like the modelled amp (and most, and maybe all, modellers don't), then it can't BUT have an effect on the player. A lot of players wouldn't not sound like they do if they only played modelling amps through their career. A lot of great music would not sound like it does, if the players had only ever used modellers or SS gear since 1960.

And I'm not saying one way is better or worse, just that there is a difference, and that that difference can both advance and inhibit music.

So it's really just a philosophical position: Is the player (you) there for the audience, or for the player? Do you want the audience to hear a JTM45, or do you want to be playing a JTM45?

[buddaman71]

I 100% agree with Scott P.

These freakin' threads could go on indefinitely. If a player wants to lug an 80 llb, 40-year old tube amp around and deal with a multitude of pedals and potential failure points in his signal chain, more power to him.

I have a full time corporate job and 5 consecutive 3-hr shows this week. I don't have time to obsess anymore.
Personally, I want the LEAST amount of gear between me and the performance.
For ME, tube or SS, analog or digital, if it sounds good; it is good. Period.

[Scott Peterson]

Disclaimer: I have never played an Axe-FX.

But this thread raises the real question about modelling amps:

Is the amp for the audience or the player?

In the one sense, the purpose of the amp is to make the player hearable. So in that sense, the question of whether it's a real or modelled JTM45 is largely academic - so long as it SOUNDS like it should.

But in the other sense, from the player's perspective, if a modelling amp doesn't play like the modelled amp (and most, and maybe all, modellers don't), then it can't BUT have an effect on the player. A lot of players wouldn't not sound like they do if they only played modelling amps through their career. A lot of great music would not sound like it does, if the players had only ever used modellers or SS gear since 1960.

And I'm not saying one way is better or worse, just that there is a difference, and that that difference can both advance and inhibit music.

So it's really just a philosophical position: Is the player (you) there for the audience, or for the player? Do you want the audience to hear a JTM45, or do you want to be playing a JTM45?

Adding to the philosophical bent: why not have both (play for the audience and play for the musician)? Isn't it time for that to be possible?

One thing your view assumes is that modeling by and in of itself is somehow a lesser experience.

My answer to that is, depends on the modeler. :dude

Watch Pete playing in that video above. Does he appear to be 'missing' anything during the experience? Other than sustain you can gain from having volume flying, he's seemingly having fun to me.

That's the key. Music and performing is fun, deep, etc.. Any range of emotional involvement. If the gear you are using holds you back, like you note, you bet it sucks and will affect the player and most likely the playing. But it's been my experience, with over 200+ shows running direct to FOH over the past 3 years... it's a freeing and deeply rewarding place working with this box.

The only catch is that you have to do more work up front and plan/create/draft your entire rig from an empty palette if you are going to run FRFR. It's not a minor task; look at how many hours, days, weeks, months, years you have put into building your current rig - no matter what you play. If you are going to run FRFR with this box, you have to start from scratch or incorporate a lot of things into your FRFR setup that you have never contemplated before. You don't just work with the tools at hand, you create the tools at hand to work with... if you will.

But the pay-off is dramatic and I freaking love it. :D

[Matt Jones]

Disclaimer: I have never played an Axe-FX.

But this thread raises the real question about modelling amps:

Is the amp for the audience or the player?

In the one sense, the purpose of the amp is to make the player hearable. So in that sense, the question of whether it's a real or modelled JTM45 is largely academic - so long as it SOUNDS like it should.

But in the other sense, from the player's perspective, if a modelling amp doesn't play like the modelled amp (and most, and maybe all, modellers don't), then it can't BUT have an effect on the player. A lot of players wouldn't not sound like they do if they only played modelling amps through their career. A lot of great music would not sound like it does, if the players had only ever used modellers or SS gear since 1960.

And I'm not saying one way is better or worse, just that there is a difference, and that that difference can both advance and inhibit music.

So it's really just a philosophical position: Is the player (you) there for the audience, or for the player? Do you want the audience to hear a JTM45, or do you want to be playing a JTM45?

I've always chosen sounds that allow me to have fun and are an inspiration to play better. IMHO that's what it's all about and the axe just makes it the ultimate means to my end.

some may disagree but I personally don't think the audience cares if they're hearing a jtm45 or a deluxe reverb with a tube screamer in front. It's what inspires the player to have fun and produce good music. That's what makes the listener happy. :)

[Matt Jones]

....
My answer to that is, depends on the modeler. :dude

Watch Pete playing in that video above. Does he appear to be 'missing' anything during the experience? Other than sustain you can gain from having volume flying, he's seemingly having fun to me.

But the pay-off is dramatic and I freaking love it. :D

Scott brings up a good point. If Pete Thorn told me he was using a deluxe reverb model with a dirt pedal in front I would have believed him. I don't distinctively hear an ac30 or plexi but rather it comes down to the sum of the parts and I am sure he is enjoying playing because he likes what he hears.

[Jay Mitchell]

Do you want the audience to hear a JTM45, or do you want to be playing a JTM45?Wrong question. I want the audience to hear my music, as closely as possible to the way I'm hearing it, regardless of the tools I might be using at any given time. I played tube amps since dirt (well, since 1968 :)), and I've given up absolutely nothing of value in order to use the Axe-Fx.

[sinasl1]

PT (sinas1?) might drop in but I believe it was AxeFX straight to the desk and then a mix back to in-ears. There are also a couple of wedges on the floor.
The AxeFX is sitting on an (unpowered) AC30 at the back - which is kind of ironic since Pete is using - can you guess? ... the AC30 model into a mix of two speaker IR's

Guys-

On that particular song I was actually using the Plexi2 model, through 2 of the Red Wirez Greenback cab sims. Direct to the board.

I use in ears with Melissa and have used them on many tours, some with amps offstage (or facing backwards at the back of the stage)- so for me I have a certain familiarity with not having live amps onstage, and just hearing the sound in in ears... the experience using the axe d.i. is essentially the same. It's awkward for some at first, because yes, you lose the guitar-amplifier interaction. Which is kind of a bummer. But once you get used to it, it's no biggie.

If the goal is to be small and light, (fly dates) and you're playing big stages (or tv shows) where the sound coming off the stage is moot- it's easier to just go d.i. than to get any FRFR stuff involved.

However, I'd definitely try some Atomic cabs if I was using the Axe in clubs, theatres, or for anything where audiences are used to hearing some "stage bleed". The comment earlier about "you sound like a CD, i want to hear a BAND", it might help in that situation, to have some FRFR cabs onstage.

[paulmapp8306]

The comment earlier about "you sound like a CD, i want to hear a BAND", it might help in that situation, to have some FRFR cabs onstage.

We had two. A QSC K10 being used as a monitor in front of me - some guitar though it - mostly vocals though. I also had a K12 set up behind me as backline with just the Axe through it. I also had some axe direct to the main PA just to add some spread (another par of K12s plus subs).

I was fine with it - but the audience didnt get it - and I can see why at that venue.

Ill stick with PA/Cab for the small venues but will get a passive atomic that I can drive with my PA for functions. they dont care about "real amp" sound just the overall sound. FRFR/Direct to FOH works really well there.

[andrekp]

Fair enough everyone. And I don't at all mean to come off as a "modelling sucks" critic - because I just don't think that way. It's all good, it's all just different. I like what I play because of how it feels, and frankly, I like the sort of low-tech nature of it (more than a couple of knobs starts to bug me - so I'm probably not going to ever even have a Mesa, much less an AXE-FX!). I'm a luddite though.

I just thought it to be an interesting question as to how playing a modeller changes how a guitar player plays - if it does. I mean a lot of what we take for granted as how guitars should sound and what they are capable of, is little more than a legacy of what was technically available in 1968. If the AXE were available then, who knows what rock would sound like now? It's never really a question of best.

But I wonder how the increased us of computer technology will change music. As an unrelated example: The loudeness wars have changed how music is mastered, and most of us probably dislike the change. Now I'm not AT ALL saying that modelling will ruin music, or that anyone should dislike it. I'm just wondering how it will change it as it becomes the norm...

This is all just theoretical musings though, that have little to do with anything, so feel free to just ignore me. I just wanted to make clear that I wasn't bashing at all.

[Gasp100]

"but I think it could do a convincing enough job"... me too!
I LOVE the sound (and feel) of the AxeFX patches with Red Wirez IR's through my studio monitors. When I wanted something bigger (as in a 12" speaker) I tested both the Verve FBT12ma and Atomic FR options (powered and passive). Here's my take:
The Verve FBT (and likely the QSC K12 or virtually any other large powered monitor, varying in degree's of quality of course) sounds like my studio monitors, just bigger/fuller with the ability to get much louder.
The Atomic FR (especially the powered) adds a little something extra -- a tad more "live rig in the room" vibe. This kind of bridges the gap between in the room / traditional cab feel and FRFR.
This go round I'm leaning heavily towards a traditional guitar cab for my "in the room" at home playing, jams and eventually live for backline. I know ahead of the game that when I start gigging again most places will not be sending guitars FOH (at least not only thru the PA with provided wedges and stuff). I know I will lose a bit of versatility going this route, but I'm pretty sure a good sounding cab with an EVM 12L will sound great with a multitude of different amp types: Fender, Marshall, Vox, Boogie, etc... I think it will be a cool test to see if I can built patches with cab/mic sims ON for output 1 to FOH / studio monitors and cab/mic sims OFF for Output 2 which goes to power amp + traditional cab. Best of both worlds.

[Brian G]

To respond to the OP another way (and avoid the differing philosophies . . . .):

The stock Axe IR's are captured using an Earthworks calibrated microphone. This mic is a widely used as a measurement tool, as it has a relatively neutral, uncolored response compared to the mics typically used on guitar cabs.

Not only is it more neutral, its' response curve is well-documented. In the Axe, Cliff has added a perfect inverse of the EW mics' response, so that when you select "no mic", it perfectly nulls out any residual character added by the mic, however minor that may be.

So you hear the cab only, no mic "personality" overlaid on that sound. Albeit from the perspective of the mic position.

If you really care about the closest representation of the cab in the room, you have the option to select "no mic", and not hear the colorations of the othe mics.

Alternatively, you can regard the mic choices as different tone flavorings, and if you like one or another, well, have at it. But in effect, you're really just overlaying the mics' response variations over the cab sound.

Red Wires IRs come with captures made with the same Earthworks mic, so if you use those, you also have the "no mic" option in the Axe.

[banjoze]

All of the Red Wires IRs are made using the same mic?

[fr8_trane]

"but I think it could do a convincing enough job"... me too!
I LOVE the sound (and feel) of the AxeFX patches with Red Wirez IR's through my studio monitors. When I wanted something bigger (as in a 12" speaker) I tested both the Verve FBT12ma and Atomic FR options (powered and passive). Here's my take:
The Verve FBT (and likely the QSC K12 or virtually any other large powered monitor, varying in degree's of quality of course) sounds like my studio monitors, just bigger/fuller with the ability to get much louder.
The Atomic FR (especially the powered) adds a little something extra -- a tad more "live rig in the room" vibe. This kind of bridges the gap between in the room / traditional cab feel and FRFR.
This go round I'm leaning heavily towards a traditional guitar cab for my "in the room" at home playing, jams and eventually live for backline. I know ahead of the game that when I start gigging again most places will not be sending guitars FOH (at least not only thru the PA with provided wedges and stuff). I know I will lose a bit of versatility going this route, but I'm pretty sure a good sounding cab with an EVM 12L will sound great with a multitude of different amp types: Fender, Marshall, Vox, Boogie, etc... I think it will be a cool test to see if I can built patches with cab/mic sims ON for output 1 to FOH / studio monitors and cab/mic sims OFF for Output 2 which goes to power amp + traditional cab. Best of both worlds.

Yeah thats the way to do it Greg.

Get a versatile, neutral speaker/cab and disable the internal cab sims. Cab sims through real acoustic cabs never sound right.

Oh and your right about no FOH. Us bottom feeder bar band players pretty much never have anything but the vocals through the PA.

[Scott Peterson]

All of the Red Wires IRs are made using the same mic?

No. Check their site, they use a VERY large variety of mic's in the same positions. www.redwirez.com

[RvChevron]

So for all of you who play through FRFR or monitors or in ears, do you prefer to have the mic sims on or off?

That's either with stock IR's or the red wirez IR's?

Thanks!

P.S. I meant when you're not recording.

[Scott Peterson]

So for all of you who play through FRFR or monitors or in ears, do you prefer to have the mic sims on or off?

That's either with stock IR's or the red wirez IR's?

Thanks!

P.S. I meant when you're not recording.

I've tried it with/without and am currently running either a Royer 121/SM57 mix or a straight up SM57 mix using two different speakers (ala Pete Thorn's 'formula'). Simply sounds best, cuts best and works best IMH Opinion. YMMV.

[Sixstring]

I think it will be a cool test to see if I can built patches with cab/mic sims ON for output 1 to FOH / studio monitors and cab/mic sims OFF for Output 2 which goes to power amp + traditional cab. Best of both worlds.

I tried this a wile back when I was still using a cab on stage to fill up the bottom that the 8" drivers in the wedges I'm using lacked. You can get close and for the most part works very well.

[R.D.]

So for all of you who play through FRFR or monitors or in ears, do you prefer to have the mic sims on or off?

That's either with stock IR's or the red wirez IR's?

Thanks!

P.S. I meant when you're not recording.

Until I happened across the RedWirez cabs, my "go to" setup was the stock 4 x 12 Cali cabinet w/NO mic. To my ears that was the most balanced sound almost regardless of the amp sim I was using ....

Now I'm using various RedWirez mixes and think I'm able to capture the esssence of the Amp model a bit better ( IMHO too ) ....

Hope that helps.

[mtmartin71]

I've tried it with/without and am currently running either a Royer 121/SM57 mix or a straight up SM57 mix using two different speakers (ala Pete Thorn's 'formula'). Simply sounds best, cuts best and works best IMH Opinion. YMMV.

Scott, what's Pete's formula? I know at one point you were doing the cab with ~48% Royer, ~48% SM57, and the rest as room mic (I think). Just wondering about some of the other best practices.

[Scott Peterson]

Scott, what's Pete's formula? I know at one point you were doing the cab with ~48% Royer, ~48% SM57, and the rest as room mic (I think). Just wondering about some of the other best practices.

Seek out his "Playing on A&E with Melissa" thread here in this section. He notes the mix of IR's he's using. I just ran a quick mix when I read that and dug it so I stuck with it. He's running two IR's (ie. Greenback 25 and original Greenback both at cap edge 1" with a SM57 mixed 50%/50%). The actual speakers and his positions/mic choices he listed on that thread.

"Never hesitate to steal a good idea." -- Al Neuharth :D

[mtmartin71]

Seek out his "Playing on A&E with Melissa" thread here in this section. He notes the mix of IR's he's using. I just ran a quick mix when I read that and dug it so I stuck with it. He's running two IR's (ie. Greenback 25 and original Greenback both at cap edge 1" with a SM57 mixed 50%/50%). The actual speakers and his positions/mic choices he listed on that thread.

"Never hesitate to steal a good idea." -- Al Neuharth :D

Thanks Scott...actually, he responded to me :hide2

A little forgetful...