Axe FX 10.0 Marsha Vs. the real deal poll!

[sinasl1]

OK I thought this might be fun, so I'm gonna start a poll with a little clip I made. What this clip is- a couple simple riffs, and it's Marsha #2 (second one made) on the BE channel and the Axe FX Marsha (BE)... I plugged the head into my Faustine attenuator set for load and took the line out into my interface. In Logic, I used a Red Wirez greenback sim mic'd with a 57.

Then I plugged the axe fx into my interface, and used the same Red Wirez greenback sim (no cab simulation used on the Axe FX).

This way, you hear the real amp, and the modeled amp, fed into exactly the same "cab and mic".

You guys tell me which is which! Also, vote for your favorite tone, and let me know which one you like more. I'll let you know which was the real amp and which was the model in a few days.

http://music.mp3lizard.com/peterthorn/

click on "Marsha Real VS Axe FX model"'

EDIT: OK I SPILLED THE BEANS ON PAGE 18, POST 261

[Guitartrue]

First is Axe FX! sounds better!!

[Matt Jones]

I say the axe-fx is #2. I used the Marsha BE all morning for my Sunday "gig" and there's something about how the D/A chord rings out that sounds really familiar to what I was hearing today.

They both sound great. I'm looking forward to finding out which is which.

[Sherman90]

I'm guessing the second one is the real Marsha.

[Ed DeGenaro]

As I said on RT...prefer the second one since it's less ratty around the edges, I'd guess that makes the first one the loaded down amp...

[alexandergj]

I'd say the background noise at the beginning of the second section identifies the real amp.

[JimmyD]

I will venture a guess and say the second it the real deal. Both sound darn good.

Jim

I listened another couple times and I think "I" prefer the first one.

[localmotion411]

Second section is the Marsha -- more throat on the open chords.

[Jason_86_951]

First is the Marshall, more raw upper mids. The second is more polite, AxeFX.

I like the second one better, smoother.

[felken]

I hear more harmonic content in clip 2. It sounds a bit more complex. I liked it more.

[Ben R]

That's freaking incredible! They sound almost exactly the same. I can hear a slight difference in that the "first" one has slightly more pronounced bottom end and sounds slightly thicker. Because of that, the high end seems to stand out differently. I mean, it's a miniscule difference. But, that's the variation that I detect. Again, it's only slight.

So, I would actually guess that the first clip is the AXE FX. I only say that because I would guess that sending the signal from the "real" Marsha into an IR might alter the tone slightly? Could something be lost in the interface? Anyway, I would guess that the AXE FX would retain all of the signal strength with the IR right in the internal signal chain.

So, my guess is...

AXE FX = #1
"Real" Marsha = # 2

Edit: I'm a fool. I just re-read Pete's original explanation of what he did here and realized that for both amps / clips, the Rewirez Cab simulation was done after his interface (in logic). Hmmmm... Man - All of the variables besides the "amps" themselves have been removed in this experiment. It's truly one vs. the other with knobs on the amp or values in the Axe FX as the only things that could alter what's going on. I can't decide. So, i guess, I'll stick with saying that i liked #1 better if I have to choose. I'll flip a coin and say that #1 was also the AXE FX.
.

[Ben R]

Oh, Pete... By the way, I loved the "Darkness" riff.

[Jay Mitchell]

It's difficult for me to say. The two sounds are very close together. I prefer the apparent greater weight given the the lower strings in the first part, but it also has a lower-midrange emphasis that I do not prefer. I have no idea which is which.

[Steve73]

I think it's Marsha #1 and Axe FX #2.

[rob2001]

Need 3rd option on poll...close enough to not matter! I mean, at this point, it's what you would do with either that makes the difference.

[ToneChaser1]

Both sound great but I like the first one best.

[banjoze]

I voted #2 as the one I liked best, but after listening a couple more times I'm not sure I don't prefer the first. I think #2 is the real amp, but it doesn't have quite the punch the first one has, which I like a lot.

I would choose #1 if I was emphasizing guitar and #2 if I wanted it to blend in a bit more in the mix. The similarity is incredible.

[banjoze]

Btw, I'm secretly hoping that you added that mic'ing "hum" noise to the AxeFx clip just to throw us all off.... ;)

[JimmyD]

Need 3rd option on poll...close enough to not matter! I mean, at this point, it's what you would do with either that makes the difference.

I think you nailed it!!

[Bo Faulkner]

I vote # 1 is Axefx

both clips sounded great and very very close to one another.

The highs seemed a little smoother and the low mid a hair more pronounced on the second clip. The only reason i pick # 1 as axefx is the highs remind me of the other modelers Ive messed with.

[cliffc8488]

No favorite and no idea which is which.

[javajunkie]

If I had to pick a favorite, it would be the second. But, they are really close. I have no idea which is which.

[Dr Git]

Both are too close for me to pick...Great new Sims though (having a blast)

[Scott Peterson]

Man, I dunno. Stumped.

And that says a lot.

[drgonzoguitar]

I can't tell. I am thinking that the second part is the AXE-FX. Maybe. Hmmm....

I like both of the tones.

[vinceh]

As I said on RT...prefer the second one since it's less ratty around the edges, I'd guess that makes the first one the loaded down amp...

Totally agree.

[mapleneck72]

#2 is Axe-Fx.

[toelessfoot]

They both sound great but for the sake of the poll I chose # 1.

I notice a slight scoop in the second relative to the first and it sounds like there is more inefficiency in the first (real marsha?) with maybe more complexity. It just sounded a bit more like my JVM which at this point is what i'm used to tone wise.

Great comparison btw

[or bowling]

hmmmm, both sound great - I'd say #1 is AXE

1st clip is: a hair louder, no noise floor, high feel "linear" or "more direct" if that makes sense

2nd clip is: a bit quieter, bit more of "grinding lo-mids", highs seem smoother, might have a notch of EQ?

[Dexter.Sinister]

Couldn't tell ya, but I liked them both. I was playing the BE and HBE Axe-FX models all night long tonight. Pretty fun!

DS

[Tito83]

I think Axe-fx is #1. If it's the other way around I may never buy a valve amp again. Either way I can't wait to update to 10.x, but I don't have an interface right now :(.

[VanWhelan]

Damn, I really couldn't tell which was which. Both amps were so close.

I'm looking for a new amp & I've been doing a lot of research & trying out different amps lately, but I gotta say that I'm starting to become a believer in this Axe-Fx.

Can't wait to find out which is which. BTW I voted for #2, just thought that the sound was a little better/smoother than #1. But it was more or less a coin-flip decision.

[timowens316]

Okay, I’m going to go out on a limb here. I would say that 1 is the Axe and 2 is the real deal. My reasoning is that in the first clip there is a hint of that digital signature in the upper mids and highs, and in the second clip you can hear some noise before you start playing and after you stop. In a way I hope I am wrong, I am seriously looking for a good justification to purchase an Axe FX J Either way, they are so close that if we didn’t have one to compare to the other no one would probably know the difference at all. Excellent work!

[djd100]

I'd like to point out that a load box changes the tone of a tube amp to some degree depending on the attenuation setting/design etc. Sometime I'd like to hear this kind of test with the Axe through a solid state power amp into the same cab/close-mic/mic-pre combination as the tube amp, using both single note lines as well as chordal parts in various octaves (obviously the recording setup and amp level needs to be identical for both competitors of course).

That said, while both of these sound good I prefer #2. As to which is which I can't logically say as I've never played a real Marsha BE, though if I had to "guess" I'd pick #2 as the tube amp.

Loving the new 10.x release, especially the reworked presence algorithm!

[sinasl1]

I'd like to point out that a load box changes the tone of a tube amp to some degree depending on the attenuation setting/design etc. Sometime I'd like to hear this kind of test with the Axe through a solid state power amp into the same cab/close-mic/mic-pre combination as the tube amp, using both single note lines as well as chordal parts in various octaves (obviously the recording setup and amp level needs to be identical for both competitors of course).

That said, while both of these sound good I prefer #2. As to which is which I can't logically say as I've never played a real Marsha BE, though if I had to "guess" I'd pick #2 as the tube amp.

Loving the new 10.x release, especially the reworked presence algorithm!

this is true, about the load box, but the Faustine is a reactive load and is more transparent than any other attenuator I've used.

[Axe-Man]

I personally think #2 is the pick tone wise.

Smoother and less clangy in the mid/high end but the difference isn't massive. It just sounds more natural and warmer to me.

I beleive it's the tube amp but if it's the Axe, I am extremely impressed.

We'll have to have a 21 gun salute for the tube amp if it is!

[gassyndrome]

More 'air' in the second one, but they are both fantastic.

[Brick_top]

The second one seems to have more "gain" or something. I have no Ideia which is which.

But sounds like something that could be tweaked

[bmi]

I'm waiting for the result to give my answer. ;)

[Sixstring]

The second clip sounds a tad fuller but it's splitting hairs at this point. I couldn't tell which is which.

[primal]

Before I put my studio headphones on I could not tell the difference.

I do think the second clip had a tad less highs. And I think as another poster pointed out, the background noise was the give away that the second clip is most likely the real deal.

Either way, so close that you have to isolate the guitar track and sit back and pay attention hard to hear any difference at all.

In a mix, you would never hear a difference.

Please share your settings. Loved the tone!

[shadesofgray]

Using a signal out from an attenuator to record a marsha without going through real speakers and mic is a good way to ensure that the marsha is going to sound absolutely terrible

Would be a better test if you reamped the AxeFX using a solid state amp (so it won't color the sound any further) and compared the two through the same speaker cab miced.

[Luke]

I believe that # 2 is the real amp, but I prefer # 1.

As I've said many times, we are so close now to the tone and feel that the 2% difference is more than made up for by convenience, ability to have multiple sounds on tap and the being able to record/play silently.

[AdamCook]

They're so close it doesn't really matter which is which. I can't really say I like either one better... they're just so slightly different that it's not significant enough for me to have an opinion one way or the other.

[Strat O Matic]

Cool I'm really interested to hear this, marked for later....

[OutterLimits]

Second one has bit more deep mids, but I like both tones equally. I would use the 1st live, the 2nd recording ... thanks much Pete, this was great!

[vinney57]

No.1 sounds raunchier, more out of control with a lot of high end. No.2 is smoother with a more pleasant high end. They both sound great and it doesn't really matter which is which - I'd be happy to use either. It would be a surprise if no.1 was AxeFX since in many ways it sound more 'alive'.

[Strat O Matic]

I think I liked the first one a little better they were both awfully similar though, to me atleast. With that said if I had to guess I would say that #2 was the real Marsha....

[Kenny D]

Well, on my crappy computer speakers, I cannot tell the difference.

[samhill]

On my pc speakers I really can't tell the difference. Great job Pete.

If this doesn't make people think, then nothing will :bonk

Mark

[R.D.]

WOW !

This morning I looped the clip in my .mp3 player, turned it up and let it go. After about 3 min I lost track of where the clip started and ended ....

I still haven't decided if I even have a preference or not ....

I guess I'll have to vote later ....

[_pete_]

I can't tell the difference and really can't say that I like one more than the other. They could honestly be the same amp recorded on different days. I know they're not but it's that close.

Just to play along, I'm guessing #1 to be the Axe FX.

[rcl]

I voted for 1, but after another bunch of listens...I prefer #2. There is something to the sound between the notes. A bit deeper thump in there or something. I hope #2 is the axe-because I want it to have that ;)

[electronpirate]

I voted for #2 just for fun, but even after several listens I just can't tell at all which is which.

+3 on there needed to be a 3rd option. Don't know, and don't care, they both sound fantastic.

Edit. Marked for notification. I'm curious now.

[ptgold]

I prefer #2.....I dont know what to call it but theres a sustaining type of growl you can hear clearly in the background when the notes trail off.

[octatonic]

I definitely prefer the 1st one but I also think that might be the Axe FX.

I'd be happy to gig with either.

[McCap]

Very close sounding.

But, I think the first is the Axe.
Why?
Because every axe demo I hear, there seems to be a certain frequency present, which works well on the pick attack but seems a little exaggerated to me. Can't find a better way to describe it.??

Anyway, both sound very good and similar.

[Drew W]

First time I listened I seemed to prefer the first half. On the 2nd listen, I preferred the 2nd. On the 3rd, I couldn't tell any difference.

[zentman]

I gigged with that Marsha amp sim yesterday. It was very. very full direct to the house. Different than the real deal? I could care less, it works very well for me.

[Wagster]

1 is the Marsha. You can hear the valves working. I actually like clip 2 the best. Of course I'm probably wrong.

[Matman]

I think the first one is the Axe-Fx, and I think it sounds better. Even if I am wrong, the difference is really insubstantial!

[guittarzzan]

This is a tough one. The first one is definitely a bit harsher, but at the same time, seems to sounds a bit more real to me. I guess I'd like to know if the settings on both amps are the same. Are the bass, treble, mid, presence etc all set the same on both the amp and the Fractal?
Either one could be set to sound more harsh so I'm hoping both were set the same.
Anyhoo, I'll shut up and vote. My vote is that the first one is the Axefx needing a little eq help and the second one is the amp through the attenuator. With a little eq, I think the first one would sound the best/most real.

I've owned an Ultra for a couple years now and have seen this thing go from "way better than my Vetta" to "just as good as my Egnater and Engl".

I'd love to hear this test with the amp with a mic and then the Axefx going through the clean channel on the amp with a mic. Through the traditional power amp, cab, mic, mic pre set up, I think the Axefx easily sounds as good as anything out there.

[aftec]

1st Axe
2nd Real Marsha

The second one has more of a growl and fur around the notes. Since the Axe's sim is by default lowcut at 550hz, it has a tighter bottom end than the original amp. The first one has some high freq stuff going on kinda reminds my Axe with a little too much presence dialed. Anyway both of them sounds great and this sim definitely has the character of the original. I think it was a really smart move from Dave to cooperate with the Fractal guys. This thing will sell a lot of Marshas.

[ben_allison]

I voted that I prefer #1, but that doesn't mean I think it's the real amp!

:D

[Julia343]

Honestly? I couldn't tell the difference when I played them through my mixing monitors. Through the cheap computer monitors on my other PC, the second sounded better.

There was a little hiss before and after the second one, which could indicate that was the tube amp because most these modelers have a noise gate that slams shut. But if the poster had been real judicious about doing an "insert silence" immediately before and after the second track i think there would be no tell tale signs.

You guys must have a lot better hearing than I do, because although I picked the second last night from the listen through my PC speakers, today through the mixing monitors there was no way I could pick the real one except for that hiss.

The first one also seemed slightly louder.

Given the choice though if I had the money thing and I had to base my selection only on this clip? I'd go for the Axe just because the thing weighs so much less.

[JohnLutz]

I guess # 1 is the AxeFx because of the digital brighness. Would like to see a "wool for FRFR" effect that makes a PA speaker sound more like a guitar cab.

[stereophile]

i cant believe im living in a <day and age> that were chosing between a tube amp and a digital processor /// and we cant tell for the most part, the difference :rotflmao. thank you cliff and tom for your vision and dedication to making this possible. holy grail 1 // marsha 2 ??? :JAM nice job pete t and dave f M

[sinasl1]

Using a signal out from an attenuator to record a marsha without going through real speakers and mic is a good way to ensure that the marsha is going to sound absolutely terrible

Would be a better test if you reamped the AxeFX using a solid state amp (so it won't color the sound any further) and compared the two through the same speaker cab miced.

does it sound absurdly terrible to you? I don't record, or post things on the net, that sound absurdly terrible.

In the words of Desmond Child- I HAVE done this before, you know... ?

The Faustine does an incredible job loading the amp- it's reactive, not fixed, and I'll tell you if you haven't tried the Red Wirez sims then try them and prepare to be impressed. I also use Apogee converters, etc. Trust me it doesn't sound much different using a mic on a cab. As a matter of fact, I'm a bit unhappy with my current miking/cab in a large iso box setup that I have going and the red wirez route actually sounds better, probably. Even with a Scumback and API pres etc. I need to tweak my recording setup or possibly try another cab option (Rivera Silent Sister is the next thing I'm trying).

I'm so impressed with them, that this is the way I set up all my sounds for tour now with my big rig- i load down my amp and take a line out, same way I did here. I also take the outputs of the mixer in my rack for my w/d/w rig. Across 3 channels in logic, with red wirez sims on each channel, simulating my w/d/w speaker setup. I tweak all my sounds/patches like this. Then when I get in rehearsal, I fire up the rig through cabs and lo and behold, it sounds pretty much exactly the same. I can use my full rig a 3 a.m. and not bug anyone. Pretty cool.

OK back to the poll!

[Don Petersen]

Hi :wave

cross post from the Axe-FX forum:

FWIW, here are the two parts as an analyser sees them, and the needed EQ curve to get from one to the other.
I messed up on the 2 to 1 graph, tho. the window was still set to 18dB range as opposed to 6dB range in the first one.

#1
http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e229/donelectro/Marsha-vs-Axe-A-web.jpg

#2
http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e229/donelectro/Marsha-vs-Axe-B-web.jpg

#1 to #2
http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e229/donelectro/Marsha-vs-Axe-A-to-B-web.jpg

#2 to #1
http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e229/donelectro/Marsha-vs-Axe-B-to-A-web.jpg

thought this might be interesting.

dp

[RobRowland]

Another vote for option 3 here - we've finally reached a point where it honestly doesn't matter which is which. They both sound great.

[cooljuk]

Can't tell on my stupid little work PC speakers. First clip sounds a little "tighter" maybe.

[RobRowland]

Can't tell on my stupid little work PC speakers. First clip sounds a little "tighter" maybe.

It's not your speakers. I have decent monitors here and I can't tell any difference.

[emperor_black]

I like Clip No. 2. I think that's the AXE. The first one is way too gnarly and sounds like a real-tube amp.

[Bussman]

Using a signal out from an attenuator to record a marsha without going through real speakers and mic is a good way to ensure that the marsha is going to sound absolutely terrible...

My own experiments with a 2204 through a homemade load box and into a convolution engine did not agree with your absolute statement. As a matter of fact it sounded glorious. I guess it largely depends on the operator...

[gearitis]

I much prefer Part 2.

[localmotion411]

Thanks for doing this Pete; basically solidified my intent to get an Axe-FX soon.

I'm with you on micing. The vast majority of the time, recording guitars using conventional micing is a complete pain in the ass. Too much tweaking and experimenting, not to mention time wasted, for too little benefit. Being able to get a preset that sounds like that on a box that costs $2k and does everything else under the sun you could ask for, and essentially instantly get killer recorded tones? I'm so sold that it's simply retarded.

Another bonus of the Axe-FX is that I'll immediately be able to play like Pete! So win-win!

[iaresee]

This thread is awesome. Pete, thanks for the post!

I can't tell. They sound the same on my laptop speakers.

And @DonPetersen: thanks for those curves. Double whoa on how close those are.

I kind of hope the true identity of the clips never gets revealed. As soon as it happens people will start to hear things differently. :)

[RobRowland]

This thread is awesome. Pete, thanks for the post!

I can't tell. They sound the same on my laptop speakers.

And @DonPetersen: thanks for those curves. Double whoa on how close those are.

I kind of hope the true identity of the clips never gets revealed. As soon as it happens people will start to hear things differently. :)


If I were Pete I'd have thrown a curve ball and recorded both clips using the Marshall (or Axe). That would have people's knickers in a twist.

[Julia343]

Okay so when are you going to let the cat out of the bag?

[t3oi]

Hi :wave

cross post from the Axe-FX forum:

FWIW, here are the two parts as an analyser sees them, and the needed EQ curve to get from one to the other.
I messed up on the 2 to 1 graph, tho. the window was still set to 18dB range as opposed to 6dB range in the first one.

#1
http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e229/donelectro/Marsha-vs-Axe-A-web.jpg

#2
http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e229/donelectro/Marsha-vs-Axe-B-web.jpg

#1 to #2
http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e229/donelectro/Marsha-vs-Axe-A-to-B-web.jpg

#2 to #1
http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e229/donelectro/Marsha-vs-Axe-B-to-A-web.jpg

thought this might be interesting.

dp

This. These graphs are the hard data of how close they are and why we are all spinning our versions and whys of which is which.

Pete, I think they both sound killer. I chose #1, but regardless of which is which, why would I want to move around a 60lb head + a cab for tenths of an EQ dB?

I love tube amps. I love a guitar direct into one. I also think this Axe-FX is the first to really get it for modeling from all I have heard of it.

*Edit* - I should throw out a kudos to Cliff here. As an engineer myself, I'm impressed with the accuracy and the clips seem to lose none of the nuances that still make it musical. Well done!

[Ed DeGenaro]

does it sound absurdly terrible to you? I don't record, or post things on the net, that sound absurdly terrible.

In the words of Desmond Child- I HAVE done this before, you know... ?

The Faustine does an incredible job loading the amp- it's reactive, not fixed, .........snipped for brevity


Except reactive vs. resistive doesn't really make a whole lotta difference unless you're doing something different than any one else using a line-out signal from a loaded down head.

[Gasp100]

I voted #2 is my favorite, but they are both pretty wild wound up Marshally tones. Very cool.

[Down and Out in NYC]

I have no idea which is which but theres something about the way the chords ring in # 2 that make it a lil mo pleasing to my ears.

[bmi]

This. These graphs are the hard data of how close they are and why we are all spinning our versions and whys of which is which.

Pete, I think they both sound killer. I chose #1, but regardless of which is which, why would I want to move around a 60lb head + a cab for tenths of an EQ dB?

I love tube amps. I love a guitar direct into one. I also think this Axe-FX is the first to really get it for modeling from all I have heard of it.

*Edit* - I should throw out a kudos to Cliff here. As an engineer myself, I'm impressed with the accuracy and the clips seem to lose none of the nuances that still make it musical. Well done!
It's mp3 so you've probably lost informations in both files.

[Don Petersen]

higher res - less stress :)

http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e229/donelectro/marsha-12-HB-web-2.jpg

[sinasl1]

Except reactive vs. resistive doesn't really make a whole lotta difference unless you're doing something different than any one else using a line-out signal from a loaded down head.

Hi Ed,

my understanding of it is the impedance is constantly changing as you are playing into a speaker- with an amp seeing a fixed load this does not happen, whereas a reactive load simulates the amp "seeing" a speaker more accurately. I should ask Tim Gregoire (Faustine) to chime in here...

[wwit]

I have no idea which is which but I like #2 the best. It has an airyness to it that sounds more natural and organic.

[bmi]

higher res - less stress :)


.wav files here.(where did you get them ;) )
Where is the part due to the loadbox here?

For me it's ok , they sound too close i don't want to play the game it's kind of Loto.
(i would say because all attenuators compress that the #2 is the real deal)

[iggypop]

#1 and #2 are awesome, can´t hear any being "better" or more "complex" than the other...

[Blix]

I strongly prefer the first , way fatter mids.

[Don Petersen]

.wav files here.(where did you get them ;) )

I just recorded the mp3 - the Saffire Pro40 has a nice loopback feature - so it is a .wav but with all the lossy compression and artefacts of a .mp3 :)

[Ed DeGenaro]

Hi Ed,

my understanding of it is the impedance is constantly changing as you are playing into a speaker- with an amp seeing a fixed load this does not happen, whereas a reactive load simulates the amp "seeing" a speaker more accurately. I should ask Tim Gregoire (Faustine) to chime in here...
Correct, but chances are the line-out is taken before the resistors and inductor...hence it not making a difference, other than by virtue of what parts are used for that.
Bottom line, even though folks seem to think any amp like that into a load into speaker sim is EVIL, they...well...are the guys that hear the grass grow...
Take the head in a load box or speaker with the line-out being taken by a DI right after the head will sound about the same. But at least that won't have those evil attenuators out of your signal path.
:)

If anything I'd think that the big equalizer - just like in real life- is the cab or in this case cab sim... I imagine a Twin with a Tube Screamer in front through a Recto cab would surprise some of the can't make a Twin sound like a Mesa folks...

[Ed DeGenaro]

I just recorded the mp3 - the Saffire Pro40 has a nice loopback feature - so it is a .wav but with all the lossy compression and artefacts of a .mp3
Not to side track Pete's thread...we're talking recorded guitar here, not like there is too much happening above 5k. I think you have more info thrown out on speaker frequency or model of it then loss due to mp3.

[sinasl1]

Correct, but chances are the line-out is taken before the resistors and inductor...hence it not making a difference, other than by virtue of what parts are used for that.
Bottom line, even though folks seem to think any amp like that into a load into speaker sim is EVIL, they...well...are the guys that hear the grass grow...
Take the head in a load box or speaker with the line-out being taken by a DI right after the head will sound about the same. But at least that won't have those evil attenuators out of your signal path.
:)

If anything I'd think that the big equalizer - just like in real life- is the cab or in this case cab sim... I imagine a Twin with a Tube Screamer in front through a Recto cab would surprise some of the can't make a Twin sound like a Mesa folks...


I emailed Tim, waiting for a response about the design of the line out in the Faustine.. in any case, I'm with ya, I KNOW you know, and I know too- the speaker is like, 50% of the sound for sure. Take a Twin and plug it into an open back 2-12" with blues and woha hey are you sure that isn't an AC30 we are listening to?

A speaker (or an IR of a speaker) is just a big filter, nothing more, nothing less.

And I personally love loading down a Marshall that's on 10, and running it into a SS power amp and cab, at a reasonable volume, it sounds glorious. And feels great to play.

[bmi]

Sorry Ed but when i convert my records to mp3 i get...shit! And it's just guitar.
With the Marshall SE100 the line out is taken after a -30db network with resistors&capa&inductors.(don't know for the faustine)

[Ed DeGenaro]

I emailed Tim, waiting for a response about the design of the line out in the Faustine.. in any case, I'm with ya, I KNOW you know, and I know too- the speaker is like, 50% of the sound for sure. Take a Twin and plug it into an open back 2-12" with blues and woha hey are you sure that isn't an AC30 we are listening to?

A speaker (or an IR of a speaker) is just a big filter, nothing more, nothing less.

And I personally love loading down a Marshall that's on 10, and running it into a SS power amp and cab, at a reasonable volume, it sounds glorious. And feels great to play.
Always preferred a loaded down Marshall for gain stuff over straight...yup.

[Ed DeGenaro]

Sorry Ed but when i convert my records to mp3 i get...shit! And it's just guitar.
With the Marshall SE100 the line out is taken after a -30db network with resistors&capa&inductors.(don't know for the faustine)WEell, that would render it useless to me, but then again isn't it a speaker sim? I'm talking straight line-outs...
as for converting...but the frequency plot should stay somewhat the same...no?

[Brick_top]

I have no idea which is which but theres something about the way the chords ring in # 2 that make it a lil mo pleasing to my ears.

+1

That's how I feel too

[solo-act]

FINALLY!! AN APPLES TO APPLES COMPARISON. I've been whining about every A/B people post or talk about because the amps are never on the same playing field. Thanks Pete for showing how incredible the axe-fx is vs an amp played through the same IR.

I strongly prefer the first , way fatter mids. I hear the same thing. Mids in #1 are nice and clear, but have WAY more bark and growl than 2. The energy in the midrange/upper mids on #1 is much more exciting to me than #2.

The pick attack in #2 sounds like what I heard the five minutes I spent with the marsa sim in the axe-fx.

Guessing blindly I'd say
1 - MARSHA
2 - AXE-FX

[Don Petersen]

Not to side track Pete's thread...we're talking recorded guitar here, not like there is too much happening above 5k. I think you have more info thrown out on speaker frequency or model of it then loss due to mp3.

I didn't mean to start a mp3 vs. wav debate - I just explained why I used wavs when the source material is mp3. that's all.

[jorual]

I love both samples. The sound is fantastic in both and is quite the same. Second is laki more dirty and first is like more controlled but both are fantastic.

[bmi]

WEell, that would render it useless to me, but then again isn't it a speaker sim? I'm talking straight line-outs...
as for converting...but the frequency plot should stay somewhat the same...no?
You can choose then compensated or uncompensated output.
With compensated there is a frequency correction added (speaker emulation) if not i think you can consider it as a straight line out attenuated.

If my ears tell me that it sounds different the plot should be different isn't it?
By the way i'm using VLC and i'm not sure that it's a good converter.

[Blix]

FINALLY!! AN APPLES TO APPLES COMPARISON. I've been whining about every A/B people post or talk about because the amps are never on the same playing field. Thanks Pete for showing how incredible the axe-fx is vs an amp played through the same IR.

I hear the same thing. Mids in #1 are nice and clear, but have WAY more bark and growl than 2. The energy in the midrange/upper mids on #1 is much more exciting to me than #2.

The pick attack in #2 sounds like what I heard the five minutes I spent with the marsa sim in the axe-fx.

Guessing blindly I'd say
1 - MARSHA
2 - AXE-FX

Yeah I would guess the same indeed.
But then again, I'm already super impressed by what I hear from Axe.

[brain21]

'nuff discussion. Spill the beans! :-)

[Brick_top]

I would vote for him to wait a few days!

sorry brain21

[NAV1147]

No favorite and no idea which is which.

I have no idea either

[studiodunn]

They are close enough to be impressed regardless.

[rickboot]

I voted #2 as my fave. The first sounds like it is dialed in a little brighter which makes it sound harsh to me.

[t3oi]

It's mp3 so you've probably lost informations in both files.

So, is there a different encoding algorithm used for a mic'd cabinet to mp3 versus the Axe-FX to mp3?

[ben_allison]

When can we expect a reveal? I don't want to have to keep hitting refresh every 5 minutes!

[Hydesg]

first one is real and 2nd one is fake.

[000]

first one is real and 2nd one is fake.


Agreed, first one sounds like a tube amp.

They both sound real good though and I can't criticize either tone based on a strictly tube vs modeller argument.

[Ben Jam'n]

I love that people have some nearly identical reasons for preferring one or the other.

[ben_allison]

I love that people have some nearly identical reasons for preferring one or the other.

I know.

1's way more fizzy. 2's way more fizzy.

People just focus on different parts of the spectrum, or vote based on a sub-conscious obligation to the title (fake vs real, so #1 must be fake).

Honestly? They each sound similar, and differ slightly in a few areas.

[Hydesg]

i suppose the fizz can be removed with some smart eqing

I know.

1's way more fizzy. 2's way more fizzy.

People just focus on different parts of the spectrum, or vote based on a sub-conscious obligation to the title (fake vs real, so #1 must be fake).

Honestly? They each sound similar, and differ slightly in a few areas.

[gag halfrunt]

I know.

1's way more fizzy. 2's way more fizzy.

People just focus on different parts of the spectrum, or vote based on a sub-conscious obligation to the title (fake vs real, so #1 must be fake).

Honestly? They each sound similar, and differ slightly in a few areas.

Good call.


There are plenty of fizzy amps out there, and I wouldn't call either of those clips fizzy. They were both VERY close, and both very good.


Thanks, Pete.

[ben_allison]

Good call.


There are plenty of fizzy amps out there, and I wouldn't call either of those clips fizzy. They were both VERY close, and both very good.


Thanks, Pete.

5150's are fizzy. Rectos are fizzy. They're mainstays in heavy music. It all comes down to listening, and making choices that serve the creative goals before you.

[smilefan]

OK, OK, enough already. Over 100 voters and eight pages of responses.
Let's hear it! Which is which?!

[ben_allison]

OK, OK, enough already. Over 100 voters and eight pages of responses.
Let's hear it! Which is which?!

Yes, we've seen a slight trend, I think it's statistically significant. Spill!

[banjoze]

Whaddya talkin' about? #1 is making a comeback! He can't spill the beans now!

(Actually I don't care..)

[Sherman90]

The major discernible difference between the two is a clear, throaty harmonic overlay present in the second clip. It's most apparent when the open chords are allowed to ring at the end of a line. Only thing is, I can't tell if it's analogue or digital...I'm guessing it's a sign of the real deal, although I have no real preference for one over the other.

[Elmer]

They both sound good enough to me that I really don't care which is amp and which is Axe (but I'm dying to know! :D ). In a mix, nobody would be able to tell the difference - either one is just a great guitar sound, period.

[sinasl1]

Whaddya talkin' about? #1 is making a comeback! He can't spill the beans now!

(Actually I don't care..)

Totally! Every time I look the thread has another 20 responses and 500 more views, I'm letting this ride a bit longer

[Trebor Renkluaf]

The second part has a little more thump in the bottom end- I think it's the real amp.

[iggypop]

I think #1 is the Axe :D

[bkd_guitarist]

Totally! Every time I look the thread has another 20 responses and 500 more views, I'm letting this ride a bit longer

That would suck if you forgot which one was which. ;)

[bonedarrell]

#1 is the Axe Fx.

[Julia343]

that piece of halibut was good enough for Jehovah.

[sinasl1]

One thing that's interesting- I started a similar thread on Rig Talk, and most of the guys there think #1 is the amp. Here, most of you think #2 is. Interesting.

here's the thread:

http://www.rig-talk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=72321

[Sherman90]

One thing that's interesting- I started a similar thread on Rig Talk, and most of the guys there think #1 is the amp. Here, most of you think #2 is. Interesting.

here's the thread:

http://www.rig-talk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=72321

Rig-talk = :bonk

[banjoze]

ah, a good 'ol who-has-better-ears competition...!

Rig-talk is all talk! GearPage is all gEAR!

Man, I suck at taunting...

[Matt Jones]

I'm wondering where those people are from the gear demo and sound clip forum that swear they can hear digital artifacts. :huh

They should be able to nail this one ;)

I still like #2.

[Scott Peterson]

One thing that's interesting- I started a similar thread on Rig Talk, and most of the guys there think #1 is the amp. Here, most of you think #2 is. Interesting.

here's the thread:

http://www.rig-talk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=72321


It's like a Bobby Flay throw-down... forum style!!

Who is right? Who is wrong?

Two forums enter, one forum leaves.... bwhahahaha!

;) :D :hide2

[Brain2Me2]

I will get an Axe FX, just after I get the REAL amp I want...I really won't like for it to be my main rig...

Wether it sounds better than any modeling thing out there, or not...I still feel that it is modeling...

[Faustine Amps]

I emailed Tim, waiting for a response about the design of the line out in the Faustine.. in any case, I'm with ya, I KNOW you know, and I know too- the speaker is like, 50% of the sound for sure. Take a Twin and plug it into an open back 2-12" with blues and woha hey are you sure that isn't an AC30 we are listening to?

A speaker (or an IR of a speaker) is just a big filter, nothing more, nothing less.

And I personally love loading down a Marshall that's on 10, and running it into a SS power amp and cab, at a reasonable volume, it sounds glorious. And feels great to play.

The Phantom Dx's line-out circuit takes its source from the input, unless you have one of the later modded Phantoms with the selectable line-out "tracking" option. Pete's isn't modified, it's the original circuit.

When the Phantom is set to LOAD position, the reactive load impedance curve at the input (the load your amp "sees") looks like this:

[plot omitted]

This plot is from a Phantom set to 8 ohms "LOAD". Setting the load to a different impedance will shift this curve up or down but the curve will look essentially the same.

By comparison, the impedance curve of an 8 ohm resistive attenuator set to "LOAD" would be a straight line at 8 ohms across the above frequency range.

The interaction of the load with the amp's output circuit does effect the power factor, the frequency response, and the character of the distortion. So, the load type can effect the frequency response and "feel" of the line-out.

By the way, I have no clue which is which, but they both sound bitchin!

Regards,
Tim

[xrist04]

Totally diggin' this thread. Thanks Pete for taking the time to set this up!

:munch

[bmi]

So, is there a different encoding algorithm used for a mic'd cabinet to mp3 versus the Axe-FX to mp3?
No it's the same algorithm but the process applied will be different. Why? Because the mp3 makes a frequency analyses and the files are differents so the process will be too.
It's not as simple as you think.

[R.D.]

What I find absolutely fascinating is …,

Most are first identifying which clip they like the best. Then justifying “why” they like it best, more thump, less fizz, more open, etc; etc; ( you pick the adjective ).

Then as if by default …, that choice automatically becomes the real Marsha ….

Tubes = best, blah, blah ,,,,

Digital = bad ….

It never enters into their stream of consciousness that they Axe might actually produce the better tone in this instance ….

Things that make you go …, hmmmmmm ?

[Robert Burns]

Isnt the "Real One"...more expensive than the Ultra? Case closed!
Have a Marsha, and 200 world class effects thrown in! No brainer...

[jlagrassa]

With out reading this thread I picked the 2nd part of the clip as being the real Marsha it just sounded like it had more girth.... this should be interesting because they sound very close in tone!

[t3oi]

No it's the same algorithm but the process applied will be different. Why? Because the mp3 makes a frequency analyses and the files are differents so the process will be too.
It's not as simple as you think.

OK, give me the details and the data to back up your claim. We were given a spectrum analysis snap-shot. Given the same bit and sampling rates, we should have a fairly accurate and similar result, regardless of what the source file is, as long as both source files are converted at the same bit and sampling rate.

Yes, there is data lost in any A/D process, but the output shown in those graphs has 2 data points at times in a 1:1 ratio. You are suggesting that is mere coincidence or error and that the true signals do not match each other that closely?

[Adam Zaiger]

#2 sounds squishier and more tube like. I'd bet the house it's the real deal.

[ben_allison]

It never enters into their stream of consciousness that they Axe might actually produce the better tone in this instance

Well, in my post I said that I thought 1 was better, but not that I necessarily thought it was the real amp. The poll doesn't ask "which amp is real," it asks, "which do you prefer."

[bmi]

OK, give me the details and the data to back up your claim. We were given a spectrum analysis snap-shot. Given the same bit and sampling rates, we should have a fairly accurate and similar result, regardless of what the source file is, as long as both source files are converted at the same bit and sampling rate.

Yes, there is data lost in any A/D process, but the output shown in those graphs has 2 data points at times in a 1:1 ratio. You are suggesting that is mere coincidence or error and that the true signals do not match each other that closely?
The details and backup? Just gives a look how mp3 works with frequencies.

The spectrum analysis snap shot that you see is an average value for peaks on the whole 2 records. You didn't know when the peaks appears and if they appears at the same moment. It just show you that both records are working in the same frequencies with similar level, so get here a similar response.
How it's made? Don has played the records and asked to his software (vst or so) to record the peak for each frequency. So during all the play you can see a line moving and the peak for each frequency is record. Don could have played a Debussy file during the same time and have at the end more than 2 common points in 1:1 ratio.(pete is not playing debussy here, isn't it?)

I just say that the originals are different (even if they are close) which is obvious (just put your headphones on your head) and the mp3 converter introduces new differences due to the way the encoder works. It's just common sense.(of course it's about details and i'm ****ing the fly here)

More interesting is to know the answer.(when did he spill the bean?)

[t3oi]

The details and backup? Just gives a look how mp3 works with frequencies.

The spectrum analysis snap shot that you see is an average value for peaks on the whole 2 records. You didn't know when the peaks appears and if they appears at the same moment. It just show you that both records are working in the same frequencies with similar level, so get here a similar response.

I just say that the originals are different (even if they are close) which is obvious (just put your headphones on your head) and the mp3 converter introduces new differences due to the way the encoder works. It's just common sense.(of course it's about details and i'm ****ing the fly here)

More interesting is to know the answer.(when did he spill the bean?)

Again with the generalities. Give me specifics of why this snapshot is not an accurate representation of the 2 clips. If it is an average as you say, then appearing at the same moment is irrelevant because it is an average of the totals.

I thought the 2 clips were very close. The spectrum analysis shows that they are very close. Yet for some reason, you feel the need to argue that the Spec An plot is invalid and should be dismissed.

[bmi]

I never said "the Spec An plot is invalid and should be dismissed."
I just noticed that the mp3 is not strictly representativ of the original files. It was more for jocking and as i said i'm ****ing the fly here, but it's true.

[t3oi]

I never said "the Spec An plot is invalid and should be dismissed."
I just noticed that the mp3 is not strictly representativ of the original files. It was more for jocking and as i said i'm ****ing the fly here, but it's true.


Then what is the point of your disagreeing with my original assertion that the Spec An plot shows in data points what most of our ears are hearing?

[rcl]

My many tube amps havent been turned on since I got the Axe, and after messing with the presets last night, dang, amazing stuff! Loving the new amps. I use mainly 5 presets that go from clean to as dirty as a need it.

Currently using SHiverCLN, 1987X, MarshaBE, MarshaBE/ShiverLD, Marsha HBE.

Every setting has a wah on external 1(budda settings), and buttons for chorus/dly/trem/drive1/boost. External 2 is set depending on what I want. Leslie for one, phase for another, etc.

2 hours vanished last night, which is a very good sign ;)

[Don Petersen]

It just show you that both records are working in the same frequencies with similar level, so get here a similar response.


I've been using analysers for years to double check what my ears tell me, to compare/check my mixes to similar (genre-wise) top notch mixes, to tweak synth patches, to 'learn' certain characteristics of instruments and their differences to similar sounds (Jomox vs. 808 vs. 909 BDs for exsample) etc.

I have never seen two curves from different sources that were this close before.

[Jay Mitchell]

When the Phantom is set to LOAD position, the reactive load impedance curve at the input (the load your amp "sees") looks like this:(graph omitted)

Two suggestions here. First, although the horizontal scale makes it difficult to be certain, it looks to me as if the resonant frequency is a bit low for guitar cabs. Somewhere in the range of 80-120 Hz would be typical. Second, the quasi-inductive rise of the impedance with frequency begins at too high a frequency. With most cone transducers, the impedance is well above nominal (4, 8, or 16 ohms) by 1kHz. Here are a couple examples: http://eminence.com/pdf/cannabisrex.pdf and http://eminence.com/pdf/legend-1258.pdf . I chose Eminence models simply because they publish the required data and for no other reason.

The interaction of the load with the amp's output circuit does effect the power factor, the frequency response, and the character of the distortion.Agreed. For this reason, the impedance vs. frequency behavior of a specific speaker model is a non-negligible factor in the sound quality it will produce with a given amp.

[sgill72]

something overlooked here is the fact that we can go back and "really" listen to this. in a live situation, you'd just hear the amp as it's being played without getting the chance to "really" listen to it. as close as they are...and everyone trying to guess which is which is a testament to the axe fx. i'll keep mine and enjoy not having the gas like i used to. it's the perfect solution for me. ymmv.

i cannot tell which is which.

long live the axe fx.

[Wagster]

I'm getting an Axe-FX after hearing the clips. Yup this hard headed dedicated tube snob has had a change of heart.

[trainwrecker]

In the opening lick(s), after the single notes, in the chord he hits there's a mid harmonic that (to me) rings out better in #2 vs #1. Don't know which is which and I'm not implying either is better. Just a sonic observation.

[traynor_garnet]

I think this is a faulty test/comparison since the "real amp" is being DI'd. What we are hearing is the Faustine attenuator's DI rather than the amp. Let me explain . . .

When I had my Faustine attenuator I also did a similar comparison. First, I recorded my highly attenuated amp with a mic. Second, I recorded the same amp using the Faustine's line out, into my USB recording device, into Red Wirz cabs (just like the OP did in his comparison). The mic/cab sounded WAY better.

Both clips sound pretty good, but a mic'd up cab with the "real amp" (even highly attenuated) would sound better. IMO, there is no "real amp" in the OP's comparison.

TG

[Gasp100]

I think this is a faulty test/comparison since the "real amp" is being DI'd. What we are hearing is the Faustine attenuator's DI rather than the amp. Let me explain . . .

When I had my Faustine attenuator I also did a similar comparison. First, I recorded my highly attenuated amp with a mic. Second, I recorded the same amp using the Faustine's line out, into my USB recording device, into Red Wirz cabs (just like the OP did in his comparison). The mic/cab sounded WAY better.

Both clips sound pretty good, but a mic'd up cab with the "real amp" (even highly attenuated) would sound better. IMO, there is no "real amp" in the OP's comparison.

TG

"IMO, there is no "real amp" in the OP's comparison" -- Actually, there is no "real cab" or "real mic" in the OP's comparison.

[lowmantotempole]

I got rid of my Axe Fx to buy the real deal Marsha. I know I won't regret it. The Axe Fx won't have C45, Fat, and Sat switches on it. And it sure as hell won't have the JBE (Jerry Blonde Eye) mod like mine...

I sold my Axe Fx for a reason...

[LordOVchaoS]

I got rid of my Axe Fx to buy the real deal Marsha. I know I won't regret it. The Axe Fx won't have C45, Fat, and Sat switches on it. And it sure as hell won't have the JBE (Jerry Blonde Eye) mod like mine...

I sold my Axe Fx for a reason...

:rotflmao

You can totally "mod" it to sound however you want with the advanced and amp geek menus. You can even change caps 8) Sat? Boost switch pretty much = sat, that combined with some master volume tweaking and I'd bet my left nut that mod could be coaxed out of it. Fat? Play with depth, warmth, sag, thump, damp, etc... Still don't sound right? Add an eq or filter before/after/both??? Play with compression, etc...

The, "yea but t3h mods" is probably the worst argument I've ever seen for Amp>Axe-FX... yet I still read it daily.

[localmotion411]

I got rid of my Axe Fx to buy the real deal Marsha. I know I won't regret it. The Axe Fx won't have C45, Fat, and Sat switches on it. And it sure as hell won't have the JBE (Jerry Blonde Eye) mod like mine...

I sold my Axe Fx for a reason...

I think the perfect solution for me is to have an Axe-FX in addition to my favorite tube amps. Think of it all as tools in the toolbox. The real amps are the hammer, screwdriver, chisel, etc. The Axe-FX is that badass looking multitool that does everything the individual tools do 95% as well; the tool that you end up reaching for the most because it performs so many functions.

[lowmantotempole]

:rotflmao

You can totally "mod" it to sound however you want with the advanced and amp geek menus. You can even change caps 8) Sat? Boost switch pretty much = sat, that combined with some master volume tweaking and I'd bet my left nut that mod could be coaxed out of it. Fat? Play with depth, warmth, sag, thump, damp, etc... Still don't sound right? Add an eq or filter before/after/both??? Play with compression, etc...

The, "yea but t3h mods" is probably the worst argument I've ever seen for Amp>Axe-FX... yet I still read it daily.

The somebody perform the ULTIMATE modeling test! I would if I had the resources.

Take a Marsha, load it up with a real 4x12 (V30s or Greenbacks), or better, ISO cab it, choose your mic, say a SM57, and record it.

THEN take the Axe FX and duplicate the exact same setup with the models.

I'd bet there is a TON of difference.

To each their own... If you'd rather tweak than play stick with the Axe FX. I found myself tweaking more. SO I got rid of it.

[localmotion411]

The somebody perform the ULTIMATE modeling test! I would if I had the resources.

Take a Marsha, load it up with a real 4x12 (V30s or Greenbacks), or better, ISO cab it, choose your mic, say a SM57, and record it.

THEN take the Axe FX and duplicate the exact same setup with the models.

I'd bet there is a TON of difference.

To each their own... If you'd rather tweak than play stick with the Axe FX. I found myself tweaking more. SO I got rid of it.

I agree. The real test is not of the Marsha through a line-out into a cab sim vs. the Axe-FX. It should be the Marsha through a real cab mic'ed up vs. the Axe-FX Marsha model. What everyone would like to hear is how the model stacks up to what it is actually modeling, which is a real head/cab/speakers/room/mics.

[mtlin]

I agree. The real test is not of the Marsha through a line-out into a cab sim vs. the Axe-FX. It should be the Marsha through a real cab mic'ed up vs. the Axe-FX Marsha model. What everyone would like to hear is how the model stacks up to what it is actually modeling, which is a real head/cab/speakers/room/mics.

I can't agree with this. That would be as much an apples to oranges comparison as comparing two different amps and cabs miced up in different rooms with different mic placements. What would that tell you? Nothing.

[cliffc8488]

The real test is to mic the Marsha. Then, without moving the mic, hook a SS power amp to the cab and obtain the IR of the cab and mic. Load that into the Axe-Fx and compare.

[lowmantotempole]

The real test is to mic the Marsha. Then, without moving the mic, hook a SS power amp to the cab and obtain the IR of the cab and mic. Load that into the Axe-Fx and compare.

I like that idea too!

Either that or go direct out into the Marsha poweramp and compare the preamps...

[Scott Peterson]

The somebody perform the ULTIMATE modeling test! I would if I had the resources.

Take a Marsha, load it up with a real 4x12 (V30s or Greenbacks), or better, ISO cab it, choose your mic, say a SM57, and record it.

THEN take the Axe FX and duplicate the exact same setup with the models.

I'd bet there is a TON of difference.

To each their own... If you'd rather tweak than play stick with the Axe FX. I found myself tweaking more. SO I got rid of it.

I agree. The real test is not of the Marsha through a line-out into a cab sim vs. the Axe-FX. It should be the Marsha through a real cab mic'ed up vs. the Axe-FX Marsha model. What everyone would like to hear is how the model stacks up to what it is actually modeling, which is a real head/cab/speakers/room/mics.

I can't agree with this. That would be as much an apples to oranges comparison as comparing two different amps and cabs miced up in different rooms with different mic placements. What would that tell you? Nothing.

Not to hump Pete's thread; but check my Fractal 10.xx Shiva thread. I did JUST that with the Shiva and DPeterson (no relation) did a graph too; it's so close it's stupid even with 8 years between the clips and no effort on my part to even try to match the tone from 2002 by ear; I just set it similar to what I would do with a Shiva in the Axe-FX and played.

It's in this section, my A/B between a real mic'd Shiva in 2002 (with my $2100 preamp) and the Fractal running direct in 2010 (different guitars) is in post #4 there and I believe the comparison charts are on page 2.

You can keep laying down moving qualifiers - "well, sure... but the real test is if you...." but the truth remains, just as I've said since 2007 - the Axe-FX is a viable and very real alternative on par with the best amps, cabs and mic/preamp signal chains.

[solo-act]

I agree. The real test is not of the Marsha through a line-out into a cab sim vs. the Axe-FX. It should be the Marsha through a real cab mic'ed up vs. the Axe-FX Marsha model. You're missing the point. This is an amp to amp comparison, not a cab/mic to cab/mic comparison. The point is to determine which amp is which using the same mic/cab and this is a very logical way to do that.

So what do you hear?

[rcl]

I play through a V30 Eggy cab on one side and a standard marshall on the other, though I really dont hear much of the marshall, it's for the other guitarist to hear me. Tried a ton of line6 stuff and never got into it, though the other guit does, and he usually sounds pretty good, though I think he buries himself in effects at times.

I have a bogner XTC, elmwood M60, carol-ann and a gabriel voxer sitting on the floor behind the cabinet. I have a spidervalve MKii with the top handle removed ontop of the cabinet so my 4 space rack is the right level for my weakening 40+ year old eyes.
Havent turned on a tube amp since I got the Axe, except for the mesa TA(OCD in front of it) that I practice with at home when I am too lazy to bring the 4U and pedals home.

This week I also changed up the cabs. I use half of the eggy and the speakers from a mesa roadking, CL80s? I forget. I like the mix of V30 closed, CL80 open. The tube amps may be affecting the tone, since the open back cab probably bounces some sound off of them...

Seriously, if axe works for you, cool. If not, cool. My problem was I would get a sound I really like out of one of those amps and then I'd need a totally different sound. 4 sets of other peoples tunes will do that to you. So, I'd keep searching for the amp that gave me tones I really liked...that could cover all that ground. Thousands later, never did find it. I DID find it in the axe. Was more than happy with it before the upgrade. Loving it even more now. Add to that, I dont need a pedal board anymore(more thousands), I plug right into the axe, no wallwarts or other ugly stuff. Everything I could want for effects(I dont like too many) are in there. Wah, second pedal to control whatever I want it to, the flexibility is amazing, and I truly like the tone better than the sounds I got from tens of thousands of dollars of amps.

Looking forward to the car I get to buy my daughter when I sell all of it off, though I would be looking forward to it more if it was for me!

Open minds are a good thing. Second example...for years I was an LP guy. DTM, Collings, BakerB1, that was the sound I wanted(still have those!). Same thing though, sometimes I needed a different sound. Switched to a BakerB3 XS strat looking thing in HSH, that becomes SSS with a pull of the tone knob...I get all the tones I need and then some. No more sticky necks, back pains and growling every time a strat sounding song came up on the list and I had to "make do". Now, I just do :)

[localmotion411]

You're missing the point. This is an amp to amp comparison, not a cab/mic to cab/mic comparison. The point is to determine which amp is which using the same mic/cab and this is a very logical way to do that.

So what do you hear?

I understand the point of the comparison, and I think it is a very good comparison; crazy how close they are.

The point of my post was that I'd like to hear a comparison between the Marsha through a real cab in a real room with a real mic compared to a complete model of the same thing. My reasoning for this is that if I buy an Axe-FX, it will be substituting just that -- a real amp/cab/mic/etc. I completely understand and appreciate the original comparison, but I'd also like to hear how well the Axe-FX replicates everything else in the equation.

[Turbo Gerbil]

Apparently alot of you now complaining that the OP should have mic'd the cab didn't see this post by him earlier:


The Faustine does an incredible job loading the amp- it's reactive, not fixed, and I'll tell you if you haven't tried the Red Wirez sims then try them and prepare to be impressed. I also use Apogee converters, etc. Trust me it doesn't sound much different using a mic on a cab. As a matter of fact, I'm a bit unhappy with my current miking/cab in a large iso box setup that I have going and the red wirez route actually sounds better, probably. Even with a Scumback and API pres etc. I need to tweak my recording setup or possibly try another cab option (Rivera Silent Sister is the next thing I'm trying).

[localmotion411]

I can't agree with this. That would be as much an apples to oranges comparison as comparing two different amps and cabs miced up in different rooms with different mic placements. What would that tell you? Nothing.

I don't need you to agree with it, dad. I'm simply stating that I would like to hear for me how well the Axe-FX going direct does what a full amp rig mic'ed up does.

[localmotion411]

Apparently alot of you now complaining that the OP should have mic'd the cab didn't see this post by him earlier:

No panties in a wad whatsoever. I'm just saying that currently I use an amp through a cab mic'ed up when playing live and that I'd like to hear how the Axe would model that running direct. No tube purism going on. I have a feeling that the Axe will be a total revelation for me to own. I'd just LIKE to hear that is all. To ME, that's the real test because it will then replicate what I'm currently using live.

Granted, I'm not using a Marsha through a 4x12, but you get my drift. I like the original comparison, but the one I'm describing would be more useful to me.

[LordOVchaoS]

You're missing the point. This is an amp to amp comparison, not a cab/mic to cab/mic comparison. The point is to determine which amp is which using the same mic/cab and this is a very logical way to do that.

So what do you hear?

This.

In this comparison the amp is the only variable which is the best possible way to compare, that can't be argued.

The best part about it is you can take this tone to a gig... in a 2 space rack :D You also don't have to worry about bringing your own mic and scientifically placing it EXACTLY at the same angle and distance night after night to get almost the same tone you got the night before. Just an XLR or 1/4" instrument cable to the PA and you're set :) Same goes for the recording studio. Consistency... Tube heads and cabinets do not have it...

I've been through tube gear over the last decade that totals up to nearly as much as what my house is worth, I don't miss any of it. I have one cabinet left that is now up for sale.

[lowmantotempole]

I'm simply stating that I would like to hear for me how well the Axe-FX going direct does what a full amp rig mic'ed up does.

:agree Couldn't have said it better myself.

[Turbo Gerbil]

No panties in a wad whatsoever.

Ha... and here I was hoping I'd deleted that part of my comment fast enough... ;)

[localmotion411]

This.

In this comparison the amp is the only variable which is the best possible way to compare, that can't be argued.

The best part about it is you can take this tone to a gig... in a 2 space rack :D You also don't have to worry about bringing your own mic and scientifically placing it EXACTLY at the same angle and distance night after night to get almost the same tone you got the night before. Just an XLR or 1/4" instrument cable to the PA and you're set :) Same goes for the recording studio. Consistency... Tube heads and cabinets do not have it...

I've been through tube gear over the last decade that totals up to nearly as much as what my house is worth, I don't miss any of it. I have one cabinet left that is now up for sale.

The inconsistency, reliability of tubes, etc. is exactly why I need one of these. Not to mention all the cash it would free up for me, as you have mentioned. I don't want to sell my amps, but things are tight and I can always buy more when my finances allow.

[iff]

The somebody perform the ULTIMATE modeling test! I would if I had the resources.

Take a Marsha, load it up with a real 4x12 (V30s or Greenbacks), or better, ISO cab it, choose your mic, say a SM57, and record it.

THEN take the Axe FX and duplicate the exact same setup with the models.

I'd bet there is a TON of difference.

To each their own... If you'd rather tweak than play stick with the Axe FX. I found myself tweaking more. SO I got rid of it.

They're already doing exactly this on the Sneap forum and just I have posted my opinion there, I will post it here: that is an utterly useless test; a muscle-flexing of diehard "real" amp fans who won't accept the truth that modelers are fast catching up to tube amps.

The best possible testing is what is being done in this thread: having only one variable at a time, in this case that variable being the preamp. I can only hope that other tests will be performed using other variables which can then determine exactly what is holding back the final outcome of an all-modeler recording from sounding just as good as a well-mic'ed tube amp.

[localmotion411]

They're already doing exactly this on the Sneap forum and just I have posted my opinion there, I will post it here: that is an utterly useless test; a muscle-flexing of diehard "real" amp fans who won't accept the truth that modelers are fast catching up to tube amps.

The best possible testing is what is being done in this thread: having only one variable at a time, in this case that variable being the preamp. I can only hope that other tests will be performed using other variables which can then determine exactly what is holding back the final outcome of an all-modeler recording from sounding just as good as a well-mic'ed tube amp.

I'm not a fan of anything except good sound and am not flexing any muscles here. Just stating an opinion about what I'd like to hear. Not saying Pete's comparison is wrong in any way but that I'd like to hear a different one for my uses.

And it's not just the preamp but the whole amp, signal taken from speaker out.

I tell you what; you send me your mailing address and I'll overnight you a wooden post to argue with.

[LordOVchaoS]

The inconsistency, reliability of tubes, etc. is exactly why I need one of these. Not to mention all the cash it would free up for me, as you have mentioned. I don't want to sell my amps, but things are tight and I can always buy more when my finances allow.

No clip will show you everything you need to know. I recommend buying an Axe-FX, they have a trial period. Return it if it won't work for you. If it does work, sell all your old gear and use the money to remodel your house or something.

Or buy used and resell. You won't lose a dime. Sell one amp, buy an Axe-FX, like it? Good! Keep it! Don't? Sell it and buy your amp again. I rarely see an Ultra last more than a few hours in a classifieds forum.

[VaiSatchAtrucci]

The Earth is FLAT right?

[solo-act]

I don't need you to agree with it, dad. I'm simply stating that I would like to hear for me how well the Axe-FX going direct does what a full amp rig mic'ed up does. To compare it to your specific cab/mic, and have it be accurate, you'll need to make an impulse response of your cab/mic. Then you can compare your real cab/mic to virtual. Apples to apples.

But as you know, the OP had already done extensive comparisons between rewires cab/mics and his own cab/mics in an iso box and determined the redwires sounded plenty good enough to use and skip the hassle of using iso-box to record.

Here's my advice: Don't take the OP's word for it -- buy the axe-fx, redwires, and make those cab/mic comparisons for yourself. Then either return the axe-fx or keep and sell some gear to pay for it. I don't see what's holding you back except you'd like someone else to do that for you. Do it for yourself and make a decision -- simple.

[Jay Mitchell]

If playing through a guitar cab is your thing, you can just as easily do that with the Axe-Fx and a power amp as with a guitar amp. Ergo, this comparison is an excellent one and provides a reliable indicator of what you can expect if your use one.

If you're further interested in replacing guitar cabs with IRs and an an FRFR rig, then no clips will ever give a reliable indication of what you would hear in the actual room. That's one you'll just have to figure out (and decide) for yourself....

[iff]

I'm not a fan of anything except good sound and am not flexing any muscles here. Just stating an opinion about what I'd like to hear. Not saying Pete's comparison is wrong in any way but that I'd like to hear a different one for my uses.

And it's not just the preamp but the whole amp, signal taken from speaker out.

I tell you what; you send me your mailing address and I'll overnight you a wooden post to argue with.

My bad on the preamp argument... For some reason I thought the test was DI'ed from the effects out.


What exactly are your uses? When you hear the final modeled product and if it doesn't sound good enough for your taste, what part of the product can the blame be laid upon? There's no telling where the modeling went wrong.

[localmotion411]

My bad on the preamp argument... For some reason I thought the test was DI'ed from the effects out.


What exactly are your uses? When you hear the final modeled product and if it doesn't sound good enough for your taste, what part of the product can the blame be laid upon? There's no telling where the modeling went wrong.

I'd like to use the Axe-FX to replace my amp/cab and run direct into the PA; just use a powered monitor from the Axe-FX for me. Trying to get cranked amp sound in many live situations sometimes just flat doesn't work for me, even if I had a 5-watt amp. The Axe should be much more versatile.

Btw, I think the tone Pete's getting in those clips, be it Marsha or Axe-FX, sound incredible on both. I could care less which is which, if one indeed is the Axe. Hell, I'll probably just place my order today. I trust Pete's ear; he wouldn't use the Axe-FX if it didn't sound good, plain and simple.

[iff]

I'd like to use the Axe-FX to replace my amp/cab and run direct into the PA; just use a powered monitor from the Axe-FX for me. Trying to get cranked amp sound in many live situations sometimes just flat doesn't work for me, even if I had a 5-watt amp. The Axe should be much more versatile.

Btw, I think the tone Pete's getting in those clips, be it Marsha or Axe-FX, sound incredible on both. I could care less which is which, if one indeed is the Axe. Hell, I'll probably just place my order today. I trust Pete's ear; he wouldn't use the Axe-FX if it didn't sound good, plain and simple.

Makes sense. I agree with everything you said there. :aok

[sinasl1]

I'd like to use the Axe-FX to replace my amp/cab and run direct into the PA; just use a powered monitor from the Axe-FX for me. Trying to get cranked amp sound in many live situations sometimes just flat doesn't work for me, even if I had a 5-watt amp. The Axe should be much more versatile.

Btw, I think the tone Pete's getting in those clips, be it Marsha or Axe-FX, sound incredible on both. I could care less which is which, if one indeed is the Axe. Hell, I'll probably just place my order today. I trust Pete's ear; he wouldn't use the Axe-FX if it didn't sound good, plain and simple.

thanks!

[sinasl1]

this is an excellent post, from a guy on rig talk- this is how I feel pretty much:

sgill72 wrote:
having played both...the feel is there.

i will say however...it's more of "thing" not having the air moving behind you with a 4x12. there is something different about that that could contribute to the "feel" everyone says. imo.

that is the big difference for me between the axe fx and the "real" amps.

both have their place...and it's opinion and choice that determines which is best in YOUR situtation.

i love amps...and i love my axe fx.

[Sherman90]

Let's have the answer.

[ben_allison]

Let's have the answer.

+1, I have some decisions to make!

[Sixstring]

Let's have the answer.

Yes... after 13 pages it would be interesting to find out which is which.

How about it Pete? :munch

[planetal]

Thanks for doing the clips Pete.. I'm just glad I have tube amps I love and an Axe-Fx.

[djd100]

...or, just record the Axe sans cab sims through a neutral SS power amp and the same Cab/Mic/Mic-Pre setup that was used on the tube amp (at an identical SPL in the room of course).

Also, the source input should include single note lines, sustaining notes to compare "bloom" as well as first position power chords and such, and everything should be done in all octaves etc. Perhaps best to "re-amp" a single source track to both setups as well, minding both preamp's expected input impedance needs.

The real test is to mic the Marsha. Then, without moving the mic, hook a SS power amp to the cab and obtain the IR of the cab and mic. Load that into the Axe-Fx and compare.

[zentman]

The more people see number two increasing it's lead, the more people will pick it as an option. Human nature.

[giacomo]

In my opinion the 2nd is the real Marsha..! :)

[MightyGuru]

#2 is Marsha
#1 is Jan

[Jarrett]

#2 is Marsha
#1 is Jan
Hehe :D

[Don Petersen]

The more people see number two increasing it's lead, the more people will pick it as an option. Human nature.

you can see the poll results only after you've voted. Forum nature.

:)

[nickthenail]

1st clip: Axe Fx
2nd clip: Marsha
Both: Awesome

[zentman]

you can see the poll results only after you've voted. Forum nature.

:)


:bonk

[Brick_top]

#2 is Marsha
#1 is Jan

What's Jan?

[zentman]

What's Jan?


The uglier, slightly jealous , little sister of Marsha.

[cliffc8488]

you can see the poll results only after you've voted. Forum nature.

:)

I could see the results before I voted. :huh

[javajunkie]

you can see the poll results only after you've voted. Forum nature.

:)

However, quite a few people have revealed how they voted.;)

[Jarrett]

you can see the poll results only after you've voted. Forum nature.

You can see the votes before you voted. Forum newbie.

(all in good fun :D)

I've said since 7.04 (my personal aha moment) that it doesn't matter which is which. They both sound great.

Personally, I would like to see this done with a great clean tone.

[Scott Peterson]

You can always click "see poll results" before you vote if you wish... but that's a cheatin'. :D

[Sixstring]

The uglier, slightly jealous , little sister of Marsha.

Funny how some can show their age with out saying what it really is :rotflmao

[jharpersj]

I own both but thought clip #2 sounded slightly better !

How about a PT100 vs a similiar sound in the axe ?

[Don Petersen]

You can see the votes before you voted. Forum newbie.

(all in good fun :D)


You can always click "see poll results" before you vote if you wish... but that's a cheatin'. :D

heh,
I don't think HC has that 'feature', so I assumed... :D

[Ed DeGenaro]

I'd like to use the Axe-FX to replace my amp/cab and run direct into the PA; just use a powered monitor from the Axe-FX for me. Trying to get cranked amp sound in many live situations sometimes just flat doesn't work for me, even if I had a 5-watt amp. The Axe should be much more versatile.

Btw, I think the tone Pete's getting in those clips, be it Marsha or Axe-FX, sound incredible on both. I could care less which is which, if one indeed is the Axe. Hell, I'll probably just place my order today. I trust Pete's ear; he wouldn't use the Axe-FX if it didn't sound good, plain and simple.
And that's just it once you arrive at anything you like it doesn't matter whether it's an amp or a sim....
All the arguing we see with the "it doesn't feel right" I can make the argument from amp to amp, heck I've seen bigger differences between tubes from the same batch.

[Ed DeGenaro]

The somebody perform the ULTIMATE modeling test! I would if I had the resources.

Take a Marsha, load it up with a real 4x12 (V30s or Greenbacks), or better, ISO cab it, choose your mic, say a SM57, and record it.

THEN take the Axe FX and duplicate the exact same setup with the models.

I'd bet there is a TON of difference.

To each their own... If you'd rather tweak than play stick with the Axe FX. I found myself tweaking more. SO I got rid of it.
Except there are those of us that have a use for loaded down amps, and might even prefer it...I'm one of them...
vw9P5fInEZ8

[sgill72]

this is an excellent post, from a guy on rig talk- this is how I feel pretty much:

sgill72 wrote:
having played both...the feel is there.

i will say however...it's more of "thing" not having the air moving behind you with a 4x12. there is something different about that that could contribute to the "feel" everyone says. imo.

that is the big difference for me between the axe fx and the "real" amps.

both have their place...and it's opinion and choice that determines which is best in YOUR situtation.

i love amps...and i love my axe fx.

i haven't had the chance or need really to run the axe fx as a preamp into a power amp and out to cab. but i enjoy it direct so i don't have the need. so you may be able to get the "best of both worlds" in that scenario.

i am confident, however, if a sound is in your head...it can be attained by the axe fx no matter how you use it.

[ben_allison]

Except there are those of us that have a use for loaded down amps, and might even prefer it...I'm one of them...

I wonder what the dog's opinion is. :huh

[Ed DeGenaro]

I wonder what the dog's opinion is. :huh
His...and the others opinion is always the same...the guy that feeds us is a'ight.

[Ben R]

I know which one is which, but cannot and will not tell.

:munch




:mmm:mmm:mmm:mmm:mmm:mmm:mmm:mmm:mmm:mmm




:mob

.

[_pete_]

And that's just it once you arrive at anything you like it doesn't matter whether it's an amp or a sim....
All the arguing we see with the "it doesn't feel right" I can make the argument from amp to amp, heck I've seen bigger differences between tubes from the same batch.
Exactly.
I said in my earlier post that those two clips could easily be the same amp on different days.
Just the humidity alone can make speakers sound different.
Differences in line voltage between venues used to make my old Marshalls sound completely different from gig to gig.

[sinasl1]

Guys just so you can hear what a mic'd greenback sounds like vs. the loaded down amp/red wirez IR:

I did a quick clip. No mystery here- The 1st part is a PT100 proto, into a /13 2-12", mic'd with a 57, where the cap meets the cone about a 1/2inch off the grillecloth. Into an API pre into logic.

2nd part is the same amp sound, into a THD Hotplate set for load, (my Faustine is not here, so I used the THD which is a fixed load ) line out of Hotplate into my Apogee Ensemble, into Logic/Red Wirez IR with a Marshall 1960a and 57 1" off grille at cap edge. These are not gonna sound the same of course- different cab, different room, different pre (the Red Wirez are neve pres I think). And though I dig the Hotplate for what it is I prefer the Faustine.

But you can hear at least the same amp, through a real cab, mic and pre, and then the effect of the load into a IR.

Yes I prefer the real mic situation but I think most will agree the load/IR setup is far from "terrible" as a previous poster stated. It really captures the basic sound really well. And it's something you can use at 2 am. Through headphones. There's no eq here, no tweaking at all- just the raw sounds.

IR's are a viable option for lotsa situations where miking just isn't feasible. I am here to dispel myths!!!! This is my purpose!!

http://music.mp3lizard.com/peterthorn/

click on G12m/57 vs Red Wirez IR


EDIT: I should mention- I can't even feasibly record clips like this very often in my setup (yet), this is not my iso cab setup but a cab in my living room, freestanding, i.e. it's LOUD and I'm sure neighbors would start complaining pretty quick if I played often like I was when I recorded this clip... plus you are looking at:

SM57 $100
API pres $1800
cab $700

vs.

Red Wirez sims ($10 each)
Load/line out ($300 for a hotplate, $700 for a Faustine)

so, $2600 and alot of volume for the mic'd situation vs. $310-$710 for the IR situation.

I am totally into mics and cabs and moving air so I'll go to great lengths to be able to do that- BUT I appreciate there's an option that'll get me really good results without the cost and noise and hassle. I'll use both options for different things.

Much like amps and the axe fx. :)

[Moat]

I prefer #2, myself - seems richer, brighter, more pleasing in upper harmonics vs. a bit nasal and "coarse" for #1. The lower frequencies are richer/grindier/growlier in #2 as well.

Both sound excellent, though - a 90% vs. 100% thing, to me. Thanks for going to the trouble, Pete - these kind of threads are enlightening and fun!

[zygoat]

Sorry for the noob question but I was wondering how you set up the Redwirez IRs in Logic. I'd like to try recording some guitars with the cab simulation off in the Axe Fx and then go in later and choose IRs to see which ones sound better for the mix.

Do you use Space Designer?

[Ed DeGenaro]

Sorry for the noob question but I was wondering how you set up the Redwirez IRs in Logic. I'd like to try recording some guitars with the cab simulation off in the Axe Fx and then go in later and choose IRs to see which ones sound better for the mix.

Do you use Space Designer?
yup, just load the impulses in Space Designer...

[mtlin]

The real test is not of the Marsha through a line-out into a cab sim vs. the Axe-FX. It should be the Marsha through a real cab mic'ed up vs. the Axe-FX Marsha model. What everyone would like to hear is how the model stacks up to what it is actually modeling, which is a real head/cab/speakers/room/mics.

I don't need you to agree with it, dad. I'm simply stating that I would like to hear for me how well the Axe-FX going direct does what a full amp rig mic'ed up does.

I'm not your dad, son. And you never stated that you would like to hear anything just for yourself. You made a claim about what everyone would like to hear.

[ben_allison]

Guys just so you can hear what a mic'd greenback sounds like vs. the loaded down amp/red wirez IR:

They just sound different... the brightness of the first clip is something I'd try to tame, and the muddiness of the 2nd is something I'd try to remedy.

I think with tweaking, the Axe could sound a lot closer to the first.

And there's a lot of "stuff" I can hear in the Axe that I've never heard in a modeller before.

Neat.

[sinasl1]

Guys just so you can hear what a mic'd greenback sounds like vs. the loaded down amp/red wirez IR:

I did a quick clip. No mystery here- The 1st part is a PT100 proto, into a /13 2-12", mic'd with a 57, where the cap meets the cone about a 1/2inch off the grillecloth. Into an API pre into logic.

2nd part is the same amp sound, into a THD Hotplate set for load, (my Faustine is not here, so I used the THD which is a fixed load ) line out of Hotplate into my Apogee Ensemble, into Logic/Red Wirez IR with a Marshall 1960a and 57 1" off grille at cap edge. These are not gonna sound the same of course- different cab, different room, different pre (the Red Wirez are neve pres I think). And though I dig the Hotplate for what it is I prefer the Faustine.

But you can hear at least the same amp, through a real cab, mic and pre, and then the effect of the load into a IR.

Yes I prefer the real mic situation but I think most will agree the load/IR setup is far from "terrible" as a previous poster stated. It really captures the basic sound really well. And it's something you can use at 2 am. Through headphones. There's no eq here, no tweaking at all- just the raw sounds.

IR's are a viable option for lotsa situations where miking just isn't feasible. I am here to dispel myths!!!! This is my purpose!!

http://music.mp3lizard.com/peterthorn/

click on G12m/57 vs Red Wirez IR


EDIT: I should mention- I can't even feasibly record clips like this very often in my setup (yet), this is not my iso cab setup but a cab in my living room, freestanding, i.e. it's LOUD and I'm sure neighbors would start complaining pretty quick if I played often like I was when I recorded this clip... plus you are looking at:

SM57 $100
API pres $1800
cab $700

vs.

Red Wirez sims ($10 each)
Load/line out ($300 for a hotplate, $700 for a Faustine)

so, $2600 and alot of volume for the mic'd situation vs. $310-$710 for the IR situation.

I am totally into mics and cabs and moving air so I'll go to great lengths to be able to do that- BUT I appreciate there's an option that'll get me really good results without the cost and noise and hassle. I'll use both options for different things.

Much like amps and the axe fx. :)


AAARGH! sorry- but-I realized there was a better way to do this-

I have a Suhr line out box that you plug in between the speaker out of the head and the cab. It takes a tap off the amp while passing the signal through to the speaker too. The amp is still plugged into the speaker (in this case, the cab is iso'd in my closet and is just used as a load.. you aren't hearing it).

It sounded MUCH better than the Hotplate method. Brighter, clearer.

I believe the Faustine line out sounds much like this. Because of the reactive vs. fixed load factor. But the Faustine isn't here right now.

So I'm replacing the 2nd half of the G12m vs redwirez IR file with this new file... whew... following me? Just replacing the line out /IR part with a better sounding line out.

what you now hear is:

PT100- G12m- SM57- API- logic, vs:
PT100- suhr ISO line out box (with cab as load) iso into Apogee Ensemble, with red wirez G12m sim, cap edge .5 in with a 57.

I apologize if this is getting confusing- I probably should have started a new thread for this real speaker/mic vs IR stuff.

[Ventanaman]

Anyway you play it Mr. Thorn - all of the clips sound very good to me!

[Julia343]

Guys just so you can hear what a mic'd greenback sounds like vs. the loaded down amp/red wirez IR:

I did a quick clip. No mystery here- The 1st part is a PT100 proto, into a /13 2-12", mic'd with a 57, where the cap meets the cone about a 1/2inch off the grillecloth. Into an API pre into logic.

2nd part is the same amp sound, into a THD Hotplate set for load, (my Faustine is not here, so I used the THD which is a fixed load ) line out of Hotplate into my Apogee Ensemble, into Logic/Red Wirez IR with a Marshall 1960a and 57 1" off grille at cap edge. These are not gonna sound the same of course- different cab, different room, different pre (the Red Wirez are neve pres I think). And though I dig the Hotplate for what it is I prefer the Faustine. :)

And I preferred #2.... wow. I can get away on the cheap. I found the tone smoother. It will cut through too. That's how I've been putting down tracks at 11:00 pm.

Amp > Hot Plate on Load > Presonus Studio Channel > M-Audio Fast Track Pro > Pro Tools w/ Marshall 425 IR. And work the rest of the magic with an EQ plugin. If you're recording and don't mind tweaking the sounds who really cares if you get the desired result?

Another way is that H&K Redbox which takes a tap and adds a vintage 30 model to it.

So again -- when are you going to let the cat out of the bag?

[Ed DeGenaro]

AAARGH! sorry- but-I realized there was a better way to do this-

I have a Suhr line out box that you plug in between the speaker out of the head and the cab. It takes a tap off the amp while passing the signal through to the speaker too. The amp is still plugged into the speaker (in this case, the cab is iso'd in my closet and is just used as a load.. you aren't hearing it).

It sounded MUCH better than the Hotplate method. Brighter, clearer.

I believe the Faustine line out sounds much like this. Because of the reactive vs. fixed load factor. But the Faustine isn't here right now.

So I'm replacing the 2nd half of the G12m vs redwirez IR file with this new file... whew... following me? Just replacing the line out /IR part with a better sounding line out.

what you now hear is:

PT100- G12m- SM57- API- logic, vs:
PT100- suhr ISO line out box (with cab as load) iso into Apogee Ensemble, with red wirez G12m sim, cap edge .5 in with a 57.

I apologize if this is getting confusing- I probably should have started a new thread for this real speaker/mic vs IR stuff.
Let me guess...bright and or deep switch set to on? Means they were off since they work in reverse on the line-out of the Hot Plate.

[javajunkie]

Let me guess...bright and or deep switch set to on? Means they were off since they work in reverse on the line-out of the Hot Plate.


Wow, I didn't know that :huh

Thanks!

[Ed DeGenaro]

Wow, I didn't know that :huh

Thanks!
That's the nature of the beast of it being passive...when you shunt signal i.e. turn the eq switches off (going to the cab) it's gotta go somewhere so to speak...

[Faustine Amps]

Two suggestions here. First, although the horizontal scale makes it difficult to be certain, it looks to me as if the resonant frequency is a bit low for guitar cabs. Somewhere in the range of 80-120 Hz would be typical. Second, the quasi-inductive rise of the impedance with frequency begins at too high a frequency. With most cone transducers, the impedance is well above nominal (4, 8, or 16 ohms) by 1kHz. Here are a couple examples: http://eminence.com/pdf/cannabisrex.pdf and http://eminence.com/pdf/legend-1258.pdf . I chose Eminence models simply because they publish the required data and for no other reason.

Agreed. For this reason, the impedance vs. frequency behavior of a specific speaker model is a non-negligible factor in the sound quality it will produce with a given amp.

The Phantom's resonant freq is around 60Hz, more in the range of a JBL D120 or an EVM-12L. Celestion, Jensen, and Eminence speaker models have resonant freqs that range from mid-60's to above 110Hz from the specs I've found, but it's not my intention to perfectly mimic a particular speaker or cab configuration. The Phantom's characteristic impedance curve is similar to a speaker, but it isn't a speaker emulator and isn't meant to be.

By the way, Ed... I do own a 8 ohm Hot Plate and I've compared the line out signals. They do sound different. I attribute that difference to the resistive vs. reactive load. I'm not making any judgement about which sounds "better", since that's a matter of taste.

The great thing is (whatever load device or DI / line-out is used), once you get the amp's signal into the digital environment, it can be manipulated via software to the point that the "virtual" cab/mic are practically indistinguishable from a real cab/mic to most folks. Once you put it into the mix, if it sounds great who cares whether the speakers are "real" or not. We live in some very cool times!

Thanks for making that case, Pete (and quite convincing, I might add)!

Regards,
Tim

[Ed DeGenaro]

The Phantom's resonant freq is around 60Hz, more in the range of a JBL D120 or an EVM-12L. Celestion, Jensen, and Eminence speaker models have resonant freqs that range from mid-60's to above 110Hz from the specs I've found, but it's not my intention to perfectly mimic a particular speaker or cab configuration. The Phantom's characteristic impedance curve is similar to a speaker, but it isn't a speaker emulator and isn't meant to be.

By the way, Ed... I do own a 8 ohm Hot Plate and I've compared the line out signals. They do sound different. I attribute that difference to the resistive vs. reactive load. I'm not making any judgement about which sounds "better", since that's a matter of taste.

The great thing is (whatever load device or DI / line-out is used), once you get the amp's signal into the digital environment, it can be manipulated via software to the point that the "virtual" cab/mic are practically indistinguishable from a real cab/mic to most folks. Once you put it into the mix, if it sounds great who cares whether the speakers are "real" or not. We live in some very cool times!

Thanks for making that case, Pete (and quite convincing, I might add)!

Regards,
TimWhat happens to the line-out signal when you compare it with the Phantom and Hot Plate bypassed into a cab? Still different?

[gasman]

Really I like both, I don´t know which is real

Sorry for the noob question but I was wondering how you set up the Redwirez IRs in Logic. I'd like to try recording some guitars with the cab simulation off in the Axe Fx and then go in later and choose IRs to see which ones sound better for the mix.

Do you use Space Designer?
yup, just load the impulses in Space Designer...
I´d like too.
I have tried to load on space designer .wav redwire files but I can´t.

[Brick_top]

AAARGH! sorry- but-I realized there was a better way to do this-

I have a Suhr line out box that you plug in between the speaker out of the head and the cab. It takes a tap off the amp while passing the signal through to the speaker too. The amp is still plugged into the speaker (in this case, the cab is iso'd in my closet and is just used as a load.. you aren't hearing it).

It sounded MUCH better than the Hotplate method. Brighter, clearer.

I believe the Faustine line out sounds much like this. Because of the reactive vs. fixed load factor. But the Faustine isn't here right now.

So I'm replacing the 2nd half of the G12m vs redwirez IR file with this new file... whew... following me? Just replacing the line out /IR part with a better sounding line out.

what you now hear is:

PT100- G12m- SM57- API- logic, vs:
PT100- suhr ISO line out box (with cab as load) iso into Apogee Ensemble, with red wirez G12m sim, cap edge .5 in with a 57.

I apologize if this is getting confusing- I probably should have started a new thread for this real speaker/mic vs IR stuff.

The player appears greyed out when I select that file, no sound coming through :huh

edit - now it works

[sinasl1]

Let me guess...bright and or deep switch set to on? Means they were off since they work in reverse on the line-out of the Hot Plate.

no Ed I had em off... I can send you the file if you want- comparing mic'd speaker, then Suhr iso line out box w/speaker as load and using a red wirez IR, then hotplate line out with same IR

sorry I don't have the Faustine here right now, it shipped out on tour

email me at guitarnerd@me.com with your email

[sinasl1]

Sorry I feel like I derailed my own thread here-

back to the original issue at hand! :)

i'll reveal the truth tonight

[Brick_top]

oh.. I was hoping for at least another day

[bmi]

It's midnight here. :sarcasm

[Ed DeGenaro]

Really I like both, I don´t know which is real



I´d like too.
I have tried to load on space designer .wav redwire files but I can´t.
By clicking on "ir sample" inside space designer it doesn't let you load them..works here.

[electronpirate]

Wow, this had devolved since I checked it. So many people have 'qualifiers' and moving arguments that it's silly. How is it you don't trust your own ears? The constant 'I need to have it through the same this and that, and it wasn't EQ'd right, use another mic, recording techniques'...blah.

It sounds good. End of story. Start your own 'All the Axe-FX tests are rigged!' thread and we can all have a tilt there. (PM me with the thread so we can argue until Scott slaps us around...)

Came back on track abit tho.

I look forward to hearing the result. Regardless of which one it is.

EP

[Kojack19]

Sorry I feel like I derailed my own thread here-

back to the original issue at hand! :)

i'll reveal the truth tonight

Is that EST or PST? :drool

[zentman]

Just say number 2 was the axe and then we can watch this :mob

[thirsty one]

I can't tell for sure which one is the Axe. I liked both clips. But I favored #2. I believe #2 is the AxeFx.

Mr Thorn, I hope you will share this patch with us at the conclusion of this throwdown.

I felt the second clip sounded thicker in the mids.

[riffy]

I agree. The real test is not of the Marsha through a line-out into a cab sim vs. the Axe-FX. It should be the Marsha through a real cab mic'ed up vs. the Axe-FX Marsha model. What everyone would like to hear is how the model stacks up to what it is actually modeling, which is a real head/cab/speakers/room/mics.


I did this, I don't know how many years ago now with a REAL vintage AC15.
No one could name which was the Axe-FX and which was the real AC15 then either.

Same as it ever was.

Gary

[Don Petersen]

Mr Thorn, I hope you will share this patch with us at the conclusion of this throwdown.

I agree.
No matter what he Axe is 1 or 2, I'd be proud and very pleased to have such a sound at my disposal.

kudos for setting this up.

[Sixstring]

I did this, I don't know how many years ago now with a REAL vintage AC15.
No one could name which was the Axe-FX and which was the real AC15 then either.

Same as it ever was.

Gary

I remember that thread... that was one of the clinchers for me buying the Axe.

[Ventanaman]

It sounds good. End of story.

Amen brother.

To me, all of Pete's clips (Axe or not) sound better than what I hear from 99% of club bands and most major touring acts. It just goes to show that if you have talented ears, the AxeFx is just as good of a sonic palette as most big-time tube amps. Just my $.02.

[emperor_black]

Maybe I'll do a comparison of the 10.0 Uberschall and the real rev blue Uberschall before I sell it.

[Jay Mitchell]

Did a quick relisten. I still don't have a clear preference, but I'll hazard a guess that #1 is the amp and #2 the Axe-Fx.

[Galo]

The second one sounds smoother to my ear...dont know witch it is.:huh

[ben_allison]

Bated breath? I've got it.

[Rough Boy]

I JUST EJACULATED!!

it's THAT good...

I prefer number 2, it's much crisper and gooder. Number 1 is the amp, me thinks.

[ZomBiE DinkLE]

I JUST EJACULATED!!


Thanks for letting us know. :munch


http://www.shareimages.com/images/thumbs/0/0/2/43271-qZyWmpubk6CnlZyVmao-splooge.gif (http://www.shareimages.com/image.php?43271-qZyWmpubk6CnlZyVmao-splooge.gif)

[mattball826]

these test are cool and fun like clips can do. they do not show actual performance comparison example imo. it is fun guessing game though.

kudos to the player for this and kudos to fas for new models to enjoy!

ok. second one real amp? hard to say since first is higher in gain. at least is in my sony mdr7506 cans.

[ben_allison]

these test are cool and fun like clips can do. they do not show actual performance comparison example imo.

How so? Few people on this or any forum are as familiar with performance than Pete!