The Frustration of Modelers!!!!

strumminsix

Member
Messages
4,483
Try this: after you have your patch setup with the right amp/cab/fx, try to limit your knobbing to 60 seconds per block then STOP.

My experience is I would spend 2 hours tweaking a patch, fatigue my ears, over correct everything, get it pleasing with blown ears and frustration, shut it all down, feel like I wasted my night cuz all I did was noodle and knob, reboot the next day, hate the patch, repeat.
 
Last edited:

John Mark Painter

Gold Supporting Member
Messages
13,632
It seems everyone has a different approach. Some say to dial in on the flattest response, which would be the Xitone. I’m gonna try getting back to basics and try the stock presets again.
You need to dial in on an approximation of whaT EVERYONE ELSE will hear it on.
Honestly..dialing in on a set of Mackies isn‘t a waste if you playing in a club
 

dirty145

Member
Messages
459
Try this: after you have your patch setup with the right amp/cab/fx, try to limit your knobbing to 60 seconds per block then STOP.

My experience is I would spend 2 hours tweaking a patch, fatigue my ears, over correct everything, get it please with blown ears and frustration, shut it all down, feel like I wasted my night cuz all I did was noodle and knob, reboot the next day, hate the patch, repeat.
Amen, such is my life.
 

pattste

Silver Supporting Member
Messages
1,916
If you listen to music regularly on whatever (studio speakers, IEM, headphones) you use to check your presets, you will have a reference for how things are supposed to sound.
 

Guitardave

Silver Supporting Member
Messages
10,951
If you listen to music regularly on whatever (studio speakers, IEM, headphones) you use to check your presets, you will have a reference for how things are supposed to sound.

As the broadest of generalities that is true. I have several different headphones varying from budget to expensive and each one sounds quite different. As do my IEMs, studio monitors, etc
 
Last edited:

dirty145

Member
Messages
459
Yep - people can't seem to accept that pa systems aren't very neutral.

Flat response is largely a myth for all sorts of reasons. And often the pa has exaggerated lows and highs with inadequate mid-range.
So again the contradiction as to what we should even use as reference. Some say the flattest, some say a regular PA. Huge difference if you ask me.
 

Alex Kenivel

Member
Messages
2,635
So again the contradiction as to what we should even use as reference. Some say the flattest, some say a regular PA. Huge difference if you ask me.
If you want your presets to perform well on a PA system, it's best to use some sort of PA system. You will still need to perform minimal tweaks at the gig.

If you want your presets to perform well on a variety of different systems, it's best to use some reference monitors in a well-treated room. You will still need to perform minimal tweaks at the gig.
 

Guitardave

Silver Supporting Member
Messages
10,951
If you want your presets to perform well on a PA system, it's best to use some sort of PA system. You will still need to perform minimal tweaks at the gig.

If you want your presets to perform well on a variety of different systems, it's best to use some reference monitors in a well-treated room. You will still need to perform minimal tweaks at the gig.

+1

Bottom line is it takes understanding and experience to consistently get great tones. It's the same thing with regular amps/cabs/mics.

In some respects modeling is easier to get right, in others the traditional gear is.
 

RevDrucifer

Gold Supporting Member
Messages
3,234
As the broadest of generalities that is true. I have several different headphones varying from budget to expensive and each one sounds quite different. As do my IEMs, studio monitors, etc

Yep; when I check my song mixes, I use a set of stock Apple earbuds, then Beyerdynamic 990 DT’s straight into the mixer/AxeFX (it’s my interface) and then I’ve got a couple of those Waves plugins that simulate control rooms which have pre-set EQ curves to work with certain headphones (the 990’s being one of them), so I can, in theory, hear what my mix sounds like in Ocean Way or Chris Lorde Alge’s studio.

Once I get to a point where there’s an even balance between all of those, I know I’m pretty good to go and then check the mix in my truck.
 

hotrats73

Silver Supporting Member
Messages
4,147
I guess some of us care more than others when it comes to how we sound…

It's not about how much you care but about being realistic.
Unless you run the foh sound you don't have control on what happens after your xlr out and even if you run the foh having the foh sound and the stage sound identical is virtually impossible.

If that's your thing, you can spend hours tweaking your presets, it's ok, but hours of tweaking will not alleviate your frustration.

Frustration comes from not being able to let go.

As @mdubya wrote " This is being waayyyyy over thought." And it is indeed because increasing complexity won't make the OP gain a single second of peace of mind.

I feel the need to repeat myself :)


1. choose the best monitoring system you have at disposal, being it studio monitors or whatever: the flatter, the batter.
2. dial the best tone you can at a good volume a use that as feed for the foh. that's for the audience, set it and forget it.
3. on a different path correct the tone set for the foh with a bit of eq to compensate for the FRFR monitor coloration you use on stage and your taste. that's for you, not the audience, set it and forget it. do it at pretty good volume, at the distance position you'll typically have it on stage.
4. don't overthink things.

enjoy your music ;)
 

gigsup

Member
Messages
1,537
I have a QSC 10.2 that I use for reference to give me an idea of what the FOH might sound like. I use the default setting, as I feel that would be the representative DSP choice for what would be chosen at FOH.

The QSC 10.2 is a nice monitor, but it's not close to 'flat' at the standard setting, especially in the low end where it really matters. Look at the graph below, it's basically +4db in the OCTAVE between 80hz and 160hz!
To make a long story short, every adjustment you make to your settings in your modeler is skewed by your perception of the sound through the 10.2 monitor.

I've posted this graph for 10.2 users before. I took the measurements myself with an Earthworks QTC40 using ground plane measurements in a reflection free environment of almost 26ms.
I recommend to use these settings if you're doing any critical adjustments of your modeler with a 10.2 monitor.
K10.2 with and without EQ.jpg


As far as issues with direct comparisons with your Xitone monitor, you don't know what you don't know.
It's not safe to assume that because something cost X number of $ that equals flat frequency response.

Here is a graph of my 10.2 monitor with a Yamaha HS8 monitor, note the extended octave of usable frequency range available in the HS8 between 40-80Hz. The correlation is very good with the exception of 250-500hz, and that's within 2db. These are my measurements as described above.

HS8 vs. 10.2 w:EQ.jpg


Below is a picture of various monitors while making comparisons of the original source (various amps and speakers) to the individual monitors, using a Kemper and direct profiles of the amps.
This isn't the final placement for the whole thing, it's from when I was setting up.
I've spent a few days testing in different environments like this, comparing multiple studio monitors and live performance monitors with the real thing (original amps and cabs), making efforts to standardize the monitor placement in various rooms to make decisions on preferred IRs.

How you go about standardizing a test environment that works for you is up to you, nothing is ever perfect. But making sure at least one reference monitor is performing as flat and optimally as possible, with measurement verification, is the first step to making any informed comparison.

3-way Compare.jpeg
 

Baba

Silver Supporting Member
Messages
7,770
Totally agree.

I mean, unless you dial an amp in absurd ways if you feed the foh with a nice IR or a stock cab you'll be fine.
I guess some of us care more than others when it comes to how we sound…

hotrats73 is not wrong though. When I was using modeling, I'd pull up the Placater model, pull up the Greenback stock cab and use my favorite mics, and I rarely ever touched any EQ or anything after that.

Here's another reason why this level of scrutiny can only lead to frustration: different PA speakers sound different, (notice I didn't say FRFR ;) ), we know this. So, if you were to dial in your tone on a QSC, and show up somewhere where they have, (insert other brand here), your tone will NOT be the same.

You will be just chasing your tail at that point.
 

JasonE

Member
Messages
707
I dial mine in on a first generation QSC K8 on a speaker stand in my room. I also have my amps in this same room. I run my amp at the volume that I gig with it at for a reference. I then run my profiler/modeler into a small mixer from the main output and then into the K8. I turn the volume up to a comparable level to the amp at gigging volume and adjust from there.

I also have a set of K12 speakers that I use as my mains for my PA. I know the differences in sound from the K8 to the K12. These are the speakers that I use live so I know what it is going to sound like live when dialing it in.

I dial the tones in to be similar to my amp. I get the highs, mids and lows in the same area. I also set the profiler/modeler to have a high and low cut that matches the speakers in the cabinets that I normally use with my amps.
 

gigsup

Member
Messages
1,537
As @mdubya wrote " This is being waayyyyy over thought." And it is indeed because increasing complexity won't make the OP gain a single second of peace of mind.

You can tune a guitar to itself, you can tune it to the piano, you can tune to a pitch fork, or you can tune to the strobo-tuner in your iPhone. It all differs in complexity and accuracy.

If the intonation of the instrument is off, though, it's all for naught.

Someone please tell me how you get consistent tones with your modeler.

The frustration you describe is acoustic, there is nothing wrong with the modeler. Your two reference monitors are nothing alike, and I'm telling you from direct experience that the 10.2 needs to be tweaked as described to have a reasonable chance of performing as you intend it to perform.
 




Trending Topics

Top Bottom