Mate, thanks for the video. Please note that impulse response theory is a lot more complex that just eq'ing a signal, and it relates to changes over time to the original signal after applying an IR function to it. No only it changes amplitude at different frequencies (eq'ing), but also shifts in phase, which help simulate nuances of real speakers and microphones.
Thanks for your response. This is really good information and I appreciate your politeness :) I think it depends on how the IR was shot. I've seen people shoot an IR by giving it 1 sample of white noise. I don't understand how that could possibly capture any shifts in phase or nuance of the speakers or microphone from such a short sample. I wouldn't be shocked if IR technology improves significantly and if that part of the video is eventually obsolete (as it may already be based on your info), but I still think the arguments surrounding Option Paralysis, the DI Feel and Industry Poison will stand for a long time.
@@aftermathstudios3717 I don't disagree with your comments. I just wanted to point out that IR theory is much deeper than just having a very fine equaliser in your signal path. Obviously having 1 sample will only model the speaker/cab/mic for that specific condition. However you will still capture phase shifts, as the sample would be of a number of seconds, in which the system will respond accordingly. For example, if the sample is 5 seconds long, recorded at 48k, you would have 48000*5=240,000 values of data. You can read up about theory of convolution and impulse response if you want to get deeper into it. This is part of the engineering curriculum and the supporting theory for digital signal processing.
@@christian_oz I would get behing what Christian is saying and confirm that an impulse response does more than EQ the original signal (just like he mentioned, has to do with convolution function, and some direct/inverse transforms). From the "accuracy" point of view that you mention at the end, to this day we can't reach a 100% accurate amp profile (it is mathematically impossible), we get pretty close (like 99.9% close, but never a 100%). There is more to an equipment than just how close it sounds to the amp, such as how much cpu computing it needs to do so, and what fx it can load, etc etc. So basically just trying to say that amp modelling really is at a point where, if you are going to use IRs to simulate the cab, you just can't hear the difference with a real amp anymore, at all. If you record a real amp, with a real cab, that's another story.
I think your critisms of the Axe-FX are a little outdated in 2023 if your refering the AxeFX2. Its been 6 years since the 3 came out and it is so far ahead of the 2 it's hard to articulate. The firmware updates are always free by the way. Also the cab modelling on top of the IR is vastly more than just an EQ curve. There's a lot of non-linear processing behind the scenes that models speaker behaviour, breakup and compression. All of these don't exist on the AxeFX 2.
Ah of course. The AFX 3 is obviously much more accurate than the AFX 2 which was regarded as 100% spot on perfect, which is significantly better than the AFX Ultra that was regarded as 100% perfect... But the AFX3? Thats like 110% perfect. Wait for the AFX4 which will be like...115% perfect!
@@mattrg470 To indulge your strawman-as-fuck argument, I can't find SPECIFICALLY where he said it about the Ultra, but he definitely said it about the AFX 2.
Do you honestly think you could, with consistency and accuracy spot the difference between an AFX 2 and an AFX 3 in a blind shootout, considering 95% of people can spot the difference between an AFX2 and the real thing in a blind shootout?
can you demonstrate what you are saying about “averaged out EQ curve”? I think the biggest problem with IR’s in your situation is the load box you’re using won’t necessarily match the load of the IR’s you’re using. That said, I think if you have real amps and are passionate about them, then use them! It’s much more fun to use the real thing
What all you good musicians absolutely need to remember is this: Since the dawn of electric music a guitar's sound is no longer technically "pure" once the note you have plucked reaches the transducer (otherwise known as a pickup). Once your sweet sound gets converted from a sound wave based energy to an electric energy you have already begun a process of artificiality. A Techno-auditory fantasy of sorts. Electric guitar sound has always been the equivalent of a purring or roaring motor on an open highway whereas unplugged guitar has always been the sound of a man's feet walking or running on an open field. In the electric world the energy always has to make its way back to where it started so that someone can hear it with biological ears. Everything in between is a signal chain of manipulated electrical energy. Who is to say (without revealing their rank hypocrisy) which way of manipulation is best, with regards to digital v.s traditional amps? Everyone who plays electric guitar and tweaks his signal chain is simply putting upgraded parts in his car just the way he/she envisions and pleases.He/she is most certainly not cutting a trail thru a field however. Much like the invention of the electric guitar was an inevitable musical outcome of the industrial revolution the furtherance of the power of making music, and its Techno-allied nuances , continues into the digital age!
I am pretty old school 80s player & I love real amps. Marshalls & 5150 amps for years.. I love the sound of a cranked amp, however, I have an AxeFx 3 that I use for recording. I use that for the consistency, as an interface, for the routing/reamping, & how quick & easy it is. I do have to say when I am practicing & playing for myself, I would much rather play a real amp any day. They are different of course, thus why I use them for different things. Great video btw
Excellent explanation on this topic. You outlined the issues clearly. I can see why at times using a modeling digitL setup can be very helpful. A friend has the Boss GT 1000 and he opened up the settings on his computer. He had so many parameters to work with it took him weeks to dial on what he wanted and even then he was not completely satisfied. Another friend got the Boss GX 100 and preferred the more simpler setup on it. He turned off the mic modeling, ran the Boss into a Blues Jr and used a mic in his favorite spot which helped him have some more dynamics rather than the impulsive average and the mids just sitting there nice and even.
For performance and feel, I prefer my amps. The music industry want all things cheap and quick, the same in the studio. Nobody is interested on your feeling and the influence to your performance or your tone with depth and your right feel, only when you are some of the top players. The tone guy in a studio will cut much from your signal and the FOH too. Tone is only your obsession and nobody need the newest shit to play good...
The difference is not only the frequency response. The biggest difference is in the transient response. And the most important for transients is the preamp Hi Z. A lot of those computer, or hardware computers, even most DI's and compact mixer will write "Hi Z" but it's not as high as a real guitar amp. The reason is they are afraid of noises from the CPU or PSU. When you start using a real guitar pre-amp then plug the FX send or pre-out to the digital simulation device (PC or hardware) you will hear a huge difference in your tone's presence. It's then better to disable the preamp stage from the simulation and only leave the simulation of the power amp and speaker. It will also offload a lot of processing from the digital device.
This is ne of the best shares about all this stuff regarding DI , amps , and little nuances that create a unique sound signature. Speakers and eq is so much on sound. And most of our favorite amp tones went through analog boards to track - really well done - Sir - I accept many opinions on these subjective thoughts - this was great on many levels. Less options more song and innovation. Great !!!!
In 20 years, the software used to program the AXE-FXIII is likely to be totally obsolete and unusable on any standard computer. And the front interface is notoriously difficult to work with - necessitating an external computer for workflow. In 20 years it will be completely different operating systems at that point and Fractal isn't going to have any motivation to keep updating software that they sold 20 years ago.
Some interesting points from your own experience. Personally I Moved from digital to real amps because you cannot play real amps at sufficiently high volumes anymore except within controlled environments like a studio with the amp in a separate room. Especially if you plan on using real cabinets like you suggest. Live most gigs I do are small venues so again you can’t use a Peavey, Bognor, soldano, or Marshall at a point where it’s really cooking. A digital solution for a home studio or playing small venues simply makes more sense. I take your point about the industry updating hardware affecting previous generation prices, but that is actually a good thing. It means a younger person can get A high quality piece of gear which sounds great and they can learn with for cheap money. I own an Axe Fx Ultra and it’s brilliant, I might upgrade to the 2 just to get scenes and x/y but I doubt the amp modelling is substantially better, but the reverb algo’s do sound better to my ears. On option paralysis that is dependent on you. Personally I like to have the options, but that does not mean I have to use them.I can dial in my Axe Fx and get a great sound as quick as I can with an amp. Often quicker because I don’t have to worry about volume or microphone choices, placement etc. 20:18 If however I am feeling creative I can take time to build an amp that mods a real world one and add unusual IRs that compliment it. In the end it’s what ever works for your workflow
For live playing and jamming in a room, nothing beats a cranked tube amp. A small 20-50 watt tube amp is plenty for that purpose. But for ease of recording, travel and so forth, amp modelers like Fractal and Kemper win easy. Both are valuable.
The differences I hear are small EQ tweaks. I use a Fractal, and I have a bunch of tube amps. Anybody who says tube amps are really still that much better than modern modellers, when you've taken the time to get the most out of the modeller, is blowing smoke. They're really that close today. You'd never know which was which by listening to a recording in isolation from that information. What makes more of a difference is the setup beyond the amp. Use a tube power amp stage into a 4x12 and it's going to feel completely different to the player than using an FRFR speaker and an IR. They ARE different and they sound and FEEL different. Especially if controlled feedback is part of your sound.
Yeah, sure, but some of us wasted 3 years toiling away with that shit only to find we weren’t playing guitar, and instead we were frustratedly fucking with some eq’s.
Just watched this and that was by far the best video I've seen on the whole amp sim argument. Very well done and I can totally relate to your points. Thanks!
Your hard work of making this video paid off. I will now ditch my ideas of getting an Axe-FX3 and save up instead to a real Soldano SLO 100 and an Orange Thunderverb 200 along with each 4x12 cab. Love your real guitar sound! (Devin Townsend-fan here as well).
I think we should do it like in the 60's; Just play off the stage and adjust your amps to the drummer. i.e; the audience would hear your amp directly to their ears.
The only thing I'm concern is that this digital modelling industry slowly killing real amps. They're becoming obsolete as well as photo film or vinyl records. But I like the real deal.
This is an argument in favor of the kemper which is still being sold. Btw completely agree with your argument. Also think placebo effect is massive in this area (and I have previously owned an axe fxiii and axe fx ultra)
Great segment. Subscribed! I'm not here to bash the Fractal Designs - they are a fantastic toolbox. I bought an Ultra brand new, and later the Axeii Mkii brand new. The Axeii is better sounding than the Ultra - and both sound great. But I stopped short of an Axe3. I'm pretty sure the only advantage I would find with the Axe3 is the extra FX loops for routing my other external gear - burnt a hole in my pocket twice already with the software-style obsolescence. The original Fractal boxes are good enough (but my real amps are better).
Wait a minute... Let me get this straight. You're going to get option paralysis by having 500 million different options available to you in software, but everybody is going to end up sounding the same? How does that work? Even with dyscalculia, I can still tell that something ain't quite adding up..
The important question to ask (and was admittedly only hinted at...) is: Are those 500 different options actually making any noteworthy difference? And you're taking things a smidge out of context there. What I'm saying is, if you use a high-gain amp (sim or otherwise) into the Bogren (or anybody else's) IRs, the guitar tones are gonna be awfully similar. Meanwhile, your amp, cab, speaker, room, mic technique and mic, which you have all sorted out and positioned how YOU like it is going to be far more reflective of your guitar tone. This contention is focused on a completely different scenario to the option paralysis scenario. I mean...the option paralysis scenario was stuffing ME up. I didn't realise it until I went back to real amps. If it doesn't stuff you up, awesome! Have a blast.
Wow, this was a VERY well thought out and articulate video. Especially your points on the updates for "better tone" being marketing BS and the issue with "cookie cutter sounds". Props to you! I'm subbed. Question: in the last clip you showed there was a noticeable difference in the sound between the Axe FX with IR vs. Axe FX into real cab which I have not noticed when I compare IRs and cabs myself. I have two ideas of what might have caused that: 1) Was the IR you used created off the same microphone, mic placement, and cabinet as your "real cabinet" or was there a difference? It sounded to me like a possible variance in microphone placement? Or 2) perhaps you didn't set the low and high cut to match? A guitar speaker has a frequency response of like 75-5000 hz while modellers go to to like 20k, so a fairly aggressive high cut is needed to simulate the actual speaker. If there's another reason too please share, cause I'm curious :). Regardless, I thought the Axe FX into real cabinet was the best sound, so maybe it's not so much "why real amps win" and more so "why real cabs win."
I have to agree a lot. I think a cheap, mic'd solid state half stack sounds better than a fractal clone of an amp, or any amp through a direct box. mids are definitely more articulate, and cut through better. I didn't know how to say it, but you phrased it properly. It's because mics's are not static in their response, they are dynamic, you can't average out something that's dynamic and get a correct tone
How do you feel about synergy stuff then for instance? Its not subject to software industry woes of incremental updates, nor is it a DI problem. Time will tell if value holds. Also IRs have come a long way even in a few years.
Very well done video. You make a lot of very good points that I have not really thought about... but but makes sense in how you explain it. Subscribed !
@@aftermathstudios3717 Very well said! Fractal needs to remain in business, they need to continue to sell their products. Wait until IV comes out - It'll be 101% better than the 100.9% the III is -_-
Former real amp user here. Kirk Hammet recently did an interview with Rick Beato on this subject. I agree with Kirk 99%. You all can keep hauling your real amps, worrying about time, money, how temperature affects tubes/bias/causes inconvenient inconsistent issue after issue. I'll stick with my Helix Lt and Axe FX 3, where all those issues are non existent, I can mod any amp /bias them without paying a tech thousands of dollars..and push my tubes as hard as I want without them melting. As far as all of those "sonic" differences the cork sniffers complain about...there is a hundred ways to Eq them out( low high cut at around 120 to 5k usually gets that "amp in the room" issue solved". My old block letter 5150 was sold...I spent more replacing tubes than playing it..PLUS, The 3 models of Peavy amps in the axe fx 3 sounded better than my real head( yes, I compared them)EDIT: I still love this guys content, and have no hard feelings toward the guy, I am just generalizing here guys.
I agree that for touring, modellers are the greatest thing known to mankind. But if we're talking a recording that's going to last forever, amps and cabs have that extra 10%. All those issues are legitimate, but also...what makes them so much better. Rick Beato also recently interviewed Tosin, Townsend and Petrucci. Petrucci pointed out that with an amp, when you play an open A chord, the amp will always do it slightly different each time. A modeller will always give the exact same A chord. ...which is convenient and reliable and very very useful...but also a little uninteresting.
IRDX by Bogren solves some of the feel and even the static mids feeling of sims/IR's. An IR is just one IR, and the IR that a cab is changes from second to second, and the IR capture was just one period of that captured as far as I know. Edit; combine it only with the best of the best sims, like the Granophyre, and you've got golden tone. There aren't many sims that (like Grano) capture the fullness of the FR and are can be taken lots of places, and feel like they're not a blanket feeling amp, like old (and some current) amp sims are.
not sure the cab block in axe FX in static, to me it does not sound static at all like for example a sansamp pedal. using mic placemen, resonance curve/intensity and speaker drive and compression are all very simple options to make the sound your looking for, not more complicated than finding real speakers/cab combination, micing techniques...
BTW, I kinda don't know why you didn't mention another option: Splitting the signal and running 1 DI channel and running the other signal into a real amp with real mics. Not disagreeing, or maybe this is implied with some of your statements?
Great video! I dabbled with the AXE FX Ultra at first, found it real cheap locally. Too many options is an understatement where I can change out the capacitor values and different tube types to dial it in. Went to kemper, more amp like controls but still went down the profile rabbit hole. Used a fryette powerstation with a real cab towards the end. My only issue was being buried in the mix next to a tube amp (mesa triple rec). Found a EVH 5150 III 100w OG for a good price, my sound is back! I could hear myself in the mix and it sounded amazing. Sold the kemper and axe fx, maybe in a few years I"ll come back to the modelers.
That's the idea. However when you have 50+ options for that sound, how do you know all 50 of those options are in the perfect configuration for "your sound" Not to mention that a week later, you may notice something you didn't notice the first time. Or your strings may have aged so they sound different so your tone sounds different. Modellers are consistent, but the human using it isn't.
@@aftermathstudios3717 you don't need the "perfect sound", you need need the perfect composition and arrangement. Many sounds on Thriller are not that good. The sound ist just a secondary importance.
@@mrnorbotron3308 this is very true. However a modeller with ALLLLLL those options gives you the illusion that you CAN create the perfect sound. So as an engineer, why wouldn't you chase that Dragon?
Great video... personally, I'm using both. I've got an fm3 for cleans and for demoing heavy tones and I've got an mt15 and 6505 going into a two notes torpedo live strictly for heavy tones when I'm ready to record. Imo, the fm3 really shines for cleans with effects. I'm using strandberg guitars with Fishman moderns and abasis. For some reason these pickups don't mesh well with my fm3 so that's why I started buying real amps again. I think both have their pros and cons. ✌
Yes, I do agree about us "DI" when we record. I've been recording the last 38 years and I still prefer using a real amp. There's a certain sound or feel or character or something that does NOT sound like a REAL amp. Also, I prefer mic'ing - especially, if I do a lot soloing. A few months ago, I had to remove all my work to record using my Amp. Lol.
So having options is bad and having an unpredictable, inconsistent setup with a few knobs is good. I don't care what anybody prefers but all these "points" are laughable. Somehow you have a problem with Axe Fx III claiming to be better than Axe Fx II, as if somehow that wasn't and isn't the case with real amps.
Interesting take…lots of good points. Impulse response averaging reminds me of drum machines back in the day…they were too perfect so they tried “humanizing” with slight random variations.
Respect your critical oppinion, and very probably you are 99,99% right, but somewhere deep in my minds floating a question: Did you buy an FX 3 or FM9? Very probaly not, but if you did, then I will agree with youb100% ❤. The same things happening in, let us say "analog" industry, where hundreds of new models of tube amps and stomp boxes are released every year... Chasing for something new is something common to us, humans, and that's the price we have to pay - MHO😢
I would argue most of the problems are because of 'real' amps not modelling. Accuracy: why? Trying to sound exactly like a 'real' amp is just hopeless; even sounding better is no good because it's not accurate. The idea that everyone uses the same ir to sound the same is also a problem with 'real'; you could create an ir of any cab and mic, even ones that didn't physically exist. If there were no 'real' amps, there would be digital sound, that is unconstrained by the limitations of what can be done in analogue. As for the UI, we could forget the amp technician type of UI with pages off parameters and go to a tone type parameter set. Quite simply, 'real' amps are holding digital back.
It is true that POTENTIALLY you could create something completely brand new and revolutionary when it came to amp modelling. The thing is, that people play electric guitar 'cos ultimately, people like the noise of an electric guitar plugged into an amplifier. That's the noise people want to hear when they play electric guitar. If people want to hear a noise that isn't an electric guitar plugged into an amplifier...they generally play something else.
@@aftermathstudios3717 I suspect there is a lot of truth to that. But I also suspect the next generation of guitarists will feel quite different. I'm old and would drive on a digital solution that avoided those pesky parameters and didn't even attempt faithful reproductions, but rather created virtual amps that can't be realised otherwise and where the controls relate directly to tone and dynamics.
The mixers and sound engineers are the people that notice that extra 10% of information that real cabs give. The IR’s always have a homogenized and focused response whereas real cabs have “random breakup” and just more information. Engineers CAN and DO notice this. You can’t add this information digitally, it just doesn’t work that way.
This is why live, I would absolutely use a modeller (cos even if you're playing to an audience of engineers, once it gets processed through some dodgy club PA, blasted at the audience over 100db, with the crappy drum mics, bass DI and drum mix, that 10% is LONNNNG gone) However a recording, once released on the internet is here to stay, for all time. That 10%, or even just the knowledge that you did it "for real" is worth it. Unless you want to tell every audience member who listens to your recording that you felt 90% was good enough for them.
I tried to stress that modelling still sounds great and is viable, but real cabs are that extra 10% of secret sauce. When somebody listens to your album, are you gonna tell them that you thought that 90% was good enough? My biggest issues are with the industry and the imagined obsolescence of previous versions
The digital industry planned obsolescence, you said right, to keep companies making crazy money, and the same goes all over with smartphones and laptops. Absolutely agree and I also prefer amps, any good amp, as long it gives you the tone immediately, not wasting hours through menus and endless adjustments, in the end gives you the real feel. I'm playing and recording just for fun now, and I love my BOSS ME-80 multi effects, like a bunch of the best from BOSS. Has amazing sound, very user-friendly, all knobs for immediacy. A producer friend of mine was really impressed of this multi-effects for it's realistic sound and versatility, being himself a long time Pro Tools user and working with a lot of modeling, so also a lot of players prefer real pedals, bottom line ANALOG IS THE REAL DEAL.
ok. Now record a convincing Master of Puppets tone, followed by a Sultans of Swing tone, followed by an Eruption tone using the same equipment...at apartment friendly sound levels.
First of all, I'd like to see you record convincing versions of all those tones! Secondly, it'll get 90% of the way there. If you're happy releasing recordings that are 90% good enough then go for it.
@@aftermathstudios3717 of course, and you were the one, who wanted some evidence. So, is the evidence I provided sufficient or do you want further proof? I had posted a link to the subpar impedance curve of the Captor, but it seems gone now. Well, you can easily google it. It´s an eye-opener.
The question I have as an engineer isn't: "Does it sound good" Rather it's: "Is this the best possible sound?" After all, isn't that what your fans and music deserves?
First, 100%? He doesn't even have most of the amps, just schematics. Contrary to the Faboys of Axe-fx, who are just about the worst people that have ever lived because there's a certain pathology that occurs in newbies who actually believe they have a billion real amps in a box -(verses people who have many amps + a modeler) they even routinely claim it's better. Why? Because if you actually have Engineers ears instead of fan boy ears, it's immediately apparent that tubes are Not being modeled correctly at all. Some trick has been implemented at the Attack portion of the signal. It's akin to a boost pedal, removing the very "Tube sound" people say they want, and replacing it with a very Solid State attack. Listen carefully to the initial hit - click click - the tell tale sign of a pedal sound in front of a tube amp.. etc that negates the spongy voltage drop real amps have. And when those weirdos ever hear their precious modeler being criticized - do they react normally - or do attack like a perverted cult? We all know the answer to that. They're like a pack of wild atheists attacking Christian forums😂😂
