nickdohle

In Ians defense, On that tone matching video, The Mesa patch had just a little bit less balls. Just a little bit. Not much.

Great tones from an Axe fx though. If I could sell my kidneys I might grab one

Outside Octaves

What you're hearing as "lack of balls" is lack of volume. I'm betting that modeled version wasn't pushed through a half-stack at the same volume levels . Add to that the original was recorded in a room with a mic... the modeled version is straight up amp>cab with possibly some other stuff dialed in. Trust me, give both the EXACT same setup (impossible), you won't notice the difference.

__________________
"grateful is he who plays with open fingers" - Me

┌∩┐(◣_◢)┌∩┐

DO NOT CLICK HERE!

R45VT

This thread doesn't fail as much as the "light bulb" thread. Still fail.

Loads of good advice given. I like he is upset over the suggestions. Like he knew they weren't going to be given. Come on Ian you have been here long enough... you knew what you were getting into.

It's cheap to build an iso(You don't have to wait to move into a quiet apartment). Try it first. When it fails/or doesn't meet your needs buy an AxeFX.

__________________

gumbilicious

how would you know that? i am not trying to be too confrontational, but it seems to me that is just a guess



once again, how do you know how he recorded it?

i can't tell from the video if the modeled version is run through a power amp and cab or run direct line in with cab emulation.



this is kinda misleading. you claim they'll sound the same with the exact same setup, but you also claim it is impossible to give them the exact same setup. wouldn't it make it moot to make that statement?

i am not trying to pick too bad, i too feel that emulation is quite viable now-a-days and i also feel plenty of good tones can be achieved with a digital software/hardware approach. I just think it can be futile focusing on emulation achieving 'exact' tone reproduction, wtf does that even mean anyway?

between the variations on different models, the tolerances of the parts used in the models, the different rooms the amps can be recorded in, etc... what exactly is 'perfect emulation'?

furthermore, i think this mindset also creates a monster in tone philosophy: that different = worse. i personally don't think different = bettor or different = worse... different = different. it should be evaluated fairly, tested for it's quality and usefulness and used where you think it could serve your purposes. i don't think it should be evaluated purely off 'does it sound exactly/perfectly like the original', cuz frankly i want to see more original and groundup design being used on amp sim software.

__________________
"A perfection of means, and confusion of aims, seems to be our main problem."
-ae

R45VT

That demo Ola did was great. Keep in mind there were different guitars used between the Axe and the real amps. Not a 100% fair test, just a great representation of how close.

__________________

Outside Octaves

OOOh, I missed that lol... well, there's another reason why it probably "lacked ballz" lol

__________________
"grateful is he who plays with open fingers" - Me

┌∩┐(◣_◢)┌∩┐

DO NOT CLICK HERE!

seljer

The solution to all your woes: move out of your apartment into a house in the middle of nowwhere with no neighbours and crank the hell out your amps

Perverockstar69

I would take a Kemper over an Axe Fx, just a matter of taste...

__________________

Mesa Royal Atlantic
Fender PA100
Laney LC15R
Orange PPC212OB
Gibson SG Standard
LTD Viper-500
Jackson DKMGT
Catalinbread Ottava Magus
Jim Dunlop CFH
MXR Carbon Copy
Visual Sound Liquid Chorus
Ibanez TS9DX (mods)
Boss BF-2

Outside Octaves

Ha, best advice yet seljer!


gum: pick pick pick... oi, you pick more than petrucci.


I don't "know"... but come on, it's pretty standard to mic tube amps... not many people would do a comparison of a tube amp to a modelled tube amp by bypassing the "power tube".... then again ... blech! Too late in the night for me to get into it. You know what I meant and what I'm after. The guy hold's onto old concepts like an old fart holds onto stink, or an old man to his vinyls for the wrong reasons.


My logic in all of this:

Go ahead OP, and don't follow advice... we're doing that same thing in telling you to go with an Digital Interface for the pc or mac. You WILL get the exact same tones once you mix it into the rest of what you're music is doing.... minus a few types of clean sounds... then again guitar rig 5's van 51 is plenty tube'y. It isn't exact, but damn if you could tell the difference in a song or piece between what it's modeled after and the software version...

All that stuff you tell us is telling us that you are just holding on to old concepts that have now been proven wrong. You're holding onto feeling and other tactile things instead of sound my friend. There's nothing like playing a good tube amp, as far as how it feels to do so. But sound-wize my friend... few things can't be modeled, but only a few. Most everything now can be modeled accurately to the original. And we are only a few stepping stones away from true clean-tube tones from modeling.

__________________
"grateful is he who plays with open fingers" - Me

┌∩┐(◣_◢)┌∩┐

DO NOT CLICK HERE!

AcousticMirror

iso cab is your best bet.

sound proofing in any application is not cheap.

__________________
buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo.

terribleguitar

So true! Agreed.

gumbilicious

i was mainly saying, how do you know they ran the modeler through a power amp and cab? how do you know what power amp they used? why wouldn't you think they just ran the modeler line in with cab emulation?

i wasn't saying that they ran a line out on the real amplifiers.

__________________
"A perfection of means, and confusion of aims, seems to be our main problem."
-ae

Arby911

Would you and the OP like to pick up a little cash, for gear or whatever?

I'm thinking I could go to Kemper and/or Fractal Audio and get them to put up $10,000 or so for a blind test, say 10 clips from different guitarists, the only difference being that one set is run through the actual tube amp and the other is run through their modeling gear.

You put up your 10K against theirs, if you can accurately pick out the modeled clips, you win.

If not they donate your 10k to charity.

You up for that?

__________________
The man who holds to a belief because of tradition, or hides it because he fears he may be shown to be wrong, does not love the truth but manifests a coward’s faithfulness to his prejudices.

terribleguitar

Just believe someone who owned both a POD HD and a tube amp. The real thing is better. It's more about the feel than the sound.

I mean, to the listener, the difference is minor, and completely unnoticeable when in mix. But it's a completely different story for the player.

Arby911

I believe that you believe that, but that doesn't make it so for anyone but you.

POD HD, while a good piece of gear, is neither an Axe FXII nor a Kemper...

__________________
The man who holds to a belief because of tradition, or hides it because he fears he may be shown to be wrong, does not love the truth but manifests a coward’s faithfulness to his prejudices.

terribleguitar

Ugh, man, with all respect, you should be tolerant to opinion different from yours. The man wants a real amp, so please give him some options instead of saying "the axefx is as good as the real thing!!!11". He seems very confident in his needs, so I don't see the point in convincing him to buy a digital modeler.

H4T3BR33D3R

If somebody has more experience and thinks that TS would do better with an AXE FX, why can't he state so? It's not a new concept that people don't know what the hell they want.

__________________






Only at times, though.

terribleguitar

Why do you think you have more experience than him?

H4T3BR33D3R

Where do you see that I said I was more experienced? I said Arby was.



Furthermore, it doesn't change my point either way.

__________________






Only at times, though.