Axe-Fx II 'Tone Matching' YouTube tutorial...

[BYTOR]

The Axe-Fx causes such butthurt, so it's obvious that Cliff must be doing something right

Why don't you all just buy a Kemper & try it for the 30 day return period(online retailers) & do the same for the Axe-II with its 15 day return period(direct from Fractal). Make up your own fucking minds from actual first hand experience & not from forum dudes with obvious issues!

Me, I own both an Axe-II & Kemper, and I also own many tube amps including a BE-100, original CCV, Mark V ,and a 5153 50w.
Guess what? I find use for all of them and they are all great in their own way. But then again I don't believe it's an either/or world we live in.
Imagine that......

 

[VESmedic]

Cliff also happened to mention a little drawback in the Kemper - They do use IRs. They use 256 point IRs augmented with parametric EQ. This is easily demonstrated by examining the data structure of the profile and by measuring the device (or by using their IR converter which converts long IRs to 256 point IR plus EQ). What they say is "we use something more advanced" or something like that. By "more advanced" they mean they augment the IR with parametric EQ. However they must augment the IR with parametric EQ because the IR is too short to reproduce low frequencies accurately. The frequency resolution of an IR is proportional to its length: the longer the IR the better the resolution. To accurately reproduce a guitar cabinet requires at least 1000 points from my research. (Note: I'm using the term "parametric EQ" as a substitute for IIR filter since most people don't know what an IIR filter is.)

This technique has been around since the early days of modelers (I believe the Pod 2.0 was the first to do this). The impetus for this is that it uses much less processing power since the amount of processing power required is directly proportional to the length of the IR. A 256 point IR plus, for example, an 8-band EQ can be equivalent to a 512 point IR but uses less processing power. The downside is the phase response isn't the same but that is usually inaudible.

In their specific case the amplifier output frequency response and cabinet frequency response are combined into a single IR plus EQ since they aren't measured separately. See my MIMIC whitepaper for more information on frequency response, etc. You can make assumptions about the amplifier output frequency response in order to separate it from the cabinet response. In their case I believe they assume there is a 6 dB resonance at 125 Hz plus a 6 dB highshelf (incidentally this is the same power amp frequency response model that the Marshall JMP-1 used albeit using analog filters). For many amplifiers this is a reasonable approximation.

The Axe-Fx II IRs are 2048 sample (eight times the resolution) and don't require augmentation

HARDY HAR HAR HAR



































Not

 

[ejecta]

The Axe-Fx causes such butthurt, so it's obvious that Cliff must be doing something right

Or maybe not.

Why don't you all just buy a Kemper & try it for the 30 day return period(online retailers) & do the same for the Axe-II with its 15 day return period(direct from Fractal). Make up your own fucking minds from actual first hand experience & not from forum dudes with obvious issues!

Been there done that with both and several times with the AxeFX...... so yeah.....no thanks.

Me, I own both an Axe-II & Kemper, and I also own many tube amps including a BE-100, original CCV, Mark V ,and a 5153 50w.
Guess what? I find use for all of them and they are all great in their own way. But then again I don't believe it's an either/or world we live in.
Imagine that......

For me it's not an either/or but what sounds best to me...... and for some it's just one rig.

 

[TrueTone500]

Cliff also happened to mention a little drawback in the Kemper - They do use IRs. They use 256 point IRs augmented with parametric EQ. This is easily demonstrated by examining the data structure of the profile and by measuring the device (or by using their IR converter which converts long IRs to 256 point IR plus EQ). What they say is "we use something more advanced" or something like that. By "more advanced" they mean they augment the IR with parametric EQ. However they must augment the IR with parametric EQ because the IR is too short to reproduce low frequencies accurately. The frequency resolution of an IR is proportional to its length: the longer the IR the better the resolution. To accurately reproduce a guitar cabinet requires at least 1000 points from my research. (Note: I'm using the term "parametric EQ" as a substitute for IIR filter since most people don't know what an IIR filter is.)

This technique has been around since the early days of modelers (I believe the Pod 2.0 was the first to do this). The impetus for this is that it uses much less processing power since the amount of processing power required is directly proportional to the length of the IR. A 256 point IR plus, for example, an 8-band EQ can be equivalent to a 512 point IR but uses less processing power. The downside is the phase response isn't the same but that is usually inaudible.

In their specific case the amplifier output frequency response and cabinet frequency response are combined into a single IR plus EQ since they aren't measured separately. See my MIMIC whitepaper for more information on frequency response, etc. You can make assumptions about the amplifier output frequency response in order to separate it from the cabinet response. In their case I believe they assume there is a 6 dB resonance at 125 Hz plus a 6 dB highshelf (incidentally this is the same power amp frequency response model that the Marshall JMP-1 used albeit using analog filters). For many amplifiers this is a reasonable approximation.

The Axe-Fx II IRs are 2048 sample (eight times the resolution) and don't require augmentation

HARDY HAR HAR HAR



































Not

 

[VESmedic]

Cliff also happened to mention a little drawback in the Kemper - They do use IRs. They use 256 point IRs augmented with parametric EQ. This is easily demonstrated by examining the data structure of the profile and by measuring the device (or by using their IR converter which converts long IRs to 256 point IR plus EQ). What they say is "we use something more advanced" or something like that. By "more advanced" they mean they augment the IR with parametric EQ. However they must augment the IR with parametric EQ because the IR is too short to reproduce low frequencies accurately. The frequency resolution of an IR is proportional to its length: the longer the IR the better the resolution. To accurately reproduce a guitar cabinet requires at least 1000 points from my research. (Note: I'm using the term "parametric EQ" as a substitute for IIR filter since most people don't know what an IIR filter is.)

This technique has been around since the early days of modelers (I believe the Pod 2.0 was the first to do this). The impetus for this is that it uses much less processing power since the amount of processing power required is directly proportional to the length of the IR. A 256 point IR plus, for example, an 8-band EQ can be equivalent to a 512 point IR but uses less processing power. The downside is the phase response isn't the same but that is usually inaudible.

In their specific case the amplifier output frequency response and cabinet frequency response are combined into a single IR plus EQ since they aren't measured separately. See my MIMIC whitepaper for more information on frequency response, etc. You can make assumptions about the amplifier output frequency response in order to separate it from the cabinet response. In their case I believe they assume there is a 6 dB resonance at 125 Hz plus a 6 dB highshelf (incidentally this is the same power amp frequency response model that the Marshall JMP-1 used albeit using analog filters). For many amplifiers this is a reasonable approximation.

The Axe-Fx II IRs are 2048 sample (eight times the resolution) and don't require augmentation

HARDY HAR HAR HAR



































Not

This guy spews technical Mumbo jumbo that NOT ONE guitarist on the planet cares about, laughs about it, and I'm the weirdo for mocking? Lol ok....


These threads are hillarious... If only people on the Internet new how much people in the industry just come on these boards to get a laugh at some of these people....

 

[lester]

no wait....

 

[VESmedic]

no wait....

Ohhhhhh ok... Good one! I'll be playing a show tonight, you keep developing algorithms for the space shuttle and trying to relearn smoke on the water!!!

 

[lester]

For the people that'll be there, I hope it ain't a comedy gig.

 

[Jer]

That was a good suggestion to demo them both and let your ears decide.

Since I brought up the Kemper I want to clarify it wasn't my intent to praise/bash one over the other; rather that IMO both (as with any digital modeler/emulator) will fall short of the real thing to some degree and that's to be expected.

 

[jcj]

You can get either one to sound and feel better than a ton of tube amps....neither will sound or feel better than your favorite amp, cranked to the sweet spot.

 

[VESmedic]

Not one guitar player on the planet cares about IR augmentation or, IR points or whatever else the hell GARBAGE you want to throw out there...Seriously, do you think the majority of guitar players are a bunch of physicists or something? It is one thing to prefer the sound of one or the other, but PLEASE do not try and justify your point as true with MATH to a bunch of GUITAR PLAYERS...Good Grief. Seriously, NO ONE CARES about ANY of that, it is about the sound, period. I could care less if the axe "should be on superior on paper" if it doesn't pull its weight in the sound department.

 

[TrueTone500]

I've been playing guitar since 1978, and I found the post pleasingly informative.

 

[glassjaw7]

I usually stay out of these threads having never played a Kemper or Axe. But I will say that the Kemper sounds amazing in almost every clip I hear. Absolutely like a real amp. The snax, not so much. Someday I'll come across them and find out in person.