Hacker News Reader

Comment by chez17 | Hacker News Reader

I don't know, the Ax FX is insane. I would bet good money that 99.99% of people couldn't tell the difference between it and an amp in ideal situations.

View on HN

Actually they couldn't:

http://www.seymourduncan.com/tonefiend/recording/can-you-tel...

Not only people who think themselves picky when it comes to tubes vs modeling could not tell the difference, but they also failed to even recognize the amp types.

(It reminds me of red-wine)

Not really a great test (as admitted in the commentary). There's no way to know how many people that entered weren't familiar with all of the amps that were used (according to the author, "a couple of contestants realized that 1, 3, 5, and 8 were the models, but got all the amp types wrong"). Swap two models and your score is a maximum of 50% regardless of how well you can identify tubes vs. digital.

"Not only people who think themselves picky when it comes to tubes vs modeling could not tell the difference, but they also failed to even recognize the amp types." It was a contest with a giveaway. The only thing we can infer about the entrants is that they wanted free stuff.

I'm with the author as far as conclusions go: "Sometimes models sound great, and sometimes they sound crappy, much like amps."

Perhaps a more important reason to dislike it is that he ran the guitar output into a DAW, and then into an amp. Guitar pickups are very sensitive to impedance loading.

At $2200+ to emulate tube sounds, with significant resale risk, it's a pricey option for non-professional players. I've got a few small-ish tube amps and a limited pedal board that covers most of the styles I'm interested in at acceptable volume levels. If I ever decide that I don't like one of my amps, or I want something different, I can sell it and recoup most of what I paid for it - there's not really any chance that Fender will release a new amp that will cause my Princeton RI to suddenly drop in price drastically. The same can't be said for digital gear.

I've tried some less expensive digital gear (Line6) and, while it's nice enough, I feel it leaves much to be desired compared to a well maintained tube amp, so at my gear budget (and since I don't really have any space constraints) I think tubes are a better choice for me - and I don't think I'm terribly atypical. In the long run, if gear that provides the quality of Axe FX drops in price significantly, I might change my mind.

I can definitely tell the difference. A friend of mine has the AXE-FX. We tried testing its Mesa Boogie model against my actual Mesa Boogie amp -- and the difference was night and day.

Like one of the comments from above, part of the magic of tube guitar amplification is that it is much more responsive dynamically to inputs. You can turn the volume up a tick, or hit the strings harder or softer, or change your picking style, and the results are drastically different on a tube amp.

This gives the artist more space to express themselves -- which is why tube amps are still favoured amongst guitar players today -- decades after transistor's have taken over the rest of the electronic industry. You can't get the nuanced expressiveness in a crystal lattice that you can in the free space of a vacuum. [1]

[1] I'm paraphrasing from H. Alexander Dumble, one of the gurus of guitar amplification.

Sure. Interesting how confident you are in this assumption - there are plenty of audiophiles who claim they can definitely night and day hear the difference in 2 brands of speaker cable. So presumably you've blind tested yourself and are definitely sure it's not bias, or wishful thinking, or feeling special because you've got the real deal.

The AXE FX II models the differences with tube amplification that you're talking about.

I also don't like that quote any - by the logic of that quote MP3s and CDs are equally rubbish recordings that have no room for expression? Or are we only extending it to what suits your view?

There are a vast number of ways to customise a real tube amp (I've owned a Mesa Boogie Mark IV) and an Axe FX II (which I currently own.) A poorly setup mesa vs. one that's been carefully configured will be night and day as well. Did you factor that in? Was there a tone match? Actually the Axe FX doesn't claim to emulate particular models precisely in many cases (see http://wiki.fractalaudio.com/axefx2/index.php?title=Amp:_all...)

My point is you dismiss it as if you can know for sure - go do some blind testing where these factors are taken into account (you can start with a skeptic's view at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EtxHlJ2FPo) and then see if your certainty is affected.

Finally, Metallica have chosen to do all live shows using only Axe FX's. So obviously you know better than this small band who barely tour.

I know HN is basically turning into the new reddit, but comments like these where you just make a statement and then act as if it's established then go on to quote some guy really make me wonder whether reading the comments section is going to continue to depress me forever at this point.

> Finally, Metallica have chosen to do all live shows using only Axe FX's. So obviously you know better than this small band who barely tour.

Actually, Metallica uses Mesa Boogie amps...[1]

[1] http://www.metallica.com/band/band-bio-gear.asp

2010, seems a bit outdated. Hetfield's guitar tech (or someone claiming to be) has an overview of AxeFX posted on the fractal forums. http://forum.fractalaudio.com/axe-fx-ii-discussion/83548-met...

Actually Metallica uses Axe FX II for all tours like I said...! Maybe they've not updated this page.

[0]:http://www.g66.eu/articles/890-metallica-backstage [1]:http://forum.fractalaudio.com/axe-fx-ii-discussion/87016-met... [2]:http://thefretboard.co.uk/discussion/13217/metallica-confirm...

That's some really lazy google'ing there btw...!! Look at the top 3 results for https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1....

Are you hoping that I just... made up that point? I find it interesting the degree of denial audio guys have with this stuff. The Axe FX is a really amazing and inspiring piece of machinery that allows for a huge artistic freedoms and is basically the product of one guy's dedication to accuracy (many amps are modelled to the extent of their entire circuitry being simulated as well as precise physical models of the valve sets which you can change, etc. etc.) - when I wonder why the Axe hasn't got the love it deserves (though there's growing love for it) the reaction of 'not the same as analogue' guys reminds me why :)

>You can't get the nuanced expressiveness in a crystal lattice that you can in the free space of a vacuum.

Cute, but at the end of the day it's just different nonlinearities in the transfer function. If you like how ancient technology sounds, that's fine, no need to ascribe mystical properties to it.

From what I understand and what I've read on Axe-Fx II emulation, it emulated the circuit components of the amps, including analogue ones, to emulate the signal processing. If that is true, I can see how some aspects of emulation could be worse, but a drastic difference in dynamics doesn't seem possible. I also own Axe-FX II, and can't tell the difference between it and the real amps, in any regard.

There is a difference, like you say (I owned an Axe-Fx). It sounded very good, especially the Plexi, but at the end of the day it sounds like a mic'd amp. You can't make it sound like an unmic'd cabinet, leading to lots of [1] discussion [2] about getting that 'in the room' sound [3]. It sounds pretty much exactly like what you would hear on a CD; it's definitely good at getting that studio mix sound.

[1] http://forum.fractalaudio.com/axe-fx-ii-discussion/75301-roo...

[2] http://forum.fractalaudio.com/amps-cabs/79963-clrs-amp-room-...

[3] http://forum.fractalaudio.com/amps-cabs/70327-frfr-amp-room-...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com