# AxeFx: v10.00 Marsha Model vs. the Real Thing



## Guest (Jun 22, 2010)

I'm reposting this. Pete Thorn posted this over at TGP here. Awesome little poll.

Here it is in his words:


> OK I thought this might be fun, so I'm gonna start a poll with a little clip I made. What this clip is- a couple simple riffs, and it's Marsha #2 (second one made) on the BE channel and the Axe FX Marsha (BE)... I plugged the head into my Faustine attenuator set for load and took the line out into my interface. In Logic, I used a Red Wirez greenback sim mic'd with a 57.
> 
> Then I plugged the axe fx into my interface, and used the same Red Wirez greenback sim (no cab simulation used on the Axe FX).
> 
> ...


So which is real? Which is AxeFx? Part 1 or part 2? (I don't know BTW)

Here's some more interesting stuff to ponder...the frequency curves from both clips and the EQ you need to make them them the same:

#1









#2









#1 to #2









#2 to #1









Care to hazard a guess? I'll close it when Pete does the reveal on TGP.


----------



## Andy (Sep 23, 2007)

I'd say #1 is the real one. They're incredibly close, though. You definitely wouldn't tell a difference in the mix.

I want an AxeFx now...

ETA: Shame there aren't .wavs available. I could hear lots of compression artifacts.


----------



## hollowbody (Jan 15, 2008)

very nice comparison! I think the second part of the clip is the real one. I think it's sounds more "physical" like there's a cab that's moving some air to that particular part of the clip. Hopefully I'm not completely wrong and look like a tool!


----------



## Guest (Jun 22, 2010)

Andy said:


> ETA: Shame there aren't .wavs available. I could hear lots of compression artifacts.


If you click through to the TGP thread Pete posted a wav.


----------



## Guest (Jun 22, 2010)

hollowbody said:


> very nice comparison! I think the second part of the clip is the real one. I think it's sounds more "physical" like there's a cab that's moving some air to that particular part of the clip. Hopefully I'm not completely wrong and look like a tool!


And yet neither was recorded with a mic!  Both were recorded direct and the same Redwirez cabinet IR was used on them. IR was applied in the DAW in both cases.


----------



## bobb (Jan 4, 2007)

Personally, part one sounds more processed and compressed to me so I voted for part two as the real amp.


----------



## hollowbody (Jan 15, 2008)

iaresee said:


> And yet neither was recorded with a mic!  Both were recorded direct and the same Redwirez cabinet IR was used on them. IR was applied in the DAW in both cases.


Yeah, I don't know how to explain what I hear, but part 2 seems to have a more physical "attack" and convincing "thump" on the palm mutes. It'll be interesting for sure to find out what's what.


----------



## Rugburn (Jan 14, 2009)

The second track has more bark to it and sounds less compressed, but both sound very good to my ears. Just before part two starts and right after it ends, I hear a faint buzzing which isn't audible before or after part one. Very cool little machine that AxeFX. 

Shawn.


----------



## traynor_garnet (Feb 22, 2006)

I think this is a faulty test/comparison since the "real amp" is being DI'd. What we are hearing is the Faustine attenuator.

When I had my Faustine attenuator I also did a similar comparison. First, I recorded my highly attenuated amp with a mic. Second, I recorded the same amp using the Faustine's line out, into my USB recording device, into Red Wirz cabs (just like the OP did in his comparison). The mic/cab sounded WAY better.

Both clips sound pretty good, but a mic'd up cab with the "real amp" would sound better. IMO, there is no "real amp" in the OP's comparison.
TG


----------



## Guest (Jun 22, 2010)

traynor_garnet said:


> I think this is a faulty test/comparison since the "real amp" is being DI'd. What we are hearing is the Faustine attenuator.


Actually: what we're hearing is the amp in to an IR. The attenuator doesn't add anything or filter anything out. The signal is tapped before the dynamic load in the Faustine unit Pete is using. So it's a fair comparison. Both the amp and the AxeFx signals look the same: unfiltered (by a cabinet and speakers) amplifier output.



> When I had my Faustine attenuator I also did a similar comparison. First, I recorded my highly attenuated amp with a mic. Second, I recorded the same amp using the Faustine's line out, into my USB recording device, into Red Wirz cabs (just like the OP did in his comparison). The mic/cab sounded WAY better.


Unfortunately, you're not even comparing the same things at that point. Too many variables: you're not comparing and amp in teh AxeFx to the real world equivalent of that amplifier you're comparing a _system_ to a _system_ and it all gets far more subjective.

Edit: I will say that if a mic'ed cab is what you're after then setting up and amp with a cab, mic'd and recorded and then switching out the amp for an AxeFx in to a power amp into the same cab+mic setup is the way to do the comparison.

But for an amp-to-amp comparison, Pete's setup is the way to go. The only thing that could have been improved was reamping. He played the parts both times (I didn't know that when I made my OP).


----------



## traynor_garnet (Feb 22, 2006)

iaresee said:


> Actually: what we're hearing is the amp in to an IR. The attenuator doesn't add anything or filter anything out. The signal is tapped before the dynamic load in the Faustine unit Pete is using. So it's a fair comparison. Both the amp and the AxeFx signals look the same: unfiltered (by a cabinet and speakers) amplifier output.


Sorry, but I've heard it with my own ears and the DI DOES change the tone. I've even ran the Faustine's DI output directly into my speaker cab (and also into my mixer, then speaker cab) and it simply doesn't sound like the amp directly into a speaker. In terms of comparisons in the OP, you are hearing the amp, into a DI, into an IR vs the Axe into an IR. You are not hearing the amp _directly_ into an IR (which would be impossible).




> Unfortunately, you're not even comparing the same things at that point. Too many variables: you're not comparing and amp in teh AxeFx to the real world equivalent of that amplifier you're comparing a _system_ to a _system_ and it all gets far more subjective.


How much more "real world" can you get than an amp plugged into a speaker? In the OP there is an assumption that the DI'd amp = an amp directly to an IR and that is a problematic assumption. Since the Axe attempts to simulate a "system" there is really no problem with my original comparison.

With all this said, I think the Axe sounds great. This isn't simply simulation bashing.

TG


----------



## Guest (Jun 22, 2010)

traynor_garnet said:


> Sorry, but I've heard it with my own ears and the DI DOES change the tone. I've even ran the Faustine's DI output directly into my speaker cab (and also into my mixer, then speaker cab) and it simply doesn't sound like the amp directly into a speaker. In terms of comparisons in the OP, you are hearing the amp, into a DI, into an IR vs the Axe into an IR. You are not hearing the amp _directly_ into an IR (which would be impossible).


So: Amp -> DI -> power amp -> speaker cabinet sounded different than amp -> speaker cabinet when you tried it? I've run both those scenarios with a Koch DI and a Palmer DI couldn't tell the difference between the two of them.



> How much more "real world" can you get than an amp plugged into a speaker?


None. Which is why I suggested that if that's the use case you're after try AxeFx -> power amp -> same speaker cab. And you'll get the modelled amp running in a real world scenario, like the non-modelled amp.



> In the OP there is an assumption that the DI'd amp = an amp directly to an IR and that is a problematic assumption. Since the Axe attempts to simulate a "system" there is really no problem with my original comparison.


The only problem is that mic position, mic types, as you know have a huge impact on the sound. So you're comparing an AxeFx with a modeled mic/cab that aren't set the same way as your real world amp/cab/mic -- so you're not really comparing anything. Other than to say they'll sound different, what can you draw from the comparison?



> With all this said, I think the Axe sounds great. This isn't simply simulation bashing.


No worries man. Didn't come across as bashing at all. I thought we were just having a conversation about the whole comparison technique.


----------



## ne1roc (Mar 4, 2006)

I think its a very fair comparison since it is strictly the signal from both pieces of gear fed into the same IR's. I would expect the same results comparing the two through a mic'd cabinet.

Ultimately, I would like to hear this comparison, 
Axe Fx > power amp > 412 cab
Real thing > same 412 cab

My current setup with the Axe Fx uses a power amp/212 Recto Cab. It sounds fantastic!


----------



## Guest (Jun 22, 2010)

Here's an A/B comparison posted by Scott Peterson:



> Eight years, different guitars, one take pushing the beat (oops)... but a valid test. One side (which?) is a PRS SC with a Bogner EL34 Reverb Shiva and Bogner 212 V-30 cab recorded with SM57's into a Phoenix Audio DRS-2 ($2199.00) preamp, Lynx Audio A/D in 2002 in my home studio. The other side, Hamer DuoTone, Axe-FX Ultra running direct (as detailed above) into same Lynx Audio A/D converters in 2010.
> 
> Which is which? Why?
> 
> SPetersonMusic - 06 2010 Shiva Test - SoundCloud


One is actually a mic'ed up cab, the other is an AxeFx-direct recording of the same amp. I don't know if I agree with it being a great test, so many things change, but it's interesting to listen to nonetheless. Same guy, different guitars, different rigs -- but same sound.

Here's the spectrum analysis plot:










The answer to which is left, which is right in that TGP thread...


----------



## traynor_garnet (Feb 22, 2006)

There is no way to really hear "the amp" in a completely neutral way (a DI or anything else in the chain will change the sound) or to feed the "amp itself" into the IR. There is no way around this.

The amp-->DI-->IR does sound quite simlar to Axe-->IR. That is all this comparison can offer, but it is interesting to hear nonetheless.

TG


----------



## Guest (Jun 23, 2010)

From the TGP thread:



> 1 is axe fx,
> 2 is the real Marsha
> 
> I found it interesting that most rig talk forumites preferred the 1st clip... Other way around on TGP. Maybe because rig talk is more metal guys and 1 was a bit more aggressive in the upper mids?


----------



## hollowbody (Jan 15, 2008)

Interesting. Glad to know that I can pick out the real from the simulation 

Also interesting that people from different forums tended to prefer one over the other.

Regardless, the AxeFX unit was really close. In a band environment, on-stage at stage volume and in a mix, I doubt you could pick between the two.

I still really love using my JTM because I like the tactile sensation of plugging into a hot tube amp, but it's nice to know there's something out there that can replace it if/when I get too old and sore to lug around a head and cab.


----------



## 4345567 (Jun 26, 2008)

__________


----------



## Bevo (Nov 24, 2006)

I could not tell the difference?

I also agree both should be tested into the same cab and same mic with the AXE using a super clean amp like a Adcom or Brystrom(sp).


----------



## davetcan (Feb 27, 2006)

I definitely preferred take #2. I'll be very interested to see which was which.

edit: now that I've actually read the thread I see 2 was the amp. Pretty damn close though, although I'd really like to be in a room with both of them.


----------

