Vintage Deluxe Reverb vs Fractal Axe-FX III
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 5 ก.ย. 2024
- Learn more about Fractal Fundamentals...
www.mathewdale...
Download my Block Library!
www.mathewdale...
In this video, let's put my vintage 1974 Fender Deluxe Reverb up against the Fractal Axe-FX III. Is one tonally superior? Can you hear the difference? And (maybe most importantly) which example did you think sounded best? To spice things up let's also test my JHS Morning Glory and a digital counterpart. To keep things a bit more fair, I've added a third sound example of a secret source revealed toward the end of the video. Can you tell which is the Axe and which is the amp?
Mat's Trusted Gear...
----------------------------------------
GUITARS
PRS DGT sweetwater.sjv...
PRS McCarty 594 sweetwater.sjv...
Strandberg Fusion NX sweetwater.sjv...
Strandberg Original NX sweetwater.sjv...
----------------------------------------
GUITAR GEAR
Line6 HX Stomp sweetwater.sjv...
Shure GLXD Guitar Wireless sweetwater.sjv...
Mono Electric Guitar Gig Bag sweetwater.sjv...
Mono Acoustic Guitar Gig Bag sweetwater.sjv...
Electric Strings sweetwater.sjv...
Acoustic Strings sweetwater.sjv...
Music Nomad Set up Kit sweetwater.sjv...
Fred Kelly Bumblebee Jazz Picks amzn.to/41sE5Eq
----------------------------------------
STUDIO GEAR
Studiolive 32C sweetwater.sjv...
StudioLive 32R sweetwater.sjv...
Eris E5 sweetwater.sjv...
Rode PodMic sweetwater.sjv...
QSC K10.2 sweetwater.sjv...
QSC K12.2 sweetwater.sjv...
Behringer P1 Personal Monitor Amp sweetwater.sjv...
Presonus HP4 Headphone Amp sweetwater.sjv...
Studio One+ sweetwater.sjv...
B has a more defined mid register which has a slightly larger bandwidth - this means there's more to manipulate in a mix setting before the sounds thins out - the AXE FX III sounds are more "pre-mixed" and idealised. This has always been my experience of everything digital from E Drums, to VI synths to guitar modellers - sounds are pre- mixed more "ideal" from the get go. Real acoustic instruments and tube amps etc require far great skills to mix as they are truly raw ingredients. It depends so much on how you approach your productions. If you want to be able to sculpt everything at the mix stage then a tube amp will give you a bigger mid register tone to carve and enhance - if you want to have a faster workflow and mix less - all things digital will get you there quicker.
I'm not going to be the guy who mentions _TH-cam compression._
Oops.
However, even without said compression, in person, it's impossible at this point to distinguish between anything Fractal makes and it's analog parent.
Feel is also included in that calculus.
Honestly, given it's compact size, light weight, USB compatibility, and infinite adjustability down to the most minute sonic detail, the Fractal modeler is superior.
That goes double when you have to carry it up 4 flights or stairs.
I’ve given up trying to distinguish between modelers and real time amps.
As far as faves:
C was my fave. It’s got the best definition.
A was very good but needed tweaking lol.
B was muddy. Which has always been a problem I’ve had with Deluxe Reverbs. It’s why I prefer Twins for cleans.
I knew better than to try and guess, although my initial impression was A was a bit darker, which led me to suspect that it was the Fractal. I've found that a little bit of digging into the settings can go a really long way with the Fractal stuff, as untweaked models tend to sound a bit dull to me. I was able to distinguish between B and C, figured one was a tweaked version of the Fractal but couldn't have guessed which - they're really close to my ear. I spent a fair bit of time building my go-to preset to match the tone and feel of my 6505+, and it's all but indistinguishable - if anything, it sounds better. Tighter, more focused and less flubby around the bottom when playing 7 or 8 strings.
My faves A,C,B in some cases A and C switched positions nut overall I Would pick A. Thanks Matthew!
Funny. I've had every AxeFX since the Ultra and I got A and B right, but I was convinced that C was a mix of both. I think that adding the ribbon mic added some of that honk that is present in the real amp. With that said none of them were like "this sounds horrible" or "this sounds more amp-like/modeled"...they just sounded like different examples of the same thing and the fact that they reacted similarly to your dynamics is really impressive. As for preference it'd probably be C, A and then B, but without playing through it myself..yada, yada, yada.
thats crazy cos i liked everything but b and i had a feeling that was the tube, that makes me happy
I love these Tests, LOVE IT!!! on the cleans B is the modeller. I like A and C and Does not matter what they are, The B has a Telltale DARK sound, I hear this alot on kemper and other modeller demos, so it might be it's give away, DARKNESS almost sounds like a Blanket in front of the Speaker cabinet sound, very DULL for sure, I personally do not like it, but it could be used I suppose and maybe required in a Mix maybe. Great JOB in advance, just LOVE these!!! Let us see if I am right.
My guess is A and C are modelers and B is tube amp because there’s more of a hifi clarity to A and C. Preference was C as it was tonally between the others. Will follow up with the reveal!
Okay I was right! I fight with the fractal sometimes being too bright so that’s maybe where I’ve got sensitivities.
I liked A best and did identify B as the tube amp. C to me wasn't quite as transparent.
My Favs, in order, C, A, B. I'm guessing the tube amp is B. Edit: Ok, I was "right" but I'm questioning my super hifi sounding preference. Thanks Matthew.
B is tube C is AxeFX and A is the secret.
Likes in order is C B then A.
WOW was i WRONG, makes me want an FM9 really bad now. I would really like to see a set up where or between you and Tom Bucavac, to see if Uncle Larry could be FOOLED and pick the modeller over a Miced actual amplifier. I also would like to see if John Cordy the Wizard of helix could do the SAME. I would even pay to See a Video on this, Session man vs MODELLER KINGS. Would be a Stellar Video!!!!
Well I got A and C right in the sense that I thought they were the same device with some tweak 😂 I just thought A and C was real amp and B was Fractal because I thought B sounded worst lol.
I got the A and B correct, but couldn't guess what C was about :)
I would say A was the best sound but if you rolled of some of the bass on the amp then it would’t sound so muffled, great review though .
Thanks for watching! Bass on the amp was already at about 2-3 and was not overly “bass-y” in the room. This isn’t so much a “best sound from the modeler vs the best sound from and amp” review, but an application comparison. Setting up a good tone from a modeler through an FRFR gives more consistent results when sending to FOH rather than getting a good tone from and amp and pedals. Mic’ing the cab can yield very different results, as seen here, and will require more work at the board or mic position for getting a desirable tone. When working with talented FOH and studio engineers this isn’t and issue, but if you are playing at a local bar gig (with no sound engineer or, let’s be frank, not a very good one), billed show with multiple bands, or even recording in a home studio the consistency of modelers makes a lot of sense. Tube amps are certainly capable of producing legendary tones, but capturing those tones can be a very nuanced task. Hope this clarifies my intent of this video. Thanks!
With having a third option I pick four.
it would have been interesting to have captured the cab with the mic placement intact and used that IR for the examples. B sounded muddy and under a blanket. I suspect they all would have had that in this scenario and been way harder to distinguish. I will declare modelers better for the simple reasons, lighter, smaller, more features, less overall cost, smaller lighter, smaller lighter and sound just as good in a mix. also did I mention smaller lighter and more features?
True. I might do a follow up where I play tube amp and modelers through the same cabinet, then try a Hughes and Kettner Redbox DI, then swap things around and run the tube amp pre into the Fractal speaker simulation.
C is the tube amp.
I preferred A in all the sound clips. C was good in some of them, but A was better. Didn’t care for B too much as it sounded a little nasally.
Overall I liked C more, with B in the second place
I thought in order of like vs not so much A, C, B.
Well A sounded the best to me and i guessed that was the tube amp. Im an axe owner and the fact that i was wrong pleases me
at first blush B sounds real and open and not at all digital. on clean 2 i thought C sounded best. on Morning glory 1, A was best for me, and Morning glory 2 B was best to my ears. Jazzy was C for me but all of those sounded almost the same. On Physician, B was my preference,
Mathew, recently I switched from Tonex to fm9. I admit it's been a little difficult. Although the fm9 delivers a lot, I'm finding it difficult to adapt to the type of sound offered.
My perception is that fm9 seems to be a little "harder". The notes played are drier, without much dynamics. To feel a more striking pick, you need to add a lot of gain.
And this undermines the definition of sound.
Am I doing something wrong or is this the case?
It's tough to say without taking a look at your presets or rig. A lot of "feel" can be adjusted with the "sag" control (amp power supply page), amp dynamics page and output compression, and IR or cabinet choice.
You proved a modeler creates great sounds, but you also proved that you compared to a basic recording setup for a real amp (I.e. no compression). IMHO: Option C was best, but we all know a real studio would have a rediculous studio chain that could more than rival that.
Having said all that, I have an Axe FX III and I now know that there are critical aspects that are never achieved compared to a real amp. It's a touch thing, and/or a harmonic thing and/or a certain tone thing. IMHO: Owning an Axe FX II, it will never be the real thing.
Yep, here we go... having said that... for the price, I get damn close with an Axe FX III, and I get every amp, darn near every effect, and darn near every speaker cabinet. I also know, if you have the real amp, and you mic it, and you get "that sound", good luck "live". An Axe FX II will sound the same in all venues.
In summary, the Axe FX III is the real deal and you can play anything. If you buy a "real amp", better want that for "your sound" and it will be better, but if you want options, it gets expensive, really expensive.
So, if you are a pro: in the studio, almost always use real amps. If you are a "pro" and you play "live", you will almost always want an Axe FX III, where a small stage, medium stage, or large stage will sound the same. It won't ever have that extra special magic of a real amp, but an amp you recorded in a small room will sound the same on the big stage.
So, I absolutely love my Axe FX III, but if I had the money, I would have every amp, every effect, guitar , etc. and use "the real thing"... for everything. My Axe FX III, gets me so close it doesn't matter. It literally gives you everything in one. Best deal ever.
The end.
"You proved a modeler creates great sounds, but you also proved that you compared to a basic recording setup for a real amp (I.e. no compression)." Yes, this is very true. However, example A was just the digital recreation of the analog rig, so no compression or anything else was used. Example C added more of a studio chain with "gear already in use." And yes, a pro studio could absolutely more than rival examples A and C with everything that could be used in the studio with an ace engineer. But this test is more about a home studio, or a live sound scenarios, and what the raw capture could be before any other processing is employed. I think you hit the nail on the head saying that amps are probably more at home in pro studios and an Axe-FX is more at home in live use. Certainly there are exception, but I'd much rather gig with an Axe-FX over an amp these days. Cheers!
The clean sounds are real muddy not my thing any of them
Everyone has subjective preferences. Not saying these are the "best tones ever" rather objectively comparing one to the other. My '74 DR is quite bassy even with the bass knob low so the Axe patches were created with that in mind to keep things as "apples to apples" as possible. Thanks for watching.
Your tube amp is sick ;) Shuffled and nasal. You should try to EQ it correctly or bring it to a tech.
Lol. It's been gone through and had new filter caps and a fresh bias among other small tune up items not that long before this video. The amp EQ was set how most of us like these amps sounding in the room. This video demonstrates how a modeler or an amp would be captured when setting up at a gig- so to clearly hear the sourced sound, I didn't use any channel processing on any of the examples. Mic placement on the speaker is probably the biggest factor when using live amps and speakers, but generally most of us don't have the time or opportunity to hone in the perfect mic placement at a gig like we might in a studio environment. In this day and age, the conversation of "does a modeler sound like a real amp" is a moot point, and this video and many of the comments show that the Axe-FX was favored among listeners when hearing the source. Modelers give us easier set-ups and consistent tones sent to FOH. I'm definitely not saying they are better than tube amps or vice-versa, but that there are important factors to consider when deciding what is best for your own rig. Thanks for watching!
@@mathew_dale Thank your for your reply. What I'm saying is that your tube amp tone is just bad, no clarity, too much bass, nasal mids, and it's not because of the amp. Maybe your mic placement indeed, maybe your EQ, maybe your speaker. I'm not discussing about other factors like versatility, ease of use, weight, better response to playing and dynamics, natural compression, etc. Just saying this comparison is biased
But C DOES sound the best! 😄
Who can tell the difference? Anyone in the room. I've done these exercises myself with 3 separate tube amps. You can imitate the sound with fractal for a youtube video, but fractal DOES NOT sound the same in the room.
yes, on the room it will depende a lot how are you monitoring the sound: small monitors, big frfr like laney LFR 212, or poweramp + cab, all of them delivery different feel and sound experience
It really depends how you are listening. What people call "amp in the room" is really "guitar cab in the room." Plugging a Fractal into a power amp and cab or an amp FX return yields the same "in the room" feeling with sound levels being the same. But this test isn't about playing in a room, rather the listeners experience in a recording or live setting. The tube amp in this context was consistently everyone least favorite.
@@mathew_dale I totally understand and agree with your comments. The only thing i want to point out is that when I purchased my Fractal I was unaware that i would need to spend so much on monitors. I spent $1200 on Adam Audio monitors and could have spent even more on Genelec. (yes i know there are cheap options or you could buy only one). No videos i ever watched mentioned the cost of decent monitors. I think it's worth noting in at least a video every now and then - the additional expense. I do love Fractal products. If someone bases their decision to go Fractal over traditional amps it's worth noting the difference in volume and feel. Thank you for your quality videos.
@@marcaustin I think you can just run it right into a Guitar Amp. That is what I did with a vox Tonelab Se, it was just like a regular guitar amp in the ROOM. Had all the touch response I remember when I would play an amp live.
This is true and can be a big deal, like you say. Monitors will always sound like monitors and never sound like a guitar cab no matter the cost- that's also the point. I mention this in a video I did a while ago call "Don't Buy an Axe-FX" th-cam.com/video/lpgI0L_JSb8/w-d-xo.html and the monitoring situation is a big reason. Definitely worth a revisit though. Thank you for your comments!
Your going in axe fx and out 3, you are going through the digital converters so it's not "true" analogue.
Yes it is true that the original guitar signal is going analog to digital, and then digital back to analog through the converters, but I believe that is a negligible difference compared to recording a separate performance. Technically it’s all digital because I recorded through an audio interface into a digital audio workstation and uploaded it to TH-cam lol.
B sounded vrey bad dull as hell , boomy sound you know what i mean .A was axe but it sounded good
At night writing and recording music, plug ins win.
Jamming amps wins
Axe fx does not have plug ins. So fuck axe fx
C was to me clearly more 3D and harmonically pleasing. Nice demonstration!
Thanks! Yep, C used 2 cabs hard panned for that 3D effect.
Too much yapping