Fractal Talk

[JiveTurkey]

If you think they fixed it by tone matching the Fractal; you should go to TGP and suggest that to Stilwell

 

[James Freeman]

I can see Cliff surrounded with Plexi's in his lab right about now.

 

[Elric]

Some original EVH guitar stems were posted on YT, don't know if they are still there. They were shrill and trebly AND they were recorded to console/ tape and who knows how many generations of copies and/or eq.

FWIW, I would wager that any EVH "stems" you are hearing on YouTube in 2024 are not actual isolated tracks from the 1977 analog tapes. Shocker I know.

They are likely some algorithms guess at what the guitar only portion of the track is... which may or may not have some bearing on reality; I agree that real ISO tracks are often interesting and can help shed light on questions but I would not trust supposed ISO tracks of ancient classic recordings on YT. Generally think of them as more of a novelty than anything else; would not cite them as evidence of much.

 

[la szum]

I can see Cliff surrounded with Plexi's in his lab right about now.

I wonder if he has them dialed in a way no one would ever use them??









Too soon?

 

[James Freeman]

I wonder if he has them dialed in a way no one would ever use them??



Too soon?

Well, he has to now, because I am the first to dime the Treble on a Plexi in the last 60 years, that's my tone.

 

[Mongillo19]

Well, he has to now, because I am the first to dime the Treble on a Plexi in the last 60 years, that's my tone.

In seriousness. What is a "common" way to dial in a plexi? I realize common is hard to define but yet

 

[James Freeman]

What is a "common" way to dial in a plexi? I realize common is hard to define but yet

Most of the distortion is generated after the tonestack in the phase inverter and power tubes, so typically you lower bass and push treble to get tighter response and more gain, and push presence to maximize power amp gain.

 

[holoholo]

Warning: Long and meandering discussion about reality of guitar tones.

It was over five years ago, so I don't know the origin. I think it was before modern stem extraction, but I don't know for sure. I agree its impossible to know their origin.

When I first got into mic recording circa 2000, I learned that even though modelers of that time were primitive (I had a Johnson J-Station), it sounded better than what I could get with an SM57 on cone, recorded into a prosumer interface of the time.

My impression is that the vast majority of the ways you can mic up cabs are wrong/inferior, compared to what can be done with mutliple mics, at the exact right position, into highest quality conversion, with best possible channel strip, etc.

In fact, what really happened imo, is that Fractal/IRs became commonplace and that the best tones were positively selected on the internet, by clicks/likes and eventually everyone's rig started to converge to a certain produced sounds that everyone agreed was the best. This evolution mostly took place in the 2010-2020 time frame imo. A direct Fractal tone in 2024 is considerably better than what was produced in studios prior to digital.

What happened next was once this "standard" had been accepted, people went back to recreate it with real mics. There wasn't a parallel evolution of analog recording with digital direct.

So what started out was the wild west with mics on cones, with expensive desks in the 60/70/80/90s, eventually got digitized/consensualized, and then people went back and worked to recreate the best tones (consensus reached through click algorithms) that digital had reached, with real mics.

So what is real? I think this consensus that was reached with digital modeling/IRs is probably vastly different than the sounds put out the original amps and cabs, which were run through an expensive desk and tape.

IOW, what people like about modern guitar tones evolved from modeling and youtube likes, and the different devices have now converged to that, even if it is "incorrect" or vastly different than what the original gear sounded like.

So, as that relates to the TMP 5150. It may actually be closest to the real amp they modeled, or perhaps they used some creative liberty to make it "better", but the internet was having none of that, so they went back and tone matched the fractal. That is my belief.

I was kind of following your logic until you got to the last paragraph. If they tone matched the fractal for the 5150, then why didn't they just do that for all amps? That makes no sense.

 

[dk_ace]

That is the problem with this whole thing. Many modelers create what people think it sounded like, not what it actually sounded like.

Some original EVH guitar stems were posted on YT, don't know if they are still there. They were shrill and trebly AND they were recorded to console/ tape and who knows how many generations of copies and/or eq.

If someone didnt have a Neve console and the best mics, and just stuck an SM57 into their Mackie mixer or 4-track, what would it have sounded like? My guess is that people would put the mic right on dust cap and use the tape loss of high end to balance it out.

I think the approach was largely to just stick mics on it and use EQ/mix on the board, plus neve/api sound of the console to make it work. And then use compressors and reverb tank sparingly.

The coveted EJ sound? How much of that was done at the board?


My opinion of modelers is that they are converging on a "fakeness" that people like based on modern recording techniques and a produced sound.

Fender TMP came out with a 5150 model that people generally didn't like. Someone did an AB shootout with the Fractal 5150 and they were different! So a few months later, Fender rolls out a patch where the 5150 now sounds nearly identical to the AB with the Fractal (and they gave some explanation that I forget.) Was the new 5150 more realistic, or did they tone match it to the Fractal because its what people expect? I think the latter.

I don’t agree at all at least with regard to fractal and helix. It’s just as easy to make them sound bad as it is a traditional amp/cab/mic. They don’t always sound polished and smooth. You can make them do that, and a lot of the defaults and presets have that going on, but if you just grab an amp model with knobs at a rough starting point, appropriate cab, and a mic you’re familiar with pointed in a good starting point location on the speaker my experience is that it sounds very much like the real deal does for better or worse.

Some of us aren’t brainwashed into thinking that those smooth, polished tones are what we’re looking for. I learned to dial in tones by listening to isolated guitar tracks. What I’m dialing in for live play, especially in larger than 3-4 piece formats, is better described as bright and brash. It doesn’t sound that great in isolation, but it pops in the mix. I have not had any trouble doing this in fractal or helix, neither one is idealized where I can’t get just the real, raw kind of sounds.

D

 

[DrewJD82]

FWIW, I would wager that any EVH "stems" you are hearing on YouTube in 2024 are not actual isolated tracks from the 1977 analog tapes. Shocker I know.

They are likely some algorithms guess at what the guitar only portion of the track is... which may or may not have some bearing on reality; I agree that real ISO tracks are often interesting and can help shed light on questions but I would not trust supposed ISO tracks of ancient classic recordings on YT. Generally think of them as more of a novelty than anything else; would not cite them as evidence of much.

I’m pretty sure the room mics track came from this-

 

[Mongillo19]

What are we even discussing at this point? That the TMP is actually just all fractal models as reference

 

[JiveTurkey]

5 hours later, still No.

 

[Mongillo19]

5 hours later, still No.

Yeah it's not only not true but also a slight on all these companies who put time and money into creating models. I love FAS as much as most on here but let's not get carried away

 

[laxu]

Not owning a Fractal or a 5150, the TMP 5150 sounded as good as the Fractal 5150. And with tweaking the knobs or swapping IRs, I am certain you could get virtually identical result with either one.

There is the problem though. The people who care about these things ABed them through the same IR and found them different. Of course the assumption was that the Fractal was correct. Lo and behold, a couple months later TMP updated the model and it sounded virtually identical.

Its just a tone match they had to do based on public perception that the Fractal was more correct.

Fender owns rights to the 5150 model and it is hard for me to believe that they "screwed up" the accuracy of the model. It sounded the same as the Fractal but with a different EQ. The explanation was probably hand waving. They changed it to appease the market.

Their original model was probably closer to their in-house example.

I think your theory is just plain wrong. There were videos comparing the TMP to not only real EVH 5150s, but the Fractal and Quad Cortex. The TMP was the only outlier whereas the others lined up with "pretty close", enough to account for variations in amps.

Fender fixed an issue where impedance curve modeling was not applied to IRs but only TMP's stock cabs.

Have you ever used a tube amp through a resistive load? Because you can get the same effect where it becomes kinda flat and dull sounding compared to running direct to a cab (which acts as a reactive load altering the behavior of the tube amp), and swapping the resistive load for a proper reactive load makes a very noticeable difference where it becomes more "alive" sounding.

Also, why are we discussing this in the Fractal thread?

 

[dk_ace]

Not owning a Fractal or a 5150, the TMP 5150 sounded as good as the Fractal 5150. And with tweaking the knobs or swapping IRs, I am certain you could get virtually identical result with either one.

There is the problem though. The people who care about these things ABed them through the same IR and found them different. Of course the assumption was that the Fractal was correct. Lo and behold, a couple months later TMP updated the model and it sounded virtually identical.

Its just a tone match they had to do based on public perception that the Fractal was more correct.

Fender owns rights to the 5150 model and it is hard for me to believe that they "screwed up" the accuracy of the model. It sounded the same as the Fractal but with a different EQ. The explanation was probably hand waving. They changed it to appease the market.

Their original model was probably closer to their in-house example.

You should probably take this to a TMP thread I guess if you can’t actually speak to the quality of the fractal models.

I remember what you are describing, and the A/B tests with the real amp to the TMP weren’t close either. The fractal was close to the real amp, the TMP wasn’t. We were all shocked that they blew it on their own model, but they did. They then fixed it. Crap happens. They didn’t change it to match fractal they changed it to match the real amp, because it didn’t.

D

 

[Orvillain]

What happened next was once this "standard" had been accepted, people went back to recreate it with real mics. There wasn't a parallel evolution of analog recording with digital direct.

Wait... what?

No. That isn't true at all.

The options that Fractal and others give you - and have been giving you for quite some time - are precisely because those were the microphone positions, mic choices, preamp choices, and aesthetic choices that were happening for decades prior to digital modellers.

I mean... high gain guitars - a 421 or 57 on a V30 is a standard, and it is a standard for real world reasons. Not digital reasons.

 

[aflynt]

Trends in aesthetic preference aside, the Fractal models themselves have been progressing in the "warts and all" direction for quite a while from what I can hear. Also, from what I can gather with what Cliff has said publicly, the goal of realism derived from progressively more accurate testing is the stated methodology for producing the amp models.

-Aaron

 

[KHAAAAAAANNNNNNN!!!!!!!!]

Warning: Long and meandering discussion about reality of guitar tones.

It was over five years ago, so I don't know the origin. I think it was before modern stem extraction, but I don't know for sure. I agree its impossible to know their origin.

When I first got into mic recording circa 2000, I learned that even though modelers of that time were primitive (I had a Johnson J-Station), it sounded better than what I could get with an SM57 on cone, recorded into a prosumer interface of the time.

My impression is that the vast majority of the ways you can mic up cabs are wrong/inferior, compared to what can be done with mutliple mics, at the exact right position, into highest quality conversion, with best possible channel strip, etc.

In fact, what really happened imo, is that Fractal/IRs became commonplace and that the best tones were positively selected on the internet, by clicks/likes and eventually everyone's rig started to converge to a certain produced sounds that everyone agreed was the best. This evolution mostly took place in the 2010-2020 time frame imo. A direct Fractal tone in 2024 is considerably better than what was produced in studios prior to digital.

What happened next was once this "standard" had been accepted, people went back to recreate it with real mics. There wasn't a parallel evolution of analog recording with digital direct.

So what started out was the wild west with mics on cones, with expensive desks in the 60/70/80/90s, eventually got digitized/consensualized, and then people went back and worked to recreate the best tones (consensus reached through click algorithms) that digital had reached, with real mics.

So what is real? I think this consensus that was reached with digital modeling/IRs is probably vastly different than the sounds put out the original amps and cabs, which were run through an expensive desk and tape.

IOW, what people like about modern guitar tones evolved from modeling and youtube likes, and the different devices have now converged to that, even if it is "incorrect" or vastly different than what the original gear sounded like.

So, as that relates to the TMP 5150. It may actually be closest to the real amp they modeled, or perhaps they used some creative liberty to make it "better", but the internet was having none of that, so they went back and tone matched the fractal. That is my belief.

 

[sashimi]

Yes and no.

The sounds coming from the Fractal and modern modelers have much higher production value than tones from 60/70/80/90s.

My point was that modern tastes for guitar tones were developed from the internet "click algorithm", and the majority of those tones were done with modelers. And that feeds back upon itself. The best modeled tones then are used as a model for future iterations.


After the fact, some people have gone back and recreated the "modern interpretation of tone" with mics. For the past decade (at least) people haven't been listening to old recording for inspiration in their production. The expectation for modern guitar tones was largely set by modeling devices.

The only reason to use analog gear to record is for creativity and inspiration, but anyone doing that (now) are just emulating the production techniques developed over the past decade or so.

To make a crude analogy, its the same reason so many strippers have fake tits. At first fake tits stick out like a sore thumb, but after seeing so many, people start to identify with that look, even though they know its not real.

And now women are all wearing padded push up bras to make it look like they have fake tits even if they dont.

 

[Orvillain]

Yes and no.

The sounds coming from the Fractal and modern modelers have much higher production value than tones from 60/70/80/90s.

My point was that modern tastes for guitar tones were developed from the internet "click algorithm", and the majority of those tones were done with modelers. And that feeds back upon itself. The best modeled tones then are used as a model for future iterations.


After the fact, some people have gone back and recreated the "modern interpretation of tone" with mics. For the past decade (at least) people haven't been listening to old recording for inspiration in their production. The expectation for modern guitar tones was largely set by modeling devices.

The only reason to use analog gear to record is for creativity and inspiration, but anyone doing that (now) are just emulating the production techniques developed over the past decade or so.

To make a crude analogy, its the same reason so many strippers have fake tits. At first fake tits stick out like a sore thumb, but after seeing so many, people start to identify with that look, even though they know its not real.

And now women are all wearing padded push up bras to make it look like they have fake tits even if they dont.