Synergy Nerds, school me..

[Shask]

A/B Synergy vs Fractal as preamp?
Incredibly, I couldn't find any comparison videos... it's almost as if they want to hide something. Hundreds of YouTubers, and no one has done this test...

Just found this:



You can obiviously hear some difference, but at that point it's really subjective.
Someone skilled with AXE would be able make both sound the same in a recording to the point no one can tell the difference hearing it.

The real thing you would (could, depending on your sensitivity) miss is the feel and the obvious latency.
To be fair even when you use GUITAR -> AXE -> SYNERGY -> AXE setup in 4CM you'll miss the feel and get twice the latency because guitar is going trough A/D D/A before SYN.

I asked a friend who owns it (I'm part of Synergy so my opinon don't matter here) to try it (with a Diezel poweramp) and below the chat.

Axe-FX gets really close, but I recently A/Bd an existing amped track I did with several attempts to get the Fractal to match it and there is just a certain clarity and punch that wasn’t quite there. The distortion character was very close, but it was almost like you could hear and feel the wood of the cab adding clarity and warmth.

I record relatively loud through 2 4x12s I attribute the difference to the real cab and mics more than the preamps. I have also tried the Axe-FX preamps into the cabs and didn’t like it as much as just using an amp in 4cm.

I am gearing up to use the Axe-FX live mostly due to the small stages around this town and to make setups and gear hauling easier, but still prefer amps for serious recording projects.

Yeah, I think most people who would do this test would probably put the Synergy in a Fractal loop and record it direct, which would negate part of the differences. It would mask the differences and make them sound more similar.

I have compared my Syn 2 and FM3 for my high gain chug tones, and the Synergy always has more of a punchy immediate feel. The Fractal has more of a squishy pick attack which makes it feel more sluggish.

I dont even like running my Synergy through the FM3 (or Axe-Fx II) for effects directly because I can tell running straight through it dont really change the frequencies too much, but does take away some of the punch and dynamics. Makes it feel flatter and less fun to play. Running it in 4CM makes that even worse, which is why I wont use 4CM. I only use them in parallel with a mixer to I can keep my analog dry through.

 

[Dino334]

Yeah, I think most people who would do this test would probably put the Synergy in a Fractal loop and record it direct, which would negate part of the differences. It would mask the differences and make them sound more similar.

I have compared my Syn 2 and FM3 for my high gain chug tones, and the Synergy always has more of a punchy immediate feel. The Fractal has more of a squishy pick attack which makes it feel more sluggish.

I dont even like running my Synergy through the FM3 (or Axe-Fx II) for effects directly because I can tell running straight through it dont really change the frequencies too much, but does take away some of the punch and dynamics. Makes it feel flatter and less fun to play. Running it in 4CM makes that even worse, which is why I wont use 4CM. I only use them in parallel with a mixer to I can keep my analog dry through.

4CM with the FM9 or AF3 is magical! The FM3 has been the weakest link of the latest units, but still decent. There's plenty of posts about that. I use my FM9 and AF3 in 4cm with several heads..no problems, no tone suck, or tone changes. Probably the most transparent units I've ever used, including the old rack gear.

 

[Shask]

4CM with the FM9 or AF3 is magical! The FM3 has been the weakest link of the latest units, but still decent. There's plenty of posts about that. I use my FM9 and AF3 in 4cm with several heads..no problems, no tone suck, or tone changes. Probably the most transparent units I've ever used, including the old rack gear.

I tried 4CM with my Axe II and FM3 and I didn't like either. It doesn't really change the tone too much, but it changes the dynamics. I think it takes the punch away and kind of smears the low end together like a compressor does. It makes it feel sluggish and less punchy. It is enough to drive me crazy. I notice even just using in the loop does the same thing, but not as drastic as also having it before the tubes.

I typically run an analog mixer after my Syn 2 and run the Axe II in a loop, so it is in parallel with the analog signal. That keeps my dynamics and lets me get the great Fractal effects.

 

[laxu]

but it changes the dynamics. I think it takes the punch away and kind of smears the low end together like a compressor does.

This could easily be just a slight level difference.

I remember thinking a Helix Floor had "tone suck" in a Bogner's fx loop, but it turned out to be just an issue with the volume level where with the Helix it was just slightly quieter. I adjusted the levels from the Bogner and Helix and toggling the Bogner fx loop on/off sounded pretty much identical.

I needed a decibel meter to verify the volumes because it was hard to hear as other than "something is different when the fx loop is on".

I messed with using my Fractal AM4 as a fx unit in front of my amps last weekend. It has an automatic hardware bypass option when there are no blocks enabled, so it's easy to compare on vs off. The difference was totally marginal, like I'd never care about it since I got some great fx to play with.

 

[Shask]

This could easily be just a slight level difference.

I remember thinking a Helix Floor had "tone suck" in a Bogner's fx loop, but it turned out to be just an issue with the volume level where with the Helix it was just slightly quieter. I adjusted the levels from the Bogner and Helix and toggling the Bogner fx loop on/off sounded pretty much identical.

I needed a decibel meter to verify the volumes because it was hard to hear as other than "something is different when the fx loop is on".

I messed with using my Fractal AM4 as a fx unit in front of my amps last weekend. It has an automatic hardware bypass option when there are no blocks enabled, so it's easy to compare on vs off. The difference was totally marginal, like I'd never care about it since I got some great fx to play with.

A lot if people think this, but it isn't. Levels and impedance can effect the brightness, but don't effect compressing the bass peaks.

I have put them in true bypass loop pedals, put buffers before and after, etc... every time it does something I don't like.

Some people don't care to gain the flexibility, but I dont use enough sounds to let it go. I mostly need 1 badass sound and everything else should only sit on top of it.

 

[Elric]

that is exactly what they are saying. having the master volume down likely means you're not using the power section at all in cabless mode. I bet if you pulled the power tubes the direct out would work the same

Of course it works that way. It has digital power amp emulation. Is there someone who doesn’t get this? The 30W head has a silent mode too and it’s a resistor for the load as well.

 

[ax84ch]

Of course it works that way. It has digital power amp emulation. Is there someone who doesn’t get this? The 30W head has a silent mode too and it’s a resistor for the load as well.

in the case of the 30w, the DI is using the power amp and resistive load. in the 20 watt, I think the poweramp is completely uninvolved . earlier in thos thread it was suggested otherwise.

 

[Karl Houseknecht]

I wouldn’t recommend both for live use as there will be some difference in latency as there is a slight (really minimal) latency with the digital poweramp and ir sim.

Are you saying if you use both a real cab and the DI out that there is audible latency between the two?

 

[politoleo]

Are you saying if you use both a real cab and the DI out that there is audible latency between the two?

It's 0.2ms to 0.4 ms depending on the IR, less than the latency between two speaker in the same cabinet.

 

[Karl Houseknecht]

It's 0.2ms to 0.4 ms depending on the IR, less than the latency between two speaker in the same cabinet.

0.2 ms? LOL. I'd hardly call that latency. So the use case of running both the speaker and the direct out should work completely fine then? I mean, I'd assume so since that's one of the main features. Curious why @hblu22 recommends otherwise?

 

[politoleo]

0.2 ms? LOL. I'd hardly call that latency. So the use case of running both the speaker and the direct out should work completely fine then? I mean, I'd assume so since that's one of the main features. Curious why @hblu22 recommends otherwise?

Yes, even if latency was 2ms would be completely fine.

Nowdays a lot of venue uses digital mixer anyway, where latency is already in that ballpark!

 

[hblu22]

0.2 ms? LOL. I'd hardly call that latency. So the use case of running both the speaker and the direct out should work completely fine then? I mean, I'd assume so since that's one of the main features. Curious why @hblu22 recommends otherwise?

I agree it is minimal but there would be a slight chorus or phase like tone - same as if you had a minuscule delay on one side of a stereo guitar part. Obviously this can be desirable in some cases and plenty use it to thicken sounds but in terms of pure guitar tone you just have to recognize that they are not 100% aligned and if playing live that might make you choose one over other unless they are being used for different purposes such as speaker out to small cab for monitoring purposes and the di out to front of house.

 

[hblu22]

Yes, even if latency was 2ms would be completely fine.

Nowdays a lot of venue uses digital mixer anyway, where latency is already in that ballpark!

It’s not about the latency. I completely agree it is amazingly low and basically best in class. I was just talking about two signals. One with zero latency and one with a very tiny amount that would be mixed together at the same time

 

[politoleo]

It’s not about the latency. I completely agree it is amazingly low and basically best in class. I was just talking about two signals. One with zero latency and one with a very tiny amount that would be mixed together at the same time

But where will it be mixed? On a stage? If so just move the cabinet one inch and problem solved!

On PA you have XLR on cabinet you have the amp.

I still don't see the issue!

 

[CorrosiveMatter]

But where will it be mixed? On a stage? If so just move the cabinet one inch and problem solved!

On PA you have XLR on cabinet you have the amp.

I still don't see the issue!

Some crazy folks think they can hear .2ms of latency, you can't talk any sense to them.

 

[politoleo]

Some crazy folks think they can hear .2ms of latency, you can't talk any sense to them.

I mean he is right in a wat, you will have chorusing if you mix them togheter in a daw.

But the real word usage for that application is just stage + PA or stage + in ear.
In that case there's absolutely no difference.
Result will be like having two monitor, one some closer to your head than the other.

Also IR loader with zero latency is not possible due to converters, so that is true for any amp + load box anyway.

 

[Shask]

But where will it be mixed? On a stage? If so just move the cabinet one inch and problem solved!

On PA you have XLR on cabinet you have the amp.

I still don't see the issue!

He is probably talking about running 2 amps in parallel. Any latency will cause phasing and comb filtering.

 

[Ed DeGenaro]

Some crazy folks think they can hear .2ms of latency, you can't talk any sense to them.

It’s got nothing to do with hearing latency.
Summing a miked cab and the emulated out will have phase smear.

Now I’m not sure why I’d bother with it live.
But that’s the reality of mixing digital and analog.

It’s enough of a pain getting the dugout in phase with another digi out when recording.

What obvious use case is dry miked cab and fx on digi out, it’ll need kill dry.

 

[Karl Houseknecht]

there would be a slight chorus or phase like tone

Not at 0.2 ms there wouldn’t. You’d need at least 5 ms. 25 times as much latency.