MTB1973
Groupie
- Messages
- 94
Yup. I couldn't tell much relevant difference running my Fractal into the Fryette PS vs BluGuitar. BluGuitar was less flat since it's a guitar amp and voiced like one. Much less idle noise at lower volume too.Makes sense. I believe BluGuitar does this too, which would explain why the Mercury edition I played "felt" and sounded so damn good, despite being a class D power amp.
Yup. I couldn't tell much relevant difference running my Fractal into the Fryette PS vs BluGuitar. BluGuitar was less flat since it's a guitar amp and voiced like one. Much less idle noise at lower volume too.
There's a video on BluGuitar's YT channel where Blug plugs one of those Friedman or Bogner mini amps first into its own cheap ass class D SS poweramp and then the fx send to the Amp 1 fx return. The mini starts immediately sounding much better and more like a tube amp.
Being that I am quite often that person, no I don't think they're talking out of their ass"They sound the same; but there is a difference in feel" are talking out of their ass/mis-naming their experience/whatever.
I don't think that is quite accurate. I also conceeded the point that "feel" can't exist without ears. I think what we started off trying to figure out is why a Seymour Duncan Powerstage feels crap to play versus a valve amp. There was actually a bunch of pretty good discussion on this earlier in the thread, with talk of headroom, incorrect reportage wattage values, slew-rates, that kind of thing.I thought we were discussing which is whether the "feeling" of sound somehow lets us make finer distinctions than our hearing can
Well actually, if you've got someone who is deaf and their hearing range doesn't go any higher than 4kHz, then it would be entirely possible for them to be able to perceive the difference between a Seymour Duncan PS170, and say even a Fryette Powerstation, because of the differences in the low-end output. So that would be 'sonics'.Surely the deaf person isn't going to be able to distinguish a Les Paul from a Strat, much less an underpowered class D amp from a glorious tube amp.
I think it can be, but not necessarily always. Some people seem to be taking the "compression" angle, which is part sonics, and part "feel" I'd say.When someone says two guitar playing experiences feel differently, do you think the feeling they are talking about is the result of the air pressure being generated by the guitar amp thingy, or something else?
Uhh, the definition of latency is based on signal delay, which exists entirely in "this one little aspect called time."Latency is one but there's also this one little aspect called time.
That's nothing but word salad. It is true that sine sweeps can be used as stimuli to identify transfer functions (aka impulse responses) and that such a sine sweep occurs in a finite period of time. Is that what you're attempting to articulate?When you run a sinewave to measure the frequency response ( what some people reduce "sound" to ) it's done momentarily ...
Then you haven't looked. There are several ways to generate this kind of display. More importantly, all the information required to create the plot is contained in the impulse response/transfer function.Have yet to see a multidimensional spectrum ... as in plot the frequency spectrum as a function of time ...
Nope. Signal level vs. time is a two-dimensional space. Frequency vs. time is derived by analyzing a series of segments on the time axis. That still exists entirely in the two-dimensional space of signal level vs. time....So if an IR is a two dimensional vector ... make it three-dimensional ...
Uhem waterfall plot?Latency is one but there's also this one little aspect called time. When you run a sinewave to measure the frequency response ( what some people reduce "sound" to ) it's done momentarily ...
Have yet to see a multidimensional spectrum ... as in plot the frequency spectrum as a function of time ... that would be interesting.
So if an IR is a two dimensional vector ... make it three-dimensional ...
Fryette LXII. I have one and I love it.Someone should make something like a small tube power amp head for modelers, just a clean flat tube amp without a preamp. Seems like a good idea.
1. What you call "time" I call "dimension".1. Uhh, the definition of latency is based on signal delay, which exists entirely in "this one little aspect called time."
2. That's nothing but word salad. It is true that sine sweeps can be used as stimuli to identify transfer functions (aka impulse responses) and that such a sine sweep occurs in a finite period of time. Is that what you're attempting to articulate?
3. Then you haven't looked. There are several ways to generate this kind of display. More importantly, all the information required to create the plot is contained in the impulse response/transfer function.
Nope. Signal level vs. time is a two-dimensional space. Frequency vs. time is derived by analyzing a series of segments on the time axis. That still exists entirely in the two-dimensional space of signal level vs. time....
I know know those exist but I've yet to see such tools commonly used when analysing things like cabinet responses ... or rather I would like to see them used in next IR technology ... sort of three-dimensional IRs ... maybe that's what BlugGuitar is talking about with his dynamic IRs.
So what advantage does it give you over a 50w/100w head with an effects loop for less money?Fryette LXII. I have one and I love it.
Okay, that makes sense. Thanks, PW!!The Fryette is designed to be a completely flat, neutral power amp. The Origin will still color it a bit. Whether or not that matters to you is personal.
No, "what I call 'time'" you also called "time."1. What you call "time" I call "dimension".
I called nothing that.2. What you call "finite period of time in the context of a guitar impulse response"
That is flatly incorrect. "Mapping an input frequency to an output frequency" isn't what is done. The operation, which maps system output to frequency (input and output frequency are identical in linear systems) occurs in the frequency, not the time, domain. It is plotted with frequency as the independent variable ("abscissa") and a complex (aka phasor or vector) quantity that includes magnitude and phase as the dependent variable ("ordinate").I call mapping an input frequency to an output frequency which is momentarily.
Two dimensions - time and signal level - are required in order to plot an IR. An object that can exist in a single dimension has a name: straight line.3. I've yet to hear of two-dimensional IRs
More word salad. I recommend you undertake some study of the subject of integral transforms, specifically Fourier and Laplace transforms. Maybe the light will come on.4. What you call two-dimensional space I call "vector" where the index is the time "segment" and the value is the frequency.
Nope. It is impossible either to agree or disagree with pseudo-technical gibberish.So it seems we're mostly in agreement.
What you fail to realize even when handed to you above by JM is that each slice of a waterfall plot shows the frequency content of a windowed part of an impulse response.I know know those exist but I've yet to see such tools commonly used when analysing things like cabinet responses ... or rather I would like to see them used in next IR technology ... sort of three-dimensional IRs ... maybe that's what BlugGuitar is talking about with his dynamic IRs.
Edit: read about these dynamics IRs and it seems that they are indeed some sort of IR with an extra dimension but that dimension seems to be amplitude ...
I use them routinely. Once again, your lack of awareness does not prove that something you don't know about is not existent or even widely used.I know know those exist but I've yet to see such tools commonly used when analysing things like cabinet responses ...
Now only if someone would apply all this knowledge to create some proper IRs...No, "what I call 'time'" you also called "time."
I called nothing that.
That is flatly incorrect. "Mapping an input frequency to an output frequency" isn't what is done. The operation, which maps system output to frequency (input and output frequency are identical in linear systems) occurs in the frequency, not the time, domain. It is plotted with frequency as the independent variable ("abscissa") and a vector quantity that includes magnitude and phase as the dependent variable ("ordinate").
If you only consider magnitude response (IOW, you neglect phase response), your data is completely time-blind; it could have occurred a few milliseconds or a few days after the input was applied and still have the same magnitude response. Any latency could be frequency-dependent as well.
Two dimensions - time and signal level - are required in order to plot an IR. An object that can exist in a single dimension has a name: straight line.
More word salad. I recommend you undertake some study of the subject of integral transforms, specifically Fourier and Laplace transforms. Maybe the light will come on.
Nope. It is impossible either to agree or disagree with pseudo-technical gibberish.
The holy grail so to speak ... the speaker simulator. Of course that would require inventing a new technique of capturing a speaker more advanced than simple IRs.What's a "proper IR"? Lots of really great IR's out there these days.
What's a "proper IR"? Lots of really great IR's out there these days.
Oh the irony, such a technique already exists.The holy grail so to speak ... the speaker simulator. Of course that would require inventing a new technique of capturing a speaker more advanced than simple IRs.
No...you just don't get it. What I'm looking for is the frequency independent Fourier transmutation modulus of the infinite dimensional crystal lettuce.