Tonex aliasing

[paisleywookiee]

I was sorta kidding. Real question, how much more difficult is the ToneX and NAM than Kemper?

The cabling isn't difficult. The results from the captures vary wildly.

But also, most dummies already opt out of that kind of thing anyway. How many dummies do you know that want to learn computer programming for instance?

You're taking the "dummies" term too literally. Plenty of people would love to capture their own amps. It's not analogous to computer programming. At all.

This is like overclocking. In the PC review space, the enthusiast channels like to pretend that their audience can't overclock and thus never explore obvious settings that 99% of their viewers will make. As if the typical person who built a computer and plays guitar can't figure out how to set levels. They like to pretend that their reviews are for average "dummies" but their viewers are high information and experienced with computers.

No, it's definitely nothing like that either. It's using a computer. That's it.

 

[paisleywookiee]

So why do you think ToneX regressed in this space compared to Kemper? Yet they seem to be selling like gangbusters?

Lets stop pretending the average user is "average".

Regressed? It introduces the variable of interfaces and computers. While not difficult things to use, the leveling and such has been a problem. And I'm not pretending anything about what's average and what isn't.

 

[JiveTurkey]

Profiling on a Kemper is dead simple. Successfully capturing with a Tone-X where the end result matches the amp for me was Ugh-city. Using their own interface. There is enough of a tonesharing infrastructure and freebies combined with it's cheap point of entry that it has done well I'd say.

 

[paisleywookiee]

Profiling on a Kemper is dead simple. Successfully capturing with a Tone-X where the end result matches the amp for me was Ugh-city. Using their own interface. There is enough of a tonesharing infrastructure and freebies combined with it's cheap point of entry that it has done well I'd say.

Right. It's just a drag, IMO, to a own a capture-capable device that I can't easily turn around and capture stuff exactly how I want it. It's why this stuff will always be secondary for me.

 

[JiveTurkey]

Right. It's just a drag, IMO, to a own a capture-capable device that I can't easily turn around and capture stuff exactly how I want it. It's why this stuff will always be secondary for me.

Yeah I had 5 seconds of "hey it'd be cool to find a firesale stage and add the VP4 to it via spidf!" the other day. Profiles just aren't near as fun for me.

 

[paisleywookiee]

Yeah I had 5 seconds of "hey it'd be cool to find a firesale stage and add the VP4 to it via spidf!" the other day. Profiles just aren't near as fun for me.

Nor I. One of my main Fractal patches is a Recto 1 Red tweaked to hell, that just wouldn't be possible IRL, without a bag of cash and a donor amp.

 

[JiveTurkey]

FAS Rectos are GOAT tier modeling

 

[banned]

FAS Rectos are GOAT tier modeling

Really? I kinda like the L6 one better - feel it's got more of that buzz at lower MV.

 

[JiveTurkey]

Really? I kinda like the L6 one better - feel it's got more of that buzz at lower MV.

You poor child

 

[banned]

LOL....maybe just me :)

Something about the high-end that I feel sounds 'realer' on L6 on this model.

 

[JiveTurkey]

I like the L6 Recto as it's own thing! It doesn't hang with my IRL experience with the amp though.

 

[DLC86]

Nor does it means it sounds worse because you have measured more aliasing.

?? We were talking about amp tonestacks and the fact you can't easily replicate their behaviour with a generic EQ, what has aliasing to do with that?

Anyway, sounding better or worse is subjective, some people hear some stuff, some people hear other stuff... But aliasing is measurable hence objective, and it's a thing a real amp doesn't have, so the less a simulation has it, the (objectively) better it is.

My first question was, did you run the software or the pedal. If this problem is solved by more oversampling, certainly then can do that in the software.

I already answered that question. Not sure that can easily be done with AI captures, most likely not with already done ones.
E.g. NAM captures currently can be "oversampled" only by making captures at 96 or 192 kHz, but you can't change that afterwards

Your measurements indicate they are using less than 8x oversampling (because Fractal uses 8x ... they must be using less.)

My measurements indicate they're not using oversampling at all, harmonics reflect right at 22.1 kHz.
And there's other weird stuff caused by a wrongly implemented sample rate conversion too that appears if you run the plugin at 48 kHz.

As I already said, this is all covered in the original thread from last year, so go read that if you want to dive in.

 

[BagDragger]

?? We were talking about amp tonestacks and the fact you can't easily replicate their behaviour with a generic EQ, what has aliasing to do with that?

Anyway, sounding better or worse is subjective, some people hear some stuff, some people hear other stuff... But aliasing is measurable hence objective, and it's a thing a real amp doesn't have, so the less a simulation has it, the (objectively) better it is.


I already answered that question. Not sure that can easily be done with AI captures, most likely not with already done ones.
E.g. NAM captures currently can be "oversampled" only by making captures at 96 or 192 kHz, but you can't change that afterwards


My measurements indicate they're not using oversampling at all, harmonics reflect right at 22.1 kHz.
And there's other weird stuff caused by a wrongly implemented sample rate conversion too that appears if you run the plugin at 48 kHz.

As I already said, this is all covered in the original thread from last year, so go read that if you want to dive in.

@ DLC86 - New here. I've read lots of your posts, they are always really well-informed and accurate technically as far as I can tell.

A simulation having less aliasing doesn't make it (objectively) better sounding as you said, it makes it (objectively) more accurate to an original analog amp - that's my opinion. Better sounding can only ever be subjective. I accept that for a lot of people more accurate is what they want so for them that equals better.
I have no reason to defend any product, I really don't care which is better in that way. I've done lots of my own tests on quite a lot of gear to assess how badly they suffer from aliasing and what never quite adds up is that some of the products with the worst aliasing can sound the best to me when playing, even specifically the pedal and amp combinations that have the worst aliasing when tested. Sometimes they don't, but sometimes they really do - there's just no getting away from that and I really don't understand why even though I've spent many hours thinking and reading about it. I hope it's not because I'm going deaf.

 

[2dor]

 

[DLC86]

@ DLC86 - New here. I've read lots of your posts, they are always really well-informed and accurate technically as far as I can tell.

A simulation having less aliasing doesn't make it (objectively) better sounding as you said, it makes it (objectively) more accurate to an original analog amp - that's my opinion. Better sounding can only ever be subjective. I accept that for a lot of people more accurate is what they want so for them that equals better.
I have no reason to defend any product, I really don't care which is better in that way. I've done lots of my own tests on quite a lot of gear to assess how badly they suffer from aliasing and what never quite adds up is that some of the products with the worst aliasing can sound the best to me when playing, even specifically the pedal and amp combinations that have the worst aliasing when tested. Sometimes they don't, but sometimes they really do - there's just no getting away from that and I really don't understand why even though I've spent many hours thinking and reading about it. I hope it's not because I'm going deaf.

Well, there's a lot of other things that can make an amp sim subjectively better or worse... maybe you just like a tone full of aliasing, it's "richer" after all

 

[JiveTurkey]

"Mellow highs"

 

[BagDragger]

All I can do is use my ears at this point. I just don't like the fact that I can't find an analytical pathway to the same conclusion.

 

[BenIfin]

Well, there's a lot of other things that can make an amp sim subjectively better or worse... maybe you just like a tone full of aliasing, it's "richer" after all

Hey Paisano !

Am curious about something.

In your excellent TTS thread, I ran a Tonex -v- NAM Standard aliasing Test => here <=

The 2 x Graphs clearly show (a) that the Tonex has a Low Pass Filter kicking in at 16kHz and up and (b) that NAM Standard is somewhat better in terms of overall aliasing.

My question is:-

=> is it possible to tell from these graphs (?) or some other test (?) at what - dB level the aliasing in Tonex and NAM is registering ?

I know Cliff has said in the past that he aims / try's to aim for the average aliasing levels to be at -60db or lower ... as he states that -60db is very close to actual silence for humans

All the best.
Ben

 

[Orvillain]

A simulation having less aliasing doesn't make it (objectively) better sounding as you said, it makes it (objectively) more accurate to an original analog amp - that's my opinion.

I think this is exactly backwards.

Aliasing is essentially noise in the frequency domain. Reduction of noise is directly equivalent to the term "better sounding".

 

[BagDragger]

I think this is exactly backwards.

Aliasing is essentially noise in the frequency domain. Reduction of noise is directly equivalent to the term "better sounding".

I don't think so. Firstly you've got to define what you mean by noise. Some aliasing sounds like a ring mod effect, sometimes it creates an effect that to listen to is similar to the noise that is added to synth oscillators - that's if you can even hear it of course. It also depends on what you feed into the device producing the aliasing. The aliasing on amp model a will be different from the aliasing on amp model b, it's not a one shot deal. I don't think you can say "all aliasing is bad", and certainly to me, even when I know I'm playing through something that I've tested and proved has audible aliasing for a sine sweep, whatever effects are being created are not unpleasant - remember that tube distortion wasn't "desirable" once upon a time, what they really wanted when they first started building amps was pure undistorted amplification. Tube distortion was an artifact that became a desirable function of the amplifier tone for a culture demanding something more edgy and rebellious back in the day.

As I said if you are one of those people who thinks that better is exactly the same as a baseline analog amp, then for you zero aliasing is the ideal. I would say it's the ideal for me too, because you can always add noise afterwards if you have a pure signal, but I think it's an almost impossible dream in 2025, so I'll go with what I subjectively like the sound of, aliasing and all.

Proof of subjectivity is in the playing and listening.