EOengineer
Shredder
- Messages
- 2,349
I feel like this is grossly overstating what little division (if any) exists between Tonex and NAM users. Why the added drama?
Tonex -vs- NAM ..... the Tonex "Aliasing" Low Pass Filter is at ~ 14kHz
- Thread starter BenIfin
- Start date
ian_dissonance
Roadie
- Messages
- 889
I don’t know, I think it would be fun for an IK rep to say more demonstrably inaccurate stuff and then disappear.
EOengineer
Shredder
- Messages
- 2,349
Poor Peter, man. Need to get him a TGF branded helmet he can wear when he comes here.
Ed DeGenaro
Shredder
- Messages
- 1,243
Well not in my world...but mkay
paisleywookiee
Rock Star
- Messages
- 6,265
Why would you be able to load NAM captures into ToneX in the first place?
Ed DeGenaro
Shredder
- Messages
- 1,243
He meant commercial Tonex captures
paisleywookiee
Rock Star
- Messages
- 6,265
I know. I’m just being a smart ass. If we’re gonna be highly anal about aliasing, let’s be specific!
ian_dissonance
Roadie
- Messages
- 889
I don’t know, company reps who don’t say stuff that can easily be proven inaccurate don’t seem to have any issue.
Boudoir Guitar
Rock Star
- Messages
- 4,564
One must justify the use of multi-color fonts somehow.
Ed DeGenaro
Shredder
- Messages
- 1,243
Like who?
BenIfin
Shredder
- Messages
- 1,092
For what its worth - I posted here why I started to try and figure this out.
I heard a difference and then tried to reconcile it, not the other way round.
None of the aliasing graphing and post uploading took more than about 20 min per post so fear not, I still play my guitar plenty.
I aim for no less than 60 mins a day which for me is a really healthy balance of learning and fun. I'm old school guitar-playing-wise. I have no desire, either physically or more importantly musically and melodically, to try and become a high speed human random note generator.
It was also correctly pointed out that the ~5k cut was probably too low and I discovered I was wrong and that the LPF or whatever is being done by IK kicks in at around ~14k so that was a very strong learning - and posted aliasing tests accordingly. And I've since edited the Thread Title and the 1st Post accordingly.
But simply put. I first heard some differences and could not tweak them out so looked a bit further to find out what I could, and corrected my details.
This may be anal or drama to some. It isn't, but as always, each to their own. To me its nuance and details which support what my ears were telling me before I went down this testing path.
Oh, and by the way, no text colorization and no text formatting where harmed in the creation of this post
I heard a difference and then tried to reconcile it, not the other way round.
None of the aliasing graphing and post uploading took more than about 20 min per post so fear not, I still play my guitar plenty.
I aim for no less than 60 mins a day which for me is a really healthy balance of learning and fun. I'm old school guitar-playing-wise. I have no desire, either physically or more importantly musically and melodically, to try and become a high speed human random note generator.
It was also correctly pointed out that the ~5k cut was probably too low and I discovered I was wrong and that the LPF or whatever is being done by IK kicks in at around ~14k so that was a very strong learning - and posted aliasing tests accordingly. And I've since edited the Thread Title and the 1st Post accordingly.
But simply put. I first heard some differences and could not tweak them out so looked a bit further to find out what I could, and corrected my details.
This may be anal or drama to some. It isn't, but as always, each to their own. To me its nuance and details which support what my ears were telling me before I went down this testing path.
Oh, and by the way, no text colorization and no text formatting where harmed in the creation of this post
Last edited:
OK, so there's a 14K'ish LPF, on electric guitar oriented gizmos that are captured or run through IR's or speakers that roll-off dramatically between 5K and 6.5K at most depending somewhat on diameter, while also understanding that ToneX's native sample rate is 44.1 and that it's performance apparently suffers to some degree when used in other sample rates or so I've read...
...so the problem with regards to real world usage is exactly what again?
That said, I just use it as a tube power amp sim with real tube preamps, and as such it's tube power amps are typically captured clean or edge of breakup for my needs, so maybe I'm missing something?
...so the problem with regards to real world usage is exactly what again?
That said, I just use it as a tube power amp sim with real tube preamps, and as such it's tube power amps are typically captured clean or edge of breakup for my needs, so maybe I'm missing something?
Last edited:
BenIfin
Shredder
- Messages
- 1,092
As always, each to their own. I can hear a difference in the real world when I play live/loud between the same Tonex and NAM Captures, so I know which is nicer to my ears. Its all good.
DLC86
Roadie
- Messages
- 762
Anyone else that wants to repeat again that BS that anything above 5-6 kHz doesn't matter on electric guitar cuz it gets filtered out by the cab/IR?
A couple questions for those:
- why do you use high cut filters on IRs if the IR already filters out high frequencies?
- why do you use IRs on full range speakers and not on traditional guitar cabs?
The answer to both is that a high-cut filter and the frequency response of a cab/IR don't completely cancel anything above a certain frequency, they just attenuate the signal there.
A high-cut filter set at 5 kHz and with a 12 dB/oct slope attenuates the signal by 15 dB at 10 kHz and by 27 dB at 20 kHz.
Same goes for guitar speakers/IRs, they don't have a defined slope but just look at the frequency response of an IR and you'll see that usually attenuation at high frequencies is no more than 20-30 dB (unless the mic is way off-axis).
So in both cases highs are still plenty audible and you can clearly hear the difference when adding additional filtering, especially if the signal coming out of the amp has a higher level on treble than on bass (something quite likely on distorted amps).
A couple questions for those:
- why do you use high cut filters on IRs if the IR already filters out high frequencies?
- why do you use IRs on full range speakers and not on traditional guitar cabs?
The answer to both is that a high-cut filter and the frequency response of a cab/IR don't completely cancel anything above a certain frequency, they just attenuate the signal there.
A high-cut filter set at 5 kHz and with a 12 dB/oct slope attenuates the signal by 15 dB at 10 kHz and by 27 dB at 20 kHz.
Same goes for guitar speakers/IRs, they don't have a defined slope but just look at the frequency response of an IR and you'll see that usually attenuation at high frequencies is no more than 20-30 dB (unless the mic is way off-axis).
So in both cases highs are still plenty audible and you can clearly hear the difference when adding additional filtering, especially if the signal coming out of the amp has a higher level on treble than on bass (something quite likely on distorted amps).
Last edited:
ian_dissonance
Roadie
- Messages
- 889
Even 14khz isn’t some inaudible change. Even a real mic on a real cab, unless it’s dialed in super dark, you’re going to hear cuts at 5khz or 14khz.
DLC86
Roadie
- Messages
- 762
Definitely!
One could argue that those frequencies usually are not that pleasant on guitar... But they're hearable for sure
A 14K LPF is 3db down at 14K, while the guitar amp's signal through a relatively bright Celestion V30/IR is some 30db down at 14K, so you guys are saying that that 33db down vs 30db down is a deal breaker?
OK, so now let's add a relative bright high quality large capsule condenser mic to the equation like a Neumann U87, and it's another 6db down at 14K, so now you guys are saying that 39db down vs 36db down at 14K is a deal breaker?
Also, ToneX has EQ as well, so adding 3db of top end is not hard should the dog ear'd among you really feel the need LOL!
That said, NAM is more accurate so I'm looking forward to watching products using it develop going forward, but there's no technical reason that ToneX can't get the job done IME.
OK, so now let's add a relative bright high quality large capsule condenser mic to the equation like a Neumann U87, and it's another 6db down at 14K, so now you guys are saying that 39db down vs 36db down at 14K is a deal breaker?
Also, ToneX has EQ as well, so adding 3db of top end is not hard should the dog ear'd among you really feel the need LOL!
That said, NAM is more accurate so I'm looking forward to watching products using it develop going forward, but there's no technical reason that ToneX can't get the job done IME.
Last edited:
BenIfin
Shredder
- Messages
- 1,092
Pretty much agree with your comments and get where you're coming from.
As I mentioned above I was just trying to track down the reasons for the differences I could hear, but not dial-out or dial-in to Tonex.
My starting point, was, NAM sounded audibly clearer and less congested - then I started doing the aliasing tests, to see if I could "see" what I was already "hearing".
Tonex is a great product and it absolutely can get any job done ... period.
I actually absolutely wanted to keep using just Tonex iOS instead of NAM Gigfast lite - 2 x Tonex iOS uses 2/3 less CPU with my IPad M1 using AUM compared to 2 x NAM Gigfast - roughly %19 -vs- %58 .... by any accounting that is a massive difference in favor of Tonex
In the end, as my Ipad Air M1 can easily handle 2 x Gigfast instances in series and be glitch free, I saw no reason not to use what I already knew sounded audibly better to me.
Nothing more. Nothing less.
Last edited:
Ed DeGenaro
Shredder
- Messages
- 1,243
I don't roll off top en, I use power amps and guitar speakers.
And what I said it rolls off above 5k
