Tonex -vs- NAM ..... the Tonex "Aliasing" Low Pass Filter is at ~ 14kHz

[djd100]

Look, if you guys are saying ToneX is rolling off at 2K or 5K then you're essentially saying it's unusable as those freqs are critical for electric guitar/bass, and I haven't seen anything about your test procedures so I can't comment excepting that I don't really give a what they are as my ToneX One is not rolling off at 2K or 5K.

With regards to ToneX rolling off at 14K I don't really care outside of the lab as it doesn't really effect electric guitar/bass in a drastic way during normal usage, and if it's doing that it was a design decision IK made for a number of reasons including it's not a big deal for electric guitar or bass under normal usage, though I do agree with all of you guys in hoping that wave shaping/capturing/profiling etc in general gets better going forward, why not, and NAM is a current leader in this endeavor so good on NAM!

Then there's the wave shaping vs component modeling debate, sorry, I'm out of here...

 

[DLC86]

you're essentially saying it's unusable as those freqs are critical for electric guitar/bass

That's a big logical jump and no one said it's unusable.

my ToneX One is not rolling off at 2K or 5K

You keep asking others to provide test procedures but you make these statements based on... your ears!
Ok, got it.

 

[MirrorProfiles]

I’ve always felt ToneX has a slightly rolled off sound (just like Amplitube does). It doesn’t always matter but it does lack some attack and crispness.

IMO it’s because of the overly aggressive filtering used from IK. I’d personally rather have a more accurate top end even if it meant more aliasing

 

[Ed DeGenaro]

Record a guitar preamp with no cab, add a LPF at 14Khz between the preamp and an IR. If you don’t hear a very noticeable difference your hearing is probably shot. Whether it’s a “good” sound or not is kind of irrelevant when the point is accuracy.

And what useable information is up there?
The highest fretted note on a standard tuned 24 fret guitar the high e is 1320Hz fir the fundamental.
my gained out Fryette pre generates the 13th harmonic at almost 16k is nearly 40dB down and 41cent sharp from a equal tempered ♭5.

So while chasing that accuracy thing might be fun for some it’s somewhat pointless since all that inharmonicity up there might as well be aliasing since if the speaker wouldn’t lop that overtone that’s already 40dB down another 30 dB down one would have to eq it out.

But hey carry on

 

[MirrorProfiles]

And what useable information is up there?
The highest fretted note on a standard tuned 24 fret guitar the high e is 1320Hz fir the fundamental.
my gained out Fryette pre generates the 13th harmonic at almost 16k is nearly 40dB down and 41cent sharp from a equal tempered ♭5.

So while chasing that accuracy thing might be fun for some it’s somewhat pointless since all that inharmonicity up there might as well be aliasing since if the speaker wouldn’t lop that overtone that’s already 40dB down another 30 dB down one would have to eq it out.

But hey carry on

Easy enough to run a LPF on your guitar tracks and see where it starts becoming noticeable. The filter will affect frequencies lower than the cut off, and it changes the phase.

I often find 10kHz too low for my taste, rolling off at 5k (even with a gentle slope) would be lunacy as a default. There’s a lot of complex harmonics in a guitar tone as well as fast transients. And a lot of character is in that upper frequency range.

 

[EOengineer]

Look, if you guys are saying ToneX is rolling off at 2K or 5K then you're essentially saying it's unusable as those freqs are critical for electric guitar/bass, and I haven't seen anything about your test procedures so I can't comment excepting that I don't really give a what they are as my ToneX One is not rolling off at 2K or 5K.

With regards to ToneX rolling off at 14K I don't really care outside of the lab as it doesn't really effect electric guitar/bass in a drastic way during normal usage, and if it's doing that it was a design decision IK made for a number of reasons including it's not a big deal for electric guitar or bass under normal usage, though I do agree with all of you guys in hoping that wave shaping/capturing/profiling etc in general gets better going forward, why not, and NAM is a current leader in this endeavor so good on NAM!

Then there's the wave shaping vs component modeling debate, sorry, I'm out of here...

Respectfully you might be taking this too personally. I’ve never known the guys posting these graphs and data to be interested in anything other than being curious and being a bunch of total nerds.

The data is the data. There are concrete differences in the spectral domain as a matter of fact. Whether that changes how you feel about the tool is obviously a personal thing.

For many of us who are 20+ years into exploring modeling tech, analyzing the realism is like 70% of the fun each time some next gen tech rears its head.

We arent trying to pick a fight, we’re investigating and learning.

 

[ian_dissonance]

And what useable information is up there?
The highest fretted note on a standard tuned 24 fret guitar the high e is 1320Hz fir the fundamental.
my gained out Fryette pre generates the 13th harmonic at almost 16k is nearly 40dB down and 41cent sharp from a equal tempered ♭5.

So while chasing that accuracy thing might be fun for some it’s somewhat pointless since all that inharmonicity up there might as well be aliasing since if the speaker wouldn’t lop that overtone that’s already 40dB down another 30 dB down one would have to eq it out.

But hey carry on

I agree it’s not necessary useful information, but again, profiling/capture tech’s whole deal is accuracy, which is also the whole point of this thread. And in a studio mix of something dense and high gain, that ghost of 16khz might be what slots the guitar where you need it. 10k is probably “useless” for a bass guitar, but a LPF with a resonant boost right around there often sounds pretty great on a crunchy bass in a mix. But anyways, this whole thread wasn’t about what’s good or bad or useful above X frequency, it’s about the accuracy of the picture of what is being captured.

 

[DLC86]

I agree it’s not necessary useful information, but again, profiling/capture tech’s whole deal is accuracy, which is also the whole point of this thread. And in a studio mix of something dense and high gain, that ghost of 16khz might be what slots the guitar where you need it. 10k is probably “useless” for a bass guitar, but a LPF with a resonant boost right around there often sounds pretty great on a crunchy bass in a mix. But anyways, this whole thread wasn’t about what’s good or bad or useful above X frequency, it’s about the accuracy of the picture of what is being captured.

Exactly, a capture software/device that isn't able to accurately replicate the frequency response - which is the aspect our ears are most sensitive to - in my book simply fails on its main purpose... Regardless if it still sounds good or not.

 

[Orvillain]

And what useable information is up there?
The highest fretted note on a standard tuned 24 fret guitar the high e is 1320Hz fir the fundamental.
my gained out Fryette pre generates the 13th harmonic at almost 16k is nearly 40dB down and 41cent sharp from a equal tempered ♭5.

So while chasing that accuracy thing might be fun for some it’s somewhat pointless since all that inharmonicity up there might as well be aliasing since if the speaker wouldn’t lop that overtone that’s already 40dB down another 30 dB down one would have to eq it out.

But hey carry on

Using the fundamental of the highest note on any guitar is not really relevant. The fundamental gives you no information about the harmonic structure of the pedals and amplifier distortion that come after the guitar.

I do not agree that inharmonicity (whether it actually is that, or not) is the same as aliasing. Aliasing necessarily involves wrap around frequencies, that ultimately ends up affecting and being perceived within the lower frequency range of the final tone.

 

[djd100]

Respectfully you might be taking this too personally. I’ve never known the guys posting these graphs and data to be interested in anything other than being curious and being a bunch of total nerds.

The data is the data. There are concrete differences in the spectral domain as a matter of fact. Whether that changes how you feel about the tool is obviously a personal thing.

For many of us who are 20+ years into exploring modeling tech, analyzing the realism is like 70% of the fun each time some next gen tech rears its head.

We arent trying to pick a fight, we’re investigating and learning.

There are no descriptions of the testing methodology including gear and levels used, or regarding the monitoring situation when subjective conclusions are given about the sonics, and seeing that my captures don't roll off at 2K or 5K I'm skeptical of the testing methodology. So, while there are no doubt differences between NAM and ToneX, or any doubt that NAM is more accurate in the upper high end, saying that a piece of gear is totally deficient in the mids/lower upper mids is essentially saying it's generally unusable for it's intended purpose when talking about electric guitar, as that's where the electric guitar lives in the frequency spectrum.

On top of that, there are no descriptions that I have seen regarding their ToneX testing other than "we made ToneX sound as good as we could", which doesn't cut it. Nobody even mentioned the sample rate they were running ToneX at (which matters with regards to aliasing)?

That said, I don't care one way or the other, though I hate to see people essentially trash ToneX without providing their gear and methodology, that's all.

Ya'll keep "investigating", that's great, though if you're going to publish your results try to do so properly is all I'm saying, knowing that some who read all this are going to sell their ToneX HW and buy NAM HW, which may or may not be the actual motivation here?

 

[Orvillain]

There are no descriptions of the testing methodology including gear and levels used, or regarding the monitoring situation when subjective conclusions are given about the sonics, and seeing that my captures don't roll off at 2K or 5K I'm skeptical of the testing methodology. So, while there are no doubt differences between NAM and ToneX, or any doubt that NAM is more accurate in the upper high end, saying that a piece of gear is totally deficient in the mids/lower upper mids is essentially saying it's generally unusable for it's intended purpose when talking about electric guitar, as that's where the electric guitar lives in the frequency spectrum.

On top of that, there are no descriptions that I have seen regarding their ToneX testing other than "we made ToneX sound as good as we could", which doesn't cut it. Nobody even mentioned the sample rate they were running ToneX at (which matters with regards to aliasing)?

That said, I don't care one way or the other, though I hate to see people essentially trash ToneX without providing their gear and methodology, that's all.

Ya'll keep "investigating", that's great, though if you're going to publish your results try to do so properly is all I'm saying, knowing that some who read all this are going to sell their ToneX HW and buy NAM HW, which may or may not be the actual motivation here?

Seriously. Stop being so offended. It is ungodly.

 

[ian_dissonance]

We’re not writing scientific papers we’re shooting the shit. Lighten up Francis.

 

[Richard_G]

In related news, IK appears to finally have removed the false marketing claim of "... no aliasing whatsoever" (see the second bullet point on the right in the screenshots below):


March 2025:



November 2024:

 

[Orvillain]

ToneX sweeps in PluginDoctor. VH4 capture. Cab included.

 

[Orvillain]

With the cab disabled.

 

[Orvillain]

Cab disabled. Lower threshold at -88dB.

I don't think I'm seeing any sign of there being a frequency roll off in the highs.

My ToneX version is 1.6.1 (24C26).

 

[[Nathan]]

There are no descriptions of the testing methodology including gear and levels used, or regarding the monitoring situation when subjective conclusions are given about the sonics, and seeing that my captures don't roll off at 2K or 5K I'm skeptical of the testing methodology. So, while there are no doubt differences between NAM and ToneX, or any doubt that NAM is more accurate in the upper high end, saying that a piece of gear is totally deficient in the mids/lower upper mids is essentially saying it's generally unusable for it's intended purpose when talking about electric guitar, as that's where the electric guitar lives in the frequency spectrum.

On top of that, there are no descriptions that I have seen regarding their ToneX testing other than "we made ToneX sound as good as we could", which doesn't cut it. Nobody even mentioned the sample rate they were running ToneX at (which matters with regards to aliasing)?

That said, I don't care one way or the other, though I hate to see people essentially trash ToneX without providing their gear and methodology, that's all.

Ya'll keep "investigating", that's great, though if you're going to publish your results try to do so properly is all I'm saying, knowing that some who read all this are going to sell their ToneX HW and buy NAM HW, which may or may not be the actual motivation here?

I dunno the ins and outs of ToneX vs NAM but I've given both probably 50-100+ hours of my time. ToneX always seems a step behind, longer to capture, more annoying software/ecosystem etc etc. But also the captures are totally usable and a ToneX one pedal is dirt cheap, huge merit there.

I passively watch these threads to see if people can come up with concrete explanations of why this is the case but at the end of the day I don't need to dump more time into it. I already concluded over a year ago it's just less good.

Re selling ToneX for NAM pedals, yeah I doubt that haha. When all is said and done especially in a live context pushed over the PA/IEMs I doubt any/many are telling the difference if the captures are done well on both platforms (if your ToneX captures suck then of course quality NAM captures will be better, but when I get mine as close as possible, splitting hair turf). If the ToneX pedal is working for you I really dont see any current advantage to selling/moving. I'd love to see a ToneX 2.0 thats on par/surpasses NAM because they can bring affordable pedals/fx to the masses... on the other hand I'd love to see NAM in a Line6 product or any flagship modelling unit alongside a suite of FX/routing. It can only go up from here really.

 

[EOengineer]

Ya'll keep "investigating", that's great, though if you're going to publish your results try to do so properly is all I'm saying, knowing that some who read all this are going to sell their ToneX HW and buy NAM HW, which may or may not be the actual motivation here?

Tonex and NAM both have plugins, one of them being completely free and backed by open source tech.

 

[[Nathan]]

So, the irony store was closed already?

(this has no bearing on you or your statement, I just couldnt avoid a seinfeld meme)

 

[[Nathan]]

In related news, IK appears to finally have removed the false marketing claim of "... no aliasing whatsoever" (see the second bullet point on the right in the screenshots below):


March 2025:

View attachment 40631

November 2024:

View attachment 40632

And they say Francois never achieved anything, I can only hope he badgered their support and marketing teams to the point they just removed the wording because it was easier