(UPDATED for new FW!) EVH amp vs Axe Fx, QC and TMP...

[MirrorProfiles]

How is that an SIC? That sounds like an EQ in the IR/Cab block, which is not the same thing as impedance. They even call it a "filter" instead of impedance.

Well yeah. It’s the result of a SIC and it’s not really clear what (if anything) influences it. The answers so far are just leading to more questions.

I wanted to give them the benefit of doubt but I can’t really understand any of these decisions.

 

[LP59]

Well yeah. It’s the result of a SIC and it’s not really clear what (if anything) influences it. The answers so far are just leading to more questions.

I wanted to give them the benefit of doubt but I can’t really understand any of these decisions.

Put yourself in their shoes. Would you want to admit it's just an EQ instead of an SIC?

This confirms what Cliff guessed months ago.

 

[JT]

 

[PBGas]

Some passionate TMP users are determined to move the conversation away from this topic, presumably over some kind of insecurity.

Modeller "insecurity"

OMG.....LOL x 3!

Use what you like using and enjoy it.

 

[LP59]

I don't even mind so much that they don't model the SIC. Using a simple EQ in place of a proper SIC isn't unheard of (but you usually only see that in a lower price range).

The thing that bothers me is the dissembling way they've avoided answering questions about this in the past few months. Every time somebody would ask, they would reply with vague or even misleading answers. If you're proud of the modeler you've created, then you shouldn't be afraid to give direct answers to questions about important features like whether or not you have speaker impedance modeling.

Anyway I don't see how an EQ is going to fix the difference in Jon's video.

 

[riffy]

I don't even mind so much that they don't model the SIC. Using a simple EQ in place of a proper SIC isn't unheard of (but you usually only see that in a lower price range).

The thing that bothers me is the dissembling way they've avoided answering questions about this in the past few months. Every time somebody would ask, they would reply with vague or even misleading answers. If you're proud of the modeler you've created, then you shouldn't be afraid to give direct answers to questions about important features like whether or not you have speaker impedance modeling.

Anyway I don't see how an EQ is going to fix the difference in Jon's video.

I can't possibly see how it can.

 

[laxu]

+1.

I don't understand what Fender is saying. They told Jon the problem is the SIC in the IR block, but there's no such thing as an SIC in an IR block. You can have EQ in the cab block, but not impedance, but that's a poor way to model an amp.

And I don't see how a selectable SIC will necessarily solve the problem anyway. If, as they claim, the problem is the SIC, what if they don't provide a curve that matches whatever gear Jon is using (load box or cabinet)?

In the end though, I think this going to come down to Fender saying "You don't have the exact amp we modeled".

In the digital realm there isn't really any need for the SIC to be "in the cab block". It can just mean "when I have this cab selected, configure the SIC like this on the amp sim".

But this quickly runs into problems. If you can't select the SIC it can be wrong. If you don't have a cab block in the preset then you don't have the SIC behavior. Thus Fractal's approach of keeping the SIC functionality in the amp block is more practical even if it seems a bit unintuitive at first.

Even if the SIC is not a match, it should still be good enough to get reasonably similar results.

 

[LP59]

In the digital realm there isn't really any need for the SIC to be "in the cab block". It can just mean "when I have this cab selected, configure the SIC like this on the amp sim".

But this quickly runs into problems. If you can't select the SIC it can be wrong. If you don't have a cab block in the preset then you don't have the SIC behavior. Thus Fractal's approach of keeping the SIC functionality in the amp block is more practical even if it seems a bit unintuitive at first.

Even if the SIC is not a match, it should still be good enough to get reasonably similar results.

I think you meant to say "in the amp block". Anyway, I was referring to where it is applied and as MirrorProfiles says, it appears it's not applied in the amp model on the TMP. And it seems to be a simple effect, maybe just an EQ, or as Fender calls it, a "filter". The point is, if it's just an EQ it won't help Jon match his real amp.

Edit. See the following post if you have any doubt.

 

[2112]

I can't remember if I've posted these, but it's pretty easy to see what the IR loader is doing at the moment. I didn't normalise the levels but it's pretty easy to see what's going on regardless.

Pink Noise Reference

Null IR Loaded Into the Cab Slot of a non-TMP Modeler

Null IR Loaded into the TMP

 

[la szum]

Imagine your job is to defend decisions that are not your own, and that you have no say in.

 

[sashimi]

The SIC controversy with the TMP is my first time hearing about SICs. And I’m not defending fender here by asking this. But how do other modelers handle this? Helix, QC, kemper, boss, even amp/cab pedals like iridium, plugins, anything that can load an IR, do they all properly handle speaker impedance curves and Fender is the only outlier? Or is this just a fender vs fractal thing? Just wondering where the bar is set in general and how much I should care.

 

[jellodog]

The SIC controversy with the TMP is my first time hearing about SICs. And I’m not defending fender here by asking this. But how do other modelers handle this? Helix, QC, kemper, boss, even amp/cab pedals like iridium, plugins, anything that can load an IR, do they all properly handle speaker impedance curves and Fender is the only outlier? Or is this just a fender vs fractal thing? Just wondering where the bar is set in general and how much I should care.

That's a good question.

The details between products may vary. But when 3rd party IRs are used, I believe that most other modellers will usually choose a SIC that will either reflect a combo's SIC or the default paired cabinet for a head, or else a generic SIC (typically that of a 4x12). The SIC would be applied to the power amp model so that it behaves correctly.

This is information is usually not exposed to the user, although Fractal products do expose and display the SIC choice.

Of course it's unlikely that any default SIC will exactly match a chosen 3rd party IR, but it is often close enough; and usually better than not applying any SIC at all.

 

[ian_dissonance]

The SIC controversy with the TMP is my first time hearing about SICs. And I’m not defending fender here by asking this. But how do other modelers handle this? Helix, QC, kemper, boss, even amp/cab pedals like iridium, plugins, anything that can load an IR, do they all properly handle speaker impedance curves and Fender is the only outlier? Or is this just a fender vs fractal thing? Just wondering where the bar is set in general and how much I should care.

I believe Line 6 builds one into the amp model that corresponds to the cabinet used during the modeling process, Fractal allows you to choose. I’d guess most are doing something similar to Line 6 but maybe not as detailed (like a generic filter baked into the amp model) so that loading in an IR sounds relatively correct. While Fender’s approach is kind of useful for the stock cabs, it means you’re missing some information when you bypass the cab into a flat amplifier or you have an inaccurate filter loaded on to a third party IR.

 

[MirrorProfiles]

Its most common for the power amp response (which is influenced by the SIC) to be handled in the amp model, and the cab engine/IR’s are clean of any power amp behaviours. Most don’t allow you to change this poweramp behaviour, but they’ll generally use the poweramp response based on using a matching cab (or something commonly associated with the amp). Fractal and STL have the means to change poweramp responses (maybe Amperium does too?). Usually it’s just fixed with something sensible, and by and large it’s close enough for most situations (although it will make one model sound different to another). It’s quite a sensible compromise IMO.

Fender’s approach has more drawbacks IMO.

EDIT: This is something I really want to see more companies tackling. Fender have done something that kind of allows different poweramp responses but not in an accurate way. I’d rather have one fixed ACCURATE poweramp model, than all of them to be inaccurate (but changeable). In a lot of situations it might not matter much but it’s not the step forward I was hoping for. IMO any modern cutting edge modeller is going to have this modelled very well, which isn’t easy, but is a big hurdle to jump. Fractal are leading the way atm but there’s no reason others can’t tackle it too.

 

[Lysander]

I’d rather have one fixed ACCURATE poweramp model, than all of them to be inaccurate (but changeable).

+1000

The amount we collectively spent thinking about impedance curves before this TMP snafu was effectively zero.

And yes, i know Fractal has supported impedance parameters fine-tuning for years now - and most never bother with it at all. Their defaults (wisely) select impedance curves for the typical speaker load you'd expect attached to different amp models.

 

[LP59]

And yes, i know Fractal has allowed impedance parameters fine-tuning for many years now - and most people never bother with it at all. Their defaults (wisely) select impedance curves for the typical speaker load you'd expect attached to different amp models.

The way the AxeFX amp block is loaded with the correct SIC when selecting a DynaCab gives you the best of both: accurate impedance modeling and the correct SIC for the cabinet.

And it works great when using 4CM with a load box. There was a weird post on TGP from a Fender rep saying they'll maybe someday think about making the TMP suitable for use with external amps, like they've never even heard of 4CM before.

 

[jellodog]

The amount we collectively spent thinking about impedance curves before this TMP snafu was effectively zero.

Not entirely true. I always think about them! I really do. (and I talk about them quite a lot)

 

[MirrorProfiles]

Imagine your job is to defend decisions that are not your own, and that you have no say in.

Suppose that’s why it’s a job ha.

Not entirely true. I always think about them! I really do. (and I talk about them quite a lot)

Same here. It’s not always a huge problem but it’s the ideal area to focus on for a cutting edge modern modeller.

I care about having lossless audio and proper credits with streaming music, so I vote with my wallet on that and use Tidal.

It’s a similar thing with this subject - it’s something that Fractal handles that most platforms don’t and was a big reason why I bought into their platform. I hope every new modeller adds something similar going forward as it’s one of the last remaining variables that can lead to modellers sounding different to real amps.

 

[Lysander]

Not entirely true. I always think about them! I really do. (and I talk about them quite a lot)

 

[laxu]

+1000

The amount we collectively spent thinking about impedance curves before this TMP snafu was effectively zero.

And yes, i know Fractal has supported impedance parameters fine-tuning for years now - and most never bother with it at all. Their defaults (wisely) select impedance curves for the typical speaker load you'd expect attached to different amp models.

The user adjustable settings are IMO impossible to dial by ear. I tried my best when trying to dial the Axe-Fx 3 to my Bluetone 4x10. But the difference is so subtle that it's hard to say if setting A is better than A+1, with the preset curves it's at least faster to find the closest equivalent. The difference is above all felt in the playing response.

I think a generic curve, or one based on the original cab works fine most of the time. The autoswitching curves of the DynaCabs just add that little bit extra authenticity. But the SIC modeling definitely needs to be there.