Hating on digital gear: How close does the Axe FXIII (as one such device) sound compared to one of the amps it models (Marshall JVM410)

[Shask]

I think what everyone is talking about when they say "feel" is actually the immediacy of the response you get from a tube amp versus an Axe FX.

On a tube amp, there is virtually no latency whatsoever, whereas with the Axe FXIII, it is more to the order of 2-4ms. Add FX, add more cabinets, and the latency increases.

That's why tube amps are such a pleasure to play. It's a connection between your fingers and the sound, a tactile feel as it were.

That said, this comparison was all about the sound. I set everything to noon and used a DI/reamp to feed both devices. I thought the Axe FXIII and the JVM were pretty close when it came to the OD1 channel on orange mode, but I vastly preferred the Marshall when it came to OD2.

Possible this is because this is one of the newer Marshalls and not the older ones which they modelled. I noticed a huge difference between my older JMV and this newer one when it came to OD2.

I am not sure if it is the zero latency, or something else. I know science says we can't detect latency that low, but I can always tell a blurring of sounds. Something about the ADA conversion seems to blur the sound together. It is especially noticeable in the low end. I find analog can sound fat and tight at the same time, but digital tends to mush and blur more when you try to accomplish the same thing.

Again, not that either sounds bad, but it does effect the feel.

 

[Meeotch]

I am not sure if it is the zero latency, or something else. I know science says we can't detect latency that low, but I can always tell a blurring of sounds. Something about the ADA conversion seems to blur the sound together. It is especially noticeable in the low end. I find analog can sound fat and tight at the same time, but digital tends to mush and blur more when you try to accomplish the same thing.

Again, not that either sounds bad, but it does effect the feel.

I have an FM9 that I'm using in 4cm strictly for effects. I've noticed something similar when using the Axe's 10 band EQ in the loops of my amps. Compared to my analog eq pedals, the bass response is a bit more blurry. However, rolling off below about 80hz has mostly solved this and is something you might play with.

 

[romanianreaper]

As mentioned, there is not one magic solution. That is why Tom Scholtz's Rockman or the ADA preamp have been used with positive results.

Something is a great tool or it isn't. I will say this. When I had the Fractal Axe-Fx II, it sounded outstanding but into an FRFR speaker cab, was missing something.

 

[Shask]

I have an FM9 that I'm using in 4cm strictly for effects. I've noticed something similar when using the Axe's 10 band EQ in the loops of my amps. Compared to my analog eq pedals, the bass response is a bit more blurry. However, rolling off below about 80hz has mostly solved this and is something you might play with.

I was doing a lot of comparisons the last few weeks with my Synergy preamp and my FM3. I had the Synergy running into a mixer, and then also the Synergy into the FM3, and then into the mixer. I could easily switch back and forth and critically listen. Even just using the in block into the out block with nothing else, it still did something to the dynamics. It felt more sluggish and the low end blurred together a bit. It was also less dynamic. The overall sound and feel was less punchy. I did try to use a filter to cut below 60hz and above 12khz or so, because I was thinking about the bandwidth being greater on the Fractal.

I mean, it is one of those things where it is probably not a big deal if the versatility is worth it to you. My main goal for this rig is maximum tone and dynamics, so it messes it up for me. I will use the FM3 somewhere else where I utilize the switching and stuff more.

I also tried my Axe FX II. It has similar results, but I can tell it has a bit less latency. I use it in the loop of my mixer now so it runs in parallel. I mostly use it for Delay and Reverb. I would like to use the gate and EQ, but I use an analog rack EQ instead.

 

[4406cuda]

Axe Fx 3 through the PA and a Fender FRFR monitor

 

[romanianreaper]

Axe Fx 3 through the PA and a Fender FRFR monitor

That sounds awesome!!! Do you have thr FR12 or FR10? I'm going to end up getting one of those. Perfect solution IMO. I dig my Orange solid state amps and love my 5150-III stealth but would be great to have that Fender and pair it with a Fractal or Line 6 product or even a Friedman IR-X.

 

[4406cuda]

That sounds awesome!!! Do you have thr FR12 or FR10? I'm going to end up getting one of those. Perfect solution IMO. I dig my Orange solid state amps and love my 5150-III stealth but would be great to have that Fender and pair it with a Fractal or Line 6 product or even a Friedman IR-X.

Thank you.
It is the FR-12. It is not too loud on stage. I am also sending a signal to the PA

I am very pleased with the FR-12 and the price is very fair.

 

[PaintChipsAreVegan]

I think what everyone is talking about when they say "feel" is actually the immediacy of the response you get from a tube amp versus an Axe FX.

On a tube amp, there is virtually no latency whatsoever, whereas with the Axe FXIII, it is more to the order of 2-4ms. Add FX, add more cabinets, and the latency increases.

That's why tube amps are such a pleasure to play. It's a connection between your fingers and the sound, a tactile feel as it were.

That said, this comparison was all about the sound. I set everything to noon and used a DI/reamp to feed both devices. I thought the Axe FXIII and the JVM were pretty close when it came to the OD1 channel on orange mode, but I vastly preferred the Marshall when it came to OD2.

Possible this is because this is one of the newer Marshalls and not the older ones which they modelled. I noticed a huge difference between my older JMV and this newer one when it came to OD2.

Where did you get “2-4ms” from?

I’d notice latency like that, and I never have experienced such a thing from my axe 3

total system latency is <1ms

 

[Eazy-ESP]

I think I might disagree... At least now I disagree. I thought the same thing until I got a proper 2x12 stereo frfr. Through monitors, headphones and even pa speakers it "felt" different. Though an effects return of a tube amp and a cab it didn't sound the same but feel was a bit more realistic. Through my frfr, perhaps there is a difference but if there is I can't "feel" it anymore, nor do I hear anything other than what I want/expect from my tube rig.

Which frfr?

 

[mnemonic]

There have been threads on the axe FX forum of people measuring latency, I recall it being 2ms-ish, can’t recall exactly. I think more as more blocks are added and especially if FX loop is added as you’re adding another digital to analog back to digital conversion.

I don’t think that level of latency is going to be what changed the feel in the low end as sound moves 1.13 feet per millisecond, so unless taking two steps back from your cab ruins the feel, it is probably something else going on, in the conversion to digital or something.

 

[GOHOINC]

Which frfr?

The line 6 stereo 2x12. I think it's called the power cab plus. The axe fx sounded great with headphones but still not a traditional room experience. The axe sounded great through monitors but again, not the room experience I am used to with a tube amp. I thought pa speakers would do it and make a big difference vs the phone oronitors, but they lost some top end definition and bass was a tad muddy to me without the thump I have come to expect. The power cab might not do "it" for everyone but it was the first thing that made me think I was playing a guitar rig and not a recording device, if that makes sense...

 

[Shask]

There have been threads on the axe FX forum of people measuring latency, I recall it being 2ms-ish, can’t recall exactly. I think more as more blocks are added and especially if FX loop is added as you’re adding another digital to analog back to digital conversion.

I don’t think that level of latency is going to be what changed the feel in the low end as sound moves 1.13 feet per millisecond, so unless taking two steps back from your cab ruins the feel, it is probably something else going on, in the conversion to digital or something.

The amp and drive blocks add more latency since they oversample. Then, of course, going in and out of the unit goes through ADA conversions. Which adds latency.

 

[rsm]

My computer plugin rig works great; no noticeable latency; very versatile.

My Mooer Prime S1 is out for delivery today. It's a great formfactor for me; all it's missing is expression pedal input. Looks like the finish is colorshifting?

I have the P1, and the P2 which I purchased before I knew about the S1, but I got it at a good price.

My tube amps aren't going anywhere tho

 

[Shask]

T

Where did you get “2-4ms” from?

I’d notice latency like that, and I never have experienced such a thing from my axe 3

total system latency is <1ms

The baseline of the Axe Fx III is about 2.1ms, and the baseline of the FM3/FM9 is about 3.3ms. Adding drive or amp blocks increase that, as well as looping in and out.

A typical drive->amp->cab chain is around 4ms on the Axe III.

 

[TheGreatGreen]

There have been threads on the axe FX forum of people measuring latency, I recall it being 2ms-ish, can’t recall exactly. I think more as more blocks are added and especially if FX loop is added as you’re adding another digital to analog back to digital conversion.

I don’t think that level of latency is going to be what changed the feel in the low end as sound moves 1.13 feet per millisecond, so unless taking two steps back from your cab ruins the feel, it is probably something else going on, in the conversion to digital or something.

It's not as simple as "more blocks = more lag." Instead it's "more blocks = less CPU overhead" while lag mostly stays the same.

Additional lag is only introduced in the Axe-Fx when you add blocks that necessarily include lag as a part of the way they function, like IR's with long lead times, compressors with look-ahead functionality, zero-through flangers, stuff like that. The amp block adds some very small lag (like under half a ms or something) due to the amps being processed on their own dedicated processor and it does oversampling. Lag can also be introduced if you do an internal signal reroute with the Send / Return blocks, but only if your signal is rerouted to a block farther towards the left on the grid than from where it's sent. This is because each "processing frame" in the Axe-Fx processes signal in the patch column by column, left to right, but that's extremely subtle, as in "a single frame's worth of processing" subtle.

Having said that, I personally don't notice any lag when I play mine, no matter how much crap I add to patches. The lag differences between "empty patch with one input and output" vs a kitchen sink patch are so small that it's probably more correct to think of them in terms of phase shift than actually detectable lag.

 

[jabps]

As many have said it's about feel for me both in my hands and the movement of air. Tonally I don't always hear the difference however sometimes you have this high upper mid thing happening that's almost universal across the board. Hard to explain but if you hear it it's kinda always there. That's "if" you hear it. If that even makes sense.

Btw / @nightlight I have an early JVM410 and a newer one and I cannot tell the difference in either. The JVM410 has been my main amp since about a year after they were first released, I've had modded ones and the HJS so I'm pretty versed in them. The two stock ones I own, I have them both set near the exact same with the biggest difference with the Res/Pres which is probably just down to different parts tolerances. So not sure I get the older vs. newer. Only change that I know of historically was the heater fuse which my main JVM still has, which has tons of gigging, rehearsal and recording time on it, so not messing with it. In fact years ago when I was touring alot and I had two JVM's the biggest difference I ever heard was when I ran one with KT77's and the other stock. Great thread as well on another forum with Santiago who designed the amp and I saw nothing mentioned either.

 

[Ventura]

I find the difference is more on feel than sound.

This.

And furthermore, I can do without the time-suck of options-paralysis.

 

[wIsEbLooD]

I have axe and qc.
They do not feel or react the same and they never will.
I am over it.

 

[PaintChipsAreVegan]

T

The baseline of the Axe Fx III is about 2.1ms, and the baseline of the FM3/FM9 is about 3.3ms. Adding drive or amp blocks increase that, as well as looping in and out.

A typical drive->amp->cab chain is around 4ms on the Axe III.

Didn’t know, thanks for informing me

 

[PaintChipsAreVegan]

I have axe and qc.
They do not feel or react the same and they never will.
I am over it.

I have an axe 3 and several tube amps

Like someone else said, I’d contend the difference is mostly noticeable in the feel of the amp while playing, and how it responds to you, the player.

But for modern high gain sounds, I’d wager a fair bit of people would not be able to tell the difference between a tube amp and the axe, as recorded. I don’t mean A/B of an amp and its respective model. Just the fact that it’s digital…. Most people wouldn’t be able to tell


And to some degree, this can be quantified by running the output signal to an oscilloscope, and observing its power spectrum in frequency space, and time domain. While the signal is converted and discretized, nowadays, the resolution of discretization is indiscernible to the human ear vs analog.