The axe fx and modelers in general

[echo44]

Why with all this great computer technology do modelers still sound so different. So what makes distortion sound pleasing is a combination of sag resulting in compression and which harmonics resonate?

can't this be duplicated by studying the spectral signal from an amp and duplicate it digitally?

Although the modelers are better i still hear what I call digital fuzz. To me I perceive this as a graininess in the decay it is not a smooth as a tube amp.
Why can't this be removed from the signal?

I have an Axe fx II which just had a new software release and everyone is raving how this is the holy grail. To my ear yes the amps have the timbre of the original amp they have been modeled from, yet they all still have a trace of that digital fuzz. When you listen to it side by side with the real deal like the dumble i built its really obvious to my ears.

Just curious if someone with an EE background could explain to me what
what the hold up is from the technological standpoint that keeps tube amps
sounding sweeter than their digital counterparts which have become incredibly complex?

In fact, with the Fractal Axe Fx you can adjust everything from tube type, bias, dynamics, brightness cap values, sag etc. Supposedly the actual sound itself is not modeled but the actual circuitry of the amp is sampled at every location? yet with all this I still hear that dreaded digital fuzz. Finally is the difference I am hearing something that can be proven with measurement as I have run into a few people who claim they can not hear the difference.

[cbass]

For low volume playing i like modelers and multi fx.

They just can't compete with a wound up tube amp though.Modelers can capture some of the basic sounds but lack feel and dynamics of a tube amp.

[Reeltarded]

In fact, with the Fractal Axe Fx you can adjust everything from tube type, bias, dynamics, brightness cap values, sag etc. Supposedly the actual sound itself is not modeled but the actual circuitry of the amp is sampled at every location?

Yes. It's total bullshit. There isn't a way to "sample" that except for sticking measuring instruments into a circuit, and you can't reproduce massive voltage swings in a circuit that would die at one-tenth the voltage... and many other hits from the pseudo scientific garbage of marketing.

It sounds like digital distortion because that is what it is. 2-3 distortion units with stages of digital eq and a pile of.. it's a solid gold Pod XT.

Glory.

[Firestorm]

There's no theoretical reason it couldn't be done, but the undertaking is daunting. Think something like a 10-year DARPA project with the modeling by Deep Blue. They are getting closer, tho.

[evh0u812]

I actually found big issues with my axe 2 to the point where i sent it back for a refund.
I bought an ultra instead as it sounded much closer to the real deal with less of the digital artifacts. Horses for courses.
One thing i did notice is the playback method plays a massive part in the final tone.
Through a proper cab and poweramp my axe fx is 90% of what my tube amps are.
Full range full response sounds fake to me no matter what the system.
I use a Matrix poweramp which punches hard with stereo cabs. Its a great setup.
I still build amps, but the axe is my goto noise maker now........for the moment.