It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Subscribe to our Patreon, and get image uploads with no ads on the site!
Base theme by DesignModo & ported to Powered by Vanilla by Chris Ireland, modified by the "theFB" team.
Comments
Time codes are in the pinned comment on YouTube.
I found it interesting. It's about as fair as we could make it since the Line 6 guy dialled in the Line 6 and the Fractal guy dialled in the Fractal, so no scope for bias sabotage/lack of understanding on a unit as was raised in another thread regarding comparisons. While it would be possible for someone else to get even better sounds out of either unit we feel we did a decent enough job to be representative.
The riff by nature requires the sound to work for open chords as well as chunky palm muting, which is a good test of dynamics and saturation character. It's also the longest Tool song released in 2017 so far...
Except for the Axe FX 5153 advance clip and the Helix Epic clip the rest of the patches were using basic controls on the amp block with no extra EQ and hopefully show what a person may be able to dial in with minimal effort (which is a major factor for many, both of us included).
Whilst this isn't the type of music that I normally listen to I have a clear favourite, which is the amp/load box/IR combination.
In comparison all models of the Helix sound fundamentally darker, and what there is at the top end sounds harsh, without the upper mid resonance of the base track. The final tone matched example was worse in this respect.
The AxeFX is not as dark as the Helix, but there's some added top end crackle. I'm not sure whether this is endemic in the modelling, caused by clipping within the processing, or the result of more "stuff" being added to try to bring the sound closer to the base track e.g. the tubescreamer.
Something I've noticed over recent years, as modelling algorithms have got better, is that the sound has got clearer because unwanted audio artefacts were removed. Final confirmation for me was seeing the waveforms for each track towards the end of the video. There was a correlation between the tracks I liked least and the squareness of the waveform envelopes. For this type of overdriven sound, when used for recording, there's still more work to do.
Thanks again for the work. How about running a similar comparison for a couple of low gain amps?
Drew can give you a more detailed break down of his experiences with dialling in the Helix if he likes, but the primary issue I found was trying to get in the ballpark of the dynamics of the reference amp + loadbox + IR clip, which I agree is the best sounding here.
The primary characteristics in question to my understanding were the tight punchy palm mutes, with which all the notes are punchy (transient response) and weighty (frequency response) without too much deep flubby resonance, and then how big and clear the chords were still able to sound in the open section while maintaining an aggressive voicing and level of gain (and of course retaining enough low end to be full sounding). Historically amp modellers haven't really been able to do this too well, but I think both of us have been using some form of modelling product regularly in the past 10 years so we're definitely not anti digital.
While there was no direct 50 watt EVH model for comparison those characteristics are pretty core to why a lot of players like high gain valve amps and many of them will do that kind of tone, though some need a boost to tighten. None of the clips use any additional EQ blocks except Drew's L6 Epic clip. All the Axe FX 2 clips were amp block only except for when it says there's a tubescreamer.
Of both the modellers, my favourite overall is the Fractal 6505+ model. While I still think the real amp + loadbox sounds best I'd be more than happy to use that.
Regarding the other Fractal models, I felt the 5150 block wasn't tight enough without the boost and with the boost the character changed a lot compared to the reference clip. I did like the second version of the boosted 5150 but it isn't really the same kind of tone. Generally the 5150 block would be a go to amp for me and I did like how the chords sounded in the unboosted version.
I didn't really like the 5150 III with basic settings if I'm honest, and would emphasise it took quite some faff to create the advanced setting. I don't tend to use that model much as I prefer the Peavey models. In general all the other tones came together quite quickly (with the master volume being a key setting for overall dynamics), and I do feel it is quite straightforward to get a decent sound from the Fractal amp models. However I'm familiar with the real EVH 5150 amp and it is about as plug in and play as you can get.
Of the Helix models my overall favourite was the Archon, I felt it had a little less gain but overall I thought it sounded best throughout both sections. I understand this is @Drew_TNBD 's go to amp on the Helix and I can see why. I thought the EQ'd Epic clip had good tightness but I didn't actually like the chords on it as much. The chords on the Panama (Peavey 5150) sounded fine to me but the overall low end - while undoubtably deeper than the Fractal Peavey tones in this test did not sound as tight or punchy IMO with the palm mutes. Similarly I didn't like the palm mutes on the SLO but as per the other thread I couldn't really get anything great out of the Axe FX 2 model either - perhaps it's not the right type of amp for this tone. I've never played a real one to know.
Matching these for volume of course makes an impact on how we perceive them, however it is actually quite difficult to match this many different sounds as some will be louder say on the palm mutes whereas other may be louder on the chords, and of course there's how the general EQ of the tone will impact perceived volume. Even the order in which you listen to sounds can make a difference to your perception, but having the time codes on YouTube means a person can listen in whatever order they want. I think given we were both trying to dial towards a defined base tone it is about as fair as it can be.
Regarding a lower gain comparison I'd be happy to do that at some point but the limiting factor is I don't really have any guitars that are suitable to be representative of a typical user - mine are all in drop B with thick strings and high output pickups. I think all of Drew's guitars also are tuned fairly low with high output pickups. I think to do a lower gain test it'd be much more helpful if a standard tuned Strat/Tele/Les Paul with stock pickups could be used.
I sent it to a mate who is considering a Helix and listened back just to see it sounded ok - The first sound I heard was great so I thought ok that's the amp - and then the amp came on and I realised it was the modelling I had heard. (I re-iterate - I did no EQ etc so could def work on getting them closer)
TLDR - if you listen to the sound in isolation with no expectation you'd probably find it harder to tell - when you hear them side by side it's definitely easier.
My fave model sound was probably the helix achetype one, although i found there was little in it and, randomly clicking through, i was unable to clearly identify each clip. They are all pretty close to the home tone and I'd be happy with any.
In a mix? I doubt I'd find anything much different. But all of the tones were good imo.
The guitar style is def miles from my own, but it remains a really valid exercise.
@Drew_TNBD -what were you overall thoughts and findings of this 'shoot out' ?
Going off my own experience with recording I think by the time you've high passed the guitars to leave low end room for a bass and kick the relative punch of each amp model would still make a difference, especially if you wanted a guitars forward mix. This is where the low note being punchy (as opposed to just bassy) makes a difference for rock/metal type tones. I think it's often an internet wisdom that differences disappear in a mix and yes it's true a lot of subtlety is lost, but there are still favourable characteristics. Basically, I would expect the real amp to sound even better in a typical mix relative to certain amp models, though I think you could get a workable tone out of either. But we didn't have a full track for this test and of course quantifying how easy it would be to get a good tone is a little more difficult and a lot more subjective.
What is abundantly clear to me is that we are in such a great time for guitar tone and recording. If anyone is happy with their Helix or Axe FX or Atomic Amplifire, Eleven Rack, etc... then you should be. They're all great units and when you start getting into the territory of analysing on the level that we are, it can get a little corksniffy.
Having said that, I still feel that real amps rule the roost. Every time I listen to these clips over the last few days, my preference for the modelled tones changes, but the trophy consistently goes to the real amp - even in a blind test where I turn around and just listen to the changes.
I think modellers are struggling to get a nice even tone across palm mutes and big open chords. I still don't think they're dynamic enough - even the hallowed Axe FX doesn't quite get there for me.
My favourites were the real amp+loadbox+IR combination, the Axe FX 5150III advanced tweaks, and the Axe FX 6505+.
I like the Helix tones, but even as someone who owns and loves the thing... I tend to the think the Axe FX is better. At least for these kinds of tones.
What blew me away a bit was that I really disliked the real cab and microphone. I think I'm done recording real cabs for a bit - IR's just sound better to me right now!
I know you can scroll through IRs using your feet on the Helix which is super cool. About all I can do with my feet and a real mic set up is trip over the cable and lose the mic position.
The 57A is supposed to have more highs too - maybe you need to try a regular 57?