![]() I've tried 'em all and Amplitube gives me more than I need and I like the interface. Maybe I will listen again with eyes closed (no way to see which device is used) in a more discerning manner later when time allows.Amplitube for me. It also illustrates to me how limited clips are once you pass the good enough to record point because I own both of these products and the AFX feels a million times more pleasing and natural, sounds better and 100% more 'alive' in person but that seems to be lost (to non-golden eared me) in well recorded clips.Īnyway, extremely nice tones, ML. This is a testament to the fact that modeling has come a long way, and Mikko is a great producer, IMHO. This stuff happens all the time on forums. IMHO, a lot of people claiming to hear amazing AFX complexity, etc, are doing this because the samples are clearly marked (no pun). But, this is mostly they way things are dialed or the Cab settings (AT+MLCabs)/IRs. I know this will no be a popular stance here and seems like a contradiction to the above. One thing I will say, in all honesty, on first listen, some of the samples above I like the AT version better than the AFX version. ![]() And they REALLY want you to buy youir IRs from them via their "Custom Shop" in the end it is a money grab and does not work as well as competing products. Truth is they have a limited set of IRs plus some external processing to get mic positions, air, etc. Their forum support people will argue this till they are blue in the face. They always try to claim that their solution is 'better' than a purely IR based solution and that they are applying some special processing but aside from the resonance etc (which you can adjust manually in the AFX) there is nothing they can really do to improve on the base IR tech that is not going to sound artificial and extrapolated. One thing I have always HATED about Amplitube is that they do not have an external IR loader, you can force it to work with external IRs but I'd rather have it built in like Revalver, S-Gear, etc. Still with two options I would feel very limited. I believe the Amplitube cab modeling is IR technology so it "could be" just as good if the mic positions were better. So based on that this comparison is very revealing as you can imagine USA Lead being a real Mark IV (pretty much).įor me it seems like the amp modeling is the weak point. This answers questions like: "Would Amplitube be better with Axe-Fx level cab modeling?" and "Would Axe-Fx be worse with Amplitube level cab modeling?"Ĭheck out my last episode to see how close the Axe-Fx USA Lead is to the real Mark IV: I wanted to separate the amp and cab modeling so I'm comparing a Mark IV and Dual Rectifier with both the Axe-Fx and Amplitube with each others cab modeling as well. It simply doesn't give you any good options. :lol So that would be a huge weak point in Amplitube. ![]() It is not realistic and I was unable to find "a sweet spot" that I would shoot in real life. The cab modeling in Amplitube seems to be 2 IRs, one of them shot dead center (too bright) and one of the on the cone edge (too dark) and moving the mic is kind of a fader that mixes between those two IRs. I play through Irotlas's real Recto every week so I'm very familiar with the sound. The Rectifier amp model just doesn't have enough gain nor does it have enough low end. I definitely like it better than any of the amps in BIAS but that's just my personal opinion. Obviously the modeling is not on the same level with the Axe-Fx but for the price and it being a plugin in a DAW I could honestly say that the Mark IV could be worth the purchase. Mostly the Mark IV thanks to the GEQ since it is capable of shaping the tone as it should. I really gave Amplitube a shot here and I must admit I do like it. I finally got a chance to try the Amplitube Mesa Boogie out properly.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |