You have to realize that the Axefx was aimed at doing that originally, not high gain tones. It was all about the boutique corksniffer tones and my god they are absolutely glorious!
I'm gonna have to take your word on it, because I doubt I will ever have the money to try one out for myself!
heres a good example, just close your eyes and listen http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVJvZmLztIs&NR=1
I'm just playing devil's advocate here for a second, but the fact that tubes don't have immaculate accuracy is part of what gives them their character.
I think we're using the word 'accuracy' in slightly different contexts here; what I meant is that inevitably digital modellers will accurately/faithfully reproduce tube sounds and characteristics.
I really don't like the djent tone. Sounds like a fart. I really don't understand how that tone has skyrocketed in popularity when it sounds so bad. I mean, it doesn't even sound more heavy. Michael Romeo has a heavier and more badass tone. I love Shattered Skies, but I think they'd sound just as good with a normal tone.
Yes, because being part of a different forum means anything at all. Also, I was a part of this forum before it was 5/8, dumbshit.
I was looking into trying some balanced strings for my 5 string from Circle K strings, but I see they don't have tampered ends. I don't wanna risk buying strings too thick to fit on my bridge.
What kind of bridge is it? If it's a hipshot you should be alright. I have an ESP 5-string that sucks for threading untapered low B strings though, so if you have the kind of bridge where the string has to be threaded all the way through and can't be 'hooked in', you're probably right to be cautious.
What?...all Circle K strings are definitely tapered. Says so all over their website and I've purchased two sets thus far.
They mention in the before you buy, that buying bigger sets may not sit correctly. I'm not sure what kinda bridge I have but I play a Schecter Diamond series Studio 5. I also never assume strings are tapered because its actually hard to find tapered strings at places like guitar center and shit. Once I bought some strings and the B was too big to fit into the groove of the nut and I had to play quite a few shows with it sitting above the other strings. It sucked.
The nut is easily fixed with a small round file to open out the groove a bit. Just go slowly so you don't take off too much as a time, and don't file downwards.
Do you ever really find yourself thinking "Maaan this would sound so much better digital" when you listen to classic metal/grunge albums of the 80's and 90's, or prog of the 70's?
Like I already said in this thread, I simply personally don't like 'vintage' tone. Different strokes for different folks.
I'd love the opportunity to record reel to reel. Would fucking hate trying to edit that shit though, unless it was transferred to digital for the purpose. It's not really about 'vintage tone'. It's about the fact that when capturing your signal from its original source, you're not constrained to 44,100 samples of data per second with an analog tape. Or 88,200 samples, or 96,000, or whatever digital sample rate you choose to throw at the argument. Yes you may well convert to digital after the initial tracking process, at which point some down-sampling will have to occur. But speaking as someone who has run several sessions at either 88.2 or 96 KHz with digital recording, I can tell you that there's a definite improvement over working at 44.1 KHz (both in the individual sounds and the resulting mixes), and that the improvement is still apparent when they're eventually reduced to 44.1 at the very end of the session to get them onto a CD. There's just more sonic detail there to work with. Instruments sit together a lot more naturally, reverbs and delays are much easier to balance without either getting lost or becoming too obvious, and you end up needing less plugins to achieve the desired results. So I'm quite certain you would still get some benefit from tracking to tape, even when transferring to the digital domain for editing and mixing, and regardless of what tones you were aiming for.
If I had money I'd record to tape when we went into the studio, but it's hundreds of dollars per reel.
couldn't you transfer reels to digital as you track -> mix in digital? you could reuse the same reel over and over again. it'd cost you time to do the transfers over the course of the day but you'd still get the benefits of tracking to tape.
Joking aside, the benefit of tracking to tape is basically the same as the reason why vinyl sounds "warmer" than digital media. It's not constrained to the 44.1KHz format of a CD, and so more detail can be retained. It's also the reason why some people question the value of releasing digitally recorded material on vinyl at all, but that can of worms is probably best saved for another thread entirely.
hey look it's kingprawn here to talk shit about tubes, even though a tube amp is still undeniably more aurally pleasing for any guitar application than a shitty ss amp or modeler, including axefx.
i use one of these turn gain up to 10 turn bass up to 10 turn treble up to 10 you should really turn volume up to 10 also but it might get loud haha!
I kinda agree with this. I think the riffs on Periphery are heavy, but I still think the new Symphony X is heavier. You also have the problem of a lot of metal bands starting to sound alike, because they all bought AxeFx and are using it the same way Misha is.
