Fractal Axe Fx 3

    Quote from ColdFrixion

    Can you cite a single post from any member at FAS's forum who's stated that Tone Matching is the same as profiling? Not just a part of it, but the same? Let me know.

    Cliff : "It now has Tone Matching which is arguably the most important part of profiling.
    Falsely claiming that Tone Matching is the most important part of profiling is close enough to saying that they more than resemble each other except for those who know nothing about EQ matchng an old technology to deceive gullible or uninformed users.


    "The Axe-Fx II with V6 uses a hybrid modeling/profiling approach"


    Completely false sentences and should never be stated as such and then contradicted later . How about line 6 or Avid when they measure the amps etc. and plug those numbers in the algorithms are they also using Profiling. Profiling an amp is not public knowledge just because patents are public.


    Why is fractal using the term profiling being used in the AXE FX ? Is it for any other reason than to deceive customers who where extremely impressed by the profiling and to say that he was use profiling too, C'mon. LOL

    Using the term alone isn't illegal. In the context on a public forum, I don't see how there's a reasonable legal challenge to its use or even his being incorrect (see Coldfrixons response). It's also not his job to speak for Line 6 or anyone else.


    It becomes more apparent you have a deeper issue with Fractal. You've laughed at their expense even when your purposes for that "laughter" are misguided, and you accuse people of lying or misleading while taking things out of context and refusing to cite previous quotes from Cliff. Your reasoning being that there is a Fractal forum conspiracy to hide past posts that we can't substantiate. As for tone you still ignore Coldfrixon and the other videos presented of the Axe outside of the one you didn't like so it means very little on its own. Anyone can say something is better but demonstrating it is another thing. People in this thread have given examples while you've completely avoided them and changed the argument.

    Quote from Dean_R

    So cliff says "The Axe-Fx II with V6 uses a hybrid modeling/profiling approach"Why would Cliff say that? What about line 6, did they also use profiling, following your line of reasoning, then he's clearly lying, because he really can't use profiling with permission from Kemper.


    Cliff simply has an idea of how profiling works. He doesn't have the actual profiling algorithm, but based on his understanding, when he stated V6 uses a hybrid, he's referring to algorithms he's developed that he feels mimic the process that profiling uses. Of course he's hardly the first to have ideas about how profiling works. He's a sharp guy and I wouldn't doubt he understands how it works or has the knowledge to create a version of it the very same way companies have created their own version of Tone Matching.


    Quote from Dean_R

    Even the use of that word "Profiling" can be even considered a violation of Patent Law


    No, it would be a trademark violation if, in fact, Christoph trademarked term. I'm not certain, but I have reason to doubt he has. Profiling isn't specific to the Kemper. The term has been used in computer programming and information science.

    You're reading it the way you want to instead of the way it's written. There's nothing misleading in it and it's very clear. It seems plain that he used the term "profiling" because EQ matching is a part of the profiling method and within the context of comparing profiling to tone matching.


    Profiling is public knowledge. If you go to the patent office and look up a patent on anything it will show you exactly for what the patent is designed. The purpose being that others cannot infringe on your patent. You can do that as a private citizen if you ever get curious.

    I hadn't come across this 2015 article before and it's an interesting read (and some speculation).


    This is the link: https://www.modernmojoguitars.…f-amps-kemper-vs-fractal/


    Excerpt:
    "Fractal’s underlying technology uses sophisticated behavioural models of electronic components to model amps and effects. The electronic schematic is the key essential component here, as that determines how the circuits are put together. It is doing realtime circuit simulation. It isn’t likely to be doing SPICE-like simulation (used in modeling analog circuits based on the underlying solid-state physics of the devices) since that isn’t possible with complicated circuits in realtime yet — even on Intel x86 i7 hardware (2013). Most likely, each component is modeled as an abstract behavioural model, with variable parameters to mimic real world behaviour. Improvements in the Axe-FX are usually due to improvements in the component models. This has been stated in the past by the founder, Cliff Chase. This approach is also similar to what Scuffham does with his SW modeling product, S-Gear."


    The higher processing power of the FXIII makes sense as it creates room to grow and improve the amps modeling abilities and more closely match the amps it models.
    Since here it says that w/o the extra power, it's "impossible" to do "SPICE-like simulation".

    Quote from Dean_R

    Cliff : "It now has Tone Matching which is arguably the most important part of profiling.Falsely claiming that Tone Matching is the most important part of profiling is close enough to saying that they more than resemble each other except for those who know nothing about EQ matchng an old technology to deceive gullible or uninformed users.


    If I said hamburger meat is the most important part of a hamburger, would you think I was saying that hamburger meat is the same thing as a hamburger? If I said a car engine is the most important part of a car, would you think I was saying that a car engine is a car? Do you understand the difference between parts and wholes?


    Quote from Dean_R

    Why is fractal using the term profiling being used in the AXE FX ?


    It's a common term in computer programming.

    Quote from ColdFrixion

    Can you cite a single post from any member at FAS's forum who's stated that Tone Matching is the same as profiling? Not just a part of it, but the same? Let me know.

    :) I have it.


    This is really fun, I knew I was going to find something because I read variation of this stuff countless times and I do have a very good memory.. I believe this is Cliff himself stating
    "First of all "profiling" is 99% EQ matching which is the same thing as Tone Matching."


    I'm actually attaching a screen shot as well as a link, because I know from experience that Fractal and friends remove posts, and ban users and do whatever they please, so at least the picture will show that I don't make things up and I'm always honest whether the issue is important or trivial.
    Let me know what you think now. and I hope 99% is enough for you :)
    here's the link also: Go to post number 6

    https://forum.fractalaudio.com…for-high-gain-amps.78760/

    [Blocked Image: https://i.imgur.com/Sxhse3c.jpg]

    Edited once, last by Dean_R ().

    Like 2
    Quote from Dean_R

    :) I have it.
    This is really fun, I knew I was going to find something because I read variation of this stuff countless times and I do have a very good memory.. I believe this is Cliff himself stating
    "First of all "profiling" is 99% EQ matching which is the same thing as Tone Matching."

    Yes, I've read that post before, as well. Here's what you saw:


    "Profiling is the same thing as Tone Matching."


    Here's what was actually stated and the two assertions you conflated:


    1) Profiling is 99% EQ matching
    2) EQ matching is the same thing as Tone Matching


    He goes on to say that when there is no non-linear component to a clean signal, then there is nothing left but the linear (EQ) component, in which case he believes that profiling consists entirely of EQ matching. If there is no non-linear component to a signal, whats left to profile except EQ?

    Quote from ColdFrixion

    I usually don't include that many messages in the same post but I think it's important here. you stated that you were unaware of anyone in Fractal that stated that Tone Matching is the same as profiling and challenged me to find a post because according to you Tone Matching is Not the same as profiling further you elaborated that Fractal always made it clear that to their customers that Tone Matching in the AXE is not the same as profiling on the Kemper.


    So I post and show you where the maker of Fractal AXE FX II is making an erroneous false statement misrepresenting a material fact about Fractal Product that defies science and ethics and you stated that you've read this post before., but obviously you didn't expect that I would find it so you were challenging my credibility knowing that I was telling the truth but you were hoping that I wouldn't find what you already know to be true but claiming the opposite. Well this message is there for anyone who reads this forum so they should know who has a credibility issue. I'll let the readers decide who has credibility issues. <X


    I know you already know very well that tone match is just EQ Match and that profiling is not "99% EQ matching" as Fractal Claims.


    Finally, it really gives me pleasure that I bought from a company like Kemper who are true professionals who compete fairly without having to resort to lying to everyone including their own customers and the icing on the cake is that the KPA today is still way ahead of the upcoming AXE III

    Edited 4 times, last by Dean_R ().

    Quote from fredrikn

    Another clip.


    External Content www.youtube.com
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

    I own fractal gear and plan on buying the 3....but that sounds like shit.
    The Larry Mitchell video is much better....and BFR's are absolutely hideous and that is coming from someone that owns one :D They are the most goofy fucking looking guitars ever....I wouldn't be seen on stage with one lol!

    Quote from Dean_R

    I usually don't include that many messages in the same post but I think it's important here. you stated that you were unaware of anyone in Fractal that stated that Tone Matching is the same as profiling and challenged me to find a post because according to you Tone Matching is Not the same as profiling further you elaborated that Fractal always made it clear that to their customers that Tone Matching in the AXE is not the same as profiling on the Kemper.
    So I post and show you where the maker of Fractal AXE FX II is making and erroneous false statement misrepresenting a material fact about Fractal Product that defies science and ethics and you stated that you've read this post before., but obviously you didn't expect that I would find it so you were challenging my credibility knowing that I was telling the truth but you were hoping that I wouldn't find what you already know to be true but claiming the opposite.

    So you think claiming, "Profiling is 99% EQ matching" equates to "Profiling is the same as EQ matching"? If so, then by your logic you must think claiming, "Chimps share 99% of their DNA with humans" equates to "Chimps are the same as humans".


    Quote from Dean_R

    I know you already know very well that tone match is just EQ Match and that profiling is not "99% EQ matching" as Fractal Claims.

    I don't know what percentage is linear vs non-linear. Do you? Can you tell me the approximate percentage? How do you know?

    Ok @ColdFrixion I thought you would be better than this. Give it up buddy! when Cliff said "Profiling is 99% EQ matching" your dancing around the meaning is something that Even Cliff himself wouldn't do, He will likely remove that post because he, as well as anyone, without an agenda that I didn't think you personally had but clearly turn out to have in spades, will clearly know what it means.


    your explanation of monkey DNA and whatever else are insults to reader intelligence unless you're being humorous. Please respect the intelligence of the readers, your skirting around and refusal to concede the obvious is degrading the discourse. .


    However I will concede this debate with you in a humble gesture from me to save you whatever is left of your credibly.


    Have a nice night.

    I cannot believe that after 7 years and hundreds upon hundreds of the identical discussions with the same comments, beginning in 2011 at The Gear Page and now in 2018, guitarists continue to discuss the same thing over and over again.


    Some folk just have too much time on their hands.


    It's nauseating.

    Quote from Dean_R

    Ok @ColdFrixionyour dancing around

    I asked you to cite a single post from any FAS member stating that profiling is exactly the same as Tone Matching. Not 90%. Not 99%. 100%. You didn't do that. You equated 99% with 100%, and refuse to accept a perfectly valid analogy (chimps aren't humans despite the fact they share 99% of their DNA with them) because it doesn't conform to your conclusion.


    I asked you once and you avoided the question(just like you keep avoiding my samples), so I'll ask again:


    What percentage of the profiling process is linear vs. non-linear?


    If you don't know, then how do you know Cliff is wrong? Gut feeling?


    Quote from Dean_R

    He will likely remove that post

    That post is 5 years old. If it hasn't been deleted by now, it's not going anywhere.


    When I think about it, I actually don't care whether Cliff believes profiling is the same as Tone Matching. What difference does it make to me?


    Do I think profiling is exactly the same as EQ matching? No. Is it mostly the same? I don't know. Maybe. I don't know what the percentage is. I know EQ matching can completely transform the sound of a sample and can produce some amazing results. That said, do I honestly think Cliff believes profiling and EQ matching are the same. No, I don't. Even if he thinks the difference is tiny, I have no doubt he knows it's not the same. That's why he didn't just come out and say profiling is EQ matching. He knows better.

    Quote from Guitartone

    I cannot believe that after 7 years and hundreds upon hundreds of the identical discussions with the same comments, beginning in 2011 at The Gear Page and now in 2018, guitarists continue to discuss the same thing over and over again.


    Some folk just have too much time on their hands.


    It's nauseating.

    It's not about the Axe FX III anymore, it's about who's "wrong" and who's "right".


    Or better:
    Look, my d*ck is longer than yours.
    - Oh no, mine is.
    No, you're wrong, check my d*ckpic!!
    - Hahaha, LMAO, that pic is taken from a wrong angle.
    You are wrong again, it's taken with a Nikon D5 mk II.
    - Hmmm, but a D5 mk III is much better
    Might be, but my c*ck is still longer.
    - I think you're using the wrong technique to make it erect, according to Cliff.
    According to who??
    - Yeah, you know, Cliff!!
    Doesn't ring a bell....... but my d*ck does.


    And so on, and so on, and so on. And still no editor and no update 8o


    (PS. d*ck and c*ck are "Other Gear"......)

    Kemper profiling is a mystery, private tecnology, but for me it is just like loading an old 8-bits k7 game tape or an old dial-up internet connection


    the first part is the traditional bang, trim, trim, that seems that the device is authenticating the connection with a "handshake"


    then came the ohmmmmm, vummm, etc that is the profiling sending different frequencys and reading then again


    i just love to hear that sound, is pure futuristic nostalgy


    here at Brazil you cannot patent a word like "profile" but you can patent a draw named "profile", also you cannot patent foreing language words.


    sorry if my english is and old 8-bits babel fish...

    Edited once, last by szykman ().

    @ColdFrixion I was reading at TGP and it appears that you like to use your Kemper as the amp part of your tone and the Axe for the FX, right? There has to be a good reason for that...


    @Dean_R We're all looking at old posts. And if we are, we should look at posts by guys like Bulb or Nolly from Periphery. who have shared the tones they use live using the Axe FX. No way is the device as useless as you make it out to be.


    My point being, guys, can we give the argument about "Which device is better" a rest? No one is going to believe you based on some quotes, some clips, some this and that. I remember how Sinmix used to post clips saying a POD could sound like the Kemper.


    At the end of the day, we are here to make music. And I believe a lot of us are here to make friends and in the case of this particular forum, we are here to learn new things.


    Let us refrain from personal attacks and very subjective takes on tone. Heck, I heard the tone in that clip and I was like "Wow, nice tones". And I'm a guy who came from a Zoom background, man, I remember my dad buying me a GT-8 when the world was crying POD X3. And I was really happy, man. I learnt so much. I laughed, I frowned. I had a hell of a good time.


    For God's sake, just chill out. It's getting silly when you argue back and forth over 10 pages and neither is willing to give any ground.