Axe 6.0 has dropped

Yes should be interesting, although the example so far still sound like an AxeFX to me rather than an amp, just with matcheq on it, but that's probably because it's just a small group of beta testers, usually takes a while for the general userbase to get it and start getting some better examples out there.

Boring...

...Lance, behave yourself....

Just upgraded to v6. It's certainly an improvement over the previous FW. I've not looked at eq matching/cloning at all I just wanted to test a couple of dry amps, into my Matrix into my 2x12 Marshall cab. Initial impressions are that I still prefer the KPA for pure amp tones but I need to hook them up side by side tomorrow and crank them both a little, it's not a fair test at low volumes. The new JCM800 model does rock though, might have to profile it into the KPA

I was seriously hoping that this firmware would convince me not to sell my AxeFX but the jury is still out for now.

Spence

.....just curious what is the "improvement" soundwise verses the last Firmware (which was the greatest update....since their last update)?

I would say it a feel thing, the amps in the previous firmware seemed a little clinical, the new firmware seems a little bit more open and they feel better to play. Some of the amps have had a complete overhaul and you can tell. the Uber used to have far too much lowend for me, the new model sounds much better. You can crank the volume more on the high gain models without everything sounding shitty. As I say I've only spent about 1 hours with it so I can't say for sure.

Spence

... You're telling me! I was almost lapidated when (at the release of 5.0) I dared to write on that forum that there would have been further improvements in the future for sure. I was responding - go figure - to a guy who had written that FAS could have stopped any further software improvement at that stage, because it couldn't have sounded any better. LOL

Talibans are everywhere. Let's hope to keep them out of here

ehh tone matching sounds like an ok feature, but if it doesn't sound real I'm not interested. I can do my own eqing. If kemper adds it I won't complain, but I don't see myself using it much.

I have a feeling that Christoph will be smart enough not to play along and include tone matching.
I mean, I'd love to have it in my KPA as it would be a nice feature to have... but...
Honestly, do we really need to copy tones to justify the KPA? Profiling is much more complicated and realistic in a sense than tone matching... not to mention that I doubt that there would be 101123143423 isolated guitar tracks to match tones from... maybe you can find a couple hundreds, but that's all.
And, again, profiling is a lot higher level of this kind of thing.

Quote from hoth

We''ve all been there as the support can get a little cultish. And the 120% realer reviews are coming out already. But in all honesty people on this forum have been accused of both of those too. I am just glad and hope that we keep that kind of childishness to a minimum.

And when 6.01 comes out it will be 140 percent even more realer.

I hope they improved it cause honestly some of the tones, specially high gain, sounded better on the 11 rack then the axe..

The "Tone Match" thing kind of smells like Beringer in a copy way.
Rather than come up with new ideas, it looks like a catch up to stop lost sales.
I hate when people copy ideas.
I did it when I was young but learned its just a endless chase, better spent breaking new ground of your own.

Stop to look around and your dead...

I, for one, want tone matching. I think it will increase the utility of this unit exponentially!

being how I want to sound like ME, and play like me, I could honestly care less about tone matching, specilaly tone matching a commercially mastered track. but hey thats me. Either way Fractal peeps ought to be thanking kemper, cause if the kemper didn't come out, there would be no tone matching

Quote from hoth

Cliff definitely added tone matching for that reason since he was so against it before the KPA. But hey, the axe was a great box before this functionality so adding the matching shouldn't detract from its coolness. One thing I noticed in Cliff's statement on how the modeling was improved was the he said "We put test tones into the amps and obtain the matching information. That data is stored in the model." Isn't that then... Profiling? I thought he was against that.

oh you can bet he is taking a few ideas from Kemper... even though he stated earlier it was inferior. I honestly care less. I am getting stellar direct sounds that sound like.....an amp! imagine that. so I don't have gear envy, and certainly wouldn't be scouring the net looking for sounds to tone match, even if the kemper could do that. not my thing, nor ever would be.

Improvements and updates are great for all users!
Though I find it very strange to read comments on forums by some people saying the axe-fx is getting profiling just like the Kemper. Maybe the initial Fractal quote from february 8th had that misleading marketing effect:
"FWIW, our own profiling will be available soon for the Axe-Fx II."
They don't use that Profiling word anymore since it is eq match they implemented.

Eq matching is exactly what Ozone and other plugins can do in a DAW.
Unlike the Kemper, the Axe-II won't analyze the gain structure, attack, compression, dynamic behaviour or anything else from the recorded source track. Just the eq curve. Then the eq match block is applied to an existing amp model in the Axe that the user thinks resembles the recorded source.
It's nothing like the patented automated KPA profiling method.
It is still a useful feature and it will be cool to test and compare it to the KPA.

Quote from hoth

Cliff definitely added tone matching for that reason since he was so against it before the KPA. But hey, the axe was a great box before this functionality so adding the matching shouldn't detract from its coolness. One thing I noticed in Cliff's statement on how the modeling was improved was the he said "We put test tones into the amps and obtain the matching information. That data is stored in the model." Isn't that then... Profiling? I thought he was against that.

I think Line6 and other modeling companies have put test signals through amps for perhaps over a decade now. Then applying it to traditional amp modeling. The profiling method is not modeling and a lot more than just some signals through an amp. I'm not that technical but I think it's explained on the KPA faq page.
Some more technical profiling info is in this Kemper interview link:
http://www.guitar-muse.com/kemper-profiling-amp-2949-2949

Even Fractal was sweeping amps when they started.
Here is a quote that shows what Fractal speculated about profiling when the Kemper first was introduced:
"My impressions haven't changed. As I said before, and this video
reinforces that, he's doing EQ profiling via test signals. When I first
started out this is how I was modeling amps. You sweep the amp and by
using varying levels and signals you can determine the input and output
EQ profiles and approximate waveshaper transfer function.

This technique has a myriad of shortcomings and I've long since
abandoned it. The EQ->waveshape->EQ paradigm is 1st-generation
modeling and I believe almost everyone has moved beyond that due to the
inherent static nature. "