Matrix GT1000FX v Fryette Power Station with an AFX.

paulmapp8306

OK.  I A/Bd these in a shop initially.  Id used the Fryette Power station when trying a Friedman Buxom Betty, and was so impressed by the tonal match between fryette and Friedman when the volume was equal that I returned with my AFX rig.

Initial impressions on a clean tone were the the two were very similar.  They were so close I thought "not worth swapping".  however I kept going, and slowly added gain.  With some bluesy stuff the differences started to show.  The Power Stations bass response isnt as low (in Freq) but that meant there was more a a clunk to the attack rather than a thump from the Matrix (sound is so hard to describe).  The low mids on the Fryette were more transparent and the separation was better.

The more gain I added, the more the difference showed, and with some high gain stuff the Fryette just shone.  So much more separation, more low end wallop in the ribs.  The Matrix by comparison had more bottom end but it was more woofy.  The low mids were more congested so made for a less dynamic tone.

As I say - Sooo hard to describe tone.  Upper frequencies didnt show much - if any - difference.  It is literally in the bass and low mids that the differences showed.  Upshot is my Matrix is now a backup (and for sale for the right cash) while I bought the Power Station for use with the AFX rig.

Once recorded, the low mid/bass thing does come across more on the cleans than when listening in the flesh.  Probably a volume thing.

Ive done 2 vids (I used an A/B switcher in the shop but dont have one).  One for the MAtrix and one for the Fryette.  I used the same guitars and patches.  A strat on neck PU, and pos 4 for clean into a DR patch, a PRS CU22 (with BK Mules) into a Cameron patch - two levels of gain, bridge PU, and a Suhr Modern into a Custom Audio patch.  I dint play the exact same thing as I just cant remember what I play when jamming - BUT they are similar riffs/lines etc.  Camera wasnt moved - though it is only a Samsung camera in video mode so not great.  Volume wasnt fantastic loud or the mic would clip.  Hopefully it will show the differences though - and with two clips you can run both together and find similar tones/lines to a/B fairly quickly.

So - Matrix:

[MEDIA=youtube]mCSIMEUzvPE[/MEDIA]

Fryette:

[MEDIA=youtube]Pcef-rBHKNI[/MEDIA]

Let me know thoughts.  Normal caveats about YouTube compression, and how you listen to the clips apply.  Id also add the Fryette has Presence and Depth controls.  They are both set to noon, which from my time using it with the Fryette seemed the most neutral HOWEVER, you could probably use them to better match the Matrix - and of course gives some you some room to match a room live as well.

paulmapp8306

Cips didnt work.

here they are again:

Matrix:

Fryette:

Maybe this time..

guitarfishbay

I can't listen right now but I will listen later.

Out of curiosity how do you have the low frequency resonance dialled in? I find it makes a huge difference with what you're talking about in terms of low end (clunk/thump etc). I do expect the valve power amp to do it better regardless.

paulmapp8306

I tune the resonance (I assume you mean in the amp block) to my cab.  When I set t up I palm muted while I swept the Low res Freq until my cab started to resonate well (114hz).  That is the Freq - I just raise or lower the amount to suit the amp/patch Im working with.

guitarfishbay

Yeah. My resonance is also about there. If you're finding the Matrix too deep then possibly the Q is too wide. Mine is usually 3, though sometimes amps sound better with it on 2.5, amount is usually 5.8 I think. If I make the Q 2 then I have to reduce the amount or else it's too much. A lot of the stock Q width settings for rock amps are about 2 IIRC, which probably works with 412s. I'm using a Mesa Rectifier 212.

I've had a Blackstar ID100 here for a while (belongs to my bandmate) and that does it an interesting way. There's actually a fair bit of punch through my cab but noticeably no deep low end. At stock settings it has more punch than the Axe through the GT1000FX. I had to use the GEQ in the amp to nudge up some more bass to match it. The highs are much nicer from the Axe though IMO.

fretmeister

I quite fancy the Matrix 2u version for my bass rig. As long as the fans aren't too loud.

paulmapp8306

Fans on the 2U are virtually silent.  The 2U was designed with larger slower fans for studio use.

guitarfishbay

Definitely go 2U, 1U fans are a little annoying at home volumes. Sounds like an old Xbox 360 if I had to guess something similar.

Roland

Paul. Fascinating comparison. Are you also hearing resonance differences in the mid frequency range?

fretmeister

guitarfishbay said:

Definitely go 2U, 1U fans are a little annoying at home volumes. Sounds like an old Xbox 360 if I had to guess something similar.

Noted!

monquixote

I thought there was more difference in the clean tones. 

I didn't like the Matrix at all sounded very sterile.

I know bugger all about higher gain so I won't comment on that.

fretmeister

I like sterile on bass. My preamps have enough character without adding any at the power stage.

paulmapp8306

Roland said:

Paul. Fascinating comparison. Are you also hearing resonance differences in the mid frequency range?

Some yes.  The Matrix resonates more in the low midrange, the PS resonates in the upper mid range.  You can hear it in the harmonics at the end.  The Matrix's harmonic naturally feeds back at a lower frequency than the PS.  Both can be made to produce those harmonics at different frequencies by moving around as you would a real amp -  but its easier to get those harmonics at the place the amp naturally want so work.

The PS jumps into harmonics easier than the Matrix though I must say. 

Roland

monquixote said:

I thought there was more difference in the clean tones. 

I didn't like the Matrix at all sounded very sterile.

Yes, even listening on an iPad I thought the valve amp had more life to it. Not enough to sway my decision to use a Matrix Q12. More than 50% of my volume comes from the pa, and I'm not going to mic up. I need to find a way of compensating in the Axe FX.

Paul. Are you going to post this comparison on the Fractal forum? It would be interesting to get a discussion about SS sterility and mid-range resonance.

guitarfishbay

Mark Day recently posted a vid with the AX8 through a Mesa power amp and two 4x12s. Sounded great (admittedly I was listening on iPad).

paulmapp8306

Roland said:

monquixote said:

I thought there was more difference in the clean tones. 

I didn't like the Matrix at all sounded very sterile.

Paul. Are you going to post this comparison on the Fractal forum? It would be interesting to get a discussion about SS sterility and mid-range resonance.

I have posted this there as well yes.

drwiddly

guitarfishbay said:

Mark Day recently posted a vid with the AX8 through a Mesa power amp and two 4x12s. Sounded great (admittedly I was listening on iPad).

I listened to that on my studio monitors last night and it sounds very good. Mind you, it's very similar to my own rig so I would like it, wouldn't I?

ElectroDan

drwiddly said:

guitarfishbay said:

Mark Day recently posted a vid with the AX8 through a Mesa power amp and two 4x12s. Sounded great (admittedly I was listening on iPad).

I listened to that on my studio monitors last night and it sounds very good. Mind you, it's very similar to my own rig so I would like it, wouldn't I?

I love Mark Day's 80's/90's inspired tones. He's going to end up costing me a fortune.

guitarfishbay

Thanks for posting these.

Just one last question - have you played around with dynamic depth and presence when using the Matrix? Until Quantum I was adding some amount to all my patches. I've since removed it, but it'd be interesting to see if dynamic depth at least could bring some more punch to the Matrix when compared to the PS.

Dynamic depth can increase the depth value on louder notes, eg palm mutes.

paulmapp8306

I have played with Dyn depth and presence as well as resonance on the speaker tab.

There is just something about the Matrix v the PS (and top end real amps) that looses definition in those lower mids.  I think the bass extension can be cut quite easily but then you loose the body somewhat.

I "think" its that the Matrix is a flatter response (probably to do with speaker interaction with the valve amps OP transformers) that cant get completely compensated for in the resonance page of the amp block.   This seems to then "smear" the low mids/high bass freqs more making it sound less dynamic.