Well yes and no. Many of the effect blocks have had changes to available parameters.. some added some removed, and many "tweaked" to new defaults. Thus, where the amp presence had a negative value in the I model, its only positive in the II. Other values have gone from +50%/-50% to +100%/-100%, so you would have to translate -24.9% in I to the new value of -49.8%.Does that imply that the new settings also won't map to the old box? I'm wondering whether the major difference between the II and I in terms of sonic performance is that the II has default values which are "optimized ( I know - optimized is a very subjective term). If the default values of the II were translated to the I, how does the I compare? Is that possible to check out or are the settings simply so apples and oranges different that they can't be compared?
It also has a lot to do with the type of tones for which you are looking. Mr. Mitchell is primarily a clean jazz tone player and for his applications I doubt one would find much difference as the less nonlinearity involved the less the modeling matters.
For those who use more distortion the new modeling will likely be more apparent.
It also has a lot to do with the type of tones for which you are looking. Mr. Mitchell is primarily a clean jazz tone player and for his applications I doubt one would find much difference as the less nonlinearity involved the less the modeling matters.
For those who use more distortion the new modeling will likely be more apparent.
Up to how much "more distortion"? Would it still be apparent right to the "brootalz"? Or would there be diminishing apparent effect by the time you reach that point due to compression?
Thanks.
The presets for the amps on the II smoke the gen 1 presets, I'll say that.
aleclee said:Why are you going off on me? While I'm anything but disappointed with the new model, I'd say I've been more measured in my comments than the vast majority of folks who've actually tried one.
If you think that sonic quality as demonstrated in compressed audio clips is the only thing worth evaluating, you're more than welcome to that perspective. That said, given the quality of the Ultra's sound and the sonic detail lost in MP3 compression, it's not necessarily going to knock your socks off. Personally, I've never been a fan of clips as a way to evaluate a piece of gear, particularly amps. For me, the way an amp feels and responds is as big a deal as having the right timbre. Very few clips I've ever heard do a decent job of expressing that. Of course, YMMV.
It also has a lot to do with the type of tones for which you are looking. Mr. Mitchell is primarily a clean jazz tone player and for his applications I doubt one would find much difference as the less nonlinearity involved the less the modeling matters.
For those who use more distortion the new modeling will likely be more apparent.
Cliff, that's incorrect. I made a living playing rock 'n' roll, blues, rock, funk, etc. My present trio's song list covers everything from ZZ Top to Steely Dan to Little Feat, and the sounds I use on most of those tunes are anything but "clean jazz tones." I use my Marshall presets with a Strat quite a bit more than I use clean ones with an archtop. Those presets do clean up well, but they are set for quite a bit of overdrive. The comparison clips I posted earlier were Marshall sounds.It also has a lot to do with the type of tones for which you are looking. Mr. Mitchell is primarily a clean jazz tone player
Calling me out for what? Pointing out that some of my favorite new features aren't anything that can be easily represented in a clip? Review my posts since I got my II a week ago and find one instance...ONE INSTANCE...where I made a comment that even resembles "it smokes the Ultra".Wasn't really going off, as i can see how may be perceived. Just calling you out.
Yup. Sorry... The quote was yours but more directed at the OP as far as the smokin part......Calling me out for what? Pointing out that some of my favorite new features aren't anything that can be easily represented in a clip? Review my posts since I got my II a week ago and find one instance...ONE INSTANCE...where I made a comment that even resembles "it smokes the Ultra".
You've got the wrong guy.
I have to agree with Dutch, but not for the same reasons... I have no intention of ditching my Ultra (it has some things that are lacking in the II), so for me, resale value is of no immediate consequence.
No, my issue with the statement "II smokes Ultra" is with the overwhelming use of unrealistic, over-the-top statements. It occurred at every firmware release for Standard and Ultra in the past. "Wow, whatever was missing before is now completely there now!" ... or ... "the ultimate update, can't get any better!" ... you see the point. If the last update was so unbeatable, how can the II "smoke the Ultra"? That kind of statement is just as useless as the counterarguments such as "it sounds digital or unrealistic".
So please, enough of these over-the-top statements that completely fail the credibility test. I don't think anything exists out there that can "smoke an Ultra".
I think maybe we should be smoken something else and we would all agreeI can't believe we are out to bag on a guy because he's happy. If he feels it smokes another box, then he's entitled to that opinion. And you are entitled to not agree with him and post it.
But really, folks are just too damn touchy about most anything. If you like something, the folks rush in to tell you you like it too much. If you don't like something, folks rush in to tell you you dislike it too much. Slow down folks - the bigger the forum gets, the less we will 'all' agree on any one thing anyway.
And that's ok. It's all ok. And none of it is really that important.