Mesa Boogie in DUST

I think some people lose touch with reality a little bit around here. I love my AxeFX but I still fire up my Mark IIC+ almost every time I am practicing, it just cannot be 100% duplicated by the AxeFX, I just love all the different sounds I can get from the AxeFx, but I don't think I will ever sell my IIC+.
 
I love my AxeII to death. Play it 95% of the time. But there's a reason that I'm holding onto my 1984 JCM 800 2204.
 
stephan said:
I think some people lose touch with reality a little bit around here. I love my AxeFX but I still fire up my Mark IIC+ almost every time I am practicing, it just cannot be 100% duplicated by the AxeFX, I just love all the different sounds I can get from the AxeFx, but I don't think I will ever sell my IIC+.
Click to expand...

No, it's not that. The big mistake is people thinking personal experience is objective. For some, modern digital rigs are fully capable of delivering what they want from a rig and are in a fact superior tool/user experience. For others, traditional gear has distinct advantages that they are not likely to ever get from another type of rig. And there are those who can get there sound with almost anything. Tube amps will be around as long as tubes are viable to be manufactured for this reason, I would guess.

The religious wars, like all religious wars, start when enough members from one group, lacking any empathetic understanding for the others, says, what is right from my perspective SHOULD be right from EVERYONE ELSE's perspective.

Personally, I have ZERO use for tube amps after having used them for nearly twenty years. I am thankful for this era of gear and wish it had come sooner. That said, I totally understand that some people want traditional rigs and they will never go away. Just don't tell me your feelings about gear are somehow more valid than my own and we will get along great even if our opinions differ.
 
Just got a Roadster head, and the Axe is in the loop for fx only. Can't wait for the rack-mount, fx only version! Bring it!
 
zenaxe said:
No, it's not that. The big mistake is people thinking personal experience is objective. For some, modern digital rigs are fully capable of delivering what they want from a rig and are in a fact superior tool/user experience. For others, traditional gear has distinct advantages that they are not likely to ever get from another type of rig. And there are those who can get there sound with almost anything. Tube amps will be around as long as tubes are viable to be manufactured for this reason, I would guess.

The religious wars, like all religious wars, start when enough members from one group, lacking any empathetic understanding for the others, says, what is right from my perspective SHOULD be right from EVERYONE ELSE's perspective.

Personally, I have ZERO use for tube amps after having used them for nearly twenty years. I am thankful for this era of gear and wish it had come sooner. That said, I totally understand that some people want traditional rigs and they will never go away. Just don't tell me your feelings about gear are somehow more valid than my own and we will get along great even if our opinions differ.
Click to expand...

Spot on. Cool post!
 
Yeah, I've got my 80's MKIII, a Triaxis/2:90 rack rig, and a 100W Lonestar sitting in the corner of my practice room under covers. Went Fractal and never looked back :).
 
pneil2 said:
Yeah, I've got my 80's MKIII, a Triaxis/2:90 rack rig, and a 100W Lonestar sitting in the corner of my practice room under covers. Went Fractal and never looked back :).
Click to expand...

I do agree with Zenaxe. I tried every modeling rig when they came out. I used the VG8/88 for a while. Cleans were decent, distortion was aweful. The Vox stuff was a mixed bag. I always thought the line-6 stuff sounded ok but wasn't dynamic or touch sensitive enough. I loved the idea of having lots of choices available at the touch of a footswith, but no one could match the tone and feel of a tube amp until now.
 
For me, tube vs axe fx is not even a question anymore. It's what axefx can offer to you. Sure that a tube sound is obviously 100% tube sound coz it's a tube amp. Y copy or emulate that sound if you can create ur own tone. Or choose an amp you like and tweak it the way u like. There's a reason y axefx is called an effects processor and not a " tube emulator " coz it's more powerful than that.
 
I've only had my XL for a few weeks and already my Mark IV is getting dusty. I'm in no rush to sell it just yet, but it might end up funding a CLR cab or two. This black box is addictive.
 
darrenw5094 said:
No way. Bet you can't make the Fractal Trainwreck sound like the real trainwreck tube amp or the Bad Cat sound like a tube Bad Cat.
Click to expand...

You speak as if new firmware doesn't come out 6 times a year offering constant and never ending improvement.

One thing to keep in mind is where modeling was 10 years ago, vs where it is now. I mean, can you compare a POD bean to an AXE? No way. So with that in mind does anyone think that the solid state solution has reached it's full potential and is the end product? Fractal customers know this isn't the case.

The AXE is presently very close to tube amps, and to me it is a better overall solution for my rig needs. I mean, I play in cover bands and this thing sounds fantastic, gives me amazing versatility and sound and routing options, and is easy to manage. It's compact, consistent... and it works for me right now. In 5 or 10 more years who can imagine what will be possible. I can't see me going back to big, heavy, one or two tone amps in the future.
 
And we're all comparing digital to tube amps, holding up tube amps as if they are the end all be all of great tone- but take us all back 8 or 9 years ago, before the AF- and the line wasn't that tube amps are the best- it was which tube amps are going to give you great tone. And we all got huffy puffy about printed circuit boards vs handwired boards, have Mallory blue caps, carbon comp resistors, cryo treated tubes, broken in speakers, etc. etc. ad nauseum! I'm going to paraphrase Scott Peterson and just mention that they're only tools for making music. And none of that makes a hill of beans difference if the guitarist can't play anyways.
 
I can't say all things now are better than things 10 years ago. let me see, cassette player - cd player then mp3 player..... huge ass phones to touchscreen iphones..... tube amps to pod, kemper, axefx etc...... it doesn't even matter anymore if it's a tube amp or not... if you like using tube amps and think it's still better, go ahead, we know it's good.... if like using pod,kemper,axefx, go ahead, we know it's good. if all of a sudden petrucci uses a pod in his rack, I bet u, everyone will play the same thing like his mark v and axe fx......
 
Yes, digital technology has given us more options, cheaper prices, faster, quicker, sooner, etc. etc...

Here's a few counter points....

Cell phones - suck compared to a real analog, plug in, heavy ass home phone. Sorry, but the old rotary dial phone has a better signal than a cell phone. Cell phones have gotten better, but the landline phone still sounds better.

mp3 players - yeah it's easy to download the latest song from itunes, convenient, but to me a phat vinyl record playing through a tube stereo home system sounds better than an ipod. Although, digital music is very very good, so this point isn't as strong....

guitar amps - yeah, the AXE FX can do a bunch of amp sims and honestly, to me they "sound" like the real amp they are emulating, but the "feel" is still lacking... the responsiveness of a tube amp has yet to be mastered in another technology yet..... someone mentioned a Trainwreck... I don't think digital is quite on that same page yet. What your ear "hears"...maybe... .what your body "feels".... probably not yet. I think the missing link is not the AXE however, I think it's FRFR and power amps....

All IMHO, YMMV of course!!!!

By the way for the OP, yeah my tube amps don't get as much play as they used to... haven't turned on my Fender Twin for months.... my Bogner Shiva still gets regular use, but so does the AXE.
 
So it's feeling the tube not hearing it.... I don't know bout you but all i can feel bout tube amps are their weight. Don't get me wrong but i won own a mesa mark v and it's been collecting dust for months. I know what tube sound like, but why make axefx to sound like a tube if you can make ur own tone out of ridiculous amount of amps available... I'd rather abuse the axefx than trying hard to just make it sound like a tube amp that you already have.
 
August_caras@yahoo.com said:
I'd rather abuse the axefx than trying hard to just make it sound like a tube amp that you already have.
Click to expand...

That is you man, but for me its all the opposite!... i already know very well the tone and feel i like, its been developing maybe since i started playing and Mesa Amps being the amps that i have more experience with i go to that tone that i know and feel inspired playing with, But i have also spend many hours trying to find other tones... and most of the time after many hours i end up dialling a tone that is pretty similar to the tone i was trying to get away from in the first place because it is what i hear in my head.

Believe me when i tell you that i would be more then happy with just 2 or 3 amps from the collections and a few FXs and thats it, i basically use just about 15% of what the AXFX offers!.

BTW, for me, as a guitar player i just love good tones, but still there is nothing like looking at a stage filled with amps! Im old school i know, seems this days most modern acts and Metallica don't care for stage amps any more, sad, IMO.
 
zenaxe said:
As someone who has worked in the Semiconductor industry for 20+ years: You have no idea just how amazing and "majestic" "computer chips" can be.
Click to expand...

Stated from a proud techy ; I dont own any big tube heads, IM 100 percent fractal, but MY point was a chip sure isn't as "good looking ie majestic" as a cool half or full stack. Sound maybe a different story. A mountain is majestic, a picture of one on a cell phone is not or some variance of that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom