Axe-Fx II "Quantum" 2.00 Public Beta Deux

[romanianreaper]

It's just people getting super hyped about the unit, man. Not much more. Like I said, many people are probably just hearing the amps louder as there is a volume increase with this fw, and they are assuming "huge" differences.

I've had the Axe-FX for years now and disagree. I have been playing guitar since 85' and if a certain part of the tone equation fits my personal preference (example, Marshalls have more low-end, etc.) then to me, it is a huge difference. In my opinion, the firmware updates are not meant to be an overwhelming update across the board that pleases every player. In one update, they improve the grind, pick attack, low end, and overall feel of hard rock/metal amps. The next firmware update, they might please the Fender fans with more bloom and touch sensitivity that just feels better.

There has been something with almost every recent update that has pushed the overall tone, and/or convenience of the amps within the unit. In other words, there are things inside the unit that are easier to achieve so that users across the board can get better tones rather than a handful of users who tweak controls constantly.

Separate from the amp tones, they have included new amps, higher quality effects, more IRs, more options, etc. I had a VH patch that I used years ago and it sounded great. However, when Cliff added the voltage drop option, it took it to a whole new level. I think that is what we are really talking about here. Everything sounds great and phenomenal but you still can always add things to make tones lean in a certain direction and have more of that extra "oomph". We are talking about things beyond just gain and distortion.

Messing with the B+Constant, Pick Attack, SAG, etc. make HUGE differences in some of the tones I've had on recordings, etc.

Like I said, just my opinion and several of us will always disagree but I know it is not just hype. If someone is hearing the same thing with every firmware update, then they are not tapping into the front panel and messing with the tube types, mic pre, and tons of other added options that you have to turn on before hearing the changes.

 

[Rotti]

So far I can hear a bit more of dynamism between the 1.06 and the beta... No idea if my ears are tricking me.

I fuckin' LOVE me some dynamism!

 

[mitch]

Try the Plexi 100W 1970 with Factory Cab 54. Be sure to dial it in like you would in 1970, i.e. turn the Mid, Treble and Presence way up; turn Norm Drive and Bass down a bit.

Thank you. Excuse my French, but that is fucking fantastic. Squishy as hell, but somehow still retains great definition. Mind is blown.

 

[Mr.nobody]

I fuckin' LOVE me some dynamism!

That is MUCH more accurate than "more real" or "chewy".

 

[jesussaddle]

Like many others, I appreciate the heck out of how passionate Fractal is as a company to innovate on the platform. It's the easily the best music product I've ever owned and I completely trust in what they do to improve it.

Looking forward to 2.0 when it's ready to roll.

TBH this is one of the best products I have ever owned, music or otherwise. I'm happy I traded in the Ultra for the II right away. The II only cost me an additional $450 or so, and think of all the firmware updates I've enjoyed from 2009 to present. Incredible.

BTW, more on topic, this new firmware is helping with my technique. The low sixth string on my guitar, being a Gibson scale BC Rich guitar with my particular pickups (Freds in the bridge position, not sure what's in the neck position), has always responded with a little too much of the wrong harmonics, making the basic note fundamental harder to make "clear sounding".

I can say that this new firmware does the best job of keeping this low end stuff full of character without unwanted colors and overdone harmonics. Admittedly I am very affected by the placeba (I guess that's the jumped in placebos ganged up on a rough downtown street corner). The bass strings sound gnarly in pretty every amp model I push hard. But they sound different and characteristic in each. I've been using the Tucana with a treble boost pedal, which has a kind of refreshing tone that doesn't sound too overly like anyone else.

 

[Surrealistic Brillo]

If you don't like frequent and free updates that actually make noticeable improvements to their respective products there are LOTS of other brands to choose from guys. Perhaps some of you would be happier with one of them.

 

[jonhep]

Has anyone tried the new update without using an frfr cab, using the Axe fx and a guitar cab with no cab sim, is there still much of a difference?

Andy yes this really shines with my 1936 cab now.

 

[jlynnb1]

i don't understand why someone who isn't even using the device anymore feels the need to come in a take shots at it?? Either you've moved on or you haven't...

 

[Rex]

I had my own epiphany about how much the modeling has improved in Quantum 2.

After beta-testing Q2 on my Axe-Fx II, I fired up my AX8 to get it ready for a gig. I instantly missed the chewiness and overall goodness, particularly on my go-to class A (D-30) and plexi (1959 jumped) presets.

Can't wait for Quantum 2 to get ported to the AX8!

 

[JJunkie]

Sometimes I don't really hear a difference in a new FW update and that's OK with me. I appreciate the fact that there is progress being made. And I really like the direction FAS chose to take the Axe-FX II, going for realism, as opposed to the Gen 1 units, which were not intended to match amps and effects exactly.

In the future, things are only going to get better and it was a smart move by FAS to take the approach they did, because it gives them a solid basis by which to improve as they go. If you think about other gear that may be based on a whole bunch of fudge factors, etc., if they ever wanted to improve, they are eventually going to come to a dead end and will have to back track in order to catch up.

 

[zenaxe]

There are A/B tests between real amps and modelers all over the forums, and most people can't consistently tell the difference, especially with the top of the line modelers like Axe or Kemper. Yeah, it's not a perfect sample, but it's not completely meaningless. There are also numerous, albeit anecdotal, examples of producers tricking guitarists into using a modeler when they think they're playing an amp. I don't think I'm making a baseless claim when I say the modeling was already really darn close to being real. And when a gap is very small relative to the whole, changes in that gap are harder to perceive. I certainly take your point, but I don't think I'm that far off.

My point completely blew by you. :-/ The point was: your claim that quote 'everyone can tell a difference' between FWs when they are 99% accurate already is utterly baseless in terms of the 'EVERYONE' not the 99% bit. For the most part people here on the forum raving are a small sample of AFX users and you have no data that indicates a large number of AFX users are losing their mind over every FW update.

I was shining some light on your query as a long time observer of the chatter here about what scenarios cause people to notice changes, what makes a big deal to folks, and how this self selected data can make it SEEM like your claim is true to a noob. But you seem to have taken it as an (unintended) insult.

My post had ZERO to do with percentage accuracy of current modeler implementations (in fact I strongly agree with claims that the high end units are astonishingly accurate); it was about the validity of your assertion that large numbers of users are claiming to hear a difference between major FW revisions of the AFX. All I see is a few people here.

 

[Coby]

Fantastic!! The low end is a lot more under control, i've turned off the CUT switch in all my presets! Now the low end is present and really under your control, if you ear too much bass freq with some easy tweaks you can find easily the right balance in the sound and between the frequencies! Really a great work FAS, the word that comes in mind to me when I think of the new fw is just BALANCE...and also the saturation responds very well when changing guitar & pu...it has something a lot more natural, I don't know how to explain but the feeling when splitting pu or changing guitar is exactly what i would expect with a real amp...I repeat, a GREAT WORK!
Thank You

 

[scook]

My point completely blew by you. :-/ The point was: your claim that 'everyone can tell a difference' is utterly baseless. For the most part people here on the forum raving are a small sample of AFX users and you have no data that indicates

My post had ZERO to do with percentage accuracy of current modeler implementations (in fact I strongly agree with claims that the high end units are astonishingly accurate); it was about the validity of your assertion that large numbers of users are claiming to hear a difference between major FW revisions of the AFX. All I see is a few people here.

Haha. OK. Well in my initial post, the numbers I was saying were theoretical were from my claim that 99 out of 100 can't tell the difference between real world amps and modelers. You then said that those numbers were not theoretical, but "made up" and "pulled out of thin air." So clearly I did misunderstand your response, but you also misunderstood my initial post.

With regard to the percentage of users who say they hear a "huge" difference, of course you're right that we don't really know what percentage of users (a) have downloaded the beta firmware, and further (b) have commented on it. But even Cliff said a few pages back that "99%" of users heard an improvement. So I would argue that neither of these numbers are "made up."

 

[don_joe]

i level my preset while i'm striking the strings. ringing out is already quieter than "nominal." palm mutes do add more level due to increased low frequency, so yes i too reduce bass if it gets too loud. if i do want that much bass from palm mutes though (which is rare), i'll put a compressor somewhere so the increased frequency is heard, but the level doesn't increase too much. 8dB of increase is way too much. that will kill anything at stage volumes, so it's best to control it. even a 3dB raise in the bass while chugging will be heard and felt, so don't be afraid to dial it down.


my input is usually 30% with my Ernieball JP guitars. but the input setting does NOT affect your output. it's only a signal to noise ratio adjustment.

it can sometimes affect things with either extreme settings like 0% or 100% or with extreme guitars that have very weak outputs or very strong outputs.


i definitely agree with this

but some people think their statement of "i don't hear a difference therefore there is none" is a minority opinion that's not an opinion. the changes in FW can be measured, therefore it is fact. if you can't hear it, that's not opinion. it's actually fact that you can't perceive the change.

Thanks, Chris.

I've used the opportunity to ask because I have the input on about 95% and I don't see any problem with it except that it seems rather high. Interestingly, The meter on the front panel doesn't even go all the way up into red (at max. mostly only 3/4 of the leds).

Sorry for hijacking the thread, by the way. I can not tell that the Q2.00 Beta Deux is much better than Q1.06 cause they both sound good. However, I don't remember that it was ever so easy to dial a very pleasing tone with about any amp.

 

[mbrown3]

I hear that, but that's so literal and yet so subjective at the same time. Unless any of us sitting with Cliffs actual amps, how would we know definitively? Isn't it always said no two amps sound the same? With that in mind, doesn't the target definition of truly "authentic" change then? It becomes relative to what we heard before (prior firmware), therefore you will never stop hearing compliments if Cliff truly feels he made something better. To the player (loving updates), if it feels better, then it is. Not trying to poke a hornets nest, just discussing. Then the whole sugar pill thing too... But its obvious Cliff takes great pride in his work, and proves it a lot with past improvements and detailed notes/discussion about them vs throwing us placebos.

I think the whole thing is a bit silly, on both sides. One side claiming it's gotten better and "more realer" and the other saying it's all placebo. My guess is that some of the people claiming to hear a big difference probably wouldn't be able to actually tell in an A/B setting. OTOH, there are those of us who can (myself included...I've A/Bed recordings of different firmware and been able to identify different ones). But the discussion itself is a bit crazy, because modeling, by definition, has to start somewhere. If you take two old Super Reverbs, they will sound different. Maybe a lot different, maybe a little. So which one is the "standard" that gets modeled as the "ideal" or "better" option? Ultimately, in this case, we're at the mercy of Cliff's ear and what he thinks is better (and, in turn, he may be basing what is "better" on either just what sounds better to him, or what most famous artists prefer, or a mean opinion of a select few people, etc...whatever his criteria or process). This is, of course, separate from the modeling of the static things that always behave/sound the same way.

On the other hand, because everyone is different, I might prefer the sound of the other Super Reverb. Not only are everyone's ears different from each other, they can be different even from one day to the next. The cool thing about Axe-Fx is that it seeks to capture the closest to that ideal (I don't mean ideal as in "theoretical", I mean as in "closest to the best example of what we're trying to model, however we...or, in this case, Cliff...define best"). It's also amazing that Axe-Fx gives us enough options to be able to make those minor adjustments and I can make it sound like the other Super Reverb if I want to.

Differences in firmware, then, are largely (IMO) a refinement of those options to the "standard" or "ideal" version, the "standard" or "ideal" behavior of tubes, circuits, etc. That is, getting the default values of everything...from the static things to the variable things...as close to a "mean" standard as possible and making that the mean standard in the Axe-Fx. But then offering the options that can change things up just like differences in real tube amps...and even offering options "real" tube amps can't achieve.

So I guess my point is that the whole discussion is just moot (which, yes, makes this post moot as well, lol). To assume that every iteration of firmware is definitively better than the last is a bit absurd, but it's also absurd to say that it's all placebo when many of us do hear clear differences (some for the better, some for the worse, based on our personal definition of what sounds good). Basically this device is amazing specifically because it's a chameleon. If you don't like the way the amp sounds, try one of the many others, or change the settings. The way you want it to sound is almost certainly in there.

 

[Krakadon]

With modeling, I believe it's been very hard to tell the difference between a tube amp or a modeled amp RECORDING for quite a while.

Sorry NeoSound. I don't agree with this statement at all. While there are some artists that get extraordinary results with only an Axe-FX most artists, engineers and producers still use tube amps in the studio. In almost every full band A/B mix demonstration I've heard the tube amps sound better (to me anyway) and I have done a couple of blind listening tests with some guitarist & mix engineer friends. I personally have achieved my best recorded results with a tube amp. The worst musical decision I ever made was selling my Mesa Boogie Dual Rectifier half-stack (for a Line 6 Vetta, blah).

However, I only own an Axe-FX and I believe the benefits are numerous. It sounds great; it has enormous flexibility and ease of use and is the best value for the money; no need to store, maintain and mic up amplifiers; no tube amp variation in tone; it has incredibly high quality effects that I'd still use if I had the best boutique amps on the planet, and they can be used for different sources in the studio; I can use it at night without waking my kids up; I can tweak it from within my computer with an awesome editor; I get go direct to FOH in a live gig; there is an awesome well-integrated controller, etc. etc. For certain I still want to re-add a tube amp to my set-up (I have my eye on a Mesa Boogie Mark Five:35 and 1x12 and Two Notes Torpedo) but I will never part with my Axe-FX.

With regards to the quality modeling, Axe-FX II is clearly the best product on the planet, software or hardware (that I've heard and I've tried almost every one) and the improvement in sound quality with all of the iterative firmware releases is absolutely stunning (I started several years ago with an Ultra on like firmware 6 of 13 and now on the II platform we are on like the 20th one). It sounds amazing. I still don't think we are 99% there with modeling. I'm not sure how to explain the deficiency, Cliffs models are so close yet they still don't have the full three dimensional topography of a tube amp; they don't bark out of the speakers in the same way. I would love to not need any amplifiers. I am very happy to have such a dedicated, talented vendor as Cliff (and team) because if anyone will get there it is him. I am amazed at your progress Cliff, but also don't let up (I know you won't, in fact ,I don't think you are capable of doing so).

I hope no one is offended by this post. I love Fractal, I love my Axe-FX and I highly recommend it to everyone I speak with. I use it exclusively for my guitar and bass rehearsal and recording. It just seems like every time there is a new FW there are people who claim that we are now indistingishable (and I am in no way singling out NeoSound). Without question each new version is concretely better than the last but objectively that while we are almost there we still have some need for improvement for total success.

Having said all that, I haven't tried Quantum 2.0b yet because in the middle of tracking section and Iook forward to trying it in the next couple of days. I will post my take after I test it for a while.

As a side note, I have no reservations about loading a Cliff beta whatsoever. They have always installed without a hitch and worked solidly with clear benefits.

 

[chris]

I've used the opportunity to ask because I have the input on about 95% and I don't see any problem with it except that it seems rather high. Interestingly, The meter on the front panel doesn't even go all the way up into red (at max. mostly only 3/4 of the leds).

that is typical for some guitars. again, it's a signal-to-noise ratio adjustment. should be all good.

To assume that every iteration of firmware is definitively better than the last is a bit absurd, but it's also absurd to say that it's all placebo when many of us do hear clear differences (some for the better, some for the worse, based on our personal definition of what sounds good).

this is exactly the reason for so much dissonance regarding FW discussions. there are 2 separate topics, but they get melded into the same thing.

the first topic is that FW X is different than FW Y. this is a factual statement. "there is a difference in the power amp modeling" is a statement of fact.

the second topic is whether or not you prefer the change. that is opinion.

one problem arises when someone can't hear the difference and introduces the thought of "my opinion is that there is no change." that's not an opinion though. if a change is programed into the code, then there is a change. just because someone can't hear the change doesn't mean there isn't one. as i mentioned earlier, if someone can't hear the difference between the Bridge and Neck pickups on a guitar, they can't say "it's my opinion that nothing is changing" when they see someone clearly flip the pickup selector. it has changed. they just can't discern the difference.

another problem happens when people combine personal preference with the recognition of the change. just because someone recognizes the change doesn't mean they prefer or dislike the change.

underlying all of this is the fact that FW updates strive to be more and more accurate, not necessarily immediately better. this is a tough one to explain, but it is generally agreed that more accurate does equal "better." although in some particular cases, and update might change what you're used to and make it sound "not as good" at the time of update. this is like the Mark amp tone stack discussion. the amp is more accurate now, but perhaps doesn't sound as "good" as it did with old settings. the solution is to adapt to the accuracy and turn up the mids, just as you would on the real amp.

ahh. forums are a psychologist's playground i guess. glad i'm not one

 

[spx90]

Every update to improve the amplifiers, and always a step forward, thanks.
But personally, I expect some big news on the effects (Vintage $$$).
Many users (myself included) are waiting for this (Wish List).
New effects, satisfies for three products (Axe-Fx XL / FX8 / AX8),
I think !?!
Thanks Cliff

 

[guitarscientist]

Im terrible a describing guitar tone but, I have been enjoying my axe fx a lot over the last year. I started talking to this girl at work today about how cool Cliff is and what an awesome engineer he his and how I really like how the fractal company treats its customers and how Cliff models plate currents and cathodes and stuff...she had no idea what i was talking about but was quite amused...yeah I like this firmware...I like it a lot.

 

[FractalAudio]

Im terrible a describing guitar tone but, I have been enjoying my axe fx a lot over the last year. I started talking to this girl at work today about how cool Cliff is and what an awesome engineer he his and how I really like how the fractal company treats its customers and how Cliff models plate currents and cathodes and stuff...she had no idea what i was talking about but was quite amused...yeah I like this firmware...I like it a lot.

Trust me, that's no way to pick up girls...