Axe-Fx II "Quantum" Rev 2.02 Firmware Release

Swan1 said:
Personally, it sounds a little like the tail wagging the dog. If the goal is to get the sound and feel as close to the reference amps (obviously the custom Fractal amps are different) then regardless of anyone's personal preference to a specific sound or feel, I would vote for getting it to sound and feel like that amp and being done with it. If it is Q2.01 or if it is Q2.02 that sounds exactly like the reference amps then thats what the amp sounds like and thats that. Users can go into the almost dizzying array of advanced features and tweak it to sound however they want. Not to mention all the IR's that are out there to add additional customization of the sound and feel. Again, personally, if the Axe sounds and feels like the real reference amp then Fractal's job is done and I'd prefer to to see the inspiration go into new amps, effects, greater efficiency of the algorithms and frankly whatever other cool stuff Fractal can dream up.
Click to expand...

Amen...what he said!

Ahh.. Cliff… If I send you my DNA, could you extract my parameter preferences and do me up with a custom FW? While you’re poking around in my DNA, can also extract the necessary data to put together my ultimate CabPack?

Thanks in advance!
 
And then create a sensor to replace the guitar so the axe fx uses the brain as input ? :D
Thanks Cliff and team !
 
Chris@AxeFxTutorials said:
i think it's always interesting to see how some people think 2.02 is harsher, while others thing 2.01 is harsher. that's personally why i feel... it kinda doesn't matter....? :)
Click to expand...

It's not like you can't compensate for that with some quick changes anyway! I mean no one turns on an amp at a music store and expects it to sound good right away. We're lucky that with the Axe most amp blocks sound phenomenal from the get go, and personally I liked both 2.01 and 2.02, even though they might have introduced some necessary tweaks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RDH
Crapshoes said:
It's not like you can't compensate for that with some quick changes anyway! I mean no one turns on an amp at a music store and expects it to sound good right away. We're lucky that with the Axe most amp blocks sound phenomenal from the get go, and personally I liked both 2.01 and 2.02, even though they might have introduced some necessary tweaks.
Click to expand...
+1 I totally agree with you on this
 
Crapshoes said:
It's not like you can't compensate for that with some quick changes anyway! I mean no one turns on an amp at a music store and expects it to sound good right away. We're lucky that with the Axe most amp blocks sound phenomenal from the get go, and personally I liked both 2.01 and 2.02, even though they might have introduced some necessary tweaks.
Click to expand...
I think one big issue for some are the advanced controls. They are a double edged sword. They give amazing ability to "mod" an amp model on the fly and make extremely personalized changes. However, I think digging into the guts of the amp model and making tweaks necessarily exposes your presets to a bigger impact in a FW update. Almost all the folks who have expressed strong feelings about variation in point releases seem to be deep parameter tweakers.

My M.O. with the AFX these days wrt the core tone dialing is:
1. Pick an amp based on the style/tone target
2. Spend a lot of time picking a cab
3. Dial the amp
4. Go back to #2 and review, followed by another #3, loop as needed.
5. EQ, only if necessary
6. Advanced Params, only if necessary

I sometimes get to 5, rarely to 6; these days, I mostly finish after #4. By the time I'm at six I feel I might have gotten #1 wrong. If we had fewer amp models, I think I'd feel the need to go to 6 way more often.

That said, the Adv params are fun, I do have some amps I have modded them on to great effect, and I know some people are doing very detailed stuff and cannot get inspired if certain things are not happening and the Adv params are needed for them.

Playing with bias and supply voltage is cool... Changing the tube type... Changing the tone stack or moving it, all so neat and fun to mess with... But, I think if you are relying on those for your bread and butter presets, you gotta acknowledge and understand you are going to have to work harder when a FW update comes; even a seemly minor one.

IMHO
 
Last edited:
zenaxe said:
I think one big issue for some are the advanced controls. They are a double edged sword. They give amazing ability to "mod" an amp model on the fly and make extremely personalized changes. However, I think digging into the guts of the amp model and make tweaks necessarily exposes your presets to a bigger impact in a FW update. Almost all the folks who have expressed strong feeling about variation in point releases seem to be deep parameter tweakers.

My M.O. with the AFX these days wrt the core tone dialing is:
1. Pick an amp based on the style/tone target
2. Spend a lot of time picking a cab
3. Dial the amp
4. Go back to #2 and review, followed by another #3, loop as needed.
5. EQ, only if necessary
6. Advanced Params, only if necessary

I sometimes get to 5, rarely to 6; these days, I mostly finish after #4. By the time I'm at six I feel I might have gotten #1 wrong. If we had fewer amp models, I think I'd feel the need to go to 6 way more often.

That said, the Adv params are fun, I do have some amps I have modded them on to great effect, and I know some people are doing very detailed stuff and cannot get inspired if certain things are not happening and the Adv params are needed for them.

Playing with bias and supply voltage is cool... Changing the tube type... Changing the tone stack or moving it, all so neat and fun to mess with... But, I think if you are relying on those for your bread and butter presets, you gotta acknowledge and understand you are going to have to work harder when a FW update comes; even a seemly minor one.

IMHO
Click to expand...

I get what you're saying here. I think guys that want to get into the deep details of the axe just need to be aware of what they're changing before they go forward. If you don't remember what you did to an amp to get yourself in the sweet spot for you and your needs, it's totally your fault.

I, for example, know speaker drive, motor drive, power tube type, supply sag, and definitely now, HARMONICS, are all things I'm going to dig into. So I prepare myself for a leap forward. I don't have a TON of patches that I currently use either so it's not a big deal for me.

But I can also understand studio-type guys that have 50-100 or more patches that they've deep tweaked being upset when they update for an improved parameter or functionality and they have to rework a bunch of stuff. That's the golden handcuffs though, I guess. The price of having a consistently improving product and a concise unit that contains all the stuff that would take us years and fortunes of cash to be able to get for ourselves.
 
Speculum Speculorum said:
That's the golden handcuffs though, I guess. The price of having a consistently improving product and a concise unit that contains all the stuff that would take us years and fortunes of cash to be able to get for ourselves.
Click to expand...
I guess that as a relative newcomer, I don't see it that way. If the amp in the Axe matches the reference amp that Cliff is using, then it is done. Now sure there might be some new ideas and alogithms to move towards closing a small gap between the two (if there is any really) but it shouldn't result in any major changes in the sound or feel. Unless you think that Quantum does not actually capture the sound and feel of the amp being modeled (either through a bug, the reference amp or whatever Cliff is using as the basis for the amp sound and feel is slightly different to say the one you own or you just don't like the Axe modeling for some reason.) Again, just my own opinion, feel free to differ.
 
Swan1 said:
I guess that as a relative newcomer, I don't see it that way. If the amp in the Axe matches the reference amp that Cliff is using, then it is done. Now sure there might be some new ideas and alogithms to move towards closing a small gap between the two (if there is any really) but it shouldn't result in any major changes in the sound or feel. Unless you think that Quantum does not actually capture the sound and feel of the amp being modeled (either through a bug, the reference amp or whatever Cliff is using as the basis for the amp sound and feel is slightly different to say the one you own or you just don't like the Axe modeling for some reason.) Again, just my own opinion, feel free to differ.
Click to expand...
Well, a lot of people mod, EQ, boost, and just plain fight against their real world amps. A lot of signature amps are just some artist's take on a classic circuit but it has those little real world equivalent of 'advanced parameter' changes built-in... The advanced parameters are a way for those guys to get the tone and response that would have required a soldering iron in the real world. It really doesn't say anything about the accuracy of a model either way. A model could be dead on accurate and still require tweaking for someone who is particularly strict in their requirements.
 
Swan1 said:
I guess that as a relative newcomer, I don't see it that way. If the amp in the Axe matches the reference amp that Cliff is using, then it is done. Now sure there might be some new ideas and alogithms to move towards closing a small gap between the two (if there is any really) but it shouldn't result in any major changes in the sound or feel. Unless you think that Quantum does not actually capture the sound and feel of the amp being modeled (either through a bug, the reference amp or whatever Cliff is using as the basis for the amp sound and feel is slightly different to say the one you own or you just don't like the Axe modeling for some reason.) Again, just my own opinion, feel free to differ.
Click to expand...

I doubt you could have missed my point more.

The axe-fx II gives me the ability to do that without having to risk destroying valuable equipment, or spending endless streams of money in order to experiment with my sound. I've found certain sounds that I like that happen to require I use the advanced parameters to get there. I know, for example, which frequency curves in the speaker page are going to work best with the IR I mixed, from the IRs that I shot of my cab, and I know that I will get "my sound" if I set them that way, regardless of how accurate the modeling is. My guitar, my pickups, my playing, my amp sim, my cabinet, my sound.

I like FAS Modern. I like FAS Modern more if I change the tubes to EL34, turn the sag up, set harmonics to about .4-.5, set speaker drive to around 3, and also turn the high frequency down to 1000 to focus a little more on the mids and get less harsh. I also do weird things like turn the input trim to 0.8, turn the gain down to around 0.6 and then drive the amp input with an altered fuzz pedal based off some advice I got from a dude on this forum.

When I say "golden handcuffs", I mean I've got over 100 amps that I wouldn't ever be able to afford to purchase, or have room to store, and I can set them all up the way I want to. That's the gold. But that also means when system updates happen I have to be able to go back through and alter the things I had going on before that I know I'm going to like. I don't do this blindly. I always listen to the amps that are reset, and I almost always end up doing the same things again. That, my friend, is the handcuffs.
 
barhrecords said:
It makes sense to me that the real reference amp might be something you don't like.

So the accuracy of the model doesn't get you the tone / feel you want.

I must admit I've started to get into advanced params and it's a little addictive lol
Click to expand...

I don't understand why the hell anybody wouldn't. It's like... Rrrrrrrrrright there waiting for you and you can always hit the panic button (reset amp) should you royally screw something up. LOL
 
Chris@AxeFxTutorials said:
i think it's always interesting to see how some people think 2.02 is harsher, while others thing 2.01 is harsher. that's personally why i feel... it kinda doesn't matter....? :)
Click to expand...

[speculation]
Or they are using different amps; which are affected differently by the algorithms.

So it quite possibly depends on your "go-to" amps and how they are modeled (perhaps)?
[/speculation]
 
FractalAudio said:
Okay, I just spent the last five hours coding it so the user can select 2.01 or 2.02 for *each" amp model (rather than a global setting). This way you can choose which version you like best.
Click to expand...
Many thanks for doing this, Cliff.

Can´t imagine where you get the dreams and the power to make the AxeFx always better........
 
∞Fractals said:
[speculation]
Or they are using different amps; which are affected differently by the algorithms.

So it quite possibly depends on your "go-to" amps and how they are modeled (perhaps)?
[/speculation]
Click to expand...
What about a comparing with default amps and stock cabs here?
 
Speculum Speculorum said:
I doubt you could have missed my point more.
Click to expand...
Thank you for clarifying. To be fair though here is your original statement in full context which rereading could go either way:

But I can also understand studio-type guys that have 50-100 or more patches that they've deep tweaked being upset when they update for an improved parameter or functionality and they have to rework a bunch of stuff. That's the golden handcuffs though, I guess. The price of having a consistently improving product and a concise unit that contains all the stuff that would take us years and fortunes of cash to be able to get for ourselves.
 
Swan1 said:
Thank you for clarifying. To be fair though here is your original statement in full context which rereading could go either way:

But I can also understand studio-type guys that have 50-100 or more patches that they've deep tweaked being upset when they update for an improved parameter or functionality and they have to rework a bunch of stuff. That's the golden handcuffs though, I guess. The price of having a consistently improving product and a concise unit that contains all the stuff that would take us years and fortunes of cash to be able to get for ourselves.
Click to expand...

There are many types of improvements that take place with fw updates. Effects improvements, new effects, parameter adjustments, new parameters, improved cab modeling, and yes... improvements to the modeling of the pre and power amps themselves, which are still models and are consistently updated to get closer to the sound of an amp. It's a modeler. A really good one, but it's still based on measurements that Cliff himself is obviously refining as time goes on.

Nevertheless, what I was saying is I understand when guys find a sound and stick with a firmware for a very long time, or when they get frustrated because they know they're going to have to redo a bunch of work if they DO update.

I have a handful of presets that I use. Some guys that are sessions guitarists might very well have 100+ different presets they use, and the idea of resetting advanced parameters with another update is no small task when you have to keep track of what you did to different amps, or even if you have a speaker tab setting you like with an IR you use on a bunch of different presets. It would be a right pain in the ass if you were a gigging musician that used that many and you had to go back through everything. But that's the nature of this game. You can't simultaneously have improvements to FW (with stable releases), and have access to deep parameters you might find useful, and not have to dick with them should you choose to update.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom