Does anyone who has tried one or the other (or both) have any comments on how they feel/respond. To me the feel is equally important.
A dedicated FRFR sound reinforcement system should not impart "feel" or create "response" in a guitar cabinet way. It should be as transparent as possible. To the degree possible, within the limits of loudspeaker design, an FRFR system should just accurately reproduce and amplify what it is receiving.
If you want to run the Axe as a full simulation then all the feel, mojo, vibe, warmth, squish, grease, butter, etc. et. al. is produced by the virtual rig inside the Axe. The completed soundscape, with all its feel, etc., comes out the back end of the unit finished; needing only to be presented at the desired volume. The Axe is capable of this level of simulation. Most sound reinforcement gear is not capable of just reproducing and amplifying the Axe and otherwise "staying out of the way".
Think about it in terms of a traditional rig.
In any given traditional guitar rig, the feel, mojo, vibe, warmth, squish, grease, butter, etc. et. al. is produced by the amp, cabinet and effects. When you mic a traditional rig you don't want the sound reinforcement system to change your sound, you just want it reproduced at a higher volume.
Usually with a mic'd traditional rig, some amount of global EQing is necessary at the sound board for FOH. If the sound reinforcement system is of a reasonable quality this global EQing is to compensate the inadequacies of the room, not the loudspeakers.
For the solo Axe simulation user, assuming a sound reinforcement system of high enough quality, a little global EQing can sometimes be necessary from venue to venue. With a high quality loudspeaker, this will usually only mean slight global reductions in the low frequency. The Axe, through its global EQ section, functions as its own FOH board and handles that part internally as well.
