Difference in Modeling coming from Ares to Cygnus

stm113

Power User
Hi all. I am thinking of selling my trusty old AF2 and putting that towards a new FM9. I am curious about the difference in sound of the new modeling. For me in my AF2 for the last few years of updates there was something about the midrange that I didn't like and could not dial out, when I tried it always came out too scooped, the Xformer Mismatch parameter would help some. I cant put my finger on what it is but its something, its something that I can often pick out on comparison vids etc. I am curious if this makes sense to anyone and if maybe in the new FW's could be less of a thing? I know the best way to know is to get one and try for myself which is what I will likely do.

Another question is with Power Tube Modeling, I know that Cliff has done his best to educate us all on how the tube itself doesn't make a difference, its the components but... in the new FW's when you change the power tube model is there a more pronounced effect on the tone?
 
Cygnus = plug and play. Not necessary to tweak Xformer Mismatch or any other advanced parameters at the AMP block to make it sound perfect

About tube rolling, I do not feel the need to do that, so I cannot say if there is any substantial change from the AF2
 
Cygnus = plug and play. Not necessary to tweak Xformer Mismatch or any other advanced parameters at the AMP block to make it sound perfect

About tube rolling, I do not feel the need to do that, so I cannot say if there is any substantial change from the AF2
Thank you for the response. I look forward to hearing the difference.
 
At every generation of the AxeFX starting with the Ultra, I was always really satisfied with the state of the art of digital modeling of the period.

With that said, I tweaked constantly to try to achieve that AITR sound that I would hear with my real amp/caps.

With Cygnus, I never go into any amp pages beyond the TMB classic page. I might go to the the ideal page once in a while and turn down the bright cap on a Plexi - but that's it. I just pick an IR I like and then a classic amp I like. Adjust TMB, gain and go.

I've said it before and will probably be proven wrong again, but I don't know how it can get much better - but Cliff and crew will continue to innovate!
 
EASE. Your endless "EQ" search is over. At the end of the day, the EQ is what you care about. It's the one's and zero's that make the difference. How those one's and zero's are configured to "smooth out" the digital harsh versus analog signal is where the genius occurs. IMHOOC
 
I'm always the outlier on this: I noticed little if any meaningful difference when comparing my normal amp models head to head Axe3 vs. Axe 2 through guitar cabinets.

There are many other non-sonic benefits but I think the Axe-FX II was thoroughly competent already. It already dialed up just like the real amp.

Now the Axe-FX II lacked the channels feature, updated effects blocks, additional features in most every block, multiple separated effects loops and piles of other cool new feature. There has been a lot of progress in those areas.

I am willing to agree that my ears could be shot- its possible, or that it makes FRFR more tolerable. I didn't really notice FRFR being more tolerable but I didn't compare the two side-by-side and have generally given up on trying to enjoy FRFR as much as a guitar cab. LOTS of people love FRFR, so I'm an outlier on that too.

As a comparison, the Ultra is significantly different to dial up compared to the II or III. Still sounds great, but quite a bit different from the actual amp or the II/III- at least the ones I use.
 
I can give you my take re Ares vs. Cygnus, but not Axe II vs. III, since I never owned a II.

I had had my Mk II for about 4 months when Cygnus became available. But I also waited until the factory presets were all completely re-done, and bug-free. Holy crap! The difference was instantly noticeable, and now the only tweaking I tend to do, is either BMTP on the amp, perhaps some gain and/or MV adjustments, find a different preset altogether, and/or change the Mix parameter of the effects. Prior to Cygnus, I was trying to deep-dive, to try and get the tone to not be as "unlikable", for lack of a better term. Maybe it was fizz, but whatever, it's a thing of the past. I'll sometime also swap to a different Tone Stack, which can give some cool results, but that's not really needed, imo. (Not sure if that capability existed in the Axe II.)
 
I’ve never tried any Fractal before the FM9 but regarding one of your questions, I can tell you that only changing the power tubes does veeeeerrrry little to the sound on its own.
 
I'm always the outlier on this: I noticed little if any meaningful difference when comparing my normal amp models head to head Axe3 vs. Axe 2 through guitar cabinets.

There are many other non-sonic benefits but I think the Axe-FX II was thoroughly competent already. It already dialed up just like the real amp.

Now the Axe-FX II lacked the channels feature, updated effects blocks, additional features in most every block, multiple separated effects loops and piles of other cool new feature. There has been a lot of progress in those areas.

I am willing to agree that my ears could be shot- its possible, or that it makes FRFR more tolerable. I didn't really notice FRFR being more tolerable but I didn't compare the two side-by-side and have generally given up on trying to enjoy FRFR as much as a guitar cab. LOTS of people love FRFR, so I'm an outlier on that too.

As a comparison, the Ultra is significantly different to dial up compared to the II or III. Still sounds great, but quite a bit different from the actual amp or the II/III- at least the ones I use.


I have gotten into this thing of comparing Axe-Fx 2 (Ares) to Axe-Fx 3 (Cygnus) sounds of my favorite model ATM.

Not-Scientific by any means.

Axe-2 with the way I set it up, seems gain-ier. Axe-3 seems like you can 'squeeze' notes better, and get away with less gain to be even more expressive.

Both sound great. Feel great. I will still sing the praises of The 2. The box absolutely rules.

My Ultra still sits at the ready with it's totally rad Marshall models. You can throw the new IRs at it and get stellar results.

The giant grid on the 3 is a spoiler. With the right controller, the kitchen-sink idea becomes a reality. One-preset and rock all night.
 
Hi @stm113

For me, the difference was wanting to play for 4 hours instead of 1/2 an hour. Cliff sort of 'cracked the code' with Cygnus. All of a sudden, there was no need to tweak advanced parameters to chase a sound. Also, the Axe FX units never did if for me on bass. Although there were bass amps and I had bass cab IRs etc, there was just something not right and I never could get what I was after. Cygnus changed all that - now the Axe FX 3 is as good as I want for bass as well.

Thanks
Pauly

Hi all. I am thinking of selling my trusty old AF2 and putting that towards a new FM9. I am curious about the difference in sound of the new modeling. For me in my AF2 for the last few years of updates there was something about the midrange that I didn't like and could not dial out, when I tried it always came out too scooped, the Xformer Mismatch parameter would help some. I cant put my finger on what it is but its something, its something that I can often pick out on comparison vids etc. I am curious if this makes sense to anyone and if maybe in the new FW's could be less of a thing? I know the best way to know is to get one and try for myself which is what I will likely do.

Another question is with Power Tube Modeling, I know that Cliff has done his best to educate us all on how the tube itself doesn't make a difference, its the components but... in the new FW's when you change the power tube model is there a more pronounced effect on the tone?
 
Ares was great. I did tweak a bit but not too much. I was a tiny bit skeptical about Cygnus and was wondering how it could get any better. But I went ahead and upgraded and sure enough I like it better. I pick an amp model, maybe adjust BMTPD if I feel like it, and get lost in playing.

One thing interesting is that amp models that didn’t appeal to me much before I’m finding are pretty great. The Bassman models are good examples. Now I find myself saying, “oh…that’s why people like Bassmans.”
 
Back
Top Bottom