48 hrs with the axe, and I am loosing my patience

[JJunkie]

i owned a GT8. the standard kickes its arse. There is a big learning curve in using it, though.

I didnt read the thread but just want to say that if you are losing patience with the axe standard after 48hrs, you'd better start looking for another system quick.

Try focussing your attention on one thing at a time, andwhat matters most, which is probably to find an impulse response that suits you.

The amp sims at mostly default settings can do wonders. Clark Kent makes a point of that just about every time he posts a clip or patch.

Good luck

 

[speedloader]

Does anybody know btw how, and if it would be possible to tonematch my own JSX amp? I have plenty of files already recorded, using the JSX, an sm57 and a sennheiser e606 through a 4x12 custom cab with eminence wizard speakers. I like the sound of it, and it would be awesome to get something similar in the axe standard, if possible??

Yes it is. For a very accurate tone match, you have to first set the amp block as close as possible to the JSX. Not just in term of EQ but gain structure. Then tone match the raw JSX, turn the EQ into an IR and put it in the first cab block. Repeat the tonematch process with the final JSX mic'ed sound and put the 2nd IR in the second cab block. Add a low-pass if necessary.. It should be pretty close, except if the JSX is very gritty, then you might consider the afx2.

 

[jimfist]

Yes it is. For a very accurate tone match, you have to first set the amp block as close as possible to the JSX. Not just in term of EQ but gain structure. Then tone match the raw JSX, turn the EQ into an IR and put it in the first cab block. Repeat the tonematch process with the final JSX mic'ed sound and put the 2nd IR in the second cab block. Add a low-pass if necessary.. It should be pretty close, except if the JSX is very gritty, then you might consider the afx2.

Not sure I follow here...unless you are suggesting using third party computer software to do this task of creating IRs for the Gen 1 AxeFx Standard "tone match"? If that is the case, please describe the software you'd use to perform this procedure. Thanks!

 

[funny_polymath]

Axe FX 2 is an entirely different thing. It's two generations removed from what you are using now. It's a game changer. You just have to trust the demo's are recordings you are hearing. It IS possible.

I disagree. Strenuously. Sure, I like my II better, but my Ultra was more than capable of getting warm, 'organic', lush amp sounds! Of course, I'm not a high gain guy, nor have I spent even a minute trying to emulate someone else's tone. In fact, I didn't try that hard to emulate my own. Instead, I picked a fender twin for model, and just ... messed around. It was NOT hard to get a decent sound quickly with the Ultra. It was definitely harder to get the perfect sound with it vs. the II, but it still sounded LIGHTYEARS better than ANY modeler I'd ever played. In fact, it was the first (and only, until the II) modeler I ever bought. Something is either wrong with your unit, or with your setup. With cab and amp sims on, it should not be as 'thin and fizzy' as you say.

 

[maxdown]

To the OP

Seeing as it's a clean sheet you're starting with - you could experiment with a pre-made system and presets - eg yek's Ultra files - see here

 

[speedloader]

Not sure I follow here...unless you are suggesting using third party computer software to do this task of creating IRs for the Gen 1 AxeFx Standard "tone match"? If that is the case, please describe the software you'd use to perform this procedure. Thanks!

I'd use logic pro matchEQ since I have it but there are better EQs, maybe har-bal or iZotope. You also need a soft to create the IR (deconvolver, etc). Many tutorials here and there, just google it or ask Clark Kent, he tried many softwares if I remember correctly.

 

[TCASMARCUS]

Very interresting As an update, if you are interrested, I have been constantly tweeking, since I started this post, and now I feel I am finally going somewhere.. There are good possibilities to create a good tone with the axe standard, but it takes some time getting used to it, and how to work it. The first 48hrs were very frustrating, and along with the first impression of the crappy sounding standard presets, I kind of lost faith there.

Although the Standard will not replace my amp, I realise it is a solid upgrade from the boss, and I look forward to master it completely someday. Like many of you said, it 's important to start with the basics and work from there. Faith has been restored, but I would seriously warn other guitarists considering to purchase a Standard. It certainly has its flaws. Both in the axe edit, and the complicated settings. Some might get forever lost in the axe jungle of settings and options.

 

[UnsungHeroGuitars]

Nice update and good progress

 

[fret]

I took over 12 months to find a sound I was happy with. The Std/Ultra is no shortcut to good tone, I'd be spending the same time tweaking a new tube rig (mic posiitons, EQ stack settings, speakers, effect routing etc). So now it's all virtual rather than physical. Still takes time to dial things in.

Even now, my sound is not perfect. But it's way ahead of anything I recorded with a tube amp. And live it's certainly in the ball park I need it to be. And it sounds the same week in week out (unlike my old amp).

 

[shasha]

AxeEdit is not intuitive at all in terms of preset management. I hate the way that source is defined as it is not always what I would consider to be the source. Basically the easiest way to approach it for me was to right click on a preset and select audition and then save from the front panel.

If you are having fizzy issues, I always used to go in an cut the high end in the cabinets or amp blocks. Not the tone control, but the advanced parameters and cut it back to around 6kHz. I'd also cut the low end a lot of times because the guitar is a midrange instrument and I felt that I got kind of boomy, especially with clean amps (the Vox was always hard until v11).

The first generation stuff is more intensive in terms of dialing in patches in my opinion. There are many tricks, but the biggest single bit of advice I could ever give someone is to work on one patch that contains an amp, a cab and no more than a reverb block. Dial in your basic gain structure depending on taste and then start going through cabinets. Once you get a cabinet that feels right then start dialing in the actual tone using the amp block. After that then mess with adding effects.

The second best piece of advice I could give is that if you are trying to dial in a specific tone based on a specific amp model but it's not getting anywhere then move on to another amp model. I found out that beating my head against the thing trying to force it to sound like what was in my head based on what I thought it was supposed to be wasn't productive or healthy. If its not even close tweaking on it for hours ain't going to change that.

 

[jimfist]

Very interresting As an update, if you are interrested, I have been constantly tweeking, since I started this post, and now I feel I am finally going somewhere.. There are good possibilities to create a good tone with the axe standard, but it takes some time getting used to it, and how to work it. The first 48hrs were very frustrating, and along with the first impression of the crappy sounding standard presets, I kind of lost faith there.

Although the Standard will not replace my amp, I realise it is a solid upgrade from the boss, and I look forward to master it completely someday. Like many of you said, it 's important to start with the basics and work from there. Faith has been restored, but I would seriously warn other guitarists considering to purchase a Standard. It certainly has its flaws. Both in the axe edit, and the complicated settings. Some might get forever lost in the axe jungle of settings and options.

Glad to hear that you are making progress. without a doubt, the gen 1 units take a bit more tweaking and time to "massage" some of the finer aspects in order to get them where you want them. As Shasha has said, the cabinet speaker impulse response is quite critical, and many "power users" have had better success using 3rd party IRs, or using software to make their own. This is just as much an art as a science IMO. The good news is that once you've unlocked some of the mysteries of the AxeFx Standard, you'll have some nice tones for keeps any time you plug in.

I don't know about warning against people buying the gen 1 Standard/Ultra simply because there is a definite learning curve involved, but certainly prospective buyers should do their homework and understand what they are getting into. After all, as good as the gen1 units still are, they are no longer the "flagship" of the FAS product line, and the AxeFx II has made quite a few improvements on many fronts, as anyone would expect, to make the process of getting good sounds a bit easier to accomplish.

Please keep us posted and don't be afraid to bounce ideas off of the forum members.

 

[funny_polymath]

AxeEdit is not intuitive at all in terms of preset management. I hate the way that source is defined as it is not always what I would consider to be the source. Basically the easiest way to approach it for me was to right click on a preset and select audition and then save from the front panel.

If you are having fizzy issues, I always used to go in an cut the high end in the cabinets or amp blocks. Not the tone control, but the advanced parameters and cut it back to around 6kHz. I'd also cut the low end a lot of times because the guitar is a midrange instrument and I felt that I got kind of boomy, especially with clean amps (the Vox was always hard until v11).

The first generation stuff is more intensive in terms of dialing in patches in my opinion. There are many tricks, but the biggest single bit of advice I could ever give someone is to work on one patch that contains an amp, a cab and no more than a reverb block. Dial in your basic gain structure depending on taste and then start going through cabinets. Once you get a cabinet that feels right then start dialing in the actual tone using the amp block. After that then mess with adding effects.

The second best piece of advice I could give is that if you are trying to dial in a specific tone based on a specific amp model but it's not getting anywhere then move on to another amp model. I found out that beating my head against the thing trying to force it to sound like what was in my head based on what I thought it was supposed to be wasn't productive or healthy. If its not even close tweaking on it for hours ain't going to change that.

+ 1000 - perfect advice on all counts, based on my experience anyway.

 

[profusion]

One thing I found with the Standard was that I often got the best results with a different amp sim than the one I was "supposed" to use for a given sound. Not all the amp sims are equal. For a really good Marshall sound, for example, skip all the Marshall amp sims and head straight for the Marsha BE and HBE sims. Those were the best sims ever developed for the Standard/Ultra, IMHO.

The same applies with the stock IRs in the Standard/Ultra. There are a lot to choose from, and it's just a matter of finding one that immediately "clicks" with the amp sim you're using. I completely agree that the amp and cab sims should be able to get you in the general vicinity of your desired sound even without tweaking parameters. Doing the tweaking is just to get that final part of the way.

 

[paulmapp8306]

Personally Id forget Axe-Change. Every patch is dialled into that users taste, with his guitars, through his monitoring system. It makes SOOOO much difference.

You have 10 slots for USER IRs. you can fill them with any you like - but you still have the factory IRs as well - which arnt bad.

When going into an FRFR system as you are, its 90% in the IRs not the amp sims. Work with the cab block/mics and a PEQ after the cab. Start with a simple Amp/Cab block. Select a natural companion cab for the amp. Dont go deep into the amp - just master/gain/bass/mid/trebble/prescence. maybe the bright switch, THEN play with the cab/PEQ. Once that close go back to the amp if you need to.

Just got back from a hook up with a bloke using an Ultra - im on the AFX2. for some amps such as the vintage stuff (AC30/Plexi/Fenders) the 2 is a world away from the Ultra - though we still got good tones from the Ultra. The amp sims added late in the first Generations development such as the Friedmans wernt that dissimilar to the 2s sims. the caveat here is we were using amp/cab setups not FRFR, as as I said 90% of getting the FRFR sound is the cab IRs, the plus side is we dialled a very nice Ultra patch to his taste in under 30 minutes, without going too deep. I did play a little with the tonestack frequency, added a little warmth and thump and upped the sag a touch - that was about it. The rest was EQ and master/gain structure.

 

[Johnny Two Tone]

[This post is meant as simple reflection and observation - an editorial, if you will. Reader discretion is advised ]

It's so funny to read Axe-II users speak the same way about the II in comparison to the Ultra the way they used to talk about the Ultra in comparison to EVERYTHING ELSE.

When the Ultra was at its height users all over the web defended it to the death insisting that not only was nothing better (which was arguably a true statement, at the time) but that it was tone heaven - that it could lay down whatever you wanted as long as you put the effort into getting there with it (obviously not true, as factually solidified by the existence of the AXE-II)

I mention this because one of the biggest defenses for the AXE was that it could get you that sound - you know, THAT sound. Plug away at it and THAT sound was yours. What this, now provably false claim (again, due to the existence of the AXE-II) meant was that AXE users, or more specifically the die-hard defenders, set themselves up for a credibility-fall, if you will. You can't have something that supposedly gives you everything and then bring out a "better" version of it. What's to be better? Just read what people in this very thread are saying; that the AXE-II is "worlds better" than the ULTRA - a "game changer" (whatever that means... how is it changing the game when it's an improved version of something that already exists... but, that's another tangent all together).

You can also read dozens of [old] threads of new ULTRA users who are kinda' stumped as to why their $2000+ unit sounds kinda' crappy (I made a thread like that when I got my ULTRA) out of the box (this is SOOO true. The AXE-I simply does not sound good at default. It sounds great with tons of tuning of course, as anyone here will tell you).

The point is: Now we know. Now we know that the ULTRA really wasn't "all that". It really did need to get better.

Don't get me wrong. I really like my ULTRA, I've had it for years, it 100 percent ended my purchasing of guitar gear (I haven't purchased a single guitar related piece of gear, other than a corresponding pedal board, since buying the ULTRA), I get sounds from it that make it worth the price I payed, and I have less than zero intention of ever buying an AXE-II. I'm just reflecting back on how so many people acted long before the AXE-II was a twinkle in Fractal Audio's eye, and how they act now that everything they said before is largely nullified by the very own, new, attitudes.


...and now back to your regularly scheduled program...

 

[J-P]

I had the same experience... got so frustrated with the Ultra I sold it after a month and ordered myself a II which arrived last monday. Happy happy joy joy...

 

[Trazan]

I mention this because one of the biggest defenses for the AXE was that it could get you that sound - you know, THAT sound. Plug away at it and THAT sound was yours. What this, now provably false claim (again, due to the existence of the AXE-II) meant was that AXE users, or more specifically the die-hard defenders, set themselves up for a credibility-fall, if you will. You can't have something that supposedly gives you everything and then bring out a "better" version of it. What's to be better? Just read what people in this very thread are saying; that the AXE-II is "worlds better" than the ULTRA - a "game changer" (whatever that means... how is it changing the game when it's an improved version of something that already exists... but, that's another tangent all together).

Same goes for most firmware updates on both Axe's. People are funny creatures 8)

 

[mortega76]

I was always having issues with my Ultra with regards to head to head with high end high gain amps... it always seemed to be much darker and muffled than those tube amps (Cameron, Dual Recto's, etc...) but now with the Axe-fx II I don't even have to compare because it's already there. The 'high end' juiciness is not missing (as much) as when I had the Ultra. Maybe that 'guitar frequencies don't have anything past 8KHz' thing is a myth.

 

[UnsungHeroGuitars]

That pretty much echoes my thoughts Johnny

I've never once come close to saying that the Ultra is just the most amazing, nothing can ever beat it piece of kit - and indeed it amuses me when people do loops about FW9 & 10 etc. As you say, how can 'the best' possibly be bettered..?

However, I still love my Ultra because it does what I need - simple as.

That's not to say that the II isn't 'better' or just 'more advanced' if you will... but likewise, the Ultra isn't now rendered null & void either

 

[Johnny Two Tone]

I was always having issues with my Ultra with regards to head to head with high end high gain amps... it always seemed to be much darker and muffled than those tube amps (Cameron, Dual Recto's, etc...) but now with the Axe-fx II I don't even have to compare because it's already there. The 'high end' juiciness is not missing (as much) as when I had the Ultra. Maybe that 'guitar frequencies don't have anything past 8KHz' thing is a myth.

Absolutely. "Dark" and "Muffled" is precisely how the Axe-FX-I sounds out of the box. Hell, I don't even use the cab sims. Any patch I use (eg. stock, downloaded custom, made myself) with the cab sims off sounds great with little tweaking when used with my amp (a combo amp that was designed specifically to give a flat tone to be used with pedals and rack gear). But, turn those cab sims on and either prepare for days of tweaking or live with "dark, muffled" tone.

That was really my first reaction to getting my ULTRA, "Hmm, why is it so dark... or, like a pillow is over the speakers?" My least favorite thing in the world [of guitar] is dark tone. I like bright, vibrant "hi-fi" tone [aka home-audio/car-audio enthusiast]. Luckily, a ton of AXE users are metal-heads and I've been able to leach off of others' trials and tribulations to get the tone I need.

Considering how many Axe-FX-II users are claiming that the II seems to "fix" the I's 'dark & muffled' tone right out of the box it makes me wonder if a design of the II was to overcome a commonly criticized flaw of the I. I'd like to hear the II in person just to know for myself. But, of course, I likely will never make another $2500 guitar gear purchase, so... whatever. Or, by the time I feel the need to the Axe-Who-Knows-What will be out and I'm sure be, "Like, totally a million times better than the AXE-II ever was!"