A friend got the Axe III....

I hope lots of you guys buy the III. That way Fractal will continue being a viable entity. I will just sit here and play with the delays, and other goodies. on my II.
Maybe by the time I use one tenth of the II's features and can program it better, I will buy the III.
Of course by then the Fractal Audio Axe Destroyer Ultimate Mark 3 XL Super Dooper model will probably have been developed and for sale.
Who knows, it may even have a global multi channel looper and drums built in.:eek::D
 
Last edited:
kisslorand said:
...then C doesn't sound like A
Click to expand...
C sounds Like A at its best with optimized power source, fresh tubes perfectly matched and coupled with a choice of 2000 cabs and that at any SPL and for less than the price of a single amp with a cab.
And that's before upcoming epiphanies!

Joking aside, I love my II. I could go on forever with it without changing a single thing. But for whatever mysterious reason, the III feels better. Also, when I got the II originally in 2011 I was very disappointed with the presets. Couldn't find one that was really usable live. With the III, almost all of them are usable with no to minor tweaks.

I am still programming the beast but I'm going live soon with it and I'm very excited!
 
I can't tell much more than that in clips the 3 sounds a bit better but obviously any differences in feel don't translate to clips so well. Those who say that the feel is better, do you mean that it responds differently to picking dynamics or do some amps feel tighter/looser (like the real amp would) or what? Can you describe this difference in feel?
 
FractalAudio said:
Sounds like a logic problem.

Let A = original amp, B = Axe-Fx II, C = Axe-Fx III.

If A = B and C > B...
Click to expand...
If C > B then it is no longer accurately capturing A (assuming that B = A). It may be capturing something that people like the sound of more than A but is is no longer = A.
 
FractalAudio said:
Sounds like a logic problem.

Let A = original amp, B = Axe-Fx II, C = Axe-Fx III.

If A = B and C > B...
Click to expand...
I know this just a pseudo code, but I assume your are doing a comparison and not an assignment? :)

If A = B and C > B

vs

If A == B and C > B
 
Given I am on the waitlist for the III, and signed up Feb 2nd, all I get to do is dream about the difference between the II (had for 4 years) and the III. The feel thing is something that is hard to get on a video. I hear the difference in the II >III and it sounds like there is more "air" available in the tone. Can't wait to get one, turn it up onstage and "feel" the difference. For those that don't hear a difference, please let me have your place in line if you don't want your magic tix.
 
App12 said:
If C > B then it is no longer accurately capturing A (assuming that B = A). It may be capturing something that people like the sound of more than A but is is no longer = A.
Click to expand...
Not true, the axe is modeling more than just an amp and cab. It’s also modeling the mic signal path and piping it through effects.
 
This day was inevitable. Even when the Standard was the latest and greatest, some users proclaimed it as the be all and end all of modeling. One user was ridiculed and flamed for insisting the Ultra's attack was not the same as the real deal. Since then, we've been inundated with treads and comments about how much more realistic the newer firmware/unit sounds, along with responses questioning how this could be if it was already perfect.

I always assumed that modeling (from anyone) was always short of the real deal, but that most users (including myself) were not familiar enough with real amps to notice the finer aspects. I don't have an army of amps, and have always compared the latest modeler to the previous modeler, not to the amps from which the models were made.

Is the II the same as the amps? I don't know. Is the III as good or better than the amps? I don't know. What I do know is that I've never owned an amp that I thought was perfect. I also see no reason why a digital model, given enough DSP and algorithm sophistication, cannot become indistinguishable from the finest example of its real amp counterpart, or given the capabilities to exceed the amp in terms of subjective sound and feel. I also know that the II is now light years ahead of the Ultra in terms of tone and feel, and look forward to what the III will eventually become.
 
mrphlurph said:
Given I am on the waitlist for the III, and signed up Feb 2nd, all I get to do is dream about the difference between the II (had for 4 years) and the III. The feel thing is something that is hard to get on a video. I hear the difference in the II >III and it sounds like there is more "air" available in the tone. Can't wait to get one, turn it up onstage and "feel" the difference. For those that don't hear a difference, please let me have your place in line if you don't want your magic tix.
Click to expand...
Sure they sound different but how do they sound in comparison to the actual amp? Seems like the III does a better job on low and mid style amps.
 
steadystate said:
This day was inevitable. Even when the Standard was the latest and greatest, some users proclaimed it as the be all and end all of modeling. One user was ridiculed and flamed for insisting the Ultra's attack was not the same as the real deal. Since then, we've been inundated with treads and comments about how much more realistic the newer firmware/unit sounds, along with responses questioning how this could be if it was already perfect.

I always assumed that modeling (from anyone) was always short of the real deal, but that most users (including myself) were not familiar enough with real amps to notice the finer aspects. I don't have an army of amps, and have always compared the latest modeler to the previous modeler, not to the amps from which the models were made.

Is the II the same as the amps? I don't know. Is the III as good or better than the amps? I don't know. What I do know is that I've never owned an amp that I thought was perfect. I also see no reason why a digital model, given enough DSP and algorithm sophistication, cannot become indistinguishable from the finest example of its real amp counterpart, or given the capabilities to exceed the amp in terms of subjective sound and feel. I also know that the II is now light years ahead of the Ultra in terms of tone and feel, and look forward to what the III will eventually become.
Click to expand...

While I'm happy that progress is being made, when I had the Axe-Fx Standard I felt it sounded and responded good enough to ditch the tube amps I had at the time. Ultimately I don't care if an amp sim sounds exactly like what it emulates but rather if it sounds and responds in a way that I enjoy. Axe-Fx has been doing that for a long time but I would like to see a move from painstakingly emulating real amps from brand X to just having a "Fractal amp" that sounds great and feels on its own merits rather than getting compared to a specific amp from some other brand.
 
laxu said:
While I'm happy that progress is being made, when I had the Axe-Fx Standard I felt it sounded and responded good enough to ditch the tube amps I had at the time. Ultimately I don't care if an amp sim sounds exactly like what it emulates but rather if it sounds and responds in a way that I enjoy. Axe-Fx has been doing that for a long time but I would like to see a move from painstakingly emulating real amps from brand X to just having a "Fractal amp" that sounds great and feels on its own merits rather than getting compared to a specific amp from some other brand.
Click to expand...
The axe has quite a few of those...
 
laxu said:
While I'm happy that progress is being made, when I had the Axe-Fx Standard I felt it sounded and responded good enough to ditch the tube amps I had at the time. Ultimately I don't care if an amp sim sounds exactly like what it emulates but rather if it sounds and responds in a way that I enjoy. Axe-Fx has been doing that for a long time but I would like to see a move from painstakingly emulating real amps from brand X to just having a "Fractal amp" that sounds great and feels on its own merits rather than getting compared to a specific amp from some other brand.
Click to expand...

This is how I always looked at the AFX.

I got my standard back in 2008 for 3 reasons:

1. I needed a new FX processor as my G-Maj wasnt working. The choice was an Eventide Eclipse or the AFX. Both were roughly the same price.

2. I always had multi channel amps, so wanted the versatility of having clean/crunch/lead tones all in one box.

3. I always made compromises on my amps - great clean poor lead, or great crunch poor clean etc. Even on top end amps there was always some compromise. Even on the tones that wernt compromised too much, there was often a niggle in the character I couldn't dial out.

The AFX gave me the quality and routing of FX I wanted, It gave me unlimited tone types from one unit, and gave me the ability to tune a tone to what I had in my head - regardless of if I could create that with a real amp or not (which quite often I couldnt get right).

I was more than happy with the standard, however as I normally go power amp/cab not FRFR/irs I did find the standard a little lacking in sparkle/transparency. This was rectified by using a neutral (af far as it can be) valve power amp (in my case a VHT 2:50:2) that I kept the amp sims on for (as I was never pushing the amp it didnt really saturate so most negatives of ruining such an amp didnt come up).

The AFX2 made the need for a valve power solution moot - and I went to the Matrix amps. I have since gone back to a Fryette Power station, but that was more from choice (I use it for other things as well that my Matrix couldnt do, and didnt see the point of owning multiple power solutions).

Im sure the AFX3 is better still - but the cost (and given Ive just bought a Roland RD2000 and FA07 for key duties, and a new sub for the studio), and more importantly the lack of support for the MFC in AFX mode ( I like buttons, two way comms, bi colour LEDs) so the added cost for a new controller as well.

I guess Ill get an AFX3 at some point - but will be after there readily available, along with the new controller, and when I can justify the money - Im guessing 12-18 months down the line. BUT Im more than happy with the AFX2 (the original Mk 1 at that) at present.
 
paulmapp8306 said:
This is how I always looked at the AFX.

I got my standard back in 2008 for 3 reasons:

1. I needed a new FX processor as my G-Maj wasnt working. The choice was an Eventide Eclipse or the AFX. Both were roughly the same price.

2. I always had multi channel amps, so wanted the versatility of having clean/crunch/lead tones all in one box.

3. I always made compromises on my amps - great clean poor lead, or great crunch poor clean etc. Even on top end amps there was always some compromise. Even on the tones that wernt compromised too much, there was often a niggle in the character I couldn't dial out.

The AFX gave me the quality and routing of FX I wanted, It gave me unlimited tone types from one unit, and gave me the ability to tune a tone to what I had in my head - regardless of if I could create that with a real amp or not (which quite often I couldnt get right).

I was more than happy with the standard, however as I normally go power amp/cab not FRFR/irs I did find the standard a little lacking in sparkle/transparency. This was rectified by using a neutral (af far as it can be) valve power amp (in my case a VHT 2:50:2) that I kept the amp sims on for (as I was never pushing the amp it didnt really saturate so most negatives of ruining such an amp didnt come up).

The AFX2 made the need for a valve power solution moot - and I went to the Matrix amps. I have since gone back to a Fryette Power station, but that was more from choice (I use it for other things as well that my Matrix couldnt do, and didnt see the point of owning multiple power solutions).

Im sure the AFX3 is better still - but the cost (and given Ive just bought a Roland RD2000 and FA07 for key duties, and a new sub for the studio), and more importantly the lack of support for the MFC in AFX mode ( I like buttons, two way comms, bi colour LEDs) so the added cost for a new controller as well.

I guess Ill get an AFX3 at some point - but will be after there readily available, along with the new controller, and when I can justify the money - Im guessing 12-18 months down the line. BUT Im more than happy with the AFX2 (the original Mk 1 at that) at present.
Click to expand...

I was in a very similar situation back then. I had a Diezel Einstein 1x12 combo and an Egnater Tourmaster 100 + 2x12 cab because neither could cover the same things. The Egnater did mid gain well, the Diezel did cleans and high gain better. Both had their own issues and compromises but they were a lot of gear to have when you add all the fx pedals etc. Axe-Fx Standard solved all that.

I have also no need to jump on the Axe-Fx 3 right now. Not enough usability improvements, doesn't sound significantly different at the moment and I don't need the extra processing power for more effects. I'll probably buy one used if one becomes available locally, just like I did with the Axe-Fx 2. Will watch its development though and I might actually be more interested in an eventual AX9 going forward since I don't need a lot of what the Axe-Fx 2 offers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom