kisslorand
Experienced
...then C doesn't sound like ALet A = original amp, B = Axe-Fx II, C = Axe-Fx III.
If A = B and C > B...
...then C doesn't sound like ALet A = original amp, B = Axe-Fx II, C = Axe-Fx III.
If A = B and C > B...
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....then C doesn't sound like A
This...here you got me on. Next year it will be mine as I do need to save some money.Most noticeable for low and medium gain tones.
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.Sounds like a logic problem.
Let A = original amp, B = Axe-Fx II, C = Axe-Fx III.
If A = B and C > B...
I know this just a pseudo code, but I assume your are doing a comparison and not an assignment?Sounds like a logic problem.
Let A = original amp, B = Axe-Fx II, C = Axe-Fx III.
If A = B and C > B...
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.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.
So, it goes that Axe 3 sounds better than a real amp...Sounds like a logic problem.
Let A = original amp, B = Axe-Fx II, C = Axe-Fx III.
If A = B and C > B...
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.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.
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.
The axe has quite a few of those...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.
The axe has quite a few of those...
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.
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.