AFX Quantum vs. Tubes

atyourlasthourrr

atyourlasthourrr

Inspired
I'm not trying to spark a war here, but I'm genuinely curious.

At this point with all the improvements made to the Axe Fx how it compares to an analogue tube amp and cab set up.

The last time I've seen this discussed here was prior to quantum.

Personally, the Axe Fx has completely taken over my musical world. I still own a Peavey 5150 and an array of pedals and have not felt the need to go back to them, it's been over a year for me. Like I mentioned earlier, I'm just curious if there's even a noticeable difference at this point.

I would A/B this myself, but my 5150 and pedals are 300 miles way from me in storage at my hometown.

If this has already been discussed in another recent thread, please feel free to point me in that direction and delete this.

As always a big thanks to Cliff and Co. for the unending support and to everyone else for making this the best community on the internet.


Happy Holidays,
-Mario.
 
An innocent sounding question. Here we go.

I use both. I still like the real tube things.
Quantum 1.06 is the best my Axe II has sounded for amp modeling. (The FX are stellar, the control, routing and patch building are wonderful).
I am also grateful for the constant improvement and hard, thorough work from the FAS team.
I still like the real tube things.
 
I will be going to my parents house for the holidays, I'll dust off my old 5150 and do an A/B comparison. I'll post back on this thread and give you my honest feedback.

I've compared the two before but didn't feel like it was fair to compare a rig I've been tweaking for years to a unit that I was just getting to know.
I'm not really after which is "better" because that's completely subjective, I'm more interested in how similar or dissimilar they sound at this point with the latest firmware.
 
It's the never ending question for modeling devices in general and the Axe Fx in particular.

Here's a very recent thread basically about the same thing:
http://forum.fractalaudio.com/threads/axe-fx-vs-real-amp.107447/

Personally I've owned well over 50 vintage or boutique amps just a couple of years ago, and toured and recorded with all of them.
Some tragic events dictated that I let most of them go a couple of years ago as I acutely needed a big cash flow.
I kept my Axe Fx II and 6 favorite amps that I considered the most important for my work and that would cover everything I'd need to as a side man and for recording.
Apart from sentimental value I haven't regretted selling the amps or missed any of them, and I've used the Axe Fx II on 98% or more of the work I do.
With Quantum FW I'm discussing with myself to take the next step and sell the rest of the amps as I hardly ever plug into any of them, as IMO Quantum is in no way lacking compared to the "real" thing - on the contrary Quantum lets the Axe go further than the real amps can.
The other day I plugged into my long time favorite amp and compared it to a preset I'd made using the Axe model of said amp - and found that I preferred the Axe preset.
So I think it's time for me to let go of a few more amps.....
 
Over the weekend, I was reading the "Tone Wizards" book that was mentioned in this thread:
http://forum.fractalaudio.com/threads/tone-wizards-give-away.107924/#post-1292121

One of the questions the author was asking all the interviewees was their opinion on modelers - the AxeFX in particular.
I found it interesting that many of them said that for them the sound was there but not the "feel".
I've only played through modelers with the exception of playing through an AC15 at a local GC.

With the recent improvements brought about by the Quantum firmware, is there still something missing in the "feel", or has that gap been bridged?
 
jefflibby said:
Over the weekend, I was reading the "Tone Wizards" book that was mentioned in this thread:
http://forum.fractalaudio.com/threads/tone-wizards-give-away.107924/#post-1292121

One of the questions the author was asking all the interviewees was their opinion on modelers - the AxeFX in particular.
I found it interesting that many of them said that for them the sound was there but not the "feel".
I've only played through modelers with the exception of playing through an AC15 at a local GC.

With the recent improvements brought about by the Quantum firmware, is there still something missing in the "feel", or has that gap been bridged?
Click to expand...

A while back there was a difference in feel - not anymore IMO (and I'm a nitpicker in these matters)
 
I'd say, first priotity - Sound good.
Other priority - Sound like the real thing.
If the Axe sounds better, as some said, than real amps, then why try to make it worse by making it sound like real amps? Just a thought.
 
jefflibby said:
Over the weekend, I was reading the "Tone Wizards" book that was mentioned in this thread:
http://forum.fractalaudio.com/threads/tone-wizards-give-away.107924/#post-1292121

One of the questions the author was asking all the interviewees was their opinion on modelers - the AxeFX in particular.
I found it interesting that many of them said that for them the sound was there but not the "feel".
I've only played through modelers with the exception of playing through an AC15 at a local GC.

With the recent improvements brought about by the Quantum firmware, is there still something missing in the "feel", or has that gap been bridged?
Click to expand...

I think it's more of an issue of playing FRFR vs. amp/cab but not sure what they're comparing in that case. The only real apples to apples comparisons of the Axe FX vs. a real tube amp are a) AxeFx amp model + IR vs. the same real amp + same real cab + same real mic(s) and listened to at a monitor or FRFR level...or...the AxeFx -> solid state power amp -> real cab vs. the real amp -> real cab.
 
gtrnstuff said:
An innocent sounding question. Here we go.

I use both. I still like the real tube things.
Quantum 1.06 is the best my Axe II has sounded for amp modeling. (The FX are stellar, the control, routing and patch building are wonderful).
I am also grateful for the constant improvement and hard, thorough work from the FAS team.
I still like the real tube things.
Click to expand...


I second this. I use both an 'analogue rig' and a 'digital rig' (Axe-ii + Friedman ASM and Axe-ii + 120w tube head with 2x12). I don't have two Axe-ii's BTW!!

I alternate; as in, I'll use the ASM/FRFR setup mostly. Then, when I feel like 'using tubes', I'll run the Axe into the RETURN of the tube head and just use it as a power amp. I cannot stipulate this next point enough - both sound exceptional in their own right, but they sound different as well - which is great.

I personally cannot say that I like one better than the next etc. Naturally the FRFR setup will be a bit more 'hi-fi'esque, whereas the the tube amp-return will obviously be more 'amp and tube-like'. The FRFR will give me better cleans than what the tube amp can, but that's not deal breaker. Again, both do what they do very very well.

QUANTUM has enabled us to really manipulate sounds and tones in every way; I can get a Friedman BE sound via the ASM, which sounds maaaaarginally different to when I'm running the Axe-ii via the return of the tube amp (which also happens to be a Friedman BE-clone).. But the core tone is there, you know it's a BE and not a Peavey, or a Mesa, or even a Marshall. However, I'm lucky because my 120w Friedman clone is essentially a BE (slightly tweaked of course but still the same thing) so really, I have 3 ways of comparing, or A/B/C'ing this amp brand.

One last point as far as this goes.. THIS IS THE REASON WHY I'LL ALWAYS HAVE TWO INDEPENDENT RIGS; THE AXE-ii WITH AN FRFR SPEAKER/CAB, AND A TRADITIONAL TUBE HEAD + 2x12 or 4x12 SETUP. This way, you just cannot go wrong because you'll always have the ability to chop and change.
 
Thats the issue with talking about something like the Axe or Kemper in a print publication. The devices evolve and change over time and the interview is a snapshot in time. So unless the interview question is along the lines of "As of firmware 16 do you feel the Axe FX is a viable replacement for a tube amp?", you really don't know if they are up to date or maybe they tried it last on a very early firmware.
 
All my amps are gone. I made the decision to sell them a while back (slightly pre-Quantum, IIRC), after I'd been using my AFX for about six months. To reach that decision, I spent a couple days going back and forth between my amps and the AFX.

Result: I felt that the AFX and my tube amps were different in ways that have more to do with application than sound. IOW, the tube amps really aren't a good fit for my needs: 99.9% recording and 0.1% performing. My tube amps were fine for the occasional small club or house performance, but just too damned loud to sound good in my small music room.

That said, my read on the sound and "feel" (meaning, to me: how the amp responds to playing technique) of the AFX vs. my tube amps is that they're at parity. I wasn't trying to match sounds, but rather to exploit the best of each.

Once you factor in the non-musical aspects, an AFX rig just makes sense.
 
My last tube rig was built around a Mark V, and I loved the tones that I got out of it, but quite frankly - like with any tube amp - there were places I had to avoid tonally. With the Axe FX, I could tweak the character of my tones to be much more flexible and have WAAAY less tonal "avoid zones". I find myself playing much more expressively, because I have all these beautiful transitional tones, which the "real thing" did not afford me.
 
I use my axe Fx II with my supro Dual Tone re-issue, Super unconventional setup I know. If I was playing live I would probably just take the axe. However Since I don't currently play live. It also gives me a quick A/B for Vintage tones when needed. Its also generally easier for me dial in acceptable volume levels with the axe.

I haven't moved to 1.06 yet, but the jump to quantum was once again a giant leap forward in dynamics.

For travel/Live I would much rather take just the axe and pedalboard + small mixer with me. Than amp, cab, head and pedal board.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom