Ares 2.0 vs Axe-Fx III fw.14 (worth the upgrade?)

[PBGas]

Thanks again for all of the input. Just received confirmation that someone is coming over for a guitar I had for sale next week. I am now officially on the waiting list for an Axe-FX III mk2 and according to G66 it will be able to order in about 3 weeks.


Once I receive the III I will try to sell my II and MFC-101 and - when we are allowed to play live again - invest that money in an FM3 to replace my pedalboard.

A good decision! Well done!

Overall it is a just much better unit and it should be. Like anything, most things get better as technology improves. I borrowed a friends Axe II years back when I was interested. I had a hard time using the built in editing and at the time wasn't able to use the editor due to a computer issue. I found it tedious. At that point, I passed on it.

When I got the III, I immediately figured it out quite quickly. Nowadays, I can use the editing on the unit with ease. Obviously the amazing computer editor they have is the first go to for doing anything on the unit but when at a gig and I need to make a change, I have no issue doing so. The Performance pages on the Axe III are worth the price of admission. I put any of my main adjusted parameters on those pages and I am all set.

 

[Jason Scott]

But you wouldn't be able to tell either with Rick playing. Which is the point I was making.

Maybe not, but when you said, "I made the switch and on balance it was good for me but nobody listening is really going to notice" you weren't referencing Rick Graham, and that's the comment I was responding to. There are a few videos that compare the two units side-by-side and some people (myself included) can hear the difference, especially at this stage given how much the firmware has matured.

 

[Andy Eagle]

Obviously A- B testing is going to show the difference but just making the switch in the real world and listening back in isolation is going to leave you not knowing which one created the tone. Is axe 3 better? Obviously but is it going to make any difference in practice? I still say that if you don't need the better connectivity and you edit entirely on PC the answer is no.

 

[Jason Scott]

Obviously A- B testing is going to show the difference but just making the switch in the real world and listening back in isolation is going to leave you not knowing which one created the tone.

Blind listening tests in isolation are useless. You can blindly listen to practically any modeler in isolation, even a POD 2.0, and you'd be hard pressed to correctly identify which modeler is which. However, due to the sonic qualitative improvements in the III, I tweak a lot less than I did with the II or any other modeler I've owned.

 

[SOAWM]

Obviously A- B testing is going to show the difference but just making the switch in the real world and listening back in isolation is going to leave you not knowing which one created the tone. Is axe 3 better? Obviously but is it going to make any difference in practice? I still say that if you don't need the better connectivity and you edit entirely on PC the answer is no.

I think the word "need" is often really subjective, because although I am really looking forward to the new effects and connectivity (especially reamping in the mix) this will not make me a better player or magically help me to produce better songs. Although I believe motivation should come from within and not from the tools we use, I am sure that acquiring the Axe-fx III will be inspiring and make me play guitar more in the immediate future. Especially in these uninspiring times without shows and rehearsals, I really hope that the Axe-FX III wil bring some joy and excitement to playing on my own.

 

[Andy Eagle]

Blind listening tests in isolation are useless. You can blindly listen to practically any modeler in isolation, even a POD 2.0, and you'd be hard pressed to correctly identify it.

I think if something is objectively good it is self-evident and both these units are. We all have a idea of good tone- bad tone and it is defiantly not just a matter of opinion. Really if you gave each one of these units a number on a scale of one to one hundred (one being a Marshall MG10 and one hundred being the ultimate tone in your head ) axe 2 would be 85 and axe 3 wound be 86.

 

[Jason Scott]

I think if something is objectively good it is self-evident and both these units are. We all have a idea of good tone- bad tone and it is defiantly not just a matter of opinion.

If tonal quality weren't subjective, we'd all be using the same settings and presets.

Really if you gave each one of these units a number on a scale of one to one hundred (one being a Marshall MG10 and one hundred being the ultimate tone in your head ) axe 2 would be 85 and axe 3 wound be 86.

In a side-by-side comparison, I'd definitely say it's higher than a single point, no question. In my experience, one tangible advantage of that is that the Axe-Fx III requires less tweaking to dial stuff in, and I find that to be a hallmark of higher quality modelers in general; the higher the quality of the modeler, the less tweaking that's required. I mean, you can get a very usable tone out of a POD XT, it's just a matter of how much time you want to spend doing it. I definitely spent more time tweaking the Axe-Fx II vs. the III. That said, there's a definite qualitative sonic difference between the amp models, and a side-by-side comparison makes this very apparent.

 

[Andy Eagle]

They are subjective only above a certain point when good and bad make way for different. Also there are many other factors that influence the tone hugely: The guitar ,the player the other gear , the room . This is why we don't all use the same presets and buying presets is stupid and counter productive, unless some one who knows your playing and programs them in for you using your gear, so never.

 

[Jason Scott]

They are subjective only above a certain point when good and bad make way for different. Also there are many other factors that influence the tone hugely: The guitar ,the player the other gear , the room.

You can obviously control for extraneous factors such as guitar, room, player, and other gear by ensuring those remain consistent when performing comparisons.

This is why we don't all use the same presets

The biggest reason people use different presets and settings is that we all have different tonal preferences, and higher quality modelers tend to be more efficient at accommodating those preferences.

Buying presets is stupid and counter productive, unless some one who knows your playing and programs them in for you using your gear, so never.

Assuming a preset is demo'd using similar gear and in a similar play style to your own, the sonic differences can be quite negligible. Even so, many of the presets I've downloaded from Brett Kingman, for example, sound sonically close enough to his YouTube demos with my gear that, to my ears, the differences are fairly trivial, and the only similarity between his setup and mine is that we're both using HB's and SC's. That said, undoubtedly, different gear and play style can be a factor; however, a lot of commercial presets offer audio demos and info on the gear used (ie. guitar/pickups) to create them, so you have some idea of both.

 

[Andy Eagle]

Point one; obviously
Point two; Liking a great tone and wanting to use it yourself are different things.
Point Three; totally disagree . Brett's presets don't sound similar to his demo's to me. Axe has no control reference point and this is a series mistake IMO. Axe is not just an amp that only exists to sound good in the ear of the listener. Axe is supposed to digitally replicate other gear accurately and also sound great . With a FR FR system it is more like HiFi than guitar amp, It is like playing a recording of (say for example) EVH's amp that you interact with yourself . Sounding great is only part with this idea, predicable accurate reproduction of the gear modelled is as important or why even list the gear modelled.

 

[Jason Scott]

Point two; Liking a great tone and wanting to use it yourself are different things.

Do people use tones they don't prefer?

Point Three; totally disagree. Brett's presets don't sound similar to his demo's to me.

What are you disagreeing about? I never said his presets sounded similar to his demos using your (or anyone else's) gear. I said that the presets I've downloaded sounded sonically close enough to his YouTube demos "with my gear".

Axe has no control reference point

The real-world amps that many of the models are based on serve as reference points.

 

[J.C]

Axe FX III in house, and for easy recording. Cranked tubes with the band. Hard to beat the combo in my opinion.

 

[Andy Eagle]

Do people use tones they don't prefer?

Yes, all the time when playing others material.

What are you disagreeing about? I never said his presets sounded similar to his demos using your (or anyone else's) gear. I said that the presets I've downloaded sounded sonically close enough to his YouTube demos "with my gear".
His presets are pretty bad with my set up.


The real-world amps that many of the models are based on serve as reference points.

This is not a control. A controls would be something like the axe produces a set sound you have an independent method of analysis that you then input the details back to the axe and it adjusts global parameters to mach. This is common place in imaging and should be in modelling.

 

[Jason Scott]

Yes, all the time when playing others material.

That falls under the heading of need and doesn't change the point. Players have different tonal preferences and needs.

His presets are pretty bad with my set up.

I understand, but I was talking about my rig, not yours.

This is not a control. A controls would be something like the axe produces a set sound you have an independent method of analysis that you then input the details back to the axe and it adjusts global parameters to mach. This is common place in imaging and should be in modelling.

What do controls have to do with whether Brett Kingman's demos sound consistent with his presets?

 

[SOAWM]

Just to give an update. Yesterday I received an email from G66 that the COVID-situation had delayed some things and that I would need to wait a little longer than expected to order the Axe-Fx III mk2.

Funny enough, an hour before receiving this email I got a notification from Reverb that an offer I made for an Axe-fx III (mk1, purchased in 2020), FC-12 controller with carrying bag and a G66 Mission expression pedal got accepted.

Although I never expected this, it feels good to have this complete set for almost 400 euro less than a new mk2. This leaves me with some budget to consider a FM3 to replace my pedalboard in my band.

Cannot wait to receive and test the unit!

 

[is9582]

Awesome news! Congrats on the whole kit. Have fun.

Cheers,
Lee

 

[SOAWM]

Awesome news! Congrats on the whole kit. Have fun.

Cheers,
Lee

Thanks Lee! After much debate I just could not justify the price for the added features and increased waiting time for an mk2. Still feels quite scary to buy something this expensive through Reverb and hope that everything arrives safely and in perfect working condition.

I am not sure whether I will use the FC-12 though. But it is great that I will be able to try it and have the flexibility to sell it to end up with an even cheaper Axe-Fx III.

 

[Andy Eagle]

That falls under the heading of need and doesn't change the point. Players have different tonal preferences and needs.



I understand, but I was talking about my rig, not yours.



What do controls have to do with whether Brett Kingman's demos sound consistent with his presets?

If a control existed his presets would sound exactly the same on ANY axe3 rig (affected only by the fidelity of the FR FR).
Imagine photography without white balance! this is the audio equivalent.

 

[is9582]

Thanks Lee! After much debate I just could not justify the price for the added features and increased waiting time for an mk2. Still feels quite scary to buy something this expensive through Reverb and hope that everything arrives safely and in perfect working condition.

I am not sure whether I will use the FC-12 though. But it is great that I will be able to try it and have the flexibility to sell it to end up with an even cheaper Axe-Fx III.

Yeah, I might have made the same decision in your shoes. And you may never need the additional Mark II features, or if you do, you can sell that unit and upgrade. I don’t think there is ever just one right answer for scenarios like this. Hopefully the unit will work exactly as it should and you are jamming through it rapidly.

A great way to look at the FC-12, as well. If it meshes for you then you’re set; if not your expenditure goes down. How can you lose?

Best,

Lee

 

[Jason Scott]

If a control existed his presets would sound exactly the same on ANY axe3 rig (affected only by the fidelity of the FR FR). Imagine photography without white balance! this is the audio equivalent.

A "control" that produces identical results between players using the same presets with different guitars, playing styles, etc. doesn't exist for any rig, be it a modeler or otherwise, but the results don't have to be identical to be useful. However, that's independent of the fact that you can control for those variables when comparing the Axe-Fx II to the III.