Axe-FX II - nice but gone like the wind

[symphx]

Funny how personal experience works huh?


In terms of overall feel I find it to be a significant step up.


Once again I had/am having the complete opposite experience. I have been getting a lot deeper into my tone lately. It has been enough of a difference that several bandmates have commented on the overall improvement in the vibe-e-ness of my rig.


In terms of live performance I find the Axe II to completely destroy any "real" amp/rig I can build. Working with far-field IRs I believe I can equal or surpass any real amp in an up close in the room test as well. I have completely stumped several sensitive players in blind, in the room listening tests. Like I said, funny how different central nervous systems perceive things huh?


I have this friend and musical associate named Mark Kimbrell. Ask Derek Trucks who his favorite guitar players are and Mark is up there at the top of the list. A small handful of well known, deep players feel this way about Mark. Anyways, he is a fifty-three year old, old school tube fanatic and he has incredibly sensitive, experienced ears. He thought my Ultra rig was good but not great. For the last three nights Mark sat in with me at my house gig. Each night he brought a different very nice tube rig and each night he got frustrated that he couldn't get anywhere near the tone I was getting. The third night he played his beautiful dot neck 335 through my rig while I sat out. He went into his zone immediately and played his ass off. He is considering purchasing an Axe II. If you knew him you would know how impossible a thought like that is to him.

Oh well. No contest intended. Just always amazed at wildly differing experiences among skilled, experienced musicians. Best of luck Tim. May your power tubes never blow!

Just wondering with Mark playing your rig, what is your rig, ? eg. pa, speakers, guitar cab, frfr? amp or cab sims?

 

[hippietim]

I guess I'm wondering if you would feel the same way about the AxeFX II if you had an opportunity to play it through a high end FRFR solution. It really does make a big difference. I tried the K10, and I took it back. The same with a few others in a similar price range. I truly believe there are too many sonic compromises in high power stage monitors below a particular dollar threshold. That is to say, lots of power, light weight, good sound and inexpensive don't all exist at once.

I'm using in-ears right now but if I went back to a wedge I wouldn't be happy with anything less than a Tannoy PowerV12.

I've been using the Ultra for over 3 years quite happily. The last 2.5 years have been through an FBT 12ma and I've been very happy. But you think that spending another couple grand on a different FRFR system is going to make me think that the AxeFX II is so much more awesomerer than the Ultra? And even if that were the case it would just make me happier that I sold the II because nobody at our gigs hears my Axe-FX monitor besides me - the audience is getting the FOH so following your reasoning I actually need to spend several thousand dollars more on top of that that so it can sound good for me and the audience. Sorry but that's more than a little ridiculous. I actually just chuckled out loud thinking about that.

BTW, I thought the K10 was fine but I didn't actually buy it for the Axe - it's a stage monitor for us.

 

[Sidivan]

It's not a contest; everyone has different needs/preferences and taste.

It's cool that folks like one box over another and it's cool that they share their opinions.

Tool boxes are tool boxes. It's not a 'battle' between boxes for popular opinion; it's about 'fit' for the player and once you find the fit, a) it's great that anyone would still be open to checking out other boxes; b) can still use analog gear and get a charge from it.

Just because you use one box doesn't mean all other boxes suck or that you can't successfully and enjoyably work with any given set of gear. It's a bigger universe than that; and the 'there is only one' folks need attitude adjustment.

Having fun with your gear - no matter what you use/prefer/don't use - is the key. The rest is superfluous.

I can't agree more with this. The same goes for tone. Your tone is your voice for your style of music and regardless what other people sound like, be it a tube amp, a modeller, etc... you just have to ask yourself if your tone is what YOU WANT TO HEAR in YOUR MUSIC. Sure, there are some legendary tones out there, but they're not legendary because they are "The Best" tones. They're legendary because they were used in legendary songs. I can't stand Brian May's tone, but it's perfect for Queen. I couldn't stand Dimebag's tone either, but boy did it work for Pantera. To me, the great thing about the Axe FX is the ability to control every little tiny piece of your tone. Last night I was dialing in a new tone with the 7-string I just bought and I found myself analyzing each piece saying, "Well, I like that low end bark. Let's see if I can keep that, but tweak the rest. There's a wee bit too much gain here..." After awhile I have a well-sculpted tone that gives me the crunch, but stays tight throughout all frequencies. Does it sound like a tube amp? I don't know... I guess it probably does. Does it sound like <famous guitarist>? Definitely not. Do I care? Not a chance.

That's why I don't post a lot of clips unless I have a specific question about something or am asked to for a sample.

 

[metal190]

Every solution (or amplifier) brings with it a bunch of pros and cons and compromises that have to be made. I love a lot of FX. The rig I was using prior to the axe FX literally weighed just over 300 lbs. Moving to the Axe FX freed up tons of space in our studio, was about 10% of the weight (with power amp), and cost 10% of what the other rig had cost. I got rid of all my ground loop troubles, and troubleshooting one unit with a few connections was a very welcome change from having 12 different units with 2-4 connections each. The axe also allowed me freedom in the cab sounds I was geting that I didn't have before, not to mention access to a whole lot more amps than just my Road King and Mark V. Fewer interfaces to remember how they worked and how to dial in a way I liked. And with my tube amps I hated how I could have my tone dialed at practice volume, but moving to band rehearsal volume I had to redial everything.

I'd love to buy back a tube amp or two, and am sure I will some day. I'll do it when I live in a place with a basement where I can leave a half stack turned up to decent volume. I love the way a tube amp sounds and feels. And they just look good. But for now, the axe fx still sounds incredible. So for all the reasons mentioned above, it just makes more sense for me. But that's just me.

 

[scotts]

Just wondering with Mark playing your rig, what is your rig, ? eg. pa, speakers, guitar cab, frfr? amp or cab sims?

At the gigs with Mark I was playing the Axe II through a single QSC K10. The K10 is a good speaker (with Jay's adjustments) certainly not a great speaker. Mark understands this and it makes him a little anxious. He is pretty clear that when I settle on a high end FRFR solution things are going to get even more ridiculous. To me the heart of the matter for live, amp in the room feel, is using far-field IRs or a combination of near field IRs.

 

[cragginshred]

Hippie I really appreciate your candor and perspective. With any new gear we want it to be it really bad. right now a ski boat is calling my name. By the time the coupon might come I may have the crispies saved back up?

 

[Tone Seeker]

I've been using the Ultra for over 3 years quite happily. The last 2.5 years have been through an FBT 12ma and I've been very happy. But you think that spending another couple grand on a different FRFR system is going to make me think that the AxeFX II is so much more awesomerer than the Ultra?

Likely not. The comparison was reasonable. However, IMO spending $2K+ on a monitoring solution will make them both sound better. Then, perhaps the AxeFX II improvements would be more apparent.

And even if that were the case it would just make me happier that I sold the II because nobody at our gigs hears my Axe-FX monitor besides me - the audience is getting the FOH so following your reasoning I actually need to spend several thousand dollars more on top of that that so it can sound good for me and the audience. Sorry but that's more than a little ridiculous. I actually just chuckled out loud thinking about that.

If the FOH is poor not only will the AxeFX sound poor, but so will your singers, keyboards and a miked tube amp.

Terry.

 

[BMH]

I am an Ultra user ... 2+ years now ... and still carry a few small tube amps. If you are going through the PA and not blasting everyone's ears off with your amp, it changes things. IMO a small cranked amp miced just doesn't have the balls that an Axe model of a large cranked amp through the PA has. In other words, I don't dig cranking small power tubes, they do not sound the same to me as cranking a 6L6 or EL34. For that purpose alone, the cranked Axe sounds of Marshas and Trainwrecks through the PA are just awesome. I can't crank the real thing and save my ears. That is the number one reason I invested in the Axe. The Axe II will be a luxury ... but I am still hoping to buy and try one.

 

[yek]

Got my II this week, dialing in tones as we speak, uh, write.

Additional, pricier monitor solutions to hear "AFXII improvements"? Not required IMHO.
As you know, I loved my Ultra. But I won't hesitate to declare the II as again a major step forward.
It's ridiculously easy to dial convincing tones. Detailed, gritty, real, in-your-face.

I was never a MESA fan, and was not good at getting passable MESA tones with the Ultra (due to my inabilities for sure), but now I got presets featuring Recto New Orange, Recto New Red, Mark IIC+ bright and Mark IV Ld 2. They rawk, they roar, they sing and it took me 10 minutes. Never touched the advanced params.

Edit: Euro Blue is another example. I found this amp very difficult to dial in on the Ultra and I know how it's supposed to sound in real, having owned several XTCs. On the II It took me a few minutes and the result has all the characteristics of the real one.

I fully agree with ScottP: to each his own. If you're happy with real tube tones, I'm happy for you.

I just have a different opinion about the progress made with the II. It's not just a slight improvement: it's big. And then there also is the load of usability improvements which already saved me só much time.

 

[hippietim]

If the FOH is poor not only will the AxeFX sound poor, but so will your singers, keyboards and a miked tube amp.

Are you serious? So you're telling me that our FOH system needs to be good? Oh crap!

Thanks for the incredibly over obvious information. Our mains aren't $2000 speakers. Still, we squeak by. Actually, our FOH sounds great - feel free to ask anyone that's seen us.

 

[Tone Seeker]

Are you serious? So you're telling me that our FOH system needs to be good? Oh crap!

Thanks for the incredibly over obvious information. Our mains aren't $2000 speakers. Still, we squeak by. Actually, our FOH sounds great - feel free to ask anyone that's seen us.

I thought it was pretty obvious as well.

And even if that were the case it would just make me happier that I sold the II because nobody at our gigs hears my Axe-FX monitor besides me - the audience is getting the FOH so following your reasoning I actually need to spend several thousand dollars more on top of that that so it can sound good for me and the audience. Sorry but that's more than a little ridiculous. I actually just chuckled out loud thinking about that.

My post was in response to this comment, where you were saying that there was little value in improving your AxeFX FRFR monitor since that would imply a requirement to improve your FOH. Not knowing your configuration I assumed maybe your FOH was less than ideal. However, if you're happy with your FOH then perhaps you're suggesting here that it's important to you to try and match the quality the audience hears with what you hear on stage. I can understand and see value in that. Was that your point?

Terry.

 

[hippietim]

However, if you're happy with your FOH then perhaps you're suggesting here that it's important to you to try and match the quality the audience hears with what you hear on stage. I can understand and see value in that. Was that your point?

Yep. There is very little value in having an amazing monitor speaker when the audience is just hearing a very good speaker.

 

[barhrecords]

As long as my gear doesn't break the bank, I kinda dig having a high end monitor system... Even when I'm playing festival gigs with terrible FOH.

Really good monitor mixes make me play better and have loads more fun.

Richard

 

[axel]

As long as my gear doesn't break the bank, I kinda dig having a high end monitor system... Even when I'm playing festival gigs with terrible FOH.

Really good monitor mixes make me play better and have loads more fun.

Richard

I feel the same way. I think most of us tone freaks are more concerned with loving what WE hear, and if it also sounds good to everyone else, that's just a plus.

 

[barhrecords]

I feel the same way. I think most of us tone freaks are more concerned with loving what WE hear, and if it also sounds good to everyone else, that's just a plus.

Don't get me wrong, when I have some say in the FOH I do care what the audience hears. It is after all a performance

But I'm a weekend warrior and lots of times I don't supply the FOH and don't have any control over the FOH sound.

Richard

 

[Sidivan]

I feel the same way. I think most of us tone freaks are more concerned with loving what WE hear, and if it also sounds good to everyone else, that's just a plus.

I'm exactly the opposite. I don't care what my tone sounds like on stage, so long as I can hear it without having to concentrate on listening. It better sound absolutely amazing to the audience though. They're the ones that paid to see the show.

 

[axel]

I'm exactly the opposite. I don't care what my tone sounds like on stage, so long as I can hear it without having to concentrate on listening. It better sound absolutely amazing to the audience though. They're the ones that paid to see the show.

It's obviously important. My point was that, if what you hear sounds great (not crap), it will be more inspiring.

 

[Joe Jaeger]

It's obviously important. My point was that, if what you hear sounds great (not crap), it will be more inspiring.

Yeah man exactly, people seem to forget that sometimes, and it's true for a lot of people. You might of seen the posts on this forum and the old forum over the years of people stating "since i've purchased my axe I play more, I feel more inspired" and a lot of that is the tone and some of it is the feel you get when playing the axe.

 

[wake911]

Congrats on hopefully finding your cure. I know we are all out there looking for our Gear Cure, and i wish for everyone to find theirs too. For some that's the Axe, for others it isn't. No big deal there..

 

[Rane]

I'm exactly the opposite. I don't care what my tone sounds like on stage, so long as I can hear it without having to concentrate on listening. It better sound absolutely amazing to the audience though. They're the ones that paid to see the show.

I'm somewhere in the middle.

Ultimately, I'm the one who has to live with my tone, so when it comes to me hearing my tone, I'll invest a little more into making it sound it's best - even if I'm the only one who hears the difference.

As far as the audience goes, I think they're needs are different. They don't care if my speakers are ultra-flat response and reproducing everything perfectly; just as long as it sounds good. They will, however, notice thundering sub-woofers or, on the negative side, a room with terrible echo (regardless of whether or not they recognize it as such).

I guess it's all about perspective. Yes, I want the audience to think I sound absolutely amazing, but amazing from their perspective isn't the same as amazing from the guitarists perspective. If you have the money, sure, make everything perfect, other-wise invest where you're money's most effective.