Axe-Fx II "Quantum" Rev 2.02 Firmware Release

I take every firmware update with a "grain of salt" so to speak. I don't think it is smart for folks to think every firmware update will be an automatic "plug and play" situation. For example, I did notice somewhere between 2.0 and 2.2 that the low end seems a bit looser but doesn't mean the tone is bad. Just means I have to adjust something. Maybe I've been using too much low end? Maybe that is a more realistic representation of the amps I'm using?

Bottom line is that everything can be tweaked and Cliff and Co. are the best at supporting all of our tone needs. I think it is important that they keep pushing the envelope and try different things.
 
Just a quick hit to say thanks to FAS for continuing to push forward and make thei products better and better. I haven't spent enough time tweaking presets as of late- too busy learning new material. But the tone and the FEEL seem to have improve for me w/ 2.0-2.02.. A month or so back, on a whim, I installed a really early FW (4 or 5, I think) just to see. I was surprised at just how much better things sound now compared to that FW. I remember being knocked out with those early FW versions..
 
romanianreaper said:
I ...I don't think it is smart for folks to think every firmware update will be an automatic "plug and play" situation. ....
Click to expand...

Every FW upgrade has the caveat 'THE SOUND OF YOUR PRESETS MAY CHANGE' . And oft ignored.

It's this way each time a major upgrade happens. Everything from 'it doesn't sound as good' to 'is there something wrong with my Axe Fx?

In two weeks, everyone will figure out what their parameters they need to tweak, and we'll go back to discussing the cost benefits of expensive cables.

Deep. Breath's.

R
 
Just a quick opinion here. I just finally had the time to compare 2.00, 2.01, 2.02 some more and after jamming through each a few minutes I have decided I like 2.02 the best overall. I kept thinking something was this or that but to my ears I think I narrowed it down, unless my ears are cooked from playing too much!
 
keep in mind that all these reports can make people search for a difference, and even if they don't hear one, they may trick themselves into making some sort of confirmation that there is. if you are spending hours comparing and need to record each version to make comparisons, perhaps any differences aren't too noticeable anyway?
 
Chris@AxeFxTutorials said:
keep in mind that all these reports can make people search for a difference, and even if they don't hear one, they may trick themselves into making some sort of confirmation that there is. if you are spending hours comparing and need to record each version to make comparisons, perhaps any differences aren't too noticeable anyway?
Click to expand...

The most critical element when comparing is getting the volume levels the same IMO. A very slight difference in volume of the same firmware and patch will trick you into thinking there's a difference.
 
Chris@AxeFxTutorials said:
keep in mind that all these reports can make people search for a difference, and even if they don't hear one, they may trick themselves into making some sort of confirmation that there is. if you are spending hours comparing and need to record each version to make comparisons, perhaps any differences aren't too noticeable anyway?
Click to expand...

Re: Thinking there is a difference when there is none - I'm sure there's some of that going on, as there always is when dealing with sound. There's an old story about the producer who put a big 'easy' button on his console, and when a band member said the mix needs a little more 'something', he would press the button and the band member would say "Ya that's better". The button was not connected to anything. There's more to the story but that's the idea.

Re: small differences. I think the best way to try to make a choice is to record a direct track, then record two processed tracks from that direct track, then playback the two processed tracks while toggling through the two tracks. If the differences are small, a small tweak to the preset of one should be all it takes to make the preset sound pretty close to the other.

I just load the latest and dial in from the original presets with each FW update. I haven't really edited the presets because i rarely save, and instead take a snapshot and/or export (after renaming it). I've been able to get a ton of different tones out of the RectoRedModern, FenderBassman, Highpower, Supro, Plexi, with various cabs and drive pedals, so i have a long way to go. I haven't even tried the IIC+, and that's the amp i lusted for when i bought my MarkIII. I guess i better try ALL the amps - the problem is, i usually find a good sounding preset fast and then can't stop playing.
Can you imagine auditioning each of the amps through each of the cabs? I wonder if you could set up a DAW to zip through all sixty thousand head/cab combinations, like a script would, but also using midi to change the AxeFX along the way. Only a hundred sixty hours to audition them all if each plays for ten seconds.:coldsweat:;)
 
Chris@AxeFxTutorials said:
i think this is the "struggle" for the guy who does want to mess with advanced parameters. personally, i just try different amps until i find one that has the qualities i want. i really don't mess with any advanced parameters these days.

i do want to comment for those new to advanced parameters, that just because we have this new Harmonics parameter doesn't mean we have to use it, or that using it will give us benefits or detriments. it is a new optional control. i don't think that because we have it, only now can we achieve certain tones as compared to before when we didn't have it.

it's great to explore the possibilities of new controls given to us by FAS. but remember that we got great tones before this new control, so we might not have to (or want to) touch it at all :)
Click to expand...

Chris I think you are exactly right. SPOT ON!
 
Just to chime in again regarding all this talk of advanced parameters and those who were critical of 2.01 should've just tweaked more and get adapt to it... I've been a Axe user since fw6, so I am very accustomed to the frequent changes some firmware updates require (although I realize some others may not be). I only found myself fighting with two amps in 2.01, both of which were Cliff's "interpretation" of amps that do not actually exist, or based solely on schematics as the wiki points out. I spent hours on a single preset trying to compensate with all the tricks Cliff has blessed us with on this forum before posting my experience.

I feel like I don't fit into either side of the discussion here, but somewhere in the middle. I'm happier than I've ever been now with 2.02, but if I didn't use those two particular amps in my patches, I would've also been 100% content with 2.01. I couldn't detect any noticeable changes in any of my other presets between 2.01 and 2.02 that required any more than 1 min of tweaking.

I'm not sure where Cliff will be taking us from here after all of this discussion, but it can only keep getting better. I'm sure of it.
 
BillyZeppa said:
Re: Thinking there is a difference when there is none - I'm sure there's some of that going on, as there always is when dealing with sound. There's an old story about the producer who put a big 'easy' button on his console, and when a band member said the mix needs a little more 'something', he would press the button and the band member would say "Ya that's better". The button was not connected to anything. There's more to the story but that's the idea.
Click to expand...

Yes this is very true!
Our old sound engineer used to keep a spare fader, labelled in large letters 'VOLUME' and if someone complained it was too loud, he would adjust this fader and the reply was ALWAYS 'yeah that's much better' !!
 
Yes - well known as the "Asshole-fader" for special guests who where complaining about sound and volume...........
 
I look at it like this.. some guys use one amp and chug all day long and are happy, and when an update comes out people say it sounds a certain way, that chug chug guy is "sounds fine to me". Not everyone uses the product fully or even close to fully.

Purely dismissing what someone else is hearing just because you don't hear it doesn't mean they are crazy. You are using it differently, different amps, cabs etc, or 20 years of hearing loss ;) Some guys are fine with presets / starting points, and never deep dive.
 
Imo, for a given hardware, Axe´s software evolution can occur in either of these 3 fields:

a. new amp, cab and effect models: more to come;
b. modelling: it seems that the state of the art has been achieved with the latest firmware (real tube parameters x theroretical models) => further improvements tend to zero (unless Cliff´s approach changes drastically);
c. troubleshooting: further improvements tend to zero.

What´s next? Imo, "b" and "c" are running out fast, and only "a" will remain. Am I wrong?
 
dpeterson said:
I look at it like this.. some guys use one amp and chug all day long and are happy, and when an update comes out people say it sounds a certain way, that chug chug guy is "sounds fine to me". Not everyone uses the product fully or even close to fully.
Click to expand...
so if there are no noticeable differences, someone is just a chug guy or doesn't use the axe in-depth enough?
 
i'm happy with Quantum whatever. Any version is light years ahead of what we had even a year ago. But, Cliff said he coded 5 hours on Sunday but hasn't posted the FW link yet. I wonder what he's really cookin' up!
 
Chris@AxeFxTutorials said:
so if there are no noticeable differences, someone is just a chug guy or doesn't use the axe in-depth enough?
Click to expand...

No it was a generalization just to convey an idea. Someone who uses one part, might not notice changes that don't effect the area he / she is familiar with. Say if someone was a mesa guy, and there was a change that effected the vox amps. Not everyone is going to hear the same results. Lots of variables.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom