Axe Fx II smokes the Ultra

I hope it does "smoke" it, so people will start listing their Standards for like $1000 again =[

It does make me wonder if I should spend $1400 for a standard right now, or just wait 6 months when theres more II's available and wait for that.. altho the added depth will screw up my rack plans, maybe its worth it.
I really seriously doubt that one thread by a group of fans will seriously devalue anything anymore than it has already regardless whether II really "smokes" the Ultra or not.
 
Love my Ultra - on alternate days - just like I love my ENGL, Zinky, etc. on those other alternate days - but - I can't resist, cuz I do it - "i just dropped 3k on this thing, and it's the coolest thing since - I dropped 2k on the last version of this thing that I had to sell at a slight loss to get this new thing......", it's still the player - Joe Bonnamassa all vintage types to Vai, lots of technology - if I could plug the Axe III into my bio-port and play like those fellers.....anyone seen the movie Existenz? Now THAT's what I'm talkin' 'bout!
 
Quonsar, have you had a chance to try doing a Liquid Foot Jr Autoload with the AxeFX II?

Terry.

The LF Jr firmware will need an update before autoload will work with the II. New firmware is in the works, according to Jeff at Liquid Foot.
 
Well if the Axe II wasn't a bit better than the Gen 1s then it would be pretty disappointing I reckon :)

All I know is I may 'only' have an Ultra but I've also had a plethora of real amps over the years such as a Plexi, a JMP 45, a mesa Boogie IV etc etc and all those damn 4 x12s to drag up and down stairs .... a 6u rack, a pedalboard and a 2x12 cab is all I need now and I can make authentic enough noises come out for at least 5 distinctive amp types and still fit into my allocated 3 square feet of 'stage' in the little gigs. I have a good Firewire DAW interface and use Macs so I don't really miss the USB and I'm not overboard on effects and have plenty of processing headroom so I'm happy ...... and I'm happy for those who have the FX II and are happy with it .... thats the best reason to keep and use it.
 
Jay is so precise, while others bring the emotion, and both have merit. Terminator T-800 (Arnold) face off vs. the T-1000 (liquid metal)... pretty cool!
 
IMHO I predict that the Standard and Ultra will be used for many years to come and will retain a decent resale value. Look at Yamaha's original 01V digital mixer at least 2 generations and a decade old, still it's a darn good unit and used models still sell regularly. I mention this because I bought one, used it for a couple of years, sold it for what I paid for it. I would buy one again if the need/budget warranted it. For guitarists looking for a great bang-for-the-buck system, an Ultra or Standard will fit the bill. After having owned the Ultra for some 3.5 years and reading forum posts for longer, it seems to me that the majority of "gripes" have come from folks using FRFR. Used without cab sims with most any decent power amp and guitar cab, you've got a rig that will meet or beat traditional rigs costing much more money when you factor in the FX, some of which are impossible to duplicate. (notice I didn't say it will "smoke" another rig :)) There has been a good deal of discussion about the best power amp, best cab, best speaker etc. but nothing approaching the volume of posts from FRFR users about getting the "in the room" tone or "blocking EQ's" to get rid of "fizz," finding the magic mojo blend of IR's, the absolute Flattest Fullest FRFR (with the exception of Jay Mitchell ;-) ) etc etc

To qualify, I can and do play running DI/FRFR and am happy doing so, I have used the AxeFX in numerous situations. When I first purchased it with version 5 something firmware I used it the next day for a DI gig - no amp, no dedicated monitor, just crappy wedges. I made two patches, a clean and dirty, and it sounded great and had a tube amp feel. Dynamics, and controllable feedback at fairly low volumes. That's what sold me on the unit, and I have used a lot of DI "amp emulator" devices, both digital and analog from back in the 80's with the Rockman gear to the first Line 6 POD and many in between and after - nothing could approach the sound quality and feel of the AxeFX. In addition, I do studio engineering/production and have recorded with the Ultra, and this was by far the best sounding and easiest to dial in unit even for other guitarists. I can quickly create a tone that they like, it sounds great and sits well in the mix. No huhu.

Not having tried the AxeFX II yet, I would guess that much of the core tone improvements would be in the cab emulation section, along with the dual processing - so that, FRFR users may experience a more perceptible difference in tone and ease of use.
 
Correct me if I'm wrong - but some of the stuff in the AMP section (like speaker resonance for eg.) are there ALSO to overcome the static feel of impulses. I really feel that the whole amp modelling thing is there - let's get down to nailing that cabinet now, since that's where everything comes to a screeching halt! I honestly think, though this would have been very difficult to implement, that the AXE FX II should offer one separate nebula type cab block, which is dynamic, just like their amps (i.e. - responds to volume changes and gives that JHUNG when you palm mute shit), even if it's just one, and allow impulses to be mixed in with them for tonal variation. The only problem that I see is that such cabinet simulation is very resource hungry! Where an impulse is just 8kb, a nebula program can go upto 6mb! And that's not factoring in the cpu hit.
 
1st Gen iPhone (Axe Std)
3gS (Axe Ultra)
4g (Axe 2)

The original iPhone/Axe-Fx was revolutionary. These newest incarnations are just making a solid foundation even more reinforced (better processors, slightly better performance, larger screen, more features).



I consider Axe FX II to be the next Gen Iphone or 5th gen...... it makes sense... dual processors, more memory, basically doing the same but better and easier... Maybe for us ultra users is hard on our minds to upgrade cause the units we own are good enough... but if I had 2000 usd to spair I would definitely buy one !! hahaha...
 
Correct me if I'm wrong - but some of the stuff in the AMP section (like speaker resonance for eg.) are there ALSO to overcome the static feel of impulses. I really feel that the whole amp modelling thing is there - let's get down to nailing that cabinet now, since that's where everything comes to a screeching halt! I honestly think, though this would have been very difficult to implement, that the AXE FX II should offer one separate nebula type cab block, which is dynamic, just like their amps (i.e. - responds to volume changes and gives that JHUNG when you palm mute shit), even if it's just one, and allow impulses to be mixed in with them for tonal variation. The only problem that I see is that such cabinet simulation is very resource hungry! Where an impulse is just 8kb, a nebula program can go upto 6mb! And that's not factoring in the cpu hit.

What's a nebula cab block?
 
the only 'dynamic' implementation of IRs I heard (and tried to use) so far was the compressors of Focusrite's LiquidMix.

didn't work for me. went back to UAD right away :)
 
Yeah, I read their product description and it sounded like a lot of BS to me. So it's a dynamic cab block, vs. a static IR?

I don't know how much bullshit it is, but I think I remember cliff saying he was doing some tests with a similar kind of IR technology but hadn't (at the time) drawn any conclusion.

I may be wrong about this though
 
Just to clarify, I was going by the statement "emulates the character and personality of analog hardware with exacting accuracy" in their product description, and it sounded fishy. I have no experience with the product and probably should not have put forward an opinion without further investigation.
BTW, I still don't know what a nebula cab is.
 
here is an explanation from cliff

Nebula is based on Volterra kernels. Basically it's an IR for each harmonic generated by a (weak) nonlinearity. You generate the harmonics by squaring, cubing, etc. the input signal and then pass each harmonic through its own IR and sum the results.

I'm in the first camp. I don't hear much (if any) difference and the difficulty and computational expense doesn't seem worth it. You have to get your input levels just right or the result is a mess.

The Gear Page - View Single Post - Nebula vs Impulse?
 
Here is my view of the comparison. I wouldn't use the term "smokes". I used the Ultra for a year prior to getting my II and Ive had it a couple weeks now. Here is my honest feedback of my comparison's of the Ultra vs the II. Your mileage may vary.

I will first say those that say that the II smokes the Ultra may just be trying to convince themselves of that because they paid a premium price for their II.

Effects - I don't really notice a huge difference between the two
Presets - It seems like the Ultra presets were dialed in a little bit better. I don't put much stock into that but thought I would mention it.
Amps/Cabs - this is where it gets interesting. In some cases the II wins and in some the Ultra wins. The II gets the nod though because it is a little bit more straighforward to dial things in.
User Interface - It seems a lot easier to navigate the II vs the Ultra
Connectivity - USB makes life so much easier, the added audio interface is a great addition that justifies the II by itself

The II is certainly worth the modest upgrade price. Its not life altering if you had an Ultra but it certainly makes a lot of things easier.
 
Tone Seeker said:
Thanks for the review.

What kind of speaker system do you connect your Axe to?

Terry.


Sorry meant to post that and forgot.
FRFR. Either studio monitors or PA.
 
Back
Top Bottom