Axe FX II vs Axe Ultra vs Eleven Rack

ngstime said:
My Ultra still has the plastic after over two years
It still gives it that new car smell LOL
But, I'll admit, the plastic on the II isn't quite the same
Click to expand...

My Ultra still has the plastic on after 4 years.

I watched this at work and used some headphones out on the PC and I didn't like any of the tones from any of the units and I was surprised by the Ultra and II because, to me, they sounded bad. What got my attention was the guy said "...used the same settings..." on all three boxes. I wish he clarified that a bit more. I am sure there isn't a one-to-one on parameters and certainly not on the value ranges so if he indeed dialed x on the master, y on the bass, z on the treble the same across all three units I feel like that is a flawed approach. I would have liked to have heard the "best" Fender clean he could do on the 11, Ultra and II which means they may or may not have the same settings.

These types of comparisons are problematic. Again my opinion. I thought the Ultra sounded bad (along with the II) and I know my Ultra sounds better than what I heard.
 
mworkman said:
My Ultra still has the plastic on after 4 years.

I watched this at work and used some headphones out on the PC and I didn't like any of the tones from any of the units and I was surprised by the Ultra and II because, to me, they sounded bad. What got my attention was the guy said "...used the same settings..." on all three boxes. I wish he clarified that a bit more. I am sure there isn't a one-to-one on parameters and certainly not on the value ranges so if he indeed dialed x on the master, y on the bass, z on the treble the same across all three units I feel like that is a flawed approach. I would have liked to have heard the "best" Fender clean he could do on the 11, Ultra and II which means they may or may not have the same settings.

These types of comparisons are problematic. Again my opinion. I thought the Ultra sounded bad (along with the II) and I know my Ultra sounds better than what I heard.
Click to expand...

Good to know that i'm not the only one who thought that they didn't sound too good (then again, i'm using laptop speakers). I thought the Eleven Rack sounded best (don't kill me) and the II and Ultra were close calls. All I know is that they really can sound better than what I heard from this video!
 
mworkman said:
My Ultra still has the plastic on after 4 years.

I watched this at work and used some headphones out on the PC and I didn't like any of the tones from any of the units and I was surprised by the Ultra and II because, to me, they sounded bad. What got my attention was the guy said "...used the same settings..." on all three boxes. I wish he clarified that a bit more. I am sure there isn't a one-to-one on parameters and certainly not on the value ranges so if he indeed dialed x on the master, y on the bass, z on the treble the same across all three units I feel like that is a flawed approach. I would have liked to have heard the "best" Fender clean he could do on the 11, Ultra and II which means they may or may not have the same settings.

These types of comparisons are problematic. Again my opinion. I thought the Ultra sounded bad (along with the II) and I know my Ultra sounds better than what I heard.
Click to expand...

Agreed
 
I was also surprised at the quality of the Axe sounds... I thought the 11r sounded pretty good and was prepared to be blown over by the Ultras & IIs glory alas I was not..(yes i know they rock etc) but they sounded kinda thin or scratchy .. or something.. just my observation according to my level of frequency deafness from too many ride cymbal bashings :)
 
No offense intended, and kudos for the effort, but man those clips sound pretty bad. Hate to be so direct, but direct is exactly what they sound like...each one more "digital" and thin sounding then the next. And I'm a fan. I currently own an 11 Rack and an Axe Fx II. I also had an Ultra, which I sold to purchase the II. I greatly prefer the Axe II, but each unit is capable of producing MUCH better tones than found here...especially the II. Anyone thinking about buying an Axe Fx would probably run back and embrace their original POD after watching this.
 
I thought the Axe II for higher gain stuff was much better. Much less diff on cleans between Axe I and II ... (I'm listening on computer speakers though).

But it was clear that both trounced the 11Rack.
 
Yes, I would not buy the Axe if all I have were these clips - it sounds like via a telefon


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I appreciate the effort involved here, but I also find that trying to do apple to apple comparison in this kind of scenario kind of tough to pull off.

I think that once you try to go with the same settings to get a fair comparison you end up eliminating what seperates each of them from each other and greatly reduce the strengths that any of them may have. To me I want to hear what the best sounding patch you can possibly build sounds like on one device and then judge it on it's own. Maybe it's just me, but once I hear one tone I end up trying to compare the next one to it as if the first was the standard of measurement and it really throws me off. Maybe I'm just kind of slow in the head. :)

But then again I've never been one to sit there and try to evaluate just how exact a certain amp model sounds to the amp it's simulating because in all honesty I haven't played on probably 65 of the 70 models available in real life. It's always been about the ability to sit there, pick an amp and a cab and start dialing it in until the magic happens. After coming from the Ultra and going to the 11R until my coupon comes in I can say that for me there is no comparison; the Fractal stuff allows me to get to where I want to go in terms of tone in a manner that works better for my workflow and thought process. With the 11R I can get pretty close at times and it makes some nice sounds, but for getting from 'nice' to 'exactly what I want' there is a definite roadblock in there for me. I can't overstate how important impulse responses, the routing capability and the advanced mixer inside the AxeFX is to getting any patch to sound just how I want. And that's something that you can't demonstrate in a video clip, it's something you have to experience in person IMHO.

That is what outweighs the difference in price and availablity and anything else you could consider a disadvantage of the AxeFX series stuff.
 
Too bad I didn't know about the AxeFX when I lived in Cheyenne, WY. I could have driven down and hung out....wait a sec, you look like a dude I bought a Mesa 2x12 off a few years ago down there. Same guy?
 
Thanks David....welcome to the forums.
I listened to your post with headphones, and immediately noticed the following:
Clearer highs
Tighter lows
Most of all the "Bloom" in the high gain presets.
 
David is very well known outside of this forum through some of the web based products he offers.
Endorsements from people like David are greatly appreciated by Fractal I am sure.
Welcome David,looking forward to future post.
 
Apples to Oranges...

shasha said:
I appreciate the effort involved here, but I also find that trying to do apple to apple comparison in this kind of scenario kind of tough to pull off.

I think that once you try to go with the same settings to get a fair comparison you end up eliminating what seperates each of them from each other and greatly reduce the strengths that any of them may have. To me I want to hear what the best sounding patch you can possibly build sounds like on one device and then judge it on it's own. Maybe it's just me, but once I hear one tone I end up trying to compare the next one to it as if the first was the standard of measurement and it really throws me off. Maybe I'm just kind of slow in the head. :)

But then again I've never been one to sit there and try to evaluate just how exact a certain amp model sounds to the amp it's simulating because in all honesty I haven't played on probably 65 of the 70 models available in real life. It's always been about the ability to sit there, pick an amp and a cab and start dialing it in until the magic happens. After coming from the Ultra and going to the 11R until my coupon comes in I can say that for me there is no comparison; the Fractal stuff allows me to get to where I want to go in terms of tone in a manner that works better for my workflow and thought process. With the 11R I can get pretty close at times and it makes some nice sounds, but for getting from 'nice' to 'exactly what I want' there is a definite roadblock in there for me. I can't overstate how important impulse responses, the routing capability and the advanced mixer inside the AxeFX is to getting any patch to sound just how I want. And that's something that you can't demonstrate in a video clip, it's something you have to experience in person IMHO.

That is what outweighs the difference in price and availablity and anything else you could consider a disadvantage of the AxeFX series stuff.
Click to expand...

+1

I agree. It's almost impossible to even do a fair comparison of this type, since there are too many variables/ambiguities associated with comparing each unit "with similar settings." What does that even mean? All three units are different architectures, and as such, even comparing patches with identical parameter settings in and of itself guarantees that they'll sound different? So that proves nothing really? I could be wrong, but it seemed to me that the biggest difference between/amongst the three units was in the cab-modelling/IR settings! That alone would change the basic tone output of a given model drastically! (...even if one were able to match the pre-gain, EQ, and power-amp characteristics!) Also, is it me, or did the "Fender-Clean" type-emulation on the Digidesign 11R sound like it had an audible "squashy" compressor-block/setting in front of the amp-model? If I'm right, that immediately negates the "apples-to-apples" palpability...Maybe it's just YouTube-compression - LOL! That said, I didn't really here that "squash" on the Fractals' Cleans?

I like David Walliman, and I've been a subscriber to his YouTube channel for a long time. I think he is an excellent gitar-instructor and musician in his own right. However, even though I agree with his conclusions (Digidesign-11R is very good value for the budget-conscious; Fractal Audio Systems Axe-FX II is superior all-around,) I think that:

- This shootout comparison (the way it was edited) moved too quickly - NOT the spoken/verbiage part, but the actual playing-clips.

- He shouldn't have bothered trying to use "similar settings" on each unit, since that guarantees huge sonic-differences! IMO, he should've tried to tweak each sound with his ears to get the best sound possible. This still wouldn't have yielded an "apples-to-apples" result, BUT it might've given the viewers a better idea of each unit's potential?!?

I'm still a big fan of David Walliman though...He has a great YouTube channel in general, if you've never checked him out!!!

Bill
 
Muzza_Boogie said:
I was also surprised at the quality of the Axe sounds... I thought the 11r sounded pretty good and was prepared to be blown over by the Ultras & IIs glory alas I was not..(yes i know they rock etc) but they sounded kinda thin or scratchy .. or something.. just my observation according to my level of frequency deafness from too many ride cymbal bashings :)
Click to expand...

This isn't very productive for people who take it too seriously, since the crappy mp3 quality of the sound (for mp3 maybe substitute a generic word for heavy audio compression) ruins any precise examination of the differences and sound performance of the 3 units. For those who are aware of what crappy mp3 does to the sound, it is still helpful since they can visualize in their minds what the sound might actually be like, and the fact that the ELEVEN RACK has less of the harmonic variation actually means it has a less scratchy top end! But for those who have never heard an ultra or II in person, and don't understand audio compression, I worry they might take this seriously. Again, the thin and scratchy sound referred to is, pure and simple, the result of audio compression. The higher frequencies cannot be converted at the mp3 compression ratio used here. If the author could do the video again, but use a much lower compression for the audio track (if needed maybe provide separate links, so those with very slow internet speeds or computers can avoid the "real deal" if they want). Mono would probably be sufficient as far as the audio, and the video can be compressed all to hell, but the mp3 should not be compressed so much. I realize that this means, for longer clips, the author needs to do some extra work.

But listen to Pete thorn's video on his mid gain video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PtwxtDPgCM which is recorded at low enough compression to make it useful. This is still the only very excellent axe fx II demo of the low-mid range, but it is also a great example of how audio should sound for your youtube videos. What did you use to record it Pete? What were the settings? The audio compression is low enough that a viewer can still hear a fairly accurate demo. Of course, even less compression would be ideal, but we don't have hours to upload our videos, and we know people don't have patience for long waits.

Anyway, thanks for the demo. I'm just offering my opinion and I think that there needs to be a disclaimer that the audio on it is heavily compressed.
 
Last edited:
I was just talking about this video again on another forum and here it is bumped up here.

I've got a whole slew of epiphonies I've come up with on my own that probably only apply to me, but the bottom line for me really does come down to this; everyone here that owns an AxeFX of one kind or the other knows what it sounds like, how it feels and everything it does and how it does it. Most of us have used other gear and know the difference between them and the AxeFX.

That's not going to ever be completely conveyed through any video. I didn't watch my Ultra when I had it, I played it. Sure you can get a general idea, but it's like watching Top Gear and saying that you know that a Ferrari is much better than a Lamborghini; you just don't.

But what really seperates the pack is not just plugging in and playing, it's when you go to dial in your tone. There's a lot of people championing the simple approach of other products, but when I hear something that I want to dial in or out and I can't because "it's simplified" I'm not going to buy it as a selling point. They can all make a nice sound; its when you want a specific sound and you start tweaking on a Fractal product that makes the lightbulb come on.

With the Ultra I didn't always hit a homerun in terms of popularity of the tone I dialed in, but I was able to dial it in. With everything else it's more like settling with what I have at my disposal. There's just a point where you can't tweak something in or out that needs to be addressed. Does that restriction make it more amplike? Perhaps. But if I wanted all the restrictions of an amp I would have bought an amp in the first place.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom