Axe FX III DI vs. Dedicated DI Box (e.g. Countryman Type 85)?

Jono Bacon

Inspired
Hey, All,

Simple question: I was watching a YouTube video where an engineer said that the quality of the DI recording on the Axe FX III is not as good as a dedicated DI box such as the Countryman Type 85.

Any thoughts on this?

I know we are all Axe FX fans here, but I would love to hear an objective opinion.

Not sure if relevant, but I am recording metal with active pickups.

Thanks!
 
I'm betting it was Glenn F?

The DI in the III is as good as it gets, the best convertors in the business means a pretty damn accurate digital replica. Relying on a separate DI box brings more gear, and an AD conversion that may not be quite as accurate as that in the III.
Source: can't use myself as I don't have a III, but the convertors in my II have created some of the best DIs I've ever had, and I've used a few different DI boxes (as well as direct in to an interface), so I'd assume the III is an even greater improvement with Secret Sauce IV.
 
If you have active pickups, the output impedance of your guitar is already low. It will make zero difference.
 
Oh, good ol' Glenn "iPad" Fricker... The problem with that line of thinking is they want the DI track too hot to the point it's not a 1:1 representation of the signal hitting your amp and of course it will sound "boosted".

The Axe Fx's converters are so good they'll guarantee the signal you input into the Axe will be the same you'll reamp with.
 
Hey, All,

Simple question: I was watching a YouTube video where an engineer said that the quality of the DI recording on the Axe FX III is not as good as a dedicated DI box such as the Countryman Type 85.

Any thoughts on this?

I know we are all Axe FX fans here, but I would love to hear an objective opinion.

Not sure if relevant, but I am recording metal with active pickups.

Thanks!
Was this YouTuber being paid to say this?
 
IHi Jono,

If you want a great DI sound - Get the Neve RNDI - I got one and it's got whatever magic is needed to make it the best I've owned.
Thanks
Pauly

Hey, All,

Simple question: I was watching a YouTube video where an engineer said that the quality of the DI recording on the Axe FX III is not as good as a dedicated DI box such as the Countryman Type 85.

Any thoughts on this?

I know we are all Axe FX fans here, but I would love to hear an objective opinion.

Not sure if relevant, but I am recording metal with active pickups.

Thanks!
 
Be careful with Glenn, I like his videos but to be honest he has a dark side when it comes to the AxeFX. And his arguments about it are very biased to other gear, even though he acknowledges there are some good parts to it, I just feel he has a bit of a chip on his shoulder for some reason.
All good though, each to their own, I just wish he would stop making a thing about it.
 
Be careful with Glenn, I like his videos but to be honest he has a dark side when it comes to the AxeFX. And his arguments about it are very biased to other gear, even though he acknowledges there are some good parts to it, I just feel he has a bit of a chip on his shoulder for some reason.
All good though, each to their own, I just wish he would stop making a thing about it.

I'm just gonna say this and leave the matter to rest:

For Glenn, the Axe-FX (whatever generation it is) is just a "glorified iPad". It doesn't matter its 280+ amp models, pristine FX quality AND variety, top notch AD/DA converters and flexible I/O... And on top of that, the awesome support by FAS.

BUUUUT... If it's a paid promotion by the newest, shinniest box in town, roughly a couple hundred bucks cheaper than the Axe, then Glenn loses it and it's the best thing since sliced bread, even though the new box is clearly crippled at launch with whatever Amp & FX missing, faulty PSU, no pc editor, lack of active updates & communication from the company and a plethora of features they promised to be available at launch but aren't there, but... Hey, It's shiny and has a touchscreen!!!

There, I said it. For whatever reason, Glenn has a beef with FAS so any opinion of his is clearly biased. And that's all I'm gonna say to avoid breaking any forum rules.
 
Be careful with Glenn, I like his videos but to be honest he has a dark side when it comes to the AxeFX. And his arguments about it are very biased to other gear, even though he acknowledges there are some good parts to it, I just feel he has a bit of a chip on his shoulder for some reason.
All good though, each to their own, I just wish he would stop making a thing about it.
Him mocking the axe ? Never !
0AB306D8-2FE1-42E4-9619-719F9C858821.jpeg
 
I'm just gonna say this and leave the matter to rest:

For Glenn, the Axe-FX (whatever generation it is) is just a "glorified iPad". It doesn't matter its 280+ amp models, pristine FX quality AND variety, top notch AD/DA converters and flexible I/O... And on top of that, the awesome support by FAS.

BUUUUT... If it's a paid promotion by the newest, shinniest box in town, roughly a couple hundred bucks cheaper than the Axe, then Glenn loses it and it's the best thing since sliced bread, even though the new box is clearly crippled at launch with whatever Amp & FX missing, faulty PSU, no pc editor, lack of active updates & communication from the company and a plethora of features they promised to be available at launch but aren't there, but... Hey, It's shiny and has a touchscreen!!!
Absolutely, the crazy modifier possibilities, unmatched amp tweak-ability, circuit level modelling, ability to get any sound you want with as much control ,having tonnes of options based on different pedals for each type of fx is not impressive, but a thing with foot switches which turn , captures amps not in a definitively better way than Kemper. incomplete fx and poorly modelled amps with 4-5 parameters total(some exceptions), will make axe obsolete.

LMAO

To the op, I don't think there's any issue with axe 's DI, you can try out different things if you want and sell them back later after comparing, as someone above said the signal you input into the Axe will be the same you'll reamp with.
 
I have heard a couple of people say that this is the case, although I interpreted their primary reasoning to be that when using a dedicated DI, you can record the DI track at a hotter level than what the axe FX sends to your DAW. Apparently, this makes you less likely to run into noise issues when reamping if using real amps and a reamp box, but does not apply if reamping with a modeler. I have never tested this myself, so I don't know how true these statements are.
 
Yikes, what I can of worms I opened up. :)

It was Glenn where I saw this comment, and he does come across unnecessarily angry, but 80% of the responses here ignored my actual question and instead went on a tangent about him.

To be clear: I couldn't give a crap what Glenn thinks.

I just want to know how good the Axe FX DI is. I love my Axe, and I am not planning on moving to anything else, I just want to know if the DI signal is good enough, or whether I should buy a dedicated box.

Does anyone have an objective opinion on this? For example, is anyone familiar with any side-by-side comparisons of the dry signal compared to a Radial, Countryman, etc?

I don't want to buy a DI box if I don't need to, and if the objective answer is the DI on the Axe is great, I will be thrilled, but any objective thoughts on this?
 
If you only plan on reamping with the Axe FX itself, using it's own DI input via USB will literally be exactly the same signal, bit for bit, that is fed to the grid when playing straight through it live. There is absolutely nothing to gain by using an external direct box in that case.

Bottom line is if the Axe III's input and converters are good enough for playing through it live, then they also good enough for capturing the DI and reamping.
 
I did give you an objective opinion in my first post. I can track via USB and reamp using the same preset and both tracks will sound the same. If for "better" you mean a beefier, boosted, colored DI then a DI box will be a good option if you like the end result.

I for one can tell that I didn't liked at all the reamping process with the AX8 so I bought a Reamp box and got much better and pleasing results while others still like the straight-from-interface results. If you happen to like tracking with a DI box, then more power to you, but as far as an objective opinion, the DI from the Axe is as 1:1 as can be IMHO.
 
People are answering your question objectively. The point is: Fricker's reasoning makes no sense. The "quality" of the DI recording is measured as the fidelity to the original signal directly from the guitar. What matters for that is the A/D converter. The AxeFX converters are excellent quality. For reamping purposes, the last thing you want is an extra device in the signal chain mucking with that dry signal.
 
The "quality" of the DI recording is measured as the fidelity to the original signal directly from the guitar. What matters for that is the A/D converter. The AxeFX converters are excellent quality.

This is the kind of information I was looking for. Yeah, I want to ideally remove devices from my signal chain, and the idea of a DI box going into an interface seems like a pain in the butt to me. Thanks for the thoughts.
 
Back
Top Bottom