Axe-FX III vs. Axe-FX II XL+

Status
Not open for further replies.
JH-2

JH-2

Inspired
Hi,

I've had an Axe-FX III since last week and I've been comparing it to my Axe-FX II XL+, It sounds completely different. The character of my Axe-FX II XL+ is more natural and doesn't sound as hollow as the III. I'm really surprised.

Does anyone else have this same perception?
 
Hi mr_fender,

Yes, I used the same settings, and the result was something I honestly didn't expect. I noticed the modeling had changed, but I didn't expect the Axe-FX III to sound less natural. Something has been lost in the modeling, that much is clear. They've probably improved many things, but the Axe-FX II XL+ sounds more like a natural amplifier.

I've come to a very clear conclusion from all this: power isn't important for getting a good guitar sound (without considering effects).

My Axe FX II XL+ preset is much more precise, natural and punchier, the Axe FX III sounds more hollow, less natural and is further away.
 
mr_fender said:
It's totally subjective with your expectations. I know quite a few folks here would disagree quite readily with you. I've never been more satisfied with my tones, including when I ran actual tube amps.
Click to expand...
I agree with you. Many people here will disagree, but to draw a clear conclusion, you need an Axe-FX XL+ and make a real comparison. I've done it, and the result is very clear: five musicians and two sound engineers all agreed.

I was surprised by how different they sound.
 
mr_fender said:
Different they do sound. I do have a II XL that I used for years before upgrading. I've done lots of side by side comparison. I always choose the III.
Click to expand...
I wish I could say that, but no, the Axe FX XL+ sounds much more natural with my preset.
 
JH-2 said:
Hi,

I've had an Axe-FX III since last week and I've been comparing it to my Axe-FX II XL+, It sounds completely different. The character of my Axe-FX II XL+ is more natural and doesn't sound as hollow as the III. I'm really surprised.

Does anyone else have this same perception?
Click to expand...
I'm struggling with the same "transition" difficulties. I wouldn't say that the III doesn't sound natural, but I've had my II XL for soooo long that it's perfectly tweaked for my guitar, my playing, and the sounds I'm aiming for. I was at 99.8% of my target, much better than just "good enough".

Now, I've had the III for two full weeks (on vacation so lots of tweaking time), and I've been struggling trying to recreate my sounds on the III. I play in a cover band, one preset per song, many songs, but dialed in to perfection on the II. After two full weeks of recapture on the III, I have 10 presets done (or so I thought), but when going back to the II they sound a lot better. A whole lot. When tweaking in isolation on the III, it sounds great and I can convince myself I've reached the goal, but it gets crushed when the II delivers an order of magnitude better.

I will be patient, however, and I know once it's kicked in, I will have a nice long fruitful relationship with the III. I'm just a bit shocked that it's so difficult (and having a pleasant realization that the II was "there" in all its glory).

So, JH-2, don't despair. It took you a long time to get "there" with the II, and will also take a long time with the III
 
Dpoirier said:
I'm struggling with the same "transition" difficulties. I wouldn't say that the III doesn't sound natural, but I've had my II XL for soooo long that it's perfectly tweaked for my guitar, my playing, and the sounds I'm aiming for. I was at 99.8% of my target, much better than just "good enough".

Now, I've had the III for two full weeks (on vacation so lots of tweaking time), and I've been struggling trying to recreate my sounds on the III. I play in a cover band, one preset per song, many songs, but dialed in to perfection on the II. After two full weeks of recapture on the III, I have 10 presets done (or so I thought), but when going back to the II they sound a lot better. A whole lot. When tweaking in isolation on the III, it sounds great and I can convince myself I've reached the goal, but it gets crushed when the II delivers an order of magnitude better.

I will be patient, however, and I know once it's kicked in, I will have a nice long fruitful relationship with the III. I'm just a bit shocked that it's so difficult (and having a pleasant realization that the II was "there" in all its glory).

So, JH-2, don't despair. It took you a long time to get "there" with the II, and will also take a long time with the III
Click to expand...
A very coherent conclusion, everything you've said.

I didn't say the Axe-FX III doesn't sound natural; sorry if I didn't explain myself well. I'm saying that my presets sound much more natural with the Axe-FX II XL+. The modeling improved some things but lost others, that's obvious.

Apparently, you can't have an opinion different from Fractal's here. Back in the day, you couldn't ask for a color screen; now you can't ask for a bigger screen or a touchscreen...

I love Fractal, let's make that clear. I've owned other brands and sold them.
 
You should use whatever suits you. Attacking those who disagree with you doesn't make you right.

The modeling in the III is a decade more advanced than the II. Whether that sounds better or worse is subjective. What isn't subjective is that the modeling sounds and measures far closer to a tube amp and that is the primary intent.
 
My initial impression was the same although the Axe III was my first fractal product. You need some woodshedding time is all like you probaby did with the II. Always use and trust your own ears vs pre conceived settings for best results. This was my biggest problem starting out with the III. I use an '83 strat elite and it is a very quirky but amazing guitar. I will not get the same sound as alot of other users and have to tweak a patch to get it to my liking. Good luck on your Axe III journey
 
I currently have Ax3 and Ax2 - They sound different as expected, but I have the opposite perception to the OP: To my ears/hands, Ax3 is miles ahead in terms of tone and feel. After the dozens of widely praised material advancements in modelling that have been implemented on Ax3 since Ax2 was discontinued 7-8y ago, I'd really have to do some serious soul (and ear) searching if I still thought Ax2 sounded/felt better (+ if I was going to suggest here, after all those improvements, that Ax3 sounds: "less natural", "hollow", "less precise", "missing something", I hope I'd bring along some harder evidence to share + support my position, than just indicating I'd compared them and some people I know agreed). But apart from "opinion", there are differences that are less prone to subjectivity - mainly the improvement in how the Ax3 amp models interact with surrounding Fx, particularly Drives, and improvement in how the Ax3 amp models react to adjustments to the amp model controls - this interactivity is objectively better - I really can't fathom how one could prefer Ax2 over Ax3 from an amp/fx interactivity standpoint, but, to each their own as they say.

Edit: Side Note - amazes me how many cited amp comparisions, whether modelled or physical, seem only based on A/B sound comparision without any mention of how one option performs compared to the other wrt how the device interacts with other devices connected to it, and/or how it interacts to changes in it's controlls. Maybe I'm an oddball on this, but to me, the differences in interactivity with surrounding FX, and reactivity to control changes are as, or more, important than the simple A/B tone differences - yet many seem to base their whole device preferences on just the latter. I'm always dissappointed in any amp/amp model demo that does not include, as part of the review, sticking a pedal or two (Drive, Comp, Vibe ...) in front so I can hear what the amp / amp model does in response.
 
Last edited:
JH-2 said:
A very coherent conclusion, everything you've said.

I didn't say the Axe-FX III doesn't sound natural; sorry if I didn't explain myself well. I'm saying that my presets sound much more natural with the Axe-FX II XL+. The modeling improved some things but lost others, that's obvious.

Apparently, you can't have an opinion different from Fractal's here. Back in the day, you couldn't ask for a color screen; now you can't ask for a bigger screen or a touchscreen...

I love Fractal, let's make that clear. I've owned other brands and sold them.
Click to expand...

Sorry, not trying to rain on your parade. If you prefer the sound of the II, that's totally cool. Use whatever works best for you. The II is a great unit and I enjoyed mine for years. My point is to give the III adequate time and dialing practice before making a judgement. Comparing the same settings on both units will not give you the best results. You're not going to be able to just port your II's settings to the III and have them sound the same. Too much has changed in the modeling. That might work with some of the effects, but the amps are quite a bit different. Best bet is to reset the amp block back to defaults and then tweak from scratch there. Don't forget to revisit cab choices too. If your IR choices were made based on the II's modeling, those same IR's may or may not work as well on the III. The speaker impedance curves and related settings in particular can make a big difference on the III's amps. Give DynaCabs on the III a shot as well.

It can be tough when you've got a bunch a tones dialed in to your liking on the II, to make them translate exactly on the III since so much has been updated. For me at least, I usually had to do a number of tweaks to help control the low end on the II's amps. With the III, I don't need any of those tweaks and the low end sounds much more like I expect from the real amps.
 
I got my Axe FX III in 2021 after using the Axe FX II XL+ for a few years live. It was a little jarring at first since it was different from what I was used to. Just trying to replicate my preset from the II gave me a worse sound (which makes sense because it was tuned on the II, not the III, duh). I'm sure the difference is even more now with all the improvements and changes that have been added. What I will say is that the III sounds much better and more "natural" to me once I made presets on it without using the II as a reference.

The III is still my favorite musical purchase of all time. If I never bought one, I might have just stuck with the FM9T for the price, but the rack form factor actually works well for me. The only downside is the extra cost of the more powerful unit AND an FC foot controller.
 
The 2 sounds better because it is vintage .

Joke appart, no audio somewhere ?

I owned the 2 in the past but dont remember how it sounds

It can be that you have too much your old tone in mind now . If it is perfect don’t go on the 3. Personally i won’t go back
 
Each to their own - if you prefer the Axe FX II, then use it and be happy.

For me, the Axe FX III is head and shoulders above its predecessors (and I've owned each generation).

However, to simply input your old settings into a new device and say that it doesn't sound the same is a bit like putting petrol into an electric car and making the same remark.
 
mr_fender said:
Sorry, not trying to rain on your parade. If you prefer the sound of the II, that's totally cool. Use whatever works best for you. The II is a great unit and I enjoyed mine for years. My point is to give the III adequate time and dialing practice before making a judgement. Comparing the same settings on both units will not give you the best results. You're not going to be able to just port your II's settings to the III and have them sound the same. Too much has changed in the modeling. That might work with some of the effects, but the amps are quite a bit different. Best bet is to reset the amp block back to defaults and then tweak from scratch there. Don't forget to revisit cab choices too. If your IR choices were made based on the II's modeling, those same IR's may or may not work as well on the III. The speaker impedance curves and related settings in particular can make a big difference on the III's amps. Give DynaCabs on the III a shot as well.

It can be tough when you've got a bunch a tones dialed in to your liking on the II, to make them translate exactly on the III since so much has been updated. For me at least, I usually had to do a number of tweaks to help control the low end on the II's amps. With the III, I don't need any of those tweaks and the low end sounds much more like I expect from the real amps.
Click to expand...
I don't know how far along the model is, but this could happen with the new unit too...

The bass on the Axe-FX III is very different, that's true.

I'll do that, forget about what I have and see if I can surpass the presets on my Axe-FX II XL+ with other settings; there's no other way.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom