Axe II vs Kemper for this tone...which is better

Hey thanks guys. Yeah I have read that the newer updates to the Axe II make it much more plug and play and user friendly and the factory presets are much much improved. I was just thinking how awesome it would be to have hundreds and hundreds of similar quality presets available, although I am sure from my reading that the Axe now is very easy to tweak now to find the tones one is looking for...I guess I am just a bit lazy. It's good to know about Fremen's presets. I didn't know anyone was doing this sort of thing for the Axe and seemed a bit surprising.
 
AdamCook said:
I personally think the only issue with our presets versus 3rd party expensive profiles is marketing. People pay money for those amp preset or profile packs and some artist or producer has been paid to tell you how wonderful they are so they must be the best thing since sliced bread, right?

However, factory presets everybody is conditioned to think they suck because everybody knows factory presets have sucked since they got their Digitech GSP-21 in 1989, right?

A huge chunk of our artists use factory presets or slightly modified variants. They sound amazing. A lot of them are very close to default amp settings with a complementary cab block. Nothing fancy.
Click to expand...

Yes I know that the new factory presets on the Axe II are pretty stellar from what I have heard and read and I think the Axe is the exception here. Most modelers that I have tried and use do have pretty horrible factory presets, like the Eleven rack i presently own. Also even though the factory presets are excellent like with the Axe II, its just the quantity of factory presets is never near the quantity of what the 3rd parties can offer and that is what I was thinking.
 
FractalAudio said:
Floating-point processors will sound different than fixed-point. With fixed-point you run into problems with finite word-length effects more easily than floating-point processors, especially if you are oversampling. The more you oversample, the more word-length you need. The Axe-Fx II uses 40-bit math in the amp modeling for this reason. Regular SHARCs can only do 32-bit math and Motorola DSPs are only 24 bits.
Click to expand...

Does this mean the AX8, which uses a regular SHARC (correct me if that's incorrect), uses 32 bit math, and thus differs from the AxeFX II? If so, is that difference audible?
 
the kemper thing does not work for me...i tried to have an affair with it but cost me money,time and nerves...just like with the line 6 affair...It s only my opinion on this matter.!
plus ,I need to be inspired by the "look" the way she moves,the way she talk..you know what i mean..the way kemper looks..its very uninspirational for me..
I had enough of this kemper ...
 
yek said:
No. There's no difference in sound quality.
Click to expand...

Thanks. That's rather confusing though. Cliff points out the longer word length on the TigerSharc permits better oversampling when compared to Sharc, which is found on lesser priced devices like the Helix and AX8. But if you're saying the better oversampling does not sound better, why did he describe it as an advantage to the Axe FX II over lesser priced devices?
 
You worry too much. :)
The AX8 sounds identical to the Axe-Fx II.
 
yek said:
You worry too much. :)
The AX8 sounds identical to the Axe-Fx II.
Click to expand...
Yes... There is so much hand wringing on internet gear forums. ;) If you need someone else to tell you whether two things sound different; they don't.
 
Don't get me wrong, I'm not complaining :). I rather like the idea that my Axe FX II sounds better than anything else. But, how could 32 bit word lengths possibly produce the same result as 40 bit word lengths? The precision is manifestly different and will produce different results from arithmetic operations.

Only one of these can be true, but not both:
a) The AX8 sounds the same as the Axe FX II, or
b) going to the trouble of using 40 bit word lengths in the Axe FX II produces better audible results than could have been achieved with 32 bit.
 
virgil said:
the kemper thing does not work for me...i tried to have an affair with it but cost me money,time and nerves...just like with the line 6 affair...It s only my opinion on this matter.!
plus ,I need to be inspired by the "look" the way she moves,the way she talk..you know what i mean..the way kemper looks..its very uninspirational for me..
I had enough of this kemper ...
Click to expand...

Lol the way the Kemper looks isn't a reason to hate on it . Actually it has a good user interface and most people like the looks.
The unbiased truth is both sound great and will do the job but the Axe FX effects are more expansive. Also for me the clincher was that after selling my absolutely shit Line 6 Helix (OK one amp the Marshall is good with a ribbon mic but the rest are rubbish) I was going to buy a used Kemper (there are a lot around) but when after I complained I couldn't PM anyone on the forum and was told that I wouldn't be able to do that until I was a registered owner of a Kemper I made a side comment to a guy I knew saying the Nazis wouldn't let me PM anyone they banned me! Then abused me publicly when I could not respond because of the ban! Those Germans are just insane.... it's common international usuage to call someone a Nazi who is inflexible and they reckon I was dragging up World War II. Fuck that I am going Fractal!
 
Malvolio said:
Don't get me wrong, I'm not complaining :). I rather like the idea that my Axe FX II sounds better than anything else. But, how could 32 bit word lengths possibly produce the same result as 40 bit word lengths? The precision is manifestly different and will produce different results from arithmetic operations.

Only one of these can be true, but not both:
a) The AX8 sounds the same as the Axe FX II, or
b) going to the trouble of using 40 bit word lengths in the Axe FX II produces better audible results than could have been achieved with 32 bit.
Click to expand...

The SHARC processors in the AX-8 support 40-bit word lengths and we use them just as we do in the Axe-Fx II.
 
Malvolio said:
Thanks for the clarification.
Click to expand...

From the Analog Devices website: "These newest members of the SHARC Processor family are based on a single-instruction, multiple-data (SIMD) core, which supports both 32-bit fixed-point and 32-/40-bit floating-point arithmetic formats making them particularly suitable for high-performance audio applications."
 
One Motorola fixed point: $12
Two TigerSHARC floating point: $600
Cliff Chase's mind: Priceless

Despite what Apple has been telling you, computers are about software, not hardware. It's like guitars: Do you want to hear Robben Ford playing a $100 Squier, or me playing a $3000 Suhr? Good choice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom