AxeFx Ultra vs G-System

[Jeries]

Here's my completely unbiased perspective:
I've owned the Ultra (now the II) and G-System

What amp do you have/What preamps do you have/use?

You need a good preamp with the gsystem- top notch stuff... and that amp/preamp needs to be the tone you want/all you want 100% of the time....

The axe fx has all kind of amps/preamp sounds---
the G system has no preamps and no distortions (which is GREAT for what it is)
So you need your own GOOD amp and if you want you can plug your own front end ODs/Distortions in the loops.


I had a Gsystem+triaxis+290 power amp- full stereo rig- one of the most expensive rigs you can have-- it felt right/looked good on paper- but in reality it never sounded that great- and didn't feel very natural or good to me- felt too perfect and not raw and real...

If you do what to add great quality effects to your current amps/preamps- a G Major II would do fine-
Technology has caught up so the G Force and G Major II (although $1400 price difference) are fairly equal in quality- and thats according to TC ELEC.

if you have a decent amp but dont have what you want or want something else/better- buy the amp first or buy an axe fx

if you have the greatest amp in the world and only want that amps tone for life- then the g system will work well effect wise...

But overall the two units aren't alike at all...

gystem is just an effects unit made for the 4cable method

the Axe has effects- preamp/cabs and more... full spectrum of guitar tone...

Axe has the edge to an extent because if you have a great amp you can use the axe just as an effects unit OR use the axe just as a preamp and use the amp for a power amp- or bypass the axe's power amp emulators and drive the hell out of your real amp.

 

[Bird]

I've decided to go with the Axe Fx. There are just too many positives. Need to have a bit of a yard sale now. \m/

 

[funny_polymath]

Tried the G System before I bought my uteri way back when. More brittle by far. Not really comparable - the Ultra was so 'organic' sounding in comparison. And the icing on the cake? The external effects send and return on the Ultra are both true stereo, as they bloody well should be! Not so on the G system.

 

[Jeries]

well the g system to me is more studio type effects on guitar - the axe is more guitar effects on guitar

the gsystem was made with the 4 cable method in mind- so thats why there's no stereo sends/returns

although the 5 loops are nice

 

[jon]

the 5 loops and the pedal power is the only thing i miss to be honest
and the lights loved the lights haha

 

[DJD100]

FYI, the Ultra does not have enough preset memory by design, so if you're using it 4CM with an amp sans Amp/Cab Blocks it is possible to run out of preset memory space thereby corrupting your presets and ultimately crashing Axe Edit prior to running out of CPU.

If you use the Amp/Cab Blocks then you will run out of CPU before you run out of preset memory and not see the problem.

So, if you're FX heavy and using external amp(s) 4CM the G-System might be better, though if you're careful the Ultra will still do a lot of FX before running into the problem.

Not sure about the Standard and Axe II with regards to this?

I've decided to go with the Axe Fx. There are just too many positives. Need to have a bit of a yard sale now. \m/

 

[Bird]

Interesting, good to know. I'm planning on running it straight into the computer for now and eventually FRFR with an Atomic Wedge and MFC.

 

[jon]

FYI, the Ultra does not have enough preset memory by design, so if you're using it 4CM with an amp sans Amp/Cab Blocks it is possible to run out of preset memory space thereby corrupting your presets and ultimately crashing Axe Edit prior to running out of CPU.

If you use the Amp/Cab Blocks then you will run out of CPU before you run out of preset memory and not see the problem.

So, if you're FX heavy and using external amp(s) 4CM the G-System might be better, though if you're careful the Ultra will still do a lot of FX before running into the problem.

Not sure about the Standard and Axe II with regards to this?

what??!! where did you get THAT info from?!?! lol
I still have my ultra, and I max it out ALL the time - and I also run dual amps AND cabs - if you exceed the CPU by a significant amount, the ultra will freeze up, but you have to be pushing it - it is the exact same thing with the II - the II just has more memory.
It also did not have 'enough preset memory by design' - it was enough memory for cliff to program - AT THAT TIME - the same way that now the II has enough memory for him to program - he will eventually run out on the II as well, and then the axe II ultra or something will come out - that's just life. Also, 'preset memory' is the exact same as in the II - 383 presets.

If you use the ultra as fx only, it is almost impossible to run out of CPU.

 

[s_m_g]

I was running a G-system with a Peavey 6505 head (4 cable method) a POD 2.0 for cleans (in one of the G-system loops), a couple of different drive pedals and I loved it.

I'd had a couple of decent trials with an Axe Ultra up to then but wasn't sold on it. Then Firmware 10 happened.

Straight away I sold the G-system and 6506 and got me an Ultra, have never looked back since. Was running the Ultra with an Atomic wedge and the MFC controller, have just updated to the Axe II and life just keeps getting better.

The G-system is a nice piece of gear and it gives you great flexibility when using a real amp (or two, or three!) but the Axe Fx gives you so much more. And it is much less gear to carry around!

 

[DJD100]

This is dependent on how things were coded, so it's likely different on all three platforms (Ultra, Standard, II). "My experience only applies to the Ultra" as that's all I have. Preset memory is one thing, code space is another. This problem has been there since Day 1 as far as I was told, and it was not caused by adding additional features via the firmware updates etc. Since I don't use the Amp Blocks often I was hoping to revert to an earlier firmware rev to avoid the issue, but FAS said that wouldn't help.

It simply relates to the number of preset parameters being saved in a patch, and things like the Multi-Delays have lots of params vs the Wah etc, so if you run a lot of high parameter FX that aren't that high on CPU, you find the limits like I have. If you run high CPU FX like the Amp Blocks then you'll run out of CPU before approaching the parameter memory limits. I reported the above to FAS and they confirmed the problem regarding the Ultra, and of course reported it would never be fixed (as it's a design limitation, plus the Ultra has been obsoleted etc).

I asked for additional details regarding static or dynamic parameter memory allocating which would help one avoid the problem, and perhaps the addition of a error to alert one when one hits the problem, but their answer was "no" (they didn't think anyone would use the Ultra like that for maximum FX use, governed only by available CPU etc).

That said, the Ultra still does a lot, though in my case I can only get some 18 FX Blocks plus ADSR, LFO (I needed 21 for a particular patch that uncovered the problem), and that's using only about 80% CPU (though my Ultra is stable up to about 90% CPU, so I'm only losing around 10%, not that big of a deal). The hard thing is when you get near the limit you're not sure which additional Block will cause the problem, so you have to waste time testing things etc, and sometimes it's hard to find which parameters are being corrupted etc.

what??!! where did you get THAT info from?!?! lol
I still have my ultra, and I max it out ALL the time - and I also run dual amps AND cabs - if you exceed the CPU by a significant amount, the ultra will freeze up, but you have to be pushing it - it is the exact same thing with the II - the II just has more memory.
It also did not have 'enough preset memory by design' - it was enough memory for cliff to program - AT THAT TIME - the same way that now the II has enough memory for him to program - he will eventually run out on the II as well, and then the axe II ultra or something will come out - that's just life. Also, 'preset memory' is the exact same as in the II - 383 presets.

If you use the ultra as fx only, it is almost impossible to run out of CPU.

 

[jon]

Well a while ago I posted up LMO's cpu usage chart for the ultra, I almost always run out of CPU, so you can look for that and see if it helps - helped me a LOT

If there are block you aren't using, you can delete them as well - that will free up some cpu. There are a load of other tricks in the wiki that you can use to reduce the load on the cpu as well

 

[DJD100]

It won't...

For every Block there's a number of parameters that need to be stored, likely via static memory allocation (the max number of parameters are allocated per block, regardless of which mode might be in operation and how many are actually in use at runtime), plus each preset has a set memory allocation.

When FAS built the Ultra they chose to not allocate enough preset memory to save the max number of parameters attainable at max CPU, and instead allowed 383 presets rather than a lower number of presets that were properly boundary tested (because they didn't think anyone would want to use the Ultra that way is what I was told?).

So, that's reality, though again, it does a lot prior to hitting this design/qa issue, and you likely won't ever see it if you use the Amp and Cab blocks (as they use a lot of CPU so you'll run out of CPU prior to hitting the parameter memory limits).

Well a while ago I posted up LMO's cpu usage chart for the ultra, I almost always run out of CPU, so you can look for that and see if it helps - helped me a LOT

If there are block you aren't using, you can delete them as well - that will free up some cpu. There are a load of other tricks in the wiki that you can use to reduce the load on the cpu as well

 

[GuitarMan86]

This is a great thread....

I am very new to the forum and am also a current G-system owner. I am currently selling my G to buyt the AxeII (probably pulling the trigger later today). I have been searching around for threads talking about the G etc. I have to agree with most here that the Gsystem (although has some great TC effects) lacks in other areas for me (input circuit recently revised IB edition now out etc; I have the Silver G).
I always had it in the 4 cable method and had some OD pedals in the loops. I realize I will be losing that ability with the AxeII unless I get an effect gizmo etc. But, I was wondering how people like using the AxeII in a 4-cable method? I have a Splawn QR and do not want to give up the tone I get from the amp itself.

 

[AdamCook]

It is EXTREMELY RARE to exceed the maximum preset parameter size limit on the Ultra before exceeding CPU usage. Cliff told me he just heard about somebody doing it for the first time very recently. I'm assuming that person was DJD100. So I don't think it's worth getting too worried about.

 

[DJD100]

I agree as my failed patch was very complex with multiple parallel ambient paths and extensive MIDI/ADSR/LFO control, plus all the normal pre and post tube FX etc. I never approached the problem when using the Ultra for conventional guitar sounds etc.

It is EXTREMELY RARE to exceed the maximum preset parameter size limit on the Ultra before exceeding CPU usage. Cliff told me he just heard about somebody doing it for the first time very recently. I'm assuming that person was DJD100. So I don't think it's worth getting too worried about.

 

[DJD100]

I use the Ultra 4CM with my tube gear, love it.

This is a great thread....

I am very new to the forum and am also a current G-system owner. I am currently selling my G to buyt the AxeII (probably pulling the trigger later today). I have been searching around for threads talking about the G etc. I have to agree with most here that the Gsystem (although has some great TC effects) lacks in other areas for me (input circuit recently revised IB edition now out etc; I have the Silver G).
I always had it in the 4 cable method and had some OD pedals in the loops. I realize I will be losing that ability with the AxeII unless I get an effect gizmo etc. But, I was wondering how people like using the AxeII in a 4-cable method? I have a Splawn QR and do not want to give up the tone I get from the amp itself.

 

[GuitarMan86]

What AMP are you using with the 4 cable method? It is helpful to hear what amps folks are using that play nicely together etc. Are you using any Hum Eliminators? Are you using a Hum Buster cable? Thanks

I use the Ultra 4CM with my tube gear, love it.

 

[DJD100]

I use the Ultra with a custom built RM2 switching or mixing 2 Randal/Egnater MTS tube preamp, along with additional custom tube circuits and a 50W power amp.

No hum problems here so no transformers etc, and my FX Loop is unbuffered (no Cathode Follower buffering), it just happens to work fine?

Many amps are designed like this while others use buffering of some sort, so you just have to try them I guess?

The Ultra has unbalanced I/O for it's FX Loop (In2/Out2), so no "humbuster" cables (which require a balanced connection on one end).

What AMP are you using with the 4 cable method? It is helpful to hear what amps folks are using that play nicely together etc. Are you using any Hum Eliminators? Are you using a Hum Buster cable? Thanks