Difficulty deciding between Standard and Ultra

C

Chris Hurley

Power User
Greetings-

I've been looking at options for a home performance a live direct rig for a number of years. Most things come up short and so I end up just playing my homebrew tube amps (plug: ax84.com ). I am still interested in the prospect of being able to run direct at shows (I'm normally mic'd anywway) while being able to rehearse/record/etc... at home while the family is asleep.

Enter the Axe-FX which seems to offer a lot of potential as you folks have all discovered. The effects layout seems quite flexible and tweaks can be done on the device itself without having to fire up a PC or use a mouse to fiddle with little teeny pictures of knobs. Having the ability to use a PC to make edits when convenient is definitely a plus, but there are plenty of times that I'd prefer to just walk up, turn it on, plug in and play, tweaking as necessary.

So I've mostly reconciled myself to the idea that the Axe-FX deserves an honest look, but I've got to decide about the $500USD extra for the Ultra. I'm not huge into effects, but if I'm going to replace my live rig, I'd likely want to cover the basics. I hate to shoot myself in the foot to save $500USD, but thats money that could go towards a controller or playback solution.

Does the Standard run out of CPU significantly faster than the Ultra? 20% faster CPU doesn't sound like a lot to me, but I recognize that there are effects in the Ultra that I might want someday. I think I've read that if one wants reverb along with their amp and cab simulation that the Ultra is the way to go, but I could be misremembering.

Just trying to decide if the Standard is enough Axe for me... Does anyone care to offer any guidance or discussion on the matter?

Best regards,

Chris Hurley
 
I've had my Axe-FX for a week now and I too debated between the Standard and Ultra. I had the money to get either but I didn't want to spend money I didn't need to.

What it came down to for me was I read posts here from folks who bought Standards then later decided they wanted the Ultra. I don't recall there being any posts where they opposite was true.

I also considered that when other folks posted their own user patches, if I had an Ultra I would never have to worry about being able to use them.

Finally, I figured if I was going to spend $1500, spending another $500 to get the ability to do anything I might ever want to (with the processor) was worth the peace of mind.
 
In case you haven't seen it yet, here's the feature comparison page on the Wiki...
http://axefxwiki.guitarlogic.org/index. ... comparison

From reading your post, I think you'd be good with a Standard, but it would be a good idea to read through the comparison and make sure there isn't anything you feel you'd be missing. For example, Mr. Scott Peterson, a fellow forum member, finally (after about two years) went for the Ultra after reading about the things the multi-band compressor could do.

If you're inclined to run a dual-amp setup, there's more reason to go for an Ultra. If you'll only be using a single amp sim in a patch, you probably won't have any issues. The amp, cab, and reverb blocks probably use the most CPU.

How extensive is your current live rig that you're looking to replace?
 
If your going FRFR and want multiple amps and/or cabs - or if you need the FX that only the Ultra can do (like the mega tap delay) then you need the Ultra really.

If on teh other hand you only want single amps/cabs - or no cabs at all (ie using a power amp and guitar cab) then IMO the Standard is fine.

i have several patches using the latter method. All have a compressor, wah, 2 drives, and amp, reverb, delay, flanger/chorus/phaser, rotory/tram and an EQ. I also have 2 drive levels on each amp. I then toggle the FX and drive level using IA switches. My patches are generally running at 76% -82%

On my main 5 patches I also have cabs (that I disable for live use and enable for recording) and one of those has dual cab/mics on the one amp. Thats running at 92%.

I have also atempted a dual amp rig that ran in the 90s too.

If your not an FX junky but want basics - like reverb, delays, choruses and Wahs - with maybe another FX or too (like I am) the Ultra is more than adequate. Especially if its for a live rig that will use a PA and guitar cab.
 
godprobe said:
How extensive is your current live rig that you're looking to replace?
Click to expand...

The live rig is pretty simple- just a single channel amp with an EQ for cleaning up, a clean boost pedal for leads and a phaser. No delay/reverb at this point.

If I was going to use an axe-fx live, I'd most likely want to run direct, so I'm going to need the cab sims. For home use, I'd likely need reverb to make up for using headphones sometimes.

I know I could always sell the Standard and buy an Ultra later, but turnarounds like that cost money too.

I appreciate the comments...
 
Chris Hurley said:
Does the Standard run out of CPU significantly faster than the Ultra? 20% faster CPU doesn't sound like a lot to me, but I recognize that there are effects in the Ultra that I might want someday. I think I've read that if one wants reverb along with their amp and cab simulation that the Ultra is the way to go, but I could be misremembering.
Click to expand...

Compressor + drive + amp + chorus + cab + delay + reverb is not a problem on a Standard. You can do some truly freaky FX-laden sounds before you (or the Axe) even break a sweat.

However, a couple of notes:

You might want to consider that a dual amp - dual cab patch (assuming you would want to make some) will take something like 70-80% of the standard's CPU. In this situation, the Ultra will have in the order of 50% more CPU to spare, which is very significant when building complex sounds. (You still have enough CPU on the standard for some drive, reverb, delay etc. even with two amps.)

Secondly, you should note that the Standard's memory is close to maxed out and any completely new type of FX that might be added in the future will very probably be for the Ultra exclusively for that reason.

I own a Standard and love it, but had the Ultra been available back when I got my Axe, I would've gotten that and not looked back.
 
Beefcake said:
Chris Hurley said:
You might want to consider that a dual amp - dual cab patch (assuming you would want to make some) will take something like 70-80% of the standard's CPU. In this situation, the Ultra will have in the order of 50% more CPU to spare, which is very significant when building complex sounds. (You still have enough CPU on the standard for some drive, reverb, delay etc. even with two amps.)
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

That is surprising to hear, since the Ultra is only said to have 20% more CPU to begin with.
 
People are only going to find more ways to push the Ultra to its limits...investing the extra now will give you room to grow in the future.

Look at it this way...if you buy a standard and later want the Ultra you'll have to sell the standard for less than what you paid and then pay full price for the Ultra...given inflation and other market forces the Ultra will only go up in price if it changes at all.

I had to make the same decision and am glad I opted for the ultra.
 
From someone who purchased the Standard 2 years ago and then upgraded to the Ultra... here is my advice:

It's very simple.
You know yourself better then anybody else, so be honest with yourself.

Are you the type of person who "must have the best"?... and you wont be 100% happy until you get the best?

Or... are you the person who can compromise and still be happy.
If you can compromise then you will be very happy with the Standard.


Here is my real life "event".
I wanted to build a dual amp setup.
1 Drive block
2 amps
2 cabinets
and... 2 reverbs for that "true stereo reverb" setup.... but wait a minute my standard
is cutting in and out and the display is complaining "CPU OVERLOAD!"
At this point I should have compromised and use just one reverb.
After all what's the big deal?

... but I really wanted to hear that "true stereo reverb" setup... so I ordered an Ultra.

;)
 
Chris Hurley said:
...I recognize that there are effects in the Ultra that I might want someday...
Click to expand...
IMO this says enough to warrant the Ultra.

I had the Standard for over two years with that thought in my head...finally took the hit (albeit not too bad) selling it so I could get an Ultra...VERY HAPPY :D :D :D now :!:
 
I figured if I'm truly going to replace my gear and I'm already spending $1500 on a standard, I might as well spend the extra $500 for added flexibility. So far, nothing I've done (only a month in) is complex enough to warrant the Ultra, but I'm happy I got it. I'm the kind of guy that would buy the standard and for years wonder if I'm "missing something". My wife even said, "the peace of mind is worth the extra $500. Just get the big one."

Also, I've shown this unit to almost every musician I know (including a guitarshop owner) and every single one of them has the same reaction after a few presets changes; a look of disbelief and a small giggle.
 
I'd convinced myself that the Standard would be more than sufficient and I've been shopping for one recently. After doing a lot more reading here and in related threads over at TGP I've decided that I'll wait until I can afford to get the Ultra. I'm sure that I have no practical use for the few effects that are unique to the Ultra, not at this time anyway. I would most certainly like to have the ability to use a dual amp / dual cab configuration and have processing power available for effects. With this thought the Ultra seems to be the appropriate choice.

My objective is to replace my conventional guitar amplifier, processor, and pedal board rig with an Axe-FX / FRFR / MIDI controller rig. I'm not gigging and I only need the FRFR for occasional jam sessions and monitoring / reference in my home studio. I didn't cut any corners when assembling my conventional rig and I know I shouldn't cut corners assembling the Axe-FX rig. I'll hold out until I have the coin for the Ultra.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom