• We would like to remind our members that this is a privately owned, run and supported forum. You are here at the invitation and discretion of the owners. As such, rules and standards of conduct will be applied that help keep this forum functioning as the owners desire. These include, but are not limited to, removing content and even access to the forum.

    Please give yourself a refresher on the forum rules you agreed to follow when you signed up.

Does it sound better than the Axe Fx 2 XL+?

Ripley

New Member
If it does, please explain the tonal difference, and what has been improved (in terms of modelling) to achieve this?
 

FreeMind

Power User
The modelling algorithms are more or less the same at the moment, as all the latest updates to modelling went to Axe FX 2 too, but as Cliff mentioned: It does sound a tiny bit better, because of the higher speed, they were allowed to not cut some corners and use 60 bit data instead of 40 bit data.
 

PrototypePD

New Member
"It actually does sound a little better. The extra DSP horsepower means that we didn't have to make compromises in some of the algorithms. The amp modeling algorithm is very similar but there's a few places on the II where we had to make compromises to get the algorithm to run within the allotted time.

Also the III has a higher internal oversampling rate and a higher bit depth on some calculations (64-bit vs. 40-bit). " - Fractal Audio Admin
 

chris

Legend!
that is Cliff himself, creator of the Axe-Fx:

It actually does sound a little better. The extra DSP horsepower means that we didn't have to make compromises in some of the algorithms. The amp modeling algorithm is very similar but there's a few places on the II where we had to make compromises to get the algorithm to run within the allotted time.

Also the III has a higher internal oversampling rate and a higher bit depth on some calculations (64-bit vs. 40-bit).
 

yek

Moderator
Moderator
From the product page:

"Not content with just repackaging our algorithms, almost all our industry-leading effects have been updated to take advantage of the increased processing power."
 

ethomas1013

Power User
It's "more realer", of course. :cool:

Isn't asking how it sounds better in the initial release a little silly considering that this is the platform that will receive improvements moving forward? At some point the II will stop receiving updates, probably sooner than later once the III has been released. Personally, I wouldn't consider purchasing the III based on the tone differences of the initial release. It's the anticipation of future development on a more powerful platform that is the attraction for me.

But it did take the AxeII a few years to really sound significantly better than the old Ultra, at least to my amateur ears. From that perspective, I'm in no hurry to update, but I did get on the waiting list.
 

Pwrmac7600

Power User
It's "more realer", of course. :cool:

Isn't asking how it sounds better in the initial release a little silly considering that this is the platform that will receive improvements moving forward? At some point the II will stop receiving updates, probably sooner than later once the III has been released. Personally, I wouldn't consider purchasing the III based on the tone differences of the initial release. It's the anticipation of future development on a more powerful platform that is the attraction for me.

But it did take the AxeII a few years to really sound significantly better than the old Ultra, at least to my amateur ears. From that perspective, I'm in no hurry to update, but I did get on the waiting list.
see I look at it differently, Cliff has stated that compromises were made in the 2 due to limitations, and with all this new processing power, I have a feeling that advancements will come pretty quickly due to constraints being removed.
 
Last edited:

Strumzilla

Power User
The sound quality has been great for years imo, so I'm more looking forward to greater functionality and speed. And this thing looks like it will have some serious longevity just like the II has had.
 

bke

Inspired
i kinda hate the rabbit hole IR searching can bring you into, as its generally accepted that the CAB part is a large part of the overall tone id love to know what ingenious develops may be possible in that area beyond what has already been announced. assumption on my part that going much beyond IR's was a hardware limitation on the Axe2
 

Andromalius

Inspired
To be honest, the big selling point for me is not the tone: the Axe II is weeeeeeeeell enough for me. The selling point is the added I/O ans ESPECIALLY the 8 way USB. You likely can find one of my older posts asking for just that when the axe II was released and I found dialing a tone in the mix couldn't be done without using an external sound card
 

sprint

Power User
Looking forward to getting feedback on the feel. Given the change in processors, is this not a much more significant change than the Ultra to Axe 2? Sound samples will come out which we can evaluate easily, but, the feel, which as I understand can be shaped somewhat by the speed/character of processor is something we can only know through verbal commentary without playing the unit directly - but just as important to me.
 

FractalAudio

Administrator
Fractal Audio Systems
Moderator
Looking forward to getting feedback on the feel. Given the change in processors, is this not a much more significant change than the Ultra to Axe 2? Sound samples will come out which we can evaluate easily, but, the feel, which as I understand can be shaped somewhat by the speed/character of processor is something we can only know through verbal commentary without playing the unit directly - but just as important to me.
Feel has nothing to do with the "speed/character" of a processor. Processors just do math. Feel is all about the algorithms.
 

Lkdog

Experienced
It appears at this point that the platform change establishes a major leap forward in functional options for the user.
I think many users, especially power users, will love this and this is a logical area for product development.

To be completely honest- the AXE FX II platform has sounded state of the art for quite some time, and the feel has improved dramatically over time, so it is hard to imagine how these core elements would be improved in a significant way.
Will wait to hear and see how it evolves.

I am sure there will be users comparing side by side and there will be an ongoing debate discussing if the AXE III sounds better.
No question it has way more power and functionality and that is worth it to many many people.

Having said that, the used market is now indicating that a used XL or XL+ is around 1300 or 1400 for now (still pretty solid for digital gear), so one would need to feel it is worth $1000 for the extra functions.
 
Last edited:

greiswig

Power User
To be completely honest- the AXE FX II platform has sounded state of the art for quite some time, and the feel has improved dramatically over time, so it is hard to imagine how these core elements would be improved in a significant way.
I’ve owned a Mk2 for a long time now. With pretty much every firmware release, I have heard the choir singing the “it can’t get any better” chorus, while those of us who tried to say “something seems a little off” were shouted down. Then, sure enough, a later firmware release addressed something that improved on what some of us heard as “off.”

I think 9.04 is the best sounding and feeling firmware to date, but I don’t really think nirvana has been achieved for every available amp. I suspect Cliff and crew have some room to grow yet in terms of quality of the algorithms.
 

Robboman

Fractal Fanatic
It will be interesting. It is hard to imagine how much better it could get. If there is a virtual finish line in the race to perfect accuracy for amp modelling, it seems like we must be right on top of it with Quantum 9.04. Diminishing returns.

But who knows, maybe I'll look back on this comment in a few years and laugh :)
 
Top Bottom