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).
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.It's "more realer", of course.
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.
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.
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.