From Line 6 Helix, upgrade to Ultra or II?

drewiawesome14

New Member
So I recently had an HX Stomp, which is basically just a smaller helix and really liked it, but ended up returning it as it still wasn’t cutting it.

I’ve always wanted an Axe Fx and I wanted to know if it’s worth getting the Ultra or if I should really spend the extra cash to grab a II. Can I use my own cab IRs in the Ultra as well? Because that’ll determine most of my decision.

I’ve been seeing ultras going for 6-700 and II’s going for 1100-1200 so that’s why I’m in the situation I’m in.

what would you guys recommend?
 
If you plan on doing editing with your computer and can afford it, definitely go with the II. The ultra requires a separate MIDI/USB interface to use Axe-Edit, and the latest version of Axe-Edit is indefinitely in “beta”. The II has a USB port, which allows easy editing of presets and recording and playback of audio over the USB connection.

Don’t get me wrong; the Ultra is a mean machine. It’s still an absolute killer amp modeler and FX unit. You can get the editing to work over MIDI too, but it’s more finicky.

That’s the sole reason I upgraded to the II from the Ultra a few years ago.
 
If you plan on doing editing with your computer and can afford it, definitely go with the II. The ultra requires a separate MIDI/USB interface to use Axe-Edit, and the latest version of Axe-Edit is indefinitely in “beta”. The II has a USB port, which allows easy editing of presets and recording and playback of audio over the USB connection.

Don’t get me wrong; the Ultra is a mean machine. It’s still an absolute killer amp modeler and FX unit. You can get the editing to work over MIDI too, but it’s more finicky.

That’s the sole reason I upgraded to the II from the Ultra a few years ago.

So you upgraded from the ultra to the II because it was easier to edit over computer with? Not because of sound wise? Because a lot of the ultras I see for sale actually come with a midi/USB interface
 
So I recently had an HX Stomp, which is basically just a smaller helix and really liked it, but ended up returning it as it still wasn’t cutting it.

I’ve always wanted an Axe Fx and I wanted to know if it’s worth getting the Ultra or if I should really spend the extra cash to grab a II. Can I use my own cab IRs in the Ultra as well? Because that’ll determine most of my decision.

I’ve been seeing ultras going for 6-700 and II’s going for 1100-1200 so that’s why I’m in the situation I’m in.

what would you guys recommend?

I would spend the extra and get a II ( could also opt for an AX8 also for probably $1000 or so..)
 
Definitely the II. It sounds fantastic! The difference between the Ultra and the II is also a lot bigger than between the II and the III (for now). So I'd say you get the most for your money with the II. I personally have the first version of the II and it's a great machine. Those sell a lot cheaper than e.g. the XLs. So that would be my recommendation.
 
as you asked for an opinion :) If I were to "upgrade", I'd go for the most capable hardware.
The FX II has some of the leading-edge "Ares" modeling from the III back-ported (for which I as a European buyer at price peak who spent close to $3k after VAT am really grateful. You get much more bang for the buck nowadays if you can steal one used... tubes wear out, algorithms don't).

I've got the HX stomp myself, bought it for traveling and it's earning miles (the size is really convenient, also at home). What you'll probably notice first when you take the Axe out of the box with presets is that it's much less shy to show its amps at moderate drive, the transition from distortion to clean where the sound breaks up.

Now I'm neither an expert guitar player nor a gear snob: To me, the Hx stomp tends to sound more processed (not in a bad way), the Axe is the new amp you just unboxed. It's less desperate to sound great in the shop (AFAIK they aren't even sold in stores, probably no coincidence), so you need to spend time with it.

For example, take the "Citrus" (Orange) patch. It's actually dual cab, and the "Wow!" factor for casual testing would increase quite a bit if they'd just pan the cabs slightly left and right. But if this were done in the presets, it would be much harder to clean up the sound later so it's perfectly logical the way it is.
 
Last edited:
If you can grab the II, good clean and breakup sounds are much easier and faster to obtain on the II than on the Ultra.
 
Forget about the Gen 1 Axe, get the Axe II (or a Axe III of course!), much better and more amp models, much better and more FX, much more CPU, Scenes (huge advantage!), and the better Editor etc, there you go!
 
So you upgraded from the ultra to the II because it was easier to edit over computer with? Not because of sound wise? Because a lot of the ultras I see for sale actually come with a midi/USB interface
Yep, that was the reason that pushed me to upgrade. Don’t get me wrong, the fact that the II was many firmware versions ahead of the Ultra and was still receiving updates didn’t hurt either! The II doesn’t have that much more DSP processing power than the Ultra (at least my presets used a similar amount of CPU when I switched), but the II definitely sounds better, amp modeling-wise.
 
Yep, that was the reason that pushed me to upgrade.
My main reason were scenes. I still consider scenes the most important feature that was added to the AxeFX ecosystem. The second reason was the builtin sound card, which includes the reason you mentioned.

The II doesn’t have that much more DSP processing power than the Ultra
It has twice the power! But that doesn't mean it can run twice as many effects etc. One core is for amps only, the second does the rest. All effects were updated, so they most likely required more processing power. This can lead to comparable percentage, but still, it has twice the power!
 
My main reason were scenes. I still consider scenes the most important feature that was added to the AxeFX ecosystem. The second reason was the builtin sound card, which includes the reason you mentioned.


It has twice the power! But that doesn't mean it can run twice as many effects etc. One core is for amps only, the second does the rest. All effects were updated, so they most likely required more processing power. This can lead to comparable percentage, but still, it has twice the power!

Correct, and if using the Ultra and you wanted gap-less switching of complex FX chains with sustain over FX changes, then you had to use multiple FX FX block instances and other FX blocks to enable/disable the various chains etc (VOL/PAN or PEQ etc, all of which decimated the available CPU), and with the Axe II or better all that is taken care of simply and easily via Scenes and A/B switching (so in reality the Axe II's double the CPU goes infinitely farther in the real world vs the Ultra's if using complex FX chains).

Axe II's are getting cheap now, so there's no reason to downgrade to a Ultra unless you desire the Ultra's amp models, and only use minimal FX, in which case the Ultra still sounds as good as the day the last firmware release was was installed.
 
Correct, and if using the Ultra and you wanted gap-less switching of complex FX chains with sustain over FX changes, then you had to use multiple FX FX block instances and other FX blocks to enable/disable the various chains etc (VOL/PAN or PEQ etc, all of which decimated the available CPU)
This can be avoided with a midi controller that can send bypass commands based on profiles. I've done this :) That way I have 20 scenes on the Ultra :p (that number could be bigger, it's only limited by the amount of memory of the Arduino I used for the thing)
 
I had both units at the same time and had about a year to compare. They both sound amazing. That being said, I would choose the II all day long over the Ultra. The II sounds are worlds above plus it has scenes and a stable version of Axe edit.
 
Back
Top Bottom