I am so tired to the Tube Vs Axe FxII debate.

had a jam on friday with some buddies .. he brought his 2x12 marshall box plus jcm2000 50W top with him and i my axe II plus marshall mg250 combo (with 2x12 and 100W solidstate poweramp)

with this combo i was able to edit my tone in seconds just like he did on the real thing .. so axe II with latest firmware through real guitar cab is just as good as the real thing or even better in some situations .. not to mention that i could easily switch for 50+ other amps which all sound perfect when i want ;)
 
Personally I don't understand any guitar player who doesn't want to play a tube amp, I'd play a gorilla SS if it sounded good. Most of the rows I've seen around the net are highly fuelled by fractal blokes, with almost fanatical justification from some of the more excitable members.

I play both and enjoy the variety very much, I doubt i'll ever choose one or the other.
 
Not so much that I don't want to play a tube amp as I don't want to own one any more. For my purposes, the Fractal is a better tool. If it's not for you, that's just a reflection of different preferences and requirements.
 
Lol, why do you even care what others think? Honestly?
If you're happy with the Axe, then does it really matter if others say "tubes are better"?

Why waste time on caring what they think when you can instead rock out with your Axe that you're more than happy with? :)
 
Cron said:
Valid point, but didnt we get improved power amp modelling at v6? (or was it v5)?

I didnt intend to get caught up in any kind of debate here... i havent posted in threads like this in ages. I simply wanted to voice my experiences and let people take away from that what they wanted.

Let me just get this straight... does v7 contain improved dynamics? (preamp or otherwise) or did i grossly misread some of the other threads?
Click to expand...

I got my Axe2 at Version 5.04 so I cannot say anything about what it was like before then.
I don't have anything against Tubes Myself. I just think the Axe2 has More than Satisfied my want to go back to Tube Ever.
With the Right FRFR setup and Straight to the PA (FOH), I have every tone I previously had with my 23 Tube Setup.
I used to run a Digitech GSP2101 and Used a Crazy Y-Cord Routing to a Mesa Boogie Tri-Axis and Marshall JMP-1 into a Peavey Classic 50/50 Tube Power Amp into A Marshall Cab.
I like Marshall and Mesa, so that Setup got me there. (23 Tubes in All...)
But I was missing Fender and Vox.
The Axe2 Gets all that for me and Live or Recording it sounds Fantastic and I think it sounds Amazing.
I am not trying to debate either, Everyones Opinion is their Opinion.
But as a Former Raging Tube Snob, I can say the AxeFX2 as of 5.04 where I started is Amazing.

I run FRFR with QSC K8 Sidewashing the Stage and a QSC K10 for a Floor Monitor and I do not miss the Amp in the Room, this turned up loud is Awesome.
 
What makes me smile is that we essentially have a group of people using outdated technology for amplification purposes, and instead of using the digital medium of the Axe2 as a creative tool in its own right, we're instead comparing and evaluating its success on the back of its similarity to the outdated technology.

The 'dynamic maximum' phrase that I've seen used seems to be similar to the 'digital vs analogue' debate in professional recording circles, where the tape would compress the analogue signal as a quirk of the medium. Then, as digital processing techniques got better and more advanced, we started to design virtual compressors and limiters to mimic this same effect, and this hampered what could be done using digital techniques because we were trying to use new technology to emulate an old one rather than using it to expand sonic possibilities, and even invent new ones. In other words, we were writing 21st century code to mimic 1960's and 1970's devices. I know it's a different thing from the 'dynamic maximum', but the point of using new to emulate old is valid.

It's only relatively recently that new plugins have been developed to manipulate audio, some 15 years after digital became a viable recording medium in the recording industry, and it's only now that we can use digital programming techniques to truly creative effect not possible in the analogue world. In other words, digital came of age 15 years ago. It's only now that we're trusting it with the keys of the house. :)

So, I can't help but feel that the debate of axe vs valve is a little redundant, and that what we perceive as differences are actually our failure to evolve, sonically, given what we know now about acoustic perception. It's all smoke and mirrors, folks, and this is coming from someone who can tell 320kbps mp3s from wav in blind tests.

As a small aside, testing a 1960s amp with original valves isn't doing the amp justice either. They need to be serviced and maintained to maintain their sonic integrity. A set of valves in my old Vox AC50 head would only last a year maximum, and the AC30 about 2 years before I needed to replace them.
 
vAmp said:
If even a tube noob like me can hear it in one visit, I am flabbergasted how all you guys don't even know about that, question it, etc.
And then when an established honest and humble tube sound authority like kerrlehr doesn't get it, I must truly start to question myself... :D
Click to expand...
@ vAmp - Well thank you very much for speaking for me??? - You just gave a sermon to the Pastor son. If you can stop spouting off so much and listen/collaborate a little more, you might actually make a few friends around here. Myself include.. Please, slow down, eat a pop-tart or two and mellow out a little bit here.

I don't only "get it", I actually agree with you (in this case). I more than agree. I love the whole 100% + super tube dynamics experience and enjoy it daily here at my studio. This is core to how I play. I still play my tubes every day and all my evening jams are done on my Suhr Badger, not my AFX-II. In part, for just the reason you describe. You are totally right here. Not knocking my AXE, but my musical being chooses what it most "connects" with, and when I feel inspired to create new music, I often will plug into my Badger before the AFX-II. (Even with both sitting side by side and ready to go) This is personal to me, my choice, and really of no other person's business but my own. I can't let go right now. Just like my guitars, I play different gear just because I want to,.. for whatever reason. AFX included.
So, Why do I agree? Well first off, I have spent a little bit more than a visit to "a vintage amp collector's place" in regard to experiencing quality tube amps. I (like many other here on the board) have previously, or still do own several of the amps modeled in our AXF-II. I totally agree with your brief observation about 100% PLUS. You hit the nail squarely on it's head. This "feel" is the holy grail of a tube amp, and IMHO, it has a very simple explanation. (This is how I understand it as a layman musician) Capacitors store energy pressure - a lot of it. Some Cap's can really pack a bad ass punch. This stored energy, or "current pressure" enables the amp to "Throw out" way more than 100% of it's average, or normal "maximum" current (<- Look there is that word "maximum") by simply releasing this "stored energy pressure". (so much energy is stored in there that it must be discharged way after the amp has been shut down, or it can literally kill you if you make contact). Put this together with a big Mercury (or eq) Tranny and you have some serious power in your fingers. This is what you so accurately describe as 100% plus. Yes when you really dig in, you have a bit of a bank account of stored energy just waiting to jump out. Kind of like how a nail gun can shoot a nail when hose is only feeding it with 90PSI. Pull the trigger, and BAMM!! That is where your sonic pallet of dynamics resides. By perfecting how you vary your picking attack and dynamics, and selectively "digging in" to make a withdrawal from this bank account of stored energy, you can literally make any chord jump out. I cannot see how any device without some type of energy storage source can provide for such 100%+ I am talking 150%+ for a brief "dig in" as you put it. Perhaps that is why some power amps give the AXE so much more feel. So in our digital world, there are a few things which I believe cannot ever happen solely within the domain of the AXE. The ability to Store energy pressure is not something which can take place digitally. There is a 100% max threshold in the digital realm. (Leave it to cliff to shoot that down some day, but that's where it is today) I hear a lot about Matrix SS amps and many guys are running misc. tube Power Amps. (look at most of the endorsers and you will see a lot of tube power going on) It is my guess that the guys who are getting 100%+ from their Axe's (Or any digital source for that matter) are actually utilizing the qualities of both a great pre in their AXF-II's coupled with a great Power Amp.

This is something that will not happen with your head phones.

The Axe-FX II does it's job. Very, very well and then some. But if you really want the total "Tube experience" you may need to stop looking solely at the AFX and direct your attention to the PA section of your rig. We have a concerted assembly consisting of several components which work harmoniously together. Your experience is the result of the whole of these components.

I recently had a dual 6 watt stereo class A stereo tube power amp custom built by Curt Emery of Emerysound. This is something very special for lower volume studio work and I am really enjoying it right now. It is fully tube swappable (which can vary output wattage) and is absolutely musical. I will post a few pics soon.

V <- Peace?? ;)
 
Last edited:
kerrlehr said:
(This is how I understand it as a layman musician) Capacitors store energy pressure - a lot of it. Some Cap's can really pack a bad ass punch. This stored energy, or "current pressure" enables the amp to "Throw out" way more than 100% of it's average, or normal "maximum" current (<- Look there is that word "maximum") by simply releasing this "stored energy pressure". (so much energy is stored in there that it must be discharged way after the amp has been shut down, or it can literally kill you if you make contact). Put this together with a big Mercury (or eq) Tranny and you have some serious power in your fingers. This is what you so accurately describe as 100% plus. Yes when you really dig in, you have a bit of a bank account of stored energy just waiting to jump out. Kind of like how a nail gun can shoot a nail when hose is only feeding it with 90PSI. Pull the trigger, and BAMM!! That is where your sonic pallet of dynamics resides. By perfecting how you vary your picking attack and dynamics, and selectively "digging in" to make a withdrawal from this bank account of stored energy, you can literally make any chord jump out. I cannot see how any device without some type of energy storage source can provide for such 100%+ I am talking 150%+ for a brief "dig in" as you put it. Perhaps that is why some power amps give the AXE so much more feel. So in our digital world, there are a few things which I believe cannot ever happen solely within the domain of the AXE. The ability to Store energy pressure is not something which can take place digitally. There is a 100% max threshold in the digital realm. (Leave it to cliff to shoot that down some day, but that's where it is today) I hear a lot about Matrix SS amps and many guys are running misc. tube Power Amps. (look at most of the endorsers and you will see a lot of tube power going on) It is my guess that the guys who are getting 100%+ from their Axe's (Or any digital source for that matter) are actually utilizing the qualities of both a great pre in their AXF-II's coupled with a great Power Amp.
Click to expand...

Ah! That makes quite a lot of sense. I must do a bit of research when I get a chance.

I take it then that this 'dynamic maximum' is a power amp rather than preamp property? I must admit to not missing it, even on funk and soul playing on cleaner amps.......
 
luke said:
Color me confused. If one is tired of the Axe Fx II vs a tube amp debate, why begin a thread that will obviously become that debate?
Click to expand...
I honestly didn't mean to start a debate. I was just sharing my thoughts,this is a fractal community and which is why I shared it here. I am not going on one million forums and posting the same topic everywhere. My intentions weren't meant to stir up a debate at all :)
 
You rant would be somewhat more in place since v7... ;)

It seems you now have 3 choices:
- wipe the cream off your face (or how do you guys express that exactly? :D)
- claim the Axe is sounding no better than yesterday
- claim the Axe is now considerably better than a tube amp

Hopefully the sound and release notes alone made you realise we were not there "by a long shot."

BTW: I appreciate your positive vibes towards anything Fractal and it helps make it a commercial success.
But it's not what helps to make the Axe great in the first place. That happened from continuous critique from those in the know and thanks to Cliff's own ears and willingness to entertain these critiques.

At first glance, I still don't hear my points of critique being addressed (but it's early) and I'm passed the point that I care (well, at the moment). Too much awesomeness to be sidetracked by this debate now. It's not bad that both are different anyway and that amps can remain and have their place, but as of now, both sure are mega-awesome :)
 
Critiquing is not a bad thing :). But being completely biased is having a problem.
Yes improvements keep happening and it's all good man :). Glad you're liking it :D

Cheers.
 
I think the weakest point with the axe are the cab impulses
A miced cab will always sound better
I wish cliff could integrate Nebula cab emulation technology
Now that would completely own cab impulse because nebula use a vector type of emulation which is always adaptating the code to the input signal while cab impulses are static values ...
 
wizardy said:
I think the weakest point with the axe are the cab impulses
A miced cab will always sound better
I wish cliff could integrate Nebula cab emulation technology
Now that would completely own cab impulse because nebula use a vector type of emulation which is always adaptating the code to the input signal while cab impulses are static values ...
Click to expand...
Can't those be bought separately?
 
immortal_soloist said:
Can't those be bought separately?
Click to expand...

You must use Nebula Vector special program to run the cab emulation and other effects they offer.
http://www.acustica-audio.com/
I'M not sure if it's possible to integrate their technology in the Axe-FX but everytime I compare a normal cab impulse with one made Nebula program, the Nebula one always sound the best to me.
Instead of just static snapshots of an EQ curve, or linear reverb decay, imagine the impulses including distortion, harmonics, variation depending on input etc. This is what Nebula does. It attempts to simulate analogue gear with the utmost attention to detail paid to the recreation.

Here's a nice post comparing Nebula program vs Cab Impulse vs Miced Cab
http://www.ultimatemetal.com/forum/backline/745042-part-3-ultimate-ir-nebula-real-deal-test.html

Nebula program sound more realistic and rich in harmonics
 
Last edited:
Ok I’ll jump in.

Is there (or was there) a difference between tubes and digital? Yes I believe so.

Can we identify the difference? Not so much.

About 3 years ago a group of my guitar playing friends got together for our semi-annual “Tone-Fest” We all bring our favorite tube amps and guitars and have an all day session of jamming and comparing amps. I brought my 64 Super Reverb, Plexi and I believe I had my Badger 18 Combo at the time, not sure. One of the group who is a recording engineer wanted to challenge us to compare digital to tubes. He set up a screen so we couldn’t see the setup we were playing through and hooked up an A/B box to switch us back and forth.

Now I must say that these are some players I really respect including one who designs, builds and swears by boutique tube amps. Could we hear a difference? Yes, but we could not identify which was which. We were wrong as often as we were right and that included when we were actually playing the guitar so that feel was accounted for.

I think this may answer the question why we have this conflict with people who can hear a difference and those that can’t tell them apart. Both are true. In our case we could definitely hear something was changing but could not consistently identify tube vs digital.

This demonstration caused me to eventually purchase an AxeFx Ultra and then an AxeFx II. I’ll get the AxeFx 3, 4 & 5 when they come out.

The interesting thing is that some of those tube purists who were at the Tone-Fest and mistakenly identified digital as tubes are still telling me that the Axe is great but not quite there yet. Ok.

Now maybe this is why the AxeFx can keep improving when it’s already supposedly arrived. I don’t really know.

I do know this. The guy that makes boutique tube amps and yet could not consistently tell one from the other (along with the rest of us) still insists that tube amps are better. Huh?

I believe that the advances in modeling threaten both his beliefs in old technology and probably more importantly his future job, however I think people will be buying tubes amps for a very long time and he doesn’t need to worry about the market drying up.

As for the comment regarding capacitors holding a charge and this preventing digital from replicating analog systems. I respectfully disagree. I am a programmer and although I know nothing about how the Axe is programmed it would be possible to program a digital system to replicate the capacitive storage of energy. As a matter of fact you could exceed what a capacitor does. You could store more energy than a capacitor does and for a longer period of time, infinitely actually (rebooting being the exception). It could then release that stored virtual energy when required based on some parameter such as a transient like an aggressive pick attack. As of for the percentages of output you could simply make 25% appear as 100% and be able to jump to 400%. This is really just a numbers game and of no real absolute meaning.

Digital systems have the potential to exceed analog systems and I believe they have in many ways although not all. The adjectives we all know have or will eventually be exceeded, more rubbery or less, more bloom or less, more headroom or less, more chime or less and on and on.

For the record I love my AxeFx II and think it’s the way of the future. I also love my Suhr Badger, which I leave at my practice location and often use for practice purposes rather than bring my Axe. Although I’ll eventually sell my Badger, for now I enjoy the simplicity.

Don’t hate me, I agree with both sides.
 
I say let 'em keep their tubes!* That just makes me more unique and marketable as a guitarist - I have ten times the tonal palette of a traditional rig, at a third the size at any volume, direct or mic'd FRFR or guitar cab, and the sounds are indistinguishable from the real thing.

* I still have a few tubes, too. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom