Is the Axe-Fx II XL+ 100% of the way there tonally?

NIce tones buddy! I was also wondering if your music man has a standard pickups? What mode is it anyways? Cheers

I wish I had his guitar but that's not me. According to the description in the video the guitar is completely stock except for the D-Tuna. Maybe he'll chime in.
 
Last edited:
I own an Axe FX II that I use for playing live and recording with an Apollo and studio/monitor speakers, and I own a Mesa Boogie MK V amp with a Mesa V30 cabinet. I enjoy immensely playing through both my Axe FX and my Boogie, but if I had to choose between both of them, I'd have to go with the Axe FX.

The Axe FX is the most versatile and most authentic modeler I've ever used. It can be dialed in so that I can't tell a difference between it and a real tube amp. But I honestly prefer the Axe FX because it is way easier to use and record with than a real amp. I never have to worry about mic placement, tubes ever needing to be replaced or having to have it cranked super loud to sound amazing. The Axe FX does everything I need it to and 100X more.

As for lead tones, the Axe FX is unreplaceable for me because I can do things, dialing it in that just can not be done with a real amp. I can get a better compression and touch response with the Axe FX than I can with my tube amp. Especially for soloing, I can't live without my Axe FX.
 
I have owned several Vox amps (mostly AC30TB's) and several Boogies (last being a Lonestar Special). Sold em all. I would consider myself a pretty good judge of tone (been playing for 55 years), and greatly blessed to have, and continue to own, great gear. Playing through the FX (I also have an AX8) is every bit as satisfying as playing through "tube amps" to my ears. You would need a boxcar full of tube amps to rival what the FX gives in 2 rack spaces.
 
What method do you use for re-amping? This is still something I have had much success with.
When I track, I always send a completely dry guitar-direct out to the board, and capture it on a dedicated channel. I also dial up the tone I *think* is right for the song, and capture it on a pair of tracks (that's also what I hear through my headphones when tracking). When re-amping, I just route the entirely dry track from the board back to the AxeFX's front panel input, as if I were playing the same track again, and route the output to a new pair of channels on the board. This lets me use the dry performance (even if it was edited / spliced), and have the original preset available for reference. I also take advantage of the opportunity to listen to my intended amp / cab / mic / effects settings, and consider the possibility of changing some of those elements to help the guitar tracks sit properly in the mix.

That said, about 75% of the time we use the original track + preset that was recorded, and often the first take - warts and all. There is something special about the organic immediacy and energy of the original intent, and it's easy to get into the trap of endlessly polish the take. I've recorded sessions where the producer took my recorded guitar parts, pulled them into ProTools, selected the single "most ideal" instance of each note or chord, copied / pasted it over every other instance, and then completely time-quantized the guitar part. It's an interesting effect in the sense that it makes the guitar perfectly "gridded" and sonically ultra-consistent; but it it sounds a bit sequenced and sterile to me. It's impressive to me when a guitarist can perform with that kind of precision and even-ness in their actual playing. Achieving it by dissecting and reassembling a recorded performance is an admirable production achievement, but I often don't like the outcome.

Similarly, it always seems to me that each AxeFX amp model gives me a very authentic experience of the original amp, without attempting to "correct" its sound. I haven't played through an actual physical example of a lot of those exotic amps, but the ones I do know are spot-on, even down to the quirks of the knob interactions. If you've ever owned a Boogie, you know what I'm talking about. The amps aren't idealized to the point of being over-polished; they sound to me like that amp model having a great day, where the tubes are matched, the room temperature is just right, the power is stable, the mic is in the right spot, and the room is nicely responsive. It isn't unrealistic to achieve those things; they're just variables in studio logistics when setting up to record. Instead of laboring over that stuff for hours, I just call up the amp model I want, and start tracking. It sounds amazing and the inspiration of great tone lets me focus on playing, rather than fussing over setup of a physical amp.
 
.For my purposes, the AxeFX is 100% there. I don't own a tube amp any more.
Sums it up for me too. AxeFX Q3 finally knocked my real boogie off top spot! I've since sold it and my other amps & picked up an AX-8 last week for gigs!
 
Many of Brett Kingman's clean tones in this video are outstanding, in my opinion:



There's a sterile digital cheesiness to it that just doesn't sit right. Maybe I'm just a sucker for real amps.

Thanks for all the replies, it seems that a lot of you guys are satisfied by the Axe Fx which is cool but I still haven't heard any clean tones which are as good as a real amp to my ears. Metal/high gain stuff yes.. the Axe Fx matches real amps if not beats them but maybe you guys could share some other clean sounds that you like?

Anyone in Central Queensland Australia willing to let me play around with their Axe? :D
 
I would say it's over 100% there, because each amp in any line of amps is slightly different to the other. No two vox's are the same or Marshalls or any amp for that matter. The Axe Can duplicate them and then some!!! What I love the most about the Axe II is Cliff, John Suhr and Cliff are two of the best guys I have purchased gear from in my life and I have purchased from a lot. Cliff's love for the axe and his dedication is bar none. You won't get that with most amp makers, Cliff is the reason the Axe II imho is the best by far.
 
Used to own all of this.

Now I just own the Axe-FX XL+, Matrix GT1000FX, an FR212 and the Mesa 4x12 seen in the picture.
Mesa stays in the practice room, FR212 stays in my bedroom. Both sound stellar.

Bottom line...as far as I'm concerned, yes...it's "there"
 

Attachments

  • Rig-2011-1xs.jpg
    Rig-2011-1xs.jpg
    276.5 KB · Views: 18
Hey squidlips, I'm in central QLD and have an axe fx willing to lend, PM me if you want.

There's a sterile digital cheesiness to it that just doesn't sit right. Maybe I'm just a sucker for real amps.

Thanks for all the replies, it seems that a lot of you guys are satisfied by the Axe Fx which is cool but I still haven't heard any clean tones which are as good as a real amp to my ears. Metal/high gain stuff yes.. the Axe Fx matches real amps if not beats them but maybe you guys could share some other clean sounds that you like?

Anyone in Central Queensland Australia willing to let me play around with their Axe? :D
 
I think it doesn't make sense to say it's 100% there while Cliff is still putting out updates that improve on the realism. Even between Q5 and 5.01 it became more 'real'. . . So if course the answer has to be no.
 
Squidlips,

I was going to suggest that you ask if there's an AxeFX II user in your area who may be willing to host a demo for you (the only person whose opinion matters for the purpose of your request is yours). It looks like Fatam beat me to it, and with an offer to assist as well.

For my part - nothing is ever 100%, 'there' or otherwise. I collected (and regularly used) vintage tube guitar amps for many years, and used mostly vintage and boutique amps for the 30+ years I played guitar prior to purchasing an AxeFX. Though Wall voltage where I lived had been pretty stable it was never 100%. Occasionally an amp didn't quite sound as was expected given its normal level of performance (environmental factors other than power - temp, etc?) so the amps themselves weren't 100%. Trying to duplicate amp setting and mic placement from an earlier recording session - rarely 100% successful. Most of all me, the player, was far more inconsistent than I'd like.

The AxeFX II takes care of all of the aforementioned variables except of course for me, the player.

Sound and feel: for my ears and hands the AxeFX II captures the sound, feel, and vibe of every amp model for which I once owned a great example of the actual amp. A 100% match? As someone has already posted: if Cliff is still making improvements to the amp modeling then it can't be at 100%. There's no doubt truth to this assertion but, IMO, it's so close now that the last few % points that may still require tweaking are not keeping the AxeFX II from sounding / feeling / behaving like the actual amp being modeled. So the AxeFX II modeling is likely not at 100% but, for all practical use, the amp models and the amps they are modeled after are indistinguishable.

It's important to remember that *all modelers* emulate mic'd & monitored amps - not the 'amp in the room' experience. The AxeFX II can duplicate the 'amp in the room' vibe be running the AxeFX II into a neutral amp and then into a guitar cab appropriate for the model(s) in used.

Clean tones: One of my favorite clean tones of all time was a 1964 Fender Pro 1x15" combo that I owned for many years. I sold this amp when someone waived the right amount of cash in my face but I've never forgotten the sound - in the room or mic'd & monitored. Through the past several major firmware updates I have been able to duplicate this soundly piecing elements together along with a few IR's that each seem to work to capture the vibe of that' 64 Pro (non-event version). 100% worth? Hard to say, but close enough that I no longer miss that amp.

Definitely demo the AxeFX II for yourself. It may or may not meet your expectations but it'll be fun finding out! :)
 
Amp sound through Monitors/ IEM's , front of house live - Axefx2 (Quantum) wins for me. I prefer the tone and its more useful to me. Gone are the years of hearing my tube amp behind me, mostly at tilted ground level and assuming it sounds as good out front and/or in other band members monitors. Now I hear what it sounds like going through front of house (+- speaker differences, mix adjustments, distance of my ears from speaker.... list goes on)

I say useful, because the thing I love about a modeled guitar tone (the Axefx in the case) as opposed to a tube amp is the ability to get everything at the level I like and keep the tone. I always fought with Tube amps gain staging, volume changes etc. To me its not a question of does it sound 100% (IMHO I think it sounds better) its more how much more usable in the moment control I have over the tone while playing live.
 
I sold my 1979 Marshall 50w MKII Master Model that I purchased new and had modified over the years starting with Jim Demeter. It was a phenomenal amp. Sold my Carvin Legacy as well.

No longer needed them.

I miss the Marshall just for sentimental reasons.
 
Back
Top Bottom