Is the axe II really that much better than an ultra?

I know zackly where the OP is coming from. I was asking the same questions recently about making the jump..was it worth it etc. I found it hard to read threads without skepticism touting the Axe II as leaps beyond the Ultra..more realism, less thin, like lifting the blanket...if the Ultra was 90% the 2 is like 95% there...and so on. First im lost on arbitrary percentages like that...however after having it for over a week know...my skepticism has melted away bro. first thing i noticed is that the stock presets sound already pretty sweet. Cleans are beautiful and punchy. Dynamics are there and yes i hate to say it, it feels like the blanket came off my monitors. Ultra is wicked but relative to the II it felt more compressed. Much faster to dial in my sounds, with the II, even though there are more options for tweaking, which I don't feel the need to do. I'm not a savant/power axe user like some others around here, but my presets no longer require PEQ's and GEQ even. That is worth something to me. dialing in something fast without endless tweaking so that i feel more like a guitar player again and not stephen friggin hawking- manipulating the grid and advanced parameters ad nauseum.

YMMV, IMHO, IIRC, WGARA (who gives a rats ass:)

i would add if just for effects unit...Ultra more than adequate. Cabs and amp sims especially using FRFR...go AXE II all the way!
 
I too have both the Ultra and Axe II; is one "better" than the other is very broad question. The Ultra is more processed (compressed) than the II, akin to sound of an amp as it would exist on a cd, as if it were processed by a top engineer. For the most part an Ultra mesa would sound indistinguishable than the real deal in a song on a cd, most people would not notice the difference. The Axe II is a different "experience", more complex as to simulate the sound of the real amp in a real room (of course the Ultra was "trying to do this too but with limitations in processing power, it did not quite get there, and I'm only saying that because the Axe II exists), more processing means more subtle nuances and it is perceived as being more in your face, nastier (oddly the more processing power makes it sound less "processed"). The experience is closer and closer to a real amp, especially wonderful in the II is it's response to minute changes in the guitars volume knob: it cleans up just like the real dealie, wow. For the player (us), yes the II is better than the Ultra, but remember that it will be used in the studio to put the guitar in songs on cds: the engineer will probably use more post "processing" on the II than the Ultra as the II sounds rawer, like I said, just like an amp in a room. The guitar will ultimately exist on cd and be processed and for the most part an II mesa would sound indistinguishable than the real deal in a song on a cd, most people would not notice the difference. As for an Ultra vs. II in a song on cd for a particular amp; most people would not even notice a difference; for a typical produced song, Ultra needs less post processing as it's sound is processed enough as is, the II is closer to a raw amp, so more post processing would be necessary, end result though is pretty damn close to the same. On cd the Ultra and II are pretty much equal, one not particularly better than the other. From the players standpoint, the Axe II is better although the Ultra is no slouch if you love hearing more of a "final mix" tone, less sensitive to input volume changes and more labor intensive to set up than the II. For the live player, well, the II is definitely "better" and live in a room or on a stage, that's where the differences in the II compared to the Ultra, really shine.
p.s. short answer, if better means more features and improved design, well, that's the II as well.
p.p.s. I'm keeping my Ultra even though I have the Axe II, 2 different "must have" flavors, but if all you can have is 1, than go II.

my 2 cents.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jon
Is an F-40 better than a Testarosa? Probably, but they are both Ferrari's. You're freaking lucky to have either one!
 
Taking off my Fractal employee hat and speaking as a player, guitar tech, sound designer. I could NEVER go back to an Ultra after using the II day in and day out, and I've never met a serious artist who did not agree.
People who say "only get it if you're using the amps" are selling it way short.

1. OK, the amps rule. So much better.
2. USB blows away MIDI. Onboard backup also rocks.
3. Small refinements to the effects are huge! New params. New types. New modes. XY. Awesome.
4. New modifier system makes the old one seem a real struggle
5. Bigger display. Better GUI.
6.7.8.9.10... and beyond LOADS of new firmwares to come.
 
Rex said:
The feel is perhaps the most noticeable difference between the Ultra and the II. The Ultra/Standard had good feel. The II takes that to a whole new level.
Click to expand...

This says it all for me, if I had to say why I think its worth the additional cost it would be the fun of playing it - down to feel AS much as tone. For me it was a loss of $700.00 (selling Ultra and then adding $700.00 to the sale price). I think if you're a composer or improviser then being inspired is a very big priority. Now, if you already do mostly covers and like the way you sound, it may not mean quite as much, whereas if you're reaching for something new and want to be inspired to help you find it, then it will mean a lot.
 
geetarman said:
Yes especially in pick dynamics and feel.
Click to expand...

This.

The Ultra is amazing and I wish I could have afforded to keep it along with the II. It wouldn't see as much use as the II but I would continue to make good use of the Ultra. All that said I'm glad I upgraded to the AxefX II. It has more expressive potential IMO.
 
redbud said:
I was put on the waiting list yesterday and I do have the means to purchase an axe II but only if i sell the ultra. I would just like to have an idea of what im getting.

Is it as some have suggested like a jump from a POD to the ultra. or a smaller step up?

Totally understand that practice will make more difference, I have always said that Clapton will still sound like Clapton on a 100 dollar peavey.

I am not looking to copy tones or albums I guess Im just looking for a better feel. or maybe i just have G.A.S.
Click to expand...

Im selling mine its on ebay i going to use tube amps from now on...i have it listed for 2595.00 its only a couple of months old and you wont have to wait
 
It feels better to me. That's all that really matters to me. Tone is going to change depending on where you play.
With my standard I would bo back and forth between my tube amps and the Standard on different nights and would always prefer the feel of my tube amps. With the latest firmware on the II, it feels like I want it to feel coming off my fingers. Can't imagine what 6 is going to bring.
 
USB
Headphone jack
XY
Quick Controls
50 User cabs
Twice the processing power
MFC-101 jack w/power
Amp models
Updates... and updates..... and updates... and more updates. Axe FX II isn't a year old and it's already had many killer updates. :lol
The Ultra is awesome. I had two \m/ :geek \m/
The Axe FX II is a Ultra.... on cRaCk!
​
 
  • Like
Reactions: jon
Admin M@ said:
Taking off my Fractal employee hat and speaking as a player, guitar tech, sound designer. I could NEVER go back to an Ultra after using the II day in and day out, and I've never met a serious artist who did not agree.
People who say "only get it if you're using the amps" are selling it way short.

1. OK, the amps rule. So much better.
2. USB blows away MIDI. Onboard backup also rocks.
3. Small refinements to the effects are huge! New params. New types. New modes. XY. Awesome.
4. New modifier system makes the old one seem a real struggle
5. Bigger display. Better GUI.
6.7.8.9.10... and beyond LOADS of new firmwares to come.
Click to expand...
Get back to work or I'm telling Cliff. :)
 
At first you cant tell that II is better than Ultra but after some time with II I must say that I'm glad that I've moved from Ultra and I think that after revolutionary version 6.0 people will move from other modelers, profilers! ;)
 
Pretty typical answers for an official product forum. This forum will always have people going gaga over the latest firmware update even though in reality it's usually not that messiah update that will make your tone 100% better. Don't take me wrong, Cliff does make the unit sound better with every upgrade and it's great that those upgrades are free, but probably all of you thought that the firmware you started with sounded and felt just great too.

Sure, the Axe-Fx 2 is better. But to me it feels more like an Axe-Fx 1.5. They mostly added more everything into the unit, but underneath all the new features there is still a somewhat crappy user interface, both physical and software, that requires lots of data wheel twiddling and menu scrolling. Personally I'm waiting for the eventual Axe-Fx 3 and I really hope they overhaul the UI. Till then it is Axe-Fx Standard for me.
 
laxu said:
Pretty typical answers for an official product forum. This forum will always have people going gaga over the latest firmware update even though in reality it's usually not that messiah update that will make your tone 100% better. Don't take me wrong, Cliff does make the unit sound better with every upgrade and it's great that those upgrades are free, but probably all of you thought that the firmware you started with sounded and felt just great too.

Sure, the Axe-Fx 2 is better. But to me it feels more like an Axe-Fx 1.5. They mostly added more everything into the unit, but underneath all the new features there is still a somewhat crappy user interface, both physical and software, that requires lots of data wheel twiddling and menu scrolling. Personally I'm waiting for the eventual Axe-Fx 3 and I really hope they overhaul the UI. Till then it is Axe-Fx Standard for me.
Click to expand...

axe edit?
 
Eggelynot said:
.........If it makes you play more, enjoy more .................
Click to expand...

That's exactly my experience. The Ultra is a great piece of kit but since I've upgraded to the II the time a spend playing and the enjoyment of playing has exponentially increased. I sold the Ultra to fund the upgrade and waited a solid 4 months back in 2011 and it was well worth it. The USB connectivity/audio interface is increasingly valuable. Since the playing and enjoyment has increased (due to the organic tones and dynamics) - so has the inspiration in playing and the desire to record. The connectivity makes that easy.

I smile each time I power up the II as I think of the pleasurable experience that will soon follow..... didn't quite get that with the Ultra.
 
jon said:
axe edit?
Click to expand...

Is the only reason I bought the unit in the first place. It makes it much more pleasurable and I'm sure the 3rd party iPad versions do so even more. But often you just don't want to have a computer hooked up so the units own user interface should be good too.
 
Admin M@ said:
Taking off my Fractal employee hat and speaking as a player, guitar tech, sound designer. I could NEVER go back to an Ultra after using the II day in and day out, and I've never met a serious artist who did not agree.
People who say "only get it if you're using the amps" are selling it way short.

1. OK, the amps rule. So much better.
2. USB blows away MIDI. Onboard backup also rocks.
3. Small refinements to the effects are huge! New params. New types. New modes. XY. Awesome.
4. New modifier system makes the old one seem a real struggle
5. Bigger display. Better GUI.
6.7.8.9.10... and beyond LOADS of new firmwares to come.
Click to expand...

...and my input jack doesn't wiggle! :mrgreen
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom