Is the II really worth it?

Nelder17

Nelder17

Member
So, I may have an opportunity to move up to the Axe FX II. I'm currently using an Ultra that I've only actually had for a few months, but I didn't see this turn of good luck coming my way. Anyway, I figure I can get about $1300 up here in the great white north for my ultra, and then put my name on the list for a new II. However, before I even bother, I just wanna know if it's actually worth it.

I play through a tube power amp and Boogie 2x12 recto cabinet. I do record direct, but only for backing tracks and for my own purposes, nothing professional by any means. If i'm just using it as a straight amp sim and effects pre-amp, am I really going to hear the difference? Is it that much better, or is it a lot of hype?
 
It's not 'hype' more so than it's a logical progression building upon what the Standard and Ultra do so well.

I personally feel zero regret having moved up to the II. Others might not end up justifying the price tag - the Ultra is a very serious piece of gear. The II takes everything the Ultra does to another level.

In the end, IMHO, if the Ultra does 'it' for you, the II will do 'it' better in every regard you can name - plus it is far simpler to dial in. The hardware upgrades - quick control knobs, USB, headphone jack and larger screen all make it much easier to work with. Post 6.xx, I personally feel there is no advantage to the amp modeling or effects in the Ultra/Standard on an honest 1:1 comparison in features, performance or results.

Strictly IMHO. I've owned and worked intensely with the Standard, Ultra and II. Just my honest opinion. If you have worked with a Standard or Ultra, how you could think the II is 'hype' is beyond me. At the same time, sticking with a Standard or Ultra is far from being a negative, they still rank among the top choices on the planet for products combining modeling and effects.
 
Is not hype, the II is simply better. I got 1700 for my 2 year old ultra. But i had to pay the extra 400 to get the II early. Dont regret it at all. You wont either.
But I did still love my Ultra.
 
Last edited:
I agree with Scott. They give slightly different results though IMHO - I got many pleasing and very "studio polished" tones from my Ultra (I actually preferred ver 10.05 over 11, but had also spent more time tweaking the 10.05 patches). To me, the realism and feel is better in the II with less need for tweaking. Realistically, either of them is excellent.
 
Amp section you are going to hear big difference... no big difference on the pure effect side. BUT a few drives was recently added + rotary got a BIG overhaul, so Im sure there will be more/better effects too in coming firmware.

And you can also sell off your midi/USB interface + midi merger (if you have)
 
IMHO, AXEIIv6 is a game changer so it is worth it.

v6 requires less tweaking to get great sounds and TM adds that extra 5 to 10% that can get you right near beloved guitar heroes' tone.

v6 (and now v6.01) has a lot more for itself : see forum.
 
Well, I'll have to give it some serious consideration then.

The only thing that would stop me is that I bought my Ultra from Chris Broderick so it would be a little harder to let go of it.
 
If you had asked before firmware v4 I'd think that it would be a lot tougher because while there were some niceties and other things it wasn't as drastic as I had been hoping in terms of flat out performance. That isn't a knock as much as it is a testament to the Ultra itself. It was there, but not like jaw dropping, pant soiling differences.

But as soon as v5.07 came out I think that a corner was turned and the distance grew considerably and I have to admit that I got really excited because I knew that it was the beginning of something special. With v6.01 out now its a no brainer for me.

And that isn't even with taking tone matching into consideration; this is solely based on the amp modeling itself.
 
I can say after having an ultra for a year and moving to the II ,when I first got the II, I was having seconds thoughts.Now I do not play in a band anymore and I use the II with head phones and desk top monitor's. I found I had to tweak ,but I was trying to make it sound like the tone I was use to with the ultra.

After a few days and learning what to tweak with each amp ,I got to say I'm blown away with the II tones.I use more amps now,If I play with a tune I have to stop at times to see who's guitar I hearing because I can dial in the tone so well.I'm still tweaking (probably alway will a bit ) but very happy with the purchase of the II and no regrets now :D
 
I think the best "upgrade" has been in the power amp modeling which is miles above the Gen1 devices... you mention that you play through a tube power amp. So I would venture to say that if you plan on the continued use of said "tube power amp" then I would say that you may actually not notice that much of a difference in "tone". Don't get me wrong, the Tone Match block is a definitely "must have" (including all the other upgrades from Gen 1 to Gen 2 including the much improved power amp modeling). IMO.
 
I kept my Standard, and still use it. The II is better in nearly every way. You can probably find 100 threads here saying why, so instead, I'll list the advantages of the Standard/Ultra over the II: smaller, lighter, less expensive.
 
i play the standard, waited on the list and ordered the 2, got it realized all the time and effort I had into programming the standard to "my" tones. couldn't transfer them. The 2 is a better unit, and I am a big fractal fan, but when it came down to it, I kept my standard, sold the 2 and made a hundred bucks. I guess I look at it as an amp. the new amps are way better in construction, tones you can get, all around a better amp. but everyone still seems to look for the the old "standard" amps.
 
Is it worth it? Only you can say.

Folks (including myself) who have owned both are nearly (but not completely) unanimous in liking the II better than the Ultra. I'd bet you can hear the difference. If you're like most people, you'll find the difference pleasing. Problem is that none of that helps determine if the II is worth your Ultra + $900 to you. I was happy to give up my Ultra and $600 for the II but YMMV.
 
I decided against the II for the following reasons (in no particular order)...

1. Recreating all of my presets from scratch is out of the question.

2. The II's firmware is still changing. I don't have time to readjust all of my presets every time this happens. I am still on the second-to-last firmware of the Ultra for this reason.

3. Potential issues with Output 2. Sending the unit back for modification immediately after purchase is unacceptable.

4. The Utra's firmware is mature and stable.

5. The final beta version of AxeEdit is stable with the Ultra.

6. The Ultra does the job.

7. Money is tight.
 
Objector said:
What issues?
Click to expand...

Output 2 produces ultrasonic noise. When sending Output 2 to an amplifier (such as when using the four cable method), some amps will interact with this ultrasonic noise (through intermodulation) to produce audible hiss. Fractal will modify the unit by soldering capacitors on Output 2 to remove the ultrasonic noise, but this must be done after purchase and you must pay for shipping.

Output 1 is filtered and does not exhibit this behavior. Here are some threads on the subject...

http://forum.fractalaudio.com/axe-f...-axe-ii-modded-eliminate-hiss-output-2-a.html

http://forum.fractalaudio.com/axe-fx-ii-discussion/50650-why-output-2-designed-wideband.html

http://forum.fractalaudio.com/axe-fx-ii-discussion/49647-input-2-output-2-hiss-solution.html

Other threads exist (or did exist), but I can't find them now. Don't know why,
 
Last edited:
The II is a superior unit. Period. I still use my Ultra for outboard effects, but the II blows the Ultra out of the water when it comes to amp modeling. Plus, I no longer have to go through a separate interface for guitar tracking. That part might give you some issues if you're a Mac user, since Apple has apparently decided to screw the pooch on their USB 2.0 compliance.
 
II is totally worth it to me vs Ultra. Part of that is that I'm now getting all the new goodies (tape delay, ethernet w/MFC, improved rotary, much improved amp modeling, usb, tone matching) which would've driven me nuts to miss.

The biggest piece though is the amp modeling. It sounds and feels much better and is way easier to dial in. With the Ultra, there were a few amps I would use, but a lot I wouldn't (perhaps because each took a fair amount of tweaking to dial even my favs). Now there's a much wider range of amps that sound good to me which is like the real world. I still own a lot of amps, mostly Fender, Ampeg and related cleanish amps. If I plug into a real Hiwatt or non MV Marshall or really any good tube amp that's not too high gain, I can probably get some flavor of useful tone. It's now like that in the Axe II. Dr. Z, Marshall, Hiwatt, Dumble and others all create very useful sounds that I would've had to struggle much harder to get to (and therefore not bothered with) in the Ultra.

On the flip side, the Ultra is still a great box and if you're happy with it, that's all that matters.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom