It's been an interesting run

You know using a real amp and IRs is something I never though about doing.
I'd love to hear it and feel it but I'm still glad I never thought of it 5 years ago because I'd have no space and probably no money by now.
 
Speculum Speculorum said:
I've been around, as I still have an FX8. That thing is pretty friggin' sweet. Still have to order some humbuster cables so I can set it up "right" but even just using regular TS cables gets pretty good results. Very quiet and transparent! And flexible to boot!

I want to point out that at no time in this thread did I ever say that one is objectively better than the other. From a very personal standpoint I like the results I'm getting better from a real amp. I have said, and will continue to say, that the dynamic feel and response of an actual amp is a significant improvement to the Axe-fx II. Playing a tube amp feels effortless by comparison, and I had to "overplay" to get the Axe to do things that the amp will perform naturally. This is not a volume thing, as I've also been playing direct with IRs and ran the Axe-fx at "extreme metal rehearsal" type volumes. I would even have friends plug into my rig because they wanted to try it and would witness them immediately start having to dig into it more to get what they were used to. This "feel" thing has improved since when I first got the unit (back in the ol' fw 1-2 days), but it does pale by comparison to playing a tube amp. I will not budge on it.

To those that would argue I don't know what I'm doing, don't understand the Axe, that I didn't delve deep enough into the thing, or that there's some parameter I'm missing that would have opened up the world to me, I must say as politely as I can: LOL. Quit being preposterous. If there's one thing that this forum suffers from it's this contingent of extremely vocal people who vociferously insist that modeling can't be improved upon, or that anybody who doesn't get along with the unit is obviously some kind of techno-phobic fool, is crazy, WANTS to believe it's crap, etc. The attitude of "I love it so you just don't know what you're talking about" is definitely a backward thinking sentiment.

I deep-dove into every parameter in the Axe at some point attempting to coax what I wasn't getting out of it. Did I get some cool sounds? Yep. But I still didn't get the experience I was looking for. I plugged into an ass kicking amp, turned it to the high gain channel, plugged it into an attenuator and loaded an IR into my DAW. BAM! Immediately what I'd been personally missing from my playing experience and the sound I want out of a high gain guitar. No, I can't change the tube bias with the click of a button. No, I can't change the xformer drive, impedance curve, amp compression rate/time/amount. Nope.

But I don't need to do any of that, either. Why is this so difficult for some people to understand?

If you're happy, bully for you! Continue to be happy. I'm happy where I'm at.
Click to expand...
Just wondering, what type of attenuator are you using? I use Torpedo Studios with my amps and various IRs to great success, but I prefer reactive load boxes to resistive types, the Torpedo Studios offer both.
 
FWIW I sold my xl at the start of the year and haven't not regretted it for 1 second . I grabbed a torpedo live with some of the cash and am really enjoying it ., sill had my recto from pre axe fx days

I still tell everyone I talk guitar gear to that the fractal is a great unit and pop my head in here every couple weeks to see whats going on with it .

for me, I guess I find limitations more productive
 
Man, this feels like Alcoholics Anonymous. Hello, I'm X and I'm using a tube amp, and so bad is my disease that I had to sell my precious possessions including my Axe FX.

Well, there's good news - using tube amps isn't a disease, it's fun, and they can give you that instant gratification many people do enjoy. Moreover, swapping gear is normal, so you don't have to publicly come out when you sell something.

The real question is why come here with this? By "here" I mean not only Fractal forums but this specific forum dedicated to discussing Axe FX II. You know, where people come for advice resolving technical difficulties and such. That's what we come here for. Yet in the first post you specifically discourage others from giving you any advice and you have no questions.

So what is it? What is the point of this thread?
 
Well - the OP has been around on this forum for a long time and has contributed a lot so I think it's fair enough to give the reasons for his departure. If people never posted about what they found lacking in the AFX then there'd be a lot less impetus to drive things forward.
 
muleskinner said:
it's fair enough to give the reasons for his departure.
Click to expand...

Except he doesn't give any reasons apart from that's how he feels. How can this be useful to anyone whatsoever?

Of course it's fair and useful to post about things people find lacking in Axe FX, except this thread doesn't do it. Absolutely.

And the fact that the guy had spent a long time here doesn't change anything in the content of the message itself.
 
Whenever I've seen that happen—on any rig: tube, transistor, digital—it boiled down to not cutting through the mix well enough, usually due to too much treble extension. Something to try if you decide to give the modeling another go.

Interesting discussion....can you explain me what you mean with "treble extension"? or what do you think we might be doing wrong because that is sometimes the whole clue ...cutting through the mix... sometimes (certain patches) you do sometimes you don't, although separate they both sound very good..
Sometimes I am still looking for the holy grail parameter that solves that one :). Treble is one of that parameters , be careful or it becomes harsh sounding....
 
Well, as the post and subsequent thread is approaching 9,000 views it must hold some sort of interest for people who frequent the forum. I think it's considerably more bizarre that dudes who apparently don't like or don't see the point of it keep popping back in here to say so, which only serves to bump and give life to this "pointless" thread.

Looks, dudes who seem upset. There are people out there in Fractal land who are like me. They have to record quietly at home or other environments, and the Axe-fx II is a very convenient system for doing that. But maybe, like me, they aren't totally satisfied with the results they're getting. Since posting this thread I've had guys contact me here and elsewhere asking about how, exactly, recording with load boxes works in case they want to try it. Most of them have tube amps sitting around and it didn't occur to them that there very good reactive attenuators out there with which to give this a try. And if you boop around on the internet you can find these units pretty damn cheap. I mean... what's $300 on a used Suhr Reactive Load when we're already thousands invested into a system and other methods?

So the point of this "bizarre" thread goes something like this: try the Axe-fx in four cable method effects only with a tube amp into a load box if you have the option of doing so and aren't getting what you perceive to be the best possible outcome of direct recording or want to give something else a try. I would have done so but as I already noted, the Axe-fx II is significantly more than I really will ever realistically need. Thus, if other people are in a similar state, the "point" goes something like this: The FX8 is a great solution to people who decide the Axe-fx II isn't for them and want to go back to using real tube head. The FX8 is leagues ahead of other floorboard/brain systems, such as the G System, with significantly better routing flexibility, deep parameter control, and interactions in order to get the absolute most out of your tube rig systems. Also, did you know you can use this system with a high-quality attenuator to record direct into your computer? Way wicked cool, homies.

I don't think there's anything particularly bizarre about that at all.
 
I for one find value in this thread. Spec was helpful to me way back when I was struggling with the Axe and ultimately sold it. I'm back and very happy. I'm just happy that he has found something he's excited about that works for him, and yes, I would like to know that. And if he has a strategy that others can learn from more the better. The Axe isn't for everyone obviously and that is totally cool. But, the positive for the company, brand and community is that a very knowledgeable experienced musician is still using the products in a way that others may not be aware of that could potentially expand the market. So, what I'm seeing here is all win. Let me know if I've missed something.
 
Speculum Speculorum said:
which only serves to bump and give life to this "pointless" thread.
Click to expand...

Well, I didn't say it was pointless, I asked what the point was. There's a difference here.

Speculum Speculorum said:
Since posting this thread I've had guys contact me here and elsewhere asking about how, exactly, recording with load boxes works in case they want to try it. Most of them have tube amps sitting around and it didn't occur to them that there very good reactive attenuators out there with which to give this a try. And if you boop around on the internet you can find these units pretty damn cheap. I mean... what's $300 on a used Suhr Reactive Load when we're already thousands invested into a system and other methods?
Click to expand...

So you're saying that you started this thread in order to tell people more about attenuators and loadboxes? And FX8? Well, that's cool, although one may wonder why you didn't say that explicitly, but instead wrote about something else entirely, and it's still a wrong forum, IMO. But whatever, that's not my job to judge on that.

I got my answer, thanks.
 
yves vanmeenen said:
mids , indeed sounds like a good thing to do. The cab high cut....well I am one of those weird guys that go with a real cab (not FRFR and cab sims off ...of course)..so that won't work :).
Click to expand...

How do you power that real cab? A tube amp? And you still have too much treble going on?
 
vangrieg said:
Well, I didn't say it was pointless, I asked what the point was. There's a difference here.



So you're saying that you started this thread in order to tell people more about attenuators and loadboxes? And FX8? Well, that's cool, although one may wonder why you didn't say that explicitly, but instead wrote about something else entirely, and it's still a wrong forum, IMO. But whatever, that's not my job to judge on that.

I got my answer, thanks.
Click to expand...

As I recall, this is still a forum about discussing various aspects of the Axe-fx II. Still, you persist to stay in a thread you don't like. There's therapy for this type of stuff, you know.
 
Speculum Speculorum said:
As I recall, this is still a forum about discussing various aspects of the Axe-fx II.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and you just said it was about loadboxes and 4CM. But - whatever. If mods are okay with it, so am I.

Speculum Speculorum said:
Still, you persist to stay in a thread you don't like.
Click to expand...

Who told you I didn't like it? I noticed this thread, visited it several times, didn't see the point, asked, got your answer.
 
First I want to say that I'm not trying to stir things up here but people need the full story if we're going to call this a "useful thread".

Let me clear up what I meant with my first post which was strongly misunderstood. What I was referring to before was me being concerned about the "honey moon phase" with any piece of gear. I've personally sold my Axe-Fx Standard and Axe-Fx Ultra by replacing them with real tube amps because of the "honey moon phase" but when ever I got to try the Axe-Fx after a period of time I realized I had made a mistake. I was not judging the OP nor his skills. Right now I have both real amps and Fractal gear which is something I recommend everyone to do if you have the budget for it.

I didn't get the feeling that people are upset with anything else except the tone of the OP message. Is the glass half empty or half full? The focus of this thread was not "FX8 is on the way and I'm so happy to try it out with my real amp". The focus of the thread is that "there's something wrong with the Axe-Fx amp modeling". The Axe-Fx has proven it's capabilities to just about every guitar hero we all know so I don't think anyone is questioning the Axe-Fx based on this thread. At least I trust what these guys think a bit more. The title was intentionally overly dramatic and that does infact get people's attention. However it's not a way of measuring if this thread is useful or not. It's literally like measuring reality TV views and using the stats to call it a news broadcast.

Speculum Speculorum said:
Saturation, no fizziness, punch and clarity even with way too much gain. It was all there. I compared it to a 5150 preset I had made up using the same routing as the amp, going back and forth between the two. But there was just no comparing. The amp had more meat, thickness, and the whole frequency spectrum just sat "right", whereas the axe sounded thin, did not sound thick, and the amp fizz stuck out considerably more. I also felt like I had to pick harder and over play to get The axe to respond the same way the amp did.
Click to expand...

Many people have made these A/B comparisons over the years. Use the search box function to find some A/B comparisons if you're interested. I happen to be someone who owns several real amps in addition to Fractal gear and I compare the real thing to the models every week. I can honestly say that I would never bet money on hearing the difference between an amp model or the real thing when running things in an "apples to apples" true comparison. Comparing the Axe-Fx to the real amps and real cabs in my studio is what got me interested in shooting IR's the way I do to get the most authentic results.

Now about the loadbox thing. In that other thread called "are we 99% there with the modeling or something like that" the OP discusses the speaker page and impedance being a problem in the modeling. That actually has some truth to it. The speaker page of the amp block essentially "should be" different for different IR's to achieve more authenticity because different cabinets have different impedance curves. However... even a reactive loadbox isn't even close to simulating what a real cabinet load sounds like. So it would be safer to say that the OP prefers the unauthentic sound of the loadbox he's using than the maybe even more realistic Axe-Fx modeling of a cabinet impedance curve. I'm sure we would all prefer to hear an audio example of this difference rather than reading the OPs opinion in his "honey moon phase" with his new gear but I think the fact that no one asked for them speaks for itself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom