nikki-k
Experienced
I am also going to have to disagree with some of the blanket statements being made... my reasons why also add to my reasons why I want tube type selection added (among other things ).
Blanket statements about preamp vs power as far as tonality is concerned are without foundation IMO. Yes, what Cliff stated, in general, holds. However, preamp=fizz and power=good OD does not, IMO. In some cases, yes.. very much so. "Can," not (an implied or stated) "Does." With preamp circuits that utilize multiple tubes for gain, tone can be affected greatly by tube choice. Throw a 5751 in there, followed by an old Mullard, Brimar, etc perhaps, versus loading them up with some EHX or lower quality tubes. I can think of many situations where the preamp stage will not need be fizzy when pushed; but, yes.. push several stages of gain, it is can end up fizzy. Many of us are not pushing those extra stages for gain beyond gain, and for us, it is not fizzy. Want fizz in the power section? Look no further than the switch in the.. wait for it.. Power section of the Axe-Fx II that Cliff has stated will remove fizz (Grid Modeling). I understand where the blanket statement can originate, though I do not agree with the conclusion.
As for tube swapping...
For every example of tube type changes that may not sound too pleasant (for some, even many), I can provide an example that does work, if not for that amp, for another. Heck.. want a list? Though not modeled, and arguably it was constructed for it, my Legacy sounds great.. albeit different.. with the stock EL34s, or 6L6s. But, what it was not designed for was using a quad with a pair of each. I love this combination! Want another, more appropriate one? How about a JCM900, with stock 5881s (6L6s)? C'mon, Plexi lineage... a JCM800 descendent that does not have EL34s??? How about throwing some KT77s in it? It was not designed for use with EL34s, but can anyone honestly say it would sound bad with them (arguments regarding the overall tonal appreciation of the 900 series aside!)?
And now, WHY this provides for the Axe-Fx II to become the most glorious of all modifiable amps ever... Because when you stick some EL84s into an EL34 based amp, you do not need to alter the entire power section to accomodate, and run the risk of frying anything. Why would anyone want to do such a thing? For the same reason we do not have a single amplifier model; for the same reason us tinkerers pick up that soldering iron for the first time, followed by a (de)soldering bulb: because creating something new does not always succeed, but when it does!!! Turn the Axe-Fx II into a Heathkit-like playground, and I would likely end up more of a hermit than Scholz.
Because with the Axe-Fx II.. opened up a bit more.. it is no longer attempting to climb Everest, it is giving birth to landscapes no one has seen, and traversing them transcends (simple) climbing.
Blanket statements about preamp vs power as far as tonality is concerned are without foundation IMO. Yes, what Cliff stated, in general, holds. However, preamp=fizz and power=good OD does not, IMO. In some cases, yes.. very much so. "Can," not (an implied or stated) "Does." With preamp circuits that utilize multiple tubes for gain, tone can be affected greatly by tube choice. Throw a 5751 in there, followed by an old Mullard, Brimar, etc perhaps, versus loading them up with some EHX or lower quality tubes. I can think of many situations where the preamp stage will not need be fizzy when pushed; but, yes.. push several stages of gain, it is can end up fizzy. Many of us are not pushing those extra stages for gain beyond gain, and for us, it is not fizzy. Want fizz in the power section? Look no further than the switch in the.. wait for it.. Power section of the Axe-Fx II that Cliff has stated will remove fizz (Grid Modeling). I understand where the blanket statement can originate, though I do not agree with the conclusion.
As for tube swapping...
For every example of tube type changes that may not sound too pleasant (for some, even many), I can provide an example that does work, if not for that amp, for another. Heck.. want a list? Though not modeled, and arguably it was constructed for it, my Legacy sounds great.. albeit different.. with the stock EL34s, or 6L6s. But, what it was not designed for was using a quad with a pair of each. I love this combination! Want another, more appropriate one? How about a JCM900, with stock 5881s (6L6s)? C'mon, Plexi lineage... a JCM800 descendent that does not have EL34s??? How about throwing some KT77s in it? It was not designed for use with EL34s, but can anyone honestly say it would sound bad with them (arguments regarding the overall tonal appreciation of the 900 series aside!)?
And now, WHY this provides for the Axe-Fx II to become the most glorious of all modifiable amps ever... Because when you stick some EL84s into an EL34 based amp, you do not need to alter the entire power section to accomodate, and run the risk of frying anything. Why would anyone want to do such a thing? For the same reason we do not have a single amplifier model; for the same reason us tinkerers pick up that soldering iron for the first time, followed by a (de)soldering bulb: because creating something new does not always succeed, but when it does!!! Turn the Axe-Fx II into a Heathkit-like playground, and I would likely end up more of a hermit than Scholz.
Because with the Axe-Fx II.. opened up a bit more.. it is no longer attempting to climb Everest, it is giving birth to landscapes no one has seen, and traversing them transcends (simple) climbing.