Questions for those who switched from the Ultra to the II.

I run through a pair of Focal solo6 be's and a SVSound Cylindrical sub on Out2. Even without the woofer i was getting extremely muffled sounds on both the Uttra and Axe II. " A wet blanket from hell". Still not a problem with some Global EQ tweaks, removing base from the amp blocks, setting PEQ or Graphic EQ before the amp and after the cab for some models that need it. It really is all in the EQ'ing and just using your ears. It is amazing the variation different folks have to get their tone. I have not had any problem tweaking the blanket off and getting ripping string definition with plenty of air. One trick i try to remember is turning the amps tone stack to PRE in the advanced parameters if i use an EQ after the cab.
 
Last edited:
Choose your cab IR and set that block before you make too many judgments and declarations guys.

I'll leave some details tomorrow.
 
I had the wet blanket totally, in fact was shocked; this has happend with many modelers with me. I kept saying where is the switch, there must be some "make this sound amazing switch", I couldnt possibly be hearing what others are who are raving. I had the ultra for like a week, same setup frfr and wwwwwwwwwet blanket with the axe 2. So, good news, I have to turn off the full range aspect of my ev live x (with the 2 left this switch on which means full base etc) off it means it is "diverting" a cut off to a subwoofer which I dont have. Then I still needed to lower I think the 3rd eq lever from the left to nearly nothing on the global. I honestly have been in heaven since. MY BEST ADVICE PLAY WITH THE GLOBAL EQ, AND SET SPEAKERS TO send low subwoofer frequencies to off , or to a "phantom subwoofer".
 
I am finding my way. I had been playing it at low volume. I cranked it up and that helped. I am very glad to have the eq tab in the amp block. Pulling down 63 close to the bottom and 125 down a bit solves much of the boom. Spent time with the 1987 since that has been my most used amp on the ultra. On the old box I run a fat rat in front to tighten up the flabby bottom and to add crunchy mids. Had use a different drive for the new box. Pretty happy with the results. Bigger sounding than the ultra now.

Love the deluxe for chimmy cleans. Cool with a drive too. I am getting there. It takes me a while ...unlike Pete Thorn who after 10 minutes has the thing wired.
 
MK I also found most of my doubts went away as soon as I cranked up the axe. The last 10 percent went away as soon as I felt what the bias knob does :)
 
Scott Peterson said:
Choose your cab IR and set that block before you make too many judgments and declarations guys.

I'll leave some details tomorrow.
Click to expand...

This is solid advice. The IR on any of the Axe-Fx models is as important or more important than any other part of the patch you create. Think about the sound you're going for. Would you try to do ultra high gain with a small 1x12 cabinet? If you're going for a super thick metal tone, would you use a cab with greenbacks in it? Also, consider the mic you use on the cab. The R121 sounds super beefy, but if you want a crystal clear clean tone, you probably want to stay away from it...

What I tend to do is this:

First I think about the type of sound I want to get. Then I choose the amplifier model I'm going to use to get that sound. I leave the amp model at defaults, and I choose an IR that sounds closest to the sound I'm going for WITHOUT tweaking anything. This could be a stock IR or Ownhammer/Redwirez. Then I tweak with just amp/cab until I get it sounding how I want. Usually I only have to tweak the amp sim a small amount. I sometimes switch the IR to a different mic position or use a stereo cab block with a second cab to get closer to the sound I want. Then I *might* adjust the room level of the cab if I want it to sound roomier. On the II, this doesn't take long. Maybe an initial 10 minutes or so. Then I add effects as I want them, if I add them at all. From there, I tweak the tone in very small amounts, typically only using the amp block, or possibly adding a drive if I need a small boost in gain.

Then I'm done, I can always adjust if necessary.
 
I had a similar experience--the first several presets sounded way muddy to me compared to my Ultra presets. I think the Axe-FX II presets just have less treble in them (and I play very dark-sounding guitars), because once I loaded up my amp of choice and tweaked it some, it was sonic nirvana.

Play with it some--I think you'll be really happy once you get it dialed in.
 
Update: I am finding my way. A number of the patches I found will meet my needs. Some patches are muffled and some are really thin yet there are some great ones in there. For those experiencing difficulties like me, don't let anyone tell you all the patches for perfect. They are not and you are not crazy. If a patch doesn't sound right moves on. The Axe-FX II is a great box.
 
Last edited:
I've had the opposite experience. I find the Axe II presets open, airy and crisp, while the Standard, although slightly smoother and slicker sounding, in many cases, asounded muffled (This playing the identical patch in both units through an Atomin FR and Mackie monitors). There were only a few patches where I preferred the Standard over the II, probably because in those patches the slicker studio tone was what the patch was trying to achieve. The II captures the amp in the room significantly better than my Standard. No complaints from me.
 
I find the Axe fx 2 to be a better box. It feels great and has more depth and girth. However I also see the Ultra as a different "amp". It does feel and sound a bit digital since compared to the axe fx 2, but I still love some of the sounds I got from it. True, the axe fx 2 needs tweaking to fit your style and sound preference, but I find it gives me everything I need for tracking moreso than from my Uberschall and 5150 3. And it's quicker for me to dial in tones on the axe fx 2 than mucking around with mics, mic position, cables, and all that other stuff. I haven't messed around with advanced parameters like bias and such because I'm able to find what I need by choosing the right amp, cab, and tone knobs.

I have found that cranking the master volume much less detailed than the ultra which is weird, but I just avoid that by choosing amp mods that sound great without doing that. one thing that's helped me with getting great tone for my style is to not have judgement about the amp and cab sims. For example, I find myself using the recto orange a lot, and I hate Mesa Boogie amps!


That's saying a lot.
 
I can understand the OP (and others) viewpoint. I had 6 or 8 of my favorite patches setup on my Standard and they were fantastic. I can't recall how many minutes or hours I may have put in to refining them, but I did not do much tweaking as updates came out. My II has already demanded more attention to get *my* sounds than my Standard did, but that may be because I was unintentionally following my old patch-building paradigm. There is, IMO, much more realism in the overall simulations, and I find myself chasing away the same gremlins I hunt in my real amps. Things like fizz and treble peaking caps now get more attention on the II from me. Big Kudos to Cliff for this groundbreaking realism. R/W Speakers and Mics that worked Gen I now don't tame (low pass) the natural amp harshness the same on Gen II - IMO. This is not really a problem since I just find another IR and Mic, but in my experience, the component interplay is *different". I really like the Gen II modeling and realism, including the swirl one of the Mods inferred was too subjective a term: they should stop by Aiken's Amp page and look at his discussion of swirl in the Glossary of Terms (Aiken Amplification). So, depending on your experience and mindset, the II may seem harder or easier to get your sound(s) from. BTW, the presets did nothing for me personally and I had to build my patches from scratch: that's just me and my approach. Others have reported very different opinions: that's as it should be.

I don't know how my experience maps to others, and I really don't care. I'm a lower gain aficionado and seek that edge of breakup territory where lots of dynamic and other artifacts may be found. With a little open-minded perseverance, I have most of my patches now equaling and bettering my Standard's performance - not because the Standard was obsoleted by Gen II, but rather because I'm exploring the new modeling paradigm and using the improved tools available.

Hopefully most users will find their way and enjoy the Gen II boxes, but like I've seen over the last 4 years here, there will certainly be those for which the Axe II is not their cup of tea: so be it.

enjoy

boogie
 
Last edited:
update:


The new magic box is finally fully integrated and ready for prime time. It took a while to dial all my patches in (A big thanks to those helped me through a few technical difficulties). The new amps had to be auditioned all over again. Some amps stayed serve the same roles. Some were replaced by different models. Up until now I have still been playing live with the Ultra. The Axe II will debut next week. All systems are go!

MK_rack2011a.jpg
 
I have a much less expensive rack case for mine. It's called three towels :D

Glad you found your tone

I never ran into the wet blanket thing with the II. I don't play much high gain either. In fact I thought the Friedman patches sounded incredible out of the Box on the II.

I initially owned an ultra. Sold it when the II was announced. Then had sellers remorse and picked up a used Standard. Now I have the II and at the moment have no intention of selling the Standard (at the moment).

IMO all three units sound phenomenal.

a gratuitous axe fx shot
DSC_0725.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom