Reviewing the differences between Standard, Ultra, and II ??

[aculturemind]

That is, from what I've read, elsewhere and here, it boils down to this:

Standard - like having one of every kind of amp out there

Ultra - like having two of every kind of amp out there, plus some other stuff

II - Ultra x 2 processors


Is this the case?

 

[Athan.G]

Regarding the II it's not that simple. x2 processors doesn't just mean that you can use more stuff simultaneously. It's a whole new architecture that gets MUCH MUCH closer to the feel of the real amps. Also the effects are much warmer and organic as well. At least IMHO.

 

[Rex]

It's like this (but way simplified):

Standard — like having every amp out there — each amp has special controls that change the amps in ways you'd require an amp tech for in the "real"world, along with a fat collection of the most poular cabs, and studio-quality versions of the effects that 99% of guitarists use. Plus you can route between these things as if you had all the cable and pedalboard space in the world.

Ultra — like having a Standard that can handle even more stuff in its signal path, along with added effects and deeper features.

II — Like you took your Ultra, cloned it, fed the clone steroids, and sent it to college to earn an advanced degree. More realism in tones, significantly better "feel," Hugely improved communications and control. Takes less effort to discover good tones, but provides even more options for tweaking tones.

 

[shasha]

STD-the original idea, works great, ran into memory limitations

Ultra-taking the original platform and expanded the memory and pretty much maxed what was possible with that hardware

II-took about 4 years of user suggestions, knowledge and lessons learned and built a new platform based on that

 

[laxu]

STD-the original idea, works great, ran into memory limitations

Ultra-taking the original platform and expanded the memory and pretty much maxed what was possible with that hardware

II-took about 4 years of user suggestions, knowledge and lessons learned and built a new platform based on that

I'd say more like II - crammed in more hardware, barely updated the user interface, made higher quality modeling.

 

[eda123]

Like the others have mentioned, the II is more than just double processing. The double processors enable some far more complex algorithms and the feel is incredibly realistic.

 

[aculturemind]

So if money is no object, and going by the proverb 'a player should have the best instrument possible', I should get a II, right?

A point I'd like to shed light on here is, I'll probably have only one high gain tone, and one clean tone.

 

[Rex]

If you want the best instrument possible, then yes, you should get a II. Whether you'll have one tone or a million.

 

[laxu]

So if money is no object, and going by the proverb 'a player should have the best instrument possible', I should get a II, right?

A point I'd like to shed light on here is, I'll probably have only one high gain tone, and one clean tone.

You'd probably do just fine with the Standard or Ultra if those are your needs. I still haven't heard a single clip where the Axe 2 sounds truly better. Might as well save plenty of money.

 

[aculturemind]

I still haven't heard a single clip where the Axe 2 sounds truly better.QUOTE]


I've mostly heard Mark Day's stuff (the kind of tone I prefer, as well), and I had to ask him why he went for a II, because I couldn't tell the difference between his Ultra and II vids. They all sound killer.

 

[cragginshred]

A selling point all in itself -All future tech and firmware upgrades goes in to the II, None to the others. Good luck with your decision, for me this alone was the reason to upgrade from m Ultra

 

[shasha]

Honestly. It'd be a tough decision. I loved the Ultra and if there never was a new AxeFXII I'd still love it. But having went ahead and took the plunge I can say that without a doubt it was a good decision for me. I'm kind of in the same boat as you actually, I don't have 900 tones, I usually use just a handful of presets to cover everything I need. I can't describe the difference between them 100% because there was a pretty long gap, but I do know that I can dial in my patches faster because some of the quirks aren't there. I also feel like the way the guitar responds is better. But if you really compare the two side by side I think that its going to be more evident in playing them more so than hearing them if that makes any sense.

With that said there are some things going on the II that I don't think the Ultra did in terms of just dynamics, especially with the latest firmware. For my money the II is worth every single penny and then some.

 

[swass]

So if money is no object, and going by the proverb 'a player should have the best instrument possible', I should get a II, right?

A point I'd like to shed light on here is, I'll probably have only one high gain tone, and one clean tone.

... only one high gain and only one clean??...

... yeah, right. I'd like to see you restrain yourself to that.

Peace,

 

[Dramelot]

Alot of it is a feel thing, and now were not missing that crack..l0l

 

[aculturemind]

Honestly. It'd be a tough decision. I loved the Ultra and if there never was a new AxeFXII I'd still love it. But having went ahead and took the plunge I can say that without a doubt it was a good decision for me. I'm kind of in the same boat as you actually, I don't have 900 tones, I usually use just a handful of presets to cover everything I need. I can't describe the difference between them 100% because there was a pretty long gap, but I do know that I can dial in my patches faster because some of the quirks aren't there. I also feel like the way the guitar responds is better. But if you really compare the two side by side I think that its going to be more evident in playing them more so than hearing them if that makes any sense.

With that said there are some things going on the II that I don't think the Ultra did in terms of just dynamics, especially with the latest firmware. For my money the II is worth every single penny and then some.

Yeah, I grok. Which is why I'll likely go that route. And, because I can.

... only one high gain and only one clean??...

... yeah, right. I'd like to see you restrain yourself to that.

Peace,

It might seem strange, yeah. But I'd have only ONE tone if I could. Something in-between high gain and clean. But on the synth and midi side of things, gear and options aren't much different than the amp modeling/do everything arena - except that the learning curve, even with completely PC-based ware, is astronomically higher. And that's before I might even have a clue whether I'll be able to get in the range of the timbre I want. (Then there's actuation, and particularly as even the [old now] Axon AX100 doesn't seem to be that remarkable, I'd have to probably go keyboard.)

Or, another way, I come from the perspective of an orchestral instrument player. They have one overall timbre, from which they manifest various qualities. They have the added advantage of natural, very broad dynamics. (Unless you're playing piccolo or something...)

 

[swass]

Yeah, I grok. Which is why I'll likely go that route. And, because I can.





It might seem strange, yeah. But I'd have only ONE tone if I could. Something in-between high gain and clean. But on the synth and midi side of things, gear and options aren't much different than the amp modeling/do everything arena - except that the learning curve, even with completely PC-based ware, is astronomically higher. And that's before I might even have a clue whether I'll be able to get in the range of the timbre I want. (Then there's actuation, and particularly as even the [old now] Axon AX100 doesn't seem to be that remarkable, I'd have to probably go keyboard.)

Or, another way, I come from the perspective of an orchestral instrument player. They have one overall timbre, from which they manifest various qualities. They have the added
advantage of natural, very broad dynamics. (Unless you're playing piccolo or something...)

All I simply meant, was that once you really dig into either of these machines, you're really gonna "dig it" so, that I don't think you'll be able to help yourself but to come up with some really cool stuff for yourself. I thought the same way,(one gain and one clean) when I first got the Ultra as I've never been that kind of tone monster myself. Plain and simple was I... so I thought. That's the kind of machine it is and almost demands that you come up with variable tones. Just wait and see. Whatever Axe you decide to buy, you won't be disappointed. I've owned the Ultra and now the II and was not disappointed in any way with either.

All the best to you on your tone quest.

Peace.

 

[Rex]

It might seem strange, yeah. But I'd have only ONE tone if I could... Or, another way, I come from the perspective of an orchestral instrument player. They have one overall timbre, from which they manifest various qualities. They have the added advantage of natural, very broad dynamics. (Unless you're playing piccolo or something...)

When your art kit only has a cello-colored palette, that's what you paint with. Once you get the full spectrum of colors in your hand, you're gonna try a few new ones.

 

[antcarrier]

It might seem strange, yeah. But I'd have only ONE tone if I could. Something in-between high gain and clean.

Or, another way, I come from the perspective of an orchestral instrument player. They have one overall timbre, from which they manifest various qualities. They have the added advantage of natural, very broad dynamics. (Unless you're playing piccolo or something...)

I have a similar perspective. I write orchestral music using VSL (w/ solo guitar o' course!) and for this style I mostly stick to one mid-low gain patch, and play with a huge dynamic range - my intention being to have my electric behave a little more like an acoustic, dynamically speaking, so it will fit in with the other instruments. I have both an ultra and a II, and for this type of playing I find the ultra 'feels' better (so far - I have not yet tried the new dynamics controls of 5.4b for this purpose). The new option of switching off the grid modelling in the II however, is fantastic for getting a wide dynamic range and makes it feel a bit more like G1.

I disagree with the majority who believe the II sounds 'better' or easier to dial in. Obviously the II has better features, but at the end of the day they both sound great, but are inherently very different. I like them both!

 

[Rick]

I'd say more like II - crammed in more hardware, barely updated the user interface, made higher quality modeling.

That statement might have held true from the Standard to the Ultra, but not on the II. I'd have to give FAS a little more credit on the interface than that... The addition of X and Y states to models is huge, and being able to use these front panel interface buttons/knobs for changing or assignable direct access to parameters is another big plus. The A/B/C/D direct access knobs are another huge step and, being soft knobs, can only come to have more function in the future. The larger screen is a plus for everyone, and has already prompted wish list requests for better use of the enlarged real estate. After playing the Ultra for a year, I have to say the interface in the II is a big step forward.

I agree the logic of using the interface has remained (which I like), but there have been some colossal additions to function, IMO. Nothing personal, laxu, everyone here has a right to their impressions and opinions. I'd just like to see FAS recognized for some interface additions that many of us think are awesome!

 

[laxu]

That statement might have held true from the Standard to the Ultra, but not on the II. I'd have to give FAS a little more credit on the interface than that... The addition of X and Y states to models is huge, and being able to use these front panel interface buttons/knobs for changing or assignable direct access to parameters is another big plus. The A/B/C/D direct access knobs are another huge step and, being soft knobs, can only come to have more function in the future. The larger screen is a plus for everyone, and has already prompted wish list requests for better use of the enlarged real estate. After playing the Ultra for a year, I have to say the interface in the II is a big step forward.

I agree the logic of using the interface has remained (which I like), but there have been some colossal additions to function, IMO. Nothing personal, laxu, everyone here has a right to their impressions and opinions. I'd just like to see FAS recognized for some interface additions that many of us think are awesome!

My beef is that the user interface is still somewhat badly designed. There is no clear connection between the hardware and software in control placement, the navigation arrows are still a bit awkward (seriously, highly durable D-pads have been used in games consoles for over a decade now), buttons in general seem arbitrarily placed with no clear grouping etc. It's still very 1980s. They could've easily done a lot more with it and I hope they will for the inevitable Axe-Fx 3 in a few years.