Why not use the same amp setup as your Ultra if you really liked it?
Because I had to sell the power amp and cabs to get a II (and since then have been running an FRFR rig which I'm not getting along with ).
Why not use the same amp setup as your Ultra if you really liked it?
I will state again that I believe the installed amp defaults are based on FRFR use.
I agree with Adam. I find the Axe-FX II an order of magnitude faster, and easier, to dial up sounds with vs the Ultra. I spent one evening setting up my basic tones when the II came in a few weeks ago and I was good to go. I then jumped to the latest version and it took one more evening to rework things. In both cases what I created at home in one evening translated well live, with minimal tweaks on stage AND the tones were an order of magnitude better (chewy, 3D, warm, full, etc.). On the Ultra the same process took weeks / months. I run FRFR btw.I personally do not agree with the common assertions in this thread that it is easier to tweak the Ultra for simple amp sounds. The Axe-FX II IMO is much quicker to dial in because of the improvement in the accuracy of the algorithms.
This is a great video! Scott shows how easy it is to set up a great sounding patch in 5 minutes. His use of a nearfield / farfield IR mix was the ticket for me. It might make all the difference in the world for you as well.I was really glad to see a Scott Peterson video called "Taming The Monster" on how to create patches.
I loved the Ultra, but after playing the Axe 2 for a few months..it sounds digital to me.
I loved the Ultra, but after playing the Axe 2 for a few months..it sounds digital to me.
Never said "IT IS THE DEVICE". I know its me. Just want other peoples opinion. And not just being over dramatic here.
My suggestion: start with a BLANK preset. Drop in an amp block. Connect directly to your power amp + cab. Tweak ONLY minor parameters such as drive, master, and amp EQ.