Selling the II and going back to ultra...

sonofmickel said:
I will state again that I believe the installed amp defaults are based on FRFR use.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but this is not correct.

The amp defaults are based simply on the most accurate representation of that amp circuit that we are able to create. Sometimes "accurate" can vary due to wide varieties in the original amp being modeled, so in those cases we just use our ears to make any final refinements. When using our ears the amp models are being run through a power-amp -> standard guitar cab configuration and NOT a FRFR system because that would introduce speaker IR's into the equation.

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. I think it is more the case that many users are overwhelmed by the plethora of parameters in the Axe-FX II amp block and feel it is necessary to twist this knobs when that is not the case at all.

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. I have used this method to construct my primary patches based on AC30 TB, Friedman BE, Friedman HBE, and many others and it works flawlessly every time. I recently used this method to A/B with a REAL Friedman head and the Axe-FX II on DEFAULT settings is extremely close to the real thing.
 
I sold my Ultra two weeks after getting my 2 and have been wrestling with it ever since. The guy who bought my Ultra felt bad enough to offer to mail it back to me and let me keep using it for a while until I get the 2 dialed in. I turned him down basically because I just wanted to commit to the 2 and not look back. I am slowly but surely moving forward and expect those leaps to grow exponentially with Amp and Tone matching.

I was really glad to see a Scott Peterson video called "Taming The Monster" on how to create patches. The more of these resources that we can easily reference and point newer users towards the less frustration there will be IMHO. I love my 2 and can't or rather shouldn't expect that I will have it mastered like I did the Ultra (took me a good while to get to the set and forget stage with the Ultra, constantly refining my patches) so am working with it whenever possible and chipping away at the elements I need to polish.

Because of what I do I need to very closely replicate tones so the tone matching could be a godsend for me if it works well.
 
Last edited:
Before you make such a drastic move, try and play an Ultra before you sell your Axe 2. I think you'll immediately notice the improvements of the Axe 2.

I loved the Ultra, but after playing the Axe 2 for a few months..it sounds digital to me.

I would do what others are suggesting..

As soon as you get your presets happening..dont upgrade the firmware for a long time.

Hope this helps
 
I have my still new II and my Ultra sitting on top of it. I tried tweaking a few patches from the Ultra in the II, but I thought WTF. I'll just start over in the II. It's not like my patches were the holy grail or anything. BUT I did feel comfortable playing them. I'm selling the Ultra to the first serious offer and not looking back. I think the II is a substantial improvement. And yes, I agree. Just because the extra tweakable parameters are there doesn't mean you have to tweak them. Let's use our ears first and foremost.

AND I don't HAVE to have a ton of presets. I'm far from a cover band musician. I have three to four essential sounds, but I also have a recording studio where I've been known to be expected to do studio type guitar parts for clients or myself. It's fantastic to BE ABLE to get those sounds with little effort. But I've never been interested in copying somebodies sound or playing. A vibe or general style that fits the song, yes. So the II is great FOR ME.

Do what's best for you and regret nothing!
 
I was where you are the first couple of weeks into the II. I've been using my Ultra exclusively for 2,5 years for studio and live work, and was super happy -- no fiddling, just playing. My initial problem with the II was that I was looking for the exact same things as I had in the Ultra; I had come to rely on the Ultra Plexi model, but didn't find the Plexi model(s) in the II to be as good. What I realized was that the Ultra's Plexi was more like a hot-rodded plexi, not as realistic as the Plexis in the II. So i rethought my entire setup, and went for the Brown model + the Bogner Blue, which really was more the sound I achieved with the Ultra Plexi anyway. Today, comparing the Ultra and the II (which I have done extensively in my studio), the II is really better and constantly improving. And that says a lot, because the Ultra is still a monster.

So, spend some hours starting over, and then ease down on the upgrade frequency. I'm sure it will be worth it. That's my tip.
 
AdamCook said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.

Secret80'sMan said:
I was really glad to see a Scott Peterson video called "Taming The Monster" on how to create patches.
Click to expand...
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.

BTW, can you tell us more about your setup (guitar, FRFR solution, etc.)?

Terry.
 
Still using 10.3 on my Ultra. I´ve tweaked less than i would with my former Roadking II. IMHO Ultra sounds better than the RKII and all the amps we have in the shop. I play them amps every day. Sound beautiful, but they are to narrow. So i don´t feel that digital sound is the right word for the Ultra or Standard.... YMMV

I´ve not touched advanced parameters. I´ve done tweaks in global to kind of match my cabs (greenbacks and v30´s) My best leadpatch was made 3 days after i got the ultra. It still is the killer. I tweak some patches, but have always left that one alone.

Axe II is on it´s way in a couple of weeks. I guess it will be just as hard to adjust. A day or two for my live patches (at most), with some tweaks during rehearsals, to fit the mix, taste and guitars. Direct tones is matched so and so. I´ll never(probably) get it like i hear my cabs, trough FOH. But it does not matter as long it sounds killer. As long as i love my sound on stage and it sounds killer FOH, i don´t care if it´s not a perfect match. Nobody in the audience knows how i hear my tone anyway...
I look forward to be able to make ir´s, tone match, amp match and all the stuff that´s comming.

A killer sound is a killer sound. So don´t get to hung up in details that will ruin a good night on your guitar. Just play.

I will run my Mesa poweramp and cabs for me, and FOH PA for the crowd.

All this IMHO etcetcetc

Peace
 
Last edited:
Going from pwr amp -> guitar cab to FRFR on the Ultra or Axe Fx II would be a significant change.

The rate of change of the Axe Fx II firmware right now will be a boon to some and a bust to some.

The OP'er sounded like he preferred to lock in the sounds and then just play. That is certainly possible at any one of the Axe Fx II firmware revisions.

Richard
 
Once v4 came out, I really started to dig into the II and tweak other's patches/make my own. Since then, I have upgraded each firmware and I rarely have to tweak anything. With each firmware, I tweak my main patches and save a new version...I usually come back to the original ones with very minor revisions.
 
EpicAxe said:
I loved the Ultra, but after playing the Axe 2 for a few months..it sounds digital to me.
Click to expand...

Hey, that's what I said before the II! And boy did it hurt some feelings 8)
I really wanted the simulation thingy to happen as it would make my life much easier. However, out of the loads of clips I checked out, none of them convinced me even remotely. Since the II came, I heard clips that sounded WAY better (to me) and pulled the plunge. Since I haven't tried the Ultra/Standard myself I can't make definite comparisons, but what sold me on the II was the less veiled and more organic top end I heard in some of the clips. But as I said, I haven't dived into the first generation myself.
 
I decided to just go back to the ultra. Seems right for what I need. I bought the 2 just cause all the rave. It is an amazing unit don't get me wrong, but maybe I jumped the gun. I had just gotten used to the parameters on the ultra. But I do agree that it is really user friendly and I don't find anything wrong with the tones at all on the 2. Its just I need to focus on writing at the moment and with all the stuff on the 2 Im easily distracted. LOL.
 
jjcor said:
Never said "IT IS THE DEVICE". I know its me. Just want other peoples opinion. And not just being over dramatic here.
Click to expand...

I can totally appreciate where you are coming from but something tells me your putting this out there because other than all the frustration with tweaking your system after firmware updates you are pretty happy with the unit. I say hold on to the II as it has a lot more potential. The firmwares should slow down when everything is up to speed.
 
I think it's a lot easier to dial in a great tone on the II. With 5.04b I find myself fiddling with advanced parameters very little.

Personally, so long as money isn't an issue I'd do as others suggest and keep the II and just stick to the basics tab and leave advanced parameters alone. They are certainly not necessary to get good tone. As for constantly updating firmware, if it's an OCD issue, nobody can really help you with that.
 
AdamCook said:
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.
Click to expand...

Sound advice IMO ....

I know the temptation to tweak is always there - just because you 'can' .... but I tell myself that a lot of those deep parameters are similar to opening up your valve amp and buggering about with components. I never did that with my conventional amps so I don't really want to do it with my Axe either. I kept it pretty simple with the Ultra and slapped myself if I started to delve too deep into things.

When my Axe2 arrives in a few days I plan to just get the 3 or 4 main 'basic sounds' that I would like to use live and use an amp and cab to achieve them. Once those bad boys are in place I can look at effects and x/y'ing things - then my final task will be to tune the FOH output to hopefully come up with something pretty near to the same din coming from the cab. The cab/mic/ir end of things piss me off - but I'll concentrate more on these with the Axe2 as there seems to be a general shake-up re. IRs lately.

I'm not saying that extreme tweaking is bad if you know what the hell the things actually do ..... but I largely don't - so ignorance is bliss!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom