So, I did something silly.

Icarusuki

Member
I hooked my Axe FX II XL+ up with my Axe FX III and ran them together into my Matrix GT1000FX. I used a scene selector to A/B the units instantly with a footswitch.

I matched signal chains and added: Input 1 > Output 4, and Input 3 > Output 1

I ran output 4 of the III to the input of the II, and ran the output of the II to Input 3 in the III.

Then used scenes to mute Input 3 on and off and mute the chain on the III, so I could switch between them.

Probably not a good scientific test, as I cannot guarantee that the input signal to the Axe FX II is exactly the same as the input level of the Axe FX III, nor can I be sure the outputs are identical either. But I got it as close as I could discern. I tested the input level but plugging in directly and listening to any differences.

After dialing both the II and the III in with the same settings and default amp blocks, they sounded almost identical to my ear. After intensely listening, I can say there is a difference, but it is VERY minor to my ears. I doubt I could tell which was which, if I blind tested them later. That said, with the subtle differences I could detect, I did prefer the way the III sounded. But I have no way of knowing where my multiple biases take over and how it all interacts with the flaws in the test. Also, since my sounds are scooped high gain (think Metallica), I can imagine I may be missing some of the other improvements the III has on modelling, due to my tonal choices.

I also found that the initial sounds I organically dialed in with the III, without having access to my II for comparison, were better than the sounds I had dialed in with the II, which had been multiple iterations over the course of years. Considering I had used the front panel of the III to create my big presets attests to how intuitive the new interface is. After having been using the II for 2 years, I would never have even attempted to create a complex preset via the front panel.

I got the III as a platform for future improvement, rather than as a immediate sonic improvement. The II sounds great. The III is better.

To the FAS team, great job on the III. Great job on the front panel UI. I'm looking forward to the future of this product.

(Insert obligatory anticipation message for Axe Edit III and the FC6/12)
 
I too programmed presets in my III (w/o my XL+ handy) and prefer my new presets. As good as the UI is on the III I'm in no hurry for AxeEdit III although it would make organizing scenes, presets and cabs a heck of a lot easier! I'm using my MFC MkIII for live control and not having feedback on the controller is a bit unnerving so yeah, eagerly awaiting the FC ;-)
 
The three sounds noticeably better to me. I wonder how much of that is the placebo effect though. I will have my first band practice later this week so that may shed some light on it.
 
Since the Atomic CLR’s have 2 inputs, I had my II and III running side by side through the CLR at the same volume. I programmed identical patches, and then quickly switched between the 2 units. The differences were more noticeable to me at higher volumes, or extreme settings, like rolling back the guitar volume. I like the sound of the III so far, and do prefer it over the II. But it also made me really appreciate how far the II has progressed over the years and how good it still sounds. I’m curious to see if any differences between the 2 units will go away if/when some of that magic makes it’s way into the II’s firmware. But it will be more interesting to see how the III sounds a year from now.
 
But it will be more interesting to see how the III sounds a year from now.

Yes to this. I'm very much looking forward to the evolution.

For my test, I didn't want to try the cab emulation, because I think that will be a MAJOR point of divergence between the II and the III. The III obviously can do SO much more (more easily) than the II with IRs.

I did notice that CPU usage on my Axe FX II was hovering around 66% and around 50% on the III for similar presets. I was surprised, I thought I remembered being upward of 80% on the II. I may have set the quality for reverb and cabs lower to free up processing power.
 
I did notice that CPU usage on my Axe FX II was hovering around 66% and around 50% on the III for similar presets.

FWIW - I think a lot of my presets were in the 80% range on the II, and in the 60% range on the III.
 
Is it just me or do the reverbs and delays sound a touch more pristine and 3d on the III?
I never had the II, but I'm coming over from the Helix and/or analog gear/tube amps. You guys are all echoing my experience here. I can't believe how good the clean amps sound and feel - that Dumble clean? Oh man. And one of the first things I noticed was how absolutely perfect, pristine, and unobtrusive all the reverbs and delays sound. Even though I rarely play with delays except as an effect (U2 type stuff), they sound so good and don't get in the way at all so I end up leaving them on all the time. I've only made slight adjustments to the stock presets.

This is a magic box, I tell you. It's the first thing that has me seriously considering getting rid of all my other gear...
 
Back
Top Bottom