Sometimes Axe-Fx vs. Amp comparisons miss the point

Sans Logic

Sans Logic

Member
My thoughts on the Ultra that I have had for a few months is that it is the most enjoyable piece of music equipment that I have ever owned.

Since I have purchased it, I have received compliments on my tone from other players and more favorable reviews of performances from non-players. No one has asked if I was using an amp or a modeler. That is because it is not relevant.

I see a lot of comments about how Axe products compare to the real tube amps they try to emulate. This is necessary and makes perfect sense when trying to appreciate and describe the sound the Axe products produce, but if you have to start talking about being an expert just to discern the differences, further detailed comparison becomes moot for anyone not an expert.

When it comes to which I should own, split-hair comparisons no longer make sense. There is no practical way to own the real world equivalent of all of the gear the Axe products emulates, even for most studios. So, unless you are looking for a sound that is uniquely you and never have a need for versatility, I don't see a choice. Once digital modeling gets to the level that is seen today with these products, I am starting to feel like too many people worry about how exact it is. In the end, does it make you feel good playing live, does it sound good recorded, does it inspire you, etc. I say that it does all of these things, and it does them so well that even experts would fail blind tests. I certainly couldn't tell, being a bit of a hack, except that maybe the one that sounds like sh*t is the real amp because its pre-amp tube needs to be replaced.

I would never tell B.B. King to get rid of his amp, but I also would never tell someone learning how to play that they have compromised their sound by getting an ULTRA. Just the opposite. They would have a much better chance of developing a sound they like with more options. If you must have a tube amp, you already know who you are. Everyone else get an Axe-Fx and have fun.

The beauty of the real amps should not be diminished and they have assumed their proper place in history. But isn't it more of a practicality vs. authenticity argument from a purchase standpoint? For me it is, and authenticity loses easily.
 
Good post.

I know a lot of people who are so focused on the comparison that the real power of a device like Axe-FX gets lost in the argument. The comparison is understandable, after all the amp models are based on actual amps.

But thats where I break off from conventional ideas and really don't care if the models are exactly like the originals, but want the the models themselves to be responsive enough for me to get that interactive and dynamic feel.

That's probably why when I listen to demo done with the Axe-FX, I still don't feel like I know the unit enough to decide if I like it. Can't wait to try one though, because what I've heard is damn good.
 
Good post Sans Logic.

Sans Logic said:
But isn't it more of a practicality vs. authenticity argument from a purchase standpoint? For me it is, and authenticity loses easily.
Click to expand...

For a while i was carrying around a 130lb rack full of tube gear. Now, I have a 3U rack with my Ultra and a Furman. My stress level has gone way down (mentally and physically) and I can explore tones I've never tried before.

Terry.
 
That's the most sensible post I've seen in quite a while.

I'd like to add a couple to things though, if I may. Being primarily a high gain player, and knowing the love that high gain players tend to have for their valve amps, it must be pointed out that one of the most famous high gain players out there (Dimebag Darrell) used primarily Randall transistor amps (not valve amps) in his most active and groundbreaking years. Likewise, Frank Gambale has been using digital pre amps for quite a while, his reasoning being that it doesn't make sense to use what is, essentially, out dated technology to achieve a worthwhile guitar tone.

There are some things that we have forgotten as guitar players. We have forgotten that looking back and emulating the tones of yesteryear does nothing to help us find progression in our sound. It does nothing to evolve the sounds we can achieve with the instrument. In his day, I'm sure Jimi Hendrix must have realised the pointlessness of being another guitarist with a Buddy Holly sound, shortly before he decided to find out what his fuzz pedal and wah sounded like in front of THAT amp. Likewise, Dimebag must have scratched his head at how Richie Blackmore wrote THAT riff, before chucking it and deciding he wanted to sound like a chainsaw instead.

My point is, we devote our time trying to emulate this patch, or that album sound when we're losing sight of the flexibility of the unit. Ok, maybe it doesn't sound like your old AC30 CC2 exactly, but does ANY amp sound like an AC30 when you actually listen to what you're hearing? Does an AC30 even sound like the brain template that you have of an AC30 in your head?

The Axe-FX is more evolved than that, and far far more flexible.

So, instead of scratching our heads wondering if the unit matches our (often) unrealistic expectations of what a particular amp sounds like (who the hell has the money to even look at a Dumble, never mind own one?), why don't we all concentrate on letting the unit fulfill it's primary purpose of letting us make music, rather than worrying and arguing over the exact nature and age of that emulated 12AX7 valve?

After all, it just doesn't matter.
 
We as people like to hold on to things, we always look for something familiar in everything and tend to stereo type it in someway (usually negative) if we don't have something to relate it to or understand it. The funny thing is if digital had been first we would be kicking our tube amps wondering why they don't sound right. :)
 
I struggled for months in frustration when I tried to make the Axe Fx sound exactly like my real amp. I started having fun with it when I just tried to make it sound good with no intention of duplicating any specific sound, and it was a lot easier. Now I see it as endless possibilities, not just recreating what I've already done.
 
Fro said:
I struggled for months in frustration when I tried to make the Axe Fx sound exactly like my real amp. I started having fun with it when I just tried to make it sound good with no intention of duplicating any specific sound, and it was a lot easier. Now I see it as endless possibilities, not just recreating what I've already done.
Click to expand...

I first tried an Ultra a couple of years ago now, testing it side by side with a Peavey 6505 and a Marshall JVM410. I ditched the idea of buying one because it didn't have the raw power and feel of the real amps.

So 18 months later I borrow one again and start playing around with it in my little home studio. I had recently finished recording a CD with my band and I was tuned in to listening to my amp mic'd up and playing back through my studio monitors so I was coming at it from a different perspective. What a difference that made!

Suddenly I could hear how the AxeFx is best appreciated - as a "finished sound" not a real amp in a room. Comparing what I could from my real amp in the room next door with a mic on it to what was suddenly coming out of the AxeFx was an awakening. It all clicked. This is where I insert the standard Axe Fx story about selling all my gear and now I rely just on the AxeFx for all my sounds, it happened to me too.

The other thing that has happened is that I've stopped trying to create other people's sounds and I just dial teh amps in to sound how I want them to. What that means is that all my high gain patches sound really similar whether I'm using the Uber, Energyball, Das Metal or Recto sims, same goes for my crunch sounds regardless of whether it's the JCM800, Cornford, Laney or whatever amp I'm using. Once you figure out what sound you want it's just a matter of using the tools at your disposal in the AxeFx to best articulate it.

I've been able to dial it in so I'm 90% happy with it live as well. I sometimes miss what I call the "Raging Halfstack effect" on stage but as soon as I remember I don't have to lug a 4X12 out to the car after the gig all is well.
 
I also think that there are a limited number of things that you can tweak with a traditional amp, so once you find an amp / cabinet that you are comfortable with, you don't / can't mess it up too much. If it needs a little less bass, turn the one knob that helps. Further tweaking involves an entirely new purchase. You now have a huge investment in your sound, and frankly, you will have to like it and get used to it.

My only complaint about digital modeling is that it exposes my lack of ear and my biases in the same way mixing my home studio does. You can spend an eternity mixing and remixing, only to find that at best you were inconsistent, or worse, that you've "improved it" so many times that it now sucks. This is the most frustrating thing I can imagine, knowing that if Steven Wilson came to my house he could produce a fantastic sounding recording with my gear. As a wise friend has told me, it is not in the gear, it is in the ear.

Dialing in an amp sound on a traditional rig isn't even in the same universe as mixing a recording, IMO. The Axe-Fx falls wonderfully in the latter, and I think understanding this and approaching it like an engineer has made me appreciate it more. That little box has so many possibilities it is either scary or adventuresome depending on your mood. To get an Axe-Fx is to get out of your comfort zone, and I believe this is the impetus for staying traditional as much as actual sound.
 
DonPetersen said:
I always found it interesting that the pros considered the Axe an invaluable asset, while the gear horder/hobbyist type debated to no end how the sim of a Recto sounded different from a real Recto. (When the 'fault' was entirely their own - but that's beside the point.)
Click to expand...

Well that is true, but are they using it in albums?
Show me an album with a good guitar sound recorded with the AXE-FX direct and I'm sold! :)

Oh wait I already have an AXE-FX ultra lol, but still It doesnt convince me to do a studio album on it!
 
guitarzpt said:
Well that is true, but are they using it in albums?
Show me an album with a good guitar sound recorded with the AXE-FX direct and I'm sold! :)

Oh wait I already have an AXE-FX ultra lol, but still It doesnt convince me to do a studio album on it!
Click to expand...

Andee Blacksuger's last two CD's. And dude - they are bad ass.

No one need convince anyone of anything. But it is what it is.
 
Thanks Scott - As a guy who's new to the board, thanks for all your contributions. As a die-hard tube and analog gear guy for a long long time, and someone who has churned a lot of gear over the years, I am really looking forward to playing with the Axe and my personal criteria for a huge win will be:

1. Does it sound/feel/respond to my playing, dynamics, etc like the tube amps I am used to using.

2. Does it allow a huge amount of flexibility in creating both classic and totally unique/innovative effects and routing to spark my creativity and get me amped up to play.

Not is the tone 100% identical (which it never will be, and no two amps are 100% identical either), but is it in the ballpark enough to get great sounds. Kendricks and Victorias don't sound 100% like vintage Fenders or like each other for that matter, but they kick some major a$$).

If it can achieve both of those things while making setup at a gig simpler and playing at home more neighbor/kid friendly, I am all over it like a fat kid on a cupcake. :mrgreen
 
Awesome thread this. I think people need to wake to one simple fact - the amp is a tool, much like the axe fx. If you get your sound with the amp, great for you, if you get it with the axe, awesome. But if you're gonna split hairs about how the recto model doesn't sound like the real recto because of some minute differences, then, well, you're just spending less time playing guitar and getting the sound you want, and more time debating on essentially pointless issues. Does the sound knock your socks off? Fuck yes. Does it sound like your favorite amp? Maybe, maybe not. If you wanted it to sound like your favorite amp, just get your favorite amp! If you think it sounds good, stick with it. Hell, Meshuggah stuck with Pods for an eternity. And Sybreed are still touring with Pod 2.0s. Whatever rocks your boat!

On that note, at a recent metal festival, out of ALL the bands who played, and there was some really nice backline there (dual rectos, engl savage, marshalls, triple rectos, and all in great shape), the best sounding guitar tones were by Meshuggah (by a LONG shot) and this amazing norwegian band called Incense. Guess what they were using? :)
 
I love it when I am working with an artist who says, "Well, the Axe-Fx does NOT sound exactly like the rig; it sounds BETTER." That happens more than you'd imagine, across genres.

The other thing I see time after time is that once you are above a certain tone quality threshold -- which the Axe-Fx certainly is -- the magic of the music is really beyond the gear. I can hack away, or program while a tech plays, and try to make an Axe-Fx preset sound just like the tone I hear on a record, or from the A/B monster rig in the next room, for a time secretly disappointed thinking it isn't spot on -- only to have any differences become totally inconsequential as a song or riff suddenly bursts to life as the artist who created it steps up to play the new Axe-Fx creation. Emotion transcends technique. It was the missing parameter. Most people would say that the tech or I had been playing "the same thing" -- they'd expect the sound differences to be in the the box. The spark is not in the tube, I tell you... it's in the fingers.
 
Admin M@ said:
I love it when I am working with an artist who says, "Well, the Axe-Fx does NOT sound exactly like the rig; it sounds BETTER." That happens more than you'd imagine, across genres.
Click to expand...
Those of us who have made those statements all along have been widely ridiculed, but - depending on your goals in dialing in sounds - it is often true.

The other thing I see time after time is that once you are above a certain tone quality threshold -- which the Axe-Fx certainly is -- the magic of the music is really beyond the gear.
Click to expand...
Again, depending on the artist, a Peavey Bandit may lie above the "tone quality threshold." That does not detract in any way from the value of powerful tools like the Axe-Fx, it just acknowwledges that the source of inspired music is never the gear.

Emotion transcends technique. It was the missing parameter. Most people would say that the tech or I had been playing "the same thing" -- they'd expect the sound differences to be in the the box. The spark is not in the tube, I tell you... it's in the fingers.
Click to expand...
Thank you for that. In saying "the spark is in the fingers," you are implicilty acknowledging that the player's "soul" is the source of powerful music. The instrument and the gear are implements to be used in pursuit of the goal of making music. Nothing more, nothing less.

Here's a master's take on this subject: YouTube - ‪Hal Galper's Master Class - The Illusion of An Instrument‬‏ .
 
BigD1977 said:
That's the most sensible post I've seen in quite a while.

Likewise, Frank Gambale has been using digital pre amps for quite a while, his reasoning being that it doesn't make sense to use what is, essentially, out dated technology to achieve a worthwhile guitar tone.

.
Click to expand...

In general I get your point and I'm a "whatever works for you" person, but I wouldn't take Frank Gambale's tone as an example of something to emulate, at least the times I've seen him with Vital Information. He can play his A(*& off, but his sound is severely lacking to me. Mike Stern is kind of that way, too. That 80's chorus sound gets old in a hurry and there's so little expressive variation to my ear.

Mike
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom