Thinking of buying a III or possibly FM9 Turbo as an upgrade for my II - Curious what folks think is most improved.

jesussaddle

jesussaddle

Power User
Thinking of buying a III or possibly FM9 Turbo as an upgrade for my II - Curious what folks think is most improved since the II ARIES.

This is for recording use, not live or performance. The FRFR I am using is just Tannoy Gold 8's into a RME Fireface 400 (or upgrade to something?) into DAW. I can play at reasonable levels, and find that I must to get the liveliest sounds.

I created about 100 go-to presets since I got the Ultra - Traded up the MK1 II, and it took me forever to learn how to get my sounds (to be honest I don't know "how" I did in any simple way. There were dozens of changes I had to make in my thinking to achieve my desired tones. Now my favs are there, and assuming I do opt to get a III (or III Turbo or FM9 Turbo)I I probably will need to hold onto this until I carefully reconstruct them by ear. I don't think there's any roadmap.

So my satisfaction with my presets is definitely there, but I believe the variety achievable in the III would be significantly greater, partly due to others work and matching cabs and setups. I've tended to use mostly basic cab choices, since that reduced the frustration. I'm not sure how much ARIES is improved upon, how noticeable it will be, etc., but I think certainly there are improvements - the reverbs and effects obviously, but also I am thinking maybe some of the drive models. Do you agree that this is where the improvements lie, rather than in the Amp modeling overall? Are there other noticeable improvements, other than these, and cabs variety & features?
 
I Owned a II, and now a III for a few years. Since Cignus (Ver 14 IIRC) the tone has improved by quantum physics leaps and bounds. Each update since then has improved on the III, including the relatively new Dyna-Cab software addon. You cannot go wrong getting a III, with the FC-12 foot Controller.
 
jesussaddle said:
I'm not sure how much ARIES is improved upon, how noticeable it will be, etc., but I think certainly there are improvements - the reverbs and effects obviously, but also I am thinking maybe some of the drive models. Do you agree that this is where the improvements lie, rather than in the Amp modeling overall? Are there other noticeable improvements, other than these, and cabs variety & features?
Click to expand...
I came from the AX8 and bought the Axe III around FW 3.0. There wasn't a drastic difference in the amp modeling at the time, the thing that pushed me into the Axe over the AX8 were the Reverb algorithms and Plex delay block. I use a lot of ambient tones and was considering adding a Strymon pedal or two to the AX8.

Since getting the Axe III, the changes in the amp modeling has distanced it from the AX8/Aries modeling. IMO, the largest 'improvement' came around FW 11, there was a change in the speaker modeling/interaction.

While the tonal difference is vastly different, the biggest difference between the current Axe III and Aries is the feel and response of the amps. Add in Dyna Cabs, updated/added reverb algorithms and the improvements to the Pitch and Drive blocks would make it a no brainer if you're in a position to get the Axe III.

I usually get bored with gear and eventually move on to the next 'best' thing, but in over 6 years I have had no interest in trying any of the profilers or other modelers. May seem hyperbolic, but the Axe III is simply the best at providing realistic sounding and feeling tones. And it only gets better with each new tweak Cliff makes.
 
Also I notice that the updates come faster to the III and it seems for things like reverb and delay enhancements the wait might be six months + if I opt for the FM9.

I wonder, did anyone notice a difference in the drive block performance who had a II and now has an FM9 or III?
 
A huge improvement for me is the way the amps respond to palm muting and other downward hand dynamics. There's a kind of resonant woomp on high gain, or a lively chonk on mid gain. So when you play CHAAAHH chg chg chg chg chg CHAAAAH there's this persistent but bouncy energy that's very natural and analog. It's glorious. A comparative evolution of clean(ish) tones is the improved touch dynamics when you dig in. Whether you can play really well or maybe even not, this carries you.

Me myself? At this point, I would not want to go backwards from DynaCabs. 'nuff said. (And though I still have a few cherished User Cabs, the new cab block and features even make those better.

As an effects junkie, another obvious quantum leap is in that area. The individual effects -- and the features that make creative sound design possible -- are just another world in comparison. Compressor. Trem. Phaser. Flanger. Chorus. Reverb. Plex. Delay. MTD. Pitch........ Night. And. Day. Better. (Controllers too!!) (Editor three!!!)
 
Last edited:
Axe3 sounds more natural compared to axe2. I'm not saying that axe2 sounds bad, just a little less lively. Anyway sometimes I prefer the axefx2 (or even axefx std) for some stuff =)

Also axefx3 is much more easy to use (for studio too): nice presets for delays/reverbs and etc, smooth control via midi, very easy reamping. Dynacabs are simply amazing.

I'm not sure about the overdrive block, because I use the amp's input boost or input EQ instead.
 
Axe FX 3 has been out nearly a decade so there's a ton of changes that have been done. Even the oldest Axe 3 model still has all the latest updates.

Probably the biggest things are more clarity and improved dynamics, there was a lot of work done on the speaker thump and compression modeling, and lots of refinement to the tube amp modeling that impacts all amps. Effects were almost all updated at some point with a lot of attention to the drive and fuzz.
 
I’m wiling to bet you’ll spend less time tweaking to get a good sound as well.

IMO while referencing sound/parameters is great, the underlying algorithm is alot different and I’d probably start from just foundation (specific models used) and work from there.

If you wanted the same old sound but with modern upgrades it’s contradictory, again as the underlying algorithm is different. (Or keep both units )

Don’t worry about update frequency.

It comes when it comes and you don’t need to update to the absolute latest to get a good sound.
 
Biggest improvements for me are:

Dynamics and feel - III just responds and feels more like a real amp, warts and all.
Less tweaks required - Amps require less fuss and tweaking to sound "right" to me. I rarely need to touch the advanced amp parameters.
More models and FX - A LOT has been added here, particularly in amps, drives, reverbs, delays, trems, comps, etc.
UI is vastly superior - Big color screen is a joy compared to previous gens.
FC layout system - The FC controllers are leaps and bounds better than the MFC-101 MIDI based system.
USB and reamping - 8 in x 8 out USB makes reamping in a live mix so much easier.

There's no comparison. I have both and II and a III and the III is a far superior processor in just about every way.
 
Can’t really tell much about the Axe II, but the III turbo was the best purchase I made the past 20 years - amp wise at least. Never liked modelers a lot except for convenience and I was a die hard tube amp guy ever since. The Axe III made me sell most of my amps. Stuff feels super authentic and pleasing, amps I love for specified qualities in sound and feel behave the same on the Axe III. Amps i don’t like due to their feel I don’t like in the axe, too - but the Axe III lets me correct that if I want.

Imho it cures GAS and instead of buying new equipment all the time, I finally spend time enjoying playing and practicing. Also got rid of some guitars and kept only very specific ones to achieve certain sounds because a LP simply doesn’t sound like a single coil equipped Strat. No matter what tone I might be digging at the present day, I grab the appropriate guitar, load an appropriate amp for the job and end up having fun all evening.
 
Appreciate all the feedback. I also just heard some of the new delay and reverb stuff and am pretty stoked. Ideally I would figure out how to reproduce my II presets, but I'm not 100% sure I can, so I may be stuck with owning the II and the III (and in this case I may go with the behringer and my mission pedal. In prior posts I talked about getting the brit brown to actually work and sound like what I wanted in the II, and I'm honestly not at all sure how all the pieces came together on that. Until I got it, there was a kind of splattery thing going on. Does the community have any for-$ preset experts I could run questions by like, here are my II settings, why did they work the way they did and how might I dial this in on a III?
 
jesussaddle said:
... Ideally I would figure out how to reproduce my II presets, …
Click to expand...
I thought about that, and decided there would be so many adjustments that it would be easier to start from scratch. It’s also an opportunity to be systematic about how you do things: common preset layouts, common library blocks, etc
 
jesussaddle said:
Appreciate all the feedback. I also just heard some of the new delay and reverb stuff and am pretty stoked. Ideally I would figure out how to reproduce my II presets, but I'm not 100% sure I can, so I may be stuck with owning the II and the III (and in this case I may go with the behringer and my mission pedal. In prior posts I talked about getting the brit brown to actually work and sound like what I wanted in the II, and I'm honestly not at all sure how all the pieces came together on that. Until I got it, there was a kind of splattery thing going on. Does the community have any for-$ preset experts I could run questions by like, here are my II settings, why did they work the way they did and how might I dial this in on a III?
Click to expand...
IMO, no matter what you do or who programs it, the underlying engines of the ii and the iii are seriously different. I doubt matching one with the other is really feasible.

Besides, you'll have fun pulling up an amp and cab you think you'll like and going on an adventure looking for something cool in that neighborhood.
 
Well at least I can afford to hold onto the II for a bit and see if some of the settings can be used to get in the ballpark. But it would be nice to believe there are across-the-board experts on this - though logically each ideal sound people hunt for has it's own 'influencing factors', necessary guitar gear, etc... No one expert on it all could exist.
 
Just about everything improved, there are many good points above.

One thing got considerably worse, MIDI support. For recording at home probably doesn’t matter much. Sound wise III is much better.
 
vangrieg said:
Just about everything improved, there are many good points above.

One thing got considerably worse, MIDI support. For recording at home probably doesn’t matter much. Sound wise III is much better.
Click to expand...

You mean the 7-pin phantom power thing? Or glitchi-ness overall? I haven't used a lot of MIDI but when I did on the II it was not always easy - but that was an issue with my overall MIDI system - I think I had a keyboard or foot controller with a short or something at one point. I stopped using MIDI as an update method probably out of terror - and loved USB firmware updates immediately - so much less stress with the shorter times (With the Ultra, if memory serves, that was not available, so MIDI BETTER have been stable or something was bound to come out of the oven as a brick...).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom