Ultra or AXE-FX II

This is not the same league, but remember when L6 came out with a new more powerful more realistic POD and a great many folks still preferred the original's v1.3? sound. They still sell it I think. Just because it is more powerful doesn't mean that it is always better. How much computing power does a tube amp have? Tube amp modeling, to me, has its own 'uncanny valley' sometimes.

Axe-fx II clips sound great, but so do Ultra/Standard clips. I'm sure I'll upgrade to Axe II, and still I'll probably hang on to the Ultra as b/u. Cliff and co. are a rare breed these days and are worth supporting whatever the case.
 
Chewie5150 said:
my suggestion is not to jump on the bandwagon just because everything looks awesome on paper/specs and everyone loves the idea of an AFX2. yes there a few clips that sound great, but lot's of Ultra clips that sound equally great. if you're not in a big hurry, wait a bit, listen to clips once they become available (when people actually own them for a while and are familiar with the differences) also thirdparty reviews once the unit hits the market. compare the two, and if you perceive a $700 difference in sound quality then go for it. $700 in your pocket can get you lots of other goodies. Just my opinion on all the hype. take with grain of salt

this reminds me of all the older threads re: ''should i buy the standard or the ultra''...
Click to expand...

People keep saying this but there's so much more to the $700 difference than just the sound. A lot of the interface/usability improvements make it worthwhile to me. But of course it's all personal preference.

Cheers,
Steve
 
Last edited:
i knew it when i typed it...someone was going to call me on that statement:) lol it's just relative to the buyer's criteria and not necessarily a true pound for pound comparison of feature(s) and sound quality. relative to the market value of something and how much emptier one's pocket becomes.
 
Thanks everyone for the input. You all are the experts with the Axe-FX. Because I play a cover band and would use this live, most likely I'll end up using it only as an effects unit. The reason being (unless someone has solved this problem) is that my TriAmp while a 3 channel amp has 6 different gain stages..so it's almost like a 6 channel amp. With my current setup, I have one controller for my amp channels and another for my gMajor. When my FX is in reverb, all I need to do is use my amp footswitch and I could have my reverb on all 6 channels. In the Axe-FX world, that would be 6 patches for my amp,right??? I currently have about 15 different effects that I use so in reality, that would be 15x6 which would be 90 patches to do the same I'd doing now. I've thought and thought about things and I really don't know if the Axe-FX could work like a 6channel amp and 15 effects so it would be like only 21 patches... I know this is sorta hard to explain so I hope you get my drift.

So for my circumstances, maybe the ultra would be good enough. I do know I would want to use the PC editor and I have the midi cable that I can use to hook the Axe-fx to my PC. I've not looked at the software yet (I have tons of questions for that too).

take care everyone!

joe...
 
One thing to consider is that Fractal doesn't make anything from the resale of used hardware, I would suggest getting the Axe II for simply this reason....... to support Fractal Audio, its like investing in the future. and I very much do understand that some can't afford the Axe II but if you can manage its the definate path to take.
 
The II can do all things we need (DSP wise) - and the rest is in the firmware - and we all know that Cliff is a wizard.
 
Armin said:
The II can do all things we need (DSP wise) - and the rest is in the firmware - and we all know that Cliff is a wizard.
Click to expand...

+1. I can't wait to see how much of a monster the II will be after 2-3 years of firmware updates. Given how much space there is left DSP wise, I think it will be phenomenal!
 
LMO said:
If you are a connoisseur of tube amps and are convinced that no modeler can sound like a real tube amp, then save up for an FXII. Ditto if you feel a need to have the latest tech.
Click to expand...

Perfect expression for my GAS

I just sold my Stanard(very well!!) and will survive on an presold Ultra till End of June.By then I hope to get an "TWO" or fall in a dark deep hole

Roland
 
One of the main differences when the Axe 2 fully emerges may be that you don't have to be a great Axe programmer to get great tones on the Axe 2.

Also- the Axe 2 may reach the point where the Emulations exceed all but the very best individual Tube Amps operating under ideal conditions, volumes, with ideal cabinets etc etc and the Axe 2 may just "go there " easily...............
 
I am thinking II due (they say) easier to dial in improved interface. I am sure the Ultra would be more than enough for me but....
 
It's funny, I was thinking about how no one could decide this but you until the very end of the thread when you mentioned you're in a cover band and that you wouldn't really be using the amp sims. Still you're decision, but if you're not recording with it and don't need as much processing power (without an amp in the chain, you'll have a TON of processing headroom) then I actually strongly recommend the Ultra. The big benefits to the II sound to be in the amp emulation and the conveniences in a recording / studio setting.
 
godwentpunk said:
Thanks everyone for the input. You all are the experts with the Axe-FX. Because I play a cover band and would use this live, most likely I'll end up using it only as an effects unit. The reason being (unless someone has solved this problem) is that my TriAmp while a 3 channel amp has 6 different gain stages..so it's almost like a 6 channel amp. With my current setup, I have one controller for my amp channels and another for my gMajor. When my FX is in reverb, all I need to do is use my amp footswitch and I could have my reverb on all 6 channels. In the Axe-FX world, that would be 6 patches for my amp,right??? I currently have about 15 different effects that I use so in reality, that would be 15x6 which would be 90 patches to do the same I'd doing now. I've thought and thought about things and I really don't know if the Axe-FX could work like a 6channel amp and 15 effects so it would be like only 21 patches... I know this is sorta hard to explain so I hope you get my drift.

So for my circumstances, maybe the ultra would be good enough. I do know I would want to use the PC editor and I have the midi cable that I can use to hook the Axe-fx to my PC. I've not looked at the software yet (I have tons of questions for that too).

take care everyone!

joe...
Click to expand...

Couldn't you just create a single patch for each song you cover with the relevant amp and FX? That way you get any one of the 60 ish amps, the most ideal amp, for the song, rather than a compromise of one of 6 voices from the Tri-Axis, and only the FX required for the song are set?

I'm guessing you could always stick 4 amps using the Axe 2 x/y feature into a patch and have a whole bunch of effects loaded in there too and be able to switch in and out any of the 4 amps and some effects, all from a single patch. Throw some drives up front and you increase your gain sounds to even more than 4.

Still think it's simpler to create a couple of dozen patches for the various songs you play. I think the Axe 2 even has global fx blocks so that you can have the exact same settings for each fx across all patches.

Unless of course, every song you play makes use of all 6 different gain stages at once. But that seems unlikely.
 
zerolight said:
Couldn't you just create a single patch for each song you cover with the relevant amp and FX? That way you get any one of the 60 ish amps, the most ideal amp, for the song, rather than a compromise of one of 6 voices from the Tri-Axis, and only the FX required for the song are set?
Click to expand...

I'm with you on this one. It would be easier to organize the patches as well. You could line them up according to your set list if you're playing live.
 
godwentpunk said:
... With my current setup, I have one controller for my amp channels and another for my gMajor. When my FX is in reverb, all I need to do is use my amp footswitch and I could have my reverb on all 6 channels. In the Axe-FX world, that would be 6 patches for my amp,right??? I currently have about 15 different effects that I use so in reality, that would be 15x6 which would be 90 patches to do the same I'd doing now. ...
joe...
Click to expand...

Get the Ultra and the MFC 101 and set up the MFC-101 in song mode. You will be amazed at how effective the MFC-101 makes using the Ultra. I'm using that set up with a Mesa MarkV and the MarkV's 3 channels on it's own footswitch and I can get to any sound I want really easily. The Ultra is more than enough for your needs if you are going to be using it with the TriAmp. You can even get a midi switcher to make the MFC-101 control the TriAmps channel switching if you want to. The routing and control capabilities of the Fractal Audio units are absolutely amazing, the quality of the effects and the programmability of their individual parameters are equally amazing.

From what you have now to an AxeFx Ultra with MFC-101 would be a major upgrade. If you can swing the cost of the AxeII and an MFC-101 do it. If buying the AxeII means having to use a lesser midi footcontroller then don't bother with the AxeII use the funds for the MFC-101 and choose the Ultra. If you were looking to dump the Tri-Amp I'd say go with the AxeII but for use as an effects unit paired with an outboard amp and considering your needs for live use and selecting presets etc. the extra money into the MFC-101 is a better investment than into the AxeII.

As an example, I have one preset on the Ultra that on the MFC-101 is my like my main virtual pedal board, it has 15 different stomps of all the usual effects I might use. Then I create copies of that preset with different effects switched on or even different effects altogether to suit a particular song so I can either work off my main pedal board set up or call up a new 'song' preset on the MFC-101 and a different pedal board that already has switched on everything just the way the song needs it is right there. The presets have names and the songs have names all right there on the MFC-101's display so you always know right where you are. It's as close to perfect as any thing mechanical or electronic I've ever used.

If my house was on fire there is only one guitar I'd grab before I'd grab the MFC-101 the other 6 or 7 can burn...the insurance money on the Ultra would go toward a new AxeII ;)
 
Last edited:
bkrumme said:
I'm with you on this one. It would be easier to organize the patches as well. You could line them up according to your set list if you're playing live.
Click to expand...

I've given thought to a setup like this. My only thing is that I'll do close to 50-60 songs in a night and I don't want to have that many patches, plus we have a catalog of close to 150 songs of which any given night when we enter a bar, we'll rebuild the set list to cater to the crowd...and sometimes...we do this on the fly during a set...we'll just call things out. So a patch for every song would drive me crazy.
 
randombastage said:
Get the Ultra and the MFC 101 and set up the MFC-101 in song mode. You will be amazed at how effective the MFC-101 makes using the Ultra. I'm using that set up with a Mesa MarkV and the MarkV's 3 channels on it's own footswitch and I can get to any sound I want really easily. The Ultra is more than enough for your needs if you are going to be using it with the TriAmp. You can even get a midi switcher to make the MFC-101 control the TriAmps channel switching if you want to. The routing and control capabilities of the Fractal Audio units are absolutely amazing, the quality of the effects and the programmability of their individual parameters are equally amazing.

From what you have now to an AxeFx Ultra with MFC-101 would be a major upgrade. If you can swing the cost of the AxeII and an MFC-101 do it. If buying the AxeII means having to use a lesser midi footcontroller then don't bother with the AxeII use the funds for the MFC-101 and choose the Ultra. If you were looking to dump the Tri-Amp I'd say go with the AxeII but for use as an effects unit paired with an outboard amp and considering your needs for live use and selecting presets etc. the extra money into the MFC-101 is a better investment than into the AxeII.

As an example, I have one preset on the Ultra that on the MFC-101 is my like my main virtual pedal board, it has 15 different stomps of all the usual effects I might use. Then I create copies of that preset with different effects switched on or even different effects altogether to suit a particular song so I can either work off my main pedal board set up or call up a new 'song' preset on the MFC-101 and a different pedal board that already has switched on everything just the way the song needs it is right there. The presets have names and the songs have names all right there on the MFC-101's display so you always know right where you are. It's as close to perfect as any thing mechanical or electronic I've ever used.

If my house was on fire there is only one guitar I'd grab before I'd grab the MFC-101 the other 6 or 7 can burn...the insurance money on the Ultra would go toward a new AxeII ;)
Click to expand...

I think I need to read up on the MFC-101 and see what's it's capabilities are. You've given me more information to think about.

thanks!

joe...
 
I will probably be disqualified but I feel my opinion still counts.
After using the Axe-Fx II for a few weeks, I really have a hard time with the Ultra. The new larger LCD and front panel controls are a part of this, but the sound and features are the real the reason. My advice is... if you don't want an Axe-Fx II, stay the heck away from one!
 
godwentpunk said:
I've given thought to a setup like this. My only thing is that I'll do close to 50-60 songs in a night and I don't want to have that many patches, plus we have a catalog of close to 150 songs of which any given night when we enter a bar, we'll rebuild the set list to cater to the crowd...and sometimes...we do this on the fly during a set...we'll just call things out. So a patch for every song would drive me crazy.
Click to expand...
Hey brother, here's my $.02 worth
1) The Axe-Fx II has 384 edible presets which means you can potentially have up to 384 song patches in your AFII
2) If you organize your (song) patches in Axe-Edit in alphabetical order, then you can easily find a patch in the event of calling out a "surprise" song.
 
Pete Thorn, the consumate pro is doing all his fly-in dates with the Ultra while backing Melissa Etheridge at very large venues.
That says a LOT about the Standard/Ultra and should be testament enough that Gen I is just fine for virtually anyone -- if it's not, modeling may not be for you.
That being said, the II is better -- I don't even have one yet but it's better -- Whether the tone or feel is better is up to the player. But all the other improvements make it a better overall product whether you subscribe to the VVT and G2 tech or not. Think of it this way, who knows the quality and "realism" better than Cliff himself? I'll trust that the II is going to be pretty freaking fantastic.
I think we are starting to enter into the real Gen 1 secondary/used market; the flurry of cheaper sales just before the II was released was an anamoly, the rapid rise of pricing after that was also an anamoly because of lack of product. We are starting to see signs of production ramping up.
If you are not on the list I would get on now (personally I'm still surprised the list is open). At the same time I would also consider grabbing a used Standard or Ultra to get a feel for the FAS stuff in general (if you can get in at a good price). You can learn a ton while you wait and if everything works out if you absolutely MUST have the II you can flip the Standard or Ultra without too much loss to get into the game. What do you have to lose?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom