WHY would I need the ULTRA? PRACTICAL COMPARISON (=examples)

Re: WHY would I need the ULTRA?

Silverburst said:
Thanks for the links Iridium. Hmmm... these fx I will never use. ;)
Well, of course what you use and don't use is very personal.
Silverburst said:
What I'm mainly trying to grasp here is what these more extreme fx can sound like. I really wouldn't know how a 10-tap delay sounds, thus if I would ever need it.
Sure I can just order one and use the 14day return policy in case, but even for such a unit with so much possibilities, even 14 days is limited.
That's for sure.

Congrats on your Ultra! Still, my two cents:

Roughly (very) there are two kind of users. Pedalboard users and Preset users. (and in between...) If you're a "virtual pedalboard" user you have only a couple of presets set up with a truckload of effects which are usually standby, like stompbox in a pedalboard, only to be called when you want it. Those presets take up lots of processor load because all the effects are loaded and present and take up processor load, even if they're on standby. Now if you're a preset user, most have very lean presets and just switch to a different preset when they want another tone.

Also, amps and cabs are the bigger processor hogs, so if you like to use two amps to build a tone, I'd also go for the Ultra. but I find I don't need nearly as much dual amp presets as I used to on my Vetta. Single amps just sound much better.

Plus, tendency is that firmware upgrades come a couple of days earlier for the Ultra than the Standard. :lol:
It's been the other way, Standard first, for a whole two times IIRC. Admittedly Cliff said there wasn't much to improve on amp sims anymore. But I'll believe that when there hasn't been an update in a year.
 
I have a standard, and the two things that get me lusting after an Ultra from time to time are the Multiband Compressor, which I'm using more and more on my mixes lately, and the synth for some cool stuff (you can even pull a metronome out of it and the LFO).

That said, I hardly ever get to max out the Standard processing power. My presets use at the very most:

- Wah - Drive - Amp - 1 or 2 Cabs (Mono Hires) - Chorus- Reverb1 - Delay1 - Reverb2 - Delay2

Reverb1 is used for room reflection simulation when playing with headphones or recording
Delay1 is used for simulating double tracking, set at stereo, Left 0ms, Right 23ms, 0 feedback, 100% mix.

Reverb2 is used for reverb that would normally be added during the mixing stage, to sit better playing along with backing tracks.
Delay2 is used for lead tails / wetness.

Chorus is used for cleans mostly.

The standard handles all this at around 90% CPU usage. I might throw in an additional pitch shifter, and loose one of the reverbs from time to time, or loose the chorus.
 
Here's a couple of non-effects examples of why you might want an Ultra:

Some guitarists like Keith Richards or SRV liked to blend two amps together. For instance, you might want a predominately Fender clean sound blended with a little bit of Marshall grit for an overall tone that is just on the edge of breakup. Or, maybe you're a Brootalz guy who wants the bark of a VHT with some Diezel thrown in for good measure. Or maybe you want to take your crunch sound and use a foot controller to blend in another overdriven amp for your solos. Only you know what you need.
 
With duals amp setup you seem to run quickly out of fx space on the grid indeed. I feel more safer with the ultra now anyway. It has been shipped, I should have it in a little week <exitement!>

The multiband compressor seems like a powerfull tool as well. Thanks for the nice example strumbringer!
 
I’m chiming in a little late but----

If your finances let you just get the Ultra, this way you won’t drive yourself insane and have that little voice in your head, “what if?”


Myself I have a standard and have no regrets, and even the standard has more than enough power, don’t get me wrong I played the “what if” game in my head also (before I got the unit). I could have got the Ultra if push came to shove. I thought about my most complicated rack which consisted of a Mesa 2:90 and a Tri Axis, assorted stomp box’s and loop’s before the preamp, after the preamp more loops and two processors, then of course power amp to cabinet. So the thought process became “Can the AF standard do almost everything my old rig did, or should I go for the Ultra??” The answer is the AF Standard can do way more than my old rig ever could.

Bottom line I don’t feel limited. But still the Ultra has some more toys.
 
The Ultra can easily run two amps and cabs in parallel along with lots of effects - the Standard won't.

I find I can get superior sound (in my mind at least) with two amps. Sometimes even using the same model with different settings. And the multi-band compressor isn't exactly an esoteric effect - it works extremely well, and I'd consider it indispensable for bass processing.

Additionally, running two amps with MIDI control allows instantaneous sound changes with no gapping for solos, or even cross fades between sounds.

If I'm going to plop down this much money, I'll spend a little extra and get the Ultra if at all possible. If you simply can't afford it, the Standard is still an awesome device.

But consider this will be the last guitar processor you will ever need and ask yourself how much that extra money for the Ultra will cost per day spread out over the time you'll be using it. I figure I'll use mine 40 more years. That's only about $1 a month extra, less than a nickel a day. Add to that the fact I can sell a bunch of old stuff I no longer need and I'm making a profit.

Stephen Cole
 
Re: WHY would I need the ULTRA?

AndrewSimon said:
You don't need an Ultra but you might want an Ultra once you
fall in love with the AXE-FX and realize how much joy it gives you.
At least that's how it was for me, after a year with the Standard I upgraded.

;)

This is a smart way to go now. Get yourself aquatinted with it and then sell it. You get a very high used-new ration selling these. They go super fast.
 
Back
Top Bottom