Torn
If the patches took hundreds of hours to create, it sounds like you spent a lot of time tweaking to get the sound just the way you wanted. I don't see how a porting tool would help with that, since the ported patches are not going to sound exactly the same. So far the reports are that it is significantly easier and faster to get good sounds with the FX II, although I don't know if that helps much if you are trying to duplicate exact sounds.
If a translator were created that would duplicate the grid layout and insert the correct amp models and effects types, that would probably suffice. I just don't want to start *completely* from scratch.
It's also difficult for me to believe that the amp models in the II are significantly better, BUT, *I have not heard the II* so I'll reserve judgement. But my ears are unable to tell the Ultra models from real amps, so I have to wonder whether there is really a significant (clearly audible) improvement in the II.
I don't know, but I'm looking forward to at least hearing the II so I can judge for myself. But if there isn't a clearly audible difference in the amp tones I'll almost surely wait. I'm not even close to the patch limit of the Ultra and I'm not GASing for any new models.
Reading about the "new" tube models now being accurate, does that imply the tube models in the Ultra are not accurate? They sound accurate to me, but I don't have the luxury of side by side comparisons with the actual amps. I recall reading an article or interview where Cliff talked about collecting tubes and determining their transfer functions during developement of the original models and it was described as a relatively routine process. I have to wonder "what is missing from the tube models in the Ultra and Standard that makes the AXE II sound superior?"
I've found that modifying the transfer functions of the tubes in Peavey ReValver can make an amp model sound better than the "accurate" tube models. There's a "soft clip" parameter that changes the character of the distortion and makes it extremely touch sensitive and dynamically responsive, with no "fizz" whatsoever, and with a distortion that dissapears so gradually as the strings decay that it's impossible to tell when the distortion stops and the clean begins, just like a good tube amp should. The program says the parameter "changes the way the tube clips when driven hard".
Peavey claims their circuit models are over 90% accurate and include the preamp, tonestack, phase inverter, power amp, output transformer, power transformer sag, etc. etc. etc. including the tubes, resistors, caps, transformers, etc. that make up the circuits. They also claim they intentionally changed some of the circuits to improve the sound over the original circuit.
I'm not saying all this is true, just repeating what Peavey claims. I have experimented extensively with the program now and some of the tones rival real amps as well as the AXE-FX IMHO.
The downside is it's not suitable for live performance, there are no awesome effects, there is no grid layout for multiple parallel paths, the number of models is limited, it takes a long time to tweak, etc.
The plus side is it's not very expensive for players who don't need or want to play live or get extremely fancy with their patches.
Honestly I'm torn. A patch translator and audibly superior sound would probably open my wallet.
