YT: Axe-Fx II vs Axe-Fx Ultra

Personally I wouldn't say dynamic range was a big difference between these units. We tried dropping the volume and playing lightly and both units performed extremely well. However it's pretty clear that I seem to have more gain in all comparisons... could be that Ultra has more drive in comparison or simply the my Les Paul is higher output or I play louder... :)
 
I promised in another thread I'd do this "mean little trick" so here's the same riff played with both Ultra and Axe-Fx II with Ultra tone matched to have the same response as the II. So the difference is all in the dynamics which in high gain will be very small. But go ahead and take a guess which is which:

 
Here's the same test on mid-gain. You can tell the difference easier since you can spot the guitar character if you have the ear for it. :)

 
Well the graphics betray it even before listening: the second high gain one obviously has more compression just by looking. ^^ (Which could be misleading, though).

For the clip, your ultra patches seem to have less bass too, but I'm listening on gaming headphones so it might be overdone.
 
Hmm....... The soundcloud one gives me a better idea, Sounds to me The Axe FX 2 has a more focused sound and the pick attack sounds much much more sharper.. The Ultra has less of that focused sound on the Mid-gain tone to my ear so its more open though but the Axe FX 2 is focused to my ear.. As for the high gain comparison, the pick attack is more pronounced in the Axe Fx 2 to my ear... As for the video, I am suggesting the Focused sound is coming from the hardware in the gibson and dynamics compared to the Ibanez which probably has different engineering and pickups installed, giving it a more compressed sound for those infinity pickups they have for most of their stocks Unless it is a dizmario or duncan pickup.. but if not maybe just the engineering. As for the Overall View of their tone.... If I talked Studio-Wise, the Ultra to my ear sounds more High passed filtered, While The Axe FX 2, Sounds More Lowpass Filtered.

Edit: Great Video By the way you should make more, If I was hearing this Live, I WOULD NOT hear the difference pretty much at all due to overdriven volumes they both sound great and better than 95-99% of whats out there..
 
Last edited:
I think the only problem is my face in the beginning of the video, otherwise it's all good :D That was cool and fun comparison. Maybe next time we should take both our '90 & '93 CE24 PRS's to make it fair comparison. That IBANEZ is S-420 with stock pickups so hmmm....they're ok but not good.

Damn that double tracked Linkin Park sounds huge. II and ULTRA are a great together. BTW the II sounded awesome with my MESA fifty/fifty poweramp! Love it!

Gotta go back to studio, yesterdays 12h with axe II wasnt enought :D (my first 12h)

IMG_5829.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ole
Andromalius said:
Well the graphics betray it even before listening: the second high gain one obviously has more compression just by looking. ^^ (Which could be misleading, though).

For the clip, your ultra patches seem to have less bass too, but I'm listening on gaming headphones so it might be overdone.
Click to expand...

Andromalius, you are really onto something here. How much dynamics do distorted guitar tones have? Not much... but if there's post-eq like the match EQ in this which adds low end it will do what? ;)
 
Last edited:
Nice video and good to see that the ultra comes so close, imho is the difference on high gain not so big, on midgain or clean there is more difference
 
Clark Kent said:
I promised in another thread I'd do this "mean little trick" so here's the same riff played with both Ultra and Axe-Fx II with Ultra tone matched to have the same response as the II. So the difference is all in the dynamics which in high gain will be very small. But go ahead and take a guess which is which:

Click to expand...


First is smooth, the second sounds a little harsh. I'd say II then Ultra.
 
Okey, I'm guessing but I'd have to say the ultra first, then the II.

In the video and in the soundcloudclips the ultra's got that signature "hollowness" as if it's being recorded from an open cabinet (which can be heard in the upper parts of the riff in the high-gain clip, ba-dam ba-DAM, ba-dam ba-DAM : the DAM's being the upper parts lol).

It's really hard to explain but I'm pretty sure the ultra is in the first of the soundcloudclips.

This only come from my ultra-observations as a more hollow - or guitarbodied gainstructure. The ultra seems more constant and even,

compared to the more grainier lions-roar gain-structure I recognize as being the Axe-fx II.

These are my thoughts on this and if I'm wrong I'm wrong, but if I'm right then this is why I think this way :D

Edit: okey now I'm totally thrown off again, the first parts ending is way more II than ultra because of the crossover-distortion presented in the end.

I'll have to say II then ultra as the final answer. And my first theory falls to the ground ---> BAAANG.

But then again I'm not sure, lol. I'll say if the ultra is first it's because of that hollowness in the gain-structure but if it's the II it's totally

because of the crossover-distortion as the clip fades, ah what the hell I don't know what I'm saying anymore :lol
 
Last edited:
ok so now i know that my ultra is pretty darn capable and maybe i should hold off on upgrading it to the 2 right now. Don't worry Cliff im a die hard axefx user and i will eventually be getting another axefx either way:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom