# I Actually Prefer The Axe-FX Ultra Over The II...?!?



## zimbloth (Aug 21, 2012)

I know this will probably be a very unpopular opinion here and I'll be ridiculed accordingly, but last week I acquired a pair of Axe-FX IIs for my buddy and I to try. I've been playing with one of them and despite countless hours tweaking, I can't seem dial in any high-gain tones I prefer over what I had with my Axe-FX Ultra (v.10.02). The Axe-FX II is firmware 7.0. 

I am really surprised by this, because so many people whose opinions I trust told me the Axe-FX II smokes the Ultra. I'm just not hearing it so far. Granted, I'm speaking strictly of studio use with monitors not in a live/band setting, and I haven't tried the 'Tone Match' stuff yet. It's possible I'm overlooking something. I realize the II has a more organic, realistic feel to it. The cleans and low-gain sounds I could argue are better. Some of the effects are definitely improved and the design is more intuitive...

...but while I have a ton of amazing high-gain rhythm and lead tones dialed in on my Ultra, thus far I can't seem to really dial in many I like on the II. It seems to never be as tight and 'big' as the sounds I had on my Ultra. It has more sag and fizz, and I find most of the cabinet models useless. For example, on the Ultra I have several killer Mesa patches I designed. On the II I haven't found any of the Mesa high-gain rhythm tones usable, for my tastes. 

What am I missing here? I've had the Ultra for 3 years or so and I resisted buying the Axe-FX II because I was so content with the recorded tones I was getting from my Ultra. I finally caved after hearing so many buddies rave about it. I know the Ultra sounds a bit more processed/polished and the II more raw/natural, but I guess that's something I liked about the Ultra. So far I'm really not impressed. Am I alone in this thinking or do you all think I'm a putz? 

Part of me is relieved that I can just be happy with my Ultra and move on


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Aug 21, 2012)

Perhaps you're just more used to the Ultra, it's quirks and tonality. 

Not saying the II is better, but from what I've experienced, the longer I have a piece of gear the more in tune with it I become, perhaps you're dealing with the same. I know if I had a piece of gear that I knew inside and out for three years I'd have some reservations (concious or not) about something I've owned for only a matter of days.


----------



## zimbloth (Aug 21, 2012)

MaxOfMetal said:


> Perhaps you're just more used to the Ultra, it's quirks and tonality.
> 
> Not saying the II is better, but from what I've experienced, the longer I have a piece of gear the more in tune with it I become, perhaps you're dealing with the same. I know if I had a piece of gear that I knew inside and out for three years I'd have some reservations (concious or not) about something I've owned for only a matter of days.



I don't know dude, in theory I would agree but I usually don't work that way. I've been able to quickly make the switch from amps I loved and have owned for a long time if I come across something new that I fancy better. Like when I switched from my beloved VHT Pittbull UL to the ENGL Invader 100 I rock nowadays, that decision took me about 10 minutes. Those amps could not be more dissimilar in voicing. 

I really wanted to be impressed by the Axe-FX II, and in many ways I was, just not in the one area that is most important to me. I realize I could be missing something though.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Aug 21, 2012)

I guess we won't know for sure for another three years.


----------



## MstrH (Aug 21, 2012)

Yes, you are correct. The FXII is horrible. So is the Ultra. At great personal sacrifice, I'll offer to dispose of all of them for you. So please send them to me asap....


----------



## zimbloth (Aug 21, 2012)

MstrH said:


> Yes, you are correct. The FXII is horrible. So is the Ultra. At great personal sacrifice, I'll offer to dispose of all of them for you. So please send them to me asap....



Hah! My Ultra ain't going nowhere. For 3 years its been a dream come true


----------



## noUser01 (Aug 21, 2012)

To be fair I hated the AxeFX II for the first month I had it. It just took a long time to figure out how to get it to sound the way you want. It's that simple. Since you have an Ultra, surely you know the learning curve. The more time I spend with it the better all my tones are getting and the more I realize why the AxeFX II is so popular and highly regarded. Be patient, explore, get some tips from people.

For example, I always turn the Damping parameter in the amp block to 10 to make it very "present" and "real". This in tandem with the presence control is the first thing I go to to set the "in your face/in the room" quality before touching anything else. It's little things like that which you will learn on the way. The Ultra and II are two different beasts, despite them being seemingly similar.

Just my opinion anyways...


----------



## noUser01 (Aug 21, 2012)

There's also the possibility you just like shitty tone.


----------



## zimbloth (Aug 21, 2012)

ConnorGilks said:


> To be fair I hated the AxeFX II for the first month I had it. It just took a long time to figure out how to get it to sound the way you want. It's that simple. Since you have an Ultra, surely you know the learning curve. The more time I spend with it the better all my tones are getting and the more I realize why the AxeFX II is so popular and highly regarded. Be patient, explore, get some tips from people.
> 
> For example, I always turn the Damping parameter in the amp block to 10 to make it very "present" and "real". This in tandem with the presence control is the first thing I go to to set the "in your face/in the room" quality before touching anything else. It's little things like that which you will learn on the way. The Ultra and II are two different beasts, despite them being seemingly similar.
> 
> Just my opinion anyways...



That's the thing. I was up and running with the Ultra in minutes. Took no time at all to get really inspiring, pro sounding high gain sounds. With the II I have to tinker forever and I've still yet to be satisfied. I guess I'm just spoiled by the sounds I've spent years tweaking on the Ultra. I was just expecting to be blown away by the II and I'm not. 

I messed with the dampening and presence. Getting it to sound lively and cutting isn't the issue. It just seems to always sound narrow and low-fi, with an odd fizziness no matter what I do. On the Ultra it sounds bigger and more polished to my ears. Dunno.


----------



## Leuchty (Aug 21, 2012)

Maybe expectation was a little high?

I know I get like that sometimes with gear.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Aug 21, 2012)

Did you turn on the djent emulation by accident?


----------



## Genome (Aug 21, 2012)

Hmm.... weird. I didn't have that problem at all and had it dialed in in a few hours, but I did find most of the presets to be unuseable apart from a few clean ones.


----------



## Larrikin666 (Aug 21, 2012)

I had the same issue with the II when I first switched over as well. I can't say that feeling ever went away entirely. I got really good at tweaking high gain patches on the Ultra, but I was bummed that none of my tricks transferred over to the II. I definitely got more accustomed to using the II over time, but I can't even begin to add up the hours I've lost tweaking the absolutely hell out of my tone over and over again. 

Not to throw you a complete curve ball, but make someone bring a Kemper to your shop, Nick. You have so many awesome amps in there to profile. I love mine so much that my II and Ultra are collecting dust now.


----------



## Rick (Aug 21, 2012)

Stealthdjentstic said:


> Did you turn on the djent emulation by accident?



You mean your favorite setting?


----------



## TaylorMacPhail (Aug 21, 2012)

"The journey will be grander but so will the destination"

I don't know what that's from but I'm sure it's been quoted by some famous (now dead) person at some point haha


----------



## zimbloth (Aug 21, 2012)

Larrikin666 said:


> I had the same issue with the II when I first switched over as well. I can't say that feeling ever went away entirely. I got really good at tweaking high gain patches on the Ultra, but I was bummed that none of my tricks transferred over to the II. I definitely got more accustomed to using the II over time, but I can't even begin to add up the hours I've lost tweaking the absolutely hell out of my tone over and over again.
> 
> Not to throw you a complete curve ball, but make someone bring a Kemper to your shop, Nick. You have so many awesome amps in there to profile. I love mine so much that my II and Ultra are collecting dust now.



Yeah I'm surprised no one with a Kemper has contacted me yet, given the slew of amps I have here. And yeah thats the thing about the Ultra, you can tweak but its never that hard to get awesome tones. It seems like on the II I had to spend hours trying to get it usable and even then I was left unsatisfied. I was trying several different guitars with different kinds of pickups also. Shrug.


----------



## Larrikin666 (Aug 21, 2012)

zimbloth said:


> Yeah I'm surprised no one with a Kemper has contacted me yet, given the slew of amps I have here. And yeah thats the thing about the Ultra, you can tweak but its never that hard to get awesome tones. It seems like on the II I had to spend hours trying to get it usable and even then I was left unsatisfied. I was trying several different guitars with different kinds of pickups also. Shrug.




Yeah. The II can definitely cause some headaches in that regard. For example, if I want to remove high end fizz....I can adjust

Amp presences
Amp treble
Amp EQ
Amp graphic EQ
Boost tone
Amp hi cap filter
Amp hi cut
Cab mic distance
Cab hi cut
Parametric EQ

I'm sure I missed about 30 other parameters that can be used as well. I love the tone shaping tools available. I just want to pull my hair out occasionally when I can quite get what I need out of it.


----------



## TaylorMacPhail (Aug 21, 2012)

Larrikin666 said:


> Yeah. The II can definitely cause some headaches in that regard. For example, if I want to remove high end fizz....I can adjust
> 
> Amp presences
> Amp treble
> ...



Oh how it would be nice to be even remotely as genius as Cliff Chase


----------



## Greatoliver (Aug 21, 2012)

Maybe it is just harder to use? You said that it didn't take long with the Ultra, but is that because it is more simple? For example, getting a decent tone is fine on a 6505+, but you need to know about the eq, etc, for a Mesa Mark V.

I would probably agree with Max in that it takes me a while to figure out how to get good sounds out of a piece of gear, and I wonder if your previous experience with the Axe I was just an exception to this.

Either way, you seem really happy with the Axe I, so can't complain with that


----------



## zimbloth (Aug 21, 2012)

Larrikin666 said:


> Yeah. The II can definitely cause some headaches in that regard. For example, if I want to remove high end fizz....I can adjust
> 
> Amp presences
> Amp treble
> ...



Yeah I definitely tried all that. I'm not saying I couldnt dial in good tones, just not ones that I thought were anywhere as close to as good as with my Ultra. I know i could give it way more time and obsess over it for weeks until I figure it out, but I don't see the point. Why spend $2200 on something if you like what you have now better, right? I definitely love the features it has, the tone match, the USB, the A/B/C/D quick edit knobs, the better fx and all that. Blah.


----------



## Imbrium998 (Aug 21, 2012)

zimbloth said:


> Yeah I'm surprised no one with a Kemper has contacted me yet, given the slew of amps I have here.



Working on that Nick


----------



## ROAR (Aug 21, 2012)

different strokes for different folks,
I know of some people who still use a Standard!
And on top of that I know some people who still use REAL amps!
hahaha


----------



## Konfyouzd (Aug 21, 2012)

My amp is a modeller trapped in a combo amp body. The plot thickens.


----------



## Larrikin666 (Aug 21, 2012)

Also not sure if you knew that Fractal basically came out with the "Ultra" mode to make the II sound and act more like the G1 stuff.


----------



## mniel8195 (Aug 21, 2012)

My ultra did nothing but give me a headache and im sure the axe fix II would as well. Even if i got it to sound okay i was never thrilled with it and was always tempted to keep tweaking. Now that i have a 5150 III i may move the mids around a little thats really it. I actually play alot more these days


----------



## noise in my mind (Aug 21, 2012)

Interesting thread, I personally love my ultra and it does everything I could ever want. I see that the II does things in a more organic manner and such. You seem to like very high gain stuff and in general that can be achieved on a ridiculous level with more solid state sounding stuff. Like a pod xt for instance, it has more gain than any tube amp could ever have, but doesn't necessarily have the organic tube tone. I have read on the fractal forum many times that people found the II much more expedient when dialing in tone compared to the ultra. I really think it just comes down to what your ears like. I love fat hi gain artificial tone which is what my ultra can do very well. I also love organic tone and i think my ultra can get pretty dang close even though the II does it better. just my two cents.


----------



## cardinal (Aug 21, 2012)

I've never played the Ultra, but I owned an AFXII for a few months and thought it was solidly mediocre sounding. With all of the hype the original versions generated, I suppose it doesn't surprise me the original versions might somehow be better in certain respects.


----------



## kmanick (Aug 21, 2012)

Nick I just emailed you check it


----------



## zimbloth (Aug 22, 2012)

noise in my mind said:


> Interesting thread, I personally love my ultra and it does everything I could ever want. I see that the II does things in a more organic manner and such. You seem to like very high gain stuff and in general that can be achieved on a ridiculous level with more solid state sounding stuff. Like a pod xt for instance, it has more gain than any tube amp could ever have, but doesn't necessarily have the organic tube tone. I have read on the fractal forum many times that people found the II much more expedient when dialing in tone compared to the ultra. I really think it just comes down to what your ears like. I love fat hi gain artificial tone which is what my ultra can do very well. I also love organic tone and i think my ultra can get pretty dang close even though the II does it better. just my two cents.



I definitely don't like solid-state distortion, I've always been a tube snob and still use tube amps live. I've also always hated every Line 6 product I've ever encountered. The Axe-FX Ultra sounds like legit tube amps to me, just with some more professional polish. Thats what makes it a dream come true for recording to me. 

For example, I absolutely loathe how Dual Rectifiers sound and feel in real life. With my Ultra I've been able to capture the essence of those good professionally recorded Recto sounds, but without the fizz, slop and sag that I've always hated in real life. On the II, the Recto models sound more like real Mesas, which renders it unusable to me (thus far, I know I could probably tweak more).


----------



## Rook (Aug 22, 2012)

I liked more of the 2 than the Ultra when I got it, but my best patches on the Ultra weren't matched by the 2 for some considerable time. 

I find:
-The 2 feels more elastic
-The 2 doesn't hiss automatically (lol), whereas I found there was always a bit of that on the Ultra
-The 2's cleans rule 

I sold my friend my Ultra, and I've played with it a few times since having my 2. Sometimes I get lost in thinking the 2's so good the Ultra must be a piece of shit in comparison - nope! Not at all. The Ultra still feels really good, sounds really fat and a little darker.

Just different beasts 

If the 2 didn't exist, I'd still want for nothing.


----------



## kmanick (Aug 22, 2012)

Just spent some time with Nick , he may have a different opinion to offer now


----------



## Kali Yuga (Aug 22, 2012)

It took a couple months before the Axe FX II really began to click for me.


----------



## leonardo7 (Aug 22, 2012)

I tried my friends Axe Fx 2 and one thing I did not like at all is that the input level control is digital, hidden and not a knob thats right there on the face of the amp like the Ultra


----------



## zimbloth (Aug 22, 2012)

kmanick said:


> Just spent some time with Nick , he may have a different opinion to offer now



Well I'm still on the fence honestly. Thanks to you I definitely have a better understanding of how to dial in the II now and am finally dialing in some good tones. However, after doing some recording tests, I still find I like the results with the Ultra better. I will rest my ears a bit and try again tomorrow and see what happens.

I WILL say I vastly prefer the way the II "feels" when you play through it. Definitely more tube like and not as stiff. Also, there is a warmth to the II that the Ultra just can not replicate. However for whatever reason the sounds on the Ultra just seem to be much tighter and bigger sounding, and thus far more direct-recording friendly to my ears. I wonder if this is why Periphery used the Axe-FX II into a real amp into a real cab and mic'd with a real mic when they did their new album. No matter what I do (so far), the II direct just sounds a bit too spongy for my tastes compared to the Ultra. I wish I could get the amazing feel and richness of the II but with the more bold, tight sound of the Ultra. Who knows, perhaps further time with the II will yield such results. Right now my ears are burnt out and I'm going to rest for the duration of the evening 

PS: the only cabinet models I really enjoy on the II (for my high-gain metal rhythm patches anyway) are ones not factory loaded. Thanks to Nick, he hooked me up with some 3rd party ones he downloaded and those are much much better.


----------



## kmanick (Aug 23, 2012)

give it a little more time Nick , you may not get it to record exactly like the Ultra but I think you will be able to get closer than you are now and IMO the added +'s of the II far outwigh the ultra. It took me a couple of months to get my recorded tracks to sound how I like, but in the end the Ultra may be "good enough" as is for your needs.
You don't gig with the AXe and I think that's where the II really shines , the "feel" has gotten relly good with VM7.0
and I completely agree you need 3rd Party IR's to get the most out of this thing for high gain patches.
they're cheap enough to buy ($15.00 from RW and OH) so it's soooooooooo worth it.


----------



## Kali Yuga (Aug 23, 2012)

I felt the opposite when I had the II. It was nothing but a disappointment at practice and gigs, but shined for direct recording.


----------



## Krucifixtion (Aug 23, 2012)

It's hard for me to say, because I have never owned an Ultra, but I have had the II since April and I love it. I def recommend 3rd party IR's for the high gain stuff. I tend to use Redwirez 3rd party stuff, but sometimes I blend one with one of the stock Axe-Fx cabs. In my mind it's all about knowing how and where to EQ. Running through my Invader or Peavey 5150 II as a poweramp at practice I have been able to get my live patches to sound amazing and just as good as my ENGL Invader in the full band. No problems cutting at all. The Axe still sounds just a tiny bit more compressed than the real amp, but it's nothing I can't deal with. 

This is a track I have been working on with my friend. It's the Axe-Fx II. Only 2 guitar tracks and 1 Bass track. No post EQ on the guitars at all. I think it sounds pretty good to my ears. 
Track 11 2012 Huge by Krucifixtion on SoundCloud - Create, record and share your sounds for free


----------



## zimbloth (Aug 30, 2012)

I ended up selling my Axe-FX II, so this saga is over for now. I really did like it, but not enough to make me want to justify it over the Ultra. If I was using it in a live setting, I definitely would have kept it.


----------



## Duke318 (Aug 30, 2012)

Go Kemper.


----------



## Christian Noir (Dec 27, 2012)

kmanick said:


> give it a little more time Nick , you may not get it to record exactly like the Ultra but I think you will be able to get closer than you are now and IMO the added +'s of the II far outwigh the ultra. It took me a couple of months to get my recorded tracks to sound how I like, but in the end the Ultra may be "good enough" as is for your needs.
> You don't gig with the AXe and I think that's where the II really shines , the "feel" has gotten relly good with VM7.0
> and I completely agree you need 3rd Party IR's to get the most out of this thing for high gain patches.
> they're cheap enough to buy ($15.00 from RW and OH) so it's soooooooooo worth it.





zimbloth said:


> I ended up selling my Axe-FX II, so this saga is over for now. I really did like it, but not enough to make me want to justify it over the Ultra. If I was using it in a live setting, I definitely would have kept it.



I'm having a lot of the same issues with the II that Zim's having. I have been programming endlessly for 6 months... 2+ hours per day and I'm still not happy... And I'm just trying to get tones that others seem to have been getting without breaking a sweat... although I don't know if they're using the Ultra or the II... probably the Ultra for the most part.

I'm almost considering downgrading to try the Ultra out... perhaps having both side-by-side may help.

I just end up with fizz city even with the FAS modern with the gain on 2! I've tried PEQ'ing for ages... high passing and low passing... setting the damp setting to 10... boosting the presence... playing with drive and compression.. endlessly tweaking advanced parameters...

I've tried a few third party IR's, but not many. The whole thing with Axe-Edit being down until the new version coming out next month is kind of hampering experimentation at the moment...

I've also tried a bunch of different guitars through this thing.. Ibanezes with stock pickups and BKP, Les Paul Customs, '71 SG, several EMG equipped guitars, Duncan JB equipped axes... definitely not the instruments..

There are definitely some cool things about the unit.. I do like certain feels it has, but can't seem to nail a really good _finished_ tone without delay and reverb, which pretty much any modeler can do.

But I'm still not getting there and MUST be missing something, unless the Ultra has some mojo that the II just can't nail for some reason... At least when it comes to what I'm trying to do.

I really don't get how guys like Bulb and Nolly their tones to sound the way they do out of this thing. I'd seriously pay somebody to get me in that general direction, because the time I've spent fidgeting with parameters cannot be taken back and I don't want to spend another 6 months trying with no improvement in my results. IT'S AGGRAVATING. Some trickery must be at play haha. ...Either that or I have the one faulty unit..

At any rate, I wish someone could help me see the light because it's closing in on me FASt.

I almost feel I shoulda bought a whizbang analog preamp instead :/



Just to add... I seriously want to like this thing.. I do... and for those suggesting Kemper... Sounds like a great unit, if you already have the badass preamps and other studio gadgets to run in your chain for profiling purposes...


----------



## MF_Kitten (Dec 27, 2012)

zimbloth said:


> I know this will probably be a very unpopular opinion here and I'll be ridiculed accordingly, but last week I acquired a pair of Axe-FX IIs for my buddy and I to try. I've been playing with one of them and despite countless hours tweaking, I can't seem dial in any high-gain tones I prefer over what I had with my Axe-FX Ultra (v.10.02). The Axe-FX II is firmware 7.0.
> 
> I am really surprised by this, because so many people whose opinions I trust told me the Axe-FX II smokes the Ultra. I'm just not hearing it so far. Granted, I'm speaking strictly of studio use with monitors not in a live/band setting, and I haven't tried the 'Tone Match' stuff yet. It's possible I'm overlooking something. I realize the II has a more organic, realistic feel to it. The cleans and low-gain sounds I could argue are better. Some of the effects are definitely improved and the design is more intuitive...
> 
> ...



When i sold my Pod X3L and got my Pod HD500, my first impression was that i made a huge mistake. I hated it. It sucked. Shitty tones. Until i had spent probably two weeks with it, just learning how it works. That was last year, and NOW i am finally getting really satisfactory tones. After about a year of tweaking.

I got to try an Axe-FX Ultra (first one) a while ago, in a recording situation. I couldn't get a decent tone to save my life, and i was even using the PC interface thingy. Super simple to use, sounded like shit no matter what i tried to do. Tried treating it like a real amp and pedal setup, tried doing what i usually do with modellers, and NOTHING SOUNDED GOOD. Yet I know for a fact that it SMOKES my Pod in the hands of someone familiar with the unit.

I've heard several Axe-FX users say that the Axe-FX II doesn't respond like the first one did in regards to tweaking and stuff. You have to "start over" and learn how to tweak it as a totally different unit almost. 

It's very different from learning a new amp, too. I've gone between amps before, having never touched them, and i've gotten good tones within minutes, just from trying out the knobs for a bit to see what they do first, and going from there. With modellers you are always at the mercy of the software developers, and their ideals and concepts and their thoughts on how it should be used will define how it works.


----------



## redstone (Dec 27, 2012)

You probably acquired many bad habits resulting in good tones with the Ultra. Maybe it's time to approach the II in a more realistic way, setting the amp block with a real cab and a flat PA, then adding an IR and post EQing according to taste.


----------



## Andromalia (Dec 27, 2012)

The II is more dynamic, which can actually be detrimental for people recording compressed to death high gain tones used to the ultra.

I have no problem dialoing live stuff and even recording that sounds oldschool, like, say: 

AxeIICplus by Vaestmannaeyjar on SoundCloud - Hear the world

Getting modern low tuned tones is a lot more tricky, though, and I had a good patch on my standard I have trouble to coming close to with my 2.


----------



## Christian Noir (Dec 27, 2012)

Andromalia said:


> The II is more dynamic, which can actually be detrimental for people recording compressed to death high gain tones used to the ultra.
> 
> I have no problem dialoing live stuff and even recording that sounds oldschool, like, say:
> 
> ...



I've had decent results getting older sounding tones as well.. with.. let's say.. low gain classic rock, rolling back the volume and tone a bit.

I also have found that, surprisingly, I get better results in that arena going XLR out and not USB... and someone may laugh, but I tested this with a crappy Fast Track Pro, and it sounds significantly better... what I do is barely clip the preamps on the FTP, and it adds a compression/limiting effect to the sound that seems to beef out the low end and add a more 3d quality to the entire tone, which I haven't been able to get with VST's so far. Mind you that it's not an overly beefy or rumbly low end, just a bit fatter in a pleasingly more natural way... and even though the dynamics are a bit squashed looking at the DAW meter, it doesn't sound that way.. it actually sounds more real while being punchy at the same time.

BUT AT ANY RATE...

Classic rock isn't what I got this for!

I'm going for punchy mid/high gain djent tones. I'm not exclusively a djent player per se, my music background is pretty diverse, but alas, this is what I got the unit for mainly. If anything, I've been playing a style that sounds pretty djenty for years before I ever knew what it was or ever heard of Messhuggah or Periphery, but they've been able to get good results that I'm currently trying to emulate so then I can go back to doing what I've been doing, and see where that takes me.

So far I feel like I'm half way there, but can't get there all the way, where I'd be happy if I was in a closer ballpark... at least in terms of quality and punchiness.

I might actually get a used Ultra to compare.. just wish I had a bit better guidance so I'm not running in circles. The time and $$ already invested is extreme (for me at least, considering non musical things I must deal with in life) lol.


----------



## goldsteinat0r (Dec 27, 2012)

Me have 5150.

It have speakers. It sound good.

Me like distortion.

*scratches head and then grabs spear to hunt for food*


----------



## Christian Noir (Dec 27, 2012)

I guess I can always get a used Ultra and sell either unit depending in which one I prefer.. my Axe Scale II I still in fsctiry-perfect shape with the sticker still on the screen..

Fractal does put MASSIVE amounts of work into their product which I'm grateful for, it right now, I wish they could provide an "Ultra Mode" or something. Perhaps something even impossible if any of the hardware is significantly different.

Alas I may just have to try my luck with an Ultra unless someone else has a better idea...

BTW, the Axe FX II is the first modeler I've used since the Line 6 Vetta. Loved the tones I git out of that thing, albeit I had a very difficult time recording it direct or mic'd.


----------



## Christian Noir (Dec 27, 2012)

goldsteinat0r said:


> Me have 5150.
> 
> It have speakers. It sound good.
> 
> ...



Until recently, I've had 3x 5150's. Now I'm down to 1.

I love the amp, but it's unwieldly in a small space, and I've heard pretty amazing results with modelers (especially from the Axe FX family) that I'd be very happy with if I could get into that territory.

The Axe Fx wont 100% replace my 5150, but considering what I'm currently trying to do, it must be possible, considering others have achieved the results I'm looking to emulate and then take down my own path.

For example... Periphery I, Misha and Nolly's soundcloud, Northlane's Discoveries album, particularly the Dispossession track... I have a feeling that most of what I'm hearing is the Ultra (I know quite a bit of it ACTUALLY IS the Ultra)..

I'm not even interested in PII tone. I'm looking for direct as possible, avoiding a huge amp to lug around and especially my massively prohibitive 4x12 Orange cab LOL. Funny thing these days is... I actually prefer these 'direct' tones to a lot of analog ones out there..

I just can't get close enough on the II no matter what I do... always fuzzier.. always harsher.. not round enough of 'bouncy' pick attack etc.. PEQ's and filters be damned! 

I keep thinking Ultra -> XLR out -> analog preamp (question is which? Is a fireface pre enough? Should I drop 700-2000 on one of those units? Or do I need more? Sure I have a couple k in my pocket.. but where should it go? It's not an endless fountain of $$! 

I'm also not necessarily trying to buy my way out of this one either haha.. but, just for comical music speak, I'm looking for a specific djenty effect that goes "purr" while going "cheung cheung bleung" rather than "rumble rumble hiss scratch. In my humble opinion, not to take away from their awesome musicianship and creativity, a lot of the issues I'm having are most likely directly relates to technical production ability combined with the right combination of gear. I definitely hear it out of the natural sound of my unplugged guitar, and somewhat through the 2, but somewhere along the way something is lost.

After messing extensively with BKP's, Basswood, bunches of guitars, same string gauges and brands all these guys use, picks, and endlessly adjusting my playing style, its still not in the ballpark.

Just as a disclaimer, although they are great, I'm not trying to be any of the aforementioned musicians/producers, but rather achieve similar results as a benchmark to improve my own style and production techniques. Although my style only crosses about 30% into their territory, it would benefit a lot via emulation for the time being.


----------



## zimbloth (Dec 27, 2012)

Ah, I see this thread got revived. I'll just continue to stand by my opinion that for me, I prefer the sound and ease of dialing in inspiring tones from my Ultra more than I did with my Axe-FX II. Which is why I ended up selling it.

Honestly, many of Fractal's biggest endorsers still use the Ultra live as well despite owning a II. There's obviously a reason some people feel this way. Granted, I havent tried the newest firmware since I sold mine months ago, but I am 100% content with the Ultra and I'll probably never switch unless someone blows me away with a new version or something. I still use my Ultra only in the studio though. I prefer my ENGL Invader 100/VHT cab setup for live use, but thats just my tastes!

PS: Christian -- I can't say I'm surprised that the more you keep trying to emulate your heros rigs, the more you're being left disappointed. Don't worry so much about what artists say they use, just experiment and see what works for you. We all go through that 5150/Mesa/EMG phase for example, then you try new things and either move on to greener pastures, or stay put in contentment. Just gotta keep on trying, don't get down because what some other guy allegedly uses isnt getting you the same results.

Also dude, I know Bulb and a lot of guys swear by basswood, and they have the right to their opinions. But so do I, and in _my_ opinion, basswood absolutely sucks. I've owned tons of basswood guitars (and still own 2) and they never sound as good as my other guitars. They're always a nightmare to match pickups for as well. I just don't care for it. Just as an example: I have a nice collection of upper end Ibanez 7-strings going currently. Most of them are more or less identical with the exception of different body woods. The ones I have with mahogany or alder bodies absolutely CRUSH the ones with basswood bodies in every way. Just trust your ears.


----------



## Shask (Dec 27, 2012)

I love threads like this.... makes me appreciate my Standard more and makes me quit looking at the AFII for a little while


----------



## Christian Noir (Dec 27, 2012)

zimbloth said:


> Ah, I see this thread got revived. I'll just continue to stand by my opinion that for me, I prefer the sound and ease of dialing in inspiring tones from my Ultra more than I did with my Axe-FX II. Which is why I ended up selling it.
> 
> Honestly, many of Fractal's biggest endorsers still use the Ultra live as well despite owning a II. There's obviously a reason some people feel this way. Granted, I havent tried the newest firmware since I sold mine months ago, but I am 100% content with the Ultra and I'll probably never switch unless someone blows me away with a new version or something. I still use my Ultra only in the studio though. I prefer my ENGL Invader 100/VHT cab setup for live use, but thats just my tastes!
> 
> ...



Hey Nick, thanks for getting back to me! Hope the store is going good BTW 

Yeah, I'm probably going to A/B the II with the Ultra. If disappointnent strikes, can't lose much on used gear!

As far as basswood goes, I kind of dig my 1527... on the flipside, I do have an incredibly cheap mahogany guitar that consistently destroys guitars 6 times its price.

The only thing I will say about the 1527 though is that it's a bit middier and has a bit less boom. The mahogany one sounds absolutely amazing and inspiring on its own, but maybe needs a little bit of bass cut haha. Maybe I'd be happier with korina or something though, since it alledgedly ads a little mid to the sound of mahogany.

Another difference though between my 1527 and the other guitar though is that the other one has a Tom bridge. Also, I guess this all varies immensely from instrument to instrument. Maybe I just got lucky with the cheap axe.

Anyhow, in the end, I don't think I'm really having a problem with my actual guitars... no problems playing through the 5150, so I'll maintain my issue is that I might not just be getting along with the Axe Fx II, and perhaps might do better with an Ultra... or not!

So yeah.. probably will be getting an Ultra soon and one of 'em will bite the dust. Hopefully I don't end up with both haha because I do need to buy some other stuff.. mainly an interface if I go with the Ultra.


----------



## Christian Noir (Dec 27, 2012)

Shask said:


> I love threads like this.... makes me appreciate my Standard more and makes me quit looking at the AFII for a little while



What I'd really like to do is find someone in the middle of Florida's west-coast to compare, but I guess the used market will do just as well..


----------



## budda (Dec 28, 2012)

zimbloth said:


> For example, I absolutely loathe how Dual Rectifiers sound and feel in real life. With my Ultra I've been able to capture the essence of those good professionally recorded Recto sounds, but without the fizz, slop and sag that I've always hated in real life. On the II, the Recto models sound more like real Mesas, which renders it unusable to me (thus far, I know I could probably tweak more).



I realize this is an old thread, but I thought I'd point this out.

1. You don't like IRL duals
2. Fractal improves their model to sound more realistic
3. Improved dual rec model, which moves towards a sound you don't actually like.

I think we're on the same page, but it would stand to reason that if you enjoy less perfected versions of some amps, then you'd prefer the Fractal unit with those versions (your Ultra).

I think if you dig what you have, rock on. I'd like an II, but now that I'm not in a professional band it's much harder to justify. I'll either bag a used ultra or be back in a scenario that the II makes sense. For now I have my fantastic head and I'm set


----------



## Christian Noir (Dec 28, 2012)

budda said:


> I realize this is an old thread, but I thought I'd point this out.
> 
> 1. You don't like IRL duals
> 2. Fractal improves their model to sound more realistic
> ...



A more perfected version of an amp isn't always exactly 'better'. Sometimes, that imperfection is what makes something cool and gives it a life all its own. An imperfection isn't bad per se it just doesn't mean that its EXACTLY the same as the real thing (or at least as close as possible to the real thing).


----------



## MetalDaze (Dec 28, 2012)

I have a feeling that this frustration is why there are lots of threads saying that the Kemper is better. Or at least, it is quicker to that tone in your head with less tweaking.


----------



## Christian Noir (Dec 28, 2012)

MetalDaze said:


> I have a feeling that this frustration is why there are lots of threads saying that the Kemper is better. Or at least, it is quicker to that tone in your head with less tweaking.



As far as I know (because I haven't tried one),one of the major advantages of the Kemper is that it takes an entire snapshot of an already existing amp. This makes copying an existing tone much easier. If you are trying to duplicate your rig with the Axe, I think it's theoretically much more difficult, because there are hundreds of settings you have to tweak with a practically infinite amount of posibilities. Something will always be off.. whether it be the IR you are using (and their mix placements/rooms/pre's etc used), actual settings, and differences between potentially hundreds or thousands of variations between the components in your gear vs the components in the gear modelled. You also have to take gain staging etc between all the components into account!

On the other hand, the Axe Fx allows you to create tones from the ground up, which can be a blessing... or a curse. At any rate, IMHO, you should still be able to get something very usable and perhaps all its own with the Axe FX.

I guess this is all old info, but I think the general consensus is that if you want the unit to sound like a real existing rig, use the Kemper. If you want it to sound like an Axe Fx, be able to build a sound from the ground up, and have all of its flexibility, get an Axe Fx.

If you have $ to spare, get an Ultra, II, and Kemper... and experience for yourself... or perhaps go down the 'tweaking rabbit hole' from which you may never return or be satisfied with until all three units are smashed together into one!

In the end, it's all in the 'ear of the beholder'.. and perhaps the 'beer holder's you are an entertainment b**ch for...


----------



## zimbloth (Dec 28, 2012)

budda said:


> I realize this is an old thread, but I thought I'd point this out.
> 
> 1. You don't like IRL duals
> 2. Fractal improves their model to sound more realistic
> ...



I don't love my Axe-FX Ultra for its precise realism regarding the amps its modeling. I like it because it sounds amazing and is very easy to dial in professional studio grade tones direct. With the II I owned, it required so many more steps and tweaks to get usable sounds I liked. And even then, I still liked the Ultra's sound better. 

It's great that the II has more of that raw, unpolished sound you get from mic'ing an amp in a room. You get the noise, the fizz, and all the things you normally would get and have to filter out. I liked that the Ultra skipped that step and just delivered amazing sound without the need for EQs, HPF, LPF, compressors, phase cancellation, etc. In many cases yes, they sound better than the real amps. In some cases, worse. It's hit or miss like with anything.

With the II, they made a lot of strides regarding the "feel" of the real tube amps, which I did like, but I feel like the sound suffered. At least with the version I had at the time this past summer, for modern high-gain stuff (cleans on the II are outrageously good, as are the mid-gain classic rock stuff).


----------



## Christian Noir (Dec 28, 2012)

zimbloth said:


> suffered. cleans on the II are outrageously good, as are the mid-gain classic rock stuff).



I can't confirm the Ultra results just yet, but without comparing, clean tones out of the Axe Fx are pretty nice, and classic rock/low gain is good I'd you also play with rolling back your guitar's volume and tone (when using 500k pots, maybe unnecessary with 250k).. but just and even better when you go XLR out to another mic pre and drive it hard to get a little preamp-induced limiting and more analog dimension. 

Higher gain stuff is a bit more of complicated relationship for me.. and that's the girl I'm looking for... although a less complicated one would be stellar.. currently, I argue with this one all day long, every day, and this has been going on for 6 months, during which time my actual writing of music has suffered as I have experiences very little improvement.

At any rate, I don't really want to bad mouth this thing too much, because there's definitely a ton of real AWESOMENESS about it.. it just seems to be missing something specific I'm trying to achieve... either that, or some secret sauce technique is escaping my clutches.


----------



## 3074326 (Dec 28, 2012)

I love my high gain tones.. but I don't use amps that I've used in the past. I expected to use the Recto and 6505 voices a lot. Instead, I hate both of those and use the 5153 Red and Dizzy V4 4 pretty much all the time for my heavy stuff. 

I'm guessing you've tried all the high gain amps, but I'm just making sure. I've had no trouble at all getting what I want out of the unit. I had no experience with previous Axe FXs, either, so that might have something to do with it. 

Also - I did not like any high gain sounds I got out of it when using active pickups. Which pickups are you using? What you're saying about the unit sounds like how I was feeling when I was using my Ibanez when it had EMGs in it. 

Apologies if you've discussed this stuff already, didn't feel like reading the whole thread. Haha


----------



## Christian Noir (Dec 28, 2012)

3074326 said:


> I love my high gain tones.. but I don't use amps that I've used in the past. I expected to use the Recto and 6505 voices a lot. Instead, I hate both of those and use the 5153 Red and Dizzy V4 4 pretty much all the time for my heavy stuff.
> 
> I'm guessing you've tried all the high gain amps, but I'm just making sure. I've had no trouble at all getting what I want out of the unit. I had no experience with previous Axe FXs, either, so that might have something to do with it.
> 
> ...



I have BKP Aftermaths, Duncan JB, EMG, Gibson (early 90's and early 70's), Ibanez, and a few no-name pickups. Don't really care for actives 99% of the time. Have several guitars ranging from dirt cheap to $3k+. Zimmy probably has 30x as many guitars sitting in his store haha.

The models I usually use are the Peavey 5150 one, FAS modern, and Das Metal. I've almost given up on stock IR's and a ported Metal 4x12 I ported over from the Ultra, and use a couple 3rd party ones (although I'd like to try more but getting slightly impatient with the delays in the release of the new Axe Edit - I know they're working hard on it, but just call me an impatient and demanding American 'microwave-oven' consumer haha). On that note, I'm pretty good at the front panel, since AxeEdit only seemed to work without unlivable bugs for 1 or 2 firmwares since I've owned the unit, but IMHO a working Axe Edit would be much more expedient for purposes of auditioning tons of cabs and routing different setups quickly... especially when you already have hundreds of presets you're trying to work on at once!

I mean.. what am I missing? Tons of post processing? The magic knob? The right combination of tweaks? I've already 'advance parametered' to death... and my ears get real tired real quick and are totally shot after so many adjustments over long periods of time. 
This is probably why I end up with so many presets. I make several versions, wait a day and start over. I quickly audition a bunch of them, pick the best ones, and go from there. If I get too far gone, I just start over and the insane process begins again.

I've also tried a tone of post parametric EQ, compression, console and tape saturation, and I still have trouble unless I'm using delays and reverberations to smear out my dry tone... something I'm trying to do without as much as possible... not something optimal when trying to ballpark duplicate your studio tone live either!

I mean.. the only thing I can think of is that somehow Axe Manage in Axe Edit messed up my firmware along the way, but idk.. that seems like a long shot. I'm just thinking perhaps the II might not be conducive to what I'm trying to specifically achieve... or again, I'm vastly missing something! Others seem to have or claim good results, but I'm about to be fed up haha.

Rather than continuing to vent, I guess should simply try the Ultra and see what happens!

..and perhaps wait for the new AxeEdit to install v9.

Until both of these situations are met, maybe I should shut up, because it might just be 'user error' or ignorance afterall 

Ah the world of modelling... Purist will still say ditch the digital stuff and go back to real amps.. Fair to point.. but unfair since 'I can has hears' results from others using digital gear that I would be much more than happy to achieve!


----------



## goldsteinat0r (Dec 28, 2012)

After reading this thread I want an Axe FX less and less.

I love how with my rig I can fire it up, spend (at most) a minute turning knobs and I have a sound that, IMO, fuckin slays.

Maybe I'm just not discerning enough?


----------



## Christian Noir (Dec 28, 2012)

goldsteinat0r said:


> After reading this thread I want an Axe FX less and less.
> 
> I love how with my rig I can fire it up, spend (at most) a minute turning knobs and I have a sound that, IMO, fuckin slays.
> 
> Maybe I'm just not discerning enough?



Whatever works, but personally, I wouldn't write Fractal off or anything
. I mean.. like I've said... some are getting the results they want (and I'm looking for for that matter!).. 

I guess that if you've got the tone you want from your amp, pursuing a digital alternative is probably more based in the search for convenience of flexibility and out of the never ending curiosity to find new tonal frontiers.

..and in the end, threads don't mean squat until you've tried things out for yourself...


----------



## budda (Dec 28, 2012)

Zim, thanks for your response. Your post expanded neatly on what I was trying to say (not sure how well I did ) - the less realistic model means a faster trip from plugging in to " ". The more realistic version is just that  - I never said it was better, in case anyone is wondering.

Again, get the gear that does what you want at the price you're comfortable with. I just wanted to make the observation of "sometimes less realistic is more satisfying"


----------



## Ocara-Jacob (Dec 28, 2012)

To those up there^ Fractal's gear is definitely for those who have the time to tweak, such as myself, although I have a Line 6 Pod X3 Live right now 
Same general concept though, and I spend hours tweaking a single patch.


----------



## 3074326 (Dec 28, 2012)

I've never had to tweak for hours to get a good patch.. I can usually get one I'm pretty happy with fairly quickly. But if you spend the time tweaking you can really refine the tone and make it great. I feel like there's this misconception out there that you are required to tweak each patch for days before you can get something usable. That is false. 

However, if you spend this much on the unit, you're probably going to want to use all of the features it has. So I do agree with those saying that if you don't like tweaking, it might be best not to get it. 

All that being said, it's pretty clear that the unit isn't for everyone.. I think it's very realistic based on the side-by-side tests I've done with it. Sometimes realism is a pain in the ass. I think not having experience with the previous units is a plus for me. I'm not used to the Ultra or Standard sounds. I think that's a big part of the issues that some are having with not liking the II.


----------



## zimbloth (Dec 28, 2012)

*Christian:* When I had the Axe-FX II, I hated all of the stock IRs as well. I had to get the RedWirez ones to get anywhere close to what I wanted. On the Ultra, I dont like most of those IRs either. for what its worth, the ONLY cabinet model I like on the Axe-FX Ultra is the "JCM2000" one with the R121 or RE16 ribbon mics. Thats the magic combo to my ears. 



budda said:


> Zim, thanks for your response. Your post expanded neatly on what I was trying to say (not sure how well I did ) - the less realistic model means a faster trip from plugging in to " ". The more realistic version is just that  - I never said it was better, in case anyone is wondering.
> 
> Again, get the gear that does what you want at the price you're comfortable with. I just wanted to make the observation of "sometimes less realistic is more satisfying"



Yeah for sure man, I agree  

With the Ultra, I find the best high-gain metal sounds come from the Diezel, Mesa, Peavey, and Soldano models. Many of the amps I think sound best in real life sound terrible in their Axe-FX incarnations, such as the ENGL, Orange, Fryette, etc. It's hit or miss but there's enough great tones that its still worth it.


----------



## Christian Noir (Dec 29, 2012)

Well... by mid next week, I'll be the proud owner of two Fractal Axe-FXs! 

If I'm still not satisfied, even when I get v9 and the new Axe-Edit installed, back to scouting a premium mic pre and a new interface. I'll probably go RME or Apollo on the latter... hopefully won't have to though... trying to keep them decibels low! Can't really slay at 120 watts when the chica is trying to watch a sitcom... never mind the neighbors!

Speaking of the new Axe-Edit, Fractal has hinted at January... hopefully that doesn't mean the _*end*_ of January...


----------



## Christian Noir (Dec 29, 2012)

BTW, does anyone know where to find older firmware versions for the ULTRA?


----------



## Shask (Dec 29, 2012)

I don't really tweak my Standard that much. Pretty much throw up a high gain amp with a Tubescreamer in front and an EQ to crank the lows up after the amp. For the most part that is 95% of my patch creation. On most of the effects I use the default settings.

I think people that tweak endlessly would do that with any gear they own because they are looking for something that doesn't exist....


----------



## Christian Noir (Dec 29, 2012)

Shask said:


> I think people that tweak endlessly would do that with any gear they own because they are looking for something that doesn't exist....



By that logic, Zim wouldn't get satisfactory results with the ULTRA either.. :/

Or maybe the sound doesn't exist in the particular unit...

Using a 5150, I don't tweak very much. Obviously, there's only so much you can tweak!
on the II, the possibilities are almost endless.. and I mean REALLY endless. 

Anyhow, tweaking the Axe Fx II does give a pretty broad range of results...


----------



## SnowfaLL (Dec 29, 2012)

Thats something I've come to realize lately; I have the Kemper and its SO realistic, like it really is exactly like any real tube amp out there.. but that made me realize Im not really a big fan of exact tube amp tones; I like that "fake" quality of modellers, and while you can do that with the Kemper too, without an editor its kind of redundant when you think about it.. The Kemper is made for people who are coming from tube amps (or want an exact replica of any tube amp) - so I think Im gonna sell it...

Honestly, the Pod HD500 was fake and had that "Line 6" quality to it, but I loved it.. Maybe thats my 5+ years of playing Line 6 products live, but it just worked for me. I may look into getting an Axe-FX mainly because I really miss/want the Mesa Lonestar and Carvin Legacy amp sims to work with, but honestly if Line 6 had those, I'd be 100% happy with it..

Its just odd how I've come to this conclusion. I was hoping the Kemper would end all my GAS, and it did in the sense theres never going to be another real tube amp I ever want as the Kemper does that + more, but it made me realize I've never been a tube amp guy, and I don't think I ever will be. So the AxeFX II's emphasis on "110% more real than any tube amp" and such, probably wouldnt interest me over the Ultra, the only things right now that make me kind of want the II is Tone-matching, the Mesa Lonestar+Carvin Legacy sims and USB connectivity.

One other thing; as a company, Kemper has been amazing.. Chris is an amazing owner, something I think is a major detractor from the other company.. Not saying one is better than the other, but Definitely if you are used to real tube amps, Kemper is where you want to be. Its spot on.


----------



## zimbloth (Dec 29, 2012)

Christian: I know this is a little self-serving here because we're a dealer for them, but you may want to look into something like the Torpedo from Two Notes Engineering. They're a French company that makes really good stuff. The Torpedo a device where you plug your real amp into it instead of a cabinet, and it takes the signal and goes direct to tape (or monitors). This is the best way I've found to capture the sound of the real amp but without the need to mic things up. It has awesome cabinet/mic/room simulations in it. 

So, think of it as something where... if you already have an amp you love, but just not the means to professionally record it, the Torpedo works wonders. You dont just run the preamp through it, you run the speaker out to it so it captures both the pre and poweramp sounds. It also acts a loadbox so its safe to use it without a cabinet present.

Just some thoughts. I love my Axe-FX Ultra for dialing in great tones, but the Torpedo is also awesome if you have some good physical amps at your disposal. On our new website I'll probably post some clips of it. I know Keith Merrow posted some recently too I think.


----------



## Christian Noir (Dec 29, 2012)

zimbloth said:


> Christian: I know this is a little self-serving here because we're a dealer for them, but you may want to look into something like the Torpedo from Two Notes Engineering. They're a French company that makes really good stuff. The Torpedo a device where you plug your real amp into it instead of a cabinet, and it takes the signal and goes direct to tape (or monitors). This is the best way I've found to capture the sound of the real amp but without the need to mic things up. It has awesome cabinet/mic/room simulations in it.
> 
> So, think of it as something where... if you already have an amp you love, but just not the means to professionally record it, the Torpedo works wonders. You dont just run the preamp through it, you run the speaker out to it so it captures both the pre and poweramp sounds. It also acts a loadbox so its safe to use it without a cabinet present.
> 
> Just some thoughts. I love my Axe-FX Ultra for dialing in great tones, but the Torpedo is also awesome if you have some good physical amps at your disposal. On our new website I'll probably post some clips of it. I know Keith Merrow posted some recently too I think.



Thanks for the infos. Seems like a really awesome unit! Although a few steps down the line, I'm considering checking that unit out as well. Might be a while though because the Christmas list is pretty long haha and I'm probably going to be stuck in tweaking land for a while!


----------



## ShadowAMD (Dec 29, 2012)

zimbloth said:


> That's the thing. I was up and running with the Ultra in minutes. Took no time at all to get really inspiring, pro sounding high gain sounds. With the II I have to tinker forever and I've still yet to be satisfied. I guess I'm just spoiled by the sounds I've spent years tweaking on the Ultra. I was just expecting to be blown away by the II and I'm not.
> 
> I messed with the dampening and presence. Getting it to sound lively and cutting isn't the issue. It just seems to always sound narrow and low-fi, with an odd fizziness no matter what I do. On the Ultra it sounds bigger and more polished to my ears. Dunno.



Had the same feeling, I bought an Axe 2 off the back of listening to the ultra.. Didn't please me as much and sold it..

Got a POD did wonders with it in minutes, borrowed a mates Ultra set it up in 30 mins and happy with the tones.. AHh well


----------



## ScornEmperor (Dec 30, 2012)

NickCormier said:


> , but it made me realize I've never been a tube amp guy, and I don't think I ever will be. So the AxeFX II's emphasis on "110% more real than any tube amp" and such, probably wouldnt interest me over the Ultra, the only things right now that make me kind of want the II is Tone-matching, the Mesa Lonestar+Carvin Legacy sims and USB connectivity



Interesting comment. I feel similarly in that I've always used digital modelers (started with a Pod X3L). The idea that I might only own a single amp head and only have that one tone dimension makes me feel claustrophobic.

Right now I'm selling the Ultra for a II so this discussion is relevant to me, but I think that my own ear isn't so developed that the nuances identified here are that critical. Still, the discussion has made me more aware that there are differences to discover.

I will say that the axe-fx is a pretty awesome way to learn a lot about tone shaping.


----------



## kmanick (Dec 31, 2012)

Back In August when i sat down with Nick I showed him a buch of the "tweaks" I use to get my high gain sounds where they should be and I gave him a bunch of IR's that I use.
We got close to what he was looking for but the II is more open sounding and we couldn't get it tight like the Ultra.
Fw 9.02 is so much better than 7 was. I don't even do all the tweaking I used to, it's become a much simpler process.
with the II the cab IR's are a vital part to getting your sound.
I think the IRs that came with the Ultra were better matched than the stock Ir's were with the II.......................until now.
Even the stock Ir's are sounding much better now, but I have a few Irs' that Nick and I matched up that make all difference in the world with the II.
Here are some very good ones that are Free (Contributed by FAS peeps)


----------



## Eric Christian (Jan 1, 2013)

Just curious, who is the biggest name artist that you guys here have actually seen using the Fractal products in a live situation? And when I say that I mean like you actually were backstage as a guest or perhaps part of a crew or maybe even an opening band that would be privy to this information. I don't know maybe Steve Vai or perhaps Alex Lifeson? I mean I see the whole page full of names and testimonial quotes on the Fractal website however I've seen pretty much every single one of the the top tier on that page endorse many other similar guitar related products, none of which they probably actually use live.

The reason I ask is that to me it almost seems like the Fractal product is more of a studio type product used mainly by hobbyist musicians that like to sit around and tinker with tones and enjoy creating new sounds. Not to diminish Fractal products in any way however it just seems to me all I ever see at big metal show are Marshall's, Peavey 5150/6505's, or Mesa TripleRec's. All my favorite artists like Slayer, Behemoth, Deicide, Motorhead, Hatebreed, Whitechapel etc and all I see and hear is tube amps. Or at least I'm pretty sure what I see is what I'm hearing. And you sensitive folks don't get all butthurt cause I'm just asking what big names that you can actually verify use Fractal live.


----------



## Captain Butterscotch (Jan 1, 2013)

Or some of those artists could be like Vai and Petrucci that just use the unit for the effects only.


----------



## zimbloth (Jan 1, 2013)

Eric Christian said:


> Just curious, who is the biggest name artist that you guys here have actually seen using the Fractal products in a live situation? And when I say that I mean like you actually were backstage as a guest or perhaps part of a crew or maybe even an opening band that would be privy to this information. I don't know maybe Steve Vai or perhaps Alex Lifeson? I mean I see the whole page full of names and testimonial quotes on the Fractal website however I've seen pretty much every single one of the the top tier on that page endorse many other similar guitar related products, none of which they probably actually use live.
> 
> The reason I ask is that to me it almost seems like the Fractal product is more of a studio type product used mainly by hobbyist musicians that like to sit around and tinker with tones and enjoy creating new sounds. Not to diminish Fractal products in any way however it just seems to me all I ever see at big metal show are Marshall's, Peavey 5150/6505's, or Mesa TripleRec's. All my favorite artists like Slayer, Behemoth, Deicide, Motorhead, Hatebreed, Whitechapel etc and all I see and hear is tube amps. Or at least I'm pretty sure what I see is what I'm hearing. And you sensitive folks don't get all butthurt cause I'm just asking what big names that you can actually verify use Fractal live.



When my band played at a "Summer Slaughter" tour date back in August, both Periphery and The Faceless were using them. They sounded really good too. A lot of bands use them live man. Thats besides the point. Some people like me just happen to PREFER them as a studio tool more than live, as I like my ENGL Invader 100 better but thats just personal taste. 

It's not a conspiracy or anything. The Axe-FX is amazing. I just like the Ultra better than the II from what I've experienced thus far. Personally I'd rock an Axe-FX live over a 5150, Triple Rectifier, or Marshall any day though. Nothing against those amps, but I've owned all of them and they do nothing for me.

It also seems like a waste for straight-ahead thrash or death metal bands like Behemoth (who I love) or Deicide who pretty much utilize one sound, to use something like an Axe-FX which offers so much versatility. Its only natural they'd fit in with more progressive bands who need to recall several different tones at any moment. Kerry King wouldn't know what to do with an Axe-FX


----------



## Andromalia (Jan 1, 2013)

Well, Kerry king has roadies to carry his 24 dummy cabs, so I guess in his case you're right. I'm a very "one tone" guy myself and the gig I did tonight for new year was painless: no cab, no amp, nothing, "here's my XLR man". I don't have roadies and enjoy the fact that I can take public transportation with my gig gear and still sound good. ^^

I must say my experience is the exact reverse of yours: dialing in live tones is a breeze, but getting it to sound "recorded" is a pain in the butt. I guess this has to do with what we're used to hearing and our own personal experience. People have been asking for my IIC+ patch on the fractal forums, a thing that took me 15 mn to dial in. I could do that because I've owned a mesa studio preamp and know exactly what I'm looking for.

Sounding like devin townsend in the studio ? How the hell am i supposd to do that, I don't even know what it sounds like pre prod. ^^

I guess that's what's blocking a lot of people. The ones who have made countless bedroom recordings will get better recording tones than the guys like me who are recording noobs but have done shows for 20 years. But when they try a live tone, no good, because they don't know what it actually sounds like having the real amp.



> Just curious, who is the biggest name artist that you guys here have actually seen using the Fractal products in a live situation?


Didn't go to a lot of shows in 2012, one of the Moonsorrow guitar players used one through an Engl power section. I mostly go to summer festivals atm where you usually can't see the gear.


----------



## kmanick (Jan 1, 2013)

I saw Dream theater back in August and was backstage before and after the show hanging out with Mangini.
the Fractal 'team" was there as both Petrucci and Myung are using the Axe II in their rigs now and Matt and company from FAS were getting input from the two Johns for 'tweaking" the units.
Guthrie Govan has been pretty visible with the Axe II lately as well but I don't know if he has switched over to it for live use yet or not.


----------



## HighGain510 (Jan 1, 2013)

I've seen Periphery play live several times now while they were using only their Axe-Fx units. They sounded INCREDIBLE, especially compared to some of the other bands on the same nights using tube rigs. Misha's lead tone with some delay on it was absolutely killer, at the show at Sonar a while back I actually got goosebumps during Jetpacks!  For me, that's proof enough.


----------



## HighGain510 (Jan 2, 2013)

kmanick said:


> Back In August when i sat down with Nick I showed him a buch of the "tweaks" I use to get my high gain sounds where they should be and I gave him a bunch of IR's that I use.
> We got close to what he was looking for but the II is more open sounding and we couldn't get it tight like the Ultra.
> Fw 9.02 is so much better than 7 was. I don't even do all the tweaking I used to, it's become a much simpler process.
> with the II the cab IR's are a vital part to getting your sound.
> ...



I totally missed this, I'll have to download that zip when I get home! Thanks for tossing that up bro, I like the stock IR's but my buddy has some of the Ownhammer custom ones (he got in on that $100 buy-in deal they ran on kickstarter, wish I had seen it as it happened right before I bought my 2nd Axe-II! ) and his tones are even better with the custom IR's.  Looking forward to giving these a spin, thanks again for putting them up, Nick!


----------



## Christian Noir (Jan 2, 2013)

Andromalia said:


> I guess that's what's blocking a lot of people. The ones who have made countless bedroom recordings will get better recording tones than the guys like me who are recording noobs but have done shows for 20 years. But when they try a live tone, no good, because they don't know what it actually sounds like having the real amp.



Also, studio tones don't always translate live when playing up against other live, full frequency instruments.. and there are SPL / fletcher munson curve differences. I guess having regularly cranked your real amps and played in context gives you an advantage as well.

Adjusting by ear (not just relying sight and go-to studio settings) might help these folks.. Also standing back and adjusting while the rest of the band plays and another guitar player momentarily plays your parts (Hopefully this doesn't induce the tweaking rabbit hole though or the band could be stuck up there forever LOL).



Eric Christian said:


> Just curious, who is the biggest name artist that you guys here have actually seen using the Fractal products in a live situation? And when I say that I mean like you actually were backstage as a guest or perhaps part of a crew or maybe even an opening band that would be privy to this information. I don't know maybe Steve Vai or perhaps Alex Lifeson? I mean I see the whole page full of names and testimonial quotes on the Fractal website however I've seen pretty much every single one of the the top tier on that page endorse many other similar guitar related products, none of which they probably actually use live.
> 
> The reason I ask is that to me it almost seems like the Fractal product is more of a studio type product used mainly by hobbyist musicians that like to sit around and tinker with tones and enjoy creating new sounds. Not to diminish Fractal products in any way however it just seems to me all I ever see at big metal show are Marshall's, Peavey 5150/6505's, or Mesa TripleRec's. All my favorite artists like Slayer, Behemoth, Deicide, Motorhead, Hatebreed, Whitechapel etc and all I see and hear is tube amps. Or at least I'm pretty sure what I see is what I'm hearing. And you sensitive folks don't get all butthurt cause I'm just asking what big names that you can actually verify use Fractal live.



A lot of the big guys have been using real amps forever. Arguably it's difficult to switch to a very different animal.

I think a fairer way of looking at things is focusing on rising bands who started on and use digital technology exclusively and seem to be be getting results that are great, or almost as good (opinion) / perhaps even better (opinion) than the real thing.

Personally, I don't care what awesome music veterans have jumped ship and went digital. While I still greatly appreciate and respect their art, I'm much more fascinated by the new artists who are innovating with digital products and getting sounds that I personally think are awesome.


People will always disagree what awesome is because sound is perhaps the most subjective thing on earth since it is invisible and ears have a funny way of becoming accustomed to certain types of sounds with enough listening exposure.

However, another example of some older dogs gone digital, who actually said digital sounds better, is Meshuggah. People will have varying opinions on this, but I think their results sound pretty darn good.

On that note, I just plugged in my 5150, and although it sounds great, I've realized that there are things that I was able to do in digital that don't translate back to the real amp, which is its own conundrum. I'm hoping to make this jump completely so I'm not limited to the confines of a huge, unwieldly and inflexible rig with many expensive and problematic parts anymore. Sure, I can make it more flexible, but not without introducing noise and all sorts of technical nightmares into it.

Now, there are a couple things I can't translate from analog to digital that are driving me mad as well ha ha. Mainly the depth of micing a cab and a particular fuzz tone I get from running an old and rare fuzz wah into the 5150.. a tone I can't duplicate at all running the same pedal into a moddler. Oh.. and maybe the tone of a boss octave pedal.. but I guess that one will be easier to run into the axe fx though.. haven't tried.

Hopefully, over time and with more experience, I will be able to conquer these issues, or maybe not be married as deeply to older technology in order to simply forget it and rely on the whole new world that digital offers... a world that seems to get better all the time.



kmanick said:


> Back In August when i sat down with Nick I showed him a buch of the "tweaks" I use to get my high gain sounds where they should be and I gave him a bunch of IR's that I use.
> We got close to what he was looking for but the II is more open sounding and we couldn't get it tight like the Ultra.
> Fw 9.02 is so much better than 7 was. I don't even do all the tweaking I used to, it's become a much simpler process.
> with the II the cab IR's are a vital part to getting your sound.
> ...



Is 9.x that much better than 8.x though?

I'm still on 8.x and I still have trouble getting along with anything that's not a 3rd party IR..

I might just be used to a couple of 3rd party IR's though. For high gain, I've found the included IR's a bit scratchy or cardbordy in the mids.

As per others recommendations, I'm probably going to try the redwirez ones.. although I need to narrow the selection down from the get-go since it seems like that's a lot of IR's to go through!

BTW, thanks for putting those up. Will try as well, when the new Axe-Edit is released. Gonna take a break until then.. meanwhile I'm going to mess with the Ultra that *should* arrive today.

EDIT: whoops.. UPS says Jan 7th-9th.. my golly gosh.. they're getting slower and slower. The ULTRA is coming from only 2 states away and its taking UPS this long??? Do they really have that much time off for the hollidays that their delivery chain implodes and deliveries get delayed 2-3x their normal time?


----------



## Andromalia (Jan 2, 2013)

I skipped 8.0, went from 7 to 9 and, well, yes there are definitive improvements in low end response, most notably. The thing is I can't really jusdge the details because I've kept to one new patch without axe edit...
Which is this one: 
http://soundcloud.com/vaestmannaeyjar/axeiicplus

unrelated, what's the code for the widget in here ?


----------



## TheShreddinHand (Jan 2, 2013)

Eric Christian said:


> Just curious, who is the biggest name artist that you guys here have actually seen using the Fractal products in a live situation? And when I say that I mean like you actually were backstage as a guest or perhaps part of a crew or maybe even an opening band that would be privy to this information. I don't know maybe Steve Vai or perhaps Alex Lifeson? I mean I see the whole page full of names and testimonial quotes on the Fractal website however I've seen pretty much every single one of the the top tier on that page endorse many other similar guitar related products, none of which they probably actually use live.
> 
> The reason I ask is that to me it almost seems like the Fractal product is more of a studio type product used mainly by hobbyist musicians that like to sit around and tinker with tones and enjoy creating new sounds. Not to diminish Fractal products in any way however it just seems to me all I ever see at big metal show are Marshall's, Peavey 5150/6505's, or Mesa TripleRec's. All my favorite artists like Slayer, Behemoth, Deicide, Motorhead, Hatebreed, Whitechapel etc and all I see and hear is tube amps. Or at least I'm pretty sure what I see is what I'm hearing. And you sensitive folks don't get all butthurt cause I'm just asking what big names that you can actually verify use Fractal live.



Machine Head was using Ultras on their last tour. They're in a similar vein to some of the bands you listed. Whitechapel is using Kempers I believe was the lasted Alex Wade posted.


----------



## silentrage (Jan 2, 2013)

Eric Christian said:


> Just curious, who is the biggest name artist that you guys here have actually seen using the Fractal products in a live situation? And when I say that I mean like you actually were backstage as a guest or perhaps part of a crew or maybe even an opening band that would be privy to this information. I don't know maybe Steve Vai or perhaps Alex Lifeson? I mean I see the whole page full of names and testimonial quotes on the Fractal website however I've seen pretty much every single one of the the top tier on that page endorse many other similar guitar related products, none of which they probably actually use live.
> 
> The reason I ask is that to me it almost seems like the Fractal product is more of a studio type product used mainly by hobbyist musicians that like to sit around and tinker with tones and enjoy creating new sounds. Not to diminish Fractal products in any way however it just seems to me all I ever see at big metal show are Marshall's, Peavey 5150/6505's, or Mesa TripleRec's. All my favorite artists like Slayer, Behemoth, Deicide, Motorhead, Hatebreed, Whitechapel etc and all I see and hear is tube amps. Or at least I'm pretty sure what I see is what I'm hearing. And you sensitive folks don't get all butthurt cause I'm just asking what big names that you can actually verify use Fractal live.



When I saw DT and Dweezil Zappa, Dweezil was using a rack with 2 axe fxes in it, there were some amp heads as well so he might have been using them just for the effects.


----------



## boltzthrower (Jan 2, 2013)

zimbloth said:


> It also seems like a waste for straight-ahead thrash or death metal bands like Behemoth (who I love) or Deicide who pretty much utilize one sound, to use something like an Axe-FX which offers so much versatility. Its only natural they'd fit in with more progressive bands who need to recall several different tones at any moment. Kerry King wouldn't know what to do with an Axe-FX



I have to disagree with that statement due to first hand experience. I have an Axe FX and I only use one amp model in it for my rhythm sound, and I play rhythm 99% of the time. I do use the effects at times for leads, etc., but I could honestly be happy with just a G major for effects. The reason that the Axe has been the best amp for me is because it is so tweakable that my rhythm tone DOESN'T sound like any available production amp, it sounds BETTER. Adding a high pass filter before the amp block and tailoring it to your guitar, especially while using the "attach an envelope" trick, has been a god send for me. Tight and clean high gain for days. I tune down to G# and none of the companies making metal oriented amps seem to have that low of a tuning in mind when designing their amps.

Another thing that I think often gets overlooked is the quietness of the unit. Set up a patch with a drive block in front and compare that to the real thing. The boosts are ridiculously noiseless compared to the real thing.

And my third point for why the Axe FX is great, even if you're more of a meat and potatoes guy like myself, is the space savings. If I didn't have my Axe FX, I would have a rack filled with a noise gate, boost, E570 preamp, effects unit, and an EQ. That would be at least 5 spaces plus the boost, compared to the 2 spaces that the Axe takes up.

Okay, back on to the thread topic. I haven't tried the Axe II yet but I wouldn't be that surprised if I liked the original better as well. I get the impression that the AXE II is less compressed and more "organic". Those aren't necessarily good things for me. I read about "better touch sensitivity and dynamics", and while I do want to hear a difference when I dig in harder, I rock EMG's & play Death Metal and the original Axe sounds just fine as far as sensitivity/dynamics goes.


----------



## boltzthrower (Jan 2, 2013)

Eric Christian said:


> Just curious, who is the biggest name artist that you guys here have actually seen using the Fractal products in a live situation?



I saw one on stage on the "DeAth To ALL Tour". I don't remember who was using it, there was a lot of guitarists on stage.


----------



## Larrikin666 (Jan 2, 2013)

Muse is currently using two Axe-FX IIs and two Kempers onstage. Few bands are bigger than them these days.


----------



## Andromalia (Jan 2, 2013)

Larrikin666 said:


> Muse is currently using two Axe-FX IIs and two Kempers onstage. Few bands are bigger than them these days.



Talk about poseurs unable to take a side in a decent fight.






























if anyone took that to the first degree, you have a problem.


----------



## kmanick (Jan 3, 2013)

HighGain510 said:


> I totally missed this, I'll have to download that zip when I get home! Thanks for tossing that up bro, I like the stock IR's but my buddy has some of the Ownhammer custom ones (he got in on that $100 buy-in deal they ran on kickstarter, wish I had seen it as it happened right before I bought my 2nd Axe-II! ) and his tones are even better with the custom IR's.  Looking forward to giving these a spin, thanks again for putting them up, Nick!


 
No problem, the Speacial_1 and _3 are particularly good High gain IR's
the 5150 III is a tone match from a forum memeber and wroks really well with the 5150 II model (no surprise there LOL!)
Angels IR is a tone matched IR from On the back of Angels and works really well with the USas Lead 1/2 models (Mix it with the cali with an R121 in front of it booyah!!!!)


----------



## zimbloth (Jan 3, 2013)

This thread has gotten majorly derailed. I never intended this to turn into a "Axe-FX vs Tube Amp" debate. I love my Axe-FX. I just was stating my opinion that for my tastes, I prefer the Ultra over the II (based on the version I had at the time).


----------



## animal101 (Jan 18, 2013)

zimbloth said:


> *Christian:* When I had the Axe-FX II, I hated all of the stock IRs as well. I had to get the RedWirez ones to get anywhere close to what I wanted. On the Ultra, I dont like most of those IRs either. for what its worth, the ONLY cabinet model I like on the Axe-FX Ultra is the "JCM2000" one with the R121 or RE16 ribbon mics. Thats the magic combo to my ears.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 


man I have had a very similar experience 

this might be a bit of a rant!

I started with the ultra and likewise I got my sound out of using 3rd party IR's....the recto model on the ultra was insane

And the ENGL's like you said sounded nothing like the real world counterparts 

The great thing was IMO each FW release was better and better



When I first bought the II I went thru the hell of recreating my patches to the best of my ability 

IMO the early FW has pretty bad low end for high gain stuff messy and spluttering, I remember FW 3 sounding great tho.

shit started to go sideways when 6 came around...there were a ton of great new features but If I remember correctly most ,if not all the amp models got 'tone matched' to there real counterparts....BIG change in the sound....

for whatever reason the recto model lost all its stones and turned very harsh at least to my ears 

I think somewhere they got a little to deep with some of this stuff and lost touch with most guitar players being more plug and play
And I challenge anyone with a II to tweak some of the more advanced parameters and find more than just changes to EQ....even worse some of these settings at there extremities are just plain nasty and not usable unless you are going for some NIN lo-fi sound.

And when it really comes down to it ..when they stress the importance of IR's ,for anyone that has used ozone or done the tone matching thing....a huge percentage is just that, EQ! 

IMO they could drop quite alot of the parameters which is just doing the same thing as a bass/mid/treble dial ......and then there is pick dynamics etc.....

And the next thing is ....90% of the fractal guys are brilliant at what they do ..but then one guy makes posts about setting up patches and going into the most deep editing stuff and then when he strums a chord at the end its the most generic plain tone out ...I could understand if it sounded amazing but it isn't the case
The only vibe I get is a superiority complex 


anyway I'm going to pick up another ultra or get mine sent over ........upgrading is great but so is stability and simplicity!


this is a great related thread
YT: Axe-Fx II vs Axe-Fx Ultra

notice carefully who guesses what


----------



## Andromalia (Jan 19, 2013)

The one thing with the axe presets is that they're likely done with guitars that don't sound remotely like mine. Cliff is a blues/rock guy, I doubt he has the patches done with the kind of guitars we are bound to use around here. the best overall saturated patch is the JMP1 to me, all others sound meh or pretty bad with my guitars.


----------



## Speculum Speculorum (Jan 19, 2013)

I understand your pain here, Nick. It took me a good long time to get used to the Axe-fx II for DI recording, but I never owned or compared it to the Ultra. The IRs, in my opinion, really do suck. But it sounds like at some point in 2013, FAS is re-shooting all the IRs with new techniques, so we'll see. I'm personally very happy with a combo of the new OH V30 betas and 12M to get the unique tone I'm after (just a pinch o' greenback, really). I'm waiting until Kevin shoots the new V30, and I'll buy it up in a heartbeat.

If there's anything to take from this thread, it's 2 things:

1. People will argue on the internet about pretty much anything, even if you don't intend them to.
2. New products from FAS have to go through a maturation period. 

Cliff is a tinkerer, and I think we've gone through about 5 totally different iterations of the power amp modeling since FW 4. It sounds as though FW 9 really set the table for entering the mature period of the II. 

But then again, FW 10 is coming in the next few months and he claims that it's a rather major upgrade from 9 that will change the sound of our presets. It also sounds as though he's changed the details of the amps so that the modeling fits exactly to the way you dial in an amp - that's the claim, at least. He claims it's a real epiphany, and it's hard to argue from the few audio samples he's put out.

So I'm hoping that dialing in tones with this next FW gets me closer to my ideals for amps. It would be nice to be able to grab a 6505+ amp and do the 6,6,6 thing and actually have it sound like it did with my amp. It's funny, because I've played on several amps (although no Diezels or other boutiques) and so far I've always felt like dialing in tones through my Axe-II doesn't feel anything like dialing in tones on an amp. I end up just using my ears and adjusting until I'm happy. We'll see how this next FW goes.


----------



## animal101 (Jan 19, 2013)

Speculum Speculorum said:


> Cliff is a tinkerer, and I think we've gone through about 5 totally different iterations of the power amp modeling since FW 4. It sounds as though FW 9 really set the table for entering the mature period of the II.
> 
> But then again, FW 10 is coming in the next few months and he claims that it's a rather major upgrade from 9 that will change the sound of our presets. It also sounds as though he's changed the details of the amps so that the modeling fits exactly to the way you dial in an amp - that's the claim, at least. He claims it's a real epiphany, and it's hard to argue from the few audio samples he's put out.
> 
> ...


 
what I wonder is why so much tinkering and changes this late in the game? 

more amp models other improvements etc is awesome ...but the updates that really mess with the sounds kinda takes the fun out of it

I have high hopes for 10 regardless especially if he is updating the recto model


----------



## zimbloth (Jan 19, 2013)

But see this the point. My ultra has never needed much tinkering. Never need to mix two cabs/mics, never need compressors, EQs, or filters. Never needed third party IRs. My Ultra has always been able to get professional guitar tones ready to be tracked without much fuss at all. That's why I didn't like my Axe-FX II.


----------



## Krucifixtion (Jan 19, 2013)

I've never got to use a Standard or Ultra and ended up jumping right into a II last April. So I had to start from there. It did take me a little while to really get comfortable being able to know what exactly to tweak, but I feel like I got it down pretty well in terms of what features I actually use, but I would like to try an Ultra if I could just to hear what the differences are like and how the tweaking is. 

However, I will say that from when I first got the Unit and was running I think FW5.0? (I can't really remember anymore)...that FW9.0 sounds incredible. A lot more detail and dynamic in the tone. They still aren't done tweaking it yet.

I mean maybe an Ultra running the last firmware they finalized and having used one for a while compared the whatever FW you had used on the II just didn't translate or compare as well for you.


----------



## zimbloth (Jan 19, 2013)

Yeah I have no doubt the II will only continue to improve. I think back when I had it it was on version 7. All I can go on is the version I had at the time. It could very well be much better now but nonetheless I'm completely content with my Ultra


----------



## Speculum Speculorum (Jan 20, 2013)

And that's the point. You started using the Ultra after all the tweaking had basically been finalized. It had already made it's way through to what FAS perceived to be it's highest functioning, and they worked on making it super consistent. It sounds like you're happy with the sound from it, and that's all that matters. For what it's worth, FW 7 sounded like shit and I couldn't get away from it fast enough. They took a lot more time developing 9, and they did it right, IMO. It sounds much, much better, and takes much less time to set up really great patches. I was even just messing around using stock cabs after checking out this thread yesterday, and even though I like the OH cabs better, I found myself able to dial in useable patches with stock IRs pretty fast as well.

Cliff has already stated that it will be a couple years, at least, before the next model even goes into development. Unless he's filling us full of shit (which I doubt but must always consider), we're probably smack dab in the middle of the development of the II. If FW 10 goes as Cliff says, I don't see a whole lot more changing in terms of power amp sims. I mean, how much more can you do if the modeled amps behave and tweak EXACTLY (his words for FW 10, not mine) like their real world counterparts? 

They'll likely spend the rest of the R&D on this product fixing little bugs, adding amps and features, re-shooting IRs for the unit for sure, and hopefully getting Axe Edit to work. I'd imagine they'll improve the effects on the unit a bit, get the processing power more consistent, etc. But who knows? It's still a young piece of kit, and I could be totally wrong. Nonetheless, enjoy your Ultra dude. It's not like it sounds terrible just because there's something new out, right?


----------



## zimbloth (Jan 20, 2013)

Speculum Speculorum said:


> And that's the point. You started using the Ultra after all the tweaking had basically been finalized. It had already made it's way through to what FAS perceived to be it's highest functioning, and they worked on making it super consistent. It sounds like you're happy with the sound from it, and that's all that matters. For what it's worth, FW 7 sounded like shit and I couldn't get away from it fast enough. They took a lot more time developing 9, and they did it right, IMO. It sounds much, much better, and takes much less time to set up really great patches. I was even just messing around using stock cabs after checking out this thread yesterday, and even though I like the OH cabs better, I found myself able to dial in useable patches with stock IRs pretty fast as well.
> 
> Cliff has already stated that it will be a couple years, at least, before the next model even goes into development. Unless he's filling us full of shit (which I doubt but must always consider), we're probably smack dab in the middle of the development of the II. If FW 10 goes as Cliff says, I don't see a whole lot more changing in terms of power amp sims. I mean, how much more can you do if the modeled amps behave and tweak EXACTLY (his words for FW 10, not mine) like their real world counterparts?
> 
> They'll likely spend the rest of the R&D on this product fixing little bugs, adding amps and features, re-shooting IRs for the unit for sure, and hopefully getting Axe Edit to work. I'd imagine they'll improve the effects on the unit a bit, get the processing power more consistent, etc. But who knows? It's still a young piece of kit, and I could be totally wrong. Nonetheless, enjoy your Ultra dude. It's not like it sounds terrible just because there's something new out, right?



Incorrect. Ive had my Ultra for 4 years. Even in its infancy, I found it easier to dial in pro tones I'm happy with, with little effort. I'm not talking about version 11. My II was a struggle and frankly I found no high gain sounds I was happy with unless resorting to third party IRs and a ton of trickery. If you're saying version 7 "sounds like shit", then that could explain my displeasure with it. Point is I'm 100% satisfied with my Ultra and until I hear a II in real life blow me away, I see no reason to switch. I have faith the II will only get better and better, but that's beside the point to me


----------



## Speculum Speculorum (Jan 20, 2013)

Oh yeah, that's exactly what I'm saying. FW 7 is highly regarded as a red headed stepchild of the FW world (especially for high gain stuff), with the exception of a few dudes who pretty much use it because it's the latest version that they can use axe edit with - go figure.

But like you said. The Ultra sounds great and works for you. It's not a contest. When I listen to the clips of the II and Ultra in good recordings, I almost always prefer the II. It's just different strokes for different folks, I guess.


----------



## Valennic (Jan 20, 2013)

I got the chance to mess with an Axe Fx for the first time this past week, and it was in fact an ultra. I think its funny that you hate the Orange and the Fryette amps Nick, because those were the only two on there that I found remotely bearable . Then again, I ran them through my Deliverance's power section, so it could have been that. I'll have to tackle it again through some studio monitors, but while its a solid unit, it's certainly not my speed, but that Freyette sim through my amp sounded pretty damn good.


----------



## zimbloth (Jan 20, 2013)

Valennic said:


> I got the chance to mess with an Axe Fx for the first time this past week, and it was in fact an ultra. I think its funny that you hate the Orange and the Fryette amps Nick, because those were the only two on there that I found remotely bearable . Then again, I ran them through my Deliverance's power section, so it could have been that. I'll have to tackle it again through some studio monitors, but while its a solid unit, it's certainly not my speed, but that Freyette sim through my amp sounded pretty damn good.



I only use mine for recording not through a tube amp or anything. For live I still prefer my ENGL Invader 100 amp. But yeah there's a lot of great sounding models on the Ultra you'd love if you used monitors and got the hang of it.


----------



## Atomshipped (Jan 21, 2013)

Valennic said:


> I got the chance to mess with an Axe Fx for the first time this past week, and it was in fact an ultra. I think its funny that you hate the Orange and the Fryette amps Nick, because those were the only two on there that I found remotely bearable . Then again, I ran them through my Deliverance's power section, so it could have been that. I'll have to tackle it again through some studio monitors, but while its a solid unit, it's certainly not my speed, but that Freyette sim through my amp sounded pretty damn good.


Lol that's funny, I assume you were running through a guitar speaker too? A lot of the amp sims are pretty dependent on which cab you pair them with and will sound bad (imo) with the wrong cab. I have a VHT Super 30 combo (basically a low wattage Pittbull with a little less gain), and unfortunately the Fryette amp sims didn't sound even close (then again, nothing I've heard can really beat what this amp does cranked up with a few pedals). I do really love the Axe-FX Ultra and can get tons of great sounds out of it, but it generally seems better through an FRFR rig so you can use the cab sims. I ran the Axe-FX through my VHT's poweramp and got some decent tones but everything was much better when I could choose the speaker sims etc. Also one other thing I'd suggest is using the Ultra's power amp sims even if you're running through a tube power amp; it sounds much better.


----------

