# Tube Amp or an AXE FX?



## acoldbloodykiller (Jun 6, 2012)

what would be better an actual tube amp or an axe fx for recording an album? i know its a matter of pure choice but i've heard its difficult to get a good tone out of a tube amp and record it using various mic positions. For that matter would it be better to go for an axe fx?


----------



## Aevolve (Jun 6, 2012)

It really is simply a matter of choice- some people prefer the sound of a tube amp through a mic'd cab.

However- if you're talking about a matter of _ease_, the Axe-Fx has direct-in recording capabilities, while most tube amps do not. Direct-in would be much simpler.


----------



## 4Eyes (Jun 6, 2012)

if you know how to hit strings, you have a good instrument and you know what does it mean to have a good tone in a band context, than it doesn't matter what you use and you can get excellent tones with either tube amp or axe fx. lot of the greatest guitar sounds were recorded with just single sm57 placed somewhere in the middle of the cone.


----------



## Erazoender (Jun 6, 2012)

Thing is, I've heard a very consistent story of people always fiddling with the axe-fx, never quite nailing the tone they want. Granted a lot of recent records out there with kick-ass tones used the axe-fx but I mean the majority of those were done by audio geniuses, eg. Devin Townsend:



And he's released a patch for his tone. One of the best tones in a whole mix that I've heard in a long time (imo), but I mean he's stated in many interviews that he's tweaked and tweaked and tweaked and tweaked and tweaked and tweaked and tweaked until his great grandchildren were born. Tubes are easier to dial in just to your ears, but are a pain to record consistently with. 

If you've got the patience, endurance, and discipline to tweak until you get something you like, the axe is a no-brainer just because of the convenience and consistency you can get with it. 

Oh, it's versatile as fuck too.


----------



## noUser01 (Jun 6, 2012)

Just a few points...

- I can guarantee you will be able to get ANY tone you could want out of the AxeFX. A tube amp, you may be able to get everything you NEED out of it if you pick the right amp, maybe even everything you want, but if you want something different you'll need a different amp, or pedal, or guitar.
- If you want to use your gear live, the AxeFX will sound a lot closer to the album than your amp would on the same settings, simply because on the album you've got a speaker, room, and mic preamp variable as well. With the AxeFX you can go direct in for everything so your tones will be much closer if not exact, possibly with some tweaking needed.
- Dialing in an amp is MUCH easier than dialing in an AxeFX. Especially if it's an amp you really dig and know really well.
- Using a real amp setup allows you to have access to the tones of certain specific pedals easier by just buying them, as opposed to trying to tweak a different pedal model in the AxeFX to sound like the pedal you want.
- No post-processing is needed with the AxeFX unless you want to do so that way.
- You can store presets for EVERYTHING in your signal chain with an AxeFX.
- It's much more exciting for the person tracking to be in the same room as a real amp, instead of listening on cans or monitors. This actually CAN make a huge difference in the quality of the performance you get from the player. If you enjoy what you're doing, you'll do it better. Simple as that.
- An AxeFX takes up less space in your studio, a lot less depending on the amp. Plus it's more portable if you need to take it somewhere.
- Using an AxeFX live will cost you more money in order to get a power amp and cab, or powered monitors, etc. An amp is already good to go.
- You can use 8 mics on a cab if you want to. On an AxeFX? Not really.

Hope that helps.


----------



## TheProgWay (Jun 6, 2012)

Why not get both? Its what I do.
Find a tube amp you like which plays well in a 4CM with AxeFX (proper serial send/return impedences). Then you can hook both of them up in 4CM.
This way, with one hit of a MIDI controller, you can completely change your preamps between your real amp and axefx preamps.
If you want to record, you can record simultaneously with a mic-ed 57 and with OUT1s of AxeFx (then apply a cab sim on DAW for AxeFx signal)

Remember that if you do AxeFx, you will need a Poweramp and a cabinet for band/live usage (you can technically just go directly into PA but you'll need poweramp/cab for monitoring). For recording, just a powered cab/active monitors will suffice.


----------



## Mazzy (Jun 6, 2012)

The Axe FX doesn't sound like a tube amplifier, so for recording purposes, most professionals prefer tubes. The Axe FX shines due to it's portability, cost, and versatility, but most albums need a particular sound and when it comes to doing one thing, an analog rig with proper engineering will sound better, guaranteed.


----------



## Aevolve (Jun 7, 2012)

Mazzy said:


> The Axe FX doesn't sound like a tube amplifier, so for recording purposes, most professionals prefer tubes. The Axe FX shines due to it's portability, cost, and versatility, but most albums need a particular sound and when it comes to doing one thing, an analog rig with proper engineering will sound better, guaranteed.



I disagree. The Axe-Fx is more than capable of sounding like a tube amp. That's kind-of what it's made to do. A lot of people can A/B it with tube amps and not be able to tell the difference.


----------



## 7 Strings of Hate (Jun 7, 2012)

I would rather have 1 distortion channel and 1 clean channel that hit the spot for me than have a box of a million other sounds. But thats just my style. For recording i'd go with a tube amp. For live play, i can see the simplicity of having a AXE.
Now if your in a apt or a kid and cant wake your parents up, or have a wife that bitches or something where you cant be loud for whatever reason, then an axe would probably be the better choice, but for a real professional recording, i'd go with the real thing over a simulation any day.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Jun 7, 2012)

PeachesMcKenzie said:


> I disagree. The Axe-Fx is more than capable of sounding like a tube amp. That's kind-of what it's made to do. A lot of people can A/B it with tube amps and not be able to tell the difference.



Yeah, you can differentiate in feel but not sound.


----------



## acoldbloodykiller (Jun 7, 2012)

Tweaked my VOX 50 watt tube amp and tracked some guitars and it sounded pretty damn good . Plus im getting a Hughes n kettner Switchblade to track with. but here in india its hard to find people with tube amps as they are even more expensive after the shipping charges thats y people ask for as much as 100 $ a day as the rent. For that matter we thought we'd rather buy an amp ourselves than to rent it out .Any suggestions as to what amp would fit in the best? considering the fact we play stuff like textures , killswitch . Otherwise we can just re-amp the switchblade. But i ve heard re-amping causes some loss in impedance , does it really makes any difference ?


----------



## noUser01 (Jun 7, 2012)

Mazzy said:


> The Axe FX doesn't sound like a tube amplifier, so for recording purposes, most professionals prefer tubes. The Axe FX shines due to it's portability, cost, and versatility, but most albums need a particular sound and when it comes to doing one thing, an analog rig with proper engineering will sound better, guaranteed.



I highly disagree with this. It can and does sound like a tube amp when you dial it in right.


----------



## TheProgWay (Jun 7, 2012)

ConnorGilks said:


> I highly disagree with this. It can and does sound like a tube amp when you dial it in right.



I agree, it CAN sound like a tube amp. This is coming from a guy who owns a Mark III and an AxeFx Ultra. It also can sound BETTER than a tube amp. How? You have so many options that you can remove any kind of hiss, squeal or any harsh frequencies a particular tube amp you are modelling produces. However, to get an equal or better sound, it takes a LOT of tweaking. But you know, there are so many overtweaked patches online that one of those will guarantee to satisfy anyone.

What is different is what the posts above suggest. The feel is ridiculously terrible on AxeFx. When playing through the AxeFx, you have to completely change the way you play guitar; or atleast think about it. Its a super compressed feel <- my best attempt to describe it. I lose a lot of playing dynamics, the response with the modelling is quite bad compared to the real deal even though the sound is as good. Its a weird feeling, you have to have both a tube amp and the Axe Fx and A/B them (which is what I do) to understand.


----------



## Blake1970 (Jun 7, 2012)

Go tube amp man.


----------



## budda (Jun 7, 2012)

Go with whatever you can get your paws on. It's that easy.

I recorded a few tracks with an axe fx standard because I had one I could use. Now I don't - so we'll probably track with whatever we can grab that sounds good next time we get around to it.


----------



## noUser01 (Jun 7, 2012)

TheProgWay said:


> I agree, it CAN sound like a tube amp. This is coming from a guy who owns a Mark III and an AxeFx Ultra. It also can sound BETTER than a tube amp. How? You have so many options that you can remove any kind of hiss, squeal or any harsh frequencies a particular tube amp you are modelling produces. However, to get an equal or better sound, it takes a LOT of tweaking. But you know, there are so many overtweaked patches online that one of those will guarantee to satisfy anyone.
> 
> What is different is what the posts above suggest. The feel is ridiculously terrible on AxeFx. When playing through the AxeFx, you have to completely change the way you play guitar; or atleast think about it. Its a super compressed feel <- my best attempt to describe it. I lose a lot of playing dynamics, the response with the modelling is quite bad compared to the real deal even though the sound is as good. Its a weird feeling, you have to have both a tube amp and the Axe Fx and A/B them (which is what I do) to understand.



See, the fact that I didn't really notice until you pointed it out makes me actually disagree with this. I don't think it's a huge difference at all, I see what you mean there is a tiny difference but I don't feel like I've lost dynamics or anything of the sort.


----------



## Mazzy (Jun 7, 2012)

I own an Axe FX II alongside many tube amps. The comment was stated with plenty of experience.


----------



## xCaptainx (Jun 7, 2012)

Many producers/engineers have been producing amazing quality albums over the years with a variety of tools and resources available to them at the time. 

I'd have to answer this question with another question; who is doing your recording and do they have a good ear? I'm sure they would be able to get a good recording out of you using whatever is available to them. People have been recording audio since 1877. The first valve amp was in 1906. Needless to say that tube amps have their place, as does whatever tools your engineer decides to work with, or prefers. That's half the fun of recording, working with your engineer to get the best out of what gear you're using.


----------



## noUser01 (Jun 7, 2012)

Mazzy said:


> I own an Axe FX II alongside many tube amps. The comment was stated with plenty of experience.



I'm not saying it wasn't, I'm just saying _your_ experience clearly isn't the same as _our _experience with the unit.


----------



## xCaptainx (Jun 7, 2012)

Also, to add to my post. 


99% of your listeners won't notice the difference either way, and won't generally care as long as it sounds ok. Do whatever you want and if it were me, I'd do whatever was the cheapest option. With my last cd, two of us in the band has axe fx ultras, I had an HD500. We used the axe fx for all reamping simply because we had it.


----------



## Ocara-Jacob (Jun 7, 2012)

The Axe-Fx sounds more like a tube amp than a tube amp. 

Jk. Anyways, Yeah. Axe-Fx all the way.


----------



## VinnyShredz (Jun 8, 2012)

7 Strings of Hate said:


> I would rather have 1 distortion channel and 1 clean channel that hit the spot for me than have a box of a million other sounds. But thats just my style. For recording i'd go with a tube amp. For live play, i can see the simplicity of having a AXE.
> Now if your in a apt or a kid and cant wake your parents up, or have a wife that bitches or something where you cant be loud for whatever reason, then an axe would probably be the better choice, but for a real professional recording, i'd go with the real thing over a simulation any day.




This sums up exactly how I feel. 

The ease of using an AXE FX live is SO tempting, but for recording, I'd most definitely go with the real thing, granted you get a good tone outta whatever amp you buy. 
I'm sure you can in the price range of AXE's 2 to 2.5k?


----------



## SSK0909 (Jun 8, 2012)

From my experience, the Axe doesnt hit the exact sound of a tube amp, and i honestly don't understand the people who exclaim "It sounds exactly like a tube amp!" and then proceed to buy the Axe II because it sounds better.
How can the II be better if the original already sounded indistinguishable from a real amp 

However, the Axe is far superior when it comes to studio use. It's far easier to plug in and get going, you can try different amp sounds and fx on the fly and in a mix the difference between axe and a real amp become minscule once all post processing has been done


----------



## noUser01 (Jun 8, 2012)

SSK0909 said:


> From my experience, the Axe doesnt hit the exact sound of a tube amp, and i honestly don't understand the people who exclaim "It sounds exactly like a tube amp!" and then proceed to buy the Axe II because it sounds better.
> How can the II be better if the original already sounded indistinguishable from a real amp
> 
> However, the Axe is far superior when it comes to studio use. It's far easier to plug in and get going, you can try different amp sounds and fx on the fly and in a mix the difference between axe and a real amp become minscule once all post processing has been done



I don't think it's "Oh the Axe sounds better than a tube amp", it's that the Axe can nail the sound of a certain tube amp if you tweak it right, but then it can go a step further as well. You can nail the sound of a certain amp, but then add in more clarity than the original amp, or have a tighter bass response, etc.


----------



## SSK0909 (Jun 8, 2012)

ConnorGilks said:


> I don't think it's "Oh the Axe sounds better than a tube amp", it's that the Axe can nail the sound of a certain tube amp if you tweak it right, but then it can go a step further as well. You can nail the sound of a certain amp, but then add in more clarity than the original amp, or have a tighter bass response, etc.



I think you misunderstood me 

My point was, that a lot of people seem to claim that the axe sounds exactly like a tube amp, yet they buy the Axe II and suddenly think it sounds superior to the Standard/Ultra.

How can the modeling of the Axe II be superior if they claim the original Axe was already there tone wise? 

It's like saying Pepsi tastes exactly like Coke, but the new Pepsi 2 taste even more like Coke


----------



## noUser01 (Jun 8, 2012)

I don't think people are saying "Oh it sounds more like a tube amp", I think they're saying the technology of the AxeFX II is better overall. Like certain sounds are clearer, fatter, whatever... because not everything about the AxeFX is about copying other amps and pedals.


----------



## axxessdenied (Jun 8, 2012)

The Axe FX II has a lot more horsepower than the Ultra. It's got two processors on it I believe. one dedicated just to amp simulation. All the extra horsepower means more numbers can be crunched. More detailed sound simulation as a result.


----------



## mniel8195 (Jun 8, 2012)

I loved my axe fx but i was happier playing through small tube amps with a boost than i was through monitors in my living room. i do wish i had something to tweak with though or something i could play with a lower volumes than my blackstar ht-5 can. overall ive been happier with tube amps. But i was the guy that only used one sim on the ultra! maybe delay and that was it. i cashed it in because it wasnt worth the price just laying around. Plus you need a really good power amp to make it sound ideal through a cab. Forget the rocktron or the art sla2. you have to go straight to matrix or a killer tube power amp. Tweaking is a huge issue with these boxes as well. i dont deny you cant get a great tone out of these things but at what cost? how much time and money do you want to spend? Another thing i never cared for with the axe fx is that the cab ir seemed to be half the tone!


----------



## 7stringDemon (Jun 8, 2012)

I'm a tube fan all day but they lack one thing that the Axe-Fx, and most solid states as well, have. Consistancy.

A tube amp will never sound the same twice. Think of the tube as a light bulb for a second. Your tone depends on how hot that light bulb gets. But that light bulb never reaches the exact same temperature twice. Therefore, your tone is never the same.

So I'd vote the Axe-Fx. Not to mention, the sound that they put out, is a perfect sound. No breakup and it always sounds the same. If I could afford one, I'd be all over it.


----------



## Jakke (Jun 8, 2012)

I am very partial to tube amps myself, I like the feeling, and I prefer to have all my sounds located in a certain sonic area, I have never been a fan of something that can sound like everything. I like having a signature tube print on my sound so to say. However an Axe-fx is a lot easier to handle, but more expensive (usually), you would probably need to spend more money as you need more components to use it at all.


----------



## christheasian (Jun 9, 2012)

The axe is the single best investment I have ever made. Hands down.


----------



## bob123 (Jun 9, 2012)

If you plan on gigging, get the tube amp.

If you plan on being studio, get the axe FX.


----------



## Mazzy (Jun 9, 2012)

7stringDemon said:


> I'm a tube fan all day but they lack one thing that the Axe-Fx, and most solid states as well, have. Consistancy.
> 
> A tube amp will never sound the same twice. Think of the tube as a light bulb for a second. Your tone depends on how hot that light bulb gets. But that light bulb never reaches the exact same temperature twice. Therefore, your tone is never the same.
> 
> So I'd vote the Axe-Fx. Not to mention, the sound that they put out, is a perfect sound. No breakup and it always sounds the same. If I could afford one, I'd be all over it.


The Axe FX will never sound the same twice if you're going direct on stage. It will need to be lightly redialed to suit each venues system and acoustics.

It's great at home, but it's faults I found were on stage.

There's a significant amount of compression and high-end fizz with many of the models that cause it not to sound like a tube amplifier. It's close, but there's a reason that it isn't used in many studios outside of the metal crowd. Go over to any message board focused more on recording and ask about the Axe FX II. This board is way too biased on the subject, IMO.


----------



## budda (Jun 9, 2012)

Mazzy said:


> The Axe FX will never sound the same twice if you're going direct on stage. It will need to be lightly redialed to suit each venues system and acoustics.



You know that's the same for every rig that ever hits a stage, right? You *should* re-EQ for the room.


----------



## SamSam (Jun 9, 2012)

I love my Fryette to bits. But the main issue with tube amps for me is that they are temparamental as hell at times. You can dial in a godly tone just to come back a day later to find it isn't the same due various reasons, electrical supply etc. 

My Axe FX always sounds great, you can get "that" tone and keep it much easier than with a tube amp IMO.


----------



## TheProgWay (Jun 12, 2012)

ConnorGilks said:


> See, the fact that I didn't really notice until you pointed it out makes me actually disagree with this. I don't think it's a huge difference at all, I see what you mean there is a tiny difference but I don't feel like I've lost dynamics or anything of the sort.



The response for me is lost quite a bit. I don't just play metal at high volumes, I do a lot of bluesy/funk/jazz stuff at lower volumes as well so it really sticks out as a difference to me


----------



## Workhorse (Oct 26, 2013)

I had to ressurect this thread because of something I came across. 

Now everyone seems happy with the fact that the axe fx II can be directly plugged in for recording, but cant the Suhr Corso accomplish the same thing? 

Corso 5-Watt Portable Recording Amplifier

My only qualm with it is that ....ing price. And not seeing any of them around to try and see if they work for heavy metal or not.


----------



## Given To Fly (Oct 27, 2013)

Workhorse said:


> I had to ressurect this thread because of something I came across.
> 
> Now everyone seems happy with the fact that the axe fx II can be directly plugged in for recording, but cant the Suhr Corso accomplish the same thing?
> 
> ...



Direct Recording tube amps/preamps have been around for awhile. Mesa Boogie has made quite a few, like 10 amps, that have a Recording DI output. The Corso looks cool and I believe the $999 price is List, so hopefully its cheaper in real l life.


----------



## TIMEwaveXERO (Oct 27, 2013)

I gig. I tube.


----------



## Tuco Borborygmus (Oct 27, 2013)

Blake1970 said:


> Go tube amp man.



^ this


----------



## JustinG60 (Oct 27, 2013)

i didn't read every single response, perused some of them and a few make my point ...personal preference. 

on my last few recordings i used a Marshall JCM2000 TSL100, Marshall MF280B, a power brake and mic'd it with an RCA44 ribbon mic. cranked and rolled back the power with the brake to not ruin an expensive mic not meant for that out put.

the other guitarist at the time was a live and die by Mesa recto fan, when it was all said and done my amp sounded so good he thought it was his because he disliked the Marshall tone. 

if you do record a more traditional way, i also liked an SM57 on the cab and another SM57 back about 3' and to the side about 8", it really cleaned up the fuzz if you are finding you're having a fuzz issue in the studio. spend the money for an hour of amp mic'ing set up


----------



## Eclipse (Oct 27, 2013)

I definitely prefer the Fractal to a tube amp live and for recording purposes. I used to lug around a 120 watt tube amp and I got so tired of lugging it around. So glad I can just take my 2 space rack now.


----------



## russmuller (Oct 27, 2013)

Really it's gonna come down to your own working style and preferences, as well as the facilities available for you to record.

I love the Axe-FX II. The flexibility and consistency blow any analog rig out of the water, but sometimes it can be death by variables. You can tweak and tweak and tweak until you go insane if you're not careful.

I also really love a good tube amp rig and moving some air in a nice room with good microphone techniques. Sometimes it's nice to have the simplicity of less than 30 parameters to adjust.

If you've got a good sounding room to record in, decent mics and preamps, then it's just a matter of finding the right amp and dialing in a tone you like.

If any of those things are concerns for you, then the Axe will probably be the better choice. You won't have to worry about the room, mics, or preamps, and you'll have a lot of different amps and cabs to audition without breaking your back to set them all up. You can reamp through the box and change whatever you want after the fact.


----------

