# Is the Line 6 Helix as good as the Axe FX II?



## UniverseOfTheMind8 (Sep 13, 2016)

I have heard that it's actually better. If so, what makes it better? I'm pretty new to this type of technology so forgive my ignorance haha. I plan on trying some sort of multi fx/amp modeller out and just want to make sure I get the best one.


----------



## zeropoint (Sep 13, 2016)

Google is excellent at rehashing this sort of thing.

One is cheaper and comes with an expression pedal and a more intuitive UI - but has been noted by many to have worse modelling in general, lag time when switching patches etc. It also isn't a rack unit, and probably has different I/O's than the other.

Similar application but different animals.


----------



## PBGas (Sep 13, 2016)

Some will tell you it is. Some will tell you it is not. Realistically, it is a quality unit that does a lot. If has the advantage of also being your interface for recording as the Axe does as well. If you like modelling, I would suggest trying (if you are able to) any of the big three being Axe, Kemper or Helix.


----------



## mikah912 (Sep 13, 2016)

It's neither better nor worse, generally speaking.

I had a Fractal AX8. The amp modeling absolutely rocked, as did many of the effects. 

But the latest Helix firmware with the Fatality, hot-rodded Marshall original and Mesa Mark IV amps, covers so much ground....I didn't really lack for anything switching over to Helix. 

Just load up some good external impulse responses and you're set.


----------



## lewis (Sep 14, 2016)

zeropoint said:


> Google is excellent at rehashing this sort of thing.
> 
> One is cheaper and comes with an expression pedal and a more intuitive UI - but has been noted by many to have worse modelling in general, lag time when switching patches etc. *It also isn't a rack unit, and probably has different I/O's than the other.*
> 
> Similar application but different animals.



ahem? -


----------



## macgruber (Sep 14, 2016)

i sat down with both rack units and they were very similar running the same cab impulse. won't go wrong either way.


----------



## laxu (Sep 14, 2016)

macgruber said:


> i sat down with both rack units and they were very similar running the same cab impulse. won't go wrong either way.



Which version of the Axe-Fx firmware was the unit using?


----------



## laxu (Sep 14, 2016)

As an Axe-Fx 2 owner, user interfaces on their devices are the absolute worst part of owning a Fractal product. I try to avoid using the front panel on my Axe-Fx 2 MkI as much as possible and do everything from Axe-Edit. The Line6 Helix has a much more intuitive looking UI.

That said, Fractal support is just superb. We have so far had several years of free updates that not only fix bugs but often overhauled the tone to something even better and added lots of fx and amp models. Based on what I've seen from Line6, they would've sold you those models as some sort of packs.

I recently had a chance to hear the Kemper alongside my Axe-Fx 2 and the Kemper is a good sounding unit as well. It took a long time to boot though.

Out of all these soundwise I have no doubt the Axe-Fx 2 is the king of the hill, but the differences might not be so huge to dismiss the better UI and cheaper price of the other units. Especially since the Axe-Fx 2 XL+ is the only unit available new and it costs a lot more than what I paid for mine back in the day.


----------



## mikah912 (Sep 14, 2016)

laxu said:


> That said, Fractal support is just superb. We have so far had several years of free updates that not only fix bugs but often overhauled the tone to something even better and added lots of fx and amp models. Based on what I've seen from Line6, they would've sold you those models as some sort of packs.



Not the case. Helix has been out a year, and seven new amp channels (and several effects models) have been added free as part of firmware updates. Most importantly, they added Snapshots, which are an improved version of Fractal Scenes that let you seamlessly switch parameters and on/off states within a preset.


----------



## schwiz (Sep 14, 2016)

I absolutely love my Axe FX over any Line 6 product that I've used. I will say that the Line6 software available for updating firmware, adding amp/cab packs etc, is exponentially more user friendly than using Axe-bot. They make it way easier. However, with the Axe FX, you have the ability to customize it more to suit your style by loading in custom impulses, or buying one of their cab packs. Fractal > Line 6, but not by much.


----------



## mikah912 (Sep 14, 2016)

schwiz said:


> I absolutely love my Axe FX over any Line 6 product that I've used. I will say that the Line6 software available for updating firmware, adding amp/cab packs etc, is exponentially more user friendly than using Axe-bot. They make it way easier. However, with the Axe FX, you have the ability to customize it more to suit your style by loading in custom impulses, or buying one of their cab packs. Fractal > Line 6, but not by much.



You can load any custom impulse you want onto a Helix too. I have over 100 Ownhammer impulses in mine right now.


----------



## pylyo (Sep 14, 2016)

laxu said:


> Out of all these soundwise I have no doubt the Axe-Fx 2 is the king of the hill, but the differences might not be so huge to dismiss the better UI and cheaper price of the other units. Especially since the Axe-Fx 2 XL+ is the only unit available new and it costs a lot more than what I paid for mine back in the day.



I owned both, Axe2 and Kemper, several times. In my opinion Kemper is easily the king, feels so much more like a real amp. 

Played Helix this weekend and it's way better than anything Line6 so far but it still feels most artificial, out of the three. 

But in the end I always end up with the real amp tho, haven't found anything yet that can beat my JJ100. Not even a JJ profiles. :/

Anyway, below video is ton of fun and great representation of Kemper awesomnes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INJ_H5PiuTE&feature=youtu.be


----------



## oracles (Sep 14, 2016)

Of the three, I'd rank the Kemper as the best for straight up amp modelling and ease of use, followed by the Fractal for sound quality but the most difficult user interface (which is frustrating to say the least) and then the Helix. The L6 felt the most artificial of the three, and I wouldn't buy one new when a used KPA/Fractal costs marginally extra and delivers better performance. 

The advantage the Fractal has over the KPA for me is in the effects, but for the genres and styles I'm playing, modelling isn't at a point yet where it's a viable option. They haven't been able to produce amp sims that can accurately replicate a cranked Model T or vintage Hiwatt for the doom and shoegaze stuff that I play a lot of, and the effects I use either aren't modelled or sound miles off the actual pedal. As it stands currently, I'm still firmly in the tube amp corner. That's not to detract from modelling as a whole, to ignore the leaps forward that modelling has made since it was first introduced would be highly ignorant. For a lot of uses and applications, I can see why it's so heavily favoured, it does have a lot of benefits.


----------



## mnemonic (Sep 14, 2016)

Eh, Axe FX II front panel is confusing at first and certainly isn't as pretty, but it does make sense and isn't hard to use, once you figure it out. I avoided it like the plague when I got mine for the first month or so, then I started doing basic things through it when I was too lazy to plug in the USB cable. After a couple months of occasionally clicking through stuff to figure it out, I do 99% of my editing through the front panel. Not that I edit patches that much anyway. 

I've never played a helix so I can't compare, but it is much prettier and I've heard some cool tones. Amp list was really short last I checked though, not sure if that has changed.


----------



## mikah912 (Sep 14, 2016)

I think the labelling of "better" or "best" in this category is completely subjective, and also largely pointless. As you can see, some people still think NO modeler can quite give them the "realistic" tones they crave, and that includes plenty of pros who happily show Kemper/Axe/whatever usage on Instagram or live, but reveal that they had everything reamped with tube amps when they recorded their album.

Suffice it to say, you (the proverbial You) are the only real arbiter when it comes to quality, and only you know how picky you are. I happen to think both the AX8 and Helix are already there when it comes to base amp tones, but for every me...you can find a guy who'll say there's a high frequency whatever or fizz or mid-blah he couldn't dial out...and he can pick out "the real" amp 100 times out of 100.

Our ears are only one part of the equation. Our biases/mental blocks determine what it is we "hear" just as much as what is actually audible. Just look at the Chappers/Kemper video linked above....in that blind contest, they identify several completely audible "flaws" that immediately give away the Kemper.

Then, they're redfaced as they realize that got nothing right.


----------



## mnemonic (Sep 14, 2016)

mikah912 said:


> Our ears are only one part of the equation. Our biases/mental blocks determine what it is we "hear" just as much as what is actually audible.



This is a good point, there is something just a bit different between sitting in front of a rack and tweaking with menus or a laptop, versus sitting in front of an amp with pedals, turning knobs.


----------



## Spinedriver (Sep 14, 2016)

Like the others have said, neither one is specifically "better" than the other, they just have different features. With the Helix, it's a lot cheaper than the Axe and (from what I understand) is a lot more 'user friendly' when it comes to making patches.
On the other hand, the Axe-Fx not only has a lot more amp sims but it also has an amp profiling feature where you can "profile" a real life amp or even download profiles that others have created, whereas with the Helix, whatever Line 6 comes up with, that's about it.

Tone wise, I doubt you can go wrong with either unit.


----------



## ihunda (Sep 14, 2016)

I have all 3, the Kemper sounds great but I am getting tired of it as there's a "Kemper" tone quality to the distortion that cannot be dialed out, whatever the profile.
Helix is the one I use the most at home and small shows, just because it's so easy to use and noodle around and it has builtin switches and an exp pedal so no need to lug around extra stuff.
Sound quality wise, the Axe Fx II is way above all else IMO and it's the studio king because I don't want to lug around a rack + expression pedals + footswitch, way too messy.


----------



## mikah912 (Sep 14, 2016)

A word about "all of those" Fractal amps: While there are 250 something or whatever distinct amp channels, many of them sound nigh identical through the same IR, so ultimately that (impulse responses) is going to give you more tonal variety than a bounty of amp models. Just check out this recent comparison of all of the Mesa Mark amps in the latest firmware through one IR:

https://youtu.be/QZuSmbW2Ov0

Also keep in mind that people tend to use the same handful of models, especially for gain: FAS Modern, Friedman HBE, 5150 variants, dual Recto variants, and maybe a Mesa Mark variant.

Helix has equivalents of all of those. (Respectively: Line 6 Fatality, Line 6 Mod 2204, 5150, Dual Rec, Mesa Mark IV).

With third party IRs and drive pedals/EQ, you can absolutely tweak any of those to sound like any variant in the AX8, plus you can run dual amps on Helix.

They both sound great and will give you far more possible tones than you could ever use in a lifetime.


----------



## pylyo (Sep 14, 2016)

ihunda said:


> I am getting tired of it as there's a "Kemper" tone quality to the distortion that cannot be dialed out, whatever the profile.



Exactly, I've mentioned it in the Kemper thread too a while ago.


----------



## wakjob (Sep 14, 2016)

pylyo said:


> Exactly, I've mentioned it in the Kemper thread too a while ago.



Yep. There sure is, one of the few reasons I unloaded mine.

Wonder piece of gear no doubt, hard to knock it otherwise.


----------



## zeropoint (Sep 14, 2016)

lewis said:


> ahem? -



Turns out I should sharpen my google-fu on the rack-mount bit as well, so I've learned something new today about the Line6 product line.

In that case I'd really say a person should just hear them for themselves which one they like best - this is supposed to be art, after all.


----------



## that short guy (Sep 14, 2016)

I own the helix. And honestly I think it comes down to the person and what they're after and their ability to adapt to and use the product.

I've heard videos of the AXE Fx that sounded amazing, and some that sounded like ..... The sane can be said about the Helix and Kemper. I ultimately choose the the Helix because it's capable of getting as good of a tone as the others (at least IMO), there's a whole community on the L6 website where you can download patches that people have uploaded so if you're bored you can mess around with other people's tones, and most importantly it's really easy use, so I spend more time playing and enjoying my tone than I do tweaking. 

They both take 3rd party IRs , they both have good customer service/support, and to this date they've all had free updates that give you more amps and effects.

So with all of that added up, I chose the helix. And the fact that it was the cheapest one of the 3 that was an added bonus.

You can't go wrong with any of them. Good luck man


----------



## noUser01 (Sep 15, 2016)

Sound quality wise, not quite, no. At least not to my ears. The Helix is a more simplified (I don't mean that in a negative way) version of an AxeFX II. Not quite as good sound quality (to my ears) or flexibility, but the lack of flexibility is also the selling point as it makes it more simple to operate and more welcoming for players that just prefer the plug-and-play approach. The Helix still sounds awesome. It's sort of like comparing the AxeFX II to the Kemper, it's about what kind of workflow and features you want, not about which sounds better.


----------



## Vrollin (Sep 15, 2016)

What flexibility would you be missing with the helix compared to other units? Other than profiling I can't see what else it's missing...


----------



## mikah912 (Sep 15, 2016)

Yeah, I think you're selling the Helix way short. Lack of flexibility? You can use multiple instances of anything in any order in the signal chain on up to four different parallel paths with four FX loops. How can you get more flexible than that?

On top of that, the Snapshots on Helix let you set each parameter of every effect individually in 8 instances per preset, whereas Scenes in Axe-FX give you an X or Y (or on/off) state. 

I guess if you're talking about whether you can adjust the virtual power supply settings or virtual preamp hardness or whatever on a given amp model, Axe-FX is more "flexible" having those sorts of parameters exposed, but I barely touched them when I had an AX8. That stuff makes super subtle differences, and the vast majority of Fractal players leave them on the default settings.

As far as sound quality, both Helix and AX8 are up there. You can adjust deep parameters on both. You can load multiple EQs on both You can load multiple third party IRs on both. They may sound a bit different from each other at the base, but running similar amp models on both through the same IR will get you super similar results.


----------



## that short guy (Sep 15, 2016)

I think he was talking about the deep parameter editing that the AXE has when he said flexible. Which I will agree, the AXE has more capabilities for that but like you said most people never use them.

I do think it's important to point out that if you're looking for something that's going to sound exactly like the amp none of them are going to be spot on. They all sound close but the main thing they all get dead on is the sound characteristics of the amp they're all about 90% accurate with a 10% company coloring so to speak on the tone. 

I can't remember the exact wording but even Misha in an interview with the guy that runs Andertons (the captain, can't remember his real name) said that the AXE isn't spot on, but it has what he likes about each of the real amps in the box. 

I do love these discussions though. I really love how passionate we (yes myself included) get about subjective things and try to make an objective argument about it lol


----------



## ToneLab (Sep 15, 2016)

I've owned a Kemper and the Axe FX 2 twice. Currently have the axe. Both are great. For me the Axe wins hands down. I am just a bedroom player doing my own recordings for me and my dog. I can get such greater variety of high quality usable tones from the Axe. Again this is just me. But out of 200 Kemper profiles I would try I would find one that maybe was usable. In 2 years of owning it I had 1 real keeper. Now damn that one was sweet, but that was it. I know others struggle with this, otherwise there wouldn't be these "legendary" profiles that are so often discussed on the boards.

My first time around with the Axe I struggled with it. The second time around everything just fell into place. Probably part firmware improvements, part me growing and learning what good tone was and how to get to it and improving in mixing, and, part me having a headstart in understanding the axe the second time around. Another interesting point is how many different amp models I now use. Amps I never thought I would touch.


----------



## mikah912 (Sep 15, 2016)

Absolutely agree on people setting themselves up to be disappointed if they're expecting dead-on recreations of an amp at the molecular level.

Fractal gets models "wrong" all of the time. The whole reason that there's a "Metallica Mesa Mark IIC++" in the latest firmware is that an older, inaccurate model of a Mark IIC+ that was in the Ultra and II started getting used by Metallica and when Cliff Chase at Fractal tossed it out for an ostensibly more detailed and accurate version....Metallica wanted the old one restored because it sounded better to them.

It's good to remember that these high end models are (for legal reasons) "based on" a particular amp, not that particular amp. It's not unlike what Ceriatone does. Kemper has their "take" on everything you profile through it. Fractal has theirs. Line 6 has theirs.


----------



## laxu (Sep 15, 2016)

mikah912 said:


> Absolutely agree on people setting themselves up to be disappointed if they're expecting dead-on recreations of an amp at the molecular level.



People need to stop comparing digital amps to tube amp brand X model Y in the first place. Over the years there have been plenty of modelers that can give you very good sounds. Now at the high end we have modelers that can sound just as good or even better than most real amps and be recorded a lot easier, with infinite EQ possibilities to get the exact tone you hear in your head.

Once you get past the initial complexity of operating a fully digital rig and have some good patch templates set up it's easy to build a new tone.


----------



## noUser01 (Sep 15, 2016)

mikah912 said:


> Yeah, I think you're selling the Helix way short. Lack of flexibility? You can use multiple instances of anything in any order in the signal chain on up to four different parallel paths with four FX loops. How can you get more flexible than that?
> 
> On top of that, the Snapshots on Helix let you set each parameter of every effect individually in 8 instances per preset, whereas Scenes in Axe-FX give you an X or Y (or on/off) state.
> 
> ...



You're completely misinterpreting my post, dude. I never said it wasn't extremely flexible and awesome sounding, but when you compare the two units there's still a notable difference, and that's all I'm point out. 

8 instances is cool, or you could just change presets. Yes, those additional parameters do make the amp models far more flexible, period. Not "flexible", it's just flexible. By definition. Saying "most people don't use them" isn't a point against the unit, that literally makes no difference when it comes to comparing two pieces of hardware. We're comparing hardware, not the users. I highly disagree about subtle differences as well, things like the pick attack, definition, cab resonant frequency etc. all make a big difference. With that many parameters of course some will be more subtle than others, that doesn't mean they aren't useful. If you're the kind of person that wants that flexibility and the opportunity to even build a completely unique digital amp, then you've got it. Don't misinterpret opinions about what's useful for facts. What is useful is entirely up to the individual player and their preferences, which is why I noted that in my post.

Having a few of the same features (3rd party IR's, multiple EQ instances and deeper amp parameters - of which the Helix's are hardly comparable) does not make them the same.

Again, the Helix is a phenomenal unit, I'm not questioning your precious hardware or telling you it's inadequate... I'm simply providing the OP with information on the differences between the two units. I would never recommend the AxeFX II to everyone based on these differences, I'm just noting what those differences are and why less features can actually be a very beneficial thing.



Vrollin said:


> What flexibility would you be missing with the helix compared to other units? Other than profiling I can't see what else it's missing...



There's a heck of a lot more parameters and models with the AxeFX, for everything - amp models, cabs, and effects.


----------



## mikah912 (Sep 15, 2016)

ConnorGilks said:


> There's a heck of a lot more parameters and models with the AxeFX, for everything - amp models, cabs, and effects. More routing options as well.



Not really, but I've covered all of that already....


----------



## noUser01 (Sep 15, 2016)

mikah912 said:


> Not really, but I've covered all of that already....



You've literally just stated your _opinion_ on why dozens more parameters and models don't count as flexible to you personally, rather than talking about the facts. Let me provide _facts_.

Helix: 45 amp models
http://line6.com/data/6/0a06439cc0ef55b13d89a4aa8/application/pdf

AxeFX II: 249 amp models:
http://wiki.fractalaudio.com/axefx2/index.php?title=Amp:_all_models

Helix amp parameters (besides the typical amp EQ controls/gain):
http://line6.com/support/topic/19115-helix-amp-parameters/

AxeFX II amp parameters:
http://wiki.fractalaudio.com/axefx2/index.php?title=AMP_block_parameters

Helix and AxeFX II have more or less the same amount of actual effects models in the units. But again, the amount of modifiable parameters in all of the effects are where you see a big difference. 

Even accounting for updates and what might be inaccurate research on my part (and please correct me if I've made mistakes there), those variables still aren't going to make the two comparable in terms of these options. These kind of options are what have allowed users on the forums to recreate all kinds of models that aren't in the AxeFX, or create hybrid amps that don't exist in real life. Maybe you love the clarity and grind of a 5150 but the response of a saggy Marshall - you can do it. Maybe you want a Klon model but Fractal didn't make one - you can do it. Maybe you want to put your B7K in your AxeFX II but don't like the quality of the tone matching compared to a Kemper - you can attempt to recreate it.

You can argue it's not more flexible all you want, but this is the proof. Again, I've said many times the Helix is a fantastic unit. It's killer. I'm not telling him the AxeFX II is hands down better, I'm telling the OP what the differences are so he can make his own informed decision instead of relying on the opinions of others as to what qualifies as "flexible" or "useful" for him.


----------



## mikah912 (Sep 15, 2016)

ConnorGilks,

It's all good. We just have our differing opinions. I love both boxes, for the record. Anybody could make incredible, original sounds with either.

Last point on your "facts", BTW. An amp channel is not the same as an amp model. There aren't 249 distinct amp models in an Axe, nor are there 50-whatever (they added 7 more since that PDF was created) in the Helix.


----------



## noUser01 (Sep 15, 2016)

I completely agree, and I'm just providing the OP with information on what the differences are. Just because the AxeFX II has far more flexibility does not mean that it's right for him, or even that it will be the best sounding unit for him. Comparing anything other than the factual differences between these units is ridiculous, because it all comes down to the players own unique style and preferences.

Some would disagree there. Plus I didn't see anything in the Helix about switching channels on the amp models, but I could be wrong there. Even so, channel models aside, do the math. Still a huge difference.


----------



## mikah912 (Sep 15, 2016)

You can't really disagree, objectively speaking. A channel is not a discrete, unique amp. And given the sheet preponderance of duplicates (6 VH4 channels, 6 Friedman BE100 channels, a gazillion Plexis, etc.), It shrinks the difference.


----------



## noUser01 (Sep 15, 2016)

mikah912 said:


> You can't really disagree, objectively speaking. A channel is not a discrete, unique amp. And given the sheet preponderance of duplicates (6 VH4 channels, 6 Friedman BE100 channels, a gazillion Plexis, etc.), It shrinks the difference.



Now you're just arguing semantics. No, it's not an entirely new amp, but it's a different sound. Again, I don't see Helix compensating for this, do they? I'm honestly asking because I haven't found anything about how you can switch channels on their models of amps with multiple channels, but if they can that's great. It doesn't have to be a new amp for it to be more flexible. If one unit gave you an ENGL model that was just the high gain channel, versus another unit that gave you 3 channels from that amp, the latter is still more flexible, and more accurate. The OD1 channel on a JVM is not the same as the OD2 channel, so having a model of both is going to allow one to be more accurate instead of using a blanket approach to modeling the gain channels. As for Plexi's, modeling the different channels and different wattages aren't redundant or else they wouldn't be there. Same with the jump, or bright variants of amps. Cliff has time and time again refused to make models of certain amps because they are indeed redundant to other amp models. The new JPIIC isn't in there, because the differences in that amp aren't enough to warrant a new model. Think of the way people use real amps - it makes sense to get multiple channels when the differences between them are notable enough.

You can argue that different channels, different versions of amps, different wattages etc. might be useless or the differences might not be important to you personally, but then we're getting back into the territory of opinions and value judgements, rather than facts.

Plus, even if both units had 50 of the exact same amp models, the AxeFX II still has far more parameters for tweaking those amp models and even creating your own amps and effects, which again backs up my point about increased flexibility.


----------



## mikah912 (Sep 15, 2016)

I simply call back to the video I linked to. Or look up Mitch Baker's Fractal comparison videos on YouTube where he groups similar topography amps together. 

You listen to a few of these back to back through the same IR, and there's very little difference that can't be accounted for with mild EQ. My personal experience owning an AX8 led me to the same conclusion. If I felt like I really got 240+ distinct amps, I'd stillll have it and be working my way through each.

Just ain't so. A lot of these are a tiny tweak away from each other. A lot of the parameters produced no audible change. After awhile, it feels less like flexibility, and more like assuring yourself it's not snake oil.

If you want a different sound, loading a different IR is far more useful and immediate.

Just my take. For all of that talk of flexibility and hundreds of amp models, most modern Axe metal artists use the same handful I cited earlier and have the same sorts of tones. It's ironic that such a capable, infinitely expandable box inspires such homogeneity.

But that's a separate discussion....


----------



## noUser01 (Sep 15, 2016)

Now we're just into full on opinion mode now. You've got yours, I've got mine. I'm not really concerned with either, I'm more concerned with providing a broader picture for the OP, which I did, so that's where I'm going to call it.


----------



## Vrollin (Sep 15, 2016)

If it's not hipshot, bare knuckle or fractal then members generally don't want to hear about it on this forum...


----------



## Promit (Sep 15, 2016)

It's awful that you only get like maybe 80 amazing distinct amps instead of 240. Why even bother shipping such a limited product


----------



## Vrollin (Sep 15, 2016)

I'm sure they are using every single amp model too.....

I have a helix, I use 2 amp models. Jc120 and übershall, if I had another product I would be saying the same thing... Why anyone needs a myriad of amps is beyond me...


----------



## that short guy (Sep 15, 2016)

I think I use 5 total as well. The MK IV (all 3 channels), the rectifier, the epic, the JC120, and the twin reverb.

I honestly don't think I could use that many amps if I tried, but having them available if I want is nice lol


----------



## noUser01 (Sep 15, 2016)

If you stop selectively reading, you'll see how many times I mentioned how awesome the Helix is. You'd probably also see that I was just providing the differences so that the OP can make an informed opinion for himself instead of relying on pure opinion, and that my opinion on sound quality was quite clearly just my opinion, and written as such. You might also see the part where I said it all comes down to what the user wants, not the specs. If someone told me "Sorry you can't use the AxeFX II anymore, you have to use the Helix" I'd still be _very_ happy.

But please, make assumptions about how I hate the Helix and it's a garbage product not remotely fit for use.

Vrollin: Do you need to use every single one for it to be useful? What about if you want it for a studio you run? What if you play in a cover band? Again, these numbers don't matter to you, and that's fine, they don't matter too much to me either as I really only use about 20-30 at most, but it's not for us to say whether it is or isn't important to the OP.


----------



## that short guy (Sep 15, 2016)

ConnorGilks said:


> I really only use about 20-30 at most, but it's not for us to say whether it is or isn't important to the OP.



I know this is off topic but like a legit 20-30 or like for if you used channel 1 of a Mk IV, and then used channel 2 or maybe like using different versions of the same amp? I mean I guess if you were able to do multiple amps per patch that could realistically be just 10 to 15 patches which seems a lot more doable but to actually use 20-30 different amps on at least if not more than 20-30 patches is actually kinda impressive/intriguing... makes me feel like I need to step my patch game up lol

but back to the main topic I think you guys have gotten a little too heated. Do yourselves a favor and just kinda step away from each other for a tad bid and when you come back you'll see that you're both right. 

OP look at what you started... you're probably sitting back and just laughing at the chaos from the metaphorical grenade you've thrown onto the forum lol


----------



## Vrollin (Sep 16, 2016)

My point is don't get wrapped around the axles about so many amp models, most people are going to only use a small handful...


----------



## noUser01 (Sep 16, 2016)

that short guy said:


> I know this is off topic but like a legit 20-30 or like for if you used channel 1 of a Mk IV, and then used channel 2 or maybe like using different versions of the same amp? I mean I guess if you were able to do multiple amps per patch that could realistically be just 10 to 15 patches which seems a lot more doable but to actually use 20-30 different amps on at least if not more than 20-30 patches is actually kinda impressive/intriguing... makes me feel like I need to step my patch game up lol
> 
> but back to the main topic I think you guys have gotten a little too heated. Do yourselves a favor and just kinda step away from each other for a tad bid and when you come back you'll see that you're both right.
> 
> OP look at what you started... you're probably sitting back and just laughing at the chaos from the metaphorical grenade you've thrown onto the forum lol



I record bands too, so I use more than when I was just playing live in one band with one style. Me as a guitar player I only really use like 6 or 7.



Vrollin said:


> My point is don't get wrapped around the axles about so many amp models, most people are going to only use a small handful...



I completely agree, but that goes for all the specs. And as I said from the beginning, it depends on the type of player you are. Specs are to help you make an informed decision about what piece of gear works best for _you personally_.


----------



## mnemonic (Sep 16, 2016)

mikah912 said:


> Absolutely agree on people setting themselves up to be disappointed if they're expecting dead-on recreations of an amp at the molecular level.
> 
> Fractal gets models "wrong" all of the time. The whole reason that there's a "Metallica Mesa Mark IIC++" in the latest firmware is that an older, inaccurate model of a Mark IIC+ that was in the Ultra and II started getting used by Metallica and when Cliff Chase at Fractal tossed it out for an ostensibly more detailed and accurate version....Metallica wanted the old one restored because it sounded better to them.
> 
> It's good to remember that these high end models are (for legal reasons) "based on" a particular amp, not that particular amp. It's not unlike what Ceriatone does. Kemper has their "take" on everything you profile through it. Fractal has theirs. Line 6 has theirs.



Its also worth noting that two of the same amps may not (and likely won't) sound the same based on variances in component values, different specs year-to-year, and for older amps, component drift. 

Its pretty widely accepted that you could get any two randomly selected Mark IIC+ amps set side-by-side with the same settings, and they would sound different. IIRC, the original IIC+ model was based off a schematic, with no real-amp to reference, whereas the new model(s) are based on a non-eq combo Cliff bought. Personally, I much prefer the older one.



mikah912 said:


> You can't really disagree, objectively speaking. A channel is not a discrete, unique amp. And given the sheet preponderance of duplicates (6 VH4 channels, 6 Friedman BE100 channels, a gazillion Plexis, etc.), It shrinks the difference.



Similar to the above, this is because there are often many iterations of popular long-produced amps. There are 3 of the 4 channels modeled from the VH4, from two separate versions (silverface vs blueface), both sound pretty different. There are two distinct BE100's modeled - one early prototype and one modern one, both quite different. 

I guess if you really want to shrink the amp models by removing everything that is based on X, or inspired by a tweaked version of Y, we could just delete everything except the Fender Bassman.


----------



## wakjob (Sep 16, 2016)

Promit said:


> It's awful that you only get like maybe 80 amazing distinct amps instead of 240. Why even bother shipping such a limited product



Because the other 160 are probably amazing to someone else.
Different guitars, cabs, playing style, ect...

The Morgan ac20 profile sounded absolutely wretched with my 7-string,
but stunningly unearthly with my tele.


----------



## laxu (Sep 16, 2016)

Regarding the amp debacle, I totally agree that the Axe 2 actually has too many amp models. It's software feature creep really where they've just crammed in more stuff without reconfiguring the UI. The amp channels and variants should be separated to their own selection so when you pick that Plexi you would then have the option to choose one of its channels or a variant. Technically it would work the same but just be more intuitive for the user. This has been asked from Fractal but they haven't done it so far.

Personally I would be happy with just Fractal's idealized FAS amp models. They cover pretty much all tones you could ever need and the gazillion EQ possibilities cover the rest.


----------



## mikah912 (Sep 16, 2016)

mnemonic said:


> Its also worth noting that two of the same amps may not (and likely won't) sound the same based on variances in component values, different specs year-to-year, and for older amps, component drift.
> 
> Its pretty widely accepted that you could get any two randomly selected Mark IIC+ amps set side-by-side with the same settings, and they would sound different. IIRC, the original IIC+ model was based off a schematic, with no real-amp to reference, whereas the new model(s) are based on a non-eq combo Cliff bought. Personally, I much prefer the older one.



Sure. Even with the same specs of the same amp made in the same year, tube and transistor age may account for differences in sound. But my point is that for all of the different values and small, subtle changes in the amp models, things get "equalized" between amps in the same family when you put them through the same IR. 

The cab/speaker/mic choice is a more dominant effector of sound than whether it was a block letter 5150 or a 6505, or whether it's a silverface or blueface VH4 or whether it's the Metallica IIC++ or the actual Mesa Mark IIC+ or even a Mesa Mark IV.

That's not to say that amp models don't matter at all. Simply that once you have 1-2 in the general family (e.g. Recto, 5150, JCM800, etc.), you can account for "variants" simply by tweaking EQs and pedals in the signal chain. More importantly, different IRs used on the same 1-2 amps will produce more varied sound than 9 hot-rodded Marshall variants run through the same IR.



> Similar to the above, this is because there are often many iterations of popular long-produced amps. There are 3 of the 4 channels modeled from the VH4, from two separate versions (silverface vs blueface), both sound pretty different. There are two distinct BE100's modeled - one early prototype and one modern one, both quite different.
> 
> I guess if you really want to shrink the amp models by removing everything that is based on X, or inspired by a tweaked version of Y, we could just delete everything except the Fender Bassman.



Let me put it this way....maybe there are greater differences in the real deals. I had an AX8 for two months. I went through all of the BE100 channels. I went through all of the Diezels and the Das Metal. I went through all of the 6160 channels. I went through all of the Mesa Mark channels and the Triaxis. I went through all of the JVM410 and JVM410HJS channels, along with all of the boutique hot-rodded Marshalls. 

The only time they sounded "quite different" was when they had a different IR from a different IR maker loaded as a default. Once I loaded up my favorite Ownhammers and applied it to all in a given family....differences shrunk like crazy.


----------



## Captain Butterscotch (Sep 16, 2016)

wtf is this thread anymore. 

OP, at this point in modeling you can pretty much choose what you want and you'll be more than fine. The Helix is definitely more user friendly with an absolutely gorgeous UI and stupid awesome routing capabilties. The box itself is solid as a rock and equally as gorgeous as its UI. Plus the fact that it just sounds _really, really good_.

The facts are that the Axe FX II kills the Helix in amp choices and effect choices but with an absolutely, horribly, silly, stupid, archaic UI. "But the differences are so minute that they don't really matter," you might say to the fact that they model a normal 59' Bassman and another 59' Bassman that's been farted on by Eric Clapton. The differences still exist and Random Guy A might like the Clapton Fart more than the 59' Normal because everybody has a different set of ears with a different sound that they've been hearing in their head. It's one less EQ block which leaves more memory and power that you can devote to another block for something else and less time spent dialing in an EQ.

It's not Fractal/SS.org bias or wankery, it's objective fact that the Axe has _more_ options for the user than the Helix does. Yeah, they might be different shades of purple sometimes, but they have the full spectrum of the rainbow whereas the Helix has the primary colors. It all depends on whether or not the User or Buyer thinks that they'll want that many options.

Both units are awesome, though. It's amazing where we are right now.


----------



## mikah912 (Sep 16, 2016)

That game never ends, tho. The Axe has 240 amp channels and a kazillion parameters, BUT, but but does it have a Friedman JJ? No, but there are plenty of amps Jerry Cantrell used previously (e.g. JCM800 mod, Bogner Uberschall, HBE, Shiva, Fish preamp, Soldano) that you can use to get there.

Does it have a Randall Satan so I can cop Ola Englund's exact tone of the new Feared record? No. But through the same cab, it sounds a lot like a boosted Recto as heard here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VzXQ5aTULg

So just use that. You always have to tweak to try to achieve a certain sound. There will always be a model they don't have. ENGL Blackmore or Invader. PRS Archon. Rhodes Ares or Colossus. Revv Generator. Sure, they have a couple of 5150s...but do they have Keith Merrow's bias-modded 5150 that has his particular tube configuration and age? It never ends.

Even if they model - as you put it - Eric Clapton's farted on Bassman, do they model his exact cab at the exact mic configuration he used on X record? No. Well then, it won't sound exactly like X or Y.

Even when you get a device that supposedly has limitless amp modeling - the KPA - people complain it makes the gain structure of them all generic.


----------



## noUser01 (Sep 16, 2016)

Captain Butterscotch said:


> wtf is this thread anymore.
> 
> *OP, at this point in modeling you can pretty much choose what you want and you'll be more than fine.* The Helix is definitely more user friendly with an absolutely gorgeous UI and stupid awesome routing capabilties. The box itself is solid as a rock and equally as gorgeous as it's UI. Plus the fact that it just sounds _really, really good_.
> 
> ...



100% this. Especially the bolded part.


----------



## that short guy (Sep 16, 2016)

Agreed


----------



## CultOfNyx-Band (Sep 16, 2016)

Has anyone noticed that the Axe FX has an innately crunchy/harsh/scratchy sound to it when you dump on the distortion?
Look at the video of Joe Cocchi playing at namm. His playing in that video is .... but I love the raw tone.
You can hear this in other tones to a lesser extent. Maybe the Axe has something to control this that I don't know about? I don't own one so I wouldn't know.
Given the choice I would have the Axe in a heartbeat, just my tonal preference, but I've heard some stuff come out of the helix that could make me want it just as much.


----------



## noUser01 (Sep 17, 2016)

CultOfNyx-Band said:


> Has anyone noticed that the Axe FX has an innately crunchy/harsh/scratchy sound to it when you dump on the distortion?
> Look at the video of Joe Cocchi playing at namm. His playing in that video is .... but I love the raw tone.
> You can hear this in other tones to a lesser extent. Maybe the Axe has something to control this that I don't know about? I don't own one so I wouldn't know.
> Given the choice I would have the Axe in a heartbeat, just my tonal preference, but I've heard some stuff come out of the helix that could make me want it just as much.



Not exclusively with the Axe, but I understand the "digital" fizz/harshness people talk about to some extent. Never had an issue taking it out though. If you know how to EQ, if you've got experience recording/mixing, it's pretty simple to take out any harshness in guitar regardless of what the tone is coming from.


----------



## Radau (Sep 17, 2016)

My guitarist has an Axe II, I've got a Helix. It's a matter of taste! Both are insanely awesome units


----------



## Vrollin (Sep 17, 2016)

Radau said:


> My guitarist has an Axe II, I've got a Helix. It's a matter of taste! Both are insanely awesome units



And I'll bet not one person in the audience is able to pick which is which!


----------



## laxu (Sep 17, 2016)

ConnorGilks said:


> Not exclusively with the Axe, but I understand the "digital" fizz/harshness people talk about to some extent. Never had an issue taking it out though. If you know how to EQ, if you've got experience recording/mixing, it's pretty simple to take out any harshness in guitar regardless of what the tone is coming from.



IMO "digital" fizz does not exist at least in these top end products. It is something you find in real amps but when you play them loud in a band context it gets covered by the other instruments as well as sheer volume. However, that fizz is what helps the guitar cut thru. For example Soldanos have this inherent in their tone but if you EQ it out, suddenly they don't cut in the mix properly even though on their own they might sound better.

You have to remember with the Axe-Fx that it has infinite EQ options. Not only does the amp block have a ton of settings for minor and major adjustments, but you can throw several EQ blocks and filters after it if you want. You can change a lot with it that is simply not possible with real amps.

The best reason for having so many amp models I've heard is studio use. Say a guy comes in who has a favorite amp but it's getting fixed so he can't use it. Well chances are the Axe-Fx models it or something that is close so they can figure out how to get their sound on record. For most of us having so many is overkill and we end up using a handful of either our favorite real amps or end up with something you would never have expected to use. I've ended up liking the modeled version of many amps that I would never buy for real because they have to be cranked to ungodly levels or are otherwise relatively limited to have as your only amp.

With amp modeling being as advanced as it is nowadays I wish the manufacturers started paring down the amp models and features and believing in offering their own tone. As I mentioned earlier I would be fine with just the idealized FAS models, those would cover any tone I need just fine. What I want to see is easier user interfaces.


----------



## noUser01 (Sep 17, 2016)

laxu said:


> IMO "digital" fizz does not exist at least in these top end products. It is something you find in real amps but when you play them loud in a band context it gets covered by the other instruments as well as sheer volume. However, that fizz is what helps the guitar cut thru. For example Soldanos have this inherent in their tone but if you EQ it out, suddenly they don't cut in the mix properly even though on their own they might sound better.
> 
> You have to remember with the Axe-Fx that it has infinite EQ options. Not only does the amp block have a ton of settings for minor and major adjustments, but you can throw several EQ blocks and filters after it if you want. You can change a lot with it that is simply not possible with real amps.



That's an interesting take on it. I'm not sure if I agree that it doesn't exist, but I am with you on how those areas are quite important. I find modelers tend to have a lot of 3-6kHz for example, but if you take too much out the guitars get dull. They also seem to have a lot more content above 10 or 12kHz. I don't think modelers are producing more frequencies than are already there in the amp, but they might be just a bit more prominent in the models than in the real thing. Or that our ears aren't used to hearing our amps like that. Or a combination of them.

All I can say for sure is that I often need to spend more time EQing the high end in post with sims than I do with amps. It's easy to EQ it out, but it's there.


----------



## that short guy (Sep 17, 2016)

I've never messed with the Axe's interface/edit software but I've heard a lot of you guys say it's a little complicated. 

I honestly believe that the interface and it's ease of use (not the appearance) is probably as important as the tone for me and my needs.

I enjoy tweaking settings and a good tone quest as much as the next guy to an extent, but it really irritates me when I spend the majority of the time trying to even understand the interface and why it's not doing what I want. 

I honestly think if the Axe took a page from L6 on the interface and mimicked it or even improved on the design that there really wouldn't be any comparison for which one is "better" so to speak. But all of what I just said is 100% opinion and is not to be taken as fact lol


----------



## laxu (Sep 17, 2016)

that short guy said:


> I've never messed with the Axe's interface/edit software but I've heard a lot of you guys say it's a little complicated.
> 
> I honestly believe that the interface and it's ease of use (not the appearance) is probably as important as the tone for me and my needs.
> 
> ...



It's only the hardware user interface that is complicated, mostly because it uses archaic value knobs, poorly arranged buttons and a small low res screen.

The Axe-Edit software for your computer on the other hand is really good and intuitive to use. At home I tend to use Axe-Edit for any tweaks I want to do to my patches.
 
To me the Line6 Helix hardware UI is exactly how I would want the Axe-Fx front panel to be done. Clear, high res screen, knobs in locations that make it immediately obvious what you are editing. But on the flip side, looking at the videos of the Helix Editor software I feel it isn't as good as Axe-Edit.


----------



## that short guy (Sep 17, 2016)

The Helix editor isn't as good as it could be but it's still pretty easy. 

Most of the toidea I just use the helix without the editor but when I do use it what I'll do is build a patch in the editor until I get it to 90% of the way I want it and then do the fine tuning on the actual model itself. But agreed, the Helix editor is definitely is weakest area but I hope the get it fixed soon


----------



## Promit (Sep 17, 2016)

ConnorGilks said:


> That's an interesting take on it. I'm not sure if I agree that it doesn't exist, but I am with you on how those areas are quite important. I find modelers tend to have a lot of 3-6kHz for example, but if you take too much out the guitars get dull.


 Of course, the 3-6K range is naturally boosted by close mic on a real amp, so I wonder what you're comparing to. The IR makes a lot of difference in this regard.


----------



## CultOfNyx-Band (Sep 17, 2016)

OK guys, what I meant was, the Axe simply models like that. I think it's a good thing. Those select frequencies can be added or subtracted by the Axe and the Helix.

The honest answer is:
Considering just the base units and their individual parts, the Axe is better.
Tonally, neither are technically "better". It's a matter of opinion, because there isn't a solid way of determining what makes them "better" or in what way.
Anybody might dial something in on either unit and say "This is the best thing ever." Any other random person might get that same exact tone and say "It's ....".
It depends what you want.


----------



## Vrollin (Sep 17, 2016)

that short guy said:


> The Helix editor isn't as good as it could be but it's still pretty easy.
> 
> Most of the toidea I just use the helix without the editor but when I do use it what I'll do is build a patch in the editor until I get it to 90% of the way I want it and then do the fine tuning on the actual model itself. But agreed, the Helix editor is definitely is weakest area but I hope the get it fixed soon



What version of the editor do you have? I'm not seeing how it is any different on the PC than it is on the board. Click and drag your models around, click a model and adjust its parameters, small button to turn on/off and delete a model right above the icon. Snapshots tab right there in front of you, left hand side has all the presets and bundles. It's basically foolproof....


----------



## noUser01 (Sep 17, 2016)

Promit said:


> Of course, the 3-6K range is naturally boosted by close mic on a real amp, so I wonder what you're comparing to. The IR makes a lot of difference in this regard.



I'm not talking about close-mic compared to in the room, I'm talking about a close-mic'd real amp vs. a modeler. I always go through lots of different IR's to find what is going to work for the application, and have some nicer 3rd party RedWirez and OwnHammer instead of the lower quality stock ones.



Vrollin said:


> What version of the editor do you have? I'm not seeing how it is any different on the PC than it is on the board. Click and drag your models around, click a model and adjust its parameters, small button to turn on/off and delete a model right above the icon. Snapshots tab right there in front of you, left hand side has all the presets and bundles. It's basically foolproof....



Yeah, the editor for the Helix is really nice.


----------



## that short guy (Sep 18, 2016)

I think I have the newest version, I updated it when they released the 2.0 update for the firmware. 

What I meant is that for some reason, and it could just be a glitch specific to my computer, that sometimes when adjusting the the sliders with the arrows they skip amounts for no reason. Instead of just changing the amount by 1 it'll choose some random small interval and adjust by that

So I end up doing the fine tuning on the unit.


----------



## Vrollin (Sep 19, 2016)

that short guy said:


> I think I have the newest version, I updated it when they released the 2.0 update for the firmware.
> 
> What I meant is that for some reason, and it could just be a glitch specific to my computer, that sometimes when adjusting the the sliders with the arrows they skip amounts for no reason. Instead of just changing the amount by 1 it'll choose some random small interval and adjust by that
> 
> So I end up doing the fine tuning on the unit.



Right click on the slider and you can enter a value with the keypad if that helps!


----------



## that short guy (Sep 20, 2016)

I'll give it a shot tonight when I get home. Thanks for the tip


----------



## AkiraSpectrum (Sep 20, 2016)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vL2yCPTlGVk

Great comparison video using the same cab IR


----------



## laxu (Sep 21, 2016)

AkiraSpectrum said:


> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vL2yCPTlGVk
> 
> Great comparison video using the same cab IR



The cab modeling makes a huge difference in sound though so it would've been cool to also hear if there are differencecs in the way Line6 and Fractal do it. Purely for amps though you should be able to get good sounds out of either unit.


----------



## TheShreddinHand (Sep 21, 2016)

I haven't been following this thread as I'm more of an amp guy now, but this was posted today by Ola:


----------



## mikah912 (Sep 21, 2016)

Like Ola, but that's a baaaaaad comparison vid. 

Not one of the amps compared is the same as the its counterpart. Orange channel of a two-channel Recto vs. the Red channel of a 3-channel Recto. 5153 Blue vs. 5150 Block Letter Red. ENGL Fireball vs. ENGL Savage. The AX8 channel chosen is - in every case - a lower-gain version of what's chosen on the Helix. Of course it sounds clearer and more present.

And the Helix definitely doesn't sound that fizzy in real life with any sort of reasonable settings on the high gain amps. You can hear it for yourself in the Mitch Baker video above Ola's. The Helix 5150 in his video and Ola's sound quite different than each other.


----------



## Vrollin (Sep 21, 2016)

Olas vid has made me want to try a fractal though. Two issues I have with helix is having to dial out a low mid boxyness on high gain sounds and trying to remove unwanted fizz without loosing high end cut. The ax8 seemed to be doing this...


----------



## that short guy (Sep 21, 2016)

There is absolutely no denying that in Ola's vid the Axe sounded better... but to my ears it sounded like he left way too much bass in all of the helix samples. and was it me or were the differences way less when he used his own IR instead of the stock cabs?

I would have to agree with what was said above though. I love Ola but this wasn't the best he could do lol


----------



## mnemonic (Sep 23, 2016)

that short guy said:


> and was it me or were the differences way less when he used his own IR instead of the stock cabs?



Differences will be less when you use the same impulse for both units. The cab or impluse is a huge part of the sound. 

I still haven't tried a helix, but cab modeling is really what let line 6 down in the past. Even the PodXT's sounded drastically better if you used a decent outboard impulse, or a poweramp/guitar cab setup.


----------



## tedtan (Sep 23, 2016)

A "fair" comparison would involve using the same impulse on both before dialing them in. That would have been more interesting.


----------



## Vrollin (Sep 23, 2016)

I would like to know how much post was done on those samples. I downloaded his patches and the sound nothing like in the youtube clip at all....


----------



## mnemonic (Sep 24, 2016)

I gave up on downloading people's patches back in the podXT days. Your playback medium, guitar, hands, etc. all make a big enough difference that the patches rarely sound more than just 'kinda similar.' 

Plus, theres a huge difference between hearing a recording and being the one playing. The feel of the patch or amp will change how we perceive the sound. If you record the same thing he played in the same tuning, it will probably sound more similar than when you're actually the one playing.


----------



## Andromalia (Sep 24, 2016)

mikah912 said:


> A word about "all of those" Fractal amps: While there are 250 something or whatever distinct amp channels, many of them sound nigh identical through the same IR, so ultimately that (impulse responses) is going to give you more tonal variety than a bounty of amp models.



So do amps played with the same guitar, cab and recorded with the same mic-pre-interface, TBH. Ola Englund made a video about this after being criticised for always sounding the same wharever the gear and the conclusion was, yes, if you only change the amp and dial in-the-zone tones, the differences between some amps are minuscule.

As a long time Fractal user, I also notice that with experience you get better results. If you gave me an Helix, I'd likely get less out of it because I'd have toi start from scratch. I know what impulses sound goof in my axe for what I want to do, what amps and settings fit my way of playing and the various guitars I use. In a sense it's like choosing Mac Vs Windows. After 25 years of exclusive windows use I can't do even the simplest things on a mac. Windows habits have become burned in.


----------



## noUser01 (Sep 24, 2016)

I didn't think the Fractal sounded better in Ola's clips, just different. The Fractal was darker and lower gain, the Helix was brighter and higher gain. I did prefer the Fractal as a matter of taste, but I didn't find it to be "clearly better" universally or anything like that. 



Vrollin said:


> I would like to know how much post was done on those samples. I downloaded his patches and the sound nothing like in the youtube clip at all....



It's not really a question of what was done in post, the problem is the preset. Like mnemoni said, presets rarely translate well. I've never really found an AxeFX preset that translated well to my setup. It's not that I don't have great sounding guitars or am an amateur player or anything, it's just that there's so many differences between the demo scenario and your own scenario.


----------



## Vrollin (Sep 24, 2016)

To add to the, the ax was less gain, discussion. The helix patches were dimed on gain and then boosted as well. When I opened his patches I was surprised to see he would smash so much gain through the amp block. Can't comment on what the settings were on the ax, maybe someone with an ax could upload a pic the amp settings and I'll do the same for the helix...


----------



## mikah912 (Sep 26, 2016)

Vrollin said:


> To add to the, the ax was less gain, discussion. The helix patches were dimed on gain and then boosted as well. When I opened his patches I was surprised to see he would smash so much gain through the amp block. Can't comment on what the settings were on the ax, maybe someone with an ax could upload a pic the amp settings and I'll do the same for the helix...



Funny thing is, I could hear that in his Helix clips without even downloading and opening his patches. 

Way, way, waaaaaay too much gain. Hence the nasally, fizzy and overly compressed tones. You don't need all of that for a good, chunky metal tone on Helix. 

Start at the factory patches for the 5150, Line 6 2204 Mod, Line 6 Fatality or ENGL Fireball. Swap out the dual factory cabs for a free Ownhammer Mesa V30 IR and/or The Telos Tropicana (Orange 4x12, V30s, i5 and 421 mic blend...sounds glorious) free IR. Maybe dial the high cut in the cab block down to 11-12 khz.

Tweak amp EQ for your pickups. DONE.


----------



## Vrollin (Sep 26, 2016)

Going to download those orange IRs tonight. I got the ownhammer one and it still sounded like a blanket was thrown over the top where I could get a clearer more in room sound from the stock "mandarin 4x12" using a 121 and 421 or 57


----------



## DarthV (Sep 27, 2016)

Yep, Ola's wasn't an apples to apples comparison. But since each modeler uses different versions of the amps, that's not going to be possible to do.

This guy's been doing some pretty good videos (lots of AX8 stuff) and just released this comparison one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vL2yCPTlGVk


You'll be able to dial in great tones with either unit, but Fractal just has soooo many more amp models to choose from. Guess having 3 years worth of bonus amps is part of it, but they have also released more amp models since the Helix was released than Line 6 has added in that time.

For live use, the Helix would pull ahead just because of the great display. But if it doesn't have the amps you want then it's kind of pointless.


----------



## mikah912 (Sep 27, 2016)

People gotta stop comparing amp models simply as numbers on a spreadsheet.

First, Helix lets you run two amps at once in parallel, so it's not "just" 53 base amp tones you have to work with. Second, you can run up to 4 different full-res IRs across those two amps, so the number of potential combinations is exponentially more than "just 53". You can also change the "feel/response" via the Sag and Bias controls on each amp.

I'm not saying Helix has an equivalent amp selection to AX8/Axe-FXII. It doesn't. There's no Fryette/VHT or Dumbles or Diezels. No Friedman or Splawn, but the new Line 6 2204 Mod model can absolutely nail any Friedman or Splawn clip I've heard online. Less "original models" than Fractal too. But the amps it does have can certainly hit the tones those amps give, especially if you use third party IRs of a Diezel cab or a VHT Fatbottom cab. 

Would anyone _really_ walk into a real-life guitar store or studio that had a Mark IV, 5150, Soldano, Dual Rec, hot-rodded JCM800, regular JCM800, Bogner Uberschall, ENGL Fireball and a handful of smaller brand high gain heads (the Line 6 originals) and say the selection sucks or is limited? Doubtful.

Line 6 has been hauling butt on new amp and effects models, with 8 new amp channels PLUS an improved version of Fractal's "Scenes" functionality in the first year of Helix alone. 

That should let you now with confidence that they are seriously stepping their game up for content development in this space.


----------



## DarthV (Sep 28, 2016)

It's not necessarily a numbers thing, but if you wanted a IIc you'd be out of luck with the Helix right now. And it's great that they are releasing more models, but fractal has released more in the same time frame. If had to choose right now, I'm not sure which I'd buy. Both sound great!


----------



## mikah912 (Sep 28, 2016)

DarthV said:


> It's not necessarily a numbers thing, but if you wanted a IIc you'd be out of luck with the Helix right now. And it's great that they are releasing more models, but fractal has released more in the same time frame. If had to choose right now, I'm not sure which I'd buy. Both sound great!



You'd only be out of luck if you listen with your eyes. 

Apply the same logic to the Axe-fx.

"Aw, man.....I want a Friedman Double J amp...guess I'm out of luck". Well, no because virtually every other amp and preamp Jerry Cantrell has used is in there, and if you use your ears, you can tweak them to achieve any tone the Double J has produced.

Rinse and repeat for the Randall Satan if you're an Ola England fanboy or the PRS Archon or the JP2C and its Shred mode. And so on and so forth. Sure, Misha Mansoor has made multiple cabs for Fractal to sell, but now he's using a Peavey cab with a subwoofer! How ever will I get Periphery's current live tone?! It never ends. 

Of course, in reality....you're not out of luck. 

Same goes for Helix. Those 50 some odd amps cover the vast majority of preamp and Poweramp topography out there. They have a detailed Mesa Mark IV. Through the same IR, it's deadly close to a Mark IIC+. Even with the multiple Mark variants on the AX8, there are just subtle differences.

Again, when I had the AX8, I appreciated that they had hundreds of amp model starting points. But like most Fractal users, I diddled with those amps a few times....found my favorite 5 to 10 and left the rest alone. I can achieve all of those sounds on my Helix, easy.

Does that mean Helix is done with model development? Not even remotely. But whatever comes next is just for making it easier for people to reference a particular recorded tone. That sound is already in the box and can be unlocked right now if you use your ears to dial it in.


----------



## mnemonic (Sep 28, 2016)

Starting to sound a lot like a sales pitch, there. 

I don't think you're out-of-luck with a Helix, but you're even less out-of-luck with an Axe FX / AX8. 

I will also note that there is more than a subtle difference between the different Mark models or the different plexi's / modded plexi's in the Axe FX. Most of them sound pretty drastically different from eachother. IMO you start to lose credibility when you say a Mark IV sounds deadly close to a Mark IIC+. Are they similar, and do they work in a very similar way? Yes. Do they sound the same? No. 


All that being said, I think its great that Line 6 have been making good on their promise of ongoing support, updates, and new models. I was expecting the worst given their history (I think the podXT got like, two firmware upgrades ever, the HD I don't think got many more).


----------



## laxu (Sep 28, 2016)

mikah912 said:


> Line 6 has been hauling butt on new amp and effects models, with 8 new amp channels PLUS an improved version of Fractal's "Scenes" functionality in the first year of Helix alone.



That's actually not very impressive at all for one year of development compared to what Fractal has given as free updates over the years.


----------



## mikah912 (Sep 28, 2016)

mnemonic said:


> Starting to sound a lot like a sales pitch, there.
> 
> I don't think you're out-of-luck with a Helix, but you're even less out-of-luck with an Axe FX / AX8.
> 
> ...



Mildly frustrating that enthusiastic positive talk of Line 6 products is often met with suspicion in a way that boosterism of a Kemper or Axe-FX is not. For the record, I'm affiliated with them in no way, receive no money from them, and am not even so much as a beta tester for anything Line 6 or Yamaha does. I am, however, relating my firsthand experience having owned a Helix and AX8, which is relevant to this discussion. 

It's all my opinion, nothing more. And yes, I absolutely assert that with every other part of a signal chain static, switching the amp model block on an Axe-FX between amps in the same family produces just subtle differences.

It's been my firsthand experience with the AX8. It's substantiated by video comparisons of recent firmware here and here. These are not drastically different sounds. Some are slightly more/less gain/treble/bass, but they're clearly the same base amp tone.


----------



## mikah912 (Sep 28, 2016)

laxu said:


> That's actually not very impressive at all for one year of development compared to what Fractal has given as free updates over the years.



This is kinda absurd, but let's make this direct comparison, anyway.

It took Fractal six years (from the release of the Standard in 2006 to Firmware 9 in 2012) to come up with Scenes and roughly 70 amp channels.

After just a year, Helix has 53 amp channels and an improved version of Scenes. They released 8 of the 53 in a year, so at their current pace, they'd actually exceed Fractal's initial rate of amp channel content in half the time (3 years, as opposed to 6).


----------



## DarthV (Sep 28, 2016)

mikah912 said:


> This is kinda absurd, but let's make this direct comparison, anyway.
> 
> It took Fractal six years (from the release of the Standard in 2006 to Firmware 9 in 2012) to come up with Scenes and roughly 70 amp channels.
> 
> After just a year, Helix has 53 amp channels and an improved version of Scenes. They released 8 of the 53 in a year, so at their current pace, they'd actually exceed Fractal's initial rate of amp channel content in half the time (3 years, as opposed to 6).



We get it, they are doing a good/great job with the Helix. But you probably don't want to go into to how Line 6 supported gear in the past. That's what worries people, they don't exactly have a stellar record in that regard.

And I'm not hating on the Helix, I think it sounds great. It's awesome that we now have 3 companies battling it out for the higher end market. If I were in the market for a floorboard solution, it'd be a pretty even race between the ax8 & helix.


----------



## laxu (Sep 28, 2016)

mikah912 said:


> This is kinda absurd, but let's make this direct comparison, anyway.
> 
> It took Fractal six years (from the release of the Standard in 2006 to Firmware 9 in 2012) to come up with Scenes and roughly 70 amp channels.
> 
> After just a year, Helix has 53 amp channels and an improved version of Scenes. They released 8 of the 53 in a year, so at their current pace, they'd actually exceed Fractal's initial rate of amp channel content in half the time (3 years, as opposed to 6).



Fractal has redone many of the amp models as well as cab and fx over the years and we have no idea how long the Helix has been in development before release. If you consider how many little improvements on various things Fractal has given over the years, it doesn't seem as impressive to get a handful of amp models and their version of Scenes.

Of course the number of amp models isn't all that relevant, I'd say most will be fine with anything either company offers in their best devices. If anything I would like Fractal to pare down all the damn variants of Plexis and Rectos.

Line6 has had a pretty horrible record of supporting their products before and I'm actually surprised they haven't asked for money for the amp models. I would not be surprised if they do in the future.

Where Fractal goes wrong is the user interfaces for their devices, but their support for their products has been better than anything I've seen.


----------



## mikah912 (Sep 28, 2016)

DarthV said:


> We get it, they are doing a good/great job with the Helix. But you probably don't want to go into to how Line 6 supported gear in the past. That's what worries people, they don't exactly have a stellar record in that regard.



Yeah, no arguments there. They have to earn people's trust back, especially people who laid out top selling price for, say, a Vetta.


----------



## mikah912 (Sep 28, 2016)

laxu said:


> Fractal has redone many of the amp models as well as cab and fx over the years and we have no idea how long the Helix has been in development before release. If you consider how many little improvements on various things Fractal has given over the years, it doesn't seem as impressive to get a handful of amp models and their version of Scenes.
> 
> Of course the number of amp models isn't all that relevant, I'd say most will be fine with anything either company offers in their best devices. If anything I would like Fractal to pare down all the damn variants of Plexis and Rectos.
> 
> ...



Well, your last sentence and first couple of sentences kind of answer each other.

Fractal's approach is to not only expose as many component parameters of an amp model as is humanly possible, then continually tweak their modeling of said components. Having all of that accessible means you're probably going to have a visually simple, yet complex and unintuitive UI. Every page of every block is chock full of stuff you can tweak. It's likely never going to be iPhone simple and aesthetically pleasing. Personally, I got over it after my first couple of weeks with the AX8. AX8 Edit is a lifesaver here.

Line 6 deliberately doesn't expose parameters and strives for a mainstream-appealing converged package.

Regarding support, Line 6 most certainly needs to build a "Fractal-caliber" track record with the Helix to convince people who've been let down in the past. Let's see how they do in the next year or two.


----------



## Shask (Sep 28, 2016)

mikah912 said:


> It took Fractal six years (from the release of the Standard in 2006 to Firmware 9 in 2012) to come up with Scenes and roughly 70 amp channels.



Not that I want to get involved with this thread....

But keep in mind Fractal invented Scenes. Line 6 copied the idea.

Creating always takes longer than copying....

Just sayin'


----------



## noUser01 (Sep 28, 2016)

mikah912 said:


> First, Helix lets you run two amps at once in parallel, so it's not "just" 53 base amp tones you have to work with.



So can the AxeFX.



> Second, you can run up to 4 different full-res IRs across those two amps, so the number of potential combinations is exponentially more than "just 53".



Technically speaking, so can the AxeFX. Actually, the Helix can only run IR's of up to 2048 samples, while the AxeFX II can run 8160 sample resolution IR's. But that's just side information, because I was never arguing permutations of amps and cabs, but just the amps themselves.



> You can also change the "feel/response" via the Sag and Bias controls on each amp.



So can the AxeFX.



> I'm not saying Helix has an equivalent amp selection to AX8/Axe-FXII. It doesn't. There's no Fryette/VHT or Dumbles or Diezels. No Friedman or Splawn, but the new Line 6 2204 Mod model can absolutely nail any Friedman or Splawn clip I've heard online. Less "original models" than Fractal too. But the amps it does have can certainly hit the tones those amps give, especially if you use third party IRs of a Diezel cab or a VHT Fatbottom cab.



I don't doubt it!



> Would anyone _really_ walk into a real-life guitar store or studio that had a Mark IV, 5150, Soldano, Dual Rec, hot-rodded JCM800, regular JCM800, Bogner Uberschall, ENGL Fireball and a handful of smaller brand high gain heads (the Line 6 originals) and say the selection sucks or is limited? Doubtful.



Yet again you are missing the point on this topic. It's a comparison. In comparison, it is limited. On it's own it's far from limited. Compared to the HD, it's far from limited. Compared to the cost of buying the real amps, it's far from limited. Stop taking things out of context and look at the thread title - it's a comparison between two things, not whether or not the Helix is good or not. We all know it's great.



> Line 6 has been hauling butt on new amp and effects models, with 8 new amp channels PLUS an improved version of Fractal's "Scenes" functionality in the first year of Helix alone.
> 
> That should let you now with confidence that they are seriously stepping their game up for content development in this space.



Fractal's whole deal is constant updates and upgrades, dude. Hardly an argument.

For the last time. The Helix is fantastic, no one is disputing that. But the point of this thread is not for us to decide what the OP wants or needs, it's to provide him with the differences between the two units so he can make his own informed decision. If you're going to insert your own opinions, then treat them as opinions instead of fact. It is my _opinion_ that the Helix doesn't sound _quite_ as good. I do not at all claim that to be a remotely universal fact, that's just my unique ears having their own unique preferences.


----------



## mikah912 (Sep 28, 2016)

Fair enough.


----------



## laxu (Sep 29, 2016)

mikah912 said:


> Fractal's approach is to not only expose as many component parameters of an amp model as is humanly possible, then continually tweak their modeling of said components. Having all of that accessible means you're probably going to have a visually simple, yet complex and unintuitive UI. Every page of every block is chock full of stuff you can tweak. It's likely never going to be iPhone simple and aesthetically pleasing. Personally, I got over it after my first couple of weeks with the AX8. AX8 Edit is a lifesaver here.
> 
> Line 6 deliberately doesn't expose parameters and strives for a mainstream-appealing converged package.



I don't think that is the issue. The reason why the hardware Axe-Fx is annoying to operate is because of how controls are placed almost randomly and do not intuitively correspond to anything on the screen. By comparison Line6 Helix has the controls right under where their values are shown on screen and moving around the cursor is easier than the four too widely placed buttons on the Axe-Fx 2.

The AX8 is only a little bit better in this regard but still isn't anywhere near modern.

To me Line6 has always had pretty good user interfaces but usually their gear has not been the best sounding stuff on the market.


----------



## Jacksonluvr636 (Sep 29, 2016)

Man it is hard taking in all the different opinions and arguments but I have been gassing hard for a while and I think I will prefer the AX8.


----------



## mikah912 (Sep 29, 2016)

There's no wrong choice here. The AX8 sounds awesome, and is very good for curing GAS given the bevy of models.


----------

