# Fractal Axe-FX vs Line-6 POD X3 - opinions?



## TMM (Jan 22, 2009)

Hey everyone!

I suspect that this may have been discussed before, but I always have a hard time using the search on this site.

For anyone who has owned both a Fractal Axe-Fx (std or ultra) and a POD X3 (bean or pro), how would you say the two compared with each other? I know the Fractal is significantly more expensive, and a lot of people here that have one seem to really like them, but I've owned the bean X3 before, and I haven't heard any sound clips of the Axe-Fx yet, live or direct, that I didn't think could be done as well or better with a POD X3 (if not even just a regular PODxt).

Is this really the case? Or is there some feature of the Axe-Fx that makes it superior in one situation or another?

I really want to get another rackmount modeller, and I was looking at the X3-Pro, but wanted to get opinions on the Axe-Fx first, as I haven't had the opportunity to try one.

Thanks in advance for your help!


----------



## Emperoff (Jan 22, 2009)

Dude, just there's no comparison between those things. If you can afford the AxeFX, I wouldn't even think the POD exists


----------



## TMM (Jan 22, 2009)

Emperoff said:


> Dude, just there's no comparison between those things. If you can afford the AxeFX, I wouldn't even think the POD exists



So I've been told, but I haven't heard "why", which is what I'm asking for here. I certainly haven't heard 'proof' with regards to an Axe-Fx sound clip that was just obviously better than the POD X3.

I was able to get my POD X3 (in combination with a 6L6 tube poweramp and a V30 filled 412) to sound as good or better than nearly any actual tube amp I've played, so it set the bar pretty high for me.


----------



## technomancer (Jan 22, 2009)

After listening to TONS of clips, and having owned a POD XT Pro (since none of the tech changed for the X3 except being able to run 2 models at the same time) the Axe just sounds 1000x better to my ears.


----------



## vontetzianos (Jan 22, 2009)

What I love about the Axe fx is the ability to easily construct the signal chain of a guitar rig ie pedals-amp-cabinet-mic, which is really cool. I've tried PODs on a number of occosions and I've always been very disappointed. It has a sort of unconvincing, over-processed tone that the axe fx from what I hear does doesn't have. Get an axe fx if you can afford one.


----------



## TMM (Jan 22, 2009)

technomancer said:


> After listening to TONS of clips, and having owned a POD XT Pro (since none of the tech changed for the X3 except being able to run 2 models at the same time) the Axe just sounds 1000x better to my ears.



None of the tech changed between XT-Pro and X3? I thought I'd heard that the X3 was redesigned from the ground up? I know at the very least that the routing options with the X3 are much more flexible.



vontetzianos said:


> What I love about the Axe fx is the ability to easily construct the signal chain of a guitar rig ie pedals-amp-cabinet-mic, which is really cool.



This is one of the things that was updated in the X3 - you can change the order of the signal chain.



When you're saying that the Axe-Fx just 'sounds' better, in what way do you mean better? More like the amps it is trying to model, higher audio quality, better dynamics, less digital... ?


----------



## silentrage (Jan 22, 2009)

Gentlemen, I believe a shootout is in order.


----------



## TMM (Jan 22, 2009)

silentrage said:


> Gentlemen, I believe a shootout is in order.



That sounds like a wonderful idea  Anyone willing to take the challenge?

It would need to be as even as possible... maybe same amp model vs same amp model, or something along those lines.


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Jan 22, 2009)

Maybe if you don't go terribly in depth you can get similar patches, but on the Axe, you can change power amp settings, tailor the frequency response of the amps controls, etc. There's so much shit I don't even really know what I'm doing half the time 

I own a Toneport, and could never dial out the fizzy sounding garbage. I just started trying to record with the Axe, and when I first plugged it in, it was fizzy and shitty sounding too, which made no sense since I've heard amazing clips (search for Cynic, Tymon, and Axe FX for a thread where Tymon from Cynic posted a metal clip) so I knew it was something I was doing. It turned out to be my Tubescreamer in front of my pre-amp. The setting sounded good live through my power amp and cab, but not good direct. It's better now, but I'm still EQ'ing and tweaking.

Personally, I've just never clicked with Line 6 products  I did enjoy my Boss GT-6, but found when running it with my tube amp it made it sound processed and took a lot of the tube warmth away, which kind of defeated owning a boutique amp.

If you like the Line 6 stuff, and you know it, and it's within your budget then stick with them.

I personally really like the Axe so far for my live sounds. I'm sure once I get better at tweaking stuff, I'll really dig the direct tone too. I tried everything with that damn Toneport and couldn't get anything usable out of it.

There's also the effects that people have been replacing their Eventide units with on top of the models.


----------



## technomancer (Jan 22, 2009)

TMM said:


> When you're saying that the Axe-Fx just 'sounds' better, in what way do you mean better? More like the amps it is trying to model, higher audio quality, better dynamics, less digital... ?



Pretty much all of the above 

Just my opinion though, and I don't own an Axe yet.


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Jan 22, 2009)

Definitely less digital. I never went in depth with a lot of the Line 6 stuff, but you can do weird shit on the Axe, like put in a delay block, feed the dry signal through it, and route the wet signal to a pitch shifter, or phaser, so you still have your regular signal, and the effect only gets applied to the delayed signal. I can set up a ISP Pro Rack G type noise gate block, but running a blank row (I think you can have like 8 rows or something) and run that into the noise gate that's after your pre-amp, and tell it to track the dry guitar signal. You can set up to 3 noise gates, the one that's always on the input by default, which you can turn off, and up to 2 gate/expander blocks (on the Ultra, not available on the Standard). There's a Vocoder, intelligent pitch shifter.

Honestly, I personally probably don't need an Axe because there's just so much shit I don't know what to do with it  I'm sure I'll learn in time though.


----------



## Justin Bailey (Jan 22, 2009)

is there any medium between the two? Something that sounds good, but isn't as expensive as the axe fx, other than line 6 stuff.


----------



## Cancer (Jan 22, 2009)

I don't own an Axe, but I have a Pod X3 Live, and have done extensive research on the Axe, and heard are my thoughts.

A. The PoD X3 is basically 2 XT's run in parallel. To my ears a single side of the X3 sounded a little better (slightly more detail, didn't need a bbe etc), but it was slight.

B. While you can run parallel chains on the X3, you can't share sound between the two (ie, for instance, taking a side of chain a and running it into chain b). You can run the parallel chains in series though, although you need a cable do it.

C,. The chain order on the X3 is preset, you can make some minor moves (delay pedal position, volume pedal, etc) but not much.

D. The X3 has no real pitch shifting (outisde the bender which is limited). On the Axe you have dumb and intelligent pitch shifting, which, in this day and age, should be standard on effects units anyway.

I could on, but here my summary, if you're just doing basic amp sim stuff, save your money and get the X3. Of the basic modellers IMO its still the best one out there, and for the price you can't go wrong...

HOWEVER....

If you're looking to do any sort of sound design, anything that requires a high degree of routing flexibility, the Axefx is one of the few "modern" unit I've found that can do it. It has 4 parallel chains (i believe) which means right there it's like twice the X3 (actually more like twice the Vetta), but with more insane routing options.

That being said, there are older units that also have a higher degree of flexibility, I thinking specifically of the Boss GT-5, the GX-700 .
Arguably, although the above Boss units do not have parallel chains (wasn't in vogue yet), these 2 units are the only units I've had experience with that could even come close to the internal flexibility of the Axefx. Of course, they use older components, so the sounds are not going to be as up to date, but they can be had for mad cheap now, where as the Axefx Ultra is 2k$.

Personally, I'm saving for an Ultra, I just Fractal Audio would release the floorboard to it. Last fall they said it would be out by January 2009. Still no word on it yet.


----------



## silentrage (Jan 22, 2009)

Justin Bailey said:


> is there any medium between the two? Something that sounds good, but isn't as expensive as the axe fx, other than line 6 stuff.



The cheapest solution is Audio Interface > DAW > VSTs > Impulses or Nebula Samples

You only really need to shell out money for the interface, cheapest less than $100, and Nebula, $80 pounds.

Problem is if you wanna do live you need stage PAs and your laptop + interface.


----------



## Justin Bailey (Jan 22, 2009)

hmm. Well I'll just start a thread when I'm at that point, I need a new guitar first.


----------



## Spinedriver (Jan 23, 2009)

TMM said:


> None of the tech changed between XT-Pro and X3? I thought I'd heard that the X3 was redesigned from the ground up? I know at the very least that the routing options with the X3 are much more flexible.



The one thing that has really disappointed a lot of people is that Line 6 has been using the same amp model algorithms since the XT first came out in '04. The only real difference between the XT line and the X3 is mainly hardware. Granted, you can run 2 sims at the same time (like the Vetta head), but the amp models are identical. 

So in terms of modeling, they're starting to seriously lag behind. With the Axe-FX, Amplitube, Guitar Rig, REvalver MK III, all having a much greater degree of parameter editing available, the quality of the XT(3) line is starting to look pretty pale in comparison.


----------



## drooster (Jan 23, 2009)

I own the POD X3 (bean) and the Axe-FX Ultra - I used the Pod for a looong time (had a pod 2.0 before the X3 came out) and just recently switched over to the Axe-FX. The Axe-FX has some considerable advantages over the Pod, some of which others have already mentioned:

- The amp sims are much, much better on the Axe-FX. They respond to different dynamics and sound much more life-like. The amp controls are more like actual amp controls; you can pump the drive for pre-amp distortion or pump the main volume for power tube distortion, etc.

- The Axe-FX is infinitely more flexible/configurable, almost to a fault. It takes a while to learn how to use, but once you do, you can do ANYTHING with it. This was the ultimate selling point for me; I spent hours and hours tweaking POD patches, never being 100&#37; happy with the sounds. With the Axe-FX, its a lot easier to nail that sound you're looking for. I also like the Axe-FX's editors (on the unit and on the computer) better.

- Its got enough features to choke an elephant, far more than the POD has. Some of the things I thought I'd never use (4 outputs? seriously?), I use the hell out of. And there are some really "out-there" sounds you can get with it. 

I use mine at home, plugged directly into the computer for recording, and with a mesa poweramp for live settings. I haven't used the Pod for live stuff, so I can't compare, but the Axe-FX is *perfect* for live situations. Patches switch fast, you can control everything through MIDI, and its rugged.

Main Page - Axe-Fx Wiki


----------



## TMM (Jan 23, 2009)

The Axe-Fx is starting to sound more and more intriguing... now to find one at a price I won't have to sell an organ for


----------



## FoxZero (Jan 24, 2009)

TMM said:


> The Axe-Fx is starting to sound more and more intriguing... now to find one at a price I won't have to sell an organ for



Common. Do you really need both your kidneys?


----------



## vontetzianos (Jan 24, 2009)

TMM said:


> This is one of the things that was updated in the X3 - you can change the order of the signal chain.


 
Oh... didn't know that


----------



## El Caco (Jan 24, 2009)

You can change the order on some things but you are still limited.

In addition to what has been said already I think the most significant difference between the two is the Pod is made by Line6 and the Axe FX is made by Fractal. Line6 just don't seem to give a shit about their customers, I have a Pod X3 Live, I want to sell it and I do not intend to buy another Line6 product. I probably should be saying this after i sell it  The loop in the live is useless, to paraphrase the official response from Line6 they basically said go fuck yourself. That is one of many issues that they have responded to in a similar fashion.

On the other hand everything I have read about Fractal has been excellent, they seem to be a company with incredible customer service who really believe in putting the customer first. They listen to requests and they are constantly improving what is clearly an already great product and passing that onto existing customers through software updates.

Just look at each of the forums and you should have a better idea of what I am saying.

Yes the Pod is capable of producing a great recording, so is the GNX with supermodels and one of the best modeller recordings I have heard was done with guitar rig. If you just want a cheap modeller for recording purposes only, go with any of those but if you want a preamp that sounds like the real deal both in recordings and live (based on what I have read) with the best effects, the ability to load your own cab impulses and the ability to tweak to your hearts content including modifying existing models to create new ones from a guy who is passionate about creating the best product out there and passionate about customer satisfaction, grab an Axe FX.


----------



## Christopher (Jan 24, 2009)

I've used an Axe Fx standard, a Vetta I and II, several Spiders, and every POD available except the new pro and there is simply no comparison between Line 6's modeling and Fractal's.

Live the differences are astounding. The Axe Fx feels like a tube amp. It reacts to picking dynamics, it cleans up when you roll the volume knob back, and the notes "bloom" like they do on a tube amp. The sounds on the Fractal sound real. The Fractal cuts in a live band just like a tube amp. The sounds are complex, rich, and full. The low end, mids, and highs are as they should be. There isn't the "digital" sounding artifacts and sizzly fuzz you get with Line 6's modeling.

In the studio the question is effort. You can certainly get a good tone out of Line 6 direct to tape but it requires considerably more effort in tweaking and post production. The Axe Fx is frighteningly easy to get a good tone direct. With the IR's you can get about any cabinet out there and with the ability to tweak each amp model at the most basic components, you can get crazy versatile tones.

Bottom line is, if you can afford it, the Axe Fx is clearly better in about every way I could imagine, and it should be for the price. Line 6 can get the job done, assuming you don't mind the feel of them but the Axe does it better, in my opinion.


----------



## FoxZero (Jan 24, 2009)

Wow the effects are that good?
Would it be possible to use the thing as a effect unit with my tube amp? It's expensive but considering how much good analogue pedals cost it might be saving me 
Can it get like a super warm sounding delay like the old school pedals?


----------



## Kakaka (Jan 24, 2009)

If anyone wants to sell their POD X3 for ridiculously nothing, PM me...
Long life to AxeFX!


----------



## El Caco (Jan 24, 2009)

FoxZero said:


> Wow the effects are that good?
> Would it be possible to use the thing as a effect unit with my tube amp? It's expensive but considering how much good analogue pedals cost it might be saving me
> Can it get like a super warm sounding delay like the old school pedals?



Most reviews of the effects I have read have said they are as good as anything out there including eventide. Yes you can use it as a stand alone FX unit and some people do but of course you then have the advantage of having the flexibility of being able to use its other features anytime you wish. 

I have to agree that the FX capabilities of the Axe FX are worth the price of admission on their own but you also get a great preamp that can sound just like almost any other preamp and any cab simulation you want.

DAMN writing this is not helping my GAS, basically if you can afford it getting one is a no brainer, sadly I can not afford it


----------



## Christopher (Jan 24, 2009)

FoxZero said:


> Wow the effects are that good?
> Would it be possible to use the thing as a effect unit with my tube amp? It's expensive but considering how much good analogue pedals cost it might be saving me
> Can it get like a super warm sounding delay like the old school pedals?



The effects are on par with very expensive high end units like Eventide, TC Electronics, Lexicon, etc.

One of the beauties of the Axe Fx is the flexibility in the way that you can use it. Use it direct to board or FOH, use it with a powered speaker system, use it with a tube or solid state power amp and cab, use it with an existing tube head, combo, or rack rig, the possibilities are endless.

Just a quick note on the modeling, I don't miss any of my tube rigs and I loved my Rectos, Mark IV's, Triaxis, Randall MTS, etc.


----------



## TomAwesome (Jan 24, 2009)

It's mostly been covered, so I'll keep it short, but the Axe-FX beats any given Line 6 product in every way. It doesn't really even sound like a modeler. Most people who have compared Axe-FX models to their real life counterparts say that they're very close, and a lot of people have replaced expensive tube amp rigs with this thing. Even aside from the amp models, the effects alone are so good that a lot of people are using these things to replace Eventide units. I have a POD X3 Live, and while I get some pretty good sounds out of it with a tube power amp, I'm planning to replace it with an Axe-FX pretty much ASAP. If the Axe is within your budget, there's no real reason to consider Line 6.

There are craploads of clips. You can search this forum, Youtube, and the Fractal forum for enough clips to spend a whole night listening to.



Justin Bailey said:


> is there any medium between the two? Something that sounds good, but isn't as expensive as the axe fx, other than line 6 stuff.



There are a lot of good VST plugins like ReValver MK III, but those are kind of hard to use live. Tech21 makes some great hardware modelers, and Peavey's relatively new line of Vypyr amps seems to be pretty damn good for the money.


----------



## FoxZero (Jan 24, 2009)

Christopher said:


> The effects are on par with very expensive high end units like Eventide, TC Electronics, Lexicon, etc.
> 
> One of the beauties of the Axe Fx is the flexibility in the way that you can use it. Use it direct to board or FOH, use it with a powered speaker system, use it with a tube or solid state power amp and cab, use it with an existing tube head, combo, or rack rig, the possibilities are endless.
> 
> Just a quick note on the modeling, I don't miss any of my tube rigs and I loved my Rectos, Mark IV's, Triaxis, Randall MTS, etc.



Damn. I love my amp to death, but I can't really practice all the time with it because of the volume. I was considering a cab emulator for headphones, but they are so expensive I can't help but consider this. Plus I miss having effects, I don't think effect units like the G-Major sound that good, but if this could top it that would be awesome.

Of course to get $2000 I'd have to sell my tube amp. Its got my dream tone so I couldn't justify it. Quite frankly I don't need one of these, right now at least. But I'm going to keep my eye on it for a long time. I miss the simplicity of the POD, plug in, activate your patch, play till 3 in the morning.


----------



## El Caco (Jan 24, 2009)

If you consider tweaking a pod simple 

Yep if you can tweak a tone modellers are great and the latest patch to the X3 Pod series on the surface looks like what X3 owners have been asking for for a long time, I'll have to install it and hopefully it will mean I can use the Pod as an FX unit with the ENGL, we'll see.

But when talking about simplicity, it doesn't get more simple than a E530 so when I hear any modeller with thousands of options that requires skill to get great tone out of described as simple I can't help but


----------



## Christopher (Jan 24, 2009)

My story with the Axe Fx is really simple. After going through quite a few rigs and combinations I've found a five space rig that gives me all the amp tones that I love, with all the feel and nuance included, top shelf effects, total programability, and it sounds great in a lot of different situations.


----------



## FoxZero (Jan 24, 2009)

s7eve said:


> If you consider tweaking a pod simple
> 
> Yep if you can tweak a tone modellers are great and the latest patch to the X3 Pod series on the surface looks like what X3 owners have been asking for for a long time, I'll have to install it and hopefully it will mean I can use the Pod as an FX unit with the ENGL, we'll see.
> 
> But when talking about simplicity, it doesn't get more simple than a E530 so when I hear any modeller with thousands of options that requires skill to get great tone out of described as simple I can't help but



I never said the tweaking was easy, I meant once that's done all you gotta do is activate the patch once again, where as with my tube amp I gotta warm it up, remember my settings if they got changed, put on hearing protection cause it only sounds good cranked, and then find all my cables and pedals as they're always all over the place. I usually have a few pedals and my little SS practice amp set up that sounds like shit compared to my Cobra, but it's more simple to set up. I'd rather not have a compromise.

That's not a whole lot of work but after 12:00AM it's just kind of a pain. Maybe I'll just get a pocket POD  I could play all night in my bedroom and nobody would hear a thing


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Jan 24, 2009)

FoxZero said:


> I never said the tweaking was easy, I meant once that's done all you gotta do is activate the patch once again, where as with my tube amp I gotta warm it up, remember my settings if they got changed, put on hearing protection cause it only sounds good cranked, and then find all my cables and pedals as they're always all over the place. I usually have a few pedals and my little SS practice amp set up that sounds like shit compared to my Cobra, but it's more simple to set up. I'd rather not have a compromise.
> 
> That's not a whole lot of work but after 12:00AM it's just kind of a pain. Maybe I'll just get a pocket POD  I could play all night in my bedroom and nobody would hear a thing



Dude, you are _not_ going to be getting a usable distortion tone in like 7 minutes on a POD. It takes alot of effort to get something usuable then even more to get rid of fuzz in post prod.


----------



## bulb (Jan 25, 2009)

i currently own both
and i have to say that comparing the two is unfair, i love them both for what they are, but comparing the axefx to a podx3 is like comparing a ferrari to a pizza, its just irrelevant.
of course the axefx is way better, its also about 6 times the price!
for the money they are both amazing at what they do, so if you can afford an axefx and plan on doing some serious recording, then get it, its better than the pod.
but if you can only afford a pod right now, then get the pod, its amazing at what it does, and imho nothing in that price range will come close.


----------



## FoxZero (Jan 25, 2009)

Stealthtastic said:


> Dude, you are _not_ going to be getting a usable distortion tone in like 7 minutes on a POD. It takes alot of effort to get something usuable then even more to get rid of fuzz in post prod.



I had a POD xt Live for a year and a half. I think I know a thing or two about them.

I had a number of usable tones, quite frankly at three in the morning I don't give a shit how badass my tone is, I just need clarity. My POD had more clarity then my practice amp.


----------



## El Caco (Jan 25, 2009)

FoxZero said:


> My POD had more clarity then my practice amp.



Mine doesn't but then I have never really took the time to really tweak it, the Pod was always an exercise in frustration for me, it didn't do what it was supposed to do and the ENGL was so much easier to use and sounded so much better that I just stopped using the Pod. I would have used it as an FX unit if it worked with the ENGL but as I said earlier the loop is useless on the Pod. I'm going to install the update and give it one more try but I doubt that the loop is useable, I'm pretty sure it is a hardware fault.

It doesn't matter I have a real tube rig (picstory coming soon) that can shake the walls, sounds great at any volume, can be played into headphones and that I can record directly from. That's why I am always singing the praises of the E530, it was cheaper than the Pod, it sounds better, it is a real tube preamp and with the freq comp outs and the built in practice amp it does it all (except for FX of course).

To be honest I am hoping that the firmware update for the Pod does fix my issues with the loop, it would be nice if I can use it as an FX unit with my Rig and I am hoping that the added midi functionality will allow me to use a midi switcher to switch channels etc on the ENGL.


----------



## TomAwesome (Jan 25, 2009)

I thought the effects loop issues got fixed some time ago, but I haven't really messed with it since I heard that.


----------



## El Caco (Jan 25, 2009)

No the noise has still been there and it still broke certain equipment due to the voltage being too high. IIRC in the official Line6 response they conceded it was a hardware fault and that there was nothing they could do about it. Pod users responded with a feature request for the Gate to be able to be placed after the loop, my response to that request was that the gate wasn't enough you would need intelligent noise reduction. But you still have the problem of the loop breaking certain pedals and equipment and the problem with the loop altering the tone. 

It may be fixed now that the loop is adjustable, I haven't checked yet but I doubt it if it is actually a hardware fault.


----------



## Ze Kink (Jan 25, 2009)

I just wish there were more choices. The Axe-fx Standard is &#8364;1000 more than a X3L new. I'm not totally happy with my X3L even though I get sounds that are very usable. There's just nothing in between really.


----------



## TomAwesome (Jan 25, 2009)

There's Tech21 and Peavey.


----------



## Ze Kink (Jan 25, 2009)

TomAwesome said:


> There's Tech21 and Peavey.



You mean the Vypyrs and the Trademark series? I don't think they're even comparable as they're amps. I'm not going to haul one to gigs and practice in public transportation at least twice a week. I need a portable solution. The ReValver is now owned by Peavey though, but I don't really see myself using it at gigs.


----------



## TomAwesome (Jan 25, 2009)

True on the Vypyrs (at least for now), but Tech21 has a variety of Sansamp products. I guess they don't have the convenience of built in effects and patches, though.


----------



## Ze Kink (Jan 25, 2009)

TomAwesome said:


> True on the Vypyrs (at least for now), but Tech21 has a variety of Sansamp products. I guess they don't have the convenience of built in effects and patches, though.



Yeah, I mainly use my X3L for the FX and amp models. I usually plug it into the FX return of my band practice amp (an older Valvestate series Marshall). And at gigs, whatever amp there's on stage, or straight into the PA from the XLR outs.


----------



## TMM (Jan 25, 2009)

bulb said:


> i currently own both
> and i have to say that comparing the two is unfair, i love them both for what they are, but comparing the axefx to a podx3 is like comparing a ferrari to a pizza, its just irrelevant.
> of course the axefx is way better, its also about 6 times the price!
> for the money they are both amazing at what they do, so if you can afford an axefx and plan on doing some serious recording, then get it, its better than the pod.
> but if you can only afford a pod right now, then get the pod, its amazing at what it does, and imho nothing in that price range will come close.



Nice to hear someone giving the X3 the credit it deserves. I can't say I didn't love playing around with the one I had.

That said, after I finish up a couple other financial things I have going on, I think I'm going to make a serious effort to pick up an Axe-Fx.

Is the only difference between the 'standard' and the Ultra that the Ultra has more fx, and a stronger processor to handle more effects at once? That's kind of what the description on the site sounded like. If so, and it's not that the amp models actually sound any better on the Ultra, I'm not an effects maniac anyway, so I'd probably just get the 'standard'.


----------



## Christopher (Jan 25, 2009)

TMM said:


> Nice to hear someone giving the X3 the credit it deserves. I can't say I didn't love playing around with the one I had.
> 
> That said, after I finish up a couple other financial things I have going on, I think I'm going to make a serious effort to pick up an Axe-Fx.
> 
> Is the only difference between the 'standard' and the Ultra that the Ultra has more fx, and a stronger processor to handle more effects at once? That's kind of what the description on the site sounded like. If so, and it's not that the amp models actually sound any better on the Ultra, I'm not an effects maniac anyway, so I'd probably just get the 'standard'.



Yep, the difference between the Standard and Ultra are fx and memory. I got my Standard before the Ultra was released and I've never regretted it. The models are identical and Cliff has sworn they will stay that way.


----------



## Rick (Jan 25, 2009)

drooster said:


> I own the POD X3 (bean) and the Axe-FX Ultra - I used the Pod for a looong time (had a pod 2.0 before the X3 came out) and just recently switched over to the Axe-FX. The Axe-FX has some considerable advantages over the Pod, some of which others have already mentioned:
> 
> - The amp sims are much, much better on the Axe-FX. They respond to different dynamics and sound much more life-like. The amp controls are more like actual amp controls; you can pump the drive for pre-amp distortion or pump the main volume for power tube distortion, etc.
> 
> ...



Oh really? Well, it looks like cousin Rick is gonna have to come make an appearance!


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Jan 25, 2009)

FoxZero said:


> I had a POD xt Live for a year and a half. I think I know a thing or two about them.
> 
> I had a number of usable tones, quite frankly at three in the morning I don't give a shit how badass my tone is, I just need clarity. My POD had more clarity then my practice amp.



Im not doubting that you know more than me. 

I was just saying what a bitch it was. And i found my vox to have much better tone that the pod.


----------



## Harry (Jan 25, 2009)

Christ, this thread is Axe FX GAS inducing
I have a job now, but seriously, the only reason why I wont be getting an Axe FX this year is because I wont be able to afford one until 2010, so my plan is to get an X3 Live (on sale price or used obviously, fuck paying full RRP if I don't have too), and when the money comes around, buy an Axe FX Ultra and probably keep the X3 as a backup or to get certain amp models that the Axe FX doesn't have.
The fact that guys are ditching high end tube amps and rack mount effect processors for Fractal Audio's product, is seriously saying something.


----------



## Kakaka (Jan 25, 2009)

I'll just keep hoping the dollar lowers around here and BAM! I get an Axe-FX
I really felt something different about the Axe-FX recordings I heard, but interestingly enough, I like Bulb's X3 recordings better than the Axe-FX's...
I'll get the X3 first, since I dig Paul's and Misha's recorded sounds a lot, I guess I'll be satisfied with the POD to have some recorded material to look for musicians to join a band.

Now, does anyone have any good experience with live sound with the POD? Perhaps with a nice power amp? I think Bulb used his POD through the Pitbull's 100CL power amp and didn't like it...


----------



## zimbloth (Jan 25, 2009)

Im surprised by now there are still people asking such questions. The Axe-FX sounds 32894723098472390x better than any Line 6 product. Then again, I would prefer a Metal Zone direct to the board over any Line 6 so I'm probably not a biased source. My level of hatred for every L6 product I've ever owned or played runs deep 

However I've been super impressed by the Fractal stuff. It is the only modeler I'd ever consider using. It can't deliver what my VHT can, but then again nothing really can since it's a unique tone that can't be replicated, but I will be owning an Axe-FX soon enough regardless.

It's pretty simple to me. One sounds and feels like a real amp. One sounds like digital plastic, lifeless, fizzy, in need of endless studio magic to even come close to a usable sound.


----------



## Kakaka (Jan 25, 2009)

You don't like Chimp's and Bulb's POD tones, I guess then...
I listened to some VHT sounds and found them too harsh, I guess too much high-mids for me.


----------



## zimbloth (Jan 25, 2009)

Kakaka said:


> You don't like Chimp's and Bulb's POD tones, I guess then...
> I listened to some VHT sounds and found them too harsh, I guess too much high-mids for me.



See this is the problem with the Internet: so much misinformation brought on by misleading and frankly worthless webclips. You've never played a VHT Pittbull UL (nevertheless their other models). Actual experience and knowing what things sound like in *real life* is what counts. They're not even close to harsh. The worst description of a VHT _ever_  They have a huge thick, meaty, crisp, rich, brutal tight tone with not a hint of harshness or thinness.

Dude, I'm not talking about Bulb's studio magic POD clips. I'm talking about PODs real sound out of the box. Compared to the Axe-FX and just about any other decent amp out there, they play, respond, and sound like shit to me. For every Bulb clip I could show you 500 clips that sound terrible. He's a very good engineer, but dude if he thought they were so great he wouldn't use an ENGL Invader, an Axe-FX, a VHT Pittbull CLX, and other amps. He uses the POD out of convenience for recording and managed to get a decent tone out of it that suits his style. If you asked him what he thought of how they sound without all the processing, mixing, etc I doubt he'd have a favorable opinion on it.

The studio is a whole other animal my friend. In the hands of a good engineer with a grasp of the art of mixing, you can make almost anything sound good. Look at what Carcass used on their Heartwork album. It's silly to judge an amp that has loads of eqing, post-processing, drums/bass to help cover things up, and other of Bulb's mixing magic. I've owned many Line 6 amps, I know what they sound like, and in my honest opinion they are the worst amps on the planet.


----------



## El Caco (Jan 26, 2009)

Really Nick, worse than a Peavey Transtube? 



HughesJB4 said:


> so my plan is to get an X3 Live (on sale price or used obviously, fuck paying full RRP if I don't have too),



Well if this update is unable to make my Pod X3 Live usable with my rig mines definitely for sale. Just let me know how much you want to spend, don't worry about insulting me, if it's not enough I'll just say no


----------



## El Caco (Jan 26, 2009)

Ze Kink said:


> I just wish there were more choices. The Axe-fx Standard is 1000 more than a X3L new. I'm not totally happy with my X3L even though I get sounds that are very usable. There's just nothing in between really.



There is plenty of other options, the good recordings I have heard from a GNX with supermodels sound better to me then a Pod, there is the GSP series and a bunch of new units available and soon to be released that you can put any VST model on. The Axe FX is the only unit that people consistently claim is as good as the real thing in both a live setting and recorded though so in that sense there are no other options.

It's like any other purchase, if you can afford and want the best, the Axe FX seems to be it for modellers, if you are on a budget you need to be realistic about your needs and look for the best option in your price range that will fit those needs. I've joined the Line6 hate bandwagon but I will admit that it is possible to use a Pod satisfactorily in a live setting and also get a great recorded tone with it if you know how to use it. However there are a number of option that I would buy before any Line6 product.


----------



## bulb (Jan 26, 2009)

zimbloth said:


> See this is the problem with the Internet: so much misinformation brought on by misleading and frankly worthless webclips. You've never played a VHT Pittbull UL (nevertheless their other models). Actual experience and knowing what things sound like in *real life* is what counts. They're not even close to harsh. The worst description of a VHT _ever_  They have a huge thick, meaty, crisp, rich, brutal tight tone with not a hint of harshness or thinness.
> 
> Dude, I'm not talking about Bulb's studio magic POD clips. I'm talking about PODs real sound out of the box. Compared to the Axe-FX and just about any other decent amp out there, they play, respond, and sound like shit to me. For every Bulb clip I could show you 500 clips that sound terrible. He's a very good engineer, but dude if he thought they were so great he wouldn't use an ENGL Invader, an Axe-FX, a VHT Pittbull CLX, and other amps. He uses the POD out of convenience for recording and managed to get a decent tone out of it that suits his style. If you asked him what he thought of how they sound without all the processing, mixing, etc I doubt he'd have a favorable opinion on it.
> 
> The studio is a whole other animal my friend. In the hands of a good engineer with a grasp of the art of mixing, you can make almost anything sound good. Look at what Carcass used on their Heartwork album. It's silly to judge an amp that has loads of eqing, post-processing, drums/bass to help cover things up, and other of Bulb's mixing magic. I've owned many Line 6 amps, I know what they sound like, and in my honest opinion they are the worst amps on the planet.



you definitely have a point there but you are blowing it a little bit out of proportion.
the only "studio magic" on my pod sounds is eq (which i have started using on the axefx as well, just not quite as heavily), but there really isnt any magic to it, just cut the frequencies you dont like out.

second, i know you love your vht and i love mine, especially in person, but it seems like kakaka and the ts are looking for some good options for recording, and as you know, things that sound good in person dont necessarily sound good recorded. honestly when it comes to recording amps, as much as i love the invader and the pittbull, i personally dont think they are nearly as good in the studio as a series 1 recto or a 5150 (which is why most modern metal guitar sounds are done with either one or both of those amps)

i use those amps live (mainly the invader) because my requirements for live tone and feel are vastly different to what i look for in a good recording tone, and yeah the pod doesnt make for a good live solution, but thats not why i bought it!

and what you say about the pod is true, it doesnt sound great out of the box it takes a lot of tweaking, but i would argue the same of the axefx!
it doesnt come with a single good sounding high gain preset imho, you have to start from scratch like on the pod, the reason i like it more is because the potential of the unit is just exponentially higher, but if i couldnt have afforded one, i would have had absolutely no issues with using the pod for the long run honestly!

so this goes back to what i said
you want a good solution for recording in the 300ish budget, get a pod
you want a good solution for recording in the 2000ish budget, get an axefx
you want a good live amp? go out an try a bunch out!!
you want something that does the last two? depending on your tastes, you MAY like the axefx through a poweramp, but try it first!


----------



## zimbloth (Jan 26, 2009)

bulb said:


> you definitely have a point there but you are blowing it a little bit out of proportion.
> the only "studio magic" on my pod sounds is eq (which i have started using on the axefx as well, just not quite as heavily), but there really isnt any magic to it, just cut the frequencies you dont like out.
> 
> second, i know you love your vht and i love mine, especially in person, but it seems like kakaka and the ts are looking for some good options for recording, and as you know, things that sound good in person dont necessarily sound good recorded. honestly when it comes to recording amps, as much as i love the invader and the pittbull, i personally dont think they are nearly as good in the studio as a series 1 recto or a 5150 (which is why most modern metal guitar sounds are done with either one or both of those amps)
> ...



Solid points Misha, and yes I was exaggerating a bit, but I think you're missing my point. I acknowledged before that in the studio, if you are good at mixing and recording you can get good sounds with mediocre amps. Hell, my bandmate's Marshall DSL100 is more studio friendly than my VHT (which seems to be designed to project & have a sweet spot further back). I'd like to think I have some pretty good sounding recordings with my little Behringer GMX212 combo. It can be done! So yeah I know what's up. I was talking about just how things sound in reality, or 'live' if you will.

I just stated my opinion in my original post that I vastly prefer the Axe-FX over the POD. While you do have a pretty decent sound with your POD stuff (which obviously works great for your style), it is my opinion your recordings with the Axe-FX sound exponentially better. Just huge, monstrous, and realistic. I know the OP is talking about this in a recording context, I never brought up the issue of tube amps. I think you missed my original post.

My other point was, it's really ridiculous to put tons of stock into random clips. You can't bash one amp based on some amateur clip when there are hundreds if not thousands of variables that come into play with recording. The mere fact he thinks VHTs sound harsh (while never having played one) is my point. The only way to know is to play it in real life and spend time with it. It's also madness to then reference a fully mixed, eq'd, processed, mastered guitar tone in a band mix that was recorded by a very talented engineer, and use that as evidence against a sloppy amateur clip of a tube amp. It just doesn't work that way, yet I see it all the time.

Point of all this? If you're looking to buy a new amp, play it in real life, don't weigh clips on the 'net too much. I mean, we know how know great Bare Knuckles sound, yet I'd estimate that 9 out of every 10 clips I hear sounds like shit. Recording/mixing/mastering are art forms which can take years if not decades to master. 

PS: If something wants something for recording but doesn't need a ton of options, you can get a nice tube pre and just use Impulses. For example, if someone likes 5150s or old Peaveys, you can get a $200 Peavey Rockmaster pre and run it direct, throw on some good cabinet impulses, double (or quad) track it and you're in business!


----------



## Kakaka (Jan 26, 2009)

Thanks both to zimbloth and Bulb for shedding lots of light here.

I guess zimbloth must be right about my statement, it's an unfair comparison really, if I were trying to judge the rigs themselves.

And it's really nice to hear that the VHT's aren't what they sound in most webclips from someone who knows for sure, 'cause dude, they really let me down!

Some months ago, I had some good money to buy a new rig and as I wanted (and still want) rig to record, I researched for some options that could make it easier (cheaper) to record and luckily at least decent to play live.

I headed to VHT right away, looking for that GP3 preamp, and, thank zimbloth, with some advice from you and Starsniffer I gave up.
I thought about getting a Deliverance 60, a Pittbull 50 combo... but didn't really dig the sounclips I found.
It's good to know they aren't what I found on the net.

But again, unfortunately here in Brazil, it is very difficult to find top gear to test drive. VHT then... rather unlikely. Even MESA is rare around here, a Triple Recto gets to hear costing about US$4.5k!

So, it's kinda hard to get to play with some cool stuff.

There are too many variables involved in recording a real amp through speakers. So the POD seemed much more under-control for me, as I could, theoretically, get some patches from dudes whose tones I liked and tweak over them as a base.

And all this discussion took me to a consideration about tone:
as of late, I got used to much complaining about mid-scooped tones, I guess zimbloth must be one, of the top of my mind, that I could tell seems to hate them too. But when I started tweaking my 2120 to get close to a pleasant sound, I only reached by obliterating most mids. 2120 is obviously not the best distortion factory around but still...

Couldn't it be that what is harsh for my ears is merely a not mid-scooped tone for a VHT fan?

And if I'm not asking much, would you guys mind posting both the name of a song with a tone that you drool for and a, preferably mid-scooped for your ears, tone that you despise?

It could be a soundclip too...


----------



## zimbloth (Jan 26, 2009)

No problem man, that's cool. Best of luck 



Kakaka said:


> I thought about getting a Deliverance 60, a Pittbull 50 combo... but didn't really dig the sounclips I found.



Most of the Pittbull combos are low-gain vintagey amps, really nothing like the UL/CL heads.

The Deliverance is kind of cool but really is a whole other animal as the Pittbulls as well. Some people love them, I don't. If you must rely on clips, at least check out ones for the UL, 100/CL, 50/CL, Sig:X, or the CLX. Those are the best sounding ones IMO.



Kakaka said:


> And all this discussion took me to a consideration about tone:
> as of late, I got used to much complaining about mid-scooped tones, I guess zimbloth must be one, of the top of my mind, that I could tell seems to hate them too. But when I started tweaking my 2120 to get close to a pleasant sound, I only reached by obliterating most mids. 2120 is obviously not the best distortion factory around but still...



If you _need _to scoop out all the mids to get your amp sounding decent, that probably means the amp/speakers are not cutting it. Midrange is what guitar is all about, bass and treble are really just there for flavoring, but the midrange frequencies is really what the guitar is. So, that's why people scoop out mids on shitty amps, because either the amp or speakers sound so bad, that its the only way for it to sound - as you said - 'pleasant'.

Now, you have your occasional yahoo who scoops out his mids even on amps with terrific tone, but almost 99% of pros don't scoop out their mids because you're scooping out your guitars character and won't cut through a mix as well.

I'm not saying you should crank your mids or anything, but you definitely dont want to stick with an amp that sounds bad with mids dialed in. As I said before, unflattering speakers can be the biggest culprit too. If the mids sound like quack/honk and maybe buzzy and unpleasant, then of course you'll be tempted to turn them down. But at that point you're just sort of polishing a turd. 

I remember I had to use my VHT Pittbull UL through a Crate Blue Voodoo 4x12 once. It was an absolute holocaust of tone, just dreadful, fuzzy, muddy, and unusable. Scooping out the mids made it sound hollow, but hollowness was an improvement. 

Bottom line: your tone is only as good as your weakest link (speakers, amp, pickups, strings, etc).


----------



## bulb (Jan 26, 2009)

zim, yeah i see your point and you are right, it seems in the end we are saying the same thing!

try it before you buy it (or start praising/criticizing it, as clips cant be trusted)
i have to admit that the axefx was one of the very few pieces of gear i bought based off of some clips. Though it was from a very reputable source, and he had been trying to turn me on to the unit for a good 8 months at that point haha, and i only bought it at a price knowing that if i disliked it, i could easily get all my money back. Needless to say, thats not an issue now that i have tried it and used it on my recordings, but if you dont have the ability to try something out in your area, it may not be a bad idea to get one to try out, especially if you can make the money back by selling it!

on a totally off topic note, i really hope that someday i can try your UL out dude, because at this point in time i have tried 3 UL's which i thought were actually quite terrible, but you speak so highly of yours (and i dont think you have a bad ear for tone) so im wondering if yours is that magical one that made it through, or what the deal is? Maybe against all odds, all the ones i tried were busted, they all did sound broken haha! I would also love you to try out my CLX cuz i really think you might just love it!


----------



## TomAwesome (Jan 26, 2009)

Kakaka said:


> Now, does anyone have any good experience with live sound with the POD? Perhaps with a nice power amp? I think Bulb used his POD through the Pitbull's 100CL power amp and didn't like it...



I use a POD X3 Live live with pretty good results. I run it into a tube power amp (Peavey Classic 50/50), and it really opens it up and breathes some life into it. I've heard some pretty good results with solid state power amps, too, though. It's mostly about working _with_ the POD, getting familiar with it and its strengths and weaknesses, and working with it as a POD instead of trying too hard to get it to be what it's modeling. No, it's not going to be quite as good as the real thing, but they can sound pretty damn good if you know what you're doing with them. A well tweaked POD will still sound a lot better than a badly set up amp, so sometimes it's good to keep in mind that how you use your gear can be just as important as what gear you're using.


----------



## bulb (Jan 26, 2009)

my main issues with using the pod live were first off cutting the fizz and high end harshness out without getting a blanket over the speakers sound, (its just so much easier to manipulate in the studio)
and even if you got it to sound good live, the feel was just undynamic and unresponsive, it felt like i was disconnected from my guitar if that makes sense.
if you dont mind these two things, then the cool thing is that you really can just plug right in and go!


----------



## mikernaut (Jan 26, 2009)

ahhhh the more I read and watch clips of the AxeFx the bigger my GAS gets for one.
So it would then render my vetta 2 obsolete possibly? I find I am still struggling with getting "the fizz" out of my patches with the Vetta. Maybe I just haven't tweaked enough. 

The thing is I've never owned a tube amp and would love to get one someday but living in a apartment , it seems like it would be overkill at this time. So this leads me to lean more towards just going for a AxeFx. 

Then the dilemma is just plug it in to the amp or invest in more stuff for a different set up.

Decisions, decisions..... I may have to sell another guitar. hahahaha


----------



## OzoneJunkie (Jan 26, 2009)

I own an Axe-Fx Ultra - had it about 2 weeks now. Just started to dive into making my own patches, or tweaking user-made patches. I'm not at my ideal tone(s) yet - I need to put some money into new pickups. What you throw at it also greatly affects what you get out of it, like most things.

While I'm not quite in tone nirvana yet, I'm as close as I've ever been, and I know that my weak link is my guitar/PUPs.

Price means something different to everyone, as do tools. If I'm really hungry, I want a pizza more than a Ferrari ( sorry, had to  ). But, considering what the AFXU does and where it's taking me, I'll say this: if the thing cost $5000 I would probably never would have considered it. Now that I've got it, I'd actually spend $5k on it, if that's what it cost. It's *that* good, to me.


----------



## TMM (Jan 26, 2009)

bulb said:


> ...on a totally off topic note, i really hope that someday i can try your UL out dude, because at this point in time i have tried 3 UL's which i thought were actually quite terrible, but you speak so highly of yours (and i dont think you have a bad ear for tone) so im wondering if yours is that magical one that made it through, or what the deal is? Maybe against all odds, all the ones i tried were busted, they all did sound broken haha! I would also love you to try out my CLX cuz i really think you might just love it!...



Same here I might have to take the drive down at some point (so long as I'm welcome  ), because I've tried out the UL/CL numerous times, and owned a 50 CL, and just never thought they sounded that good. Actually, I should say, the sound wasn't that bad (though not great), but I hated the responsiveness, because the responsiveness seemed very loose and lifeless compared to my Avenger or the Cobra & Uberschall I tried out side-by-side with them. I actually liked the 50 CL sounded better than the 100 UL or CL, but still not as much as the Uberschall, and nowhere near as much as the Cobra or Avenger. The Sig:X and Deliverance 120 sounded even worse than the UL to me (Deliverance was terrible), as did the ENGL SE and Invader.

I suspect some of this is due to the polarizing effect of having an Invader in a low-tuned, mahogany bodied guitar (my KxK) it's very, very strong in the lows/low-mids, which seems to make some amps that I know sound nice otherwise sound weak, and other amps I don't normally like sound incredible. The only time I've ever played a Recto and liked it was with this guitar, and I loved it then, but hate Rectos with every other guitar I've ever owned. I think it has something to do with the way different amps are designed, and what frequencies push them to overdrive. Amps that have a really rich low midrange (like Cobras, Rectos, & Uberschalls) seem to mix with it better than amps that have more of a high-mid / high voicing.


----------



## El Caco (Jan 26, 2009)

This touches on why I hate the many "best pups/guitar/amps?" threads without supporting information. Buying guitar gear is just like buying a surfboard in the sense that normally there is no one size fits all option. People have different tastes in tone and certain EQ's fit different styles and applications better, then once you know what type of tone you are chasing everything from your fingers through to the speaker interact to create the resulting tone. I've always raised an eyebrow when people have said EMG's sound sterile, through my gear my EMG's in basswood have sometimes been preferable to my nailbombed 2027 but I bought piece of gear the other day and it didn't take me long to declare my EMG's sound sterile through it.

This is another reason why units like the Axe FX are so great, it is as close to a one size fits all piece of gear as you are going to get, not only can you dial in almost any tone you want to match your existing gear and control things like how much fizz, sag etc you get but it also sounds great in a variety of applications, we know it sounds great recorded but I was reading a thread on the Fractal forums where the Axe FX was compared to a Mic'd rig in a live application (where you would send a line to FOH) and the result was that the Axe FX produced a better FOH result even though what the band heard was not as nice.

Bulb's patch on the Pod is another standout example to me, unmodified it is the worst patch on my Pod to use with my gear but it only needs a slight tweak to work for me and when used as a dual tone with the tweaked soldano patch it is one of the best tones on my pod.

This is why I take most discussions of tone and gear reviews with a grain of salt, when I read that someone doesn't like a piece of gear or a set of pups if they have enough supporting information I can usually identify why they do not like them, sometimes it's poor combination and sometimes it's bad selection for their purpose. What I have realised is that almost any piece of gear can sound great when it's used with gear that compliments it and used for the right application and when I listen to clips I try to identify elements that are unique to that piece of gear that can not be dialled out (such as the Mesa sizzle) rather than judge the recorded tone. Recently this helped me to buy a piece of gear and know exactly what to expect without ever having tried it and I am pleased to say it is exactly what I was expecting and more.


----------



## OzoneJunkie (Jan 26, 2009)

http://www.sevenstring.org/forum/members/s7eve.htmls7eve - Yeah, I feel you on this.

For me, the clips I checked out were enough for me to get over the $2k barrier, and order one for myself. If I didn't like it, it was going back. Happily, I found something that works for me, for what I'm trying to do (which is mostly recording direct). And I could not be more pleased (well, once I get my guitar/PUPs situation straightened out).


----------



## Kakaka (Jan 26, 2009)

zimbloth said:


> I'm not saying you should crank your mids or anything, but you definitely dont want to stick with an amp that sounds bad with mids dialed in. As I said before, unflattering speakers can be the biggest culprit too. If the mids sound like quack/honk and maybe buzzy and unpleasant, then of course you'll be tempted to turn them down. But at that point you're just sort of polishing a turd.
> 
> I remember I had to use my VHT Pittbull UL through a Crate Blue Voodoo 4x12 once. It was an absolute holocaust of tone, just dreadful, fuzzy, muddy, and unusable. Scooping out the mids made it sound hollow, but hollowness was an improvement.
> 
> Bottom line: your tone is only as good as your weakest link (speakers, amp, pickups, strings, etc).



Man, I didn't think I'd stumble on this speaker issues this soon. Now I guess I get it.

Anyway, the VHT I thought would come closer to what I wanted would be the Sig:X, but these clips made me less prone to go after one:

http://www.netmusicians.org/files/66-sigx%20drum%20jam.mp3

Nothing horrible to me, but not quite I'd hope to hear from that. Again I know there are many variables involved in capturing the whole rig sound, but I've listened to a bigger number of users of other amps reaching some wider common place in sounclips that pleased me better.

In the other hand I liked this a lot better (though the pinch harmonics sounded somewhat small for me):
http://www.netmusicians.org/files/38-ANIMALIT3%2C%20Mix.mp3

I liked it, though I'd certainly add some pick-attack and attack frequencies boost (1k-2k perhaps) to that.

Maybe I'm not very hypey or refined about my tone tastes and am just about to find it out...




By the way, I just found out that Greg Howe is Fractally endorsed...that's nice, he's got some of the most interesting guitar sounds I've heard.


----------



## zimbloth (Jan 26, 2009)

bulb said:


> on a totally off topic note, i really hope that someday i can try your UL out dude, because at this point in time i have tried 3 UL's which i thought were actually quite terrible, but you speak so highly of yours (and i dont think you have a bad ear for tone) so im wondering if yours is that magical one that made it through, or what the deal is? Maybe against all odds, all the ones i tried were busted, they all did sound broken haha! I would also love you to try out my CLX cuz i really think you might just love it!



Yeah Misha I'd love for you to try out my UL sometime, and conversely I'd love to try your CLX. I hear nothing but good things about those 

I'm fairly confident if you did get to play mine you would love it. When I first got the amp, it had the stock Sovtek tubes noway, stock bias, and I had it with a Mesa cab loaded with v30s. It sounded good but not great. I knew once I biased it (30mA --> 55 mA), put in great sounding tubes (JJ KT88s, Tung Sol/JJ pres), paired it up with speakers voiced perfectly for it (VHT's own), and just learned how to set it up it would be amazing. Obviously, that's exactly what happened and I've been in tonal bliss ever once. It completely transformed into a monster. It definitely needs a boost in front though, it's almost too massive sounding without it.

All I can say is, at NAMM I tried every high-end amp I could get my hands on (and over the years I've played most things anyways), and there was nothing that I felt sounded better than my UL. The only one that really blew me away was the ENGL Invader 100. There were others I thought sounded real good (Rivera, Diezel, Elmwood, etc), but they just didn't have the magic the Pittbull UL has to me. I guess it's just my tone; the sound I've always heard in my head before getting one. The Invader 100 is something I could see myself owning though, I just need to find a hookup with ENGL so I don't have to pay full price 

So, I understand if it's not for everyone, but I can't imagine anyone thinking they sound "terrible", regardless of personal taste. The only explanation to me is it had shitty tubes, was not dialed in right, was not biased, mismatched ohms, not cranked, or perhaps were just paired up with unflattering speakers/pickups. 

Hopefully sometime if you're ever in the Boston area you can come by and check it out (and whatever else I may have) and see what you think. Or if my band starts playing in the DC area that could work too. Perhaps you wouldn't like it anyways, but I'd be shocked 



TMM said:


> Same here I might have to take the drive down at some point (so long as I'm welcome
> 
> I suspect some of this is due to the polarizing effect of having an Invader in a low-tuned, mahogany bodied guitar (my KxK) it's very, very strong in the lows/low-mids, which seems to make some amps that I know sound nice otherwise sound weak, and other amps I don't normally like sound incredible.



You're welcome to come any time as well dude. I've invited you before, and it still stands 

But yes you're absolutely right, what can sound great with one amp can sound like shit with another. It takes time to figure it all out. I used the Invader pickup with my Pittbull for years. That was one of my favorite pickups I had stock in both of my custom shop 7s before I discovered BKPs. The pickup is a little dark sounding and teeters on the edge of muddiness, but the amp always kept it sounding tight, crisp and punchy - as long as it was installed in the right guitar. That pickup has brutal mids and the UL always responds well to pickups with lots of midrange it seems. I can't even begin to explain how amazing the Horus HGS Oiled Walnut sounds with the thing 

The UL definitely is an unforgiving amp. It's forgiving in the way it plays and feels, but tonally it's very transparent and does cover up shoddy technique/tone. It's very sensitive to different kinds of pickups, woods, etc. It takes time to learn which setups sound best. If you come down I'll bring a few different guitars and you can see how the amp captures every nuance of each guitar, for better or worse.


----------



## Ze Kink (Jan 26, 2009)

This topic just made me sell my X3L 

...Well, it's uncertain still, I'm taking it to a guy so he can try it tomorrow.

So, my Pod X3 got a new owner, and I got a pile of cash. Now, would anyone help me a bit? I can't decide which I should do:

1) Get a 5150/6505 used if I can get one for cheap (They're &#8364;700 new at dv247)
2) Save the money until I can afford the Axe-fx standard
3) Get a pedalboard and some new FX pedals

I currently don't have anything but an old Valvestate series Marshall (8240), and I used to use the X3L plugged into it's FX return, using just amp models and the effects. I'm thinking of getting all of the above sooner or later, but in which order should I get them?

I have two bands, the other is metal and the other is post-rock. I really only need a good distorted tone in the metal band, and I really only need a good clean tone but a lot of FX in the post-rock band.


----------



## TomAwesome (Jan 27, 2009)

What do you need more? Does the Valvestate work pretty well for both bands? Do you need effects more than you need a better amp? How long would it take you to save up for an Axe-FX, and would your current gear work well enough in the meantime?


----------



## Ze Kink (Jan 27, 2009)

TomAwesome said:


> What do you need more? Does the Valvestate work pretty well for both bands? Do you need effects more than you need a better amp? How long would it take you to save up for an Axe-FX, and would your current gear work well enough in the meantime?



The Valvestate is just what I use at rehearsals, as I don't care for the tone I get there, as long as I can hear myself. I'd never use it for anything else really 

Depends, it would probably take me a while, as it is rather expensive (&#8364;1500). Hmm, decision decisions. Then again, I'm not sure if I'd really even use the 6505, I just sold my Tiny Terror a couple months ago as I really wasn't using it... Then again, perhaps I would use it more when I buy a reamp box. Thing is, I usually record at night, so I can't really start micing a cab in the middle of the night. I really don't know.

Nah, I think I'll ditch the 6505 idea for now. I can always borrow my friends 5150's if I need to reamp with one. So, pedals or Axe-fx?


----------



## bulb (Jan 30, 2009)

zimbloth said:


> Yeah Misha I'd love for you to try out my UL sometime, and conversely I'd love to try your CLX. I hear nothing but good things about those
> 
> I'm fairly confident if you did get to play mine you would love it. When I first got the amp, it had the stock Sovtek tubes noway, stock bias, and I had it with a Mesa cab loaded with v30s. It sounded good but not great. I knew once I biased it (30mA --> 55 mA), put in great sounding tubes (JJ KT88s, Tung Sol/JJ pres), paired it up with speakers voiced perfectly for it (VHT's own), and just learned how to set it up it would be amazing. Obviously, that's exactly what happened and I've been in tonal bliss ever once. It completely transformed into a monster. It definitely needs a boost in front though, it's almost too massive sounding without it.
> 
> ...



yeah dude ill definitely take you up on that when im next in the boston area.
you know i tried it fair and square through a vht cab and a mesa cab as well, and although they sounded different they just sounded "wrong". Matt (highgain) was with me one of the times they had one at guitar center, and he had just been trying to convince me to sell him the clx (which of course i wouldnt sell ever) but i told him there was a UL at guitar center so we might as well try that out. Dialed in the exact same settings that i used with my amp and turned the graphic eq off and it just sounded completely different, the preamp is supposed to be the same and the volume was set to what i use at home (not too loud) and we both just thought it sounded like a mess. however i didnt think about bad tube selection or bad biasing, so it was probably that!


----------



## FoxZero (Jan 30, 2009)

s7eve said:


> This touches on why I hate the many "best pups/guitar/amps?" threads without supporting information. Buying guitar gear is just like buying a surfboard in the sense that normally there is no one size fits all option. People have different tastes in tone and certain EQ's fit different styles and applications better, then once you know what type of tone you are chasing everything from your fingers through to the speaker interact to create the resulting tone. I've always raised an eyebrow when people have said EMG's sound sterile, through my gear my EMG's in basswood have sometimes been preferable to my nailbombed 2027 but I bought piece of gear the other day and it didn't take me long to declare my EMG's sound sterile through it.
> 
> This is another reason why units like the Axe FX are so great, it is as close to a one size fits all piece of gear as you are going to get, not only can you dial in almost any tone you want to match your existing gear and control things like how much fizz, sag etc you get but it also sounds great in a variety of applications, we know it sounds great recorded but I was reading a thread on the Fractal forums where the Axe FX was compared to a Mic'd rig in a live application (where you would send a line to FOH) and the result was that the Axe FX produced a better FOH result even though what the band heard was not as nice.
> 
> ...



I agree 100% percent and that's exactly how I think. Save for the cab and pedal part my gear search is about closed. I was very interested in trying out Bare Knuckle Pickups, however I'm so satisfied with how my Lundgren M7 sounds in my all maple guitar through my Framus Cobra, why try to fix what isn't broke? I definitely would not recommend my amp to every one as I've heard it with both EMGs and Blackouts and quite frankly it didn't sound to good, but when my friends pick up my guitar and play through it they're like "good god! This is fucking awesome!" The frequencies the M7 is geared towards match the Cobra quite well. Could other pickups get a good tone out of it? Absolutely, but I probably wouldn't like those tones, good tone is subjective.

Thatsa tight fitting shoe for me. But like you said, the AxeFX takes out one of the major factors in finding the best match of tone wood, pickups, and amp. Like I said if I wasn't so happy with my set up I'd be all over this! Over course I'd have to sell my Cobra first  But it would pretty much pay for it


----------



## El Caco (Jan 31, 2009)

I've tried the update and I am keeping the X3L. Line6 finally got something right, the models are improved, it finally has some form of Midi and the Pod works well with the ENGL. At this point I can not justify the extra expense of the Axe FX, sure I would prefer it but I have more than I need at this point and the even if I replaced both the Pod and the ENGL it is a big step up in price for something that I do not need at this time.

My rig is almost complete, pic story coming as soon as I get the last few items.


----------



## TomAwesome (Jan 31, 2009)

I'm liking the new update, too. It doesn't sound like a new modeler or anything, but the improvement is enough to keep my enjoying my POD a little longer.


----------



## Ze Kink (Jan 31, 2009)

TomAwesome said:


> I'm liking the new update, too. It doesn't sound like a new modeler or anything, but the improvement is enough to keep my enjoying my POD a little longer.



And this happens just after I sold mine  what'd they improve and how?


----------



## TomAwesome (Jan 31, 2009)

Ze Kink said:


> And this happens just after I sold mine  what'd they improve and how?





Line 6 said:


> POD X3/POD X3 Live/POD X3 Pro Flash Memory V1.20 Release Notes:
> 
> If you are a POD X3 owner, please download and install the latest version of Line 6 Monkey software and use it to update your POD X3 to this latest version of Flash Memory.
> 
> ...



It's not a huge difference, but it makes things sound a bit smoother and less harsh.


----------



## Scoop_89 (Jan 31, 2009)

Someday I'll get an axe-fx..... someday


----------



## Harry (Jan 31, 2009)

TomAwesome said:


> I'm liking the new update, too. It doesn't sound like a new modeler or anything, but the improvement is enough to keep my enjoying my POD a little longer.



Good to hear they got this update right.
I'll be getting one of these in a few months time, so it's good I waited a bit before deciding to get one anyway.


----------



## El Caco (Jan 31, 2009)

I think the biggest difference is the gain on the high gain models, I haven't put it to any great test yet, I just mucked around with it a bit through the headphones. I had to adjust my patches to suit but they sound better, it doesn't sound like BOSS pedal gain anymore. Once I have made up my new cables I am going to play it through my new rig and well see how it compares to the ENGL but so far it's a decent improvement to my ears.


----------



## El Caco (Jan 31, 2009)

HughesJB4 said:


> Good to hear they got this update right.
> I'll be getting one of these in a few months time, so it's good I waited a bit before deciding to get one anyway.



Yeah waiting 15 months for them to fix something that should have worked when I bought it is bullshit.


----------



## jadasneez (Oct 15, 2010)

well i dont have great example of the axe-fx's sound besides maybe exivious (exivious) (periphery sounds real shitty and digital on purpose i guess) but chimp spanner did recorded his whole cd 'at the dreams edge' with the POD X3 and it sounds GREAT

none of the people using these processors are real producers so i couldn't really see them fully getting what they paid for recording with these things

anyway it really depends on what you're trying to do, you want something to record yourself get the pod, if you're a stickler, get an axe-fx


----------



## eaeolian (Oct 15, 2010)

Sheesh. Total necro! I'll let it stand, but let's look at the thread dates next time, K?


----------



## Randy (Oct 15, 2010)

Um, there are a lot more examples of the Axe-FX in use than just Exivious and Bulb/Periphery. I don't really get what your point is?


----------



## Customisbetter (Oct 15, 2010)

Jeff Loomis, Keith Merrow (actually a great example of the differnce between the two), Red Seas Fire, The Safety Fire, Born of Osiris... the list goes on.


----------



## asmegin_slayer (Oct 15, 2010)

Customisbetter said:


> Jeff Loomis, Keith Merrow (actually a great example of the differnce between the two), Red Seas Fire, The Safety Fire, Born of Osiris... the list goes on.



Jeff probably was using it for the recording, saw them a week ago and he was playing an Engl Savage with a G-system on the floor.


----------



## eaeolian (Oct 15, 2010)

asmegin_slayer said:


> Jeff probably was using it for the recording, saw them a week ago and he was playing an Engl Savage with a G-system on the floor.



As far as I know Jeff used amps for the last disc, although I haven't dug into it.


----------



## jadasneez (Oct 15, 2010)

Randy said:


> Um, there are a lot more examples of the Axe-FX in use than just Exivious and Bulb/Periphery. I don't really get what your point is?



i said i didn't have any not that they don't exist lol and what is your point sir?
you've neglected to list any
and what im saying is that it doesn't matter if you have an axe-fx or a pod if you don't know how to produce

merrow's and born of osiris' production is painful to listen to... not to shit on anybody just my opinion 
amps are the way to go


----------



## Customisbetter (Oct 15, 2010)

jadasneez said:


> i said i didn't have any not that they don't exist lol and what is your point sir? you've neglected to list any



I'm sorry but this was incredibly difficult to understand.


----------



## Larrikin666 (Oct 15, 2010)

Wow. I thought we were looking to cut down on people bumping old threads unless there was pertinent information that would warrant doing so. The trolls are getting more prominent.


----------



## jadasneez (Oct 15, 2010)

yeah i edited it lol


----------



## Randy (Oct 15, 2010)

*I've decided I'm sick of this guy already, anyone else? Oh well. Goodbye.*


----------



## Rick (Oct 15, 2010)

jadasneez said:


> anyway it really depends on what you're trying to do, you want something to record yourself get the pod, if you're a stickler, get an axe-fx



What exactly does this mean? I'm probably the biggest Line 6 whore here but even I know the Axe-Fx is considered much better than any Line 6 product.


----------



## Customisbetter (Oct 15, 2010)

^^


----------

