Axe_FX II Rigs, or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Digital Modelling.

Clarky

I use the Axe's CryBaby.. sounds nice to me..

if you want to try it, let me know and I'll ping you the sysex for my block..

failing that, you can always go back to "old skool wah"

guit -> wah -> Axe

and... if you did that you'd not lose an XP to wah.. means you can use it for something else.. vol maybe??

Drew_TNBD

Clarky said:

I use the Axe's CryBaby.. sounds nice to me..

if you want to try it, let me know and I'll ping you the sysex for my block..

failing that, you can always go back to "old skool wah"

guit -> wah -> Axe

and... if you did that you'd not lose an XP to wah.. means you can use it for something else.. vol maybe??

Yeah I thought of that. One FCB pedal for morphing, one for volume. External wah.

Clarky

when I first got my Axe I ran this

guit -> vol -> wah -> Axe [because at the time I only had 1 XP]

 tried the wah.. managed to get it close to my CryBaby and so ordered a pair of XP's.. now I run 3 [as you've seen] for vol, wah, morphing

Roland

The Axe wah does need a bit of effort to configure. Your problem may also be with the FCB. It uses cheap, variable luminosity tape to translate pedal position to electrical value. I've got two FCBs, one permanently in the music room, and one flight cased. The two pedals respond differently.

Clarky

I use the Boss FV-500 pedals..

I love them.. they're pretty consistent too.. as in, every time I wire them up I'm certani I never wire them into the same sockets.. but I never re-calibrate them [with the MFC], and they've always seemed to work ok..

Drew_TNBD

So I tried the morphing and quickly realized that actually, for the music we write... it isn't entirely appropriate. Mainly because rather than going from one tone to another, I need quick cuts between three tones. So what I have so far is this...

Ext 12 - CC 27 - controls mixer channel levels
Ext 11 - CC 26 - controls a volume block before amp 2

So my FCB...

Switch 1 - CC27 is 127, CC26 is 0 - gives me amp 1 with a clean tone
Switch 2 - CC27 is 0, CC26 is 0 - gives me amp 2 with a very light crunch
Switch 3 - CC27 is 0, CC26 is 75 - gives me amp 2 with a medium crunch
Switch 4 - CC27 is 0, CC26 is 127 - gives me amp 2 with all out high-gain riffery

Essentially this is modelling a 4 channel amp currently. I've got switches 5-10 left to mess around with too.

Clarky

as with all these things.... you'll find that there are times when a rapid tone transition is best.. and other times where morphing is best..

the killer thing here is knowing that you have both at your disposal..

this gives rise to wider compositional possibilities

now.. you make tone transition method choices because they are what you want, rather than because they are the only thing you can do.. if you look at my config.. switching scenes give immediate tone changes.. but they can all morph into somethnig.. so even live, I can choose to morph the riff to clean, or switch scene to a slightly different type of clean.. from an expressive / performance standpoint, you can never have too many options..

Drew_TNBD

Oh that's almost certainly true. I'd say though that after analysing our songs approximately 90% of them nigh-on require instant changes, which means morphing for those is a bit overkill and doesn't sound quite right because you get that little rise, no matter how quickly you move the pedal. A straight 0 to 127 is better for me in a lot of cases.

Clarky

for most transitions, that's true for me too.. there are a couple of moments in a couple of songs that require more gradual tone changes.. crecendo things..

also remember that you can set some IA's to momentary.. this opens up a whole different set of possibilities.. like popping a delay on the final note of a solo, or a sudden / violent and brief volume jump / tone transition that lasts just for a fleeting moment [similar to orchestral strikes but with a riff tone from a clean], or the old 70's "stutter" they did with the pup selector switch..

it's all just more choice..

all this control stuff when you really exploit it can take your performance far beyond just playing clean and dirty.. and that opens up your audience to an even better experience..

Drew_TNBD

I cannot tell which is better... Axe FX II and Valvestate poweramp, or Diezel D-Moll and regular pedalboard.

It's *REALLY* fucking pissing me off. I hate not being able to have a preference, or to choose a clear winner.

1st world problems I spoze!

Si_

Play them both live.. I bet to pick the D-Moll then...

Drew_TNBD

Si_ said:

Play them both live.. I bet to pick the D-Moll then...

I've played them both through my 2x12 ENGL cab, and I've done it at near rehearsal levels. I've not yet played them both in a band context. That comes next week, didn't have time this week.

Handsome_Chris

I had great fun t'other night when I 'modded' a 1987x jumped. I raised both the input and output trims and it certainly kicked some life into it. I'm only worried that since I used this with a Gibson Dusk Tiger that the Marshall and Les Paul purists will get upset.

fretmeister

Drew_fx said:

I cannot tell which is better... Axe FX II and Valvestate poweramp, or Diezel D-Moll and regular pedalboard.

It's *REALLY* fucking pissing me off. I hate not being able to have a preference, or to choose a clear winner.

1st world problems I spoze!

Run both sets. All the time.

Glad I could help.

Clarky

Drew_fx said:

I cannot tell which is better... Axe FX II and Valvestate poweramp, or Diezel D-Moll and regular pedalboard.

It's *REALLY* fucking pissing me off. I hate not being able to have a preference, or to choose a clear winner.

1st world problems I spoze!

there is a clear difference…

try tone morphing with the Diezel..

Edit: I know you said previously that the tone morphing don't currently suit what you need to do..

but.. this don't mean that morphing will never become something you're going to do in the future..

you've experienced it.. seen what it can do.. 

from simple 'clean up', to bringing in extra swirlies, through to changing the tone to something unrecognisably different like my synth-like pad with a octave below it..

Think Texas.. "do I really need this? no? ok.. I'll take 8 then"

so.. if the Diezel and Axe are now sounding / feeling the same..

the Axe will bring all it's extra control capabilities with it that a traditional amp can never do..

in Clarky's lil' world.. this is a no brainer

Drew_TNBD

I mean just the raw tones. To me morphing is a functional thing, rather than a tone thing. But the raw tones... I'm not sure which I prefer. Next thing is to get into the rehearsal room and play with the band and see how it cuts.

Clarky

to me… I see the rig as a whole…

tone, capabilities, looking like you're gonna blow shit up

In my case, I'd be happy [within reason of course] to sacrifice a little tone in order to have the capability..

but then.. I don't think I'm sacrificing tone either.. so it's win win..

Drew_TNBD

I don't quite see things that way. I see each constituent part, and need to figure out if it works for me on its own. If it doesn't, then generally no matter if the other parts do work... I tend to scrap and rebuild. Just kinda the way my brain works.

Which is why this is all fucking with me. lol.

I've got my Egnater cab in my room currently, at reasonable volumes. Not utterly cranked.

Guitar into Axe FX. Output 1 of Axe FX into Valvestate. Output 2 into a ground lift box, and then into the front of my Diezel D-Moll. Valvestate and Diezel each have half of the cab each. I can switch between them using scenes in Axe edit.

And I still cannot pick a clear winner. The Axe FX sounds very amp-like, but the Diezel has this final polish that just sounds very nice... something in the high-end, it just seems smoother.

One fly in the ointment is that each side of my cab sounds remarkably different from the other. So it isn't an exact fair test... but even swapping sides, I'm noticing the Diezel has this quality that the Axe is lacking. And when you A/B them like this, it's quite an obvious change.

Asked the wife which she preferred and she instinctively picked the real Diezel over the modeller.

Drew_TNBD

A dead give away as to how hard it is to pick... I keep tweaking the model thinking that I'm hearing changes, only to realise that I'm on the 'real Diezel scene' and actually none of my changes are being heard.

Drew_TNBD

Weirdly, the amp that is most closest naturally to the Diezel D-Moll is not any of the Diezel models. It's the Euro Red, which I believe is a Bogner XTC.