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

guitarfishbay

Honestly I wouldn't place too much value on patches from the exchange.

My advice if you want to get up and running quickly is to use an amp you're familiar with and to check out an impulse pack from Ownhammer or Fractal that has IRs of a speaker/mic combo you are familiar with.  The stock IRs are fine but they cover a lot of ground, so if you're looking for a specific sound from a certain cabinet you might find it easier just to have more choices for IRs of that cab.

I find anything I know how to use in real life is pretty quick to dial in doing that.

There are a lot of options for dialing in an amp but the core controls are by far and large the most important - gain, bass/mid/treble, master volume, and resonance/presence.

Clarky

prh777 said:

Hello chaps. It's a bit hard to search for this in the thread so apologies if it has already been asked but here goes.

I understand that the xl has more patches , lower noise floor (unnoticeable it would seem) and more memory. But what is your take on getting a 2nd hand II vs a new XL+. Former seem to be available for around 1400 whilst the latter is closer to 2100 at today's exchange rate.

My main concern is that patches for the XL can't be loaded on the II and wanting to be up and running quickly (won't have huge time for twiddling initially) means I won't be able to access the new shared patches on the xchange.

I'm generally accepting of the depreciation aspect and he price difference. I am more concerned about subsequently wanting to upgrade and having to sell the II because it didn't suit. Appreciate this is all subjective but would value your input on the differences/factors vs advice on making choices....

I wouldn't be thinking about getting the II particularly but someone has offered me one in trade against my mk v.

Thanks in advance.

I have an Axe-FX II mk1…

the differences between the models mean so little to me that I don't feel the need to get either a mk2 or an XL..

where it matters [tone, fx, control features etc] they are all the same..

the XL does have some advantages..

- instead of 384 presets it's 800 and something I think..

I've never found 384 to be too small, and even if it were, you can save presets on your mac / pc.. so there's not really a limit in that sense… I could never imagine playing a gig that needed more than 10 presets?? lol..

- the XL has a few more fx blocks that have X and Y sides that the mk1 / mk2.. but I'd personally not feel the need to part with that much cash just to get them..

if I ever needed to get a spare Axe-II, I'd get a mk1 or mk2.. 

basically because I'd have to [so I can load them both from the same image]

if money were no object would I replace my mk1 with an XL?.. I doubt it..

if money were no object and I didn't already own an Axe-II I'd most likely get the latest / greatest..

mrkb

The XL can also store many more user IRs (Cabinet Impulses) - I think the II is 100, the Xl is 1024 - but again a PC can be used to manage and blend these - so storing loads in the unit isn't a huge advantage. 

guitarfishbay

Anyone seen this post from Cliff?

http://forum.fractalaudio.com/threads/axe-fx-ii-quantum-rev-1-06-firmware-release.107827/page-9#post-1302248

"We are working with Joe Satriani to make some models of his amp and when that's finished we'll release 1.07. It's going to be a few weeks so you can give your F5 key a rest."

guitarfishbay

I'm assuming that'll be the Satch JVM but it'd be cool if they did the JSX too.

Clarky

mrkb said:

The XL can also store many more user IRs (Cabinet Impulses) - I think the II is 100, the Xl is 1024 - but again a PC can be used to manage and blend these - so storing loads in the unit isn't a huge advantage. 

I have many hundreds of IR's in my Mac.. and I've used cablab to make all kinds of mixes etc..

yet I still find myself using the 4x12 TV Mix with the 4X12 AX Mix.. both of which are stock cabs...

so... I have a few hundred cabs internal to the Axe [with all user slots filled] and close to a thousand more in my Mac..

but I only use 2 bog standard ones... lmao..

Handsome_Chris

I'm with @Clarky on the AF2 upgrade front. When I was in a band I never found the benefits offered beyond my AF2 mk1 were anything to get that excited by. A salient point that is missed out in these discussions is the fact that the mk1s actually sound better than the newer variants. They have more soul. The 1s and 0s in the current ones just sound too digital.

prh777

I do prefer the sound of vintage 1s and 0s. Should've kept using the dAW on my Amiga....

Clarky

Handsome_Chris said:

I'm with @Clarky on the AF2 upgrade front. When I was in a band I never found the benefits offered beyond my AF2 mk1 were anything to get that excited by. A salient point that is missed out in these discussions is the fact that the mk1s actually sound better than the newer variants. They have more soul. The 1s and 0s in the current ones just sound too digital.

have a wisdom for recognising that binary improves with age.. just like valves.. that's how good the modelling is..

the square waves in the Mk1 wear with time so they get rounded off at the corners so they sound less harsh...

prh777

Thank you all for your inputs. Very useful as always. Cheersd

paulmapp8306

The only reason to go for anything except the original AFX2, is the encoder.  The 2 has an electrical encoder, which starts getting flakey over time.  The XL and XL+ use optical encoders which dont suffer from the same issue.

This is only a problem if you edit a lot from front panel though - and encoders arnt expensive to change (if G66 wont do it, which is unlikely).  Had mine since it was released (replaced my old standard) and never wanted another - bar that odd encoder issue.

paulmapp8306

Quote from Cliff, in a thread where the OP cant get a good sound using a real amp and cab.

"Weird. I'm actually using a Matrix into a 1x12 right now and it sounds better than the amp I'm modeling."

So - firstly, yey for Matrix amps into cabs - and second..... Whats he modelling thats 1x12?? 

guitarfishbay

Not sure, there's been a recent focus on Vox types so possibly something relating to that?

Gadget

paulmapp8306 said:

Quote from Cliff... it sounds better than the amp I'm modeling."

Do we want 'better' than real? I mean, isn't that a contradiction in the world of modelling?

paulmapp8306

Of course not - I think what he means is that the audible result from the Matrix/Cab was more pleasing to him than that from the real amp.  He will aim - with the modelling process - to get it to sound the same (both FRFR and for use with amp/cab - which is why he checks/adjusts both ways), but that means in his opinion, he is making the sound worse than it could be even if its more acurate.

DefaultM

Please can someone explain how to set up a patch for fx only 4cm with a tube combo?
All I've done so far is to put a single fxl block in there and then put drive to the left and delay to the right. The drive is just ridiculously loud though.

paulmapp8306

Here we go again..... QUANTUM 2 anyone??

recent post:

Also our upcoming Quantum 2.0 firmware features significant improvements to the very amps you mention.

from cliffs own keyboard.

guitarfishbay

Wonder if the Satriani involvement has anything to do with that?

paulmapp8306

Wouldn't have thought so. Artist insolvent regards rig settings a normal a point increase. Full fw revisions are normally reserved for more major amp modelling improvements.

The amp in question the thread was about is a vibroverb.

Drew_TNBD

paulmapp8306 said:

Quote from Cliff:

it sounds better than the amp I'm modeling."

Have a hard time taking that sort of thing seriously.