thiswaythatway
Well-known member
Through a tube power amp. How did it turn out for anyone doing comparison on the same poweramp?
Ancient Alien
Active member
I did an AxeFX vs GP3 and JMP1 through a 2/90/2, 2/50/2 and 2/56/2
Night and day difference.
It was no contest as far as thickness, tone and feel.
also did the same with the HD500.
They just don't cut it IMHO
They sound great direct into the computer, and that is where they belong.
I have yet to hear an amazing modeler live.
Night and day difference.
It was no contest as far as thickness, tone and feel.
also did the same with the HD500.
They just don't cut it IMHO
They sound great direct into the computer, and that is where they belong.
I have yet to hear an amazing modeler live.
Ventura
Well-known member
After a LOT of time spent with top notch eargoggles, hi-def clips, varied sources, and a borderline sick obsession with tone, I made the decision to go with the Mak 4 tube preamp instead of any modeller currently out there, including the AxeFX. And this is a preamp of 4 channels, not the Axe of, what, nearly infinite emulations?
I've left space for an Axe in the future, but it's by no means definite.
I've heard an Axe live in several situations, and folks, I'm sorry - there was a noticeable difference and not for the better, and we're talking top notch musicians (ie Dweezil, amongst others) in terrific venues. We'd heard it with tube driven tunes, and processed driven tunes, and although the processed tunes sounded absolutely incredible for what they were - they were NOT as good as the old school, hot glass, 4th dimension-able amps.
JUST my opinion, and the opinion of about 3 other cats I play music with, have worked in studios with, owned a studio with, and mix, engineer, and produce music with. 2 cents, given...
V.
I've left space for an Axe in the future, but it's by no means definite.
I've heard an Axe live in several situations, and folks, I'm sorry - there was a noticeable difference and not for the better, and we're talking top notch musicians (ie Dweezil, amongst others) in terrific venues. We'd heard it with tube driven tunes, and processed driven tunes, and although the processed tunes sounded absolutely incredible for what they were - they were NOT as good as the old school, hot glass, 4th dimension-able amps.
JUST my opinion, and the opinion of about 3 other cats I play music with, have worked in studios with, owned a studio with, and mix, engineer, and produce music with. 2 cents, given...
V.
J
jcj
Well-known member
I think it depends on what you're going for; for me, I've yet to play a tube pre that sounds as good as the Axe at low volume.
I'd also toss out that I had the Axe CRANKING today through a VHT 2/50/2, and it just sounded HUGE and rich...
I guess I just like the Axe a lot
I'll tell you that I liked it, much better than the Mak 4 I tried, although I really dug the two channel Makoplex with the freak knob, that thing was awesome.
I'd also toss out that I had the Axe CRANKING today through a VHT 2/50/2, and it just sounded HUGE and rich...
I guess I just like the Axe a lot
I'll tell you that I liked it, much better than the Mak 4 I tried, although I really dug the two channel Makoplex with the freak knob, that thing was awesome.
steve_k
New member
I just don't see how fake tube break-up (fake-up) and digital distortion (digi-stortion) can sound better than the real thing. I am just per-plexied as hell about that...... 
Steve
Steve
stephen sawall
SEMI ERECT MEMBER
Does digital anything sound as good as analog .... not in my ears so far.
hunter
Active member
In general and speaking of similar levels of quality build wise, in my experience for the direct playing experience (not recording results) it is:
Amp head > Tube Pre/Pwr Amp > Modeler/Tube Pwr Amp > Modeler/SS Amp
Surely there are exceptions, this is just a general statement. I'm not saying a Bugera head sounds better than a Bogner Fish and a VHT2150.
Amp head > Tube Pre/Pwr Amp > Modeler/Tube Pwr Amp > Modeler/SS Amp
Surely there are exceptions, this is just a general statement. I'm not saying a Bugera head sounds better than a Bogner Fish and a VHT2150.
Shark Diver
New member
I have done extensive A/Bing over the last few years with a lot of preamps vs Axe FX into the same power amps. The Fish, 2 CAE versions, X88, X99, IE4 and Triaxis. Amps were VHT 2150, 2100 and a Mesa 2/90. For me every tube pre won. But if I was going to use a power amp and cab I wouldn't use an Axe Fx anyway. I think it defeats the best point of the Axe for live use - which is portable/direct guitar tones.
I like using IRs for direct use with tube amps or preamps much better anyway. You retain all the tube goodness and still have the ease and control of going direct to the FoH. Something like Two Notes Torpedo and your favorite amp/pre sounds so much better than modeled amps and pre(s).
There are a lot less expensive 1 space preamps and fx units that will sound as good or better than an Axe Fx with a good power amp and cab.
I like using IRs for direct use with tube amps or preamps much better anyway. You retain all the tube goodness and still have the ease and control of going direct to the FoH. Something like Two Notes Torpedo and your favorite amp/pre sounds so much better than modeled amps and pre(s).
There are a lot less expensive 1 space preamps and fx units that will sound as good or better than an Axe Fx with a good power amp and cab.
steve_k
New member
Shark Diver":2jzxdgo0 said:I have done extensive A/Bing over the last few years with a lot of preamps vs Axe FX into the same power amps. The Fish, 2 CAE versions, X88, X99, IE4 and Triaxis. Amps were VHT 2150, 2100 and a Mesa 2/90. For me every tube pre won. But if I was going to use a power amp and cab I wouldn't use an Axe Fx anyway. I think it defeats the best point of the Axe for live use - which is portable/direct guitar tones.
I like using IRs for direct use with tube amps or preamps much better anyway. You retain all the tube goodness and still have the ease and control of going direct to the FoH. Something like Two Notes Torpedo and your favorite amp/pre sounds so much better than modeled amps and pre(s).
There are a lot less expensive 1 space preamps and fx units that will sound as good or better than an Axe Fx with a good power amp and cab.
Thanks for that rundown Dave and those are along the lines of what I was thinking. I have a hard time programming the microwave and thinking about trying to program a Snax gives me goosebumps.
That should clear up a lot of discrepancies for folks. You being the rack gear guru guide, I take your word for it. Or, it may stir the pot and start a flame war
But, if the cost of tubes continues to rise, we may all be playing the digital toy boxes in a few years. Maybe its a plot....
Steve
guitarslinger
New member
I've never played an axe FX, but my Fish/IE4/M4/Trio/Climax/MP-1/etc ALL buried the Digitech 1101 I used to own. I was probably A/Bing through a 2150 or a Rivera TBR-3
steve_k
New member
I'm stuck.....what's IE4?
guitarslinger
New member
steve_k":2z0yjwpc said:
Egnater IE-4.
It's a sick, all-tube, four channel, midi controlled monster made in the USA.
I think it actually sounds a tad better than the M4.
Sounds similar to a Fish, without the stupid shared EQ and weird footswitching scheme.
steve_k
New member
Thanks....I was having a brain freeze!
Ventura
Well-known member
From what I'm seeing across this board anyway, the AxeFX is great for direct-in recording, and this is something I can totally respect and appreciate. Hell, the time it takes to find the sweet spot on a cabinet with various mics can be a bitch to say the least. THEN it's the mic preamp settings, THEN it's the room dynamics... For sure, I've taken a day to set up all the gear only to record a 3 minute passage. Crazy. Maybe I like it, some kinda sickness of mine.
But I 100% agree with the fact that the Axe probably sounds better than ANY amp out there at lower volumes... This to me is a given. And for recording? WAY easier. Totally agree. But where the Axe shows it's digital limitations is when one starts getting up to 'big sack' volumes (again, thanks for that term Steve_K), real amps start really breathing at noon on the masters. That's where harmonic swirl, overtones, all that juicy shit starts to happen. Even the bumps and pangs and hands-on-the-guitar start making the amp 'do' things that no binary based unit could ever understand... You all know what I'm talking about - a driven amp starts to become an extension of the guitar and guitarist, it becomes alive. That's where the magic of tubes and old-school amps for me happens.
But ya, the Axe for DI recording - 100% easier and sounds perfect.
Portability, 100% better. Adjustable and tweakable - 100%. Overall plug and play ease of use - incomparable. So it goes...
Morning Folks, 2nd cuppa on the go...another lazy Monday!!
V.
But I 100% agree with the fact that the Axe probably sounds better than ANY amp out there at lower volumes... This to me is a given. And for recording? WAY easier. Totally agree. But where the Axe shows it's digital limitations is when one starts getting up to 'big sack' volumes (again, thanks for that term Steve_K), real amps start really breathing at noon on the masters. That's where harmonic swirl, overtones, all that juicy shit starts to happen. Even the bumps and pangs and hands-on-the-guitar start making the amp 'do' things that no binary based unit could ever understand... You all know what I'm talking about - a driven amp starts to become an extension of the guitar and guitarist, it becomes alive. That's where the magic of tubes and old-school amps for me happens.
But ya, the Axe for DI recording - 100% easier and sounds perfect.
Portability, 100% better. Adjustable and tweakable - 100%. Overall plug and play ease of use - incomparable. So it goes...
Morning Folks, 2nd cuppa on the go...another lazy Monday!!
V.
