So I stole TM's AXE FX 2 for 24 hours...

[Meathead]

I liked near the end, the strat with the Wrecker part, but there's something not natural about the high end, still has that direct modeler sound.
Does the unit have a way to make the mic sim sound further away. It just doesn't sound like a mic on a guitar speaker to me.
It actually needs more imperfection, it just sounds too nice, like it's direct.

 

[RockStarNick]

Great review, as usual Pete.

PS. BLACK SHUCK baby! Darkness. Good riff choice!!!!

 

[gtr31]

I liked near the end, the strat with the Wrecker part, but there's something not natural about the high end, still has that direct modeler sound.
Does the unit have a way to make the mic sim sound further away. It just doesn't sound like a mic on a guitar speaker to me.
It actually needs more imperfection, it just sounds too nice, like it's direct.

.. I dont know ,i had the Randall Modular stuff and my Vox module sounded like that Hiwatt clip .it had a very sharp almost distorting top end with the gain up and single coils .
it could be the guitar, the les paul BE sounded better to me

 

[crankyrayhanky]

a few years ago, i thought the Axe sounded awful...after several updates, the recent clips I hear are outstanding. Thus, the Axe II may not seem like a huge leap from Axe Ultra, but as updates come out, I imagine the stronger engine of Axe II will yield super improved tones. Probably can't afford one, so for me it's all conjecture, lol

 

[Meathead]

I liked near the end, the strat with the Wrecker part, but there's something not natural about the high end, still has that direct modeler sound.
Does the unit have a way to make the mic sim sound further away. It just doesn't sound like a mic on a guitar speaker to me.
It actually needs more imperfection, it just sounds too nice, like it's direct.

.. I dont know ,i had the Randall Modular stuff and my Vox module sounded like that Hiwatt clip .it had a very sharp almost distorting top end with the gain up and single coils .
it could be the guitar, the les paul BE sounded better to me

The problem I always hear with modelers trying to really sound like an amp (cheap and expensive modelers) is that I've never actually heard it sound like a real mic on a real guitar speaker, the top end gives it away and the fact that everything sounds too in phase. It must be really tough to accomplish it I guess. With a real mic on a real speaker, you get all kinds of phasing imperfections throughout the mids and highs (which actually sounds cool to me)...modelers 'almost' sound like a mic on a guitar speaker, but they're too precise....perfectly direct sounding. I was hoping an expensive unit like this would have almost conquered it, but I don't hear it.

 

[gtr31]

Fwiw i saw a kid playing one of the line6
Dt amps the other day and i gotta say
It sounded pretty damn good
For a modelled preamp it had sparkling
Cleans a badass classic British crunch
And some crazy higain 5150 ish with harmonics
Leaping off the fretboard it was ummm surprising

 

[Mr. Willy]

Sounds good. At least until Version III comes out.

 

[Chubtone]

Pete,
Is that a '66 strat you are using at the end? It has the same "interesting" type of sunburst my '66 strat and '66 P-bass have.

 

[ejecta]

Pete posted this on another forum and I think he makes a very very good point.

With all due respect to the guys who think things are too bright, I think that alot of guys just don't realize how bright and edgy alot of what we consider "classic" tones really are. I GO for bright tones because you need that high end, IMO, to cut through a band and a mix. EVH, Pete Townsend, alot of Page, the tones are BRIGHT brash and snotty. Not really that pleasant to listen to on their own but in a mix they are just right.

I learned this when I put an Ecstacy blue channel up against a 67 plexi in the studio. I finally got what all the fuss was about- the plexi was like a wild horse, bordering on out of control- whereas the Bogner, while a nice sounding amp and fun to play through, coming out of a Bogner 2-12" sounded "like an already recorded guitar tone, coming out of studio monitors".

If it's too pretty, it ain't going to move you and cut through like the classic tones we all know and love did.

A guy responded with this that sums up my thoughts as well

Well said.

This is a stone-cold truth known to most people that have done any serious recording.

I guess if practicing at home to backing tracks or even critiquing the clips of others is your main focus then it is kind of non-essential information.

But it's how things roll in the studio.

Listen to any holy grail Van Halen, AC/DC or ZZ Top recording and you will have a new benchmark for harsh and ugly top end. But it worked. If you listen too carefully it ain´t pretty.

 

[rupe]

Pete posted this on another forum and I think he makes a very very good point.

With all due respect to the guys who think things are too bright, I think that alot of guys just don't realize how bright and edgy alot of what we consider "classic" tones really are. I GO for bright tones because you need that high end, IMO, to cut through a band and a mix. EVH, Pete Townsend, alot of Page, the tones are BRIGHT brash and snotty. Not really that pleasant to listen to on their own but in a mix they are just right.

I learned this when I put an Ecstacy blue channel up against a 67 plexi in the studio. I finally got what all the fuss was about- the plexi was like a wild horse, bordering on out of control- whereas the Bogner, while a nice sounding amp and fun to play through, coming out of a Bogner 2-12" sounded "like an already recorded guitar tone, coming out of studio monitors".

If it's too pretty, it ain't going to move you and cut through like the classic tones we all know and love did.

A guy responded with this that sums up my thoughts as well

Well said.

This is a stone-cold truth known to most people that have done any serious recording.

I guess if practicing at home to backing tracks or even critiquing the clips of others is your main focus then it is kind of non-essential information.

But it's how things roll in the studio.

Listen to any holy grail Van Halen, AC/DC or ZZ Top recording and you will have a new benchmark for harsh and ugly top end. But it worked. If you listen too carefully it ain´t pretty.

I recall the same thing from a Pink Floyd "classic album" special on VH-1 (can't remember if it was Dark Side or The Wall). They were isolating Gilmour's solo and it sounded awful...very ratty, harsh, and shrill. As soon as they added in the rest of the tracks it sat perfectly in the mix and all signs of harshness were gone.

 

[ejecta]

Pete posted this on another forum and I think he makes a very very good point.

With all due respect to the guys who think things are too bright, I think that alot of guys just don't realize how bright and edgy alot of what we consider "classic" tones really are. I GO for bright tones because you need that high end, IMO, to cut through a band and a mix. EVH, Pete Townsend, alot of Page, the tones are BRIGHT brash and snotty. Not really that pleasant to listen to on their own but in a mix they are just right.

I learned this when I put an Ecstacy blue channel up against a 67 plexi in the studio. I finally got what all the fuss was about- the plexi was like a wild horse, bordering on out of control- whereas the Bogner, while a nice sounding amp and fun to play through, coming out of a Bogner 2-12" sounded "like an already recorded guitar tone, coming out of studio monitors".

If it's too pretty, it ain't going to move you and cut through like the classic tones we all know and love did.

A guy responded with this that sums up my thoughts as well

Well said.

This is a stone-cold truth known to most people that have done any serious recording.

I guess if practicing at home to backing tracks or even critiquing the clips of others is your main focus then it is kind of non-essential information.

But it's how things roll in the studio.

Listen to any holy grail Van Halen, AC/DC or ZZ Top recording and you will have a new benchmark for harsh and ugly top end. But it worked. If you listen too carefully it ain´t pretty.

I recall the same thing from a Pink Floyd "classic album" special on VH-1 (can't remember if it was Dark Side or The Wall). They were isolating Gilmour's solo and it sounded awful...very ratty, harsh, and shrill. As soon as they added in the rest of the tracks it sat perfectly in the mix and all signs of harshness were gone.

Yep its very true. Recording for the mix of a song and recording to get props from the golden eared tone gurus on the iterwebz are two different things.

 

[polaris20]

Not saying that Pete was posting the end all tones but until you all with golden ears consistently post clips that kill this with your holy grail amps I'll quote our fellow forumite Vrad.... I put an "*" with your opinion.

I will also say I don't hear huge leap from the original AxeFX's and this one. The difference may come in player interaction so I will leave that part until I play one.

Also Pete said he thought he was getting tones that "sound really good"..... so are you guys saying Pete has shitty taste or tin ears?

I don't think that's really fair to say at all. Most everyone has been polite, even if they didn't dig the tones. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean you have to immediately produce clips that kill it. I didn't like the tones either, and I didn't think they sounded any better than the original does/did. That being said, Pete's an excellent player, and I appreciate his efforts in posting vids when he doesn't have to.

It seems as soon as the Axe-FX isn't someone's particular cup of tea, the fanboys quickly start with the "golden ear" or "cork sniffer" accusations, which isn't right.
I think Lamborghinis are ugly cars. Does that mean I need to immediately show pictures of my McLaren?

 

[ejecta]

Not saying that Pete was posting the end all tones but until you all with golden ears consistently post clips that kill this with your holy grail amps I'll quote our fellow forumite Vrad.... I put an "*" with your opinion.

I will also say I don't hear huge leap from the original AxeFX's and this one. The difference may come in player interaction so I will leave that part until I play one.

Also Pete said he thought he was getting tones that "sound really good"..... so are you guys saying Pete has shitty taste or tin ears?

I don't think that's really fair to say at all. Most everyone has been polite, even if they didn't dig the tones. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean you have to immediately produce clips that kill it. I didn't like the tones either, and I didn't think they sounded any better than the original does/did. That being said, Pete's an excellent player, and I appreciate his efforts in posting vids when he doesn't have to.

It seems as soon as the Axe-FX isn't someone's particular cup of tea, the fanboys quickly start with the "golden ear" or "cork sniffer" accusations, which isn't right.
I think Lamborghinis are ugly cars. Does that mean I need to immediately show pictures of my McLaren?

Trust me I'm no AxeFX fan boy. I think those tones could be better and tube amps for me still sound better and in the right hands record better. I think the Axe is a cool tool for some situations and for others it falls short.

I just find it comical that every clip of the new Axe has the same ol guys talking about how the tone sucks, weird top end when I've heard ass loads of clips of tube amps that sounded like ass... eve ones when I heard in person sounded great.

Now we have a guy that has logged more time playing with top recording artists, more time in the studio than all of us combined, has his own signature amp and posts clips that he said in his opinion were "good tones". I guess according to the tone guru's around here Pete's ear for tone is severely lacking.

 

[Meathead]

That's sweet that you've got Pete's back...here's a song for you and Pete.

 

[ejecta]

That's sweet that you've got Pete's back...here's a song for you and Pete.

Pete's a big boy and has enough professional creditability to stand on his own. I feel no need to get his back... but that was sweet of you to post a youtube clip for your imagined manly relationship that you think we have.

 

[polaris20]

Not saying that Pete was posting the end all tones but until you all with golden ears consistently post clips that kill this with your holy grail amps I'll quote our fellow forumite Vrad.... I put an "*" with your opinion.

I will also say I don't hear huge leap from the original AxeFX's and this one. The difference may come in player interaction so I will leave that part until I play one.

Also Pete said he thought he was getting tones that "sound really good"..... so are you guys saying Pete has shitty taste or tin ears?

I don't think that's really fair to say at all. Most everyone has been polite, even if they didn't dig the tones. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean you have to immediately produce clips that kill it. I didn't like the tones either, and I didn't think they sounded any better than the original does/did. That being said, Pete's an excellent player, and I appreciate his efforts in posting vids when he doesn't have to.

It seems as soon as the Axe-FX isn't someone's particular cup of tea, the fanboys quickly start with the "golden ear" or "cork sniffer" accusations, which isn't right.
I think Lamborghinis are ugly cars. Does that mean I need to immediately show pictures of my McLaren?

Trust me I'm no AxeFX fan boy. I think those tones could be better and tube amps for me still sound better and in the right hands record better. I think the Axe is a cool tool for some situations and for others it falls short.

I just find it comical that every clip of the new Axe has the same ol guys talking about how the tone sucks, weird top end when I've heard ass loads of clips of tube amps that sounded like ass... eve ones when I heard in person sounded great.

Now we have a guy that has logged more time playing with top recording artists, more time in the studio than all of us combined, has his own signature amp and posts clips that he said in his opinion were "good tones". I guess according to the tone guru's around here Pete's ear for tone is severely lacking.

I certainly wouldn't say the clips sucked, not at all. I just didn't think they were mindbending. In other words, I don't think the hype is justified. His normal Axe clips sound just as good.

 

[ejecta]

I just didn't think they were mindbending. In other words, I don't think the hype is justified.

Same could be said about the hype and clips of the CCV. That said.... I personally give more weight to a person who is a professional recording musician than any self proclaimed tone guru pontificating tone based on youtube clips..... and yes I'm talking about myself as one of those pontificators as well.

 

[polaris20]

I just didn't think they were mindbending. In other words, I don't think the hype is justified.

Same could be said about the hype and clips of the CCV.

I guess. I just think that all the people rushing to unload their Standards and Ultras are nuts. They just don't sound that different, especially from the clips I've heard from the v.11 update. Why bother?

 

[stratotone]

I'm waiting for someone to record a real tube amp, with a video showing a Axe FX II... and for people to talk about how they can 'hear the 1s and 0s' in the fake tone. There are a lot of people who want any modelling clip to fail, and will rail one mercilessly but make excuses for a tube amp recording.

BTW, before I get accused of being a modelling fanboy, I have several really nice tube amps and some nice modelling amps. They are just tools - I think some people get too bent out of shape in either direction.

The other Pete

 

[ejecta]

I just didn't think they were mindbending. In other words, I don't think the hype is justified.

Same could be said about the hype and clips of the CCV.

I guess. I just think that all the people rushing to unload their Standards and Ultras are nuts. They just don't sound that different, especially from the clips I've heard from the v.11 update. Why bother?

I actually agree. I still have my standard and it will stay. I will get the 2 at some point.... not for the reason that I hear some huge tonal difference based on clips because I don't hear that much change but that can completely change in person. Also 2 addresses some of the hardware features I thought were lacking on the current ones.

I'm waiting for someone to record a real tube amp, with a video showing a Axe FX II... and for people to talk about how they can 'hear the 1s and 0s' in the fake tone. There are a lot of people who want any modelling clip to fail, and will rail one mercilessly but make excuses for a tube amp recording.

BTW, before I get accused of being a modelling fanboy, I have several really nice tube amps and some nice modelling amps. They are just tools - I think some people get too bent out of shape in either direction.

The other Pete

+10000000000