Axe-FX doing Jazz/Fusion

[Agreed]

It's definitely the kind of unit you'd want to build your setup around, costing as much as a good head. I am a big fan of modeling gear, and I would love to own one - it seems like the best game in town outside of software modeling (okay, technically it is software modeling, perhaps I should say VST-based modeling).

I would like to hear some comparison clips of the best examples of AxeFX Ultra's "standard genre" tones (for example, clean jazz, clean country, low gain pop, low gain blues, medium gain pop, medium gain rock, high gain rock, high gain metal, etc. etc.) compared to the best examples of the latest editions of Amplitube, Guitar Rig, etc.

Those are the other big contenders as far as depth of modeling and realism go, so for me that's where the competition is really at. Lower end modeling consoles, even the $500 ones, just aren't aiming at the same demographic. They can sound good (goodness knows I like my Korg AX series unit and Zoom G9.2tt), but not nearly as good as these, "real deal" units. Possible exception being the Rocktron Utopia, which has four very well modeled units with a high degree of complexity - but then it doesn't have nearly the depth and flexibility of the AxeFX and what I view as its VST competitors, which (it can't be forgotten) require the expense of a good computer or laptop on top of the relatively low price of the software.

Edit: I also think that the AxeFX ad copy is getting a bit dated. 500mhz dual-core was not "more powerful than most desktop computers" when the unit first came out, and now that is painfully out-of-date. For $1200, I can put together a workhorse (that is, no attention paid to gaming, etc., just to processing power and I/O capabilities for VST use) unit with a quad-core, state-of-the-art desktop processor running at a speed of 2.4ghz with a very efficient pipeline, tons of RAM, etc., which could run as many instances of the $300 Amplitube or Guitar Rig software chained together as you like, smoking the AxeFX in all ways but - possibly - tone (which is the one thing, as mentioned, that I am curious about). That's $1500 for a package which brutalizes the AxeFX in terms of processing power. The question remaining, of course, is just which one sounds better

[Puppetyr]

It's definitely the kind of unit you'd want to build your setup around, costing as much as a good head. I am a big fan of modeling gear, and I would love to own one - it seems like the best game in town outside of software modeling (okay, technically it is software modeling, perhaps I should say VST-based modeling). I would like to hear some comparison clips of the best examples of AxeFX Ultra's "standard genre" tones (for example, clean jazz, clean country, low gain pop, low gain blues, medium gain pop, medium gain rock, high gain rock, high gain metal, etc. etc.) compared to the best examples of the latest editions of Amplitube, Guitar Rig, etc. Those are the other big contenders as far as depth of modeling and realism go, so for me that's where the competition is really at. Lower end modeling consoles, even the $500 ones, just aren't aiming at the same demographic. They can sound good (goodness knows I like my Korg AX series unit and Zoom G9.2tt), but not nearly as good as these, "real deal" units. Possible exception being the Rocktron Utopia, which has four very well modeled units with a high degree of complexity - but then it doesn't have nearly the depth and flexibility of the AxeFX and what I view as its VST competitors, which (it can't be forgotten) require the expense of a good computer or laptop on top of the relatively low price of the software.

 

 

I don't have a lot of experience with the software modelers, but I did use Guitar Rig a bit (I think it was version 2) and it had some quite bad stability issues I found, particularly whilst being used in conjunction with DAWs. Also, the quality of the patches on it were nowhere near what I'm hearing in these Axe-Fx clips. Besides, I would much prefer to have a dedicated piece of hardware than something which required a PC to run, with all the potential secondary problems that could entail. Just my 2p.

[JoshuaLogan]

It's definitely the kind of unit you'd want to build your setup around, costing as much as a good head. I am a big fan of modeling gear, and I would love to own one - it seems like the best game in town outside of software modeling (okay, technically it is software modeling, perhaps I should say VST-based modeling). I would like to hear some comparison clips of the best examples of AxeFX Ultra's "standard genre" tones (for example, clean jazz, clean country, low gain pop, low gain blues, medium gain pop, medium gain rock, high gain rock, high gain metal, etc. etc.) compared to the best examples of the latest editions of Amplitube, Guitar Rig, etc. Those are the other big contenders as far as depth of modeling and realism go, so for me that's where the competition is really at. Lower end modeling consoles, even the $500 ones, just aren't aiming at the same demographic. They can sound good (goodness knows I like my Korg AX series unit and Zoom G9.2tt), but not nearly as good as these, "real deal" units. Possible exception being the Rocktron Utopia, which has four very well modeled units with a high degree of complexity - but then it doesn't have nearly the depth and flexibility of the AxeFX and what I view as its VST competitors, which (it can't be forgotten) require the expense of a good computer or laptop on top of the relatively low price of the software. Edit: I also think that the AxeFX ad copy is getting a bit dated. 500mhz dual-core was not "more powerful than most desktop computers" when the unit first came out, and now that is painfully out-of-date. For $1200, I can put together a workhorse (that is, no attention paid to gaming, etc., just to processing power and I/O capabilities for VST use) unit with a quad-core, state-of-the-art desktop processor running at a speed of 2.4ghz with a very efficient pipeline, tons of RAM, etc., which could run as many instances of the $300 Amplitube or Guitar Rig software chained together as you like, smoking the AxeFX in all ways but - possibly - tone (which is the one thing, as mentioned, that I am curious about). That's $1500 for a package which brutalizes the AxeFX in terms of processing power. The question remaining, of course, is just which one sounds better

Yup... honestly I'm really surprised so many people are so happy with running it through the QSC HPR 122i powered monitors instead of guitar cabs... like Tony (mctallica1), who posts on here..... He's had tons of really high end amps and is saying he's happier with the axe fx + powered monitors than he's ever been with his EXPENSIVE tube amps, Diezel 4x12, and Voodoo 4x12.... that's saying a lot.

It's hard for me to wrap my head around the idea of using powered monitors instead of guitar cabs, but I'm willing to give it a shot. If it sounds good, there's so many benefits to it..... You can easily play in stereo with stereo effects, you can use them as your main amplification on stage, or you can use them as monitors for yourself and go straight into the PA and expect a very similar tone.... you can direct record and use the same patches you do for playing live and again expect a very similar tone... and for me, I could easily move my whole setup in my small compact hatchback toyota corolla... That'd be tough to do if I wanted to play in stereo and used guitar cabs...

[Agreed]

Well, the "dedicated piece of hardware" in this case is just a rackmounted PC, specialized to run the AxeFX stuff. I see what you're saying, though - assuming he's programming it rigorously, you don't have system overhead and the bugs that can erupt from using a combination of programs, like your OS, VST host, and perhaps multiple instances of VSTs along with the possible hardware-spawned bugs due to the inability to test every possible setup in those software programs.

I have never had any problems with Amplitube 2, but it is a much more likely scenario that a rig running Amplitube 2 will crash due to the reasons mentioned above than it is that the AxeFX unit would suffer a similar fate,as it is made with one, well-known and well-established hardware configuration. So, point well taken there.

I am more interested in how they sound at their best compared to one another, because I might consider choosing one or the other based on that comparison. I have heard some amazing results from Amplitube 2 and revisions above, less good ones from the Guitar Rig series but I like their attention to live use with their integrated footboard controller... And the AxeFX definitely sounds amazing, so it's steep competition.

[Oddlogic]

 

Well, the "dedicated piece of hardware" in this case is just a rackmounted PC, specialized to run the AxeFX stuff.

 

 

Without knowing much about the internals of the axe-fx, I can almost guarantee that this statement is wrong. The hardware used in the axe-fx is most likely very specialized, and the architecture is not comparable to a "regular" pc.

 

See how the graphic card in your computer most likely will run at a much lower frequency than your cpu, it's the same principle.(that's also why it is practically meaningless to say that since we have 3 ghz cpu's in our computers, it will be much faster than the 500 Mhz cpu's in the axe-fx, 'cause in reality it's not.)

 

The hardware in the axe-fx is very impressive from what I've read, and I honestly don't think "regular" software modellers you run on a computer (like amplitube and guitar rig) will be up to it's standards for at least a few more years.

[Puppetyr]

Without knowing much about the internals of the axe-fx, I can almost guarantee that this statement is wrong. The hardware used in the axe-fx is most likely very specialized, and the architecture is not comparable to a "regular" pc. See how the graphic card in your computer most likely will run at a much lower frequency than your cpu, it's the same principle.(that's also why it is practically meaningless to say that since we have 3 ghz cpu's in our computers, it will be much faster than the 500 Mhz cpu's in the axe-fx, 'cause in reality it's not.) The hardware in the axe-fx is very impressive from what I've read, and I honestly don't think "regular" software modellers you run on a computer (like amplitube and guitar rig) will be up to it's standards for at least a few more years.

 

 

Yeah from what I understand the processors in it are the absolute best DSPs currently available.

 

Not to mention (as Agreed pointed out) you don't have all the overhead of an OS, secondary software etc running at the same time.

[Agreed]

Without knowing much about the internals of the axe-fx, I can almost guarantee that this statement is wrong. The hardware used in the axe-fx is most likely very specialized, and the architecture is not comparable to a "regular" pc. See how the graphic card in your computer most likely will run at a much lower frequency than your cpu, it's the same principle.(that's also why it is practically meaningless to say that since we have 3 ghz cpu's in our computers, it will be much faster than the 500 Mhz cpu's in the axe-fx, 'cause in reality it's not.) The hardware in the axe-fx is very impressive from what I've read, and I honestly don't think "regular" software modellers you run on a computer (like amplitube and guitar rig) will be up to it's standards for at least a few more years.

I'm very well aware of the nuts and bolts of PCs, been building and servicing them since I was a wee lad, and even did a short-lived stint as one of those silly A+ certified maroons... oy, that was a waste of time... - but I get what you're saying nonetheless. It is very possible (and really, much more plausible) that he's got some killer DSPs packed in there, but notice that it is he who makes the comparison to desktop computers, not I, so if I'm misled I blame him!

[Puppetyr]

I'm very well aware of the nuts and bolts of PCs, been building and servicing them since I was a wee lad, and even did a short-lived stint as one of those silly A+ certified maroons... oy, that was a waste of time... - but I get what you're saying nonetheless. It is very possible (and really, much more plausible) that he's got some killer DSPs packed in there, but notice that it is he who makes the comparison to desktop computers, not I, so if I'm misled I blame him!

As you say, perhaps that reference to desktops is a bit outdated now. However, bear in mind that it's a 500 MHz dual core processor completely dedicated to audio processing, so it's still got to compete pretty well with even modern dual core chips.

To put that into perspective, the PODxt has a single core 66 MHz chip to handle everything.

Either way, the Axe-Fx is an absolute beast by the sound of it

[Agreed]

As you say, perhaps that reference to desktops is a bit outdated now. However, bear in mind that it's a 500 MHz dual core processor completely dedicated to audio processing, so it's still got to compete pretty well with even modern dual core chips. To put that into perspective, the PODxt has a single core 66 MHz chip to handle everything. Either way, the Axe-Fx is an absolute beast by the sound of it

No real argument from me, except to note that the current generation of affordable but powerful desktop processors are quad-core, not dual-core. A nit-pick maybe but I think it bears on the comparison.

I don't know why he even needs to make that, except as marketing towards people who liken computers to "fast and powerful" and would be impressed by a rack unit that's like a computer machine!

[Puppetyr]

No real argument from me, except to note that the current generation of affordable but powerful desktop processors are quad-core, not dual-core. A nit-pick maybe but I think it bears on the comparison.

 

 

Yeah, I know quad-cores are becoming more common place now, but from what I've read they show little to no real world performance increase over dual cores. I suspect that part of that is because virtually no programs are currently optimised for quad-cores, but I digress...

[17 Tubes]

Hopefully a few people listen.

Did you record that? Sorry if it's a dumb question.




REFRESHING! A very cool and....HAPPY tune! I just listened to it all the way through...twice. And a third.

The sound is of excellent quality. Definitely has high-end studio tone and effects.


Nice to hear a clip with no distortion. I love it. I disagree that we can only judge it with hi-gain. It was a nice warm tone...who cares if it's "tube-like" or high-end SS, if it sounds good...it's good! We'll have plenty of gain clips around, I am sure.

[Puppetyr]

Nice to hear a clip with no distortion. I love it. I disagree that we can only judge it with hi-gain. It was a nice warm tone...who cares if it's "tube-like" or high-end SS, if it sounds good...it's good! We'll have plenty of gain clips around, I am sure.

Here's a medley of various tones and effects, recorded direct with no post processing etc. Showcases its abilities quite well

http://www.g66.eu/images/stories/audio/sound19.mp3

[Agreed]

Yeah, I know quad-cores are becoming more common place now, but from what I've read they show little to no real world performance increase over dual cores. I suspect that part of that is because virtually no programs are currently optimised for quad-cores, but I digress...

Multi-threaded applications show a roughly proportional increase, as far as I've read. Some things probably aren't well optimized for more than one core, but Mp3 encoding, video editing and encoding, encryption/decryption tasks, video and audio rendering, and a host of other easily multithreaded tasks definitely benefit from the added cores. Additionally, with the extra cores, you can set affinity for different applications so that you can parallelize quickly and easily - which does bear on VST audio routing and processing.

We're taking this pretty far afield, though - I never intended to really dig into desktop processing versus AxeFX's processing power, except to question the sound quality of AxeFX versus the high-end guitar amp and effects emulation softwares

[mctallica1]

I like my Axe Fx
















































A Lot!))



SO much so that I haven't been gassing for anything.

It was a MAJOR leap for me to go from GREAT tube amps to the Axe and powered monitors. I didn't do it all at once, but rather in stages as I trusted the Axe Fx more and more.

I don't own any tube amps and have no plans to get one any time soon. The only tings I am Gassing for are another Axe Fx (I am onthe waiting list) for backup and a desk or something to use at home.

[Puppetyr]

It was a MAJOR leap for me to go from GREAT tube amps to the Axe and powered monitors. I didn't do it all at once, but rather in stages as I trusted the Axe Fx more and more. I don't own any tube amps and have no plans to get one any time soon. The only tings I am Gassing for are another Axe Fx (I am onthe waiting list) for backup and a desk or something to use at home.

This is encouraging

[starsnuffer]

Well, the "dedicated piece of hardware" in this case is just a rackmounted PC, specialized to run the AxeFX stuff. I see what you're saying, though - assuming he's programming it rigorously, you don't have system overhead and the bugs that can erupt from using a combination of programs, like your OS, VST host, and perhaps multiple instances of VSTs along with the possible hardware-spawned bugs due to the inability to test every possible setup in those software programs. I have never had any problems with Amplitube 2, but it is a much more likely scenario that a rig running Amplitube 2 will crash due to the reasons mentioned above than it is that the AxeFX unit would suffer a similar fate,as it is made with one, well-known and well-established hardware configuration. So, point well taken there. I am more interested in how they sound at their best compared to one another, because I might consider choosing one or the other based on that comparison. I have heard some amazing results from Amplitube 2 and revisions above, less good ones from the Guitar Rig series but I like their attention to live use with their integrated footboard controller... And the AxeFX definitely sounds amazing, so it's steep competition.

 

 

 

You would have to spend big bucks on outboard gear with really nice converters (think Apogee) to get the kind of sound quality built into the hardware of the axe-FX.

 

Sure, you can do the actually processing in a computer, but that's only one part of the chain.

 

FAS is also working on VST plugins as well, so perhaps once they come out there will be a better "in box" comparison.

 

Personally, I can't stand Amplitude 2 or the new Digidesign guitar emulator. They both sound like rat-piss to my ears.

 

-W

[Agreed]

You would have to spend big bucks on outboard gear with really nice converters (think Apogee) to get the kind of sound quality built into the hardware of the axe-FX. Sure, you can do the actually processing in a computer, but that's only one part of the chain. FAS is also working on VST plugins as well, so perhaps once they come out there will be a better "in box" comparison. Personally, I can't stand Amplitude 2 or the new Digidesign guitar emulator. They both sound like rat-piss to my ears. -W

Well that's not very nice... But if it's your view, it's your view.

I agree that quality DACs and ADCs have to be taken into consideration, but that is not a deal-killer. A good firewire audio interface definitely has good DACs.

It does begin to seem like the AxeFX costs less as the requirements to use Amplitube, et. al. begin to mount up - which only serves to highlight its excellent sound, not detract from it. I would like to reiterate that I am a big fan of modeling and that I am very interested in the AxeFX, not trying to tear it down in the slightest. But I also have a real curiosity about how the different modeling methods stack up, you know?

I look forward to a Fractal Audio VST/DX plugin - he's obviously incredibly talented in DSP programming, and it is nearly inevitable that a VST would be significantly less expensive than his current hardware-based setup...

The thing about VST is convenience, for me - I already have a good studio computer, so these extra expenses (if one were to "break in," so to speak) are not "extra." However, for apples:apples, one would have to assume that the individual investing in either AxeFX or Amplitube/Guitar Rig/Digidesign's thing, or whatever, would have to put together a good portable computer setup that would offer stability, fidelity, and speed comparable to the AxeFX, which is a pretty tall order.

[starsnuffer]

. . . I agree that quality DACs and ADCs have to be taken into consideration, but that is not a deal-killer. A good firewire audio interface definitely has good DACs.. . ..

 

 

Actually, you would be SURPRISED.

 

The audio interface market is very competitive, and they all cut corners. Anything you buy from Digidesign, Presonus, Mackie, ect, all have cheap mass-produced converters.

 

Infact, that is usually the first thing swapped out if you send off your interface to get upgraded by a third party.

 

You really do have to spend major dollars to get an interface that uses top quality converters.

 

IF you do everything in box, this is less of an issue, but you still need something to convert your guitar signal to digital. There's just no inexpensive alternative that does that right now with great quality.

 

-W