I EQ matched the Axe FX II clips to the Axe FX III samples in your video and the difference is primarily in the low-end, specifically a -1.42dB low-shelf cut at around 430Hz in the Axe FX III by comparison. Pretty easy to approximate using the Axe FX II's PEQ. An easy way to verify this is to record two sets of identical samples (from both units) on separate tracks in your DAW using the Axe FX III's Looper block, then in your DAW, load FabFilter Q2 in the Axe FX II track and create a -1.42dB low shelf at 400Hz and A/B the samples. While the result isn't absolutely 100% identical, I think it's close enough to stump most people in a blind test, in my opinion.
firmware 10: Axe Fx 2 sounds exactly like a real amp firmware 11: Axe Fx 2 sounds even more like a real amp .... firmware quantum: Axe Fx 2 is indistinguishable from a real amp Axe fx 3 comes out: Axe Fx 2 sounds like plastic
People listen with their eyes more than they do with their ears. It's almost religious, if people want to believe that a new fancy toy is that much better they will believe it even if it's not. There's a cover I did on my channel where people said wow the clean tone from your Gibson sounds so good and "warm". then they were surprised when I told them it's the tone from an ESP horizon 3 with DiMarzio Dominion pickups. I just mimed the video with my Gibson. Psychology is a very powerful thing.
This is a definite. When I pu the Kemper in the AxeFXII's loop and use the front end of the AxeFXII to play through the Kemper, there is a tonal AND feel difference. However, tuning Kemper out to the AxeFXII just for recording, it sounds the same as if Kemper via spdif to computer. Part of this might actually be how the input on the two units works. I think the AXEFXIII can also model (or physically change) impedance on the front end kind of like a UAD Apollo.. bottom not sure. I did read that the AXEFXIII can actually load your pickups (or simulate it) which makes it interact with the guitar a bit more... this might mean that the AXEFXIII will finally be able to model fuzz pedals properly which would be awesome! Anyhow, you really have to do a split of the signal before both units and then out of both into a soundcard for a fairer comparison. Also, you might wanna test both via usb out... tonsee of they sound different on regards to the output DA vs digital out. The DA might affect the tone too, since the AxeFXIII said to have upgraded converters with burr Brown chips. In the end, whoever netween Kemper and Fractal implements selectable samplerates will win this war... at least a major battle. With the new whizbang converters, it's a sin that they didn't make the III more flexible! One might even be able to use it as an audio interface replacement for real. Meanwhile, I'm playing Kemper and using the II for extra FX.. and as a soundcard too, but I'm really getting sick of the lack of flexibility. On top of this, these guys need to go VST somehow too. Reamping is a real PITA since its touch to do two channels at the same time, and plugins are just sooooo convenient. Line6 has done it with the Helix. Not having this functionality and the ability to use some AxeFX effects like the 2290 in one's DAW like a plugin you can just drop in is a pain in the arse for the musician who doesn't want a ton of outboard gear routing B.S., especially in digital land. I know they're scared to cannibalize their own profits, but these functionalities would slay... especially using the AXEFX as a plugin and sound card would be awesome.
The audience will TOTALLY not notice the difference between them they aren't even going to know if you have an Axe FX a Line-6 or a Korg A-1 so, get the Axe FX 2 it makes perfect sense unless you have a studio in your house.
Sounds like more a presence adjustment ,EQ , compression to me. Pretty close.Going to stick with my fx ll. Still need a good ear to dial any of this stuff in. I’m sure there will be a anew series to rival all of this gear soon.
I feel like the low end on the 3 is slightly tighter and has more highs. But the 2 sounds amazing. So kinda just a upgrade for someone who really wants that extra control and power of the 3
The Axe-Fx II sounds great but the new Axe-Fx III sounds better...more in your face. I prefer the more "natural mids" of the Axe-Fx III. Looking forward to it :)
Thanks for the review. I know it is extra work editing but it would be a lot easier to know which Axe fx is being played with subtitles rather than having to listen closely or happen to hear you say which one you are playing. Just a piece of advice. Great review, thanks so much for doing that!
I use the Axe FX II XL+ as my audio interface with Cubase 10, and I have to set the Axe FX buffering in Cubase to a sample rate of 1024 to stop pops. That gives me a latency of 25 ms, which is quite noticable when playing VSTs in real time. Is the Axe FX III faster in terms of soundcard and less latency? Thank you!
Not a perfect A/B test since you are routing the II into the III. Even though you are separating them, it's not a true A/B test. get a switchbox and manually switch inputs. then use separate outputs into a two different channels into a mixer or identical cabs and mic. This is actually an invalid test. Good demonstration of mixing II & III into the III for more options.
Hi, great comparison. Can you do the same with the latest Firmware for Axe FX II. There are al lot of changes in the newest on. It is officially the same technology.
The only thing that really bugs me with the Axe Fx II is the EMI (listen to 13.09). To me, that was a design flaw with the Axe Fx II. I hope the III will entirely fix that.
Man I love both. The “tightness” is so marginal between the units. The tone abilities of both are completely beyond acceptable and all too often these minuscule differences create such a niche division based on ego and bias. I’m sure in the real world for instance, Dude A could make a better tone on an axe fx2 than Dude B on an axe fx 3. And let’s not forget the “real amp” tone nazis that are clearly compensating for their lack of self confidence who STILL FAIL to record a real amp well lol
I mean I guess, but even a shit tube amp compared to a great tube amp is a difference, and when you’re talking about trying to achieve a modeled sound of a great tube amp… that difference matters to some people. It’s not snobbery or who to enjoy playing.
@@bramesque I suppose there is a mathematical way to compare axe 2 24bit at 48khz, same as the 3? Might be the way 3 was set up but definitely not the same awe factor on RU-vid vids for the two. Nam zappa and others made it sound more musical?
@@rjlguitars there must be a mathematical (laboratory) way indeed, but it is always hard to explain the way we hear things. and what Adam is saying about the difference in feel is also important. sometimes i don't like a preset because of the feel, but the sound can be quite nice. I have the same thing happening with tube amps. it was indeed not the most musical test for people who like breakup and mild drives, but the Fender sounded quite nice on the FXII
Good analysis but it would be more practical to simply A/B the tones with minimal explanation. I also found the background music a little distracting. You are very knowledgeable but I could not sit through 30 minutes of explanation. A concise 5-10 minute to the point video would have been better but regardless, thanks for sharing.
@@mlsoundlab No worries- didn't catch that first one. Don't get me wrong, I like a little dialog and you are an expert- but I just found it to drag on a bit...still good info. overall but I had to stop after ~15 minutes. Quick question- do you recommend the FC-6 or FC-12 for a casual, at home only player? I want it to be simple to use- usually have about 5 different sound pre-sets.
ML Sound Lab sure thing i know, but it has its own feeling and its still different from digital, i love ax fx and all these new digital stuff on the market for home recording but in the studio we would never use any of them we use plexies and peavies only all analog stuff
