Видео

@@guilhordas Hi! That depends more or less on the music you want to play. Just see it like that: If you play music / live shows that are doable with a Plexi, this one will work because you even have the possibility to use two channels (live / preset mode).

@martingerrardxguitar it is possible I hav 2 preset? 1 clean 1 drive??

@ Yes. You can switch between „live“ mode (the actual settings that you can see at the moment on the knobs) and „preset“ mode (the last preset you saved or recalled using the UAFX app). That way, you can save a „clean-ish“ preset (after all, we‘re talking about a non-master-volume Marshall and not a Roland Jazz Chorus) and dial in a heavily overdriven preset with the knobs and switch between these two. If you‘re looking for devastating high-gain metal sounds and pristine cleans, maybe the Knuckles or the Anti are more for you (in my first video about the Knuckles, I demonstrate that). Don‘t forget that each one of the UAFX pedals is a very precise „digital copy“ of the „analog“ amp.

Well, but I guess we can agree that the native version and the QC-version sound very similar. Modeling-wise the UAFX pedals are lightyears away from everything else (the QC being one of the best "standard" modelers I daresay). On the other hand I saw Evergrey live in concert yesterday and Tom (singer / guitar) is playing a Quad Cortex. Didn't make much of a difference to him playing an amp.

Thank you for your opinion. Maybe your experience varies, but from my own experience, it actually feels like playing the actual amp, and that for the first time. My previous gear includes an Axe-FX III which is a practical piece of digital equipment but still far away from the sound of UA's physical modeling approach. Be invited to check out my previous videos and compare the sound. The interesting thing is: My fellow musicians immediately recognize the difference in rehearsals. Not too long ago, I brought the Quad Cortex to a rehearsal instead and received the comment "what happened to your good sound?" from my bass player. The (pro) singer of my other band always said that there is "something lacking" since I started playing modelers (and that went from Kemper to Axe-FX and QC) and guess what, it's not lacking no more :D Have a wonderful day!

@@martingerrardxguitar then you probably haven't managed to create equally good sounding presets in the qc and certainly in the axe fx imo. even in studio situations you can pretty much get 99,999% close to the actual amp sound with the axe fx and the options it offers. the ua boxes just eliminate much of the customization to the sound to make it more user friendly. another indication to this is that your reference point is a live (rehearsal) sound which is much easier to get right and much less likely even for the player (let alone others) to notice differences from an actual amp

@Takispappas-u5u With the dual-knob layout and lack of MIDI / external control features on the UAFX units I honestly wouldn’t call them „user-friendly“, the biggest difference is that the physical modeling used for creating the individual amp is simply superior. Alone the interpretation of playing dynamics (that is even visibly represented in the waveforms when recording) tells a different story. For the first time, this is a real digital copy of an amp. I doubt you played the Anti or the Knuckles and I wonder how you ended up with an Axe FX III if you think that the UAFX pedals are expensive. So just stating something out of thin air while probably not knowing the product or the actual amp it‘s interpreting is pretty lame. If I am mistaken, I am looking forward to seeing your own video comparing your Axe FX to any of the recent UAD pedals! Thanks.

​@@Takispappas-u5u In terms of responsiveness, you cannot beat the UAFX pedals. Whereas the Axe FX and other modellers offer more options for effects etc. to create your overall sound, which you obviously don't get with a UAFX pedal outside of the speaker simulations (which are not IR's like the Axe FX, QC etc. use), the UAFX pedals are the most responsive simulations on the market when examining how a real amp reacts to your guitar playing. I have owned every high end modeller on the market and can confidently say that where a QC or Axe Fx reacts to, for example, the attack of the pick by sending out the same signal at a lower volume, the UAFX pedals react in a more "natural" way, as a real amp would, meaning that picking lightly will get you a less intense reaction from the amp than digging in. The differences are subtle but at the point we are in the digital modelling age, it's these fine details that make the difference both in a live and studio situation.

​@@martingerrardxguitar i have actually played albeit briefly the anti and its modeling was nowhere near as detailed and dynamic as the axe fx's. i have also played (and directly A/B'd) a few of the amps modeled in the axe fx with the real counterparts and you can't even tell the difference in a studio situation if you know how to configure the unit. so i dont know what you are doing wrong in comparing them (because you are clearly doing something wrong) but when directly compared in the same environment the fractal component modeling is clearly miles ahead. and if you think a few knobs on the pedal and a couple more options in the editor are not "user friendly" then it's pretty safe to assume that you didnt study/understand the axefx enough to create good tones in it. the options are all there (and there are tons more than the ua pedals). btw in order to compare the two you need to run them through the exact same cab/poweramp/IR etc. not just listen them in a rehearsal and say one is better. and YES of course i think the pedals are expensive. they offer 1 amp and 3 cabs each and you pay almost 400 euros for each one. in the axe fx apart from the superior modeling which improves with every firmware you get 300+ amps plus effects and all the routing and I/O options you need. and if you buy just the two pedals you are halfway in paying for the axe fx already...so yes i think they are overpriced as is the case with everything UA makes of course

@@canconeteirodopunk Two different amps. Both are great, Knuckles is maybe a little bit more versatile.

@ Thks

An Ox Box is usable when you already have plenty of real tube amps and want to connect them to the Ox instead of a real cab, so this is a completely different product... the UAFX amp pedals are the physical model of the amps with assorted mic/cab combos deriving from the original Ox Box.

Thanx Martin, but I meant the UAFX Ox Stomp (not the Ox Box, I mistyped)

UAFX Del Verb / UAFX Ox Stomp (has build in delay/reverb etc.) / Boss DD-8

Alright. Well, the Delay on the Ox Stomp is not tap-able afaik, also, the Stomp induces additional latency. I am trying to keep latency at a minimum with my boards at least for live playing, but that is a very personal feeling and might not be an issue for you. The DD8 punches way above its price tag feature-wise and was a pleasant surprise.

@@kettnsaeg Hi, thanks a lot for your question. As of my last measurements (I haven‘t used the QC recently) a setup like that is 2x 89 samples minimum (base I/O latency + ISR latency) and that‘s about 3.7 ms. Now it really depends on how many effects you want to use in your setup: As long as all the DSP operations of the chosen effect blocks can be done „in the shadow“ of the I/O latencies (which should be 2x 64 samples), no additional latency will be added to those 3.7 ms mentioned before. Then again, the better digital compressors like the CS or the Jewel add a bit more „dsp turns“ as they have to react very quickly to the signal, so they will increase the overall latency. To sum it up, from the minimum 3.7 ms mentioned before, you might get some „custom“ latency depending on what you are using or combining, and that‘s also the reason I have switched from the QC to a different hybrid analog system for my live playing.

@@martingerrardxguitar Thanks so much for your detailed response! I’m coming from a hobbyist perspective - home studio with a small band setup, currently running a tube amp -> load box -> interface and bass in the box. I’ve been looking for something to enhance that experience (like adding effects or using digital amps with my tube power amp) while also giving me a portable rig for guitar and bass. The Quad Cortex seems like a fitting piece of equipment, but I’m still on the fence. Anyway, thanks again and take care!

Thanks a lot for your comment, I am actually just playing some tunes in the studio... and I have to admit, the UAFX pedals reflect RL ... Knuckles over the Anti by far, but the 5150 was always problematic for me in the past. In regards to the board; It' impresses myself how little I miss from my effect-loaded QC presets. The DD-8 is such a great product and manages all the ltitle things. There's just one little piece missing on the pedalbaord and it should be here by Tuesday next week ⭐.

I hear ya. I went from using an Fm3 for a while back to a simpler pedalboard and much prefer a more straightforward and tactile setup.

Yes you can. Keep the following in mind, as least as "for now" (maybe they change it in an update, who knows): If you recall a preset (as in going from live to preset) that was saved with an activated overdrive / boost (let's call it "pedal"), your settings will be recalled exactly how you saved it (with the pedal enabled). But it doesn't register as "enabled" so when you switch to live mode the pedal will be off. In case you recall the preset and you enable the pedal after you recalled it, switching to live mode will keep the pedal enabled. Hope that is understandable!

Thank you! Totally depends on your style of playing but I would rather recommend one. Yesterday at rehearsal I was first playing without one, but it seems I am no longer used to the extreme reaction to playing dynamics from playing the wrong modelers for too long.

Yes. It feels like the real amp. It is actual "amp modeling", not just "our interpretation of a channel of an amp". The behavior towards playing dynamics is outstanding, but that was also great with the Lion last year. It's just not as practical as the 2024 pedals.By the way, I also have a Quad Cortex. It is no longer in use.

Well, it sounds great, but it's missing a TS ... on the Anti + Knuckles, you can leave the TS on for the Preset and have it off for the cleans on the Live ... I have to add... I always see it from the perspective of playing the stuff live.

@@jasongoddard8167 I am very sorry to hear about your issues. Here it‘s working pretty stable, sometimes takes a bit to load but it‘s worth the sound imho. But I remember I have read that cable connection to phone will be supported in a future update.

Did you turn off the noise gate on the QC input? The Logic feature sends out a very simple ping that will not come through the noise gate. In any case, you could always test the whole setup with Oblique Audio's RTL software which is free.

"The Cleans" at 06.42 - that's the Ruby amp pedal, at 09:08 it's the Anti.

I know exactly what you mean, but unfortunately, at the moment, there is no way to have any visual representation of your settings apart from looking at the knob position. As most pots on the UAFX amps control two parameters, it would be even more important to get some visual feedback in the app about the knob positions.

Hi Mark, thank you for your comments. For this concert year, the Lion board had to stay in the studio as the Quad Cortex solution is so much more versatile. But it's more like if you're fine with only having one output and you don't have to deliver dry and wet and DI to FOH, the Lion might also be a good partner. The one thing I really do not like about the UAFX designs is that the pots have two different functionalities which really destroys the overview... But then gain, not so long ago, I got hold of the UAFX Anti which resides on the small board right now.

Hi Taylorious, thanks a lot, sorry for the late answer. It was busy times. The output goes straight to the PA system. No speakers on stage. In the studio, I run one output to a FRFR and the same signal through the Lehle trafo to the audio interface.

Thanks. I don't use the tuner out because my Poly is ahead of the Drop so it's always in D / E regardless the tuning of the song we play.

Hi! The original "dry" signal that could be referred to as the "reaction to a note being struck on the guitar" and as such the signal that defines the feeling when playing the guitar is only processed on the first DSP row (DSP1). In the "old" times, that would've been the signal we'd get when going through stomp boxes into the amp. Whatever happens on rows three and four (DSP2) is a purely "wet" signal (reverb, delays etc.) that is independently added to the already existing "original dry" signal and as such adds color and texture to our playing without adding additional processing delay / latency to the entire signal chain. In the "old" times, that would often only happen at the mixer stage. I hope this explains it.

You can ping via Logic using the external I/O plug-in. As you can see, I selected input / output 5 representing the USB line. Alternatively, you can also use the free app RTL Utility. But that requires more calculating.

Thank you! Once I realized I had ended up with a 12 ms latency patch at this rehearsal where I thought I wouldn't be able to play no more I started developing these tricks to run low-latency patches. These days I run my live patch with everything I need (including an Overdrive on analog insert) @ 210 samples / 4.38 ms total latency.

That‘s the Warmer by Kartakou Amplification. Check out Vasili Kartakous creations on kartakou.com

That is what the ES-5 loop switcher is for. There‘s one loop for every „amp“ and then an extra loop for delay/reverb and compression…

@@martingerrardxguitar Ah thanks. So without the ES-5 how would you add after amp effects you would normally put in an effects loop?

Hi Luis, thank you very much! Wiring the Lehle is pretty easy, I'll make a video on it the next days.

@@martingerrardxguitar I ended up buying the Walrus Audio Canvas Mono and it works like a charm