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.
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 :)
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 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!
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
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.
I can't speak for Mikko on this matter, but I've tried a fair few units myself. Fractal devices are a lot more intuitive than you'd think, especially if you're able to take advance of the desktop editor. Line 6 in my opinion are the gold standard for usability with their devices - all of the basic features are easy to access, all of the pro features have a little more learning involved. Touchscreens make for a much better on-device editing experience though, so if you don't have access to a desktop editor, I'd say something like the Quad Cortex or Headrush Prime would likely be the easiest to learn. -Kai
@@mlsoundlabThanks for the advice bro. I am actually gonna be new to the Axe Fx or any other new modular or guitar effects processor our there in the market.I have been out of the scene for quite a long time now.The last I owned was a Boss Gt-10 which in opinion sucked since it lacked a lot when it came to metal tones.
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!
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.
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.
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 RUclips 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
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.
This reinforced that I do not need to upgrade from my axe fx II XL. A little eq here, a little compression there and I have what I need
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
Russel Blacker I thought the Axe-Fx Standard sounded real. ;)
I wish people would just use spectrum analysers and sine wave test to compare so we can actually see what's different.
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.
@@terran236 In this case, do you think Axe FX 3 sounds better than the 2?
Axe fx 2 runs Ares 2.0.
The extra ADDA conversion coming out of the III, in to the II and back to the III may account for some of the tone differences as well.
Definitely thought about that as well.
Retro Joe, you were faster and I agree, it is not fair to compare this way, only normal A/B pls
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.
@@XChristianNoirX just think of the Axe fx 3 as the plug-in running on its own dedicated outboard dsp. Its not that hard to re-amp with it.
@@XChristianNoirX I thought the Kemper had a lower resolution than the axe2?
To me the Axe Fx 2 sounds a tad bassier, could've tried to just reduced the low end a smudge. Would probably sound identical to the 3.
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.
Just the video I was looking for! Thank you for that!
Pretty happy to keep my II XL....thanks! Diminishing returns
Great video could you update this for 2021
Sounds pretty close.
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 :)
Frank Steffen Mueller read the other comments. I'm sure the III still sounds better, but this test outs the 2 to an obvious disadvantage.
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 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!
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
Sounds like the differences your hearing could be matched with a small eq adjustment.
the diferences you listen are the converters just the convereters more transparents
I have both units. The Axe II is great, but the Axe III sounds better.
how? thats so vague it sounds the same lol
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.
Not enough difference to warrant an upgrade for me personally. Also In the context of a mix so much of this subtle information will be loss.
but one could argue the same for line 6 vs fractal
Do you have microphoning from the II at high gain and volume? I see complaints about that
Is the Axe Fx 3 user friendly as compared to the other guitars effects processors in the market?
I can't speak for Mikko on this matter, but I've tried a fair few units myself. Fractal devices are a lot more intuitive than you'd think, especially if you're able to take advance of the desktop editor. Line 6 in my opinion are the gold standard for usability with their devices - all of the basic features are easy to access, all of the pro features have a little more learning involved. Touchscreens make for a much better on-device editing experience though, so if you don't have access to a desktop editor, I'd say something like the Quad Cortex or Headrush Prime would likely be the easiest to learn.
-Kai
@@mlsoundlabThanks for the advice bro. I am actually gonna be new to the Axe Fx or any other new modular or guitar effects processor our there in the market.I have been out of the scene for quite a long time now.The last I owned was a Boss Gt-10 which in opinion sucked since it lacked a lot when it came to metal tones.
You're going to love it - Fractal make some top class gear!
-Kai
Both are legendary. But III sounds more tight.
Can you redo a axe fx 2 with the 3 please.. Trying to make them sound the same
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!
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.
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.
Good stuff!
the 2 sounds like a mic'd cab with an xtra tube for good measure
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.
`how is the volume whit the -6 db?
I like creamier tones, the axe2 has the edge for me, more natural dynamics in its breakup, softer mid cut and less flat than the 3?
If this is true, the FXIII will be a step back for non metal players.
@@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 RUclips 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
99% of common people not guitar players can't hear any difference
side by side the 2 sounded pre†ty much like the 3 to me
I guess the third has kinda more efficient noise prosessing - there's a hell lot less of shit in the sound.
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.
This was the talkative video. The first video was more about what you're saying. :)
@@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.
The AXE III is a marvel but also a time suck. You can tweek forever
Axe fx 3 has more depth in the sound
The Axe Fox 3 sounds like shit !
yeah all those things are good but for the money i would still go for the good old real steal, like the wizard amps or 5150 and some plexies
padawan007 Depends so much on the use case. Getting a pro recorded tone with that rig is not an easy task plus it's going to cost money.
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
ML Sound Lab I agree. There's so much more behind the surface of analog vs digital.
padawan007 Awesome dude! Good for you!