From my experience of owning both. The OX sounds great but slightly more compressed overall. The Suhr on the other hand sounds brighter and more Hi-Fi. I prefer the Suhr Reactive Load as it's a better starting point for mixing, whereas the OX sounds more like a final mix and slightly harder to tweak afterwards... IMO of course!
To my ears the Suhr sounds like a RAW mice'd amp ready for mix processing as per a normal recording session - the OX sounds like UA have done the work for you and made a pre HPF and slightly compressed the sound ready to go. As I like mixing I personally prefer the sound of the Suhr - sounds more "real" to me as per a recording session creating bed tracks.
The v30 sounded very different on both. The Suhr is very midrangy while the OX was very bright and more scooped. For the V30 I liked more the Suhr, but for the rest I think Ox was better
I didn't like either of the two with the drive tones, but I liked both units with your clean tones at 14:30. So probably I didn't like your drive eq settings.
Kudos for the chill vibes and the honesty. I've been watching videos about the OX for a while now, this video I think makes the Suhr sound a lot more like an ampsim compared to the dynamics I heard from the OX. You've got both, what do you prefer?
Nice comparison. I liked each at different times. I own a Suhr RL IR and thought the included IRs were good, not great. I bought a package of Ownhammer Multimic Marshall 71 basketweave 412 IRs and that made all the difference. Not sure if you can load IRs into the OX but if one could a great comparison would be to use Ownhammer IRs in each. Great value in the Ownhammer IRs for the price.
Thanks! Unfortunately you cannot load IRs into the ox. But you can take a direct signal from the ox and load an IR into your daw! Ownhammers make fantastic IRs!!
I had an OX and I immediately tried the Suhr. I liked the Suhr a lot better. Easier to use, didn't want to do all that tweaking with the unit. And for me, the recorded tone I got out of the Suhr was much closer to the tone I would get mic'ing my Marshall 1960BX with Greenbacks. In fact, using the Hi-Gn Suhr 1.2 4x12 with Greenbacks, the tone was almost indistinguishable. Now I can record, get consistent results and keep the family and cat happy.
Any chance you can do this again, and use UAD Oceanway Room verb, Neve EQ, and 1176? What will the Suhr sound like using UAD plugs, similar to what the ox is doing afterwards? Would that get the Suhr in the same ball park?
I heard you say you use a Powerstation for attenuation through cabs - did use the Powerstation with the UA OX so you’re playing through cab and monitors at same time by chance?
Without the attenuator just means the line outputs from the Ox, which come before the attenuator. The only sound “with the attenuator” is the sound from the cabinet.
The suhr sounds up front in the mix in comparison. Lol in normal practice you can't through a plate on that patch and think it would sound the same as the same setup being captured in ocean way. Now a greater comparison would be bring both those configuration into a ua environment within luna. Ox vs suhr into a studio environment. I have heard direct comparisons between mic'd amps and the suhr and they sound identical in that sonic degradation of amp "character" owning the 🐂 📦 i found that i preferred my own irs from ownhammer over what they offered. It ua would allow for the switching of irs within the ox that would be great.
There are two types of people in the comments: those who make and record and mix music (who prefered Suhr), and those who are musicians but mostly need a loadbox to practice and play (who prefered OX). I will go with Suhr, cause i prefer the more raw, uncompressed and natural sound of a miced cab, instead of a beautified tone which cannot later be fully tweaked in the mix.
I believe the ox is too midrangey and boxy but alike it sounds very present . The suhr sounds more natural to me but still off, it sounds scooped and hollow. I kinda like the waza but I heard that one can ruin amps when you tweak the reactive load knobs . So idk. All this stuff sounds off to me in general, I hear some solid tones sometimes but it never sounds natural to me, often they have this high mid emphasis and sound bright/tight all the time . Kinda like a stiff/static upper register . Then as I read someone mention, with most of these devices, why not just download the irs and save money and do it on a daw if your computer can handle it.
I see what you're saying but I disagree that the OX would only be useful in a "practice" setting. I don't have one (yet), but, it's highly tweakable eq-wise and I think it wouldn't be difficult to get it to sit in a mix well. To my ears in this demo he used quite a bit of the room sound w/the OX which added width/space and also a bit of lowend rumble. The Suhr sounded more narrow and dry. Both can work well, it just depends on where you want your starting place to be when mixing time comes.
@@heythere6983 you need a load box to run the amp into so you don’t kill your output transformer. As far as cab simulation, you can absolutely do that within your DAW.
Plenty of people that record/mix want to get the tone right at tracking vs the more modern “fix it in the mix” style. Either can work just fine. I have the Ox but I’m thinking of getting the Suhr because some of my own personal cabs are a little unique and I’d love to make my own IR’s of them to use when I track direct instead of tracking all mic’d up. The Ox is absurdly tweakable but I do wish there were more mic and speaker options. It’s absurd that they done so few updates.
Hi there. I own an ua ox, and have always wondered if the sounds i get from it, are missing some low end information. Here, the ox sounds brighter than the suhr, but besides that, can you tell if the suhr also has more low end? Cheers.
Remember that the cabs aren’t exactly matched in the video. I wouldn’t attribute these kinds of differences to the unit overall. My experience, and I have both the OX Box and the SUHR reactive load without IR going through the OX Stomp is that the OX Box load component is a bit more dynamic whereas the SUHR is a bit more static. I’ve analyzed the waveforms from both, and the OX Box has a bit more attack overall which can improve definition. I decided to stick with the OX box personally as I find that in addition to a more dynamic load reaction the speaker and mic emulations are more organic sounding in the way they adapt to the amp and playing rather than the sonic character ‘fingerprint’ of an IR.
Killer video man and thanks for doing this demo. I've been really looking at doing this instead of using microphones just so I can record late at night and not be brutally loud. I really thought the OX sounded best here in RUclips land. I just want something simple and have not used a load box ever, which I was initially considering the Suhr. Also I usually do all my effects post on my DAW. I'm just wondering which one you would recommend for me since I'm new to the whole load box recording method. BTW I play harder rock stuff using traditional classic rock crunch tones. I appreciate any input!
Thanks Mike! Well it depends on how much tweaking you want to do- suhr you can plug in pick a cab and just start playing. Simple and sounds killer. The ox you can dial in your tone, change mics, mic placements etc all that stuff. OX has more cabs to chose from as well, but you can also buy and load different IRs on the Suhr
Thanks for this video Louie. I just want to get a good amp sound to my DAW and will do any effects and processing there. I thought that the Suhr sounded far superior and natural whereas the Ox had a nasty fizz going on and too much upper mids. At half the price in the UK the Suhr IR gets my vote.
I've got a two note captor X on the way. I think that's the other big player in the game and with software on the computer and smartphone, small footprint and lowest price, it's a strong option. I've got some of the Own hammer IR's I really like but have been considering grabbing Nolly's Zilla software to create custom IR's also to load into my various devices that can use IR's.
Hi! If you have to choose one to play live and only live with a rock band, no recording, no mixing, witch one will you take with you?! Thx I have the captorX, and I'm not completely satisfy with it, too much tweak to have the right sound...
They’re both a bad sacrifice to a real amp speaker properly mic’d but if I had to pick one I’d say the Suhr. The Ox sounds fizzy and compressed and just very unnatural IMO. Not to mention the Ox cost almost 3x as much. The Ox looks WAY cooler, I’ll give it that but I hear with my ears not my eyes.
Suhr for the win. I used to own the Ox...ditched it. I've owned them all actually...my favorites are the Boss Waza Tube Expander and ToneKing IronMan II.
Hey Sean- thanks! And yessir, I can’t remember the last time I’ve mic’d a cab lol. I either use the ox, a fryette ps2 with an IR, or more lately just using an axe fx 3 for everything
Thanks for the awesome comparison. To my ears some settings sound better on the OX and some sound better on the SUHR. I think it's solely a matter of preference and setups. I'd like to know if the OX uses Impulses Responses (IRs) or "conventional" digital cabinet/microphone/room emulation or is it even a full analog device?
The OX uses UA's own virtual modeling software of the speaker cabs, mics and room. So not IRs, not analog but a very complex algorithm to determine how all the parts interact.
You can hard pan one mic left, the other right and that will route them accordingly. You only have two outputs so if you want to use the room and two separate microphones something will get blended. I like either splitting the close mics and pre-blending the room, or pre-blending my two mics on one side and then sending the room mic to the other side.
In general I preferred the Ox cabs but for some of the clean Strat tones they were similar. And the Suhr PT Creamback was better than the Ox White 75. NOTE: I'm an Ox owner so there might be some familiarity bias. That said, the Suhr is better for playing out - smaller and lighter.
Wow, the Ox sounds so much better. The Suhr is small and boxy by comparison. I expected them to be a little closer. The Ox has too much high end in a lot of examples, but that should be easy to dial out. The Suhr would require quite a bit more work to get a final sound.
This is probably the best demo on the net for the OX. Seriously man! I have the Suhr Reactive Load IR. I have been looking at the OX for a while. This has me sold on it. I am buying one! All of the features and the ability to tweak. Plus; tonally, the OX sounds fuller and thicker. More organic then the Suhr. The Suhr sounds VERY boxy compared to the OX. OX sounds more like a regular studio!
Good video and playing, however the Suhr sounds boxy and the Ox sounds fizzy with the overdrive setting. Leads me to believe I just don't like the overdrive going on.
Suhr sounds much more like a real properly mic'ed up cab to me, very punchy but captures the right frequencies for mixing. Ox sounds scooped and not as dynamic in these examples, almost as if thing that is there some inbuilt processing on that unit. I was listening to the sounds through my monitors thinking, this sounds big on its own, but in a mix you'll be fighting for space with other instruments
Ox better for live but unnecessary for recording. The ox is better and of course also twice the price. Ox sounds brighter obviously as there's 2 mic modes and room modes... sure. What I want to know however is how does the suhr compare to the captor x tho!
@@LouieLively a mate sold his captor x and got a suhr said it wasn't as real sounding does anyone know if you can take the raw and the ir at the same time with the suhr. Only thing putting me off is 100 watt max. The ox only one offering 150 as far as I can tell when most heavy amps are 120 it's off putting to lay down so much money on something that so only do up to 100
Spittling hairs, the OX sounds more messy, which is actually what the amp would sound like when it is in the room cranked. Both are totally useable and sound awesome. But the OX takes the win for me
Ox sounded very realistic, Suhr sounded like it might be a little easier to play, maybe better for metal too. I'm looking at both right now for my project studio as I blew up my attenuator. Looks like recording the OX plus a DI would be best, so I can play the OX and reamp/IR the DI later if needed.
Hum... Im looking into getting something like this. Im ignorant to these. I've been lucky to play a JTM45 amp to speakers (&ear plugs). The OX has a awful harmonic that seems to have the same pitch from example to example. The Suhr sounds more what I would expect from my amp & speakers. Thank you for your work in this, it's been helpful✌😁 PS: you answered my question at the end there. Yep! Fryette is what Im looking for. Now to look for something for my "ModeFour" will be trickier.... Thanks again!!!
UAD for the win on my monitor headphones....both are great but UAD is the best company out there replacing analog ANYTHING. Sounds killer. Technology is amazing right now for home recording. Wow.
![Felix "Unfair" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Oswujxm2Ag0/mqdefault.jpg)
From my experience of owning both. The OX sounds great but slightly more compressed overall. The Suhr on the other hand sounds brighter and more Hi-Fi. I prefer the Suhr Reactive Load as it's a better starting point for mixing, whereas the OX sounds more like a final mix and slightly harder to tweak afterwards... IMO of course!
To my ears the Suhr sounds like a RAW mice'd amp ready for mix processing as per a normal recording session - the OX sounds like UA have done the work for you and made a pre HPF and slightly compressed the sound ready to go. As I like mixing I personally prefer the sound of the Suhr - sounds more "real" to me as per a recording session creating bed tracks.
The Suhr definitely requires a lot more work in the mix to sound as good as the Ox.
@@mranalog241 My favourite of all of these devices is the WAZA Tube Amp Expander.
Hi
Thanks a lot.
WOW!!!
The Suhr is amazing.
Great playing man! I like the Suhr a bit better!
The v30 sounded very different on both. The Suhr is very midrangy while the OX was very bright and more scooped. For the V30 I liked more the Suhr, but for the rest I think Ox was better
Killer shredding man. I prefer the suhr.
Thanks!
agree.
Suhr sounds more natural!! Great video!!
I didn't like either of the two with the drive tones, but I liked both units with your clean tones at 14:30. So probably I didn't like your drive eq settings.
Exactly the same for me.
Thanks for the comparison. OX sounds a lot fuller and well balanced. The upper mids in the Suhr samples are crushed down.
Kudos for the chill vibes and the honesty. I've been watching videos about the OX for a while now, this video I think makes the Suhr sound a lot more like an ampsim compared to the dynamics I heard from the OX. You've got both, what do you prefer?
Thanks! I really enjoy both, but if I had to pick one it’d be the Ox!
Nice comparison. I liked each at different times. I own a Suhr RL IR and thought the included IRs were good, not great. I bought a package of Ownhammer Multimic Marshall 71 basketweave 412 IRs and that made all the difference. Not sure if you can load IRs into the OX but if one could a great comparison would be to use Ownhammer IRs in each. Great value in the Ownhammer IRs for the price.
Thanks! Unfortunately you cannot load IRs into the ox. But you can take a direct signal from the ox and load an IR into your daw! Ownhammers make fantastic IRs!!
@@LouieLively you can pair it with an IR loader device like CAB M or others out there with direct signal on from OX.
I had an OX and I immediately tried the Suhr. I liked the Suhr a lot better. Easier to use, didn't want to do all that tweaking with the unit. And for me, the recorded tone I got out of the Suhr was much closer to the tone I would get mic'ing my Marshall 1960BX with Greenbacks. In fact, using the Hi-Gn Suhr 1.2 4x12 with Greenbacks, the tone was almost indistinguishable. Now I can record, get consistent results and keep the family and cat happy.
Right on! They’re both great!
The reactive load in the Suhr is made to mimic the greenback feel/response.
Thanks you for the info and the demo.
Always helpful 🤙🏼
Any chance you can do this again, and use UAD Oceanway Room verb, Neve EQ, and 1176? What will the Suhr sound like using UAD plugs, similar to what the ox is doing afterwards? Would that get the Suhr in the same ball park?
Good information ! Thank you
Any latency issues?
I heard you say you use a Powerstation for attenuation through cabs - did use the Powerstation with the UA OX so you’re playing through cab and monitors at same time by chance?
Thank you for the video, how do you use the Ox without using the attenuator? What did you mean by that? Are recording without a cabinet to monitor?
Without the attenuator just means the line outputs from the Ox, which come before the attenuator. The only sound “with the attenuator” is the sound from the cabinet.
Came for the comparison, stayed for the guitar playing. You got some chips kid!
Is a stereo recording (Ox) being compared with a mono recording (Suhr)?
Dude, now that you said it...that might be the case...
Wow the Suhr sounds like a little transistor radio in comparison. Well done!
Haha 😂👍🏼
Thats not fair. Lol 😆
I swear I hear the room left on with the ox. That's why their is "more" it cant sound the same.
The suhr sounds up front in the mix in comparison. Lol in normal practice you can't through a plate on that patch and think it would sound the same as the same setup being captured in ocean way.
Now a greater comparison would be bring both those configuration into a ua environment within luna. Ox vs suhr into a studio environment. I have heard direct comparisons between mic'd amps and the suhr and they sound identical in that sonic degradation of amp "character" owning the 🐂 📦 i found that i preferred my own irs from ownhammer over what they offered.
It ua would allow for the switching of irs within the ox that would be great.
ruclips.net/video/vQ1izxBI2a8/видео.html Shawn Tubbs does a great job showcasing the suhr.
Great job
I preferred the OX on certain settings and the Suhr on certain other settings.
There are two types of people in the comments: those who make and record and mix music (who prefered Suhr), and those who are musicians but mostly need a loadbox to practice and play (who prefered OX). I will go with Suhr, cause i prefer the more raw, uncompressed and natural sound of a miced cab, instead of a beautified tone which cannot later be fully tweaked in the mix.
I believe the ox is too midrangey and boxy but alike it sounds very present . The suhr sounds more natural to me but still off, it sounds scooped and hollow.
I kinda like the waza but I heard that one can ruin amps when you tweak the reactive load knobs .
So idk. All this stuff sounds off to me in general, I hear some solid tones sometimes but it never sounds natural to me, often they have this high mid emphasis and sound bright/tight all the time . Kinda like a stiff/static upper register .
Then as I read someone mention, with most of these devices, why not just download the irs and save money and do it on a daw if your computer can handle it.
I see what you're saying but I disagree that the OX would only be useful in a "practice" setting. I don't have one (yet), but, it's highly tweakable eq-wise and I think it wouldn't be difficult to get it to sit in a mix well. To my ears in this demo he used quite a bit of the room sound w/the OX which added width/space and also a bit of lowend rumble. The Suhr sounded more narrow and dry. Both can work well, it just depends on where you want your starting place to be when mixing time comes.
@@heythere6983 you need a load box to run the amp into so you don’t kill your output transformer. As far as cab simulation, you can absolutely do that within your DAW.
Plenty of people that record/mix want to get the tone right at tracking vs the more modern “fix it in the mix” style. Either can work just fine. I have the Ox but I’m thinking of getting the Suhr because some of my own personal cabs are a little unique and I’d love to make my own IR’s of them to use when I track direct instead of tracking all mic’d up. The Ox is absurdly tweakable but I do wish there were more mic and speaker options. It’s absurd that they done so few updates.
Wrong, the two types are people who want to pretend the Suhr sounds as good as the Ox and those who listened to the demo.
Hi there. I own an ua ox, and have always wondered if the sounds i get from it, are missing some low end information. Here, the ox sounds brighter than the suhr, but besides that, can you tell if the suhr also has more low end? Cheers.
Remember that the cabs aren’t exactly matched in the video. I wouldn’t attribute these kinds of differences to the unit overall. My experience, and I have both the OX Box and the SUHR reactive load without IR going through the OX Stomp is that the OX Box load component is a bit more dynamic whereas the SUHR is a bit more static. I’ve analyzed the waveforms from both, and the OX Box has a bit more attack overall which can improve definition. I decided to stick with the OX box personally as I find that in addition to a more dynamic load reaction the speaker and mic emulations are more organic sounding in the way they adapt to the amp and playing rather than the sonic character ‘fingerprint’ of an IR.
Killer video man and thanks for doing this demo. I've been really looking at doing this instead of using microphones just so I can record late at night and not be brutally loud. I really thought the OX sounded best here in RUclips land. I just want something simple and have not used a load box ever, which I was initially considering the Suhr. Also I usually do all my effects post on my DAW. I'm just wondering which one you would recommend for me since I'm new to the whole load box recording method. BTW I play harder rock stuff using traditional classic rock crunch tones. I appreciate any input!
Thanks Mike! Well it depends on how much tweaking you want to do- suhr you can plug in pick a cab and just start playing. Simple and sounds killer. The ox you can dial in your tone, change mics, mic placements etc all that stuff. OX has more cabs to chose from as well, but you can also buy and load different IRs on the Suhr
Wow such a big difference between the two formats. Thanks so much for doing this. Were you using WoS with the Suhr?
You need to do it with the same IRS because there's image widening and a bunch of other stuff that you don't hear on the suhr
Not true, and also not possible. The OX doesn’t run on IRs. So I’m show casing the true difference between the two units. Suhr is inferior product 👍🏼
Thanks for this video Louie. I just want to get a good amp sound to my DAW and will do any effects and processing there. I thought that the Suhr sounded far superior and natural whereas the Ox had a nasty fizz going on and too much upper mids. At half the price in the UK the Suhr IR gets my vote.
OX sounds incredible. Does this mean the pedals are no longer needed??
Ox has killer verb / delay / compression / EQ but that’s it… so sure, if you don’t use drives and stuff in front !! But the ox FX are incredible
I've got a two note captor X on the way. I think that's the other big player in the game and with software on the computer and smartphone, small footprint and lowest price, it's a strong option. I've got some of the Own hammer IR's I really like but have been considering grabbing Nolly's Zilla software to create custom IR's also to load into my various devices that can use IR's.
I have both and use the Suhr 90% of the time.
Hi! If you have to choose one to play live and only live with a rock band, no recording, no mixing, witch one will you take with you?!
Thx
I have the captorX, and I'm not completely satisfy with it, too much tweak to have the right sound...
They’re both a bad sacrifice to a real amp speaker properly mic’d but if I had to pick one I’d say the Suhr. The Ox sounds fizzy and compressed and just very unnatural IMO. Not to mention the Ox cost almost 3x as much. The Ox looks WAY cooler, I’ll give it that but I hear with my ears not my eyes.
Suhr for the win. I used to own the Ox...ditched it. I've owned them all actually...my favorites are the Boss Waza Tube Expander and ToneKing IronMan II.
You always tell it like you see it brother
Hi there. Do you usually use your OX for recording projects you do? Thanks! And great playing.
Hey Sean- thanks! And yessir, I can’t remember the last time I’ve mic’d a cab lol. I either use the ox, a fryette ps2 with an IR, or more lately just using an axe fx 3 for everything
Thanks for the awesome comparison. To my ears some settings sound better on the OX and some sound better on the SUHR. I think it's solely a matter of preference and setups. I'd like to know if the OX uses Impulses Responses (IRs) or "conventional" digital cabinet/microphone/room emulation or is it even a full analog device?
The OX uses UA's own virtual modeling software of the speaker cabs, mics and room. So not IRs, not analog but a very complex algorithm to determine how all the parts interact.
With the ox, can you route each of the two mics to separate tracks in Logic?
You can hard pan one mic left, the other right and that will route them accordingly. You only have two outputs so if you want to use the room and two separate microphones something will get blended. I like either splitting the close mics and pre-blending the room, or pre-blending my two mics on one side and then sending the room mic to the other side.
I love my ox
My Ox never sounded like yours with the LP. I just listed it on eBay
In general I preferred the Ox cabs but for some of the clean Strat tones they were similar. And the Suhr PT Creamback was better than the Ox White 75. NOTE: I'm an Ox owner so there might be some familiarity bias. That said, the Suhr is better for playing out - smaller and lighter.
thanks. i know have all the guitar samples I need for my next album. 😂
Wow, the Ox sounds so much better. The Suhr is small and boxy by comparison. I expected them to be a little closer.
The Ox has too much high end in a lot of examples, but that should be easy to dial out. The Suhr would require quite a bit more work to get a final sound.
This is probably the best demo on the net for the OX. Seriously man! I have the Suhr Reactive Load IR. I have been looking at the OX for a while. This has me sold on it. I am buying one! All of the features and the ability to tweak. Plus; tonally, the OX sounds fuller and thicker. More organic then the Suhr. The Suhr sounds VERY boxy compared to the OX. OX sounds more like a regular studio!
Thank you man! Glad I could help 😁👍🏼
Good video and playing, however the Suhr sounds boxy and the Ox sounds fizzy with the overdrive setting. Leads me to believe I just don't like the overdrive going on.
nice Room
Great playing and demo BTW. Very well done!!
Thanks man!
It seems OX is much more in the face and Suhr is a little more muffed
I love the space between the notes /s
grazie
Suhr sounds much more like a real properly mic'ed up cab to me, very punchy but captures the right frequencies for mixing.
Ox sounds scooped and not as dynamic in these examples, almost as if thing that is there some inbuilt processing on that unit. I was listening to the sounds through my monitors thinking, this sounds big on its own, but in a mix you'll be fighting for space with other instruments
Thanks. That was informative.
I think you’re doing something wrong with the OX Box, I’ve never got tones like that ever from mine. I’d look into that.
LOL tones like what? It’ sounds great 🤷🏻♂️
@@LouieLively maybe it’s just the amp your using, sounds harsh and brittle and spiky through the ox.
This helped since i literally tried to find out wich one to stick with. Wich one has more latency when playing ??
Not sure. Never an issue for me. If so it’s usually more computer or DAW that’s the issue
Ox better for live but unnecessary for recording. The ox is better and of course also twice the price. Ox sounds brighter obviously as there's 2 mic modes and room modes... sure. What I want to know however is how does the suhr compare to the captor x tho!
Literally anything > suhr 🤷🏻♂️
@@LouieLively a mate sold his captor x and got a suhr said it wasn't as real sounding does anyone know if you can take the raw and the ir at the same time with the suhr. Only thing putting me off is 100 watt max. The ox only one offering 150 as far as I can tell when most heavy amps are 120 it's off putting to lay down so much money on something that so only do up to 100
suhr kills i need one
Spittling hairs, the OX sounds more messy, which is actually what the amp would sound like when it is in the room cranked. Both are totally useable and sound awesome. But the OX takes the win for me
Agreed 👍🏼
i know the Vid is 3 yrs old but irs today you can get for th RL are far superior.
having little knowledge of audio engineering and mixing, I prefer the OX.
Jesus, the OX is unlistenably bright through my HEDD monitors and HiFiman headphones.
Ox sounded very realistic, Suhr sounded like it might be a little easier to play, maybe better for metal too. I'm looking at both right now for my project studio as I blew up my attenuator. Looks like recording the OX plus a DI would be best, so I can play the OX and reamp/IR the DI later if needed.
Ox is definitely more versatile! Suhr sounds incredible too and it’s much easier to use. Pros and cons on both ends
Hum... Im looking into getting something like this. Im ignorant to these. I've been lucky to play a JTM45 amp to speakers (&ear plugs). The OX has a awful harmonic that seems to have the same pitch from example to example. The Suhr sounds more what I would expect from my amp & speakers. Thank you for your work in this, it's been helpful✌😁
PS: you answered my question at the end there. Yep! Fryette is what Im looking for. Now to look for something for my "ModeFour" will be trickier.... Thanks again!!!
Suhr reactive load for shure..
ever try the boss waza tube amp expander?
Haven’t yet no!
what a demo. wow.
UAD for the win on my monitor headphones....both are great but UAD is the best company out there replacing analog ANYTHING. Sounds killer. Technology is amazing right now for home recording. Wow.
OX sounds like a mosquito.
Suhr fanboy, eh? 🧐
Sounds like the suhr is mono the ox is stereo
Nope
Ox clearly better was hoping they would be closer. The Ox sounds more Hi-Fi
There is no point to compare different IRs and make conclusions about the loadboxes. Its the AMT Pangeae inside the suhr by the way.
ox is the best
Suhr sounded like how a real guitar amp should sound. Just my take.
Calm down.