Is the Axe-FX just a passing fad?

[Ermz]

It's interesting how heated these things always get. It's always the least consequential of issues too, usually hinging on a great deal of semantics and people trying to characterize the same thing using different words, trying to give it value on a non-existent, universal quality scale.

Not sure why something being a fad needs to necessarily have negative connotations. My judgment for it being a fad is that it has caught on like wildfire in the community much as anything else has anywhere. Like Bieber has in the pop music scene, like Barefoots have in the pro-audio scene etc. The musician industry runs on fads. Even if the Axe-FX were the best shit since sliced bread, the people buying it likely wouldn't grab it for that reason, nor would they understand its true potential. They would buy it because it's a safe bet, part of the 'consensus reality' as George Carlin would put it. This is what makes it a fad to me. The fact that it's a fad doesn't mean it's a poor unit, that doesn't have any worthy application anywhere. We've heard many make fair use of the PODs here in the past, and even though it's a more ancient technology, it had its use, had its sound, for certain applications. It's the same thing here. It's not an amp replacement, it's not even an amp equivalent, but it does provide a handy, versatile unit that can churn out some really cool live tones without the drawbacks of traditional power amp/cab rigs.

 

[drew_drummer]

Probably the same reason people bleat on and on about 5150's and Recto's - they're a safe bet. A lot more of a safe bet than the Axe-FX. With the Axe-FX, or pretty much any digital modeller, YOU are in control of your tone. Perhaps some people cannot handle that.

 

[drew_drummer]

I have - owned one for a bit 18 months ago. I realize there have been updates to it since, and I am tempted to get another one - however...

While it feels like a real amp, and while it sounds/feels awesome through a poweramp/cabinet, I'm not sure it sounds better than my 5150, a Recto, a 5150III, etc...

Recorded, however, I still find the tones to be lacking. We need speaker movement, period - I'd use it for scratch tracks, but I'd always end up reamping with a real setup. I'm not sure if that setup would be an AxeFX + poweramp + cabinet, or a real amp + cab. Seeing that my 5150 + Mesa 4x12 cost me less than even the AxeFX standard, and in all likeliness sounds better than the AxeFX + poweramp + cab setup, I'm inclined to just use my PODxt Pro for scratch tracks and reamp with my rig.

Yeah I agree with you Jeff. The guy who demo'd the Axe-FX to me said he's stopped micing cabs for the most part. I wouldn't want to go that far I don't think. But the Axe-FX + poweramp + cab + microphone... could be a winning combination for me.

 

[drew_drummer]

Notice the word temporary in that definition. That's quite important. 5150+Mesa OS is not a 'fad' as it's never been temporary and has been a combo going on for decades.

What you're missing is this:

The Axe-FX is the next step in digital technology. Digital technology has also been around for decades. Ergo.. not a fad.

You're trying to split the Axe-FX apart from its hereditary tree, and claim something that isn't true.

Looks to me you made this thread originally because you wanted to have a nice stroke-a-thon over the fact that you think real amps are better value. But the problem is... that's your opinion. It's not an objective fact, and anyone who claims different doesn't understand technology.

60 years in technology terms is NOTHING. It's a little slice of time. In a few hundred years tubes wont even be used anymore.

 

[TomAwesome]

The Axe-FX isn't the same as the other modeling technology that's out there. I get along fine with Line 6, and I really like LePou's plugins, but it is not the same technology. Is it really THAT much better? Are the hardware and differences in sound quality worth $1500-$2000? Those are valid questions, and different people with different needs will come to different conclusions, but trying to rework your otherwise valid opinion that it's not worth it into a matter of fact and say that Fractal Audio is ripping people off is a bit much.

Besides, you're missing a lot of the point. You're arguing about the Axe-FX's amp modeling versus VST plugins. The Axe-FX comes with a lot more than just amp modeling. As has been stated before, it's also a top notch effects unit, and you'd pay about as much for something comparable from Eventide. You're also paying for the hardware. I haven't looked in a while, but the last I remember, VST host hardware isn't very cheap, and it's likely a lot more limited than the hardware on the Axe-FX. Your arguments really aren't very fair or fully developed.

 

[InAbsentia_]

What you're missing is this:

The Axe-FX is the next step in digital technology. Digital technology has also been around for decades. Ergo.. not a fad.

You're trying to split the Axe-FX apart from its hereditary tree, and claim something that isn't true.

Looks to me you made this thread originally because you wanted to have a nice stroke-a-thon over the fact that you think real amps are better value. But the problem is... that's your opinion. It's not an objective fact, and anyone who claims different doesn't understand technology.

60 years in technology terms is NOTHING. It's a little slice of time. In a few hundred years tubes wont even be used anymore.

I don't know what you're talking about here at all. You obviously still think I'm getting into the Analog vs. Digital debate when I'm not trying to do that at all.

My problem with the Axe-Fx is two fold, and the questions I'm asking here are:

- The Axe-Fx is being marketed as the 'next big thing' in digital modelling, when it really doesn't seem like that at all. You can get similar tones with Ampsims and Impulses (which is what the Axe-Fx uses itself). So is actually that much better than Ampsims/POD Farm/etc. that it justifies the $2000 price tag?

- Is the Axe-Fx purely selling on the merit of it's marketing crusade and 'fad-ness'

As an analogy, say I build a steam engine based train, and then you come along and build an electric bullet train. I'd wholly understand why people would want your train over mine. It's just so much faster, efficient and better at everything it does - significantly better.

However, if I'm selling a bullet train for $0 and you come along and are selling a bullet train for $2000 that is only slightly better than mine, is it worth the $2000 price tag?

Fractal Audio just seems like a profiteer company.

 

[InAbsentia_]

The Axe-FX isn't the same as the other modeling technology that's out there. I get along fine with Line 6, and I really like LePou's plugins, but it is not the same technology. Is it really THAT much better? Are the hardware and differences in sound quality worth $1500-$2000? Those are valid questions, and different people with different needs will come to different conclusions, but trying to rework your otherwise valid opinion that it's not worth it into a matter of fact and say that Fractal Audio is ripping people off is a bit much.

Besides, you're missing a lot of the point. You're arguing about the Axe-FX's amp modeling versus VST plugins. The Axe-FX comes with a lot more than just amp modeling. As has been stated before, it's also a top notch effects unit, and you'd pay about as much from something comparable from Eventide. You're also paying for the hardware. I haven't looked in a while, but the last I remember, VST host hardware isn't very cheap, and it's likely a lot more limited than the hardware in the Axe-FX. Your arguments really aren't very fair or fully developed.

I'm not really taking the EFX into consideration here. I don't think many people purchase it for the EFX anyways, which is why it's moot point to me.

I'm solely talking about the amplifier simulation here. I'm not really trying to argue whether VST's are as good as the Axe-Fx, but rather whether the Axe-Fx's simulations are significantly better enough to justify the price tag. This is disregarding the hardware. Let's talk specifically about sound here. We'll do the hardware later.

Also, I'm trying to ask whether it's success is largely based on it's (cult) following rather than it's merits on a sonic level. I don't see how this isn't a fair or developed argument. If you're purchasing a car which very similar to another, but one is 2000 times more expensive, you can bet your ass you'd want to know where your money is going.

 

[Brett - K A L I S I A]

This is the weird part - when I saw them, Devy opened and ran an AxeFX into a Mesa 2:90/Oversized cab set, and had one of the best live sounds I've ever heard. Cynic's sounded like someone had a wah cocked the entire night. There's something to be said for NOT relying on house sound for your guitar tone.

No, actually the Mesa cab was David's, Devin ran the AxeFX into the Mesa 2:90 into his Peavey cabs (or cab, depending on the size of the stage), but it was not miked, just for monitoring on stage. I only had the DI from the AxeFX through his Radial ProD8 (three channels, one for direct sound and two for stereo delay).

 

[JeffTD]

No, actually the Mesa cab was David's, Devin ran the AxeFX into the Mesa 2:90 into his Peavey cabs (or cab, depending on the size of the stage), but it was not miked, just for monitoring on stage. I only had the DI from the AxeFX through his Radial ProD8 (three channels, one for direct sound and two for stereo delay).

Ahh go figure! I was quite literally right up front, so I was hearing mostly cabinet - could've been why Cynic's sound was a bit off to me. This was at the HoB in Hollywood, FWIW.

 

[TomAwesome]

I'm not really taking the EFX into consideration here. I don't think many people purchase it for the EFX anyways, which is why it's moot point to me.

To you. This thread isn't just about you.

I'm solely talking about the amplifier simulation here. I'm not really trying to argue whether VST's are as good as the Axe-Fx, but rather whether the Axe-Fx's simulations are significantly better enough to justify the price tag. This is disregarding the hardware. Let's talk specifically about sound here. We'll do the hardware later.

See, that's really not fair. The combination of everything that comes with the Axe-FX is why it costs what it does. If Fractal was selling a single amp sim in VST format for $2000, then you'd be entirely right, and nobody would buy it. You can't just say that one small part of a piece of gear isn't worth the cost of the entire piece of gear and thus decide that the whole thing is a ripoff.

Also, I'm trying to ask whether it's success is largely based on it's (cult) following rather than it's merits on a sonic level. I don't see how this isn't a fair or developed argument.

That's a fair question aside from your assumption about it being a cultlike following. I'd say that its success and the enthusiastic following are because of its sonic merits.

If you're purchasing a car which very similar to another, but one is 2000 times more expensive, you can bet your ass you'd want to know where your money is going.

Again, you're missing the point of what factors into the total cost of the Axe-FX. That's a terrible analogy.

 

[drew_drummer]

I don't know what you're talking about here at all. You obviously still think I'm getting into the Analog vs. Digital debate when I'm not trying to do that at all.

I was refuting the point you made that the 5150+Recto could never be considered a fad. You seem to think that because something is a real amp, that it is therefore timeless and not subject to the same fadness that you're attaching to the Axe-FX.

My problem with the Axe-Fx is two fold, and the questions I'm asking here are:

- The Axe-Fx is being marketed as the 'next big thing' in digital modelling, when it really doesn't seem like that at all. You can get similar tones with Ampsims and Impulses (which is what the Axe-Fx uses itself). So is actually that much better than Ampsims/POD Farm/etc. that it justifies the $2000 price tag?

I appreciate the straight-forward question. It's all relative. I personally think it absolutely SLAYS all other amp simulations. Yes even LePou.

- Is the Axe-Fx purely selling on the merit of it's marketing crusade and 'fad-ness'

Judging by the things people say in the real world about the Axe-FX .. no. It isn't purely selling on the merit of its marketing.

As an analogy, say I build a steam engine based train, and then you come along and build an electric bullet train. I'd wholly understand why people would want your train over mine. It's just so much faster, efficient and better at everything it does - significantly better.

However, if I'm selling a bullet train for $0 and you come along and are selling a bullet train for $2000 that is only slightly better than mine, is it worth the $2000 price tag?

Fractal Audio just seems like a profiteer company.

I get your stance now. Your stance is that free amp sims or cheaper amp sims are just as good as the Axe-FX. You don't see why the Axe-FX costs as much as it does, when in your mind there is no difference between LePou's work and the Axe-FX.

But what you're missing is that the notion of value is subjective. I think the Axe-FX is worth the money. Your response is "well enjoy being a cow!" which allows you to hold the opinion you do, without even considering why I would think it IS worth it. But that is a disrespectful and thoughtless response. Maybe you should consider that your opinion isn't the only valid one.

I think it's worth it because:

1. It really DOES sound much better than any other amp sim I've tried - and I've tried them all pretty much.

2. It covers a lot of basses. The Axe-FX sounds good live, in the studio as a recording preamp, or as a standalone effects processor for your real tube amp. It's not like when you buy a 100watt Mesa Boogie tube amp.. and then can't use it at home because of the neighbours.

So.. it sounds great, is reliable, gets regular updates that add new amps and features, has a wide selection of effects, and can be used in a variety of situations.

Remember... some people out there will use the shittiest plugins, just because it was cheap or free. They wont go the extra mile to get something that sounds decent. So they end up using Synth Edit plugins and their response to the rest of the world is "hahaha... suckers! You paid what for what?!" .... never once stopping to realise that their plugins make their music sound like ass.

I was so impressed with the Axe-FX that I'm considering selling all my gear to get one. I think that speaks volumes for how impressive the unit is - to me at least.

Finally... is a Recto reeeeeaaaaally that much better than a Bugera?? Mesa are just a profiteering company.

lulz.

 

[InAbsentia_]

I was refuting the point you made that the 5150+Recto could never be considered a fad. You seem to think that because something is a real amp, that it is therefore timeless and not subject to the same fadness that you're attaching to the Axe-FX.

A 5150 can't be 'beaten'. You can't get a better 5150. That's why people who want a 5150 will get a 5150. An Axe-Fx models amplifiers like the 5150, so as time goes by, there will be much better simulations and this will make the Axe-Fx worthless - as it's forte (replication) is now non-existent. Of course, there'll be a market for the Axe-Fx but it'll be selling for a vastly lower price than it is now - and that is why the 5150 is a fad and the Axe-Fx isn't.

I appreciate the straight-forward question. It's all relative. I personally think it absolutely SLAYS all other amp simulations. Yes even LePou.

That's fair enough. Many, many people would disagree with you there. I've heard my fair share of Axe-Fx clips, and it's only people who've tweaked and post-p'd to perfect that have got 'great' tones out of it. The rest are just mediocre, like that clip you said 'blew you away' a few pages back. That certainly wasn't a tone worth that price and could easily be achieved with a decent ampsim.

Judging by the things people say in the real world about the Axe-FX .. no. It isn't purely selling on the merit of its marketing.

The real world is marketing though. It's just hype. If you're told something is good, and many people say it's good you expect it to be good by default. I've seen people who haven't even played an Axe-Fx defending it as if it's some kind of holy machine worthy of constant praise.

But what you're missing is that the notion of value is subjective. I think the Axe-FX is worth the money. Your response is "well enjoy being a cow!" which allows you to hold the opinion you do, without even considering why I would think it IS worth it. But that is a disrespectful and thoughtless response. Maybe you should consider that your opinion isn't the only valid one.

That really isn't my response. I just want you to explain why you think it's worth the money so I'm satisfied that it's actually worth the money when compared to free ampsims. The list that you gave in you post doesn't do that because it isn't revolutionary. The Digitech GSP1101 does all of that too, and so do many other devices.

Remember... some people out there will use the shittiest plugins, just because it was cheap or free. They wont go the extra mile to get something that sounds decent. So they end up using Synth Edit plugins and their response to the rest of the world is "hahaha... suckers! You paid what for what?!" .... never once stopping to realise that their plugins make their music sound like ass.

Many producers, artists and others will disagree with you there. There'll be 'bad' plugins, but they don't cost $2000. Any Lepou, TSE etc. plugin can easily give the Axe-Fx a run for it's money without breaking a sweat.

Finally... is a Recto reeeeeaaaaally that much better than a Bugera?? Mesa are just a profiteering company.

lulz.

A Recto is a unique product, the Axe-Fx is just emulating unique products while masquerading as a unique product, and so is Bugera. That's why Mesa aren't a profiteering company. What a silly sentence.

 

[ParsonsMatt]

Drew, its your responsibility to buy an Axe-FX and prove these guys wrong. I'd love to take the job but I can't quite afford it

I've yet to hear someone mic up the AxeFX through a real poweramp/cab and emulate those tones, so I can ask the same thing - I've heard it do lots of stuff DI'd decently well (clean, lead, and layered tones), but nothing Recto/Mark/Marshall/ENGL. Direct, it just sounds like the AxeFX. Nobody's ball'd up and mic'd it, which will be the real test for me and is why I'm still mildly interested in them - I'd be fine with better-than-POD tones for tracking and then reamping through the Axe/real poweramp to get a lot of very good tones, but nobodies done it yet and nobody's willing to let me borrow theres to try.

I dunno, I've heard a lot of great Mark and Marshall clips from the Axe (none for metal though..). I really like the Axe-FX 5150/Recto clip that Ola(?) posted, moreso than his actual 5150/Recto clips

Ahh go figure! I was quite literally right up front, so I was hearing mostly cabinet - could've been why Cynic's sound was a bit off to me. This was at the HoB in Hollywood, FWIW.

Ah, the virtue on relying on the house for guitar sound... no beamy direction guitar cabinets to get in the way

A 5150 can't be 'beaten'. You can't get a better 5150. That's why people who want a 5150 will get a 5150. An Axe-Fx models amplifiers like the 5150, so as time goes by, there will be much better simulations and this will make the Axe-Fx worthless - as it's forte (replication) is now non-existent. Of course, there'll be a market for the Axe-Fx but it'll be selling for a vastly lower price than it is now - and that is why the 5150 is a fad and the Axe-Fx isn't/

Actually you can get a better 5150. Hardware variances will make it so that NO TWO 5150s WILL EVER SOUND THE SAME. You can mod your 5150 to make it sound "better", according to FJA. You can get new/better tubes in your 5150 after the old tubes start to fail. You can upgrade the transformers. You can buy a 5150 clone with improvements from small boutique amp manufacturers.

And the 5150 itself is just a SLO100 clone, is it not?

Arguing that you can't do better than a 5150 is silly. It's like the creationists arguing that eyes are perfect and therefore couldn't have evolved.

 

[InAbsentia_]

Actually you can get a better 5150. Hardware variances will make it so that NO TWO 5150s WILL EVER SOUND THE SAME. You can mod your 5150 to make it sound "better", according to FJA. You can get new/better tubes in your 5150 after the old tubes start to fail. You can upgrade the transformers. You can buy a 5150 clone with improvements from small boutique amp manufacturers.

And the 5150 itself is just a SLO100 clone, is it not?

Arguing that you can't do better than a 5150 is silly. It's like the creationists arguing that eyes are perfect and therefore couldn't have evolved.

Are you kidding me? Obviously, what I meant was that real amps don't replicate anything and therefore they have a value (and sound) of their own which remains more or less constant (if they don't increase due to rarity). If you like a 5150, you get a 5150. Modifications will only sound better to some people, you can't objectively say that it sounds 'better'.

In the case of the Axe-Fx, you can say another simulator simulates the amp better because it's simply a case of doing just that. And once something comes along that does simulate the amps better, the Axe-Fx is toast and will sell for $500 or something.

It's not like the Axe-Fx is an amplifier with a distinct tone that someone would be interested in purchasing one after something that simulates amps better comes along. I can't believe you posted this.

 

[Harry Hughes]

I see a circular argument going on for several pages in this thread's future.

 

[InAbsentia_]

I see a circular argument going on for several pages in this thread's future.

Well, you have two people saying 5150's are a fad so that's a pretty good indicator of how this is going.

 

[drew_drummer]

Are you kidding me? Obviously, what I meant was that real amps don't replicate anything and therefore they have a value (and sound) of their own which remains more or less constant (if they don't increase due to rarity). If you like a 5150, you get a 5150. Modifications will only sound better to some people, you can't objectively say that it sounds 'better'.

Actually, no. It wasn't obvious what you meant.

In the case of the Axe-Fx, you can say another simulator simulates the amp better because it's simply a case of doing just that. And once something comes along that does simulate the amps better, the Axe-Fx is toast and will sell for $500 or something.

It's not like the Axe-Fx is an amplifier with a distinct tone that someone would be interested in purchasing one after something that simulates amps better comes along. I can't believe you posted this.

You're confusing a 'fad' with obsolescence. They are two separate things.

What I'm trying to explain to you is that you are moving the goal posts time and time again. You keep changing the debate.

And if you'd dug into the Axe-FX a bit more, you'd see that it isn't quite your regular modeller. It's more like Revalver, where you can specify internal parameters of the amplifiers. So the Axe-FX in effect DOES provide you with the tools to create a distinct tone. You can start off with a 5150 model, and make it sound like something else.

Just like companies did back in the day when they all started cloning a Bassman and improving the design according to their own ideas of what sounded good at the time.

I think you're arguing semantics. All this energy would be better spent actually sitting down for more than 10 minutes with the unit, and fully exploring it. You have to think of the Axe-FX more like a modular effects processor than an amplifier modeller.

And if you look at my post history.. you'll see I wasn't always into the idea of the Axe-FX. From a theoretical stance, I just didn't see the point. But that was until I tried it.

At the end of the day - I'm speaking from experience, which trounces any amount of semantic debate you could conjure.

Pretty done with this topic now. I'll see you around - and give that guy his Mesa cab back!

 

[drew_drummer]

Well, you have two people saying 5150's are a fad so that's a pretty good indicator of how this is going.

Actually what I'm saying is that it is not possible for the Axe-FX to be a fad, and for the 5150/Recto to NOT be a fad.

Either they're all fads, or none of them are fads. And personally, I think the 5150 sounds one-dimensional. It's a good sound, no question. But it has no dynamics, and isn't as full sounding as I'd like. They also do a pretty shit clean tone.

 

[ParsonsMatt]

Are you kidding me? Obviously, what I meant was that real amps don't replicate anything and therefore they have a value (and sound) of their own which remains more or less constant (if they don't increase due to rarity). If you like a 5150, you get a 5150. Modifications will only sound better to some people, you can't objectively say that it sounds 'better'.

In the case of the Axe-Fx, you can say another simulator simulates the amp better because it's simply a case of doing just that. And once something comes along that does simulate the amps better, the Axe-Fx is toast and will sell for $500 or something.

If you were to play 5 different 5150s, you'd see that they all sound different. If you were then to play an Axe-FX model of a 5150... you'd see that it also sounds different from each of the 5150s, but closer to some than others. One of these 5150s would probably sound "the best", and I bet you could even extrapolate that there is an 'ideal' 5150 out there somewhere (I bet Nordstrom has it ). Are all of the other 5150s just emulating the tone of this ideal 5150?

Perhaps the very qualities that make the Axe-FX different aren't 'worse' but just 'different'? After all, "you can't objectively say that it sounds 'better'," and I for one tend to like the way that the Axe-FX sounds.

It's not like the Axe-Fx is an amplifier with a distinct tone that someone would be interested in purchasing one after something that simulates amps better comes along. I can't believe you posted this.

If the Axe-FX doesn't have a distinct tone, then it is IS modeling the amps as well as can be expected, given that every specific amp of a certain model will sound different from the others. Additionally, I'd argue that there are plenty of tones that can only (realistically) be achieved with an Axe-FX.

 

[drew_drummer]

Another thought - you still get people purchasing Pod 2.0's even though they are ancient.. and it's because they prefer the tone of the Recto model on the Pod 2.0 to the XT version (just as an example)

So it isn't as cut and dry as a digital effect becomes obsolete as soon as something better comes along.