Axefx Iii Options

[ztevie]

The Axe Fx is holding value much better than most similar stuff out there. It's not like they issue a new model every year either.
Standard came in 2006, Ultra 2008, II 2011, and now seven years later the III.
Something I learned since buying the II back in 2012 is that the support and will to develop the product is top notch. They continously work on improvments. This can be frustrating aswell since the tone can change between firmware updates, but then there's nothing stopping you from staying at a specific firmware.
If Fractal grew big, as Line6 for example, I think much of this would be lost. I really hope they stay like they are now, and keep on developing whatever product is the flagship at the moment.
I think when III starts to ship to customers, people who can't/won't afford it will see lots of used XL+ for sale. Great chance to get an AxeFx cheaper. The tone is still the same on both as of now, and Fractal stated that any improvments in modelling will be available for the II aswell, unless there are limitations with cpu etc...

You are at GuitarMasterClass.net

Don't miss today's free lick. Plus all our lessons are packed with free content!

Don't miss today's free blues, jazz & country licks. Plus all our lessons are packed with free content!

[Mertay]

I,m still shocked that the KEMPER has no usb out...

I suspect internally the Kemper is analog-digital-analog so they leave the quality of the digital conversion to a the users choice.

I guess its a German thing as Boss/Roland also preferred that, just now I learned that Andertons alone sold 1000 Katana amps last year. There is an advantage to that as capasitors got so tiny/reliable and affordable these days, probably fractal saw this future and naturally responded with the highest cpu horse power.

You are at GuitarMasterClass.net

Don't miss today's free lick. Plus all our lessons are packed with free content!

Don't miss today's free blues, jazz & country licks. Plus all our lessons are packed with free content!

[Rammikin]

Maybe the question is when will they stop updating the current Axefx.

They already stopped updating the current models. The updates last year were the final updates because all the available memory on the processors has now been used.

I suspect internally the Kemper is analog-digital-analog so they leave the quality of the digital conversion to a the users choice.

On any processor, the advantage of USB output is it eliminates the need for that digital-analog conversion you mention. Adding an analog-digital conversion after the analog output is a bad thing when recording .

You are at GuitarMasterClass.net

Don't miss today's free lick. Plus all our lessons are packed with free content!

Don't miss today's free blues, jazz & country licks. Plus all our lessons are packed with free content!

[Gabriel Leopardi]

The biggest change regarding the cpu is the number of processing modules you can have in a preset. Plus of course there are many changes unrelated to cpu power, for example the ability to name scenes or fading in/out to avoid a silence gap when switching amp channels.

I love my AX8, it sounds awesome and it simplifies my live gig a lot, but I'm suffering exactly these limitations that you've listed here so I would be happier with an upgrade. However, I still think that the controller and processor in one device is a great advantage. I wonder how much time we have to wait until they do something like AX8 but much more powerful.

You are at GuitarMasterClass.net

Don't miss today's free lick. Plus all our lessons are packed with free content!

Don't miss today's free blues, jazz & country licks. Plus all our lessons are packed with free content!

[Todd Simpson]

The AX8 is a great bit of kit IMHO Puts everything right where you need it, without having to run a cable to another unit in the rack. With one expression pedal, that rig can pretty much do everything. No external cabinet required.

I predict that Fractal will eventually switch from the their current dsp chips to generic Intel mobile chips which now have multiple cores and very low energy requirements and wads of power. A couple of 8 core chips would certainly allow for gobs of processing power.
I"m a bit surprised the shark chips are still being made. They are cheaper per unit, which is why I suspect they keep getting used.

I hope they put a big color display on the next rev of the ax8, just like the HELIX, it's about time they did IMHO, I use a laptop as my display for my 11 rack. They could also use wireless tech and use an ipad or something as the visual interface and not have to increase the price as much.

Todd

I love my AX8, it sounds awesome and it simplifies my live gig a lot, but I'm suffering exactly these limitations that you've listed here so I would be happier with an upgrade. However, I still think that the controller and processor in one device is a great advantage. I wonder how much time we have to wait until they do something like AX8 but much more powerful.

You are at GuitarMasterClass.net

Don't miss today's free lick. Plus all our lessons are packed with free content!

Don't miss today's free blues, jazz & country licks. Plus all our lessons are packed with free content!

This post has been edited by Todd Simpson: Feb 3 2018, 01:58 AM

[Rammikin]

I wonder how much time we have to wait until they do something like AX8 but much more powerful.

A lot of people would like to know that answer to that . Now that Fractal is no longer using the Sharc processor, you can expect the new architecture to show up in a floor unit at some point. However, the next priority after the AxeFX III ships is the new foot controllers. So, you shouldn't expect to see a floor unit this year.

You are at GuitarMasterClass.net

Don't miss today's free lick. Plus all our lessons are packed with free content!

Don't miss today's free blues, jazz & country licks. Plus all our lessons are packed with free content!

[Mertay]

On any processor, the advantage of USB output is it eliminates the need for that digital-analog conversion you mention. Adding an analog-digital conversion after the analog output is a bad thing when recording .

Yeah mixing analog and digital components (extra need of conversion) does have its negatives but I see everything as a trade off when compared to the real thing.

The guitar however is more forgiving I guess. Friend of mine uses an digital dist. pedal to an amp and uses a reverb pedal (that doesn't work parallel) on the send/return. Then the line-out goes to a ir cab. pedal (no usb output) to the computers sound card I think that makes 4 conversion but it sounds good

You are at GuitarMasterClass.net

Don't miss today's free lick. Plus all our lessons are packed with free content!

Don't miss today's free blues, jazz & country licks. Plus all our lessons are packed with free content!

[Todd Simpson]

Rammikins got a good point here Doing an extra conversion is not a great idea if it can be avoided. From the sound of it he'd be better off just going direct in to the computer, since he's going direct in to the computer any way at the end of his signal chain. That way he could use something like overloud or amplitude or lepoux and get wads more amps/fx/cabs etc. and not be married to it once it is recorded. You can always change any setting you like if you record with a plugin as it doesn't burn the fx on to the track, it just passes a clean signal through them. You can hear the fx of course when recording and when playing back, but you only have to convert analogue to digital once, on input.

The way he's doing it now sounds like he's going around his elbow to reach his back side for some reason. Whatever amp he is using, I'm sure there is plugin that would do the trick. The Lepoux plugins for PC come to mind and they are all free. So I'd say skip all that in and out, conversion, using a line out, etc. Just jack straight in and call it a day. Maintain all the flexibility that software has to offer. Skip the rest of that gear imho. It's just adding more noise to the signal.

For about $10 you can get a usb to quarter inch cable, the kind that comes with the ROCKSMITH game and have a direct conversion happening and go in as a digital signal over usb. That way one can avoid having to go in the analogue line in which has a higher noise floor. For 10 bux you can pretty much solve every problem in one go and maintain flexibility to change your tone in the middle of mixdown!
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B071NVW6V5/ref=ps...1_t1_B01N9MPLTJ

Here is a Vid of the AXE FX III in action. This guy already has one




Todd

Yeah mixing analog and digital components (extra need of conversion) does have its negatives but I see everything as a trade off when compared to the real thing.

The guitar however is more forgiving I guess. Friend of mine uses an digital dist. pedal to an amp and uses a reverb pedal (that doesn't work parallel) on the send/return. Then the line-out goes to a ir cab. pedal (no usb output) to the computers sound card I think that makes 4 conversion but it sounds good

You are at GuitarMasterClass.net

Don't miss today's free lick. Plus all our lessons are packed with free content!

Don't miss today's free blues, jazz & country licks. Plus all our lessons are packed with free content!

This post has been edited by Todd Simpson: Feb 3 2018, 06:40 AM

[Mertay]

Rammikins got a good point here Doing an extra conversion is not a great idea if it can be avoided.

Agreed in theory but outcome must be dominant for decision. Here's an example;

https://vintageking.com/weiss-eq1-lp

Its a digital eq but any mastering studio (its very popular) which owns one wouldn't mind extra conversion for a second if they have something like this.

Opposite example could be running a guitar processor through a nice recording preamp (our Phill66 used to that if I remember correct), specially good for blending the guitar sound into a mix.

There's also the fact that converters got better but enough examples anyway, I used to see this almost like a rule but for me times are changing.

You are at GuitarMasterClass.net

Don't miss today's free lick. Plus all our lessons are packed with free content!

Don't miss today's free blues, jazz & country licks. Plus all our lessons are packed with free content!

[PosterBoy]

I remember being a little buthurt when the II came out. We were so used to an update every month or so on the Ultra and then finding that we were being left with one more update an no more, as he had reached the limit of what he could do with it.

I got over that, and it still sounds great, true the II has some things that I would really like, tape echo as a delay block rather than a patch for example, but I don't even scratch the surface of what the Ultra can do.

The Axe Fx 3 really seems to be a studio unit rather than a live one to me.

You are at GuitarMasterClass.net

Don't miss today's free lick. Plus all our lessons are packed with free content!

Don't miss today's free blues, jazz & country licks. Plus all our lessons are packed with free content!

[Todd Simpson]

That's a bit extreme compared to what we were talking about yeah? you mentioned a guy going in to an amp/pedal/etc. then analogue in to a PC, that's a faaaaaaar stretch away from a 10k mastering eq. At the level you were talking about in the original post, yeah, it's best to avoid the conversions as none of that gear mentioned is very high end and all of it will probably add noise which can be avoided just by using that simple cable that I mentioned.

If one has a really high end piece of kit, then sure, a conversion is a small thing. Lots of bits of not so great gear? Skip all the conversion and just go straight in with the usb to quarter inch cable and avoid all the noise problems and do everything in software so you can change it later. Just a better approach IMHO.

Agreed in theory but outcome must be dominant for decision. Here's an example;

https://vintageking.com/weiss-eq1-lp

Its a digital eq but any mastering studio (its very popular) which owns one wouldn't mind extra conversion for a second if they have something like this.

Opposite example could be running a guitar processor through a nice recording preamp (our Phill66 used to that if I remember correct), specially good for blending the guitar sound into a mix.

There's also the fact that converters got better but enough examples anyway, I used to see this almost like a rule but for me times are changing.

It's sure got enough channels on it Practically a mixer. Nice to have options but that price is gonna keep me away. For anyone that has the scratch, hop on the wait list! Let us know how it goes

I remember being a little buthurt when the II came out. We were so used to an update every month or so on the Ultra and then finding that we were being left with one more update an no more, as he had reached the limit of what he could do with it.

I got over that, and it still sounds great, true the II has some things that I would really like, tape echo as a delay block rather than a patch for example, but I don't even scratch the surface of what the Ultra can do.

The Axe Fx 3 really seems to be a studio unit rather than a live one to me.

You are at GuitarMasterClass.net

Don't miss today's free lick. Plus all our lessons are packed with free content!

Don't miss today's free blues, jazz & country licks. Plus all our lessons are packed with free content!

[Mertay]

...

I never mentioned the gear but to keep it short they were all nice stuff. As for the mastering eq example, those engineers also have the best speakers and ears. Since they notice multiple conversions degradation more than any of us and still prefer to using it then (imho) there is a lesson to be taken from this.

But keep in mind the idea I'm sharing isn't about how acceptable multi-conversion is but how to consider it cause thats to me seems what Boss/Roland and Kemper did (they didn't avoid it like a plague) and became successful. For us users who have cheap or expensive gear, its always worth a shot to try possibilities cause theory next to a nice sound doesn't mean much.

You are at GuitarMasterClass.net

Don't miss today's free lick. Plus all our lessons are packed with free content!

Don't miss today's free blues, jazz & country licks. Plus all our lessons are packed with free content!

This post has been edited by Mertay: Feb 4 2018, 12:23 AM

[Todd Simpson]

Sure you did Here is a quote from your post.

"The guitar however is more forgiving I guess. Friend of mine uses an digital dist. pedal to an amp and uses a reverb pedal (that doesn't work parallel) on the send/return. Then the line-out goes to a ir cab. pedal (no usb output) to the computers sound card smile.gif I think that makes 4 conversion but it sounds good "

So we've got a digital distortion pedal, then a reverb, going in to a stereo return, then using an analogue line out to an analogue line in on a computer.That's the gear I was talking about that you were in reference too. Given that non of that gear is probably very high end, as at least two bits are pedals, one bit is a line out, one bit is a computer line in, it's just not worth it imho to add noise for all that when you could just go straight in with that one cable (usb to quarter inch) and have a digital signal with low noise and do everything in software.That was what I was driving at. Doing one conversion using the usb to quarter inch cable removes all of the other conversions and resulting noise and gives you a clean signal that you can process in software not to mention you can change all of it any time you like, unlike recording using pedals, you are not married to the sound once you record it. You can always change the parameters at any point, change IR, change fx, change eq. etc. Just makes more sense to do it in software imho. The weakest bit in the chain you mentioned is probably the line input on the PC itself. They are notorious for having a high noise floor and are surrounded by other electronics which can create additional hum/noise issues. So getting away from the line input by using a usb/quarter inch cable, would result in a cleaner signal to start with which would only help things down the line.

As you can probably tell I'm a big fan of "Can't we do this in Software?" The answer is usually yes and usually provides more flexibility than doing it via hardware when it comes to mixdown time which is why I'm such a fan.

Todd

I never mentioned the gear but to keep it short they were all nice stuff. As for the mastering eq example, those engineers also have the best speakers and ears. Since they notice multiple conversions degradation more than any of us and still prefer to using it then (imho) there is a lesson to be taken from this.

But keep in mind the idea I'm sharing isn't about how acceptable multi-conversion is but how to consider it cause thats to me seems what Boss/Roland and Kemper did (they didn't avoid it like a plague) and became successful. For us users who have cheap or expensive gear, its always worth a shot to try possibilities cause theory next to a nice sound doesn't mean much.

You are at GuitarMasterClass.net

Don't miss today's free lick. Plus all our lessons are packed with free content!

Don't miss today's free blues, jazz & country licks. Plus all our lessons are packed with free content!

This post has been edited by Todd Simpson: Feb 4 2018, 06:23 PM

[Mertay]

...

I didn't, they were; boss ds1x, mesa mark V, digitech supernatural reverb, digitech cabdryvr and a Behringer soundcard. I'd say after the mark V others are replaceable (reverb is a bit hard cause its guitar specific ambient, it replaced his strymon) but we didn't need a noise-gate infact I don't think he owns a noise-gate.

By the way conversion by itself introduce very minimal noise, its more of a degradation in tone that makes it "preventable if possible" (sort of like what mp3 does to a wave). Its usually a preamp (soundcard preamp, pedal level knob...anything that increases the signal) that causes the noise, even when working bare-minimum their signal-to-noise ratio stack and becomes a problem. For example 3 drive pedals even if setuped minimal causes too much noise but a chain of delay, reverb pedals (think 90's vai using 2-3 delays at the same time...) won't be such a problem.

The funny thing here is the mark V was probably the most noise causing equipment yet the most high-end

PS; The boss ds1x is an amazing pedal, easily in the all time top 5 for me its a must try if possible.

You are at GuitarMasterClass.net

Don't miss today's free lick. Plus all our lessons are packed with free content!

Don't miss today's free blues, jazz & country licks. Plus all our lessons are packed with free content!

This post has been edited by Mertay: Feb 4 2018, 08:42 PM

[Todd Simpson]

The Mesa is a noise machine espcially when the gain is turned up. It doesn't really come in to it's own until it's being cranked up. All the bits you mentioned in specific, could all be done as plugins, mostly for free in software . That's why I keep suggesting the direct cable approach. There are several Mesa emulations that sound quite nice including the one that is built in to AMPLITUDE and another that's a stand alone triaxis. Making one conversion, using the quarter inch to usb cable is simply the cheapest way to get signal in to your computer with a minimum of noise and only one conversion. That's the point I'm trying to make here You could just plug directly in to your behringer sound card and to everything "in the box" and eliminate several conversions and maintain flexibility of your tone all the way through mix down and change it at any time.

Then again I'm a big fan of doing everything in software. Even if the Mesa and pedals were dead silent, you have to re record it if you don't like the tone. If you used Amplitude for example, you could have all the same fx, same mesa (emulated of course) and change everything about it during the mix and at any point. So not only is it a better signal to go in digital, and only have one conversion, it provides far more fiexibility. Which is why I record that way using TH2/TH3 typically going direct in to my recording interface which has it's own internal preamp. I used to use my 11 rack quite a bit but I got tired of not being able to change the tone once it was recorded. I always recorded a clean track which to a separate channel which I ended up using overloud on. I hope this all makes sense I seem to be repeating myself.
Todd

I didn't, they were; boss ds1x, mesa mark V, digitech supernatural reverb, digitech cabdryvr and a Behringer soundcard. I'd say after the mark V others are replaceable (reverb is a bit hard cause its guitar specific ambient, it replaced his strymon) but we didn't need a noise-gate infact I don't think he owns a noise-gate.

By the way conversion by itself introduce very minimal noise, its more of a degradation in tone that makes it "preventable if possible" (sort of like what mp3 does to a wave). Its usually a preamp (soundcard preamp, pedal level knob...anything that increases the signal) that causes the noise, even when working bare-minimum their signal-to-noise ratio stack and becomes a problem. For example 3 drive pedals even if setuped minimal causes too much noise but a chain of delay, reverb pedals (think 90's vai using 2-3 delays at the same time...) won't be such a problem.

The funny thing here is the mark V was probably the most noise causing equipment yet the most high-end

PS; The boss ds1x is an amazing pedal, easily in the all time top 5 for me its a must try if possible.

You are at GuitarMasterClass.net

Don't miss today's free lick. Plus all our lessons are packed with free content!

Don't miss today's free blues, jazz & country licks. Plus all our lessons are packed with free content!

This post has been edited by Todd Simpson: Feb 5 2018, 02:56 AM

[Rammikin]

I got over that, and it still sounds great, true the II has some things that I would really like, tape echo as a delay block rather than a patch for example, but I don't even scratch the surface of what the Ultra can do.

A lot of AxeFX II users will be in the same situation when the AxeFX III comes out. The fact is, the III has much the same features as the II, but more of them. So if you need more cpu, channels, I/O ports, etc. the III will be attractive to you. Otherwise, there is very little that is genuinely new in the III. There are a couple of things, like scene naming, that were copied from the Helix, and some nice effects enhancements, but there is precious little that could be called innovative. One exception is the fading between channels feature, which could probably be considered innovative. (This only applies to channels...not patches as Todd claimed above) In other words, moving from the II to the III is not an automatic, or even an easy decision.

You are at GuitarMasterClass.net

Don't miss today's free lick. Plus all our lessons are packed with free content!

Don't miss today's free blues, jazz & country licks. Plus all our lessons are packed with free content!

[Todd Simpson]

Me? the above quote was from Poster Boy? I think you are right about the III. Pretty much an Ultra with some enhancements and more I/O it seems. It looks more like something to be mounted in a studio rack than taken on the road. But they will probably sell every one they build. Periphery alone will probably order a dozen.


Todd

A lot of AxeFX II users will be in the same situation when the AxeFX III comes out. The fact is, the III has much the same features as the II, but more of them. So if you need more cpu, channels, I/O ports, etc. the III will be attractive to you. Otherwise, there is very little that is genuinely new in the III. There are a couple of things, like scene naming, that were copied from the Helix, and some nice effects enhancements, but there is precious little that could be called innovative. One exception is the fading between channels feature, which could probably be considered innovative. (This only applies to channels...not patches as Todd claimed above) In other words, moving from the II to the III is not an automatic, or even an easy decision.

You are at GuitarMasterClass.net

Don't miss today's free lick. Plus all our lessons are packed with free content!

Don't miss today's free blues, jazz & country licks. Plus all our lessons are packed with free content!

[Rammikin]

I think you are right about the III. Pretty much an Ultra with some enhancements and more I/O it seems.

Oh my, definitely not! I think you've confused the Ultra with the AxeFX II.

You are at GuitarMasterClass.net

Don't miss today's free lick. Plus all our lessons are packed with free content!

Don't miss today's free blues, jazz & country licks. Plus all our lessons are packed with free content!

[Todd Simpson]

I think your right

Oh my, definitely not! I think you've confused the Ultra with the AxeFX II.

You are at GuitarMasterClass.net

Don't miss today's free lick. Plus all our lessons are packed with free content!

Don't miss today's free blues, jazz & country licks. Plus all our lessons are packed with free content!

[Gabriel Leopardi]

Me? the above quote was from Poster Boy? I think you are right about the III. Pretty much an Ultra with some enhancements and more I/O it seems. It looks more like something to be mounted in a studio rack than taken on the road. But they will probably sell every one they build. Periphery alone will probably order a dozen.


Todd

Send another dozen to Metallica!

This was what happened the first time Metallica bought fractal to play at Antartida:


"According to Metallica’s guitar tech and a tweet from Fractal Audio, Metallica has ruined Christmas for literally tens of djent nerds who finally pestered their moms enough to get them this year’s guitar equivalent of a Furby. Except there won’t even be any for them to tear each others hair out for in the Wal-Mart checkout line because METALLICA HAS BOUGHT THEM ALL"

http://geargods.net/news/fractal-belong-metallica/

You are at GuitarMasterClass.net

Don't miss today's free lick. Plus all our lessons are packed with free content!

Don't miss today's free blues, jazz & country licks. Plus all our lessons are packed with free content!