AxeFX III: What's Missing?

I certainly don’t want another 2.4 GHz source in my rack. And, judging by the pictures in “Post your rig”, there are a lot of people who use Shure GLXD or Line 6 G wireless users. They certainly don’t want it, too.

Also, that wouldn’t be as easy as slapping a wireless card inside, you’d have to have an antenna connector (or two) on the front panel. An antenna on the front panel would mess with other antennas people may have in their racks. Wireless engineering and troubleshooting is difficult and costly, especially for equipment mounted in a rack and used in an environment with tons of RF interference. That would take resources.

As would developing mobile apps, testing them, dealing with app stores, etc etc.

All of that would take something away from developing core functionality.

So, while I do agree that remote control would be nice in some scenarios, disabling WiFi and/or Bluetooth would be one of the first things I personally would do when setting up my III.

On the other hand, the chips inside the III already have Ethernet, so adding a way to control Axe-FX via TCP/IP would add a lot of opportunities, and getting rid of the USB connection would be welcome, too. So I guess this would be a cheaper option, and a much more robust one, fitting even more complex professional installations.
 
WiFi or even Bluetooth would be an amazing thing to have - as I stated earlier big big oversight......
Come on Fractal delay its release and get it sorted - the FC's may also be ready by then :cool:
 
Bluetooth will, based on current trends, likely become the preferred way to interface with processors like this.
Nah, probably not.

It will most likely be obsolete before the decade is out. Someone will inevitably do it better, if they haven't already, and people will be dumping every Bluetooth device for whatever the new tech will be.

Or maybe it'll stick around for decades, as the format finds a place in the world to prove itself worthy of being a necessity. Who really knows?

Trends often mean absolutely nothing in tech. It's a fickle industry, where trends favor novel ideas over practical ones, until the new wears off and they dump it like yesterday's garbage. And practical ideas tend to be boring and take decades, and/or many iterations to finally stick.
 
I asked my III repeatedly this morning to make the coffee and it just sat there. Useless. Why doesn't it make me coffee in the morning???
The same thing happens with my cat (actually it's more like "clean up our dinner dishes") but she just lays there uncaring. At least your III sounds great. The cat has no sense of musicality ;-)
 
I see this unit as something that was designed to meet the needs and desires of professional touring and recording musicians.

I would guess phone connectivity is not a priority with design.

Modern pro touring rigs are filled with FOH consoles, monitor consoles, signal processors, and other gear that can be controlled wirelessly. This is becoming the industry standard, and Fractal is behind the curve in this regard.
 
Modern pro touring rigs are filled with FOH consoles, monitor consoles, signal processors, and other gear that can be controlled wirelessly. This is becoming the industry standard, and Fractal is behind the curve in this regard.

Outside of using wireless tech to mix on an X32, or other digital mixer, (which actually has the hugely practical upshot of replacing a snake in most situations) I really wonder how much of that wireless stuff is actually being used during the live event, and how much of it could have actually been done with a practical UI, just as easily, or easier, and without needing an extra device, and the hassles involved.

Also, becoming an "industry standard" is not exactly a clear target. The Line 6 Pod was considered an "industry standard" for quite a while, and I wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole. Then again, a Marshall Plexi is also considered an "industry standard" and it's far from anything even related to bluetooth.
 
On the other hand, the chips inside the III already have Ethernet, so adding a way to control Axe-FX via TCP/IP would add a lot of opportunities, and getting rid of the USB connection would be welcome, too. So I guess this would be a cheaper option, and a much more robust one, fitting even more complex professional installations.
LOL, this is the funniest thing I've read in a while. I remember, when the ULTRA came out, and people pleaded with Cliff for USB, even stating how it was the industry standard, and that he'd get left behind without it. Now, look at this. Tech is such a fickle mistress.
 
I'm just waiting on the wireless gig. I don't even have to show up, I just connect my phone to the club via bluetooth, and the I can control the entire show from my sofa at home. I jest.
 
Also, becoming an "industry standard" is not exactly a clear target. The Line 6 Pod was considered an "industry standard" for quite a while, and I wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole. Then again, a Marshall Plexi is also considered an "industry standard" and it's far from anything even related to bluetooth.

The poster I was replying to said the Axe FX III is designed for "professional touring and recording musicians," and that's the community I'm referring to. The Line 6 Pod was never an industry standard among that community. A Marshall Plexi has no need for a sophisticated UI because the UI is 5 knobs on the front panel.

Outside of using wireless tech to mix on an X32, or other digital mixer, (which actually has the hugely practical upshot of replacing a snake in most situations) I really wonder how much of that wireless stuff is actually being used during the live event, and how much of it could have actually been done with a practical UI, just as easily, or easier, and without needing an extra device, and the hassles involved.

I'm not sure what you're getting at there. Clearly the most direct application for wireless control is mixing, and it is used extensively for that. We have FOH engineers roaming throughout a 5,000 seat auditorium mixing in real time, and 6-10 band members on stage doing our own monitor mixes on tablets. This is with Yamaha CL consoles. For pro audio, wireless control and network capabilities are indeed becoming the standard. I don't see why controlling an AFX III is that much different, if in fact it's intended for a pro user.
 
Last edited:
WiFi or even Bluetooth would be an amazing thing to have - as I stated earlier big big oversight......Come on Fractal delay its release and get it sorted - the FC's may also be ready by then :cool:
Fractal would have to go through alot of additional certification all around the world if they added any radio emitting device in the Axe III. So i think it is everything but an "oversight"...
 
LOL, this is the funniest thing I've read in a while. I remember, when the ULTRA came out, and people pleaded with Cliff for USB, even stating how it was the industry standard, and that he'd get left behind without it. Now, look at this. Tech is such a fickle mistress.

I guess I didn’t make myself clear. I obviously don’t want to get rid of the USB port. It’s needed for audio interface etc.

What I’m saying is I would like my Axe to require no USB connection while mounted in a rack during gigs, as Ethernet would be much better in that scenario.
 
The poster I was replying to said the Axe FX III is designed for "professional touring and recording musicians," and that's the community I'm referring to. The Line 6 Pod was never an industry standard among that community. A Marshall Plexi has no need for a sophisticated UI because the UI is 5 knobs on the front panel.

As to whether the wireless stuff is being used in live events, absolutely. We have FOH engineers roaming throughout a 5,000 seat auditorium mixing in real time, and 6-10 band members on stage doing our own monitor mixes on tablets. This is with Yamaha CL consoles. For pro audio, wireless control and network capabilities are indeed becoming the standard.
I think you may have missed the early 2000's, PODs were quite an annoying staple in many of the big studios in Houston, Austin, and Dallas. It was very much considered a "professional recording standard." I know, because I was there, and engineers often tried to push that crap on me.

Also, I'm not talking about mixing. Like I said, there is a practical upshot to wireless mixing, as you don't need to run a snake, which is pretty significant. The Axe-FX, on the other hand is not a mixer, it's a Plexi, with a delay pedal, into a 4x12 cab that fits conveniently into a three space rack, and doesn't even need to be mic'ed. Adding wireless doesn't seem to have any significant benefit.
 
I'm not sure what you're getting at there. Clearly the most direct application for wireless control is mixing, and it is used extensively for that. We have FOH engineers roaming throughout a 5,000 seat auditorium mixing in real time, and 6-10 band members on stage doing our own monitor mixes on tablets. This is with Yamaha CL consoles. For pro audio, wireless control and network capabilities are indeed becoming the standard. I don't see why controlling an AFX III is that much different, if in fact it's intended for a pro user.

When those engineers do that, they sure don’t use the wireless built into each and every device out there, they are using a proper wireless network with devices connected via Ethernet. Which is also used for audio and control protocols in many cases.
 
When those engineers do that, they sure don’t use the wireless built into each and every device out there, they are using a proper wireless network with devices connected via Ethernet. Which is also used for audio and control protocols in many cases.
Not to mention the fact that those systems could easily integrate the Axe-FX III as is, without Bluetooth, or Ethernet built in.
 
Not to mention the fact that those systems could easily integrate the Axe-FX III as is, without Bluetooth, or Ethernet built in.

I’m not sure they need to do anything with the Axe, but I would certainly benefit from Ethernet as MIDI for control doesn’t work well over long cable runs. Of course, there are midi over Ethernet solutions available anyway, but built in would be faster I guess.
 
With all this bluetooth discussion, surely one option here could be an aftermarket "Axe FX Bluetooth Kit" which would be a USB dongle (with passthru) that you could then have a companion app to?

Not sure if anyone would buy it, but it could solve this issue.
 
With all this bluetooth discussion, surely one option here could be an aftermarket "Axe FX Bluetooth Kit" which would be a USB dongle (with passthru) that you could then have a companion app to?

Not sure if anyone would buy it, but it could solve this issue.

If the Faslink protocol is opened up something like this would be a real possibility. With the FC's basically being "dumb switches" and all the config is in the preset then a simple bluetooth connection into a Faslink port would be pretty easy.
 
And no Bluetooth to facilitate editing from a mobile device? For a unit that hopefully will have a long lifetime that's likely to be the preferred interface for editing in the future.

I haven’t read through the whole thread yet so my apologies if this has been addressed already, but as much as I would love to have the ability to edit via Bluetooth, if it added significantly to the cost I’d rather not have it. I’m really keen on the fact that even with all the significant improvements the Axe3 is the same price point I paid for my Axe2xl+.
 
I don't know - wifi drives me up an f'ing wall - it amazes me how far technology has come. We can make cars that drive themselves but I can't get a decent wifi signal in my house sometimes - or it drops out - or disconnects - or I have to power cycle the router every day. Which is why most things in my house have Ethernet connections.
I do find Bluetooth to be a much more reliable wireless connection between devices. It would be pretty cool to have Bluetooth control of the axe with a phone/ipad etc...
 
Back
Top Bottom