Axe-FX II vs the FM3

S

stickyresin

Member
So I've been out of the current fractal news loop for awhile and have just been enjoying my Axe-FX II Mark II. At this point I'm finally thinking of upgrading.
I'm not sure at what point in Cygnus that the FM3 is at but does it really sound and feel identical to the FX III in terms of raw amp tones?

From what I remembered the DSP in the Axe-FX II is more powerful than the DSP in the FM3, but I'm not sure how this manifests in real world use. I don't tend to make complex chains, I've experimented with dual-amps but I believe I could probably live without it. Just trying to figure out how much of an actual perceivable upgrade the FM3 will be to the Axe-FX II Mark II.

Sorry if this topic as been brought up before.
 
Rex said:
After years of beta-testing the Axe-Fx III, the FM3 and the FM9, i hear no difference. Sometimes I have to look to see which one I'm playing.
Click to expand...

That's what I want to hear. My main concern for sure is the quality and feel of the amp tones. and I assume the effects will be stellar as always.
 
I miss the extra instances of some blocks in the Fm3 compared to the 2 and 3. The FM3 does seem to sound and feel identical to the Axe-FX III when plugging into it and running out of it into an amplification device. The Axe-3 seems to be quieter in front of a tube Amp than the Fm3, if you ever need to use one in that duty. The output of the Fm3 seems pretty easy to clip for some reason, compared to the Axe-FX 3.
 
Last edited:
Chris Hurley said:
I miss the extra instances of some blocks in the Fm3 compared to the 2 and 3. It does seem to sound and feel identical. The 3 seems to be quieter in front of a tube Amp, if you ever need to use one in that duty. The output of the Fm3 seems pretty easy to clip for some reason, compared to the 3.
Click to expand...
I assume you mean that the FM3 and the III sound and feel identical. It's interesting that the FM3 clips easier than the 3.
 
Okay really loving the FM3 amp tones and feel. I can't imagine really keeping the II at this point.

Question though, since the II is more powerful than the FM3 in terms of DSP I assume then it's just a strategic choice not to import Cygnus over to the II?
 
stickyresin said:
Okay really loving the FM3 amp tones and feel. I can't imagine really keeping the II at this point.

Question though, since the II is more powerful than the FM3 in terms of DSP I assume then it's just a strategic choice not to import Cygnus over to the II?
Click to expand...
1) The II was out of production for years before Cygnus came along.

2) When the III was released, it used Ares modeling. The II was only able to handle a portion of that modeling.

3) Cygnus modeling is more sophisticated than Ares modeling was. If the II couldn't handle full-on Ares, it for sure couldn't handle Cygnus.
 
Rex said:
1) The II was out of production for years before Cygnus came along.

2) When the III was released, it used Ares modeling. The II was only able to handle a portion of that modeling.

3) Cygnus modeling is more sophisticated than Ares modeling was. If the II couldn't handle full-on Ares, it for sure couldn't handle Cygnus.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, I was just curious why since IIRC the DSP in the II is greater than the FM3 but my question seemed to be answered below.

DJD100 said:
It wasn't that the II couldn't handle it DSP-wise, rather there wasn't enough memory available to fit the newer firmware.
Click to expand...
Ah gotcha.
 
Last edited:
stickyresin said:
Fair enough, I was just curious why since IIRC the DSP in the II is greater than the FM3 but my question seemed to be answered below.


Ah gotcha.
Click to expand...

Cant tell from your phrasing in earlier posts whether or not you already own an FM3. But I will say that if you aren't maxing out the II DSP, and you don't make complex chains, you're probably fine with the FM3.

I went from AXE Standard - AXE II - AX8 - FM3, and haven't had issues with DSP. I don't make complex chains either. I do wish the FM3 had a little more headroom so I could run the Reverbs at Ultra High at all times, but in a live band setting it isn't noticeable.

If I didn't have any fractal product currently and was buying new, I'd get an FM9 for that extra DSP.
 
Chris Hurley said:
It makes sense to de-emphasize the older stuff.
Click to expand...
For sure, I don't begrudge Fractal Audio for their business strategies. I got a lot of value for my money with II. The question just naturally came up when I read that the II had a more powerful DSP chip than the FM3.

JRod4928 said:
Cant tell from your phrasing in earlier posts whether or not you already own an FM3. But I will say that if you aren't maxing out the II DSP, and you don't make complex chains, you're probably fine with the FM3.

I went from AXE Standard - AXE II - AX8 - FM3, and haven't had issues with DSP. I don't make complex chains either. I do wish the FM3 had a little more headroom so I could run the Reverbs at Ultra High at all times, but in a live band setting it isn't noticeable.

If I didn't have any fractal product currently and was buying new, I'd get an FM9 for that extra DSP.
Click to expand...
I almost never maxed out the II in terms of DSP unless I was just experimenting with absurd patches that had no real practical application for me.

I was a bit surprised at how much DSP was utilized with each progressive level in the reverb "performance" settings in proportion to how they sounded . Although I was testing them out at low volumes so perhaps the differences would be more pronounced at higher volumes.

I would have paid more for the FM9 processing power in the FM3 chassis, as the compact size really appeals to me.
 
stickyresin said:
For sure, I don't begrudge Fractal Audio for their business strategies. I got a lot of value for my money with II. The question just naturally came up when I read that the II had a more powerful DSP chip than the FM3.


I almost never maxed out the II in terms of DSP unless I was just experimenting with absurd patches that had no real practical application for me.

I was a bit surprised at how much DSP was utilized with each progressive level in the reverb "performance" settings in proportion to how they sounded . Although I was testing them out at low volumes so perhaps the differences would be more pronounced at higher volumes.

I would have paid more for the FM9 processing power in the FM3 chassis, as the compact size really appeals to me.
Click to expand...
Yeah the extra buttons aren't necessary for me either. But after owning an FC6 for a brief period of time, the convenience was evident. I just didn't need it. No issues using Mosky switch for me. And sometimes i don't use anything at all
 
stickyresin said:
For sure, I don't begrudge Fractal Audio for their business strategies. I got a lot of value for my money with II. The question just naturally came up when I read that the II had a more powerful DSP chip than the FM3.
Click to expand...

Many of the upgrades in the gen3 products aren't specifically related to modelling horsepower. The processor was EOL for the Axe-FX II, they had a new product, no new money comes in for updating the old product. There is a certain amount of updates that goodwill might buy but eventually, they have to put food on the table, which means focusing on current products. Breaks my heart but thats how it works.
 
Last edited:
Chris Hurley said:
Many of the upgrades in the gen3 products aren't specifically related to modelling horsepower. The processor was EOL for the Axe-FX II, they had a new product, no new money comes in for updating the old product. There is a certain amount of updates that goodwill might buy but eventually, they have to put food on the table, which means focusing on current products. Breaks my heart but thats how it works.
Click to expand...
Tbh I don't even find it heartbreaking. I think Fractal Audio has created a double-edged sword for themselves in that - on one hand they have developed a stellar reputation in terms of updating their products and on the other hand an inevitable sense of expectation naturally arises among the owners for continued evolution of their product.
It would be ridiculous on my part to expect constant updating of the II in perpetuity. I'm glad the company has come up with a business strategy that works for them and us.
 
Last edited:
I’m very much on the fence about updating, I’m still on the AXE FX II, but would love a small form factor for gigs, just not sure if the FM3 would have enough headroom for me.

I’m using the Mastermind LT as my floor unit, suppose if i jumped the gun for the FM9 i could still use the LT for small gigs.… Anyone using a FM3 or FM9 in a rack, or just off the side instead of at your feet?
 
Flopro said:
I’m very much on the fence about updating, I’m still on the AXE FX II, but would love a small form factor for gigs, just not sure if the FM3 would have enough headroom for me.

I’m using the Mastermind LT as my floor unit, suppose if i jumped the gun for the FM9 i could still use the LT for small gigs.… Anyone using a FM3 or FM9 in a rack, or just off the side instead of at your feet?
Click to expand...

In the Axe-FX II, it is fairly hard to run it out of CPU. In the FM3, it is fairly easy. I find that I can "get it done" but swiss-army-knife presets sometimes require some planning and compromise.

Still an awesome device. I really love how compact it is. I use it like a "POD" on the desktop as much as anything else.

I also find it somewhat enjoyable to try to figure out how to get stuff to fit. That's twisted, I know.
 
Chris Hurley said:
I also find it somewhat enjoyable to try to figure out how to get stuff to fit. That's twisted, I know.
Click to expand...
I agree that there’s a certain creative element in trimming a preset to only what you need in the situation, and making it fit and be accessible
 
I have both, and the AXE II runs with tube preamps, while the FM3 works alone due to Cygness being quite a step forward IMO (vs early Ares in the Axe II), though typically with an external Multi-FX in the FX Loop to extend it's capabilities.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom