Of course, everyone loves the idea of capturing tones — but honestly, it’s not that essential. Personally, I use both the ToneX pedal and the NAM Player pedal by Dimehead into my Axe-Fx III, and it works flawlessly. I also use their plugins.
To me, Fractal is arriving way too late in this game to seriously hope to compete or create its own standard. The competition is just too far ahead. If you wanted an Axe-Fx to run NAM natively, you’d need a powerful DSP (like the one already in the AF3) and a high-end ARM Cortex neural processor — and that would easily push the price of an Axe-Fx IV to around $5K.
Keep in mind: NAM can’t run on a traditional DSP — it needs a CPU architecture closer to a computer. So far, only Dimehead has managed to make true 1:1 hardware NAM playback. The others rely on conversions or workarounds (like the Anagram, which uses Olifan’s trick).
Between the high hardware cost and expensive development, it’s clear that many Axe-Fx III users — who aren’t always pros or making money with their gear — wouldn’t follow. They can’t justify dropping company money on a new unit. But for pro studios or touring acts, $5K could make sense.
Another major challenge for Fractal is the ecosystem. NAM, ToneX, and Neural Capture (via Cortex Cloud) already have tens of thousands of profiles and captures, including tons of pro-level ones (like ToneJunkie, among others). That’s a massive head start.
What could make the Axe-Fx IV appealing is a radical redesign: make it smaller, lighter, and more practical. It’s currently way too bulky and heavy. I don’t care about a huge screen — I’d rather have a streamlined, app-based interface.
My ideal Axe-Fx IV:
- 1U rack format, passive cooling, no built-in screen
- Full control via iOS/Android app or optional touch screen remote
- 96kHz USB audio interface
