an FX only Box?

spikey

spikey

Experienced
A small FX-Only Box? I was asked to find out if this might be a thing someday Cliff/Fractal would consider making. I told them (over at TGP) that I would ask.

Thanks
 
With the updates for the III, I can definitely say that I would be chomping at the bit to grab one. I'm mostly settled on the FX8, but would love an updated version with the new effects models. I can honestly say that it would cure my G.A.S. I would be interested in the same format as the FX8 though. 11 switches is very nice to have.

I also use the HXFX, and it's great, but there is a difference between it and a Fractal product. I can hear and feel it. The biggest drawback of that is only 8 switches. There are times when I find myself wanting a little more hands- (well, foot) on control.
 
spikey said:
A small FX-Only Box? I was asked to find out if this might be a thing someday Cliff/Fractal would consider making. I told them (over at TGP) that I would ask.

Thanks
Click to expand...
Ian Minogue-Corps said:
It would fly off the shelves tbh.
Click to expand...
The FX8 was effects only, and, from what I remember, didn't sell well. I wouldn't expect them to do it again.
 
Last edited:
Greg Ferguson said:
The FX8 was effects only, and, from what I remember, didn't sell well. I wouldn't expect them to do it again.
Click to expand...
Yep, amp modeling is really where it's at. I can't recall the article I read, but the current generation of guitarists don't have the time or desire to haul amps around (I don't either :p ). Some have expressed concern over the future of amps in general. I know some on this board only use the FX, but my impression is that percentage is fairly small.
 
I still use Amps now and again, Two Rock CRS and a 67 Selmer TnB 50 with the Two Rock in 4cm with my FM9 but I do think if the will was there and the price point was reasonable there would be a market . When you look at the crazy prices of top end pedals from Eventide, Strymon etc it make a lot of financial sense to buy into an architecture that is continuously being updated ,
 
I do need to find my way back to Fractal amp modeling again, but I've been enjoying analog modeling recently. I do still have 1 tube combo amp, and although it's up for sale, I kind of hope it never leaves. The problem really is about all the time and money involved. The FM3 simply didn't work for me. That's what it comes down to. That is not anyone's fault, in any way. I should have gone with a full III Turbo and the FC12.
 
Whatever Fractal does make for guitar, I will take a hard look at it. I must say I turn on my Axe-FX III Mk2 about 5 times more often than the other 4 nice Modelers around it.
 
The FM9 has the same low noise circuit as the FX8 and Axe III. I don't see the benefit of a new product that basically does the same thing as a current model. Relabeling/repackaging the FM9 as an FX9, removing the amp and cab blocks, doesn't fit what I've come to understand of FAS' business model.

Never say never though, the FC-6 would be a viable form factor for an effects only device. However, it appears that the FX8 may not have been as successful as hoped. If it had been, I'm sure an FC-6 configuration, FX only device would already be available.

The FM3 may not have the same circuit (IN/OUT 3 of FM9) but has been said to be low noise in 4CM configuration, so a smaller option for effects only use is already available. It's not much larger than a competitor's FX only device.
 
I can see a marketplace for it and there has been one ever since they quit producing the FX8! If they had just made a way to control analog amp switching on the FM units they would reach that part of the market as well.
 
JoKeR III said:
The FM9 has the same low noise circuit as the FX8 and Axe III. I don't see the benefit of a new product that basically does the same thing as a current model. Relabeling/repackaging the FM9 as an FX9, removing the amp and cab blocks, doesn't fit what I've come to understand of FAS' business model.
Click to expand...
That would give an FX-only platform with probably 2X the effects processing power of the FM9, so it's an interesting option.
 
JoKeR III said:
The FM9 has the same low noise circuit as the FX8 and Axe III. I don't see the benefit of a new product that basically does the same thing as a current model. Relabeling/repackaging the FM9 as an FX9, removing the amp and cab blocks, doesn't fit what I've come to understand of FAS' business model.
Click to expand...

I am absolutely not the target market for a product like this - BUT, why not take the existing FM9 and release a firmware that is 'FX Only'?
Without the Amp/Cab blocks in there, you could probably double up the amount if FX blocks you could use, which a lot of folks would love.
You could allow users to purchase the FM9, it comes loaded with the firmware of your choice (with Amps or without), and then allow the purchase of the alternate firmware (which would cover the cost of supporting a second firmware).
 
I would LOVE an effects only option. At this point I’m fairly equally split between amps and my Fractal stuff, while using my FM9 in 4CM with the amps, which is great, but I’d absolutely love to remove all the modeling from it and put that CPU towards effects in something more pedalboard-friendly. There’s always going to be pedals I want to use, but I’m not adding anything else to my FM9 board because it’s nearly 3ft long already with the 2 expression pedals.
 
I have been toying with the idea of picking up a Dirty Shirley combo and to have an effects only option of an FM3 would be stellar!
 
If you don't have amp and cab blocks in your preset, they won't use any cpu, so I don't think there's any net savings to be had on that level with an effects-only device.

Leaving out those block types won't make it cheaper either -- if anything it's more work to remove them, zero work not to.

Only possible savings I can see is in reducing the storage for those blocks' models, but I'd be super surprised if that was significant. Plus, there definitely are net cost savings to having as many devices as possible as similar as possible.
 
Dave Merrill said:
If you don't have amp and cab blocks in your preset, they won't use any cpu, so I don't think there's any net savings to be had on that level with an effects-only device.

Leaving out those block types won't make it cheaper either -- if anything it's more work to remove them, zero work not to.

Only possible savings I can see is in reducing the storage for those blocks' models, but I'd be super surprised if that was significant. Plus, there definitely are net cost savings to having as many devices as possible as similar as possible.
Click to expand...
I see your point and it makes sense! @BBN idea isn't a bad one though if anything just to not have to deal with any of the anp or cab blocks when you are building a signal chain. Maybe just have the option to exclude the amp and cab modeling in the FW.

It would still be nice to have some way to be able to control switching and an amp that has 2-3 channels without having to add outboard hardwear.
 
Dave Merrill said:
If you don't have amp and cab blocks in your preset, they won't use any cpu, so I don't think there's any net savings to be had on that level with an effects-only device.

Leaving out those block types won't make it cheaper either -- if anything it's more work to remove them, zero work not to.

Only possible savings I can see is in reducing the storage for those blocks' models, but I'd be super surprised if that was significant. Plus, there definitely are net cost savings to having as many devices as possible as similar as possible.
Click to expand...
Certainly there is. The Amp modeling uses a dedicated core. That core would be available for using with other effects.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom