Announcing Axe-Fx III Mark II TURBO

Sorry if I missed this, but what is the end result of the faster chip in the turbo?

faster scene changes and better pitch block performance for example?

less latency?

or is it just able to have more block instances?
More CPU %. Doesn't have to be blocks. I have a number of presets I can consolidate into 1 with just a little more CPU under the hood.
 
Last edited:
Sorry if I missed this, but what is the end result of the faster chip in the turbo?

faster scene changes and better pitch block performance for example?

less latency?

or is it just able to have more block instances?

Standard versions use 1.00 GHz processors. Turbo version uses 1.25 GHz processors.
The end result according to Fractal is more CPU processing headroom on the grid.

The speculation due to the math is that a patch that would have used 80% CPU will now use only 64% CPU, but could be a bit more or less depending on other non-exposed variables we might not be able to account for.
 
I wonder if this additional 25% of cpu cycles will allow to run a third amp block on the Turbo.. otherwise it'd be kind of wasted on the core running amp blocks (at this time at least)
 
I believe it allows you to add an additional block or two to a maxed out preset.

Let’s say your preset on your current unit is at 85% but you wish to add an additional reverb, you can’t because you are too close to CPU overload. On the turbo unit, that 85% preset goes down to say 70%, thereby creating capacity to add that reverb block.
I think you are assuming that it will add additional blocks, no details or MK2 vs Turbo comparison came out on what this addition 25% clock speed is for? only rubber statement "allowing for more complex presets"!
 
I wonder if this additional 25% of cpu cycles will allow to run a third amp block on the Turbo.. otherwise it'd be kind of wasted on the core running amp blocks (at this time at least)

IIRC the FM9 runs the reverb with the amp block cpu and frees up the other cpu for other things. Possible maybe? or maybe a 3rd amp block? I'm excited to add a few more blocks to a preset regardless.
 
IIRC the FM9 runs the reverb with the amp block cpu and frees up the other cpu for other things. Possible maybe? or maybe a 3rd amp block? I'm excited to add a few more blocks to a preset regardless.
The FM9 has 4 Cores. One core is dedicated to reverb, One Core to delay,and ,most likely, one for the amp block, and one for everything else.
 
I wonder if this additional 25% of cpu cycles will allow to run a third amp block on the Turbo.. otherwise it'd be kind of wasted on the core running amp blocks (at this time at least)
I have had to cut down a few presets after loading the FullRes IR's with FW 17 due to DSP overload. They were on the edge anyway.
Turbo will give some extra me some DSP breathing room.
 
Wouldn't the SPDIF connection be a bit faster though?

two fractal devices connected in series with instrument cables:
1. AD conversion
2. however many samples it takes to process the signal in device A
3. DA conversion
4. AD conversion
5. however many samples it takes to process the signal in device B
6. DA conversion

two fractal devices connected in series with SPDIF:
1. AD conversion
2. however many samples it takes to process the signal in device A
3. device A sends signal to device B via SPDIF
4. however many samples it takes to process the signal in device B
5. DA conversion

In other words, the SPDIF connection trades two AD/DA conversions for one instance of sending the signal via SPDIF.
Of course it's kind of splitting hairs here, but still. Just wondering if there would be a difference.
I was curious about this also as I'm SPDIFing an Ax3 into an Ax2 and just assumed it was faster than analogue - did some tests this evening with the following results (each test is measured with the individual AXEFX or linked AXEFXs in the loop of my audio interface and measured in Logic Pro by comparing a transient peak timepoint (in ms) of a guitar signal into the audio interface with the same signal through a loopback from/to the same audio interface.

  • Ax3 Front Input1 > Ax3 Output1L (TS) - 1ms - (Input1,Output1 Blocks on grid)
  • Ax2 Front Input1 > Ax2 Output1L (TS) - 1ms - (shunts from input to output on grid)
  • Ax3 Front Input1 > Ax2 Output1L (TS) - 2ms - (Digital Bridge Connection - Ax3Out1 connected to Ax2In1 via SPDIF cable from Ax3 SPDIFOut to Ax2 SPDIFIn, Input1, Output1 Blocks on the Ax3 Grid, shunts from input to output on Ax2 grid)
  • Ax3 Front Input1 > Ax2 Output1L (TS) - 3ms - (Analogue Bridge Connection - Ax3Out1 connect to Ax2In1 via TS/TS cable from Ax3 TS1LOut to Ax2 Front Input1, Input1, Output1 Blocks on the Ax3 Grid, shunts from input to output on Ax2 grid)
Edit - I expected the test with the digital connection to be less than the sum of the first 2 since there is 1 D/A and 1 A/D conversion less, but no, maybe because the precision is not enough (need 0.1ms increments maybe). Still 1ms faster than with an analogue connection between Ax3 and Ax2 though.
 
Last edited:
I don’t know why some comments are so negative.
Fractal is brining us the last tech available in the nice form or an option.
For the ones who just want something simple they can just get the FM3. It’s like Apple with their iPhone or Porsche. Of course you can have a new 911 each 2 years and always have the last design, like the new iPhones, reselling and buying new again and again. You’re not obliged to do that for everything.
I do that for iPhone and guitar devices. It’s not going to eat my net worth as much as my wife’s love for fashion…!
And even if you don’t have the the money you still can enjoy your FM3.
BTW as a stainless steel frets fan I don’t have that issue with my Suhrs or Tom Anderson guitars. They’re made to be time and hard playing proof.
Don’t blame fractal. If they were doing what Kemper do, zero innovation, that would be the same for their DSP provider. That also push TI to keep offering new audio DSP. As I’m pretty sure FAS is on of their biggest customers…
Remember what was happening when TigerSHARC line was dropped out… it’s the the main risk for amp modeling industry = only energy effective DSP research and no more “turbo”.
Please I need an FM9 in the form factor of FM3 and maybe smaller for the Hamptons
 
I just got my Axe 3 Mark 2 yesterday... can I please return it and get the turbo! if so please tell me how
I got mine Friday —- contact sales & request RMA — you have two options buy new one with module now -send old unit And get payment method reimbursement— option two send back unit then get store credit then buy new model -//— I just sent back the regular MKIi today — purchased new one yesterday —/ you pay for shipping on RMA unit however
 
If you ever feel bad about newer versions of gear being released, it's not a fault of the company. It's just evolution!

You just have to rekindle the appreciation for the features you already have. Who the hell would've needed or even wished for more CPU speed 1 month ago?

I mean, if the year was 2015, everyone would be super happy with their Axe FX 2s. Now we're on Axe 3... MK2... Turbo. We're already so spoiled with the sounds and features that I don't give a shit whether an Axe IV lands in a year.

Get this; why are people anxious now that there is a Turbo option? I mean, they were perfectly happy with their Mk1s and Mk2s just this past monday :laughing: Nothing's changed with their units, they're still as good as they ever were!
 
Back
Top Bottom