• We would like to remind our members that this is a privately owned, run and supported forum. You are here at the invitation and discretion of the owners. As such, rules and standards of conduct will be applied that help keep this forum functioning as the owners desire. These include, but are not limited to, removing content and even access to the forum.

    Please give yourself a refresher on the forum rules you agreed to follow when you signed up.

Any rumors about an FX8 successor?

TubeStack

Inspired
Tricky? You just need a XLR to 1/4" cable, not sure how a $12 cable is going stop you from using it with 4CM. I am using the FM3 with my tube amp and its quiet, and switching the channels too... since my amp uses midi ;)

Yes, I did all of that (cable adapter, midi switching), but it kind of just proves the point that the FM3 isn't ideal for that application.

And by tricky routing, I was referring to @Bakerman 's routing for not needing the XLR adapter, which is super helpful, but again shows the FM3 isn't great for quick and easy 4cm use. It just wasn't designed with that in mind, as Cliff has said.
 

Greg Ferguson

Axe-Master
I don't get the impression that the FX8 was all that much of a success from a business standpoint. The relatively short period of active production points to this as well. It is a great product and I am happy that I have one, but I would be suppressed to see Fractal to make another tube amp oriented FX only product again.

The fraction of the market interested in a professional quality digital FX unit optimized for use with tube amplifiers is likely very small. Most tube amplifier purists want a traditional pedal board and will not buy a digital device with menus, a computer based editor, and firmware updates. Most of the players interested in the advantages of a high end digital effects processor could be easily convinced to transition to a fully digital modeling based rig.

Tube amplifiers are unmatched in raw tone quality. Digital modeling asymptotically approaches (will never EXACTLY match) the performance of analog circuits, but the Axe-FX III / FM9 / FM3 all sound practically indistinguishable from a mic'd amplifier in a blind comparison. Once you factor in the lower noise floor, reduced cable management concerns, superior reliability, consistently great sound, smaller size, lower weight, and the unparalleled tonal flexibility that modeling offers, it is easy to argue the case for a fully digital rig (especially for live use). It was the build quality, extensive flexibility, and great tones from the FX8 that pushed me over the edge to try the Axe-Fx III. Now I play the Axe-Fx 98% of the time while my tube gear goes unused. I play through my amps occasionally but honestly find the Axe-FX III to be equally (if not more) satisfying to play. If you want the sound that you get with a tube amp then get a power amp and cabinet to go with your Fractal modeler and you're set.
Well said.

The majority of the market that will use a multi-effect unit is going to gravitate toward lower priced units such as those by Line6 or Boss/Roland. Those particular units sound good enough for their purpose and work well for their intended use. I think Fractal made a better unit but I think they exceeded the ability of the purchasers to discern the differences… I’m talking about those “walkers” who mill about Guitar Center waiting to try out their favorite riffs on Saturdays.

I have a good pedal board still. It’s not huge but it has the sounds I like. It’s seldom used though I use my tube amps weekly, split 50/50 with my FM9. Would I use the FM9 to replace the board? I don’t think so. If I took the board somewhere, it’d be because I wanted its sound coming from my carefully curated pedals. There’s a time for each technology in my world, but these whippersnapper new-dangled Fractals have crowded to the front of the line. :)
 

DanielB

Member
Man... what I wouldn't give for an updated FX8 with customizable scribble strips, and a couple pedal loops (on top of the 4CM circuitry). Perhaps in a slightly smaller footprint.
 

fcs101

Fractal Fanatic
I hate to point out the blindingly obvious, but Fractal is having trouble manufacturing the hardware it currently offers and people are actively clamoring for. Nevermind stuff that is more niche.
That and I think it's clear that the FX8 wasn't so popular (okay, it was "niche" :p ). You'll see a few peeps being vocal about wanting a successor, but I don't think it's coming. It's already here and it's called the FM3.
 

MrGuitarabuse

Fractal Fanatic
To answer your question: Haven't heard (read) anything in this forum that gave me the slightest impression of any upcoming gear (whatever chatter you read in TGP or other sites is pure speculation by the public). Heck, even any hint of any upcoming FW update has been nowhere to be heard since the last 4-6 weeks and Cliff likes to tease us about it.
Hasnt it always been like this before a launch? ;) Few weeks of a very quiet forum and then. TADA!!!!! FAS is happy to announce the new XXXXXXX :D
 

tobafett

Member
That and I think it's clear that the FX8 wasn't so popular (okay, it was "niche" :p ). You'll see a few peeps being vocal about wanting a successor, but I don't think it's coming. It's already here and it's called the FM3.
Agreed. I had a FX8 MKII, bought it new and it just never worked well with the amp I wanted to use it with. I do not recall what I paid for it, but it was in the same ballpark as the FM3. The FM3 works great in the 4CM with the amp that the FX8 did not jell with, and I also have a modeler now - kinda a win win scenario. I understand that the FX8 had features that the FM3 doesn't, but I doubt Fractal would want to cannibalize their sales by adding a similar offering in the line. Just my .02.
 

Smilzo

Fractal Fanatic
Agreed. I had a FX8 MKII, bought it new and it just never worked well with the amp I wanted to use it with. I do not recall what I paid for it, but it was in the same ballpark as the FM3. The FM3 works great in the 4CM with the amp that the FX8 did not jell with, and I also have a modeler now - kinda a win win scenario. I understand that the FX8 had features that the FM3 doesn't, but I doubt Fractal would want to cannibalize their sales by adding a similar offering in the line. Just my .02.
I just wish a FM "amp core mode" to let the user choose if use only effect, one amp or two amp.
 

tobafett

Member
I just wish a FM "amp core mode" to let the user choose if use only effect, one amp or two amp.
I'm not sure what you mean by "amp core mode". With the FM3 just do not use any amp or cabinet blocks and you are using only effects. Leon Todd has some great videos in regard to this. It can be set up on a preset by preset basis. The FM3 of course can only do one amp, but the FM9 can do two. In terms of just effects, I have no idea if the FM3 is more powerful than the FX8 or not. I assume it is, but there is that old saying about assuming things...Have a great day!!
 

Greg Ferguson

Axe-Master
I have no idea if the FM3 is more powerful than the FX8 or not. I assume it is, but there is that old saying about assuming things
Cliff said…
"The AX8 is not "way more powerful" than the FX-8. The AX8 has one additional DSP that is DEDICATED to amp modeling. If you don't use the amp modeling the AX8 has the same power as the FX-8. […]”
"The FM3 is somewhere between the AX8 and the II. Probably closer to the AX8. The new SHARC+ DSPs aren't terribly fast. In fact they're a tiny bit slower than the previous generation SHARCs. However you get two DSP cores plus an ARM core in a single package that only consumes a couple watts. They also have dedicated FFT and FIR accelerators whereas the previous generation you could only use either-or. The pipeline in the SHARC+ is a lot longer and there's an extra cycle of instruction latency for many operations which slows things down if you don't code around it. We had to rewrite all our assembly libraries to compensate for this. Pain in the rear. The memory bus is a little faster though and there's better caching which improves overall performance. Still, the SHARCs pale in comparison to the Keystone DSP in the Axe-Fx III. That thing is a monster. But it also costs three times as much and needs a lot of ancillary support ICs. The net DSP cost is probably around 7-8 times higher." [29]

I read that to mean, yes, the FM3 is more powerful. Plus it’s supported and has the latest firmware.
 

Smilzo

Fractal Fanatic
I'm not sure what you mean by "amp core mode". With the FM3 just do not use any amp or cabinet blocks and you are using only effects. Leon Todd has some great videos in regard to this. It can be set up on a preset by preset basis. The FM3 of course can only do one amp, but the FM9 can do two. In terms of just effects, I have no idea if the FM3 is more powerful than the FX8 or not. I assume it is, but there is that old saying about assuming things...Have a great day!!
I have tested FX8, AX8 and FM3 with 4CM. Trasparency wise, FX8 was top, AX8 bottom (more than useable, at least...). FM3 is in between, but effect wise is a huge step. The multiband compressor, ie, a welcome addiction. I prefer the grid approach to simpler FX8. But I don't like the 2 block limits in drive, ie. FM3 deserve a more free approach to block, given the "limitations" of the CPU (compared to III). If there was an option to free the core in case of unused amp, we could use a number of block similar to III... more like a complex FX. Or, on the other hand, one could withstand less istance of fx and prefer 2 amp running. FM3 could be a suitable replacement for FX8, even better...
 
Top Bottom