Axe-FX 3 "Grid" ?

haffner1 said:
It looks like on the III, you have to use a block for input and output. So really, it's almost the same as the 12 columns on the II.
Click to expand...

You forget that on the II the first and last blocks in each row are automatically connected to inputs and outputs, so the first and last columns are of limited usefulness.
 
vangrieg said:
You forget that on the II the first and last blocks in each row are automatically connected to inputs and outputs, so the first and last columns are of limited usefulness.
Click to expand...
^ That right there! ^

Being able to move the inputs and outputs wherever you want them is a great option. If all of the input and output controls are in those blocks, this is a powerful upgrade, in my opinion. Especially for those using IEMs or other things they want to control independent of other outputs. I like this.
 
Rick said:
^ That right there! ^

Being able to move the inputs and outputs wherever you want them is a great option. If all of the input and output controls are in those blocks, this is a powerful upgrade, in my opinion. Especially for those using IEMs or other things they want to control independent of other outputs. I like this.
Click to expand...

I agree. If we could have separate instances for left and right that would be much better though. :) But it’s an upgrade regardless.
 
Rick said:
^ That right there! ^

Being able to move the inputs and outputs wherever you want them is a great option. If all of the input and output controls are in those blocks, this is a powerful upgrade, in my opinion. Especially for those using IEMs or other things they want to control independent of other outputs. I like this.
Click to expand...

Yes. Each input block has a built-in gate and each output block has a row mixer and master level.
 
vangrieg said:
You forget that on the II the first and last blocks in each row are automatically connected to inputs and outputs, so the first and last columns are of limited usefulness.
Click to expand...

What scenario are you picturing where this is a problem? I suspect there's a fairly simple workaround for anything you've run into before.
 
Bakerman said:
What scenario are you picturing where this is a problem? I suspect there's a fairly simple workaround for anything you've run into before.
Click to expand...

Well, I wouldn’t call it a problem, actually. With four inputs and four outputs I guess I’ll be covered. :)

With the II it could get awkward. Like if you want to use a chain of effects for guitar and then only the last part of the chain for an acoustic, going to the same output. You could get a shunt in parallel but then it got in the way of some complex routing.

Or, for example, I’m using FXL for vocal chain output and a guitar output before the cab, for a stage amp.

In all these cases, splitting inputs and outputs would be helpful. But, like I said, 4 pairs of analog I/O should be enough anyway, I think.
 
Bakerman said:
I meant on the Axe-FX II. What's a scenario where the automatic connection from first/last row to input/output was an issue?
Click to expand...

Oh, when I’m using split signal for FOH with a cab and for the stage amp without, I need the FXL as late as possible, but as a late block, it connected to output. So I had to redo everything to move it earlier. I also needed to connect to FXL from a vocal chain which had to end in a column prior to FXL to connect, which made it shorter. It also had to start later so that it didn’t connect to the input.

There are some tricks and workarounds, and I don’t remember all the details, but it’s gotten cumbersome at times.

Also, working with FXL and send/return blocks is a pain, somewhat. Especially given that there’s only one send/return pair.
 
vangrieg said:
Oh, when I’m using split signal for FOH with a cab and for the stage amp without, I need the FXL as late as possible, but as a late block, it connected to output. So I had to redo everything to move it earlier. I also needed to connect to FXL from a vocal chain which had to end in a column prior to FXL to connect, which made it shorter. It also had to start later so that it didn’t connect to the input.

There are some tricks and workarounds, and I don’t remember all the details, but it’s gotten cumbersome at times.

Also, working with FXL and send/return blocks is a pain, somewhat. Especially given that there’s only one send/return pair.
Click to expand...

When FXL is connected to output, just turn its Level down to prevent it entering Output 1.
 
yek said:
When FXL is connected to output, just turn its Level down to prevent it entering Output 1.
Click to expand...

Yes, I know that. There was some problem with it though when I did that, but I can’t recall which, as I reverted to moving it back to the earlier columns. Probably there wasn’t enough attenuation and with enough FOH gain some of that got through? Although that should have been able to be resolved with the output mixer. Don’t remember, sorry.

Anyway, even when there are workarounds, this automatic connection has been awkward, to put it mildly.
 
vangrieg said:
Yes, I know that. There was some problem with it though when I did that, but I can’t recall which, as I reverted to moving it back to the earlier columns. Probably there wasn’t enough attenuation and with enough FOH gain some of that got through? Although that should have been able to be resolved with the output mixer. Don’t remember, sorry.

Anyway, even when there are workarounds, this automatic connection has been awkward, to put it mildly.
Click to expand...

If -80 dB isn't enough you can set the FXL and output mixer row balance controls oppositely. That will remove it completely from Out 1.

Feedback send/return and synth are the only other blocks I can think of where this automatic connection might be relevant. All of those have controls to easily make it as if there was no connection. (Send output level 0%, return/synth mix 100%)
 
Bakerman said:
If -80 dB isn't enough you can set the FXL and output mixer row balance controls oppositely. That will remove it completely from Out 1.
Click to expand...

That’s assuming you have mono running through Out1.

If nothing else, this automatic connection is awkward. All the settings inside the block aren’t easily seen, and it all makes more difficult to plan and troubleshoot things.

The way it’s done in the III seems to be much better to me.
 
FractalAudio said:
Yes. Each input block has a built-in gate and each output block has a row mixer and master level.
Click to expand...
Well, there you are. And in the same quote with His Fractalness. These "answer from the source" experiences are a good part of what moved me to FAS, and has kept me here since. Thanks, Cliff.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom