Axe Fx II vs FM3 (Quantum 8 vs Cygnus X-3 Audio Comparison)

DJD100 said:
I have them both, and there is simply no comparison.

I always ended up using the Axe II with tube gear as Ares was lacking to some degree, and it still works great mostly with tube preamps so the Axe II was providing a tube power amp sims, however with Cygnus and the FM3 it's now all DSP now (Cygnus made it happen for me and I'm a confirmed tube snob).

The Axe II is still a powerful platform, however it's amp modeling has certainly been surpassed through the years.
Click to expand...
But there is a comparison quite literally , it’s right here! ;)
With your explanation in mind, considering this is a pure digital clip without any tube gear, which sounded better to you?

Keybi said:
To be honest, I haven't heard the clips. And I'm not going to listen to them either.
I have all the devices here in my studio.

AXE FX Ultra, FX II, FX8, AX8, FM3, FM9 and of course the AXE FX III.
I don't record either. I'm a live musician through and through with about 80-100 gigs a year. And in very different styles.

For me, the AXE FX III is worlds better in terms of sound and feel. (This also applies to FM3 and FM9).
What counts most for me is how quickly I can adjust a sound. And for that I use the knowledge I have gained over the years
with the real AMPS (and I've had 100+ tube amps in my hands).

So that's irrelevant for me. I would never again prefer the AXE FX II to the III live.
When I think of all the effort involved with the MFC101. Don't need that anymore 😅
It's quicker with the new generation of devices and I have more time to play.
Speaking of playing. I still have to write about 40 sheets for tomorrow. Temporary job. (But very well paid 😀)

But from time to time I switch on the AXE FX II again and play a bit. For the sake of the good old days.
Click to expand...
That’s awesome!
Please participate in the fun and let us know which clip you prefer, if you have some free time :)

My name is mud said:
If i understand well your first post, you have done everything to match your axe 2. So yes the sound is similar 😶‍🌫️
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t say so, I’ve explained it better in comment #4.
But I will more post more clips.

steadystate said:
The title is misleading. This is not a comparison between the IIXL+ and the III. The FM3 and FM9 do not sound the same as the III, and both of them sound better than the II XL+. The III is clearly superior to all others. In no universe does the II equal the III or even the FM. I have all of them and the differences are immediately obvious.

Manipulating the FM3 to sound like the II serves no purpose that I can see, any more than manipulating it to sound like the Ultra or Guitar Rig 1. And equating the FM3 to the III tells me that you've never lived with the III.
Click to expand...
You’re 100% correct that I’ve haven’t had the III, as it was explained right away at the first sentence in the post. :)
However, I was under the impression that the FM3, FM9, and Axe Fx III all share the same amp block, and same Cygnus X-3 modeling, so they should sound the same with a simple amp-cab preset.
Please correct me if I’m wrong about that!

I did not manipulate the FM3 to sound like the Axe Fx II, I made sure to keep the frequency response of the IR the same, so we can better hear the differences in the amp modeling alone.
Please see comment #4 :)

With all that out of the way, which clip you liked better?
 
2204JCM said:
Yeah I can’t really hear much difference.
Click to expand...
Even with Quantum, which was several major revisions (IIRC) beyond the first FW, it was probably already like 99% accurate in certain measures. Then subsequently we got Ares then Cygnus (1, 2, now 3). We're probably at 99-99.9% accurate in areas that were lower or not addressed yet in Quantum.

But the overall gain will sound good (like amps) because that has always been the goal. And what also got users buying FAS devices.

Wizi said:
Which one is your favorite?
Click to expand...
To my ears one has more oomph / body and I might prefer it in certain circumstances, while the other has more texture which seems like it would be more fun to play. I have a sense of which might be Cygnus vs Quantum, but w/o playing them it is difficult to definitely identify. (I put my vote in by PM ;) )
 
Nice playing, nailed it!
My guess B is the FM3 because I hear more 'swirl' (crossover distortion, bias excursion) at the end of the Lead track, if it wasn't for that tiny part I wouldn't tell the difference, DETAILS.
The Axe Fx II with Quantum holds its own, sounds excellent.
 
@James Freeman. I agree that whichever has more detectable swirl would be CX3.

Without actually playing them it's difficult to hear, a bit like listening to paint drying to determine the color. We're also comparing FAS to FAS, not FAS to brand X, so differences will be even subtler.
 
Wizi said:
You’re 100% correct that I’ve haven’t had the III, as it was explained right away at the first sentence in the post. :)
However, I was under the impression that the FM3, FM9, and Axe Fx III all share the same amp block, and same Cygnus X-3 modeling, so they should sound the same with a simple amp-cab preset.
Please correct me if I’m wrong about that!
Click to expand...
The III does not sound or feel the same as the FMx. They are close, but not identical. The title of the thread is incorrect and misleading.

I guess I just don't understand the point of this. I don't have an FM3, but I do have the II XL+, the FM9, and the III. The difference in tone and feel between them is, IMO, obvious. If you can't tell the difference, I guess it makes sense to stick with the II XL+. But I'd advise anyone interested in upgrading to not rely on clips to make an informed decision.
 
Last edited:
steadystate said:
The III does not sound or feel the same as the FMx. They are close, but not identical. The title of the threat is incorrect and misleading.

I guess I just don't understand the point of this. I don't have an FM3, but I do have the II XL+, the FM9, and the III. The difference in tone and feel between them is, IMO, obvious. If you can't tell the difference, I guess it makes sense to stick with the II XL+. But I'd advise anyone interested in upgrading to not rely on clips to make an informed decision.
Click to expand...

How are the FMs different in sound/feel from the III? To my understanding they are using the same algorithms, with the only differences being CPU capabilities.
 
steadystate said:
The III does not sound or feel the same as the FMx. They are close, but not identical. The title of the threat is incorrect and misleading.

I guess I just don't understand the point of this. I don't have an FM3, but I do have the II XL+, the FM9, and the III. The difference in tone and feel between them is, IMO, obvious. If you can't tell the difference, I guess it makes sense to stick with the II XL+. But I'd advise anyone interested in upgrading to not rely on clips to make an informed decision.
Click to expand...
Oh interesting, thanks for the correction!
Do you know what parts are different?
Is the Axe Fx III amp algorithm more precise while the FM3/FM9 cut some corners?
I’d love to read about it if there’s any official info available.

My assumption was based on the model comparison page on the official fractal website.
The FM3 description says “It delivers full-on Fractal Audio amp modeling” (direct quote).
In the comparison table below that (on the same page), the “Amp Models” section is shared between the three devices.
The only difference listed there regarding the amps is that the FM3 only has one amp block while the others can have two, there’s no mention of a sound or feel difference.
But I’m assuming now I’m missing some info so if anyone can point me there that would be great! :)

Anyway, the mods have corrected the title.
Since you don’t have the FM3, which clip do you think sounds closer to your FM9?
I’d love to hear your opinion.
I’m refraining from saying my opinion at the moment because I don’t want it to influence other people’s guesses, but I will share it fully at the end of the weekend! :)

Oh and I forgot to say, the point of this is just to have fun!
 
Wizi said:
But there is a comparison quite literally , it’s right here! ;)
With your explanation in mind, considering this is a pure digital clip without any tube gear, which sounded better to you?
Click to expand...

It's a flawed comparison, as a true comparison would provide various gain levels, edge of breakup thru high gain with various guitar control settings, pup selections, scales, diads and triads with various intervals including dissonances and octaves, picks and fingers, slide etc, etc, etc.

The fact that either can make usable tones was never in question, rather you're attempting to compare their respective qualities, which requires a much more in depth test.
 
DJD100 said:
It's a flawed comparison, as a true comparison would provide various gain levels, edge of breakup thru high gain with various guitar control settings, pup selections, scales, diads and triads with various intervals including dissonances and octaves, picks and fingers, slide etc, etc, etc.

The fact that either can make usable tones was never in question, rather you're attempting to compare their respective qualities, which requires a much more in depth test.
Click to expand...
No doubt it’s flawed!
I’m not a scientist or a researcher, just a guy testing how his favorite presets sound on the new fractal devices! :)
I also only have the FM3 for the weekend, so my time is limited.
But I will add some more tones soon!

However, even if we’re only talking about this one preset, I am still interested to hear everyone’s opinion about it, including yours!
I totally respect it if you don’t want to participate, but you’ll be missing out on all the fun! ;)
 
Wizi said:
No doubt it’s flawed!
I’m not a scientist or a researcher, just a guy testing how his favorite presets sound on the new fractal devices! :)
I also only have the FM3 for the weekend, so my time is limited.
But I will add some more tones soon!

However, even if we’re only talking about this one preset, I am still interested to hear everyone’s opinion about it, including yours!
I totally respect it if you don’t want to participate, but you’ll be missing out on all the fun! ;)
Click to expand...
In case everyone isn't aware, guitar sounds are relative unless it's a solo performance, seeing as otherwise they're always manipulated to sound good with all the other mix elements (which can often make them sound like ass solo'd etc).

I'm not going to bother with this as it's both flawed in scope, and of course useless unless the sounds are taken in some sort of context.

However, if anyone wants to consider these couple of sounds the determining factor with regards to whether Fractal's amp modeling has improved or not through the iterations, then have at it LOL! Note that any Fractal device from the Gen 1's through today can make quality useful sounds, though if mimicking a tube guitar amp is the goal, there's simply no comparison between Cygnus and the prior FW releases.
 
Last edited:
DJD100 said:
In case everyone isn't aware, guitar sounds are relative unless it's a solo performance, seeing as otherwise they're always manipulated to sound good with all the other mix elements (which can often make them sound like ass soloed etc).

I'm not going to bother with this as it's both flawed in scope, and of course useless unless the sounds are taken in some sort of context.

However, if anyone wants to consider these couple of sounds the determining factor with regards to whether Fractal's amp modeling has improved or not through the iterations, then have at it LOL! Note that any Fractal device from the Gen 1's through today can make quality useful sounds, though if mimicking a tube guitar amp is the goal, there's simply no comparison between Cygnus and the prior FW releases.
Click to expand...
I actually love the conclusion you got at the end!
In this specific case the goal was mimicking a Marshall 1987X with all knobs on 10, through a pulsonic greenback cab.
So which one you think is mimicking it better?
 
Wizi said:
I actually love the conclusion you got at the end!
In this specific case the goal was mimicking a Marshall 1987X with all knobs on 10, through a pulsonic greenback cab.
So which one you think is mimicking it better?
Click to expand...
Not a valid test of capabilities remember, read my second post again.
 
I think B is the FM3, fatter tones, has more depth and quirks compared to A and that's more or less the difference I heard years ago when comparing ax8 and axe III
 
Fo sho. People so serious up in here. It's for fun.

There might be enough for (some folks) to tell Quantum from Cygnus. Maybe not. We'll see....

Note that which is which is NOT the same is which you like better. I think one has to listen differently.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom