Axe-Fx III vs II for just effects

S

Segovia76

New Member
Hello
I am willing to purchase an AXE FX (II or III) and use it purely as single rack effect processor, for post preamp effects. For preamp effects I would keep using my pedals.

There are several reasons why I have chosen an AXE FX over dedicated units like Lexicon, Eventide, TC:
-ease of programming
-have a 1 do-it-all machine (no mixer and cables needed)
-excellent community to share patches, ask advise, ...
-possibility to use the amp modeling as back up solution if my main amp (Mesa JP2C) goes down just before a show (going direct to FOH)
-possibility to use 2 paths: 1 integrating my real amp (going to cabs) and another using the amp modeling (going to my IEM rack)

Amp modeling is obviously a nice thing to have, but my main focus is on effects.
So, should I go for AXE FX III over the AXE FX II just for effects?

-does FX III come with new and improved models, for effects?
-does FX III allow higher CPU usage thus limiting the situations were I could run out of CPU usage if using several effects?
-is 1 processor dedicated to effects only and 1 processor dedicated to amp modeling?
-or can I use both processor for effects?

THanks for your inputs
 
The Axe Fx III has had some effects improvements and that will likely continue to improve. It also has way more processing power...
 
I'd go for the III. Effects sound and functionality will almost certainly continue to improve. The AF2 evolved quite a bit in terms of both sound and functionality over it's life and is still usable, but I got the III simply because you can have more block types in a preset (many are 4 instances) and you get 4 channels in the III vs. 2 in the II. And more processing power (isn't it like 4x or so?)
 
With the III, you can buy the new FC6 or FC12 and control channel changes etc. on your JP2C + your effects integration and leave the Mesa footswitch at home.
 
The 3 is better, but the 2 is still a world class effects processor.

If you're going to use the unit primarily for live guitar effects, the 2 should be easily be more than fine. If you want to use the thing for crafting your own complex, cascading effect lines that dynamically change with your inputs in a studio environment and/or other crazy shenanigans... the 2 will still be perfectly fine.

The 3 is better and if you want the absolute best you can get, the 3 is where it's at, but if the 3 didn't exist, the 2 would still be perfectly at home and in parity with other world class effects gear.


To answer the latter questions specifically:

-does FX III come with new and improved models, for effects?
Yes.

-does FX III allow higher CPU usage thus limiting the situations were I could run out of CPU usage if using several effects?
Yes, but in my opinion the 2 has plenty of CPU headroom for effects and you'll only hit the limit if you go for truly ludicrous, approaching-impractical effects or if you try and fit everything you could possibly do in a single patch.

-is 1 processor dedicated to effects only and 1 processor dedicated to amp modeling?
In the 2, Yes. In the 3, probably, as evidenced by the fact that adding an Amp block to the grid barely adds anything to the CPU meter at all, but it hasn't been explicitly confirmed by Fractal to my knowledge.

- can I use both processor for effects?
The most relevant answer to your processor questions would be that these parameters aren't exposed to the user. You get access to edit your signal path and almost any parameter you can think of within each effect, and you can route the inputs and outputs however you want, but the processing allocations happen outside the user interface.

The bottom line is that you would very probably be happy with either an Axe-FX 2 or an Axe-FX 3. However, the 3 is newer and more advanced, and does have a bit more of everything. Sorry if this doesn't make your choice easier, but I can almost guarantee you'll be happy with either one.
 
Last edited:
I have the III. One of my uses is with a tube preamp into the III for stereo effects, EQ, etc - all of which can be saved as individual presets for different guitars and sounds. A FX III would definitely make sense for your use.
 
No diff at all effects wise for the way you intend to use it.

III has a tri-chorus algorithm, II does not (yet)
III has improved pitch block

Otherwise I've not seen or heard anything more.

If your not all in on modeling a used II would be the best bang for the buck.
 
Severed said:
No diff at all effects wise for the way you intend to use it.

III has a tri-chorus algorithm, II does not (yet)
III has improved pitch block

Otherwise I've not seen or heard anything more.

If your not all in on modeling a used II would be the best bang for the buck.
Click to expand...
Improved Reverbs and delays, too...

Additional features added to some of the delays such as Quad types.
 
Bodde said:
Curious about this. What exactly has been improved in the delays and reverbs? And is it a big difference?
Click to expand...
I honestly don't remember... As mentioned, there are changes made to the delay block for some types, there is at least 1 new reverb type (Ice Castles, I think it's called).

I suspect you're asking more about the algorithms? I feel like the Reverbs sound better, but I didn't do an A/B comparison... And I'm not a Reverb fanatic, so probably not the best reference.
 
unix-guy said:
I suspect you're asking more about the algorithms? I feel like the Reverbs sound better, but I didn't do an A/B comparison... And I'm not a Reverb fanatic, so probably not the best reference.
Click to expand...

Haha. Fair enough. Yes I meant the sound of the algorithms or the basic character of the sound of the delays and reverbs. Did it really change much compared to the II?
 
I was in a similar situation as I am very happy with my Mark IV I was mainly interested in the effects and regarded the amp modeling more as a bonus, but I did go with the III because it's more future-proof and editing from the front panel is much more convenient.

Now I found myself more often than not to use just the Axe FX and leave my old Mark IV switched off... it feels that "real"!
 
I was contemplating the same question as OP earlier this year when I was getting an Axe FX. Do I go with the 2 and limit the financial hit or bite the bullet and go with the 3? I too was looking for the Axe as an effect processor. In my case both “in front” of my amp and in the FX loop aka 4CM.

Ultimately after a lot of reasearch that included reading the entire manual for both the Axe II and Axe III at least 5 different times, I chose the 3 for several reasons:
  • It is the new platform. Innovation and investment will be in the new platform and the Axe 2 will eventually be EOL’d. I saw the 3 as more “future proof”
  • The I/O connectors in the 3 offer more options and are better thought out
  • The routing is way more flexible in the 3
  • I liked the USB integration on the 3
Once I got the Axe FX, it was amazing. My JVM 410 HJS literally never sounded better. My youngest son played on it. He said it was the most unbelievable guitar tone he had ever played on and said it made him want to sit in my studio playing guitar. He went home and bought his own Axe 3.

Here is the thing: I tried FRFR. I liked it, but did not want to abandon the JVM. Now I have the best of both worlds. My JVM is connected to my Axe 3 via 4CM and I have FRFR. My presets control which mode I am running in. Now I am waiting for the arrival my XiTone Michael Britt to replace my current FRFR speaker.

My point: pre-purchase you really can’t grasp what the Axe can do or the possibilities that it opens up. You might be surprised by what you find yourself wanting to explore once you get your hands on an Axe and get some experience with it. The Axe 3 is more flexible and allows both amp and FRFR integration simultaneously without the need for additional outboard equipment. The Axe 2 is still very capable but less flexible and does not have the I/O connections to support simultaneous amp and FRFR integration without using additional outboard equipment.

You probably believe that you are pretty solid in that that you will only use the Axe for outboard effects. I was there too before I got my Axe. I swore to myself that I would not use amp or cab modeling. I was wrong and am glad that I got the 3.
 
Last edited:
Capt Nasty said:
The Axe 3 is more flexible and allows both amp and FRFR integration simultaneously without the need for additional outboard equipment. The Axe 2 is still very capable but less flexible and does not have the I/O connections to support simultaneous amp and FRFR integration without using additional outboard equipment.
Click to expand...

Thanks a lot for this explanation.
This is exactly the kind of usage I was planning to do:
with my head and cab in 4CM and simultaneously with full amp simulation and FRFR (actually, going direct to my IEM rack).

So it seems the III is better suited for this kind of configuration
 
IMO, all the effects are improved; especially in the time-based domain (chorus, delays (incl. plex, multi, ect.) and reverbs.
 
Segovia76 said:
Thanks a lot for this explanation.
This is exactly the kind of usage I was planning to do:
with my head and cab in 4CM and simultaneously with full amp simulation and FRFR (actually, going direct to my IEM rack).

So it seems the III is better suited for this kind of configuration
Click to expand...
Glad to have been able to help you.

Make sure to get 2 Humbuster cables with your Axe. They make a difference in the noise level with the 4cm connection.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom