Axe-Fx IV release estimate?

joe1871 said:
I may be off base, and I apologize if I am, but wasn't there a supply reason that Fractal had to move to a different set of processors, different display, styles of RAM, etc. Of course as technology develops, as time moves on, there will be something that makes the III look obsolete.

However the thing to consider is that you are getting some 280 amps, more than a thousand cabs, and the best collection of stomp boxes you will ever collect. The value is in having that collection of gear in one box. The thing that Fractal does that makes their products worth buying every few years is that they improve the unit. You are now getting absurd value for your $2200. Of course there will be a new one at some point. I bought a Yamaha synth 5 or 6 years ago. I paid more than $4000 for it, and it has been replaced. I bought a John Petrucci guitar, and that has been superceded. Its gonna happen. The key is enjoying what you have while its the best choice for your money, and then move on. You would pay the same or more for one Marshall or Mesa amp that is modeled in the Axe. If you get the Axe, you will still have 279 or some number more new amps to unbox. It is way worth it.

Sorrry for the rant...

Joe
Click to expand...

It has been various things. Axe-Fx Standard/Ultra ran out of firmware space, Axe-Fx 2 processor was discontinued AND it ran out of firmware space. Axe-Fx 3 is probably not at risk for either of those things happening anytime soon as they use pretty much the most powerful things on the market. Axe-Fx 3 mark 2 also increased firmware space so I am interested what that will mean for mark 1 owners in the future.

I dislike the hardware front panels of both the Axe-Fx 3 and FM3 even if they are better than the Axe-Fx 2. It was one of the reasons why I did not buy an Axe-Fx 3 when it was released and went several years without Fractal until I finally decided to get a FM3 used. This is the area where Fractal has the most need for improvement and where they are behind the competition. Helix is easier to use from the hardware, Quad Cortex is massively better to use from the unit so the thing that keeps me as a Fractal FM3 owner is all the little features packed into the software plus the excellent Axe-Edit/FM3-Edit. Without Axe-Edit I would have sent my Axe-Fx Standard back a decade ago when I first tried Fractal.

For the eventual Axe-Fx IV I don't care to see a unit that is ever more powerful, the 3 is already overkill for most users. I want to see an Axe-Fx that is awesome to use whether from the front panel or software editors.

I'd be even ok with just ditching front panel operation altogether for anything but input/output levels if you can have Axe-Edit work from computers as well as mobile devices with good MIDI knob controller support or a separate "Fractal controller" with a "Fractal brain" that is just an I/O box for connecting stuff.
 
Axe Fx 10googol (googolplex) is what Im waiting for, it will cost 10 trillion dollars, be bigger than a walmart, and sound a bit better :) more gain, more edge of breakup stuff, few more IR's...based on some cabs found on a ufo.
 
After having had a Fractal Axe-Fx I, I migrated towards the AX8 and can say that I am already using it many years as my to-go rig for our rock/pop band. Being curious on guitar equipment I tried many alternatives such as the IK Multimedia Tonex pedal and the latest UAFX Dream and Ruby pedals which are actually quite expensive. Now the Fender Tonemaster Pro has been recently released (which I haven't tried).

I kept the AX8 because in the end I was always more able to build a comparable or better sound with this device. I am curious to know if an FM3 would be an upgrade but am not quite convinced if 3 buttons can beat the flexibility of the AX8 (an FM9 might be a better way to go).

Back to the topic. My point is probably that the Fractal devices still standup against al competitors and firmware and/or hardware upgrades will keep it in the major league. However, looking especially at UAFX and also to the Fender Tonemaster Pro, the simplicity and ease of use of these devices is probably their main selling point.

To be honest, I do not think that modeling will become much better as it currently is. So instead of requesting a next Fractal IV version, I would personally recommend to design a smal and cheap Fractal unit that provides access to the most popular amps of history only (eg. Fender, Marshall, Vox etc.), using the obvious effects (e.g. TS, MUFF PI, PH90, EP, CE, 2290 etc.) and controllable using very simple dials for maximum ease of use (like a set of stomp boxes). In combination with a commercial store, Fractal could offer additional models so that you still have flexibility to create your own platform. This could be a nice core platform as a good way to access the entry market but with top-notch Fractal amp and effect models. So quality, usability, simplicity should be key discriminators.
 
Last edited:
mighty guitarman said:
I would personally recommend to design a smal and cheap Fractal unit that provides access to the most popular amps of history only (eg. Fender, Marshall, Vox etc.),
Click to expand...
But this doesn't make a lot of sense... The number/type of Amp models isn't relevant. You need the same modeling code and processing power regardless of 10 models or 1000. Only 1 runs at a time.

And if you think the modeling can't get better, you've probably not compared your AX8 to current gen stuff. People say it can't get better every day since I started using Fractal in 2013. Yet it continues to get better... ;)
 
unix-guy said:
But this doesn't make a lot of sense... The number/type of Amp models isn't relevant. You need the same modeling code and processing power regardless of 10 models or 1000. Only 1 runs at a time.

And if you think the modeling can't get better, you've probably not compared your AX8 to current gen stuff. People say it can't get better every day since I started using Fractal in 2013. Yet it continues to get better... ;)
Click to expand...
Thanks for your reply and you are entirely right. However, my comment is not about the number of amps that can be processed but more about the fact that most guitar players like to play only on only one of maybe a a few standard amps while using some their favorite mainstream effects... So, a simple amp/pedal setup with optimal user experience and simplicity is key for the majority of players.
 
Axe fx pro +
Axe fx pro
Fm9 turbo pro +
Fm9 pro
Fm9 turbo MkII
Fm3 mkIII Turbo Pro +
Fm3 mkII turbo enhanced version
ax0 pro +
Ax0 turbo

Coming… soon…
 
mighty guitarman said:
Thanks for your reply. However, my comment is not about the number of amps that can be processed but more about the fact that most players like to play only on only one of maybe a a few amps while using some favorite mainstream effects... User experience and simplicity is key.
Click to expand...
But everyone's list of their top 10 amps will be different...

In any case, my real point is about the "small and cheap" part of your post.

Just because you limit the number of amp models does not mean you can make it smaller and/or cheaper. As I said, the same processing power is still required...
 
unix-guy said:
But everyone's list of their top 10 amps will be different...

In any case, my real point is about the "small and cheap" part of your post.

Just because you limit the number of amp models does not mean you can make it smaller and/or cheaper. As I said, the same processing power is still required...
Click to expand...
Well, everyone shall probably agree that the typical Fender, Marshall and Vox amps are a defacto industry standard. But I fully agree with your comment and that's why I also mentioned the possibility/option to add more amps (via a Fractal store) to make it dedicated to your own needs. You pay for what you need but the main benefit is simplicity and an improved user experience.
 
Last edited:
mighty guitarman said:
Well, everyone shall probably agree that the typical Fender, Marshall and Vox amps are a defacto industry standard. But I fully agree with your comment and that's why I also mentioned the possibility/option to add more amps (via a Fractal store) to make it dedicated to your own needs. You pay for what you need but the main benefit is simplicity and an improved user experience.
Click to expand...
Yuck. Why limit yourself unnecessarily? There are many amps that I wouldn’t have thought I’d like until I tried them on my III. If cost is at issue I would submit that a cheaper more, limited device would ultimately reflect negatively on Fractal’s brand in the marketplace.

Look at this from a different perspective. Change this from an amp/effects modeler to a car. By comparison, would you really want a Ferrari that is cheap and provides much less in design and performance? I would think not. You want a Ferrari because it’s a Ferrari.

If you have a product that has a reputation of being at the top of the market you don’t cheapen the brand bringing inferior products to market just to have them. When you do that it affects the overall perception of the brand and reduces its desirability.
 
SASouth said:
Yuck. Why limit yourself unnecessarily? There are many amps that I wouldn’t have thought I’d like until I tried them on my III. If cost is at issue I would submit that a cheaper more, limited device would ultimately reflect negatively on Fractal’s brand in the marketplace.

Look at this from a different perspective. Change this from an amp/effects modeler to a car. By comparison, would you really want a Ferrari that is cheap and provides much less in design and performance? I would think not. You want a Ferrari because it’s a Ferrari.

If you have a product that has a reputation of being at the top of the market you don’t cheapen the brand bringing inferior products to market just to have them. When you do that it affects the overall perception of the brand and reduces its desirability.
Click to expand...
I understand the different perspective but at the same time I do not think that Fractal is sacrificing anything on their quality. They can just offer the same quality but at a limited quantity (less models) and therefore at a lower price towards the mainstream guitar players. In that case it still should have the reputation being top of the market. As a matter of fact, look at the UAFX '65 Dream pedal...
 
Last edited:
Maybe you are right. However, it does not mean that Fractal should be not capable of developing a basic pedal/amp platform for the entry market. After all, the basic models are already developed long ago so it is just a matter of selecting the right amount of processing power and developing a improved User Interface (which is probably on Fractals roadmap already).
'
It is not about thinking in limitations but more about thinking in opportunities that may contribute to the "more analog" players ;-)
 
Last edited:
mighty guitarman said:
After all, the basic models are already developed long ago so it is just a matter of selecting the right amount of processing power
Click to expand...
This will be my last reply to you on the topic (you're probably happy about that ;)).

I feel like you keep missing the point.

A pedal like what you're talking about would need at least an Amp block and a Cab block.

Regardless of the "age" of an amp model, the modeling requires a certain amount of DSP. Similar for Cabinet modeling. And again, the processing isn't relative to how many models you have, nor is the cost (except possibly a bit in storage).

The FM3 has one dual core DSP chip. One core of the chip is used exclusively for Amp modeling. It's limited to a single Amp block because it doesn't have enough power for more than that.

We can assume there's not enough processing power remaining on that for Cab modeling or else the FM3 would likely already do that.

So now you still need processing power for the Cab, so that goes on the other core.

By this time, the pedal you're dreaming about would require the equivalent processing power of an FM3.

Sure, having less flexible I/O and not having the display and 3 switches + scribble strips will reduce the cost by a certain amount... But it's not going to fall into the "affordable pedal" category. I'd bet at least $750 if not more.

And finally, let's remember that the FM3 can't get more processing power in the same form factor because it can't be kept cool enough... Which means that the "dream" pedal size still needs to be fairly large - probably similar size to the FM3.
 
Fractals products never targeted the beginners market. Frankly, the FM3 is affordable enough already to the point if you have an adult job, you should be able to put that money together in a reasonable timeframe. If you cant, then pick up some gigs. Gig once every weekend and you should have your FM3 money.
For perspective and to demonstrate the generational divide: my first guitar was an Aria Pro II. It was 329 dollars. I had it on lay away (that is when you buy something in installments and get the something at the end, for you youngins) for about 3 months. I worked my pizzeria job for 3.25 an hour to pay for it. I wanted it, I worked for it and I got it. The guitar I WANTED was probably a Jem back then. The guitar I could afford was the Aria Pro II. There were no message boards or forums for me to suggest they make a Jem Jr (which didnt happen until 30 years later, after I bought 2 Jems and a Universe already). The Jem was the top shelf stuff. Like FAS is in my opinion, the top shelf stuff. IF they did delve into the cheap beginners market, you also run the risk of decreased support and development. Look at UAD if you want to see a company spread too thin and what happened to their support because of it. Many others, too. I kinda like FAS just the way they are, personally, but I wont count their money for them either. They’ll do what they need to to keep the doors open. Thankfully thus far that hasn’t included anything but what they’re best at.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom