AxeFx II XL Presets into AxeFx II Mk2 - WTF???

[Morphosis]

I believe this is not correct.

At default settings:

Pedal 1 (XP1 on MFC) connects to CC 11 (Volume).
Pedal 2 (XP2 on MFC) connects to CC 16 (External 1).

Exactly. From the manual (7.2):
"NOTE: Pedal #1 is mapped by default to MIDI CC#11 (default for “Output 1 Volume” in the Axe-Fx), and Pedal #2 is
assigned to MIDI CC#16 (“External 1” in the Axe-Fx, which often controls Wah or Whammy)."

 

[javajunkie]

I cannot test the MFC-101 mkII, but I have set mine and many other up and the default has been as Yek has stated:
Pedal 1 (XP1 on MFC) connects to CC 11 (Volume).
Pedal 2 (XP2 on MFC) connects to CC 16 (External 1).

This is how it has been documented in the manual.


I do have a Axe-fx II mk I and And Axe-fx II mk III the default CC# for both are the same.

Since you reported this, I am trrying to figure out what caused it, so it can be fixed if it is broken. However, I cannot recreate this.

I am trying to get to the bottom of an issue you reported, nothing more.

 

[zerolight]

Seriously, I'm very much dissapointed that a file conversation between a AxeFx II XL with Fw 15.07 is not possible with a AxeFx II Mk2 with Fw 15.02.l

It does seem odd. If a preset can go from II to XL then it's hard to believe the conversion can't happen in the other direction too, at least via a conversion tool that reads the syx and converts the incompatible elements. I expect it'll come in time.

I guess the unfortunate lesson to be learned here, if you have both units, build them on the II and then migrate them to the XL rather than the other way around. If there aren't too many presets, it might be quicker to manually move them across rather waiting and hoping for a conversion tool.

 

[lp59]

Like Chris said above, it's better to stick with two Axe-Fx II or two XL's. I tried to maintain both units afloat, but quickly gave up. To much time involved to maintain those different machines synced. I sold my II and kept the XL.

As for the community fragmentation, I'm not sure that FAS was aware of that before releasing the XL, and I'm quit certain that they don't like this fact. Maybe they got caught in some kind of a trap and couldn't do much more for the moment. Let's cross fingers, Cliff has enough under the hood.

 

[PacoCasanovasOld]

It does seem odd. If a preset can go from II to XL then it's hard to believe the conversion can't happen in the other direction too, at least via a conversion tool that reads the syx and converts the incompatible elements. I expect it'll come in time.

syx- File on XL is 13kb of size, while Mk2 unit has 6kb.

Yes, I can confirm that you can load presets from a MK2 into a XL but not vice versa..... as long as you don't try to address a speaker IR above 100 or a preset slot above 383 (if preset offset is dialed to zero) then a confirmation should be possible at least!

How should further user share their creations with other users, if they can't because of a missing conversation? How should experts among our community help other people when they can't open the so called problem patches and share their advices how things might could be done better? It cuts the user community in two parts......not really cool!

If the XL is far superior than the Mk2, it should be renamed into AxeFx II+ or AxeFx III. But the core functionality and DSP capabilities remain the same on both units - it varies of more and far better internal storage and a new designed mainboard on the XL. But it's still a member of the AxeFx II family. This is different than it was on the ULTRA which has more DSP power, therefore more FXs, different FX blocks etc....


Regarding the CC-Number Issues:

Your example of the Mk2 and MFC101 is correct, never said anything else! I also use my personal AxeFx II Mk2 with an MFC101 Mk1 with the exact same CC numbers. But on the XL things going differently with the same settings. That's what I'm trying to say here......

Please somebody could verify this if possible, and then it goes to the bug section.

I wish you a nice day, gents

Paco

 

[dpeterson]

I'm a programmer, and I'd be willing to bet that within a few hours someone there could write a conversion routine that would "fix" the xl preset to be II compatible. Just modify AxeEdit when it loads the preset to determine if it needs fixing or not, cant be that difficult.

 

[PacoCasanovasOld]

Like Chris said above, it's better to stick with two Axe-Fx II or two XL's.

If a customer ordered a Mk2 and got an XL instead (same goes for the MFC) because the waiting time was too long (or what ever the reason was exactly) this would be not possible! Therefore and once again - this guy bought two AF2 units, two expression pedals, two MFCs - same live rig, but twice.......

There where many musicians out there, that will never step into a forum or don't like to tweak for hours on their units, that's why I help them....nothing more. This guy has 100+ real vintage tube amps (even one of those 50 existing "Kelly" Amps available on the planet) in his studio and guess what? He plays an AxeFx II - how cool is that!!

So please FAS, make it there.....

 

[javajunkie]

syx- File on XL is 13kb of size, while Mk2 unit has 6kb.

Yes, I can confirm that you can load presets from a MK2 into a XL but not vice versa..... as long as you don't try to address a speaker IR above 100 or a preset slot above 383 (if preset offset is dialed to zero) then a confirmation should be possible at least!

How should further user share their creations with other users, if they can't because of a missing conversation? How should experts among our community help other people when they can't open the so called problem patches and share their advices how things might could be done better? It cuts the user community in two parts......not really cool!

If the XL is far superior than the Mk2, it should be renamed into AxeFx II+ or AxeFx III. But the core functionality and DSP capabilities remain the same on both units - it varies of more and far better internal storage and a new designed mainboard on the XL. But it's still a member of the AxeFx II family. This is different than it was on the ULTRA which has more DSP power, therefore more FXs, different FX blocks etc....


Regarding the CC-Number Issues:

Your example of the Mk2 and MFC101 is correct, never said anything else! I also use my personal AxeFx II Mk2 with an MFC101 Mk1 with the exact same CC numbers. But on the XL things going differently with the same settings. That's what I'm trying to say here......

Please somebody could verify this if possible, and then it goes to the bug section.

I wish you a nice day, gents

Paco

I'm confused, you said this:
"Nope...I'm saying that sending data on a brand new MFC101 Mk3 connected on expression pedal port 2 goes to extern 1 of a brand new defaulted and updated AxeFx II XL. "

"Customer has two expression pedals. One for overall volume - which is working on expression pedal port 1 on both units. the 2nd expression pedal is used for delay input - on expression port 2 of both units. Parameter "delay input is connected with extern 2" as it should on a never used before unit.
While the AxeFx II Mk2 does it all well, the AxeFx II XL need to set to Extern 1 to work correctly....."

I am reading this as (did I understand that correctly)
on the XL you are seeing expression pedal 1 defaulting to volume, and Expression pedal 2 defaulting to external 1
On the Mk 2 and Mfc101 expression pedal 1 is defaulting to volume and Expression pedal 2 is defaulting to external 2

What we are saying is:
Expression pedal 1 should default to volume on both Xl/MkII
Expression pedal 2 should default to External 1 on both XL/MK II


Pedal 1 (XP1 on MFC) connects to CC 11 (Volume).
Pedal 2 (XP2 on MFC) connects to CC 16 (External 1).

I can confirm that my old Axe-fx II defaults to External 1 - CC #16, and my Axe-fx II XL defaults to External 1 - CC #16
Also my Mfc-101 mk III defaults to Expression pedal 2 - CC#16

I believe my MFC-101 mk I used to default to Expression Pedal 2 - CC#16. I don't have an older MFC-101 anymore so someone else will need to confirm that.

 

[Webb]

I'm a programmer, and I'd be willing to bet that within a few hours someone there could write a conversion routine that would "fix" the xl preset to be II compatible. Just modify AxeEdit when it loads the preset to determine if it needs fixing or not, cant be that difficult.

I think it's odd too but probably more of a marketing/business decision than anything. Clearly Fractal's focus is on selling the XL, so it's obvious that an XL -> II preset converter would be low on the priority list. C'mon, everyone knows if you want the latest and greatest Mark Day presets, you need to own the latest and greatest. It would be silly to reward longtime customers with a way to use them in their lowly Axe Fx II Mark II model.

 

[chris]

Regarding the CC-Number Issues:

Your example of the Mk2 and MFC101 is correct, never said anything else! .... But on the XL things going differently with the same settings. That's what I'm trying to say here......

i don't understand this statement. regarding the XL you said:

I'm saying that sending data on a brand new MFC101 Mk3 connected on expression pedal port 2 goes to extern 1 of a brand new defaulted and updated AxeFx II XL.

this seems correct.

regarding the Mk2 and MFC101, everyone said

Pedal 1 (XP1 on MFC) connects to CC 11 (Volume).
Pedal 2 (XP2 on MFC) connects to CC 16 (External 1).

so how is that different?

the 2nd expression pedal is used for delay input - on expression port 2 of both units. Parameter "delay input is connected with extern 2" as it should on a never used before unit.

and here you're saying XP2 on the MFC defaults to External 2 (which is CC#17).

which one is it?

 

[joe1871]

I am not going to get in the middle of the specifics of port to port mapping and other stuff, all I want to throw into the discussion is something I think has been said by a couple of people here already, but I will say it again because it feels good. I am a very casual forum reader. I go for weeks without coming on here. However I can tell you that even with my very sporadic access I knew that patches created on an XL were not compatible with patches created on the Mark II. If you are making money by representing yourself as an authority on the AxeFx - that GIANT piece of information should have been slapping you in the face.

It (the difference between the two units) wasn't avoided, it wasn't quietly discussed, it was a major issue and patently clear from the outset that the two units had some inherent differences and were not compatible on many fronts. Don't bitch about that here - its not fair. Some of the other hair across your butt stuff may have some legitimacy, but you put yourself in an immediate indefensible position by bitching about something that was so widely known. So either take down the AxeFx expert shingle, or study up some.

Just my 2 cents. And I am not sure what the exchange rate would be on 2 cents.

Joe

 

[Ole]

0.01836309 CHF

 

[Valhallir]

Sometimes it happens (especially under pressure) that someone doesnt find the "right" words for discussing a problem.

I'm sure it wasn't Paco's intention to f**k up with his words. I know this guy personally and he is in fact a real nice guy with a big heart, who helped many members to solve their problems in this forum and especially in the German axefx.de-forum.

He has a Big Knowledge when it comes to Amp Technology (and ALL Kinds of tech....IMHO) and doesnt keep his Knowledge as a Secret, like so many pro's do.

And if you like the Engl Savage in your Axe 2.....he was Co-responsible for it. I frakin' love this Amp.

 

[laughyouraxeoff]

What he meant was.
Not possible at this time. There are higher proprieties than making a converter at this time.

Very true, it could be possible in the future, just have to take out the extra effects and x/y's and any other extra's, since everything else is the same. But once you take out all of those things in an XL patch, to me it would sound totally different in most cases and make the patch useless. Sure in rare cases it would not but again I can't see this being a priority since it will never be a 1 to 1 copy unless the Xl is using no extra features in the patch.

That shouldn't stop others from creating a program that converts the patches, but i'd rather see Fractal work on better things to be honest. And up until this point it seems Cliff and the team agree and are working on other things

 

[electronpirate]

That shouldn't stop others from creating a program that converts the patches, but i'd rather see Fractal work on better things to be honest. And up until this point it seems Cliff and the team agree and are working on other things

This is something that can be crowdsourced (those who have both and feel a great need to transfer back and forth without building each individually). And yes, I'd rather Fractal focus on other things than something I would consider very much a 'niche' utility.

I'm not sure the rant is warranted (even I, who rarely glance at XL posts knew of the incompatibility), and don't consider this some great big hole in Fractal's offerings, but under the circumstances, I would say Paco had a bit of egg on his face after all that work, and anyone might blow their top.

R

 

[chris]

Sometimes it happens (especially under pressure) that someone doesnt find the "right" words for discussing a problem.

I'm sure it wasn't Paco's intention to f**k up with his words. I know this guy personally and he is in fact a real nice guy with a big heart, who helped many members to solve their problems in this forum and especially in the German axefx.de-forum.

He has a Big Knowledge when it comes to Amp Technology (and ALL Kinds of tech....IMHO) and doesnt keep his Knowledge as a Secret, like so many pro's do.

And if you like the Engl Savage in your Axe 2.....he was Co-responsible for it. I frakin' love this Amp.

i agree, and it's why i was so surprised to see the OP.

but yeah, i think he was/is just disappointed that such a little thing is a problem in such a revolutionary, awesome device. i think everything else has been discussed and settled already.

 

[chris]

I'm a programmer, and I'd be willing to bet that within a few hours someone there could write a conversion routine that would "fix" the xl preset to be II compatible. Just modify AxeEdit when it loads the preset to determine if it needs fixing or not, cant be that difficult.

it's been a few hours. is it coming soon?

 

[Sharka]

So after all the disdained emotional build up this would be a great segue for Fractal's next big announcement... The hiring of "AlGrenadine".

Obviously all hands on the farm are elsewhere building other cool tech, give this guy the gig already. He's got the chops and the passion, just say'n.

 

[PacoCasanovasOld]

If you are making money by representing yourself as an authority on the AxeFx - that GIANT piece of information should have been slapping you in the face.

Take your 2 cent and trow it elsewhere.....

I primary repairing things on component base- not AxeFx blahblah authority stupid fucking bullshit.....I'm a well respected tube amp technician in my country for the last 16 years, also doing pro lighting repair-service which I'm also doing for a living. So people showed up in my workshop over the past years with all kind of requests. Since some of the pro-players knew, that I'm own an AxeFx II, some of them, ask me if I could help. That's mainly the point....

I'm not an AxeFx Beta Tester and also have no time to check the unit for hours everyday - I'm glad if I find a spot, where I can play some music (!!!) during a week! Otherwise I'm living to help other people with their needs and requests on various movingheads, LED RGBWA+UV beam lights, lighting controllers, DMX, CRMX, ArtNet, MA-Net blahblah or various (tube) guitar amps or complete rigs. If you think its wise to insult me here, then please get the **** out of here and do something smart than pissing on people YOU don't know!



2nd: Of corse I thought it would be a cool idea to update this into a better and bigger service by installing a Fractal Audio / Matrix Amplification test-booth inside my workshop, where interested musicians can test the FAS gear first hand, or test it against their old rig. A test-booth with my own (and some stuff of a very good friend of mine) gear. Not sponsored - fully independent form any of these companies. Consists of an AxeFx II Mk2 plus MFC101 (my personal rig) into a small good quality PA, a FRFR-Cabinet am Amp from Matrix and a traditional guitar power amp with a superb 2x12" cabinet.

No costs for testing and demoing on the booth - the only payed gig would be "tone consulting" and that gives us the 3rd point

I could help them "soundwise" on an individual tone consulting session (because that's where I'm specially skilled due of my 16 of experience as an amp technician and also knew all these parameters inside a "real" amp - even the odd ones like bias excursion and stuff like that). But it's really up to a client what he really wants and needs. Not me....


4rd I'm not bitching, I made a valuable point you do simply NOT understand! I'm just telling that I'm NOT agree with this form of marketing. If guys sell units to customer saying that this is even more better (because of more storage) than the older unit they bought six months ago and didn't tell them that these units where not fully compatible, then I'm willing to fight for these customers against all "so called" rules. As Chris and funkstation777 understood, I was really disappointed to find out, that such a little thing does such a big problem in such an awesome and revolutionary device.

The XL and the Mk2 share the same DSP core functionality and therefore should be compatible even within the first 100 user cabs and 383 presets. It's not the same gap as on the Ultra vs. Standard Axe back in the days.....where an Axe Ultra got some extra FXs and some extra blocks - better, not sharing the same core functionality and sound possibilities.


Blahblahblah......

 

[Deaj]

PacoCasanovas - I understand your point and I think it's a valid concern. My take on this topic is not unlike your own:

Pros, touring musicians, recording artists, studio engineers, etc. who owned an AxeFX II MkI / MkII and we're looking to add a backup or secondary AxeFX II when the XL was released had the choice to wait for new MkII's to be built and made available on the FAS store, buy a MkI/MkII used, or buy the more readily available XL. The XL does appear to be the most attractive option of the three given its improvements and expansion on the MkII. Though information is provided in various places indicating that XL presets are not compatible with MkI/MkII units there is also information provided indicating that both units utilize the same modeling, IR features (save for number of IR slots), and the same effects. This might lead one to believe (based on information they may have heard or read prior to purchase) that the XL and MiI/MkII's may share compatible preset data.

While the purchaser of the XL is responsible for their own pre-purchase research to determine if the new XL will fill the intended role thoroughly sometimes this just doesn't happen because of busy schedules making / performing music or engineering / mixing other artist's music. Their current positive experience(s) with the AxeFX II may have them assuming that the AxeFX II XL (the XL is indeed currently designated a II in name) is preset compatible with their MkI/MkII units. Spending $2,400 and finding out that this not the case, that a preset conversion utility may eventually be released, and that there are other priorities ahead of efforts to code a conversion utility is likely to cause disappointment.

It seems to me that it may be worth consideration to place a higher priority on efforts to develop a utility that converts II to XL & XL to II so that those MkI/MkII owners who chose to invest in this newest revision of the AxeFX II will be able to better integrate the new XL into their existing AxeFX II rig.


Personally I have no dog in this hunt. I rarely use other users presets and when I do I'm using them as partial templates or simply for block settings to use in the building of my own preset(s). I'm merely pondering this issue as raised. My observations here are subjective of course. I own a MkI and I'm entirely happy with it. Not being able to load others XL presets doesn't hold much importance for me, at least not at this time. I would certainly make use of a conversation utility if it were available.

That's my $0.02