• We would like to remind our members that this is a privately owned, run and supported forum. You are here at the invitation and discretion of the owners. As such, rules and standards of conduct will be applied that help keep this forum functioning as the owners desire. These include, but are not limited to, removing content and even access to the forum.

    Please give yourself a refresher on the forum rules you agreed to follow when you signed up.

Coming Soon

Echophilia

Member
The more questions we have will be answered in time. But I'm interested in the physical connecting and the problems long cables can tone suck. That's why I sold- gave away my GT-6 (yeah it went back that far). If I got to carry a box full of cables and power strips I might wait for a 1 space rack version for my 3 space rack. A lot to be answered and heard about these products from Fractal, exciting times, the near future holds.
 

Robboman

Fractal Fanatic
Wow, I've never had my comments quoted and shot down so many times, so fast! :)

Don't get me wrong, there's an obvious large market for this and I bet they will sell tons of them. FAS doesn't need any more reason than that. Besides, Cliff already has so much awesome FX code written, why not leverage that into a new product for a new market segment?

We here on the forum all know how great the amp modelling is. Products have been trying to out-do tubes for at least 40 years, since the first solid-state guitar amps came out, and later the first digital products. Nothing ever sounded good enough, but Fractal finally pulled off what seemed impossible. Thanks to the Axe-Fx, many here have sold off ALL their tube amps and will never use tubes again. This is revolutionary stuff and (in my mind) this is what Fractal (the brand) is known for. They finally made tube amps unnecessary.

Now the FX8 doesn't actually diminish any of that. We on the forum certainly know it. I was just sayin... surely the thought I expressed (poorly) must have crossed minds of others?
 
  • Like
Reactions: ALE

randombastage

Experienced
Does anyone know if the effects loop and/or main output are a dual path? Output 1 and 2?

My reason is to know if I can have a single path from guitar through a couple effects blocks that splits into two separate paths/branches on the grid right before the FX Loop send (that send being in only one of the branches).

One branch after the split to go through the typical 4 cable routing involving a tube amp with effects loop....returning to have time based effects before FX-8's Output #1 into the amps effects return...typical 4cable method...
AND the second branch would continue with time based effects out of FX-8's Output #2 into the instrument input of a second amp that has no effects loop.

This way the FX-8 will provide effects for both my amps and replace my ABY switch allowing the FX-8 presets to dictate which amp gets signal...
 
Last edited:

Robboman

Fractal Fanatic
It's been established that I suck at my armchair marketing, so here's a couple simpler FX8 questions based on the picture:

1) Out of curiosity, why 3 LED lights per switch? Are they different colors, or bi-tri-colored?

2) Why are the switches numbered 1 to 8 from the top row to the bottom, when on the MFC they number from the bottom upward?
 

k.guitars

New Member
I've been using the M9, along with a few other pedals, for the sheer convenience of it. I have long wanted a high-quality replacement that actually sounds good! This will be perfect! Just this, a couple of expression pedals and a few Union pedals, and I'm done.
 

mwc2112

Inspired
1) Out of curiosity, why 3 LED lights per switch? Are they different colors, or bi-tri-colored?
I would guess that the bottom LED is the active indicator (either individual effect or patch). The top left one looks like it displays which scene is active. The top right my best guess is X/Y setting.
 

boardwlk17

Power User
I stated in my post that unless you are running a lot of cable (off board to amp and on the board) you don't need a buffer -- . If you are losing high end it is mostly due to high cap cables.

If you look at the Vertex boards -- Mason uses a ton of cabling. I would be willing to bet he uses an average 20 feet plus per board. So the rule of thumb is 2x.

So if you look at his typical board and you are running another 20 feet to the amp -- you are looking at about 60 feet of cables. In this case you most certainly will benefit from a buffer. Also he uses (or use to use ) Magami cables which IMO are fairly high capacitance ( over 40pF/Ft) which 2x Lava or George L. which is also another reason why you will need a buffer.

For the average board with 6-10 pedals and if you have cable left over from a George L patch kit -- there is no need for buffer. Again, unless you have a specific application in mind (i.e. wah/fuzz), use line only devices, pedals that like buffers or are using ridiculously long or high pF cables -- adding a buffer is a waste of money.

Regarding loops for pedals -- I might be mistaken - but I thought the FX8 had them. It would be nice but not a big deal.
When I used my pedals I had 2x 20' + the cable on the board through my wireless sounded great. Through the cable it sounded muffled. Bob bradshaw told me to run my cable through the buffer in my gcx switcher and it sounded great.I just wasent sure about 2-20' cables in the fx loop
 

Rex

Legend!
The critical piece of cable is the first one—the one connecting your guitar to the first thing in your chain. Any signal coming from the output of the rest of your gear should have low enough output impedance that cable capacitance shouldn't make a difference.

The exception to that is if you've bypassed a piece of gear that has "true bypass." In that case, that box's output impedance will be the output impedance of the piece of equipment that's just before it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dB

LVC

Fractal Fanatic
That is what buffers do --

It is all about how much resistance to the audio signal there is between your guitar and the amp. Too much resistance and your tone gets dull or muddy. Its a math problem you can solve with your ears.

Loop is a different animal.

If you have a buffered loop it does not matter if the device feeding it is line level or unbalanced. Trust me it took me a while to figure this crap out with my dumble style amps. With these amps you need to add a dumblelator to correct the mismatch - if you don't your tone sounds anemic.

Traditional effects stomp boxes run inputs and outputs at the unbalanced level.

The Fx8 is most likely already supplying a signal for a line level loop (TC electronic Nova system and Eventide H9 do as an example). You simply adjust the input and output levels to get the proper balance. You should be able to run longer cables without any issues (as long as you adjust properly).

One of the big attractions to me about the FX8 is to be able to get all these quality effects in one unit (no cables between stomp boxes).

Resistance is futile!


When I used my pedals I had 2x 20' + the cable on the board through my wireless sounded great. Through the cable it sounded muffled. Bob bradshaw told me to run my cable through the buffer in my gcx switcher and it sounded great.I just wasent sure about 2-20' cables in the fx loop
 
Last edited:

nicolasrivera

Fractal Fanatic
Most effects can have two states: X and Y. It's like two presets for each effect within a preset. For example, you could have the Drive block X state be a Tube Screamer and the Y state be a Fuzzface. You can then toggle between the two states.
And that is the bomb!!

Cant wait for this unit!!!! ;)
 

Zwiebelchen

Fractal Fanatic
Wow, I've never had my comments quoted and shot down so many times, so fast! :)

Don't get me wrong, there's an obvious large market for this and I bet they will sell tons of them. FAS doesn't need any more reason than that. Besides, Cliff already has so much awesome FX code written, why not leverage that into a new product for a new market segment?

We here on the forum all know how great the amp modelling is. Products have been trying to out-do tubes for at least 40 years, since the first solid-state guitar amps came out, and later the first digital products. Nothing ever sounded good enough, but Fractal finally pulled off what seemed impossible. Thanks to the Axe-Fx, many here have sold off ALL their tube amps and will never use tubes again. This is revolutionary stuff and (in my mind) this is what Fractal (the brand) is known for. They finally made tube amps unnecessary.

Now the FX8 doesn't actually diminish any of that. We on the forum certainly know it. I was just sayin... surely the thought I expressed (poorly) must have crossed minds of others?
I guess the reasoning behind the FX8 is much more simple than you think:
Adapting developed content for new markets.
As I assume the algorithms of the effects in the FX8 to be almost identical to the Axe effect algorithms (if not completely identical), there's almost no extra effort in making updates or firmware in general for the FX8 (compared to the Axe FX that is). And as the FX8 doesn't cannibalize on the AFX II customers (as most get the latter for amp modelling), it's pretty much a no risk operation. Even if only few of those units sell, then chances are it was already worth it, as the effect algorithms did not have to be developed in the first place.

And now remember how many traditionalists are out there that stick to their "tubes only" stigma. Probably much more than pro-modellers. Dem wallets. ;)
 

serge20261

Inspired
Yes yes yes,been waiting for this,please tell how long before we can get our hands on these,don't even want to listen just want one.
 

Brick_top

Power User
I'd bet on something between $1000 and $1800 ^^
IMO $1800 is way too much, I bet it must be around $1000

I remember cliff saying he was evaluating some other DSPs for another product that had nice power for the price, based on this I think the price will not be very high.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ALE
Top Bottom