Do we really want an Axe FX VST?

A couple of points:

You are paying for hardware. The two DSPs alone cost over $600 total. The rest of the components are just as premium. I don't know what the total hardware cost is, but it is not insignificant. Then you have the cost of outsourcing, fabrication, assembly, testing, shipping, machinery for manufacture and packaging, space to put that machinery, human resources to make all of the previous happen, benefits and insurance for all of them, etc. A plugin requires virtually none of these (a very small team, in a very small space, with no physical fab or distribution). I also remember Cliff writing that their margins are low. I believe him.

And some seem to be assuming that plugin piracy would not affect hardware sales. Not a safe assumption on which to gamble your life's work. I assume the opposite. If anyone can get an Axe plugin for free, the number of people who will forego the $2000+ price tag, IMO, would be significant.
 
A hardware based Axe plugin would be good for automation, but would only work on a single track. That's precisely why I'd prefer a software based solution. You can re-amp multiple tracks at once. Further, if the Axe hardware goes kaput for whatever reason, it has to be shipped off for repair. Whereas you can always continue working where you left off with a software based plugin assuming you have another PC handy or you're able to fix the issue yourself.
 
Jason Scott said:
A hardware based Axe plugin would be good for automation, but would only work on a single track. That's precisely why I'd prefer a software based solution. You can re-amp multiple tracks at once. Further, if the Axe hardware goes kaput for whatever reason, it has to be shipped off for repair. Whereas you can always continue working where you left off with a software based plugin assuming you have another PC handy.
Click to expand...

Agreed.
 
Jason Scott said:
A hardware based Axe plugin would be good for automation, but would only work on a single track. That's precisely why I'd prefer a software based solution. You can re-amp multiple tracks at once.
Click to expand...
Based on what I've read, that would take one hell of a computer.
 
Great points on both sides.

Guys, don't get me wrong - I'm not condemning the idea of a VST altogether, I think the majority of us can benefit from the time-saving aspects etc. However I do believe that anything from Fractal in this department must necessarily be expensive, perhaps more than some would be prepared to pay, which would likely encourage piracy and then there goes the Farm.

The idea of a full Axe FX Native plugin at <$500 is a non-starter in my opinion. Unless it's A amp.

I think a hybrid system, with an external box crunching the numbers and providing the analog front-end coupled with a VST would ensure a uniform user experience and prevent piracy at the same time, as purposed by others already.
 
steadystate said:
Based on what I've read, that would take one hell of a computer.
Click to expand...

Well, if you're running all four instances with various CPU intensive effects per instance, maybe so. Even if you had to freeze all four instances and unfreeze each one individually to perform tweaks, it would still be more efficient and convenient than re-amping four tracks via hardware.
 
Architect said:
Great points on both sides.

Guys, don't get me wrong - I'm not condemning the idea of a VST altogether, I think the majority of us can benefit from the time-saving aspects etc. However I do believe that anything from Fractal in this department must necessarily be expensive, perhaps more than some would be prepared to pay, which would likely encourage piracy and then there goes the Farm.

The idea of a full Axe FX Native plugin at <$500 is a non-starter in my opinion. Unless it's A amp.

I think a hybrid system, with an external box crunching the numbers and providing the analog front-end coupled with a VST would ensure a uniform user experience and prevent piracy at the same time, as purposed by others already.
Click to expand...

External hardware can't compete with the convenience and efficiency of a software based solution in terms of re-amping.

Piracy is a fact of life that software developers have come to accept. Despite their best efforts, popular software is going to be cracked. There's just no two ways about it, generally speaking. The best you can do is incentivize purchases by offering a constant flow of substantive updates with valuable content and offer a pricing structure that makes it more trouble than it's worth to continually find cracked updates with said content on a regular basis. There will always be people who aren't going to purchase software regardless, but companies aren't losing money on those individuals anyway.
 
steadystate said:
You are paying for hardware. The two DSPs alone cost over $600 total. The rest of the components are just as premium. I don't know what the total hardware cost is, but it is not insignificant.
Click to expand...
I mostly disagree with this. The hardware isn't as much as you think here. We're largely paying for the firmware when we buy an Axe-Fx.
 
iaresee said:
I mostly disagree with this. The hardware isn't as much as you think here. We're largely paying for the firmware when we buy an Axe-Fx.
Click to expand...
Then you are privy to information which I do not have. Cliff posted an invoice for the TigerSharc just to show that they each cost him over $300 (closer to $350). That's around $700 just for two chips. He has stated several times how expensive the hardware he chooses to use is. The encoder is expensive. Parts cost adds up fast. I just can't believe that hardware is not a significant cost, along with the other costs I mentioned involved in manufacturing and delivering a hardware product.

I agree we are "largely" paying for firmware. But that is a relative term with no real definition. Of course I'd be interested in a hard number percentage. But that is not for me to know. Chucklehead McKenzie once posted a video claiming the Axe hardware was of low cost. IIRC, Cliff threatened legal action to get him to pull it since it was factually incorrect and bordering on slander. If I am in error about that, my apologies.
 
Last edited:
steadystate said:
Then you are privy to information which I do not have. Cliff posted an invoice for the TigerSharc just to show that they each cost him over $300 (closer to $350). That's around $700 just for two chips. He has stated several times how expensive the hardware he chooses to use is. The encoder is expensive. Parts cost adds up fast. I just can't believe that hardware is not a significant cost, along with the other costs I mentioned involved in manufacturing and delivering a hardware product.
Click to expand...
More than half the price of the unit is for the firmware. I have all the knowledge you have.

I agree we are "largely" paying for firmware. But that is a relative term with no real definition. Of course I'd be interested in a hard number percentage. But that is not for me to know. Chucklehead McKenzie once posted a video claiming the Axe hardware was of no real cost. IIRC, Cliff threatened legal action to get him to pull it. If I am in error about that, my apologies.
Click to expand...
It's of cost, but not the majority of the cost of the unit. And it gets cheaper over time.

Again, this is in response to the "OMG! It needs to cost $200!" response -- if you want a realistic price point subtract ~$700 from the price of a new Axe-Fx II XL+. That's a reasonable starting point for a plugin here.
 
Random thought here.... but would it be better if fractal made audio interfaces? Pretty much follow UA's business modle...... Even better would be to jus release their software on UA's platforms. Hell even if it was just AXE 8 software. That way cliff still has the carrot on the string leading to the hardware.
 
aaronv84 said:
Random thought here but it would a better if fractal made audio interfaces. Pretty much follow UA's business modle. Even better would be to jus release their software on UA's platforms. Hell even if it was just AXE 8 software. That way cliff still has the carrot on the string leading to the hardware.
Click to expand...
That's a pretty interesting thought. A DSP-accelerated interface that could host customer algorithms is more inline with what Fractal does well, that's for certain.
 
I won't make guesses about what it ultimately costs to manufacture the Axe without firmware (including costs beyond the raw hardware purchases). I only know what Cliff has stated about it and his margins. I believe that the hardware cost is not insignificant. I only initiated comment to all of this in response to "you're not paying for hardware". You are. More than you would be paying for an entirely complete competing product in many cases.
 
BTW, the frequency of my forum posts is inversely proportional to my success at writing listenable music while sitting at my workstation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom