I might be getting off the Axe-Fx train

[Surrealistic Brillo]

For me I don't need so many different amps types etc. Who does really?

Recording artists...session players...people in multiple bands in different styles...people who can appreciate the nuances of different amps, etc. I mean acoustics exist as do PA’s...who “needs” an electric guitar at all? Play acoustic.

 

[VegasGuitar]

Yes, he has. Pretty much every way a tube could change is modeled in the advanced parameters.

And he hasn't given us those to match a historical tube or tubes. we can guess, but I bet it could be better!

 

[Winther]

"When I was a boy we didn’t have fancy editing software. We edited our rack units my scrolling through multiple sub menus displayed on tiny monochrome LCDs. It made us CAVEmen."
There, fixed it for ya.

I was a caveman myself but why on earth should that make me argue for the most advanced hi-tech guitar processor to maintain its UI in the stone age?

 

[Sonofiam]

Why on earth would a company spend money on this feature when they've spent the money on developing and offering free editing software that gives access to any parameter you want at the click of your mouse?

I would be incredibly surprised if anyone who was involved in the design of any Axe, the AX8 or FX8 intended the UI to be the only means of editing, creating and managing presets, managing amps and cabs, etc... While it is possible to do these things on the units themselves, I don't believe that was the intent of the UI.

I suppose Fractal was more confident in the ability of the end user and thought they would be smart enough to figure this out.

 

[Rex]

I would be incredibly surprised if anyone who was involved in the design of any Axe, the AX8 or FX8 intended the UI to be the only means of editing, creating and managing presets, managing amps and cabs, etc... While it is possible to do these things on the units themselves, I don't believe that was the intent of the UI.

In many situations, the UI is the only available means to edit the device. I believe the intention was to never put an Axe owner in a position where “I don’t have a computer with me, so I’m screwed.”

 

[JCBitB]

At the present time, the amp modeling of the 2 and 3 are going to be fairly close to parity, if not exactly the same, with the exception of the small compromises Cliff talked about due to CPU constraints of the 2.

Not trying to be pedantic here since your main point is sound, but you've got more to look forward to if Cliff has upgraded the analog to digital conversion... After watching modeling come all this way from the kidney bean I'm realizing that it's definitely "garbage in = garbage out" even BEFORE you take into consideration the quality of the modeling technology itself. I'm excited for the III even if everything stays the same codewise from the II, believe it or not

 

[jrh_67]

Personally I find the Axe "green screen" easy to operate. I think it was setup very intuitively which made it kinda self explanatory. Of course I came from the Digitech rack units from the 80's and 90's and those things were a beast to learn. Actually when I got my first Axe Fx Ultra i was shocked at how easy it was to use and didn't use Axe Edit for maybe 2 years...lol. To me the screen on the III looks like an upgrade to the green screen but the layout left close enough so I don't have to relearn a new menu system and I appreciate that!

 

[Genghis]

Personally I find the Axe "green screen" easy to operate. I think it was setup very intuitively which made it kinda self explanatory. Of course I came from the Digitech rack units from the 80's and 90's and those things were a beast to learn. Actually when I got my first Axe Fx Ultra i was shocked at how easy it was to use and didn't use Axe Edit for maybe 2 years...lol. To me the screen on the III looks like an upgrade to the green screen but the layout left close enough so I don't have to relearn a new menu system and I appreciate that!

That is more or less how I see it. I started with the Ultra, editing before they had software on the computer, so I am very comfortable with the Fractal layout for editing on the unit itself. I do prefer to do it on the computer these days, as it is just that much easier, but I haven't forgotten how to get around the little green screen. Looking forward to the Axe-FX III. This month is sure dragging.

 

[greiswig]

I’m a professional UI designer and user researcher. At my current company, we have a whole user group who were trained on green screens...the terminal-type green screens with function keys. You may have seen them in movies made in the 70s and 80s.

When we first designed a more modern (!) UI for that system, the current users raised quite a ruckus about us moving their cheese on them. They had their primary workflows scripted completely, and had learned workarounds for an unintuitive, low-usability system:

Type, tab tab tab, type, hit F4, type, tab tab tab tab, type, hit F5, enter.

Things like that. So those old guys were faster on the old system than they were on the new system. That means we should revert, right? But what happens when the only guy at your business who knows how to use that system gets hit by a tour bus, or when you have to train a millennial to use your terminal green screen? And what about even the old user who, after only a few days of using the new system, suddenly finds that they are actually more productive and have fewer mistakes made because of the new design?

I have some scripts that I’ve gotten used to for the AFX UI, such as 7 page rights to get to the advanced tab in an amp block, and scrolling all the way down then back up a couple to adjust preamp tube type. That doesn’t mean there is not a much better way to do the Information Architecture and design of the small screen UI.

Then there are usability issues like the apparently random order of tone stacks where an alphabetized list...or even a list grouped by major amp manufacturers and then alpha within that...would be better.

Hopefully Fractal has given some love and attention to this kind of thing for the III. Regardless, I appreciate their level of devotion to quality and look forward to what the new hardware will bring!

 

[electronpirate]

.....

When we first designed a more modern (!) UI for that system, the current users raised quite a ruckus about us moving their cheese on them. They had their primary workflows scripted completely, and had learned workarounds for an unintuitive, low-usability system:

Type, tab tab tab, type, hit F4, type, tab tab tab tab, type, hit F5, enter.

Things like that. So those old guys were faster on the old system than they were on the new system. That means we should revert, right? But what happens when the only guy at your business who knows how to use that system gets hit by a tour bus, or when you have to train a millennial to use your terminal green screen? And what about even the old user who, after only a few days of using the new system, suddenly finds that they are actually more productive and have fewer mistakes made because of the new design?
...

This.

Working with these folks after a tenure at IBM, this is more the norm than those who embrace change. They can even waste weeks complaining that all their process' are broken, and sit on their thumbs until someone comes along and tells them 'well, you can do that with 2 clicks now' (like 'self help' is in the 'not in my job description' category.)

Try the new system, display some fookin' adaptability and learn it, and then make a judgement. Already there are grumblings about 'disruption of my flow' that I see.

Be patient, learn, enjoy. I personally find that when I get on a new system, I find things that I've never looked at before in the discovery process, thus adding to my creative toolbox.

As to your other comment about 'usability' in menus, etc, I suspect that's your personal peccadillo, and it doesn't mean that much to me, but it's certainly something to look at for 'polish'. I guess to comment on that, I'd like to see a rework of the amp model naming, since, for instance, just Plexi's have vastly different names...might be nice to have a more simple nomenclature there (Plx 1959 100J for 1959 100 watt Jump, Plx 50T for Plexi 50 High, etc.)

 

[∞Fractals]

This “move the cheese” is usually considered it’s own discipline in IT. The concept is called organizational change management.

It’s one of the top three success factors for any software adoption, in any organization. It’s often under invested by management. It’s value is vastly Misunderstood.

That being said, it’s a well understood concept with pretty good, defined processes to implement/execute. In consumer products however, I couldn’t be as articulate about how to manage such change across a user group that actually has a choice.

 

[Deaj]

I cut my (DSP) teeth on rack gear in the 80's - including MIDI sequencing - on the then standard 2-line LCD text UI so I found the UI on the AxeFX & AxeFX II units intuitive from the start (the added rotary controllers on the AxeFX II definitely made on the fly edits faster still IMO). For most edits I find this UI as fast (and faster in some cases) compared to Axe-Edit for the same tasks. This said I can see why some might not perceive the UI as I do.

The Helix UI is very nice, and I found it intuitive as well. It's prettier than the green monochrome screen on the AxeFX & AxeFX II and this serves a purpose in the Helix UI workflow. I could work with either but quick, on the fly edits are accessible and quick enough on either IMO. For my part the aesthetic value of a hardware UI is of little importance so long as it is functional and intuitive (or at least easy to learn and remember). I spent less time in the UI on the Kemper during my demo. I mostly demo the profiles on a used unit with a fair number of 3rd party profiles loaded.I didn't care for the results in making changes using the gain or TMB controls and didn't use effects unless they were part of the saved rig.

I enjoyed my demos of both the Helix and the Kemper. Neither did anything that I can't do in the AxeFX II and thus I never onsidered either as a sonic replacement for the AxeFX II, and so, for me, UI was never a consideration.

This is a matter of personal preference of course. YMMV.