I might be getting off the Axe-Fx train

touch33 said:
Hanging your hat on superb audio quality is great - but so is creating an intuitive and inviting UI. If your major market is rock stars with techs then it’s OK to ignore making small changes (with little/no cost) so your box is easier to learn/operate. I wonder how many more FXIII’s might scoot out the door were they easier to walk up to and operate.

In Sales we always try to get the shopper to touch the controls, play with the device, get hooked on it. It’s called “transfer of ownership” and an intuitive interface helps - a lot. And just b/c FAS sells factory-direct doesn’t mean that prospective buyers don’t lay hands on one out in the Real World before their minds get made up.
Click to expand...

I absolutely love your Tesla icon, but I personally believe the AxeFx lll interface will be awesome.
 
My only gripe with the 3 is that I want it to look exactly like my 2:(
That anodized black is just stealthy as hell and looks badass! The whole machine looks frikkin badass!! So does the MFC101, it looks badass!!! I'm stuck I guess f it!
 
I got on the wait list as fast as i possibly could. I know the III is going to blow me me away.

That being said, I do hope there are some UI improvements.
If time and money were no object, I would have recommended bringing in a fresh set of new designers with some entirely different ideas. Who knows, maybe they did do that.

Until you have one in our hands, you can't truly get a feel for the new UI. You also need to spend time with it before deciding if you love it or hate it.

When I got the Behringer X32, I though the ipad app was super clunky and didnt make sense. A few months later and I think its brilliant and wonder how I lived without it.
I hope the Axe III hits me the same way.
 
I am always about the tone and versatility over user interface. We have yet to see the audio (DSP) examples that floor us with the new remarkable modeling, ya-da-ya-da, like we did when the Axe-FX II was announced.

To be honest I don't expect the III to have the same mouth-dropping impact. The II was leaps and bounds over the market, but improvements are incremental, and the III isn't as likely to be a huge improvement over a II with Q9. Three years hence, we might be amazed that we could abide the II.

Q20.x?

Regardless, I got on the wait list and this morning reconfigured to allow the II and a III to run simultaneously. I'll evaluate the III and be able to manually transfer some presets. Then on day 14 decide .....
 
how much are you guys with UI beefs actually tweaking the unit on sound check? Serious and good faith question. I personally find that once you marry a patch to a guitar, the device becomes plug and play and I barely even have to tweak from room to room after that. I’m willing to say my experience might not be anyone else’s, but are you guys really having to go menu diving in high pressure situations?
 
I would say that the latest versions of Quantum do not need as much “head-scratching” as they did a few years back.
In this way I do believe that for most users, much less knowledge is required to get a great sound.
I believe that the axe III can leverage this fact along with the nicer interface and this should be another positive step in “ease of use”.

I remember when Apple bought Logic that they were hell-bent on making it easier to use whilst maintaining
the power and engineering that eMagic brought to the table. I dunno, maybe the jury’s still out on that one.
...or maybe GarageBand was born :)

I’ve grown comfortable milling around the II’s interface...I do not necessarily look forward to re-learning basic tasks or
paradigm shifts in structure. But that’s life, things change...get over it(me) ;)
 
I guess I am missing the big deal in these discussions. Many people “get off the train” on guitar tech. How many old Supers, Deluxes, Plexis, AC30s are the amp for some players? They got off in the late 60s or early 70s. Hell, some apparently got off the train before they were born... playing on amps made before they were. If you’ve found your amp-soulmate, so be it. Doesn’t make your’s wrong, or newer tech/interfaces wrong. It’s just your choice. If the new unit doesn’t appeal to you, the next exit is yours. Enjoy what you have!

I like choices. As a matter of fact, I like not having to choose. Still have a wall of tube amps, and I’m on the waitlist for the III. It’s (literally) all good.
 
Last edited:
As I'm just getting back into guitar as a hobby, I don't see myself getting a 3 even though it's doable. For me I don't need so many different amps types etc. Who does really? It's great having flexibility and all but how many actually use more than x amount of amps etc? I'm a gear head like most that buy these devices when they don't really need it lol. So is that flexibility worth $2500'ish? Just curious.....
 
Last edited:
Joemexistrat said:
As I'm just getting back into guitar as a hobby, I don't see myself getting a 3 even though it's doable. For me I don't need so many different amps types etc. Who does really? It's great having flexibility and all but how any actually more than x amount of amps etc? I'm a gear head like most that buy these devices when they don't really need it lol. So is that flexibility worth $2500'ish? Just curious.....
Click to expand...

I use 2 amp models. But the AX lets me select them from a library of more than 250 models. That’s flexibility.
 
yek said:
I use 2 amp models. But the AX lets me select them from a library of more than 250 models. That’s flexibility.
Click to expand...
And I can hook up and try more than 200 more in about 5 seconds' time — for free — when the urge strikes. And who doesn't get that urge once in a while? :)
 
VegasGuitar said:
I am always about the tone and versatility over user interface. We have yet to see the audio (DSP) examples that floor us with the new remarkable modeling, ya-da-ya-da, like we did when the Axe-FX II was announced.

To be honest I don't expect the III to have the same mouth-dropping impact. The II was leaps and bounds over the market, but improvements are incremental, and the III isn't as likely to be a huge improvement over a II with Q9. Three years hence, we might be amazed that we could abide the II.

Q20.x?

Regardless, I got on the wait list and this morning reconfigured to allow the II and a III to run simultaneously. I'll evaluate the III and be able to manually transfer some presets. Then on day 14 decide .....
Click to expand...

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. From a purely tone-based perspective, I'm not sure how much is going to change between the two units (although if there is a way to improve, I'd bet Fractal will find it). But at this point I'm interested in the AFX3 from a user / workflow perspective.

To the listener, sure, a recording of the 2 vs the 3 right now probably isn't going to sound much different, if at all. But from the musician's perspective, it's going to be like moving into a modern house with twice the square footage of your last one. You still have all the same furniture, but you'll have a lot more options as to how you want to lay everything out. You'll even have enough room to bring in a few extra pieces from storage that wouldn't fit into your old place.

The Axe-Fx 2 already sounds fantastic. And if all you're looking for is great guitar tone with a few effects here and there, the AX8 will probably suit you just fine. The most exciting thing about the Axe-Fx 3 to me right now is how much better and easier it's going to be to live with as a musician.
 
GreatGreen said:
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. From a purely tone-based perspective, I'm not sure how much is going to change between the two units (although if there is a way to improve, I'd bet Fractal will find it). But at this point I'm interested in the AFX3 from a user / workflow perspective.

To the listener, sure, a recording of the 2 vs the 3 right now probably isn't going to sound much different, if at all. But from the musician's perspective, it's going to be like moving into a modern house with twice the square footage of your last one. You still have all the same furniture, but you'll have a lot more options as to how you want to lay everything out. You'll even have enough room to bring in a few extra pieces from storage that wouldn't fit into your old place.

Basically, the Axe-Fx 2 already sounds fantastic. The most exciting thing about the Axe-Fx 3 to me right now is how much better and easier it's going to be to live with as a musician.
Click to expand...
@GreatGreen gets it. :)
 
GreatGreen said:
At the present time......

The Axe-Fx 2 already sounds fantastic. And if all you're looking for is great guitar tone with a few effects here and there, the AX8 will probably suit you just fine. The most exciting thing about the Axe-Fx 3 to me right now is how much better and easier it's going to be to live with as a musician.
Click to expand...

Totally agree. Its like a new CPU is announced, but Photoshop will take a while to catch up to the full capability in the new hardware. New hardware is a positive step.

Now, firmware and Cliff's magnificent modeling has much more headroom ....... lots of much more headroom!
5 years from now could be quire interesting! Imagine virtual tube and transformer swaps ......
 
Rex said:
The Axe II has that now. ;)
Click to expand...

No it does not; I speak of swapping out a Mullard modeled tube against another EL34 from, say, the early 60's, or against today's crop. ;)

The current capability is to change tube types, but I bet you Cliff has done far more sampling and modeling then we see today.
 
VegasGuitar said:
No it does not; I speak of swapping out a Mullard modeled tube against another EL34 from, say, the early 60's, or against today's crop. ;)

The current capability is to change tube types, but I bet you Cliff has done far more sampling and modeling then we see today.
Click to expand...
Yes, he has. Pretty much every way a tube could change is modeled in the advanced parameters.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom