• 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.

Wish I/O Routing Matrix


Fractal Fanatic
As a recording guitarist who doesn't gig, it's usually pretty quiet on the forum for me, with the topics of discussion rarely touching on recording. Maybe it's because of the pandemic, but it seems like there has been quite an uptick of questions the past few weeks about recording and I/O.

One frequent area of questions deals with I/O routing. In other words, "how do I get audio from point A in the chain to point B in the output?". With multiple simultaneous paths often in use, there are a lot variations on this subject. IMHO one reason there are questions like this is because the I/O options, while useful, can be confusing. For example, there are subtleties like the way the "Copy Output 1" setting affects processing audio, but not pass-thru USB audio. Another area of questions deals with I/O routing needs that can't be met. While the options are convenient, there are still routings that people have asked about that can't be done.

The current approach where the I/O routings are basically fixed, but there are a few convenient options, while it has good intentions, IMHO is causing more problems than it solves.

IMHO a better way to do this would be to offer an I/O matrix. Give the user a way to connect the input ports and input usb channels to input blocks and output ports and usb channels. Similarly offer a way to connect output blocks and usb channels to output ports and usb channels. I think this would be less confusing than the current system because it would make the routings explicit and understandable. And, of course, it would be more flexible.

The idea is to freely connect the various I/O points. Something like this:

Provide a default configuration to get people started with a common setup of course. That way there's no need to force every user to use the I/O matrix. And offer presets of configurations so people can "re-cable" their AxeFX with the click of a mouse.

I think this is one of those cases where Fractal Audio is a victim of their own success. The AxeFX is so flexible that is has outgrown the way I/O routing is managed and something new is needed.
Last edited:



Reaper has a nice routing matrix. Takes a bit of getting used to, but it's very flexible. Inputs on one axis, outputs on the other. Put a dot on the grid where they intersect to connect the two.


Run into many situations where I change something, then come back a few days later and have to hunt around to figure out which routing virtual cable was changed.

AJ Vargas

Dunno if there's already a way to do this, but... I'd love a way to route blocks when recording a DI track so I can track DIs with Wah, Whammy etc...


Fractal Fanatic
Dunno if there's already a way to do this, but... I'd love a way to route blocks when recording a DI track so I can track DIs with Wah, Whammy etc...

Send the output of the wah (or whammy) block before the amp block to an output 2 block. In your DAW, get your DI from channels 3/4 instead of 5/6.

But...that illustrates my point exactly. It's asking a lot to expect an AxeFX user to know this arcane bit of trivia. On the other hand, if there was an I/O matrix, it would be obvious how to accomplish what you're asking.
Top Bottom