IV anywhere on the horizon?

Greg Ferguson said:
Watching the pricing trends on Reverb shows it's risky because it's based on what people think is cool plus the usual supply and demand. "Cool" can totally destroy demand. There are much better ways of making money.
Click to expand...
Totally agree! It’s times like these I’m glad I like less “cool” guitars, but then the asking price is high because they’re “rare” 😂
 
There’s the historical aspect too. Early Les Paul’s and Strats were revolutionary and they are still amazing instruments today.
 
There's still no point in releasing an Axe-Fx IV yet and there won't be for a while imo.
The quality of amp modeling, cab simulation and effects is at the point now where the Axe models' tone is virtually indistinguishable from their real counterparts - I got my taste of this first hand with my JP-2C and I'm still wondering whether I should keep it or not. Amp models, better solutions for existing features (e.g. Dyna-Cab) are still getting added. Not to mention the competition hasn't really come up with anything groundbreaking or something so much better that would force FAS into any moves. The only area where the Axe would really be able to improve is the UI/UX, however, with the capabilities of Axe-Edit (a VERY, VERY potent PC editor compared to similar software) the front panel really only matters in niche situations anymore.
Simply put, it wouldn't make any sense for most Axe III users to switch to a (potentially more expensive) Axe IV because it wouldn't be able to offer that much more in any regard. Probably...
Then there's Cliff and his magic and who knows...
 
Greg Ferguson said:
I think the IV will be released once the III finishes crushing all tube amps.
Click to expand...
ya, +1 - but was wondering what the emoji reponse above is all about replying to Fractal's "No" post of a year ago, which in hindsight was correct: as of May 2022 (and probably the same status now), no IV on the horizon.
 
sprint said:
ya, +1 - but was wondering what the emoji reponse above is all about replying to Fractal's "No" post of a year ago, which in hindsight was correct: as of May 2022 (and probably the same status now), no IV on the horizon.
Click to expand...
I've always understood no to mean the opposite of yes....no hindsight needed, so no surprise a year later.
 
Zedhed said:
I've always understood no to mean the opposite of yes....no hindsight needed, so no surprise a year later.
Click to expand...
again, was just curious about the emoji post

I think we are saying the same thing, but if you want semantics: the hind sight of the past year is imo material, since at the time (1yr ago), there could be doubt (most likely from folks who don't know Fractal tends not to make inaccurate statements).

(we may need an English major to chime in with a ruling on use of the term "hind sight" - not my forté lol!)
 
Last edited:
sprint said:
ya, +1 - but was wondering what the emoji reponse above is all about replying to Fractal's "No" post of a year ago, which in hindsight was correct: as of May 2022 (and probably the same status now), no IV on the horizon.
Click to expand...
Maybe, at this point, the III has enough CPU/DSP that it’s exceeding what is actually needed to accurately process models of amps so now it’s fine tuning. And the residual is other features.

That’s been the march of computers in general. Years ago I was listening to Steve Jobs talk about the onset of the PowerPC chips, how they had so much more power than they needed for regular computing that they could take some and emulate the 68K processors and still have plenty left over. Now Apple has abandoned Intel for their own hardware because they looked at what instructions they needed for their environment, threw away everything else, and now have a huge amount of extra CPU power for new stuff.

Maybe the IV doesn’t need to happen? Maybe the siblings need more power to catch up to the III’s CPU power, at least for this purpose?

I think we all realize we are on the cusp of a major change in amplifier technology.
 
Greg Ferguson said:
Maybe the IV doesn’t need to happen? Maybe the siblings need more power to catch up to the III’s CPU power, at least for this purpose?

I think we all realize we are on the cusp of a major change in amplifier technology.
Click to expand...
The areas where most improvement can happen are in things that have nothing to do with emulating amps and fx.
  • Onboard UI usability. This could be solved by a dedicated controller hardware unit, proper mobile editors, better MIDI knob control support etc.
  • Form factor. Even the FM3 is on the big side and for example the Quad Cortex is way more sleek as a design while packing in more I/O and footswitching than the FM3, no matter how you feel about the QC as a product otherwise.
  • Use as an audio interface. Still some issues on that front like not supporting anything but 48 KHz sample rate and not having the conveniences of a dedicated audio interface for controlling in/out levels, routing and mixing in the digital realm. I still use a dedicated audio interface for no other reason than because it's a bit more convenient in some areas for everyday use.
  • How powerful the cheaper units are. FM3 could be a bit faster but covers the usecases of most users who just need regular fx chains rather than heavily parallel, highest quality this and that.
With cheap capture players like the IK Tonex pedal, and probably a slew of even cheaper products from Asia to come, making amp modeling a commodity to a degree, that definitely puts Fractal into a hard spot as the expensive, pro-grade tool.

While Fractal has its following, there's going to be a lot of "why should I pay $xxx for Fractal gen IV when I can just spend $yyy and get this cheap box that is more than good enough and models every amp ever made if someone has captured it" going around from the more hobbyist crowd.

It will be interesting to see how Fractal navigates that as the hobbyists (including myself) are still a significant portion of the market.
 
laxu said:
The areas where most improvement can happen are in things that have nothing to do with emulating amps and fx.
  • Onboard UI usability. This could be solved by a dedicated controller hardware unit, proper mobile editors, better MIDI knob control support etc.
  • Form factor. Even the FM3 is on the big side and for example the Quad Cortex is way more sleek as a design while packing in more I/O and footswitching than the FM3, no matter how you feel about the QC as a product otherwise.
  • Use as an audio interface. Still some issues on that front like not supporting anything but 48 KHz sample rate and not having the conveniences of a dedicated audio interface for controlling in/out levels, routing and mixing in the digital realm. I still use a dedicated audio interface for no other reason than because it's a bit more convenient in some areas for everyday use.
  • How powerful the cheaper units are. FM3 could be a bit faster but covers the usecases of most users who just need regular fx chains rather than heavily parallel, highest quality this and that.
With cheap capture players like the IK Tonex pedal, and probably a slew of even cheaper products from Asia to come, making amp modeling a commodity to a degree, that definitely puts Fractal into a hard spot as the expensive, pro-grade tool.

While Fractal has its following, there's going to be a lot of "why should I pay $xxx for Fractal gen IV when I can just spend $yyy and get this cheap box that is more than good enough and models every amp ever made if someone has captured it" going around from the more hobbyist crowd.

It will be interesting to see how Fractal navigates that as the hobbyists (including myself) are still a significant portion of the market.
Click to expand...
I don't consider the ToneX to be an Axe-Fx challenger. The Axe (or for that matter, even the FM3) can do much more in terms of effects. And in general I'm (and I'm sure many of us too are) not really sold on the whole capture thing yet. To me it's just a variation on what Kemper's been doing for years. It's a good solution if you already have amps and would like to use those tones as snapshots but the flexibility and authenticity of editing those tones after the fact still falls apart for me. Exactly the same reason why I said goodbye to my Synergy rig - it sounded amazing but the modules weren't flexible enough for me. I'd even go as far as saying the interaction between the BMT controls was weird and unnatural, it felt more like adjusting a Kemper snapshot than a real amp.
 
if we are discussing form factor options..

1u rack for minimalist setup designed to save rack space for folk that can setup their presets & edit via axe-edit.

Comprising a minimal oled display plus input and output led vertical bars, one larger multi function knob for preset/scene/effect select; push & turn for preset/scene/effect option.

8 smaller knobs for input level/gain/bass/middle/treble/presence/amp master/out level.. these functions could change when "effect" is selected, but should time default revert to amp controls.

front would also has guitar input, which is duplicated on the back along with all other connections.. TRS can be used for XLR to save space.. and fwiw my audio interface has 20 TRS connections along with XLR, spdif i/o, optical x2, usb, firewire x2 and power.. so there is adequate room for connectors.

... just a post to keep a hypothetically pointless thread open!.. :)
 
axes said:
I don't consider the ToneX to be an Axe-Fx challenger. The Axe (or for that matter, even the FM3) can do much more in terms of effects. And in general I'm (and I'm sure many of us too are) not really sold on the whole capture thing yet. To me it's just a variation on what Kemper's been doing for years. It's a good solution if you already have amps and would like to use those tones as snapshots but the flexibility and authenticity of editing those tones after the fact still falls apart for me. Exactly the same reason why I said goodbye to my Synergy rig - it sounded amazing but the modules weren't flexible enough for me. I'd even go as far as saying the interaction between the BMT controls was weird and unnatural, it felt more like adjusting a Kemper snapshot than a real amp.
Click to expand...
It's not, but it's a challenger in the sense of "it does amp/cab modeling quite well and doesn't cost a whole lot". A lot of people don't really care about the amp model working exactly like the real thing, or even understand the peculiarities of a specific amp so to them a capture of a few different settings is in that "good enough, plus it's cheap" territory.

That will be a factor in whether they pick a Tonex, HX Stomp or FM3 or whatever their replacements might be going forward. It used to be that all the budget stuff was a world apart from the higher end models like Fractal.
 
laxu said:
It's not, but it's a challenger in the sense of "it does amp/cab modeling quite well and doesn't cost a whole lot". A lot of people don't really care about the amp model working exactly like the real thing, or even understand the peculiarities of a specific amp so to them a capture of a few different settings is in that "good enough, plus it's cheap" territory.

That will be a factor in whether they pick a Tonex, HX Stomp or FM3 or whatever their replacements might be going forward. It used to be that all the budget stuff was a world apart from the higher end models like Fractal.
Click to expand...
That's a good point, however, I still think they are directed at different customers. The FM3 is giggable on its own, the ToneX is not (really). It's nice for integrating into an existing pedalboard rig. The FM3 can stand on its own as a capable amp modeler/FX processor. Yes, if you're only looking for basic tones and nothing else, the ToneX will be the value king. However, I don't see Fractal doing a similar type of unit. Besides, the HX Stomp (which I'd consider more of a comparative tool) is still a lot cheaper than an FM3 so the competition is on right now. I don't see the ToneX creating huge ripples in the same league.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom