MFC101 Mk III with Axe Fx III

I believe this question has already been asked about 12653 times in the last 48 hours, and the answer should be: as a general midi controller, YES. Taking advantage of the faslink and all the cool sync features we’re all used to and love, NO
 
Not really. The implementation of the new floor controllers the III is a much better solution.

Agree. That means I have to sell my MFC101 mk1. One of the reasons I bought it was because of the sync thing. That will only work now with the new footcontrollers. Let's hope they also build these with more knobs than 6 or 12 in the near future. Most MFC users are used to more knobs.
 
The new pedalboards, as Cliff explained briefly, offer more with less (switches).
The MFC owner can still use the MFC but as a “normal” MIDI controller without the sync function...
 
Not really. The implementation of the new floor controllers the III is a much better solution.
I don't care how much better is. The point is that I would have to sell mine, and I like it, so I probably will not update to III unless I see something really spectacular in it
 
I would assume if most users can afford a $2499 III in the first place, “losing” a few hundred dollars by selling their mfc and buying the new foot controller isn’t going to make or break them

On top of that, the new controllers look vastly superior with per preset switch assignments and digital scribble strips.

After getting the Ax8 and it’s foot switch implantation I really started to dislike my mfc as the global IA assgnments started to feel very limited
 
I don't care how much better is. The point is that I would have to sell mine, and I like it, so I probably will not update to III unless I see something really spectacular in it

You really doubt there will be something spectacular in it? I have zero doubt that the III will (over time) present a number of exclusive and spectacular features, but it won't ever make your II less spectacular then it already is (and it will be getting new updates that trickle down from the III).

At some point the question will be: "Do I sell my II to get the III?", at this time I envision keeping the II and adding a III in the next couple years....

I don't have the MFC, but if I did, it would make my II set-up even more of a keeper, unless the new pedals work well with the II, does anyone know if they're backwards compatible for syncing with the II?
 
image.jpeg As my memory does not fail me, the FC of Fx3 introduces the PAGE concept,which is
already being used in other midi controllers,for example FAMC Jr+ series foot controllers.
It has 50 pages, to which you are able to assign bank,preset,amp switching etc....that's it!
 
Agree. That means I have to sell my MFC101 mk1. One of the reasons I bought it was because of the sync thing. That will only work now with the new footcontrollers. Let's hope they also build these with more knobs than 6 or 12 in the near future. Most MFC users are used to more knobs.
Agreed.....6 and 12 is a little light compared to 21! With the scribble strips and being able to assign a different IA to whatever per patch....we don't need as many. But still I like 10 presets per bank and maybe 5 IA? So 15 would work for me. Of course you need the bank up and down and edit and reveal. So might as well make it 21!
 
I've only got one gig to get through in the near future so I'm just holding on to my axe2 so I can use the mfc with faslink, then just midi thru from the 2 to the 3. No power supply and long midi cable to deal with
 
Agreed.....6 and 12 is a little light compared to 21! With the scribble strips and being able to assign a different IA to whatever per patch....we don't need as many. But still I like 10 presets per bank and maybe 5 IA? So 15 would work for me. Of course you need the bank up and down and edit and reveal. So might as well make it 21!

Agreed, Most Axe FX users are used to 17 to 21 IAs, plus the reveal, edit, and up and down buttons. Many of us also bought the 4 switch external pedal that was made by a forum member a while back. I did, and love having 21 useable IA switches, plus the reveal, edit, and up and down buttons.
If they eventually come out with a FC-24 I'd buy one.

As to the original post, I have seen a few posts scattered around the forum from people successfully using the MFC-101 with the Axe FXIII. I love to see more posts, and details of what they had to do to get the most out of it. I will have an Axe FXIII in the next week or so and find out for myself. MFC-Edit is going to help a lot.
I am also going to try out my FCB-1010 with the new EurekaProm and see if that works with the Axe FXIII. It worked great with the Axe FXII.

In the review section where someone said they were able to do almost everything they had done before with the MFC-101 and Axe FXII with the MFC-101 and Axe FXIII. I'm still waiting for someone to do a video on this subject.
 
I don't have the MFC, but if I did, it would make my II set-up even more of a keeper, unless the new pedals work well with the II, does anyone know if they're backwards compatible for syncing with the II?

They won’t work with the 2...only the 3. The FC is a “dumb” controller...it’s “brain” where all the programming happens is in the 3 itself. The MFC only works with the 3 via MIDI and won’t work with FasLink.
 
I keep seeing the concern about the FC-6 and FC-12 controllers being insufficient.

I could understand this more easily if it was prompted by comparing their 4-part color-rings with those on the Line 6 gear (which are solid, I believe), or if it was prompted by comparing the scribble strips on RJM Mastermind controllers (which can light up in various colors, which I believe Fractal's FC series cannot), or if it was prompted by the FC-series' main screen being, it seems, smaller than those on the Masterminds. Those are real differences.

I'm puzzled by the concern about the lack of foot-switches, though. Here's why:

For a given market of players, some will want 6 buttons. Some 8. Some 10. Some 12, still others 14, still others 16, et cetera, all the way to 28+ switches.

But by making 2 sizes of small daisy-chainable controllers, Fractal will make all those numbers possible, while reducing the costs of each unit.

Want only 6 switches? Use an FC-6. Want 8? Use the FC-6 and add a 2-button outboard switch. 10? Add two of the 2-button outboard switches.

Want 12? Use an FC-12. Want 14? Use the FC-12 and add a 2-button outboard switch. 16? Add two of the 2-button outboard switches.

Want 18? Use an FC-12 linked to an FC-6. Want 20? Use the FC-12/FC-6 combo and add a 2-button outboard switch. 22? Add two of the 2-button outboard switches.

Want 24? Use two FC-12s linked. Want 26? Use the double-FC-12 combo and add a 2-button outboard switch. 28? Add two of the 2-button outboard switches.

Seriously. Unless you're congenitally hostile to even numbers and really want an odd number of switches, you can get any number of switches your heart desires. Everybody gets exactly what they want.

Moreover (and this is what I think some folks are missing) they get it more cheaply than they otherwise might.

Typically, when setting up a production run of identical footcontroller units, you have to pay a certain fixed cost. This cost needs to be covered by the sales price of however many units you sell from that production run (hopefully all of them). The more units sold, the more your fixed cost is divided up across more units.

By making FC-6s and FC-12s, Fractal can reduce the cost-per-groups-of-6-footswitches quite a lot because a lot of people are going to be buying FC-6s and/or FC12s.

But if you add an FC-24 into the mix, now you have not 2 production runs for any given stretch of time, but 3. That's half-again the fixed costs. But each production run will be producing fewer units, because those who would have bought two units and linked them will instead buy the one larger unit. For each FC-24 sold, two FC-12s are not sold. The number of FC-12s produced will need to drop by double the number of FC-24s produced. Correspondingly, the fixed cost of the production runs is divided among significantly fewer units, and the per-unit price of each FC-12 goes up. Meanwhile, you also don't sell as many FC-24s as you would have sold of FC-12s. So, the fixed cost of those production runs is divided among a small number of units, making each unit more expensive (measured on a per-button basis).

As a result, the cost of a single FC-24 might end up being greater than buying two FC-12s and daisy-chaining them (purely because of the reduced Economies of Scale). And if the FC-24 is still more costly than two FC-12s, it will be a closer price than many suppose.

Meanwhile, if Fractal decides to offer the FC-24 (instead of those customers "creating" an FC-24 by combining two 12's), then obviously for every FC-24 sold, the number of FC-12s sold is reduced by two. That takes a big chunk out of the number of FC-12s sold, reducing the Economies of Scale for people who only want 12/14/16 switches: Those folks now pay a fair bit more.

Do I know that, given the likely numbers of FC-24 and FC-12 buyers, the introduction of an FC-24 would result in FC-12s costing more? Pretty much, because it's hard to see how that could be economically avoidable.

And do I know that the introduction of an FC-24 would also yield an FC-24 sales price higher than the combined costs of two FC-12s (if no FC-24 were offered)?

No, I don't know that. Fractal doesn't tell me sales-projections, market studies results, or their manufacturing costs.

All I'm saying is that it is possible. And that may very well lie behind Fractal's decision to sell FC-6s and FC-12s, and allow us to combine them to get whatever we want.

Even if the FC-24 price was still lower than the combined double-12 cost would have been (absent the introduction of an FC-24 option), it likely wouldn't be much lower.

Anyway, the ability to combine exactly the units we want to get exactly the footswitches we want...surely that's not a BAD thing?

The square form-factor of the MFC-101 is okay for some. For others, it doesn't fit inconveniently on their pedalboard. Some folks would rather have six buttons on the right-hand side, and twelve buttons on the left.

Well, now they can.

So I think the FC-6, FC-12 lineup is a good idea. If I need 24 switches I can easily, and pretty economically, have them. Works for me.
 
Last edited:
I keep seeing the concern about the FC-6 and FC-12 controllers being insufficient.

I could understand this more easily if it was prompted by comparing their 4-part color-rings with those on the Line 6 gear (which are solid, I believe), or if it was prompted by comparing the scribble strips on RJM Mastermind controllers (which can light up in various colors, which I believe Fractal's FC series cannot), or if it was prompted by the FC-series' main screen being, it seems, smaller than those on the Masterminds. Those are real differences.

I'm puzzled by the concern about the lack of foot-switches, though. Here's why:

For a given market of players, some will want 6 buttons. Some 8. Some 10. Some 12, still others 14, still others 16, et cetera, all the way to 28+ switches.

But by making 2 sizes of small daisy-chainable controllers, Fractal will make all those numbers possible, while reducing the costs of each unit.

Want only 6 switches? Use an FC-6. Want 8? Use the FC-6 and add a 2-button outboard switch. 10? Add two of the 2-button outboard switches.

Want 12? Use an FC-12. Want 14? Use the FC-12 and add a 2-button outboard switch. 16? Add two of the 2-button outboard switches.

Want 18? Use an FC-12 linked to an FC-6. Want 20? Use the FC-12/FC-6 combo and add a 2-button outboard switch. 22? Add two of the 2-button outboard switches.

Want 24? Use two FC-12s linked. Want 26? Use the double-FC-12 combo and add a 2-button outboard switch. 28? Add two of the 2-button outboard switches.

Seriously. Unless you're congenitally hostile to even numbers and really want an odd number of switches, you can get any number of switches your heart desires. Everybody gets exactly what they want.

Moreover (and this is what I think some folks are missing) they get it more cheaply than they otherwise might.

Typically, when setting up a production run of identical footcontroller units, you have to pay a certain fixed cost. This cost needs to be covered by the sales price of however many units you sell from that production run (hopefully all of them). The more units sold, the more your fixed cost is divided up across more units.

By making FC-6s and FC-12s, Fractal can reduce the cost-per-groups-of-6-footswitches quite a lot because a lot of people are going to be buying FC-6s and/or FC12s.

But if you add an FC-24 into the mix, now you have not 2 production runs for any given stretch of time, but 3. That's half-again the fixed costs. But each production run will be producing fewer units, because those who would have bought two units and linked them will instead buy the one larger unit. For each FC-24 sold, two FC-12s are not sold. The number of FC-12s produced will need to drop by double the number of FC-24s produced. Correspondingly, the fixed cost of the production runs is divided among significantly fewer units, and the per-unit price of each FC-12 goes up. Meanwhile, you also don't sell as many FC-24s as you would have sold of FC-12s. So, the fixed cost of those production runs is divided among a small number of units, making each unit more expensive (measured on a per-button basis).

As a result, the cost of a single FC-24 might end up being greater than buying two FC-12s and daisy-chaining them (purely because of the reduced Economies of Scale). And if the FC-24 is still more costly than two FC-12s, it will be a closer price than many suppose.

Meanwhile, if Fractal decides to offer the FC-24 (instead of those customers "creating" an FC-24 by combining two 12's), then obviously for every FC-24 sold, the number of FC-12s sold is reduced by two. That takes a big chunk out of the number of FC-12s sold, reducing the Economies of Scale for people who only want 12/14/16 switches: Those folks now pay a fair bit more.

Do I know that, given the likely numbers of FC-24 and FC-12 buyers, the introduction of an FC-24 would result in FC-12s costing more? Pretty much, because it's hard to see how that could be economically avoidable.

And do I know that the introduction of an FC-24 would also yield an FC-24 sales price higher than the combined costs of two FC-12s (if no FC-24 were offered)?

No, I don't know that. Fractal doesn't tell me sales-projections, market studies results, or their manufacturing costs.

All I'm saying is that it is possible. And that may very well lie behind Fractal's decision to sell FC-6s and FC-12s, and allow us to combine them to get whatever we want.

Even if the FC-24 price was still lower than the combined double-12 cost would have been (absent the introduction of an FC-24 option), it likely wouldn't be much lower.

Anyway, the ability to combine exactly the units we want to get exactly the footswitches we want...surely that's not a BAD thing?

The square form-factor of the MFC-101 is okay for some. For others, it doesn't fit inconveniently on their pedalboard. Some folks would rather have six buttons on the right-hand side, and twelve buttons on the left.

Well, now they can.

So I think the FC-6, FC-12 lineup is a good idea. If I need 24 switches I can easily, and pretty economically, have them. Works for me.
This is absolutely the way I look at it. I'll start with a 12 and the Boss footswitch I already have, and a couple of expression pedals which I already have. If I find it insufficient, I'll add whatever I need, but I'm pretty sure about the only thing I might add would be one more Boss footswitch.

I have the "wait and see what the damn thing does" attitude.
 
Back
Top Bottom