Only 2 Amps?

I frequently do shows where I also play keys. I have a King Korg and MOX.
I am using an AX8 now, but have had a XL in a rack as well.

My plan is:
Outputs 1&2 Guitar FOH
Outputs 3&4 CLR's when not using in-ears
Outputs 5 - mono out to King Korg mic in for vocoder stuff
Outputs 7&8 possibly as a keyboard mixed send for FOH.

Inputs would be Wireless in for 1
Input 3&4 King Korg
Input 5&6 MOX

Looking forward to testing this.
 
I would personally love to have 4 Amps (even with 1 or 2 channels only); I could use the Axe-FX3 for the stereo Dry & Wet rig.
Luckily, I won't use the FX3 for the main Dry L&R because I'm still using real amps for that. So 2 amps in the Fractal to take care of the Wet L&R would still work. But if I wouldn't use tube amps at all (that's not gonna happen), I could understand why someone would want 4 Amps from the Axe-FX3, mainly when there's so much DSP power is available.
 
I would personally love to have 4 Amps (even with 1 or 2 channels only); I could use the Axe-FX3 for the stereo Dry & Wet rig.
Luckily, I won't use the FX3 for the main Dry L&R because I'm still using real amps for that. So 2 amps in the Fractal to take care of the Wet L&R would still work. But if I wouldn't use tube amps at all (that's not gonna happen), I could understand why someone would want 4 Amps from the Axe-FX3, mainly when there's so much DSP power is available.
Why would you need amps in the Axe for the wet signal? Wet signal is almost always post amp (or preamp) in those kinds of rigs.
 
I wanted to ask why the Axe III is capable of only using 2 Amps at the same time.
It has so much more power and I anticipated it to be having at least 4 Amps on hi-res or even more on low-res.
Right now even the Line 6 Helix can use more amps at the same time and I own both devices Fractal and L6 and I have to say that L6 Amp Sims are not worse than the Fractal ones.
So why is a 2500$ unit not capable of beating a 1000$ devices?
This is not an insult or anything to drive the community go rage. I just don't understand and I can't figure out why I should get the Axe III in comparison to price/value
Just buy 2 of them.
 
Why would you need amps in the Axe for the wet signal? Wet signal is almost always post amp (or preamp) in those kinds of rigs.

I don't run the Wet on my Dry amps.
My Dry is composed of two tubes Amps running in parallel (sometimes two clean, sometimes two dirty, sometimes clean & dirty).
And the Wet is in parallel of the Dry with its own amp and treatment. You can get a very clean Wet with a dirty Dry, or dirty wet with a very clean dry, etc... that kind of things. So it's a Wet/Clean/Dirty/Wet or Stereo Wet & Dry setup if you want (it's some kind of 13 cables method).
 
Four amps is possible but the oversampling rate would need to be reduced (when running more than two) which can lead to aliasing.

With the Axe FX II going from 1 to 2 amps is possible, the oversamplig rate is also reduced but you know I don't hear any difference and I don't remember anybody complaining about aliasing in this case.
As the Axe FX III is more than twice powerful, how could we hear aliasing going from 2 to 4 amps ?

Could it be possible to avoid this problem ?
 
Last edited:
I don't run the Wet on my Dry amps.
My Dry is composed of two tubes Amps running in parallel (sometimes two clean, sometimes two dirty, sometimes clean & dirty).
And the Wet is in parallel of the Dry with its own amp and treatment. You can get a very clean Wet with a dirty Dry, or dirty wet with a very clean dry, etc... that kind of things. So it's a Wet/Clean/Dirty/Wet or Stereo Wet & Dry setup if you want (it's some kind of 13 cables method).
Well, yeah you normally don't run wet in the wet cabs of a W/D/W rig. What I don't get is why you use amp sims in the Axe-FX when you already have 2 real amps that is your dry signal? All the wet stuff is post amp/preamp so you would normally just add effects in the Axe-FX and then run the wet signal into a stereo SS power amp, then into their own cabs, separate from the dry.

Either you're doing something extremely complicated that I simply don't get, or it's more complex thar what it might have to be? I'm very familiar with stereo and W/D/W, but I'm still puzzled to how you run things.
 
You apparently don't get it, it's not a W/D/W rig. None of the Amps are used for Wet, but only for Dry, both of them. W/DD/W if you prefer. I don't want the Wet to use the same amp than the Dry ones. So a third would be the Wet, except it's done by amp sims since I can and it makes things easier (and also because it's only for the wet, so sims are ok for that). Again, that's just my way to do it. To each his own...
 
With the Axe FX II going from 1 to 2 amps is possible, the oversamplig rate is also reduced but you know I don't hear any difference and I don't remember anybody complaining about aliasing in this case.
As the Axe FX III is more than twice powerful, how could we hear aliasing going from 2 to 4 amps ?
Could it be possible to avoid this problem ?
I had the the exact same thought..... if the change in sound quality in going from two to four amp blocks in the III would be just as negligible as going from one to two in the II, then bring em on! I know I'm not one of the few who can hear the difference in quality with two amps in the II anyways.
 
Four amps is possible but the oversampling rate would need to be reduced (when running more than two) which can lead to aliasing.

If the Axe-Fx III can do two amp blocks at once without aliasing at 4 channels each, please stick with that! Personally I'd value two full res amp blocks with 8 total channels over 3 or more potentially aliased blocks.

In my opinion, the current plan of 2 full-res amp blocks (equaling 8 different amp channels per patch and what, 16 possible stereo combinations?) is more than enough choice, especially considering you're talking about working within 1 of the available 512 patches. 4 amp blocks per patch, when the current firmware already offers 8 amp channels per patch and whatever other number of stereo combo options, really just seems like unnecessary compromise.

In the Axe-Fx II, CPU constraints aside, yes I'd have loved more amp blocks per patch because each block only held 2 channels and more options would have been fun. But with the Axe III? Nah, don't need it.
 
Last edited:
Four amps is possible but the oversampling rate would need to be reduced (when running more than two) which can lead to aliasing.
If the Axe 2 with two amp blocks has the same problem, then I don't see it as a big issue...
I use two amp blocks in my presets and I can't hear the difference.


If the Axe-Fx III can do two amp blocks at once without aliasing at 4 channels each, please stick with that! Personally I'd value two full res amp blocks with 8 total channels over 3 or more potentially aliased blocks.

In my opinion, the current plan of 2 full-res amp blocks (equaling 8 different amp channels per patch and what, 16 possible stereo combinations?) is more than enough choice, especially considering you're talking about working within 1 of the available 512 patches. 4 amp blocks per patch, when the current firmware already offers 8 amp channels per patch and whatever other number of stereo combo options, really just seems like unnecessary compromise.

In the Axe-Fx II, CPU constraints aside, yes I'd have loved more amp blocks per patch because each block only held 2 channels and more options would have been fun. But with the Axe III? Nah, don't need it.
Think of it this way: If you use only 2 blocks, you get the full quality. So no penalty for you.
If you use more, which would be a rare case, you'd get a non audible diminished quality, like in Axe FX 2 with two amp blocks. Which is a huge plus to those who'd love to plug the whole band into one Axe FX, such as I.
Currently in one of my bands, both guitarists plug into one Axe FX 2 XL, and it works great.
Even using one stereo guitar cab with a single matrix GT1000FX hah. A lot of money and space saved :) If I could also plug my bass in, that would be a complete win.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
No one has said so far that it would be the same “reduced quality” with 4 or 3 blocks in the III vs 2 in the II. As usual, it’s probably not as simple as just “add more amp blocks.”
 
So to be clear, this guy is talking about running 4 amps simultaneously correct? With 2 amp blocks and 4 channels each, you can have 8 amps available on 1 preset, is that right?
 
I'm sure they'd have added more if they could do it in a way that didn't compromise the product. There are always going to be things that aren't available with any product. In the end, you decide if it floats your boat and make a purchase decision. No one should be offended if the Axe FX III doesn't work for a player. FAS decides what they want to, or can, include. It's up to you from there.

That said, FAS is absolutely unmatched in bringing capabilities in later as no cost enhancements. I've yet to regret any of my FAS purchases, largely because of their support after the sale. I have a feeling some of the suggestions here on the forum will arrive in time. They've been great at just that for many years.
 
If you are serious about 4 simultaneous amps at their highest quality, buy two AxeFx III's or a used XL+ and a III.

The 5K USD price tag is really not extravagant if you factor in 4 tube amp rigs, pedals, outboard effects, mic's, switching etc.

IMO, you couldn't build a rig for 5K that would match it for versatility and maybe even overall amp tone. I hedge on the amp tone because there are particular amps that have something special for the musician. These "holy grail" amps might be impossible to 100% mimic in the box. But typically also come with phenomenal price tags!
 
Back
Top Bottom