• 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.

Presenting... The Axe-Fx III

Pwrmac7600

Power User
For all of you already grumbling about how the gapless switching won't be gapless and how much that sucks, there is an easy answer, just don't buy one on release, let others buy it, then wait to hear clips of the switching..... simple really.:confused:
 

vangrieg

Power User
For all of you already grumbling about how the gapless switching won't be gapless and how much that sucks, there is an easy answer, just don't buy one on release, let others buy it, then wait to hear clips of the switching..... simple really.:confused:
It still has the features I need and they are missing on the II. It's just barely an improvement in this particular area.

And it's somewhat annoying to see the repeat of the same story. When I was considering buying the II, people here were talking about some "very small" gap. Now they talk about seamless switching. And it seems to be false. I just don't understand why they do it.
 

Pwrmac7600

Power User
It still has the features I need and they are missing on the II. It's just barely an improvement in this particular area.

And it's somewhat annoying to see the repeat of the same story. When I was considering buying the II, people here were talking about some "very small" gap. Now they talk about seamless switching. And it seems to be false. I just don't understand why they do it.
But it's a very huge assumption.... Very few people have this unit in their hands, let's just wait and see what the truth to the story is...
It is just baffling to me to see people complaining about an issue they haven't actually encountered yet, on a unit that they don't even have in their hands yet. Just alot of presumptions going on.
 

vangrieg

Power User
But it's a very huge assumption.... Very few people have this unit in their hands, let's just wait and see what the truth to the story is...
It is just baffling to me to see people complaining about an issue they haven't actually encountered yet, on a unit that they don't even have in their hands yet. Just alot of presumptions going on.
The people who have the unit actually MEASURED the gap, so they KNOW it exists and despite that they still say it's seamless. If an actual measurement was done, how is it a "presumption"?
 

guitars53

Member
I’m assuming with the III being so powerful, we will be able to have a lot more effect blocks in our presets before the cpu % gets to high.
 

Pwrmac7600

Power User
The people who have the unit actually MEASURED the gap, so they KNOW it exists and despite that they still say it's seamless. If an actual measurement was done, how is it a "presumption"?
The presumption is that it will be anything you will even notice...
I just find it hard to believe that knowing the switching issues that are on the Axe II that Fractal would advertise seamless switching if it wasn't actually seamless. "and four fully independent “Channels” with instant, seamless switching."
And again ridiculous to me that people are actually complaining about something they haven't actually had any hands on experience with. I have yet to see a beta tester make the claim that it's not actually instant and seamless, and that they perceive a gap in the switching. Just chill and wait and see, that's all I am saying. Once more people have it in their hands I am sure there will be a million Youtube vids of the switching in action.
 

vangrieg

Power User
The presumption is that it will be anything you will even notice...
Jesus, man, if it's a 38 ms gap, you don't have to presume anything, you can check it yourself. Especially given that somebody bothered to record it.

I just find it hard to believe that knowing the switching issues that are on the Axe II that Fractal would advertise seamless switching if it wasn't actually seamless.
And people here repeating the same stuff. But then again, I was similarly misled when I bought my XL+.
 

Sonofiam

Power User
There’s always someone who will complain about that which cannot be heard.
I am sorry I even made the wager. Good grief!
Channel switching happens in well under 50 ms. You don't even perceive it as a gap — you just hear a seamless changeover to your new sound.
To clarify this, the Axe-Fx III has no audible gap when changing channels on the Amp or anything else.

For the record, totally switching an amp — on any modeler — requires a brief fade-out of the old sound, followed by an equally brief fade-in of the new sound. Without that, you’d hear a nasty CRACK! In your speakers. For years, I thought my Roland GP-100 had gapless switching, because I couldn’t hear a gap. Only when I analyzed it did I realize that there was a short gap of less than 50 milliseconds. Too short to hear.

The Axe III beats that performance. One beta tester measured it at 37 milliseconds. It just feels and sounds completely seamless.
This is coming from someone that's actually using the Axe III and the rest of you are freaking out about something that you've never even used. For the record, I use the FX8 and AX8, my Mesa Roadster had at least the same, if not more of, amount of "gap" as either of them when switching channels. My Brunetti Pleximan is a bit better but it's not "seamless" either.

You want authentic, real-world feel and tone, then complain when a device designed to model said tone acts like the real thing. From the experience I've had, FAS has actually improved this issue. Apparently there are inherent problems that can't even be fully corrected in the digital world. Those who start claiming other devices are seamless, you apparently chose Fractal over the others for a reason and it's more than likely the same as mine: Tone.
 

guitarnerdswe

Power User
Will there be some kind of way to run optimized signals to both FOH and a real cab at the same time?

Thinking about speaker comp and speaker drive which required compromise on the II, since those parameters where located in the amp block instead of the cab block.
 

vangrieg

Power User
my Mesa Roadster had at least the same, if not more of, amount of "gap" as either of them when switching channels. My Brunetti Pleximan is a bit better but it's not "seamless" either.
What does it have to do with anything? Real tube amps have tons of problems, that's why I don't use them.

Oh, and I don't recall Mesa advertising their channel switching as "seamless".
 

Muad'zin

Power User
Me: I have bad news...(point at picture on screen)... Axe Fx III has been released! 4 processors, more inputs and outputs, thousands of stock IRs!
Wife said (singing a lyric from one of our songs): I don't understand, it's all gibberish to me

I'll take that as a yes!
I once had a woman ask me 'Do you really need all those guitars and pedals?'

To which I replied 'Do you really need all those shoes?'

No more questions followed over that subject.
 

DLC86

Power User
@vangrieg I had to listen to that sample 4 times to tell where the gap was and considering that usually when you switch channels you will actually change sound (not like in the sample) it will be even less noticeable. For my needs that's "seamless" enough, if it's not for yours then I'm sorry for you.
Remember though the axe 3 has 2 full resolution amp blocks each with 4 channels that will let you easily achieve gapless switching for all 8 scenes, so your posts might sound a bit like splitting hairs
 
Last edited:

Sonofiam

Power User
What does it have to do with anything? Real tube amps have tons of problems, that's why I don't use them.

Oh, and I don't recall Mesa advertising their channel switching as "seamless".
Never said they did and you missed the point completely. If you're going to pull out individual statements and not keep them in the context in which they were written, I don't know what else to say. Seems like you just want to argue for the sake of arguing.
Again, no one other than beta-testers have used the Axe III, yet there are so many up in arms about a gap they haven't even heard, let alone experienced.
 

vangrieg

Power User
@vangrieg I had to listen to that sample 4 times to tell where the gap was and considering that usually when you switch channels you will actually change sound (not like in the sample) it will be even less noticeable. For my needs that's "seamless" enoughs, if it's not for yours then I'm sorry for you.
Well good for you. It might be not as bad if you do the actual switching by foot as your mind gets distracted from the sound at the moment of switching. I use automation a lot, so those gaps are incredibly annoying, that's why I may be paying more attention to this stuff than many others.

Remember though the axe 3 has 2 full resolution amp blocks each with 4 channels that will let you easily achieve gapless switching for all 8 scenes, so your posts might sound a bit like splitting hairs
If it has two blocks then there's not much difference from the II with regard to avoiding gaps. It's okay if you need two sounds per song, or three that you change in one direction, but it doesn't always work, unfortunately. Whether the blocks have X/Y or 4 channels doesn't change anything whatsoever.
 

FractalAudio

Administrator
Fractal Audio Systems
Moderator
The "gap" is arbitrary (and set at 35 ms) and is simply the time to fade down the old amp and fade up the new amp. You HAVE to do some ramp-down and ramp-up or you'll get artifacts as the gain can be completely different. If you just instantly switch from a clean amp to a distorted amp or vice-versa you'll get a pop. That's just basic signal processing. About the shortest you can make ramp-down/ramp-up without introducing clicks and pops is 15 ms so the total time is 30 ms (plus 5ms as a safety margin).
 
Top Bottom