Thinking of buying Axe FX III. Advice pls…

[UKMark]

Hi there
Just registered on the site, first post.
I play in a covers and tribute band (Americana, country, pop, rock) and currently use a Quad Cortex. it’s ok but not crazy about the tones. All seem a bit ‘Harsh’, not full and rich like the amps they represent really sound. To my ears anyway.
So I am considering Axe Fx. Also, I want to clear the stage a bit and simplify setup time so thinking of rack mounting and pre-wiring a bunch of stuff, including pedals (Quad Cortex etc).

my main question is about compatibility between FX3 and the smaller FM9/3 units. I don’t want to haul our gig rack into rehearsal or my practice space, so wondering how compatible the patches I create in an FX3 would be with an FM unit? Ideally I am thinking FX3 in the live gig rack. FM? For rehearsal and practice. USB stick to transfer patches etc between them. Is that feasible?

I would also be keen to hear any opinions on how you think an FX might be better than what I have experienced with my QC.
and finally, how about using the units without any software. Some reviews are knocking the front panel UI for the FX especially. I am not too worried about that as I am comfortable using a Mac based editor for the unit. Suits me fine. But sometimes you do need to tweak something when playing out.

Many thanks in advance
Mark

 

[Dpoirier]

My view, from having lived previously with two different Fractal units, is that it becomes a patch management nightmare. I would tweak some things during rehearsals, then I'd have to make loads of mental notes to apply the same tweaks on my other unit, etc. And if you want 100% patch sharing ability between the two, then you would have to limit your presets to whatever the lesser unit's limits are, in this case the FM9. That leaves your III somewhat underutilized, which may or may not be important to yoi depending on the complexity you're likely to consider. In comparison with all that work, hassle, and risk of error, lugging around your III is a very small price to pay for universal simplicity and access to the full power of the III.

 

[Greg Ferguson]

my main question is about compatibility between FX3 and the smaller FM9/3 units. I don’t want to haul our gig rack into rehearsal or my practice space, so wondering how compatible the patches I create in an FX3 would be with an FM unit? Ideally I am thinking FX3 in the live gig rack. FM? For rehearsal and practice.

I have all three units and transfer presets between them regularly. The best method is to create them on the smaller system then transfer them to the larger unit, but once you are used to the differences it is easy to build them on any of the systems and move them around.

The FM9 technically doesn’t have the CPU power of the FX3, which is a beast. The FM9 is surprisingly powerful on its own though because of how it uses its processors, and I’m often surprised that loading an FX3 preset into it results in barely a change in CPU usage.

Of course the FX3 can crush the FM9, but in experienced hands the FM9 can generate sounds that others will envy.

USB stick to transfer patches etc between them. Is that feasible?

No, but you can use backups from one to move the files to another, as long as you are moving presets between versions of the firmware that are at equal feature levels. That means you probably won’t want to load the beta firmware as it becomes available, but instead wait for the features you want to are available on both systems. The same caveats apply when exporting presets for subsequent importing on a different machine, and you’ll quickly find it’s easy.

how about using the units without any software. Some reviews are knocking the front panel UI for the FX especially. I am not too worried about that as I am comfortable using a Mac based editor for the unit.

Fractal’s system is much deeper and detailed than any other modeler on the market, and that depth and flexibility requires a UI that covers everything. The UI is designed to allow you to deal with the same sort of controls you would see when first operating a pedal or amp, up to the detail you would need if you were talking with a technician to understand a problem with an amp or when contemplating circuit modifications. The more you know about guitars, amps, pedals, sound reinforcement and recording, the better off you’ll be with any modeler, especially with a Fractal.

The manuals are available on the site and I recommend reading through them, along with watching Cooper Carter’s videos, and the same by Leon Todd, as they know their stuff, plus are good at explaining.

Knowing how to use the front panel is smart because, inevitably at first, you will be testing during sound check and something will be not what you want. The Edit applications are more convenient though and are used by the majority of users. I periodically use the front panel to keep improving my use of it whenever the computer is not convenient.

 

[Honken]

I don't have first hand knowledge about the fm9. But I've owned the fx3 for about 4 years now. I easily say the guitartone is amazing, and i really like the simplicity and flexibility it gives me. That being said, I have also lugged a 4 unit case with the axe and fc12 on busses, plane, car etc over the last said years. I am starting to save up now. I want an fm9.

The compatibility is more than good enough for me. The only thing is that the fm9 got less CPU and can not use as many blocks as the fx3 does. But the fm9 sounds just as good, and the main reason I want one is the same as yours!

Of course i am fanboying to an extent now, but I've never had guitar sound like this.

On the other hand, I was completely new to the fractal line of products before buying the fx3. Had a steep learning curve, but to me it was (and is) completely worth it! Have in mind that seamless switching is a technique when building patches. But you can use the same techniques on both fx3 and fm9.

Keep in mind that the fx3 updates are far more often than on the fm9. Same unit on the user side of things, but I understand that it differ on the inside a bit.

But they are cros compatible. You can load the same patches on both, with cpu as the only difference.

 

[JoKeR III]

Some reviews are knocking the front panel UI for the FX especially.

Seems like a lot of the pushback comes from guys who avoid the computer editor and try learning the UI first. I understand the importance of knowing how to navigate on the device but it's kind of a backwards philosophy IMO when it comes to Fractal devices.

Using the computer editor first and learning the workflow, then using the UI makes a lot more sense based upon my experience. I used the editor for awhile before using the UI and was amazed at how similar they really are. It was actually much easier than expected.

One feature that makes the UI incredibly versatile are the Performance Pages and there are two of them; Global and Per-Preset. You are able to assign up to 20 parameters of your choice (10 Global, 10 Per-Preset) for quick access from the front panel.

*Global means the assigned parameters are the same regardless of the active preset. Assign them once and you're done.
*Per-Preset means any assigned parameters are specific to the active preset and will reload when changing presets. These are assigned within each preset, thus the "Per-Preset" designation.

 

[laxu]

I play in a covers and tribute band (Americana, country, pop, rock) and currently use a Quad Cortex. it’s ok but not crazy about the tones. All seem a bit ‘Harsh’, not full and rich like the amps they represent really sound. To my ears anyway.

Having owned the Quad Cortex, IMO this should not be the case. I would look for the issue of it being harsh from one of these:

• Your output system.
• The way you set up the cab sims. Assuming you use a fullrange system instead of a poweramp and guitar cab.

What the QC does better than Axe-Fx 3 is onboard user interface. It's very straightforward to operate as you know. The Axe-Fx 3 front panel can be at times inconsistent in what you have to press (e.g Enter opens selected thing, except when it doesn't in specific cases), there's quite a lot of toggling between sets of parameters, some of the views aren't that intuitively laid out and so on. You can learn to work with it, but it's never going to be as quick as what's on the QC for on-the-fly adjustment.

Instead people rely on Axe-Edit to do most of their programming and use the two Perform pages to map their most needed controls (say reverb mix) for quick access live.

What the Axe-Fx 3 does better:

• Amp models. I think the ones on the QC are fine, but some are hit and miss. Captures tend to work well on the QC. Fractal obviously has way more options in this category.
• Effects. Fractal is just plain superior for fx sound quality, doesn't mean the ones on the QC are bad, just not as good.
• Footswitching. There's a million ways to configure Fractal's footswitching. Using it via MIDI if you don't feel like buying the very expensive FC6/12 controllers works well enough but can't do everything the FC can. Still more flexible than what QC can do.
• Parallel routing. It's just more flexible and capable on Fractal. QC's does enough for most, it's not like you need super complex layouts for e.g live use.
• Axe-Edit. It's by far the best software editor on any modeler on the market.

If you want to jump into the Fractal stuff, I think the FM9 is their sweet spot product - does most things Axe-Fx 3 does but also comes with enough footswitching to not need anything else. It would be more straightforward to haul that one unit to practice and gigs so you don't have to swap patches back and forth.

 

[Brian Coonan]

My view, from having lived previously with two different Fractal units, is that it becomes a patch management nightmare. I would tweak some things during rehearsals, then I'd have to make loads of mental notes to apply the same tweaks on my other unit, etc. And if you want 100% patch sharing ability between the two, then you would have to limit your presets to whatever the lesser unit's limits are, in this case the FM9. That leaves your III somewhat underutilized, which may or may not be important to yoi depending on the complexity you're likely to consider. In comparison with all that work, hassle, and risk of error, lugging around your III is a very small price to pay for universal simplicity and access to the full power of the III.

Found this to be true in my case as well. I got the FM3 which is a great unit and sounds amazing but I’m pretty reliant on the workflow in my Axe-Fx III and going between the two was taking more time than I wanted to spend. Much easier to just get a good rack and use the Axe-Fx for everything.

 

[ZenRigs Man]

Hi mate! I regularly transfer stuff between the FM9 and Axe-III. What Greg said is correct - if you create them on the smaller unit first, you'll have no issue. The problem arises when you either have an Axe III preset that is too much for the FM9 and you'll get an instant CPU overload, or if you try to transfer a preset that utilises, say, 2 Pitch blocks, as the smaller unit only has one of those blocks available at a time.

It really isn't an issue when you understand those 2 principles. As I say, I do it all the time and it works just fine.

 

[pauly]

Hi PommyMark,

Welcome aboard!

Just so you know, I have zero experience with a quad cortex, but significant experience with an axe fx 3. As other have implied, if you were to grab an fm9 and fx3, you could make patches on the fm9, and never have compatibility issues.
There is another option that nobody has mentioned yet. Getting 2 axe fx 3s, and a single foot controller. Then, your gigging axe fx 3 can stay in the truck, and you can take your foot controller to rehearsals and gigs as necessary. No compatibility issues, and identical workflow all the way. Of course, money needs to be a minor concern.

When it comes to sound, as long as you are using top shelf monitoring, you will never have an issue with guitar sound. Fractal are famous for creating devices that suck time from you because they are so motivating (sound wise) to play through. I can vouch for that 100%.

We look forward to hearing what you decide.

Thanks
Pauly

Hi there
Just registered on the site, first post.
I play in a covers and tribute band (Americana, country, pop, rock) and currently use a Quad Cortex. it’s ok but not crazy about the tones. All seem a bit ‘Harsh’, not full and rich like the amps they represent really sound. To my ears anyway.
So I am considering Axe Fx. Also, I want to clear the stage a bit and simplify setup time so thinking of rack mounting and pre-wiring a bunch of stuff, including pedals (Quad Cortex etc).

my main question is about compatibility between FX3 and the smaller FM9/3 units. I don’t want to haul our gig rack into rehearsal or my practice space, so wondering how compatible the patches I create in an FX3 would be with an FM unit? Ideally I am thinking FX3 in the live gig rack. FM? For rehearsal and practice. USB stick to transfer patches etc between them. Is that feasible?

I would also be keen to hear any opinions on how you think an FX might be better than what I have experienced with my QC.
and finally, how about using the units without any software. Some reviews are knocking the front panel UI for the FX especially. I am not too worried about that as I am comfortable using a Mac based editor for the unit. Suits me fine. But sometimes you do need to tweak something when playing out.

Many thanks in advance
Mark

 

[hippietim]

Patch management amongst the units is as easy or as hard as you want to make it. You can create a nightmare for yourself like @Dpoirier and try to synchronize two units with differing capabilities while exceeding one unit's capabilities, or you can work within the constraints of the unit with the least capabilities. If you can do the latter then preset exchange between the units is a breeze. The editors all support presets from the other units and do their best to import them. I do this quite often between the FM3 and FM9. It is a good idea to have one storage location be the master for your presets so you don’t add file management complexity to your workflow. I have a desktop PC that I do most of my preset work on and I save to a folder that is cloud synced so even if I edit with a laptop I’m working with the same set of master presets.


Regarding editing from the front panel, the units work the same. So whatever you learn to do with the Axe-FX III will be applicable to the FM3 and FM9. A few years ago I did a video to show how to create a patch from scratch on the FM3 to give you an idea of how it works.

 

[NeoSound]

Only reason the Axe Fx would be difficult to edit from the front panel is that there is so much more than can be done... parameters and control other devices don't have. Using the unit to edit basic things like amp tone/gain/level etc.., are easy but if you get into the deeper parameters, I like axe-edit on the pc. I've found there's only 2 or 3 advanced amp parameters I adjust to get what I like. Just because the options are there don't mean they need to be changed (but it's nice to have).

 

[laxu]

Only reason the Axe Fx would be difficult to edit from the front panel is that there is so much more than can be done... parameters and control other devices don't have. Using the unit to edit basic things like amp tone/gain/level etc.., are easy but if you get into the deeper parameters, I like axe-edit on the pc. I've found there's only 2 or 3 advanced amp parameters I adjust to get what I like. Just because the options are there don't mean they need to be changed (but it's nice to have).

I see this explanation often but the real issue is the amount of navigation back and forth needed. Most people don't touch any of the advanced parameters. Most people also focus purely on the Amp block in this discussion when it's one of the easiest ones thanks to the Authentic view showing only the real amp's controls. That only gets complex if your favorite amp is the Mesa Mark series as you are now moving back and forth between the main EQ and graphic EQ pages a lot since those are highly interactive.

Similarly complex would be e.g the Multitap delay block if you want to tweak the different delay taps as the layout isn't particularly friendly by being a huge list instead of e.g a column layout like the Cab block. To be fair this block has a lot of great preset options to start from so there's less need to delve deep into it, but the chore is there if you don't just set it up from Axe-Edit like most of us do.

Onboard UI navigation used to be much harder too as you needed to go back to the layout and then move the cursor around. Now you have quick access to some of the most common blocks by double clicking the under display knobs and are able to browse back/forward with the Edit button. Just having that double click Edit to go to previous block improves the workflow a ton. Such a simple thing changed the onboard UI from "I hate this" to "I can work with this" for me.

The more you use Axe-Edit the happier you will be working with it.

 

[4406cuda]

What are you playing the QC through?

 

[hippietim]

I've been using my Axe FX Ultra for about 10 years now. Still love it and don't have any plans to overhaul it soon.

Still I am curious. Is the upgrade worth it?

I think every single aspect of the Ultra has been improved in the Axe-FX III - and a lot of those improvements are dramatic.

Only you can answer if the upgrade is worth it to you.

 

[JoKeR III]

I've been using my Axe FX Ultra for about 10 years now. Still love it and don't have any plans to overhaul it soon.

Still I am curious. Is the upgrade worth it?

The only way you're going to know if it's worth it is to try it. Even if you're completely satisfied with the Ultra, the Axe III is definitely worth checking out though, it's a different animal. The improvements in tone and feel are noticeable to me coming from the AX8.

EDIT: Jinx @hippietim!

 

[UKMark]

What are you playing the QC through?

We have a 'quiet' stage so I use hi quality IEMs and we have a decent quality Bose PA system with Electrovoice subs for FOH. I think the PA sounds pretty good for just about everything else that goes through it (Vocals, Keys, Horns even Bass) but my Strat and PRS Pauls Git both sound thin and harsh (I dont play Les Paul). Pulling down the tone means the clarity suffers. The QC doesnt give me clarity without harshness. I guess I am not dialling it in right but I never had this issue with the Kemper I had before (I hated the Kemper UI and Mac editor BTW, which is why it is gone...) )

 

[hippietim]

We have a 'quiet' stage so I use hi quality IEMs and we have a decent quality Bose PA system with Electrovoice subs for FOH. I think the PA sounds pretty good for just about everything else that goes through it (Vocals, Keys, Horns even Bass) but my Strat and PRS Pauls Git both sound thin and harsh (I dont play Les Paul). Pulling down the tone means the clarity suffers. The QC doesnt give me clarity without harshness. I guess I am not dialling it in right but I never had this issue with the Kemper I had before (I hated the Kemper UI and Mac editor BTW, which is why it is gone...) )

Over the last several months I've done a number of shows where I get a call in the afternoon from a buddy of mine to do a gig that evening due to bands cancelling or whatever. My buddy puts together the players and we work out a set list over text messaging and e-mail. I've been taking an FM9 and a custom PRS with 408 pickups (same as your Pauls Guitar). The sound system has been the Turbosound version of those Bose tower speakers. In all of these gigs I've chosen to keep the rig simple. So I just use a single Marshall preset the whole night. I can go from pretty jangly clean tones to cranked amp tones just using my volume control. Everything has been sitting in the mix really well for these gigs. No harshness at all.

 

[UKMark]

Over the last several months I've done a number of shows where I get a call in the afternoon from a buddy of mine to do a gig that evening due to bands cancelling or whatever. My buddy puts together the players and we work out a set list over text messaging and e-mail. I've been taking an FM9 and a custom PRS with 408 pickups (same as your Pauls Guitar). The sound system has been the Turbosound version of those Bose tower speakers. In all of these gigs I've chosen to keep the rig simple. So I just use a single Marshall preset the whole night. I can go from pretty jangly clean tones to cranked amp tones just using my volume control. Everything has been sitting in the mix really well for these gigs. No harshness at all.

Hey that sounds just what I am aiming at and in a very similar setup. Real encouraging. I really want to simplify our setup and stage clutter so a rack setup is where I am wanting to go. Get rid of multiple midi cables, network cables, xlr cables, power warts etc etc. so for our live rig I am pretty set on an FX3. And from what you good folks have said, an FM9 for rehearsal & practice (whilst the live rig is packed away in the trailer) will be doable. Just need to be careful on block usage. But I am a pretty simple guy . Fender cleans, edge of breakup, lead with a bit of delay does for me. Doesn’t sound like I will be making the units sweat at all!

 

[Sorenspete]

Only reason the Axe Fx would be difficult to edit from the front panel is that there is so much more than can be done... parameters and control other devices don't have. Using the unit to edit basic things like amp tone/gain/level etc.., are easy but if you get into the deeper parameters, I like axe-edit on the pc. I've found there's only 2 or 3 advanced amp parameters I adjust to get what I like. Just because the options are there don't mean they need to be changed (but it's nice to have).

If I were using a Fractal in a rehearsal space, regardless of whether I store everything there or take it home, I would invest in the most basic, inexpensive laptop I could find along with a mouse mat and mouse just to have the ability to make adjustments using Axe-Edit while at rehearsals.

 

[Sorenspete]

Fender cleans, edge of breakup, lead with a bit of delay does for me. Doesn’t sound like I will be making the units sweat at all!

I would recommend the FM3. Spending upwards of $2,000.00 USD on an Axe-Fx III doesn't really make sense if that's all you are doing. If you can get a great deal on any of them used then that's great too, but in terms of ordering new, the FM3 should be all you need.