Thoughts about the FCs

Maybe i am making a wrong assumption, but if i look at Matt’s original pic, the top row could be a few “mode” switches which would bring me to the particular layout i choose.

FC12-Top+Rear-1920.jpg
Probably right... I'd make the same assumption. I didn't see the pics, so thanks.
 
I've read through this entire thread and I agree with all the points axifist made so far. I wish Fractal Audio had designed the Axe FXIII so that the MFC-101 would have still worked exactly the same with the Axe FXIII as it does with the Axe FXII, the Axe FXIIXL ,and Axe FXIIXL+, and also worked with the new FC-12 if we chose to buy one, but they didn't. I bet almost everyone that bought an MFC-101 feels the same. I will likely not use the Axe FXIII live with an FC-12. I wouldn't hesitate to buy an FC-18 and use it live if they made one, but I am questioning buying an FC-12 to use live. I'm not interested at all in buying an FC-6 and FC-12 both. I like the way the MFC-101 works. I had a pedalboard made for it and three foot pedals and Roadrunner's 4 switch extension. I will likely continue to use my Axe FXII and MFC-101 for live use, and just keep the Axe FXIII for the studio. I may get an FC-12 just for the studio.
 
I totally get that. It makes sense for your scenario.

If I were in your position I would immediately be looking at the RJM MGMT stuff.

I am familiar with their stuff, but for now I am perfectly fine with my XLs and my MFCs, that combination does everything I need. So far I never even needed more than 80% CPU for any of my patches, I don't need more than 2 Amp Blocks, I don't need more than one drive block etc. so all the additional capabilities and the extra horsepower of the Axe FX 3 is nothing that I need or would be using. So for now I will simply stick to my setup, going for the Axe FX 3 and new FCs would just result in needing new racks and cases without adding much besides lots of options I won't be using. If at some point the Axe FX 3 will sound significantly better than my XLs I can still think about upgrading.
 
I know it's going to be different for almost everyone, as it depends on your most comfortable workflow. I think I am honing in on my FC 12 setup... I currently like using presets for songs, and scenes for changes during the songs. I always need a lead boost and also need a couple of stomp boxes from time to time in the song. I am now thinking buttons 1-5 will be always be scenes 1-5, button 6 will always be lead boost, 7-11 will be stomp boxes needed for that preset (rotary, chorus, maybe wah, delay 2), button 12 will always be tap tempo with long press to tuner. 5 changeable stomp box buttons is more tap dancing than I want to do in any one song. Got enough to do trying to remember the chords and leads...

Button 6 long press will go to Layout 2 where I can choose other presets/banks. That works for me, because again it is between songs and not in the heat of battle.

So to the OP - my thoughts on the FC.... I want one.
 
100% on board with an FC-18. The Axe FX III has more power, more functionality, more flexibility, more effects and options, more everything. Why would the footswitch have less switches to control all of these new things? The FC's are certainly more flexible and allow for more from the switches you do get to use, but as mentioned, most people dont really want a setup that requires you to long press and double press switches in the middle of a show. It just doesnt make sense. I personally liked the MFC setup much more because I like having 5 scenes and then 10 effects to choose from, especially when jamming and experimenting on the fly. The only reason I can think of to give less switches a financial one to kind of force consumers to buy more products and spend more money, kind of like what apple does with all of their proprietary products. They even invented a new screw so consumers would have to go to their techs to service them, which they are currently being sued for and states are passing new regulations to force them to stop this.

Either way +1 for the FC-18
 
most people dont really want a setup that requires you to long press and double press switches in the middle of a show.

What do you base that assessment on? Fractal works with a lot of touring acts... I'd assume they didn't design the product in a vacuum ;)

Don't get me wrong, I'm with you having an FC-18 as a choice, and I definitely understand the "static button" perspective, but I don't think you have any way to quantify what "most people" want...
 
I don't know.....I'd like to see sample use videos of the FC-6 and FC-12 ....options..etc

Smaller real estate is a plus....yet keeping button switch spacing in the FC
 
What do you base that assessment on? Fractal works with a lot of touring acts... I'd assume they didn't design the product in a vacuum ;)

That's what I was guessing. The FCs got designed to fit the needs of some touring acts, maybe also major touring acts?
These needs might be special, they might have other playing conditions than the mass of players? Who knows.
 
What do you base that assessment on? Fractal works with a lot of touring acts... I'd assume they didn't design the product in a vacuum ;)

Don't get me wrong, I'm with you having an FC-18 as a choice, and I definitely understand the "static button" perspective, but I don't think you have any way to quantify what "most people" want...

I can't rightfully assume whether people prefer a larger or smaller footprint for there controllers and effects, but what I CAN assume is that 95% of people would prefer to do less work to make a function happen vs. doing more work to make that function happen and also that 100% prefer the function happens faster rather than slower. Considering that timing is arguably the most important part of music, the current FC design is less conducive to tone and effect switching in real time than the MFC was. Im sure there will eventually be an FC-18, it just sucks that there isnt shipping any time soon.
 
I can't rightfully assume whether people prefer a larger or smaller footprint for there controllers and effects, but what I CAN assume is that 95% of people would prefer to do less work to make a function happen vs. doing more work to make that function happen and also that 100% prefer the function happens faster rather than slower. Considering that timing is arguably the most important part of music, the current FC design is less conducive to tone and effect switching in real time than the MFC was. Im sure there will eventually be an FC-18, it just sucks that there isnt shipping any time soon.
I personally think that's still a lot of assumption. Because you're also assuming that you know everyone's workflow.

Anyway, as they say, opinions are like assholes - everyone has one ;)

They will be what they are... And if the demand is really there for an FC-18 then I think Fractal will deliver one.
 
Coming from decades of using rack gear where a # = a sound, I find using MFC and Axe III super easy to program and use via midi mapping. Takes time to memorize what is where switch/soundwise before a gig, but I've done that since the 80's so I have my methods. That said, I will invest in this new controller to see if my mindset can change. Given those parameters, I don't know whether more or less buttons would be a plus or not.
 
Coming from decades of using rack gear where a # = a sound, I find using MFC and Axe III super easy to program and use via midi mapping. Takes time to memorize what is where switch/soundwise before a gig, but I've done that since the 80's so I have my methods. That said, I will invest in this new controller to see if my mindset can change. Given those parameters, I don't know whether more or less buttons would be a plus or not.
The nice thing about the FC is you can keep your # = sound approach on some layouts, but expose IAs on other layouts. And you can do away with MIDI mapping headaches to get the # = sound setup -- just direct-assign presets to switches. So nice!
 
I would love to get away with the FC-6.......... IF it will let me have one layer be my scenes, another layer be chorus, flange, tremolo, phaser, rotary, then another layer be drive, delay, multi delay, geq, pitch.

Then I still need to be able to move from preset to preset which I do on each song, as well as engage the tuner. Oops and tap tempo!

those are 17+ functions my MFC was doing

Tall order?
 
I would love to get away with the FC-6.......... IF it will let me have one layer be my scenes, another layer be chorus, flange, tremolo, phaser, rotary, then another layer be drive, delay, multi delay, geq, pitch.

Then I still need to be able to move from preset to preset which I do on each song, as well as engage the tuner. Oops and tap tempo!

those are 17+ functions my MFC was doing

Tall order?
I think you will be able to do that... as far as the way you've described it
 
This is why I can't wait to see some video demos of what the FC's can do...... I have no idea how what was just described above would/should work. To me, it seems like a lot of tap dancing would be required.
 
This is why I can't wait to see some video demos of what the FC's can do...... I have no idea how what was just described above would/should work. To me, it seems like a lot of tap dancing would be required.
Well, I didn't say that there was no tap dancing... Only that it should be possible ;)

Sounds like 3 or 4 layouts would be required on an FC-6.
 
Well, I didn't say that there was no tap dancing... Only that it should be possible ;)

Sounds like 3 or 4 layouts would be required on an FC-6.

ya for sure. Which I am ok with as I only need 1 or 2 layouts when doing a show, but want them all when in my home studio
 
Last edited:
I'm a Fractal fan boy, owning the Ultra, Axe Fx II, Ax8 and recently purchasing a III, so I say this with love, but it is a bummer that they didn't do something so that the III can work out of the box with the expensive MFC-101 I already own.
 
Back
Top Bottom