What would the new-gen even have that the current gen doesn’t?

[rossipedia]

The ability to type text requests into the editor and have an AI respond in the form of settings: "I'd like a sound with tighter low frequencies, and a less pronounced pick attack."

Humans can't even agree on what these terms mean ("give me a warmer tone" like... what?). There's no way an LLM is going to be useful in that scenario.

 

[Chiguete]

For the next-generation AXE FX III and FM9 successors,
I'd like the 99% compatibility also in terms of presets, blocks types and their quantity, modifiers (both single and double), MIDI etc...

I wish they essentially will be the rackmount and floor versions of the same product,
they could even share & update the same firmware (there's obviously just the foot buttons/displays management in FM9 more).

IMHO the only areas where they should differ are:

• I/Os: rackmount has more space to accommodate more inputs and outputs, highly desirable in a rack use
• CPU power: I assume the rackmount will have more room for more CPUs and air volume and fans for better thermal dissipation
• presets/CABs storage memory

See this post for what I list the most frustrating current firmware differences: AXE FX & FM9 - 5 TOP wishes
.

I would like this too and I understand that if there is less CPU then there will be a limit on the amount of effects that can be used but the compatibility of the presets would be awesome and if a preset goes over the limit of the unit let the preset open on the edit so you can see what are the settings and routing used so that the user can figure out a workaround to make it work but when you can't even open a preset or see the routing then you are guessing what was the original purpose of a scene for example, that will definitely help and as you said it should make for a general firmware that is limited on the unit instead of different firmwares for each unit.

 

[pajc72]

To me its just form factor that id like to see changed, Id like to see something similar to the AM4, but imagine an AM10 (though it'll be called the AXE FX4), 2 banks of 5 switches with scribble strips, a slightly bigger screen, more sleek and lighter than an FM9, but with all the bells and whistles of an AXEFXIII. Though the AM4 will be just fine until then!

Regardless of what comes next it amazes me how good this thing has gotten, the feel is incredible. I am hoping the AM4 can also receive the updates to the modelling that the rest of the units will get

 

[BobXX]

Regardless of what comes next it amazes me how good this thing has gotten, the feel is incredible. I am hoping the AM4 can also receive the updates to the modelling that the rest of the units will get

I'm pretty sure it will.

Typically FAS improves the flagship product (AXE FX III), than after some week FM9, FM3 and than I expect AM4 and VP4 consequently.

It's a really mairvellous thing that the AMP block will sound the same in all of them.

 

[Joshua_L]

iOS app (with firmware upgrade possible) : iPadOS is now 90% close to a mini Mac. So it makes sense.
Bluetooth
Wifi
Onboard block library, Allow to make everything the édit app does on the unit.
Xlr in for mic

 

[myconsumerclub]

blue tooth to use the luminite controllers attached to my guitar

 

[Rogerthat]

I ran this entire thread through chatGPT and this was the summary, “chill bro.”

 

[BobXX]

I am adding an element that I have never wished in my previous inputs.

I observe a market trend toward increasingly smaller products, integrating massive power into compact devices.
The AM4 and VP4 are correctly moving in this direction.

In my opinion, however, the successors for the bigger format FM9 (flagship floor unit) and the Axe-Fx III (flagship rackmount) must - as far as possible - eliminate every conceivable limitation or raise them to levels that users will likely never exhaust.
This should give the impression of truly overflowing power for professional use, completely crushing any competition.
The only real constraint should be the CPU, which I would nevertheless increase significantly.

Take, for example, the limits on the number of blocks, modifiers, etc.
Why only 4 Volume blocks? Let the user use 20 if they need to... provided, of course, they don't hit the CPU limit or specific hardware constraints.
Regarding the (IMHO anacronistic) 1 Pitch block in the FM9, let’s allow 8 of them, if the CPU can handle them.
Modifiers: let's make them unlimited, all of them 'Double source', obviously.
Only one modifier per parameter in a block... let assign more of them, 1 per channel at least.
Send Return blocks: why only 2? Let’s allow 10 or make them unlimited, what is the issue?
Especially in the rackmount version, more I/Os, as many as a 3U space allows. (I'm already using all I/Os of the AXE and the FM9 ones... ).

If I want to build a preset consisting of 20 PEQ blocks, or 10 Reverbs, or a preset with 6 Amp blocks to route each output to a 5.1 surround setup...
it might sound absurd, but let the user decide.

There may be other niche applications where Fractal’s new flagship products would be the only ones in the world capable of delivering that level of flexibility/performance (in most cases they already are ).
.

 

[Brewce]

The only real constraint should be the CPU, which I would nevertheless increase significantly.

Easily solved by a CPU expansion slot...!
But I've had bad experiences with the one in the GSP-2101... (suffered random crashes because of software or wonky slot connection?)

Re. multiple blocks of the same:
Couldn't agree more but I suspect this could command a total overhaul nightmare of Cliff's currently proven design strategy...
Maybe an in-between solution exists that can offer some of that for a bunch of blocks that are not assigned/tweaked to one CPU core..
Weight and sea...

 

[Domct203]

I like this idea, if I don’t plan to use the phaser and flanger in a preset could that allow an additional pitch block in that specific preset?

 

[GreatGreen]

A full row of physical knobs with scribble strips you can’t assign to any parameter in any block on the grid. Multiple pages you can flip between with dedicated page swap buttons.

 

[JDEVER]

I would also be open to a second screen. Get rid of the logo and analog meters I rarely need after presets are built and put a screen there that could be adaptive - level meters, a strobe tuner, more parameters in real time, or whatever made sense for the mode you were in.

I also wouldn't hate a little USB-C port ON THE FRONT! : )

Second screen would be nice or even two touch screens that can do the same functions or combine as one. USB would be nice to load in wav.files or save files to the looper.

 

[sdkee]

My biggest issues right now:

• Only two pitch shift blocks. I want one in front of the amp to do whammy and/or virtual capo. I want one after the amp to do harmony. And I want another to do detune. Only two available. For the detune, even a crappy algoritm like what you could get on an old Digetech unit would be fine. Could put an option for that into the chorus block maybe. But just having, let's say, 4 pitch blocks would solve it completely.
• More than 6 controllers. These are EXTREMELY useful and the only real way to have one foot switch do multiple things. If there was a way to make one block's channel be a slave to another's, this could assist in many of my situations where I would like this.
• A lot of my presets have a "acoustic simulator". This is basically a GEQ in series with an IR player in series with a multiband compressor. I also almost always have a clean and a dirty amp in my presets. In my brain, the acoustic sim is just one of the clean channels of the amp. But I need to do it with a multiplexor and have a separate footswitch for it. Would be nice to either have a decent acoustic sim that can go into a amp channel slot OR some way to slave the multipexor channel from the amp channel so that I am controlling it as one thing.
• Some really gnarly fuzzes would be nice. I don't use these much, but the Helix has some fun stuff in this area. Stoner doom and industrial metal need some love.
• Swedish chainsaw (HM-2). Yes it is a one trick pony. But it is a good trick.
• About 50% more CPU than the Axe3 turbo. I cannot fathom how I would use more than that.
• Ability for foot controllers to use expression pedal inputs for external switches by software selection. I should be able to use FC12 (or future equivalent) to use up to 8 external controllers. Switches and pedals are both kinds of controllers. I am fine with a max of 4 controllers being expression pedals, but my application wants more switches.
• Scene ignore in EVERY block. I make my patches as virtual pedalbords and use scenes to create some jump-to. So have had some problems with this.
• There are many effects that are funtionally similar but have different "types". This gets problematic for foot controller functionality. Suppose I have a patch that uses a simple delay but then I decide to change it for a plex delay. This is a different TYPE and so the foot controller thinks it is a different thing. Now I have to go and reprogram the PC per-preset. Some kind of abstraction layer seems to be called for here. It should be possible for a Plex Delay to slave itself to the channel and byass state of another block (even if not present).
• Infinite grid. Use of patch blocks to feed back to earlier points in the grid is annoying. The code is likely using pointers to audio buffers to connect the blocks to each other. It should be meaningless what the size of the grid the human sees is. Similarly, the CPU usage that people complain about for series-chained patch cables would also be improved by architecting this way. Eventide and the golden age Digitech units just had a list of effects with inputs and output pointers. Make the grid the human sees an INPUT to a little bit of code that converts the GUI into such a pointer list.

An RTA on the Axe Edit would be nice. Don't care about front panel.

I used to use Eventide H4000 and Orville. I really liked the way you could combine multiple effects into a macro block and set up control inputs to be ganged together or use equations to derive them from some macro input control. For me that would be amazing, but I suspect many users would not use this and may be confused by it. Would be nice if the macro block could have 4 channels and each channel used the same internal blocks and wiring but would behave like block-scenes inside. Would be amazing to do, but would need some kind of opt-in warning screen for advanced users only. Those Eventides were amazing in their time.

Don't care about touchscreen. Want a rack unit. I want the foot controller to not have any expression pedals (I will bring my own). All the amps I would ever need are already in the FX3. Would be nice if it were one rack slot less tall. I almost never use the screen on the unit. Have no interest in the expression pedals inputs on the back of the rack unit, nor the SPDIF. My only reason for Inputs/Outputs 3/4 is to connect some pedal you don't model. Instrument inputs on both front and back of unit is VERY nice. AES IO is VERY nice.

 

[sdkee]

Easily solved by a CPU expansion slot...!
But I've had bad experiences with the one in the GSP-2101... (suffered random crashes because of software or wonky slot connection?)

Re. multiple blocks of the same:
Couldn't agree more but I suspect this could command a total overhaul nightmare of Cliff's currently proven design strategy...
Maybe an in-between solution exists that can offer some of that for a bunch of blocks that are not assigned/tweaked to one CPU core..
Weight and sea...

Am concerned this would be IO limited. Might require turning signal back to analog to communicate between CPUs or some software restruction on how many audio links can cross CPU boundaries. Probably not worth it.

I used TSR-24s (with addon CPU) and a GSP-2101. Still have some the TSR24s somewhere. Those were amazing in their day. Good times.

 

[sdkee]

My biggest issues right now:

• Only two pitch shift blocks. I want one in front of the amp to do whammy and/or virtual capo. I want one after the amp to do harmony. And I want another to do detune. Only two available. For the detune, even a crappy algoritm like what you could get on an old Digetech unit would be fine. Could put an option for that into the chorus block maybe. But just having, let's say, 4 pitch blocks would solve it completely.
• More than 6 controllers. These are EXTREMELY useful and the only real way to have one foot switch do multiple things. If there was a way to make one block's channel be a slave to another's, this could assist in many of my situations where I would like this.
• A lot of my presets have a "acoustic simulator". This is basically a GEQ in series with an IR player in series with a multiband compressor. I also almost always have a clean and a dirty amp in my presets. In my brain, the acoustic sim is just one of the clean channels of the amp. But I need to do it with a multiplexor and have a separate footswitch for it. Would be nice to either have a decent acoustic sim that can go into a amp channel slot OR some way to slave the multipexor channel from the amp channel so that I am controlling it as one thing.
• Some really gnarly fuzzes would be nice. I don't use these much, but the Helix has some fun stuff in this area. Stoner doom and industrial metal need some love.
• Swedish chainsaw (HM-2). Yes it is a one trick pony. But it is a good trick.
• About 50% more CPU than the Axe3 turbo. I cannot fathom how I would use more than that.
• Ability for foot controllers to use expression pedal inputs for external switches by software selection. I should be able to use FC12 (or future equivalent) to use up to 8 external controllers. Switches and pedals are both kinds of controllers. I am fine with a max of 4 controllers being expression pedals, but my application wants more switches.
• Scene ignore in EVERY block. I make my patches as virtual pedalbords and use scenes to create some jump-to. So have had some problems with this.
• There are many effects that are funtionally similar but have different "types". This gets problematic for foot controller functionality. Suppose I have a patch that uses a simple delay but then I decide to change it for a plex delay. This is a different TYPE and so the foot controller thinks it is a different thing. Now I have to go and reprogram the PC per-preset. Some kind of abstraction layer seems to be called for here. It should be possible for a Plex Delay to slave itself to the channel and byass state of another block (even if not present).
• Infinite grid. Use of patch blocks to feed back to earlier points in the grid is annoying. The code is likely using pointers to audio buffers to connect the blocks to each other. It should be meaningless what the size of the grid the human sees is. Similarly, the CPU usage that people complain about for series-chained patch cables would also be improved by architecting this way. Eventide and the golden age Digitech units just had a list of effects with inputs and output pointers. Make the grid the human sees an INPUT to a little bit of code that converts the GUI into such a pointer list.

An RTA on the Axe Edit would be nice. Don't care about front panel.

I used to use Eventide H4000 and Orville. I really liked the way you could combine multiple effects into a macro block and set up control inputs to be ganged together or use equations to derive them from some macro input control. For me that would be amazing, but I suspect many users would not use this and may be confused by it. Would be nice if the macro block could have 4 channels and each channel used the same internal blocks and wiring but would behave like block-scenes inside. Would be amazing to do, but would need some kind of opt-in warning screen for advanced users only. Those Eventides were amazing in their time.

Don't care about touchscreen. Want a rack unit. I want the foot controller to not have any expression pedals (I will bring my own). All the amps I would ever need are already in the FX3. Would be nice if it were one rack slot less tall. I almost never use the screen on the unit. Have no interest in the expression pedals inputs on the back of the rack unit, nor the SPDIF. My only reason for Inputs/Outputs 3/4 is to connect some pedal you don't model. Instrument inputs on both front and back of unit is VERY nice. AES IO is VERY nice.

Forgot this: would be great to have cab-lab packs integrated into FX3. I currently use Cab Lab and 3rd party IRs to mix down an IR for the FX3. It is an annoying process. Would happily pay for packs of cabs to not have to do this. Would need off axis SM57 as an option as well as packs for Hiwatt 4x12 Fane and something like the 4x12 German V30. A bit of Marshall 4x12 Greenback into the mix would be nice. On that point, the CPU should not INCREASE when more IRs are added to the cab or IR block. Add the IR samples together and then recompute the FFT of the combined IR kernel. Convolution is linear. Don't do multiple FFTs against multiple IR kernels and then add the outputs. If you insist on doing this then maybe another 100% extra CPU would be nice.

 

[Dave Merrill]

I used TSR-24s (with addon CPU) and a GSP-2101. Still have some the TSR24s somewhere. Those were amazing in their day. Good times.

I have an OG TSR24 in my studio rack.
Haven't turned it on in quite a while.
Did some interesting stuff, but not that fun to work with.

 

[sdkee]

I have an OG TSR24 in my studio rack.
Haven't turned it on in quite a while.
Did some interesting stuff, but not that fun to work with

In their day they were amazing. And yes, hard to program. But you you could do anything.

 

[Brewce]

Am concerned this would be IO limited. Might require turning signal back to analog to communicate between CPUs or some software restruction on how many audio links can cross CPU boundaries. Probably not worth it.

That seems very unlikely, and 2 CPUs has already been done in the AXF II, IIRC.
Besides, I was only joking unless a very reliable method would exist. The GSP-2101 experience really scared me away.
S/PDIF is close enough to solve it too.

I see they are at least using more boards in the AM4 to hopefully limit repair costs, so they do seem to be risking these types of connections more than usual (though the one in the AM4 may be soldered too and more reliable -- don't remember the pics 100 procent).

 

[Chiguete]

After giving a little more thought on the floorboard model that would be limited on processing power vs the rack model an interesting way around it is for example to be able to select the DSP use of some of the processors, let me explain: I don't play workshop music of any other music that uses those DSP hungry shimmer reverbs and other effects love, so instead of dedicating a DSP chip only for them let me choose to disable those effects and let me use that processing power for a 2nd pitch shifting possibilities, etc.

Maybe this is a confusing idea but basically is that don't block out processing power in effects options that some people will never use.

 

[Dave Merrill]

I have an OG TSR24 in my studio rack.
Haven't turned it on in quite a while.
Did some interesting stuff, but not that fun to work with.

In their day they were amazing. And yes, hard to program. But you you could do anything.

TBH, i never found the PCM 91 that intuitive to program either. The non-symmetry of the parameter layouts made me always have to fish around, and i never felt like I'd really "explored the space". Amazing sounds though.