Why I sold the AxeFX III for the FM9 Turbo

NattyBar

NattyBar

Inspired
I'm about a year and a half into my Fractal journey (bought the AxeFX III in May 2021) and I'm still loving how great Fractal gear is! The amp modelling, the effects, the simplicity and complexity... It's all fantastic and so is the community of people willing to help others navigate the learning curves.

Even though I have loved the AxeFX for the past 18 months - I was one of the people who were hoping for a larger floorboard unit because living in a major international city often means that public transport is the most convenient option and carrying a rack unit and separate controller does start to get annoying. So when the FM9 was announced it looked perfect even though I was unsure if I could make the lower DSP work for larger presets (which would get around 75-80% on the AxeFX).

As expected, loading my main AxeFX presets on the FM9T maxed out the CPU so I had to take a different approach and build core tones on the FM9T using different settings and blocks. This was definitely possible (with subtle differences mostly from plex/pitch/reverb blocks) but I figured I'd play the FM9 for 2-3 months and then decide if the lower DSP and block trade-offs were worth the smaller form factor and convenience.

Well 3 months later I can say that the answer is 100% - the FM9 (Turbo) is absolutely perfect for live use and I don't have any issue with the lower DSP. Two weeks ago I listed the AxeFX for sale and just before the buyer turned up today I decided to do a quick experiment and load my main preset from the FM9T back into the AxeFX. I was a little surprised by the CPU usage between the two units...

FM9T:
FM9T.png

AxeFX III MK II:
AxeFX III.png

These screenshots show that how a preset is built makes a big difference on CPU usage for both units!! Since the amp, delay, and reverb blocks receive dedicated DSP on the FM9 it means that this preset uses almost the same CPU on both the FM9T and the AxeFX. So while the AxeFX is more powerful and flexible with its DSP, I/O, and all the other benefits - the FM9T is still a powerful unit and there are a number of ways to achieve similar outcomes on both units which is pretty spectacular.

Disclaimer: I didn't go through and optimise or correct any settings on the AxeFX before the buyer turned up so I'm assuming there are probably some CPU savings in there to be found.

The big takeaways from my experience:
1) Both units are amazing pieces of kit and how you approach their use is an important consideration - an overly simplistic comparison of total DSP is a pretty poor proxy. Cliff and the team are world-class in developing these products and squeezing the most out of the available resources.
2) For those who are unsure about whether the FM9T is powerful enough compared to the AxeFX the above shows there is plenty of resources available to create some intricate rigs. You may need to approach the process of creating tones differently but there are multiple paths you can take.
3) The more convenient form factor and weight of the FM9T is a big win and after some experimentation the trade-off in DSP hasn't been an issue for me.

Kudos to the Fractal team!
 
NOTE: This response and several following was made when the title of the thread was "the FM9T is as powerful as the Axe-Fx III"

--

As a disclaimer, the FM9 Turbo is not just as powerful as the Axe-Fx III.

Choices can be made to optimize the FM9 to do similar or the same things as an Axe3.

But the title as stated is not accurate.

I’m guessing the Axe3 may be using higher resolution cabs vs the FM9 in the screenshot, but any number of things could be different.

Yes the FM9 is amazing and can do a lot. But for someone deciding between the two, it’s inaccurate to say they are exactly the same.
 
Last edited:
FM9 Turbo is NOT = to Axe-Fx3
Just look at the different blocks available in the 3 and how many of each you can run.
Just not the same with the FM9T.

Now the FM9T is still a great little unit, I have one!
 
Yeah in terms of total raw DSP processing power the FM9 has something like half the power of the Axe III, but because the way the algorithms are optimized and allocated differently between the two, it's harder to make a direct apples to apples comparison like that. The same block does not always have the same capabilities/processing between the two. For example, the cab block on the FM9 only supports two cabs, while the Axe III supports four each. The FM9 also does not support FullRes IRs at all. I believe the Axe III also uses higher oversampling in the Amp block processing (and maybe the drive block too) for even less aliasing. The III also has the variable input impedance circuit, four analog input and output pairs, and AES I/O. The two can sound very similar, but their output is not identical even with the same preset.
 
i think we all understand the OP is happy that the FM9 can support what he wants to do. don't mean to rain down on this.

but yeah, that statement could lead to disappointed future customers "someone said it was the same."
 
Really? @chris @scottp did you actually read the whole post?

Granted the title is a little click baity... Fair call - l edit that.

Otherwise... perhaps it's worth understanding what the post is saying before throwing out unhelpful snap responses. You'll see that nowhere does it say the FM9T = AxeFx (I state it's not the same or as powerful). You'll also see that I mentioned there are DSP and block trade-offs.

The point is you can get to very similar outcomes by approaching your preset builds differently. Which is a commendation to Fractal and helpful for people who are trying to make buying decisions between the two untis.
 
NattyBar said:
Really? @chris @scottp did you actually read the whole post?

Granted the title is a little click baity... Fair call - l edit that.

Otherwise... perhaps it's worth understanding what the post is saying before throwing out unhelpful snap responses. You'll see that nowhere does it say the FM9T = AxeFx (I state it's not the same or as powerful). You'll also see that I mentioned there are DSP and block trade-offs.

The point is you can get to very similar outcomes by approaching your preset builds differently. Which is a commendation to Fractal and helpful for people who are trying to make buying decisions between the two untis.
Click to expand...
the original title was "the FM9T is as powerful as the Axe-Fx III."

that is not true. it's the reason we replied as we did. i did read the whole post. but the title was not a true statement.

it is a helpful response to the person deciding between an FM9 and Axe3 who sees this and thinks the FM9T is as powerful as the Axe-Fx III, when it is not.

as i said earlier, the FM9 can do similar or exact things as the Axe3 depending on the specifics. but it is still not as powerful as the Axe3.
 
NattyBar said:
The point is you can get to very similar outcomes by approaching your preset builds differently.
Click to expand...
Seemingly showing the exact preset build twice, it doesn't make your point very clear... ;)
My takeaway is more that a (seemingly) same preset can take more CPU on the III, which is both a little interesting and confusing.
 
NattyBar said:
I'm about a year and a half into my Fractal journey (bought the AxeFX III in May 2021) and I'm still loving how great Fractal gear is! The amp modelling, the effects, the simplicity and complexity... It's all fantastic and so is the community of people willing to help others navigate the learning curves.

Even though I have loved the AxeFX for the past 18 months - I was one of the people who were hoping for a larger floorboard unit because living in a major international city often means that public transport is the most convenient option and carrying a rack unit and separate controller does start to get annoying. So when the FM9 was announced it looked perfect even though I was unsure if I could make the lower DSP work for larger presets (which would get around 75-80% on the AxeFX).

As expected, loading my main AxeFX presets on the FM9T maxed out the CPU so I had to take a different approach and build core tones on the FM9T using different settings and blocks. This was definitely possible (with subtle differences mostly from plex/pitch/reverb blocks) but I figured I'd play the FM9 for 2-3 months and then decide if the lower DSP and block trade-offs were worth the smaller form factor and convenience.

Well 3 months later I can say that the answer is 100% - the FM9 (Turbo) is absolutely perfect for live use and I don't have any issue with the lower DSP. Two weeks ago I listed the AxeFX for sale and just before the buyer turned up today I decided to do a quick experiment and load my main preset from the FM9T back into the AxeFX. I was a little surprised by the CPU usage between the two units...

FM9T:
View attachment 112637

AxeFX III MK II:
View attachment 112638

These screenshots show that how a preset is built makes a big difference on CPU usage for both units!! Since the amp, delay, and reverb blocks receive dedicated DSP on the FM9 it means that this preset uses almost the same CPU on both the FM9T and the AxeFX. So while the AxeFX is more powerful and flexible with its DSP, I/O, and all the other benefits - the FM9T is still a powerful unit and there are a number of ways to achieve similar outcomes on both units which is pretty spectacular.

Disclaimer: I didn't go through and optimise or correct any settings on the AxeFX before the buyer turned up so I'm assuming there are probably some CPU savings in there to be found.

The big takeaways from my experience:
1) Both units are amazing pieces of kit and how you approach their use is an important consideration - an overly simplistic comparison of total DSP is a pretty poor proxy. Cliff and the team are world-class in developing these products and squeezing the most out of the available resources.
2) For those who are unsure about whether the FM9T is powerful enough compared to the AxeFX the above shows there is plenty of resources available to create some intricate rigs. You may need to approach the process of creating tones differently but there are multiple paths you can take.
3) The more convenient form factor and weight of the FM9T is a big win and after some experimentation the trade-off in DSP hasn't been an issue for me.

Kudos to the Fractal team!
Click to expand...

I don't think you can make a bad decision with Fractal's product line. If you've been playing you know what you want and need, and I try to be always learning, always changing up, inversions, double stops, all the expression, the interval patterns and look at all that in creative ways that give me a style that is starting to be recognizable. I play a lot more because it is so easy to get great tones. This forum is invaluable. Happy for everyone! 🙂
 
Paulzx said:
For what it's worth I thought this was an interesting and informative thread. I didn't misunderstand it at all.
If you read what the guy is actually saying, it makes sense. I don't think he was trying to diminish the AxeFX III at all.
Click to expand...
It was all about the original title. It said the FM9T is as powerful as the Axe3. That’s not true. The post itself was great.
 
Good post! I have been wondering if I should get an FM9 and sell some gear to fund it so really glad to see how well you got on with it live compared to your AX3.

I don't think comparing them CPU wise is very easy given they are very different products on different FW releases (which have different optimisations).
 
When comparing CPU spec on the various models, it's important, as the OP points out, to understand that some cores are reserved for specific tasks (ie amp in Ax3) and are not included in the CPU status value presented to the user. This makes comparing Axfx models' wrt possible CPU capacity for specific presets somewhat tricky because we really don't know the running status of 1/2 the system.
 
NattyBar said:
I'm about a year and a half into my Fractal journey (bought the AxeFX III in May 2021) and I'm still loving how great Fractal gear is! The amp modelling, the effects, the simplicity and complexity... It's all fantastic and so is the community of people willing to help others navigate the learning curves.

Even though I have loved the AxeFX for the past 18 months - I was one of the people who were hoping for a larger floorboard unit because living in a major international city often means that public transport is the most convenient option and carrying a rack unit and separate controller does start to get annoying. So when the FM9 was announced it looked perfect even though I was unsure if I could make the lower DSP work for larger presets (which would get around 75-80% on the AxeFX).

As expected, loading my main AxeFX presets on the FM9T maxed out the CPU so I had to take a different approach and build core tones on the FM9T using different settings and blocks. This was definitely possible (with subtle differences mostly from plex/pitch/reverb blocks) but I figured I'd play the FM9 for 2-3 months and then decide if the lower DSP and block trade-offs were worth the smaller form factor and convenience.

Well 3 months later I can say that the answer is 100% - the FM9 (Turbo) is absolutely perfect for live use and I don't have any issue with the lower DSP. Two weeks ago I listed the AxeFX for sale and just before the buyer turned up today I decided to do a quick experiment and load my main preset from the FM9T back into the AxeFX. I was a little surprised by the CPU usage between the two units...

FM9T:
View attachment 112637

AxeFX III MK II:
View attachment 112638

These screenshots show that how a preset is built makes a big difference on CPU usage for both units!! Since the amp, delay, and reverb blocks receive dedicated DSP on the FM9 it means that this preset uses almost the same CPU on both the FM9T and the AxeFX. So while the AxeFX is more powerful and flexible with its DSP, I/O, and all the other benefits - the FM9T is still a powerful unit and there are a number of ways to achieve similar outcomes on both units which is pretty spectacular.

Disclaimer: I didn't go through and optimise or correct any settings on the AxeFX before the buyer turned up so I'm assuming there are probably some CPU savings in there to be found.

The big takeaways from my experience:
1) Both units are amazing pieces of kit and how you approach their use is an important consideration - an overly simplistic comparison of total DSP is a pretty poor proxy. Cliff and the team are world-class in developing these products and squeezing the most out of the available resources.
2) For those who are unsure about whether the FM9T is powerful enough compared to the AxeFX the above shows there is plenty of resources available to create some intricate rigs. You may need to approach the process of creating tones differently but there are multiple paths you can take.
3) The more convenient form factor and weight of the FM9T is a big win and after some experimentation the trade-off in DSP hasn't been an issue for me.

Kudos to the Fractal team!
Click to expand...
Good points here, and I’m glad you’re happy with the swap! I missed all the angst over the title, but good move on correcting it. No reason for that to detract from an otherwise excellent post.

I’ll likely keep my III-T, but got back on the FM9 list in August. They’ve been ripping through the list lately, so maybe a few more months. I hope to be as pleasantly surprised as you were! Now, if that FM15T would debut in time…
 
Brewce said:
The FM9 as well. Seems there once was some misinfo about that which seems to stick with people...
Click to expand...
The Fractal Audio Block Guide states that only the Axe III has the variable impedance options in the IN 1 block.

1671119204701.png

The FM9 manual also makes no mention of the variable input impedance and specifies it as 1MΩ.

Note that "Secret Sauce IV" on the input is not the same as the variable input impedance feature. That's the low noise design of the input circuit that's optimized for high impedance guitar pickups.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom