Fractal Talk

[Aleksi]

 

[dean701]

There is no need to reset amp blocks... The affected settings are automatically updated on preset recall.

I understand that Cliff reset portions of the amp block for new parameters that he changed. Oh, I'm well aware. He isn't defaulting the full amp block.
I'm resetting the amp blocks in full. It's been years since I've reset them and I want to hear what his full defaults sound like in v25 for all parameters. I have amp blocks that haven't been reset in years. In fact, the presets that came with the axe3 were on version 19. Unless you've manually reset the blocks, they're still technically on 19. Sure, the hidden algorithms may have changed but they haven't been fully adopted to the new firmware until a reset happens.

Here's a snippet of how the Advanced view of just the Sun Plate has changed from v23 to v25. Things are very organic in the Fractal world. Some parameters have moved to different tabs. Some have disappeared altogether. Follow the bouncing ball.

BTW, these are 3 different presets running on the same AXEFX running v25. I just haven't reset all of the reverb blocks yet. (not sure if I ever will) it's not confusing at all.

 

[Foxmeister]

He's bound to be red in the face with the effort of holding it while on the pot for this long.

He's found a way to shit without even being on the pot!

 

[Stone]

So, one really has to wonder what's next ?
i really can't imagine how the Toanz can improve, yet i though the same before Cygnus X3

 

[laxu]

So, one really has to wonder what's next ?
i really can't imagine how the Toanz can improve, yet i though the same before Cygnus X3

So based on what Fractal Audio has said on forums, the likely hardware for the "Axe-Fx IV", "FM4", and "FM10" is going to be:

• TI C7x DSP for the "Axe-Fx IV". Axe-Fx 3 uses C6X.
• Analog Devices SC598 or SC594 for the "FM4/FM10". Those DSPs are as a single chip about as powerful as the FM9.

In terms of features, these are some that I would expect:

• Revamped onboard UI.
• More Dyna-Cabs and mics. See Cab Lab 4.
• Dyna-Cabs capable of using the full cone area like in Cab Lab 4.
• Some of that horsepower dedicated to replicate the finer details of amp modeling even better.
• Amps redesigned so that you no longer pick channels as their own models, but each amp model contains all its channels, modes and switches the real amp has. Fractal has said this is not happening with the current architecture.
• Maybe redesigned FC controllers to match the new units?

My wishlist things, besides the UI stuff:

• Only two products: Axe-Fx IV rack unit and "FM4" floor modeler. Most people don't need anything more powerful than a FM9 so a more compact "FM4" + FC controller == "FM10". Modularity ftw!
• "FM4" that is lower profile. The slanted footswitches and quite tall height of the FM3 make it tricky to put on a pedalboard because you can't really use the switches if the FM3 is anywhere but at the front of the board. Putting anything behind it is not happening because you can't press the footswitches. By comparison this is not an issue with regular pedals where slanted boards with 2-3 rows of pedals are still usable.
• Cheaper, lighter FC controllers. At 5kg the FC12 is heavy. Helix Control is 3.26 kg by comparison and less than half the cost in EU.

I'm sure Fractal will think more outside the box than I am!

 

[TheTrueZoltan!]

Axe-FX Native or GTFO

 

[DLC86]

• Only two products: Axe-Fx IV rack unit and "FM4" floor modeler. Most people don't need anything more powerful than a FM9 so a more compact "FM4" + FC controller == "FM10". Modularity ftw!
• "FM4" that is lower profile. The slanted footswitches and quite tall height of the FM3 make it tricky to put on a pedalboard because you can't really use the switches if the FM3 is anywhere but at the front of the board. Putting anything behind it is not happening because you can't press the footswitches. By comparison this is not an issue with regular pedals where slanted boards with 2-3 rows of pedals are still usable.

Agree with all the rest except these 2 things.

New hardware usually also means more complex and heavier algorithms for amps and effects, so something with the same processing power as the fm9 would result in a less capable unit than the fm9. Plus it'd be nice if some more features of the axe will be included in the floor devices as well (global blocks, full-res IRs, tonematch, etc.) and most of those require additional cpu power.

Regarding form factor, less tall means less room for connectors on the back. Personally I wish they make the most powerful floor device something in between the fm3 and the fm9 size-wise, with 5 or 7 switches. And then eventually a small one which is really pedalboard-friendly with just amp-cab-reverb.

Axe-FX Native or GTFO

Yeah, and this

 

[Stone]

TI C7x DSP for the "Axe-Fx IV"

It has a Neural Network accelerator

 

[GTR37]

So based on what Fractal Audio has said on forums, the likely hardware for the "Axe-Fx IV", "FM4", and "FM10" is going to be:

• TI C7x DSP for the "Axe-Fx IV". Axe-Fx 3 uses C6X.
• Analog Devices SC598 or SC594 for the "FM4/FM10". Those DSPs are as a single chip about as powerful as the FM9.

In terms of features, these are some that I would expect:

• Revamped onboard UI.
• More Dyna-Cabs and mics. See Cab Lab 4.
• Dyna-Cabs capable of using the full cone area like in Cab Lab 4.
• Some of that horsepower dedicated to replicate the finer details of amp modeling even better.
• Amps redesigned so that you no longer pick channels as their own models, but each amp model contains all its channels, modes and switches the real amp has. Fractal has said this is not happening with the current architecture.
• Maybe redesigned FC controllers to match the new units?

My wishlist things, besides the UI stuff:

• Only two products: Axe-Fx IV rack unit and "FM4" floor modeler. Most people don't need anything more powerful than a FM9 so a more compact "FM4" + FC controller == "FM10". Modularity ftw!
• "FM4" that is lower profile. The slanted footswitches and quite tall height of the FM3 make it tricky to put on a pedalboard because you can't really use the switches if the FM3 is anywhere but at the front of the board. Putting anything behind it is not happening because you can't press the footswitches. By comparison this is not an issue with regular pedals where slanted boards with 2-3 rows of pedals are still usable.
• Cheaper, lighter FC controllers. At 5kg the FC12 is heavy. Helix Control is 3.26 kg by comparison and less than half the cost in EU.

I'm sure Fractal will think more outside the box than I am!

That’s a pretty strong guess , I said to myself the other day when we were talking CPU , it will likely be the 7th Gen TI chips in AX4 and the new Sharc that the one chip mentioned earlier in this thread with the more horsepower

 

[Stone]

fm9 size-wise, with 5 or 7 switches

For me Ideally a FM6 i only use the bottom Foot switches
but thats based on my use only

 

[GTR37]

Agree with all the rest except these 2 things.

New hardware usually also means more complex and heavier algorithms for amps and effects, so something with the same processing power as the fm9 would result in a less capable unit than the fm9. Plus it'd be nice if some more features of the axe will be included in the floor devices as well (global blocks, full-res IRs, tonematch, etc.) and most of those require additional cpu power.

Regarding form factor, less tall means less room for connectors on the back. Personally I wish they make the most powerful floor device something in between the fm3 and the fm9 size-wise, with 5 or 7 switches. And then eventually a small one which is really pedalboard-friendly with just amp-cab-reverb.



Yeah, and this

The 1 Sharc is as powerful as the FM9 , if they used 2 like it is now it would be probably beyond the current Axefx turbo as far as CPU

 

[DLC86]

The 1 Sharc is as powerful as the FM9 , if they used 2 like it is now it would be probably beyond the current Axefx turbo as far as CPU

Sure, but if all blocks e.g. use 2x the processing power in the new gen, that 1 sharc is half as powerful for the end user.

 

[GTR37]

I understand that Cliff reset portions of the amp block for new parameters that he changed. Oh, I'm well aware. He isn't defaulting the full amp block.
I'm resetting the amp blocks in full. It's been years since I've reset them and I want to hear what his full defaults sound like in v25 for all parameters. I have amp blocks that haven't been reset in years. In fact, the presets that came with the axe3 were on version 19. Unless you've manually reset the blocks, they're still technically on 19. Sure, the hidden algorithms may have changed but they haven't been fully adopted to the new firmware until a reset happens.

Here's a snippet of how the Advanced view of just the Sun Plate has changed from v23 to v25. Things are very organic in the Fractal world. Some parameters have moved to different tabs. Some have disappeared altogether. Follow the bouncing ball.

BTW, these are 3 different presets running on the same AXEFX running v25. I just haven't reset all of the reverb blocks yet. (not sure if I ever will) it's not confusing at all.

View attachment 21755
View attachment 21756
View attachment 21757

Yes they are changing up the Axe edit layouts over last few updates , to try and simplify
Maybe goes along with Cliff getting rid of the superfluous parameters in the amp and/or renaming things

 

[yek]

Some 'next gen' hardware wishes:

• Same USB support on the little guy (now FM3) as on the larger devices (now FM9, III).
• USB or SD storage for presets, system backup, dynacabs, etc.
• Dual screens: left shows the grid, right shows the block controls.
• Dedicated headphones level knob.

And these other wishes

 

[laxu]

Agree with all the rest except these 2 things.

New hardware usually also means more complex and heavier algorithms for amps and effects, so something with the same processing power as the fm9 would result in a less capable unit than the fm9. Plus it'd be nice if some more features of the axe will be included in the floor devices as well (global blocks, full-res IRs, tonematch, etc.) and most of those require additional cpu power.

Global blocks likely require more memory more than anything. I do think that feature would be useful in some form on all the next gen devices, but in its current form it's a bit awkward. I think most would want it mainly for amp/cab blocks to switch fx chains while keeping the amp/cab the same across presets.

Full-res IRs have ended up being a feature that never went anywhere so I would not be surprised if it just gets dropped as a cool experiment, or left in the Axe-Fx IV as a "eh, do something with it if you can figure out a usecase" feature.

Similarly Tone Match is used likely by a fraction of the userbase. I think it would be cool to see Fractal replace it with some neural network thing if the accelerators for it exist on these new DSP chips.

Plus the Axe-Fx IV could use some differentiator features. Compared to the Axe-Fx 3, the FM9 is perhaps a bit too good, when it's cheaper, smaller, lighter and does about 80-90% of the same things, with enough horsepower for 99% of guitarists1. Not that I'm complaining!

The FM3 felt more limiting, prompting me to upgrade to the Axe-Fx 3 since FM9 was still months away from EU sales at the time.

1 Percentages sourced from MASH - My Ass Statistics Hub.

Sure, but if all blocks e.g. use 2x the processing power in the new gen, that 1 sharc is half as powerful for the end user.

There's really no specific need to make blocks use tons more DSP, because eventually you run into "it doesn't sound any better, it's just more demanding" diminishing returns. If most of Fractal's current fx are already at "just as good or better than my Strymon or SA pedals" levels, how much further can you really go from there, or even need to?

Regarding form factor, less tall means less room for connectors on the back. Personally I wish they make the most powerful floor device something in between the fm3 and the fm9 size-wise, with 5 or 7 switches. And then eventually a small one which is really pedalboard-friendly with just amp-cab-reverb.

You could use breakout connectors or ADAT for expansion I suppose. But if you look at the Quad Cortex, that already has quite a lot of I/O bundled into a small, less tall box. IMO the QC size is a pretty great form factor that is less depth/height than the FM3. So something like that but with less cramped switches.

The lack of an integrated PSU on the QC does help though. I don't care about the PSU either way as both approaches have pros and cons and noise issues on the QC are a QC specific problem.

 

[Los-D]

Regarding form factor, less tall means less room for connectors on the back. Personally I wish they make the most powerful floor device something in between the fm3 and the fm9 size-wise, with 5 or 7 switches

Man, I loved the AX8 form factor as a pedal modeler. Obviously not as a desktop modeler.

Something to revisit perhaps?

IMO the QC size is a pretty great form factor that is less depth/height than the FM3

For a desktop unit (FM0? AxeFx Lite?), I would love to see a compact form factor and I’m now warming up to the idea of a big ass touchscreen… but running a modular version of Axe Edit. The rack unit will still rely on the computer editor of course

 

[DLC86]

There's really no specific need to make blocks use tons more DSP, because eventually you run into "it doesn't sound any better, it's just more demanding" diminishing returns. If most of Fractal's current fx are already at "just as good or better than my Strymon or SA pedals" levels, how much further can you really go from there, or even need to?

Was just speaking out of what I observed thru the various generations of fractal hardware. Axe fx III is more than double the processing power of an axe fx ii, but it surely can't run double the blocks.

One thing that might require doubling (and for some blocks even quadrupling) the cpu usage of blocks might be increasing the native sample rate to 96 KHz for example. We don't know what Cliff might choose to do with the available power, but I'd surely prefer to have more than enough than what seems enough today.

You could use breakout connectors or ADAT for expansion I suppose. But if you look at the Quad Cortex, that already has quite a lot of I/O bundled into a small, less tall box. IMO the QC size is a pretty great form factor that is less depth/height than the FM3. So something like that but with less cramped switches.

The lack of an integrated PSU on the QC does help though. I don't care about the PSU either way as both approaches have pros and cons and noise issues on the QC are a QC specific problem.

Yeah, the lack of an internal PSU in the QC is definitely what made them able to cram all those I/O in that device, the fm3 is basically the same length but 1/3 of that is occupied by the PSU and the IEC connector.

 

[DLC86]

Man, I loved the AX8 form factor as a pedal modeler. Obviously not as a desktop modeler.

Something to revisit perhaps?

Yep, the ax8 form factor was the best for me.
And definitely easier to find bags, cases and pedalboards that could fit that and an expression pedal beside.

 

[Mongillo19]

Can we stop talking about the next gen of fractal

My FOMO will be tested

 

[Rock Chalk]

My ideal Axe IV is basically what we have now, but more of it, with just a couple of additions.

1 moar power
2 moar storage
3 moar control switches
4 ability to load/unload Dyna-Cab packs
5 ability to connect wirelessly to iPad
6 Axe Edit app written for iPad
7 No touch screen….the smaller the unit…the better
8 Did I already say moar power?