When do you predict the next Fractal Audio Axe iteration will drop, now that they've stated that it will be NAM-compatible?

I want things that make it far more viable to use a unit in 4-cable-method with a valve amp, and have the thing actually be usable without being connected to a computer.

For home usage, I'd like captures so that I can have exact captures of my amps that I use live.
 
I think it's a little odd that people insist that anyone who says "nah, I don't want that" has to justify it. That's clearly not the case. It's even weirder when the opposing view is "No, all devices must have this! All of them! Table stakes!"

As far as touch screens go, I just find them to be a buzz kill, much as I avoid playing into a computer using plugins. I want to play guitar, not emulate the experience of doing my day job or tapping on a freaking phone. I get that other people simply have a different interface preference from mine. I don't think that no modeler should have a touch screen. I owned a Tone Master Pro, and I was ready to try a Stadium when I got the AM4 and fell in love with it. I just get annoyed at the insistence that every modeler must have one, like my own preference needs to be purged or something. How's about a little warmth, man? More practically, I'll not be crazy about touch screens until we have some data on their life spans in these specific uses, the assemblage of which is now in progress, I'm sure. I always want my guitar gear to be something I can just keep forever if I decide I'm set. I've deployed thousands and thousands of touchscreens over the course of my career, and I am not 100% sold on them as long term equipment in all use cases, especially commodity consumer screens that can be included in these sorts of builds.
 
Orvillain said:
For home usage, I'd like captures so that I can have exact captures of my amps that I use live.
Click to expand...
This is the one use case of captures that I can clearly understand. It just doesn't apply to me. That friend of mine who is going all in on a QC wants to capture a gazillion settings on his Road King. I get it.

I just don't think that every single modeler on earth is required to do captures of else be deemed inadequate. A whole lot of people who have modelers don't have any amps at all, or at least not ones worthy of being captured.
 
Last edited:
Mongillo19 said:
It's funny because Cliff has used this exact wording to describe why the IV will have NAM
Click to expand...
Sure, but while I love my Fractal gear, I'm not one of those people who worship Cliff or anything. And since my disagreement is intended to be civil across the board, I'm content to be in civil disagreement with Cliff, too. It doesn't make me feel the least bit foolish. I don't need an authority to appeal to for my opinions and preferences.
 
Orvillain said:
But guitar cabs, preamps, mics, everything required to make an IR or virtual cab block, have just as many - if not more - variables than an amp does??
Click to expand...
Sure, and that is a limitation of the IR idea that Dynacabs partially mitigate. But with amps, highly effective component-level modeling is a thing.

And hey, if we really want to push the analogy, then sure - what amounts to component-level speaker and cabinet modeling would be awesome as an alternative to IRs.

My other point is that here were are again with only people who say "I don't want that" being expected to justify themselves for some reason.
 
ChordInversion said:
My other point is that here were are again with only people who say "I don't want that" being expected to justify themselves for some reason
Click to expand...
Because it's strange when technology advances and is available in a gen device, that someone would be like "I don't want it"

The common reasons seem to be "because then it would be too easy to use therefore not as good". That makes no sense.

And also this weird mindset that adding a NAM block would in turn get rid of fractal modeling. Which is also untrue. I've yet to read an actual reason why it shouldn't be included that makes sense.

It's one thing to be like "I don't like NAM but I get why it's included" but another to be like "I don't like NAM therefore it shouldn't be included because I don't like it". Whether you like it or not doesn't change the fact it is immensely popular and a part of next gen devices
 
ChordInversion said:
Perhaps, but what about MOAR in the sense of taking things to another level, like Dynacabs did? How about providing an "amp builder," a functionality that builds a Fractal-built original virtual model (like the FAS ones) on demand, based on some inputs?
Click to expand...
What is that other level?!? Dynacabs are just static IRs…but done in a different way that makes them feel not like a snapshot. Is it possible the next level could be dynaNAM?
 
Mongillo19 said:
Because it's strange when technology advances and is available in a gen device, that someone would be like "I don't want it"
Click to expand...
Advance is in the eye of the beholder. I have no use for captures, and I consider touchscreens to be an undesirable interface on guitar gear.

Mongillo19 said:
The common reasons seem to be "because then it would be too easy to use therefore not as good". That makes no sense.
Click to expand...
I never asserted either of those. I certainly don't feel that way.

Mongillo19 said:
And also this weird mindset that adding a NAM block would in turn get rid of fractal modeling. Which is also untrue. I've yet to read an actual reason why it shouldn't be included that makes sense.
Click to expand...
I don't owe you one, either. I simply said I don't want it. I didn't say it would get rid of modeling. I simply said it would involve dedication of finite resources that I'd like put to any of a range of other uses. It's not personal in any way. I keep noting in threads here that good friends who play guitar are all in on Tonex or the QC captures. BTW, I don't expect that any "winner" will emerge here, and that if one did, that would decide Fractal's product roadmap. We're just exchanging opinions and preferences, and nothing more.

Mongillo19 said:
It's one thing to be like "I don't like NAM but I get why it's included" but another to be like "I don't like NAM therefore it shouldn't be included because I don't like it". Whether you like it or not doesn't change the fact it is immensely popular and a part of next gen devices
Click to expand...
It's not even that I don't like it. I just have no use for it. So naturally, I'd prefer they add things for which I have a use. It is indeed true that there are already things in every modeler for which I have no use. If those things were all described as things that had to be in every modeler no matter what, I'd likewise say that I don't really want those, either. Fender has polyphonic synth through a standard guitar signal. Lots of synth players love it. If there was a discussion about whether finite resources should be used to put that synth capability on literally every other modeler (or just my favorite), I'd say no.
 
Boudoir Guitar said:
What is that other level?!? Dynacabs are just static IRs…but done in a different way that makes them feel not like a snapshot.
Click to expand...
That's it, yes.

Boudoir Guitar said:
Is it possible the next level could be dynaNAM?
Click to expand...
Could be. It wouldn't interest me, but it absolutely could be.

Is it really that painful for the capture lovers to accept that some people just aren't into it? Is it really that weird for people who aren't into something to say "I'd rather my favorite manufacturer not do that, and do other things instead?"

You're acting as though matters of feature set preference, which is all we're talking about, are matters of absolute truth. They're not. I'm even asserting that I know I am very unlikely to get what I want. And yet it bothers you that I want it. I mean, you do you, but it sure seems like a weird way to live.
 
ChordInversion said:
That's it, yes.


Could be. It wouldn't interest me, but it absolutely could be.

Is it really that painful for the capture lovers to accept that some people just aren't into it? Is it really that weird for people who aren't into something to say "I'd rather my favorite manufacturer not do that, and do other things instead?"

You're acting as though matters of feature set preference, which is all we're talking about, are matters of absolute truth. They're not. I'm even asserting that I know I am very unlikely to get what I want. And yet it bothers you that I want it. I mean, you do you, but it sure seems like a weird way to live.
Click to expand...
To the extent that we are talking feature set preference, all I’m hearing is “actually, I don’t want an Axe Fx IV; I just want my Axe Fx III/AM4 to continue to progress.”

I don’t give a shit about captures currently - also don’t like that approach. But I’m not going to assume Fractal isn’t going to crack the nut differently enough to change my mind, or fault them for adding it. There’s loads of content in the Fractal devices I don’t give a shit about.
 
Mongillo19 said:
Right, but as correct as you are that you don't owe any explanation, why even post on a forum.
Click to expand...
Because that's what forums are for - exchanging opinions. Or is there some sor tof peer-reviewed paper that you've been linking to that I missed?

Mongillo19 said:
And if you want to be taken seriously (and maybe you don't, that's totally fine too) you ideally explain your opinions.
Click to expand...
I did. It's pretty simple. All features involve the use of finite resources. If I have no use for a feature and the decision to include it is being discussed, then I'll say "no, I'll pass," as I'd prefer those resources go someplace else. I did that, and now people are asserting that I have to have a rigorously researched list of specific alternate features that they personally agree with, or...well, or nothing. Because there's nothing wrong with what I wrote, and if they're gonna be like that, them taking me serious is not a great worry of mine. I'm pretty sure such individuals will only take seriously people who agree with them on this.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top