X1 vs XL: AMS vs Toolchanger - What's better?

X1 vs XL: AMS vs Toolchanger - What's better?

Show Video

One of the most common questions I get when  discussing multi-color or multi-material   printing is how the Bambu Lab X1—and Bambu  Lab’s other AMS-equipped printers—compare to   the Prusa XL toolchanger. In this video, I want  to give you all the details on how multiplexing   and toolchanging stack up, and help you decide  which machine and process might be right for   you. We’ll talk about waste, print times, print  quality and a few things you definitely shouldn’t   do if you don’t have a toolchanger! Guten Tag  everybody, I’m Stefan, and welcome to CNC Kitchen. This video is sponsored by STLFlix. Check   out their huge library of beautiful 3D  printable models using the link below! Before we dive in, let’s briefly address the  elephant in the room: Bambu Lab’s recent security   and authentication update has really shaken up  the 3D printing community. I’m not thrilled about  

these upcoming changes, especially their impact  on existing hardware. I completely understand   concerns about lost features, interrupted  workflows, and the potential for an even   more closed ecosystem. We all wonder—some of us  fear—that Bambu Lab could become the “HP of 3D   printers.” I think they really dropped the ball on  communicating these updates, but since things are  

evolving daily, I don’t believe this video is the  best place to dissect it all in detail. I’ve been   in contact with them, and I hope they will make  this right! For anyone unhappy with the situation,   I encourage you to stay informed: check the  resources I’ve linked below because there has   been a ton of rage-baiting going on as well. Share  your concerns here or directly with Bambu Lab,   and remember—the most powerful way to make  your voice heard is with your wallet. I do   hope Bambu Lab makes this right, but they’re  no longer the only company offering a fast   CoreXY platform with a reliable multi-material  system. Creality, Anycubic, and even open-source   solutions like the 3DChameleon or the BoxTurtle  for Klipper have really caught up, and could be   solid alternatives for your multi-color needs. If  you’ve decided to delay a new printer purchase,  

consider stopping by our online shop at  CNCKitchen.store, where you’ll find high-quality   lead-free heat-set inserts and fasteners of all  sizes—and don’t forget our sponsor, STLFlix! Many of the awesome models you’ll see  in this video are courtesy of STLFlix,   and I’ll tag them down in the corner during this  video so you can check them out. STLFlix is the   largest STL subscription service, boasting more  than 30,000 active subscribers and a library of   over 2,500 models, all designed with 3D printing  in mind. They offer a wide range of models to   satisfy your love for articulated prints, gaming,  cosplay, toys, education, and more. Every week,   they drop three new themed collections, each  featuring 6–10 models designed by their over 50   designers! STLFlix makes it easy to get started:  every model download includes not only the STL   files but also pre-arranged, colored projects  for your slicer of choice. If you discover a   design that you think others would love, STLFlix  even offers a commercial subscription so you can   sell prints of their designs and launch your own  3D-printing business. STLFlix also just introduced  

their own line of filaments at very competitive  prices and if you are an STLFlix subscriber,   you can get a 1 kg spool of PLA for as little  as $10! Use the link below to explore their   library and discover yourself what amazing  models they offer. An STLFlix subscription   costs less than $90 a year, which is only $7.49  a month, and if you only want to test them out,   you can also go month-to-month. Check out the  link in the description or visit stlflix.com!

For today’s tests, I chose my Bambu Lab X1 with  the AMS and my 5-toolhead Prusa XL—two printers   I used the most over the past year, giving  me plenty of hands-on experience with both.   While some of the numbers and conclusions may be  specific to these models, the general takeaways   also apply to other machines using similar  approaches. Bambu Lab’s setup uses multiplexing,   the same method also used by Creality, Anycubic,  Prusa’s MMU, and even the 3DChameleon. When it   comes to toolchangers, there are barely any other  ready-built solutions on the market besides the   Prusa XL. The original E3D Toolchanger led the  way but has unfortunately been discontinued,   and there are a few Voron projects that  retrofit toolchanging onto Voron hardware.  

If you know of or use other toolchangers,  please let me know in the comments! Let’s start by breaking down the key technical  differences between a multi-color system like   Bambu Lab’s AMS and the toolchanging approach  of the Prusa XL. Most current multi-material   or multi-color setups use a process called  multiplexing, which means multiple filament   inputs feed into a single nozzle. With the Bambu  Lab X1, for example, you have multiple filaments   in the AMS that can each be fed into one hotend in  the print chamber. This is a relatively simple and  

inexpensive system since you only need a single  extruder/hotend assembly. However, when switching   filaments, many machines cut the loaded material  at the hotend to avoid drawing a soft piece of   plastic back through the feeder—something that  could easily cause clogs or jams. The downside is   that the leftover filament in the hotend must be  purged out before the new color can print cleanly.   This can require a ton of purging, especially  if you switch to a much lighter color. Bambu Lab   became known for its “purging poops,” which nicely  show the color transition, but even that often   isn’t enough. So, these machines typically also  print a purge tower alongside your actual part. A toolchanger, on the other hand, uses  separate hotends for each filament. When  

a tool isn’t in use, it’s parked in a  dock, and the printer’s motion system   picks up whichever tool it needs at the time.  The big advantage is that you eliminate the   need to purge between color changes—no materials  change and therefore also don’t mix within one   hotend —drastically reducing filament waste.  However, this comes with added complexity:   not only do you need multiple complete extruders  and hotends and the toolchaning system itself,   but all of that requires more space, which makes  the machine bigger. Each nozzle must also be  

accurately aligned in X and Y and also in length  so that the parts they print align perfectly with   each other. Even though a toolchanger’s picking  mechanism is incredibly precise and repeatable,   tolerances in every component mean you still  have to measure offsets for every nozzle. There   are different ways to do this: for my first E3D  Toolchanger, I printed test patterns to manually   work out offsets; there are also camera-based  solutions; and Prusa uses its load cell to   probe a pin mounted on the bed, measuring  each tool’s position and height directly. With multiplexing, you avoid those extra  alignment steps because all filaments come   out of the same nozzle, guaranteeing that a  multi part print naturally lines up perfectly. Although I didn’t put them  into this comparison here,   it’s worth mentioning IDEX printers too. An IDEX  printer has two tool heads on the same X-axis,   and each can be loaded with its own filament.  You can switch between them for multi-material  

or multi-color prints. The pros and cons  are broadly similar to toolchangers,   but you’re limited to just two tools. But  the bonus is that you can run both extruders   simultaneously to do mirror or duplicate printing.  Some recent IDEX 3D printers include the Snapmaker  

J1 series, various FlashForge models, and  higher-end options from Raise3D and BCN3D,   who have been in that market for years. Now that we’ve covered the basic differences   between multiplexing and toolchanging for  multi-color or multi-material 3D printing,   let’s dive into how that actually impacts print  times, material waste, print quality, and material   compatibility. My goal is to give you a sense  of which approach might fit your needs the best. Let’s start with material waste, since that’s one  of the biggest talking points. Bambu Lab printers   are known for producing so-called “purging  poops” each time you switch filaments.  

Every color swap creates a small blob of plastic,  and the total number of color changes in a print   largely depends on how you design and  orient your model. To illustrate this,   I printed two different examples, both using four  colors. The first is a cylinder with vertical   stripes that run top to bottom. The second is a  cylinder divided horizontally into four colored   segments. In the striped version, each layer needs  three color swaps, and with 40 layers in total,   that’s around 120 changes. Each change creates  one “poop” plus a bit of extra purge material   on a tower. The final part itself only weighs  8.3 grams, but it produced 29.6 grams of “poop”  

and another 7.7 grams on the purge tower—so that’s  37 grams of waste for an 8-gram print. That might   sound extreme, but that’s just how this process  works when you have constant color changes. Some   people suggest “flushing” filament into the  infill to reduce that purge. In this case,  

it only saved me about 1.5 grams or 5%. On bigger  prints, flushing can help more, but it also risks   having unwanted color show through the walls,  which can ruin the look of the final part. Besides the number of changes, there are two  additional factors that impact how much material   you end up purging. When early multiplexing  printers first arrived, they purged the same   amount of filament for every color swap. But  going from black to white requires a lot more   filament than going from white to black. Modern  slicers typically have a “smart purge volume”  

setting that automatically adjusts how much is  flushed out based on the color change. If you   open that setting in the slicer, you’ll see that  dark-to-light transitions get more purge volume,   while light-to-dark transitions use less. Then  there is the purge multiplier. This is a simple   scale factor applied to the calculated purge  volume. Lowering it means you’ll waste less  

material, but you also raise the chance of color  contamination. I tend to set mine around 0.5,   which generally keeps colors clean. If you  always print the same handful of colors,   you can run calibration tests to dial it in  precisely and save even more. Most people,  

though, prefer to play it safe and purge  a bit extra rather than risk messing up   a long print. Finally, there are some advanced  techniques involving how and when you retract   the filament to minimize purging even further,  but that can impact reliability. Because of that,   the default profiles on Bambu Lab printers  typically are on the side of slightly higher   waste, but they’re also more reliable for  a wide range of filaments. Depending on  

the machine you use the amount of purging will  be different but you will always have to purge   to remove the old filament from the single  nozzle you push all the materials through. Let’s move on and talk about toolchangers, where  each color has its own hotend, so there is not   color contamination and therefore no purging  necessary, or is it? By default, the Prusa XL’s   slicing profiles include a wipe tower. When you  switch to a new toolhead, the XL purges a small   amount of material on it before it starts printing  the actual part. This purge is far smaller than  

the “purge poops” or towers that typical Bambu Lab  prints generates. For example, with our worst-case   test—a cylinder that needs three tool changes  every layer—the finished print weighs only 9.1   grams, while the wipe tower adds about 4.6 grams.  That’s just 12% of the waste we saw on the Bambu  

machine. But there’s still some waste. Why? Well,  even when a tool is parked, it stays heated. The   temperature is lowered to reduce oozing, and  the nozzle hole is covered, but plastic in   the melt zone slowly degrades from sitting in  a hot chamber. If you’ve ever preheated your   hotend for a filament change, forgot about it for  a few minutes, and then loaded new material, you   probably know what I’m talking about. The leftover  filament becomes runny and simply degrades from   heat exposure. If you pick up that tool and start  printing right away—without any purge—you’ll get   lots of stringing and inconsistent extrusions.  I ran this exact test and with warthog model,   and the difference was dramatic. The version  printed with a wipe tower came out super clean,  

whereas the one printed without purging was  covered in stringing and had holes where the   degraded filament hadn’t printed properly. So,  the wipe tower’s main purpose is to remove that   “bad” plastic so you can start printing again with  reliable material. In a way, Prusa’s wipe tower is   a conservative approach—meant to work with a broad  range of filaments. But it is possible to skip the   wipe tower and still get great results, if you  take the right precautions. In my experience,   you just need dry filament. Less moisture will  cause less oozing and hydrolysis when warm and  

therefore preserves the properties of the  plastic in that hot environment for longer.   I threw the spools of PLA into my filament dryer  overnight, and the next day, I printed the exact   same g-code on the XL—only this time with dry  filament. The result was fantastic. The warthog   model looked just as clean as the tower-assisted  version, plus I saved 26.5 grams of filament and  

shaved 50 minutes off a 9-hour print. That leads  us nicely into our next big topic: print times. Yes, every toolchange takes time, and prints can  involve hundreds or even thousands of them. On the   Prusa XL, depending on how far the tools are apart  a single tool change takes about 7-9 seconds,   plus another 5 seconds to purge on the wipe tower.  That’s a total of around 12-14 seconds per color   swap. Meanwhile, on the Bambu Lab X1, a color  change can take anywhere from 1 to 3 minutes,  

depending on how much it needs to purge. Here’s  why: first the nozzle is cleaned, then the   filament is cut and retracted all the way back to  the AMS, and finally, the new filament feeds in.   Once it’s at the nozzle, the printer extrudes  a purge “poop,” wipes it off, and and purges   even more on the purge tower. That last step alone  takes another 20 seconds before printing resumes.   To put that into perspective: if you have 500  color changes, each taking 100 seconds on average,   that’s almost 14 hours spent just switching  colors and producing waste. It’s pretty wild,   and it explains why colorful prints on  multiplexing systems can take so long. On the XL,   with about 12 seconds per change, you’d only  spend 1.5 hours swapping tools for the same job.

Now, one interesting fact is that the time for  each filament change remains constant regardless   of how big your prints are or how many parts  you’re printing. If we look at our test part on   the Bambu X1, printing just one takes 213 minutes.  Printing five at once jumps to 266 minutes   total—only 53 minutes per part, which is a 75%  reduction in print time for each piece. And if you   fill the entire plate, you can get that down to 27  minutes per part, almost a 90% reduction overall.  

That’s because while the color changes remain the  same, you’re spreading them out across more parts. On a toolchanger like the Prusa XL, the benefit of  printing multiple parts isn’t quite as dramatic.   It takes 40 minutes to print one, 23 minutes each  when printing five—and then there’s not much time   saved beyond that. Because the XL changes tools  so much faster, it doesn’t waste as much time   on unproductive color swaps. That means even  single-part jobs can be done pretty quickly,  

and the difference between a single-color print  and a multi-color print is relatively small. Speaking of waste: just like  with the toolchanging time,   if you’re printing multiple parts at once,  the ratio of waste to printed material goes   down. You still have to purge the same  amount of filament with each color swap,   whether there’s one part or ten on the build  plate—so that’s something to keep in mind! Design also plays a huge role in how much time and  material you end up wasting. If you’re printing  

someone else’s model, you’re usually stuck  with their orientation and design choices.   But if you’re creating your own part, you can  plan ahead to minimize color changes. Remember   those two coins I mentioned earlier? Both use  four colors around similarly distributed. One   coin has stripes that run vertically, meaning  each layer involves all four colors. That   translates to three material changes per layer,  which really adds up in both time and waste. The other coin stacks the colors  horizontally, needing only three color   swaps in total. That’s a huge difference  in both print time and purge material.  

This might look stupid and obvious but if  you for example consider marking a part and   printing that in multiple colors it makes a huge  difference if you add the marking on the top,   where you might only need one color change  compared to the side where you need to change   colors over dozens of layers. Same idea with  logos: if you extrude your logo all the way   through a design, you get color changes  on every layer. But if you only add it to   a few layers at the bottom and top, you still  get the same final look with far fewer swaps. One thing I have unfortunately already observed  is that people who have gotten their first AMS   printer believe it is a great option to print  several parts in different colors in the same   print job, since they can switch materials. Not  only does this take significantly longer and   waste a lot of material compared to printing them  one after the other due to all the color changes,   but there is also a rarely used feature in most  slicers that could make these prints way more   efficient. If your parts are relatively small  and there is enough clearance between them,  

you can activate sequential printing,  where one part is printed after the other,   each in a separate color, with only  one material change between each part! Before we move on to multi-material printing  (and why I believe you should never use PETG   as support for PLA), let’s quickly look at print  quality on these machines. Early Prusa XL reviews   often mentioned layer shifts, stringing, and  a lot of folks were unhappy with the initial   performance. Fortunately, that’s changed a lot  over the past year. When the XL first shipped,   Prusa included 0.6-mm nozzles, assuming a  bigger machine should have a bigger nozzle.  

The downside was extra stringing and less detail  on small prints. Eventually, they switched back   to a 0.4-mm nozzle by default, which is basically  the industry standard. My XL arrived about a year   ago with the 0.4-mm nozzle already installed,  but I still ran into some issues. Some of that   was likely due to quality control: I had a tool  head that malfunctioned and belts that were super   loose right out of the box. Still after fixing  that I tried printing an entire multi-color Catan  

set for my brother’s birthday on the XL, but the  small “sheep” models weren’t turning out great,   even with a wipe tower. So I switched  back to my Bambu X1 for that job. However,   over the last year, Prusa has updated firmware  and improved slicer profiles quite a bit. So,   I decided to reprint my favorite Catan tiles  to see if things had really changed—and the   difference was impressive. The new prints had  tons of detail and very few defects. I even   ran two of the tiles without a wipe tower,  relying on fresh, dried filament instead.  

They still looked great! Larger models also  looked impressive—hundreds of tool changes,   and perfectly aligned layers. The only hiccup I  had was some misaligned nozzles when I forgot to   clean them. Once I cleared away the gunk and reran  calibration, everything was spot-on again. So,   it looks like they’ve ironed out most of the  early-adopter issues. In my opinion, the XL   now delivers some of the best multi-material print  quality on the market, right on par and sometimes   even better than what I get from my Bambu Lab  machines, if you want to have a comparison. So far, we’ve talked mostly about multi-color  printing—using different colors of the same   material. But a big selling point of  a toolchanger like the Prusa XL is not  

just faster color changes, but also multi-material  printing capability. Where is the difference here? Well, when you’re printing in multiple colors  of the same filament—say PLA—it’s easy,   because everything runs at the same temperature  and you have similar material properties.   That’s great for decorative or aesthetic  projects. But in multi-material printing,   you might combine something like a PLA  body with a flexible TPU hinge or a gasket,   or use a different support material that peels off  more cleanly. Suddenly, AMS-based or multiplexing  

printers—like the ones from Bambu Lab—can  struggle, especially with flexibles. Feeding   a soft, floppy filament through long Bowden  tubes can cause jams, and while Bambu Lab   recently released their own AMS-compatible TPU,  it’s quite stiff compared to typical flexibles. There’s an even bigger issue, though. Some  material combinations just don’t play well   together. For instance, PLA and PETG. If you’ve  ever switched from PETG to PLA and wondered why  

your first layers peeled off, you’ve seen  the problem firsthand. They don’t bond,   and they don’t blend. So, on a multiplexing  printer, if you haven’t purged every trace   of PETG out of the nozzle, your PLA layers will  suffer drastically in adhesion and strength—right   where the leftover PETG contaminated the print.  “Lost in Tech” recently made a video where they   shared impressive macro shots of the filament  change where you can see how during a color or   material change the two components don’t mix,  but due to the laminar flow profile form a dual   layer material where the core is the new material  and a slowly shrinking outer shell. If these two   materials are not compatible, you’ll, of course,  have weak points at the layers that they print. I’ve seen people recommending using PETG as a  peel-away support for PLA, and while it sounds   great on paper—because they barely stick to each  other—there’s a huge catch. Switching back and  

forth between two incompatible materials on one  nozzle means you have to purge a ton of filament.   If you don’t purge enough, your support might  peel off nicely, but your actual part may also   de-laminate at the boundary where even only traces  of PETG was still in the nozzle. So, I really   discourage mixing PLA and PETG in a print if you  use a multiplexing printer. The same also goes  

for other materials combinations as well, so watch  out. In fact, if you’re using any common breakaway   support material, there’s a chance you’ll see  some impact on part strength for the same reason. This is where toolchangers really shine. You’re  never swapping materials through the same hotend,   so there’s no leftover contamination  and no big purge required. That means   you can use pure PETG supports for a PLA  print, which peel off easily and produce   super-clean undersides. The challenge  here is more about bed temperatures,  

because each material might prefer a different  build-surface type and temperature. Getting both   materials to adhere properly can be tricky  and your biggest challenge to be honest. Still, multi-material printing is  where toolchangers excel. In the past,   I’ve printed rollers with integrated IGUS DryLin  bearings, hooks with foamed TPU cushioning,   and an articulated PLA hand that used  TPU for joints—things that simply aren’t   practical with an AMS setup. That’s not to say  toolchangers are problem-free. For instance,  

I tried only using PETG support interfaces  on a PLA part and had issues with the PETG   not sticking to PLA. Plus, if you  print at PLA’s temperature settings,   the PETG on the bed can lift off. So, you still  have to dial in your process for each combination   of materials. But if you can get it right, you  can pull off some seriously impressive prints However, let’s talk about material  compatibility. Keep in mind that the Prusa XL,  

in its standard form, is an unenclosed  3D printer. It’s perfect for PLA, PETG,   TPU, and other materials that don’t need—or  might even suffer from—elevated print chamber   temperatures. Prusa also offers their PCBlend,  which I really like for technical parts and is   designed to print without an enclosure, but  even that would benefit from higher chamber   temps. They do sell an enclosure for the  XL, but if you’re strictly printing ABS,   ASA, Nylon, or Polycarbonate, a smaller enclosed  printer like the Bambu Lab X1 or P1S will likely   give you stronger parts right out of the  box—though only in single-material mode. Here’s where cost becomes a major factor.  The XL’s enclosure alone costs $649,   which is nearly as much as a Bambu Lab P1S  with AMS. So deciding which printer to get  

isn’t just about features or how much purge  waste each one generates—it might come down to   your budget. From my personal experience, if you  compare a fully specked-out Prusa XL side-by-side   with a Bambu Lab X1 Carbon, there’s very little  the Bambu can do that the XL can’t. Honestly,   the only advantage that comes to mind  for Bambu are slightly higher speeds,   and that you can daisy-chain up to four AMS  units, giving you 16 colors. And the X1 is  

enclosed by default, which makes printing with  high-temp materials simpler. Aside from that,   the print quality is fantastic, and the  large build plate can be super convenient.   Its tiled heating system, although complex,  keeps it efficient even for smaller prints. That said, the Prusa XL is, in my opinion,  a business-class printer. The semi-assembled   single head version starts at $2,000 and can  later be upgraded with more tools. The assembled  

five-toolhead version costs around $4,000, and  if you add the enclosure and some dry boxes,   you’re pushing $5,000. So you either need deep  pockets or a very specific reason to own one.   Maybe you’re doing serious multi-material work  with PLA, PETG, or TPU in a single part. Or   you’re a professional where time is money, and the  XL’s rapid toolchanging saves you countless hours   when printing multi-tool parts. Print volume  used to be a big argument in favor of the XL,   but with Creality’s K2 Plus (and from what I  have heard a decent multi-material system),   we now have that “big Bambu machine” many folks  have wanted since the X1 launched. Finally, Prusas   machines are manufactured within the European  Union; they have decent customer support and   put a clear emphasis with their machines on you’re  data security, which might be worth a lot to you.  

They don’t force you into the cloud, which can be  a big deal if you value privacy or run a business. Personally, I love using the XL. It’s a machine  that’s supposed to work right out of the box   with minimal tinkering, has a great ecosystem  thanks to PrusaSlicer, and—after significant   firmware and profile updates—delivers really  impressive results. But if Prusa hadn’t sent  

it to me and I were just a hobbyist, I doubt I  would drop that kind of cash, especially if I only   wanted occasional multi-color prints and didn’t  need multi-material features. And if I had had   the need, I might have built a Voron Stealth  Changer or something similar, mostly for the   fun of it. But that’s also the point, the XL is  supposed to be a tool and not the project itself. Would I recommend the XL to a  business or anyone making money   off of 3D printing? Yes—completely. After  all the firmware and slicer improvements,   it works beautifully. Would I recommend it to a  hobbyist? Probably only if money is no object.   If you only want to print multi-color models  occasionally, there are plenty of more affordable   solutions. And Bambu Lab isn’t the only one with  a working multiplexing system anymore; Creality,   Anycubic, and even open-source options like  3DChameleon or BoxTurtle are out there. Plus,  

if you already own a Prusa printer,  I’ve heard the MMU3 is finally good   and can print with even 5-colors at once  (although I haven’t tried it myself yet). Ultimately, it’s fantastic that we have a real  range of choices now. I hope this gave you a   clearer idea of how different systems compare  and which might fit your projects. Toolchanging  

is definitely the most capable approach, but  it comes with added complexity and cost—hence   the high price and few competitors for the XL. If  you can take advantage of its real multi-material   capabilities or time savings, it’s an excellent  option. But if not, a multiplexing-based   solution might be all you need. Sure, AMS  printers are slower and waste more filament,  

but how many people actually print enough to  justify the XL’s extra cost? And if you’re truly   concerned about waste, maybe multi-color  3D printing isn’t the best path anyway. Thanks for watching, everyone! I hope you  found this video interesting! If you want to   support my work, consider becoming a Patron  or YouTube member. Also check out the other   videos in my library! I hope to see you in  the next one! Auf wiedersehen and goodbye!

2025-02-11 16:00

Show Video

Other news

Unboxing Every Mid iPhone Ever 2025-03-15 22:39
The 20 Greatest Technologies of All Time 2025-03-09 16:57
Google Gemini 2.0 Just Shattered Industry Expectations! (OpenAI Defeated) - An In-Depth Exploration! 2025-03-08 06:01