Another Gapless Switching Thread... Solved! (Post #136)

[accuser]

That's right. You use the scenes in sequence and there are no gaps when switching scenes/channels. For people for whom the channel switching gap issue is a problem, it seems like that's the way they want to use it anyway.

hey Glenn, Sorry but I was looking at the preset and I can't figure out how this works. Can you give a brief explanation? I didn't quite get it in thread (or may have missed it)

thanks!

 

[GlennO]

hey Glenn, Sorry but I was looking at the preset and I can't figure out how this works. Can you give a brief explanation? I didn't quite get it in thread (or may have missed it)

thanks!

The idea is to smoothly transition to a new amp channel when changing scenes. At the same time, the amp block that is not in use switches to the next amp type you'll need, setting you up for a smooth transition to that new amp channel when you make your next scene change.

To put it another way, with two amp blocks it's trivial to smoothly switch back and forth between two channels. However, there are use cases where people need to smoothly transition between more than two channels. Typically that's for a complex song where you have a sequence of sections that call for different tones. As you can hear from the audio example in this post, using this technique you can get smooth amp channel transitions through a sequence of up to eight amp tones.

https://forum.fractalaudio.com/thre...ad-solved-post-136.190109/page-7#post-2360961

 

[accuser]

The idea is to smoothly transition to a new amp channel when changing scenes. At the same time, the amp block that is not in use switches to the next amp type you'll need, setting you up for a smooth transition to that new amp channel when you make your next scene change.

To put it another way, with two amp blocks it's trivial to smoothly switch back and forth between two channels. However, there are use cases where people need to smoothly transition between more than two channels. Typically that's for a complex song where you have a sequence of sections that call for different tones. As you can hear from the audio example in this post, using this technique you can get smooth amp channel transitions through a sequence of up to eight amp tones.

https://forum.fractalaudio.com/thre...ad-solved-post-136.190109/page-7#post-2360961

Ahhh that’s what’s I thought. This doesn’t apply to the fm3 then. I loaded the preset on my fm3 and only saw one amp block. Was wondering how it would work. It was switching, but switching to a row without an amp block.

Thank you!

 

[State of Epicicity]

Ahhh that’s what’s I thought. This doesn’t apply to the fm3 then. I loaded the preset on my fm3 and only saw one amp block. Was wondering how it would work. It was switching, but switching to a row without an amp block.

Thank you!

For what it's worth, you can still use Scene Controllers for gapless amp tone changes with one amp block channel alone. Just make sure each modifier is set to Attack 0, Release 0, and Update Rate Fast, set all Scenes to the same amp channel, and the scene switching will be gapless. If you take one of the USA Lead (Mark IV) models, e.g., you can get a hell of a lot of mileage out of just one amp block channel.

 

[fractalz]

Thanks everyone, I appreciate the replies. Gapless switching is really important to me. It drives me crazy. It looks like the answer to my question is, "no, that's not possible." I am surprised with all of the technology, all the horsepower, all of the engineering and programming mastery of the fractal product(s) and that very important issue (at least to me and I can't believe it's not important to many others also) has not been solved. It sounds like people have accepted it, which is unfortunate. The Axe-FX III delivers God-tone, but without simple/easy gapless switching, that relegates it to a recording device for me (and a damn good one) but I can't use it live to my satisfaction, which is definitely a bummer.

Thanks again to all. Much appreciated.

All the gapless switching angst!!!

I bought a Fractal because my Mesa Mk V combo made such a terrible popping sound when I switched channels that FOH refused to mic it.

 

[Hugomack]

If a Helix or whatever does what you need use it! Personally, I don't use the FM9 as an effects unit, but two separate things: amps and speakers, and effects.
This probably because I'm a long-time Fractal user: FX2 onwards, but previously used to humping 4x12's, valve heads and AC30s.
I bought FM9 as my amp-less option as I like walking to play gigs in my home city. IMO, other dsp processors imitate real guitar amps. Whereas Fractal gear is so accurate that's it's pretty much the same as my former van-load of gear.
So; my approach is to use the FM9 like a real amp setup - as if I'd loaded it all onto the stage. When I ran two real amps, I'd mostly kick in the second amp to boost for a solo, or for clean/dirty. Switching from one real amp to another during sostenutos - ie turning one amp off and another amp on, there's a gap. The Mesa Boogie Mark 5 has wonderful cleans and every other sound you'd need; but you still have to switch from one to the other. (Using two would work!!)
I guess another point is that I don't regard Fractal amps blocks as "effects" in themselves - which seems to be how a lot of people are now using them (because you can).
There's all sorts of changes to tone, volume etc that can be as abrupt (and as noticeable) as an actual gap between amp selection. I try to get round the gap problem by running my patches as two parallel lines and adding one to the other so there's always sound running down the line.
But tap dancing back in the day always ran the risk of embarrassing gaps - and the converse: for example heavy delays continuing to pulsate forth after the end of a song...

 

[accuser]

That’s exactly what I’ll be doing. Although I wanted to go from clean to mean so let’s see how that goes.

My perfect setup would be going from the soldano clean to the soldano lead.

 

[yek]

In reality, with a real amp and pedal setup, who does this? I think you’d drive your FOH guy batty.

Absolutely.

 

[Greg Ferguson]

In reality, with a real amp and pedal setup, who does this? I think you’d drive your FOH guy batty.

As was mentioned earlier, doing this is a sure-fire way to get turned down in the mix.

It also affects the band’s sound identity and cohesion; Just because we can change the sound radically by stepping on a button doesn’t necessarily mean we should do it.

 

[State of Epicicity]

Rather than having drastic tone changes, I like to have many subtle but effective changes that help with dynamics. I think of a gapless switching ideal as a great way to replace what you might done with your volume and tone knobs on your guitar, but in a perfectly replicable way.

Another thing is, you could have, e.g. four different amps going through the same cab, where the BMT, presense, and resonance are set specifically to work together well, so they don't sound so different from each other as far as their frequency response, but maybe you use amps that have massively different response under your fingers, from loosely goosey to tight, maybe really different sag feels, or whatever kind of range you need that a single amp would never give you in the real world. I think it opens up different worlds of dyanmics, in the coolest ways. My two cents.

 

[rcm78]

All the gapless switching angst!!!

I bought a Fractal because my Mesa Mk V combo made such a terrible popping sound when I switched channels that FOH refused to mic it.

Sucks that an amp at that price point has such a flaw. Or, yours was broken. None of my multi channel amps ever made noise or produced gaps when switching channels.

 

[Hugomack]

All the gapless switching angst!!!

I bought a Fractal because my Mesa Mk V combo made such a terrible popping sound when I switched channels that FOH refused to mic it.

Hey fractalz, did you find Fractal presets to match the Mk V? I especially like Mk V clean sounds - distinctively Mesa Boogie. But sorry to hear you had channel switching problems. For me it was a straight-forward question of weight!

 

[playmusic]

Every one of the top-of-the-line devices made by Line 6, Fractal, Boss, and Neural (arguably the big four right now) have unique virtues, and drawbacks. I would love to be a fly on the wall during design meetings to hear why different companies decided to prioritize one feature over another. Particularly when that feature involves a cost to functionality or sacrificing another feature that may be considered significant by a "meaningful" number of users.

I believe gapless switching is worthwhile. Other modelers have it, but perhaps it comes at a cost that would compromise core attributes of Fractal devices. Would anyone sitting down to architect a modeler from the ground up state that they think building in a gap between scenes or presets, would be a good idea? The longer the better. No. But they might determine that in order to get the level of authenticity and detail they want in their models, gapless switching might have to either take a back seat to be delivered at a later date, or maybe never. Those are the kinds of conversations I would love to be privy to. At the very least I hope/think they occurred.

Then there is the inevitability that not every constraint imposed by a given architecture or design or hardware can be anticipated. Not saying gapless switching falls into this category. This appears to be a decision dictated by priorities. But only Fractal knows for sure? Has Cliff or anyone else discussed this somewhere? I have definitely seen my share of applications where the developers eventually painted themselves into a corner and had to completely rearchitect/redesign at a later date to deliver features that have become popular, in demand, take advantage of the latest hardware, or just advance the state of the art. Not necessarily a bad thing, this often seems to be necessary for an evolutionary product.

When forum members start debating whether or not gapless switching, at least between scenes, would be good to have, that strikes me as just as absurd as debating whether or not top-notch amp models would be good to have. The answer to both is an emphatic and aspirational yes. The more legitimate discussion if they involve a trade-off, is how to prioritize one feature over the other, or maybe find a compromise if you believe the trade-off warrants one.

If there is a trade-off that requires sacrificing gapless scene switching when amp channel switches are involved, for what appears to be an unequaled level of detail and flexibility in their amps and effects, I am glad there is a company (Fractal) out there that provides it. The last thing we need is an industry that just provides carbon copies of devices that are all fundamentally the same. If the tradeoff is not baked-in, I hope they give us a simpler option for gapless switching between scenes/channels at some point.

Love when Fractal users find and share methods to mitigate the impact of one design priority/decision over another, or just leverage the less obvious capabilities of the device you are working with, such as the gapless presets that @GlennO posted. Thank you! That is some next-level preset design.

 

[humpfrey]

2 amps with a volume pedal in front per scene . then you change from one to the other 1 vol 100% 2- 0% , then push pedal down 2 amp 100% 1-0% , voila your problem is solved there are a couple of 2 amp presets available in stock. or you use 2 pedals then it's 4 possibilities .use different channels .

 

[Bruce Sokolovic]

The right way to do this is to play to a click and have your amp blocks (and all others) switched by midi cc. This can also be done wirelessly. You’d set the bypassed amp block to switch channels a few seconds before activating it, thus defeating the gap.
This would take some programming work, but at the end of it you’d have your entire show programmed and the only button you’d have to hit the entire night would be the one to start the click track.
Downsides? Extensive programming and you’d have to be on in ears, or at least your drummer would have to be.
Upsides? Super slick control of your show and your band will be better for it. Also the hot button issue of the upside of using tracks. You can include sound effects, missing elements impossible for most bands to recreate live (strings, horns, a herd of horny goats), thicken the show with additional backing vox, endless possibilities. Or you can simply just have the click if that’s all you want. You could even control lights and video this way, too.

 

[State of Epicicity]

The right way to do this is to play to a click and have your amp blocks (and all others) switched by midi cc. This can also be done wirelessly. You’d set the bypassed amp block to switch channels a few seconds before activating it, thus defeating the gap.
This would take some programming work, but at the end of it you’d have your entire show programmed and the only button you’d have to hit the entire night would be the one to start the click track.
Downsides? Extensive programming and you’d have to be on in ears, or at least your drummer would have to be.
Upsides? Super slick control of your show and your band will be better for it. Also the hot button issue of the upside of using tracks. You can include sound effects, missing elements impossible for most bands to recreate live (strings, horns, a herd of horny goats), thicken the show with additional backing vox, endless possibilities. Or you can simply just have the click if that’s all you want. You could even control lights and video this way, too.

You’re totally right on this, although I’m on the fence, because the natural variance in tempo can make for something so cool and more inspiring live (although it can of course make it lame!).

If you have all the tones you need mapped out in order and do not want a click , you can just use GlennO’s method to have 8 different gapless amp models, which is probably overkill for most people anyway, and you can throw in Layout Links to activate other effects in order, likely keeping the ability to stay gapless that way too without MIDI. No matter what, MIDI or FC, it’s going to take careful programming.

In fact, I realize as I write this that I kind of did both when I first got the Axe and just stepped on a single CC on the FC, which, through Bome MIDI Translator, just changed function each time I pressed it. It was a chronological list of actions for the song. That works incredibly well for real world harmonies that change intervals and rules quickly. I’d also have a step backward CC available in case I accidentally double tapped the button. With that, I was, for all intents and purposes, for what I play, limitless.

 

[Dr. Dipwad]

(gritting teeth) I won't say it all again...I won't...I won't....

(sotto voce) Psst. The only real "gapless" switching is switching that morphs or crossfades from one sound to another over some discernible period of time, however short. Otherwise, any note sustained across a channel-change between two channels which differ enough in texture will create an unmusically abrupt change-of-texture, which is the kind of thing a good audio engineer or producer would never leave intact on a professional recording.

Huh? What was that? Somebody say something?

Must've been the wind.

 

[GlennO]

(gritting teeth) I won't say it all again...I won't...I won't....

(sotto voce) Psst. The only real "gapless" switching is switching that morphs or crossfades from one sound to another over some discernible period of time, however short. Otherwise, any note sustained across a channel-change between two channels which differ enough in texture will create an unmusically abrupt change-of-texture, which is the kind of thing a good audio engineer or producer would never leave intact on a professional recording.

Huh? What was that? Somebody say something?

Must've been the wind.

Of course. That's why the solution posted in this thread does a crossfade. Note that crossfading and morphing are not the same thing.

 

[Dr. Dipwad]

Of course. That's why the solution posted in this thread does a crossfade. Note that crossfading and morphing are not the same thing.

Yep, and I should have acknowledged you in what I said, 'cause you jumped precisely to the right approach, on the very first page.

But, much like the original poster, I've been a bit obsessive about the ability to crossfade (for lack of a true morph, which as you say is different) for years. I think I first started posting about it sometime prior to the Axe II coming out.

Yet, excluding yourself, the original poster, and maybe 1-2 other folks, it's always been hard to get traction on the topic. It's inexplicable to me how the idea meets with either a blank stare of incomprehension or an unconcerned shrug from so many other perceptive and capable musicians.

I perceive it, over time, as a crowd of a thousand persons -- all great players, writers, and smart people -- having an animated, multithreaded conversation about measuring and minimizing the milliseconds-long gap between Channel A's sound stopping and Channel B's sound starting as if instantaneous change were and should be the whole goal. Imagine this conversational thread goes on uninterrupted for months. Then, every once in a while, this or that lonely soul says, "What about the transition taking a whole beat or two, at current song tempo, as it crossfades to the new tone? Wouldn't that be an order-of-magnitude better from a musical perspective?" ...and there's a brief lull, and then all the voices resume where they left off with, "Well, on Firmware X, the period of silence dropped by 14 milliseconds, so start by making sure you're at or above X...."

Anyway, much thanks to you Glenn, for "getting it." ...and I guess that makes this thread the exception to the rule.

As for me, I've been on this train for far too long:

...so I should be happy that I have some company!

 

[State of Epicicity]

I disagree about morphing being the only artistically acceptable way to do this. One switches pickups for drastically different but complementary texture, and that is gapless, and you can go beyond that idea to tone switching inside a modeler. Two different amps can go through the same cab, set to a similar frequency response, but have a drastically different, but complementary feel to them, with a different texture, and that doesn’t require morphing.

Crossfading is great, but it is not the only artistically acceptable way to do it.