Toopy14
Axe-Master
May not be a long shot for long. 41 and counting to 100 pages!
Which makes sense if it's a Baxandall since bass and treble boost will attenuate mids.
Count
Devil's advocate for a moment....
Currently there are 4 selectable prior firmware versions to choose from using the 'firmware version' parameter. How many more versions are likely to be added and how many added versions are likely to fit before the XL platforms boot ROM has no more room for further development (each firmware version is larger than the prior on its own without the prior modeling versions added)? At what point will adding additional legacy modeling versions be limited (a maximum number of legacy modeling versions supported for this parameter)?
Let's say that maximum number is twice the number available now. And let's say Cliff announces this limitation when that number has been reached (4 firmware updates with significant modeling improvements from now). What would happen with these available for selection legacy modeling versions? One would have to go if a scenario such as this were to play out. But which legacy version should be removed?
One would assume it would be the earliest version in the list, yes? If some users still have important presets tied to that version they are likely to lobby for some other version to be removed for many of the same reasons presented in this current debate (to keep or lose this parameter) as to why it's critical that the legacy modeling version parameter not be removed. If the practice of leaving presets tied to older modeling versions continues the there will be users in favor of keeping each supported version when such a limit is reached and an older version has to go.
In this hypothetical situation some users will lose that older version upon which they rely to keep older presets frozen in the past. At next update the same will happen again, and so on for as long as Cliff continues to improve the modeling code. This very scenario could conceivably reoccur with each additional modeling advancement. Will those who depend on versions that must be removed when new firmware is released feel the way Mk I/II owners do now. Will they feel that their legacy dependency trumps the dependencies others have developed by leaving important presets tied to legacy code? Would they feel as though continuing development has left them behind? Should they be told to be happy it was supported for so long? Should others have a later modeling version that they depend on be expected to drop that particular feature/version so those dependent upon an earlier version may continue to receive updates without impact to their presets?
The above, as stated at the start, was merely a hypothetical. Just food for thought.
Personally I have no real position in this current debate. I'll be happy with whatever occurs. I'd be happy if further firmware updates are made available for the Mk I/II platform (new firmware is always fun to explore and advancements in the amp modeling are always much appreciated). Just the same I'd be happy if the Mk I/II has reached EOL for further development updates (especially considering how amazing the current modeling sounds and feels) as this would mean that my Mk I is a mature, stable platform with a nearly inexhaustible number of parameters, features, effects types, amp/cab combinations, yet to explore - so much so that I may be y not exhaust them before we see an AxeFX III announcement.
As has always been the case during my years as a FAS customer I'm grateful to Cliff and FAS for their time and efforts in continually improving an already amazing product.
The Recto2 sounds amazing. Thank you!
..
That's called evolution. Quantum firmware is at an evolving point, and unfortunately the MK I/II units are drawing dangerously close to not being capible of advancing with that evolution. It will eventually happen to the XL as well, and we will have to deal with that when the time comes. At some point each of us will be faced with the "stick with what I have and be more than happy" or "upgrade to the newest and greatest hardware and continue the ride". It is inevitable for all of us.
The only reason you are not whining is because you already have an XL. I have an AX8 so it is no skin off my back. But I totally understand the point of view of the Mark I/II owners.
This wasnt directed at you anyway.
WTF? Your comment is...oh forget it! I give! Let me just buy you an XL+ because you are so deserving. In fact, I think FAS should buy all of the needy Mark I/II owners an XL+ so that they can have just what I have. After all, it is not fair! Price be damned. Oh noooooo....The Mark I/II users deserve everything that the XL+ users have and deserve all the bells, whistle, and privileges (without paying an extra nickel) and FAS has no business in the first place offering a more expensive product. Whining? Oh but you weren't directing that at me...
Dude. Chill out.
I dont want to argue with you. How about you take a minute and try to see the situation from my side and I will do the same.
Or....
