[Not a Bug] Error sound with Solo100 Rhy, IF it´s drive is controlled with Scene controllers

LOL.......@steadystate ....that was some funny stuff. One of the few times that the (over used) 'LOL' was accurate..

@Unicorn62 .... Try using the 'Input Trim' instead?
 
Yep. Input Trim, or a Volume block, or other means of controlling the input level to the Amp block. It isn't the same as Drive, but it might produce a satisfactory result. If your dead set on modulating Drive, you'll need a product that uses a simpler model, because no other device has more powerful hardware or better code.
 
I just tested this on an AX8 on 8.02 just for the heck of it, and only see a 1% to 3% increase in CPU% depending on the amp model??
 
I'll just leave this here........

Axe-Fx II (Mark I) Q9.02......
  1. Adding a 'High Quality' Reverb - adds around 12%
  2. Adding a modifier to the 'Drive' on a 'Solo 100 Rhy' model - adds around 10%
AX8 Q8.02.....
  1. Adding a 'High Quality' Reverb - adds around 30% (to be expected)
  2. Adding a modifier to the 'Drive' on a 'Solo 100 Rhy' model - adds around 1% (strange?)
Different firmware? Different units? Axe-Fx Bug?

Discuss.........
 
iaresee said:
CPU used depends on the parameter and the amp model.
Click to expand...
Of coarse....but isn't it strange that the same model and the same parameter adds so much less to the CPU load on the unit with less CPU power to work with?

See the example in post #45
 
Moke said:
I'll just leave this here........

Axe-Fx II (Mark I) Q9.02......
  1. Adding a 'High Quality' Reverb - adds around 12%
  2. Adding a modifier to the 'Drive' on a 'Solo 100 Rhy' model - adds around 10%
AX8 Q8.02.....
  1. Adding a 'High Quality' Reverb - adds around 30% (to be expected)
  2. Adding a modifier to the 'Drive' on a 'Solo 100 Rhy' model - adds around 1% (strange?)
Different firmware? Different units? Axe-Fx Bug?

Discuss.........
Click to expand...
See now this is a discussion. *thumbs up*
 
Could it be a high res (Axe II with single amp block) vs normal res (AX8) thing, or does the AX8 amp block also run at high res?
 
Moke said:
Of coarse....but isn't it strange that the same model and the same parameter adds so much less to the CPU load on the unit with less CPU power to work with?

See the example in post #45
Click to expand...
Whoops. I missed that it was the same model. What happens if you change the parameter? Does CPU use spike the same amount on both units?
 
mr_fender said:
Could it be a high res (Axe II with single amp block) vs normal res (AX8) thing, or does the AX8 amp block also run at high res?
Click to expand...
I think this could be found out by loading two amps in the axe fx and see if this cpu spike disappears.
 
Moke said:
I'll just leave this here........

Axe-Fx II (Mark I) Q9.02......
  1. Adding a 'High Quality' Reverb - adds around 12%
  2. Adding a modifier to the 'Drive' on a 'Solo 100 Rhy' model - adds around 10%
AX8 Q8.02.....
  1. Adding a 'High Quality' Reverb - adds around 30% (to be expected)
  2. Adding a modifier to the 'Drive' on a 'Solo 100 Rhy' model - adds around 1% (strange?)
Different firmware? Different units? Axe-Fx Bug?

Discuss.........
Click to expand...

Did you change scenes after adding the scene controller on the AX8? On my XL, The CPU increase didn't show up until I changed scene or amp models.
 
Unicorn62 said:
Yeah.. sure "what gear have you designed".. Actually I have paid $2500 dollar for some equipment, who actually have a SERIOUS, problem with an automated process to go from one value to another.. How f... stupid is that?

It's ME who are asking the questions here, as a costumer and not the audio Fractal..

Please close my account here.. and stop posting in this tread.. I'm out.
Click to expand...

As a customer, you asked a completely reasonable question about the increased CPU utilization when you use the drive option. The engineer that wrote the DSP software (and owner of the company) said that the reason is that using the drive feature requires substantially more computational horsepower to do correctly. You basically dismissed the answer. You must be misunderstanding what's going on here. Engaging the drive is not simply a matter of changing the state of a switch from off to on. When the switch is engaged, you expect it to sound like the drive is on, right? Well, to do that involves simulating all the additional components that are in the circuit when the drive is on vs. off. This additional processing is the math in question. Some folks got a little snarky with you and you snapped back - fine, it's the Internet.

Instead of leaving in a huff, just relax a little. People on this forum are extremely helpful. Seriously. But just like every single other forum, sometimes folks are quick to react. And you were quick to snap back and quick to want to pack up your toys and go home. It's not really that big of deal either way. Just forget about it and enjoy your gear.
 
iaresee said:
Whoops. I missed that it was the same model. What happens if you change the parameter? Does CPU use spike the same amount on both units?
Click to expand...
Didn't notice any real change in CPU when manipulating the parameter in either unit. Just the initial increase when attaching the parameter to a scene controller.
 
DLC86 said:
I think this could be found out by loading two amps in the axe fx and see if this cpu spike disappears.
Click to expand...
Tried that already. Same jump in CPU per amp block. attach a controller to one amp's Drive parameter, it jumps 10%, attach it the other amp, it jumps 10% more. Axe-Fx of coarse...
 
mr_fender said:
Did you change scenes after adding the scene controller on the AX8? On my XL, The CPU increase didn't show up until I changed scene or amp models.
Click to expand...
Yes I did, even checked CPU% on the hardware itself. Also saved the preset with the controller attached, and re-loaded it to verify..
 
Moke said:
Didn't notice any real change in CPU when manipulating the parameter in either unit. Just the initial increase when attaching the parameter to a scene controller.
Click to expand...
That supports my theory that the CPU resources are reserved when the modifier is attached whether or not you actually use it.
 
steadystate said:
That supports my theory that the CPU resources are reserved when the modifier is attached whether or not you actually use it.
Click to expand...
Which is a good decision. If the CPU weren't reserved in advance, you could be cruising along happily at 85% CPU usage...until you rock the pedal forward, and jump up to a preset-killing 95%.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom