Selectable power amp type in Amp block

[scarr]

I wrote about this in the "switch off preamp" thread, but decided it should really have its own thread. My idea is to have the power amp type be an Advanced tab selection in the Amp block, just like how the TONESTACK TYPE is now. This way Cliff doesn't have to worry about exposing any more of the innards of the simulation technology to competitors, but we can still mix-and-match pre- and power- sections from different amps! Better still, it won't hog any more resources than a single Amp block would anyway, unlike simply defeating a preamp and a power amp in separate blocks.

 

[Guitar-Tiz]

This would also make my "preamp block" idea easier, because then we could just add more free standing preamps into the amp block.

As it sits, the free standing preamps we have, like the JMP-1, and the Triaxis are forced into one power-amp.

Which is not what they where intended for, or they would have had a power-amp built in in the first place.

MIX AND MATCH is the way to go!!!

 

[mik]

I am not positive what you meant, but wanted to point out that JMP1 is going into poweramp from JCM800 and Triaxis uses mesa-boogie poweramp as it is configured right now

Mik.

This would also make my "preamp block" idea easier, because then we could just add more free standing preamps into the amp block.

As it sits, the free standing preamps we have, like the JMP-1, and the Triaxis are forced into one power-amp.

Which is not what they where intended for, or they would have had a power-amp built in in the first place.

MIX AND MATCH is the way to go!!!

 

[scarr]

This would also make my "preamp block" idea easier, because then we could just add more free standing preamps into the amp block.

As it sits, the free standing preamps we have, like the JMP-1, and the Triaxis are forced into one power-amp.

Which is not what they where intended for, or they would have had a power-amp built in in the first place.

MIX AND MATCH is the way to go!!!

I'm not sure what you mean either, as this idea is in opposition to the notion of either separating out the preamp into a different block or making the preamp in the Amp block able to be turned off.

 

[Guitar-Tiz]

This would also make my "preamp block" idea easier, because then we could just add more free standing preamps into the amp block.

As it sits, the free standing preamps we have, like the JMP-1, and the Triaxis are forced into one power-amp.

Which is not what they where intended for, or they would have had a power-amp built in in the first place.

MIX AND MATCH is the way to go!!!

I'm not sure what you mean either, as this idea is in opposition to the notion of either separating out the preamp into a different block or making the preamp in the Amp block able to be turned off.

I liked my JMP-1 through things OTHER than Marshall poweramps too.

I think you've missed what I said.

I think this would be the most ideal way to do the preamp thing, instead of a separate block, as this would solve the problem without an added block.

 

[GreatGreen]

I think the "toggleable preamp" is still more flexible. With this thread's suggestion, I still couldn't, for example, use a simulated poweramp with an external preamp I might have in my rack. I could use an external preamp, along with all the other benefits of this thread's suggestion with a completely toggleable preamp though.

 

[scarr]

I think the "toggleable preamp" is still more flexible. With this thread's suggestion, I still couldn't, for example, use a simulated poweramp with an external preamp I might have in my rack. I could use an external preamp, along with all the other benefits of this thread's suggestion with a completely toggleable preamp though.

A few thoughts:
For one, you can't do that now, so you aren't really losing anything. I get your point in the debate between ways of implementing this though. For another, you could get by reasonably well using the Tube Pre or Jazz TYPE with the DRIVE control down, then still choose power amps. I know it isn't ideal, but those should be minimally coloring.

The bigger point, which I'm trying to solve with this, is that Cliff has expressed trepidation in fully exposing the power amp side on its own. This solution should be achievable without risking anything else, which makes it much more practical (and thus likely) to implement.

 

[Guitar-Tiz]

I think the "toggleable preamp" is still more flexible. With this thread's suggestion, I still couldn't, for example, use a simulated poweramp with an external preamp I might have in my rack. I could use an external preamp, along with all the other benefits of this thread's suggestion with a completely toggleable preamp though.

A few thoughts:
For one, you can't do that now, so you aren't really losing anything. I get your point in the debate between ways of implementing this though. For another, you could get by reasonably well using the Tube Pre or Jazz TYPE with the DRIVE control down, then still choose power amps. I know it isn't ideal, but those should be minimally coloring.

The bigger point, which I'm trying to solve with this, is that Cliff has expressed trepidation in fully exposing the power amp side on its own. This solution should be achievable without risking anything else, which makes it much more practical (and thus likely) to implement.

Maybe instead of a switchable poweramp, it should be a switchable preamp, and there could be a "none" selection, and then both problems are solved?

 

[scarr]

Maybe instead of a switchable poweramp, it should be a switchable preamp, and there could be a "none" selection, and then both problems are solved?

Not really, because the original problem was that Cliff didn't want to expose the power amp simulations. That would.

 

[Smilzo]

Maybe instead of a switchable poweramp, it should be a switchable preamp, and there could be a "none" selection, and then both problems are solved?

The most useful feature would be a switchable preamp (with none) AND switchable poweramp (with none).
I understand Cliff's fear... but I, as a user, would like to take full advantage of my axe: use my preamp into virtual poweramp, or put a virtual preamp into a valve poweramp!

 

[hippietim]

I would *really* like this - I'm really digging my Bogner Fish preamp and would love to be able to do some direct recording with it using the Axe-FX. About the only way I can think to do this effectively would be to run the preamp through one side of the power amp with a load on it. But that doesn't let me explore the many power amp sims available in the Axe.

 

[thadood]

I'm all for this.

 

[james...]

I suspect Cliff's silence may be an indicator of what he thinks about this.

Can't say I blame him. I mean...why don't you just ask him to strip? lol

But seriously, I am all for this too.

 

[joegold]

The most useful feature would be a switchable preamp (with none) AND switchable poweramp (with none).
I understand Cliff's fear... but I, as a user, would like to take full advantage of my axe: use my preamp into virtual poweramp, or put a virtual preamp into a valve poweramp!

I'm all for all this type of flexibilty too.

Of course you know that your last scenario, putting a virtual preamp into a valve poweramp, can already be done by simply turning ther Sag parameter to 0 which defeats the power amp sim, don't you?

Since we can already defeat the power amp on a preset by preset basis I think that just being able to swap and or switch off the preamps would cover all the bases though.

 

[prometh]

I'm all for this. I don't care if there's no "none" option for both pre and power stages. If Fractal wants to protect their hard work, they deserve to do so, but I WANNA I WANNA this feature

 

[steadystate]

It has always been my understanding that an amp block model consists of a preamp and a power amp permanently married to one another. This idea that the power amp (or tubes) can be changed on the fly within a model just doesn't seem likely.

As to why the two are inseparable, all that I have read from Cliff is that it is "Impossible unfortunately. I can't divulge why but it has to do with advanced processing techniques." I do not infer this to mean he is 'afraid' someone will figure out his designs. I infer this to mean just what it says; advanced processing techniques. Perhaps the amp block is treated as one object instead of two. Only Cliff knows. The reason why is irrelevant. "Impossible unfortunately" tells me all I need to know.

I'm sure this wish will live on forever anyway. I'd love it myself, but I don't wish for it because it ain't gonna happen.

 

[prometh]

Damnit. So much for having a Mesa/Boogie pre with a Marshall power stage, like Metallica's "Justice" album. :x

 

[Jack Napalm]

Damnit. So much for having a Mesa/Boogie pre with a Marshall power stage, like Metallica's "Justice" album. :x

Couldn't you do that know. At least a pseudo setup. Just select the Marshall amp and select a Mesa tone stack?

I am curious in this as well. At least from a swapping tube standpoint. I have switched out tubes in my Randall amp and the tone changes. If that doesn't matter from a schematic signal perspective then what is going on? Is it just a different EQ curve being applied with the different tube? How could you measure the difference between a EL34 and 6L6? It would be nice to know the relationship between different tubes and the parameters.

 

[prometh]

Couldn't you do that know. At least a pseudo setup. Just select the Marshall amp and select a Mesa tone stack?

I'd never thought of that, so I tried a JCM800 with a Diezel tonestack (what the Mark IIC+ sim uses), but it just sounded like a JCM800. I tried matching settings, but couldn't achieve the sound I was after

 

[joegold]

Damnit. So much for having a Mesa/Boogie pre with a Marshall power stage, like Metallica's "Justice" album. :x

Couldn't you do that know. At least a pseudo setup. Just select the Marshall amp and select a Mesa tone stack?

I am curious in this as well. At least from a swapping tube standpoint. I have switched out tubes in my Randall amp and the tone changes. If that doesn't matter from a schematic signal perspective then what is going on? Is it just a different EQ curve being applied with the different tube? How could you measure the difference between a EL34 and 6L6? It would be nice to know the relationship between different tubes and the parameters.

Not the same thing, by a long shot.