why there isn't a X/Y/Off functionality on the Axe-Fx?
Because this would allow the user to exceed the CPU limits of the unit.
why there isn't a X/Y/Off functionality on the Axe-Fx?
I think the problem is everyone wants to use the hi res version of everything...high res reverb (sometimes two of them), two UR cabs for Stereo, high res mic pre in cab ect. Let's be honest here the non high res mic pre and verb are FAR FAR FAR from low quality. On top of all this two amps, two drives and every fx in the axe. It is getting crazy out here. Ppl are starting to get a 2nd axe or wanting and FX8 to use more fx ect. What is crazy is many of these guys are bedroom players (I am 75% joking about the bedroom player part)
we won't even get into the guys wanting to run two guitars, a bass and vocals all with their own routing at the same time through their ii. I am not knocking one here. It is amazing how much the ii can do but if you are pushing the axe to the max some times you will hit the ceiling.
I'm no power user, but a few of my presets are now maxed out. I now have to decide to dumb them down or downgrade back to FW 16.
Sorry, but I don't understand. Can you please elaborate on that? Don't we have the possibility to exceed the CPU limits today? Why would a X/Y/Off function from the MFC-101 exceed the CPU?Because this would allow the user to exceed the CPU limits of the unit.
Sorry, but I don't understand. Can you please elaborate on that? Don't we have the possibility to exceed the CPU limits today? Why would a X/Y/Off function from the MFC-101 exceed the CPU?
Maybe the answer is to use FPGA's (field-programmable gate array) processors which superior than DSPs. FPGA's are being used in Avid's HDX Cards and Fairlight sytems.
Hehe! Yup, you're probably right that I'm no Einstein, but I've been suggesting this one the wishlist earlier, so this is a question I've been thinking a lot of. Perhaps it's obvious to the rest, but not to meThink about it a bit.
No. An FPGA can be used to do some bit-slice or word-slice DSP processing but pales to a dedicated DSP for the type of signal processing tasks we require. Typically you use an FPGA to off-load repetitive tasks from a host DSP or CPU. Where an FPGA shines is in massively parallel processing but they don't work as well as a dedicated DSP for sequential processing. This is why they are favored in things like SDR where you are doing a simple, fast operation on many simultaneous channels. Something like the Axe-Fx would perform worse using an FPGA solution, probably much worse.
If you have many tracks, as in a DAW, an FPGA can be a better solution due to the parallelism of the FPGA but the algorithms will be necessarily limited to simple things like EQ and compression. Complicated algorithms like reverb, distortion, etc. are better suited to a dedicated DSP. For example, the Xilinx "DSP Slice" is very crude in comparison to a dedicated DSP. It's limited to add, multiply and some logic operations. In contrast a dedicated DSP can do far more complicated processing.
I imagine the Avid cards are being utilized as dedicated coprocessors where some of the algorithm is native and certain operations are offloaded to the FPGA. Since this processing is necessarily parallel they can take advantage of the massively parallel architecture of an FPGA.
Hehe! Yup, you're probably right that I'm no Einstein, but I've been suggesting this one the wishlist earlier, so this is a question I've been thinking a lot of. Perhaps it's obvious to the rest, but not to me
Hi Jack! Thanks for the answer. I should have been clearer, but I'll blame it on the language-barrier What I really ment was I want a X/Y/Bypass-function, not X/Y/Off. At least in my case this would allow me to use only one drive-block and one delay block with X/Y, and still be able to bypass them. Does this make things any clearer?If you have an off state and you don't account for the CPU you could have a patch that would use more than the CPU allowed once those effects were turned on. You have to account for the fact that preset will use the effect. Bypass = off.
Hi Jack! Thanks for the answer. I should have been clearer, but I'll blame it on the language-barrier What I really ment was I want a X/Y/Bypass-function, not X/Y/Off. At least in my case this would allow me to use only one drive-block and one delay block with X/Y, and still be able to bypass them. Does this make things any clearer?
The TigerSharc is already the most powerful processor out there. There are two of those inside the AxeFx.
Adding a 3rd would increase the price with hundrads of dollars.
Exactly. Audio processing like this doesn't lend itself well to parallel processing. Example: Let's say you've got a reverb block at the end of your chain. You can't process the reverb until you've processed all the other blocks.More importantly is how would it be used?
My tone doesn't always suck, but when it does, it's high-resolution!
My goto patch uses 48% CPU so no issue for me really