Possibility of adding more CPU

sgilsinger

Inspired
I am in no way a computer or electronics person.I just wanted to see if it would be possible to add/upgrade the CPU to the axefx maybe by building a small black box that could be connected to the axefx that would have additional chips for more processing power.Rather than designing a whole new axefx3 maybe being able to add additional CPU boxes,they could probably be small and rackmountable.Kind of like adding additional hard drives to a computer.There are 48 blocks that can be used in a preset,but not enough processing power to use them.I understand most everyone is not going to use 48 blocks in one preset,but it would be nice if there was more processing power to handle the complexities that new upgrades in firmware seem to need.Like I said I am not a computer person,so I don't know if this would be physically possible to do,it just sounds like a good idea if it were .
 
Pretty sure cliff said that before Axe FX II as well? Hmmmmm, imagine 4 tiger sharcs? 1- for higher res amp and IR/pre 2- the same for dual amps. 3- pre effects with higher res drives, wahs, comps etc, 4- post FX higher res, more blocks or both? Have zero idea if at all possible but would think if handled almost as seperate boxes inside one box, shouldn't be more latency than axe with strymon in loop and interface after?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Pretty sure cliff said that before Axe FX II as well? Hmmmmm, imagine 4 tiger sharcs? 1- for higher res amp and IR/pre 2- the same for dual amps. 3- pre effects with higher res drives, wahs, comps etc, 4- post FX higher res, more blocks or both? Have zero idea if at all possible but would think if handled almost as seperate boxes inside one box, shouldn't be more latency than axe with strymon in loop and interface after?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That might be the case, I've been around since the old days, wonder if Cliff still thinks it will or not, I suppose if Cliff has anything to add or subtract to this conversation he will, but you might be correct on that... I know that if the Axe II XL++ came out or Axe III with the ability to use more blocks on hi res at once, I would purchase that in a heart beat "i mean who doesn't want more of this greatness" I suspect a lot of users would want one as well..
 
I wouldn't push too much the idea of an axefx3 if i were you... i don't wanna spend that kind of money every 2 years :)

The Axe II was released in 2011 in May I believe, so it's been 4 1/2 years... I don't mind spending a few grand every 5 years if things like added cpu's and other improvements are made... being able to double the blocks used in a preset is something I bet a majority of people would like to see, I who don't even use that complex of preset's find that I run out of cpu sometimes, if we doubled the blocks in a preset that would eliminate the issue for me, heck not even double even 50% would eliminate the issue with me and probably others..... You could always wait to purchase the Axe III after it's been out for a few years so you don't have to update every 2 years as well:)
 
Pretty sure cliff said that before Axe FX II as well? Hmmmmm, imagine 4 tiger sharcs? 1- for higher res amp and IR/pre 2- the same for dual amps. 3- pre effects with higher res drives, wahs, comps etc, 4- post FX higher res, more blocks or both? Have zero idea if at all possible but would think if handled almost as seperate boxes inside one box, shouldn't be more latency than axe with strymon in loop and interface after?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
There must be some way of adding more CPU,I agree with toasterdude.It shouldn't matter if is all in one box or not, as long as the right connections are there.Maybe it isn't something Cliff wants to pursue.
 
Maybe Cliff will chime in on this conversation,it would be nice to hear what is or is not possible to do with the Axefx directly from the guy that created it.I love my Axe, and probably will never go back to a tube amp,I am always thinking of what new possibilities are to come as technology improves.
 
Just get a 2nd Axefx! Connect Axefx-A to Axefx-B via S/PDIF, guitar into Axefx-A input, and amp/cabs or monitors into Axefx-B outputs - voila twice the power and 2 fx loops to boot!

Call it an "Axefx cluster"
 
There must be some way of adding more CPU,I agree with toasterdude.It shouldn't matter if is all in one box or not, as long as the right connections are there.Maybe it isn't something Cliff wants to pursue.

When multiple processors share the same bus and memory (which they all need to to process the audio stream) they must essentially wait one at a time to access that memory. This adds latency to the signal. More latency = less "feels like an amp".

It's easy when you don't understand the technical limitations to just say "Why not just keep adding processors?", but you quickly hit a point of diminishing returns. The only way I could think of (and trust me there isn't a lot of brain horsepower happening here) is if you had an internal bus that passed the data from one grid to the next (again latency) and kind of built twos Axe 2's in to one box with two serial sets of grids. Which can also be accomplished By adding a second Axe FX 2, FX-8, or AX-8.
 
First, I think many are "already" satisfied, I know I am. Nothing wrong with wanting more for those that are never satisfied..................I knew a girl like that.........

But mainly the price would skyrocket so I don't see the point, just addaax8 or fx8 or another axefx...I have been playing a very long time and I have never, ever had the possibilities I have had since April 2009, my first AxeFx
 
When multiple processors share the same bus and memory (which they all need to to process the audio stream) they must essentially wait one at a time to access that memory. This adds latency to the signal. More latency = less "feels like an amp".

It's easy when you don't understand the technical limitations to just say "Why not just keep adding processors?", but you quickly hit a point of diminishing returns. The only way I could think of (and trust me there isn't a lot of brain horsepower happening here) is if you had an internal bus that passed the data from one grid to the next (again latency) and kind of built twos Axe 2's in to one box with two serial sets of grids. Which can also be accomplished By adding a second Axe FX 2, FX-8, or AX-8.

Great explanation HB
 
Why?

You already have expansion with the AX8 and FX8. If you want to run 48 blocks, then it's then just a question of routing. 2 nice form factors that will give you a huge amount of power.

The question has been asked before in reference to 'why don't you put THREE CPU's in the box?', and I believe the answer was 'The amount of price hike to a unit makes it not worth pursuing'. Yes, there will always be a chorus of 'more more more!', (even someone who demanded that he be able to fill the ENTIRE grid with *stuff*...an uber-patch.) But from what I've seen, most users are content with scenes and presets rather than 'one patch to rule them all'.
 
Putting an AX8 or FX8 in front or in Send-Return of the Axe will also increase latency, because those have latency aswell. So there's no real gain in doing this than in putting more CPUs in the Axe-Fx III. But come on, the Axe-Fx II is strong enough! If you really use THAT many effects, you might just be doing something wrong!
 
Back
Top Bottom