My general thoughts on Axe Edit and the Fractal Approach.

Rather than removing controls from view or having more tabs or something, why not just put a symbol or a ring around any parameters that are found on the original amp model? That way everyone is happy, no? Maybe an option in preferences to show/hide the indicator. Given the state of software these days I can't imagine that it would be difficult to program something like this into axe edit.
 
what should be done in situations where an amp has a "BLASTER!!" knob, for example (something the Axe doesn't have)?
 
ralphonz said:
Rather than removing controls from view or having more tabs or something, why not just put a symbol or a ring around any parameters that are found on the original amp model?
Click to expand...

It isn't enough though. There is a problem of how controls are called on real amps. This isn't always consistent with Axe-Edit.

Also, it seems that Axe-Edit doesn't store amp specific defaults, so this might be a bit more work than it seems.
 
Chris@AxeFxTutorials said:
what should be done in situations where an amp has a "BLASTER!!" knob, for example (something the Axe doesn't have)?
Click to expand...

(There are details like this that would come up for sure. All that adds to the cost of going down this road :) I still think it would add value though)

My first thought would be show all the real controls with ones not implemented disabled.
 
barhrecords said:
(There are details like this that would come up for sure. All that adds to the cost of going down this road :) I still think it would add value though)

My first thought would be show all the real controls with ones not implemented disabled.
Click to expand...
what if that missing control is vital to dialing in the amp?
 
Chris@AxeFxTutorials said:
what should be done in situations where an amp has a "BLASTER!!" knob, for example (something the Axe doesn't have)?
Click to expand...
It would be absolutely no different than it is right now? If Cliff chose not to include an equivalent "BLASTER!!" parameter or any 'Native' controls deemed not needed when modeling an Amp, then it would also be missing in the 'Native' mode I guess? The modeling does not change at all.
 
Last edited:
Chris@AxeFxTutorials said:
what if that missing control is vital to dialing in the amp?
Click to expand...
Missing controls??......Every single parameter that is in the current firmware and all future parameters that will be added in future firmware updates will still be exactly where they are right now. We will loose nothing! There would just be another tab with only the 'native' controls supported by the installed firmware. Or a global 'Native' mode in Axe-Edit?
 
Moke said:
Missing controls??......Every single parameter that is in the current firmware and all future parameters that will be added in future firmware updates will still be exactly where they are right now. We will loose nothing! There would just be another tab with only the 'native' controls supported by the installed firmware. Or a global 'Native' mode in Axe-Edit?
Click to expand...
i understand nothing would be lost. this comment was in reference to that hypothetical "BLASTER" knob that is on the real amp, but not on the model. it would make sense to me that if we are creating this page of original controls in Edit for the goal of only turning the original knobs to be more authentic, then missing original knobs from the original amp is just as non-authentic as turning extra ones. perhaps a combination of other knobs in the model could approximate that "BLASTER" knob - would those be on the "native" page too?
 
What if we were to get a custom tab that could optionally display as default that you could put and maybe even label controls that you wish to use and have quickly available on any block. That would be useful in general and satisfy the people who want to create blocks with native controls on a tab
 
Chris@AxeFxTutorials said:
i understand nothing would be lost. this comment was in reference to that hypothetical "BLASTER" knob that is on the real amp, but not on the model. it would make sense to me that if we are creating this page of original controls in Edit for the goal of only turning the original knobs to be more authentic, then missing original knobs from the original amp is just as non-authentic as turning extra ones. perhaps a combination of other knobs in the model could approximate that "BLASTER" knob - would those be on the "native" page too?
Click to expand...
For me, being 'authentic' is not necessarily the goal. Just a simpler starting place for those who want or need it. If you owned the physical Amp or Effect, The 'native' controls are all that you've ever had to work with. If that doesn't get you there, try some more advanced parameters or a different model?

This has been way over-thought..............I'd be very surprised if this goes anywhere anyway....Helps someone that needs it, has no affect on those that don't (or won't?) use it.

Seemed like a good idea to me?...............Moke...out.....:rolleyes:
 
Moke said:
For me, being 'authentic' is not necessarily the goal. Just a simpler starting place for those who want or need it. If you owned the physical Amp or Effect, The 'native' controls are all that you've ever had to work with. If that doesn't get you there, try some more advanced parameters or a different model?

This has been way over-thought..............I'd be very surprised if this goes anywhere anyway....Helps someone that needs it, has no affect on those that don't (or won't?) use it.

Seemed like a good idea to me?...............Moke...out.....:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
understood. this is why i pointed out that there are 2 different topics in this thread. one for "a simpler starting place" and another for "more authentic."

i think the simple starting place is easy to achieve. the more authentic is much tougher.
 
I don't see 2 topics..........1 topic, A simplified U.I. option..........Period.

Model authenticity happens in the firmware and the hardware. Not Axe-Edit.
 
Moke said:
I don't see 2 topics..........1 topic, A simplified U.I. option..........Period.

Model authenticity happens in the firmware and the hardware. Not Axe-Edit.
Click to expand...
i've quoted references to "more authentic" earlier, and it's been mentioned elsewhere in the thread. i know you didn't see it the last time, but it's there.
 
It's about simplifying workflow. Currently, I have to sit with several webpages open flicking and scrolling between them while going back and forth to axe edit to tweak parameters. Eventually I'll memorise some of the controls and info for some of the amps but never all of it. Simply put, the more of this information that can be presented in a streamlined way within the axe edit interface the better as it will improve workflow and productivity. I simply do not have the memory of a machine!

This is about improving the UI and I think there are lots of great ideas in this thread, all of which are possible solutions to creating a more streamlined UI. Yes it will take time and effort to implement but I'd be very happy to see more attention put into this area from fractal. Also, being a web developer and having some programming knowledge I don't think any of the things mentioned here would really require an extreme amount of work.
 
ralphonz said:
Then at least the interface would indicate which knob BLASTER was assigned to.
Click to expand...

I think the complexity might be if the Axe-Fx has a combination of knobs that result in the same as the BLASTER knob. The controls we have can achieve pretty much anything including the hypothetical BLASTER, however the way to achieve the same result would be by using a number of AFX parameters.

Still it would be very useful to see which parameters are marked as related to the BLASTER - as long as the original parameters are not renamed in the AFX, that would be all too confusing to me. :confused:
 
chucma said:
Still it would be very useful to see which parameters are marked as related to the BLASTER - as long as the original parameters are not renamed in the AFX, that would be all too confusing to me. :confused:
Click to expand...

Yes, I totally agree with this actually.

I wasn't aware that there were any real amp parameters that are mapped to more than one knob? Is this BLASTER hypothesis real? if so which amp is it on?
 
ralphonz said:
Yes, I totally agree with this actually.

I wasn't aware that there were any real amp parameters that are mapped to more than one knob? Is this BLASTER hypothesis real? if so which amp is it on?
Click to expand...

BLASTER is all hypothetical, the only real world example I can think of is the Marshall Contour control (which is probably a bad example because I don't think any of the actual Marshall amps on the Axe FX actually have this). On the actual amp I think the Contour is some sort of shaped MID control, so to get that on the Axe FX you would probably need to use some sort of PEQ - so it won't be a one-to-one map.

To be fair I doubt there are a lot of knobs like this, and Cliff does model the log curves of the pots on the amps so most scenarios are probably covered in a one-to-one basis.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom