Cliff, Get rid of the older firmware modeling options to free up space!!

Older firmware modeling option

  • Remove it. I can live without it.

    Votes: 398 94.3%

  • Leave it. I have to have it.

    Votes: 24 5.7%
  • Total voters
    422
Status
Not open for further replies.
gittarzann said:
I am a content Mark I user.

I have just read through 17 pages of people +1 ing the request to remove this option, so I am starting a poll.

This poll is related to these comments by Cliff
Click to expand...

I'd rather the FAS team focus on current and future technology then engineer work arounds for discontinued / obsoleted hardware.
 
Agreed, the proper business model is such. What some around here don't realize, is that there is a finite lifetime regarding hardware support. It's just not financially feasible to keep supporting obsolete hardware, and it's dangerous business practice...

FAS must survive and in order to do that, they MUST sell new product..especially if they're going to support FW updated for such long periods of time on obsolete product.

As a C/E products distributor, I fully understand and totally subscribe to that practice. Without sales, there is no revenue to support R&D and FW updates.
 
Continued word of mouth, and playing gigs, people asking wtf is he playing through, and getting people on board sells units too. Fractal doesn't subscribe to the normal models, they dont go to NAMM, no retail, for the longest time they didn't even have ad's in magazines.

Engineering workarounds would actually be removing a workaround that is demonstrated to not be used by that many people. Easy to be on the other side if you have the newer hardware. And I get the argument for keeping it. I just dont understand why anyone would want the old firmware sound.
 
dpeterson said:
I just dont understand why anyone would want the old firmware sound.
Click to expand...

Anyone who wants the tonal characteristics imparted by old firmware in whole (not part) can simply install an older firmware version. As you know, there's more to it than that, though. Personally, I always build my current presets around the most current firmware, but as mentioned numerous times elsewhere, I simply want the option of selecting older firmware within older presets for the sake of retaining the sound I worked so hard to achieve at the time the preset was created. I don't want to spend my time potentially screwing with older presets every time Fractal Audio releases new firmware anymore than I want to modify the settings for all of my Windows apps every time Microsoft releases an update.
 
Last edited:
SteveW said:
Agreed, the proper business model is such. What some around here don't realize, is that there is a finite lifetime regarding hardware support. It's just not financially feasible to keep supporting obsolete hardware, and it's dangerous business practice...

FAS must survive and in order to do that, they MUST sell new product..especially if they're going to support FW updated for such long periods of time on obsolete product.

As a C/E products distributor, I fully understand and totally subscribe to that practice. Without sales, there is no revenue to support R&D and FW updates.
Click to expand...

Personally I won't upgrade to an XL just for firmware updates, I am waiting for the Axe-FX III. I would be happy to pay for firmware updates though if that option were available.
 
Putting my old statistical analysis studies to use ..... three important things seem to have clearly emerged:-

a -> even allowing for " the internet " ....... > 3,200 non-unique views with an active sampel population of > 220 resulting in a poll result of %93 in favor of dropping the " old FW " if it keeps the AM1 / AM2 going is very " strong " and " quite definitive " in terms of customer feedback ..... especially given that it is from product owners who care enough to join, partake and take the time to specify their views on a manufacturer run forum in some detail...... remember the old saying ... " decisions are made by those that show up " .... :)

b -> I dont see anyone wanting to in any way cripple or jeopardise the FW of the -current or future- XL / XL+ line in any way .... so if anything is done to lengthen the AM1 / AM2 FW life-cycle, it should in no way adversley effect the XL / XL+

c -> if need be, AM1 / AM2 owners would gladly pay [say] a small annual charge for the extra work involved in " de-coupling " future AM1 / AM2 specific FW's

The only real question that remains is this ....... are Fractal willing to do something like this ?

Clearly I, and many others here hope they will do this ....... but of course, it is totally and absolutely their prerogative and decision ..... only Fractal knows the effort this would take and the opportunity cost of doing it ..... and this is precisely as it should be :)

Ben
 
Lol, the obvious line would be, since we will run out of space for trying new firmwares UNLESS we jettison the firmware-choosing, those that want the option of upgrading to the next firmware but retaining old firmware settings, will simply not be able to upgrade to a new firmware anyway. For it will not fit. And if it doesn't fit we MUST acquit. No, wait, that was unpopular sounding. Let them eat cake!
 
Here's how I see it......looking back before Quantum, firmware updates had a much more drastic effect on patches, and therefore I could see someone wanting to be able to turn it back the way it was at the turn of a knob. Now that we have Quantum, the thing sounds absolutely phenomenal, and to my ears, the difference in all these quantum firmwares is really subtle. Add to that, the fact that the thing is so easy to dial in a superb sound now, that I just cant see the real need to keep these old firmware choices.

It also seems that I remember other times in the past firmwares when Cliff has put in options like this to appease a few people, but in the end, those options died away do to progress, and the Axe becoming easier to dial in. Seems like FAS's stance on this has all ways been upward and onward......hopefully this continues!
YMMV
 
laxu said:
The simplest way is to simply drop the really old versions of the modeling and just support 4.xx and 3.xx. Those with old versions can simply stick to their old firmware or upgrade.
Click to expand...

As mentioned elsewhere, if such a trade-off resulted in numerous (20 or more) additional updates for the MK I/II, I think it would be worth it. Otherwise, I don't see any real benefit unless the next couple of upgrades were something major.
 
AtomicBlaze said:
20 more is a lot. The last 2 updates alone have made huge improvements. Every update is valuable.
Click to expand...

An additional 20 would be a lot. That's why I referenced it.

There's a difference between edging closer and making a major leap. In my opinion, the last couple of updates have edged the modeling closer, whereas Quantum 2.0 was major.
 
Here's something else to consider, aside from removing the option to dial-back modelling versions, which according to the survey, most people are in favour of.

What if the next updates focused only improving modelling (if that's even possible anymore given how good everything sounds) and not adding more amps, etc. Then, when the firmware maxes out the ROM space in the MKI/II, end firmware support for those two models. After that, the firmware can include updates to everything again and continue on until the XL/XL+ limitations are reached.

Also, if the modelling version option is removed, maybe the option could be added back in again as well and continue to the EOL date of the XL/XL+??

Just a thought.
 
SteveW said:
Agreed, the proper business model is such. What some around here don't realize, is that there is a finite lifetime regarding hardware support. It's just not financially feasible to keep supporting obsolete hardware, and it's dangerous business practice...

FAS must survive and in order to do that, they MUST sell new product..especially if they're going to support FW updated for such long periods of time on obsolete product.

As a C/E products distributor, I fully understand and totally subscribe to that practice. Without sales, there is no revenue to support R&D and FW updates.
Click to expand...
The feature that is being asked to be removed is actually a workaround.
 
Toopy14 said:
Here's something else to consider, aside from removing the option to dial-back modelling versions, which according to the survey, most people are in favour of.

What if the next updates focused only improving modelling (if that's even possible anymore given how good everything sounds) and not adding more amps, etc. Then, when the firmware maxes out the ROM space in the MKI/II, end firmware support for those two models. After that, the firmware can include updates to everything again and continue on until the XL/XL+ limitations are reached.

Also, if the modelling version option is removed, maybe the option could be added back in again as well and continue to the EOL date of the XL/XL+??

Just a thought.
Click to expand...

Cliff has stated that he didn't think things would be changing too much from Quantum 2.0 onward:

Post #151: "I don' t think things will be changing too much from here out. The new equations are based on actual tube curves rather than theoretical equations. I don't think we can get any more accurate than that."
 
Wait until all the stuff learned when creating the new FAS load boxes is put back into Axe firmware improvements. Might be some cool new improvements yet to come.
 
bdrepko said:
The feature that is being asked to be removed is actually a workaround.
Click to expand...

There's a reason workarounds are implemented. A workaround is simply a method for circumventing a problem, so the inherent implication is that there was a problem. Thus removing the workaround reintroduces the problem.
 
Last edited:
Jason Scott said:
There's a reason workarounds are implemented. A workaround is simply a method for circumventing a problem, so the inherent implication is that there was a problem. Thus removing the workaround reintroduces the problem.
Click to expand...
It wasn't a problem. It was a workaround for a few people who updated the firmware and weren't happy that they had to change settings.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom