Axe-Fx II "Quantum" Rev 4.01 Public Beta

svl said:
The INSANE number of updates are certainly NOT "baked" into the price of the unit. Unless of course, you believe Cliff is an idiot who can't calculate the math (because at this rate if it is he must have not only gotten the build parts for free from the manufacturers they also must be paying him a ridiculous amount to use said parts as well. And he must value his hourly rate coding and such at a very steep negative number)...

The reality is Cliff is a proud father, a man that continually nurtures his child and gives it all his attention and energy, only wanting the best for it. We, the FAS faithful, are merely the lucky recipients of one man's quest for utter perfection for his mechanical progeny.

The software isn't the product, it's the "gift". The gift that never seems to quit giving, which is what the entitled cling to. You, me and everyone else bought the UNIT. That physical box is what took your ducats- the updates have simply been a blessing. As many have said, when the latest version of the box is maxed out I'll buy the next (I started with the Ultra, then bought the II when it was released and then the XL, all new straight from the company- I'm really curious how many of the complainers did the same and how many bought secondhand at a discount), not only because I want to continue to bask in the glow of Cliff's genius but also because I want to support the company and the man who has so graciously and generously supported us as musicians for all these years.
Click to expand...

What oft was thought but ne'er so well express'd...
 
Man I've been trying to stay out of this... first off Q4.01 seems great been playing with both the hook and legato and they are bother awesome.

As far as this MK debate goes. To say the updates are 'baked in' is ridiculous. I get what you're trying to say but it's simply not true. When I recently purchased my axe fx, I did so not fully understanding the fw situation and how many improvements had been made through updates. That being said had I been stuck on Q3 for the life of it, I'd have been exceptionally happy with it. I recently purchased some software that said the license would stay valid through 'version xyz' in that situation, yes a service was 'baked in'.

It's not fair to ask XL and XL+ users to forego functionality no matter how minor or seldom used that function may be. Although 99.5% may be fine giving it up that remaining 0.5% paid for the most recent product, most likely, in order to stay current longer.

I don't know how viable this is from a coding standpoint but maybe Cliff could put out major updates as a 'current only' download for MK users. That way come Q5 (hypothetically), MK users can upgrade FW to 5 (which wouldn't include any previous firmwares). That way time and effort would not have to be spent on each incremental update, satisfying everyone.
 
Last edited:
Spindrift762 said:
It's not fair to ask XL and XL+ users to forego functionality no matter how minor or seldom used that function may be. Although 99.5% may be fine giving it up that remaining 0.5% paid for the most recent product, most likely, in order to stay current longer.
Click to expand...

I totally get the point your making and all, but just had a bit of a chuckle at the unintended irony thinking of that 0.5% who in the same breath want to stay current as long as possible yet still want the ability to roll back the firmware modeling LOL


Its kind of like ages ago when I actually had to upgrade my computer hardware and OS in some part because I wanted to be able to run an emulation of old SNES video games
 
lqdsnddist said:
I totally get the point your making and all, but just had a bit of a chuckle at the unintended irony thinking of that 0.5% who in the same breath want to stay current as long as possible yet still want the ability to roll back the firmware modeling LOL


Its kind of like ages ago when I actually had to upgrade my computer hardware and OS in some part because I wanted to be able to run an emulation of old SNES video games
Click to expand...

For me it's not about rolling back in order to recapture an old preset. it;s about having another tonal option. As I stated previously, there have been times I have been dialing in a preset for a recording, and just wanted something a little different out of the tone I was getting, and a simple flip of the firmware switch on a HBE made all the difference in the tone, and it fit exactly what I was looking for. Having that ability on the fly is nice, and I look at it as a current feature set that I personaly would miss having. If it was removed because we needed to make space for something bigger and better, then I am all for it, but not for a step backward.
 
StickMan said:
I think we should get past the idea that software updates are "free", they're baked into the price you paid when you bought the unit.
Click to expand...

Sorry man, Gotta disagree with that one. It's the only piece of gear I've owned that doesn't charge for updates! So as I see it , They are free.
 
lqdsnddist said:
I totally get the point your making and all, but just had a bit of a chuckle at the unintended irony thinking of that 0.5% who in the same breath want to stay current as long as possible yet still want the ability to roll back the firmware modeling LOL


Its kind of like ages ago when I actually had to upgrade my computer hardware and OS in some part because I wanted to be able to run an emulation of old SNES video games
Click to expand...

Haha yeah that irony is not lost on me man and for most of us is a completely unnecessary feature. However it is a feature, and one that from what I read, was requested? (don't quote me on that) Regardless its a feature some have become accustomed to, and as pwrmac mentioned above, some actually use. I'd be more worried about loosing blocks or amps as some have suggested.
 
RDH said:
Sorry man, Gotta disagree with that one. It's the only piece of gear I've owned that doesn't charge for updates! So as I see it , They are free.
Click to expand...
Yeah I just was in the ultra thread reading the countdown to the Axe FX II announcement thread and it was actually stated in the release notes that the Axe FX II would have more storage for free updates and advancements that they have become known for. So I guess it was advertised as having free updates, so I can see how people do expect them. But if at any point fractal decided to start charging for them i would gladly pay for them seeing that every upgrade I have installed has made noticeable improvement to the tone.
 
Even if you bought the Axe expecting updates to be "rolled in", exactly how long did you expect? The way I see it, there's no way to own an Axe Mark II that is even still in warranty in the US (EU has a few more months left). All we're talking about is not adding more amps to the Mark I/II.
 
Promit said:
Even if you bought the Axe expecting updates to be "rolled in", exactly how long did you expect? The way I see it, there's no way to own an Axe Mark II that is even still in warranty in the US (EU has a few more months left). All we're talking about is not adding more amps to the Mark I/II.
Click to expand...

please read the thread, the problem is with the boot rom size. amps are a different part of the memory. Nobody expects it to live forever, why not try if you can? This whole thing has turned into a shit show. "like Yakov Smirnoff opening for Spin Doctors at the Iowa State Fair kind of shit show."
 
One thing that has been criminally overlooked is that Cliff has also turned some focus on to the drive block..
I think a lot of people have been asking for updates/additions/tweaks to other blocks besides the amp & i for one would like to commend it & say thank you.

That HOOK though..! Damn!!
 
Perdikament said:
One thing that has been criminally overlooked is that Cliff has also turned some focus on to the drive block..
I think a lot of people have been asking for updates/additions/tweaks to other blocks besides the amp & i for one would like to commend it & say thank you.
Click to expand...
Ya, I'm really looking forward to trying the new drive block out. Thanks Cliff and co.
 
I guess the "big" question regarding the rollback ability, regardless of the product, is how far back should it go ? We can currently roll back as far as what, Q2.0 (I don't use the feature so I'm not sure last time I played with that knob lol) right ?

Well, lets say there is Q4.01 and then maybe Q4.1, Q4.2 and heck, maybe even Q5, or who the heck knows what it could be called..... Regardless, how far back should rollbacks allow ? When its Q4.2 does Q2.0 modeling still exist, or do we only go as far back as Q4.00 by that point ?

It seems that as we move forward, there is always going to be a point you can't go back to (short of reinstalling old FW, so while maybe some might want have a knob that can go back to FW18, or heck, FW9, the option just isn't there anymore). So, it sort of makes this "debate" seem a bit silly, in that someone might be arguing that they need the ability to go back to Q2.01 modeling for a given patch, but if/when they have upgraded to FW4.xx (hopefully for mkII users too!) that Q2.01 might be too old to even still be an option.

Then what ? Post waxing nostalgic about how sweet FW Q4.01 sounded because Q4.2 just sounds wrong somehow?

I think the pace of progress is simply inevitable, aside from choosing not to upgrade, because if a user always installs the latest FW, there is always going to be a point of no return. As such, the rollback feature is really just a short-term solution.

Again, FW10 had an option to have FW9 I recall, and probably some people thought that was cool at the time, but as of today does anyone want to go back to EITHER of those FW versions ?
 
lqdsnddist said:
I guess the "big" question regarding the rollback ability, regardless of the product, is how far back should it go ? We can currently roll back as far as what, Q2.0 (I don't use the feature so I'm not sure last time I played with that knob lol) right ?

Well, lets say there is Q4.01 and then maybe Q4.1, Q4.2 and heck, maybe even Q5, or who the heck knows what it could be called..... Regardless, how far back should rollbacks allow ? When its Q4.2 does Q2.0 modeling still exist, or do we only go as far back as Q4.00 by that point ?

It seems that as we move forward, there is always going to be a point you can't go back to (short of reinstalling old FW, so while maybe some might want have a knob that can go back to FW18, or heck, FW9, the option just isn't there anymore). So, it sort of makes this "debate" seem a bit silly, in that someone might be arguing that they need the ability to go back to Q2.01 modeling for a given patch, but if/when they have upgraded to FW4.xx (hopefully for mkII users too!) that Q2.01 might be too old to even still be an option.

Then what ? Post waxing nostalgic about how sweet FW Q4.01 sounded because Q4.2 just sounds wrong somehow?

I think the pace of progress is simply inevitable, aside from choosing not to upgrade, because if a user always installs the latest FW, there is always going to be a point of no return. As such, the rollback feature is really just a short-term solution.

Again, FW10 had an option to have FW9 I recall, and probably some people thought that was cool at the time, but as of today does anyone want to go back to EITHER of those FW versions ?
Click to expand...

Cliff has stated that the ability to dial in a version earlier than Q2.0 isn't possible because version selection in the amp block didn't exist theretofore. I have no clue how many versions will remain viable. That's up to Cliff. However, considering the reason it was implemented, hopefully as many major modeling versions as possible. That said, there's obviously no point in retaining versions that don't contain modeling improvements.
 
Last edited:
LucasLeCompte said:
The answer to this questions is prolly no, but is it possible to upgrade the memory on the boot roms? If it can be replaced that would be great. Im sure it is soldered on to the board but hey it is worth a shot.
Click to expand...

That was answered elsewhere (by Cliff, IIRC): Although you can find a larger-capacity chip to fit the socket, the PCB only connects enough address lines for the current chip. IOW, a larger-capacity chip would remain limited to the same amount of storage provided by the existing chip.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom