DLC86
Fractal Fanatic
None of us designed an Intel CPU either, but despite that most of us know that you can run much more instances of a certain VST plugin on an i7 than on an old pentium.Because none of us designed the Axe-Fx?
None of us designed an Intel CPU either, but despite that most of us know that you can run much more instances of a certain VST plugin on an i7 than on an old pentium.Because none of us designed the Axe-Fx?
None of us designed an Intel CPU either, but despite that most of us know that you can run much more instances of a certain VST plugin on an i7 than on an old pentium.
Because none of us designed the Axe-Fx?
Surely none of us did, but we've seen oversampling before, both in Axe-FX and plugins, right? And why do we need to assume that Axe-FX would behave unlike any other digital device with regard to it, including its predecessor? I mean, okay, that's possible but there's nothing that points to it, so we are talking about imaginary things that don't happen anywhere else. Why?
What does he know anyway? We want more things!!!So, you don’t trust Cliff’s evaluation. I get it.
So, you don’t trust Cliff’s evaluation. I get it.
The reason I haven't added a third amp block is that I would have to reduce the oversample rate for all the amp blocks when three are in use and this would be detrimental to sound quality.
Just ask Cliff directly in this thread already. You’re only arguing at this point.What indicates that I don't trust his evaluation?
That's what he wrote:
There's nothing about "too detrimental", "worse than the II", "impossible", or anything that suggests that it would be different from any other digital processor that does oversampling, including the II.
Yeah, you increase number of blocks, decrease oversampling, nothing is free. That's been obvious all the time. And Cliff never seemed to like the idea exactly because of this. But there's absolutely nothing in his words that points to any uniqueness of the situation. Also note the text in bold. That's only about the situation when three blocks are used. Just like with the II or any other digital processor out there. When something's not used, it doesn't consume resources, no need to reduce oversampling.
Just ask Cliff directly in this thread already. You’re only arguing at this point.
Discussing about this doesn't mean we don't trust Cliff's evaluation or work (we wouldn't be long time customers and users on this forum if that was the case), but his evaluation probably goes way beyond strictly technical details and what we have discussed here.So, you don’t trust Cliff’s evaluation. I get it.
No one's talking about overclocking here anyway.. Otherwise we would be discussing about 6 amp blocksYou can also overclock cpu chips ... is it a best practice? Likely not. And yes, I understand how they are made and sorted.
Just because you can, doesn’t mean you should. (Although I’ve overclocked a few CPU’s.)
ask him to add it. ask him to add 3 amp blocks.Ask about what? He'll chime in if he feels like it, nothing can force him to if he doesn't. And it's not like I see anything mysterious in what he said, that's pretty reasonable and expected stuff, known from the beginning.
Discussing about this doesn't mean we don't trust Cliff's evaluation or work (we wouldn't be long time customers and users on this forum if that was the case), but his evaluation probably goes way beyond strictly technical details and what we have discussed here.
That's why he will decide what to do and we'll be fine with that anyway (I at least will).
But, as much as I love Fractal products, I would never defensive with arguments out of any logic
No one's talking about overclocking here anyway.. Otherwise we would be discussing about 6 amp blocks
264Feels like we are discussing how many angels can sit on the head of a pin.
ask him to add it. ask him to add 3 amp blocks.
otherwise what is all this bickering for? if you "win" this discussion, you still need him to add it. so ask.
my point is, since he's basically said "no", people are arguing why he's saying no.This is what this thread is about, asking him to add it. I asked that earlier, too. He knows a lot of people know it, that's why he created the poll.
He commented, said he hasn't implemented it, stating reasons that are well known, and he's been saying these things like always.
Then a lot of people started turning it into a "you shouldn't want it" thread, inventing stuff that hasn't been said, to the tune of "he tried, it didn't work", "the detrimental effect will be too great", or even "this will hurt future improvements". Where these come from I have no idea.
How am I bickering I also don't know. I'm not attacking anyone here, not questioning Cliff's judgment, and I haven't even criticized the decision really. All I've been saying is that IMO a lot of people will be happy with the option to have more blocks at lower oversampling, pointing to Axe-FX II, Helix, and saying there are tons of other examples.
have you asked him to add it since he's posted no?
further discussion about why he said no is basically pointless.
though it seems he already said n