Axe-Fx III Firmware Release Version 12.00

shemihazazel said:
Something I've always wondered is if there's any benefit to using the Gate block after the Amp/Cab blocks vs using the Input block gate.
Click to expand...
Placing a gate after the amp/cab is usually to control noise from higher gain amps. I've found that trying to use a gate in front of an amp to control noise from the amp requires a higher setting that negatively impacts the guitar's dynamics more than if the gate is placed after the amp.
 
JoKeR III said:
Placing a gate after the amp/cab is usually to control noise from higher gain amps. I've found that trying to use a gate in front of an amp to control noise from the amp requires a higher setting that negatively impacts the guitar's dynamics more than if the gate is placed after the amp.
Click to expand...

I need to experiment with this more. It's hard to get sufficient gating on some gainy presets with the input gate that doesn't result in noticeable digital "chirping" when it kicks in.
 
shemihazazel said:
Something I've always wondered is if there's any benefit to using the Gate block after the Amp/Cab blocks vs using the Input block gate.
Click to expand...

I‘ve done this a couple times when I was getting some excess noise, however, I didn’t realize there was a gate in the Input block until I read your post (still very new to the III and Fractal gear). I really need to read the manual! The only reason I did it initially is because that’s exactly how I‘d set up my channel strips in Logic when using an amp sim. I’d use Waves NS1 (or WNS?) at the start of the effects chain, then after the amp sim. It prevented me from having to crank one gate really hard and would allow for better dynamic control. Anxious to use the Input block gate now!
 
Also - pardon my ignorance...but the stereo spread knob seems to make no changes...because it's in mono, correct?
 
JoKeR III said:
Placing a gate after the amp/cab is usually to control noise from higher gain amps. I've found that trying to use a gate in front of an amp to control noise from the amp requires a higher setting that negatively impacts the guitar's dynamics more than if the gate is placed after the amp.
Click to expand...
Hmm.. in theory (and IME) it should be the opposite actually.
Amps, drives and pretty much all non-linear effects in a typical signal chain all compress and distort the signal, so the delta between the loudest guitar level and the noise level gets reduced compared to the DI signal.

This means that the dynamic range is reduced so a gate placed after amps/fx would need a higher threshold and ratio settings to cut out the noise, with the risk of cutting out a good chunk of the guitar signal along with it.

Thus, IMHO, it's always better to use a gate at the beginning of the chain if its purpose is to reduce noise (in a digital device at least, in the analog world there can be other noise sources apart from the guitar and placing elsewhere could make sense).


PS: If you don't get what I'm saying just look at this extreme example:

Imagine you have an amp with a huge amount of gain and you keep turning it up.
At a certain point the guitar signal will be hard-clipped so its volume won't increase anymore, it will just get more and more distorted.
The noise in the meantime gets amplified till it reaches the same level of the guitar. At that point it would be impossible for any gate to separate the signal from the noise.
 
Last edited:
DLC86 said:
Hmm.. in theory (and IME) it should be the opposite actually.
Amps, drives and pretty much all non-linear effects in a typical signal chain all compress and distort the signal, so the delta between the loudest guitar level and the noise level gets reduced compared to the DI signal.

This means that the dynamic range is reduced so a gate placed after amps/fx would need a higher threshold and ratio settings to cut out the noise, with the risk of cutting out a good chunk of the guitar signal along with it.

Thus, IMHO, it's always better to use a gate at the beginning of the chain if its purpose is to reduce noise (in a digital device at least, in the analog world there can be other noise sources apart from the guitar and placing elsewhere could make sense).


PS: If you don't get what I'm saying just look at this extreme example:

Imagine you have an amp with a huge amount of gain and you keep turning it up.
At a certain point the guitar signal will be hard-clipped so its volume won't increase anymore, it will just get more and more distorted.
The noise noise in the meantime gets amplified till it reaches the same level of the guitar. At that point it would be impossible for any gate to separate the signal from the noise.
Click to expand...
If you place the gate after the amp you sidechain from the input.
 
DLC86 said:
Hmm.. in theory (and IME) it should be the opposite actually.
Amps, drives and pretty much all non-linear effects in a typical signal chain all compress and distort the signal, so the delta between the loudest guitar level and the noise level gets reduced compared to the DI signal.

This means that the dynamic range is reduced so a gate placed after amps/fx would need a higher threshold and ratio settings to cut out the noise, with the risk of cutting out a good chunk of the guitar signal along with it.

Thus, IMHO, it's always better to use a gate at the beginning of the chain if its purpose is to reduce noise (in a digital device at least, in the analog world there can be other noise sources apart from the guitar and placing elsewhere could make sense).


PS: If you don't get what I'm saying just look at this extreme example:

Imagine you have an amp with a huge amount of gain and you keep turning it up.
At a certain point the guitar signal will be hard-clipped so its volume won't increase anymore, it will just get more and more distorted.
The noise noise in the meantime gets amplified till it reaches the same level of the guitar. At that point it would be impossible for any gate to separate the signal from the noise.
Click to expand...
Agreed, an amp is going to increase the volume of the noise coming from a guitar with its volume on, therefore requiring a higher setting on a gate to eliminate the noise. However, a gate at the beginning of the chain can only eliminate noise coming from the guitar and will do nothing to address any noise coming from an amp when not playing. Other than placing a volume pedal after the amp, a gate in this location is about the only way to control this noise.
 
JoKeR III said:
Agreed, an amp is going to increase the volume of the noise coming from a guitar with its volume on, therefore requiring a higher setting on a gate to eliminate the noise. However, a gate at the beginning of the chain can only eliminate noise coming from the guitar and will do nothing to address any noise coming from an amp when not playing. Other than placing a volume pedal after the amp, a gate in this location is about the only way to control this noise.
Click to expand...

Sure that's why I said in the analog domain it makes sense, but we were talking about the axe fx here, right? In the axe fx there's no noise coming from the amp.

FractalAudio said:
If you place the gate after the amp you sidechain from the input.
Click to expand...
Sure but in that case the gate still reacts to the input signal so the "right" settings should be identical to a gate placed at the input, doesn't seem @JoKeR III 's case.

Btw, I've never understood the advantage of doing so (apart from a "lookahead" for the attack maybe)
 
Last edited:
finalformdc said:
I think it, FractalBot, should be fully integrated into AxeEdit, not just launched from within. Let's just have a "FractalBot" menu in AxeEdit with submenus of "Transfer" (or Load) and "Backup". Also, I find it VERY confusing from a UX perspective that you have to click Begin and then you select what you want to backup from an array of choices. Instead of Begin, it should be Transfer/Load and that's the last thing you press before it actually does the work. The labels Send and Receive isn't intuitive... from who's perspective? One thing I would like to see is to be able to specify a collection of presets to backup and to be able to recall that collection each time I perform a Backup. It's tedious to manually back up each individual user preset and backing up an entire bank takes too long imo. Just pointing out some areas where I think there could be small, but meaningful improvements
Click to expand...
Just a guess but these things probably won’t change. Transfers take how long they take. For the other things, do it once and you get used to it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom