Axe-Fx II Technical Questions Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
I believe there was a link in the online Axe II manual. Not sure if it would be active yet or not.
 
NeoSound said:
Originally Posted by NeoSound
I'm all ready trying to preconceive how that I would use and set up the Axe II and I'm wondering if the global eq settings can be saved and recalled??? I will be moving the unit to 3 main places and have a different cab at each location (power amp is in rack) and it would be so awesome to to tweek for each cab and recall without having to re-tweek each time I move the Axe ?????

There's an option that I was looking into a while ago. While it's on the other end of the spectrum as far as quality/reliability, it may work well for you.

BEHRINGER: DEQ2496

You could place a digital eq before your power amp and make custom curves for each of your three cabs.
Click to expand...
 
Gearhead said:
Sorry if that has been discussed already, but is the II capable of having an electric guitar in the front input and an acoustic guitar in the rear input (2) as the same time?
I have to switch often between electric and acoustic and on my Ultra I prefer Input 1 (rear) for my acoustic - so I have to switch cables every couple of tunes and that is tiresome...

Or is it even possible to plug in both guitars in the front input (I have a Lehle switcher to switch between guitars) with the new input volume function?
Click to expand...
All versions of the Axe-FX are capable of this.
 
jhp612 said:
I have with no such luck. I'm wondering if his rig has changed while developing the axefx ii.
Click to expand...
IIRC Cliff said he uses a Carvin SS poweramp (FS1200? not sure of the model) and a Mesa 4x12 wired in stereo. One half for the AxeFX and the other for the amp he's modeling. Then he can A/B them.
 
I remember reading that two of the new amp models will use about 80% of one cpu in the axe II. So doesn't that mean that we will have some pretty serious horsepower left for effects on the other cpu maybe even double the amount of effects we had on the ultra? I remember Cliff stating the effects chains can be larger and was just wondering how much larger??
 
NeoSound said:
I remember reading that two of the new amp models will use about 80% of one cpu in the axe II. So doesn't that mean that we will have some pretty serious horsepower left for effects on the other cpu maybe even double the amount of effects we had on the ultra? I remember Cliff stating the effects chains can be larger and was just wondering how much larger??
Click to expand...

Fill up an Ultra with just effects and see what it can handle. That should get you close.
 
NeoSound said:
I remember reading that two of the new amp models will use about 80% of one cpu in the axe II. So doesn't that mean that we will have some pretty serious horsepower left for effects on the other cpu maybe even double the amount of effects we had on the ultra? I remember Cliff stating the effects chains can be larger and was just wondering how much larger??
Click to expand...

One processor is dedicated to amp modelling only. The other processor handles the rest of the effects.
 
Gearhead said:
Sorry if that has been discussed already, but is the II capable of having an electric guitar in the front input and an acoustic guitar in the rear input (2) as the same time?
I have to switch often between electric and acoustic and on my Ultra I prefer Input 1 (rear) for my acoustic - so I have to switch cables every couple of tunes and that is tiresome...

Or is it even possible to plug in both guitars in the front input (I have a Lehle switcher to switch between guitars) with the new input volume function?
Click to expand...

My main guitar has a magnetic output and a piezo output. Mags run into the front of my Ultra, piezos run into Rear 1R. I don't see why you couldn't do the same with your two guitars. Just pan the two input signals hard left and right at the beginning of the chain so you can process them separately. :)
 
Hi @ all:

hope this wasn´t here before:

is it possible to use only the poweramp section of an amp simulation + the cab simulation within the axe fx II.
What i´m going for is to use the send signal of my amps effect loop with the axe fx for silent recordings.

guitar -> my amp -> effect loop send -> axe fx -> direct to power amp simulation -> cab simulation ->...-> usb out -> DAW

hope this is clear enough, my english isn´t the best :)
 
deamscape said:
Hi @ all:

hope this wasn´t here before:

is it possible to use only the poweramp section of an amp simulation + the cab simulation within the axe fx II.
What i´m going for is to use the send signal of my amps effect loop with the axe fx for silent recordings.

guitar -> my amp -> effect loop send -> axe fx -> direct to power amp simulation -> cab simulation ->...-> usb out -> DAW

hope this is clear enough, my english isn´t the best :)
Click to expand...

You can disable the poweramp of an amp sim, but you can't disable the preamp and still use the poweramp...
No different with the II than with the Standard/Ultra.

But this may work: select a "neutral" amp sim. Make sure it doesn't distort in the pre and power sections (low drive, low master) and keep the tone controls neutral.
Tube Pre on the Standard/Ultra, and maybe the JC-120 on the II?

This
 
yek said:
You can disable the poweramp of an amp sim, but you can't disable the preamp and still use the poweramp...
No different with the II than with the Standard/Ultra.

But this may work: select a "neutral" amp sim. Make sure it doesn't distort in the pre and power sections (low drive, low master) and keep the tone controls neutral.
Tube Pre on the Standard/Ultra, and maybe the JC-120 on the II?

This
Click to expand...

Thank you for your quick answer, yek.
 
Just wondering if the parameter knobs on the front were encoders or pots? After messing with eleven rack this week I noticed that using pots with limited travel sucks and is a shortcoming IMHO. Using encoders like the big knob on the front would be great because you don't reset the value of the physical position of the pot, meaning that when you change screens if the pot is on 10 and the parameter value is 3 as soon as you touch the pot it jumps to 10 and you have to back it down from there. For fine tuning or things like volume controls it kind of sucks.
 
shasha said:
Just wondering if the parameter knobs on the front were encoders or pots? After messing with eleven rack this week I noticed that using pots with limited travel sucks and is a shortcoming IMHO. Using encoders like the big knob on the front would be great because you don't reset the value of the physical position of the pot, meaning that when you change screens if the pot is on 10 and the parameter value is 3 as soon as you touch the pot it jumps to 10 and you have to back it down from there. For fine tuning or things like volume controls it kind of sucks.
Click to expand...

They are encoders - they spin round and round and round. When you switch screens, they start from wherever the control parameter was on the screen, not the position of the knob. :D
 
I originally posted this in another thread, but someone suggested that I post it here, so here it is:

I'm new to the forum, but have done a search on this topic and found something in 2008 referencing this subject, but could not find an answer specific to my question.

Cliff, have you un-commented the Inverse IR functions yet?

In other words, if I am using a Marshal 1960 Cabinet and want to 'flatten' out the response (as much as is possible with current technology and physical limitations) and then apply a '4X10 Bassman' response, do I have that option now?

I understand that it would not be perfect - but nothing is. I also understand that it would probably not sound like a 4X10 Bassman, but that does not matter to me.

What does matter is having the option to apply an inverse IR of something and then applying a replacement IR.

I've done several years worth of impulse capturing (I used to develop VST software and plugins for GigaStudio) and in the process did HD capturing of several concert halls (all in 7.1 BTW), microphones, cabinets, vintage gear, and other misc items using the sweep method. So I'm familiar with how it should be done.

I'm not asking about inputting my own impulse responses (however, that WOULD be nice), I'm simply asking if the code to apply an INVERSE IR is un-commented yet in your source code yet.

Looking forward to getting an AXE-FX II... will order soon.

All the best to you!

Larry
 
Merlin17 did something like this for his Verve, but I don't think he was thrilled with the results. Since guitar speakers are so directional it's only going to work very close to the mic position used in creating the IR.

Why not try inverting an IR and see if you like the results?
 
iaresee said:
Can I ask why you'd want to do this?
Click to expand...
From the post - "if I am using a Marshal 1960 Cabinet and want to 'flatten' out the response (as much as is possible with current technology and physical limitations) and then apply a '4X10 Bassman' response"
If I play through a 2X12 cab with V30s, I could possibly make it sound like other cabs. I was trying to lookup this application (The reverse of the Fourier transform that is used to convolute the signal I believe, and I think it's different from inverse Fourier transform). I didn't know Cliff already had it coded and commented out.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom