Axe-FX 3 "Grid" ?

H13

H13

Inspired
So...because I worship at the holy grail of Pink Floyd and am a collossal wanker...

I would like more rows added to the grid so I can run more effects in parallel. Since the new AFX is a shitload more powerful, I figure this is now a practical suggestion.

Will the AFX have a larger grid with more routing options for our blocks?

Apologies if this had been covered, but I couldn't spot it.
 
Yeah I think it has 6 rows and 14 columns.

IMG_0920_grid.jpg


The Axe II has 4 rows and 12 columns.
 
Does one really need more than 4 rows to achieve Floyd/Gilmour tones ? If your matching David’s typical rigs the flanger is about all he really runs parallel as far as effects go, and you could run a wet chorus and/or rotary as well but that would be pretty much it that needs to be parallel as far as routing needs.

Obviously one need not stick just to how Gilmour runs his rig, and there are no doubt some really cool stuff people will dream up, but as far as Gilmour tones the current size grid would suffice for most applications I can think of
 
This is going to be very cool. I expect to see a preset or two exploring the new real estate, just to prime the pump for our own exploration. I’m looking forward to it!
 
It looks like on the III, you have to use a block for input and output. So really, it's almost the same as the 12 columns on the II.
 
haffner1 said:
It looks like on the III, you have to use a block for input and output. So really, it's almost the same as the 12 columns on the II.
Click to expand...
It's actually better than that. With six rows available, you can use the Send/Receive blocks to extend three-row presets across 24 columns. Or two-row presets across 36 columns.
 
mr_fender said:
Yeah I think it has 6 rows and 14 columns.

IMG_0920_grid.jpg


The Axe II has 4 rows and 12 columns.
Click to expand...

Nice pic :)

Two things caught my eye in this pic though ..... and I should say I have no idea if it is a real preset screenshot or a marked up image ... so here goes:-

-> in practice, it the same number of "columns" [14 same as 12] becasue the Input and Output have now been brought in to the "grid"

-> this "patch" .... putting the Input and Output Blocks aside ..... has (6) x effects, 1 x Loop [Out 3 to In 1 ?], 1 x Reat Time Analyzer (?) .... 1 x Amp Block .... 1 x Cab Block .... yet the CPU Useage % is on %52 ..... "seems" high given whats running (?) and the huge increase [on paper at least] of the Axe 3's new hardware (?)

Perhaps the Amp and Cab Blocks have multiple amps and multiple cabs in them ?? and this is just a "top tier" view of the Amp and Cab blocks (?)

Ben
 
ben ifin said:
Nice pic :)

Two things caught my eye in this pic though ..... and I should say I have no idea if it is a real preset screenshot or a marked up image ... so here goes:-

-> in practice, it the same number of "columns" [14 same as 12] becasue the Input and Output have now been brought in to the "grid"

-> this "patch" .... putting the Input and Output Blocks aside ..... has (6) x effects, 1 x Loop [Out 3 to In 1 ?], 1 x Reat Time Analyzer (?) .... 1 x Amp Block .... 1 x Cab Block .... yet the CPU Useage % is on %52 ..... "seems" high given whats running (?) and the huge increase [on paper at least] of the Axe 3's new hardware (?)

Perhaps the Amp and Cab Blocks have multiple amps and multiple cabs in them ?? and this is just a "top tier" view of the Amp and Cab blocks (?)

Ben
Click to expand...
Don't forget that X/Y is gone and instead each block has 4 channels with seamless switching so it's not quite a like for like comparison with the Axe II in terms of CPU usage per block
 
T1MO13 said:
Don't forget that X/Y is gone and instead each block has 4 channels with seamless switching so it's not quite a like for like comparison with the Axe II in terms of CPU usage per block
Click to expand...

:) Good call :)

Be interesting to see when users get their hands on them in the "real world" :) ..... the Amp / Cab multi-channel CPU loads.

All the best,
Ben
 
lqdsnddist said:
Does one really need more than 4 rows to achieve Floyd/Gilmour tones ? If your matching David’s typical rigs the flanger is about all he really runs parallel as far as effects go, and you could run a wet chorus and/or rotary as well but that would be pretty much it that needs to be parallel as far as routing needs.

Obviously one need not stick just to how Gilmour runs his rig, and there are no doubt some really cool stuff people will dream up, but as far as Gilmour tones the current size grid would suffice for most applications I can think of
Click to expand...

It's mostly due to my...enthusiasm for delays.

If you look at the attached file, I'd love to stick that rotary unit under the delays and run it through the same reverb as everything else. I mean what I have works fine, but...it irks me.

(For the record, I run all my modulation\drive through real pedals)
 

Attachments

  • Grid.png
    Grid.png
    303.9 KB · Views: 69
H13 said:
It's mostly due to my...enthusiasm for delays.

If you look at the attached file, I'd love to stick that rotary unit under the delays and run it through the same reverb as everything else. I mean what I have works fine, but...it irks me.
Click to expand...
You have enough empty columns to do that now in your Axe II by adding a few shunts.
 
H13 said:
It's mostly due to my...enthusiasm for delays.

If you look at the attached file, I'd love to stick that rotary unit under the delays and run it through the same reverb as everything else. I mean what I have works fine, but...it irks me.
Click to expand...
But delayed rotary is awwwwweeessssoommmmmmeeeee! Try this:

Run: ROT -> DLY and set the delay to be type Dual Delay. Pan the delays hard left and right. That's a stereo-in/out delay block that'll preserve the stereo of the echos so as the rotary moves from left to right and back, so do the repeats on the delay. Oh god, it's so wonderful!

Rex said:
You have enough empty columns to do that now in your Axe II by adding a few shunts.
Click to expand...
Looks like processing headroom might be a problem though. No such problems on the III! :D
 
iaresee said:
Looks like processing headroom might be a problem though. No such problems on the III! :D
Click to expand...
No CPU issue at all. He adds a Shunt, but he gets rid of a Reverb. :)

But yes, it's way simpler to conceive and lay out on the III, and there's room for bunches more goodies.
 
T1MO13 said:
Don't forget that X/Y is gone and instead each block has 4 channels with seamless switching so it's not quite a like for like comparison with the Axe II in terms of CPU usage per block
Click to expand...
I've not heard anyone say that Channels are different than X/Y other than being seamless on switching.

And we all know that only the active state of an X or Y uses CPU.

I'd be curious to know if there is CPU overhead for "inactive" channels.
 
On a (somewhat) side note, it seems that the new layout page doesn’t display the connections between blocks, is that correct? So if you have to parallel rows of effects with connections not just in series but also between rows, how do you see that?
 
vangrieg said:
On a (somewhat) side note, it seems that the new layout page doesn’t display the connections between blocks, is that correct? So if you have to parallel rows of effects with connections not just in series but also between rows, how do you see that?
Click to expand...
You’re looking at the zoomed-out view of the grid. When zoomed in, all connections can be seen.
 
Rex said:
You’re looking at the zoomed-out view of the grid. When zoomed in, all connections can be seen.
Click to expand...

Ah cool, thanks. But while zoomed in, it shows level meters instead of block names, right? Can the meters be turned off?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom