i like the wish/idea.
but i highly doubt that most customers would be ok with 1 drive, 1 amp and 1 cab taking up 72% CPU. even 60%. 70% with 3 blocks? that's a tough sell.
But that's a very misleading description.
Remember: I'm NOT asking for a feature that makes each block twice-as-CPU-burdensome whether you want it to crossfade or not. (Nobody'd want
that.)
The WISH is for an
option that allows you, on any block, to
optionally "harness" a second instance of same block type, pairing it up with the first instance, thereby enabling
that block to "crossfade" its channel-changes.
(But it's an
option. If you
don't switch it on, for a given block, then that block's channels will NOT crossfade, and you will not suffer the CPU drain of "harnessing" an extra block-instance of the same type.)
It's your choice. And you choose it on a per-block basis.
You can use it on Preset 100, only for the Drive Block. And then use it on Preset 101, but only for the Amp Block. And then, you can
not use it at all on Preset 102. It's up to you.
Thus, there'd be no reason for customers NOT to be okay with it. It only impacts the people who opt to use it.
What I'm NOT asking for:
Now, if I were asking for a feature that affects ALL blocks, ALL THE TIME, then, yeah, that'd be a "tough sell." (I wouldn't want it, myself.)
But that wasn't what the wish was for.
The wish was: On any block on your grid, you can optionally "harness" another instance of that same block type in such a way as to grant the block the ability to crossfade its channels seamlessly.
It's The User's Choice:
But if crossfading is NOT switched on, for that block, then the block functions exactly as it does now, with the same CPU weight as now.
The
sole impact of this feature would be that, for any block you
opt to use it on...
(a.) you get crossfading channels on that block, with a fade-time you set;
(b.) behind the scenes, the Axe III has now invisibly put another instance of that block into the signal path and "harnessed" it to the first instance to make the crossfading seamless;
(c.) you will therefore see a drop in CPU as a result of the fact that...
- you currently have 2 instances of that block working, not 1; and,
- the Axe FX is handling the crossfading for you whenever a channel-change event occurs.
Implementation is Tough (But Not As Tough As You Might Think):
One thing to remember is that this feature doesn't involve the Axe III doing anything it doesn't already do. You're not "teaching it any new tricks." The Axe III already "knows" how to have 2 instances of a block running on the grid at once; it already "knows" how to respond to a MIDI event by changing one output level from 100% to 0% (and the other from 0% to 100%); and it already "knows" how to apply damping to that output level so that it "glides" downward (or upward). Thus, implementing this feature
mostly involves invoking code that already exists in the firmware.
Mostly, implementing this feature is a matter of adding the option
to the User Interface, and having the Axe III "know" that, when the user switches it "on" for Block XYZ #1, what that "means" is that Block XYZ #2 is engaged and some continuous-control linkages are put in place to handle the crossfades whenever that block is asked to channel-change.
RE: the 72% number:
Chris, please notice where that 72% number came from.
It's the
worst-case scenario. It's the amount of CPU in use if you try to turn on crossfading for...
- the Amp1 block,
- and the Cab1 block,
- and the Drive1 block,
- and you have ALL FOUR of the IRs in the Cab block turned on,
- and you've opted to use only the heaviest-weight Drive Models,
- and you also have a Reverb at the end of the chain,
- and that Reverb is a high-CPU Reverb model!
I mean, holy cow, if you do
all that, I think you should
expect to see it use a lot of CPU!
By contrast, look how the CPU would be affected if you did something more reasonable:
Let's say you have a Preset where you want to use the same Cab Model (1 IR only) for all Scenes. And you're even using the same Amp Model (1 channel). The only thing you want to crossfade is the Drive Model.
In that case, your total CPU "weight" is:
- Input Block = 1.5%
- Crossfading Drive Block = 2 Normal Drive Blocks = 8% x 2 = 16%
- Amp1 Block = 0.6%
- Cab1 Block = 5% (for 1 active IR; it'd be 9.8% for 2, 18.2% for 4)
- A touch o' Reverb = 10% max (for the highest-weight verb models)
- Output Block = 0.6%
You now have crossfading scenes on your Preset. The CPU burden is 34%. Plenty to spare.
How much will you get back if you turn crossfading OFF, on that Drive Block? You'll get back 8%. (Because, again, crossfading
just is the harnessing of an extra Drive Block to the first one. If one Drive Block costs 8%, then one Crossfading Drive Block costs 16%.)
Conclusion:
So I don't see why this would be a "turn off" or a "hard sell" for customers.
The ones who
don't use it, don't lose anything. The ones who
do use it, can use it a
LOT (in which case they'll significantly limit the number of other effects they can put in their chain) or,
ONLY A LITTLE (in which case they can still put a fairly large number of effects in their chain).
