Who else is upgrading to Axe-FX III TURBO? :-)

Aeser said:
So I bought an Axe-FX III mk II almost a year ago, so I’m just stuck with that right? And the only way to get a turbo is to buy one for $2500? It says it’s an “option” on the store but it’s not something I can just buy for $200 for my AFX3 mk II and install, right? It’s just straight up a different model?

That’s one of the only things I don’t like about modelers/all this guitar technology. It’s one thing with NI guitar rig and stuff that’s good but so cheap like that where the inevitable upgrades are negligible, but a very expensive hardware based best in class one like the AFX3 that’s the same price as a really good tube amp that stays a really good tube amp for as long as it works and doesn’t feel obsolete in a short time frame when there’s some no brainer upgrade to the modeler you paid like $2200 only a year ago, that kind of stings. And yes I know I don’t “need” the latest and greatest and my AFX3 is still good and everything, it’s just for that kind of price can’t help feeling like of course you wish you waited or something, and the mk II was brand new when I got it even. I know it’s just the nature of technology but like I said it’s just the one aspect I don’t like vs. physical amps (well that plus the amp in the room sound).
Click to expand...
"Feel obsolete"? Key word is "feel". It's all in your head. The unit will not sound any worse in ten years than it does now. It's still cheaper than buying a bunch of tube amps and pedals, which IMO are far more obsolete for most usage (considering how many hoops most people jump through to make their tube amps sound good at a reasonable volume). IIRC there's only a couple companies left that even make vacuum tubes and only in countries with lax environmental laws.

Maybe someday modeling technology will hit a plateau where there's really no perceptible improvements or useful features left to add, but until that time we should be happy to see things continue to improve and understand it doesn't make what you have currently any worse.
 
Dave Merrill said:
Conventional wisdom, what I've heard anyway, is to keep presets at 80% or less, to avoid problems, which may not manifest immediately, or in a particular scene or set of enabled blocks and channels.
Click to expand...
Ok, but what I'd really like to get is a feel for how complex and/or FullRes a preset can get before you risk overtaxing the system? And how much more complex and/or FullRes a preset can you build with the Turbo version vs the standard?

Are we talking giant patches that fill up the screen with multiple FullRes reverbs or would just a couple FullRes effects be too much?
 
Dave Merrill said:
Conventional wisdom, what I've heard anyway, is to keep presets at 80% or less, to avoid problems, which may not manifest immediately, or in a particular scene or set of enabled blocks and channels.
Click to expand...
The warning light does not come on until you hit (or exceed) 85%.
 
Here's an example. TravisG406 and Mark Al posted these screenshots. The one on the bottom has a lot more effects but the CPU usage is only 3.8% higher. Where is the bulk of that usage coming from? I believe the top has a FullRes IR and the bottom has an Ultra-High reverb. Are those particular modules eating up a large percentage of the resources and all the extra effects are just a small fraction?

axe fx cpu.jpg
 
Drives use up around 7-10%. FullRes IR is without question the most expensive in terms of CPU usage. Are TravisG406 and Mark AI using standard MkII or Turbo?
 
bigcupholder said:
"Feel obsolete"? Key word is "feel". It's all in your head. The unit will not sound any worse in ten years than it does now. It's still cheaper than buying a bunch of tube amps and pedals, which IMO are far more obsolete for most usage (considering how many hoops most people jump through to make their tube amps sound good at a reasonable volume). IIRC there's only a couple companies left that even make vacuum tubes and only in countries with lax environmental laws.

Maybe someday modeling technology will hit a plateau where there's really no perceptible improvements or useful features left to add, but until that time we should be happy to see things continue to improve and understand it doesn't make what you have currently any worse.
Click to expand...

Yea I get it, nature of the beast with technology/always going to be like that/price of admission. And I totally get that while an axe fx may be the price of ONE good tube amp, it’s nowhere near what all the crazy sought after amps/cabs/mics/effects that come with it cost. I’m just mainly thinking it’s also waaaaay above what almost all other modelers cost by a large margin, so while say guitar rig gives you nowhere near as many models, they give you a prett compregensive set for almost nothing compared to this thing, and their upgrades just being software are negligable price-wise, so that’s a no brainer, like $100,000 worth of gear in a laptop for $200 and tiny upgrade fees. And you can still easily choose to have a physical tube rig as well. Whatever, my bitching isn’t getting anywhere so I’ll stop. I do love my axe fx.
 
LucasVidler said:
Here's an example. TravisG406 and Mark Al posted these screenshots. The one on the bottom has a lot more effects but the CPU usage is only 3.8% higher. Where is the bulk of that usage coming from? I believe the top has a FullRes IR and the bottom has an Ultra-High reverb. Are those particular modules eating up a large percentage of the resources and all the extra effects are just a small fraction?

View attachment 89896
Click to expand...
CPU usage patterns become fairly obvious as you build more
presets. Different blocks/block options use varying amounts of CPU - ie a reverb in hq mode uses a lot more than one in ecomomy mode, drives use a lot, some more than others, studio compressor uses more than pedal compressor...and so on (there's a long list of cpu usage stats posted here somewhere). Amp blocks don't show in the cpu readout as they use the "system/amp" side processor not counted in the visible cpu meter. So there's lots of ways to get into the red zone depending on the patch content, but generally, it tends to be with presets that have a lot of blocks in play (even if not turned on any given block will still suck cpu). The tell tale sign that the preset is struggling with cpu (generally in the mid 80s%) is that you'll start hearing digital crackles -- more and more as that percentage rises with more blocks added. 80% is a good red line as that leaves u with a bit of "cpu headroom" given that cpu can fluctuate a bit as a patch is exercised in performance
 
Last edited:
My turbo arrived today, just have it set up as how I like it. After importing my presets, all the global linked blocks are gone.... bummer....

It's such a beast!
 
For those that upgraded, did the full backup/restore work? Any issues? Does it bring forward your IRs etc?

I dont want hours of work updating presets...
 
Dave Merrill said:
Mark I here. I'm not that compelled by FullRes, yet at least, but I'm a kitchen sink kinda guy, and the extra horsepower would absolutely be appreciated. Not that likely to feel comfortable spending the money though, sadly.
Click to expand...

I thought the upgrade was only for mark II. Is this right?
 
I will when we Aussies get stock

Mark Al said:
am really digging the FullRez IRs, however, a pair of FullRez room IRs takes up a considerable amount of DSP, a very basic preset would cause the CPU meter to get quite close to the WARNING zone :cry:

Who else is considering upgrading to TURBO for 25% more horse power...? :p
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
Reactions: rog
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom