2nd amp block

There is also an audio gap when switching amp x/y - It is sometimes shorter than when switching scenes. It really depends on the number of blocks that are doing x/y switching at a scene change (try to minimize that number) and what your CPU load is. In other threads, I have demonstrated scene changes (with amp x/y) in less than 1/10 of a second, but I have also done a stress test to find the biggest possible drop-out - I think, it was 1.5 seconds or so - It was way too much. In those cases, it is actually much faster to switch presets.

Anyway, @SoProg, we may have discussed this before (I forget), but did you ever try to get your clean sound with no amp and cab block? My understanding of metal 'clean' (I don't really do metal or anything prog) is that it is actually more or less pristine clean. In that case, I think, I get wonderful tones with just a compressor and chorus (phaser, if it should be more funky).

I agree that a second amp block would be nice, but I don't think, it is ever gonna happen, so we must do our best to get the best possible results with the tools at hand.
 
Smittefar said:
There is also an audio gap when switching amp x/y - It is sometimes shorter than when switching scenes. It really depends on the number of blocks that are doing x/y switching at a scene change (try to minimize that number) and what your CPU load is. In other threads, I have demonstrated scene changes (with amp x/y) in less than 1/10 of a second, but I have also done a stress test to find the biggest possible drop-out - I think, it was 1.5 seconds or so - It was way too much. In those cases, it is actually much faster to switch presets.

Anyway, @SoProg, we may have discussed this before (I forget), but did you ever try to get your clean sound with no amp and cab block? My understanding of metal 'clean' (I don't really do metal or anything prog) is that it is actually more or less pristine clean. In that case, I think, I get wonderful tones with just a compressor and chorus (phaser, if it should be more funky).

I agree that a second amp block would be nice, but I don't think, it is ever gonna happen, so we must do our best to get the best possible results with the tools at hand.
Click to expand...


yeah I tried that.
I don't like a flat sounding clean like you hear in a lot of djent stuff.
I like a fat, present clean, which I can def get from the AX8, but not in the same preset.
 
According to this chart (I can not post any links yet so had to put some "space" between the first letter):
h ttp://axefxtutorials.com/2015/12/ax8-cpu-usage-of-all-blocks-types-fw-1-00/
the cpu usage of an amp block is only about 3% - so it dosen't seem like that the cpu lack is causing the problem rather than a corp. plan to make the rack unit still valuable in the market.

Since the AX8 dose not contain any audio interface I still think that studios will prefer the rack unit but as it seems FAS is afraid of AX8 will ruin the market for the AXE-FX.

Till than my solution was to put a drive block in paralell like it was an amp and pan the amp aside and the drive pedal to another to get two different sound together at the same time but panned to sides in stereo for live act.
According to the linked chart the drive block uses about 12% so it's mostly funny (and sad) but as I can not use two amp blocks at the same time thats the only way now...
 
Stobbart.hun said:
According to this chart (I can not post any links yet so had to put some "space" between the first letter):
h ttp://axefxtutorials.com/2015/12/ax8-cpu-usage-of-all-blocks-types-fw-1-00/
the cpu usage of an amp block is only about 3% - so it dosen't seem like that the cpu lack is causing the problem rather than a corp. plan to make the rack unit still valuable in the market.

Since the AX8 dose not contain any audio interface I still think that studios will prefer the rack unit but as it seems FAS is afraid of AX8 will ruin the market for the AXE-FX.

Till than my solution was to put a drive block in paralell like it was an amp and pan the amp aside and the drive pedal to another to get two different sound together at the same time but panned to sides in stereo for live act.
According to the linked chart the drive block uses about 12% so it's mostly funny (and sad) but as I can not use two amp blocks at the same time thats the only way now...
Click to expand...

That chart is referencing the amount of the main CPU used by the Amp Block (probably for modifiers, I/O from the grid, etc). There is an entirely separate CPU that is wholly dedicated to modeling virtual tube amplifiers and circuits. Furthermore, some amps like the Class A's use up nearly the entire amp CPU, leaving no room for a second amp block.

As has been discussed as nauseum in previous threads, the rack units contain two top of the line TigerSharcs. The AX8 has two much leaner Sharcs that don't require fan cooling. The FX8 has a single Sharc.
 
Stobbart.hun said:
According to this chart (I can not post any links yet so had to put some "space" between the first letter):
h ttp://axefxtutorials.com/2015/12/ax8-cpu-usage-of-all-blocks-types-fw-1-00/
the cpu usage of an amp block is only about 3% - so it dosen't seem like that the cpu lack is causing the problem rather than a corp. plan to make the rack unit still valuable in the market.

Since the AX8 dose not contain any audio interface I still think that studios will prefer the rack unit but as it seems FAS is afraid of AX8 will ruin the market for the AXE-FX.

Till than my solution was to put a drive block in paralell like it was an amp and pan the amp aside and the drive pedal to another to get two different sound together at the same time but panned to sides in stereo for live act.
According to the linked chart the drive block uses about 12% so it's mostly funny (and sad) but as I can not use two amp blocks at the same time thats the only way now...
Click to expand...

The amp modeling uses up the entirety of one of the two DSPs in the AX8. The 3% CPU utilisation refers to to the utilisation of the 2nd DSP (as do the 12% for the drive block)
 
philipacamaniac said:
That chart is referencing the amount of the main CPU used by the Amp Block (probably for modifiers, I/O from the grid, etc). There is an entirely separate CPU that is wholly dedicated to modeling virtual tube amplifiers and circuits. Furthermore, some amps like the Class A's use up nearly the entire amp CPU, leaving no room for a second amp block.

As has been discussed as nauseum in previous threads, the rack units contain two top of the line TigerSharcs. The AX8 has two much leaner Sharcs that don't require fan cooling. The FX8 has a single Sharc.
Click to expand...
I see. Thanks for the FASt reply. :)
Well it's up to the drive block than...
 
All the posts prior to this one are from 2016. It's 2 years later now. Has anything developed here in terms of news about a new floor model that allows a 2nd amp block? (I take it the AX8 is unlikely to ever offer this due to hardware limitations.)
 
Krankle said:
All the posts prior to this one are from 2016. It's 2 years later now. Has anything developed here in terms of news about a new floor model that allows a 2nd amp block? (I take it the AX8 is unlikely to ever offer this due to hardware limitations.)
Click to expand...

No. One day Fractal will announce a new model. It might be today, might be tomorrow, might be next month, might be next year or the year after that. If they plan to announce it tomorrow, they won’t pre-announce it today so until the announcement is actually made, you won’t hear a peep. So one day you’ll hear about it but that will most likely not be today.
 
My spidey sense sez we will see a updated floor unit around the new year, ...post NAMM is the typical time (that’s when the III was announced. ). My sense has never failed me...I correctly predicted the Packers victory over the PAtriots last night....oh..wait....:cool:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom