9.02 Amp Model Poll

[rsf1977]

I voted 1.

I thought the cleans where a big leap forward they just sound so alive. And being into post-hardcore, post-metal, metalcore kind of stuff primarily. I thought the high gain stuff finally sounded like it had a soul. I like a thick, beefed up, fat gainy sound. I'm not really into the super tight clynical type of metal stuff. So maybe I can see why the guys who want ultra precise metal tone might not like it. So pop a TS808 drive block in front like the real guys do and maybe you're back to Brootalzville lol. But, to be honest the axe sounds more like a REAL tube amp then ever good and bad . I love it keep the firmware coming guys. :twisted:

Edit: Just saw there will be an option in the next firmware. Well is that option being added because the power amp "chime" method applied in this firmware isn't exactly right? Or is it just being added because some people don't like it? Just wondering, it's good to know the facts on these mammoth debates lol.

PS. I still think it's better for high gain :lol:

 

[Jay Mitchell]

For the next firmware release I've added a control that lets you vary the "voice coil influence" parameter.

If you're accounting for the effect of negative feedback on output impedance, this parameter and Damp will interact, possibly in some interesting (and potentially useful) ways.

 

[Soultrash]

how is that a step backwards? If you like 9.2 you set it to 5. If you like 9.0 you set it to 2.5.

~mx~

you just did not understand my point of view :lol:
did you think about next firmware releases!?
it's not like it is going to stay at 9.0 and 9.2 forever.
so if there is an "option" to choose from 9.0 and 9.2 power amp behaviour whatever
shouldn't there be an option to choose from prevoius and following firmware improvements!?
this thing just splits the road, and that's indeed a step backward dude.

cheers
S.

 

[FractalAudio]

The addition is strictly to allow people who like the older sound to go back to it. The chiminess in 9.02 is because a parameter was increased in all the amp models because I realized I had it set too low. It varies from model to model but it was set too low in nearly all of them. This new parameter indirectly exposes that parameter and allows you to decrease it back to 9.00 levels if desired.

 

[Ringleader]

The addition is strictly to allow people who like the older sound to go back to it. The chiminess in 9.02 is because a parameter was increased in all the amp models because I realized I had it set too low. It varies from model to model but it was set too low in nearly all of them. This new parameter indirectly exposes that parameter and allows you to decrease it back to 9.00 levels if desired.

love it!

 

[ElectricPhase]

The addition is strictly to allow people who like the older sound to go back to it. The chiminess in 9.02 is because a parameter was increased in all the amp models because I realized I had it set too low. It varies from model to model but it was set too low in nearly all of them. This new parameter indirectly exposes that parameter and allows you to decrease it back to 9.00 levels if desired.

Thanks. For the most part I love the 9.02 "sound", but I believe that could be useful.

 

[kev]

The addition is strictly to allow people who like the older sound to go back to it. The chiminess in 9.02 is because a parameter was increased in all the amp models because I realized I had it set too low. It varies from model to model but it was set too low in nearly all of them. This new parameter indirectly exposes that parameter and allows you to decrease it back to 9.00 levels if desired.

Really looking forward to trying this. Almost like dialing in firmware 9.01453982464 with a knob. :ugeek:

Does this parameter affect the bass response also?

 

[marvinx]

Soultrash:
No i really don't understand that splitting the road concept. Youve got an option that controls a parameter that affects absolutely everything amp related. You could have ONE setting that 90% of folks like, or you could make it variable, assist the 10%, AND open up a whole new world of settings and tones INBETWEEN. All of this from making ONE SETTING variable.

That is absoultely a STEP FORWARD. You get tons more, and NOTHING less.
Alot of cliffs inprovements have involved massive overhauls of algorithms or many simple changes that added up to one complex whole. Things like that cannot be assigned to a single simple parameter.

It would be much more difficult for cliff to add an "old rotary model" knob, because he didn't just adjust one setting to update it. It would most likely consume alot more memory than this new setting. That would be a step backwards IMO.
~mx~

 

[vAmp]

Couldn't comment on the poll, Cliff, but I finally got to loading some presets off the exchange and a lot of them sounded awesome out of the box and I was very impressed and have never been happier with the Axe (about 2 or 3 times happier than I had been ) So Thank You, Mr Sir!!

Helping more people enjoy your product is a step backwards?

"the more you give the more you'll be asked for" sounds good but is simply a mindless assumption here.

I too think that Soultrash is making all valid points and you shouldn't take it so personal.

If I was The Maker I'd want some idea of people's playing abilities, IQ etc.
I would not allow these extra options just because maybe some after hours wannabees are screaming very hard.
Was there even time enough to try and rethink your approach and did you really do that, or did you do that for 20 mins?
Would anyone have enough time in just these few days?

It's all come out for the better this time and I agree and am happy with the solution offered, but the points are still valid and understandable. Even now "the more you give the more you'll be asked for" will have its effect...

 

[VegaBaby]

It varies from model to model but it was set too low in nearly all of them. This new parameter indirectly exposes that parameter and allows you to decrease it back to 9.00 levels if desired.

When you're saying that it varied from model to model, does that mean that all of them were increased in an absolute way or relative ? I guess what I'm trying to say is, do some models have the value set too high at the moment because you incresed it all over the board to one value ? Just trying to get my head around it a bit more

 

[Scott Peterson]

Veddy cool.

You almost HAVE to call the control: flux capacitor

It is, after all, back to the future... ya know?

 

[marvinx]

V-amp : I have completely re-thought my approach, and have spent at least 12 hours in the past two days obsessively tweaking. My wife hates me currently.

I'm not sure what playing ability has to do with it, and IMO that arbitrarily applied blanket statement of "the more you give the more you'll be asked for" could be a sign of questionable I.Q..
~mx~

 

[marvinx]

It varies from model to model but it was set too low in nearly all of them. This new parameter indirectly exposes that parameter and allows you to decrease it back to 9.00 levels if desired.

When you're saying that it varied from model to model, does that mean that all of them were increased in an absolute way or relative ? I guess what I'm trying to say is, do some models have the value set too high at the moment because you incresed it all over the board to one value ? Just trying to get my head around it a bit more

I think he means they were all relatively low, but varied according to each model. I THINK the 9.02 adjustment was a proportional increase across the board?
EDIT. Since cliff said it was strictly to offer the 9.0 sound to those who desired it, then that must mean that as of now all amp model settings are correct.
~mx~

 

[Soultrash]

Soultrash:
No i really don't understand that splitting the road concept. Youve got an option that controls a parameter that affects absolutely everything amp related. You could have ONE setting that 90% of folks like, or you could make it variable, assist the 10%, AND open up a whole new world of settings and tones INBETWEEN. All of this from making ONE SETTING variable.

That is absoultely a STEP FORWARD. You get tons more, and NOTHING less.
Alot of cliffs inprovements have involved massive overhauls of algorithms or many simple changes that added up to one complex whole. Things like that cannot be assigned to a single simple parameter.

It would be much more difficult for cliff to add an "old rotary model" knob, because he didn't just adjust one setting to update it. It would most likely consume alot more memory than this new setting. That would be a step backwards IMO.
~mx~

as you are acting bitchy and presuming about my IQ i should't reply anymore, or should i!?
guess i should just shut up and leave you alone with your new world of settings and tones INBETWEEN!

 

[marvinx]

as you are acting bitchy and presuming about my IQ i should't reply anymore, or should i!?
guess i should just shut up and leave you alone with your new world of settings and tones INBETWEEN!

No actually the I.Q. remark was directed toward vamp not you.
Am i acting in a rather disgruntled manner? It seems like it.
Im sorry if i was being overly belligerent toward you ( no sarcasm intended ).
~mx~

 

[rsf1977]

The addition is strictly to allow people who like the older sound to go back to it. The chiminess in 9.02 is because a parameter was increased in all the amp models because I realized I had it set too low. It varies from model to model but it was set too low in nearly all of them. This new parameter indirectly exposes that parameter and allows you to decrease it back to 9.00 levels if desired.

Superb, thanks for letting us know. I love the chime high gain and clean. Thanks cliff!

 

[Soultrash]

as you are acting bitchy and presuming about my IQ i should't reply anymore, or should i!?
guess i should just shut up and leave you alone with your new world of settings and tones INBETWEEN!

No actually the I.Q. remark was directed toward vamp not you.
Am i acting in a rather disgruntled manner? It seems like it.
Im sorry if i was being overly belligerent toward you ( no sarcasm intended ).
~mx~

haha, yea it kinda felt like that when you started digging up some older posts of mine :mrgreen:
peace man!

 

[OmegaZero]

I know people are going to disagree, but does the Amp block really need more parameters? I can appreciate what Cliff is trying to do; giving control to the user to make the Axe as versatile a unit as possible is awesome. The trouble is that after a certain point there's pretty serious diminishing returns, if not even a negative impact/perception overall. How many reviews or forum posts have we seen where people were put off because they couldn't traverse the learning curve? A good portion on this forum's traffic is people trying to help with exactly that, or defending the Axe against someone who thinks it sucks because they haven't managed to figure out all of the intricacies yet. Not too long ago I got bent about a fairly high profile review calling the Axe’s advanced editing parameters esoteric, but to be honest the more I thought about it the more I realized some of it really is. I'd be pretty confident in saying that anyone who doesn't like the Axe just hasn't turned the right knobs yet, and I think many (here especially) would agree. Adding more variables is not going to help that. Making the unit sound better overall with no magic parameter knowledge needed will. At the time of writing this 87% of users think the "more accurate" modeling sounds better. Why add a setting to undo that? I know that adding one more knob isn't going to make it significantly more complicated, but why invest the time at all? You can't please all the people all the time, and the harder you try the less people you end up pleasing.

I know that there are some hard core fans out there who will happily spend weeks dialing in the perfect tone, but they really are a minority. I spent quite a few years working at a music store and I can tell you from experience that the majority of musicians don't want this (whether they come out and say it or not). The most often given reason for returning a product like a TriAxis, Eclipse, Command 8, etc. is because "it just sucks man". You don't have to dig much to figure out that they just didn't understand it, got frustrated, and gave up. Are those products for everyone? No, of course not. But I’d be willing to bet most here have been frustrated by the complexity at one point or another. I love my Axe and would never give it up, but I can honestly say that there's been a few times I've wished I still had my amp so I could just turn a dial and play without needing to spend hours programming the sound I want.

Sorry for the rant. My point is just that if an overwhelming majority of people think the new development is a move in the right direction, it seems like unnecessary complexity to add another parameter to turn it off. Like Soultrash said, it seems like a step back.

In some ways it reminds me of the Turbo button on my 386

 

[marvinx]

I sorta see your point about most people wanting to plug and play.

The thing about it is there is a reason some parameters are labeled "advanced" or "amp geek". This means "if you don't know what to do don't touch it". Since the new firmware will default to the "optimal" setting, NOTHING is loss, and it doen't make it ANY harder to dial in. All you have to do is not touch it, like the rest of the amps parameters.

Now if none of these advanced parameters did anything, you wouldn't see people writing 2 page guides on what they do and how they increase their enjoyment of the model.

What makes no sense to me is to limit everyone, when ... if you don't like the options and instead prefer like simplicity... then all you have to do is limit yourself and not touch those parameters. If that's 'difficult" then there is a different problem entirely.
~mx~

 

[TCD]

I've had my Standard since v3.00. IMO, a lot of good stuff has happened since then, particularly with respect to Cliff exposing parameters in the drive, amp and cab blocks. In my case, the ability to have all the tone shaping options that became available through exposed parameters in the latest firmware versions was critically important in creating the tones I was seeking. Personally, I never thought that a digital device would allow me to get the "tones I hear in my head," but Cliff's programming has made this possible. IMHO, with 9.02, the Axefx is about as "plug and play" as it has ever been with the current default settings. IMO, at this point, one does not necessarily have to fiddle with all the various parameters to get great tones. However, I hope he continues to give as us as much access to these exposed virtual parameters as he can without compromising the security of his code. IMO, it simply enables unlimited possibilities. - Tim