Wish Access Looper In Any Preset Without The Need To Add A Block

Baz The Axeman

Baz The Axeman

Member
Currently if you want to use the Looper, you need to add the Looper block to each preset you "think in advance" you might need it in. That really doesn't help if live you think you might want to use it. You can't quickly edit your preset and add the looper block on the fly!!

It would much better to have the Looper preset independent without the need of a block, so it can be accessed in any preset, at any time using the Heel/Toe option you normally do.
 
lqdsnddist said:
additionally, where would it go in each block ? Some like it before the amp, others post amp....
Click to expand...

Yes, there are completely different use cases for the looper which necessitate different placement (e.g., auditioning cabs vs playing over a loop at a live show).
 
So what are you going to do live if you suddenly think I really need the looper now? You can't exactly stop the song and say to the band, wait a sec while I add a looper block to my preset!! No, but what you can do dynamically mid song is Heel&Toe and go to the Looper page and there you go. No hassle :)
 
Baz The Axeman said:
So what are you going to do live if you suddenly think I really need the looper now? You can't exactly stop the song and say to the band, wait a sec while I add a looper block to my preset!! No, but what you can do dynamically mid song is Heel&Toe and go to the Looper page and there you go. No hassle :)
Click to expand...
Let's say you do that. Heel-toe and go to the looper page. Where would the looper be in your signal chain? In front? At the end? After the cab? Somewhere else?

With a traditional rig, if you might suddenly think you really need a looper, you'd better already have one on your pedalboard, cabled up and ready to go. You can't say to the band, "Wait a sec while I go out and buy a looper and some cables." With the Axe-Fx, if you might suddenly think you need a looper (or a delay, or a chorus, or an anything), you'd better already have one in your preset, connected and ready to go.
 
Last edited:
Rex said:
Let's say you do that. Heel-toe and go to the looper page. Where would the looper be in your signal chain? In front? At the end? After the cab? Somewhere else?
Click to expand...

To that point, IIRC, going to the Looper layout still won't work if you don't have a Looper block in the preset already.
 
rcv24 said:
To that point, IIRC, going to the Looper layout still won't work if you don't have a Looper block in the preset already.
Click to expand...
Right. See the second paragraph of my post above. If you need a looper, there needs to be one in your preset.
 
Would be good as a global function with switch to place it either at the very beginning or end of the chain, but, the concern I would have is the CPU the looper takes which is quite expensive (around 4-5% I think while off or on). I use the looper mainly for preset tweaking purposes and used to have it in every preset for convenience but when cpu got tight in a few of my kitchen sink presets I started adding the looper block only when needed and then taking it out when I'm done given how much cpu it takes (keeping a shunt there to make adding it in faster). What I would like to see with looper is a "tweaker mode" where by the looper block can be there but only loaded/actively using cpu when the block is turned on. This would create a switching gap on activation but that would be fine when using the looper as a tweaking tool.

Going with this idea a little further in terms of the OP's idea of a globally available looper block, a "load" switch would be implemented "by preset" and would determine whether or not the looper would actively use cpu cycles in that preset or not. This would allow for use of the looper from any preset via footswitching without having to establish a block and without spending cpu on it if not needed. Agreed this logic could be applied to any effect but considering it for the looper specifically is not unusual as many modellers have it (my old Pod Hd has the looper globally available within any preset (but there no "load" switch so it may well be sucking cpu all the time or have a switching gap when activated)).
 
sprint said:
Going with this idea a little further in terms of the OP's idea of a globally available looper block, a "load" switch would be implemented "by preset" and would determine whether or not the looper would actively use cpu cycles in that preset or not.
Click to expand...
I get what you’re going for, but if you get to a preset without one, you’re in the same situation and have to go turn on that switch, potentially pushing your current preset CPU over the edge.

The current block paradigm is sound and straight forward: put the blocks you need for a preset in the preset. This way you know the CPU usage, and blocks are arranged exactly how you want.

I’m sure we’ve all been in situations at gigs where “oh darn it’d be nice to have this effect right now.” The reality exists that with physical gear or digital, if you’re playing a song at the moment and don’t have that effect plugged in, it can’t magically appear in the right spot. At some point you’ll have to add it by getting 1/4” cables and putting it on your physical pedal board, or go into the digital Layout and add it. At least with digital, you have them all right there and don’t need to go into a gig bag assuming the pedal is in there.

It’d be nice for the Axe to predict what our minds are thinking, but currently that’s not possible. Similar ideas come up about blocks ignoring Scene changes, and somehow knowing when you’re thinking “I want it kept on” and later “now I want it to follow the Scene.” Things seem easy in our mind because we’re thinking it, but gear can’t know that and needs to be programmed ahead of time.

That said, I’ve often added blocks to presets for one-off moments pretty quickly. It’s definitely possible if the situation allows it, say between songs, or if you’re laying out of a section. But right at the moment while you’re playing, it just can’t be done.
 
Would you not already have a preset with a looper block in you unit? if not would the control switches on you pedal board be set up for it? I do not have an axe fx III yet but with the # of preset storage locations in the axe fxII I have a preset for all most every thing just a step or 2 on a mfc foot switch away.
 
Baz The Axeman said:
So what are you going to do live if you suddenly think I really need the looper now? You can't exactly stop the song and say to the band, wait a sec while I add a looper block to my preset!! No, but what you can do dynamically mid song is Heel&Toe and go to the Looper page and there you go. No hassle :)
Click to expand...
I think your assumption that that situation is common is quite exaggerated. I think players using loopers during a live performance are vocal, but a minority. I've never even met a fellow guitar player who uses a looper live. Granted, it's more convenient with the III, but I reckon it gets the most use during dialling in tones and auditioning IRs.

If you want to use it live, put in your presets. Simple as that.
 
The OP didn't think this one through. If you want a looper always available, add it to every preset. Even then, it might not be in the desired location. That's why presets and the grid exist.
 
Oh, please, NOT ...........

I use the looper rarely.

And I have absolutely NO use for the additonal CPU burden a permanent - and mostly unused - looper will add to the system.
 
yek said:
That case can be made for any effect block...
Click to expand...

True! A multi effects unit is not the best tool for making spontaneous decisions. It is made out of presets. The word already says it all: it is pre set. You have to think what you want to do beforehand. If you want to decide on the fly on a stage you are better of with a looper pedal.

But I have seen this wish for a global looper more than once.
 
On a related note, I noticed recently (maybe this is already common knowledge) that, if you turn on the looper's "half" function before recording a loop, it uses significantly less CPU. So, since I never use "half" I set it on by defaulf in my presets that include the looper for cpu efficiency. Running with "half" on does not seem to effect a subsequent loop recording but maybe there is some impact i'm not noticing.
 
sprint said:
On a related note, I noticed recently (maybe this is already common knowledge) that, if you turn on the looper's "half" function before recording a loop, it uses significantly less CPU. So, since I never use "half" I set it on by defaulf in my presets that include the looper for cpu efficiency. Running with "half" on does not seem to effect a subsequent loop recording but maybe there is some impact i'm not noticing.
Click to expand...
if you mean the Half-Speed function, i found that it uses more CPU compared to regular speed, usually .5 more.
 
langohr said:
Oh, please, NOT ...........

I use the looper rarely.

And I have absolutely NO use for the additonal CPU burden a permanent - and mostly unused - looper will add to the system.
Click to expand...
Likewise. I think I've used it once in 10 years of FAS-dom and wouldn't want to sacrifice the CPU for it to always be available.
chris said:
It’d be nice for the Axe to predict what our minds are thinking, but currently that’s not possible.
Click to expand...
Cliff's working on it. Axe IV ;-)
 
chris said:
if you mean the Half-Speed function, i found that it uses more CPU compared to regular speed, usually .5 more.
Click to expand...
Yes - the half-speed function - I re-confirmed a decrease in CPU of 1-1.5% with speed set to "Half" vs "full" - tested in the following scenarios:
  • via AE and thru front panel with AE paused.
  • via a complex preset in multiple locations and in a preset which just contains a looper block.
  • with a loop running and without.
If I watch the cpu of just the looper block for a while there are momentary spikes but the value of those spikes is the same for "Full" vs "Half" and they don't last very long (probably not related to the looper as I notice the cpu is always a bit jumpy with any preset). See sample below with cpu at 10.3% at "full" setting and 8.5% on "half".

Not saying you don't see what you see there - I'd be curious to know why there's a difference.

1602208830632.png
1602208865099.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom