AITR

Would it make sense to start a poll in this thread,
what the majority of Axe FX III MK I users think about the issue of not having a full bank of user IRs for 32 FullRes IRs?
 
Personally, I would prefer a bank of FullRes IRs, even though I would then have to "economize" with the user IR slots and clean them up regularly.
 
Sorry, I didn't word that well at all. My thought was that the FullRes Ir's that are being discussed would be handled like any other user IR that one would purchase. Yes, you would be responsible for the space necessary in your user IR allocation to store and use them.
The space to store them still needs to be allocated. You don’t just drop them into an existing slot.
 
It would be fun to chop some space off the end of user 2 and have a mini-bank 3 with like 2 slots. And the IRs in that slot have a REALLY BIG FONT!!!

(PS I’m joking and totally trust whatever call Cliff makes either way)
 
I have sort of mixed thoughts on this.

I have never chased the AITR sound. Most of my favourite guitar tones are close-miced anyway.

I do see the usability, where you have close-mic'd UltraRes IRs and and room mic FullRes IRs of the same cabinet in a great room. Mix in the room mics below the close mic sound will give a fantastic dimensionality that is otherwise not available.

However, my preset template is already running at ~90% adding two FullRes IRs to the cab block would mean that I have to remove several other blocks, and since my primary usage is live, the added room sound might hurt more than it added (I never have reverb in my live presets unless I really need it as a special effect)

Finally, I come to this: I doubt, I would use it much, but I would love to have the opportunity. I will happily sacrifice user bank 2, since I believe I am using a total of around 20 user IRs anyway.
 
I’ve probably already forgotten some of the suggestions in this thread, and I may have missed some others as well, so leading with a “my bad” before my suggestion. As I was reading about related issues for the memory requirements for the new IRs, I wonder if we could carve out a bit, by eliminating 5-10 User preset holding slots on the Mark 1 units, and uittiize that memory for 10 or 20 of the new IRs? I believe I read that two of the new type IRs use the same memory as one preset slot. I know there would still be enough preset slots for anything I do, even with a few less. I had not noticed anyone discussing the possibility, even though what I read made it sound like this could be an apples-to-apples memory comparison of size and type, which I know doesn’t validate that the User preset storage in the AF3 and space for the new IRs (in the AF3) would/could 100% be used for either/both. If I didn’t misread or misremember, perhaps this is yet another of the few options with which we might find some space to include the AF3 mk1 units. And in full disclosure, I have two AF3 Mark1 units, and one Mark 2 AF3.
cheers,
Lee
 
I’ve probably already forgotten some of the suggestions in this thread, and I may have missed some others as well, so leading with a “my bad” before my suggestion. As I was reading about related issues for the memory requirements for the new IRs, I wonder if we could carve out a bit, by eliminating 5-10 User preset holding slots on the Mark 1 units, and uittiize that memory for 10 or 20 of the new IRs? I believe I read that two of the new type IRs use the same memory as one preset slot. I know there would still be enough preset slots for anything I do, even with a few less. I had not noticed anyone discussing the possibility, even though what I read made it sound like this could be an apples-to-apples memory comparison of size and type, which I know doesn’t validate that the User preset storage in the AF3 and space for the new IRs (in the AF3) would/could 100% be used for either/both. If I didn’t misread or misremember, perhaps this is yet another of the few options with which we might find some space to include the AF3 mk1 units. And in full disclosure, I have two AF3 Mark1 units, and one Mark 2 AF3.
cheers,
Lee
Cliff has already stated that the only viable solution is to reconvert User Bank II to accommodate these new IR
 
Would it make sense to start a poll in this thread,
what the majority of Axe FX III MK I users think about the issue of not having a full bank of user IRs for 32 FullRes IRs?
Personally I prefer to maintain all user cab slot in ultrares. I have a very large library of my personal IRs that I prefer. For “amp in the room” simulation personally I don’t use it beacouse when I add a Reverb Block it makes little sense. In live-contest The “Amp in the room” is real and natural of the ambient where I play and very rarely I use reverbs in live.
this is my personal use.
 
I know Cliff already said the only way is to get rid of 1024 user IR slots, so just spitballing here, but now that I think about it wouldn’t it be cool if we could just get rid of enough user slots to load only 2 fullres IRs at a time…….boom……best of both worlds.
 
Looks like it’s all of user 2, or it’s not gonna happen. I was joking with my ‘suggestion’ but from what I understand that’s the choice and it has to be that for everyone, it can’t be optional.
 
I know Cliff already said the only way is to get rid of 1024 user IR slots, so just spitballing here, but now that I think about it wouldn’t it be cool if we could just get rid of enough user slots to load only 2 fullres IRs at a time…….boom……best of both worlds.

Creative thought, but when building rooms / spaces, you don't want to have just one room.
 
Cliff has already stated that the only viable solution is to reconvert User Bank II to accommodate these new IR
Fair enough.
I’m not trying to beat a dead horse. I just didn’t recall reading that they weren’t interested in other potential solutions to the Mark1.

I hadn’t read about this option, and I wanted to make sure it wasn’t accidentally overlooked, if at all viable.
Lee
 
lawdy... I'm getting the sense I'm in the minority, and that this is the point where axe fx is going to diverge quite a bit from my taste. I have tried to like far field and room sound irs... but I just don't.

I have often dreamed of the day that modelers would broach the world of convolution reverb - imo the best reverbs out there. Similar to my ir collection, have a huge collection of convolution reverbs... love them. That said it doesn't seem like this would be quite at the point where one could start thinking about using those irs in the axefx, and as such is really sitting in the gap closer to short room sound irs and far fields.

I do appreciate very much that this is the next step in that direction. That said, my ir slots are full. In fact bank two is 50% bass cabs, 20% acoustic guitar irs, 10% standup bass simulations, and 20% tone matches. With that in mind, really hoped this could be implemented in an optional way, but does not sound like that's the case.

so in summary, excited, elated, happy for the axefx and depressed all at the sm time.
 
Could make the IR type user selectable...but then what happens if a capture type system is implemented?
 
Last edited:
Looks like it’s all of user 2, or it’s not gonna happen. I was joking with my ‘suggestion’ but from what I understand that’s the choice and it has to be that for everyone, it can’t be optional.
I'm fine with that. It requires more curation of the IR's outside the user slots, but I don't use 1024 IR's, personally. It's hard to imagine keeping track of that many, realistically. I'll happily sacrifice the second set of 1024 for a set of 32 items that get me closer to what I want to hear out of my rig through my IEM's in particular.
 
Back
Top Bottom