Another Gapless Switching Thread... Solved! (Post #136)

@unix-guy so knowing that the axe is normally a lot more powerful than a helix and a 2, it don’t explain why there still a gap . Code? Sound quality ?

By the way that’s just curiosity, I don’t care anymore about the gap, it’s ok to me to use one or two amp in a preset for a song as I can add a lot of effect quickly without gap…
 
For absolute gapless switching you have to get a Boss GT 1000. Everything in the Boss GT units was built from the ground up to switch as fast as stomping a Boss pedal. The trade off is amp realism. No Boss GT unit will ever come close to Fractal in this regard, but I'm willing to bet the engineers at Roland deliberately made decisions to make sure all switching between presets and between "scenes" were as "instantaneous" as possible.
 
My name is mud said:
@unix-guy so knowing that the axe is normally a lot more powerful than a helix and a 2, it don’t explain why there still a gap . Code? Sound quality ?

By the way that’s just curiosity, I don’t care anymore about the gap, it’s ok to me to use one or two amp in a preset for a song as I can add a lot of effect quickly without gap…
Click to expand...
See my previous comment - more CPU power doesn't mean anything on it's own.

Perhaps the algorithms used by Fractal require 4, 5, 10 times the amount required by Helix to achieve the results we get?

I'm sure Cliff could answer this...
 
My name is mud said:
@unix-guy so knowing that the axe is normally a lot more powerful than a helix and a 2, it don’t explain why there still a gap . Code? Sound quality ?

By the way that’s just curiosity, I don’t care anymore about the gap, it’s ok to me to use one or two amp in a preset for a song as I can add a lot of effect quickly without gap…
Click to expand...
Cliff has talked about this more than twice thru the years. He could've made it gapless, but it would've hit quality.

The design philosophy of Fractal is different than Line6 and others. This matters. Those of us who were here in the original Standard and Ultra days remember why this is.

Like many of us Cliff had played tube amps originally, there was a Dual Recto I remember him talking to me about. He switched to a POD he got at GC. He found it fun but quickly also frustrating. It was such a huge step down in quality of sound and build (he realized when he took it apart).

From my view, Cliff is the original guy who delivered us a "no-compromise" modeler when it came to physical device quality and the hard work of coding for no compromise quality amp sound. It wasn't to dazzle kids at Guitar Center with flashy lights. It wasn't to hit a price point.
Some may not realize, it was shockingly expensive when it was first released - compared to what was at GC. It was built to be pro gear and was priced as such. We didn't have a choice of pro level modelers back then. It broke that ground from middle tier into top tier.

That original idea is still at the heart of Fractal it seems to me. Other companies prioritize choice over tone, or other things... and that's their call. I respect it! Have a target and hit it is a good plan - but it's always trade-off.
 
Last edited:
FPFL said:
That original idea is still at the heart of Fractal it seems to me. Other companies prioritize choice over tone, or other things... and that's their call. I respect it! Have a target and hit it is a good plan - but it's always trade-off.
Click to expand...

I mentioned this earlier in the thread, but there is precedence for optionally sacrificing quality on the Axe-FX for performance. See the reduced oversampling option to lower latency. Line6 does something similar. For example, they offer an option to sacrifice cpu capacity to eliminate the gap when switching presets.

There's no free lunch, but that doesn't mean you can't have multiple items on the lunch menu.

Anyway, hopefully the technique I demonstrated will help some people who are looking for gapless amp channel switching.
 
GlennO said:
I mentioned this earlier in the thread, but there is precedence for optionally sacrificing quality on the Axe-FX for performance. See the reduced oversampling option to lower latency. Line6 does something similar. For example, they offer an option to sacrifice cpu capacity to eliminate the gap when switching presets.

There's no free lunch, but that doesn't mean you can't have multiple items on the lunch menu.

Anyway, hopefully the technique I demonstrated will help some people who are looking for gapless amp channel switching.
Click to expand...
Yeah but why not imagined something in the code that act like your trick by default ? Hm

Personally I prefer to have a mini gap and better quality. Maybe if the axe have twice the power once again? But the price of the unit ….
 
GlennO said:
I mentioned this earlier in the thread, but there is precedence for optionally sacrificing quality on the Axe-FX for performance. See the reduced oversampling option to lower latency. Line6 does something similar. For example, they offer an option to sacrifice cpu capacity to eliminate the gap when switching presets.

There's no free lunch, but that doesn't mean you can't have multiple items on the lunch menu.

Anyway, hopefully the technique I demonstrated will help some people who are looking for gapless amp channel switching.
Click to expand...
True, but as I said, adding ever more features / items to the menu slows down development over time too.
It's still a trade-off. That's part of why I think Cliff kills off certain features over time. They are redundant, or unpopular.
I wonder if they'll ever build telemetry into our Axe's so it lets Cliff know what we actually do?

Thanks for sharing your technique! I like to do a slow fade from clean to dirty with an expression pedal. I learned it from James Murphy back when he was with Testament, though it was first a studio trick in his case.
 
Dunno all of what's been said here, 'cause: TL;DR. I was using a single amp block and switching channels for Rhy/Lead, but the gap was disruptive. I switched to 2 amp blocks in parallel, one each dedicated to Rhy/Lead, and selected with a Mux. That allows control with both Scenes and a dedicated footswitch, which suits the various switch layouts I utilize.

I just played a gig cranked up quite loud in FOH along with a loud F12-equipped cab on stage. Switching was virtually silent, for all intents and purposes. If there's a gap, I can't detect it.

YMMV.
 
allenma said:
Dunno all of what's been said here, 'cause: TL;DR. I was using a single amp block and switching channels for Rhy/Lead, but the gap was disruptive. I switched to 2 amp blocks in parallel, one each dedicated to Rhy/Lead, and selected with a Mux. That allows control with both Scenes and a dedicated footswitch, which suits the various switch layouts I utilize.

I just played a gig cranked up quite loud in FOH along with a loud F12-equipped cab on stage. Switching was virtually silent, for all intents and purposes. If there's a gap, I can't detect it.

YMMV.
Click to expand...
Yes, for only 2 amps, that's the standard answer as discussed.

For more, that doesn't work...
 
FPFL said:
Thanks for sharing your technique! I like to do a slow fade from clean to dirty with an expression pedal. I learned it from James Murphy back when he was with Testament, though it was first a studio trick in his case.
Click to expand...
It would be easy to add fading to that “gapless channel switching“ preset I uploaded. I’ll leave that as an exercise for the reader :).
 
App12 said:
It is a legit question especially for someone coming over from Helix. Quite a few of us are interested in ways to work around it and the solutions suggested have been great. If you are not interested just stay out of it!
Click to expand...
I have a HX , it is no better than the fractal in terms of changing. I'm not sure why any one is making it an issue.
 
Geoff L said:
I have a HX , it is no better than the fractal in terms of changing. I'm not sure why any one is making it an issue.
Click to expand...
Even if you don’t have a helix there are those that are bothered by the gap on the Axe. If you read the thread you’d see that. It doesn’t bother you so then there is nothing to see here. For those that do, there has been some great suggestions and advice.
 
For me the lack of a gap between tones is like a guitar pickup selector; it's very natural and inspiring. I can't help but to be distracted by gaps between tones. I realize that many amps have gaps or pops between their channels in the real world, but, the same way the Fractal products transcend other limitations of the real world, like safe layman electronic amp mods, gaplessness is yet another way in which one has access to an ideal in Fractalland.

Oh, and I have to mention, remember, at least on the Axe-FX III, you can run four drives in parallel into a multiplexer, into two amps in parallel into a second multiplexer. This is provides arguably as much as or more tonal variation than eight amps. I've done this before too, and I used scene controllers in the drives and amps in addition to channels with the multiplexers to get all tone changes utterly gapless. There's so much you can do in these units, they really are so much more flexible than one might first realize. Throw in four separate channels scene controllers and, for all intents and purposes, the sky's the limit.
 
State of Epicicity said:
For me the lack of a gap between tones is like a guitar pickup selector; it's very natural and inspiring. I can't help but to be distracted by gaps between tones. I realize that many amps have gaps or pops between their channels in the real world, but, the same way the Fractal products transcend other limitations of the real world, like safe layman electronic amp mods, gaplessness is yet another way in which one has access to an ideal in Fractalland.

Oh, and I have to mention, remember, at least on the Axe-FX III, you can run four drives in parallel into a multiplexer, into two amps in parallel into a second multiplexer. This is provides arguably as much as or more tonal variation than eight amps. I've done this before too, and I used scene controllers in the drives and amps in addition to channels with the multiplexers to get all tone changes utterly gapless. There's so much you can do in these units, they really are so much more flexible than one might first realize. Throw in four separate channels scene controllers and, for all intents and purposes, the sky's the limit.
Click to expand...
Lots of options for sure - don't forget about the simple case: ie - clean, edge, mean, meaner scenes all on the same amp channel with modifiers varying input trim, gain, output volume accross the 4 scenes. Can't do that on most real single channel amps without pedals or something like Neil Young's whizzer thingys.
 
I suspect someone's already said this and I overlooked it, but in a band mix, the "gaps" when you kick in the overdrive etc for your solo on a pedal board - or change channel with some real amps, isn't noticeable by the audience. Some tap dancing can even be part of the excitement - as with the embarrassment of a delay continuing loud 8th notes after a dramatic dead-stop ending. Fractal relieves us of all this.

I started out out with an FXII, now FM9, using just an AC30 amp sim as it saved me carrying mine - a 1964 VIbratrem so deserving of retirement, and my pedal board was ridiculously huge, heavy and unreliable. Obviously I added more amps because that was possible, but always realising that the audience didn't really benefit - that it was all for me inside my weird little GAS gearhead. I love it too!!

It was also lovely having different alternatives for example for cleans, without having to carry them all - ie backed off AC30, Fender Twin and the Mesa Boogie cleans. I've carried all those real-world amps to gigs and they're all great sounds. Wonderful to be able to switch and combine them - although in the real world it's only worth it to carry two real amps imo, and you get the different sounds using fx - ie 'pedals'. But I don't think the audience is as much into the different amps as I am - either real amps or digital.

I played with one guitarist (a frighteningly good player) who insisted that at high volume, audiences don't notice much beyond basic guitar effects. He has a Line 6 delay unit and a couple of OD pedals. He also regularly blows - or they catch fire (don't know why) Marshall combos, so he would have spent less money had he bought a Fractal unit.

Helix etc have created a digital sound palette, which uses different amps as part of creating different sounds. I'd just suggest that the Fractal units aren't intended to be like that but are digital replacements for the real thing. I'd hate them to reduce the quality just to allow use of more than say 3 or 4 amps in one patch.

Although there are work-arounds for Fractal gapless switching with loads of amps - as with State of Epicicity's interesting use of multiplexers. But as with switching from neck pu to bridge for a solo, 'gaps' are just one part of live playing. Although all the clicks of my old pedal board and hums of the dear old AC30 were a pain - huge thanks Fractal!

Some Neil Young and Crazy Horse; the reason for which is - circa 1994, the huge foot controller, arm-thick multicore and heavy duty distro boxes needed to drive Neil Young's simple amp switcher and "Wizzer" knob turner. I built me an electrically-accurate version of Old Black, but the FM9 covers the rest (and any other madness I decide to get into.) Thank you Cliff ;-)
 
Last edited:
Hugomack said:
Helix etc have created a digital sound palette, which uses different amps as part of creating different sounds. I'd just suggest that the Fractal units aren't intended to be like that but are digital replacements for the real thing. I'd hate them to reduce the quality just to allow use of more than say 3 or 4 amps in one patch.

Although there are work-arounds for Fractal gapless switching with loads of amps - as with State of Epicicity's interesting use of multiplexers. But as with switching from neck pu to bridge for a solo, 'gaps' are just one part of live playing. Although all the clicks of my old pedal board and hums of the dear old AC30 were a pain - huge thanks Fractal!
Click to expand...
I believe that Helix and Fractal are essentially seeking to do the exact same thing - giving you more amp, cabinet and pedal/effects choices than you could ever need, in order to give you the all important thing - choice - choice for how you want to create your own personal tone. They do make different trade offs and decisions, that lead to slightly different outcomes. But I do believe they are both seeking to achieve exactly the same thing in the end. The highest quality representation of reality that they can possibly deliver.

If you compare this to the keyboard world, Fractal and Helix are doing this by modeling, which is a good parallel to synthesis in the keyboard world. They are doing it in the digital domain essentially using math to achieve that end. Cliff can take the schematic of an amp that has never been built in the physical world and generate a model of that amp which will sound like that amp if you were to build it in the physical world. This is because he’s already done the math on how every resistor, potentiometer, capacitor, diode, tube, etc. will impact the final tone already. This is quite mind-blowing actually. Perhaps even cooler this enables them to create amps that do not exist in reality - like the FAS models and Helix‘s theoretical models like the Badonk also.

Whereas, the Kemper and Quad Cortex are using profiling, which is more akin to sampling keyboards to achieve their core amp sounds. They are still doing math for a lot of other things, but the amp and cab part and even the drive/distortion pedals are essentially being sampled. They have to start with a mic’d up amp with cabinet, drive pedal, microphone, mic preamps, etc. to give birth to their profile of that signal chain. In reality, they’re still doing math, they’re just ignoring all of the math of each component in the signal chain and are instead focusing only on the math between the input and the output, because the math of each resistor capacitor, etc. in the middle is not so important. The downside is when you turn the tone knobs, they won’t behave exactly like the real amp, but the same for all amps.

But regardless of method, they are all seeking to recreate as close as possible the most realistic/indistinguishable experience of a real mic’d up amp/cab as humanly possible with the technology they have available today. In my opinion, I don’t think any of them are intentionally seeking to have a gap during switching. I think this is currently just a trade off decision being made. If there were no trade offs or compromises to be made, I think they would all unanimously opt for no gap, because that is the closest you can get to reality.

I have 4 dual channel tube amps and none of them have gaps when switching channels. I heard in this thread that some tube amps do, but I think those are very much a minority In the total universe of all tube amps being modeled/profiled. Even if I used a few of my single channel tube amps and cabs and switched between them using all analog switching, there would still be no gap.

In summary, I don’t think any of the builders have a gap because they want it, but because they can’t get rid of it… yet - perhaps without making a trade off they’re not willing to make. I’m eager for the day when this is no longer a thing we have to discuss or work around by having to use scene controllers on the mixer block in order to do so. You just switch between amps/channels and there’s no gap, just like you can in the real analog world for the last ~70+ years.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom