AX8 CPU Power limitations?

Hallstein

Member
Hi!

I just got the mail from G66 this week that i'm about to be the owner of an AX-8.
As a long time fractal user, i've been using an Axe FX Ultra for a loooong time, and the AX8 seemed like a cheap way to get in on that sweet, sweet Axe FX 2 tone without sacrificing an arm and a leg.
Now, i have not been the biggest of tweakers, and i prefer pretty simple presets with an amp+cab, a drive pedal, a good reverb, and maybe a couple of other effects like delay and chorus.

What i was wondering is, how big is your patches when you're getting close to 100% CPU Usage?
I don't seem to find any threads with any information on how big a patch will have to be before cpu usage being an issue?
Will i be able to create some U2-esque patches for example? with tons of effects?
 
There are many threads about this issue with examples from different people. At least two threads on the first page of the forum.

You can have many different fx in the same preset, and U2 is certainly possible, but the Ax8 may not be geared towards do-everything presets. You may have to split it into a few presets. Also, the reverb uses lots of CPU at its highest setting, so if you want many different FX with your reverb, you may have to reduce quality. But in a recent thread, people were not able to identify the highest quality reverb in a blind test. They all sound good.
 
Hi!

I just got the mail from G66 this week that i'm about to be the owner of an AX-8.
As a long time fractal user, i've been using an Axe FX Ultra for a loooong time, and the AX8 seemed like a cheap way to get in on that sweet, sweet Axe FX 2 tone without sacrificing an arm and a leg.
Now, i have not been the biggest of tweakers, and i prefer pretty simple presets with an amp+cab, a drive pedal, a good reverb, and maybe a couple of other effects like delay and chorus.

What i was wondering is, how big is your patches when you're getting close to 100% CPU Usage?
I don't seem to find any threads with any information on how big a patch will have to be before cpu usage being an issue?
Will i be able to create some U2-esque patches for example? with tons of effects?

You may check this list from Chris:
http://axefxtutorials.com/2015/12/ax8-cpu-usage-of-all-blocks-types-fw-1-00/
 

With this chart however, keep in mind that the CPU is maxed out at 90% and not 100%.
I was not able to recreate my U2 patches with the AX8, but I like to stack drives to get closer to edge tones, with two drives and two separate delays you might have to sacrifice reverb (meaning you will have to settle for spring reverb, reducing quality maybe wont be enough). Again, this is sometimes solved by splitting your songs over more patches, not like in the Axe FX where you might be keen to cramming everything into single patches, I think I'll get used to it though :)
 
My live patches are-- compressor, drive, drive 2, chorus, amp, cab set to stereo, filter, delay, reverb, pitch, looper, eq.... And I'm just under 90 percent with the verbs dumbed down significantly.
 
I must have been hallucinating...
When I setup that preset, it certainly seemed like it effected the CPU quite a bit... I was over the limit until I dropped the density down.
Now that I have the newest AX8Edit though, it seems to not change anything.
 
In my opinion the AX8 should have been designed so that it could run a one full effect chain succesfully with high quality reverb.
 
In my opinion the AX8 should have been designed so that it could run a one full effect chain succesfully with high quality reverb.

Nobody notices the difference between Normal and High Quality reverb when playing live, and the AX8 was designed for playing live.

Your statement is too easily made. It's the limitation of the DSP. More power means another DSP and therefore a much higher cost.

Want more CPU? Get an Axe-fx!
 
Nobody notices the difference between Normal and High Quality reverb when playing live, and the AX8 was designed for playing live.

Your statement is too easily made. It's the limitation of the DSP. More power means another DSP and therefore a much higher cost.

Want more CPU? Get an Axe-fx!
^^^^This! Love blanket statement just cause I'm someone's mind it makes perfect sense.
 
In my opinion the AX8 should have been designed so that it could run a one full effect chain succesfully with high quality reverb.
What is a full FX chain? All available FX at the same time? That would give a massive processing overhead that would only be used on very rare occasions
 
Full and quite normal live usage FX chain is:

Compressor --> Drive1 --> Drive2 --> amp model --> (graphic EQ) --> stereo cab model --> chorus? / flanger? --> short stereo delay --> long stereo delay --> reverb

I find that the AX8 does have very hard time coping with that. Or yes, as you say it might happen using very low fidelity reverb, but why settle to a reverb that may be lower quality than middle priced stompboxes?

Of course, the statement above contains little provocation, but that is my honest opinion for minimum requirements of modeling effects unit at 2016 :)

(One might cope with 1 drive with X/Y if the amp is not ran as clean)

...these limitations should also be stated in the brochures that if you want proper signal chain described above, buy AXE-FX II

P.S
Of course you could do that if there would not be lag between changing presets
 
Last edited:
I agree with MMB, i cannot get two drives with amp/cab/delay/chorus/phaser/flanger/reverb, even changing reverb to normal. Either have to XY the drive or change reverb to spring or nix reverb. I'm not playing live and use an M13 in front for various drives and pre-amp fx. So, just a first world problem with plenty of solutions.

As opposed to Nigel's amp that goes to 11, i find it curious that at 90% the AX8 hits DSP limits. Why not make 90 =100?
 
Back
Top Bottom