Then maybe it's the impedance thing. I get bigger and less trebly sounds when I increase the speaker impedance some and that sounds more like what I had before. But since it sounds like a (very thin) blanket got off and it breathes like a real amp I'm not going to change that setting. It's perfect.
Channels exist to give us a way to completely change the amp model within a single preset. Each channel is just a set of parameters that get loaded into the Amp block when you switch to that channel.
Channels exist to give us a way to completely change the amp model within a single preset. Each channel is just a set of parameters that get loaded into the Amp block when you switch to that channel.
Yes, you could have two channels “loaded” and ready to go, but loaded into what? In order to work at all, the channel has to be loaded into an Amp block. If you want two channels loaded and ready to go, then you need two Amp blocks running at the same time. If you want four channels loaded and ready to go, you’d need four Amp blocks.
The Axe-Fx III can do two Amp blocks at once. That’s a helluva start.
Yes, it would be possible — if the Amp block had four complete amp emulation engines — one for each channel. That would be equivalent to having four Amp blocks, and it would eat up just as much CPU as four Amp blocks would.
I had a wish a long time ago, before the Channel functions, of having 2 switchable and linkable 'Ideal' and 'GEQ' tabs in each amp model. To serve as a two-channel amp with almost no gap (confirmed by Cliff), as all of the advanced stuff would remain unchanged, and the amp model would not need to be reloaded..
So the gain is made up automatically.
Thanks for the clarification.
see my posts in the fw 18 beta thread regarding this subject and Fractal's related comments also.
ah, just saw that, will check, sorry if my comment above is redundant then!
no worries - not quite the same question nuance anyway, but the discussion in the beta thresd does touch on it.
I just plowed through the beta thread, I agree with your points, I can see Cliffs perspective and I also understand that the "make up gain" topic seems to be a controversial one anyway. While I would have loved to be able to choose for myself if I want to apply make up gain or not, it's like you said: It's nothing I can't get used to! Thanks for the heads up!
Make-up Gain "makes up" gain that is reduced due to compression.After fiddling with the comps that feature inherent make up gain, I have the impression that make up gain is applied even if the signal doesn't hit the threshold? So if threshold is set at -20 f.ex., and your comp set to 5 and your signal does not hit the threshold, loudness will increase anyway? I personally never liked that feature in compressors, for me this would be "normalizing", I'd understand "make up gain" as in "add the gain back that got reduced by the compressor". This may be semantics (again), and I have sure far less knowledge than Cliff and there is still the studio compressor to use if one wants compression without implemented make up gain. Nonetheless, I love the magic of the optical compressors for final touches and if above mentioned principle is factual I find this feature less useful than the old way. In case this is user failure, I am happy to be educated and learn from y'all!
That's how I understand it as well.
