Axe FX II and feature creep

With full respect to JimFist, my first thought on seeing his chart was "Microsoft Excel". While it's the most popular spreadsheet software in the world, it is also the most complex! Most users never even try to write macros or use most of the built in math functions. Now, is that because they don't need to or is it because they haven't tried to learn what Excel can really do. I propose the latter. Anything powerful requires a learning curve to get beyond the basics. Once the user acquires knowledge then creative avenues appear where roadblocks once stood. Pedal to the metal FAS!
 
Hyperlink the manual to cliff's notes section & wiki.

Problem solved. Problem staying solved.
 
Jleavitt said:
With full respect to JimFist, my first thought on seeing his chart was "Microsoft Excel". While it's the most popular spreadsheet software in the world, it is also the most complex! Most users never even try to write macros or use most of the built in math functions. Now, is that because they don't need to or is it because they haven't tried to learn what Excel can really do. I propose the latter. Anything powerful requires a learning curve to get beyond the basics. Once the user acquires knowledge then creative avenues appear where roadblocks once stood. Pedal to the metal FAS!
Click to expand...

Just to clarify the chart, which I did not create but found online, I have absolutely no clue or opinion regarding where I believe the AxeFxII development lies on that curve. I just thought it was an interesting and humorous commentary in general.
 
Phostenix said:
I think I can speak for most people here when I say that I want to see FAS succeed and that I want to see the Axe continue to evolve into an even better product.



I agree with that assessment. I guess the question is whether Cliff sees it as a pro level unit that requires a certain level of expertise to really get the most out of it. Or, if he wants to broaden it out to a bigger market with more novice users being able to easily create the sounds they want without having to understand how to build them from scratch. I could see him going either way on that, honestly.

This forum is like a free focus group and I don't think it hurts to step back from time to time to take a look at the forest. :)

I'd like to see the Axe continue to be the most powerful, most capable, best sounding processor on the market. I also would love for it to be one of the easiest to use, most immediately rewarding as a player processors on the market. Not just for the great amp tones, but for everything.

The "skin" idea really appeals to me. Display the basic controls & have an Advanced button that takes you deeper if you want. That, along with more "types" in the different blocks would go a long way to making it easier to ramp up as a user, IMO.

Example: I like to play around with the Stutter effect on my Boss stuff. The Axe can do that, but I have to program a sequence to do it. I have yet to do it in the Axe. Same thing with step phasers and step wahs, etc. I would absolutely LOVE to have all those types of effects available as choices in the Axe. It would be my dream job to work on stuff like this for the Axe, but I don't think they'd hire me. :lol
Click to expand...

could you not consider the basic page for each block as essentially being the 'skin'??
 
I can not stand the dumbing down of things for the simple minded. If you want simple, buy an amp with 5 knobs on the front and leave the Axe FX alone!

You don't throw a guy whom just got his basic pilots license in the captains chair of a commercial jet liner do you? maybe they should just dumb down the controls so it's easier to understand...... Yes, extreme analogy, but IMO, it fits the bill.
 
Sarcastic comment to follow - but maybe not so much:

For simple Axefx operation:
- plug Axe into power outlet.
- plug guitar into axe input 1.
- plug axe output 1 to monitors.
- insert fav amp + cab blocks.
- adjust drive, master, level, BMT to taste.
- Enjoy.
 
The only feature creep that I have seen maybe tone matching because that's a function that goes above and beyond the original device's capabilities and beyond it's original scope. After that you basically have innovation, development, improvement, etc.

I personally wouldn't want to see that change any time soon.

As for the advanced parameters I look at it as a real piece of gear. The first tab or two of the effects block represents the dials you would see on the front of most physical devices (more or less). The underhood, modification, advanced tweaking stuff lies in the deeper tabs and is akin to opening up the device and swapping out components. If you aren't the type that would swap out a power transformer on an amp or something than you probably have no need going in there. But just because you don't want or need to doesn't mean that someone else doesn't want to. So where do you draw the line? Take away parameters and features that someone else wants to use (or just have "because") in an effort to appease the people who don't want to see them there?

Now I understand that some of these advanced parameters and multiple level adjustments and stuff can cause some issues. Not really sure how to address that because I never have those problems myself. But I will readily admit that I have been using the AxeFX stuff for years now, do not create mega elaborate presets and I have more experience on the technical side than I do as a guitarist. Basically if I have an issue I can sort it out really quickly because it's kind of what I do for a living. It's not a fair comparison to people who aren't in the weeds all the time.

But the thing is that if you want to have the capability of a unit like the AxeFXII there is going to be a learning curve and added complexity when you really push it to it's limit. I don't think that pulling features is a way to fix that because at some point you just end up restricting the capabilities of the unit which is a step backward IMHO.
 
Chris@KatsuKuriMedia said:
don't buy a 2000 piece puzzle and complain that it's not as easy as a 20 piece.
Click to expand...

Exactly...
But to add to that analogy: The axe is a 2000 piece puzzle that can be used as a 20 piece. Some people complain that the 2000 piece puzzle is too hard and they would like it to be just a 20 piece puzzle instead, cause they can not help themselves from using it as a 2000 piece.
 
ztevie said:
Exactly...
But to add to that analogy: The axe is a 2000 piece puzzle that can be used as a 20 piece. Some people complain that the 2000 piece puzzle is too hard and they would like it to be just a 20 piece puzzle instead, cause they can not help themselves from using it as a 2000 piece.
Click to expand...

agreed.
 
yek said:
Problem is that this is subjective. I find the preset noise gate VERY useful. Saves having to add a block to the grid.
Click to expand...
Yeah, it saves a block. At the cost of some intuitivity if you don't know that the gate exists.

How would you add a modifier if the modifier menu would not be accessible??
Click to expand...
I think a much more intuitive design would be to allow changing the modifier parameters directly on the controller menu (where you can set the dampening and the curve).

That would be user error. And the UI indicates when a modifier is attached.
Click to expand...
Of course it's a user error. But that's the whole point of intuitive UI design: avoiding user errors.

Sag, not BIAS.
Click to expand...
You see the point, don't you? I've been using the Axe for almost 2 years now and yet I don't even know the name of the parameter that disables poweramp modelling. ;)

Having the output mixer again saves a block.
Click to expand...
Again, at the cost of making it harder to trouble-shoot, when something is wrong with the preset.

One way or another, users have to learn stuff. I see no benefit exchanging output level for the requirement to add a VOL block to accomplish the same.

As a matter of fact, some of your suggestions decrease user-friendliness, instead of increasing it, IMHO.
Click to expand...
Saying that learning is required would always be the end of story of optimizing interfaces. If any manufacturer would do that, there would never be any progress in product surface design.

And you can't deny that taking certain preset-based elements out of the menues and put them into blocks would make the design much more intuitive and easier to troubleshoot. I've helped a lot of people on these boards by analyzing faulty presets (and so did you). You know about those issues. More than likely the user either forgot (or didn't know) about the global noise gate or didn't know how the scenes feature works and caused issues because of that.

Again, I'm not saying that core features should be eliminated (that would be just stupid), I'm just saying that some stuff could be re-structured and the interface could be refurbished.

Chris@KatsuKuriMedia said:
don't buy a 2000 piece puzzle and complain that it's not as easy as a 20 piece.
Click to expand...
This again? Haven't we already moved beyond from that?
Even a very complex product can be made intuitive by design. Software engineers have been dealing with that problem for decades. It's not something I just made up out of boredom.
Rotti said:
My first instinct to the OP was something along the lines of "You shut your hooker mouth!"
...but I'll go barh's route instead.

No.
Click to expand...
I don't understand what's up with all this aggression in this thread. All I tried was having a discussion about if we reached a point in the Axe, where some stuff could be revamped. I can actually understand Clark's frustration about this forum now. You try to build some constructive criticism and all you get are two-liner comments about your sexuality (hasn't been the case here, but you get the point).

I mean, seriously, I wrote a whole page of text for my initial post and added at least three more pages of text in later posts. I'm not just throwing around hollow phrases. I'm bringing examples of things that could be improved. And all some of you guys have to say is "no", without any further explanation?

If you don't have anything useful to contribute to this thread, then you are free to just GTFO, thanks.
...And when you do so, please keep your excrementials inside your colon instead of pasting them into this thread.
 
Last edited:
Why do you care so much? Take all this free time and energy you have and devote it to curing a disease, or volunteer some where or save some animals in need. Let Cliff and his boys worry about this product.

Lastly the Axe-Fx 2 is as basic as you want it to be. I love digging into all of its goodies but its very simple to ignore all the extras and just use it like a 4 button amp. I think the excel comparison is excellent.

Nuff said
 
The AxeFX II CAN be as as simple or as complex as you WANT and CHOOSE to make it. It is a superb sounding preamp and FX Processor with the ABILITY to make almost any sound you wish to create. The choice of HOW you create it is up to you.

My main preset is an Uber, with the controls FLAT... I took the time to go through a huge amount of IR's until I found the ONE IR that was MAGIC... it needs no EQ. The rest is shaped with the FX of my preference ( Chorus or Pitch Shift Detune, with delay and maybe reverb... maybe the enhancer ), to get me that ridiculously HUGE Whitesnake guitar sound...

That may not be the sound that YOU are looking to get, but the point is, is that you can get it withOUT getting into the deep menu's that some of the more tech minded guitar players here like to go to ( the ones that speak in component-speak amp schematic code... ;-) ).

The AxeFX treats YOUR sound like Prego... it's IN there.... ;-)
 
It comes down to this: What is the Axe's purpose?

Sure, great guitar tones are one purpose. So is ease of use. But so are flexibility and comprehensiveness. That includes the ability to do things that would normally require a soldering iron and test equipment. I think yek nailed it: some people are confused by the visibility of the deeper parameters, not by the fact that they exist. If you take away some of the newer features that some users don't like, you're taking away something that other users know and love. But if you hide those deeper features, the confusion problem is solved. I'm glad my car has more features than the car my grandfather drove in 1930. :)


Zwiebelchen said:
I feel there's also a rising number of people that get confused by all the possibilities. There's more and more posts in the bug reports forums popping up that can be tracked down to be a mere user-error.
Click to expand...
That's because there are more and more Axe users than there ever were before.
 
Zwiebelchen said:
...
Click to expand...

About Sag and learning: I checked the manual and at 4 different places it's being mentioned explicitly that turning down Sag turns off power simulation.
Also, the Axe-Fx displays "P.A. Off" when turning down Sag. I don't want to get all defensive because improvement is always possible, but frankly, RTFM does apply. :)

We could debate about every idea, example, proposal. Not saying that you are wrong and I'm right, or vice versa. It just shows that it is arbitrary. Ideas which would simplify things for you, may make things more difficult for others. So I hope your comment about aggression is not aimed towards me.
 
One of my favourite apps in the DOS (pre Windows) world was an 'integrated' application called SmartWare.

It never got a foothold over other 'integrated' systems like Lotus Symphony, Enable etc., but I thought it was one of the best software systems I had ever seen. The main reason? It had 3 'levels' of user interface that could be set globally, or by user.

The 'Basic' level gave the beginner user just the bare minimum functionality to get in and get work done. Any menu option or feature that was considered confusing or hard was simply not there. 'Intermediate' level gave you a little more and 'Advanced' gave you all the bells and whistles including an advanced scripting language that allowed you to customise and write complex macros in the app. Best bet was that I could go in as an Advanced user and write some killer scripts, then give them to the user in 'Basic' mode and they would still run, and the user would still be none the wiser as to the incredible beast that lay within.

I think the Axe-FX would ideally suit this paradigm as well - the Basic level would take away a lot of the fears out there about how 'complex' the unit is, whereas the 'Advanced' level would still give everyone the ability to change whatever they want - WITHOUT affecting the Basic users...
 
yek said:
About Sag and learning: I checked the manual and at 4 different places it's being mentioned explicitly that turning down Sag turns off power simulation.
Also, the Axe-Fx displays "P.A. Off" when turning down Sag. I don't want to get all defensive because improvement is always possible, but frankly, RTFM does apply. :)
Click to expand...
It does indeed. But relying on extensive manuals is a 90's practice. Modern technology values intuitive self-explanatory design over anything. In certain industries, this has gone so far that market analyzing and surface/interface design departments get more budget than the core system developement. I'm not saying that something like this would benefit the Axe or Fractal in particular (as it will take valuable production resources away), but a little bit more optimisation certainly doesn't hurt.

Just saying; when was the last time you actually read the manual for a new phone or car?

We could debate about every idea, example, proposal. Not saying that you are wrong and I'm right, or vice versa. It just shows that it is arbitrary. Ideas which would simplify things for you, may make things more difficult for others. So I hope your comment about aggression is not aimed towards me.
Click to expand...
It's not aimed towards you, as you tend to undergird your oppinions with reason. But, you know, there's that other kind of crowd aswell.


I could imagine a modular approach to the Axe interface. Basicly an option menu which allows me to enable and disable certain features/modules. It's a common design practice for complex software nowadays (CAD systems, photo editing software, even DAW systems) and has a lot of advantages with very few drawbacks if done right.
There's a lot of stuff in the Axe I could simply turn off, simply because I never use those features. This would reduce my UI to the elements I need and thus also decreases the time it takes to navigate through menues.

You are only using presets without scenes? Turn off the whole scene module.
You don't need the global noise gate and output mixer? Turn off the extra periphery.
You don't need the X/Y feature? Turn off the X/Y module.
You don't need stereo? You can hide all the balancing controls and stereo effects.
You don't have a MIDI board? One click and all MIDI functionality is disabled.

Those are just some quick examples. I hope you see what I'm aiming at.
 
Last edited:
I know this is a rant, I apologize if it doesn't belong here. I'm in the simple, easy to please camp. From day one, I was able to get what I wanted. Without tweaking for days. I did eventually tweak to learn, have fun, and yes, to get something I maybe wasn't hearing. But as gigging is my only job, the Axe II was serving it's purpose, pretty easily. However, I still come on to the forum to learn something new or take part in or just observe the discussions. What I don't get is why there can't be just civil discourse without the hostile, smug, condescending replies. Kind of like the reoccurring reply on this thread- if you don't need it, don't touch it. If one feels this or any thread is of no value to themselves, why bother replying. I thought this was an interesting discussion and liked the Wikipedia the links. Because of those links, I forwarded this tread to someone who is not a musician, but is a project manager to get their technical/business point of view. I look forward to others like this. :encouragement: Now everyone go play their favorite song through their favorite preset. 8)
 
Last edited:
The "Problem" is not the Axe-FX, the problem is the fact that a lot of users mess around with things they have no idea about. They see a video of somebody using advanced parameters and they just copy it, without any understanding of what they are doing. And yes, THIS is what leads to user errors. If you don't understand a certain feature in the Axe, simply don't mess around with it and you won't run into problems. If the feature really sounds interesting to you, read the manual, learn about it before you mess with it. And if you are new to all of this, don't start with patches that would intimidate even people like The Edge, start simple. But all this talk about eliminating features that are "too confusing" for some people... It reminds me of somebody that just got his drivers license, buys a Ferrari and complains that he can't handle the horsepower.

Gesendet von meinem Nexus 7 mit Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom