Axe FX II and feature creep

[Rex]

...relying on extensive manuals is a 90's practice.

Relying on deep manuals for deep products is a timeless practice.

...a little bit more optimisation certainly doesn't hurt.

Agreed. This is a universal truth.

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

Read the manual? Never. Refer to the manual? Lots of times. And if you want to do anything meaningful under the hood of that new phone or car, you'll need deeper information than what the manual provides. Most of the deeper Axe parameters are under-the-hood stuff.

 

[Zwiebelchen]

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

That's a weak comparison imho. A lot of beginners usually start out modifying existing presets. Just ignoring a parameter doesn't mean it's defaulted.

 

[Marcus Siepen]

So why not modify things they understand? And leave the rest as it is for now? Why mess with things if you don't know what you are doing?

Gesendet von meinem Nexus 7 mit Tapatalk

 

[Roland]

Why do you care about this thread then?

I care because I want the Axe-FX to have a strong commercial future. When my current equipment fails, as it inevitably will one day, then I don't want to be stranded without a modern-day replacement.

The reason this thread has got so argumentative is that it intertwines several different subjects. For example:
1. What are your personal priorities for future development?
2. Product development has gone so far, and so quickly, that there are backwaters developing, as seen in Cliff's post a few weeks ago about removing unused features. We are naturally happy to hide features which we don't personally use, but we all have different lists.
3. We are all UI experts. The trouble with UI is that it imposes a concept map on the world, and the history of music is about breaking concept maps. The big steps forward, tempered scales, amp distortion etc all introduced new concepts. I like a simple conceptual basis for a lot of things I do, but in music it would choke my thinking.

Someone said that Cliff gets frustrated with the forum because it can generate "no win" discussions, and he can't get a clear opinion. However it does provide feedback, and in situations like this where we can't agree it shows that there is no clear answer.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Zwiebelchen]

So why not modify things they understand? And leave the rest as it is for now? Why mess with things if you don't know what you are doing?

It's the typical approach of troubleshooting. You listen to all those great recordings on the board and then wonder why your sound doesn't sound as good. At first you suspect different settings and then before you even realize you start turning advanced parameters.
Then you start going into the tweaking hell and never get your sound to be as good as on the recordings - in fact, most of the time, it's getting worse. You don't suspect something fundamental being wrong (like a parallel routing in front of an amp block increasing the signal level, changing the preamp distortion), as most likely you don't know this fundamental matter exists.

Again, just because you ignore a feature doesn't mean it can't be wrong.

 

[yek]

The modular approach, hiding 'core' elements, will only work when the user treats his Axe-Fx as a pure standalone device, apart from the rest of the world.

Scenario: A novice will hear a clip of a wonderful Petrucci preset, downloads it and transfers it to his Axe, and then discovers that the preset is stereo, uses XY, uses scenes, has a gate set slightly too high, etc. Then what?

 

[Johan Allard]

The modular approach, hiding 'core' elements, will only work when the user treats his Axe-Fx as a pure standalone device, apart from the rest of the world.

Scenario: A novice will hear a clip of a wonderful Petrucci preset, downloads it and transfers it to his Axe, and then discovers that the preset is stereo, uses XY, uses scenes, has a gate set slightly too high, etc. Then what?

Well, to me it wouldn't be about hiding core elements but about hiding advanced deep editing functions. So in "basic" or beginner mode, the amp block would only show whatever buttons that was available on the original amp, the 3 button tube drive block would have those 3 buttons only, and so on. It would still be possible to use that Petrucci preset you described, but if had advanced amp parameters set, that wouldn't be changeable without going in to advanced mode. Intermediate mode could add things like input trim and other things that are presented on the basic screen but are not part of the original amp. Most of us that spent a fair amount of time with the AFx should leave editing in Intermediate mode.

I think that this would make the AFx much easier to use for users of all levels. Just remembering Scott's "Taming the Beast" where he dialed in presets using basic editing functions, and commented "what about advanced editing" and the fact that it's not needed most of the time. And most of us, and I would be firmly in that category, should not go beyond the basic mode, only change amp parameters that was available in the original amp and so on.

Limiting editing capabilities would lead to more people having better tone most of the time.

 

[Marcus Siepen]

To a certain degree I agree with you, my version would be: not touching unknown controls would lead to more people having better tones most of the time ;-) Do things really have to be hidden for you to not mess with them? In this case the problem is not the Axe-FX, it is a lack of self control.

Gesendet von meinem Nexus 7 mit Tapatalk

 

[Marcus Siepen]

Another problem is the assumption, that you download a Petrucci preset and will sound like Petrucci. Of course he is only an example, feel free to insert any random guitar hero. It does not matter what patch you will use, go to his place, pick up his guitar, plug it into his rig and play his song, you will not sound like him! Period! And the reason is not that he is so much better, the reason is simply: he is not you. His way of picking the strings is different, his vibrato is different, his phrasing is different, he is different ... But if it comforts you, if he comes to your place and uses your rig, he will also not sound like you ;-) And no matter what advanced controls you might be tweaking, nothing can change this.

Gesendet von meinem Nexus 7 mit Tapatalk

 

[barhrecords]

From my work with usability and human interfaces, I would call the current AE and Fractal UI an "engineering" or "left-brain" type of UI.

It is logically laid out to provide quick access to all the myriad of functions. Nothing is hidden or hard to find. It's all there for you to use if you need to.

The left-brain UI appeals to many but there are folks that just never bond with it. These are what we call the right-brain people.

A right-brain UI would be uncluttered, simple, use lots of color and hide unnecessary controls. It is usually visually pretty or even stunning looking. Presentation as art is sometimes a priority.

In the Fractal world, that would be showing real amp faceplates and knobs and fx blocks as the top-view of the actual stop box etc.

Neither the left or right brain interfaces are "right" or "wrong"... both function.

For a small company, re-tooling the UI costs money. So typically they would pick a style, and then stick with it. This is usually not because it is "better", it's more cost effective to develop and enhance a single UI vs. supporting both.

 

[guitartripp]

Rarely does anyone read the manual anymore, but they sure do go online to figure out how the heck to work something...so technically they are reading the manual via another person.

 

[Johan Allard]

To a certain degree I agree with you, my version would be: not touching unknown controls would lead to more people having better tones most of the time ;-) Do things really have to be hidden for you to not mess with them? In this case the problem is not the Axe-FX, it is a lack of self control.

Gesendet von meinem Nexus 7 mit Tapatalk

Visibility is an invitation. Give people a knob to turn and they will want to turn it. It needs to be hidden to work and by hiding different parameters in basic, intermediate, advanced your inviting different type of users to change different types of parameters.

 

[Johan Allard]

From my work with usability and human interfaces, I would call the current AE and Fractal UI an "engineering" or "left-brain" type of UI.

It is logically laid out to provide quick access to all the myriad of functions. Nothing is hidden or hard to find. It's all there for you to use if you need to.

The left-brain UI appeals to many but there are folks that just never bond with it. These are what we call the right-brain people.

A right-brain UI would be uncluttered, simple, use lots of color and hide unnecessary controls. It is usually visually pretty or even stunning looking. Presentation as art is sometimes a priority.

In the Fractal world, that would be showing real amp faceplates and knobs and fx blocks as the top-view of the actual stop box etc.

Neither the left or right brain interfaces are "right" or "wrong"... both function.

For a small company, re-tooling the UI costs money. So typically they would pick a style, and then stick with it. This is usually not because it is "better", it's more cost effective to develop and enhance a single UI vs. supporting both.

The job of hiding parameters behind a basic, intermediate and advanced filter is much easier than changing the UI, you can still keep what you describe as the left brain UI design while still making it easier to work for more people. You don't have to provide the same visual elements as the original amp/stomp box.

 

[Marcus Siepen]

Following your logic those people would not be able to resist switching to the other modes, only to be able to see and twist those irresistible knows.

Gesendet von meinem Nexus 7 mit Tapatalk

 

[Johan Allard]

Following your logic those people would not be able to resist switching to the other modes, only to be able to see and twist those irresistible knows.

Gesendet von meinem Nexus 7 mit Tapatalk

There will always be people like that for sure, enabling advanced mode in the first week of owning the AFx. But it certainly helps giving clues to what's appropriate to edit based on the level of expertise in the product and I'm sure a lot of people would recognize themselves as a beginner or intermediate user of the AFx and set and keep that user interface level. So for most people this would improve usability and subsequently improve the tone they are getting. I never claimed it to be a silver bullet.

 

[Johan Allard]

I'm sort of referring to this as hidden trim pots inside a stomp box. Most people will never open the stomp box to fiddle with trim pots inside of the pedal. But with the AFx these trim pots are exposed all the time and more people will then want to fiddle with them even if they know they shouldn't.

 

[Marcus Siepen]

I get your point, I just don't see why people should not have enough self control to not mess with things they don't have a clue about.

Gesendet von meinem Nexus 7 mit Tapatalk

 

[ztevie]

If FAS feel its important and willing to use resources to create such a UI, I'm all for it.
However, i can't get into my thick head why anyone would choose to use advanced settings they know nothing about and then complain the unit is too complicated. I would understand if you HAD to use advanced parameters to create nice tones but that's not the case.
I think FAS get the message in this thread, they can choose to take this idea for future consideration or not. Leave it at that. It's nice to have this kind of close interaction with FAS and know they do listen to us, but it's very rare for a company to stay so close to its customers. We're all a little spoiled i think. Maybe that's why discussions get so heated here.

 

[RONJONES2020]

Why do you care about this thread then?

Why do I care? This will make me sound nerdy but it makes my point. I care because in the past I played a few online games that started out just awesome. Then as they became popular guys like you came in and complained things were too complicated. What happened every single time after? The developers caved and dumbed everything down forcing me to quit because suddenly the games were boring.

Quit trying to dumb down my AXE! Cmon anyone who finds the extra bells and whistles daunting can easily ignore them. I appreciate us discussing how to make the product better but I strongly believe that the you are exaggerating the complexity here and I am unclear why.

Oh and yes I refer to my car manual all the time. Thank You.

 

[Slammin Mofo]

So what would be your ideal graphical user interface? Which parameters of, for example, the amp block would you like to keep and which ones would you like to cloak?

If there was only one knob in each amp that would give me the perfect sound of each amp, I'd vote for it in a heartbeat, but the problem here is that the perfect sound is subjective.

While I do like to mess around with advanced parameters for fun, I recognize that for some people in the audio industry it might be a necessary feature to have those advanced parameters available. Think of all the amp makers out there that are using the Axe FX II to test or get hints for their new amp designs or the audio engineers that need just a little more sag in their marshall crunch sound etc.