Axe-Fx II "Quantum" 2.00 Public Beta Numero Tres

I don' t think things will be changing too much from here out. The new equations are based on actual tube curves rather that theoretical equations. I don't think we can get any more accurate than that.
Awesome news! So obviously the next step is modeling more bass amps right?

I hear liquid nitrogen freezes off warts. Unfortunately, I enjoy the cold. :D
 
2.03 is amazing! I've been very pleased with every update since Quantum, but there's something special about this one! There's a tad more definition and inherent clarity in the models, and tones seem to translate much easier to different monitoring situations. Lovely!
 
So, that means, it will need to be addressed in the next beta or in the Satriani full release? And by the way, I've always chastised you for divulging too much on here. Mums the word. Do not give out the Colonel's secret recipe.

I think Cliff meant that the current default values are right, so no adjustments needed for next fw
 
@Danny Danzi:
First of all, thank you very much for your post which expresses respectfully to Fractal what are my thoughts exactly.
That being said, maybe it would be of tremendous help to Fractal if you sent them a list of the amps with your evaluation of their percentage regarding being tubey vs. tranny? It does not have to be publicly posted here or anywhere else (though I think many users would whish for it I would strongly advise against).
If you find the time I can't see how it could hurt rather than help.
Thank you.

@ Fractal:
Thank you for your outstanding effort!
 
I keep wondering sometimes how close we are to the Axe-FX II platform being effectively finalized in terms of updates or at least the modeling. Not in terms of an Axe-FX III release or anything, but on the Ultra it was kinda nice just having a final firmware to play around with and not worry about if it could/would be revised later. There's a few things I'd change as far as effects are concerned, but the modeling is as good as I'll ever need it to be. Then again, it's not my company.
 
Cliff ,based on Q2 are you still needing to have the schematics to model the amp .or is it more actual measurements from the live amp.
just curious as some previous threads asking for things like a PRS Archon you have asked for the schematic or no dice . Is that changing with Quantum
 
I don' t think things will be changing too much from here out. The new equations are based on actual tube curves rather that theoretical equations. I don't think we can get any more accurate than that.

Thanks for the response and for reading my novel. Yeah the accuracy is pretty amazing on this end too! Glad to hear we may not change too much with amp tweaks. I welcome anything you throw at us. But it's awesome when one of the choices doesn't involve tweaking my tone to get back to where I was. Thanks for everything Cliff. If I can ever help with anything please feel free to contact me.
 
Just updated and did my weekly jam
There is something in the air..... It sounds very inspiring indeed.
Don't know what has changed, but it just has more feel and balls, more alive.
1970 Marshall, different from many other Marshalls, sounds rather thin on first stroke, but heavenly dirt in action.
Turn up the volume.
Thanks Fas
 
I am about to do a little tracking with 2.0 beta 3. As I've admitted before, I am not experienced enough with tube amps to know whether or not a model in the Axe II faithfully reproduces the real thing or not. I just know what sounds good to me, and what ends up sitting well in a mix. I really appreciate Cliff's and the entire staff's continuing pursuit of excellence and advancement.

Clumsy Segue: My wife loves cats and it would be really great if you could post photos of your 'lab assistants' so I can show her!
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom