Any modern C/C++ compiler should warn you if you use bar without initializing it but they won't be able to tell you that you forgot to update foo.bar.One of the tricks-of-the-trade when doing embedded programming is to make local copies of member variables. I.e., if you have an object foo with a member bar you would do this:
bar = foo.bar;
for(i = 0; i < FRAME_SIZE; i++)
bar = bar * x; // for example
foo.bar = bar;
The operation on bar is a "Read-Modify-Write (RMW)" and most embedded processors are optimized for this if the memory is L1 cache (or some other tightly-coupled on-chip memory). By making a local copy you force the compiler to use fast, local memory. When you are done with the loop you then save the local variable to the object.
Some compilers will do this automatically if you give them some information about the variable via a pragma. I think it's just easier to manually do it rather than dealing with pragmas which aren't portable.
The danger with doing this is if you forget to initialize bar or save it at the end, which is what I did.
I just have an ax8 but I find that I almost always have to dump a few db of 250hz and add a little bit of dynamic depth to any high gain patch.. so you think the lows are thinner in general or that the mud just isn't there anymore ?I played my friends Axe2XL on 9.04 for about 20 minutes. Mostly high gain BE100 kinda stuff. Then we updated to 10.01. For the first 5 minutes it felt like the bass was tighter, thinner sound overall, more agressive but articulate top end. But after another 15 minutes of playing I settled in to liking it but was sure it was slightly different. I’m not sure if the modeling is being changed to sound more accurate to a tube amp or just sound better in a mix. I think the latter.
Of course it is, but just curious what are you not getting used to ? None of my presets are affected, they just sound great in 10.01Hi guys
tomorrow I have a presentation and I do not get used to the new firmware. Is it possible to go back to the previous firmware 9.04 on my Axe Fx 2 MARK II?
or is it only possible in the XL+?
Thanks bro. The truth is that I'm not sure, I just feel that the doubleVerb sounds for some reason without live. It must be just my impression, but just in case for tomorrowOf course it is, but just curious what are you not getting used to ? None of my presets are affected, they just sound great in 10.01
Who cares which is which, they both sound great. Love it, great song/performance!Hi, Tested new Friedman BE C45 from Q10.01 in a Mix! Enjoy! Support The Band! \m/
Edit Reamped also with my Real JP2C amp and Rectifier 2x12 cab So now need cab IR and USAIIc++ Preset hahaha
Sounds great. On that ambient TDR looper preset, are you controlling the Master Feedback with the input level for those delay tails?Here's a few presets I made with the new amp models in Q10.01 :
And in case you missed it - it's in the Q10.00 thread - here's my first test of Quantum 10 :
Yes, they're controlled by ENVELOPE.Sounds great. On that ambient TDR looper preset, are you controlling the Master Feedback with the input level for those delay tails?
83,000 views! That should be good for a complimentary Axe III, or at least a new foot controller! Thanks!Yes, they're controlled by ENVELOPE.
Here's the first version of the preset, back in 2012 ; I'm tweaking it in real time, as I got that idea while recording the video (I didn't know how to edit video back then so that 38 minutes video is a one shot... that got 83 000 views) :
That was in firmware 7 (not Quantum 7, the old G2 modelling !)
apologies for the Quantum 10.01 thread derail
Agreed. I'd love for them to bring back the OC-2 octaver algorithm as an option, like Classic or Modern like they have for the Enhancer block.This firmware is very fine indeed. Two gigs last weekend with it after minimal tweaking for levels. Great clarity and definition!
There are so many reasons the final firmware for the II should be v11
It’ll match the ultra
It goes to 11