• We would like to remind our members that this is a privately owned, run and supported forum. You are here at the invitation and discretion of the owners. As such, rules and standards of conduct will be applied that help keep this forum functioning as the owners desire. These include, but are not limited to, removing content and even access to the forum.

    Please give yourself a refresher on the forum rules you agreed to follow when you signed up.

Axe-Fx II "Quantum" Rev 10.01 Firmware Release

hippietim

Fractal Fanatic
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:

float bar;
...

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.
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.

BTW, this is not just a trick for embedded programmers. I wish I could get more programmers to write like this with the higher level languages. A lot of guys will write foo.bar = foo.bar * x and if it's javascript, java, etc. you can get some very poor performance characteristics due to unnecessary dereferencing. All the x86/x64 and ARM C/C++ compilers I've used in the last decade or so have no problems optimizing expressions like that though.
 

Daveis

Inspired
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.
 

outloaf

Regular
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.
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 ?
 

CristhianP.

New here
Hi 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+?
 

fremen

Fractal Fanatic
Hi 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+?
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 10.01
 

CristhianP.

New here
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 10.01
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 tomorrow :)
 

brianv4

Forum Addict
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 :D So now need cab IR and USAIIc++ Preset :D hahaha


Stay Metal!
Who cares which is which, they both sound great. Love it, great song/performance!
 

dsimms

Inspired
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 :

Sounds great. On that ambient TDR looper preset, are you controlling the Master Feedback with the input level for those delay tails?
 

fremen

Fractal Fanatic
Sounds great. On that ambient TDR looper preset, are you controlling the Master Feedback with the input level for those delay tails?
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 ;)
 

dsimms

Inspired
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 ;)
83,000 views! That should be good for a complimentary Axe III, or at least a new foot controller! Thanks!
 

deathbyguitar

Inspired
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
Effects!
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.
 
Top Bottom