• 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 2.02 Firmware Release

Okay, I just spent the last five hours coding it so the user can select 2.01 or 2.02 for *each" amp model (rather than a global setting). This way you can choose which version you like best.

If you don't mind sharing your opinion (or perception). Which firmware is a better representation of the amp being modeled, 2.01 or 2.02?

Thanks
 

paranoid

Fractal Fanatic
Man why did I have to have surgery on my left hand last week! All this going on and I haven't played either version. 3.0 will be out by the time I can play again!!!!!!!
 

NeoSound

Fractal Fanatic
Sure man....but I don't think I can do anything until tomorrow. I promised wifey I'd hang with her today and tonight. I'm sneaking off to the bathroom each time to respond. She just yelled "you can't be pooping again.....that's 6 times today pal....you posting on fractal forums again?!" Lol!

When you go - you have to make the brown sound to be more convincing (without the whammy) :p
 

Deaj

Experienced
F/W 2.02 sounds fantastic! FWIW I thought 2.01sounded just as good. I do hear a difference between 2.01 and 2.02 and have a slight preference for 2.02.

Thanks for all of your hard work Cliff!!
 

NeoSound

Fractal Fanatic
Okay, I just spent the last five hours coding it so the user can select 2.01 or 2.02 for *each" amp model (rather than a global setting). This way you can choose which version you like best.

One of these days you need to set up a paypal account to receive "gifts". That way you don't charge for updates, but when you make someone happy, they may want to buy you lunch someday :)

Just a thought :)
 

marcor66

Inspired
Okay, I just spent the last five hours coding it so the user can select 2.01 or 2.02 for *each" amp model (rather than a global setting). This way you can choose which version you like best.

Unbelievable you spend five hours on a sunday to please us, im getting now why iaresee taking things personal, you are one of a kind, holy shit indeed...
 

REDD

Fractal Fanatic
AXE FXII XL++Q CLASSIC
With all the classic firmware editions built in.
Whether you prefer 17.3 or Quantum 23.6, all of Fractal Audio's historic firmware editions are in this amazing black box!
 

bradlake

Axe-Master
So is the firmware now in the initial post the Upgraded one...? In any event, thanks again Cliff for your obsessive vigilance that makes our lives better..
 

FractalAudio

Administrator
Fractal Audio Systems
Moderator
If you don't mind sharing your opinion (or perception). Which firmware is a better representation of the amp being modeled, 2.01 or 2.02?

Thanks

I don't know. Modeling (or simulation, or "profiling" or whatever you want to call it) involves "models". No one has a perfect model of a vacuum tube yet. I like to think we have the best models. Our models are not the crude waveshapers used in most other products but actual mathematical models of tubes. There are a variety of tube models out there: Leach, Reynolds, EXCEM, etc., etc. None of them are identical to a real vacuum tube. I have tweaked our models using a combination of measurement and listening.

To perfectly model a vacuum tube you would need to model the electron flow through the tube which would be extraordinarily complex and require a super-computer to do in real-time. As it is using mathematical models (as opposed to waveshapers) is extremely CPU intensive and barely runs real-time. If you've ever used SPICE to do a transient simulation you'll know that these simulations run at a tiny fraction of the speed necessary for real-time applications. If you simulate a tube circuit the results vary considerably depending upon the model you use for the tubes. I've tested dozens and dozens of different tube models to come up with what I consider the most accurate given the hardware constraints.

2.01 uses a slightly different approach to the preamp tube modeling. Whether it sounds better or worse is personal opinion. Everyone has a different opinion of what makes a good "tube sound". Real vacuum tubes are no panacea anyways. The distortion is actually quite harsh and most modern modelers use models with softer distortion than a real tube (in order to quell the inevitable "it sounds fizzy!!!!").
 

Danny Danzi

Power User
I love that Fractal Audio always listen to it's costumers, but frankly people here are too spoiled.

With the AxeFx I was blown away with how much ease I could set a terrific tone!
Sometimes with firmware changes, my tone changed and all I needed to do was to dial the amp again, and In 10 or so minutes o got a better tone that of the previous firmware.

So people, chill and play!
Cliff thank you for the effort to please everyone, but for me, frankly, I completely agree with the AxeFx mission - To be the most accurate modeler ever.
Keep doing your magic. Don't bother so much for little details we keep complaining!

Ugh, posts like this really get to me, sorry lucb. Just because you may have little tweaking to do doesn't mean those having issues should just chill and play. Simple sympathy for those less fortunate who may have spent weeks or months on a tone only to have it change drastically isn't so painful. :)

As much as I love new firmware and all that Cliff does for us, I've always had a problem with feeling I was being punished for liking a tone in an older fw that stopped me from updating to something new that had cool options I COULD use. I so hate hearing stuff like "we're spoiled" or "just don't update".

What Cliff has presented here in adding the fw voicings we like better in one update is massive and shows he has been hearing us. This one little option is huge for someone like me and quite a few others. So if some of us complaining or kindly stating our feelings got us to this point, I'd say it was worth the conversation.

As a person who has voiced an opinion many times on this forum when something wasn't working right, I've always posted in depth responses attempting to explain my issues in the kindest and most informativeb way possible.

It's never been because I'm spoiled or giving Cliff a hard time. (and I know you didn't single me out) I want to help make this thing better too...even if "better" at times may be subjective. It's all subjective really.

But what's not subjective is starting from scratch every month while being unhappy and having to use old fw that doesn't have the cool new features. What Cliff did here allows everyone to be happy without massive tweaking.

I guess my point is, if we can't walk in another man's shoes, we should at least be sympathetic because let me tell you, some of my fractal tweaking sessions nearly forced me to give up when I wasn't successful. I'm reluctant now that those days will be fewer if not over for good. ;)
 

∞Fractals

Fractal Fanatic
I don't know. Modeling (or simulation, or "profiling" or whatever you want to call it) involves "models". No one has a perfect model of a vacuum tube yet. I like to think we have the best models. Our models are not the crude waveshapers used in most other products but actual mathematical models of tubes. There are a variety of tube models out there: Leach, Reynolds, EXCEM, etc., etc. None of them are identical to a real vacuum tube. I have tweaked our models using a combination of measurement and listening.

To perfectly model a vacuum tube you would need to model the electron flow through the tube which would be extraordinarily complex and require a super-computer to do in real-time. As it is using mathematical models (as opposed to waveshapers) is extremely CPU intensive and barely runs real-time. If you've ever used SPICE to do a transient simulation you'll know that these simulations run at a tiny fraction of the speed necessary for real-time applications. If you simulate a tube circuit the results vary considerably depending upon the model you use for the tubes. I've tested dozens and dozens of different tube models to come up with what I consider the most accurate given the hardware constraints.

2.01 uses a slightly different approach to the preamp tube modeling. Whether it sounds better or worse is personal opinion. Everyone has a different opinion of what makes a good "tube sound". Real vacuum tubes are no panacea anyways. The distortion is actually quite harsh and most modern modelers use models with softer distortion than a real tube (in order to quell the inevitable "it sounds fizzy!!!!").

Nearly speechless - Thank you Mr. Chase for both for:

1) Sharing your methods/knowledge and experience, on how your products function and
2) the incredibly receptivity and incorporation of feedback (from your customers) in an everlasting effort to make a superior product!
 
I don't know. Modeling (or simulation, or "profiling" or whatever you want to call it) involves "models". No one has a perfect model of a vacuum tube yet. I like to think we have the best models. Our models are not the crude waveshapers used in most other products but actual mathematical models of tubes. There are a variety of tube models out there: Leach, Reynolds, EXCEM, etc., etc. None of them are identical to a real vacuum tube. I have tweaked our models using a combination of measurement and listening.

To perfectly model a vacuum tube you would need to model the electron flow through the tube which would be extraordinarily complex and require a super-computer to do in real-time. As it is using mathematical models (as opposed to waveshapers) is extremely CPU intensive and barely runs real-time. If you've ever used SPICE to do a transient simulation you'll know that these simulations run at a tiny fraction of the speed necessary for real-time applications. If you simulate a tube circuit the results vary considerably depending upon the model you use for the tubes. I've tested dozens and dozens of different tube models to come up with what I consider the most accurate given the hardware constraints.

2.01 uses a slightly different approach to the preamp tube modeling. Whether it sounds better or worse is personal opinion. Everyone has a different opinion of what makes a good "tube sound". Real vacuum tubes are no panacea anyways. The distortion is actually quite harsh and most modern modelers use models with softer distortion than a real tube (in order to quell the inevitable "it sounds fizzy!!!!").

Ok, thanks for sharing. I totally understand your point. I asked for your opinion (or perception) knowing that what "sounds closer to the modeled amp" is a subjective matter. However, I do value your subjective opinion because you are the person who critically listen to the modeled amp vs the Axe, and based on the results we have been getting, you are damm good at it sir.

Thanks
 

barhrecords

Axe-Master
I've found the more advance parameters I use, the more susceptible my presets are to change on FW upgrade.

Usually, I can create a new preset from scratch and it sounds great even if my older presets didn't make the journey too well.

I really appreciate when there are differences that forum members hear and discuss. There are forum members that make their living from music and the Fractal is one of the tools they use.

I think we are fortunate to have some great ears in the community and those people are willing to post about the things they are hearing; despite knowing they will take some forum flack for it.
 
S

Swan1

Guest
I've found the more advance parameters I use, the more susceptible my presets are to change on FW upgrade.

Usually, I can create a new preset from scratch and it sounds great even if my older presets didn't make the journey too well.

I really appreciate when there are differences that forum members hear and discuss. There are forum members that make their living from music and the Fractal is one of the tools they use.

I think we are fortunate to have some great ears in the community and those people are willing to post about the things they are hearing; despite knowing they will take some forum flack for it.
I think there is a difference between someone finding a bug (for instance the ultrares issue that one guy heard) and subjectively describing the sound or feel of an amp especially when words are being used to describe it (as say opposed to high quality audio samples that can quantify the differences.) As none of us have the actual reference amp that was used it is hard to say that 2.01 is closer to the amp than 2.02 and that one or the other is incorrectly modeled. This is nothing to do with great ears - it is just subjective feedback that they personally liked one over the other. If Cliff has captured that amp and released it, then I for one am happy to believe him that he has captured it. I am ready to start a crowdsource fund to finance sending edo and his amp to Fractal (I say this respectfully - as a U2 fan, edo's opinion is something I respect as he is working on getting that specific sound) so that we have another Vox amp in the box that captures the missing something at the edge of the breakup that I don't know but believe edo is there. But because it maybe missing in the current Vox model doesn't mean that what we have is not an accurate representation of the Vox amp used. And while I am grateful to Cliff for the latest update, it is 5 hours away from family or making some other kickass feature.
 
Top Bottom