Axe-Fx II "Quantum" Rev 4.01 Public Beta

I understand all the arguments about not restricting innovation on the flagship but lets be honest there have been various bells and whistles that have come and gone along the way, especially as the modelling improved. It sounds like introducing the FW switcher has used up a lot of the capacity for future development and therefore brought the day forward for making the mk1 and II obsolete earlier than necessary. The number of folks that will suffer in comparison to a very small number of actually use that feature surely makes the maths speak for themselves. In reality the mk I and II and XLs are all essentially the same product with a few minor hardware related differences. Its not like we are comparing it to the 'Axe Fx III'. Surely it is not worth a lot of unnecessary anguish (especially for us with Wives!!!) for a feature that very few people use. I will be happy to accept when it is obsolete for a decent reason but just don't think this is. However will respect Cliffs decision and will continue to use FAS products in future.

Its because we have become so involved in the evolution process that we are now addicted to it and will therefore feel the need to buy a model that keeps us in the loop.
 
I have compared the firmware filesize from version FW5->Q4
This could mean nothing because I don't know how much compression is done when submitting the firmware or how it's loaded from the boot eprom

I just noticed that firmware 11 was bigger than latest Quantum =)

Code: 
1623120 axefx2_5p07.syx          
1736375 axefx2_6p00c.syx        
..
2509125 axefx2_12p00.syx        
..
2601785 axefx2_15p05.syx        
..
2693805 axefx2_20p00beta1.syx    
..
2710890 axefx2_Quantum_1p06.syx  
..
2736295 axefx2_Quantum_2p04.syx  
..
2740685 axefx2_Quantum_3p03.syx  
2748190 axefx2_Quantum_4p00.syx  
2772245 axefx2_10p10.syx        
2773665 axefx2_11p00.syx        
2774275 axefx2_Quantum_4p01beta.syx
2775565 axefx2_11p03.syx        
2780455 axefx2_11p05.syx        
2782065 axefx2_11p00beta.syx
 
Last edited:
FractalAudio said:
It's impossible. While larger boot ROMs may be available in that package, the extra needed address lines are not present. A parallel memory requires N address lines for 2^N memory locations. So even if there were a ROM that was four times bigger it wouldn't work because the two extra address lines required are not there.
Click to expand...
two times bigger with the same address.... just ......;)
FractalAudio said:
It's impossible. While larger boot ROMs may be available in that package, the extra needed address lines are not present. A parallel memory requires N address lines for 2^N memory locations. So even if there were a ROM that was four times bigger it wouldn't work because the two extra address lines required are not there.
Click to expand...

FractalAudio said:
It's impossible. While larger boot ROMs may be available in that package, the extra needed address lines are not present. A parallel memory requires N address lines for 2^N memory locations. So even if there were a ROM that was four times bigger it wouldn't work because the two extra address lines required are not there.
Click to expand...
Make it possible! - maybe with a two times bigger ROM - Thanks;)
 
Se7en said:
I have compared the firmware filesize from version FW5->Q4
This could mean nothing because I don't know how much compression is done when submitting the firmware or how it's loaded from the boot eprom

I just noticed that firmware 11 was bigger than latest Quantum =)

Code: 
1623120 axefx2_5p07.syx         
1736375 axefx2_6p00c.syx       
..
2509125 axefx2_12p00.syx       
..
2601785 axefx2_15p05.syx       
..
2693805 axefx2_20p00beta1.syx   
..
2710890 axefx2_Quantum_1p06.syx 
..
2736295 axefx2_Quantum_2p04.syx 
..
2740685 axefx2_Quantum_3p03.syx 
2748190 axefx2_Quantum_4p00.syx 
2772245 axefx2_10p10.syx       
2773665 axefx2_11p00.syx       
2774275 axefx2_Quantum_4p01beta.syx
2775565 axefx2_11p03.syx       
2780455 axefx2_11p05.syx       
2782065 axefx2_11p00beta.syx
Click to expand...

Firmware 12 was where the compression was introduced. Note the reduction in size from 11 to 12. So, as one can see, we are approaching the limit.
 
FractalAudio said:
Firmware 12 was where the compression was introduced. Note the reduction in size from 11 to 12. So, as one can see, we are approaching the limit.
Click to expand...

Cliff, would an (perceptible) decreasement of the firmware baked in factory cabs free up space? If so,

- We could exit the social "fight" / pleasing for solidarising between XL and MK1/MK2 Customers, refering to the backwards modeling / preset compatibility.
- Nobody would loose anything, if we`d make deleted factory cabs as User Cabs available. I would happily do the job, recapturing all lost/deleted factory cabs on a 100% digital basis and convert them back to Ultra-Res IR (.syx/.ir) to share them with the community. Including same names and "old" factory numbers. In fact, it would be even more an advantage, because the reformating "older" Hi-Res cabs to UR would not entlarge quality for sure (but also not degrade, at least inaudible from my experiences), but because UR IRs cost less CPU than HiRes, everybody (also XL Users) would win ( a bit ) CPU ressources, when using them, if needed/wanted.

Savings on the not compressed 11p05 version:

calculation basis:
1 UR IR = 10905 bytes
100 UR IR = 1090500 bytes

Q4.01b = 2774275 bytes
11p05 = 2780455 bytes
difference 6180 bytes

maximum possible savings:

11p05 = 2780455 bytes
-100 UR IR = 1090500 bytes (max. free up space)

difference: 11p05 minus 100 Fac. Cab = 1689955 bytes

So, if the calculation basis is not wrong (don`t know for sure), it could be saved PLENTY of space, even if the factory cabs will be unhalved or one-third or whatever ....

On a compressed basis, savings should be even better?!

It also should do not THE more work for you, as the "ifdef" would do, as you mentioned, because numbers of factory cabs for the MK1/MK2 vs. XL/XL+ differs anyway since release of the XL?!
 
Last edited:
shasha said:
Another for latest modeling only. What's the point of updating if you aren't going to use the latest and greatest improvements?
Click to expand...

Modeling version selection in the amp block was introduced to allow forward sound compatibility of presets created with earlier firmware, not for those who simply prefer the tonal characteristics of a previous update. Anyone who solely prefers the tonal characteristics of an earlier firmware over current modeling can simply install said firmware and be done with it.
 
Last edited:
Nothing lasts forever. #factoflife

I'll probably get some shit for this but I don't really think there has been much improvement in the modelling for a while....

While I'm all for new amps and expanded functionality (more scene controllers i.e.) I personally could live without any more modelling changes and be 100% satisfied on that front.
 
jonhep said:
I understand all the arguments about not restricting innovation on the flagship but lets be honest there have been various bells and whistles that have come and gone along the way, especially as the modelling improved. It sounds like introducing the FW switcher has used up a lot of the capacity for future development and therefore brought the day forward for making the mk1 and II obsolete earlier than necessary. The number of folks that will suffer in comparison to a very small number of actually use that feature surely makes the maths speak for themselves. In reality the mk I and II and XLs are all essentially the same product with a few minor hardware related differences. Its not like we are comparing it to the 'Axe Fx III'. Surely it is not worth a lot of unnecessary anguish (especially for us with Wives!!!) for a feature that very few people use. I will be happy to accept when it is obsolete for a decent reason but just don't think this is. However will respect Cliffs decision and will continue to use FAS products in future.

Its because we have become so involved in the evolution process that we are now addicted to it and will therefore feel the need to buy a model that keeps us in the loop.
Click to expand...

I use it and would be sad it to see it go...sorry but true...
 
Someone suggested keeping just the previous update in the modeling selection like firmware 3.XX for example. This seems like a good compromise if it would allow for further updates on Mark I and II. This would give people plenty of time to update their presets since each update is months apart.
 
I believe that there are many individuals who like the changes including FW switching that do not voice their opinion for fear of reprisal. I have purchased all models that FAS has produced. Companies can't remain solvent without making sales. I want the XL+ to have all the "bells and whistles" that FAS is able to provide. I am not apologizing for this wish. I believe that many individuals will be upset if FAS bows to the past for fear of upsetting customers. Save up your pennies and save up your dimes...the 409 (XL+) is worth the investment. I have 2 old Marshall Plexis that are fantastic. They don't have MIDI capability. I am not writing Marshall and complaining why MINE are free of update capability. I believe we have become gluttons and expecting everything and resenting those who have something we don't. OK bring on the cards and letters...I am old and don't give a F&*K....cranky old bastard that I am. I love you FAS and would purchase a III, IV, well you get it....
 
Last edited:
Johan Allard said:
Yeah, I think it would be better to get a few more upgradable years if it's not too much work by removing blocks that are rarely used. And if you want those blocks you can just leave it at current firmware. But at least there would be an option for Mk1/2 users.
Click to expand...
wait a second, you're suggesting that the XL+ should sacrifice effects for the MK I & II and having to keep the XL at an older FW version if you want the removed effects?? Sounds a bit silly to me. The Mark I & II are serious tools and lightyears ahead of anything else available. If I had to live with my MK 1 at Q4 I'd still be getting great tones and be very happy for a long time to come. I understand your dismay but let's face it, it's coming to an end as will the XL someday. That's life.
 
Is there gonna be a new axe-edit out soon... this firmware is having trouble communicating with axe-edit.. I usually have to pause and unpause to get to what is actually happening after i've made some changes or switched a preset. I'm sure this has been mentioned, but I didn't want to read 30 pages of comments :cool:
 
brianv4 said:
wait a second, you're suggesting that the XL+ should sacrifice effects for the MK I & II and having to keep the XL at an older FW version if you want the removed effects?? Sounds a bit silly to me. The Mark I & II are serious tools and lightyears ahead of anything else available. If I had to live with my MK 1 at Q4 I'd still be getting great tones and be very happy for a long time to come. I understand your dismay but let's face it, it's coming to an end as will the XL someday. That's life.
Click to expand...

He clarified in an earlier comment that he was solely referring to the MK I and II, not the XL and XL+.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom