Axe-Fx II "Quantum" Rev 4.01 Public Beta

The ONLY reason I have issue with talk of removing features to add more room in order for an older unit to remain current, is that I feel it is a slippery slope. First we remove the ability to choose firmware in amp blocks, then when the MK I/II hits the wall again, we will inevitably have talk of removing other features in order to keep the MK I/II units capable of keeping up. At what point do the MK I/II users finally come to the concession that it is time?
Today, firmware options, tomorrow, stock cabs, the next day, removing blocks, then what? Advanced features, just because a majority don't ever turn that knob? How many steps backwards are acceptable losses in order to keep older hardware up to date?

As for previous comments in regard to most MK I/II users being accepting of removing this feature according to the "poll" in the other thread. OF COURSE the majority are going to be all for it, they have something at stake... That's a given.

As someone who used Line 6 products dating back to the first POD and every single model of POD product to follow, I have felt this heartbreak you are all feeling many, many, many times over. And yes every time I cursed Line 6 for it. But I continued to use my no longer supported product until I felt I wanted something more, and then you know what I did? I went out and bought the new iteration in order to continue to get to take advantage of the newest tech. (which did not advance at anywhere near the pace Fractal does) As I have stated before, It is inevitable, it will happen to all of us at some point. For the XL users it will most likely happen when the Axe FX III is released. I am sure there will most likely be people who purchase XL's and then within a month or less the III will get released.
 
Pwrmac7600 said:
The ONLY reason I have issue with talk of removing features to add more room in order for an older unit to remain current, is that I feel it is a slippery slope. First we remove the ability to choose firmware in amp blocks, then when the MK I/II hits the wall again, we will inevitably have talk of removing other features in order to keep the MK I/II units capable of keeping up. At what point do the MK I/II users finally come to the concession that it is time?
Today, firmware options, tomorrow, stock cabs, the next day, removing blocks, then what? Advanced features, just because a majority don't ever turn that knob? How many steps backwards are acceptable losses in order to keep older hardware up to date?
Click to expand...

Your concern is logical and normal.

What I don´t understand is why we talk about it as if we have customers "first class" and "second class" here. Most who have the Mark I / II they bought it when it was the best product offering FAS, not a "cheaper" option. So it is normal that these people are asking for solutions, and you do not need to make fun of them for "being whiners".

(i´m talking in general, of course not about you specially) ;)

That said, I don´t think we have to make a big issue of this: surely the XL versions they also have their days numbered.

Best regards.
 
Last edited:
Basically some people want to have their cake and eat it too, as the old saying goes (and really that saying doesn't make a ton of sense lol)

You'll get someone who A) wants to have the old modeling version because for a given patch they think it sounds "better", so why not tell them to just keep the old firmware loaded ? Well because B) they also want the new amp models, new delays (like the memory man one) etc.

So a few people don't want a "new" firmware, they want the "current" firmware just updated with amp models and other non-modeling things. Rest of the user base enjoys new amps, features AND any improvements that Cliff feels can be made in tone, feel or dynamics.

I think a large majority trust in Cliff's taste and ears, and when he says the modeling has gotten, "better", its largely a matter of fact.

Here is the real kicker though in most cases... Through a few knob tweaks you can emulate how the older modeling sounded, for example, switch preamp tube type and change the hardness setting and you went from Q2.01 to Q2.00. People seemed to think it was too much work to have to adjust multiple parameters and instead wanted a single knob to "make it sound good again" so we got the silly modeling version knob which 98.7% of users don't seem to use.
 
Rexgtr said:
Owning the AxeFx II Mk I and MFC Mk I I have no intentions of upgrading anytime soon. The XL, XL+, AX8 and FX8 ALL don't appeal to me.
Click to expand...

And why should they? The hardware isn't the important part of the product, the modelling software is what everyone really pays for. If the old hardware runs the modelling software just as well as the new, why bother with upgrading to new?

But if the old hardware won't run the newest software then there's a tangible difference between the old and new hardware. It's Cliff's decision as to which is more important - keeping a feature a few people are interested in, or keeping all of the hardware current for longer.
 
laughyouraxeoff said:
Not only are those few people holding thousands back from updates. But if you were to poll Mark 1/2 users I bet 99% of them would say get rid of the old modeling crap and let us have some more updates, I'd also bet more than 50% of of XL users would say get rid of the modeling crap and let them have some more updates. So in a sense a tiny portion of the user base thinks it's acceptable to hold up the majority, and some of those people paid no more than we did for our units but they some how feel superior cuz of some tiny chip that holds more 0's and 1's lol Yikes, talk about ignorant.
Click to expand...

No need to get nasty and juvenile simply because one has a differing opinion. As one critique noted ominously, it is indeed a slippery slope when one bows to the past. Give up modeling today and what happens next to the call, "Well THEY don't really need that update since by having it we will be without secondary to our lack of memory." It is time to upgrade ladies and gentleman.
 
Clearly the solution would have been for Cliff & Co. to monetize upgrades the way everyone else on the planet does. Hopefully that'll happen in the future.

For example on the hardware side Fractal might have introduced G3 and ultrares cabs as exclusive features of the Axe FX III (whose hardware might or might not have been significantly different than the Mark I/II) while dropping support for the Mark I/II at that time. Then, a couple of years later, introcuded Quantum, the reverb upgrades, etc. as exclusives of the Axe FX IV while dropping support for the III. A nice clean code base every couple of years couldn't be a bad thing, no?

And while they're at it, when the real III arrives, hopefully Fractal will re-architect the code to allow bug fix updates separate from monetized amp additions. That way they can charge for new additions while still supporting all of the, "I should get all the bug fixes!" crowd at the same time if there are multiple hardware versions in the III family.

I find it more than a bit ironic that Fractal goes to extraordinary lengths to support its customers and the thanks they receive are, often as not, folks demanding even more. If you have to listen to it you might as well bill for the annoyance, pretty much everyone else does.
 
"monetize upgrades"...and then we'll have a whole other group finding an other reason to complain...about having to pay for something they believe should be free.

I have said it before - and i'll say it again: Support for older /obsolete units has a finite life, and it would be a very bad business practice to extend that at the cost of designing and promoting newer and more advanced hardware that newer features can be built on.

Fractal's lifeline is building and selling hardware. It's how they survive. And while support for obsolete products may extend somewhat further over time, it can't go forever. Like anyone else in the business, Fractal MUST sell new hardware...or there will be no ongoing support.
 
While I support retaining older firmware versions, I can definitely understand why MK users are being outspoken right now. It's not that they're unthankful for all of Fractal Audio's hard work. This is simply an extremely unusual situation they're in, and I think their outspokenness is understandable given the circumstance. It's because they love the product so much that they're upset. I certainly don't think they're taking all of this company's hard work for granted. Check out the praises that are sung in every other firmware update thread.
 
SteveW said:
"monetize upgrades"...and then we'll have a whole other group finding an other reason to complain...about having to pay for something they believe should be free.

I have said it before - and i'll say it again: Support for older /obsolete units has a finite life, and it would be a very bad business practice to extend that at the cost of designing and promoting newer and more advanced hardware that newer features can be built on.

Fractal's lifeline is building and selling hardware. It's how they survive. And while support for obsolete products may extend somewhat further over time, it can't go forever. Like anyone else in the business, Fractal MUST sell new hardware...or there will be no ongoing support.
Click to expand...
I will be the first one in line when the Axe FX3 comes out.
 
Jason Scott said:
While I support retaining older firmware versions, I can definitely understand why MK users are being outspoken right now. It's not that they're unthankful for all of Fractal Audio's hard work. This is simply an extremely unusual situation they're in, and I think their outspokenness is understandable given the circumstance. It's because they love the product so much that they're upset. I certainly don't think they're taking all of this company's hard work for granted. Check out the praises that are sung in every other firmware update thread.
Click to expand...
Thank you. Couldn't have said it better.
 
As Mark owner I feel a bit sad for the oncoming future of the support, but I can understand.
The Mark series had 5 years of support, that is the same as the Axe 1 lifetime. I bought my first Axe in 2010 and a year and half later I sold it to buy the Axe 2, so I feel lucky for using it for so long.
FAS stopped the production of the Axe FX 1 because there was not enought ROM memory to handle the updates.
The 4.01 beta update is about 2710KB, 4.00 is 2684KB. I think that the boot ROM can handle about 3000KB of memory.
The 4.01 beta update of the XL+ is 3552KB. If the boot rom of the XL+ is four times bigger than the Marks, I think can be about 12.000KB. So it can be upgraded for 3 or 4 years at least IMHO.
 
FractalAudio said:
It is a very dark amp. Part of this is due to the tapers on the tone pots. With everything at noon the tone stack looks like a highshelf with a good amount of high frequency cut. The tone stack is a Baxandall which is more common in hi-fi gear than guitar amps. It lends a unique character to the tone. I don't have the amp anymore but I think I made note of where SV sets the tone and presence controls. I'll see if I can find it.

Edit: found my notes:
SV's personal settings are:
Drive: 7.5
Bass: 6
Mid: 4
Treble: 8
Presence: 8
I had to increase the Mid control on the model to about 5 to match the amp which indicates the mid pot on the amp was greater than spec. This is not unusual. Typical consumer-grade pots have pretty poor tolerance in both end-to-end resistance and resistance at the midpoint.
Click to expand...
@FractalAudio - So which IR do YOU use for the Legato model? A factory cab or one from a cab pack? Thx!
 
G'day,

I disagree with this entirely - It's natural in the software (firmware) business to supply updates at no extra charge for a while and this is what Fractal does - Fractals track record on this is part of the reason I bought 2 Axe FXs. What _is_ unusual is the frequency and amount of time Fractal do it for.
Monetizing the firmware updates would produce a large number of individuals who felt they deserve better when there's a bug or issue. Worse - when the time comes that firmware updates are impossible for technical reasons (Like right now) imagine the uproar.

Just my humble opinion.
Thanks
Pauly


YetAnotherOne said:
Clearly the solution would have been for Cliff & Co. to monetize upgrades the way everyone else on the planet does. Hopefully that'll happen in the future.

For example on the hardware side Fractal might have introduced G3 and ultrares cabs as exclusive features of the Axe FX III (whose hardware might or might not have been significantly different than the Mark I/II) while dropping support for the Mark I/II at that time. Then, a couple of years later, introcuded Quantum, the reverb upgrades, etc. as exclusives of the Axe FX IV while dropping support for the III. A nice clean code base every couple of years couldn't be a bad thing, no?

And while they're at it, when the real III arrives, hopefully Fractal will re-architect the code to allow bug fix updates separate from monetized amp additions. That way they can charge for new additions while still supporting all of the, "I should get all the bug fixes!" crowd at the same time if there are multiple hardware versions in the III family.

I find it more than a bit ironic that Fractal goes to extraordinary lengths to support its customers and the thanks they receive are, often as not, folks demanding even more. If you have to listen to it you might as well bill for the annoyance, pretty much everyone else does.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom