Axe-Fx II "Quantum" Rev 4.01 Public Beta

I am personally ok if there will be no updates in the future, but what is that really being sacrificed?

"few XL+ user's convenient" vs. "All I/II".

Just asking, not trying to be cheeky.
 
As I look at another piece of very good gear here, which I have had 4 updates in the time I have had a few dozen on my XL, all I can say I so appreciate this company and your development team and vision. At any time if I get obsoleted I will enjoy still owning the most kick ass amp rig to ever be marketed.

I got in on the early Ultra and remember the big deal about hitting 4.0 back then. It topped off on 11. In reality I enjoy the consistency and stabilization of reaching the plateau and still use it for live work.
 
FractalAudio said:
What people need to understand is that if the older modeling versions are removed they are removed for all versions including the XL and XL+. It's a shared code base and it's too much work to be putting in a zillion #ifdefs to handle the Mark I/II case.
Click to expand...

I still vote for it to be removed. I'm pretty sure that there are way more people that don't use it, than those who use it. I always thought it was an unnecessary addition because a few complained loud enough that they couldn't get a good tone out of newer firmwares.
 
FractalAudio said:
What people need to understand is that if the older modeling versions are removed they are removed for all versions including the XL and XL+. It's a shared code base and it's too much work to be putting in a zillion #ifdefs to handle the Mark I/II case.
Click to expand...

Cliff, would it be difficult to just not add new amps to the MKI & MKII firmware updates?
 
Dear Cliff

Thank you for the amazing piece of equipment you and your team have provided me with, and then continued to develop. I have been lucky enough to be a proud owner of an AxeFx since 2012 and as many others have already said, we have been treated like kings / queens with the regularity of outstanding updates.

I am not a pro, or even a person who plays out - I am just an incredibly well equipped home player thanks to this amazing digital wonder. If the updates stop now, I will still have more capability than I will ever know how to use. Thank you again Cliff for an instrument extraordinaire.

Should you find a way to free up some space by deleting previous modelling versions, then I would support that wholeheartedly, while accepting the update ride will stop eventually. If it is now so be it, if it can be extended then I will be very happy. Top times ahead no doubt.

All the best to you and the team, and all fellow forum friends
Gilesy
 
FractalAudio said:
What people need to understand is that if the older modeling versions are removed they are removed for all versions including the XL and XL+. It's a shared code base and it's too much work to be putting in a zillion #ifdefs to handle the Mark I/II case.
Click to expand...

The most impartial way to decide which code must go, is to have the computer decide.
An algorithm will choose random parameters and their underlying code until the "shrink" goal is reached.
Could be anything really...


Oh wait, I forgot this: ;)
 
guitarnerdswe said:
....they couldn't get a good tone out of newer firmwares.
Click to expand...

That's because newer firmware doesn't have the same mojo. I haven't heard a piece of code worth it's weight in dog doodoo since 2015.

You need the old stuff to get those old toanz, man.

I'm selling vintage firmware to all you heartbroken Mark I/II fans, modified with my patented Serpens Oleum process.

You want smooooth tones, like Jif-in-a-jar? Firmware 9.0 is what you need to make your fingers glide over the fretboard like Jello on granite.

Want to get your dick knocked back into your hand? Step back to standard res cabs, kitty kat, because ultra-res ain't no longer where it's at.

IM me for your custom quotation. You're just one quick PayPal transfer from vintagey goodness.
 
5150 said:
That's because newer firmware doesn't have the same mojo. I haven't heard a piece of code worth it's weight in dog doodoo since 2015.

You need the old stuff to get those old toanz, man.

I'm selling vintage firmware to all you heartbroken Mark I/II fans, modified with my patented Serpens Oleum process.

You want smooooth tones, like Jif-in-a-jar? Firmware 9.0 is what you need to make your fingers glide over the fretboard like Jello on granite.

Want to get your dick knocked back into your hand? Step back to standard res cabs, kitty kat, because ultra-res ain't no longer where it's at.

IM me for your custom quotation. You're just one quick PayPal transfer from vintagey goodness.
Click to expand...

Haha, good one! ;)
 
barhrecords said:
I vote for creating the AxeFx III and end if life-ing all of the existing models in one go.

That way, all the bitching and moaning will happen at once.

And we can all go back to realizing we don't play enough guitar anymore.
Click to expand...
+1, if Cliff didn't have to waste time appeasing whiners we'd probably have the Axe3.
 
levipeto said:
I am personally ok if there will be no updates in the future, but what is that really being sacrificed?

"few XL+ user's convenient" vs. "All I/II".

Just asking, not trying to be cheeky.
Click to expand...

This!

@5150 I just needed to state my opinion due to one of your previous posts. NO, Fractal doesn't suck anyway, whatever direction they decide to head. I remember my Digitech times, and how seldom I got an update. I got none dude, none! :) And Line 6 times, I don't remember how many days passed between the day I bought and sold that Line 6 unit :)

@FractalAudio , I'd totally understand and respect if Axe3 was coming out, and some or all of the existing units would be obsolete. But this is not the case. The case is that we Mark I/II owners will not be able to get the updates because some people want the older modeling version together with the new one. There are two choices here. The first is that many users will not be able to get updates, or some others will not update, and this will be their choice. Which is more fair? The strongest argument against my thought would be that the ones that don't choose to get the upgrades will not get the new amp models. I choose the path of empathy here, and as a high gain guy, I'm creating my own scenario. Let's say, that the 5153 model does not exist, but it will come in Q5. And I'm using the 6505+ model. My logic would choose the upgraded and more authentic 6505+ over the 5153. I can get close enough anyway!

I respect all of you my friends, regardless of your opinions, these are mine, and I need to state them.

FractalAudio said:
What people need to understand is that if the older modeling versions are removed they are removed for all versions including the XL and XL+. It's a shared code base and it's too much work to be putting in a zillion #ifdefs to handle the Mark I/II case.
Click to expand...

edit: @FractalAudio , Neither I can, nor I would, if I could, never judge you whatever path you choose while seeking simpler code. I know how important it is.
 
Last edited:
FractalAudio said:
What people need to understand is that if the older modeling versions are removed they are removed for all versions including the XL and XL+. It's a shared code base and it's too much work to be putting in a zillion #ifdefs to handle the Mark I/II case.
Click to expand...

Makes sense... maybe a poll is in order?, or just bite the bullet, and people can use crusty old firmware if they want.
 
Cliff, is it possible and would you be willing to add the Carvin Legacy clean channel?
Many many thanks IF possible!

And should I hold off on the beta or is the official release coming?

Thanks!
 
As an XL owner I feel for all the MK I and MK II owners. I'm not sure Cliff is really taking a head count on how many of us are willing to give up the old modeling feature or if that is even enough of a consession to even make a big enough impact to make it worth while for the time he would need to invest. Having said that I would also be fine with not having that feature in my XL. I always use the newest firmware modeling I Have always trusted that Cliff's ears are better than mine so I trust whatever improvements he makes. So if taking away that feature helps out our MK owners then I would be okay with it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom