Axe-Fx II "Quantum" Rev 4.01 Public Beta

Current Axe-fx II Mark I user here... it would make sense to EOL (End-of-Life) the selection for modelling and keep only the most current if it gets us more updates. Since the people who would want to keep all the previous modelling options would have been technically EOL'd on 4.01 either way. What would it matter? Onward and Forward as I read someone else say! Nix the old modelling and keep us up to date on your epiphanies Cliff!
 
JJunkie said:
Well at least its mostly contained in the one thread at the moment. Also since everyone is already making suggestions here i may as well ask if we can have a sub forum just for 1000+ word speculation essays/love notes to the FAS boss? Not that i dont want to see them, i erm, just would like them separated out so i can, erm, read them all at once? Yeah, thats it.
Click to expand...

:tearsofjoy::tearsofjoy::tearsofjoy:
 
mortega76 said:
Current Axe-fx II Mark I user here... it would make sense to EOL (End-of-Life) the selection for modelling and keep only the most current if it gets us more updates.
Click to expand...

How many additional updates is the question.

mortega76 said:
Since the people who would want to keep all the previous modelling options would have been technically EOL'd on 4.01 either way. What would it matter?
Click to expand...

For users who own an XL and XL+, there's enough remaining boot ROM storage (4x that of the MK I/II) to retain previous modeling versions for quite some time, so it's not the end for those users, and it matters to users like me because I own an XL+ and revere backwards compatibility.
 
Think i found a BUG in the cab block.. it`s the 12dB or 6dB FILTER slope.. option. Try a block with X state 6dB.. and Y state with 12 dB.. now make 2 scenes.. go back and forth. It pops :)

Mark I User here.

Would some one try this out,and report it ??
 
zenaxe said:
And to the folks who cannot see the down side to FAS for fragmenting the user base; I do not have to time to explain to you how support, customer satisfaction, and R&D, etc, work or interact...
Click to expand...

Yet that's exactly what Cliff has said he's probably going to do. Maybe he knows the company and the impact his decisions have on customer satisfaction, R&D etc, better than we do.

And look, I'm not attacking you here. That's not my intent -- just having a discussion. You've always struck me as one of the reasonable folks around here. :)

Have a good evening!
 
You know, this threaded reminded me. I have to make some calls to find out why they are no longer willing to release movies on VHS so I can still use my hi fi VCR I paid alot of money for. I mean, I paid alot of money for it when I bought it new, how dare they stop putting out movies on VHS, they owe it to me since I spent the money. VHS for LIFE!!!;)
 
Pwrmac7600 said:
You know, this threaded reminded me. I have to make some calls to find out why they are no longer willing to release movies on VHS so I can still use my hi fi VCR I paid alot of money for. I mean, I paid alot of money for it when I bought it new, how dare they stop putting out movies on VHS, they owe it to me since I spent the money. VHS for LIFE!!!;)
Click to expand...
Thats not the same kind of issue. The issue is that future firmware for Mark I and II users is going to be sacrificed so that 6 people can go back a few versions of the modeling.
 
bdrepko said:
Thats not the same kind of issue. The issue is that future firmware for Mark I and II users is going to be sacrificed so that 6 people can go back a few versions of the modeling.
Click to expand...

Ah, but that really is one perspective. Another one could be, there are people who use an obsolete version of a device and want the users of the current version to not be able to use all the benefits better hardware provides.
 
6 people? lol I am quite sure there are a few more than 6 people who own an XL. By that logic, when they remove modeling versions and that buys you another year, then what will you want to take away from those of us who shelled out the money for the more up to date product? I just don't feel XL users who decided to spend the extra money for the most up to date, non discontinued product, should be expected to sacrifice any features just so others who can't, won't, upgrade can continue to get updates to a discontinued product line.

It is ridiculous that people just EXPECT continued support for a discontinued product, and at the expense of holding back the capabilities of the current flagship product line. That just makes zero sense.
I get it, your frustrated because you bought an older version of a product that is now reaching it's end of life span. But the users who are purchasing new XL units should not have to make concessions for the money that was paid for their units. This is no more selfish than you EXPECTING XL users to sacrifice features for you.

If money doesn't allow you to upgrade to an XL then perhaps you sacrifice and sell your unit and purchase an AX8, much less than the cost of an XL. Sorry to sound like a dick, but the only people that I feel should have to sacrifice here are the people that are instant upon using an out of production product.
 
FractalAudio said:
The Legato 100 is based on a one-of-a-kind version owned by a certain Californian guitar player...
Click to expand...
Thanks Cliff can't wait to have it on my AX8... meanwhile can we expect modeling the clean channel of the Legacy since it is really awesome? and it would help to have a couple of High Res IRs of the Legacy cab to complement this new release.
 
Pwrmac7600 said:
You know, this threaded reminded me. I have to make some calls to find out why they are no longer willing to release movies on VHS so I can still use my hi fi VCR I paid alot of money for. I mean, I paid alot of money for it when I bought it new, how dare they stop putting out movies on VHS, they owe it to me since I spent the money. VHS for LIFE!!!;)
Click to expand...
One could just as easily make the argument that it's 2016, how many people actually use vhs? Enough to dictate policy because and handful of people don't wanna move on?
Pwrmac7600 said:
6 people? lol I am quite sure there are a few more than 6 people who own an XL
Click to expand...
the poll floating around the discussion forum paints a different picture.
 
Brownmatthall said:
the poll floating around the discussion forum paints a different picture.
Click to expand...
I am going to have to say there are probably more than 12 XL owners. Obviously there are going to be more Mk I and II owners since the unit has been around longer, but again, anyone who bought that unit expecting lifetime updates and support are a little delusional. I would also be curious to know how many of the MK I and II users who expect the sacrifices to be made, purchased their units within the past year.
 
Love the new update, all the new stuff sounds great, thanks guys!

I'd prefer to leave in the modelling version capability. Seems like a step backward to start removing functionality to me for short term benefit. My two cents....
 
As far as i'm aware, the only real difference between the models is the size of the boot ROM, i.e. the basic hardware is the same, the processor is the same on the same motherboard, same convertors etc.

It's not that the whole I/II platform has become obsolete and is no longer capable of running new software, it's just that the "bit" that makes this possible is all full up.

So if there is someway of clearing/cleaning up/further streamlining the firmware in order to make it loadable/usable in the I/II series, then i would encourage the developer to investigate the possibility.

Removing the older modelling option may do this, i don't know, but it's worth remembering that this option was implemented due to user request through this forum.

I have absolutely no qualms whatsoever in making the equivalent request that it be removed if doing so will allow the I/II to take advantage of further firmware iterations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom