Axe-Fx II "Quantum" Rev 4.01 Public Beta

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...

Morphosis said:
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?!
Click to expand...
I totally agree with this and would be a great solution to have more space and not create complaints amongst all users. The only problem could be that factory presets won't work anymore without all the stock cabs so I just checked and there are a bunch of F cabs that are unused in these. They are # 3-4-10-11-12-15-25-28-40-55-63-66-67-68-70-71-72-73-74-75-78-84-89-90-95-109-110-111-112-113-114-116-118-120.
That's a total of 34 cabs that will free up 370770 bytes (without compression), this space should guarantee plenty of future updates and is probably more than what would be available by removing the previous modeling versions!
Obviously who's using these cabs in his presets will always be able to load them in the user cab slots.

Ps: Or, in alternative, remove just the last 32 factory cabs so that presets that use one of the first 100 will always point to the same cab
 
Last edited:
DLC86 said:
I totally agree with this and would be a great solution to have more space and not create complaints amongst all users. The only problem could be that factory presets won't work anymore without all the stock cabs so I just checked and there are a bunch of F cabs that are unused in these. They are # 3-4-10-11-12-15-25-28-40-55-63-66-67-68-70-71-72-73-74-75-78-84-89-90-95-109-110-111-112-113-114-116-118-120.
That's a total of 34 cabs that will free up 370770 bytes (without compression), this space should guarantee plenty of future updates and is probably more than what would be available by removing the previous modeling versions!
Obviously who's using these cabs in his presets will always be able to load them in the user cab slots.

Ps: Or, in alternative, remove just the last 32 factory cabs so that presets that use one of the first 100 will always point to the same cab
Click to expand...
They would only be able to load them in their user cabs if they actually own the cab packs they were from. Factory cabs can not be offloaded from the Axe to load them into user slots. I mean I don't use factory cabs, so It's of no loss to me, but I am sure alot of others do, and those may be cabs they use, but do not own the pack to.
 
Pwrmac7600 said:
They would only be able to load them in their user cabs if they actually own the cab packs they were from. Factory cabs can not be offloaded from the Axe to load them into user slots. I mean I don't use factory cabs, so It's of no loss to me, but I am sure alot of others do, and those may be cabs they use, but do not own the pack to.
Click to expand...
It's possible to offload the factory cabs indeed (with tonematch, just read Morphosis post i quoted) and if Cliff will choose this solution he would probably include those cabs in the firmware zip (as he's already doing with the extra factory cabs that are in the XLs)
 
Last edited:
FractalAudio said:
Firmware 12 was where the compression was introduced.
Click to expand...

OMG...since F12? many things have happened since.
I think we mark users would have to be happy and grateful for this borrowed time.
This second life is a great gift and we did not even know...

This ROM thing is complex...I understand all points of view...I voted for deleting the previous versions option but I realize that there may be some XL users that want to keep it and don't dare to say it.
I see some XL users who are generous and vote for suppressing this option, I also see some selfishness by some mark users that make bizarre proposals affecting XL users only to prolong the agony...we have to realize that sooner or later the end of mark's development is near.

But I'm not sad, Q4 is heaven!

Whatever happens I only wish that this won't divide us
 
So not to start something but I'd like a POV here...
Those of us that make their living using stuff that eventually stops being updated...
I used a couple of Ultras from V4 to 11 and used them long after getting my 2Mk1.
I actually preferred Ultra v11 to 2 til like v9 for gain stuff.
If Cliff reinvents the wheel then I need to get new hardware.
No different than when I finally retired my Super Leads in favour of newer hardware.
As of now I'm happy with what the box does.

As for the Hook...I love it git added I tried them when they first showed at Messe and was floored.
 
I think we should get past the idea that software updates are "free", they're baked into the price you paid when you bought the unit.

For a change in perspective, think about it this way, the AxeFX itself is just the device you need to have to run Cliff's modelling software. The modelling software is the real product here, it's the value in the unit.

That might help you to understand why there have been a relatively small number of hardware versions over the years, and why the next version is still years away from development. It's because the hardware doesn't drive the innovation, and as long as it can run on the existing hardware there's no need to "improve" the hardware.

I find myself occasionally pushing up against the 100% CPU barrier, so I can see that becoming more of a factor if Cliff comes up with some nifty idea for the modelling that has the down-side of sucking up CPU. Other than that, I can see that advances in hardware are going to make some of the key components obsolete, or comparatively expensive, and that will drive a new hardware version. But the attraction is still going to be Cliff's modelling software.

From that perspective, I think comparisons to other products and software updates are mostly irrelevant.

Also, from that perspective, I think it becomes a much, much more serious thing to start talking about cutting off owners of a previous hardware version from the continuing evolution of the product that they really bought.
 
StickMan said:
I think we should get past the idea that software updates are "free", they're baked into the price you paid when you bought the unit.

For a change in perspective, think about it this way, the AxeFX itself is just the device you need to have to run Cliff's modelling software. The modelling software is the real product here, it's the value in the unit.

That might help you to understand why there have been a relatively small number of hardware versions over the years, and why the next version is still years away from development. It's because the hardware doesn't drive the innovation, and as long as it can run on the existing hardware there's no need to "improve" the hardware.

I find myself occasionally pushing up against the 100% CPU barrier, so I can see that becoming more of a factor if Cliff comes up with some nifty idea for the modelling that has the down-side of sucking up CPU. Other than that, I can see that advances in hardware are going to make some of the key components obsolete, or comparatively expensive, and that will drive a new hardware version. But the attraction is still going to be Cliff's modelling software.

From that perspective, I think comparisons to other products and software updates are mostly irrelevant.

Also, from that perspective, I think it becomes a much, much more serious thing to start talking about cutting off owners of a previous hardware version from the continuing evolution of the product that they really bought.
Click to expand...

So Cliff now owes you because your perception is that updates in software were included when you made your initial purchase? What color are the skies in your self-absorbed world? I owned all previous FAS models and will continue to purchase them because I want this company to thrive. I want all the bells and whistles because I purchased that right. When FAS decides the XL+ is obsolete, then I will happily purchase their next lovely invention. It must be the psyche of the "me generation" that believes everything is owed to them. I can hear Zappa singing "I want to be free..."
 
I have a 2008 Toyota. I have Bluetooth in my car. When it was new Bluetooth did not handle audio from cell phones, only phone calls. So to use my phone to play music I have to attach a cable to an Aux jack. Bluetooth is software based. The cost of the software is built into the cost of the new car. If I understand your perspective correctly Toyota should update my car because Bluetooth today can play audio and phone calls. Did I get that right? If not, what's different?

StickMan said:
I think we should get past the idea that software updates are "free", they're baked into the price you paid when you bought the unit.

For a change in perspective, think about it this way, the AxeFX itself is just the device you need to have to run Cliff's modelling software. The modelling software is the real product here, it's the value in the unit.

That might help you to understand why there have been a relatively small number of hardware versions over the years, and why the next version is still years away from development. It's because the hardware doesn't drive the innovation, and as long as it can run on the existing hardware there's no need to "improve" the hardware.

I find myself occasionally pushing up against the 100% CPU barrier, so I can see that becoming more of a factor if Cliff comes up with some nifty idea for the modelling that has the down-side of sucking up CPU. Other than that, I can see that advances in hardware are going to make some of the key components obsolete, or comparatively expensive, and that will drive a new hardware version. But the attraction is still going to be Cliff's modelling software.

From that perspective, I think comparisons to other products and software updates are mostly irrelevant.

Also, from that perspective, I think it becomes a much, much more serious thing to start talking about cutting off owners of a previous hardware version from the continuing evolution of the product that they really bought.
Click to expand...
 
What's different is he has always given free updates, it's part of the appeal of the product. And I don't have to change the oil.
 
xprophet said:
So Cliff now owes you because your perception is that updates in software were included when you made your initial purchase? What color are the skies in your self-absorbed world? I owned all previous FAS models and will continue to purchase them because I want this company to thrive. I want all the bells and whistles because I purchased that right. When FAS decides the XL+ is obsolete, then I will happily purchase their next lovely invention. It must be the psyche of the "me generation" that believes everything is owed to them. I can hear Zappa singing "I want to be free..."
Click to expand...
Dweezil and his band played that song last night, and referenced it to his own family-entitlement issues, but it certainly seems to apply increasingly these days..
"Free is when you don't have to pay for nothing or do nothing...i wanna be free...free as the wind........"
 
The INSANE number of updates are certainly NOT "baked" into the price of the unit. Unless of course, you believe Cliff is an idiot who can't calculate the math (because at this rate if it is he must have not only gotten the build parts for free from the manufacturers they also must be paying him a ridiculous amount to use said parts as well. And he must value his hourly rate coding and such at a very steep negative number)...

The reality is Cliff is a proud father, a man that continually nurtures his child and gives it all his attention and energy, only wanting the best for it. We, the FAS faithful, are merely the lucky recipients of one man's quest for utter perfection for his mechanical progeny.

The software isn't the product, it's the "gift". The gift that never seems to quit giving, which is what the entitled cling to. You, me and everyone else bought the UNIT. That physical box is what took your ducats- the updates have simply been a blessing. As many have said, when the latest version of the box is maxed out I'll buy the next (I started with the Ultra, then bought the II when it was released and then the XL, all new straight from the company- I'm really curious how many of the complainers did the same and how many bought secondhand at a discount), not only because I want to continue to bask in the glow of Cliff's genius but also because I want to support the company and the man who has so graciously and generously supported us as musicians for all these years.

StickMan said:
I think we should get past the idea that software updates are "free", they're baked into the price you paid when you bought the unit.

For a change in perspective, think about it this way, the AxeFX itself is just the device you need to have to run Cliff's modelling software. The modelling software is the real product here, it's the value in the unit.

That might help you to understand why there have been a relatively small number of hardware versions over the years, and why the next version is still years away from development. It's because the hardware doesn't drive the innovation, and as long as it can run on the existing hardware there's no need to "improve" the hardware.

I find myself occasionally pushing up against the 100% CPU barrier, so I can see that becoming more of a factor if Cliff comes up with some nifty idea for the modelling that has the down-side of sucking up CPU. Other than that, I can see that advances in hardware are going to make some of the key components obsolete, or comparatively expensive, and that will drive a new hardware version. But the attraction is still going to be Cliff's modelling software.

From that perspective, I think comparisons to other products and software updates are mostly irrelevant.

Also, from that perspective, I think it becomes a much, much more serious thing to start talking about cutting off owners of a previous hardware version from the continuing evolution of the product that they really bought.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom