Azael
Power User
Azael, you are awesome man! And so is your preset, thank you so much for sharing it! Kudos, Flav!
My pleasure!!!
Azael, you are awesome man! And so is your preset, thank you so much for sharing it! Kudos, Flav!
I've got a markI serial #11 hand assembled and signed by Cliff himself. I'll probably hang on to it for as long as I did my '63 Fender Champ.Don't hurry. Wait some 60 years, then sell it, you'll get a fortune.
Sounds awesome - I am getting that one tooMy pleasure!!!
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.
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.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?!
I don´t know what´s happend, but this amp sounds incredibledid you modeled in the same way? unbelievably! also i notice this amp need about 7-8% less cpu - power - Thanks!I've added the clean channel and the rhythm and lead channels with the Edge switch off. There will be a total of six models, two from each channel.
Is this out yet or in the works. Love the hook by the way.I've added the clean channel and the rhythm and lead channels with the Edge switch off. There will be a total of six models, two from each channel.
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.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
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)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.
Firmware 12 was where the compression was introduced.
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.
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.
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..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 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.
Yes, but it's in the thousands. However we are approaching the firmware size limit for the Mark I/II version. This may be the last firmware for the Mark I/II because there isn't anymore space left in the boot ROM.