Axe-Fx II "Quantum" Rev 4.01 Public Beta

I'm not usually a big Recto fan, but I dialed in a pretty nice tone on Recto 2 Vintage that I'm liking. Don't think I'll stick with it, but we'll see. haha

Still hooked on the Cameron CCV models.
 
xprophet said:
You can't go back beyond Q2.0 so your argument lacks validity.
Click to expand...
...That's my point. Why CAN you go to Q2, but not Q1?
I just use the most recent one, and I'm sure it'll annoy some people, but again, that's my point - what about the people who preferred pre-Quantum modeling? The answer for all but the last two (or however many) firmwares is simply to roll back.

Since the "modeling version" option doesn't cover most firmwares, and since size is now a problem, it seems consistent and logical to cut the option entirely.
 
Wolfenstein98k said:
...That's my point. Why CAN you go to Q2, but not Q1?
Click to expand...

According to Cliff, because version selection in the amp block wasn't implemented until Q2.

Wolfenstein98k said:
I just use the most recent one, and I'm sure it'll annoy some people, but again, that's my point - what about the people who preferred pre-Quantum modeling?
Click to expand...

Do you understand why modeling version selection was implemented? It's not because some people simply prefer the tonal characteristics of older firmware. If that were the case, they could just install whichever firmware they prefer and be done with it.
 
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...

AlGrenadine said:
It seems it only won 250 kB[...]
Click to expand...

In FW 12 something else was introduced: The selection of a previous modelling version, which seems to consume a fair bit of memory space. So the compression compensate this and leaves the impression that the compression is not very effective :D
 
I’m now going with the XL+ route and support FAS to continue with great products

Five years with Mark I and it still works great but I want to continue to benefit with updates.
From my point a view it’s just a hardware and it’s useless with great firmware, and a product lifespan for 5 year is indeed awesome.
Hanging in the forum, waiting for next release is part of being an axefx owner, don't want to miss that!

The only thing I’m a little bit worried about is that AFX III is around the corner and XL become absolute but there’s no indication of that happening. I guess that the price you have to pay to be on top =)
 
painkiller said:
In FW 12 something else was introduced: The selection of a previous modelling version, which seems to consume a fair bit of memory space. So the compression compensate this and leaves the impression that the compression is not very effective :D
Click to expand...

I think the implementation of the modelling version option is more recent
EDIT: I posted some inacurate data, correct info can be found here
http://forum.fractalaudio.com/threa...-4-01-public-beta.119924/page-36#post-1428910
 
Last edited:
ETOLKIEN said:
I think the implementation of the modelling version option is more recent, Quantum 2.03:
Axe-FX II Quantum Firmware 2.03 Release Notes
This version firmware allows switching between three firmware versions: Quantum 2.00, 2.01 and 2.02.
http://forum.fractalaudio.com/threa...ev-2-03-firmware-release.112395/#post-1343996

The previus version FW Q2.02 weights 2.723.715 bytes (size on disk 2.723.840 bytes)
FW Q2.03 weights 2.736.270 bytes (size on disk 2.740.224 bytes)

But must take in account that this difference in bytes not only reflects the implementation of the modeling version option parameter, in Q2.03 Friedman BE/HBE V2 models were added too.
Only Cliff knows the real impact in bytes of this feature
Click to expand...
That's exactly why I think and continue to say it would be better to get rid of some factory cabs ;-)
 
Jason Scott said:
According to Cliff, because version selection in the amp block wasn't implemented until Q2.



Do you understand why modeling version selection was implemented? It's not because some people simply prefer the tonal characteristics of older firmware. If that were the case, they could just install whichever firmware they prefer and be done with it.
Click to expand...
No, if it is not that then I don't understand.
 
painkiller said:
I don't remember all the details, but I'm pretty sure that FW 12.00 had an option to chose between FW 12 modelling and FW 11 modelling (which later was removed).
Click to expand...
Yes you're right, I see this option in the FW12 release notes, but if this option was removed from the firmware we can ignore it.

I've searched the forums and found the implementation of each modeling version options that currently persists, there are 2:
-Global menu modeling version parameter: allows to choose the modeling version for all presets, was implemented in Q1.01:
http://forum.fractalaudio.com/threa...1-firmware-release.105150/page-3#post-1258113
-Amp block modeling version parameter (advanced page): allows to choose the modeling version per preset (ehmmm...let's say per amp block, is more acurate), was implemented in Q2.02:
http://forum.fractalaudio.com/threa...2-firmware-release.111999/page-9#post-1340087
This Amp block feature doesn't appear in the Q2.02 release notes, it appears in Q2.03 RN:
http://forum.fractalaudio.com/threa...ev-2-03-firmware-release.112395/#post-1343996

Only Cliff knows the real impact in bytes of this feature and therefore if it compensates to remove it...I think is a very complex decision, some top bands can be using this modeling option on current tours and the difference in bytes after the removal can be very tiny.

I will edit my previous post to avoid misinformation.
 
Last edited:
If there was a great fw update for XL owners only, I could understand all this discussion, but... there's only the potential for updates - nothing out there yet to worry about????????
 
Ok I've not read all 36 (!) pages here but I seem to have a bug and not sure what it is..

I upgraded to 4.01b (XL) and my usual 'bluesy-clean' tone which is based on a Shiver Clean seems to have lost some gain. I have it set up so that on a strat it's just on the edge of break up and with a humbucker guitar I have to roll off the volume to 8 to get a cleanish tone. But since updating to 4.01 the breakup is missing. I reverted to regular firmware 4 and nothing changed.

Might there be a setting in the patch that updating the patch would have changed to 'choke' the amp back a bit?

{edit - I think I've answered my own question, seems somewhere along the line the Boost switch on the amp got disabled. Possibly an using-old-verstion-of-AxeEdit related issue, I'm not sure. With Boost on though it's back to how it was.
 
Last edited:
RDH said:
Sorry man, Gotta disagree with that one. It's the only piece of gear I've owned that doesn't charge for updates! So as I see it , They are free.
Click to expand...

There's no such thing as "free". Software development is horrifically expensive and has to be paid for in some way. Money comes in to FAS from selling the units, so that has to be the source of the funding for new firmware. Ergo, the price you paid for the unit pays for future firmware updates.

As to "doesn't charge for updates", that simply becomes part of the value proposition of the unit and the way FAS has positioned themselves in the market. Let's say that FAS licensed support and upgrades the way a lot of commercial industrial software is marketed, at about 10% of the initial cost per year. So you could subscribe to upgrades for $250 a year. What would that do to sales? Maybe that would allow FAS lower the initial price of the unit. Probably it would result in a drop in sales and force FAS to lower the price of the unit to compensate. In the end, the net revenues would probably level out near the same as the current model.

There's evidence on this forum that lots of prospective purchasers come and check out the forum before they buy. I'd be willing to bet that a majority of new purchasers are fully aware that FAS puts out significant improvements to the modelling software on a frequent basis, and that getting those upgrades (at no additional cost) is an expectation when they buy. It goes into their decision to spend that much on a piece of equipment.

There's obviously a huge upside to the current model, not the least of which is the huge brand loyalty FAS has built up. It's also clearly advantageous to FAS to have a huge majority of the customer base running the latest and greatest version of the firmware, which probably wouldn't happen if customers had to have a paid subscription for updates. These factors probably drive sales and mitigate some of the cost of firmware development.

But the updates still aren't free.
 
Last edited:
hippietim said:
As someone with several Macs I can say they are the worst to upgrade. Every major OSX update has slowed down my machines. I refuse to do it anymore. So while it make technically work, it doesn't work well.
Click to expand...

Not my experience here, still running my mid-2010 MacBook Pro, although I maxed the RAM and use an SSD drive for my OS.
 
Jason Scott said:
Do you understand why modeling version selection was implemented? It's not because some people simply prefer the tonal characteristics of older firmware. If that were the case, they could just install whichever firmware they prefer and be done with it.

Wolfenstein98k said:
No, if it is not that then I don't understand.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Newer firmware can cause the sound of presets created with older firmware to change. As a result, users would have to manually adjust the settings of affected presets to fix them every time they installed new firmware. Well, either that or they'd have to install an earlier firmware version to maintain the sonic continuity of older presets. It left users with a binary choice; install the latest firmware or continue using what you've got. Thus, the ability to select the firmware version within the amp block of individual presets was Cliff's solution, and it allowed users to enjoy the benefits of newer firmware while maintaining the sonic integrity of older presets. Consequently, each preset has the ability to use a different firmware version. So, for older presets that sound different after an upgrade, you can simply select and use an earlier firmware for each one individually.
 
Last edited:
What a huge thread, I had to start skimming!

Am I the only one kind of excited by the possibility of a 'final' Mk 1\2 firmware? This means many will dump their old units on the used market to buy a new XL. More sales for Fractal, more abundance of used mk1\2 units cheap. Win\Win! I could be biased... since I already sold my Mk1. All I have is my AX8.

After the first big exciting fw update that is XL only, leaving the mk1\2 behind forever.. I will be checking the used market and hoping to score myself a mk1 or 2 on the cheap. I quite like the idea of locking in all my settings and tones as best I can for my needs and then... just enjoy the damn thing, knowing it will never change. And save my pennies for Axe-Fx III someday.
 
Robboman said:
What a huge thread, I had to start skimming!

Am I the only one kind of excited by the possibility of a 'final' Mk 1\2 firmware? This means many will dump their old units on the used market to buy a new XL. More sales for Fractal, more abundance of used mk1\2 units cheap. Win\Win! I could be biased... since I already sold my Mk1. All I have is my AX8.

After the first big exciting fw update that is XL only, leaving the mk1\2 behind forever.. I will be checking the used market and hoping to score myself a mk1 or 2 on the cheap. I quite like the idea of locking in all my settings and tones as best I can for my needs and then... just enjoy the damn thing, knowing it will never change. And save my pennies for Axe-Fx III someday.
Click to expand...

Isn't the XL a couple years old? I can't imagine why anyone would spend almost a thousand dollar upgrade for the possibility of a few more firmware upgrades which isn't even guaranteed to have much of an impact. I think most Mark I and Mark II users will hold out for the Axe FX III, and were hoping that the firmware support would continue until that unit was released. For all we know Cliff will stop firmware updates on the Axe FX II next month and then the upgrade would have been pointless.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom