Axe-Fx II "Quantum" Rev 9.00 Firmware Release

Rotti said:
For 8 solid months, I've been away from this forum (focused on new projects at work, 100+ hr weeks, no sleep, really fun).

By dumb luck, I check in this morning, and a new FW dropped 3 minutes earlier.

F'n. Awesome.
Click to expand...
You should check in every day. Then we'd have a new FW every day. :D
 
Beau Primeaux said:
Ok, Reverted back to 8.02, and then back to Beta 9 again.. Working perfectly and sounds so much better.. Q9 Beta sounds better than both Q8.02 and Q9.. Life is good again.. lol
Click to expand...

REDD said:
For some reason I find a little more magic in the beta than this release. Am I crazy?
Click to expand...
Beau Primeaux said:
No, you're not crazy.. I definitely hear it too, and I have very good ears.. Beta 9 sounded way better and had alot more magic. I will probably revert back to Beta 9 and ditch the final release version myself..
Click to expand...
I don't have time to compare before 2 gigs this weekend so, on your word I went back to 9.0 beta.
FractalAudio said:
There was a minor change to the phase inverter algorithm that I forgot to mention.
Click to expand...
Wonder if this happened after the beta?
 
Last edited:
First rehearse yesterday with Q9.00, all presets from 8.02 left untouched, just updated and that's all. Speaker comp always at zero in my presets.
How was it?
I had to turn my volume knobs up since some cutting through icey metalic mids and highs disapeared with the update. The guitar was way louder in the mix then before and it was a whole new experience for me. And no singers bitched. For everything vintage and clean and 80's that was f....ing awesome!
Only the harder tones were a step down. They didn't kill anymore. Too sweet, too soft, fat yes, but not enough bite. I don't want to get drowned in keyboard sounds, I just want a chainsaw to cut big holes in them. You can imagine that? I need to rework the harder sounds.
Overall: Awesome!
 
Thanks Cliff & FASteam!

Lately playing mainly vintage amps (plexi jump, jmp, fender, vox) and after installing Quantum 9.00 & updated AXE Edit it ssems that:
(tested with Q9.00 reset and newly tweaked presets)

- Tone is easier and more in the mix
- Less tweaking needed
- bass cutting in pre-amp & cab is needed in my environment else a little muddier
- for now I have not noticed any hangings (which I did before, even with new USB cable)
(Windows 10 pro, MFC, AxeFx as soundcard, Axe Edit open, no DAW, no Spotify or musicplayers)
- minior Q9beta items I reported still exist, more testing before I report

Overall: Very very nice indeed!
 
So I noticed in the new Axe edit that the Motor time constant control is still there, but now defaults to 20.00ms, does this control still function in the same way as it did prior? The old default was 200ms...
 
sam said:
You would have to run 2 amp blocks in parallel with identical settings EXCEPT one would have speaker comp on and one would have it off. Then each amp would have to be routed to the appropriate outputs to go through cab block to FRFR or direct to guitar cabs as needed.
Click to expand...
And identical rows of effects blocks. Not very practical. Not even doable in most cases.
 
666was999 said:
First rehearse yesterday with Q9.00, all presets from 8.02 left untouched, just updated and that's all. Speaker comp always at zero in my presets.
How was it?
I had to turn my volume knobs up since some cutting through icey metalic mids and highs disapeared with the update. The guitar was way louder in the mix then before and it was a whole new experience for me. And no singers bitched. For everything vintage and clean and 80's that was f....ing awesome!
Only the harder tones were a step down. They didn't kill anymore. Too sweet, too soft, fat yes, but not enough bite. I don't want to get drowned in keyboard sounds, I just want a chainsaw to cut big holes in them. You can imagine that? I need to rework the harder sounds.
Overall: Awesome!
Click to expand...

Sounds very promising, I've been fighting against that for such a long time...
 
guitarnerdswe said:
And identical rows of effects blocks. Not very practical. Not even doable in most cases.
Click to expand...

An option to split the Amp block into pre and power sections, where the power section would be placed further in the signal chain (separate from the branched-off FXL path), would perhaps solve this hurdle (and other speaker-related issues, such as Resonance). Can’t tell if it’s technically doable.
 
yek said:
An option to split the Amp block into pre and power sections, where the power section would be placed further in the signal chain (separate from the branched-off FXL path), would perhaps solve this hurdle (and other speaker-related issues, such as Resonance). Can’t tell if it’s technically doable.
Click to expand...

Mr Peabody and Sherman in the way back machine... :) I think this has come up in the past with the request to separate the pre-amp and the power-amp and it wasn't possible due to intellectual property concerns. If people could separate the pre and post they could perform detailed analysis in such a way that would allow them to reverse engineer some of what's being done or something like that. I'm not sure the details but I remember something like that. If that's not, or no longer is, the case, or I'm just remembering this wrong, this would be a very useful feature for routing as you say, so here's hoping!
 
Last edited:
yek said:
An option to split the Amp block into pre and power sections, where the power section would be placed further in the signal chain (separate from the branched-off FXL path), would perhaps solve this hurdle (and other speaker-related issues, such as Resonance). Can’t tell if it’s technically doable.
Click to expand...
Would work with a tube power amp, but with a SS one you'd want everything that happens in the amp, but not the speaker. I like how you're thinking though.
 
I can't imagine that i will have to change all my presets. Should I reset all amp in my preset or it's enough to change Spkr Comp to 3? If i don't reset amp block, what about this "There was a minor change to the phase inverter algorithm that I forgot to mention" (с) Cliff
 
Konstantin said:
I can't imagine that i will have to change all my presets. Should I reset all amp in my preset or it's enough to change Spkr Comp to 3? If i don't reset amp block, what about this "There was a minor change to the phase inverter algorithm that I forgot to mention" (с) Cliff
Click to expand...


From the man himself and he is aware of the change he made to the phase inverter:

FractalAudio said:
No reset is needed. The only thing you need to do is adjust the Spkr Comp.
Click to expand...
 
I really like the Fw 9, the Time Constant at 100.00 makes everything a lot more urgent, with fast attack and ads a lot of dynamic. It's something that I can feel mostly in my fingers than in my ears.
Very well done!
 
yek said:
An option to split the Amp block into pre and power sections, where the power section would be placed further in the signal chain (separate from the branched-off FXL path), would perhaps solve this hurdle (and other speaker-related issues, such as Resonance). Can’t tell if it’s technically doable.
Click to expand...
This was asked before a number of times.

Cliff said "no". :(
 
guitarnerdswe said:
Would work with a tube power amp, but with a SS one you'd want everything that happens in the amp, but not the speaker. I like how you're thinking though.
Click to expand...

My bad. I meant separating the speaker-related stuff from the rest of the amp block stuff, indeed.

Not moved to the Cab block but to a separate new one, with two instances (I.e. SPK1 and SPK2). They would provide the Speaker Comp, Speaker Drive, Low and High Resonance parameters.

Players with hybrid rigs (FRFR / neutral poweramp / tube poweramp / traditional cab) would then be able to optimize each signal flow, which currently is not really feasible.

I have no clue if this is possible, probably not because of the interaction between power amp and speaker-related characteristics. Just daydreamin’. It’s a matter of “ease of use” versus “total control”.
 
Last edited:
Manny Fufish said:
Mr Peabody and Sherman in the way back machine... :) I think this has come up in the past with the request to separate the pre-amp and the power-amp and it wasn't possible due to intellectual property concerns. If people could separate the pre and post they could perform detailed analysis in such a way that would allow them to reverse engineer some of what's being done or something like that. I'm not sure the details but I remember something like that. If that's not, or no longer is, the case, or I'm just remembering this wrong, this would be a very useful feature for routing as you say, so here's hoping!
Click to expand...
I recall this conversation as well.
 
yek said:
My bad. I meant separating the speaker-related stuff from the rest of the amp block stuff, indeed. Into the Cab block perhaps.

Players with a hybrid rig (FRFR + poweramp/trad.cab) would then be able to optimize both signal flows, which currently is not really feasible.
Click to expand...
I wonder if it be possible to add a “switch” of sorts into the power amp section that would act as a split to an FX Send to the FX send block so that way you could have dual routing within the Amp block, one signal that goes completely thru and one that gets tapped and sent out to the FX Send Block.
 
yek said:
My bad. I meant separating the speaker-related stuff from the rest of the amp block stuff, indeed. Not into the Cab block but a separate new one, with two instances (SPK1 and SPK2). They would provide Speaker Comp, Speaker Drive, low and high Resonance.

Players with hybrid rigs (FRFR / neutral poweramp / tube poweramp / traditional cab) would then be able to optimize both signal flows, whiich currently is not really feasible.

I have no clue if this is possible. Just daydreamin’.
Click to expand...
Superb idea, I really hope that this is something that is implemented in a future firmware, if it is indeed doable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom