Axe-FX II XL Memory Capacity Question

api4u

api4u

Experienced
I currently have an Axe-FX II, Mk I. With the latest FW updates, if I set my reverb levels to High Quality, I exceed 91% CPU usage, and am starting to get snap/crackle/pop in my preset. That will preclude me from using the high quality reverb, unless I dump some of the effects blocks out of the preset.

I'm considering upgrading to the Axe-FX II XL, but this statement in the sales page at Fractal makes me wonder if I'll be fixing this:
"Double-capacity preset size allows for expanded functionality including X/Y switching on more blocks and more instances of effects. (Note that the processing power of the XL is the same as that of the Mark II, so whereas more effect instances might be offered, the total limit for overall preset CPU usage remains the same.)"

Am I reading this correctly that the CPU capacity is not changed? In other words, if I'm exceeding CPU in my II, and getting crackle, I'll still exceed it in the XL?
 
XL has more storage memory for more presets and more user cabs. The processors and RAM are identical so it won't change high CPU usage issues. Simplify your presets by removing any unused blocks.
 
XL eats 3% more CPU if I remember right. For the added X/Y in some blocks I guess.
 
Thanks, all. I think I'm getting the idea. Sounds like I can have more in the cupboard, but maybe not so much out on the table, by switching to the XL.

Processing-wise, though, no major updates from the II to the XL. If the preset crackles in the II, from too much CPU, it'll definitely crackle in the XL. I won't gain much, from that end, but upgrading to the XL; I just need to simplify my "master" patch scheme, and settle for not having everything "available for immediate use" in each preset.

Sound about right?
 
api4u said:
Thanks, all. I think I'm getting the idea. Sounds like I can have more in the cupboard, but maybe not so much out on the table, by switching to the XL.

Processing-wise, though, no major updates from the II to the XL. If the preset crackles in the II, from too much CPU, it'll definitely crackle in the XL. I won't gain much, from that end, but upgrading to the XL; I just need to simplify my "master" patch scheme, and settle for not having everything "available for immediate use" in each preset.

Sound about right?
Click to expand...

We're talking 3% additional overhead for the XL. That's basically a negligible amount.

Think of it more like an Axe-Fx II Mark II with more in the cupboard, full stop.
 
Yes, 3% is HUGE, if you're on the edge of CPU.

I haven't been able to check the high quality reverbs, yet, as my CPU is usually around 89 or 91% with most of my patches; bumping into high quality reverbs exceed. Plus, I've already kicked an effect out of a lot of my patches, to get the stereo UR cabs. Not that I'm complaining - the improvement was worth it. Just when you think it can't get any better, it does. I'm just trying to figure what I can do, from my end, to carry out my game plan.

I had hoped to have a sort of "Master Layout", with most of the pedal effects I might use "available". Each preset has a flavor of amp/cab/effects that I think go well together for that sound. Typically, I prefer the stereo UR cabs, as I think the detail is worth the CPU hit. I'll usually have a compressor, chorus, wah, OD, flanger, and wah available, to be used as needed, in a virtual pedalboard manner. I parallel side-chain two delays, for a subtle or pronounced effect, while still letting through a clear dry signal. A looper is side-chained parallel at the end to set up a rhythm, while practicing a lead break. A para-EQ is in there for a lead boost. I think that's about it. I try to mostly keep each of my Presets in a similar layout, for ease in remembering what was where, so I can focus on playing, and not on the details of which effects are in each preset.

At this point, I'm not using X/Y switching so much, and I'm wondering if kicking the effect in the Y side down to something really basic might gain me a little more CPU; I haven't tried this, yet, and I'm not really sure what this would look like, yet. Say maybe the default 6" speaker in the Y cab, etc. I'm not sure if these hit on the CPU, if they're not active in the Preset, or not. Unless they're in the que, by default, I don't switch much between OD, wah, flanger, chorus, etc. types, within a patch with X/Y, so I'm not expecting much a gain there.

I used to see all sorts of Presets with HUGE chains, so I'm a little baffled that my somewhat simple presets are kicking crackle out from over-CPU. I suppose we've just advanced so much in the last year or so, in the detail available in the various blocks that the CPU required exceeds what was needed a year or two ago.

I've been playing for almost 50-years, now, and continue to be amazed and challenged, by the advances. I'm having more fun now, than I probably ever have, in the tones that are available to us. I still keep a few tube amps available, and fire them up occasionally, but am mostly getting what I want from the AFX, at a fraction of the haul-in overhead.
 
Hmm - I think I may have hit upon a work-around. It's a bit hokey, but may give someone an idea.

I usually use two delays in parallel - one subtle, and one more in your face, in a given preset. Instead, I deleted one, and save the two delays as X & Y. This brought the CPU down from 91% to 84%. Then, when I switched to high quality reverbs, I was back to 91%, which worked previously w/o crackle for over-CPU. I keep playing with this idea, and leave some notes, in case this helps anyone else.

Messing with the wah, drive and amp X/Y didn't gain anything significant. The delay, being time based, typically is a processor hog. As I understand it, reverb is also a processor hog, followed by chorus/flanger/phaser effects. Unfortunately, I can't think of a way to gain anything in any of the other block types, since none of the others are doubled.

I did try various different settings in the Y block, in several of the different effects, since I don't usually use that parameter, to see if any of them brought the CPU usage down. None of them that I hit on were really that drastic of a change (at least according to the CPU indicator in Axe-Edit).
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom