• We would like to remind our members that this is a privately owned, run and supported forum. You are here at the invitation and discretion of the owners. As such, rules and standards of conduct will be applied that help keep this forum functioning as the owners desire. These include, but are not limited to, removing content and even access to the forum.

    Please give yourself a refresher on the forum rules you agreed to follow when you signed up.

Axe-Fx III Firmware Release Version 14.00

Status
Not open for further replies.

Xrocker

Power User
10 in 71 - I remember punch cards from collage - damn reader machine "blew chunks" with my stack of 100s of cards on more than one occaision.
I worked as computer operator on an IBM 3600 in the late 70’s.
We would take a yardstick and a magic marker and draw a line from the top left to the bottom right of the card tray. If the tray got dropped the card order could be recreated by making the line straight again.

Try doing that with your newfangled cloud computing, and get off of my lawn.
 

X1Nx

Member
Forgive me if I'm misunderstood (likely), and/or posting this in the wrong part of the forum (definitely) since it doesn't exactly pertain to this firmware update, but more so a inquisition to an existing solution (probably), or suggestion for a future update (possibly).. ~Is there/could there be a way for firmware to have an option either in the output block(preferably), or amp block to simply switch off the power amp sim/supply sag for a designated output specifically for connecting to a tube amp fx return for a live application WITHOUT (keyword) having to create an entire duplicate fx chain at, and post the amp block for that output and using up more cpu just to bypass 1 parameter? 🙃(also the cab block, but not AS big of a deal obviously) since it's what I would guess to be a common connection. Let me know if there's a current work-around for this type of thing, thanksss 🤡
 
Forgive me if I'm misunderstood (likely), and/or posting this in the wrong part of the forum (definitely) since it doesn't exactly pertain to this firmware update, but more so a inquisition to an existing solution (probably), or suggestion for a future update (possibly).. ~Is there/could there be a way for firmware to have an option either in the output block(preferably), or amp block to simply switch off the power amp sim/supply sag for a designated output specifically for connecting to a tube amp fx return for a live application WITHOUT (keyword) having to create an entire duplicate fx chain at, and post the amp block for that output and using up more cpu just to bypass 1 parameter? 🙃(also the cab block, but not AS big of a deal obviously) since it's what I would guess to be a common connection. Let me know if there's a current work-around for this type of thing, thanksss 🤡
Probably better served in another thread and maybe with some cleaning up of your question. But that's just me 🙂
 

IronSean

Experienced
Forgive me if I'm misunderstood (likely), and/or posting this in the wrong part of the forum (definitely) since it doesn't exactly pertain to this firmware update, but more so a inquisition to an existing solution (probably), or suggestion for a future update (possibly).. ~Is there/could there be a way for firmware to have an option either in the output block(preferably), or amp block to simply switch off the power amp sim/supply sag for a designated output specifically for connecting to a tube amp fx return for a live application WITHOUT (keyword) having to create an entire duplicate fx chain at, and post the amp block for that output and using up more cpu just to bypass 1 parameter? 🙃(also the cab block, but not AS big of a deal obviously) since it's what I would guess to be a common connection. Let me know if there's a current work-around for this type of thing, thanksss 🤡

You can bypass that one parameter, but it'll affect both your outputs. There's no way to just bypass it for one output but still have all the same effects, you'd have to double it up. For instance, what is your delay block going to do when it gets your signal? Somehow run two different delays one for each output? It doesn't make sense to automagically do that, you've got to add the second delay if that's what you want.

You can sort of do it with one chain if you pan AMP1 Right and AMP2 left and disable power amp modelling for one side. then your right delay channel would be delaying the one without the power amp modelling. Reverb will still generate reverb off a combination of both, but the difference there is subtle But of course, your FOH signal would now be mono since you'd just send Left to it.

Or you can accept that your on stage monitor will double up the power amp modelling but as long as you can hear yourself that's not going to affect the audience sound.
 

Rex

Legend!
Forgive me if I'm misunderstood (likely), and/or posting this in the wrong part of the forum (definitely) since it doesn't exactly pertain to this firmware update, but more so a inquisition to an existing solution (probably), or suggestion for a future update (possibly).. ~Is there/could there be a way for firmware to have an option either in the output block(preferably), or amp block to simply switch off the power amp sim/supply sag for a designated output specifically for connecting to a tube amp fx return for a live application WITHOUT (keyword) having to create an entire duplicate fx chain at, and post the amp block for that output and using up more cpu just to bypass 1 parameter? 🙃(also the cab block, but not AS big of a deal obviously) since it's what I would guess to be a common connection. Let me know if there's a current work-around for this type of thing, thanksss 🤡
What you’re asking for is a way to make the Amp block behave in one way at one output, and behave a different way on another output. If you want two different behaviors from the Amp block, you need two Amp blocks. Just like with real amps. :)
 

X1Nx

Member
Maybe it could be a good feature for a future update if it were somehow integrated in the output block if that's even a thing.. just try to imagine it. It could be awesome
 

IronSean

Experienced
Maybe it could be a good feature for a future update if it were somehow integrated in the output block if that's even a thing.. just try to imagine it. It could be awesome

It's not about how awesome it is. You can't add it to the output block. You have to process two different signals in every single block between amp and output. And the way to do that is to have one amp and one set of blocks lead to one output, and the other lead to the other.

To do what you're asking it would have to do that too, but hide the second set of blocks. But they would still run, and still use CPU.

It's like asking "Why can't my Drive pedal only be one for Out1 and not Out2"
 

Rex

Legend!
Maybe it could be a good feature for a future update if it were somehow integrated in the output block if that's even a thing.. just try to imagine it. It could be awesome


If you want to continue this discussion, please open a thread for it. As you said above, you're:

posting this in the wrong part of the forum (definitely) since it doesn't exactly pertain to this firmware update...
 

X1Nx

Member
But maybe there is a way.. if you believe. And hypothetically if there was, it would totally be awesome.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom