Axe-Fx III Firmware Version 11.00 Public Beta

Status
Not open for further replies.
James Nash said:
Unless I misunderstood, the proces
Click to expand...
yeky83 said:
There's been 10 major firmware updates, all of which changes the sound. If we start having parameters or menu options to revert firmware update changes, it creates for a convoluted interface that you can only use if you know the history of the device and its firmware updates. The Axe-Fx has never been that way so far, and I don’t see why it has to be any different this time around.
Click to expand...

The Axe II was this way for awhile, you could select a few older versions of modeling but it was eventually dropped because new better stuff made it obsolete. That happened because of conversations just like this one.

If it consumes Cliff's time to maintain old code, I believe we are better to update our own presets. If it is simple for him to leave the old impedance modeling, maybe that can make things easier for a few.

The new impedance stuff sounds so much better to my ear I'm not sure why anyone would not want to eventually migrate their presets to it?
 
NeoSound said:
The Axe II was this way for awhile, you could select a few older versions of modeling but it was eventually dropped because new better stuff made it obsolete. That happened because of conversations just like this one.

If it consumes Cliff's time to maintain old code, I believe we are better to update our own presets. If it is simple for him to leave the old impedance modeling, maybe that can make things easier for a few.

The new impedance stuff sounds so much better to my ear I'm not sure why anyone would not want to eventually migrate their presets to it?
Click to expand...
Because it doesn't always sound better. If you tweaked resonances to your liking previously then you don't care about realism of impedance curves...
 
AlGrenadine said:
Because it doesn't always sound better. If you tweaked resonances to your liking previously then you don't care about realism of impedance curves...
Click to expand...

I've felt the same way about my presets many times in the past, but realism (not perfect to our ears sound) is the ultimate goal of modeling and if we get closer, shouldn't we accept that?

Maybe Cliff can give you the old impedance curve data and it could be mass updated with Fractool? or Fractool could read/save existing curves before updating and set them back after the update?
 
NeoSound said:
I've felt the same way about my presets many times in the past, but realism (not perfect to our ears sound) is the ultimate goal of modeling and if we get closer to that I believe we should accept that?

Maybe Cliff can give you the old impedance curve data and it could be mass updated with Fractool? or Fractool could read/save existing curves before updating and set them back after the update?
Click to expand...
There's no old impedance data, it's old resonance settings it's already there so why touch it?
And FracTool is a free software not affiliated to FractalAudio, so i don't have to loose time again on this type of things which imho should be handled by FractalAudio...
 
DLC86 said:
I think he already answered here:


PS: I think you might be surprised by the volume a line or headphone output is able to generate if directly connected to a speaker.

For example: line outputs in the axe fx have a max level of +20dBu, that equals to 7.75 Vrms.
If we connect one output to a 4 ohm load we obtain a power of:
7.75*7.75 /4= 15W

Obviously remains to be seen if the outputs can support the current draw to really deliver 15W

PPS: and let's not forget that guitar speakers usually have a sensivity of 97-100 dB SPL at 1W/1m
Click to expand...

Good point. It just seems counter intuitive that the a small volume (I agree that 15W is actually quite loud) would be enough to really excite the sides of a MESA big box cabinet.
 
Smittefar said:
Good point. It just seems counter intuitive that the a small volume (I agree that 15W is actually quite loud) would be enough to really excite the sides of a MESA big box cabinet.
Click to expand...
I think it's counter intuitive cuz we think those kind of phenomena have some sort of threshold or limit based on what we perceive, but most of the time that threshold or limit is just inside our ears or brain.
 
It all depends on what you bought the unit for.
For fun at home?
The display should show pics of the model and the cab then and the system should hide 90 percent of the parameters then. Plug and play. No complicated explanations and the promise that it's 100 percent real And if an update changes everything, that's no problem then.
For studio?
You might have touched any parameters then, but when a project is done, changes made to the modeling don't damage anything anymore.
For gigs?
Oh, you don't want to send all untested sounds to the FOH, no surprises please, safety first. If sounds change you have to reaudition or skip updating until you have space to reaudition.

All 3 groups have different wishes and needs.
 
chucma said:
The AxeFXIII is still relatively new in its life cycle so there are going to be many more (I suspect) big FW changes that will alter your sound - for a good cause.
Click to expand...

And that's fine. If it's necessary for the sound of presets to change in order to implement a new feature or modeling algorithm, that's understood. But in this case, changing the sound of presets is completely voluntary on FAS's part.
 
Last edited:
NeoSound said:
The Axe II was this way for awhile, you could select a few older versions of modeling but it was eventually dropped because new better stuff made it obsolete
Click to expand...

No, it was dropped due to memory constraints.

NeoSound said:
If it consumes Cliff's time to maintain old code, I believe we are better to update our own presets.
Click to expand...

There's no old code to maintain. From what I understand, the previous impedance curve values already reside within existing presets. What's being discussed is whether the previous values stored in existing presets should be updated to the new values automatically.

NeoSound said:
The new impedance stuff sounds so much better to my ear I'm not sure why anyone would not want to eventually migrate their presets to it?
Click to expand...

Because quality is subjective. I agree that some of the new default impedance curves sound much better than the previous ones, but that's independent of my not wanting the Speaker settings for my current presets to change.
 
Last edited:
simeon said:
i haven't read the whole thread, so i apologise if someone has mentioned this before, but i think there should be another menu option (or one that replaces "null") and that should be called "v10". this will being up the old default impedance curve. this will allow users to keep their old presets unchanged if they want and also allow them to have a look at what the old curve was and pick a new curve that's closest. like some of the old features we had access to previously with the II, this option could be removed in a later firmware if the consensus is that it could go.
i think the new firmware should choose a new default, as cliff suggested, but if you don't want to change, then you could simply to a batch update with fractool to set all the presets to "v10"
Click to expand...
I like the way you think! I was thinking about this last night. A null, flat response is easily achieved and doesn't require screenshots or writing anything down. why not replace the null option with the original curve?
 
NeoSound said:
The Axe II was this way for awhile, you could select a few older versions of modeling but it was eventually dropped because new better stuff made it obsolete. That happened because of conversations just like this one.

If it consumes Cliff's time to maintain old code, I believe we are better to update our own presets. If it is simple for him to leave the old impedance modeling, maybe that can make things easier for a few.

The new impedance stuff sounds so much better to my ear I'm not sure why anyone would not want to eventually migrate their presets to it?
Click to expand...
This ^^^^. Reality is, once Cliff spends the time being disrupted from progress, it will be a short lived effort spent.
 
I'm not opposed to keeping the old available personally. I just hate to see Cliff spending development time on holding on to the past. I've read about having to spend time and all that work adjusting presets, there's a lot of time and work involved for Cliff to revisit things as well.
Especially since it's so easy to tweak a little on the basic page and make the preset sound better than the old curve.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jon
RDH said:
I'm not opposed to keeping the old available personally. I just hate to see Cliff spending development time on holding on to the past. I've read about having to spend time and all that work adjusting presets, there's a lot of time and work involved for Cliff to revisit things as well. Especially since it's so easy to tweak a little on the basic page and make the preset sound better than the old curve.
Click to expand...

From what I understand, the previous values are stored within the preset itself, thus there's nothing to maintain. The issue being discussed is whether the previous values in current presets should be updated to the new values automatically.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom