Axe-Fx III Firmware Version 5.00 Beta

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm curious about how a firmware update being re-applied would fix some of the issues called out in this thread and if Cliff could chime in. Binary data is binary, either it passes the file checksum or it fails and the whole update fails (at least, that's how I understand the firmware updates to work).

The reason I ask is because FW 5 isn't really doing it for me; the amps seem to be all over the place low-end wise (not the Fenders, which I don't really use, but the higher gain amps like the Herbie and Uber and Friedmans) and most I've used have a muddiness / blanket effect that I can't seem to dial out. I need to spend more time with it tweaking since obviously the algorithms changed, but those are my initial impressions. It's like a lot of complex chord detail that used to be there (and is certainly there on the real amps, especially the Friedmans) is being lost somewhere in the muddiness.

Just cautious here ... but major firmware updates (ie integer labeled firmwares) often require re-dialing in your amps ( a key reason why some don’t upgrade during a tour, project, etc.)

Have you done that? You may have, but just checking.

For me, since fw 3-4? and 5, I’ve backed off (on some amps) gain and bass on some patches. ymmv
 
Last edited:
I'm curious about how a firmware update being re-applied would fix some of the issues called out in this thread and if Cliff could chime in. Binary data is binary, either it passes the file checksum or it fails and the whole update fails (at least, that's how I understand the firmware updates to work).

The reason I ask is because FW 5 isn't really doing it for me; the amps seem to be all over the place low-end wise (not the Fenders, which I don't really use, but the higher gain amps like the Herbie and Uber and Friedmans) and most I've used have a muddiness / blanket effect that I can't seem to dial out. I need to spend more time with it tweaking since obviously the algorithms changed, but those are my initial impressions. It's like a lot of complex chord detail that used to be there (and is certainly there on the real amps, especially the Friedmans) is being lost somewhere in the muddiness.
On possibility I can think of is that there is a parameter set a particular way in 4.03 that doesn't get set in 4.00b. This could cause a difference in behavior going from 4.00b -> 5.00b and 4.03 -> 5.00b. Just a guess.
 
On possibility I can think of is that there is a parameter set a particular way in 4.03 that doesn't get set in 4.00b. This could cause a difference in behavior going from 4.00b -> 5.00b and 4.03 -> 5.00b. Just a guess.

Do FWs let existing parameters just stay the same and only apply deltas?
 
Coming from software myself, typically FW updates change the processing code base (not normally saved user settings like presets), that is basically how the settings are interpreted as well as things not affected by user settings. So different FWs might subtly or radically change the bass response overall and/or how the bass control or other controls affects bass response.

IIRC, some Axe firmware updates can change default settings or override some user settings, sometimes automatically and sometimes with a reset. Cliff would need to confirm.

So it is possible that there is some dependence on FW update sequencing if there are differences in override settings.
 
From the movie Pi:
"1:26 pm restate my assumptions... "

I went through the entire release guide for III and nowhere did it say any firmware release required an Amp block reset. Safe to say that even presets created in 1.x (Austin Buddy naked presets for example) do not require amp block reset when running on 5.0 beta? I understand the Drive block changed enough to warrant adjustment. I ask because I'm coming from 1.18 (version my III came with) to 5.0 beta.

BTW, would be cool if AxeEdit could bring back 'soft-reset' per preset. Rhyming unintentional. I understand Fractool can do it, but it would be cool to have the soft-reset option right in AxeEdit.
 
On possibility I can think of is that there is a parameter set a particular way in 4.03 that doesn't get set in 4.00b. This could cause a difference in behavior going from 4.00b -> 5.00b and 4.03 -> 5.00b. Just a guess.

I'm curious about this as well. It stands to reason that Cliff has to reset user-adjustable parameters to get amps to match using the new algorithms when there are changes that would affect them. That said, I tend to avoid the more advanced parameters and stick with TMB and Gain / Master / Bright / Presence. If I recall from many previous posts, though, "amp resets" are not required for parameters to get updated, both user editable and in hidden from the user. That's something that was handled way back in the Axe2 days.

I definitely have more tweaking to test, it's just this is the first FW of the Axe 3 where I was like "Wut?" with my initial impressions and testing. It's like there is this weird smearing going on in the bass and low-mid frequencies that makes things more greasy and loose than they should be. Very subjective, of course, but that's what my ears are hearing. In comparison to my Bogner Goldfinger SL, that amp has great string definition, crunchiness and bass without any mud. None of the amp models I've tested (the Bogners, Friedmans, and Diezels) so far can match it.

That may be a product of just how good the Goldfinger is (and is why I own that actual amp, given there isn't a model for it), but I recall previous firmwares being more comparable. I might downgrade tonight and do some A/B comparisons to see what's what.
 
FWIW, I just got home and have fresh ears. Fired up my Deluxe Reverb and the model. Did a blind A/B test and picked the model as the real amp. I was *sure* which one was the amp and which was the model and I was wrong.
Could you try the same thing with the 59 Bassman? That is the one, to my ears, that has way more bass than before. The Bandmaster & the Tweed Deluxe have a lot more bass too but not like the 59. Thanks!
 
FWIW, I just got home and have fresh ears. Fired up my Deluxe Reverb and the model. Did a blind A/B test and picked the model as the real amp. I was *sure* which one was the amp and which was the model and I was wrong.
Just curious. How do you compare the amp vs model? I would assume that you have the amp in another room and have it mic'ed and listen through studio monitors. But you know what they say about assuming.
 
Could you try the same thing with the 59 Bassman? That is the one, to my ears, that has way more bass than before. The Bandmaster & the Tweed Deluxe have a lot more bass too but not like the 59. Thanks!

I use that model and I adjusted it on 5.0b by using “magic 6” of bmt respectively 2,3, & 6. Using input as the gain control, appears to work well.

Also a drive, eq or filter with some low cut makes a big difference. Ymmv, and not to say that FAS doesn’t have a different take. But that is my most recent experience on that model.
 
I use that model and I adjusted it on 5.0b by using “magic 6” of bmt respectively 2,3, & 6. Using input as the gain control, appears to work well.

Also a drive, eq or filter with some low cut makes a big difference. Ymmv, and not to say that FAS doesn’t have a different take. But that is my most recent experience on that model.
I generally never use that 1 size fits all approach. I already did have the bass down around 2 before 5 beta. I know there are many ways to deal with too much bass but with all the recent "authentic" talk & implementation, it seems counter intuitive to have a model that can't be useable without going into advanced deep editing to get it out of the muck.
 
No. I can't lift that amp, it's too heavy.
Some of the Fenders are fine. Others, like the 59 Bassman, are not. Bandmaster & Tweed Deluxe also sound very bass heavy now but not to the extent of the 59. How will this ever get resolved without testing the ones with the problem?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom