Axe-FX Standard CPU/memory usage and limitation question

Deaj

Deaj

Experienced
I think I asked this question over at TGP a couple of years ago but I couldn't find the post or its responses. It seems a bit late to be asking the question now with a Standard on the way but I just wanted to verify something with those in the know.

The most complex signal chain I am likely to ever configure would be something like:
Drive pedal > Vibe > Amp > IR or Cab Sim / Mic > Delay > Reverb
-or-
Compressor > Amp > IR or Cab Sim / Mic > Chorus > Delay > Reverb
-or-
Drive pedal > Phaser > Amp > IR or Cab Sim / Mic > Delay > Reverb

You get the basic idea. This is really as far as I'm likely to ever go. I'm just not much for effects and I use them sparingly. I prefer a straightforward amp tone with a touch of delay and/or reverb when jamming and dry when recording unless an effect works best in front of the amp (I like Phaser and Vibe effects here).

Most of the time my signal chain would look more like this:
Amp > IR or Cab Sim / Mic > Delay > Reverb
-or-
Drive pedal > Amp > IR or Cab Sim / Mic > Delay > Reverb

Does the Axe-FX Standard have enough CPU/memory to support all of the configurations listed in this post along with an EQ block if needed? Given what I've read to date and the answers I received to a similar question I asked a while back I assume none of these signal chains + EQ will max out the Axe-FX Standard's resources. Is this a fair assumption?

Thanks all!
 
I thought as much - I definitely made the right choice going with the Standard. I combed throught the Wiki looking at the differences between the Standard and the Ultra before making my decision. Looking at your signal chain I can see that I'll have no problem with system resources. Thanks for the quick reply and for the pic of your template! :)

Another question for the Standard users: Is it possible to run two 'amp>cab/IR' chains on a Standard if no other effects are employed?

While I don't have any plans to do this I'm curious to know if the Standard can do this. If I want two amps (tones) playing the same part I prefer to play and record a separate track. It sounds broader, fuller, more complex than recording the same performance played through two amps. This said I'm not opposed to experimenting with a dual amp/cab config for direct recording (would be dry for this purpose). Have any of you Standard users been able to run two amp/cab rigs dry? With any effects?

Thanks again!
 
Last edited:
Wow, that's fantastic!! Thanks again for the fast reply and information. :). The Standard is definitely more than capable of handling my intended use.
 
I've been playing around with Axe-Edit and reading the Axe-FX Wiki familiarizing myself with the amps, cabs, effects, and parameters for them. I also grabbed a bunch of patches from Axe-Exchange to look through various configurations. Cool stuff! I'm really getting excited to play though the Axe-FX!

I was surprised to see just how much can be done using the Standard config. It looks like dual amp/cab rigs are definitely doable with a Standard with my very limited use of effects. I put together a few dual amp/cab patches using a single drive pedal, delay, reverb, and two EQ's. The Axe-Edit estimate for processor use seemed to be right around 90%. Very complex signal chains seem possible with a Standard model as well. The Standard appears to provide more processing power than my intended uses require - nice!

This raised a question: How accurate is the Axe-Edit's processor use estimate?

I'm really intrigued by the Amp blocks deep edit parameters. I expect I'll spend quite a lot of time getting to know how all of these work and interact. The potential for new sounds seems nearly limitless! Many of the effects blocks have a lot more parameters than I'd expected to see (the Drive Pedal block looks very cool!).

I'm pretty excited to get started. I'll be reading as much as I can between now and next Wednesday, saving links as I go. This will be fun!
 
Deaj said:
This raised a question: How accurate is the Axe-Edit's processor use estimate?
Click to expand...

It varies. The value doesn't change with config. selection and seems to be an Ultra estimate. It's close to what each block adds at defaults on the Ultra. Different settings can change the usage and it doesn't account for other things like shunts, connections, modifiers.
 
Bakerman said:
It varies. The value doesn't change with config. selection and seems to be an Ultra estimate. It's close to what each block adds at defaults on the Ultra. Different settings can change the usage and it doesn't account for other things like shunts, connections, modifiers.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the reply! I'll have to wait until my Axe-FX arrives to see how all this works out.
 
Bakerman said:
It varies. The value doesn't change with config. selection and seems to be an Ultra estimate. It's close to what each block adds at defaults on the Ultra. Different settings can change the usage and it doesn't account for other things like shunts, connections, modifiers.
Click to expand...
I'd take the AxeEdit values with a grain of salt, and if I need to check actual use, do so on the Axe itself!
 
I posted the actual and AxeEdit processor values not long ago; a search will find it. The values that AxeEdit uses are generally a few percent high.
 
@LMO ... I´m wondering that axe edit shows to high percent values. Did you use an Ultra? In my experiences it is vs. : to low: If Axe edit shows me ca 87 - 88%, my standard shows me ca. 95 - 97% .... so, if i tweak ideas only with axe edit i add ca 10% to the value axe edit shows me ...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom