Axe-Fx standard firmware capacity near maxed out

[webstersp]

Is the firmware capacity of the Axe-Fx standard near maxed out?
I would be ok with the standard but I want to be able to use all futur firmware updates!

 

[wowzers]

A simple search would give you the answer, no the Standard is not near limit, near capacity, near end by any means or value. Right now, The only difference is the amount of processor power and in-patch memory.

 

[LMO]

I recall a post from Cliff where he mentioned getting tight on space for code fixes.

 

[webstersp]

Some say yes and some say no!
Can cliff answer this one?

 

[javajunkie]

Cliff has replied to this question numerous times. The standard is pretty much out of memory except for additional amp models (this uses a different part of memory) and bug fixes. He has been able to squeeze a few more features out by going to a compressed bootloader and coding efficiencies. Still there have been additional features to effects that have been added on the Ultra that would not fit on the standard. Cliff has stated that the amp models (number/quality) will be the same on both. However, stating the only difference is the amount of processor power and in-patch memory is incorrect. Besides having effects that do not exist on the standard; the ultra has parameters in a few effects that do not exist in the standard (in the delay and pitch for example). Also the are more instances of some effects on the Ultra.

There might be a couple of more bells and whistles Cliff manages to fit on the standard and probably a lot more amp models and bug fixes. But, it IS about full.

 

[wowzers]

Ah thanks for the info Java. Ever since I got mine and even before that all I saw was that it wasn't close to being full, so I just assumed it to be the same still! However it would be nice to have an idea with each firmware of how much space is left in each unit. At any rate, I'm happy with mine

 

[javajunkie]

Ah thanks for the info Java. Ever since I got mine and even before that all I saw was that it wasn't close to being full, so I just assumed it to be the same still! However it would be nice to have an idea with each firmware of how much space is left in each unit. At any rate, I'm happy with mine

I believe that last comment about it was it was in the mid to upper ninety percentile.

 

[webstersp]

This answers all of my questions!
Thanks!

 

[Secret80'sMan]

That's why I went with the Ultra, I didn't want any regrets or to miss out on any features. I know sonically they are the same but I want to have all the bells and whistles. I also use a ton of effects at times since all I do is 80's stuff so didn't want to hit the wall anytime soon.

 

[Jay Mitchell]

Cliff has replied to this question numerous times. The standard is pretty much out of memory

Here's the problem with your statement: there are different kinds of memory in the Axe-Fx. There's flash (EEPROM), which is where firmware is stored. Then there's (volatile) RAM, which is where everything in a preset must be loaded on recall. The Ultra has a lot more RAM than the Standard, which is why it can have more blocks in a preset before hitting the maximum. I believe it is also why certain effects blocks are Ultra-only. Then there's nonvolatile (battery-backed) RAM, which is where presets and user IRs are stored. The Standard is not out of NV RAM. In fact, IIRC it has more available than the Ultra, which is why there's a "back up presets to/restore presets from RAM" function in the Standard that is not present in the Ultra.

The punch line is that the word "memory" does not describe the differences between the Standard and Ultra without further qualification. The maximum number of blocks per preset is very unlikely to increase in either the Standard or Ultra, but both have firmware space remaining for bug fixes and performance improvements in algorithms.

 

[Jay Mitchell]

Why not put useful stuff like this in the wiki

Why not indeed? Anyone may set up an account and post to the Wiki. That includes you. In case there is any doubt, you have my permission to place my remarks in the Wiki.

instead of keeping it secret

It's no secret. It's been publicly disclosed multiple times over the the past four years.

 

[LMO]

... both have firmware space remaining for bug fixes and performance improvements in algorithms.

Here is the post I referencing above:

I will look into fade-in/fade-out to minimize this.

If there is any audio at the start/end of the loop there will be a click at the point the loop restarts. I can do a crossfade to minimize this perhaps. Not sure if I can fit it as code space is getting tight.

 

[webstersp]

If they both have memory space for firmware updates and that the only difference between both unit is
more effect on the ultra and more memory to be able to use more effec blockt at the same time...
The standard would be enough for me.
But after searching the forum (search function sucks prety bad!) ahrd tofind good information on this!
A sticky or an update on the wikki page would stop people like me to flood the forum with
the same questions over and over again!

 

[javajunkie]

Here is the post I referencing above:

That implies the Ultra is getting full as well. The looper is only on the Ultra.

 

[javajunkie]

Here's the problem with your statement: there are different kinds of memory in the Axe-Fx. There's flash (EEPROM), which is where firmware is stored. Then there's (volatile) RAM, which is where everything in a preset must be loaded on recall. The Ultra has a lot more RAM than the Standard, which is why it can have more blocks in a preset before hitting the maximum. I believe it is also why certain effects blocks are Ultra-only. Then there's nonvolatile (battery-backed) RAM, which is where presets and user IRs are stored. The Standard is not out of NV RAM. In fact, IIRC it has more available than the Ultra, which is why there's a "back up presets to/restore presets from RAM" function in the Standard that is not present in the Ultra.

The punch line is that the word "memory" does not describe the differences between the Standard and Ultra without further qualification. The maximum number of blocks per preset is very unlikely to increase in either the Standard or Ultra, but both have firmware space remaining for bug fixes and performance improvements in algorithms.

I was simplifying for ease of understanding and brevity. I know good and well there are more than one type of memory. And I mentioned that (indirectly) in the statement following where you quoted me. I said different part of memory to simplify. I should have said different memory area. So I did further qualify. What I said still holds true. I also stated there was plenty of room for more models. And cliff stated the part of memory where features and algorithms are stored is just about full. If I remember correctly the backup/restore presets is not because it has more NV RAM but it is being used for something else.


In fact, IIRC it has more available than the Ultra, which is why there's a "back up presets to/restore presets from RAM" function in the Standard that is not present in the Ultra.
I think you might have remembered incorrectly is does not have more.
Standard
On-Chip Memory (Mbit): 4Mbit
External Memory (Mbit): 32

Ultra
On-Chip Memory (Mbit): 24Mbit
External Memory (Mbit): 32/64

Furthermore, Cliff stated this on the reason for the lack of saving preset to flash was this:

"The Ultra doesn't have that feature because all the extra effects use up more FLASH memory space so there isn't enough space left to save the presets in FLASH. "

Also Cliff has stated on more than a coulpe of occasions"
"The standard has very little data memory left" - That was a very old quote - the search on the new forum is a bit different. I have quite worked to get the result I want quickly yet.

Here is where Cliff stated there wasn't enough memory for a performance improvement (other that pitch):
"The Ultra will get an improved interpolation algorithm. This algorithm is used on the Chorus, Flanger and Pitch blocks. The algorithm requires more memory that the standard doesn't have. "
I think he eventually did squeeze it in, but it prove the point the memory limitation of the standard can impede performance improvements on the standard.






I never mentioned preset count, nor did any one else. I stated they both have room for firmware fixes. You have no idea if there is enough space for performance improvements in the algorithms in the standard vs the ultra because you have no way of knowing what the performance improvements will be or what they will require. Some improvements have not been able fit on the standard already. The pitch block enhancements would be one example.

 

[Jay Mitchell]

What I said still holds true.

"Out of memory" is, by itself, not particularly meaningful. The Standard is most definitely not "max'ed out" in its ability to receive - and benefit from - updated firmware. For example, the improvements Cliff made in the amp sims in 10.xx benefited the Standard in exactly the same way they benefited the Ultra.

I also stated there was plenty of room for more models.

What then would be the effect of the limitation in the Standard?

If I remember correctly the backup/restore presets is not because it has more NV RAM but it is being used for something else.

Exactly. Which is why I used the word "available" in my statement. The RAM needed for the function is not available in the Ultra.

Also Cliff has stated on more than a coulpe of occasions"
"The standard has very little data memory left" - That was a very old quote

Correct. And there have been many firmware updates since he said that, all of which have benefited the Standard.

You have no idea if there is enough space for performance improvements in the algorithms

Given that the most recent firmware revision includes such improvements - which sometimes use less, rather than more, "memory" - I'd say I'm on pretty solid footing in making that statement.

Some improvements have not been able fit on the standard already. The pitch block enhancements would be one example.

I believe those improvements are the only such example. Some Ultra-only enhancements to the reverb block were also applied to the Standard in a later firmware revision.

 

[Jay Mitchell]

If they both have memory space for firmware updates and that the only difference between both unit is more effect on the ultra and more memory to be able to use more effec blockt at the same time...The standard would be enough for me.

Firmware updates for both Standard and Ultra are still possible. It would appear that Cliff is nearing the maximum available code space of both the Standard and the Ultra, but that limits how much code can be added, not how many improvements can be made in it.

 

[javajunkie]

"Out of memory" is, by itself, not particularly meaningful. The Standard is most definitely not "max'ed out" in its ability to receive - and benefit from - updated firmware. For example, the improvements Cliff made in the amp sims in 10.xx benefited the Standard in exactly the same way they benefited the Ultra.

What then would be the effect of the limitation in the Standard?

Exactly. Which is why I used the word "available" in my statement. The RAM needed for the function is not available in the Ultra.

Correct. And there have been many firmware updates since he said that, all of which have benefited the Standard.

Given that the most recent firmware revision includes such improvements - which sometimes use less, rather than more, "memory" - I'd say I'm on pretty solid footing in making that statement.

I believe those improvements are the only such example. Some Ultra-only enhancements to the reverb block were also applied to the Standard in a later firmware revision.

First, I never said it was maxed out. I said (and cliff has as well) that it is pretty much maxed out (that is less than completely maxed out) .
Second just because Cliff was able to make one improvement does not mean that another can. For example the local mono and local poly could not be added to the pitch block in the standard. The diffuser on the delay is another.
Third, true that is what you said.
Fourth, not all of the updates have benefited the standard. Some have been exclusive to the Ultra.
Fifth, I am on solid footing as well. You do not have any information regarding what improvements will be made. You do not know if there will be room for such improvements on the standard. There will surely be some but there is a limit and the limit is smaller on the standard. But, to your point yes Cliff has made efficiencies that have allowed changes that have benefited both. But it is not always possible.
Sixth, no. There was the diffusion parameter on the delay, unless that was added. I'm not sure if the interpolation improvements were added to the standard or not. The reverb additions were not on the standard for awhile until he could figure out how to get it on. Cliff is clever and will add what he can. He has worked hard to keep the quality of both the best he can with the limitations he has.


However, You are absolutely right the statement that memory limitation "limits how much code can be added, not how many improvements can be made in it" It does limit some improvement that might be made (if they require more code that can't be gained elsewhere).

But it does appear both are getting close. Interesting.

BTW, I already stated a lot of this in my original post:
"He has been able to squeeze a few more features out by going to a compressed bootloader and coding efficiencies. Still there have been additional features to effects that have been added on the Ultra that would not fit on the standard. Cliff has stated that the amp models (number/quality) will be the same on both."

 

[wowzers]

I must say it has been quite informative reading both Jay's and Java's posts here. Very interesting information.

But it does appear both are getting close. Interesting.

I smell an Axe Fx II somewhere on the horizon Granted the horizon may very well be years from now.