Axe-Fx Std. and Ultra Version 9.03 Firmware Available

Smilzo said:
marvinx said:
that wouldnt be the best of both worlds. The LF is the same as the trans match. that would just be the 9.02 sound
~mx~

No. The trans match has been splitted.

Well, not according to page 3 of this thread..
 
yek said:
Smilzo said:
marvinx said:
that wouldnt be the best of both worlds. The LF is the same as the trans match. that would just be the 9.02 sound
~mx~

No. The trans match has been splitted.

Well, not according to page 3 of this thread..


yek is correct.

I asked Cliff - He said the LF Resonance is what the Transformer match used to be.

For further proof, after I updated, all my pre-9.03 patches that had the Transformer Match not at the default of 5.00, had the LF Resonance at those same settings.
 
DigitalGuitarist said:
Spawn-X said:
[quote="Scott Peterson":3fu9ctbp]It cannot show up until the editor is updated for the changes in the firmware.

Actual Axe-Edit version can show new features without any problem. We just need to run the "Settings > Load Config > Run Profiler..." function to update it.

This is a great feature of Axe-Edit! But I think there might be a bug (v0.9.102), or maybe just plain ol' user error...?

I go to Settings > Load Config > Run Profiler, which seems to detect the new features in firmware v9.03 just fine. For example, when I add AMP1, I can see both "CAROLANNOD2" and "CITRUS RV50" as options in the Amp's "Effect List" drop-down. But if I attempt to select the new "CITRUS RV50" option, it instead selects "CAROLANNOD2" -- both in Axe-Edit and the Axe-FX. Ironically, I don't experience any issues selecting the new "BRIT JM45" option in the Tonestack Type drop-down.[/quote:3fu9ctbp]
It's OK for me. No issues.

iggypop said:
Actual Axe-Edit version can show new features without any problem. We just need to run the "Settings > Load Config > Run Profiler..." function to update it.


Wow this is cool! Nice tip! :cool:
Thanks for this info!
No problemo. I'll PM you my IBAN ;) ...
 
1) Splitted is not a word. Sorry, i couldn't help myself.
2) Copied and pasted from page 4 of this thread.

VegaBaby wrote:
shredi knight wrote:
The TRANSFORMER MATCH parameter in the amp block has been split into two new
parameters: LF RESONANCE and HF RESONANCE. These parameters control the interaction of the virtual power amp with the virtual speaker in the low-frequency and high-frequency bands

CLIFF:

So is the new "LF RESONANCE" parameter what the TRANSFORMER MATCH parameter used to be? Should I have it at whatever value I had the TM set to before for the same sound?

Interesting question...



I PM'd Cliff and he said yes. The LF Resonance is the same as the Transformer Match pre-9.03.


I'm not sure where you got the mix of tightness thing from. The release notes may have confused you.
~mx~
 
Ok. You're right.

If I have a v9.00 ubergain with transformer match 7.9, and I add the amp in V9.03, it default to 5 for both resonance. So if I put HF to 2.5, I still haven't nailed v9 tone because I have to increase LF to 7.9.

Have an eye on both parameters when comparing the versions...


I'm not sure where you got the mix of tightness thing from.
By ears. I tweaked the parameters, play the guitar and heard the difference in feel/sound.
 
I have not changed the LF parameter because my 9.0 preset didn't use it.(it's the default value)
According to what has been said HF set to 2.5 should give the same sound than 9.0 with default value(5), i think it's not exactly the case, there is something in the high end and it's slightly mushier.
 
Yes, if you had Transformer Match set to 7.9 before you would need to set LF Resonance to 7.9 and HF Resonance to 2.5 to get the 9.0 sound.
 
Let me simply say, Thanks Cliff!! It just doesn't get much better than this! You are more than generous with your time and the new transformer split, WOW! I can't see how there could be any complaints, you have ALWAYS answered our calls...

Thanks brother :ugeek:

Oh yeah, sweet jams from Mr. Garcia with the new Carol Ann mod...

http://soundclick.com/share?songid=8852993

There are also some nice words from Alan of Carol Ann Amps over on TGP.
 
GtarLover said:
... It just doesn't get much better than this! ...
:shock: A Brad Paisley song comes to mind: It did.

... and I said to myself
it doesen't get better than this
no it doesen't get better than this
And it did, it did, whoa it did ...


Whoa, and it still does. U N B E L I E V A B L E! :p

Big thanks again!

GtarLover said:
... Let me simply say, Thanks Cliff!! ... You are more than generous with your time and the new transformer split, WOW! I can't see how there could be any complaints, you have ALWAYS answered our calls...
Thanks brother :ugeek:
YESSS! What he said! :p
 
[/quote]

This is a great feature of Axe-Edit! But I think there might be a bug (v0.9.102), or maybe just plain ol' user error...?

I go to Settings > Load Config > Run Profiler, which seems to detect the new features in firmware v9.03 just fine. For example, when I add AMP1, I can see both "CAROLANNOD2" and "CITRUS RV50" as options in the Amp's "Effect List" drop-down. But if I attempt to select the new "CITRUS RV50" option, it instead selects "CAROLANNOD2" -- both in Axe-Edit and the Axe-FX. Ironically, I don't experience any issues selecting the new "BRIT JM45" option in the Tonestack Type drop-down.[/quote]

I have this problem too.
 
VegaBaby said:
bmi said:
What was the default transformer match for the plexi 1? 5?
5 is correct. Just checked.
So my test is valid.
All the same except the play :
http://www.mediafire.com/file/mmmuwnwwfzt/900.wav

http://www.mediafire.com/file/idmzmmiyiyt/903.wav

Don't misunderstood i'm not opposed to 9.03 (the rockerverb and carol ann sound really great). Many say that it sound more realistic, i agree due to the mush. We have talk few weeks ago about parasitic phenomenom. I don't know what has done cliff but here we get something like parasitic phenomenom and it adds more reality compare to the real deal. But when you want to go to recording the mush is not something that you are loooking for, so going back to 9.00 sound can be great with many models.
That's why i've checked the 9.03 with HF set to 2.5. If someone else can make the same comparison...
I've noticed too that with 9.03 when you play harmonics they ring more.
 
I don't know what you're trying to say or prove but those clips sound nearly identical.
 
bmi said:
VegaBaby said:
bmi said:
What was the default transformer match for the plexi 1? 5?
5 is correct. Just checked.
So my test is valid.
All the same except the play :
http://www.mediafire.com/file/mmmuwnwwfzt/900.wav

http://www.mediafire.com/file/idmzmmiyiyt/903.wav

Don't misunderstood i'm not opposed to 9.03 (the rockerverb and carol ann sound really great). Many say that it sound more realistic, i agree due to the mush. We have talk few weeks ago about parasitic phenomenom. I don't know what has done cliff but here we get something like parasitic phenomenom and it adds more reality compare to the real deal. But when you want to go to recording the mush is not something that you are loooking for, so going back to 9.00 sound can be great with many models.
That's why i've checked the 9.03 with HF set to 2.5. If someone else can make the same comparison...
I've noticed too that with 9.03 when you play harmonics they ring more.


If your'e trying to prove they sound different you may wish to try re-amping and then a frequency analysis.

Keep in mind cliff never said 2.5 would be exactly the 9.0. He said it would be the same for MOST of the high gain models. AKA close enough for government work.

I think when he made the 9.2 update he made corrections to accuracy across the board, not just a general constant increase of the HF parameter. So setting it to 2.5 may still not be EXACTLY the same, but close enough. Nothing wrong with a little tweaking tho if you need it closer.
~mx~
 
Finally installed 9.03 today and had a couple hrs with it . I REALLY like it so far !!
I was one of the guys that went back to 9.00 from 9.02
Loved the cleans of 9.02 but not the high gains . 9.03 fixed all of that for me .
Thank You so much..
TL
 
Deltones said:
Anybody noticing a much higher noise output with 9.03 on some amp models? The 800 has this annoying high pitched whine that masks the main sound, which wasn't there before. Tried it with a few others amps and that high-pitched whine is not always there. Tested with default values.

Hmmm... that high-pitched whine on the 800 seem to be related to the bright switch. Removed it and it improved greatly. Can somebody else confirm?

I'm quoting myself, but with the lot of posts about how to make 9.03 sound like 9.0, it might have been lost. It would be great if you guys could do a little test with this one. Just amp at default values + cab.

Thanks
 
My USA Lead patches sound exactly the same as 9.00 with the HF Resonance at 2.5 (Cliff confirmed for me that 2.5 was the "exact" correct setting for the USA Lead sims, because you know, I'm anal like that :p ). I went right from 9.00 to 9.03, playing right before I updated and after, and if there was a difference, I know I would have heard it immediately (I also might have heard it even if it wasn't actually there too :lol: ). That's with just the USA Lead sims though.
 
For the USA sims and many others setting the HF Resonance to 2.5 results in EXACTLY the same response as 9.00. I don't know how I can be any clearer than that.
 
Back
Top Bottom