Axe PC

teejay said:
it is my opinion that you owe it to your loyal followers to issue updates.
Click to expand...

My opinion is that they don't.

Thinking like we, third world country people do, the Axe PC is just a ticket to get the Axe-Fx for free.
 
juanano said:
Thinking like we, third world country people do, the Axe PC is just a ticket to get the Axe-Fx for free.
Click to expand...

And that will luckily never happen,
AxePC is supposed to work ONLY with an interface provided from Fractal,
I guess there'll be some DSP processing involving in the interface itself as well
and therefor it would be impossible to get it for free, which I salute ofc. ;)
 
juanano said:
teejay said:
it is my opinion that you owe it to your loyal followers to issue updates.
Click to expand...

My opinion is that they don't.

Thinking like we, third world country people do, the Axe PC is just a ticket to get the Axe-Fx for free.
Click to expand...
Not quite sure what you mean there...

For me, if the Axe PC is any where as good as my Ultra i'll be only too happy to hand over my "hard earned" to own it. Both products could quite easily co-exist in my life.
 
My first post here as I read up on and contemplate buying a Fractal Audio product. Assessing and balancing my needs with resources, I am very close to buying (main dilemma being Standard or Ultra...). Digging deeper into this forum for info, opinions, signs from God/Cliff, I ran into this thread. Just finished reading/skimming the entire thing.

Technologically I'm moderately noobie. Add to this I've never used the Axe-Fx. Sooo...

My question is this: Based on what is known about this shadowy Axe-PC, is the only or main functional difference between it and the Axe-Fx the fact that the PC runs on a "host" computer, and the Fx is it's own host DSP? If this is the case, and cost aside, is there anything "better" about the Axe-PC for DAW work? Isn't all of the Axe-Fx functionality available for use in a DAW? Or am I completely misunderstanding? My understanding is that reamping is a bit easier with a plugin (Axe-PC would essentially be this, no?), but it is very doable with the Axe-Fx.

What else am I missing? Probably something(s) fundamental, so please, enlightened me and set me straight!

I will almost certainly get the Axe-Fx. I've been doing home recording with Sonar for the last couple of years, and I gig both as a solo acoustic act and with bands (tho not much at all) and from what I read, see, and hear, this would fit into all of these situations amazingly well.

Still, me wonders...

Thanks

(So...Standard or Ultra?... Standard or Ultra?...)
 
Perry said:
[...] My question is this: Based on what is known about this shadowy Axe-PC, is the only or main functional difference between it and the Axe-Fx the fact that the PC runs on a "host" computer, and the Fx is it's own host DSP? If this is the case, and cost aside, is there anything "better" about the Axe-PC for DAW work? Isn't all of the Axe-Fx functionality available for use in a DAW? Or am I completely misunderstanding? My understanding is that reamping is a bit easier with a plugin (Axe-PC would essentially be this, no?), but it is very doable with the Axe-Fx. [...]
Click to expand...
Since it ain't out yet... all of the below could be considered, "in theory" :mrgreen:...

+ a USB (or Firewire?) connection is likely
+ smaller
+ given that it runs in a host sequencer, there would be...
...+ simpler preset management, given that a project file usually recalls a VST's settings
...+ simpler automation
+ it would use your computer's CPU; as a result...
...+ routings could be more flexible (no longer limited to the processing power of a Standard or Ultra unit)
...+ multiple instances of the plug-in are likely possible (imagine having an "Ultra" on every channel!)
...- there may be a slightly-larger amount of latency than when going through dedicated hardware

...but that's all I can think of off the top of my head. Yes, re-amping should be easier too.
But I'm honestly not expecting the Axe-PC anytime soon. I'd bet that their efforts are focused on the MFC next. I could be surprised, but I'm partially going off of the Editor's progress, since that would be fairly important for the Axe-PC; given that it's still in beta, I think a lot of work remains to get it to support a radically different platform, regardless of the very similar functionality.

And as long as I'm replying in this thread... I had a thought...
- How about one-off Fractal Audio plug-ins? Maybe only one or two fairly unique effects (e.g. MBC and Pitch block). And have it be either very cheap or even free, but very high quality -- just to get the FAS name out there.

Oh... and as for Standard vs. Ultra? I'm guessing you've seen the page on the Wiki already? http://axefxwiki.guitarlogic.org/index. ... comparison From there, it's *mostly* a matter of looking at the Ultra-exclusive effects and thinking about whether you'd miss them if they weren't there. Additionally, it depends on how complicated you like to get with your routing. For most straightforward routings, the Standard will suffice -- but if you start to get more "creative" you might want the reduced CPU limits of the Ultra. Or it depends on the type of person you are... I know if I got the Standard, I'd always wonder... "what am I missing?" even though a Standard would probably be enough for me. :D
 
I don't get it. Why are so many of the current Axe-FX owners against an Axe-PC/Axe-Mac? Are they afraid that their product will be less worth?

I for one think both products can co-exist.

But I'm more interested in paying for Cliff's excellent programming skills and impressive algorithms, and constant development, than in getting the above but locked to a hardware platform that further down the road will be outdated.

And I'm also puzzled by the fact that Fractal don't seem to give any updates on this matter.

However, seeing how the Axe-Edit beta contains elements of a forthcoming software solution, I guess Fractal will release one some day. I'm looking forward to it! :D
 
godprobe said:
+ a USB (or Firewire?) connection is likely
+ smaller
Click to expand...
OK, but what would connectivity have to do with it if it's a plugin? I know it'll prolly have a dongle or some kind of outboard whatever, but the plugin is on a hard drive, no? And what would be smaller? The dongle? So what? (I ask with curiosity and all respect)
+ given that it runs in a host sequencer, there would be...
...+ simpler preset management, given that a project file usually recalls a VST's settings
...+ simpler automation
+ it would use your computer's CPU; as a result...
...+ routings could be more flexible (no longer limited to the processing power of a Standard or Ultra unit)
...+ multiple instances of the plug-in are likely possible (imagine having an "Ultra" on every channel!)
...- there may be a slightly-larger amount of latency than when going through dedicated hardware
Click to expand...
Right, so workflow, management, and we'd be able to use any of the effects as standalone plugins with any track of any kind. Cool. But the latency issue is what I would have the biggest worry about. I suppose most people are going to 64-bit machines and so this will be less of an issue (I assume?). But right now, running 32-bit and so much ITB as I do, adding an Axe-PC would strain even my AMD quad core, methinks.

So bottom line, for now, for what I want it for, the Fractal Audio Axe-Fx will more than cover me.

Oh... and as for Standard vs. Ultra? I'm guessing you've seen the page on the Wiki already? http://axefxwiki.guitarlogic.org/index. ... comparison From there, it's *mostly* a matter of looking at the Ultra-exclusive effects and thinking about whether you'd miss them if they weren't there. Additionally, it depends on how complicated you like to get with your routing. For most straightforward routings, the Standard will suffice -- but if you start to get more "creative" you might want the reduced CPU limits of the Ultra. Or it depends on the type of person you are... I know if I got the Standard, I'd always wonder... "what am I missing?" even though a Standard would probably be enough for me. :D
Click to expand...
Yup. I'm a "what am I missing?" neurotic obsessive gearslut to the core! Fortunately, tho, even my wife says, "Of course you're gonna get the Ultra." She knows me well.

I ordered the Ultra last night! ...Can...hardly...wait...!!! :D
 
Perry said:
godprobe wrote:
+ a USB (or Firewire?) connection is likely
+ smaller

OK, but what would connectivity have to do with it if it's a plugin? I know it'll prolly have a dongle or some kind of outboard whatever, but the plugin is on a hard drive, no? And what would be smaller? The dongle? So what? (I ask with curiosity and all respect)
Click to expand...

It sounds like what they're saying is it will be a plugin with outboard processing which sounds logical. It's the same as SSL and many other high end plugins. As such, it could possibly be run from a Mac Mini with the outboard processor which could make it half the size (depending on the outboard gear) of a full AFX's 2u rackmount case. Not really a huge deal IMHO, but each to his own.

Perry said:
Quote:
+ given that it runs in a host sequencer, there would be...
...+ simpler preset management, given that a project file usually recalls a VST's settings
...+ simpler automation
+ it would use your computer's CPU; as a result...
...+ routings could be more flexible (no longer limited to the processing power of a Standard or Ultra unit)
...+ multiple instances of the plug-in are likely possible (imagine having an "Ultra" on every channel!)
...- there may be a slightly-larger amount of latency than when going through dedicated hardware

Right, so workflow, management, and we'd be able to use any of the effects as standalone plugins with any track of any kind. Cool. But the latency issue is what I would have the biggest worry about. I suppose most people are going to 64-bit machines and so this will be less of an issue (I assume?). But right now, running 32-bit and so much ITB as I do, adding an Axe-PC would strain even my AMD quad core, methinks.

So bottom line, for now, for what I want it for, the Fractal Audio Axe-Fx will more than cover me.
Click to expand...

The whole latency issue is the reason for outboard processing. Everyday desktop computers can handle huge numerical calculations, but what sets outboard DSP's (some of them anyway) apart is they're REAL TIME processing. Many of them can process audio with less latency than your tube amp (yes there is latency inherent in a tube amp although very low). You're computer is fast, but it's not specifically made to run audio algorithms and the like. It also has to run your OS and many other things in the background that take up lots of resources. A quality outboard processor could lower latency to level of the AFX itself, all in a plugin. It could also possibly send some lower calculations to the desktop processor to maximize it's own processor load.

The ability to save all your settings within a song is huge. You would also be able to make global changes within your DAW without having to go through your AFX to sync it up. How about being able to change your amp and effect settings after you've recorded a track without have to record a dry track and do re-amping which can get to be a pain. It would all be done "in the box". At the moment, it's a little more finicky than that. It's not impossible or even horribly difficult, just not as idiot proof as with a plugin.

By the way.... Enjoy your Ultra. It's not as good as you've heard....it's way better!! :D
 
Perry said:
godprobe said:
+ a USB (or Firewire?) connection is likely
+ smaller
Click to expand...
OK, but what would connectivity have to do with it if it's a plugin? I know it'll prolly have a dongle or some kind of outboard whatever, but the plugin is on a hard drive, no? And what would be smaller? The dongle? So what? (I ask with curiosity and all respect)
Click to expand...
Ah, I can tell you haven't been on the forums that long! :D
Some folks have problems finding the magic settings and combination of computer, software, drivers, and MIDI interface to get their Axe-Fx updated with the latest firmware. In theory, (since it has a way to check for packet loss) USB or Firewire may be a better protocol for updates than MIDI.
And yes, the dongle would be smaller. For some, especially those who like to have a laptop rig or who fly often, that might be important, so I listed it.

Perry said:
+ given that it runs in a host sequencer, there would be...
...+ simpler preset management, given that a project file usually recalls a VST's settings
...+ simpler automation
+ it would use your computer's CPU; as a result...
...+ routings could be more flexible (no longer limited to the processing power of a Standard or Ultra unit)
...+ multiple instances of the plug-in are likely possible (imagine having an "Ultra" on every channel!)
...- there may be a slightly-larger amount of latency than when going through dedicated hardware
Click to expand...
Right, so workflow, management, and we'd be able to use any of the effects as standalone plugins with any track of any kind. Cool. But the latency issue is what I would have the biggest worry about. I suppose most people are going to 64-bit machines and so this will be less of an issue (I assume?). But right now, running 32-bit and so much ITB as I do, adding an Axe-PC would strain even my AMD quad core, methinks.
Click to expand...
I don't know enough about the hardware/software and connections to make any further assumptions about the latency. The potentially higher latency was a comment from Cliff quite a while back and knowing him, he'll keep it down as much as is truly possible (i.e. as good as or lower than most or all similar packages).

Also, there's the other direction to go, that onemoreguitar just posted on. I don't know which route FAS will actually take -- processing in the dongle or processing on the PC -- I think they've considered both, but I was just remembering the latter when I wrote up the list.

Perry said:
So bottom line, for now, for what I want it for, the Fractal Audio Axe-Fx will more than cover me.

Oh... and as for Standard vs. Ultra? I'm guessing you've seen the page on the Wiki already? http://axefxwiki.guitarlogic.org/index. ... comparison From there, it's *mostly* a matter of looking at the Ultra-exclusive effects and thinking about whether you'd miss them if they weren't there. Additionally, it depends on how complicated you like to get with your routing. For most straightforward routings, the Standard will suffice -- but if you start to get more "creative" you might want the reduced CPU limits of the Ultra. Or it depends on the type of person you are... I know if I got the Standard, I'd always wonder... "what am I missing?" even though a Standard would probably be enough for me. :D
Click to expand...
Yup. I'm a "what am I missing?" neurotic obsessive gearslut to the core! Fortunately, tho, even my wife says, "Of course you're gonna get the Ultra." She knows me well.

I ordered the Ultra last night! ...Can...hardly...wait...!!! :D
Click to expand...
Congrats! It's the most rewarding piece of gear I own -- hope you love it! :)
 
godprobe and onemoreguitar, Thanks heaps for the replies. I really dig the helpful friendly attitudes on this forum, and I'll be hanging for a long time, I suspect. I am learning at a HUGE rate about DAW recording, here, there, and everywhere--and SO MUCH MORE TO LEARN! A never-ending process, of course. It is exchanges like this that are so helpful. Funny, I read and think, oh right, I kinda knew this and that. But the way I (we all?) learn is to "learn" it again and again until it's integrated into the whole mental schema.

onemoreguitar said:
By the way.... Enjoy your Ultra. It's not as good as you've heard....it's way better!! :D
Click to expand...
godprobe said:
Congrats! It's the most rewarding piece of gear I own -- hope you love it! :)
Click to expand...

AAAaaah, I can hardly wait!!! Not able to play live amps in my (condo bedroom) studio, I have been using amp modelers/sims for the last couple of years and have been pretty underwhelmed unimpressed uninspired. It's people like YOU who make me spend my hard-earned money on gear like this. :mrgreen: No doubt the Axe-Fx Ultra will keep me busy for a loooooong time!
 
Richard_G said:
I don't get it. Why are so many of the current Axe-FX owners against an Axe-PC/Axe-Mac? Are they afraid that their product will be less worth?
Click to expand...

I'm not against it....and in some cases all products will be worthless in many eyes someday. I think it's just because people always wanted to have more, more, more instead of doing their jobs with what they have right now.
Anyway...since a buffer size of 32 or 16samples in 44.1kHz still generates a overall end-to end latency of about 4 - 5ms these days even with the most highend audio interfaces available today, i can't see the big improvment of a native based system instead of a real dedicated DSP engine. Maybe I'm wrong by tomorrow.....who knows?

There will be an Axe-PC (you can see it as a preview in the editor) someday. I rather would enjoy the introduction of the long awaited MFC101 first. :ugeek:

best wishes
Paco
 
Mr.PC said:
[quote="Richard_G":3u3tm373]I don't get it. Why are so many of the current Axe-FX owners against an Axe-PC/Axe-Mac? Are they afraid that their product will be less worth?
Click to expand...

I'm not against it.... (...)[/quote:3u3tm373]

Just to be clear: I didn't mean you specifically. :)

My point was that it's Cliff's brain and continuous effort I'm most interested in paying for, not the hardware. With a software solution Cliff will be able to continue his work on perfecting his product as the hardware possibilities develop, without the limitations of the Axe-FX hardware.

Kind regards,
Richard
 
I most probaly buy it once available.Dont care so much about latency.

The only thing I would like to get improved is a Axe control without midi.So I would be a fan for an Ultra or Std with an USB jack(and architecture of course).Would make exploring the myrads of settings easier(put the laptop beside you(without other attchments-->play-->tweak-->play-->store the setting easily on desired place)This works now too but with more hassle.Without Midi it is a lenghthy process.

So there is Axe-FX PC -->fine
there is Axe-fx with good USB and editing software-->fine for me too

All the best

Roland
 
Wow I've been around here for a little while but never posted anything... I just wanted to share my opinion on this PC incarnation of the Axe. ;)

I think that everything Fractal does around here is pretty amazing and I'd hate to see it go to waste. Piracy is virtually unbeatable. It isn't a matter of how many or how complex your anti-piracy methods are, they can only slow the pirates down. Having online security checks and hardware requirements can be helpful, especially if they disable the software completely if any suspicious activities are discovered, but cracking them is as simple as hopping through the code and taking them out. Then all you have is happy crackers and slightly annoyed customers who have to deal with periodic licensing checks.

The real advantage here is the inclusion of hardware. In my opinion, the hardware provided should be the ONLY thing the software can interface with so that without it, the software is essentially useless. In fact, the more dependent the software is on the hardware, the safer and less exposed the software is. The safest way would be to keep all the algorithms stored in the hardware to keep the pirates from finding them. However, if the product is primarily hardware-driven (like, perhaps, the Ultra?), doesn't that defeat the purpose?

I think the concept here is good but the risks are a large factor. Obviously cracking doesn't stop the software industry, it's just a matter of deciding how to carry out your business. In my opinion, since Fractal already has their excellent Axe-Fx hardware, why should they bother with this risky stuff? Cliff seems to be a very wise person and the decision entirely his, I just wanted to shed some light on this, as it was kinda bothering me. Sorry if this was already discussed; I didn't get around to reading all 50+ pages of this thread.
 
stringbeans said:
Wow I've been around here for a little while but never posted anything... I just wanted to share my opinion on this PC incarnation of the Axe. ;)

I think that everything Fractal does around here is pretty amazing and I'd hate to see it go to waste. Piracy is virtually unbeatable. It isn't a matter of how many or how complex your anti-piracy methods are, they can only slow the pirates down. Having online security checks and hardware requirements can be helpful, especially if they disable the software completely if any suspicious activities are discovered, but cracking them is as simple as hopping through the code and taking them out. Then all you have is happy crackers and slightly annoyed customers who have to deal with periodic licensing checks.

The real advantage here is the inclusion of hardware. In my opinion, the hardware provided should be the ONLY thing the software can interface with so that without it, the software is essentially useless. In fact, the more dependent the software is on the hardware, the safer and less exposed the software is. The safest way would be to keep all the algorithms stored in the hardware to keep the pirates from finding them. However, if the product is primarily hardware-driven (like, perhaps, the Ultra?), doesn't that defeat the purpose?

I think the concept here is good but the risks are a large factor. Obviously cracking doesn't stop the software industry, it's just a matter of deciding how to carry out your business. In my opinion, since Fractal already has their excellent Axe-Fx hardware, why should they bother with this risky stuff? Cliff seems to be a very wise person and the decision entirely his, I just wanted to shed some light on this, as it was kinda bothering me. Sorry if this was already discussed; I didn't get around to reading all 50+ pages of this thread.
Click to expand...

Smart thinking and I agree 100% about software interfacing with hardware ONLY.
 
Hi,
I am totally new to this board but I have been eager to get my hands on a axe fx for a long time.
In a nutshell, I wanted a computer and an axe but couldn't afford both so I bought the computer (a very nice imac) hoping to get the axe pc when it would be released.
It's been over a year now and I would really like to know if this product is in development at all or if I should start saving for a real axe fx.

I also have a question related to the amplification path : I want the axe for a bedroom use.
I currently own these http://www.lesnumeriques.com/article-33-1425-55.html

I am totally happy with the sound even though it's cheap stuff.
my question is would this be ok for the axe pc ? Or I should invest in some proximity monitors? and if so passive or active? I never got the difference.

I also own a velocity 300 (the new one) with 2 homemade cabs.
any way I could connect this with the axe pc or it can work only with the real thing?

thanks !
 
Cliff,

is this "thing" still going on?
No need to announce any dates, features or anything
but it would be really cool to know that you haven't abandoned it
cause IMO it'll be really great product
plus most likely it'd stop majority from complaining about reamp lacking in current AxeFx model. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom