Yes, but if you ask me the GSystem is way overpriced !I'd totally guess in the 1800 range. Not only is 1800ish near half of an AXE+MFC but it's also similar to the TC Electronic G-System.
Well, at $1000 he would sell a lot, but i think the market can accept a higher price.IMO $1800 is way too much, I bet it must be around $1000
I remember cliff saying he was evaluating some other DSPs for another product that had nice power for the price, based on this I think the price will not be very high.
This is all just spectulation, I know nothing!There is a new SHARC processor family: the 214xx series. My bet is the new Pod stuff is using a 21469.
I have evaluated the 21469 extensively and while it is a good processor it is only about half as powerful as a TigerSHARC. We are actually working on a new product based on the 21469.
The problem with the SHARCs is several things:
- The core design is very old. They are still using the same basic core from almost 20 years ago.
- The internal bus bandwidth is mediocre. The TigerSHARC has four 128-bit internal data buses that run at full speed which means the core is never starved for data.
- Too few registers. You have to constantly push and pop with the SHARCs because the register file is so small. This increases function overhead so either your functions run slower or you have to increase your block size (and concomitant latency). The TigerSHARC has a huge register file and since there are so many scratch registers you rarely have to save any registers on the stack (this can also be a disadvantage since you have to save all those registers during a context switch so you have to code your interrupts carefully).
- The SIMD implementation is crude. It would take too long to explain the details.
- Small internal memory. The maximum available is 5 Mb IIRC.
- 48-bit instruction word. The long instruction word means instruction use 1.5 times the memory as data does. So that 5 Mb memory is equivalent to 3.3 Mb in practice.
The new SHARCs have on-board accelerators (FIR and IIR). In theory this should be great but unfortunately the accelerators only work at half the clock speed so they don't really buy you much.
One advantage of the new SHARCs is the on-board peripherals. They include SPI, I2S, UARTS, etc. This reduces system cost. The TigerSHARC has no on-board peripherals, it is designed for one thing: number-crunching.
The SHARC is the value line and for the money the new SHARCs are great but a TigerSHARC still easily outperforms them.
I didnt think about that, but that's a good point. Maybe improvement in the FX8 will be integrated in AxeFX Exciting !I was thinking this unit will actually HELP the effects in the II and XL for the better. I mean surely they are probably working on some cool effect improvements for the FX8 that can also go into the II. Plus this product will help FAS grow and thus they will be able to even set aside more resources to the effects department.
Its just code. Arent they looking for another DSP programmer to be added to their team, you don't add guys unless you plan on writing tons of more code. Its looking good from here on out folks.I didnt think about that, but that's a good point. Maybe improvement in the FX8 will be integrated in AxeFX Exciting !
I don't think Cliff could have made it clearer that this units has been design from the ground up TO BE USED PREFERABLY with REAL TUBE AMPS. But of course this unit can and maybe will be used by people that have the Axe FX, i mean...why not!Maybe, I think, FX8 is just for who doesn't have an Axe FX
This product is aimed at the person who doesn't want to use modeling. It is specifically designed for use with an amp. The I/O architecture was designed to integrate with tube amps.
If I say maybe, doesn't mean I want it so... Hope why not too as youI don't think Cliff could have made it clearer that this units has been design from the ground up TO BE USED PREFERABLY with REAL TUBE AMPS. But of course this unit can and maybe will be used by people that have the Axe FX, i mean...why not!