Do we really need channels and scene controllers?

[Anthony76]

That would not be ideal for me personally. I like and use the channels and scene controllers.

 

[is9582]

I’ve owned Fractal units since 2009, starting with the Ultra, and moving to the AXEFX II topology. The AF3 with its 8 scenes and 4 channels, just work so well for my layout and the way I think. While I understand the OP, I personally would prefer the current options remain!

In the future, if there happened to be a menu selection where we each could choose whether to toggle on / off whether to use scenes and channels, affecting only our own unit, then I suppose I’d have no complaints. That would be the only way it wouldn’t feel like moving backwards, to me.

Cheers
Lee

 

[hfam]

For everyone's interest, I do know exactly HOW it all works, I have owned an Axe FxII for seven years and have recently upgraded to a FxIII Turbo. I have done hundreds of gigs with the Fractal and I use a different preset for each song so I am more than qualified to make observations on the functionality of the unit. I am also an engineer who designs operator interfaces for multi million dollar industrial applications so I am keenly aware of workflows etc. I have witnessed the evolution of this product and fully understand how we got here and how each evolution of scenes and channels has been amazing, but I have an inkling of a feeling that the tail is now wagging the dog as we no longer have real memory restriction issues that, to an extent, dictated the current version. What I proposed was not a 5 minute thought bubble, if you take a bit of time to think about what I proposed you will arrive at the conclusion that it covers the functionality of the existing channels and scene controllers, eliminating them both with no loss of functionality.

 

[chris]

if each scene had it's own set of parameters for every device in the chain then we could get rid of the channels and scene controllers completely.

What I proposed was not a 5 minute thought bubble, if you take a bit of time to think about what I proposed you will arrive at the conclusion that it covers the functionality of the existing channels and scene controllers, eliminating them both with no loss of functionality.

with your setup, how would I change among a few completely different Amps without using a Scene or Preset?

 

[Dave Merrill]

with your setup, how would I change among a few completely different Amps without using a Scene or Preset?

I believe the proposal includes model selection as a parameter you can set like any other one.

Before the recent loading speed improvements, I would have thought the unit needed to "preload" the models in the preset for performance reasons, but that may not be true any more.

Maybe, and I personally think channels are a useful concept anyway.

 

[chris]

I believe the proposal includes model selection as a parameter you can set like any other one.

Sure, in the Scene select. But sometimes I like to leave my effects as is and just change the amp channel to something completely different.

Without channels as suggested in this thread, how would I do that without changing scenes or presets?

 

[Dave Merrill]

Sure, in the Scene select. But sometimes I like to leave my effects as is and just change the amp channel to something completely different.

Without channels as suggested in this thread, how would I do that without changing g scenes or presets?

You can set different amounts of bass and treble etc, they're just settings. Suppose model selection was too.

This isn't current realty, it's the OP's proposed idea.

Or am I misunderstanding your question?

 

[chris]

You can set different amounts of bass and treble etc, they're just settings. Suppose model selection was too.

This isn't current realty, it's the OP's proposed idea.

Or am I misunderstanding your question?

Without changing Scenes.

 

[laxu]

Channels are a great concept that makes it easy to understand "different set of settings" type scenarios without having a bunch of identical looking blocks in your preset like other modelers use.

Scene controllers, modifiers etc are an overly complicated system that is hard to use effective because they bury so much of their information. I think Line6 Helix does a far better job at the task of "I want to just alter a few controls of this block in this scene" where it's fast to setup.

Fractal's control system has grown into a bit of a monster. Modifiers seem like a system originally built for expression pedals and LFOs where that makes total sense, but it becomes a huge pain for external knob controllers etc. I hope they overhaul that for their next generation products.

 

[Del Pedro]

How about 8 channels per block and the option (!) to automatically link channels and scenes (set all blocks to channel 1 in scene 1, channels 2 in scene 2, ...)?

 

[Dickie Fredericks]

Thank you Fractal Audio. I like the way your products work.

 

[AlGrenadine]

I now only use presets, thanks to gapless switching.
And it also fits my personal life philosophy : KISS, keep it stupid simple

 

[weird guitar person]

Sounds like another thing to think about for the Axe-Fx IV.......View attachment 136116

I prefer workflow enhancements to an OS that don’t break hardware compatibility between revisions.

“New channel with scene copy” and more channels might address the OP’s concern, but otherwise I find channels, channel libraries, and global channel libraries extremely useful.

 

[yyz67]

if you take a bit of time to think about what I proposed you will arrive at the conclusion that it covers the functionality of the existing channels and scene controllers, eliminating them both with no loss of functionality.

I believe the proposal includes model selection as a parameter you can set like any other one.

I prefer workflow enhancements to an OS that don’t break hardware compatibility between revisions.

Logically, the unit could support a "snapshot mode" (or similar) that would do block type/channel, state and parameter changes per snapshot, but (as others have said) only if there were essentially 8 channels available for every block. In that mode, channels would be automatically logically mapped to snapshot number with no other way to tweak or map them (thus hiding channel details from the user).

[EDIT: Or snapshots mode could support up to 4 snapshots using 4 channels for each block eliminating need for extra channels.]

Switching the preset to "scene mode" would release those constraints enabling full config as is the case now. (Switching back to snapshot mode might attempt to remap/copy channels as needed or otherwise be disallowed due to being potentially destructive of scene mode config.)

I have an inkling of a feeling that the tail is now wagging the dog as we no longer have real memory restriction issues that, to an extent, dictated the current version.

There is likely still an in-memory (or cpu) limitation against having 8 channels for every block or else FAS probably would have already done it. The unit would need to be able to have all 8 channels staged for (now gapless) scene/channel switching. Not to mention that preset size would potentially double thus increasing preset load time (would it still be gapless?) while also reducing the number of presets that could fit in preset NVM.

But all this is out of my ars. Let the flaming begin.

 

[State of Epicicity]

But all this is out of my ars. Let the flaming begin.

I just had so many spicy food jokes in my head.

 

[IronSean]

I think phrased another way could be "If we had 8 channels it would largely eliminate the need for scene controllers"

 

[weird guitar person]

I think phrased another way could be "If we had 8 channels it would largely eliminate the need for scene controllers"

Nah. Perhaps you were just rephrasing what someone else said, but scene controllers have far broader use than snapshotting.

 

[Admin M@]

I think phrased another way could be "If we had 8 channels it would largely eliminate the need for scene controllers"

Nah. Scene controllers have far broader use than snapshotting.

@rockstarjazzcat That's exactly what I was just going to say.

 

[weird guitar person]

I’m pretty thankful for the four channels squeezed in now. Vast improvement over A/B and it mirrors the limitations most of us coming from rack gear and tube amps have dealt with for years. I’m practicing simplicity by focusing on four core patches with others being variations.

For more complicated gig requirements, more programming is required anyway—as @2112 kind of touched upon from NZ this morning where he’s using his FM9 in place of the usual FM3.

And @Admin M@ , I’m working on my psychic abilities. Must be getting better, but I’m sure I’ll continue to get it wildly wrong. ;-)

Cheers all. D

 

[rushfan]

Yes, we do need channels and scene controllers.