Do we really need channels and scene controllers?

I am an FM3 user. At the moment one of my fave presets is a Fender-style amp. An amp a cab and some reverb. Scene 1 is a low gain, scene 2 is a medium gain, and scene 3 is a higher gain. This uses 3 channels for the amp settings and 3 footswitches to switch between scenes. It is going back to basics to keep things simple. Surely, without channels or scenes, I would not be able to do this.
 
Dixiethedog said:
I am an FM3 user. At the moment one of my fave presets is a Fender-style amp. An amp a cab and some reverb. Scene 1 is a low gain, scene 2 is a medium gain, and scene 3 is a higher gain. This uses 3 channels for the amp settings and 3 footswitches to switch between scenes. It is going back to basics to keep things simple. Surely, without channels or scenes, I would not be able to do this.
Click to expand...
I think this is the sort of case that the OP is asking about. If scenes contained all the amp settings then you would not need channels for this. You would just have 3 scenes for low, medium and high gain.

As others have noted above, channels enable the ability to change the TYPE of the block (e.g amp model, drive type etc.). However for users with presets which only use one type for each block then channels do seem like an extra and unnecessary complication.
 
I think everyone is missing the crux of the original suggestion.

What if each scene contained a copy of ALL properties of the block. Not just settings, bypass state, but also TYPE. i.e. you don't have 4 channels on an amp block, you 8 scenes each which can choose a different amp model with different settings.

Scene 1: Fender twin with scooped mids low gain.
Scene 2: Fender twin with the gain higher because it's a separate instance with separate BMT and Gain settings
Scene 3: A Bogner Shiva
Scene 4: A rectifier
Scene 5: A Legacy
Scene 6: Jazz Chorus with all the effects blocks engaged
Scene 7, 8: etc.

In this model, the LAYOUT of blocks would be fixed between scenes, but every setting in that block (including which block type) would be loadable, rather than just the 4 channels. In fact, it would be a little more like swapping presets instead of scenes, but witht he speedup from always having the same block layout so they don't take as long to switch.

Upside: No longer limited to 4 channels, each scene is like it's own preset except for the limitation of a fixed block layout.

Downside: As noted, you can't set up a pedalboard style preset as easily, where you choose between amp channel 1-4, and then you turn off and on stompboxes as needed. You also would run into lots of cases where you want to copy just a single block between scenes, because your "crunch" preset and your "Crunch with chorus" preset would be two separate instances of the amp block even if they started out the same. Lowering the gain in one would no longer lower it in the other. But copying the scene would override the chorus setting.
 
scarbodave said:
As others have noted above, channels enable the ability to change the TYPE of the block (e.g amp model, drive type etc.). However for users with presets which only use one type for each block then channels do seem like an extra and unnecessary complication.
Click to expand...
I think OP is proposing that scenes could change the TYPE of a block too, and would that eliminating the need for channels.
 
What OP wants actually could be accomplished in a backward-compatible way by giving every block 8 channels, and having a new block added to a preset automatically start out with channel A assigned for scene 1, channel B assigned for scene 2, etc. The end result would be that parameter and block type changes would only affect the scene they were applied in, unless you went and changed the channel assignments per scene in a given block.

Well, at least it would be working the way OP wants for newly created presets. Editing existing presets would still require thinking the current way, or spending a bunch of time converting the preset. Or maybe the editor could have the option to convert an existing preset.

Also, you could essentially work this way now if you manually set each block up with a dedicated channel per scene and limit yourself to 4 scenes per preset, which isn't that limiting now that we can have gapless switching between presets.
 
SimonDreyer said:
Just an idea, 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. I find it really tedious having these multiple layers of control where I have to not only copy scenes around but also channels. We already have perfectly good options for copying scenes. It would be soooo much simpler to just flick between scenes and just edit whatever parameter I wanted without having to worry about channels. Am I missing something?
Click to expand...

You're not missing anything. In fact, that's typically how newcomers to the AxeFX expect scenes to work. It's simpler and more intuitive and that's how it works on other devices, so it's reasonable to expect scenes to work like that.

However, the way scenes currently work has the advantage that you can group your parameter scene changes into channels per block. The use of channels to hold the parameter values instead of scenes may be less intuitive, but it makes it easier to reuse those parameter settings in other scenes or even other presets.
 
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.
 
Discussed as nauseam already.

But kind of redundant with the introduction of gapless preset switching.
Because:

"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"

.... you might as well just use presets.
 
touch33 said:
It would appear that this is one of those rare “please, Sir, may I have less?” moments.

Don’t need/like scenes and/or channels? Don’t use them.
Click to expand...
Not really.

He's asking for the ability to set every parameter of every block independently for each scene. The fact that would let you ignore channels is a side effect.

Without that ability, each preset is basically one scene, which as folks have pointed out, isn't entirely unworkable with the improved preset switching time.

To be clear, as I said earlier, I find channels pretty useful as a way of reusing and switching block settings within a preset, I'm just clarifying how this isn't a case of "so don't use them".
 
Last edited:
To me there's one big caveat to the idea of using presets for everything. On the Axe-FX III, according to Cliff, switching quickly between many presets can cause audible artifacts to appear, but switching quickly between channels does not have that limitation.

I don't think this proposal is unreasonable or ill conceived. To me it's a cool idea.
 
the question in the title is phrased in a way that can cause defensiveness, knowingly or unknowingly. it's akin to clickbait.

"do we really need channels and scene controllers?"
yes. we really do because that's how the system was designed to give us flexibility and more choices.

after this title, there is no mention of this idea in the first post. it simply starts with "Just an idea, 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."

this really has nothing to do with the title.

the thread title could have been "An idea for scenes and channels" and some of the defensiveness seen here would probably not have happened.

would it be easier and possibly better if we could just change anything in any Scene? maybe.

it works the way it does because of how it was designed in the past iterations. Scenes were added to the foundation of how the unit worked.

it would probably need a complete rewrite of the foundation to make Scenes each have their own memory for all parameters that could be placed in the grid. currently, this is what Presets already do. so Presets have the function you want at the moment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom