Dual Amps - Worth the CPU?

Radley

Experienced
Having a lot of experience with the GT & Pod XT modelers, I am wondering if most folks here consider using 2 amp models at once a big plus, or even a must. I ask this because I very seldom used the feature in my other modelers (even though there was no CPU penalty for doing so) because I didn't hear what I thought was a major improvement in sound - I started thinking maybe a big part of the appeal was the way you can delay one of the amps to create a bigger stereo image, but this effect can be accomplished using only one amp block by simply delaying one side of the stereo processing, no?

I bring this up to point out that the Amp blocks are the biggest resource hogs of any in the AFX, and if you can 'mimic' the dual sound by using only one, you can save yourself A LOT of precious CPU power. Maybe I am missing something, but I think I could do just fine never using the dual amp scenario. I am interested to hear other's opinions on this...

~Rad~
 
I've not had the Axe FX since a long time, but i figured out that you get very good results for a more "massive" sound using 2 parallel (hi-res) cabs with a single amp block. I usually pan them 80/20 and 20/80 and I can get some very interesting things this way...
 
Hey Rad,

Do a quick search for John Czajkowski, he's done a couple of outstanding dual amp clips !
 
Certainly not necessary, just an available option, particularly on the Ultra.

One thing I've had fun with is finding ways to combine a mostly clean amp with a medium to high gain amp. I've found some voices that are really fun to play that way. Another thing that can be fun is using an expression pedal to morph between different sounding amps.

Nothing's necessary, and there's too much available to play with everything at once. Go with whatever's the most fun at the time, I say.
 
For most sounds, I don't think it is worth it. There are a few exceptions though.

In stereo, I've used a few patches that sound incredible using two amps, stereo effects, and the enhancer. While you could get relatively close to it with one amp block, I've used a few patches that I think are significantly better using two different tones.

The other time I think it's cool is to set up two totally different amp tones and then morph between them with an expression pedal. There was really cool EJ patch posted a while back that was a perfect example of this.

D
 
I use it in a very select manner.

I use the matchless amp w/ an Ac30 and stereo seperation for a particular sound. The matchless adds a sparkle to the Ac30.

I also you a couple of dual amp set ups so I can get a sort of A/B channel going w/o having to switch patches on the Axe-fx.

Mostly, no.
 
I rarely use two amp models at the same time... but most of my patches have two amp blocks (they are just not used simultaneously). I assign an expression pedal to let me gradually morph between the two amp blocks (and their respective signal chains).

Having said that, I do use some of the factory presets and also some I downloaded from the old Axechange site which do use two amp blocks at once.
 
I used to use two amps at the same time all the time with my Vetta, because I just couldn't get a dirty tone that still had good articulation.

The amp and stomp-box modeling is so much better in the Axe-Fx, I generally only use two amps in the Axe-Fx when I want to be able to do rhythm and lead in a single patch/transition smoothly from one sound to another via expression pedal. For example, I'll use the X99 rhythm and X99 lead amp blocks into a mixer block, and then use Extern 1 to adjust levels between the two. Throw a drive block in front of the X99 rhythm, and I've got a whole assortment of tone from sparkle -> dirty -> crunch -> lead.
 
I used to do it a while ago.

Now I don't use it at all. It's simply not needed for good tone and it wastes CPU.
 
I used my Vetta for over 7 years and probably 99% of my patches were with 2 amps (and I had hundreds of patches). 1 amp was never "quite there", 2 amps was often marginally better...

I've had the AFX for about 5 or 6 weeks now and haven't felt the need to try 2 amps together yet. I know the time will come to at least try it, however, I am so happy with the quality of tone and the tweakability from one amp block that I haven't "needed" to go there.

AxeFx ROCKS!
 
when i play live i use 2 amps. I use a stereo tube power amp and 2 4x12 cabs. hard pan each amp to half of the power amp and one cab each gets one amp sound. i play high gain amps and grindcore/doom metal etc. sounds very big.

when I direct record I usually use one amp and track the parts more than once(by hand, not with a delay).
 
Mark Cullen said:
I used my Vetta for over 7 years and probably 99% of my patches were with 2 amps (and I had hundreds of patches). 1 amp was never "quite there", 2 amps was often marginally better...

I've had the AFX for about 5 or 6 weeks now and haven't felt the need to try 2 amps together yet. I know the time will come to at least try it, however, I am so happy with the quality of tone and the tweakability from one amp block that I haven't "needed" to go there.

AxeFx ROCKS!

+1 on all that.

I'm only now starting to consider using a multi-amp patch(es), simply because of the limitations of my MIDI controller (FCB/UNO).
 
one interesting use of two amps is to focus the frequencies that each amp will handle. Use filter and/or EQ blocks to have one amp for one frequency range and another for the remainder and then blend the result.
 
IIC+ with Das Metal. Just sayin.

The only person who can say if it's worth the CPU is the individual player using an AxeFx and whether they like the tone or not.

And as far as the other modellers having "no cpu penalty for using 2 amp blocks", thats patently impossible, unless they arn't really using two amp blocks, but some munged up merger of two amps. What happens is that the AxeFx gives you complete control over how you decide to use the CPU. Other modellers don't tell you how much things use, but they only allow particular combinations, and won't let you "reallocate" cpu to be used somewhere else. This is another difference between the Axe being a professional tool, versus a consumer one. The Axe lets you make the decisions.
 
On the Vetta I NEEDED the dual amp function. It was simply necessary to negate the shortcomings of an amp model with another. It was one of the things that drove me towards the Ultra. I had doubts about the standard pulling of more complex dual amp patches.


Then I got the Ultra. And I have yet to build a two amp patch.

I am steering toward dual cab setups, though, because single cabs are just so extreme and individual. Some are hugely nasal, some very sharp, some very dull. I don't like most cabs on their own.
Also I (my ears or my speakers) seem to have trouble distinguishing between Mono Hi-Res and Lo-res, just don't hear any difference when I switch it, so I'm not too bothered about going Lo-res.


BTW, on those other modelers there's no penalty for the second amp sim because they're built for using two. Using only one just means you're not using all the processing power. However, those other processors do not allow you to put something else in the second amps place. You get eight effects (whatever), two amps, etc. lose one amp, you don't gain an effect.
 
I had a couple presets that used two amp sims several firmware revisions ago. They were Marshall sims, and I used a clean one and a dirty one. The clean was set to produce a thin sound, and its level was just enough to add some articulation back in. One of Cliff's many firmware revisions improved the quality of the amp models enough that this became unnecessary.
 
On a few presets, I have a dual amp setup and setup my liquid foot to group the two amp IA's. I can then a/b between the two amps stepping on either a or b. I typically do this when a song calls for two drastically different guitar tones that I can't quite dial in on a single amp. I'll run two amp/cab combinations in parallel and eliminate the need to switch patches. For me, it's usually something like drive1 (fulltone fatboost)-> vox ac-30-> Cab (vox IR) as amp one and a drive2 (TubeDriver, Fulltone '69 or Klon) ->Soldano SLO 100->Cab (4x12 V30) as amp two. I'll then bring them back to one and add eq, delay, reverb...
 
steveb said:
The only person who can say if it's worth the CPU is the individual player using an AxeFx and whether they like the tone or not.
That is the correct answer.

It's another tone shaping tool at your disposal. It's possible to create tones with twin amp configurations that simply are not possible with just one.

It's not necessary to use both to get a good sound, but it's there - and it can be quite an effective method.
 
I think it's just a matter of what the sound needs. If the sound you want requires two amps to get there, then I guess it's worth doing it (provided you don't have to make other sacrifices to be able to do it... but you did buy an Ultra, right? ;) :lol:).

If the sound you have in your head can be achieved with just one amp, why add extra CPU loading and twice the tweaking to get the same result from two amps combined that you could get with just one?


My main high gain sounds are single amp (usually dual cab though). For other things I find it useful though, i.e. I might want a high gain sound with a big swirly clean sound behind it, or whatever.
 
Another one who's gone from using two amps on the Vetta to just one on the Axe-Fx.
I'm pleased with every amp I've used so far, going from clean to crunch and lead.
Perhaps I'll be experimenting with cleans and crunch or whatever.
 
Back
Top Bottom