Effect Models in Editor

[onemoreguitar]

I just had an idea about implementing different effect models. Might not be feasible, but here goes. If someone else has mentioned in the past, I apologize.

I thought a possible way of getting effect models into the AFX without using the finite resources available would be to have a template sort of setup in the editor software. The way I see it would be a window that is sort of a master window with only the controls a specific effect would have. It wouldn't actually be a different effect. Turning the knobs of the template would merely change the parameters in the AFX effect block. In the case of a single knob pedal, a turn of the template knob would change all parameters that would be changed in the actual effect (such as depth and mix simultaneously or other combination). You would also have the limits of the original effect knobs. You could also put in the slope of the knob as well. Again, all these would merely be changing the parameters of the effects already in the AFX.

This page in the editor could be the first page and have a lock on it to allow people to have simple control of their favorite effects they may already have and love. They could then (in theory) set the settings the same as their physical effect unit/pedal and get the sounds they've already invested time tuning.

The lock could then be disengaged to have access to the more advanced settings that the original effect wasn't capable of. Think of it as course tuning with the template, and then fine tuning with the advanced parameters. This would allow people to get the sounds of their favorite effects without having to spend huge amounts of time tweeking. It would also make the number of modeled effects virtually limitless as it wouldn't require the AFX to hold them.

I know that many people who wouldn't use the editor would miss out, but that's the compromise. It means the models are available if you want them, and won't affect your AFX performance if you don't.

I think all these models could be accessed through a drop down menu or some sort. As you selected different models, the template would show a (rough) visual representation of the pedal/rack unit modeled and all parameters would change to that preset's limits, slopes and such automatically.

In the case of an EVH flanger, a white rectangular box would come up with manual, width, speed, and regen knobs and a button/toggle for the EVH sound as well. Once you had your sound pretty close to what you want, you could then disengage the lock and fine tune to absolute perfection in a fraction of the time it would take to do it all manually.

While axe exchange has dealt with some of getting your favorite pedals sounds, you only get the one sound that that person wanted. This would allow everyone to get their own personal version of any effect, just as you would in the real world with a pedal or rack, without changing a parameter that would alter the personality of the original effect that you liked...unless you wanted to.

This may require the addition of a couple of parameters to the existing effect blocks, but I believe, overall, would be the best compromise between having accurate effect models and the use of the limited resources. I don't know anything about the internal workings, but the extra parameters could even possibly be bypassed to save processing power.

I personally believe this is the only major lacking in the AFX (other than personal amps that people want which is damn near limitless). Incredibly accurate amp models are now easily available thanks to Cliff, why not have the same detail in effects which can be integral to anyones sound? It would also mean that modeling would only need to be done once instead of everyone having to start from scratch to produce each different sound that every effect unit is capable of. Another byproduct would be that any new user could get up and running with minimal effort...just copy the settings of your current setup and you would already be in the ballpark.

I think another feature that could be available on the template is battery voltage so that you could reproduce the affect of low powered 9volts and such.

It would also mean that you could quickly build a sound using drop down presets as opposed to having to pull pieces you like of other programs into your current program. Each modeled effect in the drop down could have a sub menu of user presets of that particular effect or possibly a separate menu just for user presets (since, with the lock disengaged, many effects that started from a model may no longer sound like that model).

In short, if that's possible after such a long post, you would have:

-unlimited models of effects without unduly taxing the AFX processor

-vintage gear, unattainable to the masses, easily accessable by all (Dweezil's collection perhaps)

-newbies would have an ultra simple way of introducing them to deep edting...that lock would come off at some point for sure. No guitarist can resist extra features.

-a major time saving in transition from existing multiple effect rigs to the AFX

-a good starting point for dialing in any effect. Get your sound in the ballpark with minimal effort.

-a way of improving upon effects that you already like by starting from that actual effect. You could then dial out any perceived weaknesses, which would vary from person to person. What I may find to be a weakness, others might find to be a strength. One man's trash is another man's treasure.

-simple single effect presets that can be easily selected from a drop down with minimal effort.

-the ability to ignore all this and use your AFX exactly as you do now.


I'm not sure of the internal AFX programming involved, but I don't believe the software side would be that difficult.

What do you think?

 

[Spawn-X]

The problem is the Axe is an Amp modeler, not a FX modeler...

 

[Dutch]

I think it's a great idea.
Seems labour-intensive, though. OTOH, not more so than modeling them. You'd not have access to these templates from the Axe front panel. Tweaking on-the-fly might disrupt the 'locked' combinations.



BTW, up until last year the Axe-FX was not considered an amp modeller either. An amp simulator, just as it simulates reverbs and choruses, yes. That changed with the advent of the passive tone stacks that would make it possible to build a complete virtual model of a particular amp so nowadays it could effectively be called an amp modeller. No reason why it could not model certain effects, I could however understand it if Cliff thinks "Enough already".

So, there are plenty of possibilities to simulate a certain effect and this idea would offer no more than a template, a front panel, user interface for the said effect. I can see the use of it.

 

[onemoreguitar]

The problem is the Axe is an Amp modeler, not a FX modeler...

I know that, but many people on here have been able to copy their existing effects in the AFX. It seems to have the ability already to copy quite a few effects. The suggestion with the editor template, or whatever you want to call it, is merely to enhance this ability. It seems to me, if it's something that's possible without asking too much of the processor, then why not? It would make the AFX almost a complete one stop shop. Dweezil has been able to emulate a fair bit of his vintage gear with it, or so it seems. Why not make those sort of effects and others widely available. It would just mean having the entire range of sounds that piece of gear can create easily accessible.

Seems labour-intensive, though. OTOH, not more so than modeling them.

I couldn't be as intensive as modeling an amp as far as I'm aware. There's just simply way fewer things in the signal chain imposing itself on the sound (in the vast majority of cases).

You'd not have access to these templates from the Axe front panel. Tweaking on-the-fly might disrupt the 'locked' combinations.

That's one of the limitations, but also what would keep the resources used to a minimum. It's an extra, cool addition. For example: A variax guitar has built in a number of sounds. You also have the option of "building " your own virtual custom guitar, but only with the addition of a small interface. You can only edit them from a computer using your interface.


The idea was definitely not to rope you in to a certain sounding effect. Rather it was to give you a known point "A", or more a range of "A". Point "B" can be wherever you choose to put it: somewhere within "A" or nowhere near it. This is the same sort of principle you use when mixing in the studio. When you know your monitors, you can make adjustments knowing what the mix will sound like in relation to those monitors.

Say I'm listing to something and decide I want a T.C. SCF sound. It would be cool to just pull one up and get the general idea down quickly and easily. If I wanted to, I could fine tune it from there, but I might just as easily find exactly what I want without having to hassle with A/Bing or tweeking for ages just to do what an SCF does naturally. As far as I can tell, the ability is already in the AFX, it's just tedious and time consuming to access it. This is really just an idea for a short cut.

 

[Stringtheorist]

I voted Yes. I spend far too much time tweaking my amp sounds as it is, so anything that allows me to save time getting the right effects is a boon. However, I don't necessarily think a new interface is necessary. I would be happy if these FX (point A in your example) were just supplied among the presets that come already programmed into the Axe-FX instead of the scores of nearly identical sounding delays and choruses. :roll: The amp model could be set to whatever is most associated with that effect. Some specific FX I still haven't been able to reproduce to my satisfaction include: splashy 'surf' reverb (Dick Dale), vintage flanging (and TZF), other types of reverb/echo... It's not that I believe that the Axe can't do these things, just that I don't know how to achieve it and I don't want to have to become a sound engineer to work out how to get these tones. I'm a guitarist and I just want to play.

 

[onemoreguitar]

However, I don't necessarily think a new interface is necessary. I would be happy if these FX (point A in your example) were just supplied among the presets that come already programmed into the Axe-FX instead of the scores of nearly identical sounding delays and choruses.

A new interface is absolutely required for what I'm suggesting. There are far more parameters in the AFX than are available on a large majority of effects (especially stomp boxes). The template would just hide what isn't available on the actual gear, and make adjustments on the template correspond to adjustments on the actual pedal...which as I mentioned before, can sometimes be multiple parameters.

The problem with presets, is that you have one instance of a given effect as opposed to the full gamete of sounds it can produce being readily available.

It also just so happens that Cliff is now working on an editor.

voted Yes. I spend far too much time tweaking my amp sounds as it is, so anything that allows me to save time getting the right effects is a boon

Everyone, give a second and tell why you voted the way you did. It's good to know the reasoning behind your decisions.

 

[Smilzo]

I voted no 'cause "I would rather dial in every parameter from scratch myself or rely on other's presets for starting points.".
We have already the ability to store and upload patches. Mimic the behaviour of a controll in a stompbox could be nice if one love a pedal and love some settings, but it's not a general case. I think the general case is "ok, it sound ok... but..."... but there is too much bass, too much compression, too low depth, too modulation... so each time the modeller changes the parameters, you have to go to the advance parameters and adjust them.

I don't think the solution to find a good sound is in a modeller editor; the solution is the knowledge of advance parameters and chaining the right block.

 

[javajunkie]

I would rather have Cliff working on other things. The resources that are required to do such a thing comes at way too high cost IMO.

An effect library would better IMO. It doesn't appear Fractal Audio wanted to model other effects processors (read the intro to the manual), but allow you to craft your own tone.

 

[voes]

I would rather have Cliff working on other things. The resources that are required to do such a thing comes at way too high cost IMO.

An effect library would better IMO. It doesn't appear Fractal Audio wanted to model other effects processors (read the intro to the manual), but allow you to craft your own tone.

+1

 

[Mike Snider]

I would rather have Cliff working on other things. The resources that are required to do such a thing comes at way too high cost IMO.

An effect library would better IMO. It doesn't appear Fractal Audio wanted to model other effects processors (read the intro to the manual), but allow you to craft your own tone.

+1

+2

 

[ElectricPhase]

I would rather have Cliff working on other things. The resources that are required to do such a thing comes at way too high cost IMO.

An effect library would better IMO. It doesn't appear Fractal Audio wanted to model other effects processors (read the intro to the manual), but allow you to craft your own tone.

+1

+2

+3

Wouldn't change a word.

 

[Beefcake]

I would rather have Cliff working on other things. The resources that are required to do such a thing comes at way too high cost IMO.

Exactly this.

 

[onemoreguitar]

I don't think the solution to find a good sound is in a modeller editor; the solution is the knowledge of advance parameters and chaining the right block.

I agree completely. The reason for the template as part of the editor is to help those who don't know how to do that. It also aids them in learning how. It simplifies things which would make the AFX IMO accessible to a larger clientele. There are many people out there, in my experience, who would be lost with so many parameters. If you have a set point "A", as I said before, it would allow someone to experiment from a known position in the same way you reference your mix in the studio from speakers that you're familiar with.

It also allows someone a way of learning how to tweak an effect they've never used or never done deep editing on. A good example would be a compressor. If you've never used a compressor, or only ever used a one or two parameter version, IMO it would allow someone to experiment but still pull a good sound with minimal effort and time. It would also allow you to learn an effect almost as you go, as opposed to having to know what every parameter does from the get go.

This is the same way we learn guitar....isolate a single action to perfect it, then add more variables as you become more competent. It's also a similar thing to the way the amp editor worked, just slightly more advanced in programming (not in use).

It doesn't appear Fractal Audio wanted to model other effects processors (read the intro to the manual), but allow you to craft your own tone.

I have read that in the manual, but I've also read many a post with people asking for effect emulations. It's what many people, based on patch requests and such, are trying to use it for. As Dutch said:

BTW, up until last year the Axe-FX was not considered an amp modeller either. An amp simulator, just as it simulates reverbs and choruses, yes. That changed with the advent of the passive tone stacks that would make it possible to build a complete virtual model of a particular amp so nowadays it could effectively be called an amp modeller.

If you check the thread on requested amp models, thats obviously no longer the case. It just seems that now it is being used as an effect modeler in many cases (including with Dweezil Zappa) no matter how it was intended. The Bassman was originally a bass amp. I don't know many bass players who consider it much of a bass amp, but it sounds great with a guitar IMO.

Mimic the behaviour of a controll in a stompbox could be nice if one love a pedal and love some settings, but it's not a general case. I think the general case is "ok, it sound ok... but..."... but there is too much bass, too much compression, too low depth, too modulation... so each time the modeller changes the parameters, you have to go to the advance parameters and adjust them.

If I'm understanding you correctly, then I suggest that's still the case with this option. Like I said earlier in the post, it just gives a really good, versatile starting point. It would put the major advantages of the AFX within easy grasp of any player, regardless (within reason) of how tech savvy they are. Most any guitarist, from a beginner-intermediate level up, IMO can pull a decent sound out of a simple stomp box with minimal effort. I don't believe the same to be true of advanced featured products. I think this is acknowledged to some extent, by the way the old editor placed more advanced features on separate pages to the main page. This, I believe, is an extension of that.

The other main point, is that all these features could be ignored if you so desired. It doesn't hurt the current use of the AFX, just makes the large amount of customization available, accessible to a wider base.

Thanks for giving your reasons. Keep it up.

 

[javajunkie]

I refer you to this post:
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=6391

 

[onemoreguitar]

Oh well. Thanks for that. I hadn't seen that post. Fair enough. I definitely see his point, but I still think something along the lines of what I was talking would expand the number of people willing to take the dive into the AFX. It was merely in answer to a number of requests and comments I found in the forum (I might be mistaken, but one by you javajunkie about ease of use with your EVH flange in comparison to the AFX...might have been someone else, not sure).

I'll concede defeat. The man has spoken. It's 3am. I'm off to bed.

 

[javajunkie]

Oh well. Thanks for that. I hadn't seen that post. Fair enough. I definitely see his point, but I still think something along the lines of what I was talking would expand the number of people willing to take the dive into the AFX. It was merely in answer to a number of requests and comments I found in the forum (I might be mistaken, but one by you javajunkie about ease of use with your EVH flange in comparison to the AFX...might have been someone else, not sure).

I'll concede defeat. The man has spoken. It's 3am. I'm off to bed.

That was me, I basically just said is was easier to hit the EVH button (it overides all the knobs) than try to figure it out. Personally, I don't expect to Axe-fx to sound exactly like every other pedal out there. If I had to mess w/ the knobs on the EVH pedal, I would just use the Axe-fx. For 95% of my flange sounds I use the Axe-fx's flanger. For 2 songs the EVH is precisely what I was looking for.

 

[Secret80'sMan]

Once the new Axechange is up and running perhaps we could have certain patches coded as just EFFECTS that way users could do a search on effects and come up with for example EVH Flanger, TC 2290 Chorus, Vox Wah, etc.

 

[Mark Cullen]

I agree with Java that an Effects Library would be most helpful. Like on the old editor you can save the state of any block and recall it at any time into a patch.
We would then just need the ability to save these "Block Settings" as a seperate .syx file.
Then we could have an area on the Patch exchange where these "Block Settings" could be stored and exchanged.

So if someone has emulated an EVH Flanger and is generous enough to share it - there's your starting point if that's what you are looking for.

 

[VegaBaby]

The only thing it takes is a handful of people and an fx library function like the old editor had (most useful feature ever).

I've very succesfully recreated settings for the Bad Horsie Wah (in the wiki) and others have done all sort of effects (like Java's excellent Dimension C settings).

What would be an idea is to have a topic where people 'sign up', volunteering to get settings of maybe one of their pedals close or even accurate. Imagine the spread something like this could have...

With the old editor there were talks to be able to upload block settings of the fx library. Imagine 30-40 people sign up to get pedal settings which could then be uploaded onto an fx library.

There's your easy way. Done by users and Cliff can concentrate on other things AND future customers could see 'oh, there are all those settings ready for download' ......

 

[Spawn-X]

The only thing it takes is a handful of people and an fx library function like the old editor had (most useful feature ever).

I've very succesfully recreated settings for the Bad Horsie Wah (in the wiki) and others have done all sort of effects (like Java's excellent Dimension C settings).

What would be an idea is to have a topic where people 'sign up', volunteering to get settings of maybe one of their pedals close or even accurate. Imagine the spread something like this could have...

With the old editor there were talks to be able to upload block settings of the fx library. Imagine 30-40 people sign up to get pedal settings which could then be uploaded onto an fx library.

There's your easy way. Done by users and Cliff can concentrate on other things AND future customers could see 'oh, there are all those settings ready for download' ......

+1!!

I personally used many times FX library function on old editor. But I thing another feature that can be really helpfully: Something like the "Combinator" of PropellerHead's Reason 4.
Basically, it's a "patch in the patch". It's permit to save a combination of some fx/synth, and then recall it into a project. May be it's not doable, but I'd love it if possible. Imagine, you have a patch w/ your favorite lead ton, and you saved some "combis" for emulate a NI B4 rotary, a "Map Of Problematique-like" sequenced pitch/filter, or a wonderfull many blocks tape echo emulation. Now, you just have to load the desired combi into your actual patch!!!

How many hours of programming do you thing you'll save?