Firmware 13 BETA Feedback?

Man... i bought this machine and was stoked with everything that it came with. All the other updates that keep coming is literally insane. All for free too! what an incredible product with incredible people behind it. Everyone who plays guitar should sell their amps and buy one haha. Best guitar related item i have ever/will buy. Good shit fellas.
 
I think logic would tell you that it is near impossible to make an exact digital representation of pretty much anything in the real world, especially when you have not only the pure analog electrical properties of all the amps, mics, speakers, cables, mic pres, power amps etc. but also the physical & mechanical properties of speakers, cabinets & the room environment. It is getting closer & closer & I am confident Cliff would not be doing ultrarez if it din't bring things closer still but I'm not holding my breath of exactly the same. I just don't think it is possible IMHO.

You are aware that there are serious scientific theories (yes, really) claiming that there is a fair chance (actually that it is more likely than not) that our world & existence is just a computer simulation? ;)

In this perspective, all Cliff & co have to do is to hack into the matrix.
 
I hope it does get to the point where it is imperceptible. I'm not holding my breath. A photograph of a flower is just a way to see how that flower looked at that moment in time (including all the digital artifacts that were introduced no matter how good the camera is). It doesn't function as a flower & no bees will try to pollenate it. I'm not anti-digital at all, just a realist who hopes Cliff proves me wrong LOL!

If you were comparing to a photograph of an amp, then I agree.

But a digital modeler is played through a power amp and speaker, similar to a real amp and speaker, in fact the AxeFx II into a guitar power amp and guitar cab is very close to its real world counterpart. So the photograph of a flower analogy doesn't apply does it?
 
I think I remember someone saying those Fractal IRs aren't long enough for Ultra Res

Either way, fractal obviously has their own in the hands of beta testers. They either used longer files they hadn't shared with the public or reshot them. Either way, we still get fractal ultra res cabs in fw13. I think most users won't care which path was taken and if they had to reshoot/capture or not.
 
Either way, fractal obviously has their own in the hands of beta testers. They either used longer files they hadn't shared with the public or reshot them. Either way, we still get fractal ultra res cabs in fw13. I think most users won't care which path was taken and if they had to reshoot/capture or not.

... so... you say... the UltraRes IRs cabs are "packed" with the FW13 release?
 
Best explenation ever... Thanks Scott bring down 13 on a Friday please!

Exactly.

I don't think people are grasping that this is entirely new processing and technology. There is no current hardware on the planet that has demanded or utilized this. It's cutting edge front and center new tech.

And also remember that this is proprietary to Fractal; you will need a Fractal created utility (Cab Lab once it supports this) to convert proper length wav to UltraRes syx. Third party vendors either have the necessary length in the wav source files or they do not. This is new ground guys. It does not diminish what has gone before more than it is building on it and pushing things forward. It's about subtlety, clarity and nuance. These are the nth degrees that Fractal is obsessed with and you lose nothing from what you already have and gain a whole new proprietary format and tone tool once everyone catches up.
 
You are aware that there are serious scientific theories (yes, really) claiming that there is a fair chance (actually that it is more likely than not) that our world & existence is just a computer simulation? ;)

In this perspective, all Cliff & co have to do is to hack into the matrix.

The key word is theory. It remains to be proven. Like I have said, I hope it happens. Programmers, prove me wrong!
 
Sorry if I missing the answer but will the standard cabs be updated to include UltraRes in the new firmware?
 
If you were comparing to a photograph of an amp, then I agree.

But a digital modeler is played through a power amp and speaker, similar to a real amp and speaker, in fact the AxeFx II into a guitar power amp and guitar cab is very close to its real world counterpart. So the photograph of a flower analogy doesn't apply does it?

Maybe, maybe not. I am thinking it would be better to forget taking impulses, which includes technology that dates back to the early 19th century (mics, cables, mic pres, power amps, etc) and digitally model the actual speaker & cab totally in the digital world, an exact emulation of how a speaker & cab sound & act in a room, not how a miced cab sounds in a studio. Just a thought.
 
The key word is theory. It remains to be proven. Like I have said, I hope it happens. Programmers, prove me wrong!

What I know is, This technology in the last 5 years has gone so far beyond what I thought at the time was achievable ,that it is simply overwhelming ! I think it's very hard for most of us to let go of the real amp can't be replaced mindset, maybe there are still some extremely small technicalities , to be resolved , but I see now with certainty it will happen! It's so close now , is it really a difference or imagined?? For many the replacement has taken place ! I for one have been far less frustrated with working with the AxFx than I ever was with any of my real amps , which no long exist and I don't miss them!
 
I think logic would tell you that it is near impossible to make an exact digital representation of pretty much anything in the real world

True. However, we don't need to, since our ears and auditory processing systems are highly limited. The real question is, can we digitally model an amp closely enough that in a true blind test, no human could tell the difference between it and an equivalently mic'd recording of the modeled amp? I consider it a certainty. There is nothing magical about electronics, it's just a matter of modelling them with increasingly greater accuracy. The Axe-Fx II might not be truly indistinguishable for all amps yet, but given the results of a lot of the blind A/B tests that people have posted, it's pretty freaking close.
 
There is a lot more than "electronics" going on when dealing with even just a speaker, let alone the cabinet & environment it's in. There also physical, mechanical & acoustic elements at play. Suffice it to say I hope it gets to the day where it truly is indistinguishable, but it aint there yet & we are not doing anything much different than what Jay Mitchell says he's been doing for years. Hopefully, Ultra rez will be that next big step that gets us closer.
 
I agree with the last few posts here... I personally have tried many different digital technologies over the years... The first real piece of modeling gear I ever had in my rack as a late teenager was a Digitech 2112. Still had those 12AX7 tubes, but the distortion channels were pretty blah. BUT.. that's where we were with technology at the time. So, I went back to my trusty tube amps and dealt with the hum and feedback and crackling and so on... but, they had a certain "magic" that just sounded right to me. This cycle happened many more times over the years and then the computer digital age came... that's when I started trying Guitar Rig and other plug-in modelers... Things were getting better, but still no cigar. Back to the tube amps.

Moving ahead to now... well, I have to say that the AFX is an amazing piece of gear and even though it's way over my head in most ways, I can hear (from many of your postings) that it is capable, if done correctly, of achieving incredible tones. However, with that being said... I haven't quite found my personal experience to be quite so awesome as of yet.. but I'm still trying. I plugged up my Peavey JSX the other day and struggling around with the AFX for an hour or so and just strumming the strings once made me smile and I thought to myself... "there it is! THAT sound. THAT tone. THAT response!". Call me crazy, but for me a tube amp just has some magic "mojo" that I have never been able to find in anything other than a tube amp.

Since my acquirement of the AFX, I have sold off much of my rack gear (still holding on to my TC G-Force at the moment though), slimmed down my pedalboard and have integrated a very professional, amazing sounding effects unit into my rig that I can see keeping for long-term.. BUT, I have to be honest in saying that I have been looking into a new Mesa Mark V to add as my main amp/cab. Technology is going to continue to improve and minds like Cliff are irreplaceable in this journey. I look forward to being here and experiencing all the upgrades and benefits of this amazing unit. And I also feel that in time we will reach a point where digital modeling will potentially equal or surpass the age-old tube amps, but I don't feel we're quite there yet. I'm a patient guy and will definitely be welcoming the day when we do achieve that goal. :)
 
In my experience, almost everyone is still tracking with conventional guitar rigs and mic'ed cabs. Lot's of knowledge out there and people that know their stuff and have good ears for it.

But I do think the days of conventional rigs are numbered :) I predict a fast change to digital once the technology reaches a certain threshold. It's been dayum fun so far :)

I only track with real / conventional rigs when I want the sound of an amp that is not modelled in the Axe - so actually quite rarely.

I find it very quick and simple to dial in a mix ready sound on the Axe, moreso than with a conventional rig, where getting the optimal mic placement takes a little longer.

I've done several A/B tests where both I and others have guessed randomly all over the map on what was the "real" amp and what was the Axe.
 
I only track with real / conventional rigs when I want the sound of an amp that is not modelled in the Axe - so actually quite rarely.

I find it very quick and simple to dial in a mix ready sound on the Axe, moreso than with a conventional rig, where getting the optimal mic placement takes a little longer.

I've done several A/B tests where both I and others have guessed randomly all over the map on what was the "real" amp and what was the Axe.

I find myself using the Axe more and more, but I was commenting more about the industry as a whole, world wide music production.

Us FAS forumites better be using the AxeFx! :)
 
Back
Top Bottom