Georgia Tech Professor is going to DIY an Axe-FX III

[marsonic]

Linux was laughed at in the beginning by the Unix "pros". Now there's pretty much no Unix left anymore except Linux.

Linux doesn't really play an important role on personal desktops, but it's huge on servers where it killed pretty much all other UNIXes and that's a multibillion-$ market.

That's not actually true.

FreeBSD and OpenBSD are still going strong.
Playstations run FreeBSD.
iOS and OS X/MacOS are basically a Mach Kernel with FreeBSD userland and their own GUIs.
NetApp enterprise storage is FreeBSD.
There are other less-pro NAS/SAN appliances that are just FreeBSD + a gui (TrueNAS, FreeNAS, etc.)
A decent number of router appliances run pfsense...which is FreeBSD.
rsync.net runs on FreeBSD.

And....Netflix runs on FreeBSD. I'll remind you that it was the first thing that actually beat, umm...."spicy content" in terms of overall bandwidth.

Linux is insanely popular in the server world and does much better on desktop. But, BSD Unix, especially FreeBSD, is far from dead. The reason you don't hear about it as much is that the BSD license doesn't require that derivatives are open source, and it doesn't require attribution. IOW, you could literally download FreeBSD as-is, replace the license/copyright notifications and graphics, and re-release it as a closed source, for-profit product and be fine. You can't do that with Linux (even though some companies, like VMWare, do it anyway and pay the Linux Foundation not to sue them for it).

And...BSD Unix was 100% an academic pet project when it started.

At least personally, I have several more FreeBSD machines than Linux machines. It's definitely not just my iPhone and PS-whatever.

 

[ChristThePhone]

That's not actually true.

FreeBSD and OpenBSD are still going strong.
Playstations run FreeBSD.
iOS and OS X/MacOS are basically a Mach Kernel with FreeBSD userland and their own GUIs.
NetApp enterprise storage is FreeBSD.
There are other less-pro NAS/SAN appliances that are just FreeBSD + a gui (TrueNAS, FreeNAS, etc.)
A decent number of router appliances run pfsense...which is FreeBSD.
rsync.net runs on FreeBSD.

And....Netflix runs on FreeBSD. I'll remind you that it was the first thing that actually beat, umm...."spicy content" in terms of overall bandwidth.

Linux is insanely popular in the server world and does much better on desktop. But, BSD Unix, especially FreeBSD, is far from dead. The reason you don't hear about it as much is that the BSD license doesn't require that derivatives are open source, and it doesn't require attribution. IOW, you could literally download FreeBSD as-is, replace the license/copyright notifications and graphics, and re-release it as a closed source, for-profit product and be fine. You can't do that with Linux (even though some companies, like VMWare, do it anyway and pay the Linux Foundation not to sue them for it).

And...BSD Unix was 100% an academic pet project when it started.

At least personally, I have several more FreeBSD machines than Linux machines. It's definitely not just my iPhone and PS-whatever.

You're right. BSD still does play a significant role in appliances even though Linux has a lot bigger market share. Most likely because the OS in appliances is not counted at all. I was looking at the world from a server perspective which is a huge business but not the complete picture. The whole point I was trying to make is that both, Linux and BSD simply wiped out UNIXes like AIX (even though that one can hardly be considered a UNIX since it was programmed by aliens that heard from other aliens what UNIX is).

 

[Dave Merrill]

As someone who modified their gear from day one, and built their own programmable devices from scratch, including writing their operating systems in machine code, I call bs.

The art of a good guitar processor is in the firmware, not the hardware, and there are a bunch of companies with way more resources, expertise and experienced hands on the wheel than this guy's project, which get universally dismissed as immature and/or crappy sounding.

Back when I built my stuff, I had near zero disposable income, and $30 import knockoffs of the things I wanted didn't exist, so it was DIY or nothing. If people want to devote hundreds of hours to creating an unabashedly inferior alternative modeler, have fun.

And get off my lawn, which appears to be be my mood this morning.

 

[PRSfreak4]

This should be interesting.

It fascinates me how much time people invest into deconstructing what others have built simply to create a point-of-view. Aren't there starving families/no running water in parts of the world that we could us this type of mental horsepower on building something that solves part of the problem? #SorryNotSorry #FirstWorldProblems

 

[ChristThePhone]

It fascinates me how much time people invest into deconstructing what others have built simply to create a point-of-view. Aren't there starving families/no running water in parts of the world that we could us this type of mental horsepower on building something that solves part of the problem? #SorryNotSorry #FirstWorldProblems

Playing your guitars wont fix those problems either. Curiosity, laziness, and greed is what drives all development.

 

[VegasGuitar]

Yeah, hardware made to look simple and trivial. Share your Open Source firmware which will be a piece of cake, right?

 

[PRSfreak4]

Playing your guitars wont fix those problems either. Curiosity, laziness, and greed is what drives all development.

Fair. My point being spending cycles on things that can be googled just for the sake of doing it does not seem like a valuable investment of time. Just stating that things we should be curious on in general should broaden, that's all

 

[OrganicZed]

Kinda confusing as I'm sure this guy is brilliant and understands the hardware, audio, and guitar disciplines, but most of the focus seems to be on the fact that he could assemble the same chips/hardware at a much lower price. From there, all that would be left is to throw some code onto the chips and you'd have a similar product. That's where the thousands of hours, ingenuity, and art comes in, which I don't think is so readily copied. But maybe he's a guy that could do such a thing - we'll find out.

If you go thru his YT channel he does have a lot of guitar and DSP-related videos that are probably great if you have a mind for it.

I agree, the real value in a FAS product is the firmware, not the hardware. I have now watched a few of Professor Lanterman's videos explaining the long tail pair in a Mesa/Boogie. This guy definitely has a deep enough grasp on the mathematical relationships within tube circuits to program a working white box modeler from scratch. I don't think he's going to pour his entire life and career into the development of a new modeling platform the way that Cliff has. I suspect what he does come up with (if he even sees it through to a working platform) will be similar to what Cliff had with his first prototype of the Axe-FX. Like you said, the thousands of hours and ingenuity that Cliff and his team at FAS have invested will be hard (if not impossible) to match with an open source project. My impression is that this is mostly just a fun way to merge his passion for guitars with his EE expertise for a fun project and to use as a educational tool.

I did see in his most recent video that Professor Lanterman has purchased an FM3.

 

[Cooper Carter]

Guy is clearly very knowledgeable and this channel looks like a goldmine for those interested.

My response to the clickbait title that implies you don't need @FractalAudio's code and @Admin M@'s design combined geniuses, plus the countless man hours and ingenuity of the FAS engineering team:

I'm going to do a new video: I'm going to write and record every Led Zeppelin song from scratch and make them better than Jimmy Page. It's going to be easy because I just bought the same gear he used from Reverb.com.

 

[fcs101]

Guy is clearly very knowledgeable and this channel looks like a goldmine for those interested.

My response to the clickbait title...

...I'm going to do a new video: I'm going to write and record every Led Zeppelin song from scratch and make them better than Jimmy Page. It's going to be easy because I just bought the same gear he used from Reverb.com.

That's probably the analogy I needed up above!

 

[frankenbeans]

Guy is clearly very knowledgeable and this channel looks like a goldmine for those interested.

My response to the clickbait title that implies you don't need @FractalAudio's code and @Admin M@'s design combined geniuses, plus the countless man hours and ingenuity of the FAS engineering team:

I'm going to do a new video: I'm going to write and record every Led Zeppelin song from scratch and make them better than Jimmy Page. It's going to be easy because I just bought the same gear he used from Reverb.com.

Did you watch the video? I don't interpret his message as "I can recreate the Axe or QC, and I'm going to do it by sourcing the same hardware." He's using the two devices as a reference point for "What hardware is already proven in these types of applications, and how can I acquire it?" In broader terms, I think he's just using Axe-Fx and QC in place of the generic "amp modeler" moniker, and it helps to give shape and form to what he is trying to achieve. As far as that is concerned, he may very well have the know-how to develop a DIY/home brew/open source amp modeler.

Personally, I'm really intrigued to see if the professor can take this project to a product. It probably won't be a marketable project and it certainly won't supplant any of today's major players, but it will be interesting, I think.

 

[Cooper Carter]

Did you watch the video? I don't interpret his message as "I can recreate the Axe or QC, and I'm going to do it by sourcing the same hardware." He's using the two devices as a reference point for "What hardware is already proven in these types of applications, and how can I acquire it?" In broader terms, I think he's just using Axe-Fx and QC in place of the generic "amp modeler" moniker, and it helps to give shape and form to what he is trying to achieve. As far as that is concerned, he may very well have the know-how to develop a DIY/home brew/open source amp modeler.

Personally, I'm really intrigued to see if the professor can take this project to a product. It probably won't be a marketable project and it certainly won't supplant any of today's major players, but it will be interesting, I think.

I watched every second of the video and am intrigued. My response, as I said in my response, was merely:

to the clickbait title

 

[frankenbeans]

I watched every second of the video and am intrigued. My response, as I said in my response, was merely:

That got lost in the analogy. I wasn't sure what purpose it had if you and I had a similar interpretation of the video.

I still maintain that the title isn't as clickbait as it is using well-known examples of a thing to illustrate a goal, but peace.

 

[fcs101]

That got lost in the analogy. I wasn't sure what purpose it had if you and I had a similar interpretation of the video.

I still maintain that the title isn't as clickbait as it is using well-known examples of a thing to illustrate a goal, but peace.

I think it's absolutely click bait. He's chosen the two most expensive modelers on the market and is alluding that you can just build your own. Why not title it, "Can you build your own Mooer?"

 

[frankenbeans]

I think it's absolutely click bait. He's chosen the two most expensive modelers on the market and is alluding that you can just build your own. Why not title it, "Can you build your own Mooer?"

Recognizability. It gets the point across. It helps the audience know at the start “oh, so the goal is to achieve something like this very well-known Axe-Fx product.” Invoking the Mooer name would just cause confusion because it lacks the ubiquity.

We don’t have to agree on this. I’m choosing to assume it wasn’t click bait and to see the merit in the name of the video. If you want to classify it as clickbait, that’s OK.

 

[fcs101]

Recognizability. It gets the point across. It helps the audience know at the start “oh, so the goal is to achieve something like this very well-known Axe-Fx product.” Invoking the Mooer name would just cause confusion because it lacks the ubiquity...

Uhhh, you just described click bait because the stated goal is not attainable for the audience.

 

[Postretro]

I think, one of my favorite semi-snarky comments to one of Lantertronics videos is:
"That’s all well and good in practice; but how does it work in theory? "

That said, It does sound interesting.
And, I do wish Dr Lanterman and the group-effort well.

Staying viable is often more about a constantly accelerating rate of achievement,
rather than achieving a certain amount.

I think, it might be fairly difficult to out-accelerate Fractal.
Much less, catch up.

 

[frankenbeans]

Uhhh, you just described click bait because the stated goal is not attainable for the audience.

Like I said, friend, we can agree to disagree.

The stated goal of this project is to cobble up a DIY guitar amp modeling system. How are you drawing conclusions about attainability when the professor is just getting started?

If it’s the use of the Axe and/or QC name that’s bothering you, think of it this way: if someone posts a video that’s titled “build your own Dewalt router table,” no reasonable person would expect an actual Dewalt router table at the end. But that does give strong cues as to what the project is trying to accomplish. That’s my take on it.

 

[fcs101]

Like I said, friend, we can agree to disagree.

The stated goal of this project is to cobble up a DIY guitar amp modeling system. How are you drawing conclusions about attainability when the professor is just getting started?

If it’s the use of the Axe and/or QC name that’s bothering you, think of it this way: if someone posts a video that’s titled “build your own Dewalt router table,” no reasonable person would expect an actual Dewalt router table at the end. But that does give strong cues as to what the project is trying to accomplish. That’s my take on it.

Absolutely, we can disagree and I'm not trying to insult you or anyone. Hey, I wish him and anyone else who wants to try it much luck. These types of discussions would be much different over a beverage of choice.

That said, I'm just going to quote @Dave Merrill from above as I think he directly addresses the attainability (at least to the level of Fractal) for a private individual or group thereof:

As someone who modified their gear from day one, and built their own programmable devices from scratch, including writing their operating systems in machine code, I call bs.

The art of a good guitar processor is in the firmware, not the hardware, and there are a bunch of companies with way more resources, expertise and experienced hands on the wheel than this guy's project, which get universally dismissed as immature and/or crappy sounding.

... If people want to devote hundreds of hours to creating an unabashedly inferior alternative modeler, have fun....

 

[PRSfreak4]

I'm going to do a new video: I'm going to write and record every Led Zeppelin song from scratch and make them better than Jimmy Page. It's going to be easy because I just bought the same gear he used from Reverb.com.

Can't wait to hear it Cooper!