History of all Axe-Fx models, Product history timeline

luke said:
many of us know our CPU is maxed out and our ability use A/B states and scenes is limited as a result. As the effects improve (read: require more code) they use up more of the CPU.
Click to expand...

I have another view: Because of Scenes (and thereby more effects for more sounds on up to eight scenes) and the wanting of Hi-modes always (equal it make sense or not) - instead of using normal modes (-> Reverb, IRs, etc.) we max out the CPU ;)
 
luke said:
While Cliff has said several times the III has yet to be considered, many of us know our CPU is maxed out and our ability use A/B states and scenes is limited as a result. As the effects improve (read: require more code) they use up more of the CPU. The software is going to force a hardware improvement, eventually.
Click to expand...

Problem is that Cliff is reliant on the DSP manufacturers and the gains there are slow. The split of Amp/Effects processing in the AFX II was to get around this limitation so I suspect any significant increase in processing will require a further functional split - possibly very difficult.

Personally my AFX II is at 90% just with amp/speaker/reverb and eq processing - hence a full pedalboard as well.
 
javajunkie said:
What a long strange trip it has been. I got on board with the Ultra. I got Ultra #4.
Click to expand...

Wow #4! Nice.

I remember looking into high end modelers and some how landed here. After some research and such I ordered an Ultra. Ran into a guitar buddy who I see play occasionally and told him what I had bought. He says "Oh yeah, I had a standard a while back." I was floored that I had never heard of this before yet there was one in my backyard! Shortly afterwards he ended up with an Ultra s well.
 
luke said:
While Cliff has said several times the III has yet to be considered, many of us know our CPU is maxed out and our ability use A/B states and scenes is limited as a result. As the effects improve (read: require more code) they use up more of the CPU. The software is going to force a hardware improvement, eventually.
Click to expand...

Man, what are you guys doing to fill up your Axe-FX's? I've got a MKII, and me and my Bassist share it live, and as long as I plan ahead I can keep my patches down below 85%, and that's on my crazier patches. If we had a MKII each, I could get some insane ass shit going on, and have room left over. I'd still love to have the XL for the extra features, but I don't think, even with my craziness I could fill it up.
 
I was on the Ultra wait list for about 6 months and it shipped in Oct/07. That was a rough six month period! ;)

Terry.
 
BrainalLeakage said:
Man, what are you guys doing to fill up your Axe-FX's? I've got a MKII, and me and my Bassist share it live, and as long as I plan ahead I can keep my patches down below 85%, and that's on my crazier patches. If we had a MKII each, I could get some insane ass shit going on, and have room left over. I'd still love to have the XL for the extra features, but I don't think, even with my craziness I could fill it up.
Click to expand...

Slap delay -> two amps -> FX loop ->stereo ultra cab with hi-quality pre-amp -> MultiComp -> QuadChorus (subtle widening in parallel) ->2290 duck delay -> Studio room reverb -> Graphic EQ = 88 to 92% depending on amp and speaker settings.

Dirt and modulations from the pedalboard.
 
lqdsnddist said:
I'm guessing this is an attempt to try to figure out if/when a hypothetical Axe III may come out ?
Click to expand...

I think this post should just be stickied somewhere.

FractalAudio said:
I haven't even started on the design of an Axe-Fx III. The current platform has lots of life left. We are focusing our attention on several other products at this time.
Click to expand...

Was posted November 18, 2014. I don't know how long these things take to design, but I bet its not a quick process.
 
luke said:
While Cliff has said several times the III has yet to be considered, many of us know our CPU is maxed out and our ability use A/B states and scenes is limited as a result. As the effects improve (read: require more code) they use up more of the CPU. The software is going to force a hardware improvement, eventually.
Click to expand...
At some point there obviously will be but I don't see him going for a third Shark chip. I imagine when a new more powerful Shark comes out we should all start saving lol. The ii came out due to the new amp modeling algorithms and now we have one Shark just for that. Only cliff knows how much of that shark is being used. Depending on how much is being used I can even see him rewriting the code to use some of the power of the amp only shark to do some processing for other things. The guy is an engineering master always looking to push the envelope
 
I think some CPU limitation is fine, and in fact, it keeps me somewhat grounded. I don't really need 10 FX on per song, or the ability to run 3 amps in parallel etc. Too many choices and you get bogged down with what all you can do, vs. what you actually need. Realistically I've never been CPU limited, but if I try to, then yeah, I can go and max it out, but those things never prove to be actually something I really need or use.

Its like having a pedalboard with 50 boxes on it, cool I guess if you can afford it, and move it to gigs, but do you really need that much ? Are you going to use all 50 pedals ? Probably not, you could pair it down a bit and probably get more overall enjoyment and less sore backs and 9v bills

I find instead of always focusing on how big of matrix I can make, and running everything in parallel etc, that its sometimes more productive to actually sit down and learn the in's and outs of a given block. Again, I'm not against options or more CPU, but I for one find that sometimes you give me too much freedom and nothing gets done.
 
lqdsnddist said:
I think some CPU limitation is fine, and in fact, it keeps me somewhat grounded. I don't really need 10 FX on per song, or the ability to run 3 amps in parallel etc. Too many choices and you get bogged down with what all you can do, vs. what you actually need. Realistically I've never been CPU limited, but if I try to, then yeah, I can go and max it out, but those things never prove to be actually something I really need or use.

Its like having a pedalboard with 50 boxes on it, cool I guess if you can afford it, and move it to gigs, but do you really need that much ? Are you going to use all 50 pedals ? Probably not, you could pair it down a bit and probably get more overall enjoyment and less sore backs and 9v bills

I find instead of always focusing on how big of matrix I can make, and running everything in parallel etc, that its sometimes more productive to actually sit down and learn the in's and outs of a given block. Again, I'm not against options or more CPU, but I for one find that sometimes you give me too much freedom and nothing gets done.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

If someone REALLY needs that much power, the FX8 is a nice solution for running a million things at once.
 
Most of my live presets are about the same. EQ or Drive-> Octave-> whammy/wah split parallel-> Amp-> Chorus-> Flange-> Phaser-> Delay-> Cab (out 1/Eq out2-> tube power amp.

I dont check my cpu usage but it never seems to be a problem for me. All much fx are always on as I use modifiers with my Voodoo Labs GAP for bypassing fx.
 
Thread_Necromancy.jpeg


I think we need to call in Gandalf or something, there's way too much foul necromancy going on lately. Before we know it some Evil Overlord arises.
 
Seriously, @chris et al, put in an auto-locking archiver for any thread more than a year old. Make them searchable but locked.
 
Last edited:
chris said:
I don’t see the issue.
Click to expand...

The powers that be never see the issue. Until it comes to bite them in the ass. And then they run around like headless chickens. So when the zombie apocalypse happens don't come looking for our help, then its everyone for themselves. You were warned.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom